1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
IN
Page 90
Page 93
Page 94
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
versus CO-OPERATION
in West Riding
By C. S. D N BA R,
M.Inst.T.
Closely Contiguous Centres of Population, Overlapping Bus Services and Numerous Operators Have Made Interavailability of Tickets and Co-ordinated Time-Tables Essential. Pooling Arrangements are Described in this Concluding Instalment of Two Articles
IN last week's issue; I tried to outline the reasons that dictated the development of the unusual arrangements which are characteristic of transport in the West Riding. The more conventional expedients available to operators also find their place in the county. and have been used on a large scale.
Let us turn firstto normal pooling arrangements between operators. The oldest of these is probably the one between Sheffield and Rotherham for the operation of the joint tram service (now superseded by buses) which dates from September II 1905. This is the simplest form of pooling, because the throtigh fares are merely a summation of the fares in each party's area. Thus the through fare of 4d. is made up of 21d. on the Sheffield side and lid. on the Rotherham side.
Receipts are divided in this way, and the basic service is provided by nine Sheffield and four Rotherham buses. Any mileage in excess of this proportion is paid for at an agreed cost per mile. The route from Sheffield • to Chesterfield, via Unstone, is another simple case. The agreement is between the Sheffield Joint Comrriittee and Chesterfield Corporation; the boundary is at Unstone and separate tickets are issued for the two parts, although a through ticket is also issued for the whole route, but this is only a summation fare.
. Unusual Arrangement This service began in November, 1923, as a connection between the Sheffield trams at Woodseats and the Chesterfield system at Whittington Moor, being afterwards extended to the centres of both towns. Another Sheffield-Chesterfield service, that via Ford, is the concern of the Sheffield Joint Committee and East Midland Motor Services; Ltd:, and until now has. been worked on a peculiar basis. Each concern took the receipts in its own area; but as the areas were not contiguous, the receipts on the intervening stretch. were divided equally. It is now proposed to divide on the basis of mileage
actually run by each operator. ,
The theoretical basis is the route-mileage in each area —18 per cent. Sheffield, 50 per cent. Rotherham and 32 per cent.. Doncaster. Before the war, excess mileage was run off; now the total revenue is reduced to a rate per mile and this is multiplied by the mileage actually run
by each operator. .
The Sheffield—Maltby service used to present a difficulty, as for many years Rotherham used only singledeckers and (he difference in Seating capacity had to be allowed for. Now a straightforward 50-50 arrangement is possible, with the division of the receipts worked £12
out on the principle employed on the Sheffield— Doncaster route. The routes from Sheffield to Thorpe Hesley and Blackburn, of which only a small portion is inside Rotherham, are worked on the separate-ticket system, like the trolleybus service between Sheffield and Conisborough (run by Rotherham jointly with Mcxborough and Swinton Traction Co.). Rotherham's services to Chesterfield and NVorksop, via Dinnington (joint with East Midland Motor Services, Ltd.), and to Barnsley (joint with Yorkshire Traction Co., Ltd.), are on a straightforward 50-50 basis.
Sharing Receipts The equal division of receipts and mileage also applies to the services between Barnsley and Manchester (Yorkshire Traction and North Western Road Car Co., Ltd.), Barnsley and Pontefract (Yorkshire Traction and South Yorks Motors, Ltd.), Bradford and Leeds (Bradford and Leeds Corporations) and Leeds and Rawdon (West Yorkshire and Samuel Ledgard). • The method of dividing miles into receipts to obtain an average per mile, and then multiplying this by the mileage actually run, is gaining in favour and applies, in addition to the cases already mentioned, to the following services:—Doncaster—Skellow and Carcroft (Doncaster Corporation and Yorkshire Traction); DoncasterEdlington (Doncaster and East Midland); Dewsbury— Huddersfield (Woollen District and Huddersfield Joint Committee); Wakefield-Cullingworth (Woollen District and West Riding); Wakefield—Batley (Woollen District and West Riding); Leeds—Overton and Midgely (Woollen District and West Riding); LeedsBruntcliffe (Leeds Corporation and Woollen District); and Sheffield—Buxton, Sheffield—Castleton and Sheffield—Manehester, which are operated by North• Western in conjunction with Sheffield Joint Committee.
