319 Kirkby - Skelmersdale

[158756]

That doesn't align with trains, which is the whole point of it. The intervals that you can reduce to are either 45 or 60 minutes on the 4tph service, or you can, as I note above, consider "flighting" of services in the primary direction (morning away from Skelmersdale, evening towards it) to maintain the half hourly service in that direction during the main peak at the expense of a gap later to run the buses back into place for an all day half hourly service.

So I ask again - is it a rail link or not? The thing that's preventing setting optimal times at the station (which is much easier at a terminus) is running to the Civic Centre - if it's a rail link, that is the problem, if it's not a rail link and is more about being a Skem-Kirkby bus, then get rid of the branding and be honest.

The effect of the reduced peak frequency is just that the connection times move around between 5-12 minutes, which isn't much difference from the 7/8 minute standard off peak times. As long as the rail service is frequent enough the bus will always connect with something.

Is it really being dishonest to advertise the train connections if the bus doesn't turn round in the station car park? Terminating the service four minutes short of the town centre would look a bit silly - and probably result in more off peak buses carrying no passengers at all, which is never going to look good when the council have decisions to make on funding. If you can't get the bus out of the car park the station is useless as a terminus anyway.

The whole thing would probably work better with another vehicle, but there's no money for that. And if the stop at the station isn't usable move the stops on the road closer (probably also too expensive).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it really being dishonest to advertise the train connections if the bus doesn't turn round in the station car park? Terminating the service four minutes short of the town centre would look a bit silly - and probably result in more off peak buses carrying no passengers at all, which is never going to look good when the council have decisions to make on funding. If you can't get the bus out of the car park the station is useless as a terminus anyway.

Again, is it a rail link or isn't it? If it is, the priority is serving the railway and growing that market, not running to the Civic Centre.

It seems to me to increasingly look like funding obtained on false pretences for a subsidised Skelmersdale to Kirkby regular bus service that happens to pass the station. In which case I hope it's killed off soon because it's a waste of taxpayer money. I think I'd choose to connect via Ormskirk or use the direct bus that way if I lived in Skem over this - at least there's a nice town centre to walk round while waiting for the bad connection, or maybe make a wander round the market of a Saturday part of the trip.

This is supposed to be a replacement for the railway station Skelmersdale isn't getting. It has to be bang on to be even close to that - perfect connections, quality vehicles, through fares etc.

 

[Deerfold]

I think you're looking at the times at the bus station for the one minute connections. There is a two minute connection advertised on Saturday mornings, but other than that everything seems to be at least 5 minutes. Though whether that's enough, especially for people who need to buy a ticket at the station, is another matter - but then if you make the connections too long the journey ends up being too slow.

I was looking at those times - that's not an easy timetable to skim read!

 

[johncrossley]

I'd suggest listening to the latest podcast by former TfL director of Land Transport Leon Davis where he discusses integration with Roger Davies. Leon explains in detail why integration doesn't really work and what people think it means compared with what it actually means.

OK, I was curious to hear what was said, because it seemed unlikely that someone of such standing would have said something like that. I must admit I was very surprised by what I heard. I wouldn't say he explained 'in detail', because it was only about one minute at the end of a 38 minute podcast. The first point was that integration can only work in one direction so you have to choose which direction it works. A lot of the time you can easily choose which direction it works in, such as in the case of the Skelmersdale rail link. In the case of Swiss bus-train connections, for example, it is generally the case that the bus drops off a few minutes before the train arrives and picks up a few minutes after it leaves. To make this work, there is sometimes an extended layover at the non-rail end of the route. But you don't even need to worry about any of this if either the bus or train is frequent. In that case, you just have to make sure you have adequately decent integrated ticketing. But their discussion on ticketing was very brief and was just waffle about how sophisticated technology is these days. They didn't address the fundamental issue of the financial penalty for interchanging.

If such learned gentlemen come out with such drivel, no wonder the UK can't do integration!

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you don't even need to worry about any of this if either the bus or train is frequent.

It could actually be far easier to solve this not by throwing one more bus in and trying to make it match up, but by throwing two more buses in, then with each at 4 per hour it barely matters.

If you just did Concourse to Maghull North, you could probably do it with three buses. It's a much quicker route - 13 minutes by car so maybe 16-17 by bus if you get most of the ticketing off-bus.

 

[markymark2000]

Or don't run to the Civic Centre at peak time with every bus - run say half of them there and turn the others nearer to the station. It's either a rail link, in which case the whole concept is driven around quality connections, or it isn't, in which case it can do what it likes but it shouldn't be using the branding it is. If Lancashire County Council want to tender a regular, non-integrated bus from Skelmersdale to Kirkby it should just do that.

