• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Bus Service Improvement Plan Progress (including BSIP+)

Status
Not open for further replies.

greenline712

Member
Joined
2 Oct 2023
Messages
380
Location
Inside the M25
But what happens to them when the BSIP money runs out?
The same as happened when Rural Bus Grant monies ran out, and when Local Sustainable Transport Fund monies ran out .... the services supported by these monies were closed down.
Maybe not immediately, some lingered on, but nonetheless it happened.

The whole point of BSIP is to try to revitalise bus services ... a route with 2 buses per hour (BPH) will almost always have proportionately more passengers than a route with 1 BPH.

What Herts CC (and others) are doing is to try to improve urban frequencies AND provide more direct links. I'm not sure they've picked the best routes to try it with, but they are trying at least.

Using BSIP money to simply support existing bus services that are already poorly used is not a good use of resources.

And frankly ... we've been trying to find ways to revitalise rural routes since the Jack Report in the 1960s. It's time to give up .... DRT and the rest .... the car has won.

Spend BSIP money in urban areas, where it just might make a difference.

It'll never happen, though .....
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,454
I'd prefer a commercial operator to restore the service they themselves decided to cut because of a driver shortage, and driver shortage alone.

If they want to have a 7/8 minute service, they should take the commercial risk themselves. There are plenty other areas of the North East that deserve improvements over the Durham Road corridor.
Knowing that Hampshire County Council mostly funded BSIP+ into increasing frequencies on Bluestar buses that already had a very good service, while simultaneously consulting the public on potentially decreasing funding on supported bus services, I’d rather the BSIP ensures the continuation of said local services, particularly where rural communities are at stake.
But what happens to them when the BSIP money runs out?
As the BSIP+ money is not an ongoing funding stream, increasing the frequency of existing services is preferable to starting new services, as the increased frequencies can be reduced again without too much effect, whereas withdrawing new or much improved links completely will be a local political hassle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Spend BSIP money in urban areas, where it just might make a difference.
Spend the money on Urban , peri-urban and intertown links, particularly improving what would be there already on a commercial basis preferably.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,868
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I'd prefer a commercial operator to restore the service they themselves decided to cut because of a driver shortage, and driver shortage alone.

If they want to have a 7/8 minute service, they should take the commercial risk themselves. There are plenty other areas of the North East that deserve improvements over the Durham Road corridor.
Of course, it's easy to say that the operator should take the commercial risk. Experience tells us that most businesses, not just bus operators, aren't going to increase their costs by 25-30% with little to back it up.

As @greenline712 points out, we have been here before with the Rural Bus Challenge when money was thrown indiscriminately (in many cases) at rural routes that had no chance of ever being sustainable. One such was the 101 from South Northumberland to Newcastle Airport...but here were are again with the 777. We also now have the fad for DDRT services that can never effectively aggregate passenger journeys... another raft of money poorly spent.

I'd much rather, as both @greenline712 and @RT4038 state below see monies being aimed at services where there's a reasonable chance of pump-priming growth that is then sustainable rather than simply pouring money down the drain. I was always an advocate of the Kickstart scheme in the mid 2000s - at least some of those innovations and enhancements actually endured!

The whole point of BSIP is to try to revitalise bus services ... a route with 2 buses per hour (BPH) will almost always have proportionately more passengers than a route with 1 BPH.

What Herts CC (and others) are doing is to try to improve urban frequencies AND provide more direct links. I'm not sure they've picked the best routes to try it with, but they are trying at least.

Using BSIP money to simply support existing bus services that are already poorly used is not a good use of resources.

As the BSIP+ money is not an ongoing funding stream, increasing the frequency of existing services is preferable to starting new services, as the increased frequencies can be reduced again without too much effect, whereas withdrawing new or much improved links completely will be a local political hassle.
 

duncombec

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2014
Messages
1,149
Knowing that Hampshire County Council mostly funded BSIP+ into increasing frequencies on Bluestar buses that already had a very good service, while simultaneously consulting the public on potentially decreasing funding on supported bus services, I’d rather the BSIP ensures the continuation of said local services, particularly where rural communities are at stake.
Is this the same Hampshire consultation listed here https://documents.hants.gov.uk/consultation/future-services-consultation-passenger-transport.pdf (large PDF, not possible to quote), which had some subsidy per passenger journey figures over £20/head (the highest was over £200!), and in some cases carshare services which hadn't had a single passenger all year?

Obviously those were extreme cases, and I quite agree that it seems a bit harsh to be considering withdrawing services over a few pence over the threshold, but let's not pretend some of those services up for withdrawal are being used by legions of people. The idea of BSIP is to improve services, which may be new links, but not throw bad money after worse.
 

Snex

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2018
Messages
443
What makes more sense.... pump priming on corridors that might be ultimately sustainable OR spending money on stuff like the 777 that will never pay their way?

Disagree personally, the 777 being the opposite extreme.

Personally I'd rather see the money spent on the likes of the 342, 351, 353, 25, 82, 71 etc.

