Current time: 18/08/2017, 20:18 Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cheshire East proposed funding cuts
RE: Cheshire East proposed funding cuts
(12/08/2017 17:05)Nicholas Wrote:  Without wanting to take this off topic too much, no - it was set up to provide services for under-fives and their parents in deprived areas (for example drop-in centres, play mornings etc)

Yes and the funding removal by the Conservatives has been well publicised. I've never heard the KickStart Dentonian referred to so presumed it was a similar scheme.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
RE: Cheshire East proposed funding cuts
(12/08/2017 05:50)knutstransport Wrote:  No operators can't demand funding but LAs can agree a short term measure prior to putting the service out to tender (like TfGM did with the 18 prior to the 288 contract being awarded) and getting an idea of how much funding the current operator thinks is required gives an indication of how much a subsided service will cost.

D&G's 378 was based on one driver on the route all day so the extended gap was to allow for his lunch break. As for whether the use of the 378 number was confusing the same could be said about 288 services running to Manchester Airport from Altrincham when that number was used for Knutsford via Wilmslow services for over 20 years.

Except D&G's 378 could be confused in terms of both Wilmslow passengers thinking the Cheadle Hulme/Stockport service was contiuning seamlessly, and at the Handforth Dean end by Stockport MBC passengers thinking it was running to Handforth Dean rather than Grove Lane. 288 was probabl;y not the best number for the Airport-Alty service, but at least there was a timelapse between the two uses. I also suspect it was part of a general renumbering of Alty services which will eventually form a nice neat grouping. Bearing in mind hat comparatively little of Altrincham's network is commercial compared to other parts of GM.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
RE: Cheshire East proposed funding cuts
(12/08/2017 19:25)Dentonian Wrote:  Except D&G's 378 could be confused in terms of both Wilmslow passengers thinking the Cheadle Hulme/Stockport service was contiuning seamlessly, and at the Handforth Dean end by Stockport MBC passengers thinking it was running to Handforth Dean rather than Grove Lane.

The D&G destination displays and timetable displays at bus stops would have shown either 378 Wilmslow Station or 378 Handforth Dean so no-one should have got on one expecting it to go to Bramhall or Stockport. The destination displays also display a scrolling list of the main intermediate calling points. The reason given for that bus using the 378 number is the people living in the housing estates in Handforth and Wilmslow were used to the 378 bus taking them to Wilmslow town centre and the D&G 378 route between Handforth and Wilmslow Bank Square was the same as the withdrawn Stagecoach route.

Quote:288 was probabl;y not the best number for the Airport-Alty service, but at least there was a timelapse between the two uses. I also suspect it was part of a general renumbering of Alty services which will eventually form a nice neat grouping. Bearing in mind hat comparatively little of Altrincham's network is commercial compared to other parts of GM.

The 28* numbers used to relate to commercial registrations made after bus deregulation between Altrincham and the Cheshire County Council area
287 was Altrincham to Macclesfield via Wilmslow (2 hourly)
288 was Altrincham to Knutsford via Wilmslow (initially 2 hourly, interworked with 287)
289 was Altrincham to Northwich (still exists under that number but re-routed and less frequent.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
RE: Cheshire East proposed funding cuts
(13/08/2017 08:52)knutstransport Wrote:  The D&G destination displays and timetable displays at bus stops would have shown either 378 Wilmslow Station or 378 Handforth Dean so no-one should have got on one expecting it to go to Bramhall or Stockport. The destination displays also display a scrolling list of the main intermediate calling points. The reason given for that bus using the 378 number is the people living in the housing estates in Handforth and Wilmslow were used to the 378 bus taking them to Wilmslow town centre and the D&G 378 route between Handforth and Wilmslow Bank Square was the same as the withdrawn Stagecoach route.

What about those travelling from Handforth towards Stockport?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
RE: Cheshire East proposed funding cuts
The same could be said of other routes which have been truncated or re-routed e.g. should the 18 route have been renumbered when it stopped serving Altrincham or should Stagecoach have renumbered the 378s only running to Grove Rd at times when they used to go to Wilmslow? Passengers have to look at both the destination and route number not just the number.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
RE: Cheshire East proposed funding cuts
(13/08/2017 15:49)knutstransport Wrote:  The same could be said of other routes which have been truncated or re-routed e.g. should the 18 route have been renumbered when it stopped serving Altrincham or should Stagecoach have renumbered the 378s only running to Grove Rd at times when they used to go to Wilmslow? Passengers have to look at both the destination and route number not just the number.

I don't think thee is a need to change numbers just because a service is truncated - the complete re-routing of the 18 from September is a completely different argument though. Yes, passengers should look at both destination and number, but with scrolling destinations and occasionally poor visibility, this is often easier said than done. I suppose practices vary in different areas, but I can't recall any renumbering of bus routes purely because of truncation. Even suffixes were dropped in GM before De-regulation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)