D&G Buses

[markymark2000]

Taking a look at some data from the last couple of months, it’s evident those journeys do actually need that amount of added time - they frequently become heavily delayed en route.

Course they are likely to need more time. Arriva had all of the school kids on the app/smartcard and had vehicles suitable to take that many people. D&G I believe has low uptake on the MyTrip app so relies more on onboards sales. Also, perhaps if D&G offered passengers an attractive network, less people would be in their cars and more people would be on buses. D&Gs managed decline of the routes is going to do absolutely nothing except drive people off the bus. We don't tend to speak highly of Arriva on this forum but it says a lot when even they can manage to run the service quicker and Arriva are normally quite quick to add more time onto routes.

Looking at the data that I can see, there doesn't seem to be a need to increase by 30 minutes either, the delay seems to be generally 20 minutes, though there are days though where it is being done with only a small delay.

 

[Simon75]

Which routes now run from Wicham, Crewe and Macclesfield?

 

[Contains Nuts]

Course they are likely to need more time. Arriva had all of the school kids on the app/smartcard and had vehicles suitable to take that many people. D&G I believe has low uptake on the MyTrip app so relies more on onboards sales. Also, perhaps if D&G offered passengers an attractive network, less people would be in their cars and more people would be on buses. D&Gs managed decline of the routes is going to do absolutely nothing except drive people off the bus. We don't tend to speak highly of Arriva on this forum but it says a lot when even they can manage to run the service quicker and Arriva are normally quite quick to add more time onto routes.

Looking at the data that I can see, there doesn't seem to be a need to increase by 30 minutes either, the delay seems to be generally 20 minutes, though there are days though where it is being done with only a small delay.

What’s with the constant negativity?

‘Managed decline’ - do you really think this is the case, particularly as several new and newer vehicles have been acquired over recent week? D&G is a business and by nature businesses don’t do that, although I’m sure you will come up with some bizarre justification for it.

‘Attractive network’ - the D&G network covers the majority of east Cheshire with many services running hourly. A lot of services are supported by Cheshire East Council, who you also seem to badmouth on here and social media despite them paying more towards supported buses than many other similar sized councils.

I’d be fascinated to know what qualifications and experience you to make these observations as I doubt you have any operational or commercial experience in the bus industry judging by most of your comments.

Bear in mind that the bulk of commercial bus services in east Cheshire are now run by D&G since Arriva closed their depots. D&G had no obligation to run any former Arriva services, but if they hadn’t done that is there any other operator that realistically would have done?

I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. It’s okay to be negative but it needs to come with some reasoning and explanation, which is often lacking in your posts and is instead replaced by a general aura of anger, and not just in relation to D&G but almost anything you see fit to give your opinion on.

Have you ever thought about starting your own bus company? It’s a free market to enter (at present) and you seem to think you can be better than most operators. Why not compete with D&G if they are genuinely that bad? Should be quite easy I assume!

 

[northwichcat]

Which routes now run from Wicham, Crewe and Macclesfield?

At present 48, 49, 82, 88, 89 and 188 run from Wincham but it looks like some 88 journeys might be moving to Macclesfield when the timetable gets revised.

The 130, 312, 385, plus the Macclesfield locals (including the 19) are operated from Macc, as well as some evening 38s.

The 94 and 318 are Adderley Green. I think the other Cheshire routes are operated from Crewe, including the Handforth Dean free bus if it's still uses the same vehicle that does the Bunbury to John Deanes contract. The 85 might be a mix of Crewe and Adderley Green.

 

[markymark2000]

What’s with the constant negativity?

Because they are an operator that deserves it.

‘Managed decline’ - do you really think this is the case, particularly as several new and newer vehicles have been acquired over recent week? D&G is a business and by nature businesses don’t do that, although I’m sure you will come up with some bizarre justification for it.

Yes, D&G have been doing it for many years. I've gone through my justifications previously.

As for purchasing newer vehicles, that means nothing. There are a number of low quality operators who somehow have new vehicles. Purely as an example and not meant to spark further discussion, Red Group in Aylesbury aren't known for their passenger first approach and their quality, yet they have just got brand new MCV Evoras. Buying newer buses doesn't mean that they are a good company with their priorities right, just that they needed to get newer vehicles as some of the fleet is long past its use by date.

‘Attractive network’ - the D&G network covers the majority of east Cheshire with many services running hourly. A lot of services are supported by Cheshire East Council, who you also seem to badmouth on here and social media despite them paying more towards supported buses than many other similar sized councils.

And it's well deserved. Perhaps if Cheshire East Council were more competent, and didn't keep throwing hundreds of thousands of pounds at a low quality operator, they wouldn't need to spend so much money on supported buses because they would be more viable. Pro car council, pushing pro car policies, doing all they can to discourage people from using buses. Of course they will need to pay up for buses to get votes and without more subsidy, the county would only have about 5 bus routes.

I’d be fascinated to know what qualifications and experience you to make these observations as I doubt you have any operational or commercial experience in the bus industry judging by most of your comments.

You'd be wrong but ok. I choose not to share my professional experiences on this forum. This is a forum, not LinkedIn.

