Cheshire Bus News (was East Cheshire Bus News)

[Martin1988]

Last year I rode the 42 service all the way from Congleton to Crewe on a journey that departs Congleton around 1500. The bus was an Enviro 200 and started off really lightly loaded (I think only me and 1 other passenger) but somewhere en route we picked up a load of school pupils who packed out the bus.

I've also twice ridden the 84 Chester to Crewe service at around 1400 in the afternoon. Both times the bus (a decker) had lots of room on departing Chester but filled up in Nantwich largely with school pupils.

 

[markymark2000]

Last year I rode the 42 service all the way from Congleton to Crewe on a journey that departs Congleton around 1500. The bus was an Enviro 200 and started off really lightly loaded (I think only me and 1 other passenger) but somewhere en route we picked up a load of school pupils who packed out the bus.

I've also twice ridden the 84 Chester to Crewe service at around 1400 in the afternoon. Both times the bus (a decker) had lots of room on departing Chester but filled up in Nantwich largely with school pupils.

Try riding the 84 though on the 07:07 from Chester or 14:38 from Crewe and they are quite busy with school kids too.

Yes singles are ok on the 84 but that is mostly for the short runs or some off peak journeys.

 

[Simon75]

Much of the 6 is covered, albeit by routes on lower frequencies. South of Crewe is mostly covered by the half hourly 12. North of Crewe is covered by the 31 (and links from Crewe to Leighton Hospital also covered by the 12)

The 6 covers between Crewe bus station and Leighton hospital via West Street and Underwood Lane, which the 12 doesn't

 

[markymark2000]

The 6 covers between Crewe bus station and Leighton hospital via West Street and Underwood Lane, which the 12 doesn't

If you read the post properly, you'll see that I said

Much of the 6 is covered, albeit by routes on lower frequencies..... North of Crewe is covered by the 31

 

[daodao]

If you read the post properly, you'll see that I said

I suspect that neither Cheshire East nor Cheshire West Councils will subsidise replacement services where routes are already largely covered by other operators, in particular D&G. This applies particularly to the following routes:

• 6 (in Crewe) - covered by D&G route 12 and also by route 31, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 1 (in Northwich) - covered by D&G route 82 from Northwich to Rudheath
• 38 Crewe-Macclesfield - covered by D&G route 38, and also by route 37 from Crewe to Sandbach, which D&G have stated they will re-provide

There is also partial coverage on the following town routes:

• 1 (in Northwich) - by Stagecoach route 48 to Weaverham
• 4 (in Northwich) - by Warrington route 9A to Barnton
• 4 (in Northwich) - by routes 31 and 37 to Leftwich, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 4 (in Macclesfield) - by D&G route 19 to Fallibroome (Priory Lane)
• 7 (in Winsford) - by routes 31 and 37, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 9 (in Macclesfield) - by High Peak route 14 and Aimee route 109
• 10 (in Macclesfield) - by Little Gem routes 391/392

Some replacement will be needed for route 3 from Macclesfield to Weston Estate, but I do not expect full replacement of the other town routes to be provided, particularly if subsidies will be needed.

 

[SeanM1997]

I suspect that neither Cheshire East nor Cheshire West Councils will subsidise replacement services where routes are already largely covered by other operators, in particular D&G. This applies particularly to the following routes:

• 6 (in Crewe) - covered by D&G route 12 and also by route 31, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 1 (in Northwich) - covered by D&G route 82 from Northwich to Rudheath
• 38 Crewe-Macclesfield - covered by D&G route 38, and also by route 37 from Crewe to Sandbach, which D&G have stated they will re-provide

There is also partial coverage on the following town routes:

• 1 (in Northwich) - by Stagecoach route 48 to Weaverham
• 4 (in Northwich) - by Warrington route 9A to Barnton
• 4 (in Northwich) - by routes 31 and 37 to Leftwich, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 4 (in Macclesfield) - by D&G route 19 to Fallibroome (Priory Lane)
• 7 (in Winsford) - by routes 31 and 37, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 9 (in Macclesfield) - by High Peak route 14 and Aimee route 109
• 10 (in Macclesfield) - by Little Gem routes 391/392

Some replacement will be needed for route 3 from Macclesfield to Weston Estate, but I do not expect full replacement of the other town routes to be provided, particularly if subsidies will be needed.