The only place near Kirkby Station to turn the bus around would be the A506 roundabout and by that point, you are seconds away from the civic centre. There isn't anywhere close to the station to turn buses of this size.

I think you're looking at the times at the bus station for the one minute connections. There is a two minute connection advertised on Saturday mornings, but other than that everything seems to be at least 5 minutes. Though whether that's enough, especially for people who need to buy a ticket at the station, is another matter - but then if you make the connections too long the journey ends up being too slow.

It's a 3 minute walk from the bus stop to the train station so based off everyone having a ticket already and based off the bus being spot on time, you'd need 5 minutes at least connection and even that is pushing it at times.

If you just did Concourse to Maghull North, you could probably do it with three buses. It's a much quicker route - 13 minutes by car so maybe 16-17 by bus if you get most of the ticketing off-bus.

Are you being paid to keep pushing this Maghull North link? I have to ask as you are pushing it so much. Crikey.

The link to Maghull would not be worth it. It would be better to put people onto the 310,375/385 which provide 4 buses per hour to Ormskirk. Maghull North would have the same issues as Kirkby in that the transition isn't seamless. Starmill had the best suggestion which is to move the service to Headbolt Lane when that opens as that station should be built for buses (least according to the planning application, it's being built with buses in mind) so should be easier for the bus/train connection.



The sad thing about the 319 is Merseyrail and how they are stuck in the old days. There is great potential to get this as a proper rail link bus with through ticketing but Merseyrail wouldn't have it. The route wouldn't be included in the multi modal schemes either as Skelmersdale is in Lancashire. I think this bodge job is the greatest example there is of 'them and us' with buses and trains. You can't even blame privatisation of railways or buses for this as it's a tendered route and all decisions are made by the public authority and the trains are ran by the local authorities. No excuses now, this is just pure laziness on both sides, Liverpool City Region and Lancashire Council.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you being paid to keep pushing this Maghull North link? I have to ask as you are pushing it so much. Crikey.

I'm pushing it because the purpose of this bus service is to link Skem with Liverpool by connecting with the railway, and it is not doing that in the most expedient way, which is to run to the closest Merseyrail station and one which would have a route which does not experience traffic congestion and thus able to run a consistent clockface timetable all day fitting with the railway's timetable. Or allegedly it is - I'm starting to wonder if it's a bit more of an "Eccles Metrolink" approach to unlocking funding* to pay for a normal subsidised Skem-Kirkby bus service, with the railway being incidental.

It is likely to fail because it's trying to do two things, neither very well.

* It's widely thought that the Eccles line was really a Salford Quays line but running to deprived Eccles unlocked Objective One funding.

The link to Maghull would not be worth it.

Then we should be honest and not brand it as a rail link.

It would be better to put people onto the 310,375/385 which provide 4 buses per hour to Ormskirk.

That already exists. People aren't using it in droves to go to Liverpool because driving to Maghull North is more expedient (or just driving the whole way).

One could actually argue, as an aside, that this (Maghull North) would be an ideal case for many-to-one DRT to/from any part of Skelmersdale meeting any train.

Maghull North would have the same issues as Kirkby in that the transition isn't seamless. Starmill had the best suggestion which is to move the service to Headbolt Lane when that opens as that station should be built for buses (least according to the planning application, it's being built with buses in mind) so should be easier for the bus/train connection.

That is the intention I believe, but it is still going to hit traffic congestion as it's further from the motorway than Maghull North and a busy road. I've just looked and unfortunately the A506 isn't wide enough for bus lanes which would be the other fix, and due to the lay of the land widening it would likely be very expensive.

The sad thing about the 319 is Merseyrail and how they are stuck in the old days. There is great potential to get this as a proper rail link bus with through ticketing but Merseyrail wouldn't have it.

Do you have evidence that Merseyrail were formally approached and asked to engage in a through ticketing scheme but refused?

The route wouldn't be included in the multi modal schemes either as Skelmersdale is in Lancashire.

It'd help if it wasn't. West Lancashire is really, de-facto, part of the Liverpool City Region; its association to Preston and Chorley is absolutely minimal, though there's a bit of a connection with Wigan which is sort of in an overlap - politically in Greater Manchester but also with close association to Merseyside and West Lancashire. It tells you everything that the predominant accent anywhere from Skelmersdale west and from Burscough south is Scouse of some form.

I think this bodge job is the greatest example there is of 'them and us' with buses and trains. You can't even blame privatisation of railways or buses for this as it's a tendered route and all decisions are made by the public authority and the trains are ran by the local authorities. No excuses now, this is just pure laziness on both sides, Liverpool City Region and Lancashire Council.