Bear in mind that the bulk of commercial bus services in east Cheshire are now run by D&G since Arriva closed their depots. D&G had no obligation to run any former Arriva services, but if they hadn’t done that is there any other operator that realistically would have done?

That is all unknown who could have stepped in. It's a commercial market, who knows what plans other people had and who could be persuaded to run certain things.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. It’s okay to be negative but it needs to come with some reasoning and explanation, which is often lacking in your posts

All of my comments regarding D&G have reasoning. Perhaps if you had to put up with their shoddy outdated services for years you'd have the same opinion. I do look at the bigger picture and that is how I can see the constant managed decline thanks to D&G working hand in hand with certain councils. I've had higher quality services run by dodgy West Midlands independents and that's saying something! The dislike for D&G is rising with even local bus users groups calling them out for their low quality and lack of care for passengers. It's just the case that I voice it louder than other people.

Have you ever thought about starting your own bus company? It’s a free market to enter (at present) and you seem to think you can be better than most operators. Why not compete with D&G if they are genuinely that bad? Should be quite easy I assume!

Yes, I have and while it is a free market to enter, there are a number of regulatory barriers to overcome first.

Just because a company is bad as well, doesn't make them easy to compete against, mostly because the passengers have left the bus network thanks to stupidly long journey times, routes which don't go where they want them to go, buses which are very low quality.

The 85 might be a mix of Crewe and Adderley Green.

85 looks to be run entirely by Crewe, based on tracking. The timetable also suggests everything being Crewe based with 1 bus finishing at Nantwich and 3 buses finishing at Crewe Bus Station.

 

[northwichcat]

Bear in mind that the bulk of commercial bus services in east Cheshire are now run by D&G since Arriva closed their depots. D&G had no obligation to run any former Arriva services, but if they hadn’t done that is there any other operator that realistically would have done?

Also bear in mind some part replacements for withdrawn Arriva routes are actually revised contracted services e.g. D&G's 19/19A. It's also worth noting Stagecoach registered a 84 Chester-Crewe without the Nantwich extras as they expected D&G to run a Nantwich-Crewe shuttle. D&G initially held off registering one, so Stagecoach registered a Nantwich-Crewe shuttle. We also saw both D&G and First Potteries revise services to replace the withdrawn Arriva services to Leighton Hospital. One of the problems of the "free market" is some routes can see multiple operators wanting them and some routes are overlooked, sometimes just because they're not near a depot.

If D&G hadn't registered a 3 and 10 in Macc, it's possible either Cheshire East or the 391/392 operator (it's changed a few times recently!) would have considered revising the routes of existing services.

 

[markymark2000]

We also saw both D&G and First Potteries revise services to replace the withdrawn Arriva services to Leighton Hospital. One of the problems of the "free market" is some routes can see multiple operators wanting them

First could have won that but they kept the 6 separate, kept dropping trips due to lateness on the 3 and with the cuts they were making to the 3, it probably didn't make as much sense for them in the end. If First went in to compete as they used to in other areas, they'd have seen D&G off by now. Sad times.

 

[sonic2009]

The first thing D&G let themselves down on is not telling customers if buses aren't running or diversions etc.

They have no social media presence to let people know, I was waiting for the 0655 Northwich 37 from Crewe on Wednesday this week and it was a no show.

There's been other instances of this happening, yes they came in and took over Arriva's network that was left by the closure of Winsford depot, but it's interesting to see what the outcome of the feedback they requested on the services, which appeared on their website at the early stages of starting the new network last year. I thought outcome of the feedback given would of been shared by now, like a lot of these surveys give an overall response.

Ie 98% of X said you like this etc.

One interesting change which I thought might change would be to route the 37 via Kingsmead in Northwich, not round the estate like the old arriva 37, but straight into Northwich. At least you'd have a service every hour through the day down that way.

I'm not against D&G but there's certain aspects they could do better.

They made sure of running against Stagecoach between Crewe and Nantwich with the 84x applying special liveries to two Enviro 200s, yet you often see them on other D&G routes.

Cheshire East council need to be more pro active.

You have no services between Crewe/Sandbach/Congleton/Macclesfield on Sunday's or Bank Holidays, nothing to Leighton Hospital.

There's so much that could be done but again citing no money, did Cheshire East or West win any funding from the BSIP?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[M803UYA]

First could have won that but they kept the 6 separate, kept dropping trips due to lateness on the 3 and with the cuts they were making to the 3, it probably didn't make as much sense for them in the end. If First went in to compete as they used to in other areas, they'd have seen D&G off by now. Sad times.

As a general rule, First don't compete. Instead they roll over and wait for their tummy to be tickled then announce closure. Only in a few instances can I recall a 'spirited' defence of their territory.

‘Managed decline’ - do you really think this is the case, particularly as several new and newer vehicles have been acquired over recent week? D&G is a business and by nature businesses don’t do that, although I’m sure you will come up with some bizarre justification for it.

Bear in mind that the bulk of commercial bus services in east Cheshire are now run by D&G since Arriva closed their depots. D&G had no obligation to run any former Arriva services, but if they hadn’t done that is there any other operator that realistically would have done?

