May 2024 service changes (Read 4,826 times)

[kayden11]

I do agree, same with Swallownest when first stopped the link to peaks dead, it was a while before TM took it over and rerouted the 26 and 26A, years ago they had the 26, x26 x56 263 and 264 iirc,does this mean first will be serving high Moor as there will be nowhere to turn round at Norwood

[The Captain]

Apr 22, 2024 22:42:39 GMT kayden11 said:

I do agree, same with Swallownest when first stopped the link to peaks dead, it was a while before TM took it over and rerouted the 26 and 26A, years ago they had the 26, x26 x56 263 and 264 iirc,does this mean first will be serving high Moor as there will be nowhere to turn round at Norwood

Norwood Crescent.

[kayden11]

Yes true I just wasn't sure if that was wide enough for buses that was all

[Mainline]

Apr 22, 2024 21:55:54 GMT The Captain said:

Apr 22, 2024 21:31:18 GMT kayden11 said:

You could have a 73 that does a circuit so when it gets to clowne goes through renishaw back to peaks direct then 74 opposite way round, I'm not obsessed with circulars by the way lol I'm just thinking of ways they could link the bits up that may be needed most and scrap the bits that aren't used if that makes sense

Too much obsession with what the 73 and 74 does it's set in stone 1 bus stand alone Monday to Saturday with its regulars and Renishaw gets well covered.
The link that needs putting back in place is Killamarsh and Norwood which would have fitted in seamlessly with an hourly 7 extended from the Peaks.
Firsts going to do it with the 120 instead which is ironic how they abandoned Killamarsh after decades of stability be it X52, 264, 21 95 etc.

With Stagecoach making all the cutbacks they have over recent years, I can understand why First abandoned it so long ago.

An extended 7 would’ve made sense hourly - or even an 8 or 41 with First, but the idea to extend the 120 is a surprising and rather odd move meaning there’ll now be three daytime variations of the route in south-east Sheffield.

[simonk82701]

As usual, it is the average passenger that suffers with all this messing about. First seemingly can effectively remove services overnight, as they did with the 27 Rotherham. Although I did hear that they gave the correct notice, and that SYMCA was to blame. Hulley's notified passengers weeks ago to be fair, and DCC has had time to sort this. There should be no gap in service, but there will be. You have to ask yourself, if SSY are going to pick up a tender for a service, that they ran until 6 months ago, wouldn't it be easier to offer Hulleys an enhanced tender to carry on the route as it is?

[dougie]

Apr 23, 2024 7:02:49 GMT simonk82701 said:

As usual, it is the average passenger that suffers with all this messing about. First seemingly can effectively remove services overnight, as they did with the 27 Rotherham. Although I did hear that they gave the correct notice, and that SYMCA was to blame. Hulley's notified passengers weeks ago to be fair, and DCC has had time to sort this. There should be no gap in service, but there will be. You have to ask yourself, if SSY are going to pick up a tender for a service, that they ran until 6 months ago, wouldn't it be easier to offer Hulleys an enhanced tender to carry on the route as it is?

I appreciate its frustrating for passengers

But if you offered a struggling operator an “enhanced” bag of money to continue operating any service that they said they were struggling with then you’d soon find hundreds/thousands of routes around the country where firms were trying the same trick

(They are commercial firms, of course a few of them would game the system if it was a one-way bet)

Whereas here, Hulleys took the risk that, by asking for more money, they’d lose the contract

The problem is with the bus companies who put in bids that are too low, not with the Councils/ PTEs

[simonk82701]

Apr 23, 2024 8:15:14 GMT dougie said:

Apr 23, 2024 7:02:49 GMT simonk82701 said:

As usual, it is the average passenger that suffers with all this messing about. First seemingly can effectively remove services overnight, as they did with the 27 Rotherham. Although I did hear that they gave the correct notice, and that SYMCA was to blame. Hulley's notified passengers weeks ago to be fair, and DCC has had time to sort this. There should be no gap in service, but there will be. You have to ask yourself, if SSY are going to pick up a tender for a service, that they ran until 6 months ago, wouldn't it be easier to offer Hulleys an enhanced tender to carry on the route as it is?

