Liverpool City Region-Bus Franchising

[gka472l]

Update

RE: Liverpool City Region Bus Franchising
The draft list of services for Sefton, Knowsley and Liverpool has been published by the CA:

https://liverpoolcityregion-ca.moderngov...20List.pdf

The associated doc outlines the following list of improvements:
For Knowsley the following network changes are being made:
• Regular link between Kirkby and Halewood seven-days a week via Huyton
Industrial Estate
• Direct service between Halewood and Whiston Hospital
• Improved provision to Broadgreen Hospital
• Improved provision to Knowsley Village and Knowsley Industrial Park
• Evening & Sunday journeys introduced on some services

For Liverpool the following network changes are being taken forward:
• Improved link from Speke, Mossley Hill, Smithdown Road, and Vauxhall to
Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool Women’s University Hospital, and
Knowledge Quarter
• A more consistent and customer friendly timetable linking Netherley to
Broadgreen Hospital, Alder Hey Hospital, and Liverpool Women’s University
Hospital
• Introduction of a half hourly service along Great Howard Street
• Evening & Sunday journeys introduced on some services

For Sefton the following network changes are being taken forward:
• Circular service introduced in Southport improving links to Southport &
Formby District General Hospital
• Introduction of a service linking to Ocean Plaza in Southport
• Improved links from Litherland and Pendle to Aintree University Hospital
• Evening & Sunday journeys introduced on some services
• Evening journeys on service 300 to operate in full to/from Southport

https://liverpoolcityregion-ca.moderngov...Update.pdf

Announcement as to who has won tranche 1 Birkenhead & St Helens has been delayed

One mistake in that list, 81/81A is Bootle to Speke, and doesn't touch the city centre. Also the frequencies haven't been listed, unlike the lists for St Helens/Wirral, although we are well in advance of these happening of course.....so much could change. Regarding the announcement about the winning bidders for St Helens & Wirral, it's thought that this Friday (23/1) will be the date it's known......but we'll see! Also, a few of the routes are listed in more than one area (for instance, the 47 between Crossens and Liverpool), which you would expect would be worked from Southport as of now, so in the Sefton franchise, so maybe some routes will be moving areas. One interesting one to look out for this year when the St Helens franchise starts is the 10A, which in addition to St Helens depot, has some Stagecoach workings from Gillmoss.....do we know for certain that these will cease from day 1??? I would have thought so....

 

[JasonL]

One mistake in that list, 81/81A is Bootle to Speke, and doesn't touch the city centre. Also the frequencies haven't been listed, unlike the lists for St Helens/Wirral, although we are well in advance of these happening of course.....so much could change. Regarding the announcement about the winning bidders for St Helens & Wirral, it's thought that this Friday (23/1) will be the date it's known......but we'll see! Also, a few of the routes are listed in more than one area (for instance, the 47 between Crossens and Liverpool), which you would expect would be worked from Southport as of now, so in the Sefton franchise, so maybe some routes will be moving areas. One interesting one to look out for this year when the St Helens franchise starts is the 10A, which in addition to St Helens depot, has some Stagecoach workings from Gillmoss.....do we know for certain that these will cease from day 1??? I would have thought so....

Even though the 10A is going to be franchised I think the 10A operated by Stagecoach's Gillmoss depot will still operate as normal since it's one of the most busiest routes in Merseyside or maybe the busiest.

 

[Statto]

As I understand it, the X2 is expected to be a 'Permitted Route' (i.e. operated under permit) - not part of the franchise.

Yep, the 2/X2 is operated by Preston depot which is outside franchise area, those routes are staying at Preston depot, be the same regulations to routes to/from the GM area, that operate from depots outside the GM area.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

Even though the 10A is going to be franchised I think the 10A operated by Stagecoach's Gillmoss depot will still operate as normal since it's one of the most busiest routes in Merseyside or maybe the busiest.

If anything the 10A should be run by Green Lane rather than Gillmoss when franchising kicks in (the PVR for Stagecoach 10A is around 10), as Green Lane depot is a couple of hundred yards from the 10A route, were as Gillmoss is some distance away that driver changes take place at Page Moss.

 

[Fokx]

Silly ideas are expanding the 201 (which is already a waste of time, money and effort. Seems to be following a Merseytravel logic similar to that of the Christmas Day network 'If we keep providing it for long enough, eventually someone will get on'. Similarly continuing the links down Great Howard Street are a joke. The current 2 service hardly carries anyone, the Isle of Man terminal bus before that was a waste of time. The 136 hardly picks anyone up that couldn't use another bus service.

You're wrongly assuming that the low frequency services will operate at the same frequency and timetable as they operate now - They won't.

