(27/09/2016 15:07)knutstransport Wrote:  I was under the impression (from what my local paper reported) that Cheshire East asked operators to look at whether it would be viable to continue running routes when the contracts ended. I did say "when the High Peak contract came to an end" so did not in any way imply it the contract was cancelled. Of course, High Peak didn't have to register a commercial 27 service (as you implied) as they already had an active 27 registration so they just had to submit a request to update the registration for a reduced service.

You seem to know a lot about what conversations took place between TSS/Cheshire East and multiple operators. So either you must have worked for TSS/Cheshire East or you changed employer every few months. If not surely what you've heard is just as much hearsay as what myself or other posters hear?

And yet again you make an argument about something that isn't exactly the most relevant part of the post - it was the attempt to run a 90 minute commercial service that caused the drop in usage, whose ever idea that was.

(27/09/2016 16:11)djb Wrote:  I think the issue here is that there are probably only enough passengers to cover a one bus operation on the 27 commercially (and clearly it's very very marginal).

The fact that gha managed to run a commercial hourly service should not be construed as evidence that the 27 is commercially viable at that frequency. If it was high peak wouldn't have dropped it to 90 minutes, and gha aren't exactly the best example of financial success.

Arriva are retrenching commercially continually. Howard's I think are a good bet for organic growth where potential exists - a smaller company that can keep its eye on the ball.

It will be interesting what happens to the 200 if the plan to move the viewing park goes ahead.

(27/09/2016 17:29)knutstransport Wrote:  The question isn't whether an hourly 27 is viable commercially, it's whether the operator of the new subsided contract will be able to enhance the frequency to back where it was.

One problem Howards face is the 27 is much less frequent than the 130 so they pick up very few paying passengers between Macclesfield and the hospital or AstraZeneca. If both routes were the same frequency, the same operator or if multi operator tickets were available it would be a different story

(27/09/2016 19:47)Dentonian Wrote:  Not heard about this - when and where to?

(27/09/2016 17:49)djb Wrote:  Id have thought the 2 go hand in hand. To be able to enhance the service to hourly, the revenues on the current service will have to merit it. If the current service is only borderline commercial, it's hard to see anyone offering anything better than ghas hourly (outisde school peak) operation.

Quote:People between Macc and monks Heath will use a lower frequency service if it's reliable. The 130 currently is not reliable towards Macc due to its length, although the short journeys short help this.

Quote:Out of interest, when was the last time the 27 had an all day hourly commercial offering?

(27/09/2016 20:51)Dentonian Wrote:  I wondered if it might be linked to the Expansion/Terminal One redevelopment. Probably, 2022/23 ish.

(26/09/2016 13:48)33109 Wrote:  stagecoach are doing brilliant with the 130 & received very high praise from passengers. 1 of their drivers mentioned he'd heard off his boss that arriva might take over the sun 130s again.

(28/09/2016 08:10)33109 Wrote:  Been told by an arriva driver this morning who's heard off his boss that stagecoach are apparently keeping the sunday 130.

(27/09/2016 13:32)quahogbuscompany Wrote:  but I'm led to believe the 200 and 27 contracts have been won at a minimum cost tender with a vehicle age restriction of 15 years, so I'm sure there will be no new buses forthcoming for those services.

(28/09/2016 13:14)mikestone Wrote:  Since running more than the tenders called for seems to have been at least in part responsible for GHA running out of cash I can't see anyone else trying it.