|
Post by leedsbusman on Nov 6, 2016 20:36:23 GMT 1
Transdev did bid for the 940 as they are working peak hour services Mon-Fri although Metro are still not showing the 0810 from Holt Park; are the Connexions ones tendered or as suggested above in this thread commercial? It is there, hidden a bit as you need to change direction to "to Otley"! I'm fairly certain the current timetable on the 96x services (and indeed 940) is the one specified by Metro.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 6, 2016 21:11:54 GMT 1
Transdev knew the frequency of each service when they submitted the bid, it's either they didn't do their homework first regarding how long each route would take and stupidly took a guess, or they thought it'd be tight but we've got to take a chance and get one over on Connexions. Either way, for such an experienced company to put in such a flawed bid it's clearly not on! Might have to message the local MP for Otley on this issue and see what he has to say, by the way he's very pro public transport. Is Otley within the Lib-Dem held Leeds North West constituency? I am encouraged that he is so pro public transport.
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Nov 6, 2016 23:37:10 GMT 1
As quoted above by "buseireann" the routes, hours and frequency are laid down by Metro and therefore should be included in the invitation to tender. The operator cannot therefore submit a flawed bid in the hopes of winning or driving another operator off the route. Such action would leave the "winning operator" open to action in law etc by the operators who "lost out" tender round.
|
|
|
Post by northerner on Nov 7, 2016 20:07:15 GMT 1
As quoted above by "buseireann" the routes, hours and frequency are laid down by Metro and therefore should be included in the invitation to tender. The operator cannot therefore submit a flawed bid in the hopes of winning or driving another operator off the route. Such action would leave the "winning operator" open to action in law etc by the operators who "lost out" tender round. But the bus operators must have some say in the timetable? For example, Keighley's K10 route is a Metro contract but has the Transdev trademark of a wedge of padding between last timing point and terminus. TLC for example don't do that on their routes
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Nov 8, 2016 0:33:50 GMT 1
Yes the operator may well have some say in the timetable but it is Metro who have the final word as they(Metro) are "paying" for the services to be operated by the company who has been awarded the contract. Having said that the operator can always so "No" before agreeing to the contract if the operator feel that the terms and conditions are not suitable.
|
|
|
Post by neukit on Nov 9, 2016 17:38:23 GMT 1
The 962/963/964 services are indeed being operated exactly as specified by Metro. It is a 2 bus cycle, which also includes the peak time 940 journeys. The off-peak 940 journeys were a separate contract, for which Connexions obviously submitted the lowest bid. It should be noted that the overall PVR for these Wharfedale services reduced by 1 with the various tweaks that Metro did to the routes/times. Therefore any 'savings' are as a result of their specifications and nothing to do with Transdev, despite what Connexions might try to tell you!
|
|
|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Nov 9, 2016 18:25:23 GMT 1
Well now that it's come to light that Metro idiots are at fault, I think I'll remind Metro that Winter is not a good time of year to be waiting, and waiting, and waiting for a cocked up bus service! Can't believe Metro have specified 2 buses for what is clearly a stretched set of routes, never mind the traffic! They'll quite happily waste money on pointless marketing, consultations etc at the cost of some pensioners life! I really hope it doesn't happen but what if a pensioner or vulnerable adult gets a chest infection caused by waiting for a really late bus and it ends up hospitalising or worse still, kills them? It's a bit like a day centre for the elderley offering a place to someone but telling them they'll have to spend most of their time outside because they don't have enough room inside for them.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Nov 12, 2016 17:23:54 GMT 1
Well now that it's come to light that Metro idiots are at fault, I think I'll remind Metro that Winter is not a good time of year to be waiting, and waiting, and waiting for a cocked up bus service! Can't believe Metro have specified 2 buses for what is clearly a stretched set of routes, never mind the traffic! They'll quite happily waste money on pointless marketing, consultations etc at the cost of some pensioners life! I really hope it doesn't happen but what if a pensioner or vulnerable adult gets a chest infection caused by waiting for a really late bus and it ends up hospitalising or worse still, kills them? It's a bit like a day centre for the elderley offering a place to someone but telling them they'll have to spend most of their time outside because they don't have enough room inside for them. Are you a Daily Mail journalist? These leaps from Metro making a cost saving to vulnerable members of society suffering the terrible fate of "death by late bus" are quite a stretch, no? Quote: Clearly Transdev have chosen to combine the Ilkley routes in their bid, and have resourced the bid using the lowest number of vehicles blindly not taking into account traffic issues because they were that determined to win the bid. "Clearly" you say, although now Metro is to blame for all the expected untimely deaths of the Wharfedale community. Which one is it? Quote: It's probably not going to bother Alex that much, after all it's only a handful of country bumpkin services in a couple of little towns up North! If Transdev were bothered about passengers they wouldn't try such a cheap unrealistic bid. I'm glad you have this apparent insight into Alex's thought process. Is an apology to a fellow forum member now appropriate? Or should we just dive into the next sensationalist statement?