On the long services from Sheffield tO Bradford and Leeds, passengers have to rebook at Barnsley, to which • point there are three buses an hour. Of these, one turns at Barnsley, another goes on to Bradford and the third • to Leeds. The participants are Sheffield Joint Corn • mittee, Yorkshire Traction, Woollen District (to Bradford) and West Riding (to Leeds).
' The vehicles provided and mileage run are based on the route mileage in each territory, so that theoretically each operator obtains all the receipts in its area. Tests are made periodically to see. whether any adjustment is necessary in the mileage worked to achieve this object. The same principle is appliedon the Sheffield and Yorkshire Traction joint routes from Sheffield to Huddersfield and to Upton.
On the routes from Bradford to Dewsbury and Birstall, which are jointly worked by Bradford Corporation and Woollen District, the corporation takes 12i per cent. of the receipts and usually supplies one bus. Between Leeds and Ilkley, West Yorkshire takes 27.4 per cent. and Samuel Ledgard 72.6 per cent. of the receipts and mileage. The services from Westerton to Drighlington and New Farnley are supposed to be jointly worked by Woollen District and West Riding, but in practice the first is run by West Riding, whilst the second is worked by Woollen District. Each company retains all the money it takes.
In the Huddersfield district is the group of services run by Hanson's Buses, Ltd., formerly based on Milnsbridge. The Hanson concern runs the Huddersfield—Meltham, Huddersfield—Oldham and Newsome—Lindley services quite independently, although the three Newsome—Lindley services are well inside corporation territory. Its other routes are grouped under the title of Colne Valley services and run jointly with the corporation, which takes 58.5 per cent. of the receipts. Special tickets are issued for these services.
As I have now dealt with all of what can really be called pooled services, it will be seen that, having regard to the density of traffic in the area, there is not a great deal of pooling. There is much time-table co-ordination and interavailability of return tickets, but before referring to such arrangements, I might mention that there are a few examples of what would be more correctly described as wayleaves, rather than pooling. For instance, on the West Riding Automobile Company's routes, from Wakefield to Rothwell and Leeds, two tickets are still issued as in the tram days, and Leeds Corporation receives the receipts inside the city area, less an allowance for working expenses.
On the routes from Leeds to Huddersfield
Gainsborougl-: and Mirfield, the
Woollen District Company pays Leeds Corporation a proportion of fares taken in part
Worksop of the city area. Hebble
pays Rochdale Cor poration a flat sum in return for the privilege of picking up local passengers between Littleborough and Rochdale. Yorkshire Traction allows Sheffield Joint Committee an annual amount in respect of the portion of the Stocksbridge circular route which lies inside the Joint Committee's area. Woollen District pays Halifax Joint Committee 20 per cent. of all receipts in excess of /9,000 in respect of passengers picked up and set down in the Joint Committee's area and special tickets are supplied to the company by the Joint Committee to cover this arrangement.
In addition, both Woollen District and Hebble allow Halifax Corporation (as distinct from the Joint Committee) 25 per cent. of all receipts from passengers picked up and set down in the corporation's area.
The acceptance of other operators' " returns " and seasons" (" contracts," as they are called locally) is widespread, not only between the large companies, but between them and the smaller independent operators. In some cases a cash adjustment is made, but in others this is not done, because of the heavy clerical work involved.
Some arrangements are a little complicated, such as on the Huddersfield—Halifax service via Elland. This service was originally provided 50 per cent. by Hebble, 25 per cent by the Huddersfield Joint Committee, and 25 per cent, by the Halifax Joint Committee, but the last-named bought Hebble out and now provides 75 per cent. of the service. There is really no pooling, for each party keeps its own receipts, but there is an adjustment on returns.
There is the complication that both parties have to pay to Halifax Corporation (as distinct from the Joint Committee) 25 per cent, of receipts from passengers picked up and set down in the corporation's area. For use on this service Halifax Corporation supplies special tickets which, curiously enough, make no mention of Halifax, but bear the names of Huddersfield Corporation and the Railway Executive.