Have you ever thought about starting your own bus company? It’s a free market to enter (at present) and you seem to think you can be better than most operators. Why not compete with D&G if they are genuinely that bad? Should be quite easy I assume!

Some very good points there. I don't get the continual negativity about D&G. I can see some quirks in their timetable design where their approach to maintaining a timetable is slightly over the top. But I do see an operation going out, buying in 29 seater vehicles, repainting them, hiring people to drive them. I also see a website where within a few clicks I can find a timetable for the bus I want. Those buses on paper seem to run relatively often. The ones that I've seen seem to be reasonably tidy. Not new, obviously but not like the mobile scrapyard my local bus company (Arriva Yorkshire!) operates.

D&G does this in an area where Arriva has walked away from providing commercial services. The fact D&G has bothered at all is noteworthy in my book. There aren't legions of operators waiting in the wings to enter the bus market. @markymark2000 would do very well in entering the field and starting up and providing these services that do need to be provided. If I had my own O licence, local bus services would be the very last thing to enter my mind as a means of earning a living. I honestly can't come up with a faster way of setting fire to £50 notes...... !

Cheshire East council need to be more pro active.

You have no services between Crewe/Sandbach/Congleton/Macclesfield on Sunday's or Bank Holidays, nothing to Leighton Hospital.

There's so much that could be done but again citing no money, did Cheshire East or West win any funding from the BSIP?

Don't think Cheshire East won anything on the BSIP awards. If they wanted to subsidise a service where you're suggesting on those days then that's up to them, and their budget. It would be viewed as a non core service (which in my book is precisely the sort of thing that should be supported). It would be instructive to ask them why they don't subsidise such a service. Presumably they see no need to do so?

 

[markymark2000]

There's been other instances of this happening, yes they came in and took over Arriva's network that was left by the closure of Winsford depot, but it's interesting to see what the outcome of the feedback they requested on the services, which appeared on their website at the early stages of starting the new network last year. I thought outcome of the feedback given would of been shared by now, like a lot of these surveys give an overall response.

That survey went out 7 months ago and nothing has happened yet. Either they are planning something big in around April (given they will then have a year of data for the routes and a year worth of comments from passengers) or it's just a way for them to claim they have listened to feedback.

One interesting change which I thought might change would be to route the 37 via Kingsmead in Northwich, not round the estate like the old arriva 37, but straight into Northwich. At least you'd have a service every hour through the day down that way.

Probably one of the things that I would praise them on as it does increase the frequency on London Road to provide a better service for Leftwich. Leftwich tends to attract more bus users than Kingfisher did (from my observations) and I think the N4 local bus into Northwich is the best bus for Kingfigher rather than the interurban bus diverting in.

As a general rule, First don't compete. Instead they roll over and wait for their tummy to be tickled then announce closure. Only in a few instances can I recall a 'spirited' defence of their territory.

In current times, I agree they aren't as competitive. I do remember First being quite competitive though, perhaps the instances that I remember are the 'spirited defence of their territory'.

 

[northwichcat]

Those buses on paper seem to run relatively often.

Maybe you haven't looked at the 88/89 timetables? Especially note the frequency of services between Knutsford and Macclesfield at peak times and the non-existent service between Northwich and Knutsford after mid-afternoon. While the 88/89 is council contracted, the original timetable that went out to tender included a 17:45 Macclesfield to Knutsford and a 16:50 Knutsford to Northwich. It's down to D&G's revisions that the 89 is no longer suitable for someone with a full time job, even if they have flexitime and that if you have to finish work in Macclesfield at 5pm or 5.30pm, then you're waiting until 6.15pm instead of 5.45pm.

Although, in D&G's defence they correctly identified the council specified timetable didn't properly cater for Radbrooke Hall (Barclays employment site) to Chelford/Macclesfield journeys. Something the previous operator didn't really care about - they ran the timetable as specified with no revisions and no additional journeys.

The ones that I've seen seem to be reasonably tidy. Not new, obviously but not like the mobile scrapyard my local bus company (Arriva Yorkshire!) operates.

I can't compare with Arriva Yorkshire, but I'd say the Streetlite WFs and the 8.8m Enviros are generally in a worse condition than a typical Arriva North West vehicle. The 8.8 Enviros have poor reliability and some of the former London ones have seat covers that are barely attached to the seats. I do remember some of the oldish Arriva North West buses getting brand new leather seat covers, even when they weren't refurbished to Sapphire spec.

While Arriva North West used small Stratas on some services which didn't provide the most comfortable journeys, they were around 10 years newer than some of the small Enviros D&G operate.

 

[M803UYA]

In current times, I agree they aren't as competitive. I do remember First being quite competitive though, perhaps the instances that I remember are the 'spirited defence of their territory'.

With two exceptions (the previous regime at First South West and First in Essex) I've never seen First 'defend' themselves at competition. I have seen half baked attempts to stifle competitive expansion though, none of which ever works. Competitors are typically permitted to gain a foothold then expand from it onto other things resulting in First's normal cycle of salami slicing PVR (take a bus/two out the PVR each service change) to the point the whole depot is unviable and then closes.

