(01/06/2023 14:57)wirralbus Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldnt be removing 20 minutes from any schedule , one day that 20 minutes will be extremely useful , nibble away at it by all means but dont remove it .
Not at some of the times where they give stupid amounts of time. In the Arriva example, it's the 04:30 from Runcorn. Take a look at the regular tracking on that and you'll see even taking 20 minutes off, you'll get a good amount of padding)
D&G the examples aren't as big but the 82 could have 5-10 mins cut from it in the early hours, mostly between Northwich and Kelsall.
I have been looking at how to get from Hanley to Macclesfield by bus one Saturday. I would inevitable change at Congleton onto route 38. It seems that route 94 is unfortunately Mon-Fri only.
58 tracking as 25 yesterday and today.
(03/06/2023 10:02)Metroline1511 Wrote: [ -> ]I have been looking at how to get from Hanley to Macclesfield by bus one Saturday. I would inevitable change at Congleton onto route 38. It seems that route 94 is unfortunately Mon-Fri only.
The simplest way would be to get the First Potteries 3 to Crewe and then the D&G 38 to Macclesfield.
The other option is the D&G 16 to Leek and Aimee's 109 to Macclesfield. Although, the 109 does just have 4 return workings on Saturdays. The 16 used to go Buxton but doesn't anymore, so that means the option of a 16 journey followed by a 58 no longer exists - that would be a nice scenic route if it was available.
(01/06/2023 00:41)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]100% an issue. That's what is called 'lazy bone idle scheduling'. Arriva is rife with that (See Runcorn 61 as a great example. You can take 20 minutes off some of their journeys in the early morning and late evening) but sadly, this it's an industry issue. People who can schedule don't get given these tasks and instead it goes to people who are clearly incapable of doing the job whether it be they lack the braincells to do the job or they are simply too lazy to do it.
I would suggest that is nonsense. Most passengers want a bus at x minutes past every hour - and if it isn't will probably still turn up at x minutes past the hour and then complain that its gone/was late/.
(04/06/2023 12:38)mikestone Wrote: [ -> ]I would suggest that is nonsense. Most passengers want a bus at x minutes past every hour - and if it isn't will probably still turn up at x minutes past the hour and then complain that its gone/was late/.
A consistent timetable is good for leisure travellers but for commuters something like 16:03, 17:03, 18:03 can be rubbish if they have to finish at 5pm. In instances like that it can be beneficial to be hourly up to 16:03 and then go inconsistent.
(04/06/2023 12:38)mikestone Wrote: [ -> ]I would suggest that is nonsense. Most passengers want a bus at x minutes past every hour - and if it isn't will probably still turn up at x minutes past the hour and then complain that its gone/was late/.
Yes and no. Yes a consistent timetable is good but you have to weigh that up against passengers not sitting around all day at bus stops.
As for what passengers want, they want buses which are spot on time, every time but also have a quick journey not sitting around at every other stop for 5 minutes because they're early. Of course you can't have everything. You plan a timetable so that it is achievable the majority of the time but also made as simple as possible for people to read. It is standard practise in the industry to reduce running times in the early morning and late evening to reflect the lower traffic and it helps the operator to save a lot of costs. If a journey is quicker, that means the driver is on the road less so less wages, the bus is out less and moving/idling less so less fuel used. More time for any night staff to do maintenance (if applicable). Less costs mean routes are more viable and quicker routes (of course if it is reliable at the reduced times), can increase patronage.
(29/05/2023 05:21)M60lad Wrote: [ -> ]Not to sure if its still the same but when one of my friends was at D&G and he was a regular driver on 88s you sometimes had to leave Wilmslow late as there was too much padding in the timetable, even if you left late at Wilmslow you could probably end up being early again at another timing point along the route.
17:45 Macclesfield to Altrincham 88 journey today:
20 minutes late leaving Macclesfield (after being delayed on inbound journey)
14 minutes late leaving Knutsford
7 minutes late leaving Wilmslow
2 minutes late arriving at Altrincham (bus returns to being on time for next journey)
You could say the padding allowed for the late running to be recovered but then if the turnaround in Macclesfield was 25 minutes (instead of 5) and the journey was timed to take 20 minutes less then it would have had exactly the same effect. Probably the best compromise would be taking 3 minutes out at Knutsford and 7 minutes out at Wilmslow, then increasing the turnaround by 5 minutes at both ends.
D&G are renumbering the Northwich 1 to be 49. Also the Northwich-Rudheath section of the 82 is to be numbered 49. There's no mention of through journeys but the timings suggest the Northwich-Rudheath journeys will continue to be operated by the same vehicle that has arrived off the 82.
The 49 number used to be used for the Lach Dennis to Northwich service, that was part replacement for the E41 Greenbank to Lower Peover and the 47 Warrington to Lower Peover journeys that extended to Northwich via Lach Dennis.
So quite a collection of different service numbers in Northwich.