Trent Barton’s caused something of a stir because of its plans to terminate its Mickleover to Derby service at Osnabruck Square rather than Derby’s new bus station. Indeed, intense media pressure seems to have forced something of a rethink.
Now, I’ve no idea exactly where Osnabruck Square is. I’m guessing, though, that it’s not in West Germany. But it’s the principle I’m getting at. For I have some sympathy with Trent Barton. And also with its passengers, even though most appear content with their buses terminating short. What we have here illustrates the balance needed in running a high frequency bus service.
The Derby to Mickleover service, left before upgrade, seen when Optare was in favour at Trent Barton. Note the destination refers to the city hospital. The service is the only one that offers a bus there from the bus station and this is partly why some passengers are unhappy with the proposal. Medical use nevertheless accounts, on average, for less than two per cent of patronage
It’s self-evident that if you run a bus service to a point other than where passengers want to go then you are committing commercial suicide. Trent Barton will have thought very carefully about its decision, as it knows a wrong move—in this case, terminating short—could destroy its margins.Trent Barton cites roadworks and congestion as the reason behind terminating the Derby-Mickleovers short, within about half of a mile of the bus station, in fact. In spite of what the casual observer may thing, unpredictable roadworks affect punctuality and therefore irritate passengers. Perhaps punctuality is less of an issue on a service every 7½ minutes (as is the case here) but irritable passengers are likely to make the minimum number of trips possible.
Sloppy journalism may be the reason why in using this shot to cover the story the local media chose to blur the front of one of Trent Barton’s competitors
What does matter is the efficient scheduling of resources. This is the operator’s concern but it should be the passengers’, too. Efficiency means the best possible service at the lowest possible fares. As we are seeing all over England, and have for a while, congestion and unpredictable roadworks make services inefficient. The remedy is costly, in terms of either additional resources or decreases in ridership.Were the route simply to take the allocated few minutes to run between Osnabruck Square and the bus station, no one would have a problem. But it doesn’t seem to. There are only three methods of treating the problem and the operator will need to weigh them up carefully. Trent Barton’s consulted, too, always a good thing, even though detractors fear Trent Barton hasn’t consulted widely enough.
- Add in additional resources into the service.
- Reduce the service using the same resources.
- Terminating short of the bus station.
It seems to me that Trent Barton operates its Derby-Mickleovers with PVR 8 (plus any branded and leather-seated spares). If congestion and roadworks are as bad as suggested, Trent Barton will need a ninth bus in the cycle. Plus more than one driver, to cover shifts, holidays, sickness, etc. If the service can easily absorb such costs (and how many can?), all well and good. But an investment of over £100,000 p.a. will take considerable time to justify itself. If you’re going to sink this sort of cash, it would be nice to see a return for it, some sort of increase in quality or frequency. Here, though, the investment’s somewhat dead.
2. Reduce the service
Rather than throw money at the service, in this case it’s possible to cut it. This means using the same number of buses and drivers as now, recognising the congestion at the city centre end, and making the scheduled journey time longer to account for it. Not only does this look poor on paper, of necessity it reduces the frequency, from every 7½ to every 10 minutes.
I am one of those who argue that attaining a 10-minute service is something of a “holy grail”. It’s the point at which passengers no longer realistically need a timetable. So, what’s the problem with cutting the service from eight to six buses an hour? For one thing, it’s a cut and cuts are always looked upon suspiciously. Journey time increases and poorer frequencies both have a direct impact on ridership.
The downturn may yet force a reduction from every 7/8 to every 10 minutes but till then it’s in no one’s interest to do this. The lay person might assume there’s little difference between the two but there is, enough to dent perceptions & make it that slightly less attractive. The penalty? Fewer passengers, for there’s an obvious direct correlation between service frequency and ridership. More people will decide to walk rather than hop a few stops. There will be those who use it as an excuse to pull out the car (yes, I know it’s irrational but it happens).
While every 10 minutes remains something of a “holy grail”, it’s only a holy grail if you operate at a lesser frequency and improve to every 10. Reducing from a higher to lower frequency has will not get you this grail affect.
3. Terminate Short
This is less convenient for passengers and will not work where this is on the margins of the city centre (as once proposed, for example, in Oxford). Its success will depend upon (a) whether the new terminus is within the heart of the city and (b) the number of people who wish to interchange with other services at the bus station. Interchange is an important element in travelling by bus but Trent Barton will know that it’s only part of the story.
