|
Post by dlspotter on Jan 22, 2020 21:26:34 GMT 1
|
|
SF07
Forum Member
Posts: 3,216
|
Post by SF07 on Jan 22, 2020 21:31:08 GMT 1
Probably not, as it was losing money. Plus the route is covered by Diamond's 472/474 services.
|
|
|
Post by dlspotter on Jan 23, 2020 17:23:42 GMT 1
Probably not, as it was losing money. Plus the route is covered by Diamond's 472/474 services. Yeah Transdev confirmed it on the facebook page
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Feb 26, 2020 21:11:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Burnside on Feb 26, 2020 22:12:14 GMT 1
I wonder how honest they are being on the news item.
"Our plans are not yet confirmed...", yet you've ordered fewer buses than you'd need if you kept things as they were?
Also, where they state the changes would be good because residents of Barnoldswick & Earby have said they'd like to have a direct link to Skipton...which they already have! (Admittedly, Earby to Skipton is the 280 which is every 2 hours(?), but still...
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Feb 26, 2020 23:05:43 GMT 1
When Transdev announced the new bus order last week, many pointed out that they hadn’t ordered enough for the Witch Way to meet the PVR. But equally they have not ordered enough for City Zap.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Feb 26, 2020 23:46:38 GMT 1
They’ve ordered 19 in total. I think it was assumed the Cityzap will get 4 of them whereas the WitchWay PVR is 17 currently, with this change it’ll probably reduce to 13 which fits nicely.
|
|
|
Post by rwilkes on Feb 26, 2020 23:48:43 GMT 1
I think they are making the best of a bad job. The real issue is congestion and splitting the route will improve reliability and reduce cost inflation. Unless something is done about congestion we will lose most bus routes over the decade. It is not possible to just keep putting in extra buses
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Feb 26, 2020 23:54:53 GMT 1
It’s also been suggested elsewhere that the new Burnley to Skipton route might be a good use for the now surplus to requirements ex-Red4/ex-Cityzap Manchester buses, although the PVR on this route is likely to be 5 and there are only 4 of them.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Feb 26, 2020 23:56:33 GMT 1
I can understand splitting the Witch Way, because I can't imagine many passengers travelling from Skipton or Barnoldswick going through to Manchester, and long routes like that just create reliability headaches. If it means that buses in Craven are less likely to be held up because of an accident on the M66 then that sounds like a good thing. It will reduce the number of buses to Barnoldswick, which has had 4 buses an hour for a long time, but that said, with the X43 route being nearly half an hour quicker than the Mainline route through Nelson, as long as they are providing sufficient capacity and assuming the majority of passengers are going to Burnley then the quicker journey will offset the longer waiting time. Interesting that they weren't bothered about providing a link between Earby and Skipton until Stagecoach started running one and now they're all over it... Good to see the service running a little later into the evening.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Feb 26, 2020 23:59:19 GMT 1
They’ve ordered 19 in total. I think it was assumed the Cityzap will get 4 of them whereas the WitchWay PVR is 17 currently, with this change it’ll probably reduce to 13 which fits nicely. They have said that CityZap will get 4, but the thing is that CityZap needs 4 buses in service just to run the normal timetable, not allowing for spares to cover for vehicles off the road or to recover the service when it all goes pete tong. Which, when it uses the A64 is not an unusual occurrence. With both Leeds and York being covered by CAZs, whatever buses they use on CityZap will have to be Euro VI, so unless they are planning on retrofitting some POTD spares, only having the bare minimum fleet is going to see poor reliability.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Feb 27, 2020 0:06:15 GMT 1
I don’t think you can really expect a brand new spare bus when the PVR is only 4, the numbers wouldn’t add up. They’ll retrofit a Pride of the North bus I’d expect.
|
|
|
Post by dlspotter on Mar 10, 2020 19:08:17 GMT 1
With the Witchway split presumably going ahead, the Burnley to Skipton link is said to be on high spec, revitalised buses with a new identity. So I think it will have a new brand name (personally I think something Pennine or Yorkshire-Lancashire related), and I'm hoping it keeps to being on doubles but not fully sure. Perhaps ex-Witchway buses (when they get the new E400MMCs) will be used on it.
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 11, 2020 19:22:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by dlspotter on Mar 11, 2020 20:42:31 GMT 1
How long before they change that then
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 11, 2020 23:33:16 GMT 1
How long before they change that then Sorry typo - Pendle Wizz
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 12, 2020 0:27:28 GMT 1
How long before they change that then Sorry typo - Pendle Wizz Why are Transdev so insistent on giving their routes names instead of numbers? I don't mind branding, like calling the X43 'The Witch Way', but running routes like CityZap, Castleline and now Pendle Wizz without numbers at all just doesn't seem right... And as for naming a bus route after the Gee Wiz ...
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Mar 12, 2020 1:00:53 GMT 1
Why are Transdev so insistent on giving their routes names instead of numbers? I don't mind branding, like calling the X43 'The Witch Way', but running routes like CityZap, Castleline and now Pendle Wizz without numbers at all just doesn't seem right... And as for naming a bus route after the Gee Wiz ... Castleline still has 181 (service/route number) in the service details
|
|
|
Post by steviewevie on Mar 12, 2020 10:00:27 GMT 1
Trent Barton has many routes without numbers. I'm not a fan personally but.....
|
|
|
Post by SCH117X on Mar 12, 2020 19:41:22 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by dlspotter on Mar 12, 2020 21:04:55 GMT 1
That means that until Witchway get their new buses Pendle Wizz will be higher spec given Witchways have no USBs! I can't imagine myself calling it Pendle Wizz, maybe just Wizz (or whatever number may be assigned to the route). Can imagine purple branding (no idea why) or green.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on Mar 12, 2020 23:26:43 GMT 1
Castleline still has 181 (service/route number) in the service details According to Vosa, it is just called Castle Line. There is no mention of '181' on the registration info, nor on the NYCC public transport pages, nor on the Transdev website.
|
|
|
Post by 1071 on Mar 13, 2020 19:38:37 GMT 1
Castleline still has 181 (service/route number) in the service details According to Vosa, it is just called Castle Line. There is no mention of '181' on the registration info, nor on the NYCC public transport pages, nor on the Transdev website. I believe it’s CAS on the bus stops in York, likewise ZAP for Cityzap
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Mar 14, 2020 22:36:27 GMT 1
I would have expected the Peddle Wizz to have been run by one of Julian Peddle's companies.
|
|
|
Post by Arriva Wakefield on Mar 15, 2020 22:03:47 GMT 1
According to Vosa, it is just called Castle Line. There is no mention of '181' on the registration info, nor on the NYCC public transport pages, nor on the Transdev website. I believe it’s CAS on the bus stops in York, likewise ZAP for Cityzap The stop at Sainburys at Monks Cross, has it as 181 in one direction and CAS the other direction.
|
|