TheEastCoaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 1,242
To be fair, wouldn't the section between Newbridge and Gyle risk potential delays? It might help.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Edinburgh & The Lothians Council Tender Services
- Thread starter danielhogg2005
- Start date
To be fair, wouldn't the section between Newbridge and Gyle risk potential delays? It might help.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
LothianBusesPh
Member
What's the alternative, adding another bus to the PVR for a higher frequency? The council would be fine with it if the operator wanted that but it shouldn't be a requirement.
roadierway77
Member
From my experience the 63 rarely completes that journey in 37mins unless traffic is abnormally clear. It's usually at least 5-10mins late by the time it reaches the Gyle. So a 25min layover would easily turn into a 15min layover which is far more reasonable. I would prefer for the 63 to remain a through route at the Gyle though, combining it with the 20 would be a more efficient use of resources and provide better connections. Demand from Queensferry to west Edinburgh beyond the Gyle Centre is not insignificant.
Recommendations are now published for the Transport & Economic committee on Thursday (map on page 7):
Lothian would operate the Gyle to Hermiston Gait via Ratho, interworking with Queensferry to Gyle (probably allowing for these to use 3 buses instead of 4). They would also operate the local Wester Hailes - Chesser bus, and the Cramond to Balerno service. All hourly.
HCL Transport would operate the Clermiston circular, every 75 minutes.
The document states that Lothian did submit a tender for Edinburgh Centre to Ratho, but the Council opted for the Hermiston P&R to Gyle option due to cost, especially with the savings that would come with interworking this with the Queensferry route.
It is also noted that while the recommendation for the Balerno to Cramond route shows the route using Riccarton Mains Road, Lothian had submitted an alternative bid which would run via Curriehill Road and serve Heriot-Watt, however this requires Heriot-Watt university to allow buses through their west gate. Since discussions are ongoing, they've just recommended the route via Riccarton Mains Road for the time being.
The Clermiston circular would serve Turnhouse, alongside West Craigs.
It also mentions that some of the total budget needs to be allocated towards the 13, 38, X40 and 400 which has an impact on the remaining available for the tendered services.
Lothian would operate the Gyle to Hermiston Gait via Ratho, interworking with Queensferry to Gyle (probably allowing for these to use 3 buses instead of 4). They would also operate the local Wester Hailes - Chesser bus, and the Cramond to Balerno service. All hourly.
HCL Transport would operate the Clermiston circular, every 75 minutes.
The document states that Lothian did submit a tender for Edinburgh Centre to Ratho, but the Council opted for the Hermiston P&R to Gyle option due to cost, especially with the savings that would come with interworking this with the Queensferry route.
It is also noted that while the recommendation for the Balerno to Cramond route shows the route using Riccarton Mains Road, Lothian had submitted an alternative bid which would run via Curriehill Road and serve Heriot-Watt, however this requires Heriot-Watt university to allow buses through their west gate. Since discussions are ongoing, they've just recommended the route via Riccarton Mains Road for the time being.
The Clermiston circular would serve Turnhouse, alongside West Craigs.
It also mentions that some of the total budget needs to be allocated towards the 13, 38, X40 and 400 which has an impact on the remaining available for the tendered services.
Last edited:
stevenedin
Established Member
This is great news, let’s hope that it is approved.
I'm doubtful it won't - any other options would cost more! The recommendations narrowly meet the budget.
stevenedin
Established Member
I wonder where Lothian will get their extra buses from or maybe the BZLs will displace some other buses and moving single decker routes to double decker will solve the issue.
Lothianbus703
Member
My proposal is the new BZL's could enable enough double deckers to be operated on the 1 (or 2) and some 7900s could move to Longstone.
TheEastCoaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 1,242
Makes me wonder if they will run them as Lothian City or Lothian Country, I imagine the Gyle to Hermiston P&R via Ratho route will prove tricky to run under LCB
NorthClyde320
Member
I'm sure I saw Lothian Motorcoaches mentioned as one of the 4 or 5 bidders? If it is through this subsidiary of Lothian it means they could use non standard types such as Enviro200MMC's or shorter Evora's or even electric buses, numbered in the 9xxx range, plus Newbridge depot means not a lot of lost mileage
I don't think any of them will end up being operated under Lothian Motorcoaches.
TheEastCoaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 1,242
Hold on, so Skylink 400 is a tendered service?
computerSaysNo
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 1,199
I'm guessing it's either specific journeys or specific days only, or it's the N400 that the document is referring to.
Unsure if this is still current, but they were subsidising the off peak 400:-
stevenedin
Established Member
The off peak service 18 which the 400 replaced was but I had no idea that it still needed funding as I was under the understanding that the 400 had grown so much since being extended to the Airport and Fort Kinnaird and renumbered from service 18.
TheEastCoaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 1,242
Lothian have won 4 of the 5 tenders!
Question now, which ones will be Lothian City and which will be Lothian Country.
Question now, which ones will be Lothian City and which will be Lothian Country.
stevenedin
Established Member
Considering they are all in the city I doubt any would be run by Lothian Country unless they inter work with the 43 or 72.
TheEastCoaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 1,242
Since Lothian established the CityWest zone heavily with their other services, I doubt they will want to risk running the services under Lothian City, potentially confusing passengers who are used to seeing the green buses further beyond Ingilston. The Queensferry to Gyle route would work well, connecting with the X18, 43, and 72 services.
