Competition heats up between Transdev and Connexions

There are roads round Starbeck with restrictions for HGV's. and a general 7.5 ton limit on two of the roads that Conexions used for their first couple of diversions. The 7.5 ton limit has an exemption for emergencies and given that the Police had closed the normal route I don't think that a prosecution has any chance of succeeding. Given that Transdev have a depot at Starbeck full of buses they could be reasonably expected to provide the shuttle, as they have done in the past when required.

SCH117X said:

Admittedly hearsay at work today but apparently Connexions had a driver booked by the Police yesterday for diverting along roads which are access only for the large vehicles due to the A59 being closed at Starbeck due to a fire. Transdev diverted along main roads with a shuttle along the A59 from Harrogate as far as their depot.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't take too much notice of hearsay!!

Seemed quite def re a Connexions driver under Police attention on Stonefall Avenue for a traffic offence

SCH117X said:

Seemed quite def re a Connexions driver under Police attention on Stonefall Avenue for a traffic offence

Click to expand...

As usual an "anti-transdev" comment gets turned into an anti-connexions one.........

Deerfold said:

How much does the 37 charge?

Click to expand...

A lot cheaper and a lot more reliable

96tommy said:

A lot cheaper and a lot more reliable

Click to expand...

It'd have to be extremely cheap to get me to use it given the length and frequency. I would say that's part of the problem, that Transdev have no proper competition, but they don't to Leeds either and that (longer) journey is cheaper.

I would have thought demand from relatively wealthy Tadcaster might be more elastic and cheaper fares might exist to attract passengers. Or does everyone who might switch from the car use Askham Bar anyway? Whatever the answer £8 is a rip-off.

96tommy said:

As usual an "anti-transdev" comment gets turned into an anti-connexions one.........

Click to expand...

I was not aware there was a forum rule re a time interval in introducing a new topic into a thread - can you point it out if it exists, thank you. It certainly was not turning one anti comment into another and re the taddy-yk fares they on the yorkbus twitter feed there is a chart of the fares and that one does somewhat odd in that the return is only relatively slightly cheaper than two singles. Lack of competition affects fares all over the place, you only have to look how both operators fares rocket once you go south or east of Wetherby, and in the case of North Yorkshire operators will seek to maximise income where they can given the appalling rate of concessionary payments by the County Council.

To be honest, there seems to be more anti-Transdev sentiment than anything else on this thread.

Radical idea but perhaps stop all the sniping at whichever firm - it is rather tiresome (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Certainly Connexions ran up Greenfields which has a '7.5t Except for Access' sign on it. Not hearsay or anti-Connexions - just fact. Stonefall can be bad enough in a car due to parked vehicles if you meet something coming the other way, never mind a bus!

96tommy said:

A lot cheaper and a lot more reliable

Click to expand...

How much cheaper?

Unless it's school holidays, you won't get more than 3 hours in York, will you?

theblackwatch said:

Certainly Connexions ran up Greenfields which has a '7.5t Except for Access' sign on it. Not hearsay or anti-Connexions - just fact. Stonefall can be bad enough in a car due to parked vehicles if you meet something coming the other way, never mind a bus!

Click to expand...

Correct - I live on Greenfields what's more they have done it before however I guess if you get trapped travelling towards knaresborough near to Stonefall Avenue it's the obvious choice and means that you can still serve knaresborough road.

Swimbar said:

Correct - I live on Greenfields what's more they have done it before however I guess if you get trapped travelling towards knaresborough near to Stonefall Avenue it's the obvious choice and means that you can still serve knaresborough road.

Click to expand...

They tweet it as their diversion route not an emergency to recover a vehicle. The 7.5T restriction (Sign with 7.5T on the side of a van and one with loading only it below) is in respect of "No goods vehicles over maximum gross weight shown (in tonnes) except for loading and unloading" There would have to an extra sign that has a single deck bus on it to prohibit buses with more than 8 passenger seats. (Odds on one appearing?) The issue that can crop on a congested road is if the driver of a vehicle through attempting to pass along it becomes stuck so blocking the road for anyone else then they can fall foul of Section 137 of the 1980 Highways Act in that they have caused a wilful obstruction of the highway, presumably based on a judgement of how obvious was it that they could not pass through.

