Merseytravel Timetable Changes

[mrd97]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
Changing topic slightly (apologies if this is the wrong thread) - I think Merseytravel need to sort out the 91 timetable, it’s a mess. The Saturday routes goes a completely different direction to the Monday - Friday one, and they’re both the same number. Now a Monday - Friday service has been lost at Holm Lane (what’s the point of having a bus only on. Saturday?) and Prenton Dell has the 418, I struggle to see why they do not simplify the timetable and have the Saturday service follow the same route as the weekday one.

[wirralbus]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
I just think Merseytravel is still trying to play catch up since Avon left the scene , it seems a case of robbing peter to pay paul now.

[busdude]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
Noticed on the 418 Timetable today that, 2 M-F Morning and most of Saturday Morning journeys are now funded by merseytravel. I don’t know whether they have always been funded since the 2017 review, but it has never been mentioned in any of the previous versions of the timetable.

It is really baffling that there are currently two fully funded services (216 and 418) that are both ran by Arriva, both run at the exact same time and route from Arrowe Park via Beechwood and Laird Street to Birkenhead of a morning, then claim that there is not enough funding to cover the likes of the 10A, 124/125, 492/495. Surely to save money it’d make more sense to cut back the Merseytravel 418’s to New Ferry and Arrowe Park or just run the 216/217 between birkenhead, oxton and Arrowe Park.

[mrd97]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(30/12/2018 21:50)busdude Wrote:  Noticed on the 418 Timetable today that, 2 M-F Morning and most of Saturday Morning journeys are now funded by merseytravel. I don’t know whether they have always been funded since the 2017 review, but it has never been mentioned in any of the previous versions of the timetable.

It is really baffling that there are currently two fully funded services (216 and 418) that are both ran by Arriva, both run at the exact same time and route from Arrowe Park via Beechwood and Laird Street to Birkenhead of a morning, then claim that there is not enough funding to cover the likes of the 10A, 124/125, 492/495. Surely to save money it’d make more sense to cut back the Merseytravel 418’s to New Ferry and Arrowe Park or just run the 216/217 between birkenhead, oxton and Arrowe Park.

The 216/217 circular doesn’t need to run in my opinion. As you have stated it’s covered by the 418 between Birkenhead and Arrowe Park, and there’s plenty along Woodchurch Road. I’d just take it off and maybe use the extra funding more wisely. Like perhaps a Sunday service between West Kirby and Heswall?

[wirralbus]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(30/12/2018 21:54)mrd97 Wrote:  The 216/217 circular doesn’t need to run in my opinion. As you have stated it’s covered by the 418 between Birkenhead and Arrowe Park, and there’s plenty along Woodchurch Road. I’d just take it off and maybe use the extra funding more wisely. Like perhaps a Sunday service between West Kirby and Heswall?

You honestly think that saving would be enough for a service between West Kirby and Heswall , maybe an extension of the 38A would be better every second hour .

[mrd97]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(30/12/2018 23:24)wirralbus Wrote:  You honestly think that saving would be enough for a service between West Kirby and Heswall , maybe an extension of the 38A would be better every second hour .

No, but bits and bobs all help I guess. For example, instead of extending the 407 to West Kirby (absolutely pointless, it literally follows the Railway to Birkenhead) they could of used that funding plus whatever they saved on the 216/217. I use this example as I believe Merseytravel have subsidised this extension, although I could be wrong.

[busdude]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(31/12/2018 00:51)mrd97 Wrote:  No, but bits and bobs all help I guess. For example, instead of extending the 407 to West Kirby (absolutely pointless, it literally follows the Railway to Birkenhead) they could of used that funding plus whatever they saved on the 216/217. I use this example as I believe Merseytravel have subsidised this extension, although I could be wrong.

That’s silly if Merseytravel are funding the 407 extension, considering it’s covered by the 22 and 38. The 216/217 would probably be more beneficial running the journeys of an evening rather than a morning.
You have the likes of Oxton, Beechwood, Noctorum and Birkenhead North that have lost the 118/119/293/492/495 over the years, which the 216/217 covers the majority of. Why not have the 216 depart Woodside at 19:15 and 20:15 rather than 06:15 and 06:45 and have the 217 depart Woodside at 18:45 and 19:45 rather than 06:00 and 06:30. Use the funding that way rather than it following an already funded service at the same time.

[MTL0201]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
Isn't the 407 extension solely commercial, as you'd expect Stagecoach to put objection in if Merseytravel have given funding for the 407 extension, given they operate the 22 & 38 commercially?

[iMarkeh]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(31/12/2018 05:04)MTL0201 Wrote:  Isn't the 407 extension solely commercial, as you'd expect Stagecoach to put objection in if Merseytravel have given funding for the 407 extension, given they operate the 22 & 38 commercially?

Merseytravel wouldn’t be allowed to find the 407 extension. There are strict laws saying what you can and can’t fund. One of those rules is that you can’t fund a service if there is a viable commercial alternative.

@Busdude
The 418 has been tendered for a few months at least. I don’t know why it didn’t show up on the timetable.

[Turbostar19]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
Slightly off topic, but I had the opportunity to ride on service 129 yesterday. This runs once per week in each direction between Frankby Cemetery and Liscard.

Whilst there were some passengers on board, I can't help but feel that this sort of route is one where Merseytravel really should be considering whether it needsto operate. The great majority of the route is duplicated by other services (albeit with a change of bus being required), and other than being very convenient for those visiting the cemetery, I can't see that it's provision is a good use of scarce funding.

Having lived in Birkenhead for around a year now, I am beginning to wonder about some of Merseytravels decisions as regards supporting services.