D&G Bus

[iMarkeh]

RE: D&G Bus

(01/06/2018 09:20)knutstransport Wrote:  When Knutsford-Wilmslow-Altrincham was half-hourly the Knutsford-Wilmslow section got more passengers than Wilmslow-Altrincham. However, some of the passengers travelling to Altrincham board in the villages between Knutsford and Wilmslow so they weren't going to find the 88A useful.

One of the reasons for the 88 going half-hourly under GHA was the Waters Corp development just outside Morley Green and that was also the reason why half the buses stayed on Altrincham Road rather than going through Morley Green village itself. Another reason was to try and get the people who drive to Wilmslow and Altrincham stations to use the bus instead, which was why Wilmslow station got added to the route and the high spec GHA Gold buses were supposed to help attract people to use public transport even if they had a car. Initially D&G using the high spec Solo SRs on the 88 helped continue that idea but they decided to replace them with the rattly Streetlites.

Though it looks like it does better, I don't think it needs a half hourly service. Given the age of the residents in Knutsford, Wilmslow and the villages, I think this would have been a good time to extend the 88A to Handforth Dean for the Marks and Spencers using up the dead time from Knutsford (It does mean driver changes but I think it could help passenger numbers. That Waters development must have put a lot of money in but you still don't put loads of money into a bus service which has no or few passengers. The ways to encourage usage is mainly subsidising fares. Lower fares work better than a really frequent service. The streetlites were really good and well looked after in my opinion. As are the Solo SRs. Both seemed as good as each other. I can't see a streetlite discouraging passengers to be honest with you.

(01/06/2018 09:20)knutstransport Wrote:  When Cheshire East put the 88/89 out to tender they would have had no idea who would actually win it and even if they'd known D&G would win it they wouldn't have known for certain where they do driver changeovers - there's plenty of time for a changeover at Northwich on the services which go there and Northwich is close to D&G's Wincham depot.

They also didn't know D&G would withdraw the commercial Mon-Fri 300 services. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying with regards to the 27. With a PVR of 2 for the 27 and the old route you would have an hourly service with long layovers but if you extend the service to the Longridge estate that'll add around 10 minutes there and 10 minutes back, so make it the perfect length for having a PVR of 2 without needing to inter-work with other services to prevent long layovers. It would also mean the same number of vehicles used as when there was a 2 hourly 27 and a half-hourly 300.

Though Cheshire East set the timetable, D&G can set a counter timetable. A difference of 2 minutes is hardly going to cause uproar within the council? Any bus company can make their own timetable to suit their own operational needs and many companies do. In this instance, adding a few minutes in Knutsford is nothing and the council wouldn't really care. As long as the base timetable is the same or very similar, there are never really any issues.

The whole Wincham thing is a mess. I don't think D&G know about their fuel rebate. Removing that last Northwich bound trip rather than cutting it at Wincham and all the buses running dead to Wilmslow (despite the fact they pass Knutsford bus station to get there). They could just have an 88X running the same way they run NIS. Difference being they could get 1 passenger. It is a few quid more than they are getting running NIS and even if you get no one, you get the 30% fuel rebate. That could save the council some money (Given 2 buses start at Wilmslow. 1 starts in Macclesfield and the other in Northwich). Though each day the amount of rebate might be low, in the end, it all adds up. The council could possibly create another route with the savings by having placement routes.

The 27 I think I must have misunderstood. Having 10 mins layover is alright. When I say about adding on 2 buses, I mean by their current situation. The 88 not extending would free up 1 bus. That then means you need 1 additional bus to make that up. The 27 looked to do alright. It would be interesting to know if the Barclays buses are free for employees? They could put that money into D&G to run the shuttles in the morning and evening and then have the 'shuttle bus' make the 27 upto hourly between the shuttle times. That then pays for the 2nd bus.

As I have said previously though it doesn't look like D&G play around with ideas. They see something isn't viable and rather than negotiating with people and/or messing with timetables, they stick to what is put in front of them and go with that. The latest changes to the 88 timings just look like buses are late so they had to change the times. Almost every tendered route runs to a different timetable than the actual ITT. you have to play about to suit your own operational needs whether that be linking driver changeovers to make better use of vans or whether it be you have a commercial school run and you need the route to work around that for example. It is a shame D&G are too friendly and don't play about a bit.