• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cheshire Bus News (was East Cheshire Bus News)

Status
Not open for further replies.

markymark2000

Established Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
4,112
Location
Western Part of the UK
Do they have the authority for that? ;)

More seriously, the 130 route and the Wilmslow-Knutsford-Macclesfield part of the 88 are two of the most essential routes in Cheshire East due to them meeting employment, education and healthcare needs of local residents, so they shouldn't be any doubt that a decent service level should get funding if no operator is willing to operate them commercially. However, it seems the routes that were once commercial get a bad deal because they only get the little bit of emergency funding, while less important routes get higher levels of funding.

There is no guarantee a new contract will cost £120k. It might be if Arriva are the only interested party then it's a lot more than that, while if D&G and Go Goodwins both bid and are both expecting the other party to bid then they'll bid as low as possible.
You would think that would be case but this is CEC we are talking about. IF they thought they could get away with it, they would fund no buses. The ex commercial routes are interesting as with only a small bit of TLC and partnership working, these routes could become commercial again. It's CECs and operators lack of willingness to make the network half decent which leads to these issues. Long standing tendered routes have a long way to go before being viable. On a line from -10 to +10 with 0 being breaking even. Routes like the 130 may have just slipped from +1 to 0 break even or from 0 break even to -1 meaning to make it back to viable, it would take a lot less than say Nantwich locals which may be at -5 on the commercial viability scale.

There is no guarantee that the contract would cost £120k but the going rate based on current contracts is 90-110k per bus so it depends on how much revenue is taken on the bus. If the route keeps being messed around though, people will give up on it and the contract will cost more as there will be a lot less revenue.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Redmike

Member
Joined
13 May 2018
Messages
150
It's not so long since Handforth had an hourly 378 to Stockport and a half hourly 130 to Manchester and Macclesfield, now they're struggling to get an hourly Solo to Macc. It seems to symbolise the way things have gone in Cheshire East. Big estates like Colshaw Farm had 3 buses an hour in each direction and now can barely justify 1 bus.
 

Martin1988

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2012
Messages
908
Have noticed that on Service 3 (Hanley to Crewe) the last departure from Hanley on Monday to Saturday is now at 1930 whereas on Sunday there's an additional journey to Radway Green at 2030.

Is there any reason as to why the 2030 journey would have been curtailed to Sunday only? Seems a bit odd in the current climate and in an area where Sunday services have been scaled back over the last few years.
 

Simon75

On Moderation
Joined
25 May 2016
Messages
1,135
Have noticed that on Service 3 (Hanley to Crewe) the last departure from Hanley on Monday to Saturday is now at 1930 whereas on Sunday there's an additional journey to Radway Green at 2030.

Is there any reason as to why the 2030 journey would have been curtailed to Sunday only? Seems a bit odd in the current climate and in an area where Sunday services have been scaled back over the last few years.
There has been 20.30 Monday to Saturday Hanley to Radway Green for a long time now up until at least early January, but could be temporarily withdrawn
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,400
There has been 20.30 Monday to Saturday Hanley to Radway Green for a long time now up until at least early January, but could be temporarily withdrawn
It would suggest, if it ran and has been withdrawn, that few people caught it.
 

Martin1988

Member
Joined
17 Jul 2012
Messages
908
I'm guessing that usage must have played a part but do find it odd that it would have been withdrawn on Monday to Saturday evenings but be running on Sunday. Is it maybe a way of getting an extra shift in for a driver and avoiding them having to be furloughed?
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Could a service still running on Sunday relate to the operator getting a subsidy to run it and the contract being based on low numbers anyway, meaning there's no issues maintaining the existing service even due to COVID? However, if Mon to Sat is commercial and no-one's using the last bus, then the last bus goes.
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,400
As it only goes to Radway, I'm assuming it's private back to depot too, so if low numbers it really isn't worth operating. No commercial business will operate a loss- maker just to avoid furloughing someone, cheaper to furlough them than wrack up company debts
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,334
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
You would think that would be case but this is CEC we are talking about. IF they thought they could get away with it, they would fund no buses.
Councils like Cheshire East, Stoke, Salop, Cumbria and North Yorkshire Councils have a prudent approach to bus service subsidies, in contrast to the profligacy of TfGM. Money does not grow on trees.