The fundamental problem is of the Merseyside PTE never having covered areas which are de-facto dormitory towns for Liverpool. If it did, this would have been done years ago, and you'd just have bought a Saveaway or Trio to travel on it, thus paying the same as someone from Kirkby or Maghull and not being penalised financially for daring not to live near a railway station. These places are in the same position as Southport, yet that's in the PTE area and the south west Lancashire towns aren't.

 

[BradK2017]

It could actually be far easier to solve this not by throwing one more bus in and trying to make it match up, but by throwing two more buses in, then with each at 4 per hour it barely matters.

If you just did Concourse to Maghull North, you could probably do it with three buses. It's a much quicker route - 13 minutes by car so maybe 16-17 by bus if you get most of the ticketing off-bus.

If you was looking at adding more buses to it, rather than then spending more on adding an interchange at Maghull North, could Old Roan be an alternative option? It's fairly close to where the M58 ends & already has an bus interchange there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you was looking at adding more buses to it, rather than then spending more on adding an interchange at Maghull North, could Old Roan be an alternative option? It's fairly close to where the M58 ends & already has an bus interchange there.

Traffic congestion at Switch Island is legendary, so no. Interestingly there did used to be a bus route from Liverpool to Skem via Old Roan and Waddicar, which about 10 years ago (I think) was curtailed to the latter - I was surprised to see that, to be honest, I'd always considered that the main Skem route.

The thing about Maghull North is that the bus can do 62mph for the majority of the journey and there will be no congestion whatsoever, allowing for an all day clockface timetable matching the railway. I am astonished it doesn't have a bus stop, but adding one would be pretty cheap, and it does look like there's enough land around it to replace any lost parking spaces.

 

[Statto]

Old Roan isn't a bad suggestion, straight down the M58, & times could be comparable with going to Kirkby, only issues are the traffic lights, at Switch Island & either end of Copy lane, depending the route 319 takes,, the bus interchange is big enough for longer buses with Arriva often allocating deckers on the 55 which uses the interchange at Old Roan.

Powers that be, have decided Kirkby is the best place for the 319 to serve though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Old Roan isn't a bad suggestion, straight down the M58, & times could be comparable with going to Kirkby, only issues are the traffic lights, at Switch Island & either end of Copy lane, depending the route 319 takes,, the bus interchange is big enough for longer buses with Arriva often allocating deckers on the 55 which uses the interchange at Old Roan

I think "the only issues are the traffic lights at Switch Island" is rather understating just how bad that is and has been for years (it's been rejigged time after time and nothing really works). It's simply not viable unless some form of bus-only flyover was installed, which would be spectacularly expensive compared to constructing a bus interchange at Maghull North and installing a modular double deck on the car park to make up for the lost spaces.

Powers that be, have decided Kirkby is the best place for the 319 to serve though.

Headbolt Lane (Kirkby is temporary). Which appears to me to be an attempt to justify having built it. (I'm not opposed to building it, but it isn't the best place for this service to go).

 

[TheSel]

The only place near Kirkby Station to turn the bus around would be the A506 roundabout and by that point, you are seconds away from the civic centre. There isn't anywhere close to the station to turn buses of this size.

... except the station itself, of course, which is where Rail Replacements successfully manage it.


Photo shows 'pride' liveried Enviro 400 Arriva Merseyside 4412 and Volvo / Wright hybrid 'decker 4806 at Kirkby Station, on Rail Replacement duties. (my pic).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks. So full size buses DO fit.

There seems to be little excuse for them to stop along the road then!

 

[BradK2017]

Traffic congestion at Switch Island is legendary, so no. Interestingly there did used to be a bus route from Liverpool to Skem via Old Roan and Waddicar, which about 10 years ago (I think) was curtailed to the latter - I was surprised to see that, to be honest, I'd always considered that the main Skem route.

The thing about Maghull North is that the bus can do 62mph for the majority of the journey and there will be no congestion whatsoever, allowing for an all day clockface timetable matching the railway. I am astonished it doesn't have a bus stop, but adding one would be pretty cheap, and it does look like there's enough land around it to replace any lost parking spaces.

Good point over Switch Island, but if you added enough padding &/or layover into the timetable it could still be an option.

