Steve440
Member
I knew they hadn't for West Yorkshire but there's also South Yorkshire.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
South Pennine Community Transport in real trouble?
- Thread starter Ballyheigue
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
In South Yorkshire the first phase is to operate what is currently the First bus depots in Sheffield and Doncaster. If I remember correctly then phase two is to operate what is currently the Stagecoach depots in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley then there will be a number of small contracts such as school services which small operators with their own depot and buses will be able to bid for. I imagine South Pennine would be bidding for those small contracts rather than the big franchises.
In the light of this I thought I had better set out for one last photo (as I won't be able to next week). However, despite being out more than ten minutes before the bus was due and waiting until half-an-hour after it should have gone, there was no sign. In my experience the 357 timetable is unrealistic and the bus got later and later as it completed its three return trips, which is why I kept an eye open for much longer than you would normally expect.It's not looking good, now I know what the driver meant when he said there may be other changes to come, the long standing Tuesday 357 is to be axed from the same date according to Transport for Greater Manchester
http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=71...ab=bus&date=Tomorrow&route_and_timetable=true
So I wonder whether the withdrawal has already happened? I would appreciate any information on this as I am also puzzled by the limited time period given in the above message.
Ballyheigue
Member
I'm guessing maybe Transport for Greater Manchester may be replacing it a week later as I too thought the dates were odd.
NorthernSpirit
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,274
In some ways there would be some savings, as it'd be a single service being registered rather than two seperate registrations. As for the tendered stuff, I reckon that Metro would be supportive of retaining as many services as possible even if it meant requesting merging two tenders together to save money, especially where there isn't any alternatives.
The idea of merging services together is wholly down to having something a lot more manageable, which in turn beomes a lot more cost effective.
As for the 87 between Holmfrth and Castleton being axed, I did think why didn't South Pennine request some form of subsidy from the Peak District National Park Authority alongside Derbyshire County Council and ran two journeys in either direction thus allowing those in Castleton and the Hope Valley a direct bus to Holmfirth for a couple of hours shopping - seems an opportunity lost.
Nothing is stopping them (South Pennine) from producing a high quality PDF timetable and guide on their website to market in which Metro could print off a small number. Many years ago South Pennine use to print their own timetables, its only since 2021 that they had aborted the idea - might have been cheaper having the times printed on a single A3 sheet and folded up instead of the various individual sheets that they did produce.
There are other alternatives. The other bidders, for one.
The savings from reducing the number of registrations is minimal.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Am I missing something?
The Elland services are tendered? Would any savings would head to Metro rather than the operator?
No.
That's why there's little point changing them to save South Pennine money - I can't see Metro wanting a lower level of service, or they'd have specified that.
First went from having an hourly service on the 502 from early morning to after 2300 with peak extras to just 4 journeys on a Sunday which lasted several years.
Metro tendered the replacement 504 to Denholme, run by TJ Walsh (which included other previous tendered trips in the Halifax area, which is why it doesn't take the shortest route between Illingworth and Halifax). Tiger took that over when Walsh ceased trading.
Initially this was timed to connect with Transdev buses which ran every half hour. When they changed their times (and eventually went hourly) the 504 times did not change - at one point some connections were 40 minutes in Denholme.
A while after Transdev took over Tiger, Metro tendered the 502 as a replacement for the 504 and Team Pennine won the new contract. At this point South Pennine dropped their X22 which had run fast between Halifax and Keighley 3 times each way on a Saturday.
Leedsbusman
Member
Not quite. The 502 was introduced under Tiger. Team Pennine introduced the Sunday service as an extension of the 526.
AWWisher
Member
Yes!
I remember 'Tiger' buses in Keighley bus station.
And, in earlier days, 'Yorkshire Woolen' Leyland Tigers on the spare land off Towngate (side of the Queen's Theatre), where all the 'foreign' buses [such as Burnley, Colne & Nelson & Todmorden Joint] had their stands.