The only bus services for which subsidy is justified are key interurban links during Mon-Sat daytime.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
The only bus services for which subsidy is justified are key interurban links during Mon-Sat daytime.

So a bus service which carries people who work in hospitals or care homes on Sundays is not essential in your view? Perhaps you think a hospital only needs cleaning Mon-Sat or patients don't need to eat on Sundays.

With regards to Cheshire East vs TfGM, I think it's a shame it's Cheshire East who are the ones saying a bus service is not required because it's possible to get there using either two buses via an indirect route or a bus+train but it's TfGM who do integrated ticketing and have higher frequencies, who do fund bus services when there's an indirect alternative.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,243
Location
UK
The only bus services for which subsidy is justified are key interurban links during Mon-Sat daytime.

Routes going to hospital (via town centres or not) are key. To get to hospital from the local village centre requires 3 separate buses. The main (exclusive) bus users are elderly.


So a bus service which carries people who work in hospitals or care homes on Sundays is not essential in your view?

Buses don't run at midnight either so how do you get back from a late shift?
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Buses don't run at midnight either so how do you get back from a late shift?
There is an argument for hospitals to get better bus services anyway.

Which roles are you referring to when you refer to late shifts and what times do those end? Surgeons and specialists will probably be least likely to need a bus to get home. Nurses doing night shifts seem to do 4 quite long shifts (with breaks) per week so they aren't generally changing over at midnight or at 4am. I doubt many hospital canteens are open until late but I do appreciate the staff will be there for a while after food is no longer served.

The main (exclusive) bus users are elderly.

Part of the reason for that is services which would be useful for commuters have been cut back so additional drivers and vehicles don't need to be sourced for school runs in the morning peak. Improving bus services so people who need to make 5 return journeys per week and would pay for those journeys, could actually use the bus for those journeys is a no brainier. With more fare paying passengers, it increases the chance of the bus route getting an enhanced service which would benefit everyone. The benefit would extend to local businesses who are less likely to have issues recruiting someone who can work the hours the business ideally needs them to work.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,334
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Routes going to hospital (via town centres or not) are key. To get to hospital from the local village centre requires 3 separate buses. The main (exclusive) bus users are elderly.
The Anglo-Saxon and Celtic world seems incapable of land use planning when it comes to constructing new hospitals, building them in out-of-the way sites where there just happens to be some relatively cheap spare land.

Compare the public transport access of the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport (where I used to work) with that of its replacement, the Grange University Hospital in Llanfrechfa. Just 1 bus service (Newport 29B) serves this new hospital on a basic hourly daytime schedule, with a few morning and early evening extra journeys, but no Sunday or late evening service. Gwent's other major hospital (Nevill Hall, Abergavenny) has no evening bus service after 1830, although one route serving it (X43 to Brecon) does have a limited Sunday service of 5 buses each way.

On topic, there are no late evening or Sunday buses to Leighton Hospital (Crewe) either, with just 3 departures on weekdays after 1832 until the last service to Crewe at 2012. Similarly, there are no evening (after 1900) or Sunday buses serving Macclesfield Hospital.
 

markymark2000

Established Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
4,112
Location
Western Part of the UK
With regards to Cheshire East vs TfGM, I think it's a shame it's Cheshire East who are the ones saying a bus service is not required because it's possible to get there using either two buses via an indirect route or a bus+train but it's TfGM who do integrated ticketing and have higher frequencies, who do fund bus services when there's an indirect alternative.
TFGM are now doing quite the opposite and often allowing change of buses however change of buses is only being justified if it's a proper changing point, not just a random mutual stop in the middle of nowhere (so bus stations, town centres). The frequencies are normally hourly or higher.
Integrated ticketing is actually quite separate to TFGM, it's the transport operators working together TFGM by and large have little to do with it. Infact, TFGM make it harder for integrated travel by specifying such high prices for the trams in the integrated ticketing.

