Derbyshire CC propose axing all scheduled subsided bus services

[TheGrandWazoo]

If a bus can't make money serving many stops and villages in Wensleydale I hardly think a clapped out DMU chugging at 25 mph not serving the middle of Northalleron and finishing in a field up a hill from Redmires will.

Bang on!

Remember that the main section of service (Northallerton to Bedale) is covered by a half hourly bus service. Bedale to Leyburn is very sparse territory and from 1981 until 1999, it was a daily in peaks (obstensibly for schools) and only a few market day runs).

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a bus can't make money serving many stops and villages in Wensleydale I hardly think a clapped out DMU chugging at 25 mph not serving the middle of Northalleron and finishing in a field up a hill from Redmires will.

I wasn't so much suggesting that the railway would put on additional services. I was more wondering if anyone left "high and dry" might well use it because they have little other option, on days when it operates anyway.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I wasn't so much suggesting that the railway would put on additional services. I was more wondering if anyone left "high and dry" might well use it because they have little other option, on days when it operates anyway.

To be honest, it only runs selected days (daily in the summer holidays) so the bus service goes more regularly even with the cuts (assuming the Sunday 856 runs this summer). That and there's one station between Bedale and Leyburn and that's in the middle of nowhere.

Nice idea but no real use as a replacement; a nice tourist attraction nonetheless.

 

[brompton rail]

Having looked at Derbyshire's website, IF all the services shown as supported by the county were withdrawn the following would be the remaining commercial services to the Peak District...

Derby to Ashbourne - TB Swift
Derby, Belper, Wirksworth to Matlock (but NOT Bakewell) TB 6.1
Derby, Matlock, Bakewell to Buxton (& A few to Manchester) HP Trans Peak
Chesterfield, Baslow to Bakewell. Hullies 170
Sheffield to Bakewell. T-MOBILE Travel 218
Sheffield, Fox House, Eyam, Tideswell to Buxton. T-MOBILE Travel 65
Sheffield, Hope Valley to Castleton. Hulley/First SY
also First SY Summer services to Bakewell

The above are hourly services, except 218 Sheffield to Bakewell, which is half hourly, and 65 Sheffield to Buxton which is two hourly with pm gaps.

Add to this the hourly train services..
Derby to Matlock.. And
Sheffield, Hope Valley, New Mills to Manchester (hourly weekdays from about 2017/8 under new Northern franchise)

I haven't studied services west of Buxton.

So many rural villages and tourist destinations COULD be devoid of any buses. Some of the supported services are school services so they might remain.

Not looking good for tourism by bus in Derbyshire in the future. So get your Derbyshire Wayfarer tickets while you can and explore this great county while you can!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

.
So many rural villages and tourist destinations COULD be devoid of any buses. Some of the supported services are school services so they might remain.

Not looking good for tourism by bus in Derbyshire in the future. So get your Derbyshire Wayfarer tickets while you can and explore this great county while you can!

The 442 service from Buxton to Ashbourne is one that does indeed serve many outlying areas, some of which see many tourists in the summer months.

 

[northwichcat]

^^ What's worth remembering is the low subsidy routes will probably survive but may see frequency cutbacks.

For a route like Macclesfield-Buxton I'd predict that the Sunday service would go altogether, the first and last weekday services would go and there might be a frequency reduction between 10am and 4pm.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So get your Derbyshire Wayfarer tickets while you can and explore this great county while you can!

Also note if your starting in Greater Manchester/Cheshire the TfGM Wayfarer covers quite a bit of Derbyshire: http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/Documents/PDFMaps/Wayfarer-bus-map.pdf

 

[Mitch in Notts]

The Trent 6.1 is commercial to Bakewell EXCEPT the first run of the day.
Hulleys 171 is commercial to Youlgreave but not Middleton.
There are no doubt a small numbers of others.

Many routes in the Peak are vast improvements on twenty years ago. The hourly 58 Macclesfield to Buxton was a Tuesday & Saturday shopping service.
The 442 ran Buxton to Hartington at Peaks, Tuesdays & Saturdays and Buxton to Longnor shorts off peak. Hartington to Ashbourne was 2 Thursday shoppers & 3 Saturdays (Glovers 420) plus a Warrington 441 on Saturday. Only the Saturday and the through Sunday service permitted Ashbourne to Buxton through/connecting journeys to be made.