For all we know routes like the 136 and 201 could move to hourly.

 

[markymark2000]

You're wrongly assuming that the low frequency services will operate at the same frequency and timetable as they operate now - They won't.

For all we know routes like the 136 and 201 could move to hourly.

I'm not making any assumptions. I am saying quite clearly that the 201 is already a waste of time as no one uses it. It spends the vast majority of it's time duplicating over high frequency core bus services which understandably, people prefer to choose. It exists purely because of Merseytravel politics of saying there is a bus to the Royal Hospital. Given the route has been a tender since it's inception, and the timetable has been unchanged for 25+ years (bar perhaps minor changes), does that not tell you something? Clearly there isn't demand for more as they have had DECADES to fund improvements to it.
And now they plan to extend it to Sandhills somehow. Sandhills, a place where until recently, the only thing going for it was the fact people used the train station there to change between Northern Line branches. Other than that, there is nothing there.


The 136 is a waste too because it serves nowhere. The whole of Great Homer Street is either abandoned wasteland, boarded up buildings, or light industrial. Unless your target audience is urban explorers, I can assure you that this is a waste of money. Boarded up buildings and wasteland will not generate any demand, that is a fact. It was only in the 2017 Liverpool Bus Review that the service got cut back along Great Homer Street from what was the 103, to now be the 136, and there has been not a single call for this to be changed. And as you would see if you spent any time with the 136, or the new HTL route 2, the buses are carrying fresh air. It's 2026, have we not come up with a better way of transporting fresh air yet which doesn't involve wasting money on nonsense bus services?

 

[Fokx]

I'm not making any assumptions. I am saying quite clearly that the 201 is already a waste of time as no one uses it. It spends the vast majority of it's time duplicating over high frequency core bus services which understandably, people prefer to choose. It exists purely because of Merseytravel politics of saying there is a bus to the Royal Hospital. Given the route has been a tender since it's inception, and the timetable has been unchanged for 25+ years (bar perhaps minor changes), does that not tell you something? Clearly there isn't demand for more as they have had DECADES to fund improvements to it.

There's a reason the 201 has stood the test of time when the other South Liverpool hospital link routes such as the 38, 203 and 801 have been cut and that's because people DO actually use it. Whilst it's not Merseyside's most popular service, it gets fairly good patronage for a route that operates only 3RJ compared to alternative contract services such as the 60 in St Helens. It wouldn't have been funded for 25 years if it wasn't utilised.

Extending the route via Queen Square to Sandhills (if that isn't an error like the 81/a) and operating at a greater frequency will aid patronage.

The 136 is a waste too because it serves nowhere. The whole of Great Homer Street is either abandoned wasteland, boarded up buildings, or light industrial. Unless your target audience is urban explorers, I can assure you that this is a waste of money. Boarded up buildings and wasteland will not generate any demand, that is a fact.

Great Howard Street and nearby Vauxhall are currently being transformed under the Liverpool waters project. Over the new few years you will slowly see development of apartments and new housing popping up along the corridor, as well as further developments around the new Everton stadium. As you mention the area is largely light industrial, but you've also got the Everton stadium, Titanic hotel, Costco and people still have to get to work at the aforementioned industrial sites.

you would see if you spent any time with the 136, or the new HTL route 2, the buses are carrying fresh air.

I actually catch the 136 frequently and it does have a loyal user-base. It's a great and fast way to get from the city and business District to the north whilst avoiding Stanley Rd but only operates 4RJ, so isn't the most useful service if you don't work 9-5 Monday to Friday.

The 2 I will agree with you is a bit of a waste of funding but that's largely because it ends in the middle of nowhere but it does provide accessible transport an area that's completely underserved by buses.

 

[markymark2000]

There's a reason the 201 has stood the test of time when the other South Liverpool hospital link routes such as the 38, 203 and 801 have been cut and that's because people DO actually use it. Whilst it's not Merseyside's most popular service, it gets fairly good patronage for a route that operates only 3RJ compared to alternative contract services such as the 60 in St Helens. It wouldn't have been funded for 25 years if it wasn't utilised.

Extending the route via Queen Square to Sandhills (if that isn't an error like the 81/a) and operating at a greater frequency will aid patronage.

Of the people who use the 201 though, the majority could simply use other services. They have tended to pick up the 201 because it's the first bus that comes, not really because of a need to use the 201 specifically. And while it may help patronage if it runs to Queens Square, it doesn't mean it's needed, it would merely be moving passengers from the likes of the 80 and 86. You'd get a far higher return on investment by increasing the 80/80A frequency (not sure if that is already planned or not)

The reason why it's lasted the test of time, is Merseytravel politics. Like most things in Mtravel, a refusal to change and wanting to keep councillors or senior staff happy. In previous years it was common for tenders to run certain ways because certain councillors or Merseytravel staff living along the route. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but I know it has been previously.