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Nov 12, 2016 17:39:06 GMT 1
You have more chance of flying to the moon than get any form of apology from www.buseireann.ie. This is a person who uses the web address of a large operator rather than think of a name he could use when posting. I suspect that he/she is not an enthusiast or has no interest in public transport. He/she just wants somewhere to let off steam when the chosen for a transport for the journey he/she wants to use is late or fails to run. I doubt if he could do any better running a bus service.
|
|
|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Nov 12, 2016 18:20:49 GMT 1
Daily Mail journalist? Get it right, I wouldn't dare work for anything south of Derbyshire!
|
|
|
Post by www.buseireann.ie on Nov 12, 2016 18:25:34 GMT 1
And just so everyone knows, I chose an Irish company from the Republic simply because of pride! If somebody with Scottish blood came on here choosing McGills as their name, would you shoot them down calling them un-original?
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Nov 12, 2016 18:38:23 GMT 1
Yes unless it was their surname.
|
|
|
Post by Burnside on Nov 13, 2016 22:05:50 GMT 1
There's one thing i don't understand.
Blame for the shambles the new 962 has been numerous times since Transdev took over is being laid at Metro's door as they specify route, timetable etc, but surely it's Transdev who have worked out how many vehicles are needed and how to interwork services to use as few buses as possible.
Do Metro have that much of a say (and any staff with relevant knowledge) to tell an operator which services to run using the same bus? To me, while Metro may specify hours of operation, surely the operator decides how intensively to run the network and with Transdev using as few buses as possible with the resultant lack of recovery time, the blame for seemingly persistent late running and journey cancellations etc must lie with Transdev?
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Nov 13, 2016 22:19:34 GMT 1
I may be wrong but if the 962 is a service that is operated under a contract to Metro then it is Metro(using ratepayers money) who are paying for the service. Therefore Metro should be employing staff who have enough experience and knowledge to supervise awarded co tracts.
|
|
|
Post by leedsbusman on Nov 14, 2016 0:52:15 GMT 1
There's one thing i don't understand. Blame for the shambles the new 962 has been numerous times since Transdev took over is being laid at Metro's door as they specify route, timetable etc, but surely it's Transdev who have worked out how many vehicles are needed and how to interwork services to use as few buses as possible. Do Metro have that much of a say (and any staff with relevant knowledge) to tell an operator which services to run using the same bus? To me, while Metro may specify hours of operation, surely the operator decides how intensively to run the network and with Transdev using as few buses as possible with the resultant lack of recovery time, the blame for seemingly persistent late running and journey cancellations etc must lie with Transdev? When Metro invites tenders it provides a full timetable for the specification it wants. In this case it will include inter working between 962/3/4. Operators must bid against this spec, but can provide alternative timetables as well. Metro then choses its preferred bid against its criteria.
