Cheshire East council propose 43% reduction in bus subsides

[northwichcat]

Cheshire East Council has recently undertaken a review of the subsidised bus network to enable them to save over £1.5m a year.

As part of the medium term budget plan for the Council, a saving target of £1.576m from the supported bus budget is proposed to commence from 1st April 2018. In order to achieve this level of saving a review of the network has been undertaken to assess whether these supported services are best meeting the needs of residents and whether network adjustments can be made to save money.

As a result the proposal is to reduce the 88 Knutsford to Wilmslow to Altrincham bus from a half hourly to an hourly service. The current service is supported by CEC, or other neighbouring authorities.

In a report prepared for the Environment and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting tomorrow (Thursday 4th May) the rationale for changes to this service is stated as "Within Cheshire East the service provides access to a number of health, education, employment and recreational facilities. The site also serves a number of Local Plan development sites and links into interchanges. The route currently operates with a relatively low level of subsidy per passenger and carries a large number of passengers."

The proposal is for the current 88 service between Altrincham and Knutsford to be reduced to hourly frequency, with all journeys serving Morley Green (currently Morley Green is served every hour rather than half hourly like Bank Square and Wilmslow Rail Station).

The Environment and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee will discuss the revised network proposals for public consultation on Thursday, 4th May, ahead of the discussion at Cabinet on 9th May.

The 2017/18 supported bus service budget is £3.641m. The proposals would enable savings of £1.576m to be made in 2018/19 so the supported bus service budget could be reduced to £2.065m.

If approved by Cabinet, the proposals will go forward for a 10 week period of public consultation commencing in late May 2017. This consultation will be targeted at both bus users and non bus users and the outcomes from the consultation will inform a recommendation to Cabinet in autumn 2017.

The proposals also include no longer supporting Sunday services of the 130 Macclesfield to Wilmslow to Manchester - the weekday daytime services are provided commercially - and no longer supporting the 200 Wilmslow to Manchester Airport service.

The report states the following as the rationale for changes to the service - "This service currently runs at a relatively high level of subsidy per passenger due to low volumes of passengers using the service. The service provides a link between Wilmslow, Styal and Manchester Airport between which rail alternatives are available."

http://www.wilmslow.co.uk/news/arti...altrincham-could-be-reduced-to-hourly-service

I'm not sure if the full report is available anywhere. That article is obviously Wilmslow focused and mentions cuts to ALL subsided services serving Wilmslow - the 378 and the 130 Mon-Sat are both commercial services.

While 200 loadings are very poor, they've overlooked how few trains stop at Styal - if you miss the 07:59 towards Manchester, the next train isn't until 15:59.

From what I've been told the 88 subsidy is artifically high apart from the fares between Knutsford Bus Station and Knutsford Shaw Heath (which overlaps the 300 service) 100% of the revenue goes back to the council, with the subsidy being high enough to cover the full cost of running the services.

 

[northwichcat]

If I understand what the Knutsford Guardian have said here: http://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/...ice_as_council_look_for___1_5_million_saving/ the 27, 88 and 289 will all be withdrawn and an E1 will run Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford-Macclesfield every 2 hours and be interworked with an E2 which will run Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford-Northwich every 2 hours! Not sure what will happen about Mere, High Legh and Little Bollington though.

There will also be cuts to the 300 evening and Saturday subsided service (the weekday day time service is commercial.)

 

[ag51ruk]

The remit of the review is here (from February), although I can't find the actual report anywhere either

http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=1916

 

[northwichcat]

Full proposed timetables: http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/documents/s55541/Appendices Combined - 26th April.pdf

The proposed Macclesfield to Knutsford times don't take in to consideration hospital visiting times and presumes everyone finishes work before 5.30 or their place of work is right next to a bus stop. Also interesting they think a 35 seater bus is required for an hourly Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford when some services have most seats occupied using 35 seaters currently.

It's also going to annoy a lot of operators e.g. D&G have just opened a depot in Wincham based on the fact they have a 5 year contract for the 88 which has a PVR of 5, while Howards acquired 2 new and 1 fairly new vehicle to use on the 27, 200 and 289 routes.

