South Yorkshire Bus Service Needs Improvement

[Chekhov]

My wife has been trying to find confirmation of all this on the Stagecoach website and cannot. She is cynical about them "sneaking it through".

 

>>people moaning about the local pub closing despite only using it once a year at Xmas.<<

 

Not quite the same, many people use the SL1, it is a major part of the public transport  system to Oughtbridge and Stocksbridge, the latter in particular is quite sizeable.

I'd be surprised if the vast majority of those "complaining" only use the SL1 'once a year.'

 

They have been talking about extending the tram out to Stocksbridge, I'd have thought subsidising the SL1 (and genuinely making it connect with the tram) would be rather cheaper !

Edited September 20, 2022 by Chekhov

[HeHasRisen]

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

 

They have been talking about extending the tram out to Stocksbridge,

Who is "they"?

[Annie Bynnol]

7 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Surely they must have some somewhere in that vast company, and if they haven't they could lease them in and, if it worked well, then buy some ?

I'm just trying t think outside of the box, how to ensure a bus connected with every tram but at the minimum cost and with the minimum number of empty seats being transported about !

There is no practical/financial case where minibuses work in providing regular services, frequent services.

The single biggest ongoing cost is drivers pay.

The cost of buying/leasing a small fleet of minibuses adapted for public transport is prohibitive.

People do not like minibus travel especially when they fail to meet peak demand.

 

The legal bit is to do with 'cross subsidy' which is not allowed outside London. 'Stagecoach Supertram' can operate a bus service but they cannot financially support it at off peak times from Supertram revenue. This is 'anti-competitive'. The Council are allowed to support(even operate) necessary services but there is no case for it here as there is an alternative.

 

In the current economic climate, the possibility of Stagecoach loosing the Supertram operating contract in two years and the need for a new fleet of buses, they do not see 'Link'as a viable  'Stagecoach Supertram' will not step in to provide a connecting service.

It would not surprise me if the Stagecoach are playing a long game here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

14 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Who is "they"?

"they", as usual, do not exist.

A Stocksbridge rail/tram/tramtrain link (it would not even  pass through Oughtibridge or Stocksbridge) has never been seriously considered.

It failed to get anywhere in the recent 'Restoring your Railway Fund' project.

The only other report two decades ago suggested one service an hour to a platform at Victoria at initial cost of £5million with an annual subsidy of £2million. I would also have been slower.

 

There is a possibility that an amendment to the Act of Parliament that enabled Supertram could be made to include a Link service. This will not happen under a Tory Government as (outside London) as their current ideology is to oppose anything which smacks of being anti-competitive like public transport, even if it means no transport at all.

[Chekhov]

24 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

"they", as usual, do not exist.

A Stocksbridge rail/tram/tramtrain link (it would not even  pass through Oughtibridge or Stocksbridge) has never been seriously considered.

It failed to get anywhere in the recent 'Restoring your Railway Fund' project.

The only other report two decades ago suggested one service an hour to a platform at Victoria at initial cost of £5million with an annual subsidy of £2million. I would also have been slower.

You start off saying they do not exist as usual, then rather contradict yourself by stating "It failed to get anywhere in the recent 'Restoring your Railway Fund' project."

 

Personally I do not think extending the Supertram to Stocksbridge is viable, particularly if it cannot access the rest of the Supertram network which would require expensive civil engineering. Running it through the old Victoria station then reversing into "Midland" would not generate sufficient patronage. Literally extending it from its current terminus over to the Stocksbridge line would generate much more custom, but at much higher cost.

 

>>The only other report two decades ago suggested one service an hour to a platform at Victoria at initial cost of £5million with an annual subsidy of £2million. It [?] would also have been slower.<<

 

Not sure what you mean here, a service direct from Stocksbridge and Oughtibridge to Victoria would be very quick, but would deposit people where very few actually want to go. Extending it into Sheffield station would be much better but would require a reversal, and even that would not go through the centre of the city (or through Hillsborough or past the university and the Hallamshire hospital).

Also the line to Stocksbridge passes Wharncliffe and Oughtibridge up the hill and rather out of their centres. Most people from those villages (and O/B is quite large) would have quite a walk to get to the line.

 

Most rail lines lose money, esp non Inter City, and are subsidised, it's a pity they cannot just subsidise the Supertram link bus (and make it genuinely connect with the tram whilst they're at it).

Edited September 20, 2022 by Chekhov

[Resident]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

My wife has been trying to find confirmation of all this on the Stagecoach website and cannot. She is cynical about them "sneaking it through".

