There’s much of interest to report on both the north and the south Devon coasts.
South Devon
Stop teasing! “We have something very special coming your way net week”
First currently offers hourly Paignton - Ivybridge - Plymouth X80 and the slow 180 Plymouth - Ivybridge, the latter serving more of Ivybridge’s expanding housing, every two hours. Stagecoach has the two-hourly X38 Plymouth - Ivybridge - Exeter.
So, what’s the motive?
- Well, Citybus has limited opportunity to expand within the city itself. It’s already done what it can, including both new competition with First’s Ugobus and in strengthening its own position where the dwindling Ugobus has or had attacked.
- Ivybridge is 11 miles from Plymouth, just 13 minutes from Marsh Mills and, with a population of 12,000, it’s nowadays an overspill suburb of Plymouth but with greenery in between. Its population focuses on either Exeter or Plymouth but Plymouth is the closer. In fact, more people live in Ivybridge than its 9,000 Plymouth suburb neighbour Plympton (and Ivybridge is still growing). Plympton carries 11 buses an hour. Why, then, shouldn’t Ivybridge support the half-hourly 45, even with distance decay?
- And get a hot sunny school holiday day and it’s nice to see full buses but that doesn’t always mean there’s room for local traffic.
First’s representation of its X80 is a little odd. The service departs Plymouth for Paington where there’s an EU-hours-busting “guaranteed connection”, at Paington onwards for Torquay, but this is shown on the timetable in the column immediately to the *left* of the incoming Plymouth to Paington leg. And, aside from Paington, Preston and Totnes, there are no town names mentioned at all. No “Plymouth”, “Ivybridge” or “Torquay”. So, where exactly is “Pontoon”, “Football Ground”, “Church Green”, etc? Something to do with Traveline, perhaps?
To start with, Citybus appears to operate the service with self-contained vehicles so, with a round trip journey time of 65 minutes, the bus rests for 25 out of every 90 minutes. This will allow some imagination in terms of the vehicles and their branding. To kick off the service this will be no bad thing but expect it to link to the Citybus’ Saltash (Cornwall) service in due course giving even more destinations for Ivybridge passengers.
First Pulls Out
First Devon & Cornwall has now cancelled its North Devon operations after last operations on 23rd September 2012 and Stagecoach Devon has registered some replacements from the following day. So now we know. Meanwhile, Western Greyhound has amended its 599 Bude - Okehampton - Exeter on and from Wednesday 19th September. Says Western Greyhound, “This will hopefully give passengers a valuable few days to realign their travel arrangements”. Or maybe this is to get in before Stagecoach, who’s registered a parallel X9 First replacement every two hours between Bude, Okehampton and Exeter.
i Plymothian Transit has more on the 45 and matters Plymouth & Devon
44 comments:
I can't help but think that bus companies are taking the mick with this EU-avoiding "guaranteed connections" lark, and that the EU should stamp on it.
Neil
...but if only bus companies would actually guarantee connections between multiple services on a genuine basis. That might actually be useful!
Neil
Neil said...
"I can't help but think that bus companies are taking the mick with this EU-avoiding "guaranteed connections" lark, and that the EU should stamp on it"
Another typical blinkered view from you - how exactly is a "guaranteed connection" taking the mick please? Its a very neat loophole that is for the passengers best benefit - surely thats the thing that we all as transport enthusiasts or professional (or both!) want ultimately? I've been in the industry for many many years and I still hold true to that basic value - we're here to serve the public!!
"how exactly is a "guaranteed connection" taking the mick please?"
It usually is nothing of the sort. It is usually the same bus with the same driver with a cheeky change of route number.
Whether the regulation makes sense is another debate, but as it exists this is a blatent mickey take.
Personally I see no sense in a difference between "EU rules" and "domestic rules" just based on route length. It should be either one or the other - either we hoist the Jolly Roger and make everything domestic rules, or tachos all round.
Neil
From a passenger's point of view I'd much rather get on a 31 at Axminster or an X53 at Lyme Regis and run through to Weymouth with a "guarenteed connection" at Bridport than have to worry about changing buses.Especially given the way in which the routes in question can be subject to delay.
