Stagecoach Yorkshire and Chesterfield

[Teapot42]

Duckmanton also appears to be down to an hourly service, unless you are close enough to walk down and get the 2 from the main road. Poolsbrook appears to lose daytime service, but retains an hourly evening service.

There seems to be little joined up thinking around some services though. When the 90 was extended to Markham Vale it passed a large new housing estate called Aspire Way. Only problem is no-one thought to add any stops for this estate! Similarly for the large Skylarks estate in Dunston, other than a handful of peak time 44s, nothing passes. In both cases you can walk to another service in 10-15 minutes, but anyone with an alternative won't be doing that.

I raised this with Stagecoach a few years back and was told they were 'assessing the situation'. Totally pointless. Large new estates like this need buses from the outset otherwise behaviours get set. If your only way out is by car, you only buy a house there if you drive. Adding buses years later won't work as everyone has already made their own arrangements. I quite understand such services won't be financially viable initially, but this is where a combination of long-term thinking and some support is needed.

I'm struggling to see how the 15 will work, unless they've also changed the route between Whittington Moor and Dronfield. They've cut 8 minutes off this run to try and balance the 10 minutes they've added by taking in the 5 route. I can't see there being that much slack in the current timetable, and a quick scan of journeys on bustimes shows some late running. The current timetable also rolls back 5-10 minutes each hour, while the new one is pretty much same times every other hour.

 

[BHILL77]

on the stagecoach website there isnt a timetable for the 90B for the evenings or sundays so what are the times for that??

 

[chessie]

Duckmanton also appears to be down to an hourly service, unless you are close enough to walk down and get the 2 from the main road. Poolsbrook appears to lose daytime service, but retains an hourly evening service.

There seems to be little joined up thinking around some services though. When the 90 was extended to Markham Vale it passed a large new housing estate called Aspire Way. Only problem is no-one thought to add any stops for this estate! Similarly for the large Skylarks estate in Dunston, other than a handful of peak time 44s, nothing passes. In both cases you can walk to another service in 10-15 minutes, but anyone with an alternative won't be doing that.

I raised this with Stagecoach a few years back and was told they were 'assessing the situation'. Totally pointless. Large new estates like this need buses from the outset otherwise behaviours get set. If your only way out is by car, you only buy a house there if you drive. Adding buses years later won't work as everyone has already made their own arrangements. I quite understand such services won't be financially viable initially, but this is where a combination of long-term thinking and some support is needed.

I'm struggling to see how the 15 will work, unless they've also changed the route between Whittington Moor and Dronfield. They've cut 8 minutes off this run to try and balance the 10 minutes they've added by taking in the 5 route. I can't see there being that much slack in the current timetable, and a quick scan of journeys on bustimes shows some late running. The current timetable also rolls back 5-10 minutes each hour, while the new one is pretty much same times every other hour.

I agree with all your points.

I totally overlooked Poolsbrook though, theres no close by alternative, its got to be a mile or so walk from there to the nearest bus stop under the new daytime timetable!

 

[ALEMASTER]

Duckmanton also appears to be down to an hourly service, unless you are close enough to walk down and get the 2 from the main road. Poolsbrook appears to lose daytime service, but retains an hourly evening service.

There seems to be little joined up thinking around some services though. When the 90 was extended to Markham Vale it passed a large new housing estate called Aspire Way. Only problem is no-one thought to add any stops for this estate! Similarly for the large Skylarks estate in Dunston, other than a handful of peak time 44s, nothing passes. In both cases you can walk to another service in 10-15 minutes, but anyone with an alternative won't be doing that.

I raised this with Stagecoach a few years back and was told they were 'assessing the situation'. Totally pointless. Large new estates like this need buses from the outset otherwise behaviours get set. If your only way out is by car, you only buy a house there if you drive. Adding buses years later won't work as everyone has already made their own arrangements. I quite understand such services won't be financially viable initially, but this is where a combination of long-term thinking and some support is needed.