There are many points all over the area where there is interavailability of tickets between the railways and their associated bus companies, but in every case I was told that this facility is now little used. There are still rail passengers who return by road, but their numbers are dropping, whilst the number of road tickets handed in at railway stations is infinitesimal in relation to the general traffic movement of the area. The Northern Area Scheme seeks to stress the value of this facility, but the present high railway fares make the arrangement of doubtful value—at least, that is the position in• Yorkshire.
Unifying Time-tables In many instances where there is no interavailability between bus proprietors, there is time-table co-ordination. Thus, around Doncaster the times on the Armthorpe route are shared between Doncaster Corporation, S. Morgan, Ltd., and E. Parish, Ltd.; on the Rossington route between the corporation, I. Barras (Don Motors), G. Ennifer (Blue Ensign) and W. Morpus (Rossie Motors); on the Dunscroft route between the corporation, S. Morgan and R. Store, Ltd., and T. Severn and Sons, Ltd. In the Barnsley area there are seven independents sharing routes with Yorkshire Traction, but in this case there is complete interavailability of returns.
A peculiar arrangement is that between Yorkshire Traction and Messrs E. Marrison and Sons on the Barnsley—Grirnethorpe route. There is no pooling but Messrs. Marrison are entitled to 2-9ths of the departures at 5 and 28 minutes past each hour and:le of all workmen's services.
County Motors, Ltd., Lepton, is jointly owned by West Riding, Woollen District and Yorkshire Traction, but appears to have no pooling arrangements with its shareholders, although it works a joint time-table on the Dewsbury—Huddersfield via Flockton route, the other parties being West Riding, Woollen District and Huddersfield Joint Committee. Tickets issued by the company on routes in the parent concerns' area are interavailable. The Bradford—Huddersfield direct ser
vice is provided by Bradford, Huddersfield Joint Committee and Hebble, but each works entirely separately and I understand that this, on such an important trunk route, has sometimes led to difficulty in providing extras to cope with big sporting events at the ends of the route. Joint time-tables are also issued by West Yorkshire and Todmorden to cover the services from Hebden Bridge to Keighley, Burnley and Summit.
Mention of Hebden Bridge reminds me of the interesting arrangement between the Halifax Joint Committee, Hebble, and Todmorden Joint Committee which has existed since 1927 when trams were working from Halifax to Hebden Bridge. Although there is no throughservice between Halifax and Todmorden and passengers have to change at Hebden Bridge, through return tickets are issued from Halifax to Eastwood (Is. 3d.) and Todmorden (Is. 6d.) and vice versa. These are available for return by any bus of the three operators.
The is. 6d. fare is split, 8d. going to Todmorden and 10d. to Halifax, and the 1s. 3d. is similarly divided-5d. and 10d. If Hebble sells any of these tickets the company pays Halifax the full amount and in return receives 5d. for each one less 25 per cent.; Hebble receives the same amount for each ticket it collects.
It will thus be seen that taking the industrial part of the West Riding as a whole, there is an abundance of services and some complication of arrangements, but straightforward pooling is not so general as might be expected. The growing tendency towards pooling receipts and dividing them in proportion to the actual mileage run by each operator is, I think, a laudable one, and there is scope for much more of it.
I must confess that I was taken aback to discover the amount of work involved because of railway participation with some of the municipalities in joint services, or because of such arrangements as those at Keighley and York. Of course, all this work could be abolished if all the undertakings were owned by the B.T.C., but before accepting that desperate solution, I would prefer to cast around for some other.
Personal Opinions it is only fair to say that certain of the undertakings (both municipal and company owned) reach a high standard of both public service and maintenance, but there are others of medium or small size, the vehicles of which leave much to be desired. Among the smaller fleets, the staffs are usually smarter where a corporation is the employer and, in fact, some of the company-owned buses are manned by disreputable-looking fellows.
There is a real need for composite time-tables covering different areas. The County Motors time-table is included in the Woollen District timetable, but if Halifax, Hebble, Huddersfield and County Motors issued a joint time-table it would be most useful, and so would be the appearance of all Ledgard's services and those of Leeds Corporation to the Otley district in the West Yorkshire time-table.