"Personally I see no sense in a difference between "EU rules" and "domestic rules" just based on route length. It should be either one or the other - either we hoist the Jolly Roger and make everything domestic rules, or tachos all round."
Cost? How you intending to pay for this one? With your usual bottomless pit of cash that funds real time information, quality partnerships, interavailability of ticketing, etc etc. Companies do this, and not just the major PLCs but really pioneered by Western Greyhound, to avoid the restrictions and therefore resultant costs of moving to EU rules.
When you have your CPCs, and then run an operation, you'll have this insight! Apologies if this seems strong, but the idea that bus companies are taking the mick is actually really offensive.
It is "taking the mick" though. The law was changed to prevent drivers from driving for hours without a break, and rather than comply with this, bus companies have just adjusted routes to avoid the rules. Breaking journeys in some village in the middle of nowhere, even if it is the same bus and the same driver, is just an unnecessary inconvenience. Not least to the driver who has to explain 43 times that, yes, the bus that says Peterlee on the front is actually going to Sunderland and, no, you don't have to pay twice (unless you have a concessionary card, in which case you do, cha-ching). But it also screws up Traveline more often than not because the timetable has such a short "connection time" that it doesn't register in the system as a possible interchange.
There is only a "guaranteed connection" because the "connection" is nothing more than the driver typing a different number into the destination display. As Neil says, if bus companies actually genuinely guaranteed genuine connections, that would be an entirely different matter (but, of course, they don't).
Even after saying all that, I don't blame bus operators for doing it. The EU rules for long-distance stage carriage services are silly and an exemption should have been made. But don't try and pretend that it is for "good customer service" because the "guaranteed connection" used to be one route with one route number. It's a ruse to avoid having to comply with the law; in that regard, yes, it is a "mickey take".
"From a passenger's point of view I'd much rather get on a 31 at Axminster or an X53 at Lyme Regis and run through to Weymouth with a "guarenteed connection" at Bridport than have to worry about changing buses.Especially given the way in which the routes in question can be subject to delay."
And bus companies could offer a through journey of that nature if, like say the UCOC X5, it was run under EU rules with tachographs.
There is no rule against long routes, it's just that the drivers hours rules are more restrictive.
As to "taking the mick", what the operators are doing is not dissimilar to tax avoidance by companies - it's legal, but it is not at all in the ethos of it. I don't see what's offensive about stating that.
Neil
"Cost? How you intending to pay for this one?"
Ask the EU that when they introduced it.
I don't necessarily think bus companies are bad for doing it, but I do think they are not acting in the ethos of the rule, which like most tax avoidance is only possible because the rules have been badly drafted.
It is quite obvious to the layman what a route is, and to me what they're doing does not constitute two routes, it's one that has a completely arbitrary number change in it. The trouble is defining it.
Neil
"Cost? How you intending to pay for this one?"
Ask the EU that when they introduced it."
Great answer.... now why not try again? How do you propose they pay for the additional costs?
The truth is that if bus companies didn't do this then they would have to incur a substantial, and if you or David worked in the industry you would know this, step change in cost. Some routes can absorb this, but many couldn't. Then you'd get a situation whereby they cease to be viable, or they're truncated so that passengers actually have to change or portions of services are lost. None of these are anything but bad news for passengers.
The reason for the legislation was that they were concerned about long distance coach drivers. However, in the dragnet of legislation, it captured a lot that it wasn't supposed to.
To try and state that this sort of practice is in anyway like tax avoidance is foolish in the extreme. This is a piece of legislation that adheres to the law of unintended consequences. What companies are doing is a sensible way of dealing with it.
As regards a better way, I'm sure that there's plenty of armchair managers who can do better. However, they're in an armchair for a reason!
"The truth is that if bus companies didn't do this then they would have to incur a substantial, and if you or David worked in the industry you would know this, step change in cost. Some routes can absorb this, but many couldn't. Then you'd get a situation whereby they cease to be viable, or they're truncated so that passengers actually have to change or portions of services are lost. None of these are anything but bad news for passengers."