|
|
|
Post by northerner on Nov 14, 2016 20:57:25 GMT 1
There's one thing i don't understand. Blame for the shambles the new 962 has been numerous times since Transdev took over is being laid at Metro's door as they specify route, timetable etc, but surely it's Transdev who have worked out how many vehicles are needed and how to interwork services to use as few buses as possible. Do Metro have that much of a say (and any staff with relevant knowledge) to tell an operator which services to run using the same bus? To me, while Metro may specify hours of operation, surely the operator decides how intensively to run the network and with Transdev using as few buses as possible with the resultant lack of recovery time, the blame for seemingly persistent late running and journey cancellations etc must lie with Transdev? When Metro invites tenders it provides a full timetable for the specification it wants. In this case it will include inter working between 962/3/4. Operators must bid against this spec, but can provide alternative timetables as well. Metro then choses its preferred bid against its criteria. So potentially the current timetables may not be Metro's spec but Transdev's? I'm assuming that if operators believe Metro set timetables are unrealistic they are able to tweak them during the bidding process? I also assume there are fines for lost mileage on Metro supported routes
|
|
|
Post by tyresmoke on Nov 14, 2016 21:57:45 GMT 1
Metro will be trying to run them at the lowest cost possible, therefore if Transdev did offer a timetable that used two buses, or one that used three buses, which one do you think Metro are going to go for? The same result would have happened regardless of who the successful operator was.
|
|
|
Post by martinjwdton on Nov 26, 2016 21:03:47 GMT 1
So transdev using a merc minibus on 966 and also on the 962 network
Alex going on record saying they are trailed to save money on a low earning service.......
Perhaps if they hadn't put in a ridiculas low tender to start with they could of put proper buses on and ran them ....
And the local newspaper article that's available clearly shows the locals are not happy
|
|
|
Post by alextransdev on Nov 26, 2016 21:59:12 GMT 1
So transdev using a merc minibus on 966 and also on the 962 network Alex going on record saying they are trailed to save money on a low earning service....... Perhaps if they hadn't put in a ridiculas low tender to start with they could of put proper buses on and ran them .... And the local newspaper article that's available clearly shows the locals are not happy That's taking my comments completely out of context. We are happy with the price we won this tender (we wouldn't have bid at a 'ridiculous' price otherwise!) and the use of the Merc is part of a trial held alongside our partners at WYCA to test its suitability during a mutual review of these services now we are the operator, and you can expect some improvements shortly. My comment you are referring to was discussing that similar buses may have an important future in the industry on low earning services given their cheaper capital and running costs. Also, one letter in the paper doesn't sum up the mood of the customers, nor reflective of the direct comments from users that we receive.
|
|
|
Post by northerner on Nov 26, 2016 23:24:15 GMT 1
Also, one letter in the paper doesn't sum up the mood of the customers, nor reflective of the direct comments from users that we receive. I was on a very late 962 last week which as well as the driver had another driver onboard. A couple of the passengers were complaining, as apparently the 962 is now often late. The second driver was saying they are encouraging as many people as possible to contact Metro so the times can get amended, and due to the delay their break would be cut short in Otley, so it does appear there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction from both passengers and staff
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Nov 27, 2016 9:19:56 GMT 1
If the number of passengers using the service can be accommodated in a minibus then what's the justification for using a bigger, more expensive bus that isn't needed?
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Nov 27, 2016 9:31:09 GMT 1
Can anyone advise if the "small" bus is in operation yet and more importantly is the vehicle route bound or does it appear on any of the Wharfedale services
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Nov 27, 2016 11:32:48 GMT 1
The "small bus" is on an loan demonstrator, it has been photoed on Flickr on the 963 albeit with a paper 962 on the dash apparently. www.flickr.com/photos/76935272@N05/30376777353/in/dateposted/Quite how long it will be about being a demonstrator is questionable. The comments on the picture about it spending some time in the Keighley garage make me wonder if they were waiting for a replacement or repaired desti but as loan time was running out decided to use it anyway. Bit strange having a paper desti as non working displayed are typically replaced by a timber plank painted up as a desti.
|
|
|
Post by gooderson1 on Nov 27, 2016 12:21:54 GMT 1
Thanks very much. As it's not in fleet livery I think I will forget the 45 mile round journey for a picture.
|
|
|
Post by peteleeds on Jan 7, 2017 10:17:20 GMT 1
Not seen it on the 966 this week seems to have reverted back to dart operation
|
|