Cheshire Bus News (was East Cheshire Bus News)

[markymark2000]

I thought the 130 was commercial, at least for Monday to Friday.

I was under the impression it was mainly commercial but got some deminims funding as they have proposed cutting it a few times since it started and then the dates have kept being pushed.

D&G's first route in the Knutsford area was the daytime 300 on a commercial basis, after they took over the existing timetable from High Peak, who didn't want to continue operating the 300 after losing the 27 to GHA Coaches. However, after they operated the route for a while they decided Saturday services weren't commercially viable so only Mon-Fri daytime services remained commercial. Then it was part replaced by the short-lived 88A, which again was Mon-Fri only. It has been claimed the 88A was operating around the break even mark but they lost a lot of money on their Macclesfield to Manchester Airport service (which ran at the same time Arriva were still operating an hourly Macclesfield to East Didsbury service), so withdrew all commercial routes which they weren't making healthy profits on in response.

There's a common trend when you look at D&G's commercial services past and present that either there's no Saturday service or the Saturday service is subsided. I think the problem is they always seem to try running the same timetable on a Saturday but with a later start and earlier finish. Running a slightly different route on Saturdays and actually running an evening service might be more successful.

I don't think D&G like cross subsidising and don't realise what they are doing in terms of overall passenger growth potential. Many companies cross subsidise for part of their Saturday service to make it worthwhile. IF you were to only run the few viable trips on a Saturday, is it worth the time and effort having drivers and buses in place for a 5 hours (which is all D&G tend to do on Saturdays if they can help it). I don't think they realise the full story though sometimes in that if people can't travel to work on a Saturday, it works out a similar price to drive to work rather than use the bus (Ie they get a weekly ticket worth £15 but rather than using it for work on Monday, Thursday and Saturday, they can't use it on the Saturday anymore so revert to 2 x day tickets costing £11 and by that point, it may just be cheaper to drive, get a lift or use taxis (or a combination).
The point being, if people can't use the service for 1 day, it reduces the value for money on period tickets and the period tickets are those where passengers see the financial benefits of using the bus over cars.

Now Go Goodwins have the 391/392 routes it might be they'd be interested in running a local Macclesfield service using the same vehicles, in the same way that High Peak's vehicles which arrive in Macclesfield on the Buxton service do something else before they operate a return service to Buxton.

GoGoodwins don't seem interested in commercial services.

 

[peters]

I was under the impression it was mainly commercial but got some deminims funding as they have proposed cutting it a few times since it started and then the dates have kept being pushed.

Cheshire East did at one point put on their website that the 130 was to be withdrawn again but a D&G manager told Wilmslow.co.uk it was a mistake with the registration as they were only stopping the Saturday service. Although, with COVID-19 and people being told to only go out for shopping or medical needs at one point the 130 disappeared completely.

I don't think D&G like cross subsidising and don't realise what they are doing in terms of overall passenger growth potential. Many companies cross subsidise for part of their Saturday service to make it worthwhile. IF you were to only run the few viable trips on a Saturday, is it worth the time and effort having drivers and buses in place for a 5 hours (which is all D&G tend to do on Saturdays if they can help it). I don't think they realise the full story though sometimes in that if people can't travel to work on a Saturday, it works out a similar price to drive to work rather than use the bus (Ie they get a weekly ticket worth £15 but rather than using it for work on Monday, Thursday and Saturday, they can't use it on the Saturday anymore so revert to 2 x day tickets costing £11 and by that point, it may just be cheaper to drive, get a lift or use taxis (or a combination).
The point being, if people can't use the service for 1 day, it reduces the value for money on period tickets and the period tickets are those where passengers see the financial benefits of using the bus over cars.

I think they could also get a lot more passengers by running a small number of commercial journeys. For instance, £15 for a week's commuting between Knutsford and Northwich is a bargain compared to what it costs on Northern but the 89 doesn't run at peak times. If they ran an X89 at peak times running directly between Knutsford and Lostock on the way to Northwich they could probably get hundreds extra in weekly ticket sales and if they tried an express Knutsford to Altrincham service they'd probably get even more.

 

[daodao]

Cheshire East did at one point put on their website that the 130 was to be withdrawn again but a D&G manager told Wilmslow.co.uk it was a mistake with the registration as they were only stopping the Saturday service. Although, with COVID-19 and people being told to only go out for shopping or medical needs at one point the 130 disappeared completely.

I think they could also get a lot more passengers by running a small number of commercial journeys. For instance, £15 for a week's commuting between Knutsford and Northwich is a bargain compared to what it costs on Northern but the 89 doesn't run at peak times. If they ran an X89 at peak times running directly between Knutsford and Lostock on the way to Northwich they could probably get hundreds extra in weekly ticket sales and if they tried an express Knutsford to Altrincham service they'd probably get even more.