I think the key difference between TFGM and CEC is the budget. TFGM has to spend their budget on transport but CEC has a lot of other goings on. There isn't much competition and so contracts cost a lot and with the borough mainly being older people, passes don't make money and so CEC ends up paying a lot more out since revenue covers a lot less of the costs.
In the position that CEC is in, it's much easier and cheaper to sit back and manage decline than it is to try and make buses more attractive to passengers.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
There isn't much competition

I think CEC are to blame for that. There was lots of interest in the old 88 Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford and 300 Knutsford circular but now it's one contract which covers the old 27, 88, 188, 289 and 300 routes. So does a Greater Manchester operator, which has a number of services in the Altrincham area, want a contract which includes Northwich and Macclesfield and which requires them to run a Knutsford Academy school service? It might be fewer vehicles and drivers are required for the combined contract but if there's less competition, are there any real benefits from it?
 

markymark2000

Established Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
4,112
Location
Western Part of the UK
I think CEC are to blame for that. There was lots of interest in the old 88 Altrincham-Wilmslow-Knutsford and 300 Knutsford circular but now it's one contract which covers the old 27, 88, 188, 289 and 300 routes. So does a Greater Manchester operator, which has a number of services in the Altrincham area, want a contract which includes Northwich and Macclesfield and which requires them to run a Knutsford Academy school service? It might be fewer vehicles and drivers are required for the combined contract but if there's less competition, are there any real benefits from it?
I agree. Smaller contracts get more companies bidding but even taking that out of the equation, there isn't many companies around who want service work, are open the hours which the contracts operate and are close enough to run the services. Even if you take into account neighbouring authorities, the depots are too far away for anyone to make money.

A South Manchester bus operator would be on the cards for Wilmslow services but there simply isn't one anymore. Stagecoach run everything and they don't want CEC contracts. Diamond are miles away in Eccles. Goodwins are again Eccles and they are trying to reign in some of their contracts with longer distance contracts seemingly going in high and if they win, they can cover costs, if they lose, they lose nothing. Selwyns don't want bus services really.

All of this is how South Manchester and the northern area of Cheshire East has such a bad bus network, operators are too far away for commercial viability and too far away to give fair prices to councils for tenders.

Then add in the 2 main operators are then taking in these contracts for granted meaning higher prices.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
I agree. Smaller contracts get more companies bidding but even taking that out of the equation, there isn't many companies around who want service work, are open the hours which the contracts operate and are close enough to run the services. Even if you take into account neighbouring authorities, the depots are too far away for anyone to make money.

A South Manchester bus operator would be on the cards for Wilmslow services but there simply isn't one anymore. Stagecoach run everything and they don't want CEC contracts. Diamond are miles away in Eccles. Goodwins are again Eccles and they are trying to reign in some of their contracts with longer distance contracts seemingly going in high and if they win, they can cover costs, if they lose, they lose nothing. Selwyns don't want bus services really.

All of this is how South Manchester and the northern area of Cheshire East has such a bad bus network, operators are too far away for commercial viability and too far away to give fair prices to councils for tenders.

Then add in the 2 main operators are then taking in these contracts for granted meaning higher prices.

There's Arriva to consider as well, they used to run the 88 from their Wythenshawe depot but they've not got many South Manchester routes left now.

Go Goodwins run the Macclesfield to Stockport contract and they've run the Knutsford Christmas Markets Park & Ride service for the past few years using one of the deckers. They have also said they'll be operating Sunday 88 services between Altrincham and Wilmslow from April.

Swans operated buses in Wilmslow and Knutsford at one point, possibly trying to prove to TfGM they could run bus services ahead of bidding for TfGM contracts?

I don't think Cheshire East awarding 5 year contracts to replace the old GHA routes and then deciding to terminate the contracts after 18 months did any good either. I remember Howards Travel got some almost new buses for their 5 year contracts and then they didn't stay around long after those contracts were terminated. They had to bid against D&G for the new 'super route' to continue to have any use for those buses and to be fair the 'super route' was a 4 vehicle contract, while D&G's previous 88 contract was a 5 vehicle contract so they didn't do that well out of it either.