Its not just about whats covered but also frequencies - which is arguably more important as a low frequency makes bus use very unattractive.

If D&G take on the 31 and operate it hourly (like Arriva does today), but doesn't serve the 6 route - it means areas along Bradfield Road/Underwood Lane would only have an hourly bus compared to 3 per hour today - reducing patronage further. From certain parts, it is a noticeable distance to other bus routes (nos. 12, 42 or 85) which means they will not use those services and may increase car usage.

Same in South Crewe, Brookhouse Estate for instance has a service every 15 minutes into Crewe town centre. But lose the 6 and it becomes a half hourly service, which isn't horrendous but will be unattractive to numerous parties.

We don't know what D&G plan for the 84 either but any less than the every 20 minutes of today will be off putting for passengers between Crewe and Nantwich. These are two decent sized urban areas close to each other, with the 85 already reduced from half hourly to hourly (and falling usage on the Marshfield Estate area), any reduction in services would hinder those without a car.

I'm not saying there is a perfect solution but does appear a complete redrawing of the network around Crewe may be required - there are so many large parts with poor services which wouldn't happen in other towns (such as 8 Sydney section being one-way being a considerable journey in one direction for certain parts of the town, whilst Woolstanwood and the new housing developments in North and South Crewe have a no bus services at all)

 

[M803UYA]

I suspect that neither Cheshire East nor Cheshire West Councils will subsidise replacement services where routes are already largely covered by other operators, in particular D&G.
Some replacement will be needed for route 3 from Macclesfield to Weston Estate, but I do not expect full replacement of the other town routes to be provided, particularly if subsidies will be needed.

Whilst I'm not familiar with Cheshire East and West Councils in terms of how they subsidise local bus services, their first priority would be to see what other operators are interested in commercially and seeking to replace services that way. That 'help' can extend as far as supporting the operator's short notice registration application should it be required. Only when the commercial options are exhausted would they look to tender services. Using de-minimis provisions (subsidy without tendering the route as long as that cost is below a certain £ 5 figure number)

It might be entirely possible that D&G could replace all of Arriva's services on a commercial basis - with some others needing to be put out to tender.

 

[TheSel]

It should be patently obvious to anyone with an IQ exceeding that of Winnie the Pooh, that if the services are profitable (to the extent they require), other operators will step in, and if they're not, then subsidy or abandonment will follow.

Now - that opens a can of worms regarding 'profitable'. Is a bus "service" there to serve, or to make money? Can a company make money where another can't by cutting costs (i.e. negotiating a better fuel price, "efficiency savings", lower pay / conditions for staff etc)? Do some compamies demand a better return than others? e.g. Group A is satisfied with a 6% return, another (B) demands 10%, and the service(s) produces 8% - so "B" says it's unprofitable and "A" takes it on.

The bottom line is that unless frequencies and reliability is up to potential customers' expectations, usage will dwindle beyond the tipping point. "Don't wait for the bus - I'll drive you there. You can have the temperature/music/departure time as you wish, you don't have to stand in the cold waiting, the pot-smoking youths won't be there to bother you, I'll wait for you on a yellow line and b*gger anyone else ... 101 other reasons...

Add to that the various Councils' planning policies - lots of new houses with no local amenities, make it easy to drive, provide parking, ban buses from town/city centres, and you have the perfect storm.

40-50 years ago, the whole area was covered by Crosville. Some services made money, some not. It wasn't perfect, but in those days, as a whole, the network worked to provide the needs of the majority of people at reasonable fares.

Now, the bean-counters who run operations know diddly-squat about any of this, but look only at their bottom line of 'If we close this depot, will I still have a job".

 

[Martin1988]

Can anyone remind me, am I right in thinking the evening journeys on the 6, 38 and 84 are run commercially by Arriva having previously been subsidised? Presumably if that was the case it would be up to D&G to decide if they were commercial and stay operating going forward.

