York and north Yorkshire franchising

TheGrandWazoo said:

You can run more buses but as I said, they had a year round Northallerton to Hawes service (that dovetailed with the 73 between Northallerton and Bedale) but that was split to create the 155, and the 156/7 (now 156). If you franchised any of the community services, that would be an additional cost.

Click to expand...

Any improvements will cost more. You don't have to franchise to run a through service daily between Northallerton & Hawes (the 856 runs year round on Sundays). A simple tender will suffice. The 856 running year round shows there is demand for such a service, especially between Leyburn & Northallerton.

YorkRailFan said:

The money used on franchising would be much better used on funding rural services. There are some improvements that could be made in the area. The 856 on a Sunday provides some direct connections that should be possible during the week, such as Leyburn-Northallerton. That could also incorporate the 156 as the 856 does on a Sunday. Small wins (in the grand scheme) that don't need franchising...

If franchising goes ahead, I'd expect some of the Ryedale Community Transport services to continue under a permit. With Little White Bus, the 30 and 156 could be franchised In a package operated out of Leeming Bar. Harder to say regarding the 113 as its quite "out there".

Click to expand...

The money is better used moving to franchising and then using future government windfalls to support rural services within that system. Funding rural services under deregulation can provide some useful short term improvements but it does not solve the underlying problem. That it will be temporary under that system.

We have already seen this to an extent with partnerships, where operators choose which services to improve with the expectation that they can eventually become commercially viable. The problem is that once the additional funding disappears, the operator can still reduce or withdraw those journeys, even where the service may be financially sustainable overall.

This is the fundamental difference with franchising. If, for example, £1 million a year is enough to support an hourly service from 5am to 11pm, a private operator may still decide to remove the early and late journeys because they individually generate less revenue, even assuming the overall network, or publicly funded budget, can afford to provide them.

mattb7tl said:

The money is better used moving to franchising and then using future government windfalls to support rural services within that system. Funding rural services under deregulation can provide some useful short term improvements but it does not solve the underlying problem. That it will be temporary under that system.

We have already seen this to an extent with partnerships, where operators choose which services to improve with the expectation that they can eventually become commercially viable. The problem is that once the additional funding disappears, the operator can still reduce or withdraw those journeys, even where the service may be financially sustainable overall.

This is the fundamental difference with franchising. If, for example, £1 million a year is enough to support an hourly service from 5am to 11pm, a private operator may still decide to remove the early and late journeys because they individually generate less revenue, even assuming the overall network, or publicly funded budget, can afford to provide them.

Click to expand...

These aren't just funded services though. These are tendered services by the two councils. The Councils set which journeys run and don't. Over the years, the former County Council cut back funding for tendered services meaning rural areas lost their bus service. In some cases, Community Transport Operators stepped in to fill some of the gaps.

The irony with this franchising is, the councils could've provided the funding for these services. Roughly 50% of services (not journeys) in North Yorkshire are tendered. Now the Combined Authority wants to take back control, except they control roughly 50% of services already. The remaining commercial services outside of York are few and far between (Coastliner, 36, some Harrogate locals, some Scarborough Locals, 415, 73, 28B, X26/X27). The improvements the Combined Authority could do with these services is minimal and extremely costly. There are some partly funded services as well. The rest, the Combined Authority already controls through tendering!

It would be great to have a more permanent network but franchising will still depend on who is Mayor of the Combined Authority. Its a lot of money for minimal benefits. I'd love to see a more joined up network across the County, but I can't take a council that has long neglected tendered services seriously.

YorkRailFan said:

Any improvements will cost more. You don't have to franchise to run a through service daily between Northallerton & Hawes (the 856 runs year round on Sundays). A simple tender will suffice. The 856 running year round shows there is demand for such a service, especially between Leyburn & Northallerton.

Click to expand...

A year round Sunday service with one vehicle isn’t a reliable indicator of a year round, week round, need and especially in the upper dale. How many weekday passengers are travelling west of Bedale? Not many given that they use a Sprinter on the 155, and any move from the voluntary sector will cost more. I'd seriously question whether it would be a good use of funds.

There are a few areas in Richmondshire and Hambleton that you might want to improve but they aren't the Dales routes.

mattb7tl said:

The money is better used moving to franchising and then using future government windfalls to support rural services within that system. Funding rural services under deregulation can provide some useful short term improvements but it does not solve the underlying problem. That it will be temporary under that system.

We have already seen this to an extent with partnerships, where operators choose which services to improve with the expectation that they can eventually become commercially viable. The problem is that once the additional funding disappears, the operator can still reduce or withdraw those journeys, even where the service may be financially sustainable overall.

This is the fundamental difference with franchising. If, for example, £1 million a year is enough to support an hourly service from 5am to 11pm, a private operator may still decide to remove the early and late journeys because they individually generate less revenue, even assuming the overall network, or publicly funded budget, can afford to provide them.

Click to expand...

There is a fundamental issue - North Yorkshire has so few good routes, the idea of a move to franchising in order to create a virtuous circle of using funds from the handful of good routes to support the hinterland is for the birds.

Given the record of local authority support for bus services over the last 40 years (and indeed, before deregulation, when the council slashed funding in 1981 with a resultant axing of lots of evening, Sunday and complete services). Christ, it wouldn't have cost the earth to get the Middlesbrough to Marton service to run to Stokesley at night/Sunday but the council wouldn't pay. As @YorkRailFan notes, much of the network is tendered anyway but it's pretty lacklustre.

They spend £9m p.a. on buses... of which £6m is ENCTS funds (and NYC is one of the lowest payers anyway). Of the remaining £3m, £1.4m is s106 and central funding (e.g. DfT schemes and grants). They spend £1.6m - that's it though they do obviously operate a wide number of services inhouse using welfare vehicles for SEND transport to then operate local services at a minimal marginal cost. If you really think the commercial players are trousering much money, and a move to having all day service provision of a high quality is achievable by a move to franchising... Not in North Yorkshire, it ain't.

TheGrandWazoo said:

A year round Sunday service with one vehicle isn’t a reliable indicator of a year round, week round, need and especially in the upper dale. How many weekday passengers are travelling west of Bedale? Not many given that they use a Sprinter on the 155, and any move from the voluntary sector will cost more. I'd seriously question whether it would be a good use of funds.

Click to expand...

The 155 takes a slower, longer route than the 856 between Bedale & Leyburn. The 856 allows people in the Dales to get around and tourists to get into the Dales. The route used to be operated in house by North Yorkshire Council, it transferred to Hodgsons in April 2024. A Saturday service on the 155 only started in November 2024 thanks to funding from North Yorkshire Council.

TheGrandWazoo said:

A year round Sunday service with one vehicle isn’t a reliable indicator of a year round, week round, need and especially in the upper dale. How many weekday passengers are travelling west of Bedale? Not many given that they use a Sprinter on the 155, and any move from the voluntary sector will cost more. I'd seriously question whether it would be a good use of funds.

There are a few areas in Richmondshire and Hambleton that you might want to improve but they aren't the Dales routes.

Click to expand...

There is a few services where additional spend would, in my opinion, bring in more additional revenue than it would cost you to provide the extra resource. Indeed where they’re spending on school buses these could be utilised on service work during the day for negligible extra cost. I’m thinking of services out of Northallerton like the 72 which definitely justifies an hourly frequency, and the 80/89 where an extra bus would allow an hourly service across the two routes (where frequency would jump from every 4 to every 2 hours on the unique bits) giving a useable service to the villages and hourly on the more popular parts would unlock usage across the route. There are probably easy wins you could make by linking other places up by combining services too… running buses between Northallerton & Middlesbrough has been one that has been on and off over the years where it would make sense. That would require areas working together though…

darloscott said:

There is a few services where additional spend would, in my opinion, bring in more additional revenue than it would cost you to provide the extra resource. Indeed where they’re spending on school buses these could be utilised on service work during the day for negligible extra cost. I’m thinking of services out of Northallerton like the 72 which definitely justifies an hourly frequency, and the 80/89 where an extra bus would allow an hourly service across the two routes (where frequency would jump from every 4 to every 2 hours on the unique bits) giving a useable service to the villages and hourly on the more popular parts would unlock usage across the route. There are probably easy wins you could make by linking other places up by combining services too… running buses between Northallerton & Middlesbrough has been one that has been on and off over the years where it would make sense. That would require areas working together though…

Click to expand...