Just thinking about that contract, D&G also got the Handforth Dean free bus contract which meant they didn't need to use one of the 88 vehicles for the 188 in the afternoon. Was it not Go Goodwins who had that before D&G?
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
to be fair the 'super route' was a 4 vehicle contract
You raise a good point. At the time, they had a Scania & volvo Wright and a Metrocity, they only needed 1 more suitable length bus and Bob was their uncle. But they're such a small operator, that it would've been difficult to outbid the Peddle empire.
 

markymark2000

Established Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
4,112
Location
Western Part of the UK
There's Arriva to consider as well, they used to run the 88 from their Wythenshawe depot but they've not got many South Manchester routes left now.

Go Goodwins run the Macclesfield to Stockport contract and they've run the Knutsford Christmas Markets Park & Ride service for the past few years using one of the deckers. They have also said they'll be operating Sunday 88 services between Altrincham and Wilmslow from April.

Swans operated buses in Wilmslow and Knutsford at one point, possibly trying to prove to TfGM they could run bus services ahead of bidding for TfGM contracts?

I don't think Cheshire East awarding 5 year contracts to replace the old GHA routes and then deciding to terminate the contracts after 18 months did any good either. I remember Howards Travel got some almost new buses for their 5 year contracts and then they didn't stay around long after those contracts were terminated. They had to bid against D&G for the new 'super route' to continue to have any use for those buses and to be fair the 'super route' was a 4 vehicle contract, while D&G's previous 88 contract was a 5 vehicle contract so they didn't do that well out of it either.

Just thinking about that contract, D&G also got the Handforth Dean free bus contract which meant they didn't need to use one of the 88 vehicles for the 188 in the afternoon. Was it not Go Goodwins who had that before D&G?
Arriva don't care about Winsford and they want so much profit that they win basically no tenders anymore.

GoGoodwins could be a possibility for some routes now they have started back up Little Gem. They have given up some Stockport tenders though so I would edge towards the fact they put in high for the 391/392 and just so happened to be the lowest bidder. Either that or they wanted to keep in buses but were bound by their no competition agreement with Diamond from the sale and so CEC contracts were the only way forward. Knutsford Christmas Market bus is neither here nor there. Again, they could go in high and still happen to be a low bidder. The sunday 88s are being done as part of the TFGM tender which includes the 288. Absolutely nothing to do with CEC.

Swans may have ran buses but now they don't run bus routes.

Howards I get that situation. Howards were very much a 'run anything, anywhere' operator. Not going in to win but more, if they win, they win. If not, they had other work. Yes the 88 needing so many buses may have put them off but


The 'super route' 88 has it's issues, yes and if it could be changed, I think it would provide wider benefits. The issue that is in place though is that it can't be split up in it's current form since D&G have added in so much extra time that infact, the service wouldn't work. If the 88 went back to it's 55 min end to end, 5 min layover each end, then the 88 would be 2 buses. 27 1 bus and 89 (however that ends up being) would be 1 bus making the current 4. Using D&Gs 'never ever late even if a crater hit the bus' timetables, splitting the services would need 5 buses and the 88 would have a lot of layover and/or need to interwork somehow.
 

James101

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2017
Messages
156
Using D&Gs 'never ever late even if a crater hit the bus' timetables, splitting the services would need 5 buses and the 88 would have a lot of layover and/or need to interwork somehow.

I’d always advise anyone to turn up at the stop 10 minutes prior to the published timetable for a D&G service as they’re a nightmare for early running, even on urban services in Stoke.
 

markymark2000

Established Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
4,112
Location
Western Part of the UK
I’d always advise anyone to turn up at the stop 10 minutes prior to the published timetable for a D&G service as they’re a nightmare for early running, even on urban services in Stoke.
Well, to help my point, using todays tracking on the 88.
The 07:03 trip from Altrincham got to Hale Barns 4 mins early (left 1 early), got to Wilmslow Bank Square 12 mins early.
Almost all buses from Altrincham got into Wilmslow at least 5-10 minutes early but a maximum of 20 minutes early (despite leaving Mobberley or Hale Barns on time).
There has been instances of buses leaving Knutsford 6 minutes late and still getting to Shaws Heath bang on time