Routes that are now down to hourly which are useless for anyone but were commercial 30 minute services not too long ago.

They might not pay there way but if you can grow the passenger numbers enough then the extra fares should be enough, in theory, to have a 30 minute service using the same subsidy they're getting now.

If not you can always drop them back to hourly.

Who exactly wins between a 7.5 minute service or a 10 minute service if everyone can fit on anyway? There's going to be very few and I mean very few not using the 21 because you have to wait an extra 2.5 minutes.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,868
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Disagree personally, the 777 being the opposite extreme.

Personally I'd rather see the money spent on the likes of the 342, 351, 353, 25, 82, 71 etc.

Routes that are now down to hourly which are useless for anyone but were commercial 30 minute services not too long ago.

They might not pay there way but if you can grow the passenger numbers enough then the extra fares should be enough, in theory, to have a 30 minute service using the same subsidy they're getting now.

If not you can always drop them back to hourly.

Who exactly wins between a 7.5 minute service or a 10 minute service if everyone can fit on anyway? There's going to be very few and I mean very few not using the 21 because you have to wait an extra 2.5 minutes.
I quoted the 777 in response to another poster saying it was the most egregious use of finances when actually, stuff like the 777 is absolutely crazy. I suspect that the new X16 from Wooler will be similarly lightly used.

FWIW, I do think that there are some of the examples that you quote might be in the category that would benefit from BSIP+ funding but some probably not.
However, I can see the logic of putting money into making core services more attractive and they will ultimately be more attractive. You can say that no one is going to worry about an extra 5 mins (e.g. a 20 min frequency vs 15 mins) and yet it does have an impact. That was what Kickstart did with Morpeth to Newcastle, and hopefully what is happening now.

I just don't wish to see the sins of the past revisited as money is frittered away on stuff that will never, ever be sustainable.
 

Snex

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2018
Messages
443
I quoted the 777 in response to another poster saying it was the most egregious use of finances when actually, stuff like the 777 is absolutely crazy. I suspect that the new X16 from Wooler will be similarly lightly used.

FWIW, I do think that there are some of the examples that you quote might be in the category that would benefit from BSIP+ funding but some probably not.
However, I can see the logic of putting money into making core services more attractive and they will ultimately be more attractive. You can say that no one is going to worry about an extra 5 mins (e.g. a 20 min frequency vs 15 mins) and yet it does have an impact. That was what Kickstart did with Morpeth to Newcastle, and hopefully what is happening now.

I just don't wish to see the sins of the past revisited as money is frittered away on stuff that will never, ever be sustainable.

Aye can't disagree with the 777, it's a bizarre route and isn't particularly quicker than catching one of the 4 expresses to Regent Centre and changing anyway. Why it's tendered for saloons and not Midibuses is baffling aswell. The 415 on a Saturday is just a bad.

Yeah can't argue about every 20 minutes to 15 minutes it's quite a big different as if you miss one it's a 19 minute wait, but the difference between 9 minutes and 6.5 minutes is pretty neglible really. I just can't see where the growth is coming from. We were actually discussing this on another forum and it would've been much better if the buses ran beyond Chester Le Street, say Houghton (71) or Langley Park (725) to take over those subsidised services. Having a direct bus to Newcastle would be a massive boost for those communities over having to change at Chester Le Street from an hourly service which is a pretty much no go unless you want to risk sitting around for an hour which no sane person would do if they had a choice.

Least it means people beyond the 21 corridor are actually gaining something and those few punters could be the difference between the 21 being commercially viable in the long term (the extensions probably never will be but they're paid for anyway)
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,868
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Aye can't disagree with the 777, it's a bizarre route and isn't particularly quicker than catching one of the 4 expresses to Regent Centre and changing anyway. Why it's tendered for saloons and not Midibuses is baffling aswell. The 415 on a Saturday is just a bad.

Yeah can't argue about every 20 minutes to 15 minutes it's quite a big different as if you miss one it's a 19 minute wait, but the difference between 9 minutes and 6.5 minutes is pretty neglible really. I just can't see where the growth is coming from. We were actually discussing this on another forum and it would've been much better if the buses ran beyond Chester Le Street, say Houghton (71) or Langley Park (725) to take over those subsidised services. Having a direct bus to Newcastle would be a massive boost for those communities over having to change at Chester Le Street from an hourly service which is a pretty much no go unless you want to risk sitting around for an hour which no sane person would do if they had a choice.

Least it means people beyond the 21 corridor are actually gaining something and those few punters could be the difference between the 21 being commercially viable in the long term (the extensions probably never will be but they're paid for anyway)
The 777 could manage with a minibus TBH. However, as it interworks with the X16, they have it rostered for Pulsars.

I know what you're saying about the 21 and it can only be because they (the CA and Go NE) believe it can get to being sustainable at that level. The 25 did, of course, run up to Langley Park until 2022 (and in previous times, as far as Esh Winning and even East Hedleyhope). How much business there was through Chester, I can't really recall, and it isn't exactly the fastest route around Wrekenton to Newcastle.
 