Great Howard Street and nearby Vauxhall are currently being transformed under the Liverpool waters project. Over the new few years you will slowly see development of apartments and new housing popping up along the corridor, as well as further developments around the new Everton stadium. As you mention the area is largely light industrial, but you've also got the Everton stadium, Titanic hotel, Costco and people still have to get to work at the aforementioned industrial sites.

Everton Stadium is only good on event days, but then it will struggle as buses will be diverted away because of crowds and traffic. Costco is not somewhere people get the bus to visit because it's a bulk buy store and you won't be able to get home with the shopping. There may be staff there, but you are looking at very small numbers who would travel by bus to get there.

I'd also argue there is no point in setting up bus services until these developments are at least close to completion. Otherwise for how many years is money going to be wasted before these new residents have even put a deposit down on their new place, let alone moved in and actually going to travel.

I actually catch the 136 frequently and it does have a loyal user-base. It's a great and fast way to get from the city and business District to the north whilst avoiding Stanley Rd but only operates 4RJ, so isn't the most useful service if you don't work 9-5 Monday to Friday.

A loyal userbase but not enough users to be anywhere worth while. And if the service were to be scrapped, at least some of those existing users would be able to walk to
And if it was so well uses down Great Howards Street, the 103 wouldn't have been cut in 2017.

 

[Fokx]

If anything the 10A should be run by Green Lane rather than Gillmoss when franchising kicks in (the PVR for Stagecoach 10A is around 10), as Green Lane depot is a couple of hundred yards from the 10A route, were as Gillmoss is some distance away that driver changes take place at Page Moss.

It will operate from an expanded St Helens depot

Of the people who use the 201 though, the majority could simply use other services. They have tended to pick up the 201 because it's the first bus that comes, not really because of a need to use the 201 specifically. And while it may help patronage if it runs to Queens Square, it doesn't mean it's needed, it would merely be moving passengers from the likes of the 80 and 86.

You argue that for ANY bus service in existence that crosses or shares routes with another bus service, it doesn't make it any less relevant.

The majority of the public prefer a direct route to one with changes. The route has been specifically requested by residents of the areas of South Liverpool in the consultation surveys who want a direct route from Speke and Garston to The Woman's hospital and The Royal. They don't want to go into the city and back out again. Especially since North Liverpool and South Liverpool routes have basically been spliced in the city centre to serve either Liverpool one or Queen Sq.

You'd get a far higher return on investment by increasing the 80/80A frequency

The point of franchising isn't to make every route or only run the profitable ones. That's privatisation. It's to improve social mobility and transport connections between areas and amenities and give local people improved transport options.

(The 80/80A do not serve the entire section from Smithdown Rd to Liverpool Royal)

The reason why it's lasted the test of time, is Merseytravel politics. Like most things in Mtravel, a refusal to change and wanting to keep councillors or senior staff happy. In previous years it was common for tenders to run certain ways because certain councillors or Merseytravel staff living along the route. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but I know it has been previously.

Do you have an specific examples that back up that claim?

It usually to protect the needs and transport options of residents or due to lack of alternatives, not councillors themselves.

Everton Stadium is only good on event days, but then it will struggle as buses will be diverted away because of crowds and traffic. Costco is not somewhere people get the bus to visit because it's a bulk buy store and you won't be able to get home with the shopping. There may be staff there, but you are looking at very small numbers who would travel by bus to get there.

I'd also argue there is no point in setting up bus services until these developments are at least close to completion. Otherwise for how many years is money going to be wasted before these new residents have even put a deposit down on their new place, let alone moved in and actually going to travel.

(They were just examples of reasons to use such a service as you described it as a baron wasteland) Why would you move into an area that has absolutely no transport? Build it and they will come.

It's wise to remember that the withdrawal of the Vauxhall Circular 101 was widely protest by local residents who lived in the same area the 2 serves.

A loyal userbase but not enough users to be anywhere worth while.

In your opinion. Not that of the LCR.

 

[markymark2000]

In your opinion. Not that of the LCR.

LCR and logic don't always go together. There are MANY things that they waste money on needlessly because they just refuse to change some things. You'd be there all week going through them.

It's wise to remember that the withdrawal of the Vauxhall Circular 101 was widely protest by local residents who lived in the same area the 2 serves.

