|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 9, 2016 21:56:45 GMT 1
What's the deal with that one ... is that replacing the 28 and/or 29 Mainline service? All I can see on Transdev's website is that the Mainline services are going to be renumbered as M1, M2, M3 and M4 to make the numbers easier to understand ... given that there are 9 different branches that make up the Mainline network, I'm not sure how using just 4 route numbers is supposed to make it easier, given that that there aren't enough numbers to give each of those branches its own number! Details do not appear to have been given out yet but Alex tweeted about it last week See May 2016 service changes
|
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Mar 11, 2016 20:56:32 GMT 1
Confirmation from Rosso about the 482 replacing the 465 to/from Todmorden from 4 April. From same date, Rosso will run a schoolday journey on the 590 from Rochdale to Todmorden as a placement journey from Todmorden to Wardle Academy. www.rossobus.com/article.shtml?articleid=5588
|
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Mar 14, 2016 20:34:56 GMT 1
Meanwhile in Hambleton district, Reliance are adding Sowerby to the 30 route reliancebuses.co.uk/reliance-live/ and Stephensons are running a seasonal Sunday service on the 31x from 10th April. Nice to see the moorsbus M15 reinstated. Edit - I'll try again. As of 27th March, Stephensons will be starting their Sunday buses from Easingwold to Castle Howard (Easingwold to York portion shown separately as 31X). Then as of 10th April they're adding more journeys between Easingwold and York!
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 15, 2016 19:02:39 GMT 1
steveinselby, a bit more info on the 180/X80 funding cuts are on the NYCC cuts topic under this one, info posted 20 Feb. Dalesbus are also saying a roughly 2 hourly service will operate funded by Lancs County Council but it's unknown at present who will run it. Lancs CC now are saying it will be operated commercially by Rotala Preston www.lancashire.gov.uk/media/897389/bus-services-list.pdf
|
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Mar 15, 2016 22:00:22 GMT 1
PB1064235/20 - M TRAVEL LTD, VANGUARD YARD, CARR WOOD ROAD, CASTLEFORD, WF10 4SB Variation Accepted by SN: Operating between Pontefract bus station and Ackworth moor top given service number 49/544 effective from 23-Apr-2016. To amend Timetable.
|
|
|
Post by andyk4050 on Mar 16, 2016 15:26:44 GMT 1
steveinselby, a bit more info on the 180/X80 funding cuts are on the NYCC cuts topic under this one, info posted 20 Feb. Dalesbus are also saying a roughly 2 hourly service will operate funded by Lancs County Council but it's unknown at present who will run it. Lancs CC now are saying it will be operated commercially by Rotala Preston www.lancashire.gov.uk/media/897389/bus-services-list.pdfHere's the timetable starting from 3rd April
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 16, 2016 16:27:20 GMT 1
Here's the timetable starting from 3rd April Do you have another link for that? The image has been compressed and most of it is unreadable...
|
|
|
Post by andyk4050 on Mar 16, 2016 16:45:25 GMT 1
Here's the timetable starting from 3rd April Do you have another link for that? The image has been compressed and most of it is unreadable... Is this one any better sorry stevieinselby
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 16, 2016 16:58:47 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 17, 2016 16:02:19 GMT 1
I've been looking at the new timetables for the Wharfedale services, and quite frankly I'm baffled. First of all, I cast my mind back a few years, when the Wharfedale network was still one of NYCC's flagship routes, with the 72 running hourly between Skipton and Grassington, and continuing alternately to Hebden or Buckden, plus the 74 running every 2 hours between Grassington and Ilkley, and also covering occasional runs round the 73 in Skipton as well. All that was achieved using 4 buses, with plenty of spare time in the schedules. And then I look at what's coming next month ... and I'm really not sure that, if I started with a blank sheet of paper and a mission to make a timetable that was less efficient and more confusing for passengers, I could come up with something that's more of a dog's breakfast than what's on the table. (And I'm not blaming the bus companies for this, I know they are just trying to do the best with the paltry crumbs they can get from NYCC, I'm laying the blame firmly with ... well, I'm sure you can work it out!). On TTh, the planned service needs three buses, one each from POTD, NYCC and UWV, and that sees fewer buses running between Skipton and Grassington (even discounting the evening services that used to run), no more buses running between Grassington and Buckden, and no service at all to Hebden or Ilkley. On MWF, we add a limited service to Hebden, Bolton Abbey and Ilkley (but fewer services than used to run for almost all journeys), and the fleet usage goes up to 5 vehicles. And this is supposed to be saving money! Yes, I know that by using a minibus (how does that square with DDA requirements?) and volunteer drivers, and possibly by using NYCC fleet that is used elsewhere at other times (although I can't see where these synergies might come from myself), there can be some savings over a conventional service, but this just seems absolutely bonkers! The thing is, I can draw up a timetable that offers a broadly similar level of service, or better, to all areas of the network, 6 days a week, using just two buses, but using them smarter and more intensively. Why couldn't we have something like this instead?
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 17, 2016 19:10:03 GMT 1
Could it be the NYCC version makes use of leiu time of the vehicles concerned which have other duties outside of the timetable
|
|
|
Post by Burnside on Mar 18, 2016 7:56:46 GMT 1
Also the volunteer service will be cheaper to run due to no wages to be paid to the drivers and the fact it's probably something like a Sprinter or Transit that will be used and will be cheaper to run than a Solo.
|
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Mar 22, 2016 21:11:17 GMT 1
PB0000815/44 - FIRST WEST YORKSHIRE LTD, HUNSLET PARK DEPOT, DONISTHORPE STREET, LEEDS, LS10 1PL Variation Accepted by SN: Operating between Middleton, Thorpe Lane and Roundhay Park given service number 12/13/13A effective from 17-Apr-2016. To amend Timetable.