In terms of the late evening 38 journeys does the last journey from Crewe (2335) end up at its home depot in Macclesfield or does the driver then have to run empty back to Winsford? Similarly with the last journey from Macclesfield to Crewe?

I had a brief trip on the 2335 journey out of Crewe last year (was traveling back from Haslington on the previous trip and missed my stop). I was the only passenger on board out of Crewe Bus Station which was deserted other than myself and the driver. Suggested to me that journey isn't well used and only runs to return the bus to its home depot. If thats the case I do wonder whether D&G would want to run that journey commercially.

 

[Robertj21a]

It should be patently obvious to anyone with an IQ exceeding that of Winnie the Pooh, that if the services are profitable (to the extent they require), other operators will step in, and if they're not, then subsidy or abandonment will follow.

Now - that opens a can of worms regarding 'profitable'. Is a bus "service" there to serve, or to make money? Can a company make money where another can't by cutting costs (i.e. negotiating a better fuel price, "efficiency savings", lower pay / conditions for staff etc)? Do some compamies demand a better return than others? e.g. Group A is satisfied with a 6% return, another (B) demands 10%, and the service(s) produces 8% - so "B" says it's unprofitable and "A" takes it on.

The bottom line is that unless frequencies and reliability is up to potential customers' expectations, usage will dwindle beyond the tipping point. "Don't wait for the bus - I'll drive you there. You can have the temperature/music/departure time as you wish, you don't have to stand in the cold waiting, the pot-smoking youths won't be there to bother you, I'll wait for you on a yellow line and b*gger anyone else ... 101 other reasons...

Add to that the various Councils' planning policies - lots of new houses with no local amenities, make it easy to drive, provide parking, ban buses from town/city centres, and you have the perfect storm.

40-50 years ago, the whole area was covered by Crosville. Some services made money, some not. It wasn't perfect, but in those days, as a whole, the network worked to provide the needs of the majority of people at reasonable fares.

Now, the bean-counters who run operations know diddly-squat about any of this, but look only at their bottom line of 'If we close this depot, will I still have a job".

Those Arriva commercial services in Macclesfield are very unlikely to be profitable and no operator will be keen to take any on - unless subsidised. What can Cheshire afford?

 

[M803UYA]

It should be patently obvious to anyone with an IQ exceeding that of Winnie the Pooh, that if the services are profitable (to the extent they require), other operators will step in, and if they're not, then subsidy or abandonment will follow.

Now - that opens a can of worms regarding 'profitable'. Is a bus "service" there to serve, or to make money? Can a company make money where another can't by cutting costs (i.e. negotiating a better fuel price, "efficiency savings", lower pay / conditions for staff etc)? Do some compamies demand a better return than others? e.g. Group A is satisfied with a 6% return, another (B) demands 10%, and the service(s) produces 8% - so "B" says it's unprofitable and "A" takes it on.

The bottom line is that unless frequencies and reliability is up to potential customers' expectations, usage will dwindle beyond the tipping point. "Don't wait for the bus - I'll drive you there. You can have the temperature/music/departure time as you wish, you don't have to stand in the cold waiting, the pot-smoking youths won't be there to bother you, I'll wait for you on a yellow line and b*gger anyone else ... 101 other reasons...

Add to that the various Councils' planning policies - lots of new houses with no local amenities, make it easy to drive, provide parking, ban buses from town/city centres, and you have the perfect storm.

40-50 years ago, the whole area was covered by Crosville. Some services made money, some not. It wasn't perfect, but in those days, as a whole, the network worked to provide the needs of the majority of people at reasonable fares.

Now, the bean-counters who run operations know diddly-squat about any of this, but look only at their bottom line of 'If we close this depot, will I still have a job".

I've mentioned Arriva's route costing system on that thread some time back - but some of their practices can cause a route to be 'unprofitable' when an operator with a lower cost base would deem it 'profitable'. Arriva expects services to contribute towards the costs of the depot, and for new vehicles to generate passenger growth, simply by being new vehicles. Same principle is applied to newly refurbished vehicles and newly repainted vehicles. How does a new coat of paint make a service profitable? Never understood that one! Paying dividends to the parent company in Berlin also increases costs of operating buses.