Maybe you haven't looked at the 88/89 timetables? Especially note the frequency of services between Knutsford and Macclesfield at peak times and the non-existent service between Northwich and Knutsford after mid-afternoon. While the 88/89 is council contracted, the original timetable that went out to tender included a 17:45 Macclesfield to Knutsford and a 16:50 Knutsford to Northwich. It's down to D&G's revisions that the 89 is no longer suitable for someone with a full time job, even if they have flexitime and that if you have to finish work in Macclesfield at 5pm or 5.30pm, then you're waiting until 6.15pm instead of 5.45pm.

Although, in D&G's defence they correctly identified the council specified timetable didn't properly cater for Radbrooke Hall (Barclays employment site) to Chelford/Macclesfield journeys. Something the previous operator didn't really care about - they ran the timetable as specified with no revisions and no additional journeys.

This would be reasonably accurate, but there are 61 routes on the list on their bustimes entry. Presumably the other 59 routes are also 'terrible'? Looking, as you suggest at the 88/89. The 89 doesn't 'appear' to have a specific vehicle working the route - given the frequency of the service and the 88 provides a broadly hourly frequency across the bulk of the route. I can see it drops to two hourly between Knutsford and Macclesfield. Why would that be? What service was provided before they came along?

I'll take your word for it that the original tender called for those additional peak trips - but if the council accepted the alternative bid offered by D&G I'm not sure what the problem would be from the council's perspective. Councils can accept alternative bids from operators if it's in their financial interest. How many other operators bid for the tender? Presumably they'll have saved money in doing this. I could spend lots of time adding up the running times to gauge the PVR, but it does look like two buses going back and forward - so around £200k of operational costs for this one route. Would operating those peak trips require another vehicle adding to the PVR - in which case add another £100,000 minimum.

I really don't understand the bile that's being chucked here. There are far worse operators out there. The residents of my native part of Somerset would love someone like D&G to turn up and start running the bus services. They're utterly sick of First! I can quickly get onto D&Gs website, find out a timetable and it tells me the information I wish to know. Wish I could do this with my local bus operator Arriva.

 

[markymark2000]

Although, in D&G's defence they correctly identified the council specified timetable didn't properly cater for Radbrooke Hall (Barclays employment site) to Chelford/Macclesfield journeys. Something the previous operator didn't really care about - they ran the timetable as specified with no revisions and no additional journeys.

A competent council should have undertaken discussions with relevant employers along the route to see if there was a way that the bus could be useful for the employees. If proper discussions had taken place at Barclays, it could have negated the need for their other shuttles.

This would be reasonably accurate, but there are 61 routes on the list on their bustimes entry. Presumably the other 59 routes are also 'terrible'? Looking, as you suggest at the 88/89. The 89 doesn't 'appear' to have a specific vehicle working the route - given the frequency of the service and the 88 provides a broadly hourly frequency across the bulk of the route. I can see it drops to two hourly between Knutsford and Macclesfield. Why would that be? What service was provided before they came along?

The 88/89 debacle was as a result of funding cuts by Cheshire East Council. They merged the 27(/A/B) (Macclesfield - Knutsford) which ran around every 90 minutes or so, the 88 (Altrincham - Knutsford) which ran I think it was every hour I think it was and then the 289 (which originally ran Northwich - Knutsford - Altrincham but the 89 covers just Northwich - Knutsford) which ran a couple of times per day. Cheshire East merged all of these routes into one so that they could save a bus.

I'll take your word for it that the original tender called for those additional peak trips - but if the council accepted the alternative bid offered by D&G I'm not sure what the problem would be from the council's perspective. Councils can accept alternative bids from operators if it's in their financial interest. How many other operators bid for the tender? Presumably they'll have saved money in doing this. I could spend lots of time adding up the running times to gauge the PVR, but it does look like two buses going back and forward - so around £200k of operational costs for this one route. Would operating those peak trips require another vehicle adding to the PVR - in which case add another £100,000 minimum.

The issue is when you put out a large tender for the likes of the 88/89, not many companies want it because it is a big undertaking and especially the 88/89, you had buses starting in Macclesfield, Wilmslow and Altrincham, finishing in Macclesfield, Wilmslow and Knutsford. Not many companies would be willing to take that on. Under the old routes, the 27 and 289 were run by Howards Travel, the 88 run by D&G. They were happy with little 1 bus routes but wouldn't have gone in for a larger tender, especially one like the 88/89 as it's a lot of drivers to find and buses, especially with some buses starting so far from the depot. Reduce competition, you end up in name your price sort of territory and that is what D&G like. They can take on the weird stuff that other people say is too much faff. That doesn't make it right though and councils should be creating routes which are attractive for bidders in the first place rather than creating these confusing messes that they know only D&G will take because all it means is by default, D&G will win the tenders. And on that note, I welcome you to Cheshire East Bus Network!