No one lives in an ideal world. Congestion sees to that. Terminating short is something of a compromise. And it is here that Trent Barton has had to balance the alternatives. In the event, the media have driven Trent Barton to chose Option 1 when it had previously felt Option 3 was the best overall solution for the majority of its passengers. Whether Trent Barton will inject resources or let the Derby-Mickleovers run unpunctually remains to be seen. If the former, someone’s going to have to pay. If the latter, it seems 80 per cent of its Mickleover passengers will suffer.
For the time being, then, the service in question will continue to the bus station. No doubt, most passengers will alight beforehand as now, yet no one likes to see a loss of interchange, which is important to bus services. But many towns don’t actually have easy interchange points. Or sometimes, they have more than one with distance between them. And then there are people from Mickleover who might want to catch the train but will need to walk, whether from the bus station or Osnabruck Square...
38 comments:
Having experience of driving, planning & operating high frequency services in the second City, you dismiss the customer generation factor of service increases above and beyond you holy grail of 10 minutes. There is also a direct correlation between running times and frequency the lower the frequency the longer it will take. However it has to be balanced against the loss of potential City Centre trade by stopping short something which I had lots of sleepless nights about in the late nineties! Just sticking an extra 100k into a service isn't really a go-er in this new post recession low margin world!
Here are few facts about this:
The Mickleover service used to be every 10 minutes but when Derby's bus station was demolished and the service terminated short of that, it was increased to every 7 minutes.
When the new bus station opened (three years later), and the Mickleover service returned to the old site, it was always likely to be a struggle to maintain the new timetable. The matter was compounded by major (6-month long) roadworks at Mickleover itself. When these roadworks ended in July 2010, timekeeping improved dramatically, but a week later Trent Barton announced that as a result of a customer survey, they were ceasing to serve the bus station due to 80 per cent of those surveyed wanting this.
In fact, the survey was of only "around 100" people over three weeks – less than 5 people a day. Apart from the hospital (which serves almost the whole of Derbyshire), the Mickleover service serves one of Derby's biggest suburbs and those wanting to travel on to the railway station, and places like Manchester, Nottingham and many of Derby's suburbs, can now change buses in a warm, dry bus station rather than having to walk a few 100 yards (the bus station is centrally situated) to Osnabruck Square where they will wait in the open air.
Those people who want to board and alight in Osnabruck Square can still do so now, even when the bus station is the terminus.
If the right poll was carried out, and people at the Bus Station were included, I'm sure that most would prefer a reliable every 10-minute service that served the city's main interchange.
These are the simple facts.
Anonymous said...
"There is also a direct correlation between running times and frequency the lower the frequency the longer it will take."
Can you explain what you mean here? Granted, lower frequency services may result in longer waiting times at termini, and therefore a greater round trip time - but I should have thought that would be only a marginal effect. In general I would consider that the two factors were independent of one another.
I presume the correlation is due to longer loading times at each stop because each bus is doing eight-sixths of the work if the headways are 10mins instead of 7mins.
I recognise the strident arguments of Anonymous @ 16:08 from somewhere... the Derby Evening Telegraph's favourite axe-grinder perhaps?
My attention has just been drawn to this. May I say that I have long been a champion of public transport in general and of Trent Barton in particular. The company's public interface – ie, its drivers – is second-to-none.
It is true that I am a regular user of the Mickleover bus, and enjoy the fact that, since the opening of Derby's new Bus Station, I can now switch quickly and comfortably between the Mickleover and other services.
The facts posted by Anonymous, however, are just that and self evident to almost anyone who has experienced the service' albeit they do echo my own feelings.
Again, Trent Barton is an excellent bus company and I have said so on more than one occasion in the weekly newspaper column that I have the privilege of writing. I like to be positive, I'm not a serial moaner or an axe grinder (not often anyway). I just think that, on this one occasion, things have been badly handled.
The anonymous above who just posted was me. I must have pressed the wrong button!
I note your caption regarding the Hospital, it is in fact wrong, TrentBartons V1 & V2 also serve the Hospital, albeit at a much reduced 30 minute frequency.
A dedicated TrentBarton service also serves the Hospital the 'Royal Derby' however, it departs Derby from elsewhere. However, it should be said that Derby isn't massive, you can walk across it in about 5 minutes. It used to have a free shopper shuttle bus, but nobody ever used it so because it was quicker to walk, so it got dropped.
once again my fav hobby horse .bus stations are built for a purpose,lets use them.its ok for cross town services to miss the bus station and the park and rides as people using these want the town centres not the bus station.all out of town servives should use the bus station to faci.regards alllitate onward travelers
Hello I'm the first and i'd like to think original Anonymous in this thread! Yes the correlation is that the buses dwell times are greater as they are carrying more people i.e the 8/6th argument made by John below.
