Forum | Merseyside Dennis Dart Website

D&Gs issue is that they don't run to shift times. Airport City would be really busy if you hit the Amazon shift times. Personally I would throw Airport City on the 88 but there is no time to do it anymore.

The Runway Viewing Park is busy every day not just a Saturday and Sunday when the 288 served it. There was no time to serve it as part of the 288/270 combined timetable so it makes sense to have it under a different service but the 737 doesn't half have some dead time on it. They should try and do something with that but knowing D&G they won't.

I am amazing at how much they are scaling back. The withdrawn services can't have just suddenly dropped in demand since the CEC Bus Review. I think D&G are just cutting marginal services. And some of the withdrawn services, their reasons are just coverups I think. Like the 87 for example. Even if that was viable, they wouldn't keep it on as the 88A is being dropped so is useless having a bus out every few hours for 10 minutes. Same with the 12E I think.

Shame to see them dropping things. These 'unviable' services though, we all know that you need to advertise your services online. They have their website but that is as far as it goes. No social media, last minute diversion notices (Like Arriva have started doing. Emergency diversions or traffic notices), no nothing really. A Independants all around the UK rely on social media advertising to boost their passenger numbers as well as leafleting and other promotional exercises. D&G don't do anything. Not even a notice on their website. Unless you are specifically looking, you won't find new services or route changes. It is really bad to see. As much as I hate to say it, if D&G continue the way they are, they will really struggle and possibly go bust within the next few years (Obviously I don't know how much their tenders are worth so they could be making billions just off tenders but the point I am making is especially on commercial services in cheshire (I have never used the Staffordshire services), the majority of their customers are pass holders which don't bring in much money).

(31/05/2018 03:10)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]D&Gs issue is that they don't run to shift times. Airport City would be really busy if you hit the Amazon shift times. Personally I would throw Airport City on the 88 but there is no time to do it anymore.

The Runway Viewing Park is busy every day not just a Saturday and Sunday when the 288 served it. There was no time to serve it as part of the 288/270 combined timetable so it makes sense to have it under a different service but the 737 doesn't half have some dead time on it. They should try and do something with that but knowing D&G they won't.

I'm pretty sure the current Airport City extensions they run were specified by TfGM. They could offer more than TfGM require but they've chosen not to.

My guess is the drivers will work both 288s and 737s so something like:
288 East Didsbury to Manchester Airport (arriving xx:46)
737 Manchester Airport to Viewing Park (departing xx:49)
35 minute driver break at Viewing Park
737 Viewing Park to Manchester Airport (arriving xx:46)
288 Manchester Airport to East Didsbury (departing xx:51)

However, it could be they will use one of their baby Solos for the 737s and bigger buses for the 288 which will mean the drivers swap buses at the Airport and could explain why they are separate services.

If that is the case are there any aviation enthusiast bus drivers looking for a new job?

Quote:I am amazing at how much they are scaling back. The withdrawn services can't have just suddenly dropped in demand since the CEC Bus Review. I think D&G are just cutting marginal services. And some of the withdrawn services, their reasons are just coverups I think. Like the 87 for example. Even if that was viable, they wouldn't keep it on as the 88A is being dropped so is useless having a bus out every few hours for 10 minutes.

Regarding the 88A I think if they gave it time usage will increase. The 88A goes near my house and most of the time loadings are much higher than they were on the old 300 with a few services getting around 20 passengers. There are some journeys which look like they aren't viable e.g. the first Wilmslow to Knutsford service in the morning. The 08:00 from Knutsford to Wilmslow usually has quite a few on board but a number of them are schoolkids so come the end of July usage would be lower for a few weeks while the schools are on holiday, were they not withdrawing the service.

However, saying that I think the extended 88 route isn't working - D&G insisting on doing driver change overs at Knutsford Bus Station when the buses are currently timetabled to be stopped there for 2 minutes being one of the main problems. Personally I think it would be better to resurrect an hourly 27 service and extend it to Longridge, which would still allow people from the far side of Knutsford to get to Macclesfield without changing but without creating a ridiculously long bus route.

Quote:Shame to see them dropping things. These 'unviable' services though, we all know that you need to advertise your services online. They have their website but that is as far as it goes. No social media, last minute diversion notices (Like Arriva have started doing. Emergency diversions or traffic notices), no nothing really.

It seems the main source of their information is on their website and on printed out pieces of paper they stick up on buses.