I'm already struggling to see how they will make the Hermiston P&R to Gyle route work with all of this, unless they split the route at Ratho so they don't make the fare zones even more complicated. But will that even be allowed?
The Wester Hailes to Chesser and the Cramond to Balerno services, however, I don't see being an issue, as these could both be Longstone runs easily. I wonder if they will make the Balerno service work with the Queensferry service in terms of connections.
stevenedin
Established Member
I think that the Queensferry to Gyle will interwork with Gyle to Hermiston Park & Ride or at least that’s what I got from the document posted above.
FlybeDash8Q400
Established Member
There’s quite a few Doglegs in this plan. Clearly shows the tight budgets at the moment. Personally I’d like to have seen the Chesser route maintained as far as at least Hermiston Gait. I feel like the usage of the route of the retained section could be really low without it. It doesn’t really appear to be doing anything now. Demand to/from Chesser itself has always been relatively low, but is one of the view viable turning points in the area.
I still think it’d have been better to have a Queensferry to Chesser through route every hour. This would’ve maintained the Hermiston Gait connections on both sides.
The Ratho route to Hermiston P&R if I’m honest seems pretty pointless. I imagine it’s been done to restore connections to the X40, but it’s still pretty inconvenient. I think I said before I would’ve just done the Ratho to City route, possibly diverting to serve the Gyle.
The Cramond to Balerno route however seems really good.
The next two big questions will be route numbers and also vehicles. I imagine 20 will be left for Ratho with 63 for Queensferry. Possibly 32 for Wester Hailes and then 42 for Cramond to Balerno?
Lothian have their 4 7900 driver route trainers but this is way short of what will be needed. So the only real options are the second hand market (unlikely) or converting the 1 to double deckers (definitely possible).
stevenedin
Established Member
They could also convert the 30 to double decker and free up some of those eVoRas which could be used on the 46 & 48 or other routes and some of 178-190 & 195-198 could transfer to operate these routes.
Last edited:
With the 30, I don't think you'd be able to find enough double deckers to cover.
FlybeDash8Q400
Established Member
Whilst I would love the 30 to become double deck over anything, I just can’t see it. It would free up nearly 20 buses, probably too many to be honest. The necessary minor route change is an easy one to implement. A double deck 30 wouldn’t need to be as frequent though, every 15 minutes again would suffice.
The 1 and 30 are both ideal candidates for conversion to double deck though.
TheEastCoaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 1,242
It could make or break to be fair. Having it run out to Hermiston Gait could be useful but maybe only for maybe 2-3 people? It's much like with the 275.
Yeah if I'm honest they could have planned it a little better, maybe modifying the current X40 to run via Ratho and then maintain the new route as Gyle to Ratho only; two separate services and that way it wouldn't mess with the fare zones.
The only questionable thing is having it miss Heriot Watt, but how popular was it when the 63 ran it? At least this gives Balerno another chance of a new bus service which could be a massive improvement over the 63.
They could maybe renumber service 20 with service 70, to keep with the LCB numbering, 63 is fine as it works with the 43, 32/42 also works as it gives the old route numbers purpose.
Last edited by a moderator:
In my eyes, this new service is like a shuttle service connecting passengers with these transport hubs for onward travel. Not convenient, but at least it'd work with Ridacards and ideally be more reliable. Plus, there would be two buses passing through Ratho an hour instead of one.
TheEastCoaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 1,242
I suppose in the grand scheme of things, the main priority here is getting these areas the service they deserve.
The question is.. will passengers actually use them.
NorthClyde320
Member
I think Wester Hailes could remain as 20 as it has been for a long time, Queensferry could remain as 63, Cramond - Balerno could be 64 or 70 (64 was a previous Gyle - Silverknowes route, 70 was a previous Gyle - Balerno route, both council supported) and Ratho could be 65 or 67 (again previous council services. This would also mean all council supported services at the Gyle would be in the 6x range.
Regarding vehicles could new stock be part of the contract? Would new or modern dealer stock be brought in if there is a shortage of vehicles at the minute? One thing that will be certain is that whatever vehicles are used they will be in better condition than what is being used at the moment.
Passengers will use them but not in the numbers that use commercial services hence why they are supported but now that they will possibly be on a clock face timetable it will make them easier to understand and know when they will turn up rather than the confusing frequencies at the moment, also the buses should be more modern, cleaner and better presented could all help to grow numbers in future.
FlybeDash8Q400
Established Member
Personally I think using the numbers I suggested would allow for a bit of continuity and a bit of grouping the numbers together in certain areas.
For example, 32 would mean that you have a 30, 33, 34, 35, 36 and to a point 38 all within close running of the route. Similarly 42 would run within close running of 43, 44, 45 and 47.
I equally wouldn’t be surprised if your suggestions happen. Restoration of previous numbers is a common thing in this situation, as equal as logical grouping.
With regards to new vehicles. It’s possible, but the industry is quite slow between order and delivery. It’s why I think a reshuffle involving the 1 and the new BZL’s makes more sense.
Baileygirl
Member
They haven't mentioned the 13 nor the new service for Dumbiedykes. Who has gained the contracts for them?