I would add the Wensleydale routes to that list as well. Running through buses between Northallerton and Hawes through the week (with Monday to Saturday services running off the main road via the villages, not on the 856 route) using slightly larger buses like a Strata or small Solo could have a transformational impact on usage. At the moment, pretty much no-one travels from the upper dale to Northallerton because the service is so inconvenient. You could run an hourly service on the full length of the dale with 4 buses, alternating between villages north and south of the A684, plus additional short journeys between Northallerton and Bedale to keep that section half-hourly – it wouldn't even need any more vehicles than are in use now, although yes it would need more drivers and would cover more miles.

But again, all of this could be done through subsidy contracts, and doesn't need franchising!

stevieinselby said:

I would add the Wensleydale routes to that list as well. Running through buses between Northallerton and Hawes through the week (with Monday to Saturday services running off the main road via the villages, not on the 856 route) using slightly larger buses like a Strata or small Solo could have a transformational impact on usage. At the moment, pretty much no-one travels from the upper dale to Northallerton because the service is so inconvenient. You could run an hourly service on the full length of the dale with 4 buses, alternating between villages north and south of the A684, plus additional short journeys between Northallerton and Bedale to keep that section half-hourly – it wouldn't even need any more vehicles than are in use now, although yes it would need more drivers and would cover more miles.

But again, all of this could be done through subsidy contracts, and doesn't need franchising!

Click to expand...

It would be more expensive in the long term to achieve this through subsidy contracts. As we saw in West Yorkshire, once you give a region more funding, operators suddenly start claiming that certain journeys or routes are unsustainable, and a significant proportion of that additional public money ends up covering services that are otherwise sustainable through cross subsidy. Operators have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to simply receive large increases in public funding and deliver the improvements that funding is intended to achieve.

The fundamental issue is that the authority is funding the network, while the operator still controls how that money is ultimately used within the deregulated model. BSIP was largely a failure, not because of a lack of ambition from local authorities, but because of this exact problem. Tens of millions were given to metropolitan regions, yet in many cases the tangible improvements delivered to passengers were extremely limited.

This obviously mostly affects the commercial services in the region and therefore mostly the services in and around York. Several routes serving York cross the city boundary so it is helpful to franchise routes in North Yorkshire as well to ensure that all or nearly all routes in the City of York are part of the same franchise. As already discussed at length in the thread, most rural services are already tendered but it probably makes sense to include these if cross-boundary routes to York are already included.

YorkRailFan said:

The irony with this franchising is, the councils could've provided the funding for these services. Roughly 50% of services (not journeys) in North Yorkshire are tendered. Now the Combined Authority wants to take back control, except they control roughly 50% of services already. The remaining commercial services outside of York are few and far between (Coastliner, 36, some Harrogate locals, some Scarborough Locals, 415, 73, 28B, X26/X27). The improvements the Combined Authority could do with these services is minimal and extremely costly. There are some partly funded services as well. The rest, the Combined Authority already controls through tendering!

Click to expand...

You are looking at this the wrong way. Saying that roughly 50% of services are tendered tells you very little about the actual proportion of passenger journeys. Tendered services are disproportionately concentrated on lower demand routes, particularly rural ones, so they are nowhere near 50% of total patronage, they may not even account for a quarter.

TLC in Bradford. They operate almost all of the tendered services in the city, yet it was revealed that those services account for only around 5% of total bus patronage within Bradford. So you cannot look at the network and say "the authority already controls 50% of services" when the overwhelming majority of passengers are using the commercial network that the authority has little or no control over.

You also seem to be assuming that councils have an unlimited ability to fund services. They do not. They largely have to work within the funding provided to them by government, with limited means of raising additional money themselves which is a substantial issue without cross subsidy.

darloscott said:

There is a few services where additional spend would, in my opinion, bring in more additional revenue than it would cost you to provide the extra resource. Indeed where they’re spending on school buses these could be utilised on service work during the day for negligible extra cost. I’m thinking of services out of Northallerton like the 72 which definitely justifies an hourly frequency, and the 80/89 where an extra bus would allow an hourly service across the two routes (where frequency would jump from every 4 to every 2 hours on the unique bits) giving a useable service to the villages and hourly on the more popular parts would unlock usage across the route. There are probably easy wins you could make by linking other places up by combining services too… running buses between Northallerton & Middlesbrough has been one that has been on and off over the years where it would make sense. That would require areas working together though…

Click to expand...

I've been looking at comments on David Skaith's post, a couple of places came up:
- Aforementioned 580 (commercial service) between Skipton & Settle. Until recently it was an hourly service, now every 2 hours
- Hemingbrough, one return journey into Selby during the week plus an extra journey on Mondays & Fridays (service 1). A handful of return journeys during the week doing a loop from the village serving Cliffe and Osgodby would be a huge upgrade. Could be operated from Selby, like what Arriva has with the 4.
- Villages like Linton-On-Ouse which lost their bus service to Easingwold a few years ago and now have 5 return trips into York.
And to add one myself, a better bus service between Pickering & Scarborough.

Of course, none of this needs franchising to happen and I'm skeptical of a few (like reconnecting Linton-On-Ouse with Easingwold).

mattb7tl said:

You are looking at this the wrong way. Saying that roughly 50% of services are tendered tells you very little about the actual proportion of passenger journeys. Tendered services are disproportionately concentrated on lower demand routes, particularly rural ones, so they are nowhere near 50% of total patronage, they may not even account for a quarter.

TLC in Bradford. They operate almost all of the tendered services in the city, yet it was revealed that those services account for only around 5% of total bus patronage within Bradford. So you cannot look at the network and say "the authority already controls 50% of services" when the overwhelming majority of passengers are using the commercial network that the authority has little or no control over.

You also seem to be assuming that councils have an unlimited ability to fund services. They do not. They largely have to work within the funding provided to them by government, with limited means of raising additional money themselves which is a substantial issue without cross subsidy.

Click to expand...

The Combined Authority will also need funds from Government to maintain a franchised network, more so than a tendered network. The Combined Authority will also have limited means of raising their own funds.

You cannot compare West Yorkshire with North Yorkshire here. Not all tendered services are lightly used. Some are quite well used, but by ENCTS users which North Yorkshire Council famously has a low reimbursement rate for. The tendered services do not generate enough money to operate commercially, not necessarily passenger numbers as a bus full of ENCTS users isn't going to be a bus making money necessarily.

As is mentioned before many times, North Yorkshire's commercial network is very limited. Especially looking at routes which receive no sort of funding from the councils. A decent proportion of commercial services are also cross-boundary (Coastliner, 36, Coaster, X93, X4, 28B, 66), how many of those journeys are entirely within North Yorkshire? If you remove York from the equation, you're left with a limited network which relies heavily on Council funding.

mattb7tl said:

It would be more expensive in the long term to achieve this through subsidy contracts. As we saw in West Yorkshire, once you give a region more funding, operators suddenly start claiming that certain journeys or routes are unsustainable, and a significant proportion of that additional public money ends up covering services that are otherwise sustainable through cross subsidy. Operators have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to simply receive large increases in public funding and deliver the improvements that funding is intended to achieve.

The fundamental issue is that the authority is funding the network, while the operator still controls how that money is ultimately used within the deregulated model. BSIP was largely a failure, not because of a lack of ambition from local authorities, but because of this exact problem. Tens of millions were given to metropolitan regions, yet in many cases the tangible improvements delivered to passengers were extremely limited.

Click to expand...

