Transdev Blazefield

[markymark2000]

Based on your slightly optimistic timings, that would give 3 mins recovery time per two hour cycle.

Not only that but working on that basis, you're looking at a people travelling from York Outlet to Leeds via the centre of York Or are we now going to have alternate clockwise and anti-clockwise loops through York?

No, no no. Big loops could work but it would be a last resort as it would lose more customers than it's worth. You certainly wouldn't make people go from the outlet to Leeds via York either.
For you and just for you, perhaps some simple timings might help based on Arriva and Firsts timetables as much as possible.

CURRENT:
Leaving the A64: xx:42
York Station: xx:00
York Piccadilly Arr xx:10

York Piccadilly Dep: xx:15
York Station: xx:23
Joining A64: xx:33


PROPOSED:
A64: xx:42
Outlet: xx:49
York Piccadilly arr: xx:03
York Piccadilly Dep: xx:07
York Station: xx:13
Outlet: xx:30
Joining A64: xx:35
7 mins quicker to york, 8 mins longer to Leeds.
All depends on if the ZAP is a little bit slack and can cope with the actual times posted. Alternative is via York Station both to and from Piccadilly and put an extra bus on the circuit but the revenue gained from the outlet should break even somewhat easily given the potential usage and the average fare per passenger. 2% of the outlets visitors on an average of £2 fare each way, you have broken even. 2%, that's it.

It isn't a huge destination but there's little there that ISN'T in Tadcaster so why would people go to Seacroft? It doesn't make sense.

People like a change. People are loyal to supermarkets and there are other stores with plenty of connections. Geeze, what do you want exactly, me to write up a flaming business case for you. Well, sorry, it ain't happening.

So you've shared this with Transdev? What was their response?

Not this one no. I've shared others with Transdev and other companies. I would also not be sharing any responses on here since they are private.

Rather than indulging into "whataboutery", I'll say that I just find it odd that someone who doesn't appear to have any experience in the industry (unless you wish to advise us otherwise) seems to think that it is "easier than you think". That is all.

I don't doubt that York Outlet might attract some punters from Leeds but will that be enough to outweigh the damage to the CityZap. I suspect not.

Oh, I've got experience, that is just you assuming again. I have worked at 2 bus companies previously and had meetings with management at bus operators whom have commended my work and knowledge of the industry and routes.

I don't even know why I am justifying anything to you anymore. As I keep saying, you have provided nothing to the discussion other than trying to rip apart a reasonable suggestions for no reason and with no actual proof that they won't work. If you disagree so strongly with something, just scroll past because from here on, I shall be ignoring your (not everyone's, just specifically TGWs) posts until you can provide something actually constructive to the discussion.

 

[Deerfold]

For you and just for you, perhaps some simple timings might help based on Arriva and Firsts timetables as much as possible.


I don't even know why I am justifying anything to you anymore. As I keep saying, you have provided nothing to the discussion other than trying to rip apart a reasonable suggestions for no reason and with no actual proof that they won't work. If you disagree so strongly with something, just scroll past because from here on, I shall be ignoring your (not everyone's, just specifically TGWs) posts until you can provide something actually constructive to the discussion.

His questions don't seem unreasonable. You can choose to reply with a reasonable comeback or ignore him. You seem to be concentrating on trying to belittle him.

You don't have to give us the examples that you've worked out, but doing so may strengthen your argument. Refusing to do that seems very secretive for someone who wants to discuss this on an open forum.

 

[Stan Drews]

PROPOSED:
A64: xx:42
Outlet: xx:49
York Piccadilly arr: xx:03
York Piccadilly Dep: xx:07
York Station: xx:13
Outlet: xx:30
Joining A64: xx:35
7 mins quicker to york, 8 mins longer to Leeds.

Am I right in thinking you would propose serving the Outlet at the expense of the various stops along the Taddy Road via Dringhouses? I believe that those suburban stops are one of the attractions of Zap over the train, so that lost revenue would have to be factored against those gained from new users to the Outlet ...if that is your thinking.

 

[markymark2000]

His questions don't seem unreasonable. You can choose to reply with a reasonable comeback or ignore him. You seem to be concentrating on trying to belittle him.

In the same way he is trying to do that to me.

You don't have to give us the examples that you've worked out, but doing so may strengthen your argument. Refusing to do that seems very secretive for someone who wants to discuss this on an open forum.