158756 said:

It'd have to be extremely cheap to get me to use it given the length and frequency. I would say that's part of the problem, that Transdev have no proper competition, but they don't to Leeds either and that (longer) journey is cheaper.

I would have thought demand from relatively wealthy Tadcaster might be more elastic and cheaper fares might exist to attract passengers. Or does everyone who might switch from the car use Askham Bar anyway? Whatever the answer £8 is a rip-off.

Click to expand...

Its a lot cheaper for regular uses, anyway travelling to/from York more than 3 times a week can use a weekly York Plus ticket for the same price as 3 return journeys (£24) while a monthly York Plus ticket is £82 (equating to 10 and a quarter returns).

SCH117X said:

Its a lot cheaper for regular uses, anyway travelling to/from York more than 3 times a week can use a weekly York Plus ticket for the same price as 3 return journeys (£24) while a monthly York Plus ticket is £82 (equating to 10 and a quarter returns).

Click to expand...

Can't see that on the website - only offerings for regular travellers on Coastliner seem to be Leeds or Gold - which can't be good for usage if they're neglecting to advertise a better value ticket. £24/£82 isn't fantastic value for that length of journey anyway. Suppose it's better than paying the same amount to travel between Burnley and Nelson though.

The 7 / 28 day fares are on the mobile app; maybe they are not available elsewhere, then again if they are the prices may differ - one of the Harrogate local ones was £3 cheaper at the bus station kiosk than on the mobile app the last time I bought it.

158756 said:

Can't see that on the website - only offerings for regular travellers on Coastliner seem to be Leeds or Gold - which can't be good for usage if they're neglecting to advertise a better value ticket. £24/£82 isn't fantastic value for that length of journey anyway. Suppose it's better than paying the same amount to travel between Burnley and Nelson though.

Click to expand...

It's there as a Zone 3 ticket.
They also do 12 single tickets for £38 which makes a return £6.33.

Deerfold said:

It's there as a Zone 3 ticket.
They also do 12 single tickets for £38 which makes a return £6.33.

Click to expand...

And the 7 day ticket if used every day makes a return £3.43 or £4.70 if only used for 5 days, while the 28 day ticket works out at £2.93 if used every day or £4.10 if only used for 4 x 5 days.

TheGrandWazoo said:

To be honest, there seems to be more anti-Transdev sentiment than anything else on this thread.

Radical idea but perhaps stop all the sniping at whichever firm - it is rather tiresome (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

Click to expand...

Don't know what thread you've been reading to state there is more anti-transdev.

Deerfold said:

How much cheaper?

Unless it's school holidays, you won't get more than 3 hours in York, will you?

Click to expand...

I never need more than 3 hours in York anyway. The 37 is a fantastically run service, never been on one which has been delayed heavily or cancelled which is no longer a common occurrence when travelling on Coastliner to York

96tommy said:

Don't know what thread you've been reading to state there is more anti-transdev.

Click to expand...

This one and mainly, though not exclusively, from you. The level of opprobrium on both sides is tiresome but it seems to be more anti-Transdev especially in the last few months.

You have an issue with Transdev - we get it! It is just getting very dull with the "CityZap is always empty, Transdev are unreliable, Transdev are expensive" stuff.

Perhaps the latter bit is explained by you being a York City fan, as I guess the financial side of things perhaps passes you by......

Transdev have "Its Coming Home" on a number of destination displays.

TheGrandWazoo said:

This one and mainly, though not exclusively, from you. The level of opprobrium on both sides is tiresome but it seems to be more anti-Transdev especially in the last few months.

Click to expand...

I'm tentatively wading in to this debate. I think it very much came in response to another poster's sentiments which certainly seemed to favour Transdev to my untrained eyes.

TheGrandWazoo said:

CityZap is always empty, Transdev are unreliable, Transdev are expensive" stuff.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the reliability of Transdev's service overall (I will defer to others' better knowledge of the subject, though the facts seem to suggest some degree of fluctuation), but the other bits are, well, true! £8 for Tadcaster to York is thoroughly exorbitant, whatever way you look at it.

