Cheshire Bus News (was East Cheshire Bus News)

[jfollows]

Oh yes, and even by 2014 - when the 130 was still running Manchester-Macclesfield - it was woefully unreliable. I've already posted here several times on that subject, suffice it to say that other reasons impelling my partner to learn to drive were a blessing in disguise as it turned out for his daily commute Wilmslow-Didsbury which had previously been by 130 rather than train because of the timetabled half-hourly service.

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.

I agree, which further limits its usefulness and probably means that only people with mobility problems who live on its route but away from the shops, and reducing numbers of people for Macclesfield Hospital, will be an even greater percentage of its users than they already are. It is probably a vital service for most of these people, of course.

 

[peters]

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

That would be a very slow route and how would it work alongside the 288? Unfortunately, there isn't enough demand for half-hourly Manchester Airport to Altrincham services and there's people living in north Altrincham and Timperley who commute to the airport by bus which was one of the reasons the East Didsbury to Altrincham service got merged with the Altrincham to Airport 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.

One thing I'll add to that is when Stevensons took over the 130 in the 90s they were using double deckers on it and I think that may have continued after Arriva acquired Stevensons.

 

[Andy Pacer]

One thing I'll add to that is when Stevensons took over the 130 in the 90s they were using double deckers on it and I think that may have continued after Arriva acquired Stevensons.

They did, but there were single deckers mixed in both in Stevensons and Arriva times.

 

[peters]

I agree, which further limits its usefulness and probably means that only people with mobility problems who live on its route but away from the shops, and reducing numbers of people for Macclesfield Hospital, will be an even greater percentage of its users than they already are. It is probably a vital service for most of these people, of course.

I wonder instead of a new 130 what the viability of Wilmslow-Handforth-Poynton-Macclesfield service would be (partly replacing the 391/392 but running a more direct route.) That way some new journey opportunities will be created, as well as retaining some of the existing 130 ones.

Perhaps a Macclesfield-Alderley Edge-Mobberley-Knutsford service could also be considered alongside it (interworked with the 88 times to/from Macc), which could remain on the B5085 between Alderley Edge and Knutsford and serve the bus stops on Brook Lane and Mobberley Road which currently have no services at all.

 

[markymark2000]

I wonder instead of a new 130 what the viability of Wilmslow-Handforth-Poynton-Macclesfield service would be (partly replacing the 391/392 but running a more direct route.) That way some new journey opportunities will be created, as well as retaining some of the existing 130 ones.

Perhaps a Macclesfield-Alderley Edge-Mobberley-Knutsford service could also be considered alongside it (interworked with the 88 times to/from Macc), which could remain on the B5085 between Alderley Edge and Knutsford and serve the bus stops on Brook Lane and Mobberley Road which currently have no services at all.

While possible, I think people would go mad about their links to Stepping Hill Hospital and Stockport. Also wouldn't that mean vastly increased journey times given Macc to Poynton is an hour and then you need to go via Woodford or the link road to Handforth/Wilmslow.

I think there is demand for Poynton to Wilmslow and I can fully support such a service, it's just how do you adapt the current routes so that people don't lose out because as soon as there is a loser, these areas are the ones who will scream and shout 'youre isolating us, we use the bus when the car breaks down and now we cant'.

 

[peters]

While possible, I think people would go mad about their links to Stepping Hill Hospital and Stockport. Also wouldn't that mean vastly increased journey times given Macc to Poynton is an hour and then you need to go via Woodford or the link road to Handforth/Wilmslow.

I think there is demand for Poynton to Wilmslow and I can fully support such a service, it's just how do you adapt the current routes so that people don't lose out because as soon as there is a loser, these areas are the ones who will scream and shout 'youre isolating us, we use the bus when the car breaks down and now we cant'.

I think the 391/392 contract is really what used to be a number of separate services all merged in to two routes so there's no reason why some of them shouldn't be separated back out again.

 

[daodao]

I think the 391/392 contract is really what used to be a number of separate services all merged in to two routes so there's no reason why some of them shouldn't be separated back out again.

There used to be several routes in Poynton, but they have all been merged into 1 route so as to provide the maximum service distribution/catchment at minimum cost. It is completely unrealistic to separate them out.

