You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.

Skip to main content

RE: Redcar depot
(Yesterday, 12:07 pm)Andreos1 wrote Who said anything about extra drivers? 
There's route management for a start.
Such as terminating the X93 Middlesbrough bound, at Guisborough and ensuring connections with the 5.
There's running shuttles between Whitby and Scarborough. 
There's working in partnership with Transdev and/EYMS, for cross-service ticketing between Whitby/Pickering and Pickering/Scarborough.
Howay man Superman.

I can see there may be some gaps in your understanding of how bus operators function, so I’ll take that into account.

While those points are noted, they do not address the practical challenges around drivers’ duties and working hours. Drivers reporting on or being in incorrect locations at key times within their normal duty allowance, some without sufficient time to cover the proposed split duties or unrelated services. Resolving this requires additional drivers and significant coordination, and it is not something that can be arranged at the last minute—or even within just a few days.

Very crude and basic example -: Turning the X93 at Guisborough simply places the driver arriving from Whitby onto the timings of the previous trip for the return journey. As a result, they would arrive back in Whitby an hour earlier than their scheduled duty. The question then arises: what is the driver expected to do with that time? Their duty (or first element of) still ends at the originally scheduled time, and there is no productive work to fill the gap. Imagine this 12 times per day just for this short suggested change.

This very simple and one-off example highlights how such an approach would, by default, require additional staff to cover the operation—ultimately leading to an inefficient and unsustainable arrangement.

Additionally, directly contacting a competitor to agree on a ticketing arrangement, while it may seem like common sense to some, is strictly prohibited under competition law. This is not something a single operator could initiate or manage unilaterally.

So, "howay man!" Think about it.
RE: Redcar depot
(Yesterday, 4:15 pm)Superman wrote I can see there may be some gaps in your understanding of how bus operators function, so I’ll take that into account.

While those points are noted, they do not address the practical challenges around drivers’ duties and working hours. Drivers reporting on or being in incorrect locations at key times within their normal duty allowance, some without sufficient time to cover the proposed split duties or unrelated services. Resolving this requires additional drivers and significant coordination, and it is not something that can be arranged at the last minute—or even within just a few days.

Very crude and basic example -: Turning the X93 at Guisborough simply places the driver arriving from Whitby onto the timings of the previous trip for the return journey. As a result, they would arrive back in Whitby an hour earlier than their scheduled duty. The question then arises: what is the driver expected to do with that time? Their duty (or first element of) still ends at the originally scheduled time, and there is no productive work to fill the gap. Imagine this 12 times per day just for this short suggested change.

This very simple and one-off example highlights how such an approach would, by default, require additional staff to cover the operation—ultimately leading to an inefficient and unsustainable arrangement.

Additionally, directly contacting a competitor to agree on a ticketing arrangement, while it may seem like common sense to some, is strictly prohibited under competition law. This is not something a single operator could initiate or manage unilaterally.

So, "howay man!" Think about it.

They're running late. 
They're not going to get back an hour early...

The alternative being they drop off in Whitby because they're way over their driving hours after undertaking a massive diversion...

I'd also love you to share the piece of legislation where 'directly contacting a competitor to agree on a ticketing arrangement, is strictly prohibited under competition law'.
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
RE: Redcar depot
I respect it might cause some issues in the early morning / late evening, but surely just running the X93 outright every hour and binning off the X94, bar maybe a short to Robinhoods Bay would be the best idea?

You could just drop the X93's back an hour giving them an extra 30 minutes each way to Scarborough running '30 minutes' late out of Scarborough.

Should be the same PVR if I've worked it out right and I assume the driver changeovers are in Whitby so it would be just some tinkering of which bus the drivers are running.
RE: Redcar depot
(Yesterday, 12:07 pm)Andreos1 wrote Who said anything about extra drivers? 

There's route management for a start.
Such as terminating the X93 Middlesbrough bound, at Guisborough and ensuring connections with the 5.

There's running shuttles between Whitby and Scarborough. 

There's working in partnership with Transdev and/EYMS, for cross-service ticketing between Whitby/Pickering and Pickering/Scarborough.

And it inevitably will be all over the shop. But there's ways and means, like you mentioned. Plus plenty of others.

(Yesterday, 4:15 pm)Superman wrote I can see there may be some gaps in your understanding of how bus operators function, so I’ll take that into account.