I can't see CityZap York-Leeds lasting for much longer if the market doesn't grow. A quick service would make sense if it served Tadcaster too - but, prior to CityZap's inception, anyone who wanted to avoid the price of a train ticket would probably have used Coastliner anyway.

I know that it's all to easy to put spin on pieces of information, but I fail to see how these facts can somehow be subjective.

TheGrandWazoo said:

Perhaps the latter bit is explained by you being a York City fan, as I guess the financial side of things perhaps passes you by......

Click to expand...

That's an unwarranted low blow! Your club's obviously never been managed by Jackie McNamara.

---------------------------------------------------

In any case, I guess it all boils down to this:

Transdev are overpriced and hubristic. Connexions are unprofessional and pugilistic.

Say what you like about either, but both companies have their shortcomings (which - at best - appear extensive). Their juvenile lack of co-operation should have been tackled by North Yorkshire CC by now, but they seem afraid - or ignorant of the need - to get involved and bash some heads together. It really is a sorry state of affairs.

158756 said:

It'd have to be extremely cheap to get me to use it given the length and frequency. I would say that's part of the problem, that Transdev have no proper competition, but they don't to Leeds either and that (longer) journey is cheaper.

I would have thought demand from relatively wealthy Tadcaster might be more elastic and cheaper fares might exist to attract passengers. Or does everyone who might switch from the car use Askham Bar anyway? Whatever the answer £8 is a rip-off.

Click to expand...

Actually, Connexions, if you have the means required and want a bit of good press: there's the job for you. Apply to run a couple of peak-time buses, with perhaps some others at well spaced-out intervals throughout the day, from Tadcaster direct and fast into Leeds, perhaps continuing to somewhere like the White Rose Centre. You won't be beaten for timings. Call it The White Rose Line, or The Leodensian or something like that ('Tadfaster' has already been done)

Let's have a bit more competition. Spice things up a bit.

backontrack said:

I'm tentatively wading in to this debate. I think it very much came in response to another poster's sentiments which certainly seemed to favour Transdev to my untrained eyes.

I don't know about the reliability of Transdev's service overall (I will defer to others' better knowledge of the subject, though the facts seem to suggest some degree of fluctuation), but the other bits are, well, true! £8 for Tadcaster to York is thoroughly exorbitant, whatever way you look at it.

I can't see CityZap York-Leeds lasting for much longer if the market doesn't grow. A quick service would make sense if it served Tadcaster too - but, prior to CityZap's inception, anyone who wanted to avoid the price of a train ticket would probably have used Coastliner anyway.

I know that it's all to easy to put spin on pieces of information, but I fail to see how these facts can somehow be subjective.


That's an unwarranted low blow! Your club's obviously never been managed by Jackie McNamara.

---------------------------------------------------

In any case, I guess it all boils down to this:

Transdev are overpriced and hubristic. Connexions are unprofessional and pugilistic.

Say what you like about either, but both companies have their shortcomings (which - at best - appear extensive). Their juvenile lack of co-operation should have been tackled by North Yorkshire CC by now, but they seem afraid - or ignorant of the need - to get involved and bash some heads together. It really is a sorry state of affairs.

Click to expand...

I think I've said before that the conduct of both sides is lamentable. Whilst some time ago, it may have been more pro Transdev, I really don't think that's the case now and, in any case, the continued sniping by proponents on either side is just tiresome.

In response to your other points - ref: the situation in the relationship between the two operators and waiting for NYCC to get involved? Think that'll be a cold day in hell. They're not interested and, to be honest, think they are more than happy in having the competition to keep tender prices down.

The £8 fare is high but, as has been pointed out, this can be considerably lower for regular passengers. The problem is sadly the derisory level of ENCTS reimbursement that promotes a culture (and this is an industry wide problem) that non regular, cash fares are pushed up to get the reimbursement up. NYCC are one of the worst offenders for meagre reimbursement!

Now, CityZap is an interesting one. There has been criticism from some re: the York to Leeds one from day one. One particular criticism was that Tadcaster lost its enhanced frequency when we all know that the historic frequency has been every 30 mins (back in the days of the 43/44/46) and that it was a distortion caused by competition.