You could say that about absolutely any piece of safety legislation.
Are you sure the EU didn't mean it and it's badly drafted - or is it perhaps that they didn't mean the loopholes to exist?
Is the industry lobbying for change, perhaps a fair hybrid set of rules applying to all PCV operations? Is there really a logical reason for local bus being different from coach? Arguably, local bus is much more tiring than driving a coach at 62mph along the motorway.
Neil
@ anonymous 1538 - are you now suggesting that only those "in the industry" are entitled to a view on this group? I struggle to see how a slightly contrary view on what is clearly badly drafted or "compromised" legislation is somehow offensive. I also struggle to see why you are so "upset" at Neil's regular comments about wanting higher service quality. Are UK bus passengers only entitled to bargain basement, low cost bus services regardless of what the quality is?
Something has to be wrong somewhere where we have operators saying they can't make a living despite decades of being able to screw (most) costs into the ground and yet passengers and stakeholders complain about service cuts, fare levels and lack of network benefits. How do other countries manage to keep their bus services running?
Surely one of the benefits of this blog is that there is a blend of views from those "in the industry" as well as us poor souls who pay money to travel on buses and therefore contribute to covering costs and profits?
On the subject of EU rules it is surely not a little bonkers that we have long standing through services chopped into bits in order to circumvent the rules with all the resultant risk of passenger confusion and extra industry cost in having to explain this nonsense? I'd hope that the industry is lobbying strongly to get this nonsense changed or an exemption established.
Neil said...
"Is the industry lobbying for change, perhaps a fair hybrid set of rules applying to all PCV operations? Is there really a logical reason for local bus being different from coach? Arguably, local bus is much more tiring than driving a coach at 62mph along the motorway."
Those are fair points. To my mind, the legislation is partly poorly drafted, but also partly an instance of the EU not understanding the UK bus industry. In Germany, by way of an example there are very few long interurban bus routes or express coach services (although that is changing now, in the case of the latter). The safety aspect relates to the length of time that the driver drives, so the legislation only needs to be time-based. It makes no difference if the bus is going from say Exeter to Bristol, or from the City Centre in Exeter to a suburban terminus 3 miles away and back several times, over the course of the time it takes the other bus to get to Bristol.
The legislation is quite frankly extremely poor, and this method is clearly the most practical way for bus operators to provide services the passengers want, and at the same time keep their costs at a reasonable level. If you don't like it, please at least direct your criticism in the right direction - initially to your MEP, though I rather doubt there was very much genuine democratic scrutiny of this legislation.
It is interesting that the German foreign minister now wants to "set aside" some EU regulations concerning electricity cables and pylons, since Germany ostensibly needs to transport power from north to south. Strange (perhaps not!) to note that they can consider ignoring the EU rules when it suits them. Good Europeans? Bah humbug!
Very well said RC169,
i think you need to know what the difference of domestic and eu
eu you can drive for 4.5 hrs and need a 45 min break before driving for 4.5 hrs to end the day with no distance restriction.domestic is 5.5 hrs driving with 30min break and 4.5 hrs driving to end of day with a route distance cpc is to make you aware of the law and if the things go rong you get done not the company .
The X80 is regarded as a bit of a joke in Torbay. The stagecoach service X46 is pretty much an express service to Exeter. However, the X80 trundles along to Plymouth at the speed of a tortoise, avoiding the A38 dual carriageway as much as it can. Lots of people use the awkward dog leg rail option. A truly fast service stopping at Totnes and Ivybridge would be an interesting experiment
A truly fast service is not really that possible. The X80 does pretty much as you suggest now, stopping at Ivybridge and Totnes. The most logical thing it can do to rejoin the A38 after Ivybridge is to continue to Bittaford and rejoin the A38 at Wrangaton. This is what it does now. Otherwise it would have to double back on itself through Ivybridge. It does call additionally at South Brent but it does pick up a lot of passengers there. The only way to Paignton is via Totnes, itself a lengthy run from the A38. It does not deliberately avoid the A38!
