Bee Network Service/Route Discussion

[johncrossley]

They still seem to be sticking with the deregulation era network, which seems a bit strange so long after the start of franchising. They are actually increasing the frequency of services that were already frequent. Are they actually going to take advantage of the freedoms of franchising?

 

[aron2smith]

They still seem to be sticking with the deregulation era network, which seems a bit strange so long after the start of franchising. They are actually increasing the frequency of services that were already frequent. Are they actually going to take advantage of the freedoms of franchising?

I thought they were still yet to do borough by borough network reviews, but maybe the routes themselves don't need to change that much. If it's like routes near me, many routes haven't actually changed much in all the decades of deregulation, route numbers and the core sections of the routes still as they were when it was London Transport and London Country. Just lower frequencies and less hours of operation. Doesn't the 192 through Stockport have a long history for example? If buses in Greater Manchester are generally the same as this, enhancing frequency and running later buses makes sense and making everything work together.

We don't really want changes that confuse people or break connections. Maybe Manchester will do a Dublin style Bus Connects network redesign to improve connectivity in more places more equally someday. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, it just needs to work well.

 

[mangad]

I thought they were still yet to do borough by borough network reviews, but maybe the routes themselves don't need to change that much. If it's like routes near me, many routes haven't actually changed much in all the decades of deregulation, route numbers and the core sections of the routes still as they were when it was London Transport and London Country. Just lower frequencies and less hours of operation. Doesn't the 192 through Stockport have a long history for example? If buses in Greater Manchester are generally the same as this, enhancing frequency and running later buses makes sense and making everything work together.

The route of the 192 goes back to the days of horse trams. Although it is a very obvious route in some respects!

But there are many other routes that have a very long pedigree as you say, especially routes with their history going back to the trams. If it works, why change it?

We don't really want changes that confuse people or break connections. Maybe Manchester will do a Dublin style Bus Connects network redesign to improve connectivity in more places more equally someday. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, it just needs to work well.

Very much agree. I think it's more likely they'll focus on areas not being served well currently, opening up new connections, and improving frequencies. There have been comments from the Mayor and TfGM about orbital routes but some of them will likely be Superloop-style rebranding of existing routes like the 330 from Stockport to Ashton for example. There may well be some cuts and changes to prevent duplication between bus and tram as well.

The idea they'll rip everything up and start again probably is a more interesting notion in terms of this forum, but I don't see it happening.

 

[johncrossley]

The route of the 192 goes back to the days of horse trams. Although it is a very obvious route in some respects!

But there are many other routes that have a very long pedigree as you say, especially routes with their history going back to the trams. If it works, why change it?

If you are talking about routes from outer towns to Manchester city centre, and some routes between the outer towns, yes most of them have been the same or very similar for many decades, probably over 100 years in some cases. Most of these were already well served during the deregulation era, so weren't the problem that needed solving by franchising. I'm concerned about the rest of the network. These have been barely touched by the Bee Network so far. TfGM have mostly concentrated on improving the already quite good historic routes.

 

[Statto]

The 192 is not that long of a route by modern standards & does not need splitting up, buses take around 60 minutes off peak (70 minutes in the peaks), & passengers do travel through Stockport too, & it's quite a busy route,.

What the 192 could do with is simplifying, Stockport - Manchester is every 3 to 4 minutes, but the timetable can be confusing, as buses goes to one of three points, Stockport (every 10 minutes), Stepping Hill (every 10 minutes), Hazel Grove (every 10 minutes).

My idea would be, 192 goes alternately to Stepping Hill or Hazel Grove, maybe every 8 minutes to Stepping Hill, & every 8 minutes to Hazel Grove (every 4 minutes Stepping Hill - Manchester) with Stockport being journey's to/from the depot.

 

[py_megapixel]

There may well be some cuts and changes to prevent duplication between bus and tram as well.

If done well they will be able to do this in such a way that reduces the number of buses sitting in traffic in the city centre and redeploys them to provide really high-quality high-frequency connections in the suburbs.