One poster continued reporting single figure patronage and that it's demise was imminent - my experience was that particular service has carried reasonable loadings (when visiting relatives just near Askham Bar). Now, I do accept my observations, as those of others, are BOTH subjective or perhaps more correctly, a limited snapshot. What isn't subjective is that the service has continued to develop and that they felt confident enough to extend it to a second service - hardly the behaviour adopted when you have had a pup or evidence of spin. The second CityZap just emphasised that. I was always concerned as to how CityZap MCR would find a niche - one that wasn't covered by TPE or NatEx. It didn't and it's been culled very quickly - don't think that would happen were they to be losing their shirts on CityZap YK.

The football reference a low blow? They did choose Jackie McNamara. They have also chosen to indulge in a level of financial doping too though, to be honest, they're no worse than other clubs in the National Leagues (e.g. Billericay, Spennymoor, etc) though their inducement of their current manager (and his subsequent conduct) could perhaps suggest greater parallels between York City FC and Transdev than 96tommy would care to acknowledge!

backontrack said:

Transdev are overpriced and hubristic. Connexions are unprofessional and pugilistic.

Click to expand...

Overpriced depends where you are. I get 5 non-consecutive day tickets valid between my house and town (and similar distances on other routes) for £12. Even if I bought on the bus, they'd be £3 for 1.

I am annoyed that I used to have a reasonable connection every other hour at Otley to get to Harrogate. I gained direct services for a while. Now, after all the faffing between the two companies, my connection just misses, making it faster to travel by rail via Leeds as well as cheaper.

backontrack said:

Say what you like about either, but both companies have their shortcomings (which - at best - appear extensive). Their juvenile lack of co-operation should have been tackled by North Yorkshire CC by now, but they seem afraid - or ignorant of the need - to get involved and bash some heads together. It really is a sorry state of affairs.

Click to expand...

It does seem that the companies really don't like each other - both companies seem happy to work with other bus companies, just not each other.

North Yorkshire CC aren't going to get involved, largely because they have very few powers to do anything about competition or lack of co-operation between the two.

TheGrandWazoo said:

The football reference a low blow? They did choose Jackie McNamara. They have also chosen to indulge in a level of financial doping too though, to be honest, they're no worse than other clubs in the National Leagues (e.g. Billericay, Spennymoor, etc) though their inducement of their current manager (and his subsequent conduct) could perhaps suggest greater parallels between York City FC and Transdev than 96tommy would care to acknowledge!

Click to expand...

Without wishing to drag this conversation off-topic: you have no idea what it is like to be a York City fan. Whatever the team do financially is not endorsed by the fans. This sorry state of affairs is not something that any of us wanted. I would suggest that you drop the matter now. None of us want to hear about it.

(Incidentally, the problem with McNamara was that the chairman, Jason McGill, was unwilling to sack him, likely because McNamara had contributed financially to the club's running. This was despite the fact that McNamara - who also played a big part in Dundee United's relegation - had an absolutely dismal record of one win in 16 games and none in 2017. As soon as Gary Mills was re-appointed, McNamara was given a place on the board of directors as the club's 'Chief Executive'. The whole sorry state of affairs helped to cause another relegation, and a club that narrowly missed out on the League Two play-off final in 2014 were languishing in the National League North by 2017. We've had our share of awful chairmen; the sooner that McGill is out, the better.)

TheGrandWazoo said:

In response to your other points - ref: the situation in the relationship between the two operators and waiting for NYCC to get involved? Think that'll be a cold day in hell. They're not interested and, to be honest, think they are more than happy in having the competition to keep tender prices down.

Click to expand...

Sadly, yes.

The £8 fare is high but, as has been pointed out, this can be considerably lower for regular passengers. The problem is sadly the derisory level of ENCTS reimbursement that promotes a culture (and this is an industry wide problem) that non regular, cash fares are pushed up to get the reimbursement up. NYCC are one of the worst offenders for meagre reimbursement!

TheGrandWazoo said:

Now, CityZap is an interesting one. There has been criticism from some re: the York to Leeds one from day one. One particular criticism was that Tadcaster lost its enhanced frequency when we all know that the historic frequency has been every 30 mins (back in the days of the 43/44/46) and that it was a distortion caused by competition.

Click to expand...