The Mickleover has long been every 7.5 mins, even when in the old Bus Station, so Anon at 1608 (not Anton)'s "facts" are wrong. Again.
One wishes that all these "Anons" would out themselves and then I wouldn't keep getting the blame.
I've always thought that, apart from whistleblowers in fear of their lives, people who write to newspapers ought to name themselves and the same applies to the internet. The one major downside to these kinds of forums is that so few people (well, just me, here it seems) are prepared to say who they are. I can't really understand it.
There, now I've gone and upset all the Anons in the world!
Anonymous said...
"Hello I'm the first and i'd like to think original Anonymous in this thread! Yes the correlation is that the buses dwell times are greater as they are carrying more people i.e the 8/6th argument made by John below."
Fair enough, but that does assume that the number of passengers remains largely the same, which I think is quite a limitation. I would imagine that any bus operator increasing the frequency of a service would hope for a corresponding increase in the number of passengers, to justify their investment. In what might be termed the 'other direction', the principle doesn't apply quite so well - but an operator reducing the frequency of a service is presumably doing so as a result of a drop in passenger numbers from a previously higher level.
Obviously, the situation regarding Trent Barton's Mickleover service is slightly unusual in that there are external factors at play - principally road works. Hopefully their rethink has begun to restore their image in the eyes of their passengers!
Anton Rippon said...
'One wishes that all these "Anons" would out themselves and then I wouldn't keep getting the blame.
I've always thought that, apart from whistleblowers in fear of their lives, people who write to newspapers ought to name themselves and the same applies to the internet. ... I can't really understand it.'
The issue is that some of the people who comment on this blog work in the bus industry, and need to remain anonymous in order to be able to comment freely about the issues raised. I don't imagine that anybody who has ever been an employee has agreed with 100% of the policies of their employers! The anonymity means that we gain more insights into the workings of the industry than would otherwise be the case.
Well, fair enough. I can understand that. I'm a newcomer here (and only a passing visitor, you'll be pleased to learn.
Goodnight and goodbye
If the alternative were a ten minute frequency then the average passenger wait time increases by 1.25 minutes - so 2.5 minutes for a trip into and out of town.
How long would it take to walk from Derby Bus Station to Osnabruck Square? One expects most users would experience a lengthened journey as a consequence.
A five-minute walk for a fit person, longer if you are old or infirm. You might have luggage or shopping. It might be raining. And you would have to wait in the open at Osnabruck Square. It is not just about time. There are other factors to consider as well.
How many people really interchange? And then of that group, how many can or can't walk. Compare that number to how many want frequency and reliability.
Also remember people don't start and finish their lives at a Bus Station!
A wonderfully interesting set of comments, here. TY very much. I accept that I know little about the service in question; it was the principle on which I was trying to comment.
Why bother building a Bus Station at all then? Anywhere?
Anonymous said...
"Why bother building a Bus Station at all then? Anywhere?"
Fair question, actually. Most passengers don't actually want to go to a bus station per se, they want to get to shops, offices, schools, etc.. I think I have mentioned this before, but I recall attending a meeting at a local authority, who wanted to build a bus station in their town (previously some services had terminated near to a piece of waste ground in the town centre, which was used for layover purposes). The said piece of waste ground was to be made into a proper bus station, which the 'out of town' services would be required to use, while the municipal operator's own services, mostly cross-town, would pass by and stop in the main streets as before. The operators of the 'out of town' services were distinctly less than impressed by this idea, particularly as a charge would be made for each departure. So bus stations have several downsides.
However, as the article in the current issue of 'Buses' demonstrates, they can also perform a useful interchange role, and may offer an attractive place for passengers to wait if well planned and in the correct location. However, to perform the interchange role properly, all services need to use the bus station - I don't agree with 'anonymous' at 17:28 yesterday - passengers on the local services may want to change to an out of town route and vice versa. Some of the other comments on this post regarding Derby bear this out - for example, the service to the hospital.
So from my perspective, it is a case of 'all or nothing' as far as bus stations are concerned.
That's what it's about really – having a decent indoor bus station where people can change buses. OK, not everyone does. But a lot do. If I'm reading this correctly, Trent Barton run the service every 7 minutes because it is that busy. So it must be one of the busiest, if not the busiest, in the town then? So not having it serve the Bus Station seems a bad idea.
There must be a lot of customers who travel into Derby and then out again, and vice-versa. They can't all want the town centre only. It seems odd to have perhaps Derby's busiest bus route dropping people off short of its interchange.
RC169 wrote "So from my perspective, it is a case of 'all or nothing' as far as bus stations are concerned."