I phoned the D&G Cheshire number one time when an 88 didn't turn up and the woman at the other end didn't know any more than there were some roadworks and it was causing delays. It turned out a late running service had skipped out a section to make up time so I was waiting for a bus which wasn't going to come.

Quote: As much as I hate to say it, if D&G continue the way they are, they will really struggle and possibly go bust within the next few years (Obviously I don't know how much their tenders are worth so they could be making billions just off tenders

I don't know if it's true but I heard the old 88 contract was awarded on the basis D&G get a fixed (high) amount for the running of the service and in exchange for that all revenue taken went straight back to the council (with the exception of any local fares taken within Knutsford due to the 300 weekday daytime service being commercial.) So if that's true and they got their sums right they were guaranteed a small profit and wouldn't have got anything extra if they attracted more passengers as of the result of marketing.

Based on the documents submitted to Companies House their financial year ends at the end of August. The last financial year they appeared to do very well but they have outstanding finance agreements with Santander and One Business Finance. Given Julian Peddle is on the board I think it's very unlikely they'll go bust, he has a record of selling companies and moving on, rather than his companies going bust.

(31/05/2018 15:33)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure the current Airport City extensions they run were specified by TfGM. They could offer more than TfGM require but they've chosen not to.

My guess is the drivers will work both 288s and 737s so something like:
288 East Didsbury to Manchester Airport (arriving xx:46)
737 Manchester Airport to Viewing Park (departing xx:49)
35 minute driver break at Viewing Park
737 Viewing Park to Manchester Airport (arriving xx:46)
288 Manchester Airport to East Didsbury (departing xx:51)

However, it could be they will use one of their baby Solos for the 737s and bigger buses for the 288 which will mean the drivers swap buses at the Airport and could explain why they are separate services.

I looked at the timings and must have missed this. If this is what happens though, it will be good for D&G working breaks into the service. They don't normally do things like that so that is a positive start. Just checking it again, it seems as if the 737 is just something for the 3rd bus to do in between the Loreto and Grammar school bus.

(31/05/2018 15:33)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the 88A I think if they gave it time usage will increase. The 88A goes near my house and most of the time loadings are much higher than they were on the old 300 with a few services getting around 20 passengers. There are some journeys which look like they aren't viable e.g. the first Wilmslow to Knutsford service in the morning. The 08:00 from Knutsford to Wilmslow usually has quite a few on board but a number of them are schoolkids so come the end of July usage would be lower for a few weeks while the schools are on holiday, were they not withdrawing the service.

However, saying that I think the extended 88 route isn't working - D&G insisting on doing driver change overs at Knutsford Bus Station when the buses are currently timetabled to be stopped there for 2 minutes being one of the main problems. Personally I think it would be better to resurrect an hourly 27 service and extend it to Longridge, which would still allow people from the far side of Knutsford to get to Macclesfield without changing but without creating a ridiculously long bus route.

D&G do seem to be an all or nothing type company. You can have a really regular service or you can have nothing. If there are unviable trips, just drop them few. The 88A did look to do alright on the whole. School kids are a great source of income if you can time up connections right. Unless of course they are all free pass holders. I can't see a reason for withdrawing the whole of the 88A. At least a small part is viable. Wilmslow - Knutsford isn't worth half hourly so from that side of things, I do agree with that part being withdrawn but could you not for example extend out to Woodford Garden City. They have no links to anything except what is on the 42B or extend down to Alderley Edge and then run it with 1 bus. Driver breaks were accommodate with the Knutsford extension and if changeovers are at Knutsford, when drivers come off, you can time everyone to come off at the same time and have 2 people in a car and save money.

The 88 does need more time at Knutsford for driver changes. Driver changes need around 4 minutes to be done properly but now they have padded up the timetable (Adding around 15 minutes on trips), maybe the idea is the drivers do stuff en route like logging into the ticket machine while waiting at the lights just outside Knutsford station. Something like that?

The 27 could be a good call but the journey time ends up leaving 30 minutes sat around which would happen on both the 88 and on the 27 so it would mean 1 additional bus and you end up paying for both the 88s and the 27 to sit around for half an hour which isn't good. It is more beneficial (& cheaper) to D&G to just have a really really long 88.

(31/05/2018 15:33)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]It seems the main source of their information is on their website and on printed out pieces of paper they stick up on buses.

I phoned the D&G Cheshire number one time when an 88 didn't turn up and the woman at the other end didn't know any more than there were some roadworks and it was causing delays. It turned out a late running service had skipped out a section to make up time so I was waiting for a bus which wasn't going to come.