I don't know what version of the 101 you are remembering, but it is nothing like the 2. Passengers who used and campaigned for the 101 was because it went into the nooks and crannies of Vauxhall. Here's the 2015 timetable and there's nothing in common with the 2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2...ZjQ/view?resourcekey=0-_X9FlgNhrzfGmDTDEFiwHA. Almost all different roads and VERY different links.

The route has been specifically requested by residents of the areas of South Liverpool in the consultation surveys who want a direct route from Speke and Garston to The Woman's hospital and The Royal

Do you have details of when or where this was requested? And why if there is so much demand, has the 201 not been expanded in the past 25+ years? It's a tender, nothing at all stopped Merseytravel. In fact, to the contrary, the route has been cut from full size buses down to minibuses.

The point of franchising isn't to make every route or only run the profitable ones.

I never said it had to be profitable.
Even a franchised bus though needs passengers. Franchising is like socialism, you eventually run out of everyone elses money. Therefore routes do need to be used and justify their existence. That doesn't mean a full bus on ever trip, but a bus carting fresh air all day, is just creating congestion.
Many tenders are essential services and I've praised a number of enhancements to services above. In this case though of the 136 and 201, they are a waste and should be scrapped. And since you've mentioned it and I was reminded of the figures and facts behind the 101, that would probably a good use of the resources. In 2017 it was carrying nearly 200,000 passengers per year (data from FOI released by Merseytravel at the time of the Liverpool Bus Review) but the costs were high with it being half hourly so using 4 buses. If you did a bit of pruning over dead weight (Sandhills - Princess Parade) or cut it back to hourly, you could get a well used 2-3 bus service there. Not profitable, but well used and a good use of resources.

Do you have an specific examples that back up that claim?

It was to do with the 174 at the time.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The [Sandhills] 2 I will agree with you is a bit of a waste of funding

Who actually funds this? I'll admit that my assumption was that ultimately money would be coming from Everton FC as some sort of planning condition ('stadium must be accessible by public transport' or similar) - and as such, one of the points of running it would be to show at an early point that there was no demand so the condition should be removed.

 

[markymark2000]

Who actually funds this? I'll admit that my assumption was that ultimately money would be coming from Everton FC as some sort of planning condition ('stadium must be accessible by public transport' or similar) - and as such, one of the points of running it would be to show at an early point that there was no demand so the condition should be removed.

If it's part of the Everton planning conditions, it's a bit of a silly condition given that when there is a game on (when you would presume that there would be peak demand for this service) the service doesn't run

 

[gka472l]

If it's part of the Everton planning conditions, it's a bit of a silly condition given that when there is a game on (when you would presume that there would be peak demand for this service) the service doesn't run

It seems to be renumbered to the 5 on the proposed list of services in the Liverpool area.....which seemed strange as there's no route 2 on Merseyside, but then was pointed out that there is a 2 serving Southport (from Preston).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems to be renumbered to the 5 on the proposed list of services in the Liverpool area.....which seemed strange as there's no route 2 on Merseyside, but then was pointed out that there is a 2 serving Southport (from Preston).

There's also an X2 that runs from Liverpool to Preston via Southport. While it's not unusual for X<something> to be different from the non-X route rather than just being a limited stop version, it's probably better if that's avoided if possible as it removes potential confusion.

It was suggested a long way upthread that that service might be split at Southport, though I don't know if a decision has been made to continue it on a service permit. Perhaps it has. Or it might just be as you say to avoid any confusion with the 2. Bedford for a while had two 1s (one of them an extended MK Metro service) and that confused people, though they referred to it as MK1 (now an actual bus number that does serve Bedford, though with no connection to the original) at the bus station, I expect that probably confused people even more!

 

[Fokx]

LCR and logic don't always go together. There are MANY things that they waste money on needlessly because they just refuse to change some things. You'd be there all week going through them.

Do you have details of when or where this was requested? And why if there is so much demand, has the 201 not been expanded in the past 25+ years? It's a tender, nothing at all stopped Merseytravel. In fact, to the contrary, the route has been cut from full size buses down to minibuses.

It was requested by local residents in the pre-franchise South Liverpool Bus Consultation "Big bus survey" response document.

The route has only been cut down to mini-buses as it Interworked with the clatterbridge hospital far park shuttle which required a small turning circle as it spins around on Smithdown Lane (as well as for the former Arriva click speke zone - which required vehicles fitted with the use of tablets for pick ups), not due to demand. The current fleet of vans are due to be replaced with ex-Diamond streetlights 6026/7/8.

On a separate note the route actually becomes fairly busy when it runs on Xmas day (admittedly yes it's one of the only bus services to run) but it also helps that it goes into the City Centre and uses normal 'bus' looking buses as well.