I think Cardiff is a good example of this. All Cardiff bus' services to the west of the City use the bus station bar the 17/18 Ely bendybuses which stop in the street by the station, while their services to the north and east loop around the main shopping area and back out to the suburbs. Some of these services now stop in Wood Street by the bus station, most don't. They all used to call there until one stand was removed. All other operators use the bus station with the exception of Stagecoach's 122 service and the Megabus.
Not all of the Cardiff bus services that operate in a loop around the main shopping area use the same stops or even the same streets in some cases. This has resulted in chaos and a lot of passenger frustration. However there are almost infinite numbers of vehicles serving the main shopping area of the city, though Cardiff Bus had the bizarre idea of a free bus doing the same circular route but calling into the station. The service lasted a few weeks before it was cut due to a lack of passengers.
Many passengers with mobility issues or heavy luggage wishing to use the train stations travelling from the east side have at least a 5 minute walk to Cardiff Central station. Similarly, those travelling from the west have a decent walk to get to the Megabus stop, which isn't located anywhere near the bus station/Central train station either.
At least a lot of effort has been spent placing stop information in shelters; stops have even been given codes and it is easy to find out which stop is needed for all destinations/services. It doesn't stop the confusion though.
Much has been spent in Cardiff on pedestrianising streets and repaving the city centre. The bus station area though is an eyesore and hardly welcoming for anyone stepping off a train. It can be a frightening area late in the evenings. The station is being upgraded bit by bit, though the stands will remain as they are. I think it needs demolishing and a new state of the art station which all services would use.
To further add to Cardiff's shameful bus station and system, Swansea has a much better infrastructure and will have a much better central facility.
Yes. I've visited Cardiff a few times and the bus station there was a mess. Derby's old one was "outdoors", built on the lines of a railway station, and buses could go straight through (in one ay and out the other). But it was old (built about 1930), drafty, dirty, cold and, at night, could be quite intimidating too.
The new one (opened this year) is great. It has problems like congestion and buses backing out, and there are some roadworks just outside it (at the moment), but it is very inviting and a nice place to wait instead of being outside in the cold.
I also think that people shouldn't underestimate a walk of only 5 minutes. That's a lot if you are old or infirm or have to cart luggage and shopping. It's also pointless when you can offer people the option of just walking a few yards, sometimes only feet, to their connecting bus. if they have to wait, then at least they can do that in the warm and be dry.
I hope the Derby thing gets sorted out.
Just noticed that Trent Baron have been advertising a new "turn up and go" service between Derby and Nottingham hat runs every 10 minutes.
If every 10 minutes mans just "turn up and go", why are they so obsessed with every 7 minutes for the Mickleover service. Must be because it is even more busy than the Nottingham service. So how can they not serve that town's Bus Station?
Osnabruck Square, named after Derby's twin city, is only about 200 yards from the bus station, and is currently the Mickleover's first stop. However, the roadworks that are delaying buses in this section also make interchanging on foot unpleasant. To skip to the end of the original post, buses to the railway station use the bus station.
As a Mickleover user, I do not believe the statement that only 2% of passengers are to/from the hospital - I'd say it should be 12% or even 20%. Everyone says that the new hospital has caused the biggest change in travel patterns in Derby in years. At visiting times buses carry standing loads from the city to the hospital and about 10 beyond. I rarely catch a bus at other times which doesn't pick up or drop off at least 10% of its load there. Admittedly many are using OAP passes, but so are many of the residents!
The problem has been that several sets of roadworks create random length delays, so that one run can take 65-70 mins but the next the scheduled 54. You expect bunching on a frequent service, but with a PVR of 8, you shouldn't get four in convoy. Since the roadworks have eased, things have improved, but I still travelled in a convoy of 3 yesterday, and not in the correct order either. Reducing theoretical frequency can't deal with random delays, and fewer buses would be unable to cope with peak loadings.
The problem with the consultation was that, naturally, it picked up frequent/regular users, who are mainly Mickleover residents going into the city centre. Those interchanging in the bus station, who would object to the move, are mainly travelling from other parts of the city to the hospital, and are either regular but infrequent users (eg with monthly appointments) or frequent but occasional (eg every day for a week to visit an inpatient).
Agree with almost everything Frankfrog says. The hospital load is well over 2%, nearer 10% as he says. The only things I would argue are that there are passengers from (and to) Mickleover itself, over and above hospital-bound people, who do transfer to another bus (I do regularly, to Nottingham, Bakewell and beyond, and the rail station – I have a mobility issue) who do want the Bus Station.