I really don't understand the bile that's being chucked here. There are far worse operators out there. The residents of my native part of Somerset would love someone like D&G to turn up and start running the bus services. They're utterly sick of First! I can quickly get onto D&Gs website, find out a timetable and it tells me the information I wish to know. Wish I could do this with my local bus operator Arriva.

D&G I think would look nice with one of the MyTrip by Passenger websites. Live tracking (without going to a 3rd party site), basic updates and news. The website is very basic but works. Personally, I liked the website that they had, that was just as basic, this one looks like it was drawn up as a kid's first website project.

I'd also say 'there are far worse operators out there', there may be (I shan't go too much into that), that shouldn't mean we should all settle for poor quality just because some other companies do it. Why can't we all try to have the same quality that is seen by Delaine for example?

 

[Contains Nuts]

I'd also say 'there are far worse operators out there', there may be (I shan't go too much into that), that shouldn't mean we should all settle for poor quality just because some other companies do it. Why can't we all try to have the same quality that is seen by Delaine for example?

But you’re still not being particularly specific. What makes them ‘poor quality’? How in particular is the network badly designed?

Delaine have had a century to hone their business, and much of it has remained fairly consistent. Yes, they are a fine example of an operator, but not every operator has their advantages.

 

[northwichcat]

This would be reasonably accurate, but there are 61 routes on the list on their bustimes entry. Presumably the other 59 routes are also 'terrible'?

Pretty much all the Cheshire routes are worse frequency then they were a few years ago.

6 of the D&G Solo SRs were originally for a Crewe 'onelink' service. The 85 extension to Nantwich (just hourly) is the main replacement. That's effectively 4 vehicles being withdrawn.

There's plenty of infrequent services too - the routes with a 3 digit number starting with a 3 are pretty much all infrequent. The 319 being the worst.

D&G's website is making reference to a 'new 94 service on Saturdays' but that's reinstating a service they previously withdrew, at a lower frequency.

The 130 was once a half-hourly Macclesfield-Wilmslow-Cheadle-Manchester service.

Pre-COVID Northwich to Weaverham was every 15 minutes. That reduced to half-hourly while still under Arriva and it's become hourly under D&G - in the form of the 49. Hourly under D&G means the frequency is as bad as the (lower usage) Barnton service that wasn't picked up commercially and went out to tender - now the N4 under Warrington's Own Buses.

Looking, as you suggest at the 88/89. The 89 doesn't 'appear' to have a specific vehicle working the route - given the frequency of the service and the 88 provides a broadly hourly frequency across the bulk of the route. I can see it drops to two hourly between Knutsford and Macclesfield. Why would that be? What service was provided before they came along?

The 88 service, as it now, is the remains of the old 88, 27, 289 and 300.

At the point where GHA Coaches collapsed the frequency of the routes were:
27 Knutsford to Macclesfield hourly with missing hours due to second vehicle being used on school route. (GHA)
88 Knutsford to Altrincham half-hourly with alternate services via Morley Green. (GHA)
289 Northwich to Altrincham via Knutsford. Single vehicle service providing a non-clockface service. (GHA)
300 Knutsford to Longridge circular. Half-hourly but gaps in timetable due to no relief driver to cover breaks. (D&G)

Now the 88 route is the combination of the 27, 88 and 300. While the 89 is the Northwich-Knutsford part of the 289. It's also one place where vehicles off the 88 route disappear to, the other being the 188 school service (which is displayed in the 88 timetable on the D&G website).

I'll take your word for it that the original tender called for those additional peak trips - but if the council accepted the alternative bid offered by D&G I'm not sure what the problem would be from the council's perspective.

The council didn't accept an alternative bid from D&G. D&G's bid was to run the contracted timetables as per the bidding process, alongside a commercial 88A Knutsford-Wilmslow-Colshaw Farm and a return commericial Knutsford to Macclesfield journey on the 88. (The 300 was withdrawn at that point with the 88A providing the alternative). A few weeks later D&G realised they were losing significant money on their commercial attempt of a new Macclesfield to Manchester Airport service (that was competiting with Arriva's service and providing a commercial replacement for a very low usage route for the withdrawn 200 Wilmslow to Manchester Airport) and withdrew almost all their commercial services in Cheshire East.

As the result of D&G withdrawing the 88A, the council accepted a proposal to let them re-route the 88 via Longridge.

A commercial afternoon return working on the 88 Knutsford to Macclesfield section was possible as D&G used a vehicle off the 288 to run the afternoon 188. When they lost the 288 contract, the council allowed them to withdraw an afternoon 89 return working, to retain the return Knutsford to Macclesfield working.

The timetable certainly isn't how the council planned it. It's been adapted to suit a combination of demand and D&G's desires.

The residents of my native part of Somerset would love someone like D&G to turn up and start running the bus services. They're utterly sick of First!

I've used buses in Somerset and the only real issue I had was the confusion caused by First operating some buses under the "Buses of Somerset" brand but accepting First Bus tickets on them.

I find it laughable that people would want to get rid of First Bus who provide rural services late into the evening, in favour of an operator who runs very few commercial services after 6pm or at the weekend. The idea of a bus leaving Bristol at 22:30 and running all the way through rural villages to Street, with a 00:12 arrival wouldn't exist in D&G's plans.