Other areas were more frequent eg Derby through to Manchester via Leek and Buxton to Leek - spring to mind.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was, until fairly recent times, the 108 Macclesfield to Ashbourne service, via Leek, run by elderly ex-Arriva minibuses with all fares being logged by the driver on an A4 size ruled pad with what looked like a tourist souvenir ball point pen.

This was then divided into a 109 Macclesfield to Leek service and a 108 Leek to Ashbourne service. Cheshire East, Staffordshire and Derbyshire county councils were involved in this.

 

[daodao]

It is not only local authorities that should be considering stopping subsidies to public transport; central government should do the same with rail services, given the country's poor financial position. The only exceptions should be where withdrawal of subsidised services would have an unacceptably adverse impact on road congestion, i.e. in the main conurbations and on major trunk routes, where public transport still has a role. The uneven peak travel patterns mean that commuter routes may require subsidy, but hopefully trunk routes should not. Otherwise, public transport should be regarded solely as a commercial activity. Government money should also not be used on major unaffordable rail infrastructure projects such as HS2, except where they can be shown to have a positive impact on road congestion.

Spending taxpayers' money on running poorly used rural bus and rail routes and on maintaining little used railway infrastructure is pouring money down the drain. For example, I do not understand why the heavily subsidised frequently flooded Conwy Valley line has not been abandoned. Flooding led to permanent closure of similar routes in the past, e.g. Carmarthen-Aberystwyth (which some unrealistic people think should be re-opened) and Ruabon-Barmouth.

It would be sad if subsidised Derbyshire bus routes, such as the scenic 58 run over the Cat and Fiddle (which I have used several times) are withdrawn, but many of these routes are little used except at certain times. Route 58 can be busy on sunny summer Sundays, but if the weather is bad, the buses are often empty, and in winter, it is frequently cancelled.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It would be sad if subsidised Derbyshire bus routes, such as the scenic 58 run over the Cat and Fiddle (which I have used several times) are withdrawn, but many of these routes are little used except at certain times. Route 58 can be busy on sunny summer Sundays, but if the weather is bad, the buses are often empty, and in winter, it is frequently cancelled.

In winter, there are very obvious reasons why the 58 service over the Cat and Fiddle, can be cancelled, with its many sharp bends that have to be negotiated with sheer drops in certain sections when ice has formed on the road surface.

The 58 is one of the first services that I used in recent years that had buses which were fitted with seatbelts.

 

[ag51ruk]

There was, until fairly recent times, the 108 Macclesfield to Ashbourne service, via Leek, run by elderly ex-Arriva minibuses with all fares being logged by the driver on an A4 size ruled pad with what looked like a tourist souvenir ball point pen.

This was then divided into a 109 Macclesfield to Leek service and a 108 Leek to Ashbourne service. Cheshire East, Staffordshire and Derbyshire county councils were involved in this.

And before that it ran all the way from Manchester to Derby via Macc, Leek and Ashbourne - run by GM Buses/First Manchester using coaches in the early 90s as service 201

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And before that it ran all the way from Manchester to Derby via Macc, Leek and Ashbourne - run by GM Buses/First Manchester using coaches in the early 90s as service 201

Also run with knackered Leyland Nationals in GMS days

 

[Mitch in Notts]

Also run with knackered Leyland Nationals in GMS days

When I used it once from Leek to Derby in the late 1980s it had passed from Trent to Clowes of Barrow Moor I think. Wasn't it at one time also run by Berresfords of Cheddleton. It was one of those useful services - if there was one at the right time - that never carried sufficient passenger numbers on it's sparsely populated sections.

 

[daodao]

When I used it once from Leek to Derby in the late 1980s it had passed from Trent to Clowes of Barrow Moor I think. Wasn't it at one time also run by Berresfords of Cheddleton. It was one of those useful services - if there was one at the right time - that never carried sufficient passenger numbers on it's sparsely populated sections.

It was formerly North Western Road Car Company's X1 express route from Manchester to Derby, which performed a stage carriage function on the more sparsely populated section from Macclesfield to Ashbourne.