The bottom line is that most interurban bus services and services in smaller towns in Eastern Cheshire (i.e. excluding some daytime services within Macclesfield and Crewe) cannot be run profitably, so the need is to provide the maximum skeleton service coverage at the lowest possible cost. One cannot expect Cheshire East Council to do anything more. CEC did a bus service review several years ago, and are largely adhering to its recommendations, but are now faced with subsidising additional key routes that are no longer profitable, in particular route 130. There is no point in speculating about new or varied routes when there is no money. As I stated earlier, a 2 hourly Mon-Fri daytime service between Handforth and Macclesfield, requiring a single bus, is all that CEC can reasonably be expected to subsidise as a residual service for route 130, now that sadly it is no longer commercially viable.

 

[markymark2000]

There used to be several routes in Poynton, but they have all been merged into 1 route so as to provide the maximum service distribution/catchment at minimum cost. It is completely unrealistic to separate them out.

The bottom line is that most interurban bus services and services in smaller towns in Eastern Cheshire (i.e. excluding some daytime services within Macclesfield and Crewe) cannot be run profitably, so the need is to provide the maximum skeleton service coverage at the lowest possible cost. One cannot expect Cheshire East Council to do anything more. CEC did a bus service review several years ago, and are largely adhering to its recommendations, but are now faced with subsidising additional key routes that are no longer profitable, in particular route 130. There is no point in speculating about new or varied routes when there is no money. As I stated earlier, a 2 hourly Mon-Fri daytime service between Handforth and Macclesfield, requiring a single bus, is all that CEC can reasonably be expected to subsidise as a residual service for route 130.

It's worth noting that CEC did get a decent amount of funding from the 'Better deal for Bus Users' which isn't being spent in the proper way now and they could argue with the government to adapt the local needs so the funding can be used elsewhere. The funding is due to allocate £40k to a 130 Sunday service (which should be put into the Monday to Friday service really. What good is a Sunday service if there is no weekday service). £30 allocated for a bus to serve Warmington (a village of less than 250 people) which isn't needed so that funding should go towards the 130. Surely combined with the revenue, this should cover the service Monday to Friday. Use the current Saturday funding for Saturdays. Combined, it should be fine for funding.


Funding is tight and that is why we are all thinking of ways to innovate the 130 (As clearly the current route isn't working) but do that in a way to reduce cost and get the most amount of passengers on the journeys. Cheshire East is suffering from a failing bus network which clearly doesn't work for the residents. The ONLY way to fix that is through innovating the network and trying new things.

The 391/392 could be separated again but I don't think it would work for passengers because of the increased journey times for all and the lost links which were so heavily protested against at the bus review.

 

[peters]

There used to be several routes in Poynton, but they have all been merged into 1 route so as to provide the maximum service distribution/catchment at minimum cost. It is completely unrealistic to separate them out.

That doesn't mean that was or still is the most cost effective way of delivering a service. If another operator has a bus & driver doing nothing at Macclesfield between services then they may be able to run a Bollington service for little cost using existing resource, then if the 391/392 gets re-routed it might be possible to provide an hourly service using 2 vehicles instead of 3.

The 391/392 could be separated again but I don't think it would work for passengers because of the increased journey times for all and the lost links which were so heavily protested against at the bus review.

I thought the main objection was Cheshire East proposed terminating the route at Hazel Grove citing there's plenty of other Hazel Grove to Stockport services but some people complained about not having a direct service to Stepping Hill. Keeping the Stockport part and adding in the other diversions meant the 391/392 contract needed 3 vehicles when it was originally costed on the basis of 2 vehicles.

 

[markymark2000]

That doesn't mean that was or still is the most cost effective way of delivering a service. If another operator has a bus & driver doing nothing at Macclesfield between services then they may be able to run a Bollington service for little cost using existing resource, then if the 391/392 gets re-routed it might be possible to provide an hourly service using 2 vehicles instead of 3.

Are you suggesting Macclesfield to Stockport via Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Handforth, Poynton and Stepping Hill?

I thought the main objection was Cheshire East proposed terminating the route at Hazel Grove citing there's plenty of other Hazel Grove to Stockport services but some people complained about not having a direct service to Stepping Hill. Keeping the Stockport part and adding in the other diversions meant the 391/392 contract needed 3 vehicles when it was originally costed on the basis of 2 vehicles.

