Howards/Springfield

[The H man]

RE: Howards/Springfield
I can't comment too much, as it's still very new. Cheshire East, have got an unbelievable amount of work on to cover the runs.
As far as I know, the 289 is the first to be properly tendered. Today was first official day. I'm sure the new time table will be online soon, we have had lots of enquiries about it and have handed out paper copies of new timetable.
With regard to passes we are accepting most passes that serve the route, but we will seek clarity from Cheshire East, this is new to us and we are keen to run it correctly

[T42 PVM (Moderator)]

RE: Howards/Springfield
I noticed a Howards Coach at Liverpool Lime Street on a Rail Rep this evening, How long will Howards be running that? Tempted to go for a spin

[The H man]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(02/08/2016 00:02)T42 PVM Wrote:  I noticed a Howards Coach at Liverpool Lime Street on a Rail Rep this evening, How long will Howards be running that? Tempted to go for a spin

Some can be upto 6 weeks long and some can be single journeys, I think the one your referring too was put on as a standby due to Liverpool pride, when a big event is on somewhere they usually dupe last train with a bus incase of overloads.

[knutstransport]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(01/08/2016 19:47)Dentonian Wrote:  Is this journey paid for by Cheshire East? Presumably not......

The contract GHA had was 5 return workings but that contract was due to expire in the autumn. The 289 used to be every 2.5 hours but it was re-routed to serve High Legh following the withdrawal of the 47 Knutsford to Warrington service, which had already been reduced to a token service due to a dispute between Network Warrington and councillors in Cheshire over subsides.

[YN05 WKE]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(02/08/2016 05:57)knutstransport Wrote:  The contract GHA had was 5 return workings but that contract was due to expire in the autumn. The 289 used to be every 2.5 hours but it was re-routed to serve High Legh following the withdrawal of the 47 Knutsford to Warrington service, which had already been reduced to a token service due to a dispute between Network Warrington and councillors in Cheshire over subsides.

Didnt the 37/38 that Warrington Coachways ran go via High Legh to Altrincham as well?

[knutstransport]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(02/08/2016 06:33)E208 WBG Wrote:  Didnt the 37/38 that Warrington Coachways ran go via High Legh to Altrincham as well?

Yes. Warrington Coachways provided an hourly service most hours via High Legh. They didn't provide a departure for Altrincham from High Legh between 08:00 and 09:00 though but did provide a departure from Altrincham for High Legh between 17:00 and 18:00, so the Warrington Coachways and 289 service combined allowed someone in High Legh working normal office hours in Altrincham to get to and from work using the bus. When the Warrington Coachways service was withdrawn there was talk of an additional 289 service in the evening peak between Altrincham and Knutsford only but it never materialised.

The 47 also allowed someone in High Legh to get to/from Knutsford so routing the 289 via High Legh allowed an alternative with the 47 getting withdrawn.

[knutstransport]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(01/08/2016 20:11)Dentonian Wrote:  One possible idea would be to extend the 200 to Altrincham. This would be less of a diversion than the 88, with just the RVP added to the existing 18 "diversion". Also, note the evening 18 (when the 200 currently doesn't run and the RVP is closed to the general public) is already covered by a seperate TFGM contract. This arrangement would also have the advantage of improving punctuality as the 200 is unreliable due to tight running times, and Altrincham is less than 20 minutes (off-peak) from the RVP. It would also provide a new link (and revenue) from Altrincham to the RVP.

Question is which would provide better value for money:
- Providing a new link from Altrincham to the RVP
- Providing a new link from Knutsford, Mobberley and Morley Green to the Airport.

Given the Airport also provides interchange opportunities to both local and long distance rail services I suspect the latter.

You could always have an 88 diversion at off-peak times with an alternative at peak times so that most people commuting between Altrincham and Wilmslow aren't disadvantaged.

[quahogbuscompany]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(01/08/2016 19:47)Dentonian Wrote:  Is this journey paid for by Cheshire East? Presumably not......

