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!
Why is this so difficult? Extend the layover in York means that (a) they won't be getting that half hour break, and (b) the duty time would then exceed 5h30. You'd also need to consider how the school services impact the length of the duty. The morning one would likely also count towards the 5h30, but there might be enough of a break before the afternoon one.
I'm assuming that other than the positioning runs for the 13, the other journeys are all one vehicle running off Boston Spa Academy. So what you could do is simply dispense with any pretence at "clock face" timings for the off peak stuff viz:
Wetherby
0840
1030
1245
Break 1430 to 1500 then to Boston Spa for 1520
York
0930
1120
1335
York
0935
1125
1340
Wetherby
1025
1215
1430
The downside is that the driver doesn't get the longer break at 1410 nor the notional 30 min break at lunchtime 1010 but arguably isn't chasing their tail as much. Assumes the duty doesn't start before 0645.
That being said, I am struggling to really see the issue with the one way loop in York and how it may be confusing. It's a tendered service, loadings are not stellar, and most passengers will be heading into the centre of York in any case.
The problem the current timetable has is that westbound journeys are arriving into Wetherby late for the 30 minute break. The next Eastbound trip then leaves late for the full break to be taken, especially at 12:40. Thus keeping the service in a spiral of delays. The westbound journeys will remain unchanged in the new timetable so the problems will persist as the times are optimistic at best, even with the changes to the eastbound trips. With the current operational setup, no meaningful changes for reliability can happen.
With a busgate trial starting in 2027 on Rougier Street, I wouldn't be surprised if Eastbound trips revert to York Station and Rougier Street if the trial is successful anyway.
This is my point though. The duty length starts before the 08:40 with a school service and then has 3 return trips to York with 2 half hour breaks, followed by a 2.5 hour break which is used for a school service. The duty is longer than 5h30 so they need those 2 half-hour breaks in between before the 2.5 hour break.
There are a few factors in play here. Firstly, breaks must be at least 15 minutes to count towards the cumulative 45 minutes of non-driving. I'm not totally clear how late running impacts the 30 minute break requirement, but at least Connexions can show they timetabled breaks in, plus unless things run very late you should get the 15 minutes often enough during the day to meet the 45 minute cumulative rule.
Say you added 5 minutes running time each way. The outcome would be:
You can no longer show timetabled 30 minute breaks.
Even a modest delay puts you at risk of not being able to take the 15 minute break to count towards the 45 minutes of non-driving time.
The overall duty (ignoring the school service part) becomes 5h40, meaning you are reliant solely on accumulating 45 minutes of non-driving time.
And on top of that it's not exactly a pleasant duty for the driver to know they might not even get time to pop to the toilet.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would suggest the duty times would be something like:
0700 depot to Crossgates 0730
0735 BS45 Crossgates to Boston Spa 0820
Run empty to Wetherby, 10 minutes
0840 412 Wetherby to York and back 1010
30 minute break
1040 412 to York and back 1210
30 minute break
1240 412 to York and back 1410
Say 45 minute break, arrive Boston Spa 1505
1515 BS45 Boston Spa to Crossgates 1600
Run empty to Wetherby, 30 minutes
1640 412 to York and back 1810
Return to Depot 1820
As this is an 11h20 duty I'd imagine it's already difficult to fit in to the rules, which say 9 hours driving a day, with 10 hours allowed twice a week.
You've got 1h45 of scheduled breaks in there, so only 25 minutes to play with for any delays etc to avoid going over hours, and that's assuming you have at least three different drivers each week to stay within the 10 hour limit.
Adding any running time to the 412 cuts in to those breaks. The service might need 10 minutes (or more) for each round trip, but that adds 40 minutes on to the duty which would mean there would have to be a driver change.
(If anyone who knows the fine detail of these rules wants to correct any misunderstandings, please do! I'm only going on what I'm reading online that the rules would be, and making assumptions on empty running times)
There are a few factors in play here. Firstly, breaks must be at least 15 minutes to count towards the cumulative 45 minutes of non-driving. I'm not totally clear how late running impacts the 30 minute break requirement, but at least Connexions can show they timetabled breaks in, plus unless things run very late you should get the 15 minutes often enough during the day to meet the 45 minute cumulative rule.
Say you added 5 minutes running time each way. The outcome would be:
You can no longer show timetabled 30 minute breaks.
Even a modest delay puts you at risk of not being able to take the 15 minute break to count towards the 45 minutes of non-driving time.
The overall duty (ignoring the school service part) becomes 5h40, meaning you are reliant solely on accumulating 45 minutes of non-driving time.
And on top of that it's not exactly a pleasant duty for the driver to know they might not even get time to pop to the toilet.