Well, yes exactly and that is why I am saying any change needs to ensure that these links are kept otherwise you are in for a rough ride getting them approved.

 

[peters]

Are you suggesting Macclesfield to Stockport via Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Handforth, Poynton and Stepping Hill?

No that post was completely unrelated to my previous suggestion. It was a direct response to @daodao's claim that the current 391/392 provides the maximum service distribution/catchment at minimum cost. How can that be the case when Cheshire East had rewritten all the Macclesfield contracted services to reduce layover times and then at the last minute decided their 2 bus 391/392 contract would become a 3 bus 391/392 contract? That meant the option of any other contracted Macclesfield service running to Bollington was never considered. Just an idea off the top of my head Bollington to Knutsford using 2 vehicles could provide an hourly service and would greatly improve local connectivity to both Macclesfield Hospital and Tytherington Business Park and possibly the 3rd bus on the 391/392 wouldn't have been needed if it didn't divert via Bollington and took a more direct route in to Macc.

 

[markymark2000]

No that post was completely unrelated to my previous suggestion. It was a direct response to @daodao's claim that the current 391/392 provides the maximum service distribution/catchment at minimum cost. How can that be the case when Cheshire East had rewritten all the Macclesfield contracted services to reduce layover times and then at the last minute decided their 2 bus 391/392 contract would become a 3 bus 391/392 contract? That meant the option of any other contracted Macclesfield service running to Bollington was never considered. Just an idea off the top of my head Bollington to Knutsford using 2 vehicles could provide an hourly service and would greatly improve local connectivity to both Macclesfield Hospital and Tytherington Business Park and possibly the 3rd bus on the 391/392 wouldn't have been needed if it didn't divert via Bollington and took a more direct route in to Macc.

Being honest, I thought the route which I created (which I thought you were suggestion) was plausible though it would need 4 buses. 111 mins end to end to basically 4 hour round trip and that is with no fast Poynton to Macc bus) and making Macc to Bollington a standalone hourly bus using 1 vehicle. Same PVR as 130/391/392 but much longer journey times.
Your quoted suggestion here would use more buses. Knutsford to Bollington would be just over 1 hour end to end based off the 27 and 391/392 times. You are looking at 35 minutes Knutsford to Macc then 25 minutes onwards (add in a few minutes at Macc Bus Station for loading/unloading), you are on over an hour so not doable hourly with 2 buses. Only solution would be to use some roads in Bollington which buses can't use (Chancery Lane) and circle it around Bollington but I don't think that's feasible. Road looks impossible for buses, I wouldn't risk it.
As for faster buses from Stockport to Macc, you would need to miss out Middlewood and Wood Lanes as well as a reroute around Poynton before there is any hope you will get a bus to Macc in 55 minutes. If you want to keep passengers and keep Poynton happy, you have almost no chance of making the route work end to end in 55 mins.

 

[daodao]

Being honest, I thought the route which I created (which I thought you were suggestion) was plausible though it would need 4 buses. 111 mins end to end to basically 4 hour round trip and that is with no fast Poynton to Macc bus) and making Macc to Bollington a standalone hourly bus using 1 vehicle. Same PVR as 130/391/392 but much longer journey times.
Your quoted suggestion here would use more buses. Knutsford to Bollington would be just over 1 hour end to end based off the 27 and 391/392 times. You are looking at 35 minutes Knutsford to Macc then 25 minutes onwards (add in a few minutes at Macc Bus Station for loading/unloading), you are on over an hour so not doable hourly with 2 buses. Only solution would be to use some roads in Bollington which buses can't use (Chancery Lane) and circle it around Bollington but I don't think that's feasible. Road looks impossible for buses, I wouldn't risk it.
As for faster buses from Stockport to Macc, you would need to miss out Middlewood and Wood Lanes as well as a reroute around Poynton before there is any hope you will get a bus to Macc in 55 minutes. If you want to keep passengers and keep Poynton happy, you have almost no chance of making the route work end to end in 55 mins.

There is an existing commercial service from Macclesfield to Bollington running every 30 minutes Mon-Sat (hourly early evenings Mon-Sat) run by Arriva (route 10/10A) and which caters for most of the passengers on this segment of the route. Poynton is a fairly affluent area and there is minimal demand for buses, so it is only worth subsidising a skeleton service for passengers who have no alternative (and who wish to travel to/from somewhere distant from the railway station there.