The YWD 2 was a long-established route from Wakefield (later Ossett)-Dewsbury-Halifax-Keighley and thus, the predecessor of the 502
Last edited:
Ballyheigue
Member
Something has just dawned on me, there is a bus off the 309 and a bus off the 359 which go on to provide the 77 Mon, 357 Tue, 87 Wed, 90 Thurs/Sat, as well as the 91 Mon to Sat. One of these will be withdrawn Mon to Thurs as you'll only need the extra bus on a Fri and Sat to operate the 351/2.
Just to further add as well, it's now the 22nd and apart from Travel South Yorkshire, nobody else (such as South Pennine themselves or Metro) are putting out details of South Pennine's changes. Are South Pennine simply leaving it to the drivers to tell everyone potentially affected? It's a poor show on South Pennine's part not to even put a note on their website under each affected timetable warning it's about to change/end, never mind posting something social media channels. Has anyone seen any notices on the buses?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is all looking rather sad now as both the 351 and 359 have an end date of June 28th according to the Metro website, I've attached a screenshot of what it says for the 351 with the 359 also having the same end date. Not looking good for the 352 if they're prepared to axe the 351.
Just to further add as well, it's now the 22nd and apart from Travel South Yorkshire, nobody else (such as South Pennine themselves or Metro) are putting out details of South Pennine's changes. Are South Pennine simply leaving it to the drivers to tell everyone potentially affected? It's a poor show on South Pennine's part not to even put a note on their website under each affected timetable warning it's about to change/end, never mind posting something social media channels. Has anyone seen any notices on the buses?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This is all looking rather sad now as both the 351 and 359 have an end date of June 28th according to the Metro website, I've attached a screenshot of what it says for the 351 with the 359 also having the same end date. Not looking good for the 352 if they're prepared to axe the 351.
Last edited:
markymark2000
On Moderation
Also mentioned in their changes to bus services PDF so it's not just a one off error on their timetables. Currently not mentioned but also included for withdrawal is the 549 Holmfirth-Stainland-Huddersfield service. https://www.wymetro.com/media/cqxnie1k/public-transport-changes-june-2026-16101.pdf
Or even the 539, which doesn't serve Huddersfield.
On weekdays there's 1 journey Holmfirth to Barkisland and back. 4 journeys Halifax to Stainland that only share 1 or 2 stops with those journeys.
On a Saturday there's 2 journeys Holmfirth to Halifax with 3 back. Unfortunately it's only possible to spend just over 3 hours in Holmfirth if you get the first bus from Halifax and 6 minutes if you get the second.
markymark2000
On Moderation
I must have been tired when I wrote my post. Apologies, you are correct.
NorthernSpirit
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,274
It was good whilst it lasted, as its been ten years since the Summer weekend (read as late May to August bank holiday) 951 Huddersfield to Glossop service last ran.
Really the Peak District routes (both the 87 to Castleton and the 351 Glossop) should have operated on weekends from Huddersfield and ran at suitable times such as 0700 - 1800, as more people would have used them if promoted properly. In the 351's case exteneded to Buxton as High Peak don't run a Sunday service on the 61 anymore.
Ballyheigue
Member
It's ironic that the Peak District National Park bleat on about leaving the car at home, yet they don't stump up the cash for a weekend bus through the popular Longendale Valley, which is a winner if ran right. They could have even turned round to South Pennine and offered them funding to continue the Friday service.
There is a VERY good reason they don't stump up the cash. They don't have any. All the National Parks have major funding problems. Their budgets simply don't stretch to bus services.
Ballyheigue
Member
They've had 75 years to sort out funding for a proper bus network serving every major part of the park. The South Pennine 87 could easily be saved by way of commercially sourced funding from the water company who own Ladybower and Derwent Reservoir, same too for the 351. Edinburgh Woollen Mill in Glossop could have been approached to provide funding for the 351 on the basis it brings people into the town from Holmfirth who will spend money in that shop, but I bet they haven't! The Dutchy of Lancaster who own the castle in Castleton could have been asked to fund the 87, after all he is loaded and wants as many to visit his castle as possible, spending their cash, as it gives him more money!
A bit off topic, but how come unpaid ordinary folk from Dalesbus and Moorsbus can sort out funding for a proper network in their areas, yet the so called professional paid staff and management from Peak District National Park can't?