East Didsbury is a good example. Take the half-hourly 42A route from Manchester to North Reddish for instance. Journey time is just over an hour but the first 40 minutes of it just duplicates the 142 to East Didsbury. By cutting this section out, the half-hourly service could be turned into a 12 minute service with the same number of buses, meaning people can connect into it, safe in the knowledge that if they miss the bus they don't have such a long wait for the next one. This improves connectivity as passengers can change not only to the 142 to continue along the old route, but also to the 50 to get to e.g. Burnage, or the 25 for Chorlton/Stretford/the Trafford Centre, or the tram for much quicker access to the city centre.

The need to change would be inconvenient, but would be balanced by the massively greater convenience of a high frequency service.

I could also see reliability improving substantially as the buses would no longer have to deal with the awful congestion around Piccadilly Gardens and Rusholme at peak times.

 

[Andyh82]

I’m mainly familiar with the network around Saddleworth, and there are lots of services there that were cut back or routed by First Manchester

The 84 where 2/3rds of journeys only go as far as Grotton, meaning Uppermill doesn’t have a ‘frequent’ service, and therefore doesn’t appear on the frequent services map.

The 180 only runs hourly and only at off peak times only, it would have had a better service than that before, at one time it had through buses to Manchester

The 184 diverts via Greenacres on the way into Oldham to cover for a minibus service that was withdrawn, the longest distance service ends up taking the least direct route.

The 356 is basically two services in one, meaning it does a route shaped like an upside down ‘V’

Some of those could be reversed with a bit more resource

 

[johncrossley]

East Didsbury is a good example. Take the half-hourly 42A route from Manchester to North Reddish for instance. Journey time is just over an hour but the first 40 minutes of it just duplicates the 142 to East Didsbury. By cutting this section out, the half-hourly service could be turned into a 12 minute service with the same number of buses, meaning people can connect into it, safe in the knowledge that if they miss the bus they don't have such a long wait for the next one. This improves connectivity as passengers can change not only to the 142 to continue along the old route, but also to the 50 to get to e.g. Burnage, or the 25 for Chorlton/Stretford/the Trafford Centre, or the tram for much quicker access to the city centre.

This is the sort of thing I was expecting from the Bee Network at the beginning. The signs so far are they are just going to copy what Stagecoach etc. did and run most buses to the city centre, leading to low frequency at the ends of routes as you rightly point out.

The need to change would be inconvenient, but would be balanced by the massively greater convenience of a high frequency service.

This needs some political bravery but Burnham doesn't seem to have done anything remotely controversial so far. They've introduced the Hopper fare though, so that should make such a policy change easier to sell. They need to really push the potential journey opportunities opened up and ride out the inevitable backlash from people who complain about no longer having a direct bus to the city centre.

 

[Statto]

The 142 & 143 could easily be withdrawn & replaced by increasing frequencies on other routes.

Wilmslow Road has calmed down a lot since the 90s, were you had the mad situation of 5 buses a minute through various companies, but it's still a very busy route.

 

[Andyh82]

The 142 & 143 could easily be withdrawn & replaced by increasing frequencies on other routes.

Wilmslow Road has calmed down a lot since the 90s, were you had the mad situation of 5 buses a minute through various companies, but it's still a very busy route.

You’ve just contradicted what you suggested for the 192

You find the 192 complicated with its three terminals, but presumably want to introduce complicated short workings on the Wilmslow Road services?

 

[Pinus contorta]

That's a novelty - a cross boundary bus. Imagine the outcry if you were travelling on the train from Liverpool to Manchester in 1830 whatever and you had to get off at the Parkside Memorial to complete your journey.

 

[markymark2000]

You find the 192 complicated with its three terminals, but presumably want to introduce complicated short workings on the Wilmslow Road services?