D&G won't have all of those costs, but they'll have rent/lease payments for the premises, costs of running the buses (fuel/wages/maintenance) to consider. Do they issue their staff with uniforms?

 

[northwichcat]

Let's put to bed some of the myths being circulated about these services.

• The morning 31 runs need double deckers, unless the frequency is enhanced. Arriva used single deckers recently due to a shortage of double deckers and school children were left behind and arrived an hour late for school.
• The Northwich locals are subsided on Sundays, so some council funding should be available to keep a level of service, even if the Sunday services go at the expense of funding provision on weekdays.
• Pre-COVID the 1s out to Weaverham were every 15 minutes. While that may not be viable at the moment, the existing 48 would be inadequate. The Weaverham High pupils take most of the capacity on the 48 in the morning peak.
• Despite @daodao's claim that the 82 also services Gadbrook Park, there is an essential ecomomic need for a service during the hours the 82 does not run. Arriva don't start running buses out to Rudheath at 06:25 for fun, it's because the businesses based out there need workers starting at 7am. The likes of Aldi, Coop and Booths aren't going to be happy if freshly baked products get delayed as bakery workers can't start their shifts on time.
• The limited Cat9A might be deemed insufficient for accessing the medical facilities at Victoria Infirmary, at the top of a steep hill.

Yes, because instead of running the school contract separately, D&G try interworking it with the 88, which on a good day, results in this mess of a so called timetable and a bad day, cancelled journeys. Of course, this was all enabled by Cheshire East Council and their ridiculous plan to commercialise the town circular and combine the town's 3 main bus routes into 1, exacerbated by D&G's poisoned chalice in the form of the short lived 88A.

The 300 daytime service was commercial. D&G made a commercial decision to withdraw the 300 in favour of an 88A, after Cheshire East reduced the frequency of the 88. Then they decided to withdraw pretty much all their commercial routes in Cheshire 3 months later!

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Knutsford has a population of less than 15,000 - it's a *very* small town. The furthest points of the town are 2 miles apart, virtually *all* of the town is less than a mile from its railway station.

The largest housing estate in Knutsford is Longridge. The main employment site in the town is Parkgate Industrial Estate. The newest employment site is Knutsford Business Park. The 300 went close to all 3 of those. You might want to check the walking distances from those places to the station.

 

[daodao]

Let's put to bed some of the myths being circulated about these services.

• The morning 31 runs need double deckers, unless the frequency is enhanced. Arriva used single deckers recently due to a shortage of double deckers and school children were left behind and arrived an hour late for school.
• The Northwich locals are subsided on Sundays, so some council funding should be available to keep a level of service, even if the Sunday services go at the expense of funding provision on weekdays.
• Pre-COVID the 1s out to Weaverham were every 15 minutes. While that may not be viable at the moment, the existing 48 would be inadequate. The Weaverham High pupils take most of the capacity on the 48 in the morning peak.
• Despite @daodao's claim that the 82 also services Gadbrook Park, there is an essential ecomomic need for a service during the hours the 82 does not run. Arriva don't start running buses out to Rudheath at 06:25 for fun, it's because the businesses based out there need workers starting at 7am. The likes of Aldi, Coop and Booths aren't going to be happy if freshly baked products get delayed as bakery workers can't start their shifts on time.
• The limited Cat9A might be deemed insufficient for accessing the medical facilities at Victoria Infirmary, at the top of a steep hill.

I don't disagree with the points that you are making. I was merely looking at what alternative provision there is for the "soon to be withdrawn" services, and with few exceptions it is suboptimal. However, I stand by my point that "I do not expect full replacement of the town routes to be provided, particularly if subsidies will be needed." For example additional Mon-Fri peak services would be desirable on the route to Rudheath, but the current service on route 82 may be deemed adequate at other times.

 

[markymark2000]

I've mentioned Arriva's route costing system on that thread some time back - but some of their practices can cause a route to be 'unprofitable' when an operator with a lower cost base would deem it 'profitable'. Arriva expects services to contribute towards the costs of the depot, and for new vehicles to generate passenger growth, simply by being new vehicles. Same principle is applied to newly refurbished vehicles and newly repainted vehicles. How does a new coat of paint make a service profitable? Never understood that one! Paying dividends to the parent company in Berlin also increases costs of operating buses.

