High Peak Discussion

[markymark2000]

I do think tho if it was marketed a bit better or a few changes was made Transpeak could be a alot better service.
For example if trentbarton promoted it there end as they own half of high peak

In my opinion, the service needs some kind of ticket acceptance at the Trent Barton end. Full cross ticket acceptance needed with the 6.1 given the TP and 6.1 complement each other to run half hourly Derby-Bakewell. Plus then have the ZigZag accepted on TP as far as Bakewell (part of the cross ticket acceptence), then ZigZagPlus permits travel as far as Buxton.

Any passengers between Belper and Bakewell are financially penalised depending on which bus they get on despite the fact HP is 50% owned by the same people who own TrentBarton. This puts your everyday passengers off travelling and so negatively affects patronage on both 6.1 and HP services (since if people wanted to travel and timing work out that they need to pay for High Peak one way, but Trent Barton on the return, they aren't likely to travel because costs would be too high, especially on a regular basis).
Between Belper and Derby, it gives both HP and TB potential to promote '5 buses per hour Belper to Derby thanks to the new partnership' which is a great selling point and great advert for passengers.

Sadly though, I can't see this happening. Too much like common sense and takes too much commercial initiative for High Peak and TrentBarton (HP is just plodding on with minimal care for anything, as proven by the fact the 272 started months ago, and they still haven't sorted the timetable out to either reduce dead mileage nor to add in the Bradwell-Castleton journey which is apparently running but there is no proof bar a notice on the website. And TrentBarton aren't much better, they haven't introduced anything really new in years and seem to just be happily plodding).

 

[Trainman40083]

I do think tho if it was marketed a bit better or a few changes was made Transpeak could be a alot better service.
For example if trentbarton promoted it there end as they own half of high peak but then again I guess that will take numbers of the sixes which they probably won't do or even again rebrand transpeak under the sixes brand and either extend sixes from bakewell to buxton even if it uses some highpeak drivers for the leg to keep costs down? Or highpeak runs a few journeys kind of like how nottsderby used to have a ilkeston flyer bus (Scania 600) and did a few runs or how trent used to run along side arriva for the x38 or stagcoach for pronto as the current transpeak route to matlock from derby is only about 10mins quicker than the 6.1
Or if they could incorporate into the sixes running as at the moment there's 4 routes which gives a derby belper 15min frequency if they added the transpeak in so it counts as 5 routes so 12mins derby belper frequency so every30ish minutes there's a bus to matlock (except still run along the A6 kind of like a 6.1x) if there's enough passenger usage as not only it could pick up more passengers from derby to belper to help usage of transpeak
I was curious tho do alot people use it between cromford and belper along the A6 through whatstandwell and ambergate where the 6.1 don't serve?

Just a correction. Trentbarton do not own half of High Peak. They are both separate companies within Wellglade Holdings.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

In my opinion, the service needs some kind of ticket acceptance at the Trent Barton end. Full cross ticket acceptance needed with the 6.1 given the TP and 6.1 complement each other to run half hourly Derby-Bakewell. Plus then have the ZigZag accepted on TP as far as Bakewell (part of the cross ticket acceptence), then ZigZagPlus permits travel as far as Buxton.


Sadly though, I can't see this happening. Too much like common sense and takes too much commercial initiative for High Peak and TrentBarton (HP is just plodding on with minimal care for anything, as proven by the fact the 272 started months ago, and they still haven't sorted the timetable out to either reduce dead mileage nor to add in the Bradwell-Castleton journey which is apparently running but there is no proof bar a notice on the website. And TrentBarton aren't much better, they haven't introduced anything really new in years and seem to just be happily plodding).

Wellglade won't offer ticket acceptance between companies they fully own (Notts & Derby & TM Travel don't accept any type of Zig Zag do they?) as Trent Barton basically seem to refuse to acknowledge they are part of a group at all (Kinch are treated almost like a sub-brand of Trent now) so the likelihood of getting them to agree to add High Peak is unlikely (they won't even accept High Peak staff passes).

In regards to the 272 you have to give people time to review a new service (& receive feedback and there was very quickly some clear feedback on improvements over what was inherited) and then allow for notice periods and fixed change dates which limit when you can make changes (Derbyshire traditionally have about half a dozen, Easter then July are the relevant pair for the period mentioned, South Yorkshire only have 2 at Easter & September but councils may give some flexibility when dealing with cross boundary services to align one with other). There wasn't enough time after taking over the service to hit the Easter change date with properly considered improvements so the service will see changes from the next available one. Hulleys apparently had been picking up in Bradwell on that first trip without advertising it for years, it is the sort of thing that only becomes public after a change like this happens. There isn't a lot that can be done around the dead runs to/from Sheffield easily, if you run in service you are just duplicating existing journeys of First (or Stagecoach on the 65 if you try to come in from Buxton) which may create responses you don't want and/or if you try to avoid them by delaying/advancing timings you step over duty length matters and need an extra duty that isn't currently needed and pushes costs up more than you may gain by running a trip early or late. Sometimes a dead run is more cost effective than a service run even when travelling some distance.

 

[markymark2000]

Wellglade won't offer ticket acceptance between companies they fully own (Notts & Derby & TM Travel don't accept any type of Zig Zag do they?) as Trent Barton basically seem to refuse to acknowledge they are part of a group at all (Kinch are treated almost like a sub-brand of Trent now) so the likelihood of getting them to agree to add High Peak is unlikely (they won't even accept High Peak staff passes).

How very daft. So it's just yet another bus operator who is sticking up barriers for the public to travel by bus.

In regards to the 272

The basic issue of the 07:36 trip which apparently starts in Bradwell, this could have been registered as soon as they realised they were doing it and then registered it short notice under the reason that they are replacing a similar service with Hulleys ceasing trading (the same reasons they registered the whole 271/272 service). They could have done it and didn't need to wait for any of the fixed change dates. They are choosing not to because it's effort.

Larger changes, agreed they may need more time, but by now, I'd have expected something. Even if it's just minor timetable changes (as I highly doubt Hulleys timetable was perfect)

There isn't a lot that can be done around the dead runs to/from Sheffield easily, if you run in service you are just duplicating existing journeys of First (or Stagecoach on the 65 if you try to come in from Buxton) which may create responses you don't want and/or if you try to avoid them by delaying/advancing timings you step over duty length matters and need an extra duty that isn't currently needed and pushes costs up more than you may gain by running a trip early or late. Sometimes a dead run is more cost effective than a service run even when travelling some distance.

Duplicating over existing journeys shouldn't matter now that any ticket acceptance partnership is down the swanny. When the registration comes in, High Peak should be maximising their potential on the service and ignoring any partnership timetable that was in place previously. Given the dead run will almost certainly be following the 272 route anyway, journey time difference would be limited to diverting to serve Bamford Turning Circle, and any time spend picking up/dropping off passengers. Any good scheduler will be giving padding anyway to the dead run to ensure that the bus can leave on time from it's first stop, so in the end, the time difference shouldn't be too massive.

 

[Trainman40083]

Worth adding that Notts and Derby do accept Mango on SOME of their services, but not as part of the daily cap.