Proposed Transdev X41/X43 Changes within Manchester

[Cambus731]

People in Burnley (X43) and Accrington (X41) have railway stations with services to Preston railway station, where West Coast main line trains call at.

They do, but its still a useful connection. I’ve used it a few times. Although the usefulness has eroded a bit since the X43 was truncated at Burnley/Nelson rather than going through to Colne

 

[Statto]

People in Burnley (X43) and Accrington (X41) have railway stations with services to Preston railway station, where West Coast main line trains call at.

There are more trains to a wider range of places from Piccadilly, than there is from Preston though, particularly if the train company involves XC.

 

[Leedsbusman]

I wonder if Transdev are under estimating how many people use the X43 to get within walking distance of Manchester Piccadilly in order to catch a train from there. Chorlton Street is handy for Piccadilly

Presumably the consultation didn’t draw that conclusion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if Transdev are under estimating how many people use the X43 to get within walking distance of Manchester Piccadilly in order to catch a train from there. Chorlton Street is handy for Piccadilly

I'd have thought very few. The vast majority will be going to Manchester. People wanting to catch trains will tend to take one from their local station.

Some might be connecting to coaches but I'd have thought this small.

 

[Statto]

There are more trains to a wider range of places from Piccadilly, than there is from Preston though, particularly if the train company involves XC.

That gives me an idea for a Top Gear style race, which is faster from Burnley Bus Station to Euston Station, Train from Burnley & changing at Preston or X43 & changing in Manchester.

 

[Leedsbusman]

There are more trains to a wider range of places from Piccadilly, than there is from Preston though, particularly if the train company involves XC.

Though it’s notable that Northern only runs trains to Victoria from Blackburn and Burnley so maybe there isn’t the demand for Piccadilly or an acceptance of the need to change.

 

[RustySpoons]

I'd have thought very few. The vast majority will be going to Manchester. People wanting to catch trains will tend to take one from their local station.

Some might be connecting to coaches but I'd have thought this small.

Think you're bang on the money there. Especially with the reopening of the Todmorden Curve the amount of people who will catch the X43 and then go on to connect with a train will be minimal.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I'd have thought very few. The vast majority will be going to Manchester. People wanting to catch trains will tend to take one from their local station.

Some might be connecting to coaches but I'd have thought this small.

Think you're bang on the money there. Especially with the reopening of the Todmorden Curve the amount of people who will catch the X43 and then go on to connect with a train will be minimal.

The numbers to Piccadilly rail station or Chorlton Street coach station may indeed be small but the numbers remaining on the service after the Cathedral stop were (from personal observations) substantial. Many remaining on until Chorlton Street. Even if they weren't connecting they clearly wanted that southern end of the city centre. There were, morning shoulder peak, measurable numbers of workers boarding on Princess Street (the first stop after Chorlton Street) and alighting at various stops along Bury New Road to Broughton and Prestwich. Now no longer possible, so a longer walk to Piccadilly Gardens, an admittedly more frequent 59 part of the way, then a longer walk at the Broughton end.

The X43, although not having a toilet, is a more pleasant travelling experience than a Northern 150! With a 20 minute frequency and (until September) a stop much closer to Piccadilly rail station than Victoria it was also much more convenient. A train via Preston may be useful for some, but not all. The fares via Preston also tend to be rather expensive if returning the same day compared to a split using Manchester STNS fares. Were there more than one train per hour on the new curve through Castlefield then rail may have had the edge but at one per hour it is pretty useless. As it happens, from the Burnley direction, the connection at Victoria onwards to Piccadilly is quite good but in the opposite it is 50 minutes sniffing diesel fumes in the dark hole that is Manchester Victoria station.

 

[Andyh82]

Have you noticed people only ever suggest people who are disadvantaged by the change, and never point out that some may actually benefit?

Those going shopping at the Arndale being one

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Have you noticed people only ever suggest people who are disadvantaged by the change, and never point out that some may actually benefit?

Those going shopping at the Arndale being one

There were stops for the Arndale (formerly the largest lavatory wall in Europe) on the existing routes. For those doing a days shopping / leisure etc it probably doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things seeing how far you would tramp round the shops / between bars etc.