Does Arriva Group charge the consultancy and brand use fees too down to the divisions like Stagecoach does. This would mean a depot making £1m profit could easily make a £0.5m loss just because the consultancy fees and brand use fees.

 

[darloscott]

It’s these situations where councils desperately need ‘transport’ type people in their departments so they can sit down and look at what realistically they can do.
There is lots of scope in most councils to utilise their finite resources much more effectively… there are thousands upon thousands of home to school contracts where they’re paying for the resource already.
It would cost very little to extend the hours of operation to offer some sort of service during the day, since the cost of the vehicle & driver is already being paid for. Some do this effectively already but it could be done far better!

 

[Djb1]

Can anyone remind me, am I right in thinking the evening journeys on the 6, 38 and 84 are run commercially by Arriva having previously been subsidised? Presumably if that was the case it would be up to D&G to decide if they were commercial and stay operating going forward.

In terms of the late evening 38 journeys does the last journey from Crewe (2335) end up at its home depot in Macclesfield or does the driver then have to run empty back to Winsford? Similarly with the last journey from Macclesfield to Crewe?

I had a brief trip on the 2335 journey out of Crewe last year (was traveling back from Haslington on the previous trip and missed my stop). I was the only passenger on board out of Crewe Bus Station which was deserted other than myself and the driver. Suggested to me that journey isn't well used and only runs to return the bus to its home depot. If thats the case I do wonder whether D&G would want to run that journey commercially.

Not sure if it’s been covered in any of the other replies but for the 38 iirc the arrangement is that the last journey in each direction is run by the depot near where it terminates.

 

[A0]

The largest housing estate in Knutsford is Longridge. The main employment site in the town is Parkgate Industrial Estate. The newest employment site is Knutsford Business Park. The 300 went close to all 3 of those. You might want to check the walking distances from those places to the station.

Knutsford Station to Longridge or Parkgate is about 1.3 miles.

It’s these situations where councils desperately need ‘transport’ type people in their departments so they can sit down and look at what realistically they can do.
There is lots of scope in most councils to utilise their finite resources much more effectively… there are thousands upon thousands of home to school contracts where they’re paying for the resource already.
It would cost very little to extend the hours of operation to offer some sort of service during the day, since the cost of the vehicle & driver is already being paid for. Some do this effectively already but it could be done far better!

Many of the 'home to school' contracts are for children with special needs or similar and quite often are provided by taxi companies using cars or minibuses. Most 'home to school' doesn't involve traditional PSV vehicles.

 

[PaulWC]

Its not just about whats covered but also frequencies - which is arguably more important as a low frequency makes bus use very unattractive.

If D&G take on the 31 and operate it hourly (like Arriva does today), but doesn't serve the 6 route - it means areas along Bradfield Road/Underwood Lane would only have an hourly bus compared to 3 per hour today - reducing patronage further. From certain parts, it is a noticeable distance to other bus routes (nos. 12, 42 or 85) which means they will not use those services and may increase car usage.

Same in South Crewe, Brookhouse Estate for instance has a service every 15 minutes into Crewe town centre. But lose the 6 and it becomes a half hourly service, which isn't horrendous but will be unattractive to numerous parties.

We don't know what D&G plan for the 84 either but any less than the every 20 minutes of today will be off putting for passengers between Crewe and Nantwich. These are two decent sized urban areas close to each other, with the 85 already reduced from half hourly to hourly (and falling usage on the Marshfield Estate area), any reduction in services would hinder those without a car.

I'm not saying there is a perfect solution but does appear a complete redrawing of the network around Crewe may be required - there are so many large parts with poor services which wouldn't happen in other towns (such as 8 Sydney section being one-way being a considerable journey in one direction for certain parts of the town, whilst Woolstanwood and the new housing developments in North and South Crewe have a no bus services at all)

I can see D&G running the 31 hourly as it currently does to Northwich but running a short from the Bus Station to Leighton Hospital to give a 30 minute frequency along Underwood Lane. Or, possibly turning one of the 12's into a 6 so there's still a bus every 30 mins to Shavington, but only one an hour via Broad Street to the hospital, the other running via Underwood Lane. I've always thought Underwood Lane was the more lucrative route.