11, 32, 47, 56, 75, 77, 79, 83, 89, 99, 315, 319, SB routes would also go. 378 and P1 would be merged in to one route terminating at Hazel Grove. The limited Cheshire part of the 35 would also lose support - I'm not sure what impact that would have as a whole.

19 service would be retained but with some journeys withdrawn.

 

[ag51ruk]

Those proposed changes have a significant personal impact on me, and would leave Crewe with virtually no buses in the evening (and few on Sundays)

Once the consultation formally opens, I'll be suggesting to Cheshire East that their evening and Sunday map of services that will be affected by these changes is grossly inaccurate (e.g. the Sundays map clearly shows service continuing between Crewe and Nantwich via Marshfield, currently provided by subsidised service 38 which is proposed to be withdrawn. There are no other Sunday services anywhere near there).

 

[ashworth]

Those proposed changes have a significant personal impact on me, and would leave Crewe with virtually no buses in the evening (and few on Sundays)

Once the consultation formally opens, I'll be suggesting to Cheshire East that their evening and Sunday map of services that will be affected by these changes is grossly inaccurate (e.g. the Sundays map clearly shows service continuing between Crewe and Nantwich via Marshfield, currently provided by subsidised service 38 which is proposed to be withdrawn. There are no other Sunday services anywhere near there).

Unfortunately over the last few years this is becoming the general situation throughout the country outside the big cities and other major urban areas. Many quite sizeable places already have no evening buses and no buses on Sundays, which also includes Bank Holidays when companies run a Sunday service.
Where I live in Nottinghamshire we have not had any buses from many villages into Nottingham or Mansfield on Sundays for at least 10 years. Our cities are so busy with shoppers these days on Sundays, especially in the run up to Christmas, yet 20 years ago when Sundays were relative quiet days we did have an hourly service from 10am until 10pm. I fear that no matter how busy Sundays become these services will never return.

 

[Greybeard33]

While 200 loadings are very poor, they've overlooked how few trains stop at Styal - if you miss the 07:59 towards Manchester, the next train isn't until 15:59.

From what I've been told the 88 subsidy is artifically high apart from the fares between Knutsford Bus Station and Knutsford Shaw Heath (which overlaps the 300 service) 100% of the revenue goes back to the council, with the subsidy being high enough to cover the full cost of running the services.

I am surprised that they have not deployed the rail alternative argument to kill off the 88 completely, as well as the 200. There is an hourly rail service between Wilmslow and Altrincham/Knutsford/Northwich, albeit with a change at Stockport.

 

[Qwerty133]

Full proposed timetables: http://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/documents/s55541/Appendices Combined - 26th April.pdf

The proposed Macclesfield to Knutsford times don't take in to consideration hospital visiting times and presumes everyone finishes work before 5.30 or their place of work is right next to a bus stop. Also interesting they think a 35 seater bus is required for an hourly Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford when some services have most seats occupied using 35 seaters currently.

It's also going to annoy a lot of operators e.g. D&G have just opened a depot in Wincham based on the fact they have a 5 year contract for the 88 which has a PVR of 5, while Howards acquired 2 new and 1 fairly new vehicle to use on the 27, 200 and 289 routes.

11, 32, 47, 56, 75, 77, 79, 83, 89, 99, 315, 319, SB routes would also go. 378 and P1 would be merged in to one route terminating at Hazel Grove. The limited Cheshire part of the 35 would also lose support - I'm not sure what impact that would have as a whole.

19 service would be retained but with some journeys withdrawn.

If a service is regularly filling a 35 seater it should be self sustaining. Subsidising transport should be about providing services to areas that will never have enough passengers for a commercial service to be unsuccessful and not about allowing fares to be set artificially below the level they should be.

 

[ivanhoe]

There has to be better Council/Bus partnerships. Diminishing Council Revenue means we have to better target the monies. We need to grow certain routes which will need subsidy at first. If a bus company can provide a good standard of bus on its route and keep to a timetable that is useful to as many parties as possible, then maybe that route in time could become commercial. I take two local routes in Loughborough as an example. Kinches Leicester Derby Skylink and indeed the University Sprinter Service although in that case, it was the University that provided an initial subsidy. I think just throwing monies at certain routes was fine when times were good, but we'll not see those times again. Blanket coverage of all villagers, although desirable, is not sustainable.