I would think the reason why Maghull North doesn't have a interchange is because of the alternatives served by the routes that pass it making it simply not needed (at the time anyway) - Local routes 32/33 serve the interchange at Maghull,133 serves Waterloo & Kirkby & 310 goes through to Liverpool anyway. (Speaking of 32/33 - if they decide to expand the 'Train Link' brand i'd say the Maghull local network would be ideal)

 

[markymark2000]

I'm pushing it because the purpose of this bus service is to link Skem with Liverpool by connecting with the railway, and it is not doing that in the most expedient way, which is to run to the closest Merseyrail station and one which would have a route which does not experience traffic congestion and thus able to run a consistent clockface timetable all day fitting with the railway's timetable. Or allegedly it is - I'm starting to wonder if it's a bit more of an "Eccles Metrolink" approach to unlocking funding* to pay for a normal subsidised Skem-Kirkby bus service, with the railway being incidental.

The point of the Skem-Kirkby rail link, as I explained earlier, is to kickstart some demand for the Skem rail link. This massively helps building the business case for the line. It makes no sense to put the service to Maghull North and then when the rail link opens, it opens as an extension to the Kirkby line and so everyone who has built their life around this rail link to the Ormskirk line, the bus would be gone and people would have to change jobs. Linking to Kirkby means people can start to get jobs in Kirkby or Fazakerley Hospital for example and then when the actual rail link is built, it merely makes these journeys easier and builds upon an existing bit of demand rather than starting from a fresh.

Do you have evidence that Merseyrail were formally approached and asked to engage in a through ticketing scheme but refused?

No but Merseyrails past and current actions show that they would not engage in anything. Merseyrail do not like working with any outside agencies at all.

... except the station itself, of course, which is where Rail Replacements successfully manage it.

Deckers are not as long as the E300s on the 319. They also turn RIGHT or go STRAIGHT AHEAD out of Kirkby Station. There's a big difference.


Also worth noting that when RRBs are on, taxis hang around less so they cause less issues and Merseyrail has the power to start moving people on. With the 319, they wouldn't move vehicles on because they don't benefit from the 319 going through. If they can't get RRBs through though, that has a direct effect on them.


If it's that easy to get all these buses into Kirkby Rail Station, please, go and drive the buses. I am sure Stagecoach and Lancashire council would love for you to do that as it would provide the easy integration that both of them want. Clearly you both say that they can fit around so put your money where your mouth is. The buses may fit into the station road but they will struggle because of taxis being dumped and stupid drivers who clearly don't understand the highway code rule 243 and decide that 'bus stop' means 'pick up and drop off, maximum stay 15 minutes'. Then the turning, it's a recipe for disaster. You'd have to rebuild Kirkby station car park for it to work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The point of the Skem-Kirkby rail link, as I explained earlier, is to kickstart some demand for the Skem rail link. This massively helps building the business case for the line. It makes no sense to put the service to Maghull North and then when the rail link opens, it opens as an extension to the Kirkby line and so everyone who has built their life around this rail link to the Ormskirk line, the bus would be gone and people would have to change jobs. Linking to Kirkby means people can start to get jobs in Kirkby or Fazakerley Hospital for example and then when the actual rail link is built, it merely makes these journeys easier and builds upon an existing bit of demand rather than starting from a fresh.

I think you are behind times here.

The rail link has been completely and permanently cancelled due to poor benefit-cost ratio - there's a thread discussing that elsewhere. The reason for this is that it's just as easy to drive to Maghull North or (if you must) Headbolt Lane as it is to drive to the Concourse due to the M58 - it's 11 minutes from Ashurst to Maghull North for instance. Car was always going to be the main means of accessing the station, and other than the Co-op Bank site inbound commuting from Liverpool likely to be minimal.

The bus solution is now, if it sticks, the permanent solution. Thus it has to be flawless or it'll just end up being nothing. (The bus is clearly not commercially viable - Arriva used to do a Liverpool-Old Roan-Waddicar-Skem service on the 345 twice an hour, and that was binned - the missing top bit of that is basically this route).

No but Merseyrails past and current actions show that they would not engage in anything. Merseyrail do not like working with any outside agencies at all.

I am not sure it is right that you make that allegation without evidence.

It is on occasion clear that they don't consider themselves part of the national rail network, but that's a bit different from whether they'd co-operate with others - they work very closely with Merseytravel who are their franchising agency, so if Merseytravel ask them to jump, they ask how high.

Deckers are not as long as the E300s on the 319.

Perhaps it should have used deckers (or E200s) then.

 

[Starmill]

But you don't even need to worry about any of this if either the bus or train is frequent. In that case, you just have to make sure you have adequately decent integrated ticketing.

Precisely so. The Elizabeth line and the London Underground Central line aren't designed to connect with one another, but could anyone say they're not "integrated"? Certainly post the May 2022 change date their frequencies is such that people don't really need to worry about the timetable, even in the unlikely event someone's travelling from Slough to Roding Valley.