Most interurban bus services in East Cheshire are now unprofitable and require some degree of subsidy. Once services are less than half hourly, they are unlikely to be used by those who have alternative means of transport, so the council should do no more than ensure that a skeleton service is provided. Greater subsidies would be pouring money down the drain.

For the 130 route, a 2-hourly service Mon-Fri, from Handforth to Macclesfield via the existing route, is all that is essential, and 1 bus would be all that is needed to run this service. The timetable that D&G ran in May and June 2020 would suffice. In the middle of the day, it could be timed to interwork with service 88 between Monks Heath and Macciesfield to provide an hourly service on this section of route, but this would be more difficult to do at the start and end of service given the irregular timings for route 88 then.

I am uncertain whether a Saturday service is needed for route 130. When I lived on this route in Macclesfield between 2005 and 2015, I don't recall ever using route 130 on a Saturday, although I did occasionally use it on Mon-Fri, when it ran half hourly during the day (and hourly in the evening up to about 2010), and once on a Sunday. Route 27 offered cheaper fares from where I lived to the town centre, and its timekeeping was better even when run by GHA, so I tended to use that service rather than route 130 if I went by bus to the town centre.

 

[markymark2000]

I think they could also get a lot more passengers by running a small number of commercial journeys. For instance, £15 for a week's commuting between Knutsford and Northwich is a bargain compared to what it costs on Northern but the 89 doesn't run at peak times. If they ran an X89 at peak times running directly between Knutsford and Lostock on the way to Northwich they could probably get hundreds extra in weekly ticket sales and if they tried an express Knutsford to Altrincham service they'd probably get even more.

Some potential there but not sure if its D&G style work. D&G are very local service and not bothered too much about commuters (well, outside of their Stoke ops anyway). They are very local service, around the houses sort of operator. I'd like to see them on an X89 and I would suggest it as an extension to the 82 rather than waiting forever and doing the Rudheath loop (Rudheath has potential but not linked onto the 82 with so much dead time waiting) but then it depends on how quickly you think you can make it. 20 minutes is the Google Maps estimate so for a bus, that could be a bit tight so you are looking 25 mins each way and then you need an extra bus. The bus then basically spends 50 mins in Knutsford which works out great for breaks and could link up with 88 drivers duties but I think D&G would struggle on viability for the whole route having a bus sat around for 50 minutes (there is bits which can be done in that time but let's not get too into the details haha). Linking to the 82 would provide the longer distance links as well from the villages which could help the usage as well as linking people into Chester if that takes peoples fancy.

 

[peters]

Most interurban bus services in East Cheshire are now unprofitable and require some degree of subsidy. Once services are less than half hourly, they are unlikely to be used by those who have alternative means of transport, so the council should do no more than ensure that a skeleton service is provided. Greater subsidies would be pouring money down the drain.

For the 130 route, a 2-hourly service Mon-Fri, from Handforth to Macclesfield via the existing route, is all that is essential, and 1 bus would be all that is needed to run this service. The timetable that D&G ran in May and June 2020 would suffice. In the middle of the day, it could be timed to interwork with service 88 between Monks Heath and Macciesfield to provide an hourly service on this section of route, but this would be more difficult to do at the start and end of service given the irregular timings for route 88 then.

With some services they don't get any commuters because they are a skeleton service. For example, look at the 47 the entire service is something for a bus and driver to do between a morning Lymm High School service and an afternoon one. Consequently, most of the people travelling on the bus will be doing a shopping trip and they will be holding a bus pass. Therefore, the reality is you could have 40 passengers on the bus and taxpayer would foot the full bill for the service, as it's the commuters you need for a bus route to have any chance of being profitable.

We're now in a situation where a lot of people are being made unemployed so people who were lucky to have a job within walking distance of where they lived will almost certainly have to look at jobs further afield. I understand they'll be a lot of working from home until next year but it's unlikely many people will be able to start new jobs without even visiting, what will be their usual workplace, for initial training and to collect any equipment they'll need to be able to do the job from home e.g. laptop and company mobile. It's also worth remembering no bus might mean a job vacancy is inaccessible to someone without a car and may result in them getting out of work benefits for longer, so the question may not be whether tax payer's money should be spent on subsides or not, it's perhaps a question of whether tax payer's money should be spent on getting people in to work or keeping them on benefits.

It sounds like from where you were based the ideal scenario would be the Knutsford and Wilmslow services would be interworked to give a consistent timetable between Broken Cross and Macclesfield bus station. However, when things start returning to normal it's worth remembering the local hospital and local job centre for both Wilmslow and Knutsford is in Macclesfield, consequently that should make the 130 and the Macclesfield section of the 88 two of the highest priorities for getting subsides if the services can't be operated on a commercial basis.