While those points are noted, they do not address the practical challenges around drivers’ duties and working hours. Drivers reporting on or being in incorrect locations at key times within their normal duty allowance, some without sufficient time to cover the proposed split duties or unrelated services. Resolving this requires additional drivers and significant coordination, and it is not something that can be arranged at the last minute—or even within just a few days.

Very crude and basic example -: Turning the X93 at Guisborough simply places the driver arriving from Whitby onto the timings of the previous trip for the return journey. As a result, they would arrive back in Whitby an hour earlier than their scheduled duty. The question then arises: what is the driver expected to do with that time? Their duty (or first element of) still ends at the originally scheduled time, and there is no productive work to fill the gap. Imagine this 12 times per day just for this short suggested change.

This very simple and one-off example highlights how such an approach would, by default, require additional staff to cover the operation—ultimately leading to an inefficient and unsustainable arrangement.

Additionally, directly contacting a competitor to agree on a ticketing arrangement, while it may seem like common sense to some, is strictly prohibited under competition law. This is not something a single operator could initiate or manage unilaterally.

I imagine there's only so much that can be done/allowed, can't imagine dropping a section would go down well with the traffic commissioners or whoever else who overseas such matters, also can't imagine passengers would be happy with their journeys being made longer by having to get a bus with a longer journey time especially when anyone wanting to go all the way to/from Scarborough will have their journey made longer later when it has to divert between Whitby & Scarborough.

Don't know the ins and outs of allowing mutual ticketing agreements in these scenarios, but the 128 & 840 timetables/routes aren't really suitable for an alternative travel option given both routes only run every 2 hours presently and there's only so much capacity especially when both the X93/X94 and 840 can carry full loads without carrying another's passengers. If possible, the only worthwhile section to allow mutual ticketing acceptance would be the Cloughton to Scarborough stretch which is being omitted by Arriva as a result of the diversions but are covered by EY services, albeit Cloughton only has two buses per day, fortunately Arriva have the 95 to cover the stops between Whitby Town Centre and Sainsbury's.

Given the unpredictability and constantly changing situation with what's going on, it must be very difficult to plan for anything in advance, on Tuesday they had to plan to both divert to Scarborough but also still cover Robin Hoods Bay, but for the last two days they've not been able to get to Robins Hoods Bay, so have had to rethink things again.
RE: Redcar depot
A bit unrealistic to think with almost no notice they could reorganise routes, curtail the X93s to connect with 5's at Guisborough, never mind connect at Pickering with another companies infrequent and full buses.

Passengers just have to accept if they want to travel (and its not been recommended to travel near the areas affected unless necessary) buses will often be severely delayed or cancelled.

But once they are on a bus, it will eventually get them to the destination - hopefully! Although the driver shortages have been an issue all summer, and its been known for passengers to be kicked off a bus at Whitby because there is no driver available to continue the route.
RE: Redcar depot
(Yesterday, 11:02 pm)Jimmi wrote I imagine there's only so much that can be done/allowed, can't imagine dropping a section would go down well with the traffic commissioners or whoever else who overseas such matters, also can't imagine passengers would be happy with their journeys being made longer by having to get a bus with a longer journey time especially when anyone wanting to go all the way to/from Scarborough will have their journey made longer later when it has to divert between Whitby & Scarborough. 

Don't know the ins and outs of allowing mutual ticketing agreements in these scenarios, but the 128 & 840 timetables/routes aren't really suitable for an alternative travel option given both routes only run every 2 hours presently and there's only so much capacity especially when both the X93/X94 and 840 can carry full loads without carrying another's passengers. If possible, the only worthwhile section to allow mutual ticketing acceptance would be the Cloughton to Scarborough stretch which is being omitted by Arriva as a result of the diversions but are covered by EY services, albeit Cloughton only has two buses per day, fortunately Arriva have the 95 to cover the stops between Whitby Town Centre and Sainsbury's.

Given the unpredictability and constantly changing situation with what's going on, it must be very difficult to plan for anything in advance, on Tuesday they had to plan to both divert to Scarborough but also still cover Robin Hoods Bay, but for the last two days they've not been able to get to Robins Hoods Bay, so have had to rethink things again.

The alternative being buses run over an hour late (like with the example I shared), passengers being unable to get to/from work and the inevitable complaints (to both the authorities and directly) that result.

It's about managing the situation fluidly and making things as effective as possible for passengers. 
Running an X93 to Guisborough and transferring to a 5, is much more beneficial for all parties, than running late, having to drop boards due to drivers hours etc. 