Maybe they could. But bus funding is not part of a National Park's budget or remit. The Peak District National Park gets a whopping £6m a year from central government with which to do what it does. Funding a proper bus network simply is not something a National Park is set up to do and they never have.
Given the financial world they live in, they are never going to step in to support one bus route because if you do, some other worthy route will come along wanting money and before you know it...
This is the reality of the world we live in. Yes in an ideal world some South Pennine's services would be saved by the park budget. Maybe grown and developed. But on £6m central government funding, it simply won't happen.
Maybe you are asking the wrong question. Maybe the question is, why has no group of unpaid normal people done something like that in the Peak District?
Talking of the Peak District the government have awarded them £6m for a "Little Switzerland" concept trial.
Obviously being a public sector project some of that money will be frittered away on fact finding trips and consultants advising on how to tender it out but its a very positive development.
The concept builds on the Hope Valley railway having trains every hour at the same time all day every day by making the bus network around nearby villages and attractions connect with trains by running every hour or better all day every day
Obviously being a public sector project some of that money will be frittered away on fact finding trips and consultants advising on how to tender it out but its a very positive development.
The concept builds on the Hope Valley railway having trains every hour at the same time all day every day by making the bus network around nearby villages and attractions connect with trains by running every hour or better all day every day
TheManOnThe172
Member
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 438
The "Little Switzerland" project seems unlikely to demonstrate anything very useful, as it is set up to exploit a special case - Hope Station is where Hope Valley trains pass each other, so there is only one point in each hour at which buses need to visit the station to offer tight connections with the trains.
In order to be a workable approach, rural timetable synchronisation needs to be shown to make a useful difference in the general case where trains in two directions stop at different minutes past the hour.
There is also the question of whether even well-synchronised once-an-hour connections to a limited range of nearby villages are really going to tempt people out of cars. Even if you slash fares for mixed-mode public transport, there is a chasm of convenience between leaving home somewhere in Greater Manchester when you choose, driving directly to your first destination, then on (directly) to somewhere else if you feel like it at the time, then straight home when kids/Granny starts to wane - vs a first train into Manchester or Stockport, followed by a gap before the hourly Hope Valley service, then a nicely connected bus at Hope, but the need to watch the clock for the bus back again - with a very limited range of alternative places you can reach if your taste/the weather means that you don't want to spend the whole day at the place the bus dropped you. And the need to set off early on the return bus+train+wait+train itinerary so that the stamina of kids/Granny hasn't flopped before you get home again.
"Little Switzerland" may well increase visitor numbers by public transport, by making a trip less horrible for those without use of a car. And that will be good for society. But new trips like these won't reduce emissions. Sadly, I rather expect that car-to-public-transport modal shift will have been the naive (or worse?) basis for the application that won the £6m funding.
Last edited:
YorkRailFan
Established Member
If you look at Moorsbus, one of the directors of the Community Interest Company has experience as a Tourism & Transport Officer at North York Moors National Park Authority. Moorsbus receives money from the York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority as well as East Riding of Yorkshire Council and Hull City Council along with money raised in donations. The National Park Authority stopped funding Moorsbus in 2013.
Similarly, DalesBus receives their funding from North Yorkshire Council, York & North Yorkshire Combined Authority and West Yorkshire Combined Authority as well as donations. They also do not receive funding from the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority. Other organisations such as The National Trust and Yorkshire Water to name a few also contribute to DalesBus.
DalesBus actually helped Moorsbus CIC start running services in 2014 after the National Park Authority stopped funding the network.
In short, "unpaid ordinary" people were able to accomplish this with an immense amount of campaigning and promotion for the services they now provide. Something that doesn't exist in the Peak District.
You make a fair point, but DalesBus & Moorsbus are campaigning for the National Park Authorities to take responsibility of public transport and provide the networks the Community Interest Companies do. The work of DalesBus & Moorsbus is fantastic and a similar organisation in the Peak District could also achieve something equally fantastic but it shouldn't be coming down to ordinary people having to group together to provide a service that the National Park Authority should be.