Middlewich is slightly larger than Street and Middlewich doesn't have a station, so needs buses to connect to towns with stations too. The last weekday arrival from Winsford station in Middlewich is 22:47 on weekdays and that's a late bus by D&G Bus standards!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

With two exceptions (the previous regime at First South West and First in Essex) I've never seen First 'defend' themselves at competition. I have seen half baked attempts to stifle competitive expansion though, none of which ever works. Competitors are typically permitted to gain a foothold then expand from it onto other things resulting in First's normal cycle of salami slicing PVR (take a bus/two out the PVR each service change) to the point the whole depot is unviable and then closes.

It's probably a bit more nuanced that that.

In the Lockhead days, they were definitely guilty of rolling over. My understanding was that there was a fear of getting caught by competition law, though it never bothered Stagecoach or Go Ahead. Hence why people always pointed at North Devon as an example but there were others.

There was a change when Fearnley came in. I remember when Lothian Country Buses appeared and the Lothian fan club were predicting that First would be gone in months. Instead, First most definitely defended West Lothian against LCB and burnt through a lot of money doing so over the following four years though Covid would prove to be the defining moment. Same was the case in Southampton. In these times, there's barely enough for one firm.

However, I do take your point about the PVR salami slicing - almost as bad as Arriva.

 

[33117]

At least finally we are getting newer buses, the ex cardiff MMCs after some teething troubles have settled in nicely & are a hit with passengers.

They do however need to employ more cleaning staff as if you look at interiors on some of their motors they haven't been deep cleaned for months. Seats particularly are getting really grubby due to some charming individuals getting on the bus & lying down across the seats with their feet up! Some folk honestly have no respect for nothing!!!

I honestly don't know what may happen but it's been suggested by a few people that D&G if they aren't careful could be on a very slippery downhill slope.......

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't get the continual negativity about D&G. I can see some quirks in their timetable design where their approach to maintaining a timetable is slightly over the top. But I do see an operation going out, buying in 29 seater vehicles, repainting them, hiring people to drive them. I also see a website where within a few clicks I can find a timetable for the bus I want. Those buses on paper seem to run relatively often. The ones that I've seen seem to be reasonably tidy.

I’m an irregular user of D&G/High Peak, only ever using them when I’m on a GM Wayfarer. But from what I’ve seen I agree, I don’t understand the negativity. They are operating a decent enough service in thin bus territory. The buses are not in the first flush of youth, of course they aren’t in such territory, but they’re no worse than you’ll see in the thin depots of the big operators. You should see the state of the buses in places like Hemel Hempstead.

Pretty much all the Cheshire routes are worse frequency then they were a few years ago.

I’d say that, as much as anything, reflects the commercial reality of operating in Cheshire.

 

[markymark2000]

Middlewich is slightly larger than Street and Middlewich doesn't have a station, so needs buses to connect to towns with stations too.

Middlewich has has it's interchange downgraded first by Arriva and now D&G are making it worse by having the 42 towards Crewe miss out Bull Ring. That used to be the stop where all of the buses, in all directions would stop. From the upcoming changes, that will be just the 42 to Congleton and 37 to Northwich. Other directions will be from Leadsmithy Street.

The last weekday arrival from Winsford station in Middlewich is 22:47 on weekdays and that's a late bus by D&G Bus standards!

They must have a right shock with the X31 running till midnight 20 on Friday/Saturday nights, that's a very, very late bus by D&G standards. Thank goodness for some tenders.

At least finally we are getting newer buses, the ex cardiff MMCs after some teething troubles have settled in nicely & are a hit with passengers.

Long overdue but a welcome investment. I think it's a shame that they never got Evoras like Chaserider, they would have been lovely for the 31/37/38. Just the sort of routes that Evoras thrive on.

 

[ServerHoster]

I really don't understand the bile that's being chucked here. There are far worse operators out there. The residents of my native part of Somerset would love someone like D&G to turn up and start running the bus services. They're utterly sick of First!

You guys can have D&G then, I would love to have someone like First round here.

 

[SeanM1997]

It's also worth noting Stagecoach registered a 84 Chester-Crewe without the Nantwich extras as they expected D&G to run a Nantwich-Crewe shuttle. D&G initially held off registering one, so Stagecoach registered a Nantwich-Crewe shuttle.

To correct this - Stagecoach initially registered hourly Chester - Crewe and then hourly Nantwich - Crewe between 0841 and 1631 (excluding an hour at lunch). Cheshire East then requested this got increased on weekdays to be half hourly between 8am and 6pm which they did and requires crew change in Crewe. Given the distance from the depot this is complex in planning but they've committed to it.

Following this Cheshire East and Cheshire West went out for 2 separate tenders - one for hourly evenings Monday-Saturday and one for 90 minute service on Sundays. Stagecoach won both.

I suspect (and could be wrong) that D&G held off until they knew the result of the tender to decide what to do.

Evenings and Sundays are not (or were not) commercially viable in early 2023. Hopefully passenger experience has improved so can be viable again.