This is why I said that the operational setup of the service makes it near on impossible to provide a reliable service. Its a hopelessly optimistic and unrealistic timetable meant to fit in with legal requirements.
This is why I said that the operational setup of the service makes it near on impossible to provide a reliable service. Its a hopelessly optimistic and unrealistic timetable meant to fit in with legal requirements.
Which shows the tightrope which operators have to walk.
Obviously you can't ignore legal requirements. And yes, you could add in another driver or another bus, but that affects the economics of the service and potentially makes it unviable.
At least Connexions are trying to improve reliability by introducing the loop in York city centre.
It might work, it might not. If it doesn't I'm sure they will try something else.
There are a few factors in play here. Firstly, breaks must be at least 15 minutes to count towards the cumulative 45 minutes of non-driving. I'm not totally clear how late running impacts the 30 minute break requirement, but at least Connexions can show they timetabled breaks in, plus unless things run very late you should get the 15 minutes often enough during the day to meet the 45 minute cumulative rule.
Say you added 5 minutes running time each way. The outcome would be:
You can no longer show timetabled 30 minute breaks.
Even a modest delay puts you at risk of not being able to take the 15 minute break to count towards the 45 minutes of non-driving time.
The overall duty (ignoring the school service part) becomes 5h40, meaning you are reliant solely on accumulating 45 minutes of non-driving time.
And on top of that it's not exactly a pleasant duty for the driver to know they might not even get time to pop to the toilet.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That would suggest the duty times would be something like:
0700 depot to Crossgates 0730
0735 BS45 Crossgates to Boston Spa 0820
Run empty to Wetherby, 10 minutes
0840 412 Wetherby to York and back 1010
30 minute break
1040 412 to York and back 1210
30 minute break
1240 412 to York and back 1410
Say 45 minute break, arrive Boston Spa 1505
1515 BS45 Boston Spa to Crossgates 1600
Run empty to Wetherby, 30 minutes
1640 412 to York and back 1810
Return to Depot 1820
As this is an 11h20 duty I'd imagine it's already difficult to fit in to the rules, which say 9 hours driving a day, with 10 hours allowed twice a week.
You've got 1h45 of scheduled breaks in there, so only 25 minutes to play with for any delays etc to avoid going over hours, and that's assuming you have at least three different drivers each week to stay within the 10 hour limit.
Adding any running time to the 412 cuts in to those breaks. The service might need 10 minutes (or more) for each round trip, but that adds 40 minutes on to the duty which would mean there would have to be a driver change.
(If anyone who knows the fine detail of these rules wants to correct any misunderstandings, please do! I'm only going on what I'm reading online that the rules would be, and making assumptions on empty running times)
Domestic hours is 10-hours driving as standard, the 9hrs with 10hrs twice a week is EU hours. Likewise there, technically, isn't a minimum break amount for accumulated breaks under domestic hours (the 15-min minimum is again EU hours) though the 45-mins total break & 7hr 30 driving is consistent across both sets - at least that was what I was assured by someone at an operation we took over who have got their duties approved by the DVSA (the depots insistence on retaining the duties involved meant I wouldn't take over the schedules for several months until they agreed to changes, the depot claimed the drivers liked the high hours this created though the moment the inherited depot manager left the post we immediately got complaints about duty length so that claim looks suspicious in hindsight). I personally avoid actually using this more generous definition under domestic rules generally (I may count up these short breaks when calculating headroom for the unexpected I won't rely on it for normal conditions) as I think it is unfair on the drivers and too risky to be lost in even fairly average traffic importing extra delays.
Which shows the tightrope which operators have to walk.
Obviously you can't ignore legal requirements. And yes, you could add in another driver or another bus, but that affects the economics of the service and potentially makes it unviable.
At least Connexions are trying to improve reliability by introducing the loop in York city centre.
It might work, it might not. If it doesn't I'm sure they will try something else.
With westbound journeys remaining unchanged, I think the change will inconvenience more people than help by removing some of the more popular destinations in York on the eastbound journey. The busgate trial on Rougier Street in 2027 might see the change reverted.
If the service was fully funded by the council, it might become more viable for a second driver but knowing North Yorkshire Council's attitude towards buses this isn't going to happen.
With westbound journeys remaining unchanged, I think the change will inconvenience more people than help by removing some of the more popular destinations in York on the eastbound journey. The busgate trial on Rougier Street in 2027 might see the change reverted.
If the service was fully funded by the council, it might become more viable for a second driver but knowing North Yorkshire Council's attitude towards buses this isn't going to happen.