This isn't BSIP funding that we're talking about. The Council has the control over what is in the tender notice for the contracts, like they would under franchising. In fact, North Yorkshire Council still operate some services with their in house minibus fleet across the County. North Yorkshire is not a metropolitan area like West Yorkshire, the Council hasn't been throwing BSIP funding at operators. The primary reason for the decline in rural bus services across North Yorkshire is the former County Council not funding tendered services any more, not operators pulling tendered services. This problem exists under the tendered network and could still exist under franchising...

Tne best quick win would be a York and North Yorkshire range of multi-operator bus tickets.
Currently only City of York https://www.itravelyork.info/fares-passes/york and the DalesBus network offer multi-operator tickets.

gc4946 said:

Tne best quick win would be a York and North Yorkshire range of multi-operator bus tickets.
Currently only City of York https://www.itravelyork.info/fares-passes/york and the DalesBus network offer multi-operator tickets.

Click to expand...

The Moorsbus network also offers multi-operator bus tickets. DalesBus goes a step further with bus+train tickets available on weekend for the Wharfedale Lines and select bus services in the area.

Dales Rambler Day Ranger tickets are available for a day trip to the Dales from Leeds and Bradford and all stations on the Airedale and Wharfedale railway lines.

Tickets include travel on Northern Rail services between Bradford Forster Square / Leeds and Ilkley / Skipton, plus travel on these DalesBus services as shown:
72 between Skipton and Grassington
74 between Ilkley and Grassington (Saturdays only)
75 between Skipton and Malham (Saturdays only)
864/873 between Ilkley, Skipton and Malham (Sundays/Bank Holidays only)
874/875/876 between Ilkley, Grassington and Buckden (Sundays/Bank Holidays only)

Click to expand...

gc4946 said:

Tne best quick win would be a York and North Yorkshire range of multi-operator bus tickets.
Currently only City of York https://www.itravelyork.info/fares-passes/york and the DalesBus network offer multi-operator tickets.

Click to expand...

That's easy enough at the moment when it's a £3 (or £2) flat fare ... but if there's any risk of fares going back to commercial levels then it's going to be tricky, because Coastliner were selling tickets for more than £15 single pre-Covid so could easily be £20 now. So if a county-wide ticket were available then one of these options would need to be chosen: (a) 840 and 843 to be excluded from its coverage, (ii) the ticket would be more than £20 a head and so would be uncompetitive for any journey not involving a long run on Coastliner, or (3) Coastliner fares to be heavily subsidised by YNYCA, which would be expensive.

Much as I would like to see more cost-effective options for travel across the county, it would be a mistake to rush into it without at least considering the complications that could arise in the future.

stevieinselby said:

That's easy enough at the moment when it's a £3 (or £2) flat fare ... but if there's any risk of fares going back to commercial levels then it's going to be tricky, because Coastliner were selling tickets for more than £15 single pre-Covid so could easily be £20 now. So if a county-wide ticket were available then one of these options would need to be chosen: (a) 840 and 843 to be excluded from its coverage, (ii) the ticket would be more than £20 a head and so would be uncompetitive for any journey not involving a long run on Coastliner, or (3) Coastliner fares to be heavily subsidised by YNYCA, which would be expensive.

Much as I would like to see more cost-effective options for travel across the county, it would be a mistake to rush into it without at least considering the complications that could arise in the future.

Click to expand...

One solution to this in an area the size of North Yorkshire would be to offer a range of zonal day tickets with say, one covering just York up to one covering the whole county with possibly extensions into the nearest towns in neighbouring authorities.

YorkRailFan said:

This isn't BSIP funding that we're talking about. The Council has the control over what is in the tender notice for the contracts, like they would under franchising. In fact, North Yorkshire Council still operate some services with their in house minibus fleet across the County. North Yorkshire is not a metropolitan area like West Yorkshire, the Council hasn't been throwing BSIP funding at operators. The primary reason for the decline in rural bus services across North Yorkshire is the former County Council not funding tendered services any more, not operators pulling tendered services. This problem exists under the tendered network and could still exist under franchising...

Click to expand...

This is absolutely spot on. This isn't about BSIP funding. For years, NY(C)C has had the opportunity to spend money on bus services. Aside from a splurge of badly targeted spending in c.1999 with Rural Bus Challenge funding (e.g. Sunday service from Richmond to Barnard Castle) and replacing bus stop flags and shelters again with central government grants, they have never prioritised bus services. In fact, I remember meeting the Public Transport Manager probably c.1996 and he was so "hands off" in that the council's role was not to promote buses - that was the individual companies responsibility and they were a safety net and a limited one at that. Such was the culture that bus companies wouldn't (as has been suggested) deregister services in order to get tender cash because it was unlikely to be forthcoming.

We have seen in a number of counties BSIP funds being squandered (IMHO) but it's not the evil nasty operators. Rather, it is a hideous combination of HM Treasury allocating funds on a Hunger Games basis (at least in tranche 1) and also applying some rather onerous terms on what it could be spent on and, more importantly, the timescales and duration. So funds with strings attached, that had to be spent in a time limited fashion allocated to local authorities that, in many cases, had few internal resources to really manage the allocation. The funding duration also precludes long term thinking and with all operators experiencing staffing issues at that time, it really did constrain what could be done.

YorkRailFan said:

The Combined Authority will also need funds from Government to maintain a franchised network, more so than a tendered network. The Combined Authority will also have limited means of raising their own funds.

You cannot compare West Yorkshire with North Yorkshire here. Not all tendered services are lightly used. Some are quite well used, but by ENCTS users which North Yorkshire Council famously has a low reimbursement rate for. The tendered services do not generate enough money to operate commercially, not necessarily passenger numbers as a bus full of ENCTS users isn't going to be a bus making money necessarily.

As is mentioned before many times, North Yorkshire's commercial network is very limited. Especially looking at routes which receive no sort of funding from the councils. A decent proportion of commercial services are also cross-boundary (Coastliner, 36, Coaster, X93, X4, 28B, 66), how many of those journeys are entirely within North Yorkshire? If you remove York from the equation, you're left with a limited network which relies heavily on Council funding.

Click to expand...

This is the fundamental problem and I wonder if some of the posters actually appreciate the nature of bus nature of bus operation outside of metropolitan areas. The North Yorkshire Council area is 292nd out of 296 in terms of people per km2. ONS figures show 635k inhabitants (and another 204k in York) and these figures are really important.

It shows just how difficult a county it is to serve and that makes it expensive as well in terms of schools, highways, refuse, etc.

So if York/North Yorkshire elected to go down a franchise route... They might get a dowry to get things up and running (as LCRCA, TfGM, WYCA) and capital spend but how do you fund the day to day revenue. Passenger growth? There's precious few people to do that. Local taxation? Same problem. Cross subsidy from the existing commercial routes - as I don't tire of saying, it's not like there's a huge number of killer routes.

JKP said:

One solution to this in an area the size of North Yorkshire would be to offer a range of zonal day tickets with say, one covering just York up to one covering the whole county with possibly extensions into the nearest towns in neighbouring authorities.

Click to expand...

No one likes a multi-operator ticket more than me but zonal day tickets are good in a small county like Hertfordshire. One the size of North Yorkshire - it's very tricky.

YorkRailFan said:

I've been looking at comments on David Skaith's post, a couple of places came up:
- Aforementioned 580 (commercial service) between Skipton & Settle. Until recently it was an hourly service, now every 2 hours
- Hemingbrough, one return journey into Selby during the week plus an extra journey on Mondays & Fridays (service 1). A handful of return journeys during the week doing a loop from the village serving Cliffe and Osgodby would be a huge upgrade. Could be operated from Selby, like what Arriva has with the 4.
- Villages like Linton-On-Ouse which lost their bus service to Easingwold a few years ago and now have 5 return trips into York.
And to add one myself, a better bus service between Pickering & Scarborough.