 

[M60lad]

While were on about D&G didnt they run a Winsford-Chester service once over? I'm just wondering whether this service could work again as at the moment if you live in Winsford and want to go to Chester you have to either go to Northwich or Crewe and change there for a service to Chester.

 

[peters]

ts D&G style work. D&G are very local service and not bothered too much about commuters (well, outside of their Stoke ops anyway). They are very local service, around the houses sort of operator. I'd like to see them on an X89 and I would suggest it as an extension to the 82 rather than waiting forever and doing the Rudheath loop (Rudheath has potential but not linked onto the 82 with so much dead time waiting) but then it depends on how quickly you think you can make it. 20 minutes is the Google Maps estimate so for a bus, that could be a bit tight so you are looking 25 mins each way and then you need an extra bus. The bus then basically spends 50 mins in

One thing to bear in mind with an 82 extension is it would go close to the schools in the Hartford area. If the school pupils start using the service it might not be just one extra bus you need!

I don't get the point of D&G serving Gadbrook Park when the service they provide is of no use to any full time workers.

 

[markymark2000]

With some services they don't get any commuters because they are a skeleton service. For example, look at the 47 the entire service is something for a bus and driver to do between a morning Lymm High School service and an afternoon one. Consequently, most of the people travelling on the bus will be doing a shopping trip and they will be holding a bus pass. Therefore, the reality is you could have 40 passengers on the bus and taxpayer would foot the full bill for the service, as it's the commuters you need for a bus route to have any chance of being profitable.

100% agree. There are plenty of routes which cross subsidise from the peak/school trips down to the main service work and that is where I believe D&G are missing out a little. They seem to not cross subsidise and it's a black and white as 'that trip doesn't make money, let's cut it' but don't see the full effects of that in that less trips means the bus is less flexible and more chance of it not matching peoples needs and slowly you start the downward spiral of chopping services until there is nothing left.

One thing to bear in mind with an 82 extension is it would go close to the schools in the Hartford area. If the school pupils start using the service it might not be just one extra bus you need!

I don't get the point of D&G serving Gadbrook Park when the service they provide is of no use to any full time workers.

Gadbrook park is a Cheshire East requirement. It has some usage on the 27 but now it's useless. To be fair, the only usage you will get is from Gadbrook to Macclesfield since there is a Holmeswood shuttle coach to Knutsford already. (Edited because I got mixed up with locations)
IF D&G ran Knutsford to Hartford, there are loads of pupils on closed contract schools. They could make a fortune off the school kids extending the 82 to Knutsford. I did email all that stuff in to them with full details of the closed contracted school buses and they aren't bothered. That is what makes me think D&G don't care about commercial routes. There is zero will anywhere to improve their offering to customers and increase overall bus usage. They are just a 'managed decline' bus operator.

While were on about D&G didnt they run a Winsford-Chester service once over? I'm just wondering whether this service could work again as at the moment if you live in Winsford and want to go to Chester you have to either go to Northwich or Crewe and change there for a service to Chester.

Cheshire West Labour mentioned funding such a service in their manifesto at the last election. Not sure if it will come to fruition but it's there.

 

[peters]

Gadbrook park is a Cheshire East requirement.

I think you're mixing up Gadbrook and Radbrooke. Gadbrook Park is in Rudheath where D&G extend the 82 to so the first bus arrives after 9am and the last bus leaves at just after 5pm, not even long enough between the services for a normal office shift never mind the Morrisons warehouse being open 24/7 and Roberts Bakery having already started baking before the first 82 bus arrives in the morning.

I did email all that stuff in to them with full details ... and they aren't bothered.

D&G seem to have two stock responses one is they can't make the change due to the service being contracted to the local authority, the other is due to getting no financial support from the local authority they are unable to make any improvements.

 

[jfollows]

I'm not sure who is bothered, apart from the long-suffering passenger.

D&G, Arriva and Cheshire East Council between them have driven off any use of the 130 by anyone who has any kind of alternative. I myself will probably use a taxi out of preference, I have given up keeping up with this week's timetable/route changes. And anyone who has no choice today will be working towards an alternative, such as learning to drive and buying a car.

Thanks to everyone here for the updates, anyway!

And I apologise in that I'm just moaning here, but I think what is needed now is some stability and consistency in the 130 service, which is not what we're getting. I was familiar with the predecessor E29/E30 in the 1970s, and when I moved to Wilmslow in 2008 the 130 then offered was similar - the frequency had perhaps gone down and there was only one route rather than two, and it wandered around a little more perhaps, but it was still recognisable.