I tend to agree with you. The registration says that this is part supported... and I suspect the commercial element is the two placement journeys for the 13. The other bits may well already be supported fully by West Yorkshire Combined Authority, North Yorkshire Council, and City of York Council.
I'd be surprised if there's that many passengers per se, let alone very many who'll be greatly inconvenienced by missing out the station and Rougier Street on the inbound.
Its supported by North Yorkshire Council and City of York Council. West Yorkshire Combined Authority does not provide financial support. Some Parish Councils might also provide support.
In the school holidays the the 412 vehicle, a 2008 OmniCity today if the tracking is correct, is doing a X70 return. A typical mixture of vehicles in use on that -2006 OmniCity, two other 2008 OmniCities, 2010 Ciitaro, 2012 Enviro 300, 2023 Envrio 400, and 2026 B8L. The 2006 OmniCity is the 64 livered one but DVLA has the colour as red. Keeping records straight is not their thing - they have never altered the X52 registration for the varied route now taken in Harrogate on inbound workings (copying the 36)
Its supported by North Yorkshire Council and City of York Council. West Yorkshire Combined Authority does not provide financial support. Some Parish Councils might also provide support.
The registration suggests it is. Whatever the reality, it’s supported and passengers will be limited. The number being inconvenienced by the loop will be few.
The registration suggests it is. Whatever the reality, it’s supported and passengers will be limited. The number being inconvenienced by the loop will be few.
Its funded 50/50 by City Of York Council & North Yorkshire Council as of 2023:
Service 412 – this route was tendered with a basic requirement for a Mon-Fri timetable matching the level of service currently being provided. The winning bidder submitted a price of £299/day, equivalent to £75k per annum. NYCC contribute half of the funding
As I said, I was going off the registration and it wouldn't be the first time that hasn't been updated.
However, that's not really the important thing. The fact is that the one way loop is perhaps the simplest way of easing some of the problems in timekeeping, and it isn't going to inconvenience very many people because it's tendered and not that many people use it.
As I said, I was going off the registration and it wouldn't be the first time that hasn't been updated.
However, that's not really the important thing. The fact is that the one way loop is perhaps the simplest way of easing some of the problems in timekeeping, and it isn't going to inconvenience very many people because it's tendered and not that many people use it.
That may be the simplest way of easing some of the problems but really the timetable should be workable. Whether there is 1 passenger or 50 there should be a reasonable expectation that the bus will turn up when it says it should.
That may be the simplest way of easing some of the problems but really the timetable should be workable. Whether there is 1 passenger or 50 there should be a reasonable expectation that the bus will turn up when it says it should.
Of course it should. NYCC and CoYC are paying £300/day for a service that is built around an existing schools service. Options are...
- Have a second vehicle/driver that does a run in the middle of the day; that's more cost which the councils are already struggling to fund so unlikely
- Have fewer journeys so the 412 has a journey at 0840 arriving back in Wetherby for c.1040, and then a second journey at 1230 returning back in to Wetherby for 1430
- Try to save a few mins by bypassing the station on the inbound journeys and inconvenience the very few passengers who might want the station by extending their journey by 10 mins
There isn't an easy fix unless you go for option 2
Of course it should. NYCC and CoYC are paying £300/day for a service that is built around an existing schools service. Options are...
- Have a second vehicle/driver that does a run in the middle of the day; that's more cost which the councils are already struggling to fund so unlikely
- Have fewer journeys so the 412 has a journey at 0840 arriving back in Wetherby for c.1040, and then a second journey at 1230 returning back in to Wetherby for 1430
- Try to save a few mins by bypassing the station on the inbound journeys and inconvenience the very few passengers who might want the station by extending their journey by 10 mins
There isn't an easy fix unless you go for option 2
It isn't even 10 minutes! Google Maps gives the walking time from the bus stop on Blossom Street to the station entrance as 6 minutes (so most people will do it in 5 minutes quite comfortably) ... minus the 2 or 3 minutes it takes the bus to get from Blossom Street to the station and it's not going to add more than 3 minutes to most people's journeys if they have to walk from Blossom Street, and they don't even have to cross any main roads.
It isn't even 10 minutes! Google Maps gives the walking time from the bus stop on Blossom Street to the station entrance as 6 minutes (so most people will do it in 5 minutes quite comfortably) ... minus the 2 or 3 minutes it takes the bus to get from Blossom Street to the station and it's not going to add more than 3 minutes to most people's journeys if they have to walk from Blossom Street, and they don't even have to cross any main roads.
I think TheGrandWazoo is referring to the increased journey times if staying on the bus to do the loop round Piccadilly and back to the station via Rougier Street.