That is no good for people who don't know of the service or family of elderly who don't check websites unnecessarily. Notices on the bus you won't find out unless you are on the bus. On social media, you can advertise and eventually family pass on the information to elderly relatives. For new services though, social media advertising and leafleting is the only way to do it. Notices on the bus don't help and the website you won't see it unless you specifically look. Even a little green star on the homepage saying 'new service linking [Place] and [Place]' but they don't even have that. Their lack of social media means they can't advertise any new or existing service therefore it it bound to fail.

Hopefully the new Ticketer system will help the issue that you had as Ticketer comes with live tracking. Wayfarers don't afaik, Arriva rely on trackers separate to the ticket machine.

(31/05/2018 15:33)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if it's true but I heard the old 88 contract was awarded on the basis D&G get a fixed (high) amount for the running of the service and in exchange for that all revenue taken went straight back to the council (with the exception of any local fares taken within Knutsford due to the 300 weekday daytime service being commercial.) So if that's true and they got their sums right they were guaranteed a small profit and wouldn't have got anything extra if they attracted more passengers as of the result of marketing.

Based on the documents submitted to Companies House their financial year ends at the end of August. The last financial year they appeared to do very well but they have outstanding finance agreements with Santander and One Business Finance. Given Julian Peddle is on the board I think it's very unlikely they'll go bust, he has a record of selling companies and moving on, rather than his companies going bust.

Most fully subsidised services you have to send all revenue back to the council I think. My way of thinking about it takes a lot of work but if it pays off, it works well in your favour. The 88 has some money in it somewhere or new buses wouldn't have been paid for for the route when GHA ran it. Nor would it ever have ran half hourly if it had so few passengers. There is money somewhere. All D&G have to do to get profits is work out what they can run viably (every 2 hours Knutsford to Altrincham and then the council just top it up with deminims to hourly. Macc and Knutsford can be done under separate tenders as previously done) and then run that with deminims funding from the council. The council aren't going to let it run every 2 hours but if they do, it is then D&Gs own route and they can play about with it as they wish.
Deminims funding all profits go to the company then.
When you think of it this way, it is worth D&G marketing the service as then they up passenger numbers, it could be viable hourly and then only some parts will be done under deminims or other services. That then gives D&G all profits so really, it works. It does take a bit of work but at least you can make a lot of money maybe if it is done correctly.

D&G do well because of how many contracts they have. Council funding is constantly being cut so these tenders won't be around forever. You have to build up your services to make them as viable as possible. That way when the funding eventually dries up, you can continue operating. Looking at what D&G are doing dropping loads of services and shrinking them, there won't be much left to sell on. The buses are on finance so all that is left really is a few commercial routes when the tenders dry up. Let's face it.

(01/06/2018 00:35)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]D&G do seem to be an all or nothing type company. You can have a really regular service or you can have nothing. If there are unviable trips, just drop them few. The 88A did look to do alright on the whole. School kids are a great source of income if you can time up connections right. Unless of course they are all free pass holders. I can't see a reason for withdrawing the whole of the 88A. At least a small part is viable. Wilmslow - Knutsford isn't worth half hourly so from that side of things, I do agree with that part being withdrawn but could you not for example extend out to Woodford Garden City. They have no links to anything except what is on the 42B or extend down to Alderley Edge and then run it with 1 bus. Driver breaks were accommodate with the Knutsford extension and if changeovers are at Knutsford, when drivers come off, you can time everyone to come off at the same time and have 2 people in a car and save money.
...
The 88 has some money in it somewhere or new buses wouldn't have been paid for for the route when GHA ran it. Nor would it ever have ran half hourly if it had so few passengers.

When Knutsford-Wilmslow-Altrincham was half-hourly the Knutsford-Wilmslow section got more passengers than Wilmslow-Altrincham. However, some of the passengers travelling to Altrincham board in the villages between Knutsford and Wilmslow so they weren't going to find the 88A useful.

One of the reasons for the 88 going half-hourly under GHA was the Waters Corp development just outside Morley Green and that was also the reason why half the buses stayed on Altrincham Road rather than going through Morley Green village itself. Another reason was to try and get the people who drive to Wilmslow and Altrincham stations to use the bus instead, which was why Wilmslow station got added to the route and the high spec GHA Gold buses were supposed to help attract people to use public transport even if they had a car. Initially D&G using the high spec Solo SRs on the 88 helped continue that idea but they decided to replace them with the rattly Streetlites.