Click to expand...

darloscott said:

There is a few services where additional spend would, in my opinion, bring in more additional revenue than it would cost you to provide the extra resource. Indeed where they’re spending on school buses these could be utilised on service work during the day for negligible extra cost. I’m thinking of services out of Northallerton like the 72 which definitely justifies an hourly frequency, and the 80/89 where an extra bus would allow an hourly service across the two routes (where frequency would jump from every 4 to every 2 hours on the unique bits) giving a useable service to the villages and hourly on the more popular parts would unlock usage across the route. There are probably easy wins you could make by linking other places up by combining services too… running buses between Northallerton & Middlesbrough has been one that has been on and off over the years where it would make sense. That would require areas working together though…

Click to expand...

There's a few ones that you might think would benefit from some form of funding (a la Kickstart from the mid 2000s) with a package of operator and council funding to act as a pump primer. The 128 and 580 would seem like logical ones.

The ones I'd like to see would be the 28A from Stokesley to Middlesbrough getting an upgrade - it used to have 3 buses per hour and now it's one. Of course, it would mean doing something to the 28 that now follows a crazy route around from Marton to Redcar... but an extension on a Sunday of the 29 would be an easy one.

Now I do know that @darloscott knows a bit about local bus services in the area and I do tug my forelock deferentially to him! I remember the days when buses would run from Middlesbrough to Stokesley as a 290 (what was the 29 and now the 28A) where some (about 5/6 a day) would become a 295 and run to Northallerton. More recently, Abbotts ran the X80/X89 from Northallerton to Stokesley with three continuing on to Middlesbrough... can't recall when it stopped. The odd thing is that the route has changed weirdly over time and the current position is to use one bus to provide a skeletal service to places like Hutton Rudby and Great Broughton. The easy change would be to add an extra bus - I seem to recall Abbotts did have a pair of branded Solos for the route so it was operating to the pattern that Scott suggests.

However, not so certain about the 72. That was reduced to two hourly in 1981, and I reckon has been tendered for the last 25-30 years at least, and was converted to minibus operation in 1996. I can't see the justification on that one so I think we may have to differ on that one

I have thought for some time that the growth of housing on Catterick Garrison, along with the increasing retail offering there compared to Richmond, would justify the return of the X27 being a half hourly service, and a half hourly service from Richmond to Colburn (and every hour to Catterick Village).

I’ve resisted commenting on this, as they’re my local routes and I defer to others who understand the economics of bus operation better than me. But a few opportunities I see as a passenger:

- Better integration of what already exists. I love the Dales Bus 856 direct bus from Northallerton to Hawes on Sundays. It’d be great if it ran all week, but realistically apart from a couple of weeks annual leave each year it’d probably only be a Saturday that I’d use it, so I agree it’s sadly not a priority. When I have tried to go up to Hawes on a Saturday, I’ve asked for a lift to Bedale because there’s a 45minute gap between the first 73 arriving into Bedale and the 155 leaving for Leyburn at 0905. The next two 73s arrive 10mins after a 155 leaves. Little White Bus have a lovely connection at Leyburn, it’s really annoying the same thing doesn’t exist at Bedale.

- Integration with rail. There are currently lots of calls for the Northallerton Station car park to be decked, as the current one fills up and local streets in Romanby have lots of problems with commuter parking since a private overspill car park closed. Some of that parking will be folks from Bedale, Leeming etc who aren’t well served for connections off the 73. A later bus back at 1930ish would also help - the 1700 Grand Central from London gets in at about 1920 and is very well used from London and York. I observe lots of people getting into taxis, lifts and heading for the car park. Mini Switzerland seems very complex, but the service pattern at Northallerton is much more clockface than it used to be, could be a real opportunity here.

- I do think there’s an opportunity for a better connection from Northallerton across Stokesley to Boro. Not because Boro is a big draw (and tbh even if you want the town centre you’d get the train) but because lots of local health services have shifted to the big James Cook hospital near Marton. The NHS have had an on-again off-again shuttle bus for staff and patients, and it seems crazy this isn’t integrated into a proper service. Again, lots of parking issues at James Cook.

TheGrandWazoo said:

Now I do know that @darloscott knows a bit about local bus services in the area and I do tug my forelock deferentially to him! I remember the days when buses would run from Middlesbrough to Stokesley as a 290 (what was the 29 and now the 28A) where some (about 5/6 a day) would become a 295 and run to Northallerton. More recently, Abbotts ran the X80/X89 from Northallerton to Stokesley with three continuing on to Middlesbrough... can't recall when it stopped. The odd thing is that the route has changed weirdly over time and the current position is to use one bus to provide a skeletal service to places like Hutton Rudby and Great Broughton. The easy change would be to add an extra bus - I seem to recall Abbotts did have a pair of branded Solos for the route so it was operating to the pattern that Scott suggests.

Click to expand...

Had a look at the registration for the X80/X89 and it shows cancelled as of 26 November 2018.

Registration number PB1143803/1
Licence Number PB1143803
Variation number 1
Status Cancelled
Service number. X80, X89
Service type Normal Stopping
Start point Leeming Bar
Finish point Leeming Bar
Via
Date received 15 Oct 2018
Effective date 26 Nov 2018
End date
Supported by subsidies? In Part
Local authorities covered by route North Yorkshire Council
TAOs covered by route North East of England

Click to expand...

TheGrandWazoo said:

However, not so certain about the 72. That was reduced to two hourly in 1981, and I reckon has been tendered for the last 25-30 years at least, and was converted to minibus operation in 1996. I can't see the justification on that one so I think we may have to differ on that one

Click to expand...

The 72 does seem to be using bigger buses now, there's a Pulsar tracking on it today. It does seem to be well used when I've seen it arrive in Northallerton, but primarily with ENCTS users. As you know, North Yorkshire's reimbursement rate for ENCTS is one of the lowest out there.

TheGrandWazoo said:

There's a few ones that you might think would benefit from some form of funding (a la Kickstart from the mid 2000s) with a package of operator and council funding to act as a pump primer. The 128 and 580 would seem like logical ones.

Click to expand...

Now 28!

Bristol LHS said:

Integration with rail. There are currently lots of calls for the Northallerton Station car park to be decked, as the current one fills up and local streets in Romanby have lots of problems with commuter parking since a private overspill car park closed. Some of that parking will be folks from Bedale, Leeming etc who aren’t well served for connections off the 73. A later bus back at 1930ish would also help - the 1700 Grand Central from London gets in at about 1920 and is very well used from London and York. I observe lots of people getting into taxis, lifts and heading for the car park. Mini Switzerland seems very complex, but the service pattern at Northallerton is much more clockface than it used to be, could be a real opportunity here.

Click to expand...

I agree that this would be great. However, it doesn't need franchising. North Yorkshire Council could use BSIP funding for a later journey or even just tender a later journey on the 73.

Bristol LHS said:

Better integration of what already exists. I love the Dales Bus 856 direct bus from Northallerton to Hawes on Sundays. It’d be great if it ran all week, but realistically apart from a couple of weeks annual leave each year it’d probably only be a Saturday that I’d use it, so I agree it’s sadly not a priority. When I have tried to go up to Hawes on a Saturday, I’ve asked for a lift to Bedale because there’s a 45minute gap between the first 73 arriving into Bedale and the 155 leaving for Leyburn at 0905. The next two 73s arrive 10mins after a 155 leaves. Little White Bus have a lovely connection at Leyburn, it’s really annoying the same thing doesn’t exist at Bedale.

Click to expand...

Little White Bus is great with connections. The 30 has a great connection in Richmond with the X26/X27 as well. But again, connections between the 155 & 73 can be improved through the tendering process by the Council. Especially in the case of the 155 as its tendered and the 73 isn't.

Bristol LHS said:

I do think there’s an opportunity for a better connection from Northallerton across Stokesley to Boro. Not because Boro is a big draw (and tbh even if you want the town centre you’d get the train) but because lots of local health services have shifted to the big James Cook hospital near Marton. The NHS have had an on-again off-again shuttle bus for staff and patients, and it seems crazy this isn’t integrated into a proper service. Again, lots of parking issues at James Cook

Click to expand...

Again, tendering a service to do this either using the existing 80/89 or a more direct service to complement the 80/89 is a possibility. Doesn't need the costs and hassle of franchising such a vast rural county and brings the benefits.

