Day Tripper Whole of Yorkshire

[Stan Drews]

The 57 did not become part of the 22/23, other that the part of the route shared by some workings with the 56. The PVR for 56 was 1 and 2 for the 142/143 so no vehicle savings. NYCCs proposed savings were to turn them over to Minibuses. Concensus elsewhere is that the 22/23 are a Transdev invention not down to NYCC, who incidentally at short notice set up a demand responsive service to cover the 23 exclusive route due to the limited service provided by Transdev.

I'm not really bothered about the consensus elsewhere, as I prefer to just stick to the facts.
NYCC had to make further savings for the 16/17 year, and the current 22/23 and 1A services provide that with one less PVR than the old 1A/56/57/142/142 did. Therefore NYCC were able to achieve their savings for these routes with minimal impact on users of the old services.
Believe or not, many operators and local authorities are able to work quite well in partnership for the overall good of the travelling public.

 

[SCH117X]

I'm not really bothered about the consensus elsewhere, as I prefer to just stick to the facts.
NYCC had to make further savings for the 16/17 year, and the current 22/23 and 1A services provide that with one less PVR than the old 1A/56/57/142/142 did. Therefore NYCC were able to achieve their savings for these routes with minimal impact on users of the old services.
Believe or not, many operators and local authorities are able to work quite well in partnership for the overall good of the travelling public.

The hourly 1A extension was a commercial undertaking by Transdev
http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/article/31207/Bus-operator-goes-ahead-with-additional-service

The PVR saving arises from merging it with the 57

 

[Stan Drews]

The hourly 1A extension was a commercial undertaking by Transdev
http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/article/31207/Bus-operator-goes-ahead-with-additional-service

The PVR saving arises from merging it with the 57

You can portray the PVR saving anyway you like, but the fact remains that the rural services in the area are now provided by one less Transdev bus, and that the NYCC budget has benefited from this reduction in resources being utilised.

 

[SCH117X]

You can portray the PVR saving anyway you like, but the fact remains that the rural services in the area are now provided by one less Transdev bus, and that the NYCC budget has benefited from this reduction in resources being utilised.

The implication being that the "57" parts of the 1A are no longer funded by NYCC?

 

[Stan Drews]

The implication being that the "57" parts of the 1A are no longer funded by NYCC?

Let's put it this way, Transdev wouldn't be running the rural bits if they weren't financially supported by NYCC, and as they come as a package You can't really isolate specific sections of the "network".

 

[Deerfold]

Let's put it this way, Transdev wouldn't be running the rural bits if they weren't financially supported by NYCC, and as they come as a package You can't really isolate specific sections of the "network".

It's very rare for funding to not be for specific parts of the network.

Unfortunately NYCC do not make it as clear as some local authorities (such as Derbyshire) what they are subsidising at any particular time.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's very rare for funding to not be for specific parts of the network.

Unfortunately NYCC do not make it as clear as some local authorities (such as Derbyshire) what they are subsidising at any particular time.

As I said before, the 56/57 and 142/3 have been largely tendered for a long time so I would be very surprised if NYCC aren't supporting them

 

[SCH117X]

Is the issue that they are being supported by NYCC rather than being tendered - NYCC giving Transdev the money they would have got for the tendered service to operate as Transdev see fit subject to a minimal service provision being met (which knowing NYCC would probably be a Fiat 500 twice a day!). If they are tendered why did the change occur at a completely different date to the rest of the NYCC tendered changes.

The PVR reduction is actually in the commercially operated 1A if the "57" is being supported by NYCC. As I said earlier NYCC had to set up a demand responsive service to cover a lack of 23s despite only a few weeks earlier axing the same demand responsive service. And then their are the forthcoming timetable and route changes next month which unless restricted to the 22X and 23X would be very odd for a tendered service.

 

[Stan Drews]

Many bus services are financially supported by local authorities, and not always tendered in a formal way.
Where services have been awarded after a formal tendering process, the contracts may be for 3, 5 or even 7 years (or any other length in-between!). However, circumstances can change during the contract period, so they always have clauses that allow the contract to be terminated or amended during its lifetime. The most common reasons for contracts to be revised are changes to commercially operated services, or more recently budget cuts at the tendering authority.
NYCC have been in the latter scenario, and I understand either cancelled or renegotiated amendments to all their contracted local bus services over the winter, which were publicised earlier this year.
The change date for the 1A/22/23/56/57/142/143 revisions will have been mutually agreed between NYCC and Transdev, and presumably suited both parties.
Incidentally the PVR of the 1/1A/1B/1C did not change when part of the old 57 route was incorporated, so is still 10.

 

[SCH117X]

I know the PVR of the route 1 services did not drop but if NYCC are funding the 57 sections that is equivalent of 1 bus, while the 22/23 require the 3 buses that the 56/142/143 needed. So their is no actual PVR saving on the for the funded services - the 57 being amalgamated into the route 1 PVR and the reduction comes about from the hourly 1As incorporating bits of the 57 - 2 buses doing the role of 3 previously (1 on the 57 and 2 on the extended 1A).

 

[Stan Drews]

I know the PVR of the route 1 services did not drop but if NYCC are funding the 57 sections that is equivalent of 1 bus, while the 22/23 require the 3 buses that the 56/142/143 needed. So their is no actual PVR saving on the for the funded services - the 57 being amalgamated into the route 1 PVR and the reduction comes about from the hourly 1As incorporating bits of the 57 - 2 buses doing the role of 3 previously (1 on the 57 and 2 on the extended 1A).

I realise no matter how I try to explain recent happenings, you have your own view, so probably little point in continuing the debate. However, for the benefit of others with an interest in the topic, I can confirm the services remain financially supported by NYCC, and the recent changes introduced resulted in savings from a reduced PVR being passed on to NYCC.

 

[SCH117X]

The "reduced PVR" is presumably because 2 1/2 miles of the "57" is the commercially operated 1A route so the PVR comes out around theoretically 3.8 buses.