I don't understand why others are postulating fantasy routes when there is no magic money tree. Ideally, CEC should not be spending any money on subsidising bus services, like the City of Stoke Council. However, in rural areas, there is a need to maintain selected key inter-urban bus services where there are no suitable rail links, at least Mon-Fri (or Mon-Sat) daytimes. Therefore, CEC need to subsidise a skeleton service between Macclesfield and Alderley Edge/Wilmslow/Handforth once the current operator (DG) pulls its commercial service; that is all they need to do.

 

[markymark2000]

There is an existing commercial service from Macclesfield to Bollington running every 30 minutes Mon-Sat (hourly early evenings Mon-Sat) run by Arriva (route 10/10A) and which caters for most of the passengers on this segment of the route. Poynton is a fairly affluent area and there is minimal demand for buses, so it is only worth subsidising a skeleton service for passengers who have no alternative (and who wish to travel to/from somewhere distant from the railway station there.

The suggestion is for Macc to Bollington to run as per the 391/392, not the 10/10A route. You seem to be getting confused by not reading the above discussion. My comments all relate to previous posts and thus finer details are generally posted above.

I don't understand why others are postulating fantasy routes when there is no magic money tree. Ideally, CEC should not be spending any money on subsidising bus services, like the City of Stoke Council. However, in rural areas, there is a need to maintain selected key inter-urban bus services where there are no suitable rail links, at least Mon-Fri (or Mon-Sat) daytimes. Therefore, CEC need to subsidise a skeleton service between Macclesfield and Alderley Edge/Wilmslow/Handforth once the current operator (DG) pulls its commercial service; that is all they need to do.

I don't know where you are getting this idea from that these need more funding. Most of the above suggestions work with the existing buses and funding and for some of my suggestions, I have specified where the money can come from (The Better Deal for Bus Users) which is Govt grant money available to spend, not council money which needs an increase in the budget.

I really like how all you want is for a skeleton service. Why? What will that achieve for anyone? Just keep digging a grave for the 130 why don't you and then in a years time, cut it and leave areas with no bus. The point of these counter proposals is to innovate routes to make them more viable so LESS SUBSIDY IS NEEDED per route.

 

[peters]

Ideally, CEC should not be spending any money on subsidising bus services, like the City of Stoke Council. However, in rural areas, there is a need to maintain selected key inter-urban bus services where there are no suitable rail links, at least Mon-Fri (or Mon-Sat) daytimes. Therefore, CEC need to subsidise a skeleton service between Macclesfield and Alderley Edge/Wilmslow/Handforth once the current operator (DG) pulls its commercial service; that is all they need to do.

Councils are supposed to subside bus services if there's a need for a service e.g. for employment, health or other essential needs and no other suitable alternative is available. That's why TfGM subside bus services to Manchester Airport but just across the border Cheshire East don't. In Cheshire East's opinion, while there is a need for people in Cheshire East to get to Manchester Airport for employment there's already a Crewe to Manchester Airport train, an Altrincham to Manchester Airport bus and a Stockport to Manchester Airport bus and most places in Cheshire East not on the Crewe to Manchester Airport line are linked to either a town or village on the line, or alternatively Altrincham or Stockport, meaning a journey is possible. The downside is there's no integrated ticketing (other than PlusBus) unlike for journeys solely in Greater Manchester and there's not always good connections.

I notice you questioned the need for a subsided bus service in an affluent area and you live just outside Altrincham, so would you also like to see TfGM subsides withdrawn for the CAT5, 283, 284 and 288 bus services given Altrincham, Timperley, Hale Barns, Dunham Massey and Warburton aren't exactly poor areas?

 

[PaulWC]

One thing I'll add to that is when Stevensons took over the 130 in the 90s they were using double deckers on it and I think that may have continued after Arriva acquired Stevensons.

Slight side note here, but MRN were using double deckers before that and when Stevensons took over they wanted to bring their own buses in, but their preferred double deckers at the time wouldn't fit in the garage at Sunderland Street. Apparently when the garage was built, North Western were using lowbridge double deckers, and the garage was built accordingly. Stevensons ended up taking on a batch of Olympians from MRN to run on the 130 as they were smaller than what Stevensons were running in the Midlands.