Quite a number of these express routes provided useful links from Manchester (e.g. East Midlands X67 to Chesterfield, Yorkshire Motor Traction X19 to Barnsley). The only ones to have survived are some of the ex-Ribble routes from East Lancashire and the former NWRCC route X2 (now TransPeak and diverted at Ambergate to run to Derby instead of Nottingham).

 

[Deerfold]

It is not only local authorities that should be considering stopping subsidies to public transport; central government should do the same with rail services, given the country's poor financial position. The only exceptions should be where withdrawal of subsidised services would have an unacceptably adverse impact on road congestion, i.e. in the main conurbations and on major trunk routes, where public transport still has a role. The uneven peak travel patterns mean that commuter routes may require subsidy, but hopefully trunk routes should not. Otherwise, public transport should be regarded solely as a commercial activity. Government money should also not be used on major unaffordable rail infrastructure projects such as HS2, except where they can be shown to have a positive impact on road congestion.

Spending taxpayers' money on running poorly used rural bus and rail routes and on maintaining little used railway infrastructure is pouring money down the drain. For example, I do not understand why the heavily subsidised frequently flooded Conwy Valley line has not been abandoned. Flooding led to permanent closure of similar routes in the past, e.g. Carmarthen-Aberystwyth (which some unrealistic people think should be re-opened) and Ruabon-Barmouth.

So people like me, who do not drive, should only be allowed to get to work if we're doing it on commercial services? Or I have to buy a car and learn to drive before I can do any job (there's not more than a dozen or so jobs within reasonably easy walking distance of my house)? And any elderly or ill people who physically can't drive? What do they do when their subsidised bus or train is withdrawn? Do they have to go into a home instead of remaining independent? My wife's 95-year old grandmother is only just struggling to use a bus, but would have struggled without a bus service 20 years ago.

Do you realise that a large proportion of the rail network would shut down if all subsidies were removed?

 

[northwichcat]

Do you realise that a large proportion of the rail network would shut down if all subsidies were removed?

Additionally if the subsided routes are withdrawn usage on the profitable routes will fall. If a lot of the Northern services in Yorkshire are withdrawn usage would fall on TPE and VTEC services as a direct result.

 

[daodao]

Do you realise that a large proportion of the rail network would shut down if all subsidies were removed?

Yes - but sadly subsidies are becoming unaffordable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In winter, there are very obvious reasons why the 58 service over the Cat and Fiddle, can be cancelled, with its many sharp bends that have to be negotiated with sheer drops in certain sections when ice has formed on the road surface.

It's officially spring, but the number 58 isn't running today!

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes - but sadly subsidies are becoming unaffordable.

How do you define "unaffordable"? The affordability of public spending in a particular area, and of the overall level of public spending, is surely a matter of political choice? Some people regard the current level of spending on defence, or on the NHS, or on social security, as "unaffordable". Others regard spending in one or more of these areas as inadequate. Spending decisions are seldom made on narrow financial grounds.

 

[daodao]

How do you define "unaffordable"? The affordability of public spending in a particular area, and of the overall level of public spending, is surely a matter of political choice? Some people regard the current level of spending on defence, or on the NHS, or on social security, as "unaffordable". Others regard spending in one or more of these areas as inadequate. Spending decisions are seldom made on narrow financial grounds.

It is ultimately a political decision (which is not an appropriate discussion for this forum), but sadly, given the UK's poor financial position, beggars can't be choosers. Local authorities are cutting subsidies for bus services as they can no longer afford them, and central government should be doing the same with public transport that is centrally funded if it seriously wishes to reduce the deficit. Many local authorities have already stopped bus subsidies, e.g. Labour-controlled Stoke-On-Trent, so this is not a party political matter.

 

[northwichcat]

Many local authorities have already stopped bus subsidies, e.g. Labour-controlled Stoke-On-Trent, so this is not a party political matter.

The Conservative govenment are intent on axing/reducing taxes that only the richest pay and then arguing public services must be cut to reduce the deficit. The only choice all local councils (whatever party they are) really have is what services to cut.

Despite my local council (Cheshire East) axing some bus services, others have been protected. Cheshire East have just awarded a 7 year contract for the 200 Wilmslow-Manchester Airport service which is jointly funded with TfGM, Manchester Airport and the National Trust. Maybe that's the solution - companies who benefit from the bus service existing help fund it?