 

[northwichcat]

If a service is regularly filling a 35 seater it should be self sustaining. Subsidising transport should be about providing services to areas that will never have enough passengers for a commercial service to be unsuccessful and not about allowing fares to be set artificially below the level they should be.

The 88 loadings can be inconsistent. Some services will have decent loadings for at least part of the service but a number of those are ENCTS holders who don't always travel at the same time and travel more when the weather is good and obviously a bus full of ENCTS holders might not break even. If all the passengers remain and the same size vehicle is used on a reduced service then at times they'll be too few seats but it'll be difficult to say which services will need a larger vehicle other than the times when workers and schoolkids are most likely to travel.

 

[northwichcat]

I am surprised that they have not deployed the rail alternative argument to kill off the 88 completely, as well as the 200. There is an hourly rail service between Wilmslow and Altrincham/Knutsford/Northwich, albeit with a change at Stockport.

The railway line going through Mobberley and Ashley is quite a distance from the B5085 going through the other side of Mobberley and Chorley.

The 200 and 289 both get very few passengers, which isn't the case with the 27 and 88. I caught a weekday off-peak 88 from Altrincham the other week and it was due to depart just after an Arriva bus to Wythenshawe and over 20 passengers were waiting at the same stand, I presumed most of them were waiting for the Wythenshawe bus but I was wrong as only around 3 were waiting for the Wythenshawe service and the rest were waiting for the Wilmslow service.

 

[KendalKing]

Our cities are so busy with shoppers these days on Sundays, especially in the run up to Christmas,

Agree, a lot of Towns & Cities Centres, including out of town shopping centres, are just as buzy on a Sunday, as they are during the week. Yet Bus companies up & down the country, are failing to provide a service on a Sunday.

I fear that no matter how busy Sundays become these services will never return.

My fear is, with all the cuts that there have been to bus services over the last two years, that bus services could disappear all together, with-in the next two years.

 

[northwichcat]

Agree, a lot of Towns & Cities Centres, including out of town shopping centres, are just as buzy on a Sunday, as they are during the week. Yet Bus companies up & down the country, are failing to provide a service on a Sunday.

In my Cheshire East town (which already has no Sunday bus services) the following Sunday events are happening in the next three months:

7 May - Street Market and Funfair
14 May - Country Show and Colour Run
4 Jun - Street Market, Classic Car Show and Orchid Show
18 Jun - Medieval Fayre
25 Jun - Cancer Research Race For Life
2 Jul - Street Market
2 Jul - American Car Show
16 Jul - Foodies Festival
23 Jul - RHS Flower Show

Possibly others as well.

 

[northwichcat]

Just seen a 33 seater Streetlite on the 300 service (which Cheshire East are proposing to withdraw the funding for) with over 33 passengers on board. There was a special event on today so usage is higher than usual but if you withdraw the Saturday service the special event might not be so well attended next year, which could harm local shops, cafes and pubs.

 

[Greybeard33]

The railway line going through Mobberley and Ashley is quite a distance from the B5085 going through the other side of Mobberley and Chorley.

The 200 and 289 both get very few passengers, which isn't the case with the 27 and 88. I caught a weekday off-peak 88 from Altrincham the other week and it was due to depart just after an Arriva bus to Wythenshawe and over 20 passengers were waiting at the same stand, I presumed most of them were waiting for the Wythenshawe bus but I was wrong as only around 3 were waiting for the Wythenshawe service and the rest were waiting for the Wilmslow service.

I presume you meant Morley not Chorley? I doubt that either Mobberley or Morley generate much demand for the 88.

I often see the the 88 passing through Altrincham, but I have never seen more than single figures numbers of passengers aboard off-peak - often only 2 or 3. I think your experience must have been exceptional. Did most of your fellow passengers disembark by Hale Barns, or continue into Cheshire East?

When Cheshire East withdraws its subsidy for the 35, I wonder if Network Warrington will withdraw the 35 completely and replace it with additional journeys of the 5 (routed via Warburton between Lymm and Altrincham)? With the 47 withdrawn too, that would leave High Legh and Little Bollington without any public transport. However, Broomedge would likewise be deprived, and that is just over the boundary in Warrington UA. From my observations, the 5/35 is generally quite well patronised at the Altrincham end.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I presume you meant Morley not Chorley? I doubt that either Mobberley or Morley generate much demand for the 88.