TheGrandWazoo said:

I have thought for some time that the growth of housing on Catterick Garrison, along with the increasing retail offering there compared to Richmond, would justify the return of the X27 being a half hourly service, and a half hourly service from Richmond to Colburn (and every hour to Catterick Village).

Click to expand...

That would be a great improvement, a small win for North Yorkshire Council.

TheGrandWazoo said:

The ones I'd like to see would be the 28A from Stokesley to Middlesbrough getting an upgrade - it used to have 3 buses per hour and now it's one. Of course, it would mean doing something to the 28 that now follows a crazy route around from Marton to Redcar... but an extension on a Sunday of the 29 would be an easy one.

Click to expand...

There's quite a bit of low hanging fruit out there for the council. This is just another example of it.

YorkRailFan said:

Had a look at the registration for the X80/X89 and it shows cancelled as of 26 November 2018.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

YorkRailFan said:

Now 28!

Click to expand...

Old habits die hard

YorkRailFan said:

The 72 does seem to be using bigger buses now, there's a Pulsar tracking on it today. It does seem to be well used when I've seen it arrive in Northallerton, but primarily with ENCTS users. As you know, North Yorkshire's reimbursement rate for ENCTS is one of the lowest out there.

Click to expand...

I think that's more to do with the journeys that divert via Elm Ridge and Coniscliffe Road that I can only guess are sent that way for the 6th form college?

What you'll see in Northallerton may look decent but those are predominantly local passengers from within Northallerton and Brompton. FWIW, Brompton used to have an hourly service when the 73 ran Bedale to Darlington PLUS Abbotts ran a market day shuttle too. People in the Cowtons are more likely to head to Darlington but tbh, there's not that many passengers in those villages.

YorkRailFan said:

Little White Bus is great with connections. The 30 has a great connection in Richmond with the X26/X27 as well. But again, connections between the 155 & 73 can be improved through the tendering process by the Council. Especially in the case of the 155 as its tendered and the 73 isn't.

Click to expand...

I think the 30 is more by luck than anything. The first one has a one minute connection which I'd suggest isn't planned.

TheGrandWazoo said:

The ones I'd like to see would be the 28A from Stokesley to Middlesbrough getting an upgrade - it used to have 3 buses per hour and now it's one. Of course, it would mean doing something to the 28 that now follows a crazy route around from Marton to Redcar... but an extension on a Sunday of the 29 would be an easy one.

Now I do know that darloscott knows a bit about local bus services in the area and I do tug my forelock deferentially to him! I remember the days when buses would run from Middlesbrough to Stokesley as a 290 (what was the 29 and now the 28A) where some (about 5/6 a day) would become a 295 and run to Northallerton. More recently, Abbotts ran the X80/X89 from Northallerton to Stokesley with three continuing on to Middlesbrough... can't recall when it stopped. The odd thing is that the route has changed weirdly over time and the current position is to use one bus to provide a skeletal service to places like Hutton Rudby and Great Broughton. The easy change would be to add an extra bus - I seem to recall Abbotts did have a pair of branded Solos for the route so it was operating to the pattern that Scott suggests.

I have thought for some time that the growth of housing on Catterick Garrison, along with the increasing retail offering there compared to Richmond, would justify the return of the X27 being a half hourly service, and a half hourly service from Richmond to Colburn (and every hour to Catterick Village).

Click to expand...

Stokesley and Catterick Village get surprisingly poor services given the size of them – 20 years ago, both used to have much better levels of service, and I would very much like to see them both get better services again.

Bristol LHS said:

Better integration of what already exists. I love the Dales Bus 856 direct bus from Northallerton to Hawes on Sundays. It’d be great if it ran all week, but realistically apart from a couple of weeks annual leave each year it’d probably only be a Saturday that I’d use it, so I agree it’s sadly not a priority. When I have tried to go up to Hawes on a Saturday, I’ve asked for a lift to Bedale because there’s a 45minute gap between the first 73 arriving into Bedale and the 155 leaving for Leyburn at 0905. The next two 73s arrive 10mins after a 155 leaves. Little White Bus have a lovely connection at Leyburn, it’s really annoying the same thing doesn’t exist at Bedale.

Click to expand...

YorkRailFan said:

Little White Bus is great with connections. The 30 has a great connection in Richmond with the X26/X27 as well. But again, connections between the 155 & 73 can be improved through the tendering process by the Council. Especially in the case of the 155 as its tendered and the 73 isn't.

Click to expand...

Pre-Covid, there was better integration between the 73 and 155 (although there was still a bit of a wait between them), but then when D&D dropped the 73 from half-hourly to hourly, the buses that were dropped were the ones that connected with the 155. This situation persisted for several years, with passengers having a 45 minute connection at Bedale in both connections, and the council (who were running the 155 at the time) did absolutely nothing to remedy the situation – I realise that YNYCA is a different organisation to NY(C)C so it isn't far to tar them with the same brush, but it just shows how little effort NY(C)C have put into promoting a good bus network rather than providing a bare-minimum skeleton service for as little cost as possible. Connections at Leyburn are variable – part of the problem there is that with several journeys on the 156 diverting to serve minor villages on request, the arrival time isn't set in stone. All more reasons why the three services should be run as one through route to guarantee that passengers won't be left hanging around for ages.

TheGrandWazoo said:

What you'll see in Northallerton may look decent but those are predominantly local passengers from within Northallerton and Brompton. FWIW, Brompton used to have an hourly service when the 73 ran Bedale to Darlington PLUS Abbotts ran a market day shuttle too. People in the Cowtons are more likely to head to Darlington but tbh, there's not that many passengers in those villages.

Click to expand...

Brompton has 12 buses in 12 hours to Northallerton ... but most of the time they run in pairs. The 72 and 80/89 both leave Northallerton at 1010, 1210 and 1810 (there are small gaps between them on the other hours), and half of the time buses leave Brompton only a few minutes apart. Now there may be a good reason for that – maybe the ~8am arrival and ~6pm departures are too critical to change and the rest of the day's service just spreads out from there, and that's more important than Brompton getting a regular hourly service – but unless there is strong demand for travel between Brompton and Darlington, it does suggest it's pretty pointless the 72 coming off the A167 when it could just run straight down the main road, as it isn't adding anything by diverting via Brompton. It isn't a big deal, but is symptomatic of a network that has no-one having proper oversight of it.

TheGrandWazoo said:

There's a few ones that you might think would benefit from some form of funding (a la Kickstart from the mid 2000s) with a package of operator and council funding to act as a pump primer. The 128 and 580 would seem like logical ones.

The ones I'd like to see would be the 28A from Stokesley to Middlesbrough getting an upgrade - it used to have 3 buses per hour and now it's one. Of course, it would mean doing something to the 28 that now follows a crazy route around from Marton to Redcar... but an extension on a Sunday of the 29 would be an easy one.

Now I do know that @darloscott knows a bit about local bus services in the area and I do tug my forelock deferentially to him! I remember the days when buses would run from Middlesbrough to Stokesley as a 290 (what was the 29 and now the 28A) where some (about 5/6 a day) would become a 295 and run to Northallerton. More recently, Abbotts ran the X80/X89 from Northallerton to Stokesley with three continuing on to Middlesbrough... can't recall when it stopped. The odd thing is that the route has changed weirdly over time and the current position is to use one bus to provide a skeletal service to places like Hutton Rudby and Great Broughton. The easy change would be to add an extra bus - I seem to recall Abbotts did have a pair of branded Solos for the route so it was operating to the pattern that Scott suggests.

However, not so certain about the 72. That was reduced to two hourly in 1981, and I reckon has been tendered for the last 25-30 years at least, and was converted to minibus operation in 1996. I can't see the justification on that one so I think we may have to differ on that one

I have thought for some time that the growth of housing on Catterick Garrison, along with the increasing retail offering there compared to Richmond, would justify the return of the X27 being a half hourly service, and a half hourly service from Richmond to Colburn (and every hour to Catterick Village).

Click to expand...