 

[jfollows]

"Funding to help save local bus service" reports http://www.wilmslow.co.uk/news/article/20789/funding-to-help-save-local-bus-service

Essentially that Cheshire East Council will be subsidising an hourly Monday-Saturday 130 bus service, funded until end of 1Q21. Route seems similar to that prior to the pandemic, in other words Macclesfield-Handforth.

Cheshire East Council has secured funding to help save the 130 bus service which was due to be withdrawn by operator D&G Bus from 3 October.

Following a procurement process, the service is set to continue with improved bus frequency. The successful operator will be announced next week.

The 130 currently runs every 90 minutes during the week and has no Saturday service. The new service will operate approximately hourly Monday to Friday and hourly on Saturdays between Macclesfield, Alderley Edge, Wilmslow and Handforth.

The service will operate with support via bus funding from central government, however the funding is limited until 31 March 2021.

The council says it is seeking funding to ensure the long-term sustainability of the 130 service beyond March.

Councillor Craig Browne, deputy leader of Cheshire East Council, who has responsibility for strategic transport, said: "This is really excellent news for our residents and in particular those who rely on this service to meet their transport needs – to go shopping, access health care, visit friends or simply get out and about for their health and wellbeing.

"I would like to thank our transport team, Transport Service Solutions, for their hard work to find a solution quickly at a time of significant workload and intense pressure on our budgets due to Covid-19.

"We can only secure a long-term solution, however, if the government fulfils its promise to adequately fund local councils for the additional costs of the coronavirus pandemic.

"We have received repeated assurances from government that councils will be fully compensated for costs incurred in the fight against Covid-19 – but we are yet to see the promise meet the forecasts. This council faces a shortfall of £28m without additional government funding.

"Cheshire East Council is far from unique – councils across the country are facing the same significant challenges. That is why we continue to work alongside other councils and organisations like the County Councils' Network and Local Government Association, to lobby government to fully deliver on its promise."

 

[peters]

New 130 timetable, to be operated by D&G Bus:
https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/pdf/public-transport/130-bus-timetable-5-october-2020.pdf Hourly Mon-Fri and 2 hourly Sat

Good points:
- With D&G continuing to run both services Network Return tickets can be used on both the 130 and 88.
- 16:25 bus from Macclesfield to Wilmslow, connects with the 88 in Wilmslow meaning useful for any Knutsford passengers who miss the 15:45 bus and would otherwise have to wait for the 18:15 bus.
- While the last 130 is at 17:45, on weekdays if someone travelling to Wilmslow missed that bus they would have the option of the 18:15 bus via Knutsford.
- 88 and 130 on Saturday combined give a consistent hourly service between Broken Cross and Macclesfield.

Bad points:
- As with 88 the new 130 becomes less frequent at weekday peak times meaning people have to wait longer for a bus at the time most people want to travel.
- Saturday 17:45 Macclesfield to Wilmslow bus does not connect with the last Wilmslow to Knutsford, so does not allow a later journey from Macclesfield to Knutsford.
- First weekday bus doesn't get to Macc until 08:57. Earlier journey possible between Wilmslow and Macc using the 88 but it involves a 35 minute wait in Knutsford, meaning it would take almost 2 hours to get from Wilmslow to Macc.

Mixed point:
- On weekdays the 130 arrives at Macc at ten past and departures at quarter past. For hours when the 88 runs that means the 130 is exactly 30 minutes after the 88 but as the 88 isn't hourly that means the Broken Cross and Macclesfield section gets an inconsistent service.

 

[ShaunyFlynn]

New 130 timetable, to be operated by D&G Bus:
https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/pdf/public-transport/130-bus-timetable-5-october-2020.pdf Hourly Mon-Fri and 2 hourly Sat

Good points:
- With D&G continuing to run both services Network Return tickets can be used on both the 130 and 88.
- 16:25 bus from Macclesfield to Wilmslow, connects with the 88 in Wilmslow meaning useful for any Knutsford passengers who miss the 15:45 bus and would otherwise have to wait for the 18:15 bus.
- While the last 130 is at 17:45, on weekdays if someone travelling to Wilmslow missed that bus they would have the option of the 18:15 bus via Wilmslow.
- 88 and 130 on Saturday combined give a consistent hourly service between Broken Cross and Macclesfield.