The 42 already does short trips to/from East Didsbury so depending on how you look at it, it wouldn't be any different. Either you need to remove the short 42 from East Didsbury into Manchester, or you need to remove the 142

The 43/143 perhaps becomes a bit more difficult, but I'd certainly back proposals to merge them. Easy fix of having a bus every 5 minutes to West Didsbury with every other bus extending to the Airport. Also gives potential for buses at the start/end of the day to extend back to the depot meaning a boost to frequencies between Sharston, Northenden and West Didsbury at certain hours. I don't believe that West Didsbury to Wilmslow Road really needs 20 buses per hour.

 

[M60lad]

Apart from 83 I notice nothing has been mentioned about any other services in/around Oldham area, does this mean no other services in Oldham area will be changing?

As for the current route of 184 replacing a minibus route then I'm not to certain whether this is actually true as Oldham Depot has had quite a number of routes serving Greenacres in the past, for example there was an 81A that served Greenacres on its way to Holts Estate then even further into the past 415 actually ran to/from Greenacres

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

East Didsbury is a good example. Take the half-hourly 42A route from Manchester to North Reddish for instance. Journey time is just over an hour but the first 40 minutes of it just duplicates the 142 to East Didsbury. By cutting this section out, the half-hourly service could be turned into a 12 minute service with the same number of buses, meaning people can connect into it, safe in the knowledge that if they miss the bus they don't have such a long wait for the next one. This improves connectivity as passengers can change not only to the 142 to continue along the old route, but also to the 50 to get to e.g. Burnage, or the 25 for Chorlton/Stretford/the Trafford Centre, or the tram for much quicker access to the city centre.

The need to change would be inconvenient, but would be balanced by the massively greater convenience of a high frequency service.

Bus routes are meant to serve the needs of the travelling public, not for operational niceties.

 

[py_megapixel]

Bus routes are meant to serve the needs of the travelling public, not for operational niceties.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment to the post you are replying to, sorry. My post was purely about the passenger service and not about the operational considerations.

 

[Whisky Papa]

If done well they will be able to do this in such a way that reduces the number of buses sitting in traffic in the city centre and redeploys them to provide really high-quality high-frequency connections in the suburbs.

East Didsbury is a good example. Take the half-hourly 42A route from Manchester to North Reddish for instance. Journey time is just over an hour but the first 40 minutes of it just duplicates the 142 to East Didsbury. By cutting this section out, the half-hourly service could be turned into a 12 minute service with the same number of buses, meaning people can connect into it, safe in the knowledge that if they miss the bus they don't have such a long wait for the next one. This improves connectivity as passengers can change not only to the 142 to continue along the old route, but also to the 50 to get to e.g. Burnage, or the 25 for Chorlton/Stretford/the Trafford Centre, or the tram for much quicker access to the city centre.

The need to change would be inconvenient, but would be balanced by the massively greater convenience of a high frequency service.

I could also see reliability improving substantially as the buses would no longer have to deal with the awful congestion around Piccadilly Gardens and Rusholme at peak times.

I remain to be convinced about the wisdom of splitting the 42A at East Didsbury, although I would agree that an increase to every 20 minutes, along with a similar increase on the 42 from Stockport, would be a good move. This might allow for a slight reduction in the 142 frequency, while removing the 42A as you suggest would quite likely require an increase in the 142. Incidentally, would you also wish to split the 42 at East Didsbury - the same argument applies, surely?

I was in the Stockport schedules team that introduced what is now the 42A pre-deregulation. It was then a plain 42, an extension of one of the two buses per hour that ran Piccadilly - East Didsbury, the third one per hour was a 46 that ran to Millgate Lane. The extended 42 replaced the 309, Reddish Houldsworth Square to West Didsbury, which was a pain to operate, requiring dead running to and from Reddish to relieve drivers after every couple of hours work (admittedly the extended 42 also required this, just less often as Stockport had just one bus on the route, Birchfields Road garage covering the others). The 309 ran every 30 minutes, the 42 just hourly (these were tough times) but an additional 309 service was initially retained at peak times and Saturday shopping hours to placate the Trade Union. I can't find a Bus Guide for this in my 1985 set, so I suspect it was soon withdrawn.