One thing that's changed is Knutsford doesn't have a Jobcentre and the local Jobcentre for Knutsford was in Wilmslow but last year Wilmslow Jobcentre closed so that will have affected passenger numbers.

Quote:The 88 does need more time at Knutsford for driver changes. Driver changes need around 4 minutes to be done properly but now they have padded up the timetable (Adding around 15 minutes on trips), maybe the idea is the drivers do stuff en route like logging into the ticket machine while waiting at the lights just outside Knutsford station. Something like that?

The 27 could be a good call but the journey time ends up leaving 30 minutes sat around which would happen on both the 88 and on the 27 so it would mean 1 additional bus and you end up paying for both the 88s and the 27 to sit around for half an hour which isn't good. It is more beneficial (& cheaper) to D&G to just have a really really long 88.

When Cheshire East put the 88/89 out to tender they would have had no idea who would actually win it and even if they'd known D&G would win it they wouldn't have known for certain where they do driver changeovers - there's plenty of time for a changeover at Northwich on the services which go there and Northwich is close to D&G's Wincham depot.

They also didn't know D&G would withdraw the commercial Mon-Fri 300 services. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying with regards to the 27. With a PVR of 2 for the 27 and the old route you would have an hourly service with long layovers but if you extend the service to the Longridge estate that'll add around 10 minutes there and 10 minutes back, so make it the perfect length for having a PVR of 2 without needing to inter-work with other services to prevent long layovers. It would also mean the same number of vehicles used as when there was a 2 hourly 27 and a half-hourly 300.

(01/06/2018 09:20)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]When Knutsford-Wilmslow-Altrincham was half-hourly the Knutsford-Wilmslow section got more passengers than Wilmslow-Altrincham. However, some of the passengers travelling to Altrincham board in the villages between Knutsford and Wilmslow so they weren't going to find the 88A useful.

One of the reasons for the 88 going half-hourly under GHA was the Waters Corp development just outside Morley Green and that was also the reason why half the buses stayed on Altrincham Road rather than going through Morley Green village itself. Another reason was to try and get the people who drive to Wilmslow and Altrincham stations to use the bus instead, which was why Wilmslow station got added to the route and the high spec GHA Gold buses were supposed to help attract people to use public transport even if they had a car. Initially D&G using the high spec Solo SRs on the 88 helped continue that idea but they decided to replace them with the rattly Streetlites.

Though it looks like it does better, I don't think it needs a half hourly service. Given the age of the residents in Knutsford, Wilmslow and the villages, I think this would have been a good time to extend the 88A to Handforth Dean for the Marks and Spencers using up the dead time from Knutsford (It does mean driver changes but I think it could help passenger numbers. That Waters development must have put a lot of money in but you still don't put loads of money into a bus service which has no or few passengers. The ways to encourage usage is mainly subsidising fares. Lower fares work better than a really frequent service. The streetlites were really good and well looked after in my opinion. As are the Solo SRs. Both seemed as good as each other. I can't see a streetlite discouraging passengers to be honest with you.

(01/06/2018 09:20)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]When Cheshire East put the 88/89 out to tender they would have had no idea who would actually win it and even if they'd known D&G would win it they wouldn't have known for certain where they do driver changeovers - there's plenty of time for a changeover at Northwich on the services which go there and Northwich is close to D&G's Wincham depot.

They also didn't know D&G would withdraw the commercial Mon-Fri 300 services. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying with regards to the 27. With a PVR of 2 for the 27 and the old route you would have an hourly service with long layovers but if you extend the service to the Longridge estate that'll add around 10 minutes there and 10 minutes back, so make it the perfect length for having a PVR of 2 without needing to inter-work with other services to prevent long layovers. It would also mean the same number of vehicles used as when there was a 2 hourly 27 and a half-hourly 300.

Though Cheshire East set the timetable, D&G can set a counter timetable. A difference of 2 minutes is hardly going to cause uproar within the council? Any bus company can make their own timetable to suit their own operational needs and many companies do. In this instance, adding a few minutes in Knutsford is nothing and the council wouldn't really care. As long as the base timetable is the same or very similar, there are never really any issues.