The problem now with routes like the X80 (and Stagecoach's X38 and X46) is partly down to the concession situation in that a full bus carrying mainly concession holders travelling between Torquay and Plymouth will not cover its costs, therefore these routes have had to stop more frequently and divert in order to pick-up shorter distance travellers who pay fares or generate additional concession income. A straight express service is no longer viable. When it launched in the early-80s the X38 took 70 minutes between Exeter and Plymouth, limited stop and outside the two cities only called at Drumbridges. It now takes 99 minutes and goes via Ashburton, Buckfastleigh, South Brent and Ivybridge. It's also now half as frequent as it was in its mid-90s heyday. It's basically the old 129 stopping service with the X38 number and there is no fast service :-(
Neil said...
"I can't help but think that bus companies are taking the mick with this EU-avoiding "guaranteed connections" lark, and that the EU should stamp on it."
Absolutely wrong. Taking the mick? You're not serious, surely.
As RC169 points out, the legislation is to regulate what the *driver* does, it shouldn't regulate what the *bus* does (or the passenger). We now have poorly drafted legislation that for no good reason whatsoever impacts adversely on the passenger experience. It should make no difference in the slightest what the bus does. A bus is designed to be out working 18 hours a day. A driver is not. There is absolutely no reason to have had to get into the situation of "guaranteed connections", notes in timetables and ridiculously confusing destination displays - all that is important is that drivers swap en route to stay within their hours and this should be done as it always was with no impact on the customer experience. A full trip on the Exeter-Poole X53 or Brighton-Southsea 700 will see several driver changes along the way (as they always did), how on earth that has been allowed to create such potential passenger confusion defies all logic and common sense.
Surely tachos were meant to prevent driver hours issues ? Local buses stop freequently and tell me the last time a local bus crashed because the driver nodded off.
This nonsense applied to buses could easily be avoided by VOSA asking for all bus companies to submit their driver duties which apply to any longer routes.They would then see the breaks,duty times,etc and approve the route and timings.I know that is an armchair view,but it might work.
Rather like the resentment with the OAP reimbursement levels and free pass issues,the industry just rolls over any goes along with rules which cripple it.
Surprised the unions do not fight such legislation,as their members suffer too.
Imagine this split journey problem rule applying to trains and train drivers.Train tachos anyone ?
" plcd1 said...
@ anonymous 1538 - are you now suggesting that only those "in the industry" are entitled to a view on this group? I struggle to see how a slightly contrary view on what is clearly badly drafted or "compromised" legislation is somehow offensive. I also struggle to see why you are so "upset" at Neil's regular comments about wanting higher service quality. Are UK bus passengers only entitled to bargain basement, low cost bus services regardless of what the quality is?"
No I'm not saying that. One of the joys of this blog is the different experiences that people can bring, and lord knows, there's been enough mistakes made by people reportedly in the know!
However, the idea that bus companies are "taking the mick" is offensive. To use the example of Western Greyhound, they were one of the first proponents of this measure. Does anyone think that they are fly by nights? That they don't wish to improve the quality of bus travel in Cornwall. Of course not, and that is the view of many a manager. Most bus companies have staff, from drivers to senior managers, who are actually fiercely committed to doing things right, and maintaining and improving services. As for circumventing safety, I'd like to see 5x10 yr old cars checked against buses of a similar age and see which is in a more roadworthy condition.
As RC169 pointed out, the situation in the UK is markedly different than in mainland Europe. This is probably a reflection of the Beeching cuts with rail envisaged only for long distance services, and road transport for urban and inter-urban journeys. Therefore, it's fair to say that the legislation was never aimed at anything other than long distance, motorway based coach travel, not local bus services. Therefore, it's not a safety thing per se, as there's a clear difference between coach travel and local bus operation, not least the lower vehicle speeds and consequences of what can go wrong.
As I say, most managers have a deep affection for the industry, hence why many managers actually own preserved vehicles. Therefore, they would love to have a high quality industry with a maximum vehicle age of 10 years, interavailability of ticketing etc. However, the aspirations, and I don't knock Neil or anyone for wishing to see a better bus industry, are set against a backdrop of reducing BSOG, an inept concessionary schemes, rising fuel prices and general economic malaise. With this to contend with, a move to EU regs on all bus services will lead to a lot of additional costs, and this will lead to the loss of services.