As well as operational efficiency, the justification was providing at least a token direct service to the Manchester hospitals campus from the section of route through The Heatons. The link to Didsbury village was already long-established via the 309 - this would be lost if the 42A was split at East Didsbury, and I think this would be an extremely unpopular move. Forcing passengers to change a few stops short of their intended destination seems hard to justify in a suburban location where the link has existed for many, many decades.

 

[adam rogan]

Is anyone able to explain what the wisdom is in introducing a Wigan to St Helens Link via Newton Le Willows? If it competes with the 34/34a/20 routes from newton to St Helens it will be counterproductive. Introducing an evening and Sunday Service on the 34 Leigh to St Helens is far better a cross boundary link. For anyone who wants to make that specific journey(612 including me) already changes at Newton for that purpose but Wigan to St Helens links already exist. Extending the 615 Wigan to Middlebrook to terminate at either Bolton or Leigh may be a better link?

 

[neilcobbe]

Is anyone able to explain what the wisdom is in introducing a Wigan to St Helens Link via Newton Le Willows? If it competes with the 34/34a/20 routes from newton to St Helens it will be counterproductive. Introducing an evening and Sunday Service on the 34 Leigh to St Helens is far better a cross boundary link. For anyone who wants to make that specific journey(612 including me) already changes at Newton for that purpose but Wigan to St Helens links already exist. Extending the 615 Wigan to Middlebrook to terminate at either Bolton or Leigh may be a better link?

There was historically a bus that went this way from Wigan to Earlestown and St.Helens until the early 90's, the 661. Reading the committee report it states other routes along this route might be withdrawn and it mentions the 630, I guess the recently introduced 629 might also disappear. The map put up earlier shows the 615 running to Bolton.

 

[gka472l]

Is anyone able to explain what the wisdom is in introducing a Wigan to St Helens Link via Newton Le Willows? If it competes with the 34/34a/20 routes from newton to St Helens it will be counterproductive. Introducing an evening and Sunday Service on the 34 Leigh to St Helens is far better a cross boundary link. For anyone who wants to make that specific journey(612 including me) already changes at Newton for that purpose but Wigan to St Helens links already exist. Extending the 615 Wigan to Middlebrook to terminate at either Bolton or Leigh may be a better link?

From the linked document a page or two back.....seems the 612 is in partnership with the LCR.

"Package of cross-boundary improvements, developed in partnership with Liverpool City Region to align with franchising in St Helens and protect services during transition: • Provides a new service between Wigan and St Helens via Abram, Golborne and Newton-le-Willows that will serve the site of Golborne Station. NB Will see withdrawal of some services primarily covered by new route. • Frequency improvements plus evening and Sunday journeys on LCR service 34 with a revised route in the Lowton area to strengthen links to local communities and promote onward bus and rail journeys."

 

[JasonL]

From the linked document a page or two back.....seems the 612 is in partnership with the LCR.

"Package of cross-boundary improvements, developed in partnership with Liverpool City Region to align with franchising in St Helens and protect services during transition: • Provides a new service between Wigan and St Helens via Abram, Golborne and Newton-le-Willows that will serve the site of Golborne Station. NB Will see withdrawal of some services primarily covered by new route. • Frequency improvements plus evening and Sunday journeys on LCR service 34 with a revised route in the Lowton area to strengthen links to local communities and promote onward bus and rail journeys."

I'm confused on what NB is? Is that New Buses?

 

[mangad]

I'm confused on what NB is? Is that New Buses?

It'll be "n.b" - Nota Bene in Latin. Basically means "note well" or "pay attention".

 

[JasonL]

It'll be "n.b" - Nota Bene in Latin. Basically means "note well" or "pay attention".

I actually didn't know Latin is still in use these days haha

 

[Class 466]

I actually didn't know Latin is still in use these days haha

etc (et cetera) is very much latin too.

Glad to see the awful gaps in the 95 in the evenings are finally being sorted anyway

 

[py_megapixel]

I remain to be convinced about the wisdom of splitting the 42A at East Didsbury, although I would agree that an increase to every 20 minutes, along with a similar increase on the 42 from Stockport, would be a good move. This might allow for a slight reduction in the 142 frequency, while removing the 42A as you suggest would quite likely require an increase in the 142. Incidentally, would you also wish to split the 42 at East Didsbury - the same argument applies, surely?