Noting we are discussing the 88 service, when one leaves Alderley Edge, en route to Mobberley, you do pass through both settlements of Chorley and of Row-of-Trees.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

19 service would be retained, but with some journeys withdrawn.

I suppose that I am honour bound to ask if there any external funding from commercial companies on the services of the 19 route that extend to both Bonis Hall Lane and to Lees Lane, that will have been taken into consideration.

 

[northwichcat]

Noting we are discussing the 88 service, when one leaves Alderley Edge, en route to Mobberley, you do pass through both settlements of Chorley and of Row-of-Trees.

Indeed. The bus from Wilmslow briefly enters Alderley Edge - in the Knutsford direction there is a bus stop in Alderley Edge, in the Wilmslow direction the bus stop is in Chorley but from either it's around a 1.3 mile walk to the centre of Alderley Edge. On leaving Alderley Edge the road sign welcomes you to Chorley, on leaving Chorley you're welcomed to the Parish of Great Warford, followed by the Parish of Mobberley. The latter may confuse some passengers as the timetable shows the Bird and Hand pub in Knolls Green but travelling in the Knutsford it's a bus stop just after you've been welcomed to the Parish of Mobberley.

 

[northwichcat]

I often see the the 88 passing through Altrincham, but I have never seen more than single figures numbers of passengers aboard off-peak - often only 2 or 3. I think your experience must have been exceptional. Did most of your fellow passengers disembark by Hale Barns, or continue into Cheshire East?

It was the day after a Bank Holiday so that might have resulted in extra passengers with the bus not running the day before. Despite being a middle of the day service it seemed to have some older St Ambrose pupils on board - perhaps some doing vocational qualifications but the majority of passengers stayed on until Wilmslow.

In the opposite direction the bus was stopped at Hale Barns next to Booths and someone got on asked the driver how much it was in to Altrincham, then said he'd walk instead.

I have also seen 88 buses arriving and leaving Altrincham Interchange with no passengers on board but then I'd observed a number of people get on/off at the stop before Altrincham Interchange and walk from there.

With the 47 withdrawn too, that would leave High Legh and Little Bollington without any public transport. .

If you live in Cheshire East and are unable to use a bus either because there isn't one or because of a disability you can request a journey on the flexible D&G Little Bus service for a shopping trip. However, you don't get any choice in the day or time of journey e.g. you'll be told between 09:30 and 10:00 on Tuesday the bus will pick you up and take you to Handforth Dean and you'll get back between 13:00 and 13:30 and if you can't travel on Tuesday then you're stuck.

The flexible bus service is another thing that comes in with the bus subsidy cuts. Cheshire East are proposing axing the service in the Crewe area and are proposing charging ENCTS pass holders £3 for using the service in other areas. So if you live in Pickmere and hold an ENCTS pass you'll be able to continue making bus journeys for free on any day but if you live in High Legh and hold and ENCTS pass you'll be told which day and time you can travel and be charged £3.

The Green Party candidate for Tatton at the upcoming election lives in High Legh but I've not yet heard him say anything about these proposals. The Lib Dem candidate lives in Mobberley and is making preventing further bus service cuts a priority for his campaign and it seems he is winning over traditional Conservative voters. The Conservative candidate made her first ever visit to Knutsford yesterday.

 

[northwichcat]

I suppose that I am honour bound to ask if there any external funding from commercial companies on the services of the 19 route that extend to both Bonis Hall Lane and to Lees Lane, that will have been taken into consideration.

There will still be a limited service to McCanns at peak times. The 06:25 Macclesfield-Prestbury, 06:52 Prestbury-Macclesfield, 18:15 Macclesfield-Prestbury will be withdrawn, other services will be retimed.

 

[northwichcat]

According to a BBC reporter there's a number of Cheshire East cabinet members unhappy with the proposal, including council leader Rachel Bailey so it's very likely they'll be changes following the upcoming consultation process.