As to only mentioning those who are disadvantaged, of course they get mentioned. They are the customers you may lose by making the change. Was there a groundswell of opinion demanding a bus from Shudehill (or even the northern quarter) to Ramsbottom or Crawshawbooth who would mitigate that loss of revenue?

 

[Deerfold]

People in Burnley (X43) and Accrington (X41) have railway stations with services to Preston railway station, where West Coast main line trains call at.

Which is great for those going towards London and Scotland from the terminuses of those routes.

 

[Andyh82]

There were stops for the Arndale (formerly the largest lavatory wall in Europe) on the existing routes. For those doing a days shopping / leisure etc it probably doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things seeing how far you would tramp round the shops / between bars etc.

As to only mentioning those who are disadvantaged, of course they get mentioned. They are the customers you may lose by making the change. Was there a groundswell of opinion demanding a bus from Shudehill (or even the northern quarter) to Ramsbottom or Crawshawbooth who would mitigate that loss of revenue?

Drive into Manchester all the way from Burnley/Rawtenstall and pay a fortune to park, versus walking five minutes from Shudehill?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'd imagine that they've done an assessment of the likely loss of revenue vs. the benefits of not crawling across town. In fact, with a more robust timetable and better reliability, it might actually increase patronage.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I'd imagine that they've done an assessment of the likely loss of revenue vs. the benefits of not crawling across town. In fact, with a more robust timetable and better reliability, it might actually increase patronage.

The 'unexpected' requirement to provide peak hour journeys to Chorlton Street is costing them an extra bus compared to the previous timetable. Analysis of the details suggests that this was not planned. A bus runs private to Manchester to form the 1625 departure from Chorlton Street whilst an 1827 arrival into Shudehill runs back to Burnley private. Remove the Chorlton Street extensions and those private workings magically disappear. I suggest they have been caught out by the consultation responses and have had to make last minute amendments. The question is will the Chorlton Street extensions survive?

burnley	1425	burnley	1440			burnley	1455	burnley	1510	burnley	1525	burnley	1540	burnley	1600	burnley	1620	burnley	1640	burnley	1700	burnley	1725
shudehill	1546	shudehill	1601			shudehill	1616	shudehill	1637	shudehill	1652	shudehill	1707	shudehill	1727	shudehill	1747	shudehill	1807	shudehill	1827	shudehill	1849
				chorlton st	1625	chorlton st	1645	chorlton st	1700	chorlton st	1715	chorlton st	1730	chorlton st	1745	chorlton st	1805	chorlton st	1825
shudehill	1600	shudehill	1620	shudehill	1640	shudehill	1700	shudehill	1715	shudehill	1730	shudehill	1745	shudehill	1800	shudehill	1820	shudehill	1840			shudehill	1900
burnley	1732	burnley	1751	burnley	1811	burnley	1829	burnley	1828	burnley	1855	burnley	1858	burnley	1919	burnley	1935	burnley	1955			burnley	2013

 

[Leedsbusman]

The 'unexpected' requirement to provide peak hour journeys to Chorlton Street is costing them an extra bus compared to the previous timetable. Analysis of the details suggests that this was not planned. A bus runs private to Manchester to form the 1625 departure from Chorlton Street whilst an 1827 arrival into Shudehill runs back to Burnley private. Remove the Chorlton Street extensions and those private workings magically disappear. I suggest they have been caught out by the consultation responses and have had to make last minute amendments. The question is will the Chorlton Street extensions survive?

burnley	1425	burnley	1440			burnley	1455	burnley	1510	burnley	1525	burnley	1540	burnley	1600	burnley	1620	burnley	1640	burnley	1700	burnley	1725
shudehill	1546	shudehill	1601			shudehill	1616	shudehill	1637	shudehill	1652	shudehill	1707	shudehill	1727	shudehill	1747	shudehill	1807	shudehill	1827	shudehill	1849
				chorlton st	1625	chorlton st	1645	chorlton st	1700	chorlton st	1715	chorlton st	1730	chorlton st	1745	chorlton st	1805	chorlton st	1825
shudehill	1600	shudehill	1620	shudehill	1640	shudehill	1700	shudehill	1715	shudehill	1730	shudehill	1745	shudehill	1800	shudehill	1820	shudehill	1840			shudehill	1900
burnley	1732	burnley	1751	burnley	1811	burnley	1829	burnley	1828	burnley	1855	burnley	1858	burnley	1919	burnley	1935	burnley	1955			burnley	2013

It will ‘cost a bus’ if you add 20 minutes travel time to a route with a 20 minute frequency unless you widen the interval.