I was in the Stockport schedules team that introduced what is now the 42A pre-deregulation. It was then a plain 42, an extension of one of the two buses per hour that ran Piccadilly - East Didsbury, the third one per hour was a 46 that ran to Millgate Lane. The extended 42 replaced the 309, Reddish Houldsworth Square to West Didsbury, which was a pain to operate, requiring dead running to and from Reddish to relieve drivers after every couple of hours work (admittedly the extended 42 also required this, just less often as Stockport had just one bus on the route, Birchfields Road garage covering the others). The 309 ran every 30 minutes, the 42 just hourly (these were tough times) but an additional 309 service was initially retained at peak times and Saturday shopping hours to placate the Trade Union. I can't find a Bus Guide for this in my 1985 set, so I suspect it was soon withdrawn.

As well as operational efficiency, the justification was providing at least a token direct service to the Manchester hospitals campus from the section of route through The Heatons. The link to Didsbury village was already long-established via the 309 - this would be lost if the 42A was split at East Didsbury, and I think this would be an extremely unpopular move. Forcing passengers to change a few stops short of their intended destination seems hard to justify in a suburban location where the link has existed for many, many decades.

This is a detailed and insightful post, thank you.

You make a good point about needing an increase in the 142 frequency if the northern section of the 42 routes were removed. It's worth noting the Heatons would remain connected to Didsbury village by the 25 even if the 42A disappeared. So if it remains the case that operating a self-contained Reddish-Didsbury route would be a nuisance (which it probably does, since the relevant garages are in the same place) then perhaps just increasing the frequency on the whole route would work out better anyway.

The question remains of peak time traffic congestion from Piccadilly and Rusholme though. My general view is that anything coming out along that corridor needs to be frequent enough that passengers don't have to aim for a specific bus. Buses can pick up some ridiculous delays in the evening peak so the only viable way to use the service is simply to get to the stop and get on whatever bus comes.

At certain times the buses can be very crowded, so if they are going to keep running buses into the centre from far out, it would be good if they could somehow discourage passengers who aren't going beyond Didsbury from crowding onto the buses which are. Back when Magic Bus was still much cheaper than the standard Stagecoach buses this sort of happened by accident, but I'm not sure it was terribly effective and anyway the distinction was eroded over the years and is now completely gone.

Another thing Stagecoach tried at one point was running what is now the 42B as a limited-stop service called the X57 but that only lasted a few years for some reason.

In fact, speaking of the 42B, all of this is probably actually more of an issue for the 42B and 42C which are even less frequent than the 42A. At one point the 42B was half-hourly but the second hourly bus was withdrawn around Covid time. Then, rather than reinstating it, they came up with the 42C, which was a good idea in that it replaced sections of the 130 cut by Arriva, but represented a significant service reduction for passengers beyond Cheadle on the 42B.

 

[johncrossley]

Forcing passengers to change a few stops short of their intended destination seems hard to justify in a suburban location where the link has existed for many, many decades.

Forcing people to change is never going to happen if there is always going to be some argument why it can't be done. A bus every 30 minutes during the daytime isn't very attractive. If you can't correct mistakes made many decades ago then what's the point of franchising? Surely the idea was to move resources away from excessively bussed corridors and corridors where there is also a tram and make use of connections, between frequent buses or between buses and trams. So there might even be fewer buses than during deregulation in total but more areas have a frequent service.

When I joined this forum I was vociferously in favour of franchising but if the end result is going to be more or less the same as the deregulated network then I might have to hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.

 

[daodao]

At certain times the buses can be very crowded, so if they are going to keep running buses into the centre from far out, it would be good if they could somehow discourage passengers who aren't going beyond Didsbury from crowding onto the buses which are.