Snex

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2018
Messages
443
The 777 could manage with a minibus TBH. However, as it interworks with the X16, they have it rostered for Pulsars.

I know what you're saying about the 21 and it can only be because they (the CA and Go NE) believe it can get to being sustainable at that level. The 25 did, of course, run up to Langley Park until 2022 (and in previous times, as far as Esh Winning and even East Hedleyhope). How much business there was through Chester, I can't really recall, and it isn't exactly the fastest route around Wrekenton to Newcastle.

Yeah fair points to be honest.

Personally I'd rather see them use the same money on infrastructure improvements. Hypothetically if you could speed the buses up by 5 minutes each board your pretty much there on this frequency increase without increasing the PVR at all. Birtley and Low Fell are horrendous for buses aswell.

You can't just keep throwing buses into the PVR to sort out the traffic problems, which blight all over the place.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,868
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Personally I'd rather see them use the same money on infrastructure improvements. Hypothetically if you could speed the buses up by 5 minutes each board your pretty much there on this frequency increase without increasing the PVR at all. Birtley and Low Fell are horrendous for buses aswell.

You can't just keep throwing buses into the PVR to sort out the traffic problems, which blight all over the place.
I absolutely agree with you.

Take the 21 that takes 74 mins from Newcastle to Durham. Go back 30 years ago, that was a 55 min journey. Granted, there is a diversion to serve Arnison Centre and the service now starts from Eldon Square rather than Worswick Street. However, you can say that 10 mins is now there for congestion. So yeah, spending on better bus priority would be a real benefit.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,472
Location
Isle of Man
I quoted the 777 in response to another poster saying it was the most egregious use of finances when actually, stuff like the 777 is absolutely crazy. I suspect that the new X16 from Wooler will be similarly lightly used.
The new X16 from Wooler is really just an enhanced replacement of the existing tendered 710, and actually I think the daily peak time return will be a much better use of money than the existing 710. It seems to be the sort of rural route that BSIP should be used for.

The 777 is never going to wash its face though. At certain times it'll be well used, i.e. taking students from Morpeth to Kirkley Hall in a morning and taking them home again in the afternoon. But otherwise it doesn't achieve anything that you wouldn't achieve with diverting the X76/X77/X78 into the airport. I can't see the esteemed residents of Tranwell Woods leaving their Lamboghinis and Range Rovers at home and taking the bus.

As for putting BSIP funding into the 21, well, it's just another in a long line of decisions made to shovel money at Go North East.

Back in the day you had extensions of the 21 to Houghton-le-Spring via Fencehouses and also to Witton Gilbert via Sacriston and Edmondsley. Use BSIP funding to bring those back and I'd defintely agree with using it on the 21. Otherwise it's just bunging money at a bus operator that can't get its own house in order.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,868
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
The new X16 from Wooler is really just an enhanced replacement of the existing tendered 710, and actually I think the daily peak time return will be a much better use of money than the existing 710. It seems to be the sort of rural route that BSIP should be used for.
Except it isn't an enhancement of the 710. It loses its Wednesday service which was an off peak shoppers service and doubtless at minimal cost.

Instead, it gets a five day a week commuter service. At a weekend, it gets some bizarre mid-morning return to Wooler and return. The only benefit I can see is that allows people from Newcastle to lunch in Wooler, or that some people can have a half day in Morpeth shopping and return back mid morning.

I was happy for the X16 to be reinstated and return to the balanced 4 BPH service pattern between Morpeth and Newcastle, but this Kelso/Wooler move will never be sustainable and it's a crazy thing to spend BSIP money on. It is absolutely not the sort of rural route BSIP money was designed for.
The 777 is never going to wash its face though. At certain times it'll be well used, i.e. taking students from Morpeth to Kirkley Hall in a morning and taking them home again in the afternoon. But otherwise it doesn't achieve anything that you wouldn't achieve with diverting the X76/X77/X78 into the airport. I can't see the esteemed residents of Tranwell Woods leaving their Lamboghinis and Range Rovers at home and taking the bus.
Believe me, it's not well used at any time.
As for putting BSIP funding into the 21, well, it's just another in a long line of decisions made to shovel money at Go North East.

Back in the day you had extensions of the 21 to Houghton-le-Spring via Fencehouses and also to Witton Gilbert via Sacriston and Edmondsley. Use BSIP funding to bring those back and I'd defintely agree with using it on the 21. Otherwise it's just bunging money at a bus operator that can't get its own house in order.
I'm beginning to think you have beef with Featham.

The idea of "feeder" extensions into the 21 might have merit, and perhaps make sense with the 725, as earlier suggested. However, I can see the logic of why they're focussing funds on those routes that actually have a hope of being made sustainable. Same with the X16 Morpeth to Newcastle.

