South Yorkshire Bus Service Needs Improvement

[HeHasRisen]

No, just trying to keep threads about buses all in one place. Neat and tidy.

[BigAl1]

17 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

Well we have some hot heads don't we. 

First. There is no contract for the tramlink buses. They are a commercial operation. The service 57 suffered greatly as a consequence so first pulled off it in a case of you want it - have it. 

Next. There are provisions to register a service that runs as a connection to await the connection within reason. 

Finally. The next operator of the trams will be sypte themselves so they can get funding for new trams. 

(then probably try to get the cost written off). 

As you say the current operation is a commercial one between two divisions of the same holding company and one would have therefore expected that they would both have seen the benefit to help ensure a commercial success

 

Interested that you state there is a provision to register a service that runs as a connection to await the connection within reason  - can you throw more light on this given that to date Supertram have steadfastly refused to to even countenance any cooperation I would be interested to hear more about this

 

 

[Guest busdriver1]

2 hours ago, BigAl1 said:

As you say the current operation is a commercial one between two divisions of the same holding company and one would have therefore expected that they would both have seen the benefit to help ensure a commercial success

 

Interested that you state there is a provision to register a service that runs as a connection to await the connection within reason  - can you throw more light on this given that to date Supertram have steadfastly refused to to even countenance any cooperation I would be interested to hear more about this

 

 

There are facilities to register a service to run as a connection to others. There is a time limit on the "window of connection" but it is possible. Lots of things are possible if the will is there to make them happen. In Northumberland there is a service that runs to a "TIDE TABLE" as it crosses a causeway to Lindisfarne. This has been run for years and the commissioners are quite happy to accept "different" applications if good reasons are given. This would fall into that category.

[Guest busdriver1]

19 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

There has been no mention of a current bus contract by anybody on this thread.

Try Post 1187 since you cant seem to find it

19 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Turner & Townsend and Anturas will be advising SYPTE(the owner) over the next seven years on the Sheffield Supertram improvements. They will also be advising SYPTE on the future management and operation of the system as well as its integration with other public transport.

As SYPTE do not operate any transport services directly they have currently no capacity to operate Supertram. 

So basically they are advising SYPTE how to run it - themselves - yes through an arms length company but one entirely owned and run by  

SYPTE

That to everyone with the exception of you means that SYPTE will be running it.

[BigAl1]

3 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

Try Post 1187 since you cant seem to find it

So basically they are advising SYPTE how to run it - themselves - yes through an arms length company but one entirely owned and run by  

SYPTE

That to everyone with the exception of you means that SYPTE will be running it.

Well you can’t expect the PTE to have the required expertise so of course they will need to bring in consultants. I wonder if it was put out to a property conducted competitive tender

[Resident]

5 hours ago, BigAl1 said:

Well you can’t expect the PTE to have the required expertise so of course they will need to bring in consultants. I wonder if it was put out to a property conducted competitive tender

Consultants probably led by O-LIE-ver's cousin as it'll turn out....

 

[Annie Bynnol]

22 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

Try Post 1187 since you cant seem to find it

 

When I said "There has been no mention of a current bus contract by anybody on this thread."

 

You replied: "Yes there has, read through it and see."

You then said "Try Post 1187 since you cant seem to find it"

 

I have and Post 1187 makes no mention of a current contract.

[Guest busdriver1]

44 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

When I said "There has been no mention of a current bus contract by anybody on this thread."

 

You replied: "Yes there has, read through it and see."

You then said "Try Post 1187 since you cant seem to find it"

 

I have and Post 1187 makes no mention of a current contract.

There is however mention of "contracts" you, to try and hide your  pedantry have carefully inserted the word current (very clever)  unless of course its Alzheimer's in which case I apologise 

[BigAl1]

47 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

There is however mention of "contracts" you, to try and hide your  pedantry have carefully inserted the word current (very clever)  unless of course its Alzheimer's in which case I apologise 

you will get used to it my friend just like trying to get a straight answer from a politician

[Annie Bynnol]

17 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

There is however mention of "contracts" you, to try and hide your  pedantry have carefully inserted the word current (very clever)  unless of course its Alzheimer's in which case I apologise 

Apologies accepted but not really necessary your Alzheimer's  condition is not your fault.

 

In case anybody else is confused by your reason for misreading and strange accusation, here is what you quoted in your post #1214  (from my Post #1203 Posted Tuesday at 17:40 ):

                                                "There has been no mention of a current bus contract by anybody on this thread."

 

As everyone can see there is no 'Edited' comment generated by SF in my  post #1203.

I am unaware of any method whereby I could remove, add, insert or alter text without the SF highlighting that the post had been edited by me.

 

Therefore not only do I reject you accusation that I inserted a word which significantly altered the point being made, I have proof through SF that I did no such thing.

The fact that you actually quoted me as saying "...current bus contract..." leads to a much simpler explanation which is that in you haste you misread my posts.