I think since the network has been rationalised so heavily... messing about with the 28/28a and 29 would mean starting again with a clean sheet. In my opinion - and a plan I had at one point - running an express between Northallerton & Middlesbrough via Brompton, Swainby, Hutton Rudby, Stokesley, Coulby Newham & the A19 would give a faster journey time from Stokesley to Middlesbrough, and re-opening faster journeys from Coulby into Middlesbrough (missing since Leven Valley went) and opening up day trip opportunities from Middlesbrough to Northallerton which would also be popular. This way you build a two-way market for your express buses.
Abbotts ran the X80 for a few years after they had the second bus removed from the 80/89... with some better promotion it would have done far better! Linking the 80/89 every hour with the 28a would give direct journeys to the hospital on the way in, albeit on a slower routing. Both routes would complement each other though. Getting the 80 & 89 to every 2 hours on both sides would give a usable frequency in most of the villages and the main points (Brompton, Osmotherley, Swainby) would get an hourly frequency in each direction. A direct link to the hospital & Middlesbrough (albeit with a terrible journey time) at the other end would hopefully drum up some more business, and day trip opportunities for Teesside residents to villages would add a handful more. There are some beautiful walks etc out there but not accessible with a (connecting) bus every 4 hours...

I ran the 80/89 for a year (& drove it fairly regularly) so know that service inside out (& the 18 for a few years), there is definite potential!

The 72 is a very busy service and almost commercially viable. If it ran to a proper 2-hourly timetable it would be much easier to use, unfortunately it is limited by requiring a driver break in the timetable. Adding an extra bus to this to be hourly in both directions would allow some flexibility in the timetable - and with the 72 and 80/89 being roughly an hour out & back would allow Brompton to be served every 30 mins into Northallerton, which in my opinion would be a huge step change in provision here and would be very well used (the 80/89 always picked up 5 or 6, despite being 2-hourly). I never understood why they built the whole new estate with a bridge over to the major supermarkets yet neither of the buses went that direction and both still run in via Stokesley Road.

stevieinselby said:

Connections at Leyburn are variable – part of the problem there is that with several journeys on the 156 diverting to serve minor villages on request, the arrival time isn't set in stone. All more reasons why the three services should be run as one through route to guarantee that passengers won't be left hanging around for ages.

Click to expand...

I think the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

Essentially, the 73 is a big bus working (though the current decker is bit of an outlier) but through the years, it's had Pulsars, Eclipses and e200s. So all buses would need to be conventionals and that definitely wouldn't work in places like Thoralby.

I don't know if there's any issues elsewhere with vehicle sizes and/or grounding issues but the additional cost and having to reroute services vs. the limited number of people wanting to go from Upper Wensleydale to Northallerton means it's probably not worth it.

stevieinselby said:

Brompton has 12 buses in 12 hours to Northallerton ... but most of the time they run in pairs. The 72 and 80/89 both leave Northallerton at 1010, 1210 and 1810 (there are small gaps between them on the other hours), and half of the time buses leave Brompton only a few minutes apart. Now there may be a good reason for that – maybe the ~8am arrival and ~6pm departures are too critical to change and the rest of the day's service just spreads out from there, and that's more important than Brompton getting a regular hourly service – but unless there is strong demand for travel between Brompton and Darlington, it does suggest it's pretty pointless the 72 coming off the A167 when it could just run straight down the main road, as it isn't adding anything by diverting via Brompton. It isn't a big deal, but is symptomatic of a network that has no-one having proper oversight of it.

Click to expand...

Both routes are tendered so it's a bit daft. The morning inbounds which is when most are travelling from Brompton to Northallerton are slightly better 0731/0756, 0931/0956 and then there's an extra 74B at 1033. Granted, there's the odd spectacle of 1351/1356/1359 caused by the 74B making a second appearance to plug the gap between 1210 and 1410 but overall, it's a bit of a mess.

The 72 and 80/89 could and should be coordinated better but this is the world of North Yorkshire and sadly, it's always been the same. Not helped by the Northallerton locals being a case of "what can we do with a SEND welfare bus at marginal cost and allowing the driver an hours' break?"

TheGrandWazoo said:

I think that's more to do with the journeys that divert via Elm Ridge and Coniscliffe Road that I can only guess are sent that way for the 6th form college?

Click to expand...

They use the same bus throughout the day as its probably the easiest operationally. Looking at tracking on Saturdays, its usually a Pulsar or Evora as well though I have seen E200 MMC midibuses on Saturdays as well.

stevieinselby said:

Pre-Covid, there was better integration between the 73 and 155 (although there was still a bit of a wait between them), but then when D&D dropped the 73 from half-hourly to hourly, the buses that were dropped were the ones that connected with the 155. This situation persisted for several years, with passengers having a 45 minute connection at Bedale in both connections, and the council (who were running the 155 at the time) did absolutely nothing to remedy the situation – I realise that YNYCA is a different organisation to NY(C)C so it isn't far to tar them with the same brush, but it just shows how little effort NY(C)C have put into promoting a good bus network rather than providing a bare-minimum skeleton service for as little cost as possible. Connections at Leyburn are variable – part of the problem there is that with several journeys on the 156 diverting to serve minor villages on request, the arrival time isn't set in stone. All more reasons why the three services should be run as one through route to guarantee that passengers won't be left hanging around for ages.

Click to expand...

Definitely agree that its needs to be a direct route. The 30 is better in regards to having a clearer arrival time in Richmond than the 156 In Leyburn. A through service during the week doesn't need franchising to happen though. Now that responsibility is with the Combined Authority, do we know if the transport planners from North Yorkshire Council are now at the Combined Authority? If so, it doesn't give me much hope regarding a franchised network.

TheGrandWazoo said:

I don't know if there's any issues elsewhere with vehicle sizes and/or grounding issues but the additional cost and having to reroute services vs. the limited number of people wanting to go from Upper Wensleydale to Northallerton means it's probably not worth it.

Click to expand...

The 856 route along the A684 likely wouldn't have issues with a bigger bus. Deckers are used between Northallerton & Bedale (73) and Aysgarth & Hawes (875/876). Running through the smaller villages that the 155 & 156 serve is a different matter though.

darloscott said:

The 72 is a very busy service and almost commercially viable. If it ran to a proper 2-hourly timetable it would be much easier to use, unfortunately it is limited by requiring a driver break in the timetable. Adding an extra bus to this to be hourly in both directions would allow some flexibility in the timetable - and with the 72 and 80/89 being roughly an hour out & back would allow Brompton to be served every 30 mins into Northallerton, which in my opinion would be a huge step change in provision here and would be very well used (the 80/89 always picked up 5 or 6, despite being 2-hourly). I never understood why they built the whole new estate with a bridge over to the major supermarkets yet neither of the buses went that direction and both still run in via Stokesley Road.

Click to expand...

TheGrandWazoo said:

Both routes are tendered so it's a bit daft. The morning inbounds which is when most are travelling from Brompton to Northallerton are slightly better 0731/0756, 0931/0956 and then there's an extra 74B at 1033. Granted, there's the odd spectacle of 1351/1356/1359 caused by the 74B making a second appearance to plug the gap between 1210 and 1410 but overall, it's a bit of a mess.

The 72 and 80/89 could and should be coordinated better but this is the world of North Yorkshire and sadly, it's always been the same. Not helped by the Northallerton locals being a case of "what can we do with a SEND welfare bus at marginal cost and allowing the driver an hours' break?"

Click to expand...

This could be done through tendering if the Council saw sense and would be a huge boost to Brompton along with other places served by the 72 & 80/89.

darloscott said:

Abbotts ran the X80 for a few years after they had the second bus removed from the 80/89... with some better promotion it would have done far better! Linking the 80/89 every hour with the 28a would give direct journeys to the hospital on the way in, albeit on a slower routing. Both routes would complement each other though. Getting the 80 & 89 to every 2 hours on both sides would give a usable frequency in most of the villages and the main points (Brompton, Osmotherley, Swainby) would get an hourly frequency in each direction. A direct link to the hospital & Middlesbrough (albeit with a terrible journey time) at the other end would hopefully drum up some more business, and day trip opportunities for Teesside residents to villages would add a handful more. There are some beautiful walks etc out there but not accessible with a (connecting) bus every 4 hours...