Those are less egregious than spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in sending a bus from a small market town through open countryside and the stockbroker belt to the Airport and thence to Kingston Park.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,687
Location
Yorkshire
The same as happened when Rural Bus Grant monies ran out, and when Local Sustainable Transport Fund monies ran out .... the services supported by these monies were closed down.
Maybe not immediately, some lingered on, but nonetheless it happened.
One of the first routes to be started under the Rural Bus Grant is the 900 (now 900, 901, 902) between Huddersfield and Hebden Bridge. There had been no link between then for decades, with Huddersfield and Barkisland only having had an an occasional link until the early 80s.

It started at 3 journeys a day and expanded to hourly except evenings with 3 Sunday journeys a day. It's dropped back to every 70 minutes now due to congestion. It was reported when it went hourly that is was being subsidised less than when it started. It still receives some subsidy but now has more journeys than some of the commercial routes in the area.
 
Last edited:

Snex

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2018
Messages
443
Btw for those interested in the North East. There's also BSIP funds being used to restore the Stagecoach North East 1 upto every 7.5 minutes and the Stagecoach 30/31/36 upto to every 7.5 minutes combined.

Personally my feelings are similar to the 21, even worse for the 30/31/36 considering I passed a 36 heading towards Newcastle at around 11am with 3 people on last week.
 

greenline712

Member
Joined
2 Oct 2023
Messages
380
Location
Inside the M25
One of the first routes to be started under the Rural Bus Grant is the 900 (now 900, 901, 902) between Huddersfield and Hebden Bridge. There had been no link between then for decades, with Huddersfield and Barkisland only having had an an occasional link until the early 80s.

It started at 3 journeys a day and expanded to hourly except evenings with 3 Sunday journeys a day. It's dropped back to every 70 minutes now. It was reported when it went hourly that is was being subsidised less than when it started. It still receives some subsidy but now has more journeys than some of the commercial routes in the area.
That's interesting . . . it goes to show that some RBG routes were worthwhile . . . I was referring more to networks such as in Suffolk and Norfolk, where the majority of routes didn't survive for long.

I'm planning a trip to Yorkshire soon . . . the 900 group looks to be worth a journey . . . thanks !!
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,687
Location
Yorkshire
That's interesting . . . it goes to show that some RBG routes were worthwhile . . . I was referring more to networks such as in Suffolk and Norfolk, where the majority of routes didn't survive for long.

I'm planning a trip to Yorkshire soon . . . the 900 group looks to be worth a journey . . . thanks !!
They're got gorgeous scenery. I used to use them a lot when I lived in Ripponden, but find them less useful now when visiting family since the connection with the Keighley - Hebden Bridge bus was broken when it stopped being hourly (there used to be a good connection almost every hour in both directions).
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,472
Location
Isle of Man
I'm beginning to think you have beef with Featham.
I do think he's nothing but a slash and burn merchant. I'm fairly obviously not a regular Go user these days but I couldn't believe how bad Go was when I was back in the north east in June. It was like I'd gone back in time to what Arriva North East was like in 2012-2016.

But no, I was thinking more over the last 25 years with Go and not just the last 4.

Paying Go BSIP money to up the frequency on their flagship route is just insane. BSIP is supposed to support the wider bus network, not just enhance the bottom line on an operator's premier flagship route. It'd be like paying Stagecoach to run the 39/40.

I was being charitable about the 777 possibly being used at college times; I'd agree that it's a complete waste of money. So, too, is the 787 from Newcastle to the airport in the early hours of the morning.

As for the X16, Wooler goes from two buses a week to one bus a day to/from Morpeth. The bus times work better for workers and work better for college students but not so well for the Wednesday shoppers. But overall I'd say it's an improvement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

There's also BSIP funds being used to restore the Stagecoach North East 1 upto every 7.5 minutes and the Stagecoach 30/31/36 upto to every 7.5 minutes combined.
I've just used the example of paying Stagecoach to run the 39/40 and those examples are really just as bad.

There's no reason why that frequency couldn't run commercially on the 1. It always used to, at least on the Buddle Road-Coach Lane section, except in the summer months when the students went home.

Same with the 30/31/36. It always used to be 8bph (4bph on each of the 30 and 31) with 4bph turning around at Whickham View and 4bph continuing into town along Fenham Hall Drive as a 36 (ETA: actually, in daytime, I think they all continued as a 36, but my memory isn't what it was even though it was my bus of choice when I lived on Silver Lonnen). The 36 has always been a relatively lightly used route.

Edit again: whilst I'm on the subject, when I first moved to Newcastle it was 8bph from Westerhope to the city centre. Maybe a bit over-bussed really, but with the most recent changes its now down to just 4bph. The 6/7 are even worse, we had 4bph from West Denton to the Metrocentre and the buses were always well loaded, now it's down to 2bph. That's the sort of thing that BSIP should really have been looking at.
 
Last edited:

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
5,096
Location
Great Britain
It is absolutely not the sort of rural route BSIP money was designed for.
And here I think is the issue. Local authorities got given a shed load of money and then when the BSIP rules were relaxed, some have been reckless and wasted/wasting the money and then when the funding stops, there will be uproar that routes are cut, despite not being used. Some are doing modest improvements which they can quietly cut in 2 years and hardly anyone will notice. Some are using it as kickstarter funding for new routes or improvements which should hopefully be viable by the time the funding runs out. Some are sitting on the money hoping it gains interest.