I appreciate its frustrating for passengers

But if you offered a struggling operator an “enhanced” bag of money to continue operating any service that they said they were struggling with then you’d soon find hundreds/thousands of routes around the country where firms were trying the same trick

(They are commercial firms, of course a few of them would game the system if it was a one-way bet)

Whereas here, Hulleys took the risk that, by asking for more money, they’d lose the contract

The problem is with the bus companies who put in bids that are too low, not with the Councils/ PTEs

Yes I see that. The issue I have is the rumour that SSY maybe getting it again, when six months ago they didn't want it. Have they bid for more money to make sure costs are covered? Or have they been begged by DCC to run it, because no one else will? That is what I mean. I would sooner Hulley's just were given enough support to keep it going than have a disruption to service.  

[simonk82701]

Apr 23, 2024 7:02:49 GMT simonk82701 said:

As usual, it is the average passenger that suffers with all this messing about. First seemingly can effectively remove services overnight, as they did with the 27 Rotherham. Although I did hear that they gave the correct notice, and that SYMCA was to blame, because they spent too long "begging" First to run a service they didn't want. Hulley's notified passengers weeks ago to be fair, and DCC has had time to sort this. There should be no gap in service, but there will be. You have to ask yourself, if SSY are going to pick up a tender for a service, that they ran until 6 months ago, wouldn't it be easier to offer Hulleys an enhanced tender to carry on the route as it is?

[kayden11]

I totally agree with you Simon, but i would have changed the route if hulleys had kept it, holymoorside to pass in 1hr 25 mins via chatsworth Road even at peak times it totally unachievable, tge reason also why the 80 atm is so unreliable I'd there's no extra time given at peak time and it serves the main route into Chesterfield

[teapot42]

Apr 22, 2024 21:27:28 GMT kayden11 said:

I totally agree you could route the 84 as a circular round brim common one goes from the hospital up to brim then down to Chesterfield like a 77 then the opposite way round the opposite direction

I did wonder if you could interwork the 84 and 170 that way. Having a link out to Sainsbury would also be useful for example. Only real question is whether Brimington to town needs another bus each hour when they've already got 4, or 6 if you count the 90 which isn't as direct.

[teapot42]

Apr 23, 2024 8:15:14 GMT dougie said:

Apr 23, 2024 7:02:49 GMT simonk82701 said:

As usual, it is the average passenger that suffers with all this messing about. First seemingly can effectively remove services overnight, as they did with the 27 Rotherham. Although I did hear that they gave the correct notice, and that SYMCA was to blame. Hulley's notified passengers weeks ago to be fair, and DCC has had time to sort this. There should be no gap in service, but there will be. You have to ask yourself, if SSY are going to pick up a tender for a service, that they ran until 6 months ago, wouldn't it be easier to offer Hulleys an enhanced tender to carry on the route as it is?

I appreciate its frustrating for passengers

But if you offered a struggling operator an “enhanced” bag of money to continue operating any service that they said they were struggling with then you’d soon find hundreds/thousands of routes around the country where firms were trying the same trick

(They are commercial firms, of course a few of them would game the system if it was a one-way bet)

Whereas here, Hulleys took the risk that, by asking for more money, they’d lose the contract

The problem is with the bus companies who put in bids that are too low, not with the Councils/ PTEs

Something I'm not totally clear on here, but I thought Hulleys were running it commercially so no input from DCC other than funding evening services.

Can DCC offer to subsidise the daytime service with the existing operator, or does it have to go to tender?

Main issue Hulleys have is that their available fleet is stretched to the limit. Unless they gave up another service they couldn't put more resources in to the 80, so the only option would be to cut parts of the route.

I can't help but think the local councils aren't helping things however. The Chatsworth Road cycle lane has increased delays in the area and several bus stands were removed as part of the works. (The council actually lied about having consulted the operator over this...) DCC also wash their hands when it comes to roadworks, claiming they can do nothing. Reading the rules suggests that while they can't prevent most works, they can insist on mitigations to disruption and force contractors to keep disruption to a minimum.

I also seem to recall that part of the DCC BSIP bid included bus priority measures. I've seen nothing about where (and when) these would be implemented - can anyone help?

I've got to say that this had a bit of a feeling of inevitability. Stagecoach were obviously angling for subsidy for the service, Hulleys alternative seemed optimistic from the start and we seem to be back where we could have been months ago if an agreement had been reached with Stagecoach to fund the route in the first place.