 

[markymark2000]

I think you are behind times here.

The rail link has been completely and permanently cancelled due to poor benefit-cost ratio - there's a thread discussing that elsewhere. The reason for this is that it's just as easy to drive to Maghull North or (if you must) Headbolt Lane as it is to drive to the Concourse due to the M58 - it's 11 minutes from Ashurst to Maghull North for instance.

The bus solution is now, if it sticks, the permanent solution. Thus it has to be flawless or it'll just end up being nothing. (The bus is clearly not commercially viable - Arriva used to do a Liverpool-Old Roan-Waddicar-Skem service twice an hour, and that was binned - the top bit of that is basically this route).

The link could be more viable if it was proven that there is more proven demand, especially for Skem-Kirkby.

As for buses, Arriva made a lot of cuts as their whole network went through revamps. Fast buses from Skem would likely be viable. I think it's fair to say that Arrivas judgement for Skem hasn't always been the best. They cut the 313 Ashurst route when it was taking 90k pax per year using only 1 bus. They don't really like Skem. The lack of other bus operators in the area hasn't helped either. Skem is kind of a bus paradise if another company went in but everyone is too far away. Deprived area with no train station, relies solely upon public transport to get anywhere. There is something in Skem, it's just not exploited as no one is close enough to make it work viably.

Probably worth noting too, the bus route you mention was in place a LONG TIME ago. 2005 is the timetable that I can find for it and that was running hourly so maybe half hourly beyond that. Since then, the 345 (Liverpool - Old Roan - Waddicar) route had had extensions to Skelmersdale in the morning/evening. This wound down following the closure of Skelmersdale depot and ended up as 1 trip extending each way. This was cut in 2015. While none of us have any figures, I would put this down to dead mileage costing too much. Bootle - Skem is a bit of mileage and time. Also during the same time, Arriva and Merseytravel were making their networks simpler with less one off extensions and diversions, instead focussing on core routes. Combine that with Lancashire Council going through a long period of not properly supporting buses and more leaving everyone to get on with it. Lack of political will combined with simplifying routes. It's easy to see how Liverpool-Skem got wound down. There is demand in Skem though, it's just the demand points are too far from Skem so it would take a few buses to make costs work and there is no one close enough for costs to be kept low, all local operators would need too much dead mileage or have operational difficulties running more services. I always said the Liverpool - Kirkby Stagecoach X3 should have gone to Skem to offer a journey time of around 70 minutes. Somewhat fast bus to Liverpool. Not as fast as rail link but faster than the 310 service.

I am not sure it is right that you make that allegation without evidence.

The evidence is clear. You don't live around here. Merseyrail have always refused to work with the bus network. They are stuck in the 1920s and refuse to innovate in any way which could attract rail users. Proper through tickets would mean some tickets would have to be sold on the buses and that is one thing that Merseyrail, and Merseytravel in fact have always tried to push against. They don't want buses selling 'their' tickets. Same as how Merseytravel Saveaways can only be bought at paypoints, Merseyrail Stations or Merseytravel Centres. They refuse to let them be sold on the bus. Proper Merseyrail train tickets can't be sold on the main national rail ticket database thingy, nor can they be bought at ticket machines ran by other train operators (such as the Merseyrail day saver). You can get tickets which are valid on Merseyrail but the cheap Merseyrail day saver which is what most people buy, can only be bought at Merseyrail stations. Combine this with the fact they both refuse to work with the local buses for ticket acceptance, they always go for 'limited bus replacement' and encourage people not to travel rather than putting in basic ticket acceptance. Even when the line is duplicated over by tens of buses per hour, they demand rail replacement buses rather than ticket acceptance to move people quickly. This is mostly another topic but I had to write it to prove the point. Merseyrail and Merseytravel do not want buses selling any tickets and they do everything they can to avoid working with the local bus network.

Perhaps it should have used deckers (or E200s) then.

Lancashire Council did the specification for the route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With regard to the sale of PTE tickets on board, I'm sorry but this is conspiratorial nonsense of the highest order. Merseytravel, like TfL, have always used an off bus sales model (rail stations, travelshops and newsagents) because it speeds operation. This has been the model since the 1970s.

Delving into that too much on here is OT though I'm sure if you do want to a new thread could be created. But it simply isn't true that the PTE and Merseyrail oppose through ticketing on principle. It'll have more to do with this being a Lancashire service.

 

[markymark2000]

With regard to the sale of PTE tickets on board, I'm sorry but this is conspiratorial nonsense of the highest order. Merseytravel, like TfL, have always used an off bus sales model (rail stations, travelshops and newsagents) because it speeds operation. This has been the model since the 1970s.