The whole Wincham thing is a mess. I don't think D&G know about their fuel rebate. Removing that last Northwich bound trip rather than cutting it at Wincham and all the buses running dead to Wilmslow (despite the fact they pass Knutsford bus station to get there). They could just have an 88X running the same way they run NIS. Difference being they could get 1 passenger. It is a few quid more than they are getting running NIS and even if you get no one, you get the 30% fuel rebate. That could save the council some money (Given 2 buses start at Wilmslow. 1 starts in Macclesfield and the other in Northwich). Though each day the amount of rebate might be low, in the end, it all adds up. The council could possibly create another route with the savings by having placement routes.

The 27 I think I must have misunderstood. Having 10 mins layover is alright. When I say about adding on 2 buses, I mean by their current situation. The 88 not extending would free up 1 bus. That then means you need 1 additional bus to make that up. The 27 looked to do alright. It would be interesting to know if the Barclays buses are free for employees? They could put that money into D&G to run the shuttles in the morning and evening and then have the 'shuttle bus' make the 27 upto hourly between the shuttle times. That then pays for the 2nd bus.

As I have said previously though it doesn't look like D&G play around with ideas. They see something isn't viable and rather than negotiating with people and/or messing with timetables, they stick to what is put in front of them and go with that. The latest changes to the 88 timings just look like buses are late so they had to change the times. Almost every tendered route runs to a different timetable than the actual ITT. you have to play about to suit your own operational needs whether that be linking driver changeovers to make better use of vans or whether it be you have a commercial school run and you need the route to work around that for example. It is a shame D&G are too friendly and don't play about a bit.

If I understand correctly Barclays buses are free to employees but the employees pretty much fill them up and the same is true with their car parks meaning freelancers/contractors need to find their own way of getting there, plus the work shuttles go to Knutsford station and Crewe station (I've heard the latter also calls at Chelford station) so not much good for those who live in Macclesfield.

(01/06/2018 23:53)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]Though it looks like it does better, I don't think it needs a half hourly service.

There are some almost full 88 services notably the 07:15 Knutsford to Altrincham, the 07:15 Altrincham to Knutsford, the 15:35 Knutsford to Altrincham and the 15:45 Altrincham to Macclesfield. That's one reason why there's the school days only 188 service running at similar times to the 88 - the alternative would involve using a double decker as one of the 88 vehicles. However, taking a vehicle off the 88 to run the 188 services leaves a long gap between 88 services in the other direction if there's to be no 88A anymore. That'll probably cause the route to lose passengers.

Quote:Given the age of the residents in Knutsford, Wilmslow and the villages, I think this would have been a good time to extend the 88A to Handforth Dean for the Marks and Spencers using up the dead time from Knutsford (It does mean driver changes but I think it could help passenger numbers.

You'll probably be aware D&G run a Little Bus scheme for those who can't use regular public transport. That includes people who could use a bus to get to a medical appointment but wouldn't be able to carry shopping from a supermarket to the bus stop and then from the nearest bus stop to their home and their home. As a result of they already take a number of people from the Knutsford and Wilmslow area to Tescos in Handforth Dean. If those who can still use regular buses for shopping want to go to Tescos the 88/89 service stops close to both Tescos in Northwich and Tescos in Altrincham, which might be why their previous attempts to provide a regular bus to Handforth Dean have failed.

Quote:That Waters development must have put a lot of money in but you still don't put loads of money into a bus service which has no or few passengers. The ways to encourage usage is mainly subsidising fares. Lower fares work better than a really frequent service.

Given the size of the development Waters had to provide S106 funding to improve transport facilities.

Quote:The streetlites were really good and well looked after in my opinion. As are the Solo SRs. Both seemed as good as each other. I can't see a streetlite discouraging passengers to be honest with you.

Have you actually been on a Streetlite between Altrincham, Wilmslow & Knutsford on the 88? They seem to be completely unsuited for the B5085 with drivers driving them noticeably slower than Solos on the same road and despite that the amount of rattling suggests to the average passenger they are old buses not modern ones. OK the condition of the road is not the fault of D&G or the bus but Solos (whether SRs or not) handle it much better. The only positive thing I've ever heard a passenger say about a Streetlite on the 88 relates to him not liking leather seats so liking the fact the Streetlites don't have leather seats.

I've also seen a D&G Bus breaking down a few times - each time it's been a Streetlite, never a Solo, Enviro or anything else they operate (as yet.)

Quote:Though Cheshire East set the timetable, D&G can set a counter timetable. A difference of 2 minutes is hardly going to cause uproar within the council? Any bus company can make their own timetable to suit their own operational needs and many companies do. In this instance, adding a few minutes in Knutsford is nothing and the council wouldn't really care. As long as the base timetable is the same or very similar, there are never really any issues.