I can appreciate that and where possible I have done but to the extent that TGW seems to be going into, I could make a fully costed business case and TGW would still try to find a hole in it. I'm happy to have a constructive discussion and try to back up my argument as I have done with other users. I do not feel however that I should continue a discussion with someone who just keeps saying 'that won't work' while putting forward zero ideas or being at all constructive with the comments.
How would you feel in that situation? More than happy to continue a discussion with that person?
That is my issue. I'm happy to continue the discussion normally.

Am I right in thinking you would propose serving the Outlet at the expense of the various stops along the Taddy Road via Dringhouses? I believe that those suburban stops are one of the attractions of Zap over the train, so that lost revenue would have to be factored against those gained from new users to the Outlet ...if that is your thinking.

I think you would have to wouldn't you if you were to serve the outlet as the time penalty would be around 10-15 mins each way if you served both.

I can see your point about lost revenue. Perhaps it could be duplicated on Fulford Road with Tadcaster Road keeping the Coastliner, there is still a service there, albeit it is slower, it is there.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder that if anyone has any concerns regarding any post, these concerns should be reported to us directly using the report button (and the post in question should not be replied to on the forum); any responses should be respectful.

Thanks

 

[RustySpoons]

In the same way he is trying to do that to me.


I can appreciate that and where possible I have done but to the extent that TGW seems to be going into, I could make a fully costed business case and TGW would still try to find a hole in it. I'm happy to have a constructive discussion and try to back up my argument as I have done with other users. I do not feel however that I should continue a discussion with someone who just keeps saying 'that won't work' while putting forward zero ideas or being at all constructive with the comments.
How would you feel in that situation? More than happy to continue a discussion with that person?
That is my issue. I'm happy to continue the discussion normally.


I think you would have to wouldn't you if you were to serve the outlet as the time penalty would be around 10-15 mins each way if you served both.

I can see your point about lost revenue. Perhaps it could be duplicated on Fulford Road with Tadcaster Road keeping the Coastliner, there is still a service there, albeit it is slower, it is there.

To be fair, and this isn't a dig at you or anyone else, but if TGW is finding holes (or trying to) in any business case you may put forwards it'll be nothing compared to the holes a prospective bus company would try and find.

As it goes I've quite enjoyed the discussion over the last few pages!

With regards to amending the Zap service though, it's USP is that it's the quick, direct route between two places. Start messing with that and it loses it and just becomes another bus service. When I first saw your idea of a circular service I did think it could possibly have legs, BUT it'd need to run in both directions. No one will want to get a quick bus in one direction only for it to be slower going in the opposite direction. And in doing so it'd lose the whole ethos of CityZap.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In the same way he is trying to do that to me.


I can appreciate that and where possible I have done but to the extent that TGW seems to be going into, I could make a fully costed business case and TGW would still try to find a hole in it. I'm happy to have a constructive discussion and try to back up my argument as I have done with other users. I do not feel however that I should continue a discussion with someone who just keeps saying 'that won't work' while putting forward zero ideas or being at all constructive with the comments.
How would you feel in that situation? More than happy to continue a discussion with that person?
That is my issue. I'm happy to continue the discussion normally.

I am genuinely sorry that you feel that way. Far from trying to belittle you, I have said I agreed with you on certain points.

Similarly, we're some days in this discourse, and I've stated my lack of direct experience but citing the experience of two good friends who have worked as commerical managers and directors in a range of businesses from major groups, secondary smaller groups and even a municipal. That you hadn't mentioned a background with direct relevance in that sort of capacity with two bus companies led me to assume that you didn't have such a background. I stand corrected in that case.

This is not simple picking holes. It is, from my position, a reasoned discussion and when individuals make statements on a message board, it's not wrong for someone to pose questions back. I've begged to differ with @RustySpoons and @Tetchytyke on a number of occasions and that's all it is - a difference of opinion.


Now in terms of CityZap, can I clarify what I thought you said. You mentioned that you had added 7 mins onto the timings so that a 55 min Leeds - York (Picc) would now be 62 mins. I understand that CZ has a 4 vehicle PVR. You said that your proposal wouldn't increase the PVR so obviously, a 62 min running time cannot be achieved with the current frequency. You then stated that your loop would be

For the Zap, if you were to amend the current route, you would likely run it as a circular. Leeds - York Outlet - Piccadilly - Rail Station - Leeds. This would then have no increase in PVR and all journeys could still be made with journey times to Piccadilly being the same as they are now.

