jimmi
Forum Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by jimmi on Feb 29, 2024 19:24:46 GMT 1
Also the first 29 college trip via Linton starts at Raskelf. I wonder if Reliance will retain that or EY is looking to stable buses in the area. Reliance has cancelled the registration for the 29, so looks as if it could be East Yorkshire in full? Should also note that EY have changed some of the service numbers for some of the contracts gained (going off the VOSA registrations): 22/23 becomes 82/83 York - Ripon & 182 between Ripon & Knaresborough. 29 becomes 80. CastleLine becomes 81.
|
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Feb 29, 2024 20:32:11 GMT 1
Also the first 29 college trip via Linton starts at Raskelf. I wonder if Reliance will retain that or EY is looking to stable buses in the area. Reliance has cancelled the registration for the 29, so looks as if it could be East Yorkshire in full? Should also note that EY have changed some of the service numbers for some of the contracts gained (going off the VOSA registrations): 22/23 becomes 82/83 York - Ripon & 182 between Ripon & Knaresborough. 29 becomes 80. CastleLine becomes 81. Sorry about the negativity here, but I want to get this off my chest. Let's ignore Raskelf. Distance from Linton to Reliance depot is approx 9 miles. To Pocklington is 25 miles. Easingwold to York is 14 miles direct. I hope I'm wrong here, but every day that's the equivalent of a round trip between Easingwold and York dead mileage whilst the incumbent binned the Sunday service as it was losing money. I appreciate there's different financial / HR factors here but that's really sad to see. And my earlier comment regarding on the 128, that's effectively binning the 0905 from Helmsley to York so I'll retract that one...!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2024 22:40:18 GMT 1
bustimes.org/registrations/PB0000092/257Timetable change for route 28/28c from Pontefract to Barnsley for the 6th April to improve punctality and an additional 28c journey on a Sunday to replace a route 32 journey. from Pontefract to Barnsley for the 6th April
|
|
|
Post by Burnside on Feb 29, 2024 23:33:50 GMT 1
This means that the 72 will run as an independent service and NOT interwork with the 64 from Ilkley. Not necessarily. 72 reverts to previous frequency (which I believe was roughly hourly). The 64 could quite easily be made to fit in with this and be seen as an improved service. It'll all depend on how Transdev decide to operate them. The 72 was previously the same driver all day with gaps in service to allow for breaks to comply with drivers hours, whereas the 64 interworked with the 62. Could easily go back to that or interwork the 64 and 72 and either have drivers work a 66 to Skipton with the driver off the 64/72 driving the 66 back to Keighley, use a staff car for changeover or travel passenger on the 66.
|
|
jimmi
Forum Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by jimmi on Mar 1, 2024 0:13:09 GMT 1
Not necessarily. 72 reverts to previous frequency (which I believe was roughly hourly). The 64 could quite easily be made to fit in with this and be seen as an improved service. It'll all depend on how Transdev decide to operate them. The 72 was previously the same driver all day with gaps in service to allow for breaks to comply with drivers hours, whereas the 64 interworked with the 62. Could easily go back to that or interwork the 64 and 72 and either have drivers work a 66 to Skipton with the driver off the 64/72 driving the 66 back to Keighley, use a staff car for changeover or travel passenger on the 66 The 72 timetable will be exactly as it was prior to the cuts which is avaliable on DalesBus' website: www.dalesbus.org/uploads/1/1/3/9/113919127/72.pdfNew 64 timetable: www.dalesbus.org/uploads/1/1/3/9/113919127/64.pdfWhilst there may be some ways to have drivers linking with other services around Skipton, to me at least, the previous arrangement of 62/64 interworking whilst 72 is standalone with one bus and driver all day seems to the most likely. At least this should remove the need for Solo SR's on the 62, in the past I've ridden it with busy loadings on a B7RLE, so dread to think what it's like on a Solo.
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,141
|
Post by joseph on Mar 2, 2024 9:32:38 GMT 1
www.dalesbus.org/news lists the 159 Ripon to Richmond bus as operated by Hodgsons from 8th April, also full details of the Dalesbus Summer network are listed including the Northern Dalesbus network which will just consist of the Middlesborough to Kirkby Lonsdale buses with a break in Hawes.
