joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,139
|
Post by joseph on Jun 3, 2023 6:00:03 GMT 1
The new TSY timetable for the X17 has been split in two, despite this being a through service. TSY are producing one timetable for Barnsley to Sheffield and another from Sheffield to Wirksworth. They do have both timetables in the same guide, and do say you can travel through on most journeys, but what's not clear is which ones! Do they not think people travel from Meadowhall to Matlock, Chesterfield etc? You're probably not going to get many doing the full run but Barnsley to Chesterfield is a possibility for a good number of leisure travellers on a weekend. The timetable for the 65 is even worse, only showing times from Meadowhall to Tideswell! No times shown to Buxton with a stupid note saying you can make through journeys but telling the user to visit the Stagecoach website! Is this a move by Oliver Copout (can't stand him either, another Mayor without a clue) to move away from timetables into journey planning, something I personally find useless as you can't work out alternative plans without a smart phone? And besides, even if I did have one, why should I use my data (not that I have any lol) to work out an alternative route when I can do it all the night before I go saving me a lot of messing about? Why should I even tell a computer where I am going and more importantly with all this cloud rubbish will it save that data only for me to recieve a lot of ads from organisations in the area I am going to, like what often happens when you look up train times? travelsouthyorkshire.com/TSY/media/Timetables/X17-Sheffield-valid-from-28-May-2023-(PDF-1-6MB).pdf?ext=.pdftravelsouthyorkshire.com/TSY/media/Timetables/65-65a-Sheffield-valid-from-28-May-2023-(846kb).pdf?ext=.pdf |
|
deerfold
Forum Member
Posts: 2,368
Member is Online
|
Post by deerfold on Jun 3, 2023 18:20:03 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by tinrocket on Jun 3, 2023 18:21:00 GMT 1
I noticed a similar thing the other day with the 65 on the timetable board in Sheffield Interchange, only listed as going to Tideswell. Very strange.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2023 19:12:45 GMT 1
I noticed a similar thing the other day with the 65 on the timetable board in Sheffield Interchange, only listed as going to Tideswell. Very strange. SYPTE will be going off the Data for it's selected region, as route 65 is registered in 2 sections the Tideswell > Buxton section won't appear on SYPTE Data because it's both in a different county & region - same thing for the X17. I Think rather than blaming the SY Mayor (as the OP does) maybe the blame need to put on central government for not removing the 50km rule what is the cause of these split registrations |
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,139
|
Post by joseph on Jun 4, 2023 6:12:14 GMT 1
I noticed a similar thing the other day with the 65 on the timetable board in Sheffield Interchange, only listed as going to Tideswell. Very strange. SYPTE will be going off the Data for it's selected region, as route 65 is registered in 2 sections the Tideswell > Buxton section won't appear on SYPTE Data because it's both in a different county & region - same thing for the X17. I Think rather than blaming the SY Mayor (as the OP does) maybe the blame need to put on central government for not removing the 50km rule what is the cause of these split registrations If it's the case that SYPTE can only produce timetables going off the data for it's region, how come Derbyshire Council are producing full timetables for both services? The Mayor is fully responsible for all things at SYPTE and should ensure a system is used that allows all timetable points to be recorded in ONE COMPLETE timetable regardless of split registration rules. If DCC can do it, so should SYPTE, it's a public service organisation only giving half answers, bad enough it doesn't have next bus displays at every stop, timetable leaflets etc now it's only giving half the info on essential routes like the X17, 65 etc. 65 is essential for getting folk from South Yorkshire right into the Peak District, many use it for Millers Dale walks such as the Monsal one back to Bakewell, I bet there are folk from Barnsley who use the X17 to access places south of Sheffield for leisure or even work reasons, SYPTE's website will almost be their first port of call for a timetable so why should they have to second guess which bus runs through. Copout needs to get his backside into gear and sort this strange mess out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2023 10:46:20 GMT 1
SYPTE will be going off the Data for it's selected region, as route 65 is registered in 2 sections the Tideswell > Buxton section won't appear on SYPTE Data because it's both in a different county & region - same thing for the X17. I Think rather than blaming the SY Mayor (as the OP does) maybe the blame need to put on central government for not removing the 50km rule what is the cause of these split registrations If it's the case that SYPTE can only produce timetables going off the data for it's region, how come Derbyshire Council are producing full timetables for both services? The Mayor is fully responsible for all things at SYPTE and should ensure a system is used that allows all timetable points to be recorded in ONE COMPLETE timetable regardless of split registration rules. If DCC can do it, so should SYPTE, it's a public service organisation only giving half answers, bad enough it doesn't have next bus displays at every stop, timetable leaflets etc now it's only giving half the info on essential routes like the X17, 65 etc. 65 is essential for getting folk from South Yorkshire right into the Peak District, many use it for Millers Dale walks such as the Monsal one back to Bakewell, I bet there are folk from Barnsley who use the X17 to access places south of Sheffield for leisure or even work reasons, SYPTE's website will almost be their first port of