 

>>people moaning about the local pub closing despite only using it once a year at Xmas.<<

 

Not quite the same, many people use the SL1, it is a major part of the public transport  system to Oughtbridge and Stocksbridge, the latter in particular is quite sizeable.

I'd be surprised if the vast majority of those "complaining" only use the SL1 'once a year.'

 

They have been talking about extending the tram out to Stocksbridge, I'd have thought subsidising the SL1 (and genuinely making it connect with the tram) would be rather cheaper !

A few years ago an under-used route was cut from 3 to 1 per hour. Passenger figures showed that the average hourly usage was LESS than 1 passenger/hour (the route ran empty most of the time).

When the cut was announced a petition with over 1200 signatures was handed to the local MP who'd promised to look into it and he asked them a ver salient question. Where are the 1200 signatories when the bus is operating.

More recently the residents of Todwick complained that they too only got a once an  hour service, with a 400 signature petition and once again passenger numbers averaged around 1/hr

I believe the term is use it or lose it. 

[BigAl1]

14 hours ago, Chekhov said:

With which thread, busses or trams ?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Chekhov said:
Did I hear that it was actually illegal for them to cooperate. Something about anti competitive practice or something ?  Which is to totally misunderstand what public transport is all about.....

I agree it's ludicrous but I am just repeating what one of the staff told me.

Just to clarify I think the employee meant the tram company and the bus company could not, apparently, work together on the time table because it would make it harder for any competitor to enter the market (in competition with the link bus). The fact there is no competitor wanting to enter the market or that them working together means a better service for the traveller, is, apparently (again), irrelevant.

The free market might be the most efficient driver of the economy, but public transport is rarely a "free market" in the conventional sense.

Again sorry this is nonsense. Any contract awarded to run the bus or tram should specify that the two organizations should cooperate to run a seamless service. It is not rocket science and I wish people would stop trying to defend the indefensible with such nonsense . The simple fact is that a good idea has been ruined by incompetence

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

"they", as usual, do not exist.

A Stocksbridge rail/tram/tramtrain link (it would not even  pass through Oughtibridge or Stocksbridge) has never been seriously considered.

It failed to get anywhere in the recent 'Restoring your Railway Fund' project.

The only other report two decades ago suggested one service an hour to a platform at Victoria at initial cost of £5million with an annual subsidy of £2million. I would also have been slower.

 

There is a possibility that an amendment to the Act of Parliament that enabled Supertram could be made to include a Link service. This will not happen under a Tory Government as (outside London) as their current ideology is to oppose anything which smacks of being anti-competitive like public transport, even if it means no transport at all.

makes you laugh when you consider that they can not make the bus pay its way that anyone would think it viable to spend hundreds of millions building a tram extension would suddenly generate a profit

 

 

[HeHasRisen]

2 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 

 

There is a possibility that an amendment to the Act of Parliament that enabled Supertram could be made to include a Link service.

Sorry, just returning to this. Really?

 

Does any other light rail/tram network in the country currently have such a stipulation that they have to provide a bus route from an outlying area to link into the system? If not, it just sounds like a bit of a fantasy really doesnt it? Why is Stocksbridge a special case?

 

Also...if the SL1 was binned, would there be any foundation to improve the 57 from its currently hourly service?

Edited September 20, 2022 by HeHasRisen

[Annie Bynnol]

14 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Sorry, just returning to this. Really?

 

Does any other light rail/tram network in the country currently have such a stipulation that they have to provide a bus route from an outlying area to link into the system? If not, it just sounds like a bit of a fantasy really doesnt it? Why is Stocksbridge a special case?

 

Also...if the SL1 was binned, would there be any foundation to improve the 57 from its currently hourly service?

A correct interpretation of what I said  would be 'a stipulation that the Supertram operator can provide a bus route effectively extending their system to outlying areas without having to comply with the Laws about cross-subsidy., competition etc.'

Stagecoach, in my opinion, is saying "If you don't give us the upcoming contract to operate Supertram one of the consequences will be that we will compete for Sheffield Oughtibridge/Stocksbridge passenger revenue."

 

Something which is not getting  attention is the distinct possibility that Bus Pass holders will be charged by the new Supertram operator. 

Only South Yorkshire residents travelling on South Yorkshire issued ENCTS passes would get free travel on Supertram.

 

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, Annie Bynnol said:

A correct interpretation of what I said  would be 'a stipulation that the Supertram operator can provide a bus route effectively extending their system to outlying areas without having to comply with the Laws about cross-subsidy., competition etc.'

 

 

Right, ok, does an identical stipulation currently exist on any light rail/tram system in the UK? And again, why is Stocksbridge a special case?

Edited September 20, 2022 by HeHasRisen