It's really not conspiracy. Maybe if you lived in the area and dealt with the officers, you'd see that they don't like buses. Buses and trains must be kept separate and as much as possible, never the two shall meet. They won't move into the current century and start providing integration, certainly not while buses are deregulated. It's about playing politics and fuelling the debate for public ran buses as Merseytravel wants full control of the bus networks.

Delving into that too much on here is OT though I'm sure if you do want to a new thread could be created. But it simply isn't true that the PTE and Merseyrail oppose through ticketing on principle.

They are completely opposed to it. They've always done what they can to avoid through ticketing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's really not conspiracy. Maybe if you lived in the area and dealt with the officers, you'd see that they don't like buses. Buses and trains must be kept separate and as much as possible, never the two shall meet. They won't move into the current century and start providing integration, certainly not while buses are deregulated. It's about playing politics and fuelling the debate for public ran buses as Merseytravel wants full control of the bus networks.

They are completely opposed to it. They've always done what they can to avoid through ticketing.

Without concrete evidence this is libellous in my view and totally incorrect. It's also false that they don't want integration - it is one of the better PTEs for this.

Does any PTE integrate properly with services tendered by an outside authority?

 

[duncombec]

There are such strong opinions on here, with such insistence they are right, it's a wonder why the protagonists don't set up their transport consultancy(ies) and tender for the work themselves!

It took a few clicks on google to find the Lancashire press release on the launch of the service, including a very telling quote as the last line:

New express bus improves links between Skelmersdale and Liverpool | Lancashire County Council News

A new bus service launched this week makes it quicker and easier to travel between Skelmersdale and Liverpool using public transport.

news.lancashire.gov.uk

Integrated ticketing is being developed for future introduction with Merseytravel.

The Wikipedia page for Headbolt Lane makes it quite clear that it was a Department for Transport suggestion that a bus link be explored when turning down the case for returning rail to Skelmersdale.

The DfT instead suggested that better bus links with the Kirkby–Wigan rail line would be a cheaper way of improving connectivity for Skelmersdale.

It seems...obvious?... even to this person who has never been to Skelmersdale or Kirkby in his life, that the bus link has been introduced now, with Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funding, to bed in the service. Routing via Kirkby rail station will be short term, hence the awkward interchange opportunities.

Of course, Lancashire County Council could have just waited for Headbolt Lane to open, potentially lose the opportunity to fund it through BSIP, and then be told by the forum wisdom that they should have started the bus service earlier to allow it to bed in before opening the station, because demand doesn't just exist from day 1...

 

[Starmill]

It's really not conspiracy. Maybe if you lived in the area and dealt with the officers, you'd see that they don't like buses. Buses and trains must be kept separate and as much as possible, never the two shall meet. They won't move into the current century and start providing integration, certainly not while buses are deregulated. It's about playing politics and fuelling the debate for public ran buses as Merseytravel wants full control of the bus networks.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. There are plenty of bus services which directly serve railway stations across Merseyside, and Mersytravel put some funding into Liverpool South Parkway which is primarily a rail-bus interchange station. There is also a range, albeit not a very broad one, of integrated bus, rail and ferry products. All of this has been the case for years.

 

[markymark2000]

Without concrete evidence this is libellous in my view and totally incorrect. It's also false that they don't want integration - it is one of the better PTEs for this.

If you lived in the area and dealt with the officers, you'd see this. I'd argue they aren't one of the best for integration given how hard it is to get tickets for multi modal tickets, unless your first journey is on the train and you don't mind waiting in the queue with everyone else buying tickets. Anyone not living within the area has a very hard time getting multi modal tickets. It's one of the better ones for promoting buses at train stations and trying to get interchanges at train stations, even if some of those interchanges are poor. If you lived in the area and dealt with the officers though, you'd see they can't stand integration. West Midlands has had SWIFT for the past 7-8 years, multi modal ticketing with easy to buy tickets. Merseyside is still awaiting any kind of tap on, tap off scheme and insists on you speaking to a person at the train station or travel centre to get most tickets. There's endless things that I can sit here saying about them. They are a godawful PTE. Like TFL, they look good to the outside but start to have dealings with them and you see a very different side to them.

including a very telling quote as the last line:

I'll believe it when I see it. Bearing in mind Merseytravel and Merseyrail are stuck in the stone ages with ticketing, I don't give much hope to it. Really, I think that they should work with Northern and have it as a proper rail link bus with the through tickets (similar to Transport for Wales with the T1 and T5 Aberystwyth bus links or GWR with their Minehead bus link) I can't see Merseyrail doing that for them. This would enable people to properly buy through tickets on all rail operators. Granted they would only get to Skem by using Merseyrail or Northern to Kirkby but at least it's a proper rail link bus then. Doesn't matter about the speed of Merseytravel, tickets can then be booked on the whole rail network for everyone to make use of the through tickets.