However Arriva's service was unreliable in the extreme, and the buses were dreadful and broke down frequently.

Nonetheless, since they decided to stop their service we've had countless changes, including services to Manchester Airport, but the core passenger demand might well be people without their own transport from Wilmslow area (Colshaw Farm in particular I guess) to Macclesfield Hospital. There are many other potential traffic flows as well, I guess I'm lucky living in the middle of Wilmslow so although the 130 goes past the end of my road I don't really rely on it, whereas people who live out of town don't have much alternative.

I would really like to see some stability, whether that's enabled by some kind of council subsidy or not, and not this apparent scrabbling around by D&G (in the main) to try and come up with a service, but then changing it again and again.

Maybe the replacement for the D&G service will deliver some stability, but only time will tell. I don't have a lot of hope.

 

[markymark2000]

I think you're mixing up Gadbrook and Radbrooke. Gadbrook Park is in Rudheath where D&G extend the 82 to so the first bus arrives after 9am and the last bus leaves at just after 5pm, not even long enough between the services for a normal office shift never mind the Morrisons warehouse being open 24/7 and Roberts Bakery having already started baking before the first 82 bus arrives in the morning.

Ah, sorry, you're right. I can't see Gadbrook providing much usage though on the basis that quite a few of the offices are 10 mins walk from the bus stop and then the bus journey isn't the quickest to get where you are going. It would be much quicker to drive arguably so much quicker than any price difference becomes irrelevant.
I think the main reason for D&G extending the 82 was more just to serve Rudheath rather than Gadbrook. Kind of offer a 7 day per week service on the route as they have the Sunday tender as well.

D&G seem to have two stock responses one is they can't make the change due to the service being contracted to the local authority, the other is due to getting no financial support from the local authority they are unable to make any improvements.

I've tended to get slightly better replies than that I will admit. I normally get 'thanks for the suggestions, we will bear them in mind'.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That is what makes me think D&G don't care

You could've just stopped there. d&g are a wolf in sheeps clothing. "Oh aren't we good, we saved this service" whilst cutting it once the cameras are switched off. I think we could run a moral led company better than d&g's management.

 

[ShaunyFlynn]

Is it just me that is excited to see the new tender replacing the withdrawn 130. I'm not trying to be abrasive or over the top but there are so many possibilities. Here are a few I would like to see, probably not the case though.

42C Macclesfield - Wilmslow - Handforth Dean - Manchester

130 - Macclesfield - Wilmslow - Handforth Dean

88A - Macclesfield - Alderley Edge - Wilmslow - Altrincham

I only use the 130 for pleasure, but I wish all of the regular users who rely on the service good luck.

 

[peters]

Is it just me that is excited to see the new tender replacing the withdrawn 130. I'm not trying to be abrasive or over the top but there are so many possibilities. Here are a few I would like to see, probably not the case though.

42C Macclesfield - Wilmslow - Handforth Dean - Manchester

130 - Macclesfield - Wilmslow - Handforth Dean

88A - Macclesfield - Alderley Edge - Wilmslow - Altrincham

I only use the 130 for pleasure, but I wish all of the regular users who rely on the service good luck.

What does the tender actually say?

Is your suggestion for an 88A instead of the existing 88 running to Altrincham? When the 88 ran half-hourly a number of services were carting around fresh air between Altrincham and Wilmslow, which was why D&G trialed Knutsford to Colshaw Farm as an 88A previously and left Wilmslow to Altrincham with an hourly service.

 

[markymark2000]

Is it just me that is excited to see the new tender replacing the withdrawn 130. I'm not trying to be abrasive or over the top but there are so many possibilities. Here are a few I would like to see, probably not the case though.

42C Macclesfield - Wilmslow - Handforth Dean - Manchester

130 - Macclesfield - Wilmslow - Handforth Dean

88A - Macclesfield - Alderley Edge - Wilmslow - Altrincham

I only use the 130 for pleasure, but I wish all of the regular users who rely on the service good luck.

The 130 doesn't have much use anymore for anything else other than pleasure. From Macclesfield, there aren't many people travelling away from there, Alderley Edge is mostly cars so relies on pass use, Wilmslow is again a bit more upmarket so relied on pass use. Colshaw Farm you have your potential for more regular fare payers but these sorts of 'council estates' are the areas which lose faith in the buses and that has happened now with this area. Handforth well... doesn't have much going for it and the only use for a bus from here is to Wilmslow which is easier to do by car or taxi.
The 130 in it's current form, I think we should all agree, is dead. It needs something brand new and while I know Cheshire East don't like putting effort into the bus network, they need to make it something new to get anyone back onto buses. Cheshire East is the 3rd lowest areas for passenger journeys per head and constantly propping up their failing route will not work.