The TC aren't going to be happy when reliability goes off the cliff, as much as they won't be happy with buses running short. 
But if ANE can justify those decisions with demonstrable positive solutions and communicating it effectively (rather than tossing a coin in the air and seeing which way it lands), then I imagine the TC would be a lot more understanding.
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
RE: Redcar depot
(7 hours ago)Superman wrote I'll refer Arriva to the expert on here in future...

Still no sign of that legislation you mentioned...
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
RE: Redcar depot
Believe Superman is refering to the Competitions Act 1998.

It's the main reason the 685 had slightly different fares over the same sections when Arriva and Stagecoach ran it, as it could be seen as collusion!

There is an exemption to allow such schemes such as Network One and other cross ticketing. However, there must be formal arrangements in place which involves the local authority.
RE: Redcar depot
(9 hours ago)Andreos1 wrote The alternative being buses run over an hour late (like with the example I shared), passengers being unable to get to/from work and the inevitable complaints (to both the authorities and directly) that result.

It's about managing the situation fluidly and making things as effective as possible for passengers. 
Running an X93 to Guisborough and transferring to a 5, is much more beneficial for all parties, than running late, having to drop boards due to drivers hours etc. 

The TC aren't going to be happy when reliability goes off the cliff, as much as they won't be happy with buses running short. 
But if ANE can justify those decisions with demonstrable positive solutions and communicating it effectively (rather than tossing a coin in the air and seeing which way it lands), then I imagine the TC would be a lot more understanding.

The fact that you think transferring X93 passengers onto a 5 is a suitable solution is, in itself, ridiculous - and that's leaving aside your other points (the TC is likely to be pretty understanding of the reasoning behind the service reliability over this week - it's not exactly within their control). Could you please detail how you expect the 90+ passengers which can be carried by an E400 MMC or B9TL onto a 44 seater Pulsar - which itself will likely already have passengers on it? 

Even if capacity wasn't an issue (which it is), what's your plan with the 5? Hold it until the X93 is due? Okay, so then what happens to the driver for the 5 if they're late off as a result? What do you tell all of the passengers on the 5 who are either delayed, or can't fit onto the bus down the road because you've filled it with an X93?

There are areas where operational teams at bus companies should be criticised, I've experienced some questionable decision making tonight by Stagecoach on my trip home, but if you're going to criticise at least have a better solution!
RE: Redcar depot
(2 hours ago)PH - BQA wrote The fact that you think transferring X93 passengers onto a 5 is a suitable solution is, in itself, ridiculous - and that's leaving aside your other points (the TC is likely to be pretty understanding of the reasoning behind the service reliability over this week - it's not exactly within their control). Could you please detail how you expect the 90+ passengers which can be carried by an E400 MMC or B9TL onto a 44 seater Pulsar - which itself will likely already have passengers on it? 

Even if capacity wasn't an issue (which it is), what's your plan with the 5? Hold it until the X93 is due? Okay, so then what happens to the driver for the 5 if they're late off as a result? What do you tell all of the passengers on the 5 who are either delayed, or can't fit onto the bus down the road because you've filled it with an X93?

There are areas where operational teams at bus companies should be criticised, I've experienced some questionable decision making tonight by Stagecoach on my trip home, but if you're going to criticise at least have a better solution!

What do you suggest then? Leaving 2 hour or 3 hour gaps in service or slightly inconveniencing some passengers by a few minutes, but offering a service? 

I know which one I'd choose. 

If you're going to criticise at least have a better solution!
'Illegitimis non carborundum'
RE: Redcar depot
(36 minutes ago)Andreos1 wrote What do you suggest then? Leaving 2 hour or 3 hour gaps in service or slightly inconveniencing some passengers by a few minutes, but offering a service? 

I know which one I'd choose. 

If you're going to criticise at least have a better solution!

Interesting that you've chosen not to solve the maths problem of how 80 goes into 44. Or any of the other problems raised with your 'solution'. 

Fortunately for me, it is not my job to come up with solutions to these problems - nor was I criticising those who were. That said, I have enough first hand industry experience to know a badly thought out solution - such as trying to make a full double decker worth of people fit onto an already loaded Pulsar. I feel it should have been clear in my post but, for avoidance of doubt, I think the operations staff in this instance are doing the best they can with the changing situation and thus I don't need to come up with a 'better solution'!