The funding should have had tighter strings attached to stop the funds being wasted and/or stop it being used be LAs just to prop up the existing tendered bus network, which is often inherently flawed due to poor local politics or poor transport teams.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,868
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
That's interesting . . . it goes to show that some RBG routes were worthwhile . . . I was referring more to networks such as in Suffolk and Norfolk, where the majority of routes didn't survive for long.
To be fair, there were exceptions to the rule. However, I remember the RBG monies heading into North Yorkshire. Sunday service from Richmond to Barnard Castle... A route that had 5 return journeys M-S and had NEVER had a Sunday service. I could go on.

In Somerset, you had a number of services that gained Sunday services and some of those uplifts have survived (along with the increase in Sunday retail) so Taunton to Bridgwater and Taunton to Wellington remain. However, whoever though Yeovil to Chard on a Sunday was a good spending of money...

I like what Norfolk is doing with the money (in the main) with slight uplifts in evening city routes in Norwich, a better evening service on the main route in Yarmouth, and what is really a replication of the Kickstart ethos in routes to Fakenham, Bungay and North Walsham. Plus they're investing in capital schemes like bus priority and better connecting hubs (though I don't know why they're bothering with Hunstanton).

I do think he's nothing but a slash and burn merchant. I'm fairly obviously not a regular Go user these days but I couldn't believe how bad Go was when I was back in the north east in June. It was like I'd gone back in time to what Arriva North East was like in 2012-2016.
You must be getting confused. His tenure at Arriva was the most secure. It was Jonathan May who slashed the network - announcing the closure of Bishop, Peterlee and Alnwick depots on the same day. With that, you had services being axed, or so impacted by complex interworking, they ceased to be viable.

At least under Featham, there was investment (noticeably absent under the Steve Noble regime) and some attempt to grow patronage with Sapphire, Max and Frequenta.
As for the X16, Wooler goes from two buses a week to one bus a day to/from Morpeth. The bus times work better for workers and work better for college students but not so well for the Wednesday shoppers. But overall I'd say it's an improvement.
The times work well for workers and college students.... Is that something that people have been crying out for? Somehow, I don't think workers are spending two hours travelling from Wooler to Newcastle.
I've just used the example of paying Stagecoach to run the 39/40 and those examples are really just as bad.

There's no reason why that frequency couldn't run commercially on the 1. It always used to, at least on the Buddle Road-Coach Lane section, except in the summer months when the students went home.
This is the point.

Passenger numbers are down by 15%. The objective of BSIP is to get services back on their feet, and to make them more attractive and sustainable. They could run the 1 commercially but if it was your business, you wouldn't do it. The government got that so hence why BSIP was created - it essentially underwrites the commercial risk until such time as the service is self sustaining.

If I go back to Kickstart, it was interesting which ones survived and which ones didn't. Arriva introduced an extra 518/X18 to make the Morpeth to Newcastle route 4bph. They may never have taken the risk but with Kickstart funding and some investment on their side, that move worked until Covid (although the run north to Widdrington was proven not to be sustainable). The X47 was a Kickstart route too IIRC.

Few firms are going to risk putting two extra buses onto a route (for example) when passenger figures are depleted.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,472
Location
Isle of Man
They could run the 1 commercially but if it was your business, you wouldn't do it. The government got that so hence why BSIP was created - it essentially underwrites the commercial risk until such time as the service is self sustaining.
Going from 2bph or 3bph to 4bph+ has a marked impact as to how attractive a service is. So things like the upgrade to the Newcastle-Morpeth services made sense and made a real impact. Although the increased frequency had started with Kickstart it really got established as part of Go’s attack on Arriva, the whole “Bargain Bus” thing, the conclusion of which continues to leave a very sour tad taste as to the business ethics of Go.

But once you get to 6bph it’s a turn up and go service and the impact on increasing frequency to 8bph is negligible. If the buses at 6bph are rammed then the increase in PVR should be able to be provided for commercially. If the buses at 6bph aren’t rammed then that is obviously the natural limit for a turn up and go service and subsidy is quite frankly a waste of money.

Paying Go to increase the 21 to 8bph is a waste of money, as is paying Stagecoach to uplift the 1 and the 30/31/36. If BSIP had also been used to reinstate the Four Lane Ends to Coach Lane section of the 1 then my opinion may have differed.

I’d much rather see BSIP be used elsewhere in Newcastle. Returning the 6/7 back to a combined 4bph would be my first choice, that or increasing the 71/72/87 Westerhope corridor back to 6bph. Even uplifting the X63 back to 3bph would be better.