That reads like you were proposing a loop round York, which would explain that if you were keeping to the PVR, it would be a 62 min IN (via the Outlet) and 55 out (via Dringhouses) equating to the 1h57, which was my comment.

However, if you're now saying that it Leeds - York Outlet - Piccadilly - Rail Station - York Outlet - Leeds, then obviously that would require an extra vehicle in the PVR. As I said before, and in deference to examples such as Cheshire Oaks, there may well be some demand. Where we differ is whether it would be sufficient to generate the revenue to justify an extra vehicle, especially when countered by possible loss from the Tad Road traffic and general erosion of the CityZap USP.

 

[markymark2000]

With regards to amending the Zap service though, it's USP is that it's the quick, direct route between two places. Start messing with that and it loses it and just becomes another bus service. When I first saw your idea of a circular service I did think it could possibly have legs, BUT it'd need to run in both directions. No one will want to get a quick bus in one direction only for it to be slower going in the opposite direction. And in doing so it'd lose the whole ethos of CityZap.

Circular is a hard one because of it running both ways. IT does have the advantage though of the better journey time. You likely also lose some of the attraction to the outlet passengers with it only being hourly then not half.
In many ways, the route is still a ZAP route with the journey time being only marginally increased. It depends how valuable those few minutes are to passengers. How busy is ZAP currently off peak and Saturdays? Full buses? I've not seen many on it off peak in which case could it work off peak only perhaps keeping the commuter runs as fast and direct?

I am genuinely sorry that you feel that way. Far from trying to belittle you, I have said I agreed with you on certain points.

Similarly, we're some days in this discourse, and I've stated my lack of direct experience but citing the experience of two good friends who have worked as commerical managers and directors in a range of businesses from major groups, secondary smaller groups and even a municipal. That you hadn't mentioned a background with direct relevance in that sort of capacity with two bus companies led me to assume that you didn't have such a background. I stand corrected in that case.

This is not simple picking holes. It is, from my position, a reasoned discussion and when individuals make statements on a message board, it's not wrong for someone to pose questions back. I've begged to differ with @RustySpoons and @Tetchytyke on a number of occasions and that's all it is - a difference of opinion.

I take onboard your apology and I am sorry for accusing you of 'belittling me' if that wasn't your intention. As I've said before to others, I am happy to have a constructive discussion and answer questions, it came across as mote than that to me and more like I was on trial for suggesting it.

Now in terms of CityZap, can I clarify what I thought you said. You mentioned that you had added 7 mins onto the timings so that a 55 min Leeds - York (Picc) would now be 62 mins. I understand that CZ has a 4 vehicle PVR. You said that your proposal wouldn't increase the PVR so obviously, a 62 min running time cannot be achieved with the current frequency. You then stated that your loop would be

That reads like you were proposing a loop round York, which would explain that if you were keeping to the PVR, it would be a 62 min IN (via the Outlet) and 55 out (via Dringhouses) equating to the 1h57, which was my comment.

However, if you're now saying that it Leeds - York Outlet - Piccadilly - Rail Station - York Outlet - Leeds, then obviously that would require an extra vehicle in the PVR. As I said before, and in deference to examples such as Cheshire Oaks, there may well be some demand. Where we differ is whether it would be sufficient to generate the revenue to justify an extra vehicle, especially when countered by possible loss from the Tad Road traffic and general erosion of the CityZap USP.

I've mentioned a few different ways for it to work over the discussion, perhaps I didn't make it clear which routing was being suggested in each.

Option 1: Run both ways via the outlet and rail station to piccadilly (Needs an extra bus because of the journey time)
Option 2: Run both ways via the outlet then run to Piccadilly, round to the rail station and then back to the outlet. (Negligible journey time difference. If the ZAP is slack and can make up the 2 mins difference towards Leeds, only 1 minute of layover will be lost on the whole circuit. If not, an extra bus is needed but would be needed at the Leeds end so not sure that would be a go-er).
Option 3: Run clockwise and anticlockwise loops serving the college, rail station, Piccadilly, York Outlet and then back to Leeds (and vice versa). (Route confusion for passengers and less attractive to York Outlet users since the bus is only hourly).
I think that is all of them that I've suggested.