Something tells me that Stagecoach still have their fingers burnt from a few years back when they ran into Wilmslow and it didn't work. I can't see them extending anything commercially and I can't see CEC trying to fund Stagecoach given they are an out of the area operator and councils don't like interacting with any company out of the area even if they can provide better for the same or lower price.

What does the tender actually say?

No one knows yet. The tender went out and seems to have been awarded but there are some rules which mean that you can't announce the details until a few weeks after the contract has been given out incase the company backs out or gives other operators time to lodge an appeal against the decision made (if they believe they should have got the contract but didn't)

 

[peters]

The 130 doesn't have much use anymore for anything else other than pleasure.

Well only if you presume those from Wilmslow (including the Colshaw Farm area) needing to get to Macclesfield Hospital or Macclesfield Jobcentre can travel via either Knutsford or Stockport and presume the national COVID-19 research centre at Nether Alderley won't benefit from any new staff who don't have access to a car. I think at present with hospital visiting being banned and job seekers not being required to attend job centres in person that demand is currently lower than it will be in the future.

councils don't like interacting with any company out of the area even if they can provide better for the same or lower price.

Well Go Goodwins have one contract currently and off the top of my head I can think of Bakers, Bowers, GHA and Swans who have all operated contracted services in the area despite not having a base in the area at the time they got awarded their first contract. I recall Swans had both the 289 and 200 despite being based out Oldham way! Perhaps they thought winning Cheshire contracts which ventured in to Greater Manchester would prove to TfGM they can do a good job when bidding for more competitive Greater Manchester tenders?

No one knows yet. The tender went out and seems to have been awarded but there are some rules which mean that you can't announce the details until a few weeks after the contract has been given out incase the company backs out or gives other operators time to lodge an appeal against the decision made (if they believe they should have got the contract but didn't)

I meant the invitation to tender. The other poster seemed to imply it wasn't just a case of Cheshire East saying this is the timetable we want, how much subsidy do you want to run it.

 

[jfollows]

Note that previously I asked CEC and they told me that they agreed to pay £22,360 ( #1,666 ) annually to D&G to operate the 130 on a Saturday, and nothing for the Monday-Friday service. So it will be interesting to see if they're trying to get something similar done again now, or otherwise, won't it?

Normal EU tender rules have a 10-day (working day I think) "cooling off" period during which the losers have an opportunity to challenge the decision - it's often called the "Alcatel" period after the company for whom it was first used. However I'm not sure the announcement of the result is precluded by this, it's just that the losers have a formal process to make a formal challenge which is time-limited. So this may not be exactly what's happening here.

 

[peters]

Note that previously I asked CEC and they told me that they agreed to pay £22,360 ( #1,666 ) annually to D&G to operate the 130 on a Saturday, and nothing for the Monday-Friday service.

It was similar with the 300 service at one point. D&G decided weekday daytime services were doing OK but they didn't want to continue running Saturday services without a subsidy. The Saturday daytime services went out to tender and GHA won the tender, only for them to withdraw due to resource issues, meaning D&G kept them. Just as well really because at the time minibus company Tomlinson Travel had the evening contract so GHA running Saturday daytime services would have meant 3 operators on one route.

 

[markymark2000]

Well only if you presume those from Wilmslow (including the Colshaw Farm area) needing to get to Macclesfield Hospital or Macclesfield Jobcentre can travel via either Knutsford or Stockport and presume the national COVID-19 research centre at Nether Alderley won't benefit from any new staff who don't have access to a car. I think at present with hospital visiting being banned and job seekers not being required to attend job centres in person that demand is currently lower than it will be in the future.

Workers to Nether Alderley aren't using the bus. It was either mentioned on this or another forum that the public buses never carried anyone to Alderley Park. The park does now have it's own contracted coach though which runs so people without a car can still get there. https://www.alderleypark.co.uk/shuttle-bus
The hospital and job centre are valid points however you can change your job centre if needed so if you don't have car, you could switch it to Altrincham or Didsbury (Didsbury can be accessed by those who can get to the 42C bus). Alderley Edge will always be sticky but let's be honest, unemployment there is so low, is it even worth accommodating for the 1 or 2 trips per week.

Well Go Goodwins have one contract currently and off the top of my head I can think of Bakers, Bowers, GHA and Swans who have all operated contracted services in the area despite not having a base in the area at the time they got awarded their first contract. I recall Swans had both the 289 and 200 despite being based out Oldham way! Perhaps they thought winning Cheshire contracts which ventured in to Greater Manchester would prove to TfGM they can do a good job when bidding for more competitive Greater Manchester tenders?