I'm struggling to see how the 15 will work, unless they've also changed the route between Whittington Moor and Dronfield. They've cut 8 minutes off this run to try and balance the 10 minutes they've added by taking in the 5 route. I can't see there being that much slack in the current timetable, and a quick scan of journeys on bustimes shows some late running. The current timetable also rolls back 5-10 minutes each hour, while the new one is pretty much same times every other hour.

It appears the 15 achieved Dronfield to Coal Aston quicker on the new timetable.

 

[tom1649]

It seems like services in Chesterfield are stuck in a downward spiral. Ironically, if Chesterfield had joined SYMCA as was once proposed, franchised services would be just around the corner and could have reversed this situation.

 

[Teapot42]

It appears the 15 achieved Dronfield to Coal Aston quicker on the new timetable.

It seems as if they've trimmed the odd minute here and there throughout the route. It's not easy to tell how current running times reflect this, partly as the bus is currently going a shorter route due to roadworks meaning it can't serve Apperknowle. It seemed mostly to time on Friday, although two trips seemed to bypass Stubley to regain time.

My feeling is they are trying to get too much out of a single bus, and in reality they'd be better totally recasting the services around Highfield and Dunston, and leave the 15 to serve the rural communities.

(Another thought - if the 15 can be made to work 2-hourly and extended at the same time, why have passengers had to put up with a 2-and-a-bit hour frequency for the past howevermany years?)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 10:59 ==

It seems like services in Chesterfield are stuck in a downward spiral. Ironically, if Chesterfield had joined SYMCA as was once proposed, franchised services would be just around the corner and could have reversed this situation.

Fully agree, and something I've raised many times over the years, even before franchising was on the table.

Indeed, I fear franchising may make things much worse, as we are likely to fall under two ticketing systems, so prices may well go up on some journeys which, in turn, could well suppress passenger numbers further. I wonder also, as Stagecoach will have to offer SYMCA fares on the services within Sheffield (43/44/50/X17), will they retain as much revenue as they do currently? Those are probably the most lucrative services operating out of Stonegravels, so if they contribute less then I can see other cuts being inevitable.

What is also disappointing is that EMMCA appear to have no trouble finding funding for services in other parts of the authority, but at best aren't prepared to do anything here, and at worst are happy for services they fund to be cut back to fill gaps.

 

[ALEMASTER]

I can't help but think in the Chesterfield area what is needed now is completely tearing up the network map and redesigning the whole network from scratch looking where demand is and how places can be linked in ways that are both efficient and attractive to passengers.

There seems to have been a few cases recently of tinkering at short notice in reaction to occurancances like Hulleys ceasing trading and Stagecoach cutting loss making services.

 

[Teapot42]

I can't help but think in the Chesterfield area what is needed now is completely tearing up the network map and redesigning the whole network from scratch looking where demand is and how places can be linked in ways that are both efficient and attractive to passengers.

There seems to have been a few cases recently of tinkering at short notice in reaction to occurancances like Hulleys ceasing trading and Stagecoach cutting loss making services.

Definitely agree, but is there anywhere such a precedent has been set? I've been advocating a rethink for a long while, but all we get is services either combined to the point where they are useless, or just cut completely. Any time I've pointed out areas I can see large traffic flows that are unserved I just get told to mind my own business as the industry knows what it's doing.

While I do realise wholesale change will initially cause issues for passengers, if nothing happens then we'll be down to a skeleton serving the ex-council estates and nothing more.

It was blindingly obvious the 38 would not survive as it was a large one-way loop. Anyone in Brampton going in to town needed to sit on the bus for nearly half an hour to get there. Merging the 5 in to that route also compromised it, as previously it seemed to do fairly well as a twice-hourly and now it's gone as well.

The supported evening services mostly haven't changed for decades either and don't really reflect usage. Holymoorside no longer has an evening or Sunday service, Chatsworth Road has no buses after about 7pm and only a handful on a Sunday. Why not rejig the 91 to run as per a daytime 90 then extend via Walton Back Lane to Holymoorside then back down Chatsworth Road to Somersall Lane?