It could on certain services. For instance when the 88 was consulted on one of the morning Altrincham bound services was moved to be earlier to give a better chance of school pupils getting to school on time and one of the Knutsford bound services from Macclesfield was moved slightly later as Cheshire East had originally proposed 17:35 for the last bus and a couple of people pointed out that 17:30 was a common finishing time for office jobs which wouldn't give long to make the bus, especially if that's the last bus.

(02/06/2018 18:20)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]If I understand correctly Barclays buses are free to employees but the employees pretty much fill them up and the same is true with their car parks meaning freelancers/contractors need to find their own way of getting there, plus the work shuttles go to Knutsford station and Crewe station (I've heard the latter also calls at Chelford station) so not much good for those who live in Macclesfield.

In this case, a small negotiation with Barclays could help. They could pay the money to D&G to run the Knutsford service and their staff get free passes. It should be a bit cheaper as well in that D&G would have the bus in the area for the 27, Homeswood have to travel a long way and they can't work it around their service work as their coaches will probably sit in the depot all day.

(03/06/2018 08:57)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]There are some almost full 88 services notably the 07:15 Knutsford to Altrincham, the 07:15 Altrincham to Knutsford, the 15:35 Knutsford to Altrincham and the 15:45 Altrincham to Macclesfield. That's one reason why there's the school days only 188 service running at similar times to the 88 - the alternative would involve using a double decker as one of the 88 vehicles. However, taking a vehicle off the 88 to run the 188 services leaves a long gap between 88 services in the other direction if there's to be no 88A anymore. That'll probably cause the route to lose passengers.

Doing as you say with the 27, if you can link up all buses correctly, that would work well to do the '188' or make it part of the Longridge loop. The 88 will probably lose customers. The issue with long routes, when you have to link it to schools, it becomes really messy except 09:00-14:00 then it goes messy for the schools. I am interested to know how the 88 coped back with Arriva and GHA. I don't remember the 188 being around then or was it something to do with 300 running at the time?

(03/06/2018 08:57)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]You'll probably be aware D&G run a Little Bus scheme for those who can't use regular public transport. That includes people who could use a bus to get to a medical appointment but wouldn't be able to carry shopping from a supermarket to the bus stop and then from the nearest bus stop to their home and their home. As a result of they already take a number of people from the Knutsford and Wilmslow area to Tescos in Handforth Dean. If those who can still use regular buses for shopping want to go to Tescos the 88/89 service stops close to both Tescos in Northwich and Tescos in Altrincham, which might be why their previous attempts to provide a regular bus to Handforth Dean have failed.

Marks and Spencer would be the most likely shop for people around that age not Tescos. If you can use regular bus services, Altrincham and Northwich are quite a distance to go to a supermarket. Though there are others locally, many people are brand loyal. I think the reasons why previous buses failed is the routes. The Spath Lane bus was a very small catchment area and quite a few people could walk under the railway line to get there so less people would use a bus when they can walk it in the same time. The 130 you are only looking at Alderley Edge, Wilmslow and Colshaw Farm who would possibly use the bus to Handforth. Alderley Edge has Waitrose (which is a similar older/posh person post). Wilmslow you are basically only serving the town centre apart from one or two stops. Why would you go into town to then get a bus out of town to the shops? You go to town to go to the shops. Colshaw farm probably had a few but just not enough for it's own service.

(03/06/2018 08:57)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Have you actually been on a Streetlite between Altrincham, Wilmslow & Knutsford on the 88? They seem to be completely unsuited for the B5085 with drivers driving them noticeably slower than Solos on the same road and despite that the amount of rattling suggests to the average passenger they are old buses not modern ones. OK the condition of the road is not the fault of D&G or the bus but Solos (whether SRs or not) handle it much better. The only positive thing I've ever heard a passenger say about a Streetlite on the 88 relates to him not liking leather seats so liking the fact the Streetlites don't have leather seats.

I've also seen a D&G Bus breaking down a few times - each time it's been a Streetlite, never a Solo, Enviro or anything else they operate (as yet.)