Bad points:
- As with 88 the new 130 becomes less frequent at weekday peak times meaning people have to wait longer for a bus at the time most people want to travel.
- Saturday 17:45 Macclesfield to Wilmslow bus does not connect with the last Wilmslow to Knutsford, so does not allow a later journey from Macclesfield to Knutsford.
- First weekday bus doesn't get to Macc until 08:57. Earlier journey possible between Wilmslow and Macc using the 88 but it involves a 35 minute wait in Knutsford, meaning it would take almost 2 hours to get from Wilmslow to Macc.

Mixed point:
- On weekdays the 130 arrives at Macc at ten past and departures at quarter past. For hours when the 88 runs that means the 130 is exactly 30 minutes after the 88 but as the 88 isn't hourly that means the Broken Cross and Macclesfield section gets an inconsistent service.

I like it how Cheshire Live say bus improved, when it is less frequent than it was when D&G first took over the route. I get that the council want to make it sound positive. But I didn't actually think the 130 run to Wythenshawe wasn't actually that bad. Does areas like Alderley Edge and Dean Row need an hourly bus service? Now that the 130 route has once again been shortened. We can wave goodbye to yet another way to connect easily to Manchester, as you could get the tram or the 43 to Piccadilly. I suppose you could alight just outside Handforth Station and walk to Handforth Dean and connect with the 42C bus, but that isnt physically possible.

Just to put it simply, the 130 run to Wythenshawe was fine, you could connect to Piccadilly easily and also you could get good links to the Airport via Heald Green Station. And I personally don't think places like Alderley Edge and Dean Row have enough demand for an hourly bus service. Even when I took the 130 to Wythenshawe it was empty.

 

[markymark2000]

According to quite a few comments on Facebook groups, the Wythenshawe link was picking up slowly and I believe that is the issue here. The constant changing of the service, people can't keep up and as soon as people get used to one routing and start using the bus, the route and timetables all changes again.
Far too much uncertainty combined with D&G making big decisions based off what seems to be the first few days revenue.

 

[ShaunyFlynn]

According to quite a few comments on Facebook groups, the Wythenshawe link was picking up slowly and I believe that is the issue here. The constant changing of the service, people can't keep up and as soon as people get used to one routing and start using the bus, the route and timetables all changes again.
Far too much uncertainty combined with D&G making big decisions based off what seems to be the first few days revenue.

Yes I agree, they just should've kept the 130 in its current state. A 1hr 30min frequency Wythenshawe - Macclesfield bus in my opinion was perfect. Good links to Manchester, Good Links to the Airport, Good Links to the tram and good Links to Heald Green Station.

Also just something I've had in mind, what has happened to the 3 Streetlites D&G had route branded for the 38?

 

[peters]

Yes I agree, they just should've kept the 130 in its current state. A 1hr 30min frequency Wythenshawe - Macclesfield bus in my opinion was perfect. Good links to Manchester, Good Links to the Airport, Good Links to the tram and good Links to Heald Green Station.

Also just something I've had in mind, what has happened to the 3 Streetlites D&G had route branded for the 38?

I wonder whether a better solution would be extending a train from Manchester Airport to Wilmslow or Alderley Edge to give a half-hourly service between Wilmslow and the airport and introducing a Wilmslow/North East Cheshire Plus Bus scheme. Obviously it's not possible for everywhere to have a direct link to the airport but with only an hourly Wilmslow to Manchester Airport service it means it's unlikely to connect well with everything - 130 buses to/from Macclesfield, 130 buses to/from Handforth, 88 buses to/from Knutsford, the trains to/from Shropshire & South Wales (that have very poor connections to/from the existing airport services at Crewe) etc.

 

[markymark2000]

I wonder whether a better solution would be extending a train from Manchester Airport to Wilmslow or Alderley Edge to give a half-hourly service between Wilmslow and the airport and introducing a Wilmslow/North East Cheshire Plus Bus scheme. Obviously it's not possible for everywhere to have a direct link to the airport but with only an hourly Wilmslow to Manchester Airport service it means it's unlikely to connect well with everything - 130 buses to/from Macclesfield, 130 buses to/from Handforth, 88 buses to/from Knutsford, the trains to/from Shropshire & South Wales (that have very poor connections to/from the existing airport services at Crewe) etc.