The X47 was a brand new service with brand new buses and was an excellent use of Kickstart funding in 2005.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,628
Lancashire have another round of BSIP enhancements up at https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-transport/bus-service-changes/

Improvements to evening services in Lancaster, in common with what they've done in the rest of the county. A very round the houses hourly route in Blackpool. Improving Preston-Southport and Blackburn-Chorley from hourly to half hourly(ish). And apparently stopping Arriva cutting the 310 (Liverpool-Skelmersdale)?

Service 10/11 Lancaster City Services (Ridge/Marsh)
The timetables will be revised, in partnership with Lancashire County Council utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan, the following additional later evening circular journeys will be introduced:

1955, 2055, 2155 & 2255 Lancaster – Marsh – Lancaster

2028, 2128 & 2228 Lancaster – Ridge – Lancaster

Service 42 Lancaster – Garstang – Poulton – Blackpool
The timetable will be revised to improve reliability and, in partnership with Lancashire County Council and Blackpool Council utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan, additional am journeys will be introduced to increase the number of journeys available.

(Context - the 42 currently runs hourly in the daytime and evening, but much less frequently in the morning - only one bus arrives in Lancaster before 11am, and only one arrives in Blackpool between 7 and 10am)

Service 100 University – Lancaster – Bare – Morecambe – Heysham
The timetable will be revised to improve service reliability and, in partnership with Lancashire County Council utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan, the frequency of Sunday journeys will be increased from hourly to half-hourly throughout the whole route.

Service 81 Lancaster – Halton – Caton – Brookhouse – Hornby
From 2 September 2024, Lancashire County Council utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan, will introduce the following additional later evening journeys between Lancaster and Hornby:

1952, 2052, 2152 & 2252 from Lancaster to Hornby

2022, 2122 & 2222 from Hornby to Lancaster

Service 12 Blackpool – Victoria Hospital - Bispham – Carleton – Poulton
From 1 September 2024, Blackpool Transport will introduce this new service, in partnership with Lancashire County Council and Blackpool Council utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan.

This new Monday to Saturday daytime service will operate every hour linking Blackpool and Poulton via Whitegate Drive, Victoria Hospital, Bispham and Carleton.

Service X2 Preston – Tarleton – Southport – Formby – Liverpool
From 1 September 2024, Stagecoach South Lancashire, in partnership with Lancashire County Council utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan, will revise the timetable enhancing overall service provision. Restoring the Monday to Saturday daytime frequency back up to every 30 minutes between Preston and Southport.

Service 310 Liverpool – Maghull – Ormskirk – Skelmersdale
From 1 September 2024, Arriva will revise the timetable, adjusting times to improve overall service reliability. In partnership with Merseytravel and Lancashire County Council, utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan, provide support to maintain a half hourly service through the route in Lancashire, better coordinating times in conjunction with Services 375/385 between Ormskirk and Skelmersdale to provide a more even timetable over this section.

Service 2 Blackburn – Feniscowles – Abbey Village – Brinscall – Chorley
Service 2A Blackburn – Feniscowles – Abbey Village – Brinscall – Chorley Hospital – Chorley
The timetables will be revised, introducing new Service 2A on Mondays to Saturdays, to operate via Chorley & South Ribble Hospital (A6 entrance) rather than Eaves Lane. New Service 2A will operate in partnership with Lancashire County Council and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council utilising funding from HM Government through the Bus Service Improvement Plan.

Services 2 & 2A combined will increase the Monday to Saturday daytime frequency up to every 30 minutes between Chorley and Blackburn.
 
Last edited:

Snex

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2018
Messages
443
Going from 2bph or 3bph to 4bph+ has a marked impact as to how attractive a service is. So things like the upgrade to the Newcastle-Morpeth services made sense and made a real impact. Although the increased frequency had started with Kickstart it really got established as part of Go’s attack on Arriva, the whole “Bargain Bus” thing, the conclusion of which continues to leave a very sour tad taste as to the business ethics of Go.

But once you get to 6bph it’s a turn up and go service and the impact on increasing frequency to 8bph is negligible. If the buses at 6bph are rammed then the increase in PVR should be able to be provided for commercially. If the buses at 6bph aren’t rammed then that is obviously the natural limit for a turn up and go service and subsidy is quite frankly a waste of money.

Paying Go to increase the 21 to 8bph is a waste of money, as is paying Stagecoach to uplift the 1 and the 30/31/36. If BSIP had also been used to reinstate the Four Lane Ends to Coach Lane section of the 1 then my opinion may have differed.

I’d much rather see BSIP be used elsewhere in Newcastle. Returning the 6/7 back to a combined 4bph would be my first choice, that or increasing the 71/72/87 Westerhope corridor back to 6bph. Even uplifting the X63 back to 3bph would be better.

The X47 was a brand new service with brand new buses and was an excellent use of Kickstart funding in 2005.

Totally agree with what your saying, personally I can't see where the growth is coming from 6 BPH to 8 BPH, the people not using the buses aren't doing it because of the frequency imo.