I will admit, I haven't been on the B5085 section of the 88. Streetlites can fly if driven correctly. It will possibly depend partially on the driver but also the bus. I have only been on one or two streetlites before the D&G one so I can't compare much but the Link Network one flies.
I will say that Streetlites are better on roads which are in a decent condition.
[/quote]

(03/06/2018 08:57)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]It could on certain services. For instance when the 88 was consulted on one of the morning Altrincham bound services was moved to be earlier to give a better chance of school pupils getting to school on time and one of the Knutsford bound services from Macclesfield was moved slightly later as Cheshire East had originally proposed 17:35 for the last bus and a couple of people pointed out that 17:30 was a common finishing time for office jobs which wouldn't give long to make the bus, especially if that's the last bus.

That was before the tender was sent out afaik. D&G can still amend the timetable then. It goes down as an alternative bid or something like that. You can amend the tender timetable. It takes a little bit of work but there are things the council miss out. CWaCC did it twice on the C56 and the 61/62 tenders. They missed out a trip and so the bus had to go dead even though there was sufficient time for it to do a full round trip. Councils miss things. Plus the council weren't to know where changeovers would take place so they can't accommodate for it when they don't know it is happening. That is how you can amend things slightly to suit the operator's needs. D&G clearly didn't amend the timetable to suit their needs or it would have more time to carry out a proper driver changeover at Knutsford.

(03/06/2018 15:33)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]In this case, a small negotiation with Barclays could help. They could pay the money to D&G to run the Knutsford service and their staff get free passes. It should be a bit cheaper as well in that D&G would have the bus in the area for the 27, Homeswood have to travel a long way and they can't work it around their service work as their coaches will probably sit in the depot all day.

The Barclays staff shuttles include lunchtime runs for those working half the day. They also have some contracts with Knutsford area schools to take school pupils to the local leisure centre for swimming. I think they've also got 3 x high school/college contracts taking pupils back to Knutsford in the afternoon, so possibly the afternoon/evening Barclays shuttles are worked by the same coaches as the high school/college contracts? The shuttles used to be operated by Selwyns who I don't think had any other regular contracted work in the Knutsford area, so maybe Holmeswood were able to undercut them when it went up for renewal?

However, the problem with Barclays sponsoring the D&G service instead is the number of people who need to be moved in a short time frame - Holmeswood can have a second 50 seater coach filling up quickly when another 50 seater coach has just left a few minutes earlier. There's a lot of Barclays workers arriving in Knutsford by train, who then need onward transport to Radbrooke Hall as anyone squashed on the peak time Northern services to/from Knutsford will verify. Unless D&G were to get bigger buses (probably double deckers) there would probably need to be up to 6 buses on a Knutsford-Radbrooke Hall service at peak times if some services were to continue to Macclesfield.

Quote:I am interested to know how the 88 coped back with Arriva and GHA.

Inconsistently. They ran an half-hourly 88 with a PVR of 4 (D&G used a PVR of 5 from when they took over the service in October 2016.) In school holidays when there were no problems on the M6* everything could run on time to the second. In school term time and if there were problems on the M6 it wasn't uncommon for certain vehicles to get delayed, if the M6 problem coincided with rush hour or school finishing time it was possible for a bus to get 30 minutes behind schedule and sometimes when that happened under GHA it meant they cancelled one service and sent the bus directly between Knutsford and Altrincham out-of-service so that it started its' return working on time.

* Problems on the M6 can mean many vehicles use the A50 as an alternative.

Quote:I don't remember the 188 being around then or was it something to do with 300 running at the time?

The 188 was a designated school service operated by Howards - remember the long gaps in the Howards 289 timetable? Cheshire East decided to reinstate a pavement alongside the B5085 and decided that meant there was now a safe walking route for some pupils but still included a requirement for a 188 service in the tender for the replacement 27/88/289 service, which D&G have registered as a public bus service.

Quote:Though there are others locally, many people are brand loyal. I think the reasons why previous buses failed is the routes.

That came up with the Altrincham section of the 289 going. Despite villages which lost the 289 getting a limited 47 to Warrington in lieu there were complaints about no longer being able to get to Tescos in Altrincham and Knutsford not having a 'normal' supermarket, despite the fact they are now able to get to Asda in Warrington instead.

(05/06/2018 08:32)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]The Barclays staff shuttles include lunchtime runs for those working half the day. They also have some contracts with Knutsford area schools to take school pupils to the local leisure centre for swimming. I think they've also got 3 x high school/college contracts taking pupils back to Knutsford in the afternoon, so possibly the afternoon/evening Barclays shuttles are worked by the same coaches as the high school/college contracts? The shuttles used to be operated by Selwyns who I don't think had any other regular contracted work in the Knutsford area, so maybe Holmeswood were able to undercut them when it went up for renewal?