I think TheGrandWazoo is referring to the increased journey times if staying on the bus to do the loop round Piccadilly and back to the station via Rougier Street.
£300 a day is nothing for a bus that’s out all day. Assuming they keep the revenue on top of that which is probably somewhere around £100-150 a day if you’re lucky, and the school is presumably commercial? All in all around £600 a day which isn’t too bad - if they don’t keep the revenue (we didn’t on the ones my company operated for NYC, it came off the daily price!) then they’re running for next to nothing already. Any increase in the price will just see the council cutting the service to fit the price rather than paying more.
£300 a day is nothing for a bus that’s out all day. Assuming they keep the revenue on top of that which is probably somewhere around £100-150 a day if you’re lucky, and the school is presumably commercial? All in all around £600 a day which isn’t too bad - if they don’t keep the revenue (we didn’t on the ones my company operated for NYC, it came off the daily price!) then they’re running for next to nothing already. Any increase in the price will just see the council cutting the service to fit the price rather than paying more.
Not sure about the situation regarding who keeps fares and the school service. The 412 is tendered by City Of York Council not North Yorkshire Council. North Yorkshire Council provide 50% of the funding for the 412 but they do not tender it themselves.
The 412 was nearly axed in 2022 and 2023 for this reason - it was commercially unviable. Hence why the Councils stepped in as it was deemed a vital rural service.
Not sure about the situation regarding who keeps fares and the school service. The 412 is tendered by City Of York Council not North Yorkshire Council. North Yorkshire Council provide 50% of the funding for the 412 but they do not tender it themselves.
The 412 was nearly axed in 2022 and 2023 for this reason - it was commercially unviable. Hence why the Councils stepped in as it was deemed a vital rural service.
How times have changed from 2011–14 when Connexions ran a 2-hourly commercial service 6 days a week alongside Eddie Brown's tendered service – just goes to show how the economics of a lot of rural routes have worsened over recent years.
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the 412 being rerouted, without a whole lot of fuss Pullman have now rerouted the 21 so that inbound journeys run direct from Bishopthorpe Road to Clifford Street (apart from the morning peak, which doesn't serve South Bank and so runs in on Blossom Street anyway) and passengers can either stay on the bus with a 5 minute wait at Clifford Street rising to 10 in the afternoon and 15 in the evening peak, or they can walk half a mile from Prices Street – twice as far as passengers on the 412 will have to walk and with main road crossings.
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the 412 being rerouted, without a whole lot of fuss Pullman have now rerouted the 21 so that inbound journeys run direct from Bishopthorpe Road to Clifford Street (apart from the morning peak, which doesn't serve South Bank and so runs in on Blossom Street anyway) and passengers can either stay on the bus with a 5 minute wait at Clifford Street rising to 10 in the afternoon and 15 in the evening peak, or they can walk half a mile from Prices Street – twice as far as passengers on the 412 will have to walk and with main road crossings.
Well said, there are people in Leeds who don't moan that their bus goes nowhere near the bus station, same too for those who's bus goes nowhere near the train station, so why the fuss over the 412?
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the 412 being rerouted, without a whole lot of fuss Pullman have now rerouted the 21 so that inbound journeys run direct from Bishopthorpe Road to Clifford Street (apart from the morning peak, which doesn't serve South Bank and so runs in on Blossom Street anyway) and passengers can either stay on the bus with a 5 minute wait at Clifford Street rising to 10 in the afternoon and 15 in the evening peak, or they can walk half a mile from Prices Street – twice as far as passengers on the 412 will have to walk and with main road crossings.
Following in the steps of East Yorkshire with their Sundays only 15. Its not great to see bus operators routing away from one of the biggest interchanges in the city, reducing connectivity and less integration. Again, its a similar situation to the 412. 1 bus operating on a very tight timetable, tighter than the 412 as there is significantly less recovery time in Colton than Wetherby. Although unlike the 412, isn't operated by 1 driver throughout the day. Like the 412, it's a route that has struggled with reliability for a while now. Again like the 412, it wouldn't pay its way if a second vehicle was used to provide the current frequency (once every 2 hours) and cutting the frequency would be unpopular. Its stuck between a rock and hard place. Again with the 412, I wonder if the bus-gate trial on Rougier Street in 2027 will improve matters enough for the 21 & 412 to be re-routed back through York Station on journeys into York.
Well said, there are people in Leeds who don't moan that their bus goes nowhere near the bus station, same too for those who's bus goes nowhere near the train station, so why the fuss over the 412?
Except it isn't being omitted so it's not reducing connectivity or integration. It might mean a longer journey for the very few passengers who want the station but for the majority of passengers, it is a benefit because the service is more reliable.
