|
|
Post by bobby1993 on Jan 10, 2012 16:22:35 GMT 1
Transdev are to take over pullmans bus service operations including the 44.
Wonder what this means for the olympians, enviros and bmc ?
I guess Transdev will want a full low floor operation so wouldn't suprise me if ex coastliner geminis or ex lancashire presidents operated the 44.
|
|
Matty
Forum Member
Posts: 5,615
|
Post by Matty on Jan 10, 2012 16:58:37 GMT 1
Where have you heard this from?
|
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Jan 10, 2012 17:54:25 GMT 1
So this is what the buildup on the other thread was for. Presumably this is also why they've cancelled the city tour. Is Just Travel involved anywhere? Can't imagine Transdev being too fussed about the 35/36.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Jan 10, 2012 19:33:46 GMT 1
Can't imagine Transdev being too fussed about the 35/36. I would have thought they would be very happy with those routes, they tie in nicely with their other subsidised services around York, and it further cements them as a strong competitor on the Fulford Road corridor, with about 4bph as far as Broadway and 3bph right through Fulford Main Street. Likewise the evening service on the 10 sits well with the way they provide Sunday services for First's 11 and 13. |
|
|
|
Post by timelesstable on Jan 10, 2012 19:43:20 GMT 1
Where have you heard this from? Unlikely to be a Centrebus driver then! |
|
|
|
Post by bobby1993 on Jan 10, 2012 21:23:32 GMT 1
Wonder if Transdev would take on Pullman's Volvo Oly's ?
|
|
kendall17
Forum Member
Justice for the 96!
Posts: 4,555
|
Post by kendall17 on Jan 10, 2012 21:33:05 GMT 1
Wonder if Transdev would take on Pullman's Volvo Oly's ? All depends on whats part of the deal. If Transdev have just bought the routes off Pullman, then doubtful. If they've agreed to take over the bus operations & fleet of Pullman, then maybe. One thing I do know is the drivers should be transferred under TUPE regulations. |
|
|
|
Post by bobby1993 on Jan 10, 2012 21:57:14 GMT 1
The 44 will need to be a low floor operation however so looks like if vehicles are part of the deal they will be cascaded around Transdev.
Enviro's and BMC's aren't standard buses so i doubt they would stay.
Wonder if the UBI little Primo service will be also Transdev or they may do away with it altogether ?
Pullman were planning on bringing in Tridents for the 44 so it's almost certain Transdev will switch operation to easy access.
|
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Jan 10, 2012 22:47:35 GMT 1
I think you are getting carried away just a tad.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Jan 10, 2012 23:33:14 GMT 1
Hmmm ... the OP is now shown as "Guest" rather than "Forum Member" ... something fishy?
|
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Jan 11, 2012 0:33:37 GMT 1
Can't imagine Transdev being too fussed about the 35/36. I would have thought they would be very happy with those routes, they tie in nicely with their other subsidised services around York, and it further cements them as a strong competitor on the Fulford Road corridor, with about 4bph as far as Broadway and 3bph right through Fulford Main Street. Likewise the evening service on the 10 sits well with the way they provide Sunday services for First's 11 and 13. Fair enough provided they keep the tenders, likewise Arriva could up their game if they felt threatened. Transdev must be playing the long game in York, maybe looking to get P&R contracts - it's up to First to keep them at bay. As it happens First have put in changes for route/timetable on the 5 and 16, hopefully it will help with the reliability issues on the 16. |
|
Matty
Forum Member
Posts: 5,615
|
Post by Matty on Jan 11, 2012 19:35:08 GMT 1
Hmmm ... the OP is now shown as "Guest" rather than "Forum Member" ... something fishy? No because he is forever joining this forum under new names after been told not to. |
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Jan 11, 2012 20:27:51 GMT 1
Assuming this is genuine, I wonder if Transdev might bring in the B6BLEs they're getting rid of in Harrogate for the 44, at least in the short term. I would be surprised if they need the capacity of double-deckers, and the B6BLEs would be a considerable improvement on the Olympians used now. As for the low-floor vehicles Pullman already have ... I hope to goodness they get rid of the Condor and the Primo, godforsaken sheds that they are, but the MAN/Enviros, the Scania Solar and the DAF are all perfectly decent buses, even if they are non-standard with the rest of the Transdev fleet.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Jan 11, 2012 20:31:55 GMT 1