However, the problem with Barclays sponsoring the D&G service instead is the number of people who need to be moved in a short time frame - Holmeswood can have a second 50 seater coach filling up quickly when another 50 seater coach has just left a few minutes earlier. There's a lot of Barclays workers arriving in Knutsford by train, who then need onward transport to Radbrooke Hall as anyone squashed on the peak time Northern services to/from Knutsford will verify. Unless D&G were to get bigger buses (probably double deckers) there would probably need to be up to 6 buses on a Knutsford-Radbrooke Hall service at peak times if some services were to continue to Macclesfield.

I never noticed that on the timetables at Knutsford and I couldn't find a specific timetable online to work out how it could possibly work. Interesting how far Holmeswood are coming just for school and contract work? It will be likely they all work together if they have contracts in the area.
I'm sure the services were every 20 minutes not every few minutes. It wouldn't hurt D&G to have a decker though. They could use it on the 188, Barclays and as a shuttle or lunch bus at Knutsford inbetween.
If there were more buses to more destinations, would that possibly help the fact of everyone arriving into Knutsford train station? For example use an 89 to extend there. Save everyone arriving in one place therefore reducing the crowding. I suppose you also have to look at the fact D&G can have standing passengers whereas Holmeswood can't on their coaches.
D&G Could have 1 decker running every 20 minutes and have 2 normal buses. If they run hourly on the 27, then they will cater for Macclesfield and Chelford. I think the whole Barclays network needs to look at more destinations rather than more trips to Knutsford. If you find out where the workers are coming from, a few trips from further destination will probably be more beneficial.
Wilmslow could just be one extended 88, Northwich could be an 89A (Northwich, Lostock Gralam, Plumley, Radbroke Hall, Knutsford), Macc and Chelford on the 27. Crewe already has it's own coach already. All of this could reduce how many trips are needed. The 88, 89A and 27 could all work with D&Gs existing buses but it reduces the amount they would have to pay out for special coaches as only Crewe journeys would be needed.

(05/06/2018 08:32)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Inconsistently. They ran an half-hourly 88 with a PVR of 4 (D&G used a PVR of 5 from when they took over the service in October 2016.) In school holidays when there were no problems on the M6* everything could run on time to the second. In school term time and if there were problems on the M6 it wasn't uncommon for certain vehicles to get delayed, if the M6 problem coincided with rush hour or school finishing time it was possible for a bus to get 30 minutes behind schedule and sometimes when that happened under GHA it meant they cancelled one service and sent the bus directly between Knutsford and Altrincham out-of-service so that it started its' return working on time.

* Problems on the M6 can mean many vehicles use the A50 as an alternative.

I was thinking with regards to the school and leaving gaps in the service but if they didn't do the 188, there was no need for gap. The main issues were reliability related.

(05/06/2018 08:32)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]The 188 was a designated school service operated by Howards - remember the long gaps in the Howards 289 timetable? Cheshire East decided to reinstate a pavement alongside the B5085 and decided that meant there was now a safe walking route for some pupils but still included a requirement for a 188 service in the tender for the replacement 27/88/289 service, which D&G have registered as a public bus service.

Ahh. It was never a service which had a timetable out there then. That is why I have never heard of it. Howards hide quite a few of their timetables for some reason. I think maybe an alternative company or an alternative tender should be out for the 188 to avoid the gaps in service to accommodate it in the existing PVR. I suppose the base of the 188 should be just a larger bus on the 88. The slight extension upto Four Lane Ends could just be a minibus or linked to another school bus if there are any routes in that area (I can't find Knutsford school bus routes)

(05/06/2018 08:32)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]That came up with the Altrincham section of the 289 going. Despite villages which lost the 289 getting a limited 47 to Warrington in lieu there were complaints about no longer being able to get to Tescos in Altrincham and Knutsford not having a 'normal' supermarket, despite the fact they are now able to get to Asda in Warrington instead.

Exactly, people are very brand loyal. As I say, maybe that is why previous attempts failed. Woodford housing development would be the best call for them. Woodford - Handforth Dean - Colshaw Farm - Lacey Green - Wilmslow. Woodfords closest supermarkets are Handforth Dean or Poynton Morrisons. Neither of which are accessible via public transport. Their closest proper supermarket via public transport is Cheadle Hulme. The above route also enables posh people to shop at Waitrose as well. I think D&G are missing some very important things. This is what I mean about they don't look for alternatives and properly evaluate their options.