April will be interesting what Stagecoach do and whether they will keep the Nantwich-Crewe shorts. Personally I hope so to keep Willaston a half hourly service and also increase competition on the Nantwich Road corridor which serves a college, a local centre and is very urban comparatively to other inter-town services in Cheshire.

 

[Jase_in_CW]

The problem with D&G is quite simple. They run a bare minimum service. I’m familiar with Sandbach, Middlewich, Northwich and Winsford mainly and the services are useless to casual users. Services that have been every 10,15 or 20 minutes are now hourly. . D&G will never restore lost services, but will compete with other providers. Buses from around northwich and Winsford into the town centres were frequent and throughout the day. Now they’re hourly. Moulton, Davenham, Winsford industrial estate, Morrisons services all gone unless you can walk to the main roads at the edges. Winsford estates, Leftwich, Barnton, Rudheath, Weaverham, Hartford, Lostock residents all have to plan their timings or wait an hour if they miss their bus. No wonder nobody uses them.

 

[northwichcat]

I’d say that, as much as anything, reflects the commercial reality of operating in Cheshire.

D&G will never restore lost services, but will compete with other providers.

An underlying problem in Cheshire is in the past both GHA and High Peak attempted to run services commercially as a way of 'marking their territory' and some of these didn't really generate enough revenue. A route like Chester to Northwich is OK to try and run commercially, but there were commercial attempts of services like Macclesfield to Congleton via Bosley and Macclesfield to Knutsford. The long term effect of that is those routes were removed from the Cheshire East budget for subsides, so when the commercial attempt failed there was no budget to put them out to tender with a decent frequency.

The Macclesfield to Knutsford is probably the best example of what happens when you cut frequencies. For 10 years it was an hourly frequency using council owned Wright Cadets. Some peak services were routed via Alderley Park and extended to Congleton. It didn't provide a fast service between Knutsford and Macclesfield but it did provide a service that catered for multiple commuter flows. The reduced commercial services under both High Peak and GHA didn't cater for the commuter flows so well and the main usage became journeys to and from the hospital. An essential service - but not one that generates much revenue, as many hospital out patients and visitors are pass holders.

With the exception of the 88, GHA focused their new high spec buses on routes where there was competition, either from Network Warrington or D&G.

Winsford estates, Leftwich, Barnton, Rudheath, Weaverham, Hartford, Lostock residents all have to plan their timings or wait an hour if they miss their bus. No wonder nobody uses them.

With Hartford/Weaverham I get that D&G are providing a half-hourly service between the town centre and Greenbank but that's nothing like the 6 buses per hour it once was (ignoring the less frequent Frodsham service).

As both the Cat9 and 89 are subsided, Cheshire West really need to push for these to be coordinated to ensure there's an hourly service from Wincham to Northwich. The Northwich locals serve three tourist attractions - the museum, the boat lift and Marbury Park and they could serve the salt works as well but I doubt many visitors use the bus because they're infrequent and don't connect with rail services.

 

[Contains Nuts]

The problem with D&G is quite simple. They run a bare minimum service.

And this is how commercial bus services work. The operator will run the maximum service level they feel able to based on assumptions of revenue (as doing anything else is very expensive), and the local authority can step in if they feel more is required.

As I’ve stated previously, it’s a free market and if you think there are commercially viable opportunities that current operators are not providing then buy some buses and set up a business!

It’s very easy for ‘armchair spotters’ to rate and slate bus companies, but in real life it’s never that simple as it’s a very expensive business with relatively low profit margins.

 

[northwichcat]

And this is how commercial bus services work. The operator will run the maximum service level they feel able to based on assumptions of revenue (as doing anything else is very expensive), and the local authority can step in if they feel more is required.

That's not how commercial operations work. The council can only step in if there's an essential need not met by commercial services e.g. education, shopping, medical, employment etc. If a commercial bus service runs from 9-3 the council certainly can step in and contract a commuter service. However, they can't contract an hourly service from 7am to 7pm to another operator - as it's illegal to use taxpayer's money to contract a service that's already being provided commerically. They could, however, contract a pre-9am working and a late afternoon/early everning service as an essential need wouldn't be met by the 9-3 service.

 

[Contains Nuts]

That's not how commercial operations work. The council can only step in if there's an essential need not met by commercial services e.g. education, shopping, medical, employment etc. If a commercial bus service runs from 9-3 the council certainly can step in and contract a commuter service. However, they can't contract an hourly service from 7am to 7pm to another operator - as it's illegal to use taxpayer's money to contract a service that's already being provided commerically. They could, however, contract a pre-9am working and a late afternoon/early everning service as an essential need wouldn't be met by the 9-3 service.

The local authority can approach an operator directly in certain circumstances to pay them to enhance frequencies on existing commercial services without the need to go out to tender.

 

[Tetchytyke]

An underlying problem in Cheshire is in the past both GHA and High Peak attempted to run services commercially as a way of 'marking their territory' and some of these didn't really generate enough revenue.

They’ve tried to do it commercially and it didn’t work. Fair play to them for attempting to do it commercially.