Hulleys obviously have ambitions to expand more in to Chesterfield (and beyond) but they need a new depot if they are going to do so, as they simply don't have the capacity to do it properly as things stand.

[teapot42]

A bit more detail has appeared on the DCC service changes page:
www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport-roads/public-transport/news-notices/bus-service-changes/forthcoming-changes-to-bus-services.aspx

Hulleys 80 withdrawn, section between Holymoorside and the Hospital will be replaced by the 84. They are still looking for an operator for the rest.
The 170 is going to 2-hourly through Old Brampton, with the opposite hour ones running direct down Chatsworth Road. Presumably this is to ease timings a bit. I wonder how long this will last - a 2 hourly service is enough for Old Brampton, but apparently a councillor lives there who kicks off every time they try and cut it back.
The first 272 of the day from Castleton is cancelled, and there are tweaks to the 257.

Hulleys timetables aren't up yet, the one for the 90 is, but changes there seem minor.

[crossscythe]

The 27 was a popular bus. I used to catch it often from C/Peaks to Whiston, it always had healthy loadings when I used it. It was usually an M-VET B10 Alexander PS.

TM Travel are perfectly placed to operate the route 80 from C/Peaks to Chesterfield. Their depot lies at the heart of the route and TM Travel are a familiar brand with the people of Derbyshire and South East Sheffield. If they could get their fleet sorted out e.g. the troublesome Enviro400s, they'd be an ideal candidate.

The rumours of First extending the 120 to Killamarsh are interesting. The Peak services don't even go beyond Crystal Peaks at present. It would be a jolly long trip from Fulwood to Killamarsh. It might be a more preferable option for customers to stay on direct to Sheffield and Rh Hospital rather than changing to the tram on Eckington Way.

[teapot42]

TM aren't massively familiar in Chesterfield. It's been a while since they operated here and even when they did it was just the odd contract such as the 48. That said, I did wonder if something like the 30 could be extended through to Chesterfield, or indeed if there was scope for an hourly X30 rather than just during the peaks. Taking the right route and right timings and it could become a popular alternative for anyone who needs to be on the west side of Sheffield.

You almost wonder if the 120 would be better split in to a family of route numbers to help with clarity. This would make 4 variations now so knowing which one to look for on tracking apps never mind on the bus itself will be fun.

I guess it makes more sense to extend the First one rather than Stagecoach as you can short-cut from the Peaks to Killamarsh, rather than tacking on after Halfway. Bit of a mess for anyone who uses bus passes though as Killamarsh is outside the SY boundary so can't access the multi-operator tickets but it seems like no one operator will do more than one service.

[crossscythe]

Apr 24, 2024 15:09:32 GMT teapot42 said:

TM aren't massively familiar in Chesterfield. It's been a while since they operated here and even when they did it was just the odd contract such as the 48. That said, I did wonder if something like the 30 could be extended through to Chesterfield, or indeed if there was scope for an hourly X30 rather than just during the peaks. Taking the right route and right timings and it could become a popular alternative for anyone who needs to be on the west side of Sheffield.

You almost wonder if the 120 would be better split in to a family of route numbers to help with clarity. This would make 4 variations now so knowing which one to look for on tracking apps never mind on the bus itself will be fun.

I guess it makes more sense to extend the First one rather than Stagecoach as you can short-cut from the Peaks to Killamarsh, rather than tacking on after Halfway. Bit of a mess for anyone who uses bus passes though as Killamarsh is outside the SY boundary so can't access the multi-operator tickets but it seems like no one operator will do more than one service.

I do hate having 2 different companies operate the same route code but only one goes the full route e.g. to Halfway or Fulwood. It would have been better if First made the former 41 side of the route merge with the 42 and extend it to Fulwood to replace the 60. Ofcourse at the time of change, SYPTE were pushing for Optio Orange and wanted a sense of joint services so will have encouraged First to use the code 120.

There could be scope to run a bus from Sheffield Interchange up the Parkway to the Mosborough turn off, to the Peaks, down Eckington Way, turn around at Eckington bus station and go across to Killamarsh and Spinkhill. I'd rather Oliver Coppard tendered that, along with Derbyshire Council, than the city clippers that cart fresh air around Trippet Lane all day.