GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

[33109]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
Garsty - Seems it's a case of the country boy found himself living in the big smoke! Out of curiousity, when are the new contracts being announced? #

Cheshire east have been very quiet so far.

[knutstransport]

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

(26/09/2016 17:38)quahogbuscompany Wrote:  Howards retaining the 27 Macclesfield - Knutsford and 200 Wilmslow - Manchester Airport Visitor Centre.

I don't have anything against Howards but both the 27 and 200 routes are ones which could be more successful if operators were to do something more innovative and Howards give the impression of an operator who'll do the minimum required and no more.

Having said that I don't know exactly what the minimum required will be. For instance, the 27 service is now running at a lower frequency than when GHA ran it but I don't know if that'll remain the case.

When I say more innovative with the 200 I don't mean running more than an hourly frequency but extending it to somewhere beyond Wilmslow with no Airport bus service and using a designated Airport bus with luggage space.

[Lynx]

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

(27/09/2016 09:50)knutstransport Wrote:  I don't have anything against Howards but both the 27 and 200 routes are ones which could be more successful if operators were to do something more innovative and Howards give the impression of an operator who'll do the minimum required and no more.

Having said that I don't know exactly what the minimum required will be. For instance, the 27 service is now running at a lower frequency than when GHA ran it but I don't know if that'll remain the case.

When I say more innovative with the 200 I don't mean running more than an hourly frequency but extending it to somewhere beyond Wilmslow with no Airport bus service and using a designated Airport bus with luggage space.

Just out of curiosity what do you mean when you say you get the impression Howards will do the minimum possible? If it's how I interpret it I somewhat disagree.

[knutstransport]

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

(27/09/2016 11:10)Lynx Wrote:  Just out of curiosity what do you mean when you say you get the impression Howards will do the minimum possible? If it's how I interpret it I somewhat disagree.

So you think Howards will run 14 services per day if passenger numbers rise despite the contract saying a minimum of 7 must be operated? Or do you think they'll extend services or join them up to create new opportunities like Macclesfield to Manchester Airport? Those are the kind of things I mean by doing above the minimum and being innovative.

[The H man]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
I obviously can't say too much on here but stuff that is factual and in the public domain should be ok.

Whilst we would love to develop a network, we have to be mindful of our obligations as per the contract with the authority.

Our priority is to develop growth organically, for example the 289 will get its own branded vehicle in November which will be quite highly specced.

Hopefully a similar situation will arise with the 27 and 200 , but our first priority is to work with the authority to ensure the timetables are realistic and achieveable. 200 service especially.
Many of the journeys under gha didn't run which caused a loss of confidence with the passengers. Our aim is to provide a reliable quality service to regain those passenger's.

[quahogbuscompany]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
I'm sure the guys at Howards are open to suggestions from all sides. Unfortunately in order to make something grow, there must be reasons or scope for it to grow. I'm sure the duties are running pretty close to maximum driving times at the moment, so in order to increase journey length or to increase frequency will involve finding more drivers, paying more labour costs, more vehicle payments, more insurance, more road tax, more fuel and requires more operators licences which to pay for requires a lot more revenue. Howards have already ordered a brand new vehicle for the 289 service which is due late November, but I'm led to believe the 200 and 27 contracts have been won at a minimum cost tender with a vehicle age restriction of 15 years, so I'm sure there will be no new buses forthcoming for those services. I hope things do develop with these services and would really like to see Howards prosper and grow with these services, but Rome wasn't built in a day so let's give them a chance and see what they can do. If you want to email them their email is info@springfieldbus.co.uk

(27/09/2016 12:48)knutstransport Wrote:  So you think Howards will run 14 services per day if passenger numbers rise despite the contract saying a minimum of 7 must be operated? Or do you think they'll extend services or join them up to create new opportunities like Macclesfield to Manchester Airport? Those are the kind of things I mean by doing above the minimum and being innovative.

[knutstransport]

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

(27/09/2016 13:23)The H man Wrote:  Hopefully a similar situation will arise with the 27 and 200 , but our first priority is to work with the authority to ensure the timetables are realistic and achieveable. 200 service especially.
Many of the journeys under gha didn't run which caused a loss of confidence with the passengers. Our aim is to provide a reliable quality service to regain those passenger's.

I'm not sure how much you are aware of the history of the 27 route. It was an hourly contracted service using 2 council owned Wright Cadets under Bakers and then under Bowers who became High Peak and was doing well. When the High Peak contract came to an end the council asked them to consider running the route commercially. High Peak agreed to on the basis it would be a 90 minute frequency using 1 vehicle - this is when it all went wrong - that would have worked if all the buses went directly and didn't serve Over Peover and Astra Zeneca but they did continue to attempt to serve Over Peover and Astra Zeneca so the timetable was very unreliable. On top of that the return fare between Knutsford and Macclesfield had been £3.50 but on the first day of the High Peak commercial service it became £4.80 so High Peak lost a lot of passengers before cancelling their commercial registration. Cheshire East put it out to tender with a reduced frequency (similar to what you currently run) but it wasn't awarded as GHA registered the service commercially and then as passenger numbers increased they increased the frequency to hourly for most of the day.

