Merseytravel Timetable Changes

[b2311e]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
When I first seen about the 73 I imagined it would continue past Heswall railway station and include Clatterbridge. It could then have gone along Mount Road and still got in the Broadway onwards section to ultimately loop back to Poulton Lancelyn

[iMarkeh]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(03/11/2018 14:28)CKC 312L Wrote:  Maybe the 38 could have been left as it was terminating at Mill Park and a new route starting at Eastham Ferry and running possibly via the Croft Retail Park and Poulton Lancelyn might have been a better option. I agree that the starting time from Eastham ferry is way too early and maybe the 05.30 and 06.30 runs should have started from Mill Park.
Unfortunately the replacements are not like for like and that is probably because of the cash constraints that Merseytravel are under in these times of austerity

If there are cash constraints, it is cheaper to shrink the route. Admittedly only about 5 minutes less but if Stagecoach charge for the dead time from the garage, you are looking a good 10 minutes less which isn't a massive saving but every saving is more money in the kitty.

When I say like for like, I don't mean exactly like for like as I know some routes will cost a lot more but the 16/17 has an extra 2 buses compared to Avon. The 84/85 (which the extension replaces) has as PVR of 2. Keeping both routes the same would have no cost increase but could have a cost decrease. Things like the stupidly early extra trips as well. 38 and the 80 are good examples of this.

[mrd97]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(03/11/2018 20:40)iMarkeh Wrote:  If there are cash constraints, it is cheaper to shrink the route. Admittedly only about 5 minutes less but if Stagecoach charge for the dead time from the garage, you are looking a good 10 minutes less which isn't a massive saving but every saving is more money in the kitty.

When I say like for like, I don't mean exactly like for like as I know some routes will cost a lot more but the 16/17 has an extra 2 buses compared to Avon. The 84/85 (which the extension replaces) has as PVR of 2. Keeping both routes the same would have no cost increase but could have a cost decrease. Things like the stupidly early extra trips as well. 38 and the 80 are good examples of this.

Totally agree with this. 83/83A should run as a Circular again, with a Saturday services on 83 (via Greasby). Hourly on both should be a PVR of 3 (same as now with 83A) 22 should return to its old route via Irby and Mill Hill Road, which would give Merseytravel an extra bus to play with. Perhaps the 82 could extend to Heswall to give a (needed) half hourly service between Heswal and West Kirby. 84/85 should be reinstated, pvr of two buses, perhaps bypassing Poulton Lancelyn so Thornton Hough and Raby could also be served. 73 looks a decent route, but now Town Lane and Kings Lane have no bus at all, and for the elderly, it’s a long walk to either end of the road to catch a bus. A suggestion could be the 77 could run as a Circular to and from Birkenhead, Via Town Lane and Kings Lane. I think the PVR would be very similar to what we have now. Another issue is the 38 timetable is very confusing, especially the evening service, at inconsistent frequencies, this has been the case since last year, however

[CKC 312L]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
It is not necessarily cheaper to shrink a route when you can combine two routes and still save money For example the 38 by and large is a commercial route the only part and I maybe wrong that at present gets any form of subsidy is the extension from Croft Retail Park to Mill Park and that is because it is almost a direct replacement for the 145/146/286 and 418/419 routes changed or cut in the Wirral Bus review

[iMarkeh]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(03/11/2018 21:51)mrd97 Wrote:  Totally agree with this. 83/83A should run as a Circular again, with a Saturday services on 83 (via Greasby). Hourly on both should be a PVR of 3 (same as now with 83A) 22 should return to its old route via Irby and Mill Hill Road, which would give Merseytravel an extra bus to play with. Perhaps the 82 could extend to Heswall to give a (needed) half hourly service between Heswal and West Kirby. 84/85 should be reinstated, pvr of two buses, perhaps bypassing Poulton Lancelyn so Thornton Hough and Raby could also be served. 73 looks a decent route, but now Town Lane and Kings Lane have no bus at all, and for the elderly, it’s a long walk to either end of the road to catch a bus. A suggestion could be the 77 could run as a Circular to and from Birkenhead, Via Town Lane and Kings Lane. I think the PVR would be very similar to what we have now. Another issue is the 38 timetable is very confusing, especially the evening service, at inconsistent frequencies, this has been the case since last year, however

The 22 is commercial. No funding from Merseytravel so it wouldn't matter. Plus, when I suggested this to Stagecoach, the Neston Councillor went ape insisting that Neston - Arrowe Park Hospital it a vital link.... (despite having links to Clatterbridge). 83A is also commercial so it's upto Arriva what they do with it.