Of course, Lancashire County Council could have just waited for Headbolt Lane to open, potentially lose the opportunity to fund it through BSIP, and then be told by the forum wisdom that they should have started the bus service earlier to allow it to bed in before opening the station, because demand doesn't just exist from day 1...

That's one where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. The only thing that I think they should have done though is state that the aim is to move to Headbolt Lane when it opens so then the issue regarding poor connections is addressed early on. Basically 'This isn't the best we can do but we are doing it this way to get the link set up, when Headbolt Lane opens, it will be diverted there instead to provide better connections'. No one could argue it then as it's been addressed early on.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. There are plenty of bus services which directly serve railway stations across Merseyside, and Mersytravel put some funding into Liverpool South Parkway which is primarily a rail-bus interchange station. There is also a range, albeit not a very broad one, of integrated bus, rail and ferry products. All of this has been the case for years.

They can be good at making some connections easy (SOME!) but ticketing they aren't the best and within the past few years, they have become a TFGM. Every single thing, they blame on deregulation as they want the publicly funded bus network. The evidence is in my emails and I am of course not going to start sharing all of them.

As for the 2 examples you give, just because interchanges and tickets exist, doesn't mean they are good examples of integration. Very little of the interchanges are of a decent quality and a number of the interchange opportunities are coincidence, not because Merseytravel has intentionally gone out to have a decent interchange. The tickets.... see above.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you lived in the area and dealt with the officers, you'd see this. I'd argue they aren't one of the best for integration given how hard it is to get tickets for multi modal tickets, unless your first journey is on the train and you don't mind waiting in the queue with everyone else buying tickets. Anyone not living within the area has a very hard time getting multi modal tickets. It's one of the better ones for promoting buses at train stations and trying to get interchanges at train stations, even if some of those interchanges are poor. If you lived in the area and dealt with the officers though, you'd see they can't stand integration. West Midlands has had SWIFT for the past 7-8 years, multi modal ticketing with easy to buy tickets. Merseyside is still awaiting any kind of tap on, tap off scheme and insists on you speaking to a person at the train station or travel centre to get most tickets. There's endless things that I can sit here saying about them. They are a godawful PTE. Like TFL, they look good to the outside but start to have dealings with them and you see a very different side to them.

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with an attitude to integration. I would agree their attitude to ticket purchase is dated.

Saveaways can be purchased at PayPoint shops, there are loads of them. They are not hard to get.

I grew up in the area and visit often, and know very well how things work. Merseyrail do do a lot of things wrong with regard to ticketing, and I'd say they often don't take their role as part of the National Rail Network seriously, but that says nothing on the issue of integration with bus services in their local area, which is what we're talking about here.

 

[jamesst]

The link could be more viable if it was proven that there is more proven demand, especially for Skem-Kirkby.

As for buses, Arriva made a lot of cuts as their whole network went through revamps. Fast buses from Skem would likely be viable. I think it's fair to say that Arrivas judgement for Skem hasn't always been the best. They cut the 313 Ashurst route when it was taking 90k pax per year using only 1 bus. They don't really like Skem. The lack of other bus operators in the area hasn't helped either. Skem is kind of a bus paradise if another company went in but everyone is too far away. Deprived area with no train station, relies solely upon public transport to get anywhere. There is something in Skem, it's just not exploited as no one is close enough to make it work viably.

Probably worth noting too, the bus route you mention was in place a LONG TIME ago. 2005 is the timetable that I can find for it and that was running hourly so maybe half hourly beyond that. Since then, the 345 (Liverpool - Old Roan - Waddicar) route had had extensions to Skelmersdale in the morning/evening. This wound down following the closure of Skelmersdale depot and ended up as 1 trip extending each way. This was cut in 2015. While none of us have any figures, I would put this down to dead mileage costing too much. Bootle - Skem is a bit of mileage and time. Also during the same time, Arriva and Merseytravel were making their networks simpler with less one off extensions and diversions, instead focussing on core routes. Combine that with Lancashire Council going through a long period of not properly supporting buses and more leaving everyone to get on with it. Lack of political will combined with simplifying routes. It's easy to see how Liverpool-Skem got wound down. There is demand in Skem though, it's just the demand points are too far from Skem so it would take a few buses to make costs work and there is no one close enough for costs to be kept low, all local operators would need too much dead mileage or have operational difficulties running more services. I always said the Liverpool - Kirkby Stagecoach X3 should have gone to Skem to offer a journey time of around 70 minutes. Somewhat fast bus to Liverpool. Not as fast as rail link but faster than the 310 service.