I never said it had to be profitable.
Even a franchised bus though needs passengers. Franchising is like socialism, you eventually run out of everyone elses money. Therefore routes do need to be used and justify their existence. That doesn't mean a full bus on ever trip, but a bus carting fresh air all day, is just creating congestion.
Many tenders are essential services and I've praised a number of enhancements to services above. In this case though of the 136 and 201, they are a waste and should be scrapped.

I disagree, they shouldn't be scrapped but instead tweaked and operate at higher (actually useable) turn up and go frequency to actually attract people using them and make people aware of their existence.

You're more likely to use and attract passengers with a service that's hourly than you are 3-4 RJ a day. (Similar improvements can be found in the St Helens proposals to routes 39, 297 and the 152)

And since you've mentioned it and I was reminded of the figures and facts behind the 101, that would probably a good use of the resources. In 2017 it was carrying nearly 200,000 passengers per year (data from FOI released by Merseytravel at the time of the Liverpool Bus Review) but the costs were high with it being half hourly so using 4 buses. If you did a bit of pruning over dead weight (Sandhills - Princess Parade) or cut it back to hourly, you could get a well used 2-3 bus service there. Not profitable, but well used and a good use of resources.

I am a little bit surprised that it hasn't returned.

 

[markymark2000]

The route has only been cut down to mini-buses as it Interworked with the clatterbridge hospital far park shuttle which required a small turning circle as it spins around on Smithdown Lane (as well as for the former Arriva click speke zone - which required vehicles fitted with the use of tablets for pick ups), not due to demand. The current fleet of vans are due to be replaced with ex-Diamond streetlights 6026/7/8.

The 201 moved to minibuses 2 years before the Clatterbridge Car Park Shuttle started so don't go blaming that. Yes it interworked with the Click shuttle, but that is because the tender specs allowed that to happen. Under Halton Transport it was tender speced as 30 capacity. If 30 capacity was still needed, Arriva would be providing that and wouldn't interwork. The facts are that it's dead route and so either Merseytravel tendered it to be less capacity, or Arriva did a cheaper alternative bid which still provides more than enough capacity for passengers. Infact, you could get all of the passengers to bring a friend with them and still have space for extra passengers!

I'd love to know where all of this demand is, because the timeline isn't matching your comments and the bums on seats don't match either.

On a separate note the route actually becomes fairly busy when it runs on Xmas day (admittedly yes it's one of the only bus services to run) but it also helps that it goes into the City Centre and uses normal 'bus' looking buses as well.

Define 'fairly busy'. The data has been released via FOI (2019/2020 & 2021-2024) and that data doesn't seem to match your comments.
In Christmas 2019 pre Covid, the route carried 21 passengers. The passenger numbers by journey are even more enlightening. 7 of the 11 trips carried 0-2 passengers, 2 trips carried 3 passengers and 2 trips carried 4 passengers. Stagecoach could have used the staff shuttle minibus and still had space for more passengers!

2020-2023 the numbers were dire but you may pass that off as Covid. But in 2024, the service leaps to 49 people who used the 201 on Christmas day. Still operating 11 trips, that means an average of 4.5 people per trip. If you define that as busy, I think that says a lot about your arguments for the other services.

In fact, to go further and prove what a dead duck the 201 is, the H1, which only runs 1 day per year, only serves a single hospital, and has no relation to the core bus network, even that consistently carries more passengers than the 201 (the 201 running daily, serves areas that have some of the highest bus usage in the whole of Merseyside, and serves 2 hospitals. Yet somehow it performs worse than the H1). Even when the 201 is free and runs hourly, the demand is poor.

I disagree, they shouldn't be scrapped but instead tweaked and operate at higher (actually useable) turn up and go frequency to actually attract people using them and make people aware of their existence.

You're more likely to use and attract passengers with a service that's hourly than you are 3-4 RJ a day.

Tweaked and operate at a higher frequency..... So you want MORE MONEY to be wasted on disused buses because of potential demand from housing developments that haven't even got planning permission yet, or for links to a hospital where there are blatant facts showing there is no demand. I've read some things on this forum the past few days from users but this beats it all.
If you are so confident in these routes, pay for the full cost out of your own pocket and see how quickly you become bankrupt.
To put it simply, this is not a good use of taxpayers money and in almost any other area, would have been scrapped a long time ago. It's only kept going by Merseytravel politics. Same as the 129. Maghull Circulars in the evening, Moreton Circulars and the Christmas Day network in St Helens. Kept because of councillors and Merseytravel staff who think there is a bottomless money pit of everyone elses money.