The long term effect of that is those routes were removed from the Cheshire East budget for subsides, so when the commercial attempt failed there was no budget to put them out to tender with a decent frequency.

I suppose that’s the reality of council funding, especially in somewhere like Cheshire where there isn’t generally the appetite to increase council tax to pay for these sorts of public services.

If it was amazing bus territory then Arriva wouldn’t have pulled out.

As I’ve stated previously, it’s a free market and if you think there are commercially viable opportunities that current operators are not providing then buy some buses and set up a business!

I’m not a brain surgeon and don’t need to train as one to be able to see when it’s done badly!

But in this case I do think the criticism of D&G is unfair.

 

[JKP]

That's not how commercial operations work. The council can only step in if there's an essential need not met by commercial services e.g. education, shopping, medical, employment etc. If a commercial bus service runs from 9-3 the council certainly can step in and contract a commuter service. However, they can't contract an hourly service from 7am to 7pm to another operator - as it's illegal to use taxpayer's money to contract a service that's already being provided commerically. They could, however, contract a pre-9am working and a late afternoon/early everning service as an essential need wouldn't be met by the 9-3 service.

I would suggest to you that that is an interpretation. Councils do enhance frequencies if it is considered that an hourly service is insufficient. This can be done either through direct talks with the commercial operator or by slightly varying the start or end of the route to meet potential new or different markets. Then there is BSIP monies or has neither Cheshire authority been successful? Look at Hertfordshire to see how the LA has enhanced frequencies on commercial corridors.

 

[northwichcat]

This can be done either through direct talks with the commercial operator

Which then relies on the commercial operator actually wanting to make the change. If they're taking a bus off a public route to run a school contract, they won't necessarily have a spare vehicle and driver to fill in the gap. While the W7 is contracted, I wouldn't imagine Stagecoach would give up their contracted college service in order to provide longer hours for the Winsford local, even if the council offered them money for doing it.

Then there is BSIP monies or has neither Cheshire authority been successful?

Not only did Cheshire East and Cheshire West lose out in that bidding. Warrington's successful bid meant one cross-border was actually cut back as the result of changes made from BSIP funding! That was the 47 that included 3 return workings to High Legh and 2 extending to Knutsford. It's now a revised route with a much higher frequency but only in the Warrington borough. While Cheshire East have a bit of funding freed up from their contribution to the old 47, it's not really enough to offer much in the form of an ITT and a Knutsford to High Legh shuttle would be less viable, without any through journeys to Warrington being made.

If it was amazing bus territory then Arriva wouldn’t have pulled out.

Arriva have pulled out of almost everywhere in the North West! However, they haven't pulled out of Cheshire completely. They still have depots in the Chester and Runcorn areas. Unlike Stagecoach they've opted against running any public services in Winsford, Northwich and Crewe from a Chester area base. (Stagecoach operated the 48 Northwich-Frodsham before D&G won the most recent contract award). I haven't checked but when I asked about the school services Arriva operated from the Winsford depot, the response I got was they'll continue to run them from Runcorn. I don't know if that was confirmed and if they are still doing that.

I also don't think a big operator pulling out is automatically the sign of a bad bus terriority, especially considering Stagecoach have purchased depots from First Bus in both Greater Manchester and Cheshire. And didn't Arriva buy a Stagecoach depot in Yorkshire at one point?

I believe the Winsford depot needed a lot of work doing on it and the Macclesfield depot was treated as an outstation of Winsford, which was a major factor in them both being declared unviable by Arriva.

where there isn’t generally the appetite to increase council tax to pay for these sorts of public services.

Cheshire councils have increased their taxes by the maximum allowed by the government every year. They've also delegated some services (like public toilets) to newly formed town councils so the town council can add a premium on to council tax for services, which isn't covered by the government cap.

I would actually say the two Labour led councils of Cheshire West and Cheshire East would be in favour of getting more funding in for transport overall. However, it's difficult to increase the proportion spent on buses when the roads are in such a bad state, and I suppose roads full of potholes don't attract bus operators to put in cheap bids for tenders, as they'll need to factor in vehicle potentially needing attention more frequently.

 

[duncombec]

That's not how commercial operations work. The council can only step in if there's an essential need not met by commercial services e.g. education, shopping, medical, employment etc. If a commercial bus service runs from 9-3 the council certainly can step in and contract a commuter service. However, they can't contract an hourly service from 7am to 7pm to another operator - as it's illegal to use taxpayer's money to contract a service that's already being provided commerically. They could, however, contract a pre-9am working and a late afternoon/early everning service as an essential need wouldn't be met by the 9-3 service.

Whilst it may be difficult to "contract", they can ask operators how much it would cost to provide the desired enhancements, and providing it doesn't fall foul of other restrictions can be funded "de minimis".

I think you have to ask yourselves how many people were using the bus when the frequency was every 15 minutes, and would they still be there if that frequency still ran today. Even if they were, would it cover the costs that have increased in the interim (fuel, vehicle, wages, etc.). If the answer is no, I think you have your answer why the frequency has not been retained. It's not as though similar things aren't happening in areas Chaserider/D&G/Centrebus have never touched...