Current time: 22/05/2019, 01:51 Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
D&G Bus
RE: D&G Bus
(19/05/2019 13:01)iMarkeh Wrote:  The whole thing could be made more simple if they put 1 more bus out. Hourly Macc - Altrincham via Knutsford and Wilmslow. 1 bus doing Northwich to Knutsford (This could probably be extended to High Legh to save paying for the 47 and would provide better shopping opportunities). Splitting it off would mean it could better serve the needs of the areas it serves (There are numerous school buses which run from Knutsford into the Northwich area which this service could look to replace in part but combined with the 88, it can't as it would mess things up too much).

For some bizarre reason Warrington Borough Council think it is necessary to have a limited Lymm-Thewall-Warrington service, this can be extended to High Legh relatively cheaply. Although, the way the 47 works it isn't really suitable for something like a High Legh-Knutsford trip or a Knutsford-Lymm trip. The 47 would work better if it did a Knutsford-Lymm journey before the school run (with a connection to a Cat5 for Warrington), if the High Legh only services got extended to Knutsford and it did an evening peak Warrington-Knutsford.

I too think Altrincham-Knutsford-Macc should be hourly. I'd suggest only alternate services should go via Beggarman's Lane, Over Peover and Seven Sisters Lane and the rest should go direct via the A537 between Knutsford and the outskirts of Macc. Having some faster services (like used to be the case) could attract more leisure shoppers who might otherwise go somewhere else.

From the prospective of both Cheshire councils if there was an hourly 88 Macc-Altrincham, the best thing to do would be to have one bus running both the 89 and 188 services, possibly with a slight extension/variation.

There's probably 100ish St Nicholas pupils living in the Knutsford area and 20 or 30 who attend Northwich area colleges, so the question would be how you combine that with the 89. Of course there's more who live in places like Lostock and Wincham. Do D&G really want to be running one decker from Knutsford to Hartford via Leftwich in the morning and a second from Knutsford to Hartford via Wincham as part of the 89 service?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
RE: D&G Bus
(Yesterday 09:37)Rick Hunter Wrote:  Yes it is the GHA 27 I was talking about, however I wasn't aware it was commercial. The 15 past the even hour only worked until 14.15 from Knutsford then run off private from Macclesfield at 14.55 leaving the bus on the 15 past the odd hour to continue to the end of service.

There are in the main 2 Small Solos and 2 bigger buses on the 88. Yesterday had Big Solo 141, long Enviro200 118, Solo 49 and short Enviro200 122.

There have been occasions where there's been 4 x Solo M880s on the 88/89. I think the original Cheshire East idea was that the 188 would get the larger buses, which would go on to the 88/89 at other times plus the c.07:00 Knutsford to Altrincham and c.15:45 Altrincham to Macclesfield would also get larger buses to ensure there should be enough seats for all on the services carrying a lot of schoolkids. However, with the withdrawal of the 300 and the 88A that has meant the c.07:00 Altrincham to Knutsford can have a significant number of standing passengers if a 28 seater is used, while the 188 seems to have enough seats for everyone even if a 28 seater is used. It seems at present a Solo M880 is the normal bus for both the morning 188 and the c.07:00 Knutsford-Altrincham, even if the c.07:00 Knutsford to Altrincham usually gets a long Enviro, which goes on to the 288 afterwards.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
RE: D&G Bus
(Yesterday 09:37)Rick Hunter Wrote:  Yes it is the GHA 27 I was talking about, however I wasn't aware it was commercial.

When the High Peak commercial 27 didn't work out the council didn't feel like putting the 27 back out to tender on the same terms it was previously on. Apparently when GHA saw the timetable which went out to tender they thought "We could run that subsidy free" and registered the timetable which had gone out to tender. However, I suspect both the High Peak and GHA commercial registrations (with both the 27 and the Macc-Bosley-Congleton) were an attempt to prevent a rival taking the route, rather than because they thought the routes would make them a lot of money. The same with the GHA Sunday 130 commercial registration, which they decided on after losing the contract to D&G meaning that contract was annulled.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)