Historically, in the days when the North Western Road Car Company ran services 31/31A, jointly with Manchester Corporation, from Manchester to Bramhall via Wilmslow Road (the predecessor of route 42B), between 1615 and 1740 on Mondays to Fridays, and for the schools extra at 1540 from Rusholme, boarding up to and including Fallowfield station was restricted to passengers travelling beyond Cheadle. It was also a limited stop service. There was a similar weekday restriction on service 32 from Manchester to Higher Poynton via Princess Road.

 

[markymark2000]

In fact, speaking of the 42B, all of this is probably actually more of an issue for the 42B and 42C which are even less frequent than the 42A. At one point the 42B was half-hourly but the second hourly bus was withdrawn around Covid time. Then, rather than reinstating it, they came up with the 42C, which was a good idea in that it replaced sections of the 130 cut by Arriva, but represented a significant service reduction for passengers beyond Cheadle on the 42B.

Now that vehicles cross network more and there's more scope for buses interworking between routes in Manchester (rather than under Stagecoach the 42 group was more self contained), it'd be a great change for the 42B and 42C to become circulars at the southern end of the route. Cheadle - Handforth Dean - Woodford Garden Village - Cheadle. It'd use up some of the 42C inefficiency sitting around Handforth Dean for half an hour, improve links between Woodford and Handforth Dean for shopping, and it would restore 2 buses per hour from Woodford to Manchester (albeit as opposite circulars)

 

[Redmike]

In fact, speaking of the 42B, all of this is probably actually more of an issue for the 42B and 42C which are even less frequent than the 42A. At one point the 42B was half-hourly but the second hourly bus was withdrawn around Covid time. Then, rather than reinstating it, they came up with the 42C, which was a good idea in that it replaced sections of the 130 cut by Arriva, but represented a significant service reduction for passengers beyond Cheadle on the 42B.

My nearest bus stop used to have 4 buses per hour to Manchester (130 and X57/42B). Now there's only 1 bus per hour with no evening service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My nearest bus stop used to have 4 buses per hour to Manchester (130 and X57/42B). Now there's only 1 bus per hour with no evening service.

There is also no Sunday service on the 42C (Piccadilly Gardens - Cheadle - Heald Green - Handforth Dean)

 

[Whisky Papa]

Forcing people to change is never going to happen if there is always going to be some argument why it can't be done. A bus every 30 minutes during the daytime isn't very attractive. If you can't correct mistakes made many decades ago then what's the point of franchising? Surely the idea was to move resources away from excessively bussed corridors and corridors where there is also a tram and make use of connections, between frequent buses or between buses and trams. So there might even be fewer buses than during deregulation in total but more areas have a frequent service.

When I joined this forum I was vociferously in favour of franchising but if the end result is going to be more or less the same as the deregulated network then I might have to hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.

Well, I did say I would be in favour of a 20 minute headway on the 42A (still through to Manchester, mind), as it is true a 30 minute one may put off some potential passengers in what are - generally - quite affluent parts of the county. As for every 12 minutes, well, sure it would be lovely, but on a cross-suburban section of route like this I'm not sure it would be found outside London. I'd be struggling to think of similar examples from pre-deregulation, although the 262 Eccles - Urmston - Levenshulme was every 15 minutes at peaks and (latterly) Saturday afternoons. However, that had garages close to either end, and crew facilities at both ends, the latter being something Reddish and East Didsbury lack, unless something has changed since I drove for UK North 20 years ago and had to sneak into the toilets in the cinema foyer.

Regarding your final paragraph, personally, I did not particularly see that aim for franchising - I was more hopeful of increased stability and evening services if anything. Much as I admire such networks in other countries - from my past posts, members may have noticed I'm quite keen on Prague! - they are not really what the British public (outside London) expects. Even in Prague, while there are many short shuttle routes linking to metro stations or (less often) major tram interchanges, there are also a lot of very long cross-suburban routes, often at impressive headways, that provide numerous, overlapping links. They may also overlap each other in places, and they often make a particular point of serving hospitals and health centres to give direct links. I see no reason not to see the 42A in a similar light, it just happens to also link to the city centre.