Fair enough provided they keep the tenders, likewise Arriva could up their game if they felt threatened. Transdev must be playing the long game in York, maybe looking to get P&R contracts - it's up to First to keep them at bay. As it happens First have put in changes for route/timetable on the 5 and 16, hopefully it will help with the reliability issues on the 16. The tenders were only reissued last year so they should have them for a while yet. Transdev usually do play the long game, it's part of the reason they've been successful and have built up a good reputation. We've seen right from when they first took over the Veolia York operation that they've been playing tactically and biding their time for the right moment. As for the First 5/16, it needs something doing to sort it out. I'm surprised there is enough demand for a 15-minute frequency between York and Acomb via Leeman Road, and the 16 is a complete botch – totally inadequate layover time, and fails to penetrate the heart of the city instead giving up at the Station Road loop, leaving passengers a long way from the shopping areas – no wonder it carries little more than fresh air. |
|
Matty
Forum Member
Posts: 5,615
|
Post by Matty on Jan 11, 2012 20:43:19 GMT 1
The BMC's are not bad buses apart from the amount of diesel they drink. Primo's are nice economical buses to run but not very good as a passenger for long distance, hence why TJ Walsh have 11 of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by B521UWW on Jan 11, 2012 21:27:04 GMT 1
The BMC's are not bad buses apart from the amount of diesel they drink. The BMC's ARE bad buses. If they need a lot of fuel then from an operators point of view they are bad as are expensive to run. Parts for Volvo's can be delivered same day often, where as the BMC will be out of service most of the week "awaiting parts". The BMC was designed for Turkish service, hence heaters were omitted. When you have the misfortune of suffering one on a cold morning you will wish the engine would burst into flames so you can warm up again! There seems to be a lot of speculation here considering there has been no official announcement (you'd have thought Transdev would be proud to announce it) and the original gen was posted by a known muppet! |
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Jan 11, 2012 23:24:00 GMT 1
Fair enough provided they keep the tenders, likewise Arriva could up their game if they felt threatened. Transdev must be playing the long game in York, maybe looking to get P&R contracts - it's up to First to keep them at bay. As it happens First have put in changes for route/timetable on the 5 and 16, hopefully it will help with the reliability issues on the 16. The tenders were only reissued last year so they should have them for a while yet. Transdev usually do play the long game, it's part of the reason they've been successful and have built up a good reputation. We've seen right from when they first took over the Veolia York operation that they've been playing tactically and biding their time for the right moment. As for the First 5/16, it needs something doing to sort it out. I'm surprised there is enough demand for a 15-minute frequency between York and Acomb via Leeman Road, and the 16 is a complete botch – totally inadequate layover time, and fails to penetrate the heart of the city instead giving up at the Station Road loop, leaving passengers a long way from the shopping areas – no wonder it carries little more than fresh air. So long as the folk of Danebury Drive are up for the excursion, whatever trade they pick up enroute is just building up the market - I'm sure Leeman Road is benefitting with buses from the city at least! Stagecoach have played the same game in Sheffield - establish the trade to High Green with the 88 via Shiregreen, cut it back and replace it with the 87. |
|
|
|
Post by rider5521 on Jan 13, 2012 8:46:29 GMT 1
Transdev have approached York Pullman regarding purchasing the open top and service operation and a few other bits and pieces, no deal has been done yet, the above is just speculation. The service 5/16 changes are to move the terminus from Beckfield Lane to the top of Danebury Drive.
|
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Jan 21, 2012 16:34:06 GMT 1
An anonymous letter from this week's routeone maybe sheds more light on why the 5 runs to Acomb? I've a sneaking suspicion it's quite controversial.
"...failure to work with university authorities regarding the expansion of the campus led to York Pullman being declared preferred supplier and operating the new Unibus and campus shuttle services. Only then did First respond by revising existing services. Similarly, when First failed to be awarded any contracts offered for tender in 2011 (although they were subsequently awarded two evening and Sunday services following the withdrawal of the successful bidder), they promptly amended a number of commercial services to compete directly over the busiest sections of tendered routes".