So what's better? A slightly clumsy and bureaucratic solution, or no bus at all.
As I said at the beginning, this blog is a broad church. I may not agree with everything on it, and sometimes I post to that effect. As anon 12:12 said, whether we're on this blog as industry insiders or interested viewers, we generally have the same commitment to serving the public. Perhaps that sometimes, those on the outside don't see the reasons why things are done.... mind you, sometimes they're baffling to those on the inside too!!!
anon @ 1031 - "train tachos" - yes, all trains on Network Rail have to have data recorders, and they record much, much more than a road vehicle tachograph.
Of course First pulling out brings us back to the CC/OFT silliness - it will be interesting to see if they show the same interest as today's announcement that Arriva Midlands are to take over 'Midland' (Liyell)
I agree it should be driver based - if not that, what is the tacho for?
The trouble is that the sets of hours are different, rather than it being a choice of regulation of hours by way of registered services or regulation of hours by way of tachograph.
Ideally you wouldn't need either - but if the dangerous practices in the private hire taxi industry are anything to go by (my experience of taking 4am taxis to the airport is one involving often far-too-tired drivers, so I switched to driving myself as I can at least ensure I go to bed early) it is needed.
But I think there should perhaps be industry lobbying to change to one set of hours with multiple options of tracking them. One might be short routes, another tachos.
The trouble is, if they do that, those will probably be EU hours...
Neil
I fully understand why the split routes happen, and that's to ensure they don't end up being classified under the long-distance EU rules with regards to driver hours and tacho requirements. There isn't any other reason for it.
Do I think it has any impact on safety? No. Do I think Western Greyhound, Arriva and Stagecoach are all dangerous for doing it? Of course not. Their buses and drivers are a damn sight safer than most car drivers. But do I think they're taking the mickey out of the rules and the passengers? Yeah, probably.
I'm not so sure about the distinction between long distance stage carriage services and long distance coach services. Certainly up here the distinction is very blurred when you look at services like Arriva's 505 from Newcastle to Berwick or their 685 from Newcastle to Carlisle. These services travel on fast roads with infrequent stops (the 505 barely deviates from the A1) just because of the rural nature of the routes. Arriva Northumbria do go on EU rules though.
"I'm not so sure about the distinction between long distance stage carriage services and long distance coach services. Certainly up here the distinction is very blurred when you look at services like Arriva's 505 from Newcastle to Berwick or their 685 from Newcastle to Carlisle."
And then you've got the UCOC X4, which feels like a bus service, the X5 which feels like a coach (but doesn't run on motorways) and the 99, which is two local bus services plus a trunk coach section, if I understand correctly.
I think the easiest thing to do would be one rule, based on tachographs, for both. But no doubt it would be the stricter one, and I understand why that is an issue financially.
NEil
" But do I think they're taking the mickey out of the rules and the passengers? Yeah, probably."
I don't think so, and what's the alternative? Something like the 21/31 Darlington to Sunderland isn't a lucrative service, especially the middle portion. Start adding in the cost of digitachs, and then that starts to look really marginal.
It's a poorly thought out piece of legislation, and remember that there was a lot of gnashing of teeth to get to the situation we're now in. I'd also point out that a number of longer routes bit the dust because of this problem; hence the old 723 was cut in half at Durham. Would the good people of Ferryhill still prefer a direct link to Newcastle, even if it were with the apparent farce of "connecting buses". Yeah, probably
Neil said: "The trouble is that the sets of hours are different, rather than it being a choice of regulation of hours by way of registered services or regulation of hours by way of tachograph."
Ann 0956 here. What "trouble"? Some posters here seem to think there is a major problem and that bus operators are fiddling the legislation. Not the case at all. Yes, operators schedule to make the most of drivers' hours. Of course they do.