On your Newcastle thing, personally I'd rather see very little routes getting money directly within Newcastle's Council Area. The money would be better spent in the more suburban / rural areas in the other council areas where the bigger problems are. Obviously that is unfair on it's own but on the flip side, the infrastructure budget should be spent more in Newcastle. As someone living in South East Northumberland, I'd much rather see that money spent in Newcastle and North Tyneside as it's where the bottlenecks are which affect our routes. I'm not sure on the plans but if we're going down 'splitting the money evenly' I really can't think of any real worthwhile schemes in the whole of Northumberland which wouldn't be doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff. Similar for County Durham really.

I do agree with the 6 and 7 though, generally getting around, literal sense, Tyne and Wear is a nightmare, especially crossing the water on both the East and West sides without doubling back via Newcastle. The place is desperate for an equivilant superloop type service which London is getting, obviously not in terms of frequency etc of course.
 

WAB

Established Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
1,293
Location
Anglia
That's interesting . . . it goes to show that some RBG routes were worthwhile . . . I was referring more to networks such as in Suffolk and Norfolk, where the majority of routes didn't survive for long.

I'm planning a trip to Yorkshire soon . . . the 900 group looks to be worth a journey . . . thanks !!
Yes, highly recommended despite the knackered vehicles usually used.
 

TheGuy77

Member
Joined
21 Apr 2024
Messages
200
Location
Earth (obviously)
Mod note: this post and the following were originally in a separate thread that was set up to discuss BSIP+, but they have been merged into the existing BSIP thread.

As BSIP+ begins, and as also Sheffield is getting some improvements to their buses next month :D, I decided that it would be perfect to talk about the BSIP, what each council will do with their funding, and what will be improved/affected by the new plan.

Talking about Sheffield, there have been a few improvements to the bus services, including new bus routes from Walkley to Rotherham and Crystal Peaks. I wonder what it will be like next year?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gazmark

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2020
Messages
36
Location
Sheffield
Having lived in walkley, it will be a ruddy nightmare going forward. I still have bad thoughts for these changes after the 95 used to run through to Beighton, Sothall, Crystal Peaks and Killamarsh years ago. It didn't work then... And now ?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,868
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Going from 2bph or 3bph to 4bph+ has a marked impact as to how attractive a service is. So things like the upgrade to the Newcastle-Morpeth services made sense and made a real impact. Although the increased frequency had started with Kickstart it really got established as part of Go’s attack on Arriva, the whole “Bargain Bus” thing, the conclusion of which continues to leave a very sour tad taste as to the business ethics of Go.
Bargain Bus had nothing to do with how the Morpeth to Newcastle corridor fared. That Kickstart scheme was well planned and well embedded by the time Go North East bought Northumbria Coaches.

As for your issues with business ethics, we've been over it enough times and, for pete's sake, it's 15 years and 4 MDs ago.

But once you get to 6bph it’s a turn up and go service and the impact on increasing frequency to 8bph is negligible. If the buses at 6bph are rammed then the increase in PVR should be able to be provided for commercially. If the buses at 6bph aren’t rammed then that is obviously the natural limit for a turn up and go service and subsidy is quite frankly a waste of money.

Paying Go to increase the 21 to 8bph is a waste of money, as is paying Stagecoach to uplift the 1 and the 30/31/36. If BSIP had also been used to reinstate the Four Lane Ends to Coach Lane section of the 1 then my opinion may have differed.
Who's to say the buses are rammed at 6bph? Maybe that's the point - maybe the 10 min frequency isn't seen as turn up and travel. We shall see if it becomes self sustaining.

I’d much rather see BSIP be used elsewhere in Newcastle. Returning the 6/7 back to a combined 4bph would be my first choice, that or increasing the 71/72/87 Westerhope corridor back to 6bph. Even uplifting the X63 back to 3bph would be better.
The 6/7 is a tertiary route that's been declining for many years. Whilst it is an important link, it's never going to be a growth corridor.

The X63 is a decent shout.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,472
Location
Isle of Man
The 6/7 is a tertiary route that's been declining for many years. Whilst it is an important link, it's never going to be a growth corridor.
I know things change, but when the 6/7 first went up to 4bph they were always rammed. With major traffic draws at Kingston Park and the Metrocentre, as well as places like West Denton Morrisons, it should be able to support 4bph.

The current frequency, 1bph on each route, isn’t going to tempt people out out of their cars. When it was 4bph I was usually happy to take the bus from Newburn to Lemington to the MetroCentre, it was as easy as driving, but at 2bph I simply wouldn’t.

On your Newcastle thing, personally I'd rather see very little routes getting money directly within Newcastle's Council Area. The money would be better spent in the more suburban / rural areas in the other council areas where the bigger problems are
I’d generally agree, the core network in Newcastle doesn’t need help. I’d say the Outer West does- I used to live in Newburn and it always felt like the place was treated as an afterthought by the council. But I’d agree that outer Gateshead- Chopwell in particular- requires more assistance, as well as the suburban sprawl of Washington.