Whilst the Authority doesn't provide the service, a Community Interest Company stepping in is fantastic but in the longer term the Authority (with the input of the volunteers from the Community Interest Companies who have shown their experience) should be stepping in to provide it.
NorthernSpirit
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,274
I knew of a couple of people (a young couple) who lived in Netherthong and one (their mate) in Brockholes who were going to set up a Peak District version of Dalesbus but focusing mostly on bus links from West Yorkshire, sadly the one of the people involved pulled out and the whole project collapsed. I was asked if I could contribute, which I did towards various self guided walks (SGW) and their timings which would connect with the first and last bus, with the timings based on the old 61A* between Huddersfield and Buxton as well as a handful of SGW off the old 473 (Glossop to Chatsworth) - the latter had to be done via Stalybridge due to the timing of the replacement 951 (Huddersfield to Glossop) in 2009.
How the project collapsed was the young couple from Netherthong, the lad dumped the lass that he was with and she later moved to Brighton and I lost contact. No idea what happened to the lad as he seemed alright and it was his idea to get this project up and running. The lasses mate in Brockholes later moved in 2013 (no idea where), which really screwed up any chance of getting the project off the ground, as by 2012 it was just about salvageable.
Either way, I've retained the work (only the rough handwritten stuff, the digitalised stuff was lost sometime in the 2010's) that was done for the SGW which are based on fairly longish walks that last for around five hours not including breaks. I also don't have access to the aircraft wrecks books anymore as their out of print - so some of the walks that feature said wrecks would have to be checked again for both clarity and if its still there.
Might be a bit off topic but its worth adding.
You may never know we may see a bus service once again go over the tops and into Derbyshire and the Peak District, hopefully one that will also run Monday to Saturday and includes peak hours to cater for the workers and something on Sundays that can extend to Buxton. Whetehr it be ran by South Pennine or whoever only time will tell.
*Between Huddersfield and Holmfirth it was registered to run as service 310 and 61A between Holmfirth and Buxton, but more often than not the 61A number was shown throughout.
Ballyheigue
Member
I was really surprised South Pennine switched from running the 351 on Saturdays back to Fridays, as I'd have thought it would be more profitable with all the young people nowadays doing walks on a weekend, it would have made more sense to try and target them. One thing I will say is that the council didn't really think about bus stop locations out by Torside, I had to get Kevin Carr to change the Holmfirth bound bus stop in his timetable to the car park one year as I found it dangerous to walk along the road to get to it from the car park, I couldn't see any alternative route.
NorthernSpirit
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,274
You would have thought so but the Holmfirth centric nature of the route probably didn't help, as one would have had to try and get to Holmfirth by AI bus operator in the dire hope that they didn't miss their connection. I think that South Pennine could have asked the University of Huddersfield to see if they could have commenced the 351 from Storthes Hall to Glossop thus providing a direct bus to the Peak District which wouldn't have gone amiss.
If TM Travel who ran the 274 between Sheffield and Castleton vis Fairholmes can attract uni students to the service, so could South Pennine. Given that Storthes Hall has since closed and that the Halls of Residence is much closer to the UoH, it still would have worked.
As for the Torside timing point, I've always known it being at the car park entrace on both sides - the only other location that would be safe-ish would be Torside crossing (black railings) which is where former Woodhead Line and the Pennine Way also meets.
That is a real shame and would have been very very helpful. From Hadfield to Stocksbridge there are no buses in this area of the Peak District which is a great shame. I did a walk once in the Longdendale Valley and the closest I could get by public transport was Hadfield, where I had to walk in along the TPT.
I've looked at doing walks from Langsett of late but the closest you can get by public transport is Penistone or Stocksbridge with long walks in from either Penistone railway station or the terminating point of the 57/57a in Stocksbridge. Surely it's not beyond the wit of man for the Peak National Park/local council/walking groups/determined volunteers and any other stakeholders to come up with a plan for some provision for this barren area of the park, it's not as if it's not a popular walking area.
From where I live, Huddersfield, it's either train to Manchester or Sheffield then along the Hope Valley Line or train to Stalybridge for this area of the park. It' a bit of a pain.