|
Post by stephen01 on Jul 12, 2021 6:41:20 GMT 1
Possibly but i'd say it's more to do with the fact they're putting deckers on the 280 on a regular basis which is actually what Arriva has on their website for 280's changes. The 280 doesn't require deckers to be used on it regularly. The only reason deckers are gonna be on the 280s is because it's now getting mixed in with our 126/7 boards which are mostly always deckers. We've had two boards taken off which will turn the 126/7 to every 15 minutes which is why they're putting us on 280s with them. It's being monitored though when it goes live to see how it pans out. Us drivers think it's stupid because you can easily get stuck behind traffic coming down from Thornhill then you're behind time on the 126/7 which will knock on so arriva is going to monitor it to see if it works. Totally agree that it wont work hence why the 281 & 283 were pulled from serving Thornhill as timings were always out massively and the same with 282 when that was still running. Wouldn't it have made more sense to have interworked this upcoming 230/230a route with 280 instead of 126/127?
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jul 12, 2021 17:48:05 GMT 1
Some very interesting points here, now some of the cancellations on the 202/3 are down to endless Leeds roadworks, I have been on a couple of 202/3s whereby the driver has been asked to skip sections of route, such as Dewsbury to Huddersfield and turn short because of delays so I've no doubt this is the reason for SOME cancellations, and hence why Arriva need to stand up to LCC and force them to get these blasted works done a lot quicker. However, how come I've not seen ANY cancellations from Heckmondwike or Wakefield? I bet they've got enough spare drivers to cover, and enough willing to do overtime over there. It's very obvious some cancellations are down to chronic staff shortages, 12 drivers short at Dewsbury is shocking, as I've said earlier if it were a smaller independent, they'd be hauled over the coals and made to pay. At the end of the day, drivers should be drafted in to cover from ANYWHERE within the Arriva West Yorkshire and Selby network, just like I have to do in my job as the public can not have this shambolic situation every night. This is what passengers don't see. We do have drivers coming from other depots to cover duties. They've come from as far as Derby to cover shifts for us, same with drivers from hecky and wakey as they regularly help out. All passengers sees are drivers and not the depot they're actually based at, which for some isn't Dewsbury but one of the other two nearby.
|
|
|
Post by guyarab on Jul 20, 2021 16:45:44 GMT 1
Possibly but i'd say it's more to do with the fact they're putting deckers on the 280 on a regular basis which is actually what Arriva has on their website for 280's changes. The 280 doesn't require deckers to be used on it regularly. The only reason deckers are gonna be on the 280s is because it's now getting mixed in with our 126/7 boards which are mostly always deckers. We've had two boards taken off which will turn the 126/7 to every 15 minutes which is why they're putting us on 280s with them. It's being monitored though when it goes live to see how it pans out. Us drivers think it's stupid because you can easily get stuck behind traffic coming down from Thornhill then you're behind time on the 126/7 which will knock on so arriva is going to monitor it to see if it works. The old “A” bus in YWD days always used double deckers and then single deckers became the norm on the 281/2/3; this continued when the 282 was dropped, but then the Dewsbury-Thornill section was split (to become the 280) from the Dewsbury-Fieldhead/Bradford (281/3) I. to allow the services to help with punctuality. Now they are linking the trunk route 126/7 with a local service, so as Yorkshireman suggests, it’s doomed to fail.
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jul 20, 2021 17:32:12 GMT 1
The 280 doesn't require deckers to be used on it regularly. The only reason deckers are gonna be on the 280s is because it's now getting mixed in with our 126/7 boards which are mostly always deckers. We've had two boards taken off which will turn the 126/7 to every 15 minutes which is why they're putting us on 280s with them. It's being monitored though when it goes live to see how it pans out. Us drivers think it's stupid because you can easily get stuck behind traffic coming down from Thornhill then you're behind time on the 126/7 which will knock on so arriva is going to monitor it to see if it works. The old “A” bus in YWD days always used double deckers and then single deckers became the norm on the 281/2/3; this continued when the 282 was dropped, but then the Dewsbury-Thornill section was split (to become the 280) from the Dewsbury-Fieldhead/Bradford (281/3) I. to allow the services to help with punctuality. Now they are linking the trunk route 126/7 with a local service, so as Yorkshireman suggests, it’s doomed to fail. It makes more sense for 280 to interwork with this new generation 230/230A (should have used the old numbers of 207/208) as the 280 only reall needs deckers at certain times durimg term-time unless been used for testing in service after maintainence. 126/127 will be hugely impacted with delays from the 280 thornhill side and around Asda/B&Q/Minster junction.