'Normal' passengers don't care about historic frequencies. It is a given that any drop in service frequency will be regarded by them as a BAD THING, because they used to get more buses than they do now. It's easy to overthink these things but that is how it seems on paper.

TheGrandWazoo said:

One poster continued reporting single figure patronage and that it's demise was imminent - my experience was that particular service has carried reasonable loadings (when visiting relatives just near Askham Bar). Now, I do accept my observations, as those of others, are BOTH subjective or perhaps more correctly, a limited snapshot. What isn't subjective is that the service has continued to develop and that they felt confident enough to extend it to a second service - hardly the behaviour adopted when you have had a pup or evidence of spin. The second CityZap just emphasised that. I was always concerned as to how CityZap MCR would find a niche - one that wasn't covered by TPE or NatEx. It didn't and it's been culled very quickly - don't think that would happen were they to be losing their shirts on CityZap YK.

Click to expand...

I still have doubts that the service will continue to be viable for much longer. After all: where will Transdev look first if they have to make cutbacks?

backontrack said:

Without wishing to drag this conversation off-topic: you have no idea what it is like to be a York City fan. Whatever the team do financially is not endorsed by the fans. This sorry state of affairs is not something that any of us wanted. I would suggest that you drop the matter now. None of us want to hear about it.

(Incidentally, the problem with McNamara was that the chairman, Jason McGill, was unwilling to sack him, likely because McNamara had contributed financially to the club's running. This was despite the fact that McNamara - who also played a big part in Dundee United's relegation - had an absolutely dismal record of one win in 16 games and none in 2017. As soon as Gary Mills was re-appointed, McNamara was given a place on the board of directors as the club's 'Chief Executive'. The whole sorry state of affairs helped to cause another relegation, and a club that narrowly missed out on the League Two play-off final in 2014 were languishing in the National League North by 2017. We've had our share of awful chairmen; the sooner that McGill is out, the better.)

'Normal' passengers don't care about historic frequencies. It is a given that any drop in service frequency will be regarded by them as a BAD THING, because they used to get more buses than they do now. It's easy to overthink these things but that is how it seems on paper.

I still have doubts that the service will continue to be viable for much longer. After all: where will Transdev look first if they have to make cutbacks?

Click to expand...

To respond:

Didn't realise I'd touched such a nerve - and after saying drop the matter, you then go on about it! I take the point about the difference between the club ownership and the fans wishes - really, I do having similarly suffered. I was merely drawing the parallel between bus company ownership/management and the drivers. Oh, and before you suffer altitude sickness on your high horse about having "no idea" about your pain.... I've had much more to deal with following my team!!!

Back on topic....

As for historic frequencies, the half hourly pattern had been there since time in memoriam, from when it was a joint WYRCC/EYMS through into sole operation by WY and then the various changes until the Transdev era. That the frequency was uplifted to every 15 mins was unlikely to be sustainable - it was a short term distortion and one that has been reflected 1000's of times as operators respond to competitive incursions. Sometimes, a frequency increase (whether by competition or not) can sufficiently stimulate demand as to make it sustainable - see the Ripon to Harrogate section of the 36. However, often it is not and frequencies settle back to the historic, sustainable level. That is the reality, irrespective of how used to increased frequencies people get in the short term.

If Transdev need to make cutbacks.... well any axe will fall where it needs to. Now, that could be CityZap YK but NONE of us know the financial performance of that route or, indeed, any of the Transdev empire. Could just as easily be a rationalisation of Rosso or further trimming in Lancashire?

TheGrandWazoo said:

To respond:

Didn't realise I'd touched such a nerve - and after saying drop the matter, you then go on about it! I take the point about the difference between the club ownership and the fans wishes - really, I do having similarly suffered. I was merely drawing the parallel between bus company ownership/management and the drivers. Oh, and before you suffer altitude sickness on your high horse about having "no idea" about your pain.... I've had much more to deal with following my team!!!

Click to expand...

I wanted to try to put the matter to bed, you see. And don't accuse me of being on my 'high horse'. Just because your club's been through worse doesn't give you a right to be insensitive. In any case, let's bury this here.

