Greater Manchester Service Changes
|
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
(08/01/2021 20:50)SF07 Wrote: Some details of forthcoming changes to services, which are currently scheduled for 31 January (could possibly be delayed due to lockdown) and 11 April 2021 from the next GMCA Bus Committee meeting So surprise regarding the changes to the 217 and reintroduction of the 44. 18 will be next reverting to its old original route. Also no surprise that the Ashton daytime circulars are being subsidised. First gave them up for a reason and the changes Stagecoach made haven’t really worked. Bring back the old 38/39 routes and run the 389 through to Hyde again. |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
Was it not the Propps Hall Drive area the reason the 397 was put in place after the loss of 396? As rest of 396 was covered by other routes so only need 1 change of bus on H/F routes https://www.theoldhamtimes.co.uk/news/18...s-service/ |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
(08/01/2021 23:38)Mrboo Wrote: Was it not the Propps Hall Drive area the reason the 397 was put in place after the loss of 396? As rest of 396 was covered by other routes so only need 1 change of bus on H/F routes Apparently the councillor belived it was important to keep a link with Ashton. TFGM provided data to show very few travelled all the way to Ashton but agreed after the intervention of Angela Raynor MP to run a temporary shuttle then go back and show data to suggest nobody was using it so they could axe it, but despite the pandemic it has been used to are seeking a permanent solution. Don’t forget the 44 wasn’t carrying so was axed as was the 387 and now suddenly there making a return. |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
the 151 going to be a long route. about 90mins but will mean it will go back to every hour as the 397 cant be every hour with 1 bus. should really of been looked at interwork with the 76 with stagecoach running from Manchester to Ashton giving limeside a ashton bus. |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
The 151 has always been a long route in one way or another since it was first implemented in the late 80s early 90s when it originally ran from Chadderton-Higher Blackley via various Housing Estates in Chadderton, Failsworth and Moston, then it got extended Cheetham Hill Mandley Park via a loop round Cheetham Hill taking in Queens Road and North Manchester General Hospital. The only other interesting change is Diamond putting their 36/37 back to every 10mins making a combined 5min service from Walkden Stocks to Manchester at the end of this month when some other operators like Transdev Blazefield are now reducing services due to lack of passengers in the current Tier 4/Lockdown. |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
(09/01/2021 07:30)M60lad Wrote: The 151 has always been a long route in one way or another since it was first implemented in the late 80s early 90s when it originally ran from Chadderton-Higher Blackley via various Housing Estates in Chadderton, Failsworth and Moston, then it got extended Cheetham Hill Mandley Park via a loop round Cheetham Hill taking in Queens Road and North Manchester General Hospital. Can see a lot of the changes being put on hold. All of the former MCT contracts are up for renewal in April wouldn’t be surprised if they are simply extended and retained by current operators. |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
(08/01/2021 22:11)Mayneway Wrote: So surprise regarding the changes to the 217 and reintroduction of the 44. 18 will be next reverting to its old original route.217/44 has specific mention in the document that it was introduced as a Diamond efficiency measure. Splitting the route COULD save money in the long run if 2 different operators run the routes (Stotts may not have the resources for a 4 bus tender but may have them for a 2 bus tender. The higher the tender PVR, the less bidders you get and then the more the service costs). As for your Ashton suggestion, what does that look like in terms of PVR compared to current? |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
(09/01/2021 14:30)iMarkeh Wrote: 217/44 has specific mention in the document that it was introduced as a Diamond efficiency measure. Splitting the route COULD save money in the long run if 2 different operators run the routes (Stotts may not have the resources for a 4 bus tender but may have them for a 2 bus tender. The higher the tender PVR, the less bidders you get and then the more the service costs). The 217 and 44 should have always been left how they were, as should the 18. All you do by combining the routes is to make them more unreliable. Not sure what the current PVR is on the Ashton circulars but originally it was a closed door deal where first pulled off and stagecoach registered on the same day - most probably negotiated by TFGM to save them some money only it’s not worked. |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
(09/01/2021 16:48)Mayneway Wrote: The 217 and 44 should have always been left how they were, as should the 18. All you do by combining the routes is to make them more unreliable.The 18 changes has enabled the service to become an outer circular in many ways and has opened up many journey opportunities which weren't available without changes. 217/44 was a good operational efficiency from Diamond to reduce driver shunt cars. I am interested to see how it gets split as the 44 section timings look very tight for it to be standalone. |
||||||
|
||||||
RE: Greater Manchester Service Changes
(09/01/2021 17:17)iMarkeh Wrote: The 18 changes has enabled the service to become an outer circular in many ways and has opened up many journey opportunities which weren't available without changes. Either way the changes haven’t worked and it’s to revert back to how it was. It will have to be stand alone as both the 217 and 44 are being tendered seperatly. |
||||||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)