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Jan 21, 2012 17:52:25 GMT 1
An anonymous letter from this week's routeone maybe sheds more light on why the 5 runs to Acomb? I've a sneaking suspicion it's quite controversial. "...failure to work with university authorities regarding the expansion of the campus led to York Pullman being declared preferred supplier and operating the new Unibus and campus shuttle services. Only then did First respond by revising existing services. Similarly, when First failed to be awarded any contracts offered for tender in 2011 (although they were subsequently awarded two evening and Sunday services following the withdrawal of the successful bidder), they promptly amended a number of commercial services to compete directly over the busiest sections of tendered routes". First have often resorted to underhand tactics when it comes to competition with other operators. (That isn't to say that they haven't sometimes been provoked, though!) If they really are running the 5 through to Acomb as a loss-leader, in order to sabotage Transdev's 24/26 then they're dafter than I gave them credit for. If they believe that there is a viable market for an extra 4bph between York and Acomb then all well and good –the free market paradigm is that they should run those services, and if that leads to competition then that's exactly what a privatised bus industry should be doing. On the other hand, if they're only doing it out of spite, and not because they think there is the demand for travel, then they must be mad... |
|
|
|
Post by rider5521 on Jan 21, 2012 23:22:11 GMT 1
An anonymous letter from this week's routeone maybe sheds more light on why the 5 runs to Acomb? I've a sneaking suspicion it's quite controversial. "...failure to work with university authorities regarding the expansion of the campus led to York Pullman being declared preferred supplier and operating the new Unibus and campus shuttle services. Only then did First respond by revising existing services. Similarly, when First failed to be awarded any contracts offered for tender in 2011 (although they were subsequently awarded two evening and Sunday services following the withdrawal of the successful bidder), they promptly amended a number of commercial services to compete directly over the busiest sections of tendered routes". First have often resorted to underhand tactics when it comes to competition with other operators. (That isn't to say that they haven't sometimes been provoked, though!) If they really are running the 5 through to Acomb as a loss-leader, in order to sabotage Transdev's 24/26 then they're dafter than I gave them credit for. If they believe that there is a viable market for an extra 4bph between York and Acomb then all well and good –the free market paradigm is that they should run those services, and if that leads to competition then that's exactly what a privatised bus industry should be doing. On the other hand, if they're only doing it out of spite, and not because they think there is the demand for travel, then they must be mad... An anonymous letter tells you everything you need to know, that there is no truth behind it at all. The 5 route had been planned for a long time, mainly as a request from Danebury Drive residents complaining of the long routing through Acomb to York, and the same for Chapelfields residents returning from York. |
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Jan 21, 2012 23:40:14 GMT 1
Were First aware that Heslington East was on the drawing board when they ordered the ftrs? The evidence suggests they were hellbent on not 'undermining' the ftr 'brand' by supplementing them with a standard B7RLE right up the point Pullman appeared. Of course there was the 6 extension which was a very strange choice of route - given the option wouldn't it have been better to extend the 8 back on itself (bearing in mind the first buses from/last buses to the city could run via Heslington as they have no P&R passengers aboard)?
(Edit - this isn't meant as a dig at rider BTW, I had started typing before their post appeared)
|
|
|
|
Post by rider5521 on Jan 22, 2012 20:44:51 GMT 1
First wished to serve Heslington East from the outset. No spare ftrs were available and City of York Council would not let First operate a standard vehicle on the ftr route when the "agreement" was in place. Eventually a compromise agreement was made when a leather seated RLE became available.
Pullman had hired the services of a former First York Manager who saw the opportunity and provided the service First were unable to provide, this eventually culminated into the Unibus we see today. Ironicly the ex First Manager soon retreated to First after less than 11 months.
|
|
jc
Forum Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by jc on Jan 23, 2012 3:35:25 GMT 1
First wished to serve Heslington East from the outset. No spare ftrs were available and City of York Council would not let First operate a standard vehicle on the ftr route when the "agreement" was in place. Eventually a compromise agreement was made when a leather seated RLE became available. In the couple of articles I read about it I don't recall any mention of CoYC not allowing them use of standard buses full stop. So First were effectively between a rock and a hard place - the university requesting direct access for Heslington East and CoYC saying they can't use the 4. Thinking about it First also began substituting ftrs for deckers in the evenings around that time aswell - or maybe the 'agreement' was only valid until 7pm. |
|
|
|
Post by rider5521 on Jan 23, 2012 9:06:29 GMT 1
A concession was made for Evenings and Sundays but not for during the day! MADNESS!
|
|