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 25, 2016 12:11:12 GMT 1
The Preston Bus X80/180/280 seems to have a lot of empty mileage.
1815 MF / 1805 Sat Preston-Barnoldswick (could return to Preston duplicating the 1905 MF 1855 Sat from Skipton) 0624 MF and 0700 MF/Sat Kelbrook-Preston 0654 Sat Barnoldswick - Preston
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Mar 27, 2016 21:54:39 GMT 1
They'll be able to nip along the M65 in no time though, rather than running in service.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 28, 2016 9:59:53 GMT 1
The Preston Bus X80/180/280 seems to have a lot of empty mileage. 1815 MF / 1805 Sat Preston-Barnoldswick (could return to Preston duplicating the 1905 MF 1855 Sat from Skipton) 0624 MF and 0700 MF/Sat Kelbrook-Preston 0654 Sat Barnoldswick - Preston Two or three positioning moves at the start and end of a full day's service doesn't sound too bad at all, if there are no wasted journeys during the day.
|
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Mar 31, 2016 19:55:36 GMT 1
PB1121999/10 - LADIES ONLY TRAVEL LTD, SHERWOOD ROAD, ARMYTAGE ROAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BRIGHOUSE, HD6 1QG Variation Accepted by SN: Operating between Bradford Interchange and White Rose Centre given service number 711 effective from 18-Apr-2016. To amend Timetable.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Apr 4, 2016 13:39:57 GMT 1
Transdev publicity for the 180/280/X80 has left much to be desired. There is still nothing on their website to say they've stopped running it. Timetables disappeared today, but were still up yesterday, despite Transdev's last day being Saturday and Preston Bus's first day being today.
I mentioned this to them on twitter on Saturday but that doesn't seem to have helped.
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Apr 4, 2016 15:37:49 GMT 1
It should be possible to programme a website to remove the timetable at the end of the last journey on the last day of operation automatically. If this had not been done and the person/s who run the website only work Mn-Fri 9-5 then removing timetables would have to wait until today. That does not prevent, however, a banner being put on the timetable stating "last day of operation will be 2nd April". Just a thought for the timetable not being removed on Sunday
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Apr 4, 2016 17:55:14 GMT 1
Meanwhile Rotala still have not put their fares up on their web site despite promising to do so on the page announcing their running of the service, just a glib ask the driver for details!
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Apr 4, 2016 18:00:05 GMT 1
It should be possible to programme a website to remove the timetable at the end of the last journey on the last day of operation automatically. If this had not been done and the person/s who run the website only work Mn-Fri 9-5 then removing timetables would have to wait until today. That does not prevent, however, a banner being put on the timetable stating "last day of operation will be 2nd April". Just a thought for the timetable not being removed on Sunday Or any comment at all. Until this afternoon the only comment about the routes was that Transdev was in negotiation with LCC. There was no clue anywhere on the website that they were stopping running it. Now there is an update, it's a change on a news item dated early March.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Apr 5, 2016 19:11:04 GMT 1
Why is the forum full of nitpicking and generally being negative towards the bus industry all of a sudden.
Bus companies are not obligated to run a website at all, so to have a thread every time one is not updated is getting tiresome. There has probably been other publicity surrounding this service, LCC publicity, newspaper articles, posters on bus, talking to drivers etc.
|
|
|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Apr 5, 2016 19:24:31 GMT 1
But it's not on when a company advertises a bus service that no longer runs, I'd much prefer a timetable to be taken off a website early if it can't be taken off on the last day than to find I'd made plans what included travelling on a bus what no longer runs!
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Apr 5, 2016 19:49:16 GMT 1
Bus companies are not obligated to run a website at all, so to have a thread every time one is not updated is getting tiresome. There has probably been other publicity surrounding this service, LCC publicity, newspaper articles, posters on bus, talking to drivers etc. No, no private company in a deregulated industry is forced to run a website, but as a high proportion of people will plan their journeys online and will look for their website to find out information, they would be foolish not to. When a company or organisation has a website that is intended to provide information or allow transactions (ie, not counting "just for fun" type sites), they do have an obligation (a moral obligation, if nothing else) to ensure that it is accurate and up-to-date, and doesn't contain any information that isn't true. If it's difficult to use or is missing information then that is bad practice, but it isn't the end of the world, it's their loss when potential customers steer clear because they can't find the information they want. But if there are mistakes on it – such as advertising a service that you no longer run – or misleading information – such as failing to mention that a service will not be running after today – then that is simply not acceptable. People should be able to rely on a company's website to find out accurate information. The cost of running a website is small. There's a reason why companies and organisations are trying to slim down every other source of information they provide and direct everyone to their websites – because that is the most efficient and cost-effective way of reaching a wide audience. Yes, I have some sympathy for small operators who don't have the manpower or resources to maintain or contract out a large site – but Transdev is not a small company, and there's no excuse for them not to have got this one right. On a related note – this is one of the reasons why I don't like PDF timetables. Google indexes the PDF directly (unless the webmaster puts in measures to stop it), and so someone googling for "bus skipton to preston" will probably (if my website doesn't come up first!) get a link direct to the PDF rather than to a web page. So even if they add helpful notes about forthcoming changes to the website, a lot of people won't see them. And then you have a further problem when subsequent versions of the PDF have different filenames, and Google still indexes the old ones long after they have been superseded...
|
|