 

[radamfi]

It's officially spring

According to the Met Office maybe, but the vernal equinox is on (or around) 21 March each year.

It is ultimately a political decision (which is not an appropriate discussion for this forum), but sadly, given the UK's poor financial position, beggars can't be choosers. Local authorities are cutting subsidies for bus services as they can no longer afford them, and central government should be doing the same with public transport that is centrally funded if it seriously wishes to reduce the deficit. Many local authorities have already stopped bus subsidies, e.g. Labour-controlled Stoke-On-Trent, so this is not a party political matter.

When I saw your post the other day I didn't bother replying, as I assumed someone else would reply very quickly to something so outrageous. So I was surprised to have to wait until Deerfold's reply. Maybe we're so used to bus service cuts that we no longer think of bus services as essential.

Bus services are very cheap in the grand scheme of things, especially the way Britain runs them. If we can't even afford the very basic service offered in the UK, then Britain is not a decent place to live.

With a few exceptions, I usually avoid commercial services on principle, so that means most of my UK bus trips are in London. I would rather spend my money on bus service abroad.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's officially spring, but the number 58 isn't running today!

What is said to be "official Spring" and the actualities of the results of the heavy snowfall today are two completely different matters. Being resident in the very rural area of Cheshire East, I have seen with my own eyes the depth of snow that has fallen today here with both the two local farmers deciding to use their tractors, so you can well imagine how matters are like on the higher altitudes that the Cat and Fiddle so traverses, with its many sharp bends.

 

[Greybeard33]

According to the Met Office maybe, but the vernal equinox is on (or around) 21 March each year.

The "meteorological" spring consists of the months of March, April and May, whereas the "astronomical" spring is the period between the vernal equinox and summer solstice, i.e. 20 March to 19 June this year. At the other extreme the Celtic spring is 1 February (Imbolc) to 1 May (Beltane), i.e. roughly centred on the vernal equinox; the Chinese spring is similar. IMO this last definition, based on the length of day / height of the sun, is the most scientifically logical, making the solstices midsummer and midwinter and the equinoxes mid-spring and mid-autumn.

Referencing events to seasons rather than specific dates gives transport bodies plenty of "wriggle room"!

 

[carlberry]

With a few exceptions, I usually avoid commercial services on principle, so that means most of my UK bus trips are in London. I would rather spend my money on bus service abroad.

I don’t understand the difference!

All bus services in London are 'commercial' (i.e. a company is paid to provide the service and makes a profit doing it). The only difference is that TfL decide what services are provided and nobody else can change anything. This costs lots of taxpayer money!

Outside London most services are provided commercially with the operators deciding what to run. A few services require councils to pay a subsidy for somebody to run them however the operator still runs them commercially (i.e. they aim to make a profit at the end of the day).

The only exception is a few council that run their own vehicles (not the old council bus companies which are all run commercially nowadays) and a few not for profit companies.

Most services ‘abroad’ are purely commercial. It’s only if you limit it to Western Europe that you might be able to find a large number of services that are centrally planned and, even there, the actual operators still expect to provide the service on a commercial basis.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

According to the Met Office maybe, but the vernal equinox is on (or around) 21 March each year.



When I saw your post the other day I didn't bother replying, as I assumed someone else would reply very quickly to something so outrageous. So I was surprised to have to wait until Deerfold's reply. Maybe we're so used to bus service cuts that we no longer think of bus services as essential.

Bus services are very cheap in the grand scheme of things, especially the way Britain runs them. If we can't even afford the very basic service offered in the UK, then Britain is not a decent place to live.

With a few exceptions, I usually avoid commercial services on principle, so that means most of my UK bus trips are in London. I would rather spend my money on bus service abroad.

Lots of head shaking here... First of all, I do wonder Radamfi why you choose to avoid commercial bus services? You either need to use them or not? Perverse! Having bus services is not the defining measure of whether a country is a decent place to live. Having an effective health service, good education, looking after the weakest in society, the right to free speech are all more important.