 

[Fokx]

I'd love to know where all of this demand is, because the timeline isn't matching your comments and the bums on seats don't match either.

I don't think you understand that a bus service that runs irregularly at 1pm, 3pm and 6pm is never going to get busy without timetable improvement.

The demand at the moment is low because it's so infrequent. The average person isn't going to wait until 1pm for the first bus, but they might if it ran to a 'normal' timetable.

Define 'fairly busy'. The data has been released via FOI (2019/2020 & 2021-2024) and that data doesn't seem to match your comments.
In Christmas 2019 pre Covid, the route carried 21 passengers. The passenger numbers by journey are even more enlightening. 7 of the 11 trips carried 0-2 passengers, 2 trips carried 3 passengers and 2 trips carried 4 passengers. Stagecoach could have used the staff shuttle minibus and still had space for more passengers!

2020-2023 the numbers were dire but you may pass that off as Covid. But in 2024, the service leaps to 49 people who used the 201 on Christmas day. Still operating 11 trips, that means an average of 4.5 people per trip. If you define that as busy, I think that says a lot about your arguments for the other services.

49 passengers on a route that isn't advertised, publicised (other than a timetable appearing online), not connected to any other service and running on a day of the year where most people stay at home, is pretty good do you not think?

In fact, to go further and prove what a dead duck the 201 is, the H1, which only runs 1 day per year, only serves a single hospital, and has no relation to the core bus network, even that consistently carries more passengers than the 201.

The H1 is the former 118/119 which ran hourly (each) on Sunday, evenings and Bank Holidays, and is loosely based on the existing now hourly 418 and every 15 minute 410.

Tweaked and operate at a higher frequency..... So you want MORE MONEY to be wasted on disused buses because of potential demand from housing developments that haven't even got planning permission yet, or for links to a hospital where there are blatant facts showing there is no demand. I've read some things on this forum the past few days from users but this beats it all.

That is precisely the point of franchising.

I don't think you understand that the whole idea and purpose is to use funds from profitable services to fund services that aren't. It isn't about making money. It's about better connecting the city region with accessible and frequent passenger transport to areas that are currently 'black spots' and local amenities.

You should be able to turn up to a bus stop such as in Bold Heath, and not go "oh the first bus is the 29 but it only starts at 7pm and the time is 09:23".

 

[Statto]

Some of the know it all's on this forum should be running there own companies rather than hiding behind a keyboard & posting complete wham that they know better than the operator, i'm sure they'd make millions.

 

[markymark2000]

I don't think you understand that a bus service that runs irregularly at 1pm, 3pm and 6pm is never going to get busy without timetable improvement.

The demand at the moment is low because it's so infrequent. The average person isn't going to wait until 1pm for the first bus, but they might if it ran to a 'normal' timetable.

If there was demand for it to run more frequently, it would have changed at some point in the last 25 years! The fact it hasn't speaks volumes. A lot of whataboutery and ignoring facts going on.
Those are the facts, whether they align with your views is a up to you, but those are the facts. The route purely exists now because of Merseytravel politics, and it would be politically too difficult to withdraw.

49 passengers on a route that isn't advertised, publicised (other than a timetable appearing online), not connected to any other service and running on a day of the year where most people stay at home, is pretty good do you not think?

I hate to highlight more flaws in your arguments but to claim that it is 'not connected to any other service' is not true is it? There are connections with the 10A, 12A and 21A in Queens Square.

In 2024 the costs of the operation were £29,000. Over the 18 buses, that is £1,600 per bus. The 201 is using 1.25 buses roughly meaning the rough cost per passenger on the 201 is £41 per person! And 2024 is an anomaly of a good year (clear track record of it being a poor performer). Same calculations for 2023 cost per passenger of £75, and 2022, cost per passenger of £308. Cheaper to get people a taxi!
(For transparency, figures of the yearly cost are on the FOIs previously linked. Divide by the 18 PVR. Times 1.25 which is the rough PVR of the 201. Divide that cost by the number of passengers which is also in the FOI. Gives cost per passenger).

The H1 is the former 118/119 which ran hourly (each) on Sunday, evenings and Bank Holidays, and is loosely based on the existing now hourly 418 and every 15 minute 410.

FORMER 118/119! Exactly. The H1 has nothing in common with the current bus network. I don't know how you think you can claim that it is loosely based on the 418 when it is completely different. And you'd see quite clearly if you looked at the maps of both services. I ask are you checking these things before saying them or just making it up and hoping that it's true?

The 410 has it's own Christmas Day service so not worth a mention in this context is it really.

It isn't about making money.