Except it isn't being omitted so it's not reducing connectivity or integration. It might mean a longer journey for the very few passengers who want the station but for the majority of passengers, it is a benefit because the service is more reliable.
It’s also little difference from the 7 and U1 and U2 having a terminal loop. They likely have far more people connecting into trains than either the 21 or 412.
It’s also little difference from the 7 and U1 and U2 having a terminal loop. They likely have far more people connecting into trains than either the 21 or 412.
I'd argue the loop on the 7, 9, U1 & U2 are a little different. They all approach York away from the station, the 21 and 412 approach York very close to the station. Where the 21 & 412 have Piccadilly as their terminus, I'd argue that the station (or potentially Rougier Street) acts as the terminus of the 7, 9, U1 & U2. The 9, U1 & U2 all loop back through the City Centre, so serve the centre in both directions, whereas the 7 only serves the City Centre on trips into York. If travelling from Fulford into York, there's little difference between the 7 and the 415, but on the return trip to Fulford, the 415 is much quicker from the City Centre by avoiding the station and Rougier Street. Of course, the 7 is cheaper than the 415 on a return journey (£4 vs £6) with the 7 being a Park & Ride service.
Its not just trains that people connect to/from at the station but also other buses. I think a good example for the 412 & 21 is for people travelling to York Hospital. If they alight at York Station, they can walk to Station Avenue and catch the 6 or 40 or they can travel to Rougier Street and cross over to catch the 6 to the Hospital. This journey now takes longer on journeys to the hospital by having to stay on the bus through Piccadilly and then get off at Ousegate or Rougier Street (although it appears that the 412 no longer stops at Rougier Street on journeys out of York) to change onto a 6. I choose York Hospital as an example as many users of both services are ENCTS users who are more likely (in theory) to have medical appointments at the hospital.
I'd argue the loop on the 7, 9, U1 & U2 are a little different. They all approach York away from the station, the 21 and 412 approach York very close to the station. Where the 21 & 412 have Piccadilly as their terminus, I'd argue that the station (or potentially Rougier Street) acts as the terminus of the 7, 9, U1 & U2. The 9, U1 & U2 all loop back through the City Centre, so serve the centre in both directions, whereas the 7 only serves the City Centre on trips into York. If travelling from Fulford into York, there's little difference between the 7 and the 415, but on the return trip to Fulford, the 415 is much quicker from the City Centre by avoiding the station and Rougier Street. Of course, the 7 is cheaper than the 415 on a return journey (£4 vs £6) with the 7 being a Park & Ride service.
Its not just trains that people connect to/from at the station but also other buses. I think a good example for the 412 & 21 is for people travelling to York Hospital. If they alight at York Station, they can walk to Station Avenue and catch the 6 or 40 or they can travel to Rougier Street and cross over to catch the 6 to the Hospital. This journey now takes longer on journeys to the hospital by having to stay on the bus through Piccadilly and then get off at Ousegate or Rougier Street (although it appears that the 412 no longer stops at Rougier Street on journeys out of York) to change onto a 6. I choose York Hospital as an example as many users of both services are ENCTS users who are more likely (in theory) to have medical appointments at the hospital.
You can argue what you like - but a loop is a loop and anyone going to the nearest point gets a shorter journey there and a longer one back and vice versa for the furthest point.
The fact the two different small operators have come to a similar conclusion on the ability of their services to get round in the time available, both funded by City of York means that either they are both wrong and you are right, or less radically they know what they are doing whether you like it or not!
You can argue what you like - but a loop is a loop and anyone going to the nearest point gets a shorter journey there and a longer one back and vice versa for the furthest point.
The fact the two different small operators have come to a similar conclusion on the ability of their services to get round in the time available, both funded by City of York means that either they are both wrong and you are right, or less radically they know what they are doing whether you like it or not!
I wouldn't call York Pullman a "small operator" when they are part of FirstGroup and currently hold every single school contract with City of York Council.
I have never argued that I am "right" and they are "wrong", but I do have a right to question their decisions especially when the services are funded by my local authority. We live in a democracy after all don't we? The 21 is my local bus service and I do use it from time to time to go to the station if I have a lot of luggage and/or the weather is bad.
I would've appreciated if the operators in question (Connexions and York Pullman) and City Of York Council (as well as North Yorkshire Council in the case of the 412) had conducted a consultation locally on the changes given that the services are taxpayer funded. City of York Council held a consultation on the proposed changes to buses in South Bank effective September 2024, which went ahead, to withdraw the 26 and replace it with the 11 through South Bank during daytimes and extending the 24 to Fulford.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