That's just today, I admit but I hope that gives a good picture. This is from various buses and times on the route.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,334
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Well, to help my point, using todays tracking on the 88.
The 07:03 trip from Altrincham got to Hale Barns 4 mins early (left 1 early), got to Wilmslow Bank Square 12 mins early.
Almost all buses from Altrincham got into Wilmslow at least 5-10 minutes early but a maximum of 20 minutes early (despite leaving Mobberley or Hale Barns on time).
There has been instances of buses leaving Knutsford 6 minutes late and still getting to Shaws Heath bang on time


That's just today, I admit but I hope that gives a good picture. This is from various buses and times on the route.
I currently drive regularly along the A538 from Altrincham to Wilmslow when I commute to Macclesfield. The traffic levels for the last 12 months have been so low, particularly when the schools are closed, that there are rarely any delays. The bus timetable, which is essentially specified by CEC not the operator as it is a tendered service, will not have been adjusted to take account of current traffic levels, hence buses are currently running ahead of time. When normal traffic levels resume post lockdown, the scheduled bus timings will be appropriate again.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,657
I currently drive regularly along the A538 from Altrincham to Wilmslow when I commute to Macclesfield. The traffic levels for the last 12 months have been so low, particularly when the schools are closed, that there are rarely any delays. The bus timetable, which is essentially specified by CEC not the operator as it is a tendered service, will not have been adjusted to take account of current traffic levels, hence buses are currently running ahead of time. When normal traffic levels resume post lockdown, the scheduled bus timings will be appropriate again.

Normal levels won't resume for years in the peaks with more WFH possible nowadays. Off peak that road is not too bad even non COVID.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Howards I get that situation. Howards were very much a 'run anything, anywhere' operator. Not going in to win but more, if they win, they win. If not, they had other work. Yes the 88 needing so many buses may have put them off but

As Howards don't still exist their social media accounts have been deleted. However, I recall the owner of Howards posting that they did submit a bid for the 88 but it was an all or nothing outcome as they didn't bid for any of the other Cheshire East tenders. He also mentioned trying to get some Merseytravel contracts but finding their were too many hoops for a small operator to jump through and it being difficult for anyone other than the council owned operator in Warrington to get the council awarded contracts.

Given they were based in the Warrington area running services in Warrington, Frodsham, Northwich, Knutsford and Altrincham didn't seem out-of-place, the 200 didn't seem that local though but even that was no different to D&G running the 288.

The 'super route' 88 has it's issues, yes and if it could be changed, I think it would provide wider benefits. The issue that is in place though is that it can't be split up in it's current form since D&G have added in so much extra time that infact, the service wouldn't work. If the 88 went back to it's 55 min end to end, 5 min layover each end, then the 88 would be 2 buses. 27 1 bus and 89 (however that ends up being) would be 1 bus making the current 4.

Initially when D&G ran the 88A alongside the 88 it seemed a reasonable compromise, ignoring the long gap between the last two Macclesfield to Knutsford services. However, taking out the 88A and retiming the last Macclesfield to Knutsford run to be even later has created a less user friendly timetable at peak times.

I think the best option could be Altrincham to Macclesfield hourly and then one bus to cover Northwich and Warrington journeys all day and another bus that can run a school service and then provide a second bus on Northwich and Warrington journeys when it's not needed on the school service.

Using D&Gs 'never ever late even if a crater hit the bus' timetables, splitting the services would need 5 buses and the 88 would have a lot of layover and/or need to interwork somehow.

There has been instances of buses leaving Knutsford 6 minutes late and still getting to Shaws Heath bang on time

I currently drive regularly along the A538 from Altrincham to Wilmslow when I commute to Macclesfield. The traffic levels for the last 12 months have been so low, particularly when the schools are closed, that there are rarely any delays. The bus timetable, which is essentially specified by CEC not the operator as it is a tendered service, will not have been adjusted to take account of current traffic levels, hence buses are currently running ahead of time. When normal traffic levels resume post lockdown, the scheduled bus timings will be appropriate again.

I understand the 5 bus requirement for the original D&G contract related to Arriva's feedback when they operated the 88 emergency tender. It wasn't unknown for the 08:45 Knutsford to Altrincham to end up being so late that by the time it got to the Wilmslow area it was after 09:30 and all the pass holders were waiting for the next service so all boarded the 08:45 and made it even later. The few months Arriva ran the emergency contract included the days the RHS Tatton Show was on, which didn't help the average punctuality of their services.