 

[gordonthemoron]

It's just aswell that Barclays provide their own transport from Knutsford & Crewe, the number of staff using the 27 bus from Macclesfield is considerable

 

[northwichcat]

It's just aswell that Barclays provide their own transport from Knutsford & Crewe, the number of staff using the 27 bus from Macclesfield is considerable

It's also a good job Barclays don't make their workers all start at 08:30/9 and finish at 5/5.30 given Cheshire East seem to think the commuters flows are all towards Macclesfield in the morning and away from Macclesfield in the evening.

I also get the impression someone's decided the total number of passengers going to Over Peover is a considerable number so all services need to be routed that way, when there's practically no-one using the bus to/from Over Peover at off-peak times.

Currently the 88 has a PVR of 5 and the 27 has a PVR of 1. Considering the layover times and the time the Over Peover extension takes it would be possible to award one contract with a PVR of 6 which allows a half-hourly Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford and an hourly Knutsford-Macclesfield with alternate Knutsford-Macclesfield services running via Over Peover.

 

[gordonthemoron]

yes, but the current 27 schedule has actually improved the service for Barclays-Macclesfield commuters as the previous hourly one didn't have a return journey at a reasonable time in the evening so staff would get the Barclays bus into Knutsford to get a bus back to Macclesfield. If Barclays improved their bus service to Crewe I suspect that a lot more of the Indian staff would live there as the housing is a lot cheaper than Hale or Altincham

 

[northwichcat]

yes, but the current 27 schedule has actually improved the service for Barclays-Macclesfield commuters as the previous hourly one didn't have a return journey at a reasonable time in the evening

I think you're referring to the current timetable over the old GHA commerical attempt, which was already a reduced timetable over the previous offering. Before High Peak and then GHA attempted to run the service commerically there was a bus departing Knutsford bus station at xx:45 every hour between 08:45 and 18:45, after the first service left at around 07:25. The 17:45 and 18:45 both extended to Congleton, while the first two services to Knutsford in the morning originated from Congleton which allowed both AstraZeneca and Barclays workers from Congleton to get a single bus to their place of work. The service also used 38 seater Wright Cadets and the thought of a 28 seater Enviro 200 being used would have been unthinkable but the frequency cuts have been accompanied by a significant drop in usage.

 

[daodao]

The proposals look reasonable, given the need to cut subsidies, apart from truncating the service running via Poynton at the 192 bus terminus. The subsidised evening services are generally empty, and the Sunday services are presumably more expensive to run. It does seem as if Cheshire East will follow Shropshire in having no Sunday or late evening bus services from April 2018, apart from certain High Peak buses (those through Disley and route 58 if Derbyshire CC continue to subsidise it) and possibly certain interurban routes into Crewe (3, 84 & 85). There might be a case for retaining 2-hourly daytime Sunday buses (say 4 journeys each way) on the Crewe-Macclesfield route.

 

[northwichcat]

The proposals look reasonable, given the need to cut subsidies, apart from truncating the service running via Poynton at the 192 bus terminus.

I think the idea of taking a bus off the combined 88 and 27 service to run a school service is unreasonable. It leaves a 90 minute gap in Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford services at a busy time in the morning peak and leaves an almost 3 hour gap between services departing Macclesfield for Knutsford in the afternoon/early evening, meaning anyone visiting patients in Macclesfield Hospital will have a wait of over 100 minutes for a bus, when currently the bus is 15 minutes after visiting hours end.

There's no real justification for having the 19 service or the 200 service running more frequently than the 27 service. The reason it's happened is because an operator tried to run the 27 commercially but then went out of business. Even with losing a lot of passengers by reducing the frequency of the 27 it still gets higher patronage than the 19 and 200. While the people doing the review have realised the 27 is more important than the 200, they've failed to realise it's more important than the 19. They've also failed to realise that DWP are closing Wilmslow Job Centre and transferring services to Macclesfield, which will make some Macclesfield services even more vital.

I also fail to see what they'll achieve by withdrawing funding for Saturday daytime 300 services. The subsidy is less than £6 per journey.

If TfGM and Cheshire East worked together they could have an hourly 88 service via Morley Green, then a second service leaving Altrincham via the 288 route to the Airport, then following the 200 route to Wilmslow and then following the 88 route to Knutsford. It would free up a bus even if it would mean the second service would be a slow way of getting betwen Altrincham and Wilmslow.