The evidence is clear. You don't live around here. Merseyrail have always refused to work with the bus network. They are stuck in the 1920s and refuse to innovate in any way which could attract rail users. Proper through tickets would mean some tickets would have to be sold on the buses and that is one thing that Merseyrail, and Merseytravel in fact have always tried to push against. They don't want buses selling 'their' tickets. Same as how Merseytravel Saveaways can only be bought at paypoints, Merseyrail Stations or Merseytravel Centres. They refuse to let them be sold on the bus. Proper Merseyrail train tickets can't be sold on the main national rail ticket database thingy, nor can they be bought at ticket machines ran by other train operators (such as the Merseyrail day saver). You can get tickets which are valid on Merseyrail but the cheap Merseyrail day saver which is what most people buy, can only be bought at Merseyrail stations. Combine this with the fact they both refuse to work with the local buses for ticket acceptance, they always go for 'limited bus replacement' and encourage people not to travel rather than putting in basic ticket acceptance. Even when the line is duplicated over by tens of buses per hour, they demand rail replacement buses rather than ticket acceptance to move people quickly. This is mostly another topic but I had to write it to prove the point. Merseyrail and Merseytravel do not want buses selling any tickets and they do everything they can to avoid working with the local bus network.


Lancashire Council did the specification for the route.

In times of disruption Merseyrail have agreements with Arriva to a) provide replacement buses b) accept rail tickets on normal bus routes that mirror the network if no buses are available or c) both a and b if only a limited number of buses are available.

This has occurred on numerous occasions, indeed I used to be involved in organising it myself.

Sounds a bit like you have a personal vendetta with some of the 'facts' you seem to be coming up with.

 

[markymark2000]

In times of disruption Merseyrail have agreements with Arriva to a) provide replacement buses b) accept rail tickets on normal bus routes that mirror the network if no buses are available or c) both a and b if only a limited number of buses are available.

In a good number of times recently, it has been advertised as 'limited road transport available' and no bus ticket acceptance. In fact, this exact thing happened when there was a fatality Nov 2022. 'Limited road transport in place, passengers are advised to make alternative travel arrangements' https://twitter.com/merseyrail/status/1593999546086039554

Due to a person being hit by a train a very limited bus service will run between: Sandhills and Kirkby Sandhills and Aintree Southport and Hunts Cross services are meeting with delay and cancellation. Please make alternative travel arrangements if possible.

.

Metro Mayor Steve refused to condemn the fact bus ticket acceptance wasn't in place and instead said in basic terms, people should all stop and put their life on hold because of the incident and to show concern for the person being hit by the train rather than focus on trying to get home and out of the city and as such away from the incident which isn't the nicest for passengers to be around.

Sounds a bit like you have a personal vendetta with some of the 'facts' you seem to be coming up with.

If you really want, I can go back on Merseyrail's twitter and show you the times where bus ticket acceptance has been in place. It's very minimal. That is the fact. Yes it may have happened and in past year, it did happen more but over the past year or so, they have stopped the local bus ticket acceptance as this is then seen as working with private companies which goes against their main reasons for franchising.

 

[Statto]

Apparently the issue at 319 not stopping inside Kirkby Station is, buses turning left from the station internal road into Glovers Brow, Solo's & E200s have no issues making the turn, but anything longer will get stuck because of the middle traffic island.

 

[dvfmlfc]

The 319 Skem - Kirkby is, currently, a complete waste of time and resources. Any passengers the service does carry are the mildly curious or lost. Things may change when Headbolt Lane opens, who knows???

This particular type of service between Skem and Kirkby has been tried before. In October 1978, services 395/396 were introduced between Skem (and its' environs) and Kirkby Admin. Gate, but calling at Kirkby station to connect with the then new EMU service to / from Liverpool Central. It ran an irregular service between the M-F peaks, but operated half-hourly on a Saturday. The journey time between Skem Concourse and Liverpool Central was exactly an hour.

I suspect the services were a Merseyside PTE initiative. Some dedicated Ribble services between Skem and Liverpool were withdrawn to facilitate 395/396 but, overall, the routes never really worked. As now, there was no through-ticketing and I feel the entire experiment was a test bed for interchange facilities at Kirkby station (an integrated bus-rail interchange was introduced at Kirkby in June 1980, run on much the same lines as an earlier scheme at Waterloo in 1977). The 395/396 were withdrawn in December 1980.