The point on an additional vehicle fully depends on which option you look at. Option 3 requires no additional bus and option 2 depends how slack the ZAP is on the A64 and motorway.
Tadcaster Road use depends on if the use is towards or from York (To York of course people may use it just as a normal bus) and depends on the times of use (Potential for only off peak routing via York Outlet).

 

[RustySpoons]

Some current fleet news, not sure what's been reported so far.

Three (?) of the ex Red Express deckers have moved over to Keighley to operate the Dalesway service for the time being until some Witches can be freed up to replace them. They've been given temporary branding over the Red Ex base colours.

A nearside view of The Keighley Bus Company 3606 YC53MXO working on the 66 Keighley to Skipton 'Dalesway' services.

Ex Blackburn Bus Company as 3606 X6 VTD for 'Red Express' services from East Lancashire to Manchester. www.flickr.com/photos/east_lancs/26303435911 New to Harrogate & District as 3606 YC53MXO (X6 VTD) for commuter services to Leeds.

flic.kr

There's a fair bit going on there with all the colours, but not bad for a temporary fix and at least they've actually gone to the effort of keeping the brand consistent. What isn't too great is the back end of one of two of them. Caked in dirt and soot from the engine bay. A sure sign that these buses are on their last legs now.

Some of the ex-Coastliner ex-Rosso B9s are now at Keighley, an upgrade for the Aireline (60) service. They've 'grown up', in size and age.

Learning to Fly

Transdev Keighley X2 VTD 2792 Fleet: 2792 Reg: X2 VTD Operator: Transdev Keighley Route: Not in Service Depot: Keighley Livery: Aireline Type: Wright Eclipse Gemini/ Volvo B9TL Location: Leeds Bus Station Follow for more Uploads! West Yorkshire Bus Spotter, WYBS

flic.kr

They've been repainted in the same livery as the Versas they've replaced, and they've had an interior refurb as well. Seats have been retrimmed and they've gained the 'sky' panels on the ceilings. They've also gained the X* VTD plates that have been removed from some of the Red Ex's

The branding looks a bit of a mess though to me. 'Every 30 minutes' seems out of place, I think it should at least be lined up with the middle of the wave above the door. Keighley Shipley and Leeds is lost in the sea of green, why that isn't above the door I'm not sure. I'm not sure about the three green stripes towards the rear either. I get that they're to help break up the expanse of green, I just can't put my finger on it. It just doesn't look 'right' to me.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There's a fair bit going on there with all the colours, but not bad for a temporary fix and at least they've actually gone to the effort of keeping the brand consistent. What isn't too great is the back end of one of two of them. Caked in dirt and soot from the engine bay. A sure sign that these buses are on their last legs now.

Yeah, 16/17 years of being hammered means they're pretty tired mechanically. Fine for pootling around on schools or locals but clearly getting towards the end of their time.

The branding looks a bit of a mess though to me. 'Every 30 minutes' seems out of place, I think it should at least be lined up with the middle of the wave above the door. Keighley Shipley and Leeds is lost in the sea of green, why that isn't above the door I'm not sure. I'm not sure about the three green stripes towards the rear either. I get that they're to help break up the expanse of green, I just can't put my finger on it. It just doesn't look 'right' to me.

Yeah, I fully agree. I'm not a great fan of red and green anyway but the whole thing looks discordant and ill at ease. The route points should be over the door. The additional Aire squiggle looks superfluous there. I'm not so bothered by the adidas stripes but agree, it doesn't look quite right (and I'm usually fairly positive about BI stuff in the main).

Funny you say about things lost in a sea of green - the latest from First in Bristol https://www.flickr.com/photos/bengleeson/50101721736/in/photolist-2jkjqmy

 

[RustySpoons]

Funny you say about things lost in a sea of green - the latest from First in Bristol https://www.flickr.com/photos/bengleeson/50101721736/in/photolist-2jkjqmy

I hope that is an internal design and DIDN'T come from Stenning, or any other 'designer' in exchange for money for that matter.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I hope that is an internal design and DIDN'T come from Stenning, or any other 'designer' in exchange for money for that matter.

I believe it is a Stenning design. Don't know how much was led by local management etc but the overall base colour/additional vinyls and the use of multiple place names are tropes that have been seen before on the Excel network.

In truth, I don't mind the base colour/additional vinyls approach but the place name thing is again "not right".