Goodwins are the only one I can think of right now though and that was likely to be as a result of having no one in the area who wants to run such a service. The route runs into Greater Manchester as well so it made sense to open up to Manchester operators. Legacy operators don't count as much now as CEC is now new leadership. It's labour, not conservative. GHA also ran services at such a price, it would be hard for them to refuse it.

I meant the invitation to tender. The other poster seemed to imply it wasn't just a case of Cheshire East saying this is the timetable we want, how much subsidy do you want to run it.

Oh right, I get you. I believe the tender opportunity has been put and and has now closed which was what got me thinking that they had awarded the contract and are awaiting the grace period t oend before announcing officially.
If the link below doesn't work, you search on Google for 'The Chest tenders', click current opportunities. Filter to 'Cheshire East Council', 'Include Closed Yes' & 'Expression start date 06/09/2020'. then 3rd from the bottom shows 'local bus contract'

Local Bus Contract Opportunity Cheshire East Council

procontract.due-north.com

Bear with me on this but with the lack of usage on the current 130, could D&G, divert via Over Alderley and Upton Priory (and then the hospital). This would enable them to steal some revenue from Arriva and maybe that could edge it to breaking even.

 

[ShaunyFlynn]

I just question, what went wrong with the 130? I used to commute everyday to college on the 130 and every half hour it was packed like sardines, and that was 2017.

 

[peters]

I just question, what went wrong with the 130? I used to commute everyday to college on the 130 and every half hour it was packed like sardines, and that was 2017.

Similarly a few years ago the 27 Macclesfield-Knutsford was operated by 40 seater buses every hour and they got quite full at peak times. I think High Peak reducing the frequency and hiking the fares scared a number of people off though.

 

[markymark2000]

I just question, what went wrong with the 130? I used to commute everyday to college on the 130 and every half hour it was packed like sardines, and that was 2017.

It kept being cut slowly and the amount of changes made passengers lose faith in the service.

I believe it was half hourly,then cut to hourly in January 2018, Sundays got dropped in March 2018, then cut back to only run to East Didsbury in October 2018 then finally Arriva dropped it in January 2020.
D&G ran a 130 to Handforth Dean when Arriva cut back to half hourly in Jan 2018. In April 2018, the 130 then got diverted to Manchester Airport via Styal to replace the 200. That then got cancelled in June 2018. Fastforward to January 2020. D&G then started running the 130 but only running it to Handforth. Then Covid struck. Since August, the 130 then got extended to Wythenshawe.

To put it simply, Arriva got greedy and tried to push people into 1 bus (surely they have people in their management who know that pushing 2 buses into 1 means you lose a lot of passengers as the route is less flexible for peoples needs). From there, Arriva blamed punctuality so they could cut it back to Parrs Wood. D&G then tried to run as little as possible so they didn't use too many buses. The downside of that is they haven't accomodated most peoples journeys northward to Parrs Wood so the route lost more usage.

 

[daodao]

Workers to Nether Alderley aren't using the bus. It was either mentioned on this or another forum that the public buses never carried anyone to Alderley Park. The park does now have it's own contracted coach though which runs so people without a car can still get there. https://www.alderleypark.co.uk/shuttle-bus
The hospital and job centre are valid points however you can change your job centre if needed so if you don't have car, you could switch it to Altrincham or Didsbury (Didsbury can be accessed by those who can get to the 42C bus). Alderley Edge will always be sticky but let's be honest, unemployment there is so low, is it even worth accommodating for the 1 or 2 trips per week.

Goodwins are the only one I can think of right now though and that was likely to be as a result of having no one in the area who wants to run such a service. The route runs into Greater Manchester as well so it made sense to open up to Manchester operators. Legacy operators don't count as much now as CEC is now new leadership. It's labour, not conservative. GHA also ran services at such a price, it would be hard for them to refuse it.

Oh right, I get you. I believe the tender opportunity has been put and and has now closed which was what got me thinking that they had awarded the contract and are awaiting the grace period t oend before announcing officially.
If the link below doesn't work, you search on Google for 'The Chest tenders', click current opportunities. Filter to 'Cheshire East Council', 'Include Closed Yes' & 'Expression start date 06/09/2020'. then 3rd from the bottom shows 'local bus contract'

Local Bus Contract Opportunity Cheshire East Council

procontract.due-north.com

Bear with me on this but with the lack of usage on the current 130, could D&G, divert via Over Alderley and Upton Priory (and then the hospital). This would enable them to steal some revenue from Arriva and maybe that could edge it to breaking even.