When D&G operated the 300 daytime services commercially they decided the time between Canute Place and Falcon Bearer to be increased from 7 minutes to 10 minutes. That change happened when Aldi was being constructed meaning the chance of a delay was higher than it is now that the supermarket is open and a green filter has been added to the traffic lights at the A537/B5085 junction. I'm not sure whose decision it was to make the 88 journey times longer when they were re-routed via Longridge to compensate for the withdrawal of the 88A, which had part replaced the 300. As stated 88 buses can leave the bus station a few minutes late and get to Longridge on time and drivers know that and can stand around chatting at the bus station or reading the paper or looking at their phone, even when they know it's time to go. The same can happen at Bank Square for Knutsford bus journeys as they know if they leave Bank Square on time, they'll have a 3 minute wait at the station

Incidentally, it's not correct to call that area Shaw Heath. Under the old 88 route via Mobberley Road it went through the Shaw Heath area, past Shaw Heath Post Office (now closed) and Shaw Heath Social Club but now it goes along Longridge instead of Shaw Heath.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,243
Location
UK
The 07:03 trip from Altrincham got to Hale Barns 4 mins early (left 1 early), got to Wilmslow Bank Square 12 mins early.

Used to get that bus occasionally from Hale Barnes to Wilmslow station. Unreliable in the morning, non existent in the evening.

In the other direction fares for one of the (several) buses varied from about £1.30 to £4 for 2 miles

Conclusion: Buses are not a sensible form of transport to rely on. Fine I guess if you're going into town shopping and can budget turning up 10 minutes early for a 10 minute trip and assuming it could be 30 minutes late.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
7,974
Location
Wilmslow
Conclusion: Buses are not a sensible form of transport to rely on. Fine I guess if you're going into town shopping and can budget turning up 10 minutes early for a 10 minute trip and assuming it could be 30 minutes late.
Sadly, you're right. My better half used to commute on the 130, had to turn up early in the morning but was generally OK. In the evening (West Didsbury to Wilmslow when the service still ran from Manchester) he turned up early and had to wait 30 minutes or more every day. If he relied on the service running late, it wouldn't have. He learned to drive and bought a car.

When bus services run at 30 minute frequencies or less, then an average wait time might be 15 minutes, regardless of timetable or whether the services are running to it. Once the service becomes hourly or less, and remains unreliable, then fewer and fewer people will use them. Sadly.
 

markymark2000

Established Member
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
4,112
Location
Western Part of the UK
I currently drive regularly along the A538 from Altrincham to Wilmslow when I commute to Macclesfield. The traffic levels for the last 12 months have been so low, particularly when the schools are closed, that there are rarely any delays. The bus timetable, which is essentially specified by CEC not the operator as it is a tendered service, will not have been adjusted to take account of current traffic levels, hence buses are currently running ahead of time. When normal traffic levels resume post lockdown, the scheduled bus timings will be appropriate again.
Yes and no. Yes the reduction in traffic will play a part in making bus journey times longer but some of the times are bonkers. There is huge layover there and the service could be completed quicker if it was ran by another company.
While you may say that the timetable is set by CEC, you are mistaken here. As with most tenders, D&G agree to the councils timetable and then change everything a month or two later saying that they can't run it as per contract so keep making changes to the services whether that be a shorter route or mess with the timetable to provide a lot of extra layover. CEC may set the original timetable but bus comapanies amend it thereafter with it just being approved/declined by the council. CEC will approve anything as long as it doesn't cost them more money.


As Howards don't still exist their social media accounts have been deleted. However, I recall the owner of Howards posting that they did submit a bid for the 88 but it was an all or nothing outcome as they didn't bid for any of the other Cheshire East tenders. He also mentioned trying to get some Merseytravel contracts but finding their were too many hoops for a small operator to jump through and it being difficult for anyone other than the council owned operator in Warrington to get the council awarded contracts.
Howards do and don't exist. They have no licence and officially don't exist but the owner of MP Travel who is extremely close to the Howards owner, suggests that Howards is still going and a bus was recently repainted into Howards livery. It's very confusing.