The 10 also runs as a large loop, meaning one direction you have a very long journey. Split it, one half taking in what used to be the 5. Even if you run it half-hourly the average journey time will be the same - you might have to wait 10 minutes longer, but the journey will be 10 minutes quicker.

I was hoping EMCCA would bring change, but other than a few photo-ops the Mayor doesn't seem at all interested in Chesterfield.

 

[Ferrylift3]

Definitely agree, but is there anywhere such a precedent has been set? I've been advocating a rethink for a long while, but all we get is services either combined to the point where they are useless, or just cut completely. Any time I've pointed out areas I can see large traffic flows that are unserved I just get told to mind my own business as the industry knows what it's doing.

While I do realise wholesale change will initially cause issues for passengers, if nothing happens then we'll be down to a skeleton serving the ex-council estates and nothing more.

It was blindingly obvious the 38 would not survive as it was a large one-way loop. Anyone in Brampton going in to town needed to sit on the bus for nearly half an hour to get there. Merging the 5 in to that route also compromised it, as previously it seemed to do fairly well as a twice-hourly and now it's gone as well.

The supported evening services mostly haven't changed for decades either and don't really reflect usage. Holymoorside no longer has an evening or Sunday service, Chatsworth Road has no buses after about 7pm and only a handful on a Sunday. Why not rejig the 91 to run as per a daytime 90 then extend via Walton Back Lane to Holymoorside then back down Chatsworth Road to Somersall Lane?

The 10 also runs as a large loop, meaning one direction you have a very long journey. Split it, one half taking in what used to be the 5. Even if you run it half-hourly the average journey time will be the same - you might have to wait 10 minutes longer, but the journey will be 10 minutes quicker.

I was hoping EMCCA would bring change, but other than a few photo-ops the Mayor doesn't seem at all interested in Chesterfield.

Its the same in other areas of the East Midlands also, not just Derbyshire. Years of planning has gone into BSIPs with the individual counties, paid for consultations by experts, user surgeries/focus groups etc etc, only for everything to have been seemingly teared up and told that they are starting again. It would be nice to see something actually happening instead of the odd gesture service here and there.

 

[Hyebone]

The 5 and 38 have been loss-making services for years. They've tried to make it work, but it's just not commercially viable. They're quids in with replacing them with tendered mileage however.

I never saw a point in the 3 service. It seemed like a panic move in response to First and Hulleys both running up the Hady Hill corridor.

Re the comments about the 10: that service works completely fine. The reason it was merged with the Bolsover routes in the first place was because they weren't happy with buses sitting on Elder Way for 10 minutes each trip. Somehow, they couldn't see the slack in the timetable, and time for alighting/boarding was actually necessary. It's better now it's back to how it was.

15s and 16s worked better when it was the 14, 15, 16 and 16a. It made much more sense. the 16 ran from Broomfield to Dronfield, with the 16a serving Cutthorpe. The 14 ran from town to Dronfield omitting Marsh Lane, with the 15 running Dronfield to Marsh Lane only. I've always thought the 16 shouldn't serve Broomfield anyway, and it should be left to the 48. The 48 running into Hasland with the 54 and Pronto seems like taking coals to Newcastle.

15s running back down Highfield Road towards town is welcome. Sitting on a loop for half an hour when the walk into town is 20 is pointless. Got some exercise in mind!

54s running 3-an-hour is interesting considering they were running 5-an-hour not too long ago. 54s are always busy though. Perhaps they realised having only two spare E400EVs after allocating some to the 170 wasn't a good idea given their spectacular unreliability.

I'm curious to see how the 74 changes affect capacity, as I never thought they were particularly empty. The Woodthorpe loop was BSIP funded. The money ran out, so it gets cut. Simple.

On that note, how come the Wirksworth X17 extension still exists? That was BSIP funded, along with the half-hourly Matlock service. Seems as if they are commercially viable.

Cutting the 90 back from Creswell and Clowne made sense, as it was always empty. Cutting Markham Vale and Poolsbrook seems a little harsh. Poolsbrook only getting an evening/Sunday service is just plain stupid. I can't blame Stagecoach for cutting loss-making mileage, I'm blaming EMCCA for looking at it and choosing not to intervene.

