Lothian Group discussion (Lothian City, Lothian Country Bus and East Coast Buses)

[LothianBusesPh]

The way I see it, the 43 could run from Central even just for half the runs, if LCB get the 20/63 then they could just run from Longstone, and of course leave the West Lothian runs in Livingston, maybe the X40 could also be shared with Longstone? I don't know.

I'd love to see some Lothian Country vehicles end up on the 30!

 

[gavin1985]

Well given the announcement was only last night, i can maybe expect them to be coming up with a plan in say.. the next few weeks? Probably seeing if what they have right now will still work or can be improved or what can they bring to the table to fill in the gaps left by McGills.

What I want to know is where will this leave the 20, 63 and 68 next year!

That’s just it, if the other routes weren’t doing the job so to speak, I highly doubt the 20 and 63 nevermind the 68 will last much longer.

For selfishness and preference over Lothian I hope the 63 goes over to Lothian Country at some point. Working out at Newbridge and being lucky to have use of the shared car most of this year, it won’t last much longer. So having more Lothian bus options out to Newbridge the better if and when I don’t get access to the car.

 

[Jordan Adam]

I suspect the comment from McGill’s about a publicly subsidised competitor, is more about the general consensus that Lothian Country has accrued significant losses since it began, which have been subsidised by the main Lothian business. The assumption being that Lothian profits would’ve been much healthier without the LC incursion into West Lothian.

It is still quite a far stretch and an unnecessary low blow what McGill's are trying to imply, it reeks of desperation for excuses when they could've just otherwise mentioned the various valid reasons as to why Eastern Scottish got in to difficulty. The implication is that tax payers money was used to cover the incursion by Lothian Buses in to West Lothian which simply isn't truthful, i know you will probably disagree with that however that is how the vast majority of people are interpreting it.

 

[Siemens Trains]

It is still quite a far stretch and an unnecessary low blow what McGill's are trying to imply, it reeks of desperation for excuses when they could've just otherwise mentioned the various valid reasons as to why Eastern Scottish got in to difficulty. The implication is that tax payers money was used to cover the incursion by Lothian Buses in to West Lothian which simply isn't truthful, i know you will probably disagree with that however that is how the vast majority of people are interpreting it.

In my view it's merely a case of the author using imprecise language and/or not properly understanding the intricacies of the situation with municipal operators. Just a reflection of the sloppy way things have been run at McGill's.
The thing about an attractive train service alternative is half true as well, but again is badly worded.

 

[Theproinsider]

In my view it's merely a case of the author using imprecise language and/or not properly understanding the intricacies of the situation with municipal operators. Just a reflection of the sloppy way things have been run at McGill's.
The thing about an attractive train service alternative is half true as well, but again is badly worded.

Being the Chair of CPT Scotland, I think he chose his words very carefully. A sore loser.

 

[Jordan Adam]

In my view it's merely a case of the author using imprecise language and/or not properly understanding the intricacies of the situation with municipal operators. Just a reflection of the sloppy way things have been run at McGill's.
The thing about an attractive train service alternative is half true as well, but again is badly worded.

As i say, there's plenty of valid reasons they could've used. I find it unusual why they went for those two specific things when one is factually inaccurate and the other has questionable credibility.

 

[CN04NRJ]

As i say, there's plenty of valid reasons they could've used. I find it unusual why they went for those two specific things when one is factually inaccurate and the other has questionable credibility.

It would have been factual to blame the publicly owned and funded railway as competition, but never let facts get in the way of a good excuse

 

[Stan Drews]

It is still quite a far stretch and an unnecessary low blow what McGill's are trying to imply, it reeks of desperation for excuses when they could've just otherwise mentioned the various valid reasons as to why Eastern Scottish got in to difficulty. The implication is that tax payers money was used to cover the incursion by Lothian Buses in to West Lothian which simply isn't truthful, i know you will probably disagree with that however that is how the vast majority of people are interpreting it.

I’m intrigue, who’s money do you think was used to fund the incursion into West Lothian?
It may be arms length, but it’s still owned by the local authorities.
I‘ll happily agree with you, if you can advise who was behind the funding?

 

[DunsBus]

I’m intrigue, who’s money do you think was used to fund the incursion into West Lothian?
It may be arms length, but it’s still owned by the local authorities.
I‘ll happily agree with you, if you can advise who was behind the funding?

I recall that, at the time Lothian Country was launched (2018), the then MD Richard Hall was looking to conquer West Lothian. Mr Hall may have long since left Lothian but his ultimate goal has now been achieved, albeit indirectly.