I see from the Howard's twitter feed that the service is reverting to the original timetable. I really feel for these guys as they appear to be being mucked about with all over the place. Hopefully it's just teething troubles as I know first hand that the guys at Howard's are really nice people to deal with. I would hate to see them fail at this because of bureaucratic incompetence. Let's just hope potential customers aren't put off by all this. I note that they have a 62 plate Enviro 200 running on this service on hire from Mistral until possibly a new vehicle is sourced?

[knutstransport]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(02/08/2016 19:14)Dentonian Wrote:  As you are the "local" I'll bow to your better knowledge overall. However, those of us with a long memory (about 20 years) will fall about laughing at the suggestion of Mobberley being linked to M'cr Airport by bus. Wasn't it the residents of Mobberley who famously organised a fundraiser to fight the Second Runway plans on the grounds of environmental concerns - and all turned up in Rolls Royces. Maybe wait a few years until HS2 is running, then they can catch a bus (yeah, right) to Well Green International Interchange, from where they can catch their £55 billion (and rising) toy and be at their beloved Heathrow in barely an hour.

Most of Cheshire is very diverse. Trying to claim the people with Rolls Royces represent an entire Cheshire town or village is like saying drug dealers represent a Greater Manchester town or suburb.

The real local objections to Runway 2 were noise concerns as a result of low flying aircraft over Cheshire - a lot of the environmentalists who objected came from further afield and would have turned up at any Airport proposing expansion. Councillors in Manchester Town Hall were happy to debate the economic benefits of Runway 2 with Greater Manchester councils getting a share of any profits but would they have been so-pro Runway 2 if it had resulted in low flying planes over central Manchester and the profits had gone to Cheshire County Council instead? Runway 2 was a win-win situation for councils in Bury, Bolton, Wigan, Tameside etc. but a very different scenario for Cheshire. Some homeowners got just £500 compensation (after a lengthy battle) in exchange for very low aircraft flying overhead from 6am to 10pm (and all night whenever the airport declares 'essential' maintenance works are required. One homeowner on a street with terrace houses got no compensation despite their neighbour getting compensation - the Airport claimed they had to draw the line somewhere!

However, being inconvenienced by the Airport doesn't automatically mean people want to choose a less convenient/more expensive flight option to avoid using Manchester Airport.

[knutstransport]

RE: Howards/Springfield

(02/08/2016 09:01)quahogbuscompany Wrote:  I see from the Howard's twitter feed that the service is reverting to the original timetable. I really feel for these guys as they appear to be being mucked about with all over the place. Hopefully it's just teething troubles as I know first hand that the guys at Howard's are really nice people to deal with. I would hate to see them fail at this because of bureaucratic incompetence. Let's just hope potential customers aren't put off by all this. I note that they have a 62 plate Enviro 200 running on this service on hire from Mistral until possibly a new vehicle is sourced?

The 289 and 10A contracts were up for renewal even if GHA hadn't collapsed with new contracts due to start in the autumn: http://england.unitedkingdom-tenders.co....2016_Crewe

What was strange is for the 88 route Arriva published a timetable, before they even started running it, which specified the services they'll operate initially and which ones which only commence on 1st August. Yet the new 289 timetable didn't say the 06:55 from Northwich was only until 30th July, so unless the timetable on the Howards site didn't reflect the registration wouldn't they need to give VOSA 8 weeks notice to make the change?

One problem in Cheshire East generally is the old bus times are still displayed at what seems like every bus stop. So, for instance the Howards 27 Saturday service is at xx:15 every 2 hours from Knutsford bus station but the bus stand timetable still says xx:45 every hour. Some people who are aware of the 27 High Peak M-F timetable are still unaware that a different operator has registered a Saturday service.

I've not seen the Mistral Enviro 200 but hearing that reminds me of when Swans had the 200 and 289 contracts and they were using a Mistral Enviro 200, with Mistral obviously being based a couple of miles off the 289 route but the bus having to make a 35 mile trip to/from Swans depot at the start and end of the day.