I don't think the Airport station has the capacity does it for an extra service. Also, you could argue that the line is so disused anyway, you are just adding to the subsidy and trains I would assume have higher costs than buses.

The big difference between the 130 and a train as well is that the 130 goes to Wythenshawe which is where I believe a good amount of people want to go to. When the job centres reopen, people can move their appointments from Macclesfield to Wythenshawe which is obviously closer and Wythenshawe is closer for shopping etc compared to Macc. The 130 provides much more useful stops for people to board and alight, trains are meant for mass transit slightly longer distance. Very few people use the train to nip 1 stop to do their weekly shop.

 

[peters]

I don't think the Airport station has the capacity does it for an extra service. Also, you could argue that the line is so disused anyway, you are just adding to the subsidy and trains I would assume have higher costs than buses.

I wasn't suggesting a new service, I was suggesting extending an existing service to Wilmslow or Alderley Edge. As it's only a few minutes in each direction it should be possible without paying for any extra resources if done alongside the next timetable revisions.

 

[daodao]

CEC have provided an adequate solution to the need for a skeleton Mon-Sat daytime bus service from Handforth to Macclesfield via Wilmslow and Alderley Edge. Fanciful notions of enhanced bus (or rail) services in rural Cheshire are for the clouds. Those on this thread who speculate in this fashion are luftmenschen; there is a separate section of the website for such ideas.

 

[peters]

CEC have provided an adequate solution to the need for a skeleton Mon-Sat daytime bus service from Handforth to Macclesfield via Wilmslow and Alderley Edge. Fanciful notions of enhanced bus (or rail) services in rural Cheshire are for the clouds. Those on this thread who speculate in this fashion are luftmenschen; there is a separate section of the website for such ideas.

You've already expressed your opinion, so posting the same thing using different words is just a waste of your time. I think you are forgetting that nothing you say has any factual basis, it's just a strongly worded opinion. If you want to do a proper consultation on bus services in Cheshire East then feel free as even the local council didn't do a proper one when they did their bus review - a proper consultation doesn't start with proposed new services then asking people for feedback on them, then ignoring responses where people say they'll either have to reduce their working hours or leave their job due to the reduced service, as they did with the Saturday 88 timetable.

It's not a fanciful notion to propose better efficiency of existing services. That's exactly what happened when all trains started calling at Styal and the 200 bus was withdrawn. There was no point in subsiding a bus to serve Styal just because Northern couldn't be bothered to stop their trains there.

 

[daodao]

... It's not a fanciful notion to propose better efficiency of existing services. That's exactly what happened when all trains started calling at Styal and the 200 bus was withdrawn. There was no point in subsiding a bus to serve Styal just because Northern couldn't be bothered to stop their trains there.

I agree with this last point, because it is making more efficient and better use of an existing service and avoiding the need for an extra subsidised bus service. However, in an earlier post you proposed that there should be an additional hourly Wilmslow-Airport rail service so that the overall service would be half hourly. That would cost more and I would be dubious about the demand/need for it.

 

[peters]

I agree with this last point, because it is making more efficient and better use of an existing service and avoiding the need for an extra subsidised bus service. However, in an earlier post you proposed that there should be an additional hourly Wilmslow-Airport rail service so that the overall service would be half hourly. That would cost more and I would be dubious about the demand/need for it.

Which, as I stated twice already, could be provided by extending an existing service from the Airport to Wilmslow (about 10 minutes away) and could be done at the same time the timetable is next changed so that it's done without requiring an additional train set. Extending the fast Liverpool to Manchester Airport (which takes around 1 hour 10 each way) would be a possibility, as a 10 minute extension each way wouldn't need an additional train set. However, in reality a train arriving from Liverpool doesn't have to return to Liverpool, so it could be Liverpool southbound and Blackpool northbound if that proved easier to accommodate.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

All good things come to an end as the D & G Buses service 130 that recently ran from Macclesfield to Wythenshawe Interchange is being cut back from 5th October to a Macclesfield to Handforth service, to run solely in the Cheshire East area.

 

[PaulWC]

And at last CEC have acknowledged that Mikro Coaches 78 bus to Leighton Hospital is back running again, and put it in the changes section, albeit not in the full list of services as yet.