|
|
twy7
Forum Member
Posts: 134
Member is Online
|
Post by twy7 on Jul 20, 2021 19:57:29 GMT 1
The old “A” bus in YWD days always used double deckers and then single deckers became the norm on the 281/2/3; this continued when the 282 was dropped, but then the Dewsbury-Thornill section was split (to become the 280) from the Dewsbury-Fieldhead/Bradford (281/3) I. to allow the services to help with punctuality. Now they are linking the trunk route 126/7 with a local service, so as Yorkshireman suggests, it’s doomed to fail. It makes more sense for 280 to interwork with this new generation 230/230A (should have used the old numbers of 207/208) as the 280 only reall needs deckers at certain times durimg term-time unless been used for testing in service after maintainence. 126/127 will be hugely impacted with delays from the 280 thornhill side and around Asda/B&Q/Minster junction. I thought inter work ment that the buses do one route then the other so they can not do 280 then 230 because 280 run every 15 minutes and 230 run each hour but okay for 126 to inter work with 280 because that will be every 15 minute. I apologies if I have not under stood.
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jul 20, 2021 20:49:26 GMT 1
It makes more sense for 280 to interwork with this new generation 230/230A (should have used the old numbers of 207/208) as the 280 only reall needs deckers at certain times durimg term-time unless been used for testing in service after maintainence. 126/127 will be hugely impacted with delays from the 280 thornhill side and around Asda/B&Q/Minster junction. I thought inter work ment that the buses do one route then the other so they can not do 280 then 230 because 280 run every 15 minutes and 230 run each hour but okay for 126 to inter work with 280 because that will be every 15 minute. I apologies if I have not under stood. I get what you mean but if the 230 & 230a ran on a better frequency with certain trips running full way up to Grangemoor and the rest running up to Charlotte's ice-cream parlor (popular destination for families) which is also where you've got most passengers getting on or off which would then be ideal to interwork with 280. The 126/127 will suffer big time with delays as Kirklees are doing roadworks in Thornhill right when the changes start.
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,142
|
Post by joseph on Jul 20, 2021 21:54:35 GMT 1
I'd do something more radical in order to cull one driver, what I'd do is reduce the frequency of the 280 to every 20/40 mins and run it via the 230A route, withdraw the 230A and have the 230 run all day slotting in between the 280 to form a 20 minute frequency as both serve large common areas, or at least areas within a reasonable walk of each other. That spare driver could then be rostered to do some of these evening journeys that keep getting axed. The axe also needs to fall on the 202 and 203, I'd curtail them at White Rose, not serving Leeds, which would be very unpopular but there are a shed load of other buses from White Rose to Leeds so it's not that bad for the saddo's that insist on working and shopping there lol. Again the saved drivers could be used to do evening journeys, 12 drivers is a lot to replace in an industry where you ain't going to attract applicants so some cut backs to fill the gaps are badly required otherwise they may as well axe a lot of the evening journeys permanently.
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jul 20, 2021 22:41:42 GMT 1
I'd do something more radical in order to cull one driver, what I'd do is reduce the frequency of the 280 to every 20/40 mins and run it via the 230A route, withdraw the 230A and have the 230 run all day slotting in between the 280 to form a 20 minute frequency as both serve large common areas, or at least areas within a reasonable walk of each other. That spare driver could then be rostered to do some of these evening journeys that keep getting axed. The axe also needs to fall on the 202 and 203, I'd curtail them at White Rose, not serving Leeds, which would be very unpopular but there are a shed load of other buses from White Rose to Leeds so it's not that bad for the saddo's that insist on working and shopping there lol. Again the saved drivers could be used to do evening journeys, 12 drivers is a lot to replace in an industry where you ain't going to attract applicants so some cut backs to fill the gaps are badly required otherwise they may as well axe a lot of the evening journeys permanently. that for the 280/230 works as the 280 takes 20 mins on current route and 230 is timetabled to take 34 mins approx running to Grangemoor so could be doable and pulling the 230/230a from the 205/212/212a running boards would great opportunities to increase frequency on them routes or have them running just the 2 together to allow delays with no extra pressure. Totally can't see 202/203 been curtailed at all.
|
|
|
Post by Burnside on Jul 21, 2021 22:15:49 GMT 1
If Dewsbury Road is such a problem, wouldn't a quicker route for the 202 and 203 such as via Elland Road and/or the M621 and Meadow Lane be an idea?
Dewsbury Road towards Leeds is also served by First, as is the opposite direction as far as White Rose, it would just be a matter of deciding whether there is sufficient custom on Dewsbury Road for destinations beyond White Rose towards Dewsbury to retain that route with all the delays, or sacrifice it for a quicker run.