However, I do agree with Radamfi and Deerfold on the breathtaking lack of insight and empathy of Daodao and I disagree that political machinations are out of scope of this board. I believe that I am pragmatic enough to know that public transport (and any other area of expenditure) doesn't just get a blank cheque.

We need to live within our means and can't carry on with a structural deficit. However, do not think for a second that all of the public expenditure cuts are a necessity. A large chunk of this is driven by a political dogma from the right of the Conservative Party about small government and reduction of the role of the state. I disagree most fervently against your assertion that this isn't a party political matter because councils of whatever persuasion are making such cuts - the fact is that they have to do so because the government are making cuts of 25% to the central grant that they are given AND should they try to raise more in local taxation, then they would lose more than that in central funding.

Now, the government could've made fewer cuts to that CLG area but given that they built their "sell" to the country on protecting areas such as the health service or education then if you do that, the burden of cuts falls disproportionately on other areas like CLG, FCO, HO etc

 

[northwichcat]

The only exception is a few council that run their own vehicles (not the old council bus companies which are all run commercially nowadays) and a few not for profit companies.

Cheshire East council used to own some vehicles and when they put services out to tender they gave bidders the options of using the council buses and providing drivers or providing their own buses and drivers. However, with the council suffering a shortage of money all their buses have now been sold mainly to GHA Coaches but I think 3 buses went to a North East operator and 1 to a Lancashire operator.

In Cheshire we also had the unusual incident where a short commercial service was registered and resulted in a subsided service being withdrawn. This then resulted in the council paying more for the service as the majority of passengers who would have paid fares decided to walk instead meaning the majority of the passengers on the commercial service showed ENCTS passes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And therein lies the problem with the ENCTS pass, which is similar to the problem with BSOG. It is open-ended subsidy (or tax discount, in the latter case) payable to anyone who wants to run a service people will use.

I have a lot of trouble with this concept. Surely a local Council should be able to determine how they will subsidise public transport and to what sum? I shouldn't be able to set up a bus company and cream off all that ENCTS money by setting an arbitrarily high single fare, as works in some areas.

 

[carlberry]

And therein lies the problem with the ENCTS pass, which is similar to the problem with BSOG. It is open-ended subsidy (or tax discount, in the latter case) payable to anyone who wants to run a service people will use.

I have a lot of trouble with this concept. Surely a local Council should be able to determine how they will subsidise public transport and to what sum? I shouldn't be able to set up a bus company and cream off all that ENCTS money by setting an arbitrarily high single fare, as works in some areas.

The pass is NOT a subsidy!!
The government decided to offer free travel to some people. It's the same as if the government decided to offer free food to the same people, and required all supermarkets to provide this. Most bus companies suddenly found 30% of their user base now didnt have to pay, lots more free users suddenly appeared and the compensation for this varied by country and county. Lots of services across the country have been axed because the end result is buses with loads of passengers but not enough income to cover the fuel!
Loccal councils have the ability to remove services from the scheme if they want to, however the 'grey vote' is very powerful.

 

[radamfi]

I don’t understand the difference!

All bus services in London are 'commercial' (i.e. a company is paid to provide the service and makes a profit doing it). The only difference is that TfL decide what services are provided and nobody else can change anything. This costs lots of taxpayer money!

Outside London most services are provided commercially with the operators deciding what to run. A few services require councils to pay a subsidy for somebody to run them however the operator still runs them commercially (i.e. they aim to make a profit at the end of the day).

The only exception is a few council that run their own vehicles (not the old council bus companies which are all run commercially nowadays) and a few not for profit companies.

Most services ‘abroad’ are purely commercial. It’s only if you limit it to Western Europe that you might be able to find a large number of services that are centrally planned and, even there, the actual operators still expect to provide the service on a commercial basis.

I'm using the usual definition of "commercial" when referring to British bus services, meaning that we have a distinction between "commercial" and "tendered" outside London but not inside London.

You say it costs "taxpayers a lot of money". Maybe compared to outside London, but compared to most world cities, the operating costs of public transport in London is largely met by fares, with the Underground self sufficient.

Public transport may still be profitable in the developing world where car ownership is still low, and so there is still a huge captive market, but in most developed countries, public transport requires subsidy.

 

[DT611]

Yes - but sadly subsidies are becoming unaffordable.

Well, the alternative will be even more unaffordable.