Infrastructure wise I’d also agree, more bus priority measures, although many of the biggest issues, e.g. Haddricks Mill, have largely been sorted.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
5,454
And here I think is the issue. Local authorities got given a shed load of money
Some Local Authorities got a lot of money. The Local Authority in which I reside got no BSIP money at all (in company with all bar one of the neighbouring 'shire' counties). Those Local Authorities that did not get BSIP got a small allocation of money in the shape of BSIP+. However this BSIP+ money included the County's share of the then stopped Covid recovery grant to bus operators.

when the BSIP rules were relaxed, some have been reckless and wasted/wasting the money and then when the funding stops, there will be uproar that routes are cut, despite not being used.
About 50% of the BSIP+ funding to my Local Authority went on maintaining the existing network in one way or another, which the bus operators threatened with reduction/withdrawal due to the ending of the Covid recovery grant to them, and other inflationary pressures, principally staff costs.. Initially, those Authorities that got BSIP money were not allowed to support the existing network with that money, but their bus operators had lost the Covid recovery grant too, and were threatening similar withdrawals. Faced with the prospect of introducing new and improved bus services in some places, whilst withdrawing existing facilities, the DfT relaxed the BSIP rules, to allow support similar to BSIP+ Authorities.

The remaining 50% has bought some modest frequency increases and some additional evening services to support the night time economy. The local bus companies are short of staff, so large increases in that requirement were simply not possible, and local politics (quite rightly) demanded that the small quantity of jam was spread reasonably evenly over the county.

Some are using it as kickstarter funding for new routes or improvements which should hopefully be viable by the time the funding runs out. Some are sitting on the money hoping it gains interest.

The funding should have had tighter strings attached to stop the funds being wasted and/or stop it being used be LAs just to prop up the existing tendered bus network, which is often inherently flawed due to poor local politics or poor transport teams.
I don't think many people have any belief that 'kickstarter' funding has much mileage in it for services to become viable. The number of 'commercial' routes has been declining to the extent, in my area, that these are concentrated on a few broad corridors / main town services covering a small proportion of the county. Even some of these are really propped up with 'back door' help.

There is a problem that many Local Authorities do not have the staff capacity and/or capability to spend such large sums of money so quickly and as wisely as possible. Prior to BSIP, any plans in the bottom draw were probably to cope with armageddon like cuts (due to overspending in School Transport / SEND / Education / Social Care statutory duties). Many of the staff that are employed are not public transport orientated people, always travel by car, and have little empathy and understanding of public transport beyond a classic middle class suburban view of buses being used to transport the elderly to the shops/surgery and children to school. In my local Authority, all of this BSIP+ spend, both the schemes and administration had to be carried out by the already stretched existing very small team. Small wonder that high spending/low effort schemes have prevailed over wise but resource hungry schemes in many instances. (for instance - fare cuts are easier to arrange than complicated route and timetable improvements)

Don't think that the bus companies are much help either, with skeleton staffs and a lack of expertise as well. Of the main operator (90%+ of Stage Carriage mileage) not one suggestion or idea came for service improvement........

I am really unsure who exactly would have formulated tighter strings, and moreover who would have supervised / policed such. You are surely not suggesting that the DfT have any expertise (as opposed to paper qualifications) in this field?
 
Last edited:

TheGuy77

Member
Joined
21 Apr 2024
Messages
200
Location
Earth (obviously)
Sheffield's got some bus improvements. (or changes, but definitely not cuts)

All the 207/208 buses will run as 207. (extended to Rotherham from Worrygoose Roundabout)

The 95 will now run via Waverley to Rotherham along with a school only '95s'. The 95a and a new 95b both heading to Crystal Peaks. (the worst possible way to use letters)

The 76 will run to Meadowhall serving NGH with new services 76a and 76e (the 'e' standing for evenings).

There will also be a lot of timetable changes and improvements, but since they have not been posted yet, I'll have to check later.
 

Snex

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2018
Messages
443
I’d generally agree, the core network in Newcastle doesn’t need help. I’d say the Outer West does- I used to live in Newburn and it always felt like the place was treated as an afterthought by the council. But I’d agree that outer Gateshead- Chopwell in particular- requires more assistance, as well as the suburban sprawl of Washington.

Infrastructure wise I’d also agree, more bus priority measures, although many of the biggest issues, e.g. Haddricks Mill, have largely been sorted.

Can't disagree if I had to be honest about the Outer West. They can't even be bothered to cut the grass in areas nowadays, it's an absolute state unlike Gosforth.

Mind I'm guessing you haven't used a bus through Haddrick's Mill, it's as bad as it's ever been (if anything worse) heading out of Newcastle and they've also really messed up Sandy Lane (Gosforth Park) aswell which has made things worse than ever.

One of my local routes uses both and it can take over 60 minutes+ on a regular basis because of the traffic. This imo is where the money should be spent as it can be every 1 minute, if it takes an hour to do a journey I can do in a car in 20 minutes then I won't be using it and I have seen a bus leave Newcastle, went to Sainsbury's to do some shopping and then seen the bus coming into the village later on it's that bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top