As mentioned earlier the cost won’t be 12/11th higher given the time at Burnley will be unpaid, mileage shorter and the fleet isn’t any bigger as a result of the PVR change.

You some unduly cyncial about a process where they have explained the problem; consulted; modified the proposal and implemented. You may not like the outcome but you won’t achieve anything by grumbling at the process, which does seem a reasonable one to me.

 

[Mollman]

It will ‘cost a bus’ if you add 20 minutes travel time to a route with a 20 minute frequency unless you widen the interval.

As mentioned earlier the cost won’t be 12/11th higher given the time at Burnley will be unpaid, mileage shorter and the fleet isn’t any bigger as a result of the PVR change.

You some unduly cyncial about a process where they have explained the problem; consulted; modified the proposal and implemented. You may not like the outcome but you won’t achieve anything by grumbling at the process, which does seem a reasonable one to me.

Perhaps the solution is for those who don't like it to petition TfGM and Manchester City Council to provide a 'bus way' style link across the centre of Manchester so Transdev can restore the link to south of the centre without the issue of the long journey time. After all one of the benefits of franchising was meant to be more cross-city routes so the 'bus way' would allow for that too.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

After all one of the benefits of franchising was meant to be more cross-city routes so the 'bus way' would allow for that too.

Is it not the case that both the X41 and X43 bus services are not covered by the existing Bee Network franchising policy?

 

[Leedsbusman]

Is it not the case that both the X41 and X43 bus services are not covered by the existing Bee Network franchising policy?

Yes they are- both run under a service permit.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The 'unexpected' requirement to provide peak hour journeys to Chorlton Street is costing them an extra bus compared to the previous timetable. Analysis of the details suggests that this was not planned. A bus runs private to Manchester to form the 1625 departure from Chorlton Street whilst an 1827 arrival into Shudehill runs back to Burnley private. Remove the Chorlton Street extensions and those private workings magically disappear. I suggest they have been caught out by the consultation responses and have had to make last minute amendments. The question is will the Chorlton Street extensions survive?

burnley	1425	burnley	1440			burnley	1455	burnley	1510	burnley	1525	burnley	1540	burnley	1600	burnley	1620	burnley	1640	burnley	1700	burnley	1725
shudehill	1546	shudehill	1601			shudehill	1616	shudehill	1637	shudehill	1652	shudehill	1707	shudehill	1727	shudehill	1747	shudehill	1807	shudehill	1827	shudehill	1849
				chorlton st	1625	chorlton st	1645	chorlton st	1700	chorlton st	1715	chorlton st	1730	chorlton st	1745	chorlton st	1805	chorlton st	1825
shudehill	1600	shudehill	1620	shudehill	1640	shudehill	1700	shudehill	1715	shudehill	1730	shudehill	1745	shudehill	1800	shudehill	1820	shudehill	1840			shudehill	1900
burnley	1732	burnley	1751	burnley	1811	burnley	1829	burnley	1828	burnley	1855	burnley	1858	burnley	1919	burnley	1935	burnley	1955			burnley	2013

Their vehicles are snarled up in peak time traffic - that's a fact. They went to truncate it to try to make the timetable more reliable. They've now listened and put in additional resource and projected some services in peak back to Chorlton Street.

So a company tries to sort out a problem not of its making (i.e. traffic congestion) to help the majority of passengers. Put a proposal in, listened to their customers, made changes to the proposal and put in extra resource - what's your point?

 

[Leedsbusman]

Perhaps the solution is for those who don't like it to petition TfGM and Manchester City Council to provide a 'bus way' style link across the centre of Manchester so Transdev can restore the link to south of the centre without the issue of the long journey time. After all one of the benefits of franchising was meant to be more cross-city routes so the 'bus way' would allow for that too.

I don’t think cross city routes are an aim of franchising as the City Council’s strategy looks to be reducing road space further with Piccadilly Gardens, Oldham Street and Chorlton Street all at risk.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Their vehicles are snarled up in peak time traffic - that's a fact. They went to truncate it to try to make the timetable more reliable. They've now listened and put in additional resource and projected some services in peak back to Chorlton Street.