TheGrandWazoo said:

As for historic frequencies, the half hourly pattern had been there since time in memoriam, from when it was a joint WYRCC/EYMS through into sole operation by WY and then the various changes until the Transdev era. That the frequency was uplifted to every 15 mins was unlikely to be sustainable - it was a short term distortion and one that has been reflected 1000's of times as operators respond to competitive incursions. Sometimes, a frequency increase (whether by competition or not) can sufficiently stimulate demand as to make it sustainable - see the Ripon to Harrogate section of the 36. However, often it is not and frequencies settle back to the historic, sustainable level. That is the reality, irrespective of how used to increased frequencies people get in the short term.

Click to expand...

I don't debate that point. However, it is always worth mentioning that public perception of the reduction in frequency is hardly going to be affected by historic frequency levels. If they give you an 'improvement' - however unwarranted - and then take it away again, you can't expect people to be pleased.

TheGrandWazoo said:

If Transdev need to make cutbacks.... well any axe will fall where it needs to. Now, that could be CityZap YK but NONE of us know the financial performance of that route or, indeed, any of the Transdev empire. Could just as easily be a rationalisation of Rosso or further trimming in Lancashire?

Click to expand...

I have a feeling that CityZap Leeds-York would be somewhere that Transdev looked at for cutbacks. Just a hunch, mind, but I wouldn't bet on that route still being here in five years' time. Let me explain why.

There is a degree of duplication on the Leeds-York corridor, with CityZap, the long-established route via Tadcaster that Coastliner now runs and the rail route too. To my mind, the CityZap represents a compromise between the latter two; faster than Coastliner, cheaper than the train, but neither the fastest nor the cheapest (a jack of all trades, but a master of none). It also doesn't stop anyway apart from the bus station in Leeds (unless this has changed), which is inconvenient for those who'd rather be at the eastern end of town. Anyone who wants to be in Leeds or York quickly will probably go for the train (TransPennine and CrossCountry services take half as long as the CityZap to reach either city), and anyone who wants the cheapest fare would probably go for the Coastliner anyway. The CityZap is therefore targeting the people in-between, but will its market be sustainable indefinitely? Look at the X64 and the 743. One was brought in to challenge the other, but now neither are running anymore - once one went, the other was ditched. Transdev didn't want to keep it.

The CityZap may well be doing fantastically. We don't know. But I think that it is something that Transdev could afford to lose simply because they have the luxury of that duplication. Get rid of the CityZap and they still have a monopoly on York-Leeds bus services. Those who don't want to travel by rail can still take the Coastliner; true, it'll take 20 minutes longer, but it's been like that with no fast Leeds-York service since time immemorial - so nobody will mind, as you yourself said earlier. Right? Also: although Transdev would lose some passengers back to the trains if they ditched the CityZap, they were doing perfectly all right without that custom before the service was set up. And they could easily just strip out all the off-peak buses and still operate the CityZap at peak times - not convenient for everyone, but an effective way of reducing the service while it still retains some usefulness.

I retain my right to be sceptical, as I'm sure others do to. It's important that we do continue to scrutinise Transdev and Connexions - after all, if we don't do it, who on Earth else is going to?

TheGrandWazoo said:

To respond:

Sometimes, a frequency increase (whether by competition or not) can sufficiently stimulate demand as to make it sustainable - see the Ripon to Harrogate section of the 36.

Click to expand...

That's been cut back recently with the advent of the 10 minute daytime interval between Leeds and Harrogate the section on to Ripon has dropped back to a 20 minute interval whereas previously both had briefly a 15 minute interval. Historically there was a 30 minute interval on both sections with a hourly WYRCC/United Leeds-Ripon working boosted with a hourly WYRCC Leeds-Harrogate working and a hourly Ripon-Harrogate United X36, which used the Ripley bypass and the current 36 route in Harrogate compared to the wandering through northern Harrogate that the 36 used to take. After H&D took on United Ripon depot the X36 changed to a 36A running through to Leeds (again via the current 36 route in Harrogate but serving Ripley) then the service was boosted to every 20 minutes with a solitary 36 and two 36As a hour (the increased PVR was achieved by axing the X50 (York-)Harrogate-Otley-Ilkley-Skipton service. Shortly after the arrival of the original 36 Geminis the wandering 36 route in northern Harrogate was abandoned and only shortly after raised pavements were installed at the bus stops, many of which have been abandoned ever since. Further cuts come to the Harrogate-Ripon section from Jul 22 with three evening peak workings from Leeds diverted at Harrogate to run in service to the Starbeck depot.

backontrack said:

I wanted to try to put the matter to bed, you see. And don't accuse me of being on my 'high horse'. Just because your club's been through worse doesn't give you a right to be insensitive. In any case, let's bury this here.