Initially when D&G ran the 88A alongside the 88 it seemed a reasonable compromise, ignoring the long gap between the last two Macclesfield to Knutsford services. However, taking out the 88A and retiming the last Macclesfield to Knutsford run to be even later has created a less user friendly timetable at peak times.

I think the best option could be Altrincham to Macclesfield hourly and then one bus to cover Northwich and Warrington journeys all day and another bus that can run a school service and then provide a second bus on Northwich and Warrington journeys when it's not needed on the school service.
Alt to Macc would be 4 buses wouldn't it. Plus are you saying basically have the 47 and 89 merge/interwork with the current 47 bus? That would give a huge reduction in the 89 timetable to do that. You could do High Legh - Knutsford - Northwich 2 hourly and interwork that with the 188 school. It's doable. Not perfect but doable. The 89 needs looking at because if someone in CEC and CWACC had a braincell and threw their money together, there are about 3 school/college buses from the Knutsford area to Northwich schools/colleges each day. The money spent on dedicated school buses could be spent on putting an 89 on and extending it to the schools. While the main purpose is then being on school pupils, it opens up the service to non school kids so then the bus can have more use.

I understand the 5 bus requirement for the original D&G contract related to Arriva's feedback when they operated the 88 emergency tender. It wasn't unknown for the 08:45 Knutsford to Altrincham to end up being so late that by the time it got to the Wilmslow area it was after 09:30 and all the pass holders were waiting for the next service so all boarded the 08:45 and made it even later. The few months Arriva ran the emergency contract included the days the RHS Tatton Show was on, which didn't help the average punctuality of their services.

When D&G operated the 300 daytime services commercially they decided the time between Canute Place and Falcon Bearer to be increased from 7 minutes to 10 minutes. That change happened when Aldi was being constructed meaning the chance of a delay was higher than it is now that the supermarket is open and a green filter has been added to the traffic lights at the A537/B5085 junction. I'm not sure whose decision it was to make the 88 journey times longer when they were re-routed via Longridge to compensate for the withdrawal of the 88A, which had part replaced the 300. As stated 88 buses can leave the bus station a few minutes late and get to Longridge on time and drivers know that and can stand around chatting at the bus station or reading the paper or looking at their phone, even when they know it's time to go. The same can happen at Bank Square for Knutsford bus journeys as they know if they leave Bank Square on time, they'll have a 3 minute wait at the station

Incidentally, it's not correct to call that area Shaw Heath. Under the old 88 route via Mobberley Road it went through the Shaw Heath area, past Shaw Heath Post Office (now closed) and Shaw Heath Social Club but now it goes along Longridge instead of Shaw Heath.
To be fair, I don't disagree with the fact the 88 needed a review. The half hourly all day with no peak extra time was bonkers but that was GHA for you. This could have been solved though still using the 4 buses on the 88 by giving extra time at peak time (so a 40 min frequency in the peak, 30 min off peak or something like that). That sort of working happens around the country now (albeit normally on higher frequencies. 10 mins off peak down to every 12 at peak time).

The Knutsford to Longridge/Shaw Heath journey times should be looked at really. 2 minutes may not seem like much but it's really infuriating for passengers having drivers sat around chatting. Even though yes it may be on time in a few minutes, each minute sat at the bus station feels like about 3 minutes and its the perception that it will eventually make you late to your destination. Even if they just move the time to layover in the bus station, for the public, it feels a lot better.

I don't know any other company who works as barmy as D&G do with timetables. The 82 route was ran by Arriva for quite a few years and wasn't too bad on time. D&G then came in and threw 10 minutes of buffer time into the route. It's very much like D&G can't be bothered to do timetables on a trip by trip basis and treat all trips as if it's the worst peak time ever.
 

M60lad

Member
Joined
31 May 2011
Messages
1,125
While drivers know after leaving Bank Square they'll have time to wait at Railway Station most drivers will actually wait additional time at Bank Square as sometimes if you spend time waiting at Railway Station they end up blocking traffic there.