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 2, 2024 10:17:17 GMT 1
www.dalesbus.org/news lists the 159 Ripon to Richmond bus as operated by Hodgsons from 8th April, also full details of the Dalesbus Summer network are listed including the Northern Dalesbus network which will just consist of the Middlesborough to Kirkby Lonsdale buses with a break in Hawes. The empty mileage Hodgsons are doing makes East Yorkshires somewhat minimal and then there is that of 21 Transport. If fuel costs increase wonder why quickly a lot of these tenders will be handed back.
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,141
|
Post by joseph on Mar 2, 2024 10:38:19 GMT 1
www.dalesbus.org/news lists the 159 Ripon to Richmond bus as operated by Hodgsons from 8th April, also full details of the Dalesbus Summer network are listed including the Northern Dalesbus network which will just consist of the Middlesborough to Kirkby Lonsdale buses with a break in Hawes. The empty mileage Hodgsons are doing makes East Yorkshires somewhat minimal and then there is that of 21 Transport. If fuel costs increase wonder why quickly a lot of these tenders will be handed back. The thing is though Dales and District have lost yet more work, so I wonder if they are bidding high in the hope of gaining the contract based on them being located right in the operating area for Dales contracts, where as everyone else is located well outside of the area?
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 2, 2024 17:24:20 GMT 1
Hodgsons have a depot at Darlington, 13 miles from Richmond
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 2, 2024 22:15:01 GMT 1
The thing is though Dales and District have lost yet more work, so I wonder if they are bidding high in the hope of gaining the contract based on them being located right in the operating area for Dales contracts, where as everyone else is located well outside of the area? About 10 years ago, Dales & District had about PVR of over 20 buses – and since then, they have been on a slow, steady, apparently inexorable decline. I think the only new service they've taken on in that time is the recent RS1 around Ripon which started its improved timetable last year. With the loss of the 159 then by my reckoning they're down to a PVR of 3 (not counting any school contracts) - one for the 73, one for the RS1 and one for the 136/138/139/144, and one out on Sundays on the 856. How much longer will they keep going before they throw the towel in?
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 2, 2024 22:59:28 GMT 1
On the subject of empty milage the Wednesday/Friday 136/144 duty has 21 miles in it. Ripon to Bedale and Masham to Ripon.
|
|
jimmi
Forum Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by jimmi on Mar 3, 2024 1:30:31 GMT 1
Hodgsons have a depot at Darlington, 13 miles from Richmond They also outstation some buses in Leyburn. This is what Hodgsons currently have newly registered from April: 18 Stokesley - Guisborough 59/60/60A Thirsk (and surrounding areas) 70/X70 Northallerton - Ripon 80/89 Northallerton - Stokesley 147 Thirsk - Ripon 150 Thirsk - Ripon 155 Bedale - Leyburn 159 Richmond - Ripon (apologies, I was incorrect on suggesting this one would be shared with Dales & District, VOSA registration initially had 159 as a variation but now says cancelled)
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,141
|
Post by joseph on Mar 3, 2024 9:30:16 GMT 1
The interesting thing is however with North Yorkshire Council throwing out to tender it's in house routes in the Hambleton/Richmond area, are they tendering all their in house routes over the next few months? Is the plan to save money by fully axing it's social transport department as it seems a strange move considering how much it's expanded it's public service network over the past few years.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 3, 2024 11:44:13 GMT 1
The interesting thing is however with North Yorkshire Council throwing out to tender it's in house routes in the Hambleton/Richmond area, are they tendering all their in house routes over the next few months? Is the plan to save money by fully axing it's social transport department as it seems a strange move considering how much it's expanded it's public service network over the past few years. Pretty much all of NYCC's bus services are geared around using buses/drivers that would otherwise be sitting idle during the day between school journeys. The only ones that I can see where they actually have diagrams dedicated to public service buses are the 71/78A between Skipton and Airedale, and the 492 between Sherburn, Tadcaster and Wetherby. It may be that they are changing the way they provide this school transport in Hambleton and so it is no longer cost-effective to run the daytime buses themselves. Either way, replacing non-accessible minibuses with actual buses run by an actual bus company can only be a good thing for passengers, especially if it results in a better timetable on a route so dismally underserved as the 155.