I ran the 80/89 for a year (& drove it fairly regularly) so know that service inside out (& the 18 for a few years), there is definite potential!

Click to expand...

The problem with the X80/X89 was that it was scheduled entirely without reference to the 80/89. What happened was that NYCC cut the funding for the 80/89 from two buses to one, but Abbotts had the vehicles and drivers to run two buses, so they put on the X80/X89 as a way of deploying the resources they had ... but because it had a different running time to the 80/89, which now ran to NYCC's new timetable, there was no coordination, and some journeys filled useful gaps in the 80/89 timetable while others ran a few minutes ahead or behind or even overtook the 80/89 en route. I'm sure there is plenty of potential for a better service along that corridor, but it needs to be better planned that that timetable was!

TheGrandWazoo said:

Essentially, the 73 is a big bus working (though the current decker is bit of an outlier) but through the years, it's had Pulsars, Eclipses and e200s. So all buses would need to be conventionals and that definitely wouldn't work in places like Thoralby.

I don't know if there's any issues elsewhere with vehicle sizes and/or grounding issues but the additional cost and having to reroute services vs. the limited number of people wanting to go from Upper Wensleydale to Northallerton means it's probably not worth it.

Click to expand...

D&D used to run the 156/157 with regular Solos and I'm sure it wasn't unknown to have Darts and E200s as well, so the route can certainly accommodate "proper" buses although probably not full size saloons. (The only exception being the road from Worton to Askrigg, but with a full hourly service alternating between north-side and south-side you wouldn't need to use that link, so not a problem). I don't know how busy the 73 is, if it had a ~9m bus like a mini-E200 or Solo running on one half of the hour combined with a full-size saloon running on the other half, shuttling between Northallerton and Bedale only, would that give enough capacity? Otherwise you could work it as two routes, either breaking at Bedale or Leyburn, which would be better than the current mess of having it split into three.

darloscott said:

The 72 is a very busy service and almost commercially viable. If it ran to a proper 2-hourly timetable it would be much easier to use, unfortunately it is limited by requiring a driver break in the timetable. Adding an extra bus to this to be hourly in both directions would allow some flexibility in the timetable - and with the 72 and 80/89 being roughly an hour out & back would allow Brompton to be served every 30 mins into Northallerton, which in my opinion would be a huge step change in provision here and would be very well used (the 80/89 always picked up 5 or 6, despite being 2-hourly). I never understood why they built the whole new estate with a bridge over to the major supermarkets yet neither of the buses went that direction and both still run in via Stokesley Road.

Click to expand...

I knew you had experienced working the 80/89 and 18 so I knew you'd have a good handle on that. I'm more dubious on the 72 as it's been run under tender by Arriva, Dales and District, Arriva again, Dales and District again and Hodgsons, all in the last 20 years. No one has taken the plunge to run it commercially in the halcyon days before Covid and probably less likely now.

And yes, it does seem odd not to divert via North Moor Road but perhaps they were influenced by the potential of getting caught at the level crossing?

YorkRailFan said:

They use the same bus throughout the day as its probably the easiest operationally. Looking at tracking on Saturdays, its usually a Pulsar or Evora as well though I have seen E200 MMC midibuses on Saturdays as well.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, it will be resourced for the heaviest journeys that I suspect are the college runs and may as well use the same vehicle on Saturday too.

YorkRailFan said:

The 856 route along the A684 likely wouldn't have issues with a bigger bus. Deckers are used between Northallerton & Bedale (73) and Aysgarth & Hawes (875/876). Running through the smaller villages that the 155 & 156 serve is a different matter though.

Click to expand...

The 856 route along the A684 wouldn't have those issues. For years, United Auto ran deckers from Northallerton to Leyburn because of the schools requirement into Northallerton but those journeys stuck to the A684 and didn't run into Hunton or Finghall.

stevieinselby said:

D&D used to run the 156/157 with regular Solos and I'm sure it wasn't unknown to have Darts and E200s as well, so the route can certainly accommodate "proper" buses although probably not full size saloons. (The only exception being the road from Worton to Askrigg, but with a full hourly service alternating between north-side and south-side you wouldn't need to use that link, so not a problem). I don't know how busy the 73 is, if it had a ~9m bus like a mini-E200 or Solo running on one half of the hour combined with a full-size saloon running on the other half, shuttling between Northallerton and Bedale only, would that give enough capacity? Otherwise you could work it as two routes, either breaking at Bedale or Leyburn, which would be better than the current mess of having it split into three.

Click to expand...

Certainly, Thoralby and places like Hunton and Finghall could accommodate a full sized vehicle back in the day when United used to send Bristol LHs through them; I did put the caveat in about grounding only because we have low floors now and the Bristol LH was most certainly not that!

However, I'm still dubious about now having a 30 min headway (though it might be one of the few routes in Hambleton that could sustain that) in order to then enable through buses from Northallerton to Hawes. Remember that when the Rural Bus Challenge funding came about, it allow WRC (and later D&D) to run buses every hour on that route. When the funds ran out, it was chopped and chopped again because there wasn't that much demand as once you get past Bedale heading west, there are very few passengers. You might get a few on a sunny summer Sunday but even then, funding has had to be scraped together... remember when it was sponsored by a stairlift firm, who clearly were targeting a certain demographic

darloscott said:

I think since the network has been rationalised so heavily... messing about with the 28/28a and 29 would mean starting again with a clean sheet. In my opinion - and a plan I had at one point - running an express between Northallerton & Middlesbrough via Brompton, Swainby, Hutton Rudby, Stokesley, Coulby Newham & the A19 would give a faster journey time from Stokesley to Middlesbrough, and re-opening faster journeys from Coulby into Middlesbrough (missing since Leven Valley went) and opening up day trip opportunities from Middlesbrough to Northallerton which would also be popular. This way you build a two-way market for your express buses.

Click to expand...

Agree that it would need a fresh approach.

For a few years in the early 1990s, there were X95 shopper expresses that ran on Tuesday and Friday from Northallerton to Middlesbrough; they were a way to utilise a spare bus that was employed on Thirsk/Northallerton/Ripon market day runs on Mon/Wed/Thurs. It was quite popular despite the limited service.

stevieinselby said:

D&D used to run the 156/157 with regular Solos and I'm sure it wasn't unknown to have Darts and E200s as well, so the route can certainly accommodate "proper" buses although probably not full size saloons. (The only exception being the road from Worton to Askrigg, but with a full hourly service alternating between north-side and south-side you wouldn't need to use that link, so not a problem). I don't know how busy the 73 is, if it had a ~9m bus like a mini-E200 or Solo running on one half of the hour combined with a full-size saloon running on the other half, shuttling between Northallerton and Bedale only, would that give enough capacity? Otherwise you could work it as two routes, either breaking at Bedale or Leyburn, which would be better than the current mess of having it split into three.

Click to expand...

TheGrandWazoo said:

Certainly, Thoralby and places like Hunton and Finghall could accommodate a full sized vehicle back in the day when United used to send Bristol LHs through them; I did put the caveat in about grounding only because we have low floors now and the Bristol LH was most certainly not that!

Click to expand...

The primary reason for using a minibus on the 156 is funding. The 156 is a service ran by a Community Transport Operator, they run several services across a vast rural area using primarily volunteers. This comes at a high cost for Little White Bus so a minibus will be the most economical for them. An operator like Procters will have very different economics and could use a Solo or E200 in theory.