There should not be, however, any suggestion that anything dangerous, immoral or untoward is happening. Driver changeovers have always happened along a lengthy route. Nothing has changed in that respect. My point is, and always has been, that the legislation has been badly worded, so that operators are being cautious and as a result have felt it necessary to impinge on the customer experience by messing about with talk of "guaranteed connections" and confusing destination displays. This shouldn't even have come into it but you can't blame operators for being careful. At least the nonsense of making through passengers troop off the bus and immediatley reboard it has stopped. At the end of the day none of this needed affect the passenger at all.
There will always be some conflicts and some services that won't fit into the coach or bus debate (and that's before you get the NatEx services that operate as local services).
The 685 is more local bus service whilst the 501/505 are much more of an express south of Alnwick but are more local bus though both have been tacho'd for a few years.
The X4 isn't an express by any description but is a long distance bus service, basically an amalgamation of other services. Similarly, the X46/47 are also just bus services that miss out a few stops in Northampton!
Then don't get me onto routes such as the X32 and X94 in North Wales. They are nothing more than long distance bus services, operated all too often with bus seated Darts!!
"What "trouble"?"
The trouble for passengers, mainly. It's not a guaranteed connection to X (not that those would be a bad thing!) - it's a through bus which logically should (and previously did) have the same number throughout.
Neil
@ Anonymous 1441 - Did the 723 founder on the issue of EU regs or was it more to do with United and Northern being concerned about being accused of collusion given both companies ran journeys on the service? The very long journey times probably didn't help either as traffic congestion has worsened considerably in the North East. I thought the 723 had died long before the more recent outbreak of "split routes". The former X1 to Middlesborough has, I think, between split into a X2 and X1 which runs through across Durham.
EU drivers hours regs weren't drafted with the bus industry in mind...they were originally drafted to protect the freight side of the continental rail industry from road competition...but that's a long age back!
As with so many rules generated in Brussels though, this is more an attempt at social engineering rather than simply regulating drivers hours of rest for safety reasons...
It's not even compliance with EU daily driving that's such an issue with most operators...
Realistically there are two main concerns with the EU regulations:
One of these is the stupidly inflexible rostering required for compliance,(making it extremely difficult for drivers to switch shifts or rest days...and rendering it virtually impossible to do any overtime at all)...until you've actually tried to efficiently roster EU work, you really cannot begin to understand the practical difficulties.
The other is the Tacho regs...you either Tacho your entire operation,(very costly), or totally isolate your EU work, (also potentially costly), or face a situation where your takeover driver boards the bus, then spends ages manually entering the full details of all the domestic work he's recently done, before he can set off...good old EU!
A good 50% of costs in the bus industry are labour-related...hit these and the effects could make your eyes water!
Ref 723; you're right about the issue of perceived collusion as another factor. Allied to the issue of driver regs, it was decided that splitting it made more sense. However, that was long after United; think it was c.2006 when it happened.
As for Oldtimer, I couldn't have put it much better myself. Like I say, these are aspects that the general public just don't have visibility of!
Interesting that an arbitrary distance based rule in the interests of driver "safety" should have had such an effect. I've driven shifts where you did 7 round trips on a 40 minute town service, then 35 minutes off and another four trips and finished the shift exhausted. Another day i've driven three hours in a straight line, 40 minutes off and three hours back and not felt it; yet the latter service has to be registered in two parts because its over 50km end to end. I have friends who drive National Express work non stop for up three hours, but personally i'd rather be on stage than motorways. Each to their own!
Some commentators above have referred to guaranteed connections where a service may or may not have the same number. On Traveline we deal with these in different ways depending on the actual operation. For example service X43 from Swanage to Weymouth is registered in two sections. As this is obviously a through service it displays on Traveline as such. Service 184 from Salisbury to Blandford becomes service 183 to Weymouth and on all occasions the bus works through. For these two services a guaranteed connection is set up such that any journey plan generated by an enquiry will say for example use bus 183 to Blandford, then a passenger on a seat icon shows with the words "stay seated the same bus normally operates the following journey" then the bus 184 leg will be shown.
This same feature can be used on true circular routes.