Another interesting thing is that for some reason at the moment both 17:45 130 Alderley Edge-Macclesfield and 18:15 88 Knutsford-Macclesfield services run together to Macclesfield from Monks Heath Cross Roads also both these journeys run empty from Macclesfield to Northwich to fuel up before heading back to Winchem.
 

peters

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jul 2020
Messages
916
Location
Cheshire
Alt to Macc would be 4 buses wouldn't it. Plus are you saying basically have the 47 and 89 merge/interwork with the current 47 bus? That would give a huge reduction in the 89 timetable to do that. You could do High Legh - Knutsford - Northwich 2 hourly and interwork that with the 188 school. It's doable. Not perfect but doable. The 89 needs looking at because if someone in CEC and CWACC had a braincell and threw their money together, there are about 3 school/college buses from the Knutsford area to Northwich schools/colleges each day. The money spent on dedicated school buses could be spent on putting an 89 on and extending it to the schools. While the main purpose is then being on school pupils, it opens up the service to non school kids so then the bus can have more use.

I'm actually proposing a total of 5/6 buses, opposed to the current arrangement. 4 for an hourly Macclesfield to Altrincham which would retain the cross-Knutsford link for the hospital and then 1/2 for Northwich & Warrington. The 89 could run to a 2 hourly frequency with a single bus and I think the intention for the 47 is that it's an off-peak only service which a driver and bus could be used on before a morning and afternoon school run. However, at the moment it seems the 47 is 3 different buses and drivers. My idea would be 2 buses start on the day on the combined route, let's call it the 87, one comes off to do a school run, it goes back on the 87, then there's 2 buses on the route until mid-afternoon, again ones comes off for a school run, then the second goes back on the 87 for the evening peak, then the service stops after the evening peak.

I think there's also an Over Peover to Knutsford Academy school bus, so a better Macclesfield to Knutsford service could eliminate the need for that additional school service.

To be fair, I don't disagree with the fact the 88 needed a review. The half hourly all day with no peak extra time was bonkers but that was GHA for you.

It was also bonkers that GHA did all the marketing for the 'Gold' route 88 but then they didn't have any spare 'Gold' vehicles and the buses were sent away to Wrexham for servicing, so there was a couple of weeks at a time when they were using 3 x Gold and 1 x non-Gold bus.

I also remember when the 88 was hourly but with a morning peak extra they branded 2 x Versas for the 88 and 1 x Dart but the Dart only normally did the peak time extra and went onto other services and the Dart didn't usually fill in for the Versas because it was a small bus.

It's very much like D&G can't be bothered to do timetables on a trip by trip basis and treat all trips as if it's the worst peak time ever.

What annoys me is when they decrease the frequency at peak times. Take the Knutsford departures from Macclesfield, it's normally 2 hours between buses but if you don't make the 16:45 departure, you have to wait until 18:15.

Another interesting thing is that for some reason at the moment both 17:45 130 Alderley Edge-Macclesfield and 18:15 88 Knutsford-Macclesfield services run together to Macclesfield from Monks Heath Cross Roads also both these journeys run empty from Macclesfield to Northwich to fuel up before heading back to Winchem.

In response to Cheshire East's transport consultation I've suggested Knutsford to Macc and Wilmslow to Macc services should both be hourly and should interwork to form a half-hourly frequency between Macc town centre and the hospital.

I remember when Howards ran an 09:15 Knutsford to Macclesfield service it was scheduled to do Broken Cross to Macclesfield just ahead of a much larger Arriva bus but the Howards one was the first after 09:30 and was usually on time so all the pass holders squeezed onto the little bus that came first.

Just looked at bustimes.org now (10.36 Friday) and noticed the 10:30 Knutsford to Altrincham left the bus station at 10:28:48 and got to the Falcon Bearer at 10:35:36, so the old 300 timing of 7 minutes from the town centre to Falcon Bearer seems sensible.
 
Last edited:

gnolife

Established Member
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Messages
2,044
Location
Johnstone
What annoys me is when they decrease the frequency at peak times. Take the Knutsford departures from Macclesfield, it's normally 2 hours between buses but if you don't make the 16:45 departure, you have to wait until 18:15.
A wait of 1hr 30 minutes, so very slightly increas3d frequency?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top