As for the 155, I'm not sure but it could be a tender requirement to use a Sprinter when the service passed from North Yorkshire Council to Hodgsons in April 2024. The Council operated the 155 with their in house minibus fleet previously.

stevieinselby said:

That's easy enough at the moment when it's a £3 (or £2) flat fare ... but if there's any risk of fares going back to commercial levels then it's going to be tricky, because Coastliner were selling tickets for more than £15 single pre-Covid so could easily be £20 now. So if a county-wide ticket were available then one of these options would need to be chosen: (a) 840 and 843 to be excluded from its coverage, (ii) the ticket would be more than £20 a head and so would be uncompetitive for any journey not involving a long run on Coastliner, or (3) Coastliner fares to be heavily subsidised by YNYCA, which would be expensive.

Click to expand...

I can understand excluding Coastliner for the long journeys but I think that would have a negative impact on people using Coastliner on shorter journeys where Coastliner is the only option. Obviously on longer journeys, such a ticket would be a bargain but the consequence for shorter journeys shouldn't be ignored. How you would get round this, well I don't know to be honest.

TheGrandWazoo said:

And yes, it does seem odd not to divert via North Moor Road but perhaps they were influenced by the potential of getting caught at the level crossing?

Click to expand...

The level crossing is not on a busy line, it's only closed 3 or 4 times an hour, and the route isn't especially tightly timed, so it shouldn't be a problem running that way.

TheGrandWazoo said:

However, I'm still dubious about now having a 30 min headway (though it might be one of the few routes in Hambleton that could sustain that) in order to then enable through buses from Northallerton to Hawes. Remember that when the Rural Bus Challenge funding came about, it allow WRC (and later D&D) to run buses every hour on that route. When the funds ran out, it was chopped and chopped again because there wasn't that much demand as once you get past Bedale heading west, there are very few passengers. You might get a few on a sunny summer Sunday but even then, funding has had to be scraped together... remember when it was sponsored by a stairlift firm, who clearly were targeting a certain demographic

Click to expand...

The 73 already runs a roughly 30 minute headway commercially, with subsidies to run a couple of journeys each way as 53 and divert them via Leeming Village.
That's the only section of the route that I would run every 30 minutes – one bus an hour running from Northallerton to Bedale only, using a full-size bus, and one bus an hour continuing on to Leyburn and Hawes, using a smaller bus.

YorkRailFan said:

As for the 155, I'm not sure but it could be a tender requirement to use a Sprinter when the service passed from North Yorkshire Council to Hodgsons in April 2024. The Council operated the 155 with their in house minibus fleet previously.

Click to expand...

I can't think why a contract would specify that it must use a minibus, there's nowhere I can see on the route that would struggle to accommodate a mid-size E200 of the sort Hodgsons have loads of – I suspect it's more likely that the contract only pays them the cost of running a minibus so they are not going to run a bigger bus if they can avoid it.

YorkRailFan said:

I can understand excluding Coastliner for the long journeys but I think that would have a negative impact on people using Coastliner on shorter journeys where Coastliner is the only option. Obviously on longer journeys, such a ticket would be a bargain but the consequence for shorter journeys shouldn't be ignored. How you would get round this, well I don't know to be honest.

Click to expand...

Not an easy one to solve, unless we go with the suggestion of having zonal tickets (although with North Yorkshire now being a unitary authority, it would be odd to go back to using the districts as boundaries!) instead of a county-wide scheme – but that could significantly disadvantage people making short journeys that cross a boundary, however they are drawn. I know that's always a risk whenever you have to have a cut-off, but it seems particularly egregious in this case.

stevieinselby said:

The level crossing is not on a busy line, it's only closed 3 or 4 times an hour, and the route isn't especially tightly timed, so it shouldn't be a problem running that way.

Click to expand...

I know but it's a faff when it does close. I don't know why - was it that or was it the diversion makes a tightly timed route more problematic.

stevieinselby said:

The 73 already runs a roughly 30 minute headway commercially, with subsidies to run a couple of journeys each way as 53 and divert them via Leeming Village.
That's the only section of the route that I would run every 30 minutes – one bus an hour running from Northallerton to Bedale only, using a full-size bus, and one bus an hour continuing on to Leyburn and Hawes, using a smaller bus.

Click to expand...

stevieinselby said:

I can't think why a contract would specify that it must use a minibus, there's nowhere I can see on the route that would struggle to accommodate a mid-size E200 of the sort Hodgsons have loads of – I suspect it's more likely that the contract only pays them the cost of running a minibus so they are not going to run a bigger bus if they can avoid it.

Click to expand...

Fair comment about the 53 and the infills and I did mean it was the only route really where such a headway is even approaching sustainable.

However, it still begs the question of having an e200 heading all the way up the dale when a minibus is all the capacity (and cost) that you need. Instead of a relatively frugal minibus driven by a volunteer, you're going to have a full fat conventional for relatively limited benefit. Mind you, if money is suddenly no object... and it isn't as if loadings are particularly great.

TheGrandWazoo said:

However, it still begs the question of having an e200 heading all the way up the dale when a minibus is all the capacity (and cost) that you need. Instead of a relatively frugal minibus driven by a volunteer, you're going to have a full fat conventional for relatively limited benefit. Mind you, if money is suddenly no object... and it isn't as if loadings are particularly great.

Click to expand...

Well the benefit is that you have a direct journey instead of 3 separate journeys that have poor connection times. If it were to be hourly, that would provide a significant increase in frequency.

Little White Bus have very different economies of scale to say Procters. Procters can more easily afford (with subsidies from the Council) to run a proper bus around Wensleydale than Little White Bus. Procters can better absorb rises in operational costs better than Little White Bus. Procters also wouldn't be reliant on volunteers to show up when needed.

stevieinselby said:

I can't think why a contract would specify that it must use a minibus, there's nowhere I can see on the route that would struggle to accommodate a mid-size E200 of the sort Hodgsons have loads of – I suspect it's more likely that the contract only pays them the cost of running a minibus so they are not going to run a bigger bus if they can avoid it.

Click to expand...

That more than likely sounds like the reason.

stevieinselby said:

Not an easy one to solve, unless we go with the suggestion of having zonal tickets (although with North Yorkshire now being a unitary authority, it would be odd to go back to using the districts as boundaries!) instead of a county-wide scheme – but that could significantly disadvantage people making short journeys that cross a boundary, however they are drawn. I know that's always a risk whenever you have to have a cut-off, but it seems particularly egregious in this case.

Click to expand...

At the moment, it wouldn't be too much of a problem with the fare cap but the problem arises if we return to the fares regime prior to the cap. Zonal fares would disadvantage those making short journeys across zones and excluding Coastliner would disadvantage those using Coastliner on short journeys where Coastliner is the only option.

Outside of York, I struggle to see how such a County-wide ticket could be implemented. If we have a franchised regime in York & North Yorkshire, I would like to see day tickets for the Harrogate and Scarborough Local services.

YorkRailFan said:

Well the benefit is that you have a direct journey instead of 3 separate journeys that have poor connection times. If it were to be hourly, that would provide a significant increase in frequency.

Click to expand...

Yes but that's only a benefit for a very low number of passengers.

I'm a bit unclear as to the "hourly" reference. I've done some sums below based on the current service being run with full sized buses but are you suggesting that the service should be hourly from Bedale to Hawes?

YorkRailFan said:

Little White Bus have very different economies of scale to say Procters. Procters can more easily afford (with subsidies from the Council) to run a proper bus around Wensleydale than Little White Bus. Procters can better absorb rises in operational costs better than Little White Bus. Procters also wouldn't be reliant on volunteers to show up when needed.

Click to expand...

The point isn't that Hodgsons will be able to operate an e200 cheaper than LWB; more that the overall operating cost will be considerably higher, and to what end. With some fag packet maths, I reckon the fuel cost will essentially double on the 155 and 156 - that'll be about £150k p.a. Meanwhile the driver cost will probably go up by 50% - that'll be another £60k. I've not bothered with other considerations like capital cost/depreciation

And the benefit... A through service from Northallerton for a handful of people. If there's £200k to be spent, spend it on an extra bus on the 80/89. A more logical approach would be to have LWB run the service from Hawes to Bedale (if they can resource it) and then have decent connections with the 53/73 rather than send an e200 up the top end of the dale for the rather limited market it serves. I just don't see that the benefit really justifies the money.