Ken Traveline Dorset
The 723 (Darlington-Durham-Newcastle) used to be operated jointly by Arriva (the majority) and Go North East (the minority). Arriva took the decision to withdraw from the Durham to Newcastle portion and Go took the decision to withdraw from the Darlington to Durham portion. I believe this was related to Go North East selling Bishop Auckland depot to Arriva, it was about the same time.
Most Arriva County Durham services are now split (the X1 Middlesbrough-Durham-Newcastle splits at Durham) although a good amount of that is down to Durham University sponsoring the Durham to Stockton portion as a free staff and student shuttle bus. Go North East haven't split their services though; the X9/X10 doesn't split and nor does the X20/X21 from Bishop Auckland to Newcastle/Sunderland.
As I said, I fully understand why the bus companies have made the decisions that they have. Out of interest, is the real cost the tacho equipment or the annoyance and time expense of having to input all the data?
Good point.
Given the range of electronic gizmos fitted to modern buses,such as wi-fi,gps trackers,driving standards monitors,cameras etc,surely all new builds could have it fitted from new and then just activate it as and when.Retro-fit is probably a fuss,but surely not that involved?
There must be volume demand,given the road freight industry here and abroad,so just why is it a stumbling block ? Is it a union issue perhaps ?
I don't think it's the equipment that's the issue, it's the differences in rules for driving hours and breaks that makes efficient scheduling harder than working just under domestic rules. Add in the fact that it's hard to switch drivers between the two sets of rules and thus you need to have two different rotas in garages where routes are run under both rules. The lack of flexibility and the volume of regulations simply means EU work requires more drivers than if it could all be done under domestic. Therefore routes are split to enable everything to come under one set of rules (i.e. domestic). Obviously there are additional costs in having tacho equipment fitted/serviced etc but I don't think it's the crux of the issue.
That must be very annoying when scheduling staff and covering turns then.One assumes that one of the larger and more wealthy bus operators has either challenged this EU directive,or been bold enough to risk a test case perhaps? It could be deemed restrictive on a drivers' human rights !!
Does the hours rule apply to out of service journeys,or what if a diversion takes a route over the mileage limit?
David
You're right that part of the 723 was also involving the sale of Go's Bishop depot and the retention of the 724.
However, there's a very simple reason behind not splitting the X20/21; they're not more than 50km so no need. Unlike Arriva's 21/31, which covers so many areas in its odyssey across Co Durham so it is easily over 50kms. I believe, though can't say for certain, that the X9/10 is actually tacho'd.
As has been said earlier, the main problem is the problem of drivers moving from EU to domestic and vice versa, and the expedential on-cost of this. You mentioned Arriva's tacho operation of 505/685. These happened to be the main work (or much of it) for the depots at Alnwick and Hexham so the upshot was that it was slightly easier to work around things, certainly at Alnwick where only about 2 vehicles weren't on EU. Things were slightly different at Hexham but that was more sensitive given the issues with the 685 anyway!
"Does the hours rule apply to out of service journeys,or what if a diversion takes a route over the mileage limit?"
Two questions but three answers, as you're confusing hours and mileage. Start with mileage - the registration reflects the standard operating route as registered. If there's a short term diversion (e.g. road closed because of accident) then that is not an issue. However, if the diversion is foreseeable (i.e. a scheduled road closure) then a diversionary route should be registered and if that's over the limit, then it's EU hours.
For hours, then all "duty" is counted. That includes out of service work and can even include commuting if you're paid for it (i.e. if you drive to your home depot, and then get a staff car with another driver to another depot, then that counts as work).
If you're caught out on the road, and are diverted over 50kms, you won't be expected to suddenly swap onto EU. If you're on EU hours anyway, and are stuck on the M1 in traffic and go over your 4.5 hours, then you should get off at the earliest opportunity and take your break. This is why you sometimes see drivers getting changed at odd locations on NatEx as they've stuck in traffic and know that they won't get back, so a "jockey" driver is despatched to get the vehicle home.
Just to correct something from the original article, Plympton has a population of 30,000, not 9000.
Post a Comment