GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

[knutstransport]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

(24/09/2016 09:54)mikestone Wrote:  I seem to recall that Greater Manchester produce publicity and bill the operator if they don't produce their own?

Apart from the GHA Gold leaflets most of GHA's timetables for routes in Cheshire East (both commercial and contracted) were produced by the council. Although, I've noticed Cheshire East have stopped producing timetables for D&G services with D&G now producing a booklet of all their Cheshire East services.

The 130 timetable was a TfGM produced one but that included the Mon-Sat Arriva services in the same leaflet.

[Mayneway]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

(24/09/2016 09:54)mikestone Wrote:  I seem to recall that Greater Manchester produce publicity and bill the operator if they don't produce their own?

I seem to remember JPT producing thier own timetables for a couple of services when they were doing okish, I think it was the 17 and 118 but TFGM still produced there own copies. Obviously JPT may not have informed TFGM that they were producing there own

The major problem when operators produce thier own timetables is they only tend to include thier own journeys and if it's a service that more than one operator runs on it gets slightly confusing.

[knutstransport]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

(24/09/2016 11:23)Mayneway Wrote:  The major problem when operators produce thier own timetables is they only tend to include thier own journeys and if it's a service that more than one operator runs on it gets slightly confusing.

Whether an overlap applies partly depends what journey you are trying to make. There must be numerous alternatives to the 130 route depending what journey you're making and I can't see TfGM including the 27 service in their 130 leaflet because either the 27 or 130 can be used to get between Macclesfield and Macclesfield Hospital.

[Mayneway]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

(24/09/2016 11:53)knutstransport Wrote:  Whether an overlap applies partly depends what journey you are trying to make. There must be numerous alternatives to the 130 route depending what journey you're making and I can't see TfGM including the 27 service in their 130 leaflet because either the 27 or 130 can be used to get between Macclesfield and Macclesfield Hospital.

No but the point I was making with JPT is they ran a service in compititon with First on the same corridor. JPT produced there own publicity at one point but there not going to include the times of the comptition so TFGM still had to produce a timetable with all journey times listed.

No operator is going to list the times of there opposition if they can help it

[knutstransport]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

(24/09/2016 15:45)Dentonian Wrote:  There is nothing to stop Operators doing this, but TFGM would not accept them for stocks in Travelshops.

Altrincham interchange did used to have copies of GHA's own 88 leaflets in the travel centre as well as the green Cheshire East timetable for the 289.

Quote:In saying all that, as pointed out, GHA had very little operation in GM, and what they did run was mainly East Cheshire tenders, which apart from the 130, would be covered in either their own, or ECCC publicity. I can only assume that any money owed is for the 130 Guide - but I can't see that being much as I think they only triggered one change to the Bus Guide - and/or facility charges at Altrincham Interchange. The latter could include penalty payments if Interchange management had not been consulted or informed of changes to the 88 etc. Rightly or wrongly, it is the Operators' responsibility to negotiate slots at TFGM owned termini, even if the service is another Authority's contracted timetable.

With the 88 service GHA did add in the additional positional workings between Wilmslow and Altrincham when they were operating the services out of Macclesfield outstation but then when the outstation was closed they extended the positional moves to Knutsford so they did finish up adding in additional services above the contract requirement and modifying those services.

The 130 Sunday and BH service was originally a 2 year contract. At the end of the 2 year contract Cheshire East awarded the new contract (for a revised timetable) to D&G but GHA decided to continue running the services (to a further different timetable) and then apparently submitted a request to change the service to VOSA which included an error, so they had to submit a revision to change the timetable to correct the error! They did also add in Wilmslow-Macclesfield weekday and Saturday positional moves on the 130 route and then withdrew those once the Macclesfield outstation closed. So there would have been quite a few changes to the 130 over the years.

You'd hope with a service like the 200 where Cheshire East and TfGM were both providing a subsidy, that the operator wouldn't be getting a subsidy and then sent an invoice from either party for providing timetables, usage of bus stops etc.

[knutstransport]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

(25/09/2016 11:41)Dentonian Wrote:  As such, the Operator (now Springfields) might be invoiced, largely because TFGM didn't know about the early September changes, and therefore had to rip down Displays that had just been put up for other Operators' changes registered properly for 4th September.

I get the impression Cheshire East are being more flexible with operators over the GHA emergency contracts than they would normally be. The 200 was supposed to remain the same as the old GHA timetable until the new contract started at the end of October but a SN request was submitted to VOSA to re-time the first service from September.

The 289 contract was up for renewal at the start of September even if GHA hadn't collapsed but there was no proper advance warning of changes - Springfield tried to withdraw a service before September but got told to reinstate it by Cheshire East and at the start of September only withdrew the Knutsford to Altrincham part - given Cheshire West also provide a subsidy perhaps they weren't happy about the proposed change?

The week after the 289 timetable change this message appeared on the Cheshire East website

Quote:Chapel Lane, Bucklow Hill
Chapel Lane will be closed from Monday 12 September until Monday 21 November while major road construction takes place. This will affect the 289 service which will not be able to serve High Legh from that direction. Most buses will operate directly along the A556 and then the A50 to Little Bollington and High Legh. Howards have agreed that the 0930 Knutsford-Altrincham and 1333 Altrincham-Knutsford will operate into Chapel Lane and reverse into The Crescent to provide a limited service into Altrincham.