As for the Sydney bus, it is a bit farcical that what has become one of the main shopping areas of Crewe only has a bus running past in one direction. But whatever D&G do to replace the Arriva journeys, you can pretty much guarantee that in a years time it will have been cut back and reduced to the bare bones.

 

[MalaiseForever]

There is lots of talk about the 6 being stopped! This is a great route to access the railway station directly from Leighton area. It will be a massive inconvenience to myself and others if this service isn't provided anymore.

 

[M803UYA]

Does Arriva Group charge the consultancy and brand use fees too down to the divisions like Stagecoach does.

The honest answer is I'm not sure....

 

[darloscott]

Many of the 'home to school' contracts are for children with special needs or similar and quite often are provided by taxi companies using cars or minibuses. Most 'home to school' doesn't involve traditional PSV vehicles.

There is loads like that but there is also a huge amount run by 33-70 seat vehicles that could be better utilised.

 

[323235]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Knutsford has a population of less than 15,000 - it's a *very* small town. The furthest points of the town are 2 miles apart, virtually *all* of the town is less than a mile from its railway station.

Offerton, Cheshire in Stockport has a similar population and has a very bus double decker Every 10 minute bus service to Stockport in the form of the 314 so I don’t think that really stacks up.

I suspect that neither Cheshire East nor Cheshire West Councils will subsidise replacement services where routes are already largely covered by other operators, in particular D&G. This applies particularly to the following routes:

• 6 (in Crewe) - covered by D&G route 12 and also by route 31, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 1 (in Northwich) - covered by D&G route 82 from Northwich to Rudheath
• 38 Crewe-Macclesfield - covered by D&G route 38, and also by route 37 from Crewe to Sandbach, which D&G have stated they will re-provide

There is also partial coverage on the following town routes:

• 1 (in Northwich) - by Stagecoach route 48 to Weaverham
• 4 (in Northwich) - by Warrington route 9A to Barnton
• 4 (in Northwich) - by routes 31 and 37 to Leftwich, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 4 (in Macclesfield) - by D&G route 19 to Fallibroome (Priory Lane)
• 7 (in Winsford) - by routes 31 and 37, which D&G have stated they will re-provide
• 9 (in Macclesfield) - by High Peak route 14 and Aimee route 109
• 10 (in Macclesfield) - by Little Gem routes 391/392

Some replacement will be needed for route 3 from Macclesfield to Weston Estate, but I do not expect full replacement of the other town routes to be provided, particularly if subsidies will be needed.

I think that the responsible thing for Cheshire East to do is get the 391/392 and 19 back to hourly and you might be able to get a hourly 9 run out of the no 14 vehicle in the 28 minutes spare (might need to alter the 58 or 60 if the services normally inter work +/- Whaley Bridge closure.

Other option is see if you can run a half hourly 14 service by taking out some padding.

Alternatively you could just run the 14 bus via Moss Rose Estate and while they’re at it have it go into Lyme Green Industrial Estate.

The 60 could re-route to replace the old 21 section of the no 10 bus in Hurdsfield.

 

[daodao]

Offerton, Cheshire in Stockport has a similar population and has a very bus double decker Every 10 minute bus service to Stockport in the form of the 314 so I don’t think that really stacks up.

Chalk and cheese. Offerton is a large suburb 2.5-3.0 miles from the centre of Stockport and the route to it is via a densely built area, so a regular bus service to the town centre can be justified. @AOwen has correctly pointed out that Knutsford is a small town and nearly the whole of its built-up area is within 1 mile of the railway station and town centre. A town bus service is not viable in such a setting, as both Cheshire East Council and D&G Buses have recognised.

 

[Simon75]

If you read the post properly, you'll see that I said

My apologies for not reading properly

I can see D&G running the 31 hourly as it currently does to Northwich but running a short from the Bus Station to Leighton Hospital to give a 30 minute frequency along Underwood Lane. Or, possibly turning one of the 12's into a 6 so there's still a bus every 30 mins to Shavington, but only one an hour via Broad Street to the hospital, the other running via Underwood Lane. I've always thought Underwood Lane was the more lucrative route.