• Until the last few years, when the service was half hourly, the 130 peak hour diversions into Alderley Park were used regularly in significant numbers by staff working there.
• There is currently less need for patients to visit hospitals for outpatient care as many appointments are done by telephone or other electronic means, rather than in person, and this is likely to continue long-term. Visiting is also strongly discouraged.
• Unless one is representing a bus operator, it is not possible to find out the nature of the bus service that has been specified, as the details will only be made available to those who can satisfy the registration process. I would expect it to be for a minimal Mon-Fri only service between Handforth and Macclesfield capable of being provided by a single vehicle.
• The B5087 between Alderley Edge and the new King's School site, past the Wizard Inn (now closed) and Over Alderley, is not suited to be used as a regular bus route; the hill out of Alderley Edge would be particularly challenging. I know this road well and currently use it to commute to Macclesfield Hospital 1-2 days per week; it is scenic but narrow and twisting in places. The NWRCC did run a Saturday only service (67) from Macclesfield as far as the Wizard Inn over 50 years ago, but there has not been a regular bus service passing this way for many years. The alternative route from Wilmslow to Macclesfield (NWRCC route 97 from Altrincham) ran via Mottram St Andrews and Prestbury, but the last vestiges of the section between Macclesfield and Wilmslow ceased before 2005.

 

[ShaunyFlynn]

Yes I was unofficially the last ever passenger on a sunday 130 from Manchester to Macclesfield, it was in March 2018. And from what I can remember it was dead. Also why did the Sunday 130 used to divert via the A34 and Wilmslow Road?

 

[markymark2000]

Until the last few years, when the service was half hourly, the 130 peak hour diversions into Alderley Park were used regularly in significant numbers by staff working there.

In May, you posted this.

The run-down of the former AZ (previously ICI) Alderley Park research laboratories has greatly diminished any demand for commuter bus services at the southern end of route 130.

That is what makes me think it should just miss out the area as there is no point in running for such a distance with no passengers and no potential for passengers (unless you can win back the commuters)

Unless one is representing a bus operator, it is not possible to find out the nature of the bus service that has been specified, as the details will only be made available to those who can satisfy the registration process. I would expect it to be for a minimal Mon-Fri only service between Handforth and Macclesfield capable of being provided by a single vehicle.

You can find out these things and if I saw the tender come up earlier, I would have tried to get the details. For registering the service, if it gets registered very soon, you can pay £3 and the Office for Traffic Commissioners will send you the registration details before it's even public.

The B5087 between Alderley Edge and the new King's School site, past the Wizard Inn (now closed) and Over Alderley, is not suited to be used as a regular bus route; the hill out of Alderley Edge would be particularly challenging. I know this road well and currently use it to commute to Macclesfield Hospital 1-2 days per week; it is scenic but narrow and twisting in places. The NWRCC did run a Saturday only service (67) from Macclesfield as far as the Wizard Inn over 50 years ago, but there has not been a regular bus service passing this way for many years. The alternative route from Wilmslow to Macclesfield (NWRCC route 97 from Altrincham) ran via Mottram St Andrews and Prestbury, but the last vestiges of the section between Macclesfield and Wilmslow ceased before 2005.

The road doesn't look that bad other than the hill. It looks a little bit tight in some areas but it's not that bad. Solo/small E200 yes. You wouldn't run it with a Versa or anything like that though. I'm certain there are steeper hills which D&G go up.
Running via Prestbury looks a bit tighter to me and you would be missing out Alderley Edge which has a few passengers and I don't think it would be as good use of resources overall as you would need 2 buses to serve Wilmslow and Colshaw but to then run upto Handforth, you are using another bus (and having a lot of layover). You end up no better or worse off overall unless you can make Wythenshawe a bit more popular. I think it's too early to tell based on we are still only at 55-60% of pre Covid bus usage and it's a brand new route essentially which can take months to build up a proper customer base.
The way I see it, running via Over Alderley means no one loses out on a bus service and it should have negligible effect on the overall journey time but does provide a fantastic revenue stealing opportunity for D&G to boost the revenue on the route (and link Upton Priory to the hospital).

 

[ShaunyFlynn]

What does the tender actually say?

Is your suggestion for an 88A instead of the existing 88 running to Altrincham? When the 88 ran half-hourly a number of services were carting around fresh air between Altrincham and Wilmslow, which was why D&G trialed Knutsford to Colshaw Farm as an 88A previously and left Wilmslow to Altrincham with an hourly service.

No, my suggestion is having two 88 routes from Macclesfield.

88 - Keep as current state.

88A - Runs the current 130 route Macclesfield to Handforth, then runs down the relief road to Manchester Airport, then connects to the 88 at halebarns onto Altrincham.

So the 88A bus would be:
Macclesfield - Alderley Edge - Wilmslow - Colshaw Farm - Handforth - Airport - Halebarns - Altrincham.