I've not said that routes need to make money. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make up things that I haven't actually said. It makes it hard to engage constructively.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I hate to highlight more flaws in your arguments but to claim that it is 'not connected to any other service' is not true is it? There are connections with the 10A, 12A and 21A in Queens Square.

In 2024 the costs of the operation were £29,000. Over the 18 buses, that is £1,600 per bus. The 201 is using 1.25 buses roughly meaning the rough cost per passenger on the 201 is £41 per person! And 2024 is an anomaly of a good year (clear track record of it being a poor performer). Same calculations for 2023 cost per passenger of £75, and 2022, cost per passenger of £308. Cheaper to get people a taxi!
(For transparency, figures of the yearly cost are on the FOIs previously linked. Divide by the 18 PVR. Times 1.25 which is the rough PVR of the 201. Divide that cost by the number of passengers which is also in the FOI. Gives cost per passenger).

Are we able to get much light on the year-round operation of buses in Merseyside by looking at the Christmas Day operation?

 

[Fokx]

The route purely exists now because of Merseytravel politics, and it would be politically too difficult to withdraw.

You have no evidence of that.

It would be just as easy to withdraw the 201 as it would have been for similar hospital route 203 Halebank to Alder Hey/Broad green).

I hate to highlight more flaws in your arguments but to claim that it is 'not connected to any other service' is not true is it? There are connections with the 10A, 12A and 21A in Queens Square.

It is the only route that operates for the entire areas of Speke, Garston, Allerton and Toxteth,

I'm aware all services link up at Queen Sq but you're not going to see passengers travelling nearly 3 hours from St Helens to Speke are you? So that's doesn't explain the sudden rise of passengers when the service is more frequent

In 2024 the costs of the operation were £29,000. Over the 18 buses, that is £1,600 per bus. The 201 is using 1.25 buses roughly meaning the rough cost per passenger on the 201 is £41 per person! And 2024 is an anomaly of a good year (clear track record of it being a poor performer). Same calculations for 2023 cost per passenger of £75, and 2022, cost per passenger of £308. Cheaper to get people a taxi!
(For transparency, figures of the yearly cost are on the FOIs previously linked. Divide by the 18 PVR. Times 1.25 which is the rough PVR of the 201. Divide that cost by the number of passengers which is also in the FOI. Gives cost per passenger).

You can't use figures for Christmas Day as a basis of running a bus service on a normal day. There would be no correlation.

I mentioned the Christmas day service only to demonstrate that an extension to the city centre nand more frequent service, increases passenger numbers.

FORMER 118/119! Exactly. The H1 has nothing in common with the current bus network. I don't know how you think you can claim that it is loosely based on the 418 when it is completely different.

The 118/119 (H1) is the Sunday and evening variation of the 418/419. They're directly linked and have been since their inception. They were even shown in the same timetable booklet and section of bus stop timetables.

I've not said that routes need to make money. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't make up things that I haven't actually said. It makes it hard to engage constructively.

You're arguing that routes should be cut to save the taxpayers money because they require heavy subsidy. That to me is you saying routes need to make money.

This will be last post from me on the subject as it's distracting away from the franchising updates, of which the winning bidders for the Wirral and St Helens are due to be announced. but we will agree to disagree, my stance is franchised buses should be ran for the good of the passengers, not for profit, and that increasing frequency and extending services or diverting services to where people actually want to go will increase patronage. Service decimation (as we have seen over the last 30 years) does nothing to attract passengers, especially so on example routes 29, 136 and 201.

 

[Northerngirl]

Why don't we just cut everything but the 10, clearly unless its full all the way then theres no point in it

 

[waveyswirley]

Pleased about the half-hourly Great Howard Street service. Will make it easier to access the various cafes and bars that are popping up in the ten streets area, the two climbing centres, wholesalers and the numerous new housing developments, and that's before you even get to the stadium.

 

[markymark2000]

Are we able to get much light on the year-round operation of buses in Merseyside by looking at the Christmas Day operation?

I think the costs per passenger associated with Christmas Day are far higher than you will find more generally, though the root cause is still the same. Merseytravel run buses in line with politics and minority wants, rather than actual demand, bums on seats and logic.
You could tell this most during the previous bus reviews in 2017-2020 when some areas didn't get hit anywhere near as hard as others. Huge routes like the 101 (200,000 pax per year with a cost per passenger of £2) were cut without a second thought, but silly routes which people don't use other than if the bus happens to be infront of a commercial service, like the 201, are kept. The 800 series routes are another good example. Worklink services which don't get people home. And at times largely duplicate over existing buses, like the 881 follows directly behind Arrivas commercial 81 for a whole 43 minutes, before it diverts off and serves Jaguar Land Rover and that is then the end of the route. That's right, a whole 45 minutes route exists purely for 1 bus stops at Jaguar. Stuck in the stone ages and love wasting money on silly things. But god forbid a route is used too much, it has to be scrapped (like the 101. Other examples will be available)

You're arguing that routes should be cut to save the taxpayers money because they require heavy subsidy. That to me is you saying routes need to make money.