|
|
|
Post by leedsbusman on Mar 3, 2024 12:55:47 GMT 1
The interesting thing is however with North Yorkshire Council throwing out to tender it's in house routes in the Hambleton/Richmond area, are they tendering all their in house routes over the next few months? Is the plan to save money by fully axing it's social transport department as it seems a strange move considering how much it's expanded it's public service network over the past few years. Pretty much all of NYCC's bus services are geared around using buses/drivers that would otherwise be sitting idle during the day between school journeys. The only ones that I can see where they actually have diagrams dedicated to public service buses are the 71/78A between Skipton and Airedale, and the 492 between Sherburn, Tadcaster and Wetherby. It may be that they are changing the way they provide this school transport in Hambleton and so it is no longer cost-effective to run the daytime buses themselves. Either way, replacing non-accessible minibuses with actual buses run by an actual bus company can only be a good thing for passengers, especially if it results in a better timetable on a route so dismally underserved as the 155. Some of the North Yorkshire Council fleet bus routes are tendered - including 71 and 78A. NYC’s contract register lists these. They, like the 155 were part of the most recent tender round. Others don’t appear to be - like the Skipton town services - so these are presumably commercial.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Mar 3, 2024 13:40:14 GMT 1
Pretty much all of NYCC's bus services are geared around using buses/drivers that would otherwise be sitting idle during the day between school journeys. The only ones that I can see where they actually have diagrams dedicated to public service buses are the 71/78A between Skipton and Airedale, and the 492 between Sherburn, Tadcaster and Wetherby. It may be that they are changing the way they provide this school transport in Hambleton and so it is no longer cost-effective to run the daytime buses themselves. Either way, replacing non-accessible minibuses with actual buses run by an actual bus company can only be a good thing for passengers, especially if it results in a better timetable on a route so dismally underserved as the 155. Some of the North Yorkshire Council fleet bus routes are tendered - including 71 and 78A. NYC’s contract register lists these. They, like the 155 were part of the most recent tender round. Others don’t appear to be - like the Skipton town services - so these are presumably commercial. The 71/78A were tendered but taken back in house when the operator handed them back. They couldn't get anyone to take on town routes when Pennine shut up shop, but didn't actually offer tenders.
|
|
|
Post by leedsbusman on Mar 3, 2024 13:48:37 GMT 1
Some of the North Yorkshire Council fleet bus routes are tendered - including 71 and 78A. NYC’s contract register lists these. They, like the 155 were part of the most recent tender round. Others don’t appear to be - like the Skipton town services - so these are presumably commercial. The 71/78A were tendered but taken back in house when the operator handed them back. They couldn't get anyone to take on town routes when Pennine shut up shop, but didn't actually offer tenders. They are still tendered and were part of the April 2024 tender exercise and the previous one in 2020. The in house fleet has to submit bids as any other operator would. The Skipton locals did not and as far as I have seen have never been put out to tender so presumably receive no tender funding or are on a deminims arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Mar 3, 2024 15:03:27 GMT 1
The 71/78A were tendered but taken back in house when the operator handed them back. They couldn't get anyone to take on town routes when Pennine shut up shop, but didn't actually offer tenders. They are still tendered and were part of the April 2024 tender exercise and the previous one in 2020. The in house fleet has to submit bids as any other operator would. The Skipton locals did not and as far as I have seen have never been put out to tender so presumably receive no tender funding or are on a deminims arrangement. It probably doesn't help that the 78A timetables are written by the council so Transdev can't do what they used to, continuing the service to Keighley commercially and taking rest breaks there. Once Transdev lost the 78A they rescheduled the M4 to cover the section between Airedale and Keighley. I don't think there's many other bidders in the area.