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jul 22, 2021 7:55:14 GMT 1
If Dewsbury Road is such a problem, wouldn't a quicker route for the 202 and 203 such as via Elland Road and/or the M621 and Meadow Lane be an idea? Dewsbury Road towards Leeds is also served by First, as is the opposite direction as far as White Rose, it would just be a matter of deciding whether there is sufficient custom on Dewsbury Road for destinations beyond White Rose towards Dewsbury to retain that route with all the delays, or sacrifice it for a quicker run. The problem with 202/203 isn't just the Dewsbury Road Section it's throughout you've varying issues; Huddersfield side there's roadworks for the town regeneration programme and heavy congestion near Huddersfield Town FC's training site Canalside all the way on to near the John Smith Stadium, you've then got access issues from Batteyford through to Mirfield with badly parked cars, then Mirfield onwards there's always constant roadworks and you've also got them doing the A644 Cycle Highway scheme for that Leeds connect thingy which is due to extend along the Cooper Bridge section to tie-on with highway improvements there and all that's without the RTA/RTCs and police incidents near the Tommy Wass PH. It'd be an idea to spilt the routes in 2 on a short-term basis during the highway works and have them running Dewsbury-Huddersfield (45 mins trip approx) and Dewsbury-Leeds (one route is again around 45 mins (203 section) and the other is nearly approx 50-60 mins (202 section). Of the two routes between Dewsbury & White Rose it's the 203 that's more popular as well.
|
|
solo
Forum Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by solo on Jul 29, 2021 2:49:01 GMT 1
I'd do something more radical in order to cull one driver, what I'd do is reduce the frequency of the 280 to every 20/40 mins and run it via the 230A route, withdraw the 230A and have the 230 run all day slotting in between the 280 to form a 20 minute frequency as both serve large common areas, or at least areas within a reasonable walk of each other. That spare driver could then be rostered to do some of these evening journeys that keep getting axed. The axe also needs to fall on the 202 and 203, I'd curtail them at White Rose, not serving Leeds, which would be very unpopular but there are a shed load of other buses from White Rose to Leeds so it's not that bad for the saddo's that insist on working and shopping there lol. Again the saved drivers could be used to do evening journeys, 12 drivers is a lot to replace in an industry where you ain't going to attract applicants so some cut backs to fill the gaps are badly required otherwise they may as well axe a lot of the evening journeys permanently.
|
|
solo
Forum Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by solo on Jul 29, 2021 2:57:39 GMT 1
Judging by your previous comments I assumed you were about 12years old. Now I'm convinced you are about 8 years old Terminate services at White Rose?. Dont bother about saddos who work and shop in Leeds. What an appalling and childish comment.Those people are the life blood of the industry. They are called passengers. God forbid you ever get employment in the industry. Your other comments about reducing frequency and using the drivers to cover late shifts.Love to hear how that would be a scheduled bearing in mind company/ union agreements.
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,142
|
Post by joseph on Jul 29, 2021 6:38:41 GMT 1
Judging by your previous comments I assumed you were about 12years old. Now I'm convinced you are about 8 years old Terminate services at White Rose?. Dont bother about saddos who work and shop in Leeds. What an appalling and childish comment.Those people are the life blood of the industry. They are called passengers. God forbid you ever get employment in the industry. Your other comments about reducing frequency and using the drivers to cover late shifts.Love to hear how that would be a scheduled bearing in mind company/ union agreements. Now then lad, here are some very harsh facts. You could pay me a million and I still wouldn't want to be a bus driver in ANY city or large town for that matter. Same too for crop picking, hotel work and all the other jobs who have been very reliant on overseas workers. The reality is many people don't want to do these jobs simply because they are tedious, boring, rubbish etc, and you'd have to pay a dam site more than is being paid to attract people, however this then makes such jobs very unworkable unless you can persuade Joseph Public to pay up either through higher prices or something else. You're not going to attract many people from cars because if people would rather queue in endless traffic jams, are happy to be bored to death waiting for a parking space, and will endure with no quibble an age to get anywhere, then you ain't going to attract them, simples! In fact bus passengers are bus passengers for one reason only, they have no choice but to be bus users. It could be because they have no alternative transport because their banned from the road, not near a train station, not within walking distance or they can't be bothered to drive (i.e. me), or they have no parking where they need to be (i.e. Leeds). The current situation in Dewsbury is no doubt the same elsewhere in Arriva Land, however I bet only Dewsbury publically tell people. The other day a 118 had to be cancelled owing to no driver able to cover, but that wasn't put out on Twitter, and it's not the first time another depot has had to cancel services recently. None of the other Yorkshire depots tell of any cancellations, but no doubt I bet they have shed loads hidden from the public just like the 118 was. The fact remains that it's not just down to Covid as to why depots are so short of staff, so some harsh streamlining is badly needed to ensure services can run, and if that means people have to change at White Rose, then so be it!
|
|