Appreciate you aren't wishing to discuss the fuller thing. I will clear up this point though. My aversion to money to go on silly disused routes, is not me saying routes must make money, it's wanting the funding pot to be spent wisely so so the funding has a bigger, more positive impact. 1 bus plodding around carrying 10 people per hour, is better than the same bus plodding around taking 2 people per hour (generalisation). I don't think that's a bad thing to want resources to go to the areas where they will be actually used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Appreciate you aren't wishing to discuss the fuller thing. I will clear up this point though. My aversion to money to go on silly disused routes, is not me saying routes must make money, it's wanting the funding pot to be spent wisely so so the funding has a bigger, more positive impact. 1 bus plodding around carrying 10 people per hour, is better than the same bus plodding around taking 2 people per hour (generalisation).

Too much of a generalisation. The wider societal issues also need consideration, e.g. whether you would have people who couldn't get out at all without their low volume subsidised route.

 

[markymark2000]

Too much of a generalisation.

Perhaps. It was the best generalisation that I could think of, given I appreciate the user didn't want to go into specifics.

The wider societal issues also need consideration, e.g. whether you would have people who couldn't get out at all without their low volume subsidised route.

DRT and community transport can have a place in some cases though.

 

[gka472l]

Extended routes, later services and better links: Day One improvements to publicly run bus network revealed

Extended routes, later running services and better links to hospitals and workplaces are among the immediate improvements passengers will see when publicly-run

www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

DRT and community transport can have a place in some cases though.

CT can have a role. I'm yet to be convinced that more general DRT has a role anywhere, it's just expensive subsidised taxis because you never get journey synergies sufficient to make it a shared resource. Subsidising actual taxis for those users would mostly be cheaper and better. There are cases where it might work but they largely don't occur in urban areas (and would be out of scope for this thread).

 

[markymark2000]

Extended routes, later services and better links: Day One improvements to publicly run bus network revealed

Extended routes, later running services and better links to hospitals and workplaces are among the immediate improvements passengers will see when publicly-run

www.liverpoolcityregion-ca.gov.uk

Why are we waiting 18 months for Merseytravel to use logic and move the 239 tendered service into Huyton Bus Station? This should have been done years ago but they have dithered, delayed and refused to do it. Now suddenly it's a main point in a franchising press release..... Yet another example of Merseytravel playing politics with buses.
Perhaps at the same time they will actually understand what the difference is between an outbound/inbound route, and a circular are. Because the 239 has long been wrongly categorised for a number of years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

CT can have a role. I'm yet to be convinced that more general DRT has a role anywhere, it's just expensive subsidised taxis because you never get journey synergies sufficient to make it a shared resource. Subsidising actual taxis for those users would mostly be cheaper and better. There are cases where it might work but they largely don't occur in urban areas (and would be out of scope for this thread).

It depends on the type of DRT. If you have something like the old Wiltshire Wigglybus, where you had a defined core route but that people could book a variation from the route (within reason), then that worked which is what I think you're alluding to in your final comment.

The tech-driven aggregation of volumes model doesn't work. As you say, you're likely to have one person having it as a personal taxi.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It depends on the type of DRT. If you have something like the old Wiltshire Wigglybus, where you had a defined core route but that people could book a variation from the route (within reason), then that worked which is what I think you're alluding to in your final comment.

Yes, that has potential, as does many-to-one in some cases. But if we're talking about bus routes that carry 10 people per hour, that might just help it get to 15 instead. Mark's point seems to be that buses should just do the busy corridors with many times that per hour and ignore that kind of market - if I understand rightly, he effectively advocates for a commercial-only approach to buses with no tendering at all and prioritisation of resources based on maximum profit, which really takes out any sort of route like this (whether it has a DRT element or not) and just leaves you with deckers up the A roads every 5-10 minutes with very little else.

It's a valid view but I'd personally say it belongs in 1985. And is very unlikely to be an approach followed by a Council/Combined Authority wishing to move to tendering.

The tech-driven aggregation of volumes model doesn't work. As you say, you're likely to have one person having it as a personal taxi.

Indeed. An awful lot of Councils seem to have been essentially scammed by salesmen from the small number of companies selling this model and its associated software and vehicle leases. Hopefully Merseytravel as an established authority of many years has more sense.