As for the Sydney bus, it is a bit farcical that what has become one of the main shopping areas of Crewe only has a bus running past in one direction. But whatever D&G do to replace the Arriva journeys, you can pretty much guarantee that in a years time it will have been cut back and reduced to the bare bones.

Yes Underwood Lane, for years has be the busier route . The Sydney bus (8) and as you will know was the merger of 8 Wistaston Green to the bus station, and merger of the 16 Elm Drive and 14 Sydney.

 

[LOL The Irony]

A town bus service is not viable in such a setting, as both Cheshire East Council and D&G Buses have recognised.

It was viable, Cheshire East simply didn't want to subsidise it anymore as a part of cost saving measures. D&G then stepped in with the poisoned chalice 88A, which went to nowhere anyone in Knutsford or Mobberley didn't really want or have a need to go to and served no purpose other than to have an extra bus an hour to Wilmslow for the trains to London. Despite that, I never saw it empty and wasn't just loaded with pass holders.

 

[markymark2000]

It’s these situations where councils desperately need ‘transport’ type people in their departments so they can sit down and look at what realistically they can do.
There is lots of scope in most councils to utilise their finite resources much more effectively… there are thousands upon thousands of home to school contracts where they’re paying for the resource already.
It would cost very little to extend the hours of operation to offer some sort of service during the day, since the cost of the vehicle & driver is already being paid for. Some do this effectively already but it could be done far better!

You could even open up these services (where capacity permits) to the general public and have a system like Merseyside where the schools compliment the general services. Or go down the Cheshire West route of trying to push as many kids as possible onto local bus services. Sadly this is one big area that Cheshire East fails, demanding separate school and service buses so loads of school buses duplicate over the commercial network. Add to that, the council won't work with businesses so the businesses have all had to go and get their own buses. Alderley Park used to have their staff on the 130. Arriva, D&G and Cheshire East all messed with the 130 hat much and there were so many threats of withdrawal that now Alderley Park runs their own closed door service using Swans Travel. Barclays Radbroke Hall, they didn't mind as much using the 27 (alongside their own 20 min shuttle) They won't use the 88 now as it's too infrequent. If CEC worked with these businesses, the same funding for the closed door routes could instead into the tendered bus network and consequently massively improve the service offered to the general public.

It was viable, Cheshire East simply didn't want to subsidise it anymore as a part of cost saving measures. D&G then stepped in with the poisoned chalice 88A, which went to nowhere anyone in Knutsford or Mobberley didn't really want or have a need to go to and served no purpose other than to have an extra bus an hour to Wilmslow for the trains to London. Despite that, I never saw it empty and wasn't just loaded with pass holders.

Speaking to staff, the 88A broke even. It got cut because of the mess D&G made with commercial routes in the area (130 and it's 1,500 iterations competing with Arriva). They lost so much money and wanted a way to save money/lower costs so they cut marginal routes was the easiest way.

 

[A0]

It was viable, Cheshire East simply didn't want to subsidise it anymore as a part of cost saving measures.

Your second sentence contradicts the first.

If it was viable it wouldn't need local authority funding as it would be operated commercially.

 

[northwichcat]

Knutsford Station to Longridge or Parkgate is about 1.3 miles.

@AOwen has correctly pointed out that Knutsford is a small town and nearly the whole of its built-up area is within 1 mile of the railway station and town centre.

Knowing the town, it sounds like you are both making conclusions based on looking at Google Maps on your computers.

Type in Longridge in to Google Maps and ask it to calculate the distance to Knutsford station and it comes up with 1.3 miles. But observe the walking route it suggests is from the centre of Longridge when its 0.6 miles from the junction of Longridge and Higher Downs to the one with the junction of Longridge and Mobberley Road. Also observe it sends you along Church Walk, a very quiet road near the station with no street lighting. If you want to walk from the Trading Estate at Longridge to Knutsford station it's 1.5 miles.

Parkgate Industrial Estate has just been expanded. The far end is now beyond where Haig Road ends on Google Maps. It's actually closer to Mobberley station than to Knutsford station but the lack of a lit walking route is again an issue for accessing either station by the shortest route.