 

[daodao]

No, my suggestion is having two 88 routes from Macclesfield.

• 88 - Keep as current state.
• 88A - Runs the current 130 route Macclesfield to Handforth, then runs down the relief road to Manchester Airport, then connects to the 88 at halebarns onto Altrincham.

So the 88A bus would be: Macclesfield - Alderley Edge - Wilmslow - Colshaw Farm - Handforth - Airport - Halebarns - Altrincham.

There is already a service 288 run by D&G from the Airport via Hale Barns to Altrincham and extending via Northenden to Parrs Wood. This service was timed pre-Covid to provide a half hourly frequency together with route 88 from Hale Barns to Altrincham during Mon-Sat daytimes. This is probably incompatible with your proposed 88A service.

 

[jfollows]

It kept being cut slowly and the amount of changes made passengers lose faith in the service.

That's an excellent summary, thank you for that.

The only thing I'd add is that between 1976 - when I occasionally used the precursor E29 (run by Crosville) from school in Manchester to Macclesfield (I had a bus pass with suitable vague wording so I occasionally used the bus for variety, normally I went the other way from school by 50 bus into Manchester and used the train to Macclesfield) - and 2008 when I moved into the house I now live in in Wilmslow, the basic 130 service was the same. The 130 ran every 30 minutes, it no longer alternated between E29 & E30 and it toured a few more side roads, but it was recognisable.

Now, in four years, the service has become a sad joke, and the changes, cancellations and partial reinstatements over recent years have contributed significantly to this. Of course, other things have changed since 1976 and I wouldn't want to imply that some of them weren't significant - multiple cars per household for example - but over recent years the people who have delivered a 130 service have misunderstood the requirements of their passengers comprehensively.

 

[daodao]

That's an excellent summary, thank you for that.

The only thing I'd add is that between 1976 - when I occasionally used the precursor E29 (run by Crosville) from school in Manchester to Macclesfield (I had a bus pass with suitable vague wording so I occasionally used the bus for variety, normally I went the other way from school by 50 bus into Manchester and used the train to Macclesfield) - and 2008 when I moved into the house I now live in in Wilmslow, the basic 130 service was the same. The 130 ran every 30 minutes, it no longer alternated between E29 & E30 and it toured a few more side roads, but it was recognisable.

Now, in four years, the service has become a sad joke, and the changes, cancellations and partial reinstatements over recent years have contributed significantly to this. Of course, other things have changed since 1976 and I wouldn't want to imply that some of them weren't significant - multiple cars per household for example - but over recent years the people who have delivered a 130 service have misunderstood the requirements of their passengers comprehensively.

I also recall the route from the late 1960s/early 1970s, or rather that section of it (NWRCC 29, subsequently Crosville E29) that ran along Birchfields Road, and occasionally used it in 1972/3 in my last year at school to travel into central Manchester. The section between Macclesfield and Cheadle dates back to the early 1920s. The route remained recognisable, and usable, when I lived near Victoria Road, Macclesfield from 2005 to 2015, but has now essentially been destroyed and it will be very difficult to regain custom. Therefore, all that can reasonably be expected for CEC to fund is a 2 hourly Mon-Fri skeleton service only (5/6 journeys each way between about 0730 and 1830), requiring a single vehicle, between Macclesfield and Handforth.

 

[Andy Pacer]

The 130 doesn't have much use anymore for anything else other than pleasure. From Macclesfield, there aren't many people travelling away from there, Alderley Edge is mostly cars so relies on pass use, Wilmslow is again a bit more upmarket so relied on pass use. Colshaw Farm you have your potential for more regular fare payers but these sorts of 'council estates' are the areas which lose faith in the buses and that has happened now with this area. Handforth well... doesn't have much going for it and the only use for a bus from here is to Wilmslow which is easier to do by car or taxi.
The 130 in it's current form, I think we should all agree, is dead. It needs something brand new and while I know Cheshire East don't like putting effort into the bus network, they need to make it something new to get anyone back onto buses. Cheshire East is the 3rd lowest areas for passenger journeys per head and constantly propping up their failing route will not work.

Something tells me that Stagecoach still have their fingers burnt from a few years back when they ran into Wilmslow and it didn't work. I can't see them extending anything commercially and I can't see CEC trying to fund Stagecoach given they are an out of the area operator and councils don't like interacting with any company out of the area even if they can provide better for the same or lower price.



No one knows yet. The tender went out and seems to have been awarded but there are some rules which mean that you can't announce the details until a few weeks after the contract has been given out incase the company backs out or gives other operators time to lodge an appeal against the decision made (if they believe they should have got the contract but didn't)

It may be that the best looking bid is non compliant so needs to be checked, or stakeholders need to be liased with before a public award is made.