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 3, 2024 16:10:01 GMT 1
To muddy the matter after May the bus services will be the responsibility of the York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority so a North Yorkshire Council minibus will be that of a completely a different organisation which then raises a bigger question over the Skipton locals.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 3, 2024 21:33:04 GMT 1
It probably doesn't help that the 78A timetables are written by the council so Transdev can't do what they used to, continuing the service to Keighley commercially and taking rest breaks there. Once Transdev lost the 78A they rescheduled the M4 to cover the section between Airedale and Keighley. I don't think there's many other bidders in the area. When Transdev/Blazefield ran the 78A, some journeys were subsidised by NYCC but others ran commercially. I'm sure if they wanted to return to that arrangement and put in a bid that was cheaper than NYCC Fleet's own bid then the council would give it due consideration. Their main aim when awarding tenders appears to be to spend as little money as possible, so if Transdev were to propose an alternative timetable that worked out cheaper then I am sure they would take it. There are plenty of examples of councils/PTEs accepting substandard timetables because it allowed the operator to do it on the cheap – the Connexions services in Wharfedale being Exhibit A! With the 78A only running every hour at best (in ye oldene dayes) and more likely every 2 hours, it doesn't contribute much to the combined effort between Cross Hills, Airedale and Keighley, not when Transdev are running the 66, M4 and 62 commercially and covering it much better! The other operator in the area most likely to bid for the route could be Jacksons, but they seem to have given up on everything these days.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Mar 3, 2024 22:19:05 GMT 1
It probably doesn't help that the 78A timetables are written by the council so Transdev can't do what they used to, continuing the service to Keighley commercially and taking rest breaks there. Once Transdev lost the 78A they rescheduled the M4 to cover the section between Airedale and Keighley. I don't think there's many other bidders in the area. When Transdev/Blazefield ran the 78A, some journeys were subsidised by NYCC but others ran commercially. I'm sure if they wanted to return to that arrangement and put in a bid that was cheaper than NYCC Fleet's own bid then the council would give it due consideration. Their main aim when awarding tenders appears to be to spend as little money as possible, so if Transdev were to propose an alternative timetable that worked out cheaper then I am sure they would take it. There are plenty of examples of councils/PTEs accepting substandard timetables because it allowed the operator to do it on the cheap – the Connexions services in Wharfedale being Exhibit A! With the 78A only running every hour at best (in ye oldene dayes) and more likely every 2 hours, it doesn't contribute much to the combined effort between Cross Hills, Airedale and Keighley, not when Transdev are running the 66, M4 and 62 commercially and covering it much better! The other operator in the area most likely to bid for the route could be Jacksons, but they seem to have given up on everything these days. It used to be hourly, running in the path of what is now the M4 between Crosshills and Keighley. When they lost it the council seemed to want to award it to a NY operator - and they did - Little White Bus ran it, with breaks at Skipton. But not for long. I think it's now been retimed to fit within the town services. With the extra M4s having been fairly popular, I'm not sure Keighley would want to extend it now - they've got a nice quarter-hourly serivce going. I've not caught it since Keighley lost the contract, but I used to catch it occasionally for the pretty journey when I could get a 66 in the other direction for no extra cost. The 78A didn't pick up passengers who could do the journey on other bus routes when Keighley stopped running it, but this restriction seems to have been removed from the timetables now.
|
|
|
Post by Burnside on Mar 4, 2024 10:52:28 GMT 1
Without disrupting the quarter hourly frequency between Keighley and Eastburn, the other alternative if Keighley were to be interested would be to link it with the 64 and/or 72 (depending on how they are planning to work it when the frequencies increase) and possibly extend it to Silsden, thereby providing a direct (of sorts) service between Silsden and Skipton.
Only issue could be the 78a serving Cononley village which Transdev were previously reluctant to do with big buses, so may need to be Solo or Sprinter operated?
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Mar 4, 2024 11:19:58 GMT 1
Without disrupting the quarter hourly frequency between Keighley and Eastburn, the other alternative if Keighley were to be interested would be to link it with the 64 and/or 72 (depending on how they are planning to work it when the frequencies increase) and possibly extend it to Silsden, thereby providing a direct (of sorts) service between Silsden and Skipton. Only issue could be the 78a serving Cononley village which Transdev were previously reluctant to do with big buses, so may need to be Solo or Sprinter operated? The 72 can't have big buses. We could have the 70 to Silsden back (the last vestiges of which disappeared in 2012)?
|
|
|
Post by dlspotter on Mar 4, 2024 12:32:59 GMT 1
The 72 can't have big buses. We could have the 70 to Silsden back (the last vestiges of which disappeared in 2012)? But wasn't the 72 regularly operated on eclipses and during Dalesbus times equivalent services along the route also using doubles (ie Arriva's 875 in 2020)
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Mar 4, 2024 12:42:40 GMT 1
The 72 can't have big buses. We could have the 70 to Silsden back (the last vestiges of which disappeared in 2012)? But wasn't the 72 regularly operated on eclipses and during Dalesbus times equivalent services along the route also using doubles (ie Arriva's 875 in 2020) I think it's journeys via Linton that can't - so at the moment just the first and last trips of the day could, but from April they could use bigger buses on alternate journeys.
|
|