In general, I like Best Impressions work and their commitment in the main. However, and I appreciate how subjective these things can be, they don't get everything right in my opinion.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I believe it is a Stenning design. Don't know how much was led by local management etc but the overall base colour/additional vinyls and the use of multiple place names are tropes that have been seen before on the Excel network.

It's also a design feature he's used closer to my neck of the woods - East Yorkshire buses have that same design featuring the place names on the network.

I think that particular style looks too much like the logo of BBC local radio!

 

[JetBlast]

Does anyone know what (if anything) replaced those 08 plate deckers they moved from Rosso please?

 

[Andyh82]

Does anyone know what (if anything) replaced those 08 plate deckers they moved from Rosso please?

Nothing yet, but it will depend on the schools requirement from September

 

[Andyh82]

Is this some new competition for Transdev in York?

PB1081341/76 Registered (Short notice)
YORK PULLMAN BUS COMPANY LTD
Route: Exhibition Square to Exhibition Square via Stonebow, Clifford Towee
Service number: Golden Tours Hop on , Hop off York
Service type: Normal Stopping
Effective date: 25 Jul 2020

 

[markymark2000]

Is this some new competition for Transdev in York?

PB1081341/76 Registered (Short notice)
YORK PULLMAN BUS COMPANY LTD
Route: Exhibition Square to Exhibition Square via Stonebow, Clifford Towee
Service number: Golden Tours Hop on , Hop off York
Service type: Normal Stopping
Effective date: 25 Jul 2020

Ooof, I can't see that going down well.

Looking on Golden Tours site, the fare is £1 cheaper than Transdev but it does only run hourly and it only runs Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

 

[northrob]

Only one bus an hour though...

Hop-on Hop-off Bus Tour York | Golden Tours

Let our live guide regale you with fascinating information about York Minster, Clifford’s Tower and much more on this open top bus tour around York.

www.goldentours.com

 

[Alexbus12]

Is this some new competition for Transdev in York?

PB1081341/76 Registered (Short notice)
YORK PULLMAN BUS COMPANY LTD
Route: Exhibition Square to Exhibition Square via Stonebow, Clifford Towee
Service number: Golden Tours Hop on , Hop off York
Service type: Normal Stopping
Effective date: 25 Jul 2020

Good luck to them, I hope they're successful and erode into Transdevs passenger base

 

[RustySpoons]

Did Transdev try a Leeds Sightseeing service a few years ago in retaliation to another operator doing something they didn't like?

 

[Ant158]

Is this some new competition for Transdev in York?

PB1081341/76 Registered (Short notice)
YORK PULLMAN BUS COMPANY LTD
Route: Exhibition Square to Exhibition Square via Stonebow, Clifford Towee
Service number: Golden Tours Hop on , Hop off York
Service type: Normal Stopping
Effective date: 25 Jul 2020

York has historically had numerous operators on the bus tour circuit. York Pullman themselves operated, Olympians, Titans and Bristol VRs in a smart livery on Tours around 2010.

York Pullman Olympian

Though for a city the size of York, and considering you can’t get camera close to most of the best bits of the city from a double decker I’m not sure it really needs 2 operators, especially operating very similar routes.

 

[Stan Drews]

Good luck to them, I hope they're successful and erode into Transdevs passenger base

It’s certainly a brave move starting up a new tourist service this summer, so be interesting to see how it does.

 

[WY Bus Spotter]

Good luck to them, I hope they're successful and erode into Transdevs passenger base

Like a broken record...

 

[RustySpoons]

Like a broken record...

To be fair I think a decent rival service to keep operators on their toes can be a good thing.

 

[JetBlast]

Their bus looks a lot nicer than the bangers TransDev are using.

 

[Andyh82]

Their bus looks a lot nicer than the bangers TransDev are using.

That post is mistimed considering Transdev are just about to introduce a much more modern fleet on the City Sightseeing service

 

[JetBlast]

That post is mistimed considering Transdev are just about to introduce a much more modern fleet on the City Sightseeing service

Oh - I hadn't realised. Do you have anymore info as to what to expect please?

 

[Andyh82]

Oh - I hadn't realised. Do you have anymore info as to what to expect please?

4 ex-Metroline Enviro 400s SN09CEJ/CFJ/CFL/CFO

 

[JetBlast]

Still quite notably older than their new rival.

 

[Deerfold]

To be fair I think a decent rival service to keep operators on their toes can be a good thing.

That's a slightly different sentiment to hoping Transdev suffers.