(03/11/2018 22:12)CKC 312L Wrote:  It is not necessarily cheaper to shrink a route when you can combine two routes and still save money For example the 38 by and large is a commercial route the only part and I maybe wrong that at present gets any form of subsidy is the extension from Croft Retail Park to Mill Park and that is because it is almost a direct replacement for the 145/146/286 and 418/419 routes changed or cut in the Wirral Bus review

The 38 is a bad example for my point. Say A2B have 2 buses spare which they can use. They aren't going to bid for a 5 bus route. They would however be able to bid for a 2 bus route. The savings would be made by smaller companies generally offering lower prices meaning there are bigger savings. If Stagecoach want 100k per bus and A2B want 80k per bus per year, when you thing, taking 2 buses off Stagecoach and giving them to A2B would involve a saving of 40k per year. Secondly, the 84/85 started around 9am meaning that a school could safely be linked onto the tender thus reducing the tender cost even more. All 5 buses on the 16/17 are out by 7.30am so they can't do school buses on top like currently.

Generally, I think a route with a PVR of 1 will cost the same as the 38 extension. There shouldn't be much, if any, difference in cost based on Stagecoach running both. However putting routes out to tender could get people putting in low bids. Stagecoach might win lots of tenders but the lower the PVR, the less they win as they are good with getting lots of buses quickly. Something which small companies can't do.

[wirralbus]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(03/11/2018 20:40)iMarkeh Wrote:  If there are cash constraints, it is cheaper to shrink the route. Admittedly only about 5 minutes less but if Stagecoach charge for the dead time from the garage, you are looking a good 10 minutes less which isn't a massive saving but every saving is more money in the kitty.

When I say like for like, I don't mean exactly like for like as I know some routes will cost a lot more but the 16/17 has an extra 2 buses compared to Avon. The 84/85 (which the extension replaces) has as PVR of 2. Keeping both routes the same would have no cost increase but could have a cost decrease. Things like the stupidly early extra trips as well. 38 and the 80 are good examples of this.

Ok , if the 16/17 now has an extra 2 vehicles on it , and the 84 and 85 used 2 vehicles on it , there is no change in vehicles between the two routes combined.

[wirralbus]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
You can see in the timetable for the 73 , there literally isnt any more time you can eke out for a Kings Lane , Town Lane diversion , what you could do though to satisfy Town lane is by using Town Lane , Old Chester Road and Bebington Road to get to Bebington Civic Centre .

[iMarkeh]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(04/11/2018 08:29)wirralbus Wrote:  Ok , if the 16/17 now has an extra 2 vehicles on it , and the 84 and 85 used 2 vehicles on it , there is no change in vehicles between the two routes combined.

I don't think you get the point I am making. The 84/85 could be linked onto 2 AM schools which would save money. The 16/17 can't as all buses start too early.

The 84/85 ran shorter hours. The 16/17 goes round areas a lot earlier than the 84/85 which means it is costing more.

If the tenders were split, A2B might have 2 buses spare and want £160k to run the service. Eazibus might have 3 buses spare and want £270k to run the service. None of these have 5 buses available so wouldn't directly tender. Stagecoach have 5 buses but might want £500k to run the service. Splitting the route back to how it was would reduce the cost massively as smaller companies would have put in bids. If an emergency tender needs 5 buses, you aren't going to get licences in time so it is all down to your current availability. The less buses a route needs, the more people tender as more people can easily accommodate it.

I think you are comparing it as Stagecoach running both services and winning both tenders at which point there would be a small decrease in cost (due to the shorter running hours on the 84/85). I am comparing it as any 2 companies running the 2 tenders. The cost could be vastly reduced.

[T42 PVM (Moderator)]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes

(04/11/2018 08:45)iMarkeh Wrote:  I don't think you get the point I am making. The 84/85 could be linked onto 2 AM schools which would save money. The 16/17 can't as all buses start too early.

The 84/85 ran shorter hours. The 16/17 goes round areas a lot earlier than the 84/85 which means it is costing more.

If the tenders were split, A2B might have 2 buses spare and want £160k to run the service. Eazibus might have 3 buses spare and want £270k to run the service. None of these have 5 buses available so wouldn't directly tender. Stagecoach have 5 buses but might want £500k to run the service. Splitting the route back to how it was would reduce the cost massively as smaller companies would have put in bids. If an emergency tender needs 5 buses, you aren't going to get licences in time so it is all down to your current availability. The less buses a route needs, the more people tender as more people can easily accommodate it.

I think you are comparing it as Stagecoach running both services and winning both tenders at which point there would be a small decrease in cost (due to the shorter running hours on the 84/85). I am comparing it as any 2 companies running the 2 tenders. The cost could be vastly reduced.

Who says A2B Would be interested and who says Eazibus want more work? Having the Buses is one thing but then you have to get the drivers and that costs time (Interviews ect) and money. With the tenders starting at short notice Stagecoach was the better operator to go to, they have the Buses and Drivers being a bigger operator.

[CKC 312L]

RE: Merseytravel Timetable Changes
Buses are easy to get hold of especially good secondhand ones. Drivers on the other hand drivers aren't after all there is a national shortage of both HGV and PCV drivers. Plus if a small independent is offering say £9 per hour and a bigger company say Stagecoach is offering say £11 per hour most (not all) drivers would opt for the bigger company. Anyway all this discussion of PVRs and drivers buses etc is deviating from the topic