I don't have any particular gripe with the rest of the service changes. It's a commercial business after all. You'd think however after getting a brand-new fleet, overheads would be less...

 

[ChrisC]

Cutting the 90 back from Creswell and Clowne made sense, as it was always empty. Cutting Markham Vale and Poolsbrook seems a little harsh. Poolsbrook only getting an evening/Sunday service is just plain stupid. I can't blame Stagecoach for cutting loss-making mileage, I'm blaming EMCCA for looking at it and choosing not to intervene.

I‘ve never used the 90 but whenever I use the 53 from Mansfield there always seem to be a number of people using it between Shuttlewood and Clowne. Cutting the 90 will mean all passengers from Shuttlewood will have to use the 53 which is roughly only 2 hourly. This should slightly boost passenger numbers on the 53.

 

[Teapot42]

The 5 and 38 have been loss-making services for years. They've tried to make it work, but it's just not commercially viable.

I don't think you could have created a route and timetable any less likely to make money. Especially the 38. The downfall came when the 2/2A were scrapped.
The 5 could have been better tweaked to make it viable by extending it down Racecourse Road and taking in the lower end of Kendal Road.

That said, I still think a better option would have been to re-route the 90 via Highfield. It's daft this area is so close to Tesco and Sainsburys but has no bus link. The far part of the 5 would work well as part of a split 10.

I'm not sure I agree so much with your assessment the 10 works fine. It takes so long around Dunston that the people I know who live there just don't bother. Two services with tighter loops would be more attractive.

15s and 16s worked better when it was the 14, 15, 16 and 16a.

Agreed. Dronfield services could be better planned, the limited service on the 15 is all that crosses town for example.

I've always thought the 16 shouldn't serve Broomfield anyway, and it should be left to the 48.

The 48 is 3/4 buses a day, plus the 16 is the only service which serves Storforth Lane and the industrial estates down there. Personally, I think that section of the 16 should be made hourly. I do use it occasionally when I need to take the car to the garage, and I'd use it more if it was better timed.

I'm curious to see how the 74 changes affect capacity, as I never thought they were particularly empty. The Woodthorpe loop was BSIP funded. The money ran out, so it gets cut. Simple.

True, but the service doesn't just serve Woodthorpe, and some far more major places are losing half their service as a result.

I wonder if the Seymour Link Road is ever going to open? It would give another way to serve Woodthorpe with something else to drive traffic.

On that note, how come the Wirksworth X17 extension still exists? That was BSIP funded, along with the half-hourly Matlock service. Seems as if they are commercially viable.

I wondered the same thing, and came to the same conclusion. Frankly, running two hourly to Matlock has been so successful it almost reflects badly on Stagecoach for being so conservative. I still think they could easily increase the X17 frequency on the Chesterfield to Sheffield route and drive traffic more.

Cutting the 90 back from Creswell and Clowne made sense, as it was always empty.

I still think they'd have been better adding a service in to the 1/2 group, running off the 1 at Whaley Thornes. It would keep the 3x hourly to the hospital and to Duckmanton, and would give a link from Creswell and Clowne to the hospital. Plus, who's going to use the 90 from Clowne and Creswell beyond Markham Vale when they could use the much quicker 77?

Cutting Markham Vale and Poolsbrook seems a little harsh. Poolsbrook only getting an evening/Sunday service is just plain stupid. I can't blame Stagecoach for cutting loss-making mileage, I'm blaming EMCCA for looking at it and choosing not to intervene.

It also seems rather chaotic, as if EMCCA were caught out by the fact the funding ended and something would need to happen. What they've put in place is almost worse than nothing. Services with such low frequency they are pointless and which harms other services they fund.

I think Stagecoach could be more creative with the network to make it more attractive, but that would really need backing from EMCCA as it won't be cost-free initially.

You'd think however after getting a brand-new fleet, overheads would be less...

A fleet funded to operate the Chesterfield local services. What happens if there aren't enough local services to keep it busy?