call for a timetable so why should they have to second guess which bus runs through. Copout needs to get his backside into gear and sort this strange mess out. There's multiple reasons why Derbyshire Council will show the full routes - the biggest reason being is both sections of the routes either start/end in Derbyshire. Then there is also the fact Derbyshire pay towards each route (& in route 65s case also had a say in the timetable). The fact it's a County Council rather than a PTE will also mean they use different systems & possibly have access to different data. Is it an ideal solution? No & it does need to be sorted but like it or not what SYPTE shows is technically correct - Their role is to show timetables of routes within South Yorkshire, the route 65 when leaving Sheffield does go only to Tideswell, It's not SYPTE responsibility to show a route that operates outside of it's county what the 65 Tideswell > Buxton technically is thanks to split registrations (& the fact Stagecoach won't use tachs so it can operate as one) SYPTE is not alone in struggling to show routes involving split registrations, some of the traveline ones are a complete mess. The easiest way to fix it all? Either remove the 50km rule or expand it to a longer distance so less routes end up falling into it. |
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,139
|
Post by joseph on Jun 4, 2023 15:59:15 GMT 1
If it's the case that SYPTE can only produce timetables going off the data for it's region, how come Derbyshire Council are producing full timetables for both services? The Mayor is fully responsible for all things at SYPTE and should ensure a system is used that allows all timetable points to be recorded in ONE COMPLETE timetable regardless of split registration rules. If DCC can do it, so should SYPTE, it's a public service organisation only giving half answers, bad enough it doesn't have next bus displays at every stop, timetable leaflets etc now it's only giving half the info on essential routes like the X17, 65 etc. 65 is essential for getting folk from South Yorkshire right into the Peak District, many use it for Millers Dale walks such as the Monsal one back to Bakewell, I bet there are folk from Barnsley who use the X17 to access places south of Sheffield for leisure or even work reasons, SYPTE's website will almost be their first port of call for a timetable so why should they have to second guess which bus runs through. Copout needs to get his backside into gear and sort this strange mess out. There's multiple reasons why Derbyshire Council will show the full routes - the biggest reason being is both sections of the routes either start/end in Derbyshire. Then there is also the fact Derbyshire pay towards each route (& in route 65s case also had a say in the timetable). The fact it's a County Council rather than a PTE will also mean they use different systems & possibly have access to different data. Is it an ideal solution? No & it does need to be sorted but like it or not what SYPTE shows is technically correct - Their role is to show timetables of routes within South Yorkshire, the route 65 when leaving Sheffield does go only to Tideswell, It's not SYPTE responsibility to show a route that operates outside of it's county what the 65 Tideswell > Buxton technically is thanks to split registrations (& the fact Stagecoach won't use tachs so it can operate as one) SYPTE is not alone in struggling to show routes involving split registrations, some of the traveline ones are a complete mess. The easiest way to fix it all? Either remove the 50km rule or expand it to a longer distance so less routes end up falling into it. So how come SYPTE have shown the full routes up until now? Also, the 53 is another cross boundary route together with the likes of the X399, 399, 291, 218, 271/2, 257 and so on so how are they going to show these going forward? Hell fire, will they just show the bit of the X399 timetable arriving into Doncaster and departing from Doncaster? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2023 16:21:34 GMT 1
There's multiple reasons why Derbyshire Council will show the full routes - the biggest reason being is both sections of the routes either start/end in Derbyshire. Then there is also the fact Derbyshire pay towards each route (& in route 65s case also had a say in the timetable). The fact it's a County Council rather than a PTE will also mean they use different systems & possibly have access to different data. Is it an ideal solution? No & it does need to be sorted but like it or not what SYPTE shows is technically correct - Their role is to show timetables of routes within South Yorkshire, the route 65 when leaving Sheffield does go only to Tideswell, It's not SYPTE responsibility to show a route that operates outside of it's county what the 65 Tideswell > Buxton technically is thanks to split registrations (& the fact Stagecoach won't use tachs so it can operate as one) SYPTE is not alone in struggling to show routes involving split registrations, some of the traveline ones are a complete mess. The easiest way to fix it all? Either remove the 50km rule or expand it to a longer distance so less routes end up falling into it. So how come SYPTE have shown the full routes up until now? Also, the 53 is another cross boundary route together with the likes of the X399, 399, 291, 218, 271/2, 257 and so on so how are they going to show these going forward? Hell fire, will they just show the bit of the X399 timetable arriving into Doncaster and departing from Doncaster? All the other routes you mentioned are registered as one so the registration involving South Yorkshire will show the final destination as well - same for the likes of 19/A from Rotherham & all the other Cross Boundary routes from Doncaster - If they are not split registered there isn't an issue hence why IMO rule needs to changed in some way. |
|
BusNut
Forum Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by BusNut on Jul 5, 2023 9:21:09 GMT 1
|
|