Also instead of the 289 being a useless route which no-one knows when it will run and the main towns on the route all being connected by faster train services, they could instead divert it via the 47 route to Warrington after High Legh and run it to a consistent 3 hour timetable, with departure times something like 07:00, 10:00, 13:00, 16:00 and 19:00 from Northwich and departure times like 08:30, 11:30, 14:30 and 17:30 from Warrington - which would make it a potentially useful commuter service as well as making the times easier to remember for people doing off-peak shopping trips.

 

[ag51ruk]

The proposals look reasonable, given the need to cut subsidies, apart from truncating the service running via Poynton at the 192 bus terminus. The subsidised evening services are generally empty, and the Sunday services are presumably more expensive to run. It does seem as if Cheshire East will follow Shropshire in having no Sunday or late evening bus services from April 2018, apart from certain High Peak buses (those through Disley and route 58 if Derbyshire CC continue to subsidise it) and possibly certain interurban routes into Crewe (3, 84 & 85). There might be a case for retaining 2-hourly daytime Sunday buses (say 4 journeys each way) on the Crewe-Macclesfield route.

I think the 84 (Arriva to Chester) and 85 (D&G to Newcastle) are currently operated commercially at all times - and possibly the 3 (First to Hanley), although I recall ECC sponsoring part of the Sunday service on that route at one time. They all operate Sundays and some evening journeys, though infrequently and not as late as even a few years ago.Whether it's worth D&G operating their depot on a Sunday if that's the only route left operating may be a factor.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the 84 (Arriva to Chester) and 85 (D&G to Newcastle) are currently operated commercially at all times - and possibly the 3 (First to Hanley), although I recall ECC sponsoring part of the Sunday service on that route at one time. They all operate Sundays and some evening journeys, though infrequently and not as late as even a few years ago.Whether it's worth D&G operating their depot on a Sunday if that's the only route left operating may be a factor.

Maybe the 85 Sunday service will be transferred to the Adderley Green depot?

According to the D&G printed timetable Sunday morning services on the 12 are subsided and afternoon journeys are commercial.

 

[323235]

I think the idea of taking a bus off the combined 88 and 27 service to run a school service is unreasonable. It leaves a 90 minute gap in Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford services at a busy time in the morning peak and leaves an almost 3 hour gap between services departing Macclesfield for Knutsford in the afternoon/early evening, meaning anyone visiting patients in Macclesfield Hospital will have a wait of over 100 minutes for a bus, when currently the bus is 15 minutes after visiting hours end.

There's no real justification for having the 19 service or the 200 service running more frequently than the 27 service. The reason it's happened is because an operator tried to run the 27 commercially but then went out of business. Even with losing a lot of passengers by reducing the frequency of the 27 it still gets higher patronage than the 19 and 200. While the people doing the review have realised the 27 is more important than the 200, they've failed to realise it's more important than the 19. They've also failed to realise that DWP are closing Wilmslow Job Centre and transferring services to Macclesfield, which will make some Macclesfield services even more vital.

I also fail to see what they'll achieve by withdrawing funding for Saturday daytime 300 services. The subsidy is less than £6 per journey.

If TfGM and Cheshire East worked together they could have an hourly 88 service via Morley Green, then a second service leaving Altrincham via the 288 route to the Airport, then following the 200 route to Wilmslow and then following the 88 route to Knutsford. It would free up a bus even if it would mean the second service would be a slow way of getting betwen Altrincham and Wilmslow.

Also instead of the 289 being a useless route which no-one knows when it will run and the main towns on the route all being connected by faster train services, they could instead divert it via the 47 route to Warrington after High Legh and run it to a consistent 3 hour timetable, with departure times something like 07:00, 10:00, 13:00, 16:00 and 19:00 from Northwich and departure times like 08:30, 11:30, 14:30 and 17:30 from Warrington - which would make it a potentially useful commuter service as well as making the times easier to remember for people doing off-peak shopping trips.

Isn't the 200 service subsidised by the National Trust, Manchester Airport and TfGM in addition to Cheshire East or has that arrangrment ceased ?