I don't debate that point. However, it is always worth mentioning that public perception of the reduction in frequency is hardly going to be affected by historic frequency levels. If they give you an 'improvement' - however unwarranted - and then take it away again, you can't expect people to be pleased.


I have a feeling that CityZap Leeds-York would be somewhere that Transdev looked at for cutbacks. Just a hunch, mind, but I wouldn't bet on that route still being here in five years' time. Let me explain why.

There is a degree of duplication on the Leeds-York corridor, with CityZap, the long-established route via Tadcaster that Coastliner now runs and the rail route too. To my mind, the CityZap represents a compromise between the latter two; faster than Coastliner, cheaper than the train, but neither the fastest nor the cheapest (a jack of all trades, but a master of none). It also doesn't stop anyway apart from the bus station in Leeds (unless this has changed), which is inconvenient for those who'd rather be at the eastern end of town. Anyone who wants to be in Leeds or York quickly will probably go for the train (TransPennine and CrossCountry services take half as long as the CityZap to reach either city), and anyone who wants the cheapest fare would probably go for the Coastliner anyway. The CityZap is therefore targeting the people in-between, but will its market be sustainable indefinitely? Look at the X64 and the 743. One was brought in to challenge the other, but now neither are running anymore - once one went, the other was ditched. Transdev didn't want to keep it.

The CityZap may well be doing fantastically. We don't know. But I think that it is something that Transdev could afford to lose simply because they have the luxury of that duplication. Get rid of the CityZap and they still have a monopoly on York-Leeds bus services. Those who don't want to travel by rail can still take the Coastliner; true, it'll take 20 minutes longer, but it's been like that with no fast Leeds-York service since time immemorial - so nobody will mind, as you yourself said earlier. Right? Also: although Transdev would lose some passengers back to the trains if they ditched the CityZap, they were doing perfectly all right without that custom before the service was set up. And they could easily just strip out all the off-peak buses and still operate the CityZap at peak times - not convenient for everyone, but an effective way of reducing the service while it still retains some usefulness.

I retain my right to be sceptical, as I'm sure others do to. It's important that we do continue to scrutinise Transdev and Connexions - after all, if we don't do it, who on Earth else is going to?

Click to expand...

Insensitive?? I didn't realise you were so bereft of a sense of humour/perspective at Kit Kat Crescent. Believe me, I wasn't trolling - it was tongue in cheek remark in the first instance. Really

Now, in terms of the frequency reduction, I'm not expecting street parties when such news is announced. However, I was referring to the posts on this thread and I generally regard people on these boards as having a modicum more insight than the average member of the general public. Am I wrong in that?

People on this board know what happens - we see it all the time and have done for the last 30 years. It was an increase to tackle an issue - issue disappears, frequency is unsustainable commercially, and we return to normal. My bus to work (a few years ago) was every 30 mins and suddenly a competitor appeared. Cue 6 buses an hour - even the general public (let alone us more interested observers) knew it was crazy! When peace was restored, so was the old frequency and we all shrugged.

Lastly, the future of CityZap York. Well, who knows what anything will look like in the next five years? In 2007, we had no idea what was ahead in terms of the financial collapse and recession. In 2012, we didn't know we'd have two elections and Brexit to have to deal with. A lot happens in five years - I look at my local network and the change in five years has been immense.

Now, if CityZap is performing well (I don't know if it is and I do find the press releases about "searing" or "scintillating" passenger figures grating though don't know), is it doing so at the expense of Coastliner? If it is cannibalising patronage, then you have a point. If not, you don't. If it isn't, then all that will happen is that they will lose a profitable service. If it is, then you'd question why they then extended the concept to Manchester?

You can be sceptical as much as you like but at the moment, I doubt that Alex Hornby would be supporting a dud service - he's just culled another.