As you say there were reliability issues with GHA in the months before they went bust but the 27 wasn't as badly affected as the 200 service - there were days the 200 service didn't run all day! However, after GHA went bust High Peak agreed to run the 27 service commercially again (Mon-Fri only) on an interim basis and yet again people were put off by higher fares. Also it wasn't clearly communicated that a Saturday service would start under Howards/Springfield or that the weekday service would transfer to Howards/Springfield. The first a lot of people knew about either of those happening was when they saw a Howards/Springfield bus actually running the service.

[knutstransport]

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

(27/09/2016 13:32)quahogbuscompany Wrote:  I'm sure the guys at Howards are open to suggestions from all sides. Unfortunately in order to make something grow, there must be reasons or scope for it to grow. I'm sure the duties are running pretty close to maximum driving times at the moment, so in order to increase journey length or to increase frequency will involve finding more drivers, paying more labour costs, more vehicle payments, more insurance, more road tax, more fuel and requires more operators licences which to pay for requires a lot more revenue. Howards have already ordered a brand new vehicle for the 289 service which is due late November, but I'm led to believe the 200 and 27 contracts have been won at a minimum cost tender with a vehicle age restriction of 15 years, so I'm sure there will be no new buses forthcoming for those services. I hope things do develop with these services and would really like to see Howards prosper and grow with these services, but Rome wasn't built in a day so let's give them a chance and see what they can do. If you want to email them their email is info@springfieldbus.co.uk

That's really why I think it's harder for Howards to do something innovative. For instance, from the end of October alternate 130 Macclesfield-Wilmslow Arriva services will terminate at Wilmslow meaning if Arriva had been awarded the 200 contract they could have run a Macclesfield-Manchester Airport service without requiring additional buses/drivers over running two separate services and maybe that would have improved reliability as well?

At the moment there's only 1 bus service serving Knutsford which hasn't seen cutbacks in the last couple of months and that's the 300 town circular which apparently D&G are adding a couple of extra weekday commercial journeys to at the end of October. The 289 has seen some cutbacks to allow it to be run using the same vehicle as school contracts, the 88 has seen some early/late journeys removed (as a result of positional moves GHA ran not being required), while the 27 has seen a frequency reduction. It really doesn't feel like a case of Rome not being built in a day - more like people from the Vatican coming along and part destroying the Colosseum so they can use the building materials elsewhere!

[Salopbus]

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

(27/09/2016 14:19)knutstransport Wrote:  I'm not sure how much you are aware of the history of the 27 route. It was an hourly contracted service using 2 council owned Wright Cadets under Bakers and then under Bowers who became High Peak and was doing well. When the High Peak contract came to an end the council asked them to consider running the route commercially. High Peak agreed to on the basis it would be a 90 minute frequency using 1 vehicle - this is when it all went wrong - that would have worked if all the buses went directly and didn't serve Over Peover and Astra Zeneca but they did continue to attempt to serve Over Peover and Astra Zeneca so the timetable was very unreliable. On top of that the return fare between Knutsford and Macclesfield had been £3.50 but on the first day of the High Peak commercial service it became £4.80 so High Peak lost a lot of passengers before cancelling their commercial registration. Cheshire East put it out to tender with a reduced frequency (similar to what you currently run) but it wasn't awarded as GHA registered the service commercially and then as passenger numbers increased they increased the frequency to hourly for most of the day.

As you say there were reliability issues with GHA in the months before they went bust but the 27 wasn't as badly affected as the 200 service - there were days the 200 service didn't run all day! However, after GHA went bust High Peak agreed to run the 27 service commercially again (Mon-Fri only) on an interim basis and yet again people were put off by higher fares. Also it wasn't clearly communicated that a Saturday service would start under Howards/Springfield or that the weekday service would transfer to Howards/Springfield. The first a lot of people knew about either of those happening was when they saw a Howards/Springfield bus actually running the service.

Yet again heresay gets in the way of the truth. The contract for 27 was coming to a natural end and High Peak decided to continue operating the services commercially on a 90 minute headway, the Council did not ask High Peak to consider commercial operation. Had High Peak not registered the service commercially a tender would have been issued for an hourly service, however once High Peak relinqueshed the commercial operation funding for the hourly service was no longer available so a lesser service was put in place.

[knutstransport]

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

(27/09/2016 14:40)Salopbus Wrote:  Yet again heresay gets in the way of the truth. The contract for 27 was coming to a natural end and High Peak decided to continue operating the services commercially on a 90 minute headway, the Council did not ask High Peak to consider commercial operation. Had High Peak not registered the service commercially a tender would have been issued for an hourly service, however once High Peak relinqueshed the commercial operation funding for the hourly service was no longer available so a lesser service was put in place.

I was under the impression (from what my local paper reported) that Cheshire East asked operators to look at whether it would be viable to continue running routes when the contracts ended. I did say "when the High Peak contract came to an end" so did not in any way imply it the contract was cancelled. Of course, High Peak didn't have to register a commercial 27 service (as you implied) as they already had an active 27 registration so they just had to submit a request to update the registration for a reduced service.

You seem to know a lot about what conversations took place between TSS/Cheshire East and multiple operators. So either you must have worked for TSS/Cheshire East or you changed employer every few months. If not surely what you've heard is just as much hearsay as what myself or other posters hear?

And yet again you make an argument about something that isn't exactly the most relevant part of the post - it was the attempt to run a 90 minute commercial service that caused the drop in usage, whose ever idea that was.