There's also a 230 home Parkgate Village under construction, a proposal to build 225 houses opposite Longridge and a 300 home 'Blueberry Village' that would be at the very far end of Manchester Road. If all these are completed it will be around a 4 mile walk from the first house in the town to the last.

Long term if the town doesn't get a circular bus reinstated, it'll need significant enhancements to the 47 and 89 service frequencies, as well as a return to an 88A via Longridge and an 88 via Mobberley Road. A town circular using a single vehicle will likely be the most profitable option.

Many of the 'home to school' contracts are for children with special needs or similar and quite often are provided by taxi companies using cars or minibuses. Most 'home to school' doesn't involve traditional PSV vehicles.

Not correct I'm afraid. The majority of Cheshire contracts are for ordinary saloon cars or minibuses. It's the main source of revenue for numerous local taxi operators.

I think that the responsible thing for Cheshire East to do is get the 391/392 and 19 back to hourly and you might be able to get a hourly 9 run out of the no 14 vehicle in the 28 minutes spare (might need to alter the 58 or 60 if the services normally inter work +/- Whaley Bridge closure.

Other option is see if you can run a half hourly 14 service by taking out some padding.

Alternatively you could just run the 14 bus via Moss Rose Estate and while they’re at it have it go into Lyme Green Industrial Estate.

The 60 could re-route to replace the old 21 section of the no 10 bus in Hurdsfield.

I agree that the most likely option for Macclesfield is to rework the existing services.

I think one thing they should consider is extending the existing 19, 38, 88 and 130 services beyond the bus station to create some cross-town links. It would also make the hospital easier to access.

 

[323235]

Chalk and cheese. Offerton is a large suburb 2.5-3.0 miles from the centre of Stockport and the route to it is via a densely built area, so a regular bus service to the town centre can be justified. @AOwen has correctly pointed out that Knutsford is a small town and nearly the whole of its built-up area is within 1 mile of the railway station and town centre. A town bus service is not viable in such a setting, as both Cheshire East Council and D&G Buses have recognised.

I would disagree - Offerton is surrounded by quite a lot of countryside around it and a valley which has no housing. Most of the housing of the area of the 14,000 population is confined within a mile or so and the every 30 minute evening and early morning bus services were scheduled to be cut recently due to lack of use despite having busy daytime services but were saved by TfGM funding despite being underused.

 

[daodao]

Knowing the town, it sounds like you are both making conclusions based on looking at Google Maps on your computers.

While I do look at maps, I drive through and visit Knutsford on a regular basis, including within the last 24 hours. The town is neither big nor spread-out. The only possible need for internal town bus journeys is between the far end of Longridge and the town centre, and that is catered for by existing interurban route 88 to Wilmslow.

I think one thing they should consider is extending the existing 19, 38, 88 and 130 services beyond the bus station to create some cross-town links. It would also make the hospital easier to access.

Cross-town links would be wasteful of scarce subsidies and too complicated to be feasible. The town centre is less than 1 mile from Macclesfield Hospital. Buses 88 and 130 already serve the hospital, bus 19 already serves the rear entrance to the hospital, and the walk from the Flower Pot Inn (for route 38) along Oxford Road to the hospital is less than 20 minutes.

I would disagree - Offerton is surrounded by quite a lot of countryside around it and a valley which has no housing. Most of the housing of the area of the 14,000 population is confined within a mile or so and the every 30 minute evening and early morning bus services were to be cut recently due to lack of use despite having busy daytime services.

I was referring to the bus service between Offerton and Stockport town centre, a distance of 2.5-3.0 miles. One doesn't need a bus to get about within Offerton. The Offerton area is relatively built up and in the past supported another bus service which I recall from over 40 years ago when I worked at Stepping Hill Hospital (SHH) - route 16 (latterly 316) from SHH to Chorlton-cum-Hardy.

Regarding Arriva's withdrawal from the area, D&G (and other operators) will make proposals that they consider feasible; Cheshire East/West Councils can then (should they wish to do so) provide subsidies to fill any significant gaps.