So a company tries to sort out a problem not of its making (i.e. traffic congestion) to help the majority of passengers. Put a proposal in, listened to their customers, made changes to the proposal and put in extra resource - what's your point?

They truncated the route 'due to the amount of time taken to cross the city centre' but didn't then shorten the journey times as a result of no longer having to cross the city centre! The extra time in the new timetable, therefore the extra bus, is precisely that. More resource for a lesser service. If they are prepared to incur that additional cost, the previous route could have been kept, that additional resource inserted, everybody happy apart from those who benefit from the service terminating at Shudehill, whomever they may be.

Perhaps the time has been used to address congestion elsewhere on the route, there are some tweakings to the X41 intermediate timings. Perhaps the buses arrive early into Shudehill and in the opposite direction wait for time at intermediate points. I haven't used the new version often enough to form an opinion, certainly the X41 last week waited for time at Upper Broughton.

It will ‘cost a bus’ if you add 20 minutes travel time to a route with a 20 minute frequency unless you widen the interval.

As mentioned earlier the cost won’t be 12/11th higher given the time at Burnley will be unpaid, mileage shorter and the fleet isn’t any bigger as a result of the PVR change.

You some unduly cyncial about a process where they have explained the problem; consulted; modified the proposal and implemented. You may not like the outcome but you won’t achieve anything by grumbling at the process, which does seem a reasonable one to me.

The cost depends on how Burnley and Pendle account for it. What's the going rate for a premium specification double-decker utilised only at peak hours? What's the cost of running buses empty between Burnley and Manchester? Are they accounting per bus required, per mile driven, per drivers hour?

Mileage is much the same. Previously 98 trips per day, currently 95 trips per day plus three empties, also a fourth journey truncated from Manchester - Burnley to a Rawtenstall - Burnley.

As it happens they appear to be short-changing their customers on a daily basis anyway, so are not incurring the cost of the additional vehicle. On a weekday daily basis one or both of the 1620 ex Shudehill / 1625 ex Chorlton Street departures does not operate. Often the 1440 ex Burnley, which forms the 1620 ex Shudehill does not operate either.

 

[Leedsbusman]

They truncated the route 'due to the amount of time taken to cross the city centre' but didn't then shorten the journey times as a result of no longer having to cross the city centre! The extra time in the new timetable, therefore the extra bus, is precisely that. More resource for a lesser service. If they are prepared to incur that additional cost, the previous route could have been kept, that additional resource inserted, everybody happy apart from those who benefit from the service terminating at Shudehill, whomever they may be.

Perhaps the time has been used to address congestion elsewhere on the route, there are some tweakings to the X41 intermediate timings. Perhaps the buses arrive early into Shudehill and in the opposite direction wait for time at intermediate points. I haven't used the new version often enough to form an opinion, certainly the X41 last week waited for time at Upper Broughton.



The cost depends on how Burnley and Pendle account for it. What's the going rate for a premium specification double-decker utilised only at peak hours? What's the cost of running buses empty between Burnley and Manchester? Are they accounting per bus required, per mile driven, per drivers hour?

Mileage is much the same. Previously 98 trips per day, currently 95 trips per day plus three empties, also a fourth journey truncated from Manchester - Burnley to a Rawtenstall - Burnley.

As it happens they appear to be short-changing their customers on a daily basis anyway, so are not incurring the cost of the additional vehicle. On a weekday daily basis one or both of the 1620 ex Shudehill / 1625 ex Chorlton Street departures does not operate. Often the 1440 ex Burnley, which forms the 1620 ex Shudehill does not operate either.

Again missing the point a little. The scheduled times to Shudeill matches that of Chorlton Street, but the actual time to Chorlton Street was often more due to the City congestions. To create a realistic, compliant timetable will have added more resource in than this timetable, especially with the planned closure of Deansgate.

In terms of cost - to explain again:
Drivers cost, largely the same. There are no more trips and the extra layover at Burnley isn't paid because the bus will be parked up unattended each trip.
Fuel - largely the same. Number of trips similar, but the route length is 1.5m shorter on a round trip basis to Shudehill v Chorlton Street
The 'extra' bus isn't extra in cost terms as the fleet stays the same, its just better utilised.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Again missing the point a little. The scheduled times to Shudeill matches that of Chorlton Street, but the actual time to Chorlton Street was often more due to the City congestions. To create a realistic, compliant timetable will have added more resource in than this timetable, especially with the planned closure of Deansgate.