WIn short, using a purpose-built bus station would suit almost everyone. There are the usual moaners who don't like the bus station (or anything else new in Derby).
I really think that Trent Barton (who have handled the whole,thing very badly) should just get on with it.
My point about hospital loadings was an average across all services and wasn’t specific to a particular service. A bus operating, for example, non-stop between town centre and hospital will carry 100 per of is passengers to the hospital.
I arrived in Derby one evening about a year ago, with the intention of catching a bus out towards Mickleover. The bus station was not yet open and there were a number of on-street stands.
Not knowing where to catch my bus, I had to ask the driver of another service. This led to me just missing the service as the departue stop was not easy to find. As a result I ended up walking.
Putting my professional head on, I think TB were right. Recycling a bus to increase frequency is a good move. Most passengers do not change buses and do know where they are going. Obviously on a hospital service there is a higher proportion of occasional travellers, but the priority is the more regular traveller. I am sure that TB know their market.
Hospital services are always a problem as few people (across the board) use them, but everybody wants them. Hospitals rarely take bus services into account at the planning stage, especially compared to parking.
In Derby the bus station is a fair walk from the railway station and there is little bus information there.
That's why a quick interchange between bus and rail station is needed in Derby. The Bus Station provides it. But not if your bus doesn't stop there to catch the station bus.
Your experience that evening, Metroman, will be repeated by many if Trent Barton pull the Mickleover from the Bus Station.
I suppose what Metroman says rings true. It's all about profit. not public service (what bus company, or indeed any business, is?).
Trent Barton will do what they think will be most profitable for them. There is no alternative service to and from Mickleover (forget Villagers; they just go straight along the main road once an hour). Anyone who wants to change buses, whether it be to another suburb, the rail station, or another town or city, will just have to lump it so far as Trent Barton is concerned. There is no alternative except to dive yourself.
I think what really annoys the opponents of the move as much as anything is the pretence that Trent Barton somehow care what its passengers think. It does, but only up to the point where they are working out what is most profitable.
And there is nothing wrong in profit. Why else would they be in business? They aren't a charity.
But don't pretend otherwise. What with all this and their gagging order on critics (more than one by the way), they don't look too good overall.
Whoever, masterminded this has left their employers looking somewhat less shiny than they did before.
As another post has pointed out, the distance involved is tiny, and with the need to negotiate some sets of unsympathetically-timed traffic lights, it will be quicker to walk - at least for the able-bodied. The services to (e.g.) Ripley and north thereof are at least as far from the Bus Station.
Sorry, it's not quicker to walk, even if you don't have a suitcase, shopping or mobility issues (which a lot of people do).
It's at least a 5-minute walk, probably more, for able-bodied fit people. I've timed the bus from leaving Osnabruck Square to the Bus Station – generally between 90 seconds and 2 minutes. OK, sometimes – but not so very often, it may take longer because of the current roadworks – but don't give up on serving the Bus Station. It's new, it's warm, it's dry, it's safe, and it connects very quickly to most (though not all) other services. Plain common sense.
"original" back! wow! what an interesting array of comments, just shows how difficult it is to provide a bus service these days you just cant do right from wrong! Thats why I've given up on the industry and always use my car. Its just too difficult to find out information, the buses are filthy and driven like madmen.
Sorry Lodekka Man, more misinformation. Ripley (and other northern destinations, Alfreton and Chesterfield) ARE served from Derby Bus Station itself via the half-hourly Red Arrow service.
And the distance between Osnabruck Square and the Bus Station isn't "tiny". There is less distance between other city centre stops in Derby.
Wouldn't agree with the "original" Anonymous on that, not where I live anyway.
Arriva has a less than glowing reputation in Derby (though it is getting better) but Trent Barton's buses are clean, in most part new, and the drivers very good and very friendly.
As so often happens, though, the people who are likely to do most damage to a company's reputation are in the best places to do so. The ones who make poor decisions, ban critics (including their own drivers) etc.
But riding a bus is, in itself, a largely pleasurable experience in Derby.
It was announced today that another Trent Barton Service in Derby (the Harlequin) is being reduced from every 15 to every 20 minutes because of roadworks.
Yet it doesn't serve the dreaded Bus Station which is apparently the cause of all the Mickleover services woes (according to Alex Hornby).
And while Mr Hornby says he can't reduce the Mickleover service from 70 to 10 minutes, he also says of the Harlequin: "We have decided to reduce the frequency of buses, a move that should significantly improve punctuality."
I'm confused.
I think the previous Anonymous means every 7 minutes to every 10 minutes, not every 70 minutes to every 10. But that typo aside, the point is well made.
Post a Comment