The way it's going they'll be no passengers using the Knutsford to Altrincham section because they have no idea what's going on with it!

[quahogbuscompany]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
TfGM do not provide any subsidy for the 200 what so ever. The only input from TfGM is the fact that the System One Travelcard is accepted. Unless a fee of £350 is paid to System One Travelcards Ltd, then no recompensation would be forthcoming. The tender is put out by Cheshire East and although the emergency tender is due to expire soon, no operator has been informed who will be taking the contract on. This is also true for the 27, P1 and various Macclesfield services. Operators such as Howards/Springfield are being passed from pillar to post being messed about by Cheshire East who right now don't seem to know their arse from their elbow. I'm sure it would put any new operators coming into the world of tendered local bus services if they knew what a frustrating situation it has become.

(25/09/2016 11:41)Dentonian Wrote:  TFGM don't produce 88, 289 etc Guides because they are ECCC tenders (or part tenders) that don't parallel other Operators' services by much. Also, its impractical because East Cheshire don't have fixed change dates like TFGM, and as we have seen with 289, neither ECCC or the Operator have kept TFGM up to date with late changes. That's why I mentioned the point about Operators having to copy TFGM in on registration/variations that enter Greater Manchester.
Similarly, the 130, because GHA didn't inform TFGM of the various changes to Wilmslow-Macc journeys, we didn't revise the Guides to show these journeys. As such, it worked in GHA's favour as TFGM didn't charge them for publicising changes TFGM weren't aware of!
The 200 is an interesting example, as it is now recognised that TFGM do provide a subsidy. For a long time, I've been told that TFGM have no control over its operation, because TFGM don't subsidise it! Albeit, this was mainly a false argument about accepting System One tickets and TFGM staff passes. The point being ticket validity is purely based on the authority who's area the journey is being made in, not who (if anyone) is subsidising the service.
As regards publicity - again TFGM don't produce the Bus Guide, so don't invoice the Operator. With stops, there are only a small number of stops (as with 289) so any costs incurred would hardly break the bank. Generally, its slightly more complicated with stops, as they might be served by a number of Operators with a mix of tendered and commercial services/journeys. Generally though, apart from maintenence costs spread proportionaly, it would be down o whoever instigated the change - ie. whoever calls the tune, pays the piper). With a TFGM contract, TFGM would pay to update the display. The 200 is virtually unique in having more than one Authority involved in its subsidy/specification. I think East Cheshire (along with possibly, MAplc) contribute the most, with TFGM and the National Trust only contributing a small amount based on the principal of a service running to link both Wilmslow and the RVP with the Airport. Again, the actual detail seems to be down to ECCC, resulting in TFGM not being advised of changes. As such, the Operator (now Springfields) might be invoiced, largely because TFGM didn't know about the early September changes, and therefore had to rip down Displays that had just been put up for other Operators' changes registered properly for 4th September. In saying that, I'm not sure if how many Displays are actually involved, as it would only be Ringway Road that is currently shared with 19, 44 & 369. Ironically, from 31st October, the 200 will actually become the most frequent route on Ringway Road as 19 & 369 are withdrawn (between the Airport & Wythenshawe) apart from a couple of early morning journeys, and subject to TFGMC approval, the 44 will be reduced to five round trips a day.

[33109]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
The ex cheshire connect dinky toy DK09 ENW has been in macc this last week working the 109 to leek.

Hopefully the ex GHA contracts are awarded soon as it's worrying some people what'll happen when the temporary contracts end. Most operators are managing well though arriva have had headaches with the 88.

Helluva lotta traffic in altrincham/wilmslow at rush hours which causes delays. Also due to it being quite a lengthy run knutsford-alty, stagecoach are doing brilliant with the 130 & received very high praise from passengers. 1 of their drivers mentioned he'd heard off his boss that arriva might take over the sun 130s again.

[quahogbuscompany]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
Looks like the ex GHA contracts have been awarded this afternoon. Hollinsheads Coaches look to be the big winner with the Beartown Buses contract, High Peak keeping the P1 Poynton Circular and Howards retaining the 27 Macclesfield - Knutsford and 200 Wilmslow - Manchester Airport Visitor Centre.

(26/09/2016 13:48)33109 Wrote:  The ex cheshire connect dinky toy DK09 ENW has been in macc this last week working the 109 to leek.

Hopefully the ex GHA contracts are awarded soon as it's worrying some people what'll happen when the temporary contracts end. Most operators are managing well though arriva have had headaches with the 88.

Helluva lotta traffic in altrincham/wilmslow at rush hours which causes delays. Also due to it being quite a lengthy run knutsford-alty, stagecoach are doing brilliant with the 130 & received very high praise from passengers. 1 of their drivers mentioned he'd heard off his boss that arriva might take over the sun 130s again.

[Garsty]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
YJ59 GHG is now operating around London with EOS, still wearing its full Cheshire Connect livery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/stanstedtr...276447243/