In terms of cost - to explain again:
Drivers cost, largely the same. There are no more trips and the extra layover at Burnley isn't paid because the bus will be parked up unattended each trip.
Fuel - largely the same. Number of trips similar, but the route length is 1.5m shorter on a round trip basis to Shudehill v Chorlton Street
The 'extra' bus isn't extra in cost terms as the fleet stays the same, its just better utilised.

Indeed - you can have the revised timetable and the changes they've made, or you can retain the old one and file it in the Fiction section.

Of course, they could have painted them yellow with the automatic traffic avoiding properties that brings

 

[bowen]

Hi

Transdev Burnley are proposing changes to the Witchway X43 & Red Express X41 services in Manchester.

Buses would no longer serve Chorlton St, John Dalton St, or Victoria Bridge.
Buses would instead serve Victoria Station itself, Printworks, and then terminate at Shudehill Interchange.

Tweet link here
Consultation link here

Image attached from consultationView attachment 157707

Now that months have passed since Transfev cut the Witchway X41 & X43 service stops at Chorton Street, Dalton Street (pretty much cutting off direct access to St Peters Square) for this part of community, has the traffic really really been improved? I absolutely do not feel so. Anybody else share the same view? Instead many of us like myself as caretakers of elderly now have to walk extra 20min from Shudehill to get to our destinations.

 

[RustySpoons]

Hi

Now that months have passed since Transfev cut the Witchway X41 & X43 service stops at Chorton Street, Dalton Street (pretty much cutting off direct access to St Peters Square) for this part of community, has the traffic really really been improved? I absolutely do not feel so. Anybody else share the same view? Instead many of us like myself as caretakers of elderly now have to walk extra 20min from Shudehill to get to our destinations.

The changes weren't implemented to improve traffic, it was to improve timekeeping and reliability of the service.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The changes weren't implemented to improve traffic, it was to improve timekeeping and reliability of the service.

Exactly.

Whether the service has improved is a moot point.

Initially there was a period when the X43 was missing journeys on a daily basis, see previous posts.

The X41 I attempted to catch last week was not delayed, it simply didn't operate at all - leaving a 90 minute gap until the next bus and all the school pupils calling mum&dadtax to get home. One advantage of kids taking smartphones to school. The bus in question did manage to operate the return trip however, presumably running private to Manchester. Earlier that day the outward journey, a different bus board / diagram, didn't operate either. At some point during the day the missing bus slipped a board.

There seem to have been constant roadworks since September so I'm not sure any analysis can be fully relied upon if the bus has been on diversion many days.

My new personal record is 11 minutes (on foot) between Piccadilly Rail Station platform and Shudehill Stand G.

 

[Class 466]

Hi

Now that months have passed since Transfev cut the Witchway X41 & X43 service stops at Chorton Street, Dalton Street (pretty much cutting off direct access to St Peters Square) for this part of community, has the traffic really really been improved? I absolutely do not feel so. Anybody else share the same view? Instead many of us like myself as caretakers of elderly now have to walk extra 20min from Shudehill to get to our destinations.

Good thing there is a tram or Free Bus that'll take you nearer to save such a long walk.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Good thing there is a tram or Free Bus that'll take you nearer to save such a long walk.

I am surprised that the Free Bus services appear not to be as well known as I assumed they would be. They have been operating for quite a number of years.

 

[Along the bay]

I am surprised that the Free Bus services appear not to be as well known as I assumed they would be. They have been operating for quite a number of years.

Without dedicated branding and buses, they've probably fallen into the crowd a bit.

 

[AB93]

Without dedicated branding and buses, they've probably fallen into the crowd a bit.

And have become slow and unreliable over the years as traffic has worsened.

A quick look at bustimes.org for Thursday on the 1 shows gaps in service of 30 minutes and round trips taking over double the scheduled time - e.g. the 17.25 journey taking ~1hour 20 minutes to get round instead of the scheduled half hour.

The same congestion that has caused this change by Transdev makes the Free Buses not a viable way of getting around the city centre a lot of the time.