 

[Jordan Adam]

I’m intrigue, who’s money do you think was used to fund the incursion into West Lothian?
It may be arms length, but it’s still owned by the local authorities.
I‘ll happily agree with you, if you can advise who was behind the funding?

The same way any other profit-making private company generates funds to cover for such endeavours, from surplus revenue made through their commercial operations. The fact the local authorities are shareholders is neither here nor there to the matter, the simple fact is that public taxpayer money as implied was not used to cover the losses of Lothian Country.

 

[Stan Drews]

The same way any other profit-making private company generates funds to cover for such endeavours, from surplus revenue made through their commercial operations. The fact the local authorities are shareholders is neither here nor there to the matter, the simple fact is that public taxpayer money as implied was not used to cover the losses of Lothian Country.

I love the way you sort of get to understand it’s the owners/shareholders money that is being chosen to be spent in this way, but then veer quickly away to just dismiss it!
I’m pretty sure you get it, but choose to ignore it. As DunsBus has pointed out, Mr Hall threw ridiculous amounts of money away on his many vanity projects. It wasn’t his own!

 

[buslad1988]

Don’t forget part of the purpose in setting up Lothian Country/Motorcoaches was to explore new revenue streams to make up for the loss of income upon the trams extending to Newhaven.

So it wasn’t entirely a vanity project. If a huge part of your business is about to be hit isn’t it better to try and dip into other markets early than just sit back and watch the Leith Walk custom disappear and not do anything to attempt to counter act it.

 

[Siemens Trains]

The same way any other profit-making private company generates funds to cover for such endeavours, from surplus revenue made through their commercial operations. The fact the local authorities are shareholders is neither here nor there to the matter, the simple fact is that public taxpayer money as implied was not used to cover the losses of Lothian Country.

Yes, the funding for speculative West Lothian ventures generally came from profitable Edinburgh & Midlothian routes and Edinburgh & Midlothian fare payers. Or Scottish Government fare subsidy, grants etc, the same as any operator.

 

[Jordan Adam]

I love the way you sort of get to understand it’s the owners/shareholders money that is being chosen to be spent in this way, but then veer quickly away to just dismiss it!
I’m pretty sure you get it, but choose to ignore it. As DunsBus has pointed out, Mr Hall threw ridiculous amounts of money away on his many vanity projects. It wasn’t his own!

I don't choose to ignore it, the money was generated by a profitable commercially run private limited company, it was not public taxpayers money as implied. As i said previously the shareholders are neither here nor there, however clearly there is a difference of opinion on the matter.

Yes, the funding for speculative West Lothian ventures generally came from profitable Edinburgh & Midlothian routes and Edinburgh & Midlothian fare payers. Or Scottish Government fare subsidy, grants etc, the same as any operator.

Indeed and that's really the key point, any sort of government grants or subsidy that Lothian receive is the same that any other bus operator would be and is entitled to regardless of who the shareholders are.

Don’t forget part of the purpose in setting up Lothian Country/Motorcoaches was to explore new revenue streams to make up for the loss of income upon the trams extending to Newhaven.

So it wasn’t entirely a vanity project. If a huge part of your business is about to be hit isn’t it better to try and dip into other markets early than just sit back and watch the Leith Walk custom disappear and not do anything to attempt to counter act it.

There's no doubt that under his tenure Lothian adopted an expansionist agenda, but they're just as entitled to as any other commercially run 'for-profit' business.

 

[CN04NRJ]

It looks like 639 has moved to Central.

It's away back to Marine in the next few minutes. (Photo of 639 for description)

 

[Bus9120UK]

It's away back to Marine in the next few minutes.

Indeed - 673 is back now with it's MOT completed. It did do a run at Marine beforehand though. This leaves 668 and 677 at Marine.

 

[CN04NRJ]

Don’t forget part of the purpose in setting up Lothian Country/Motorcoaches was to explore new revenue streams to make up for the loss of income upon the trams extending to Newhaven.

So it wasn’t entirely a vanity project. If a huge part of your business is about to be hit isn’t it better to try and dip into other markets early than just sit back and watch the Leith Walk custom disappear and not do anything to attempt to counter act it

Both of which have unexpectedly ended up as success stories, albeit on a smaller scale than originally intended.

 

[Ding Ding]

I’m intrigue, who’s money do you think was used to fund the incursion into West Lothian?
It may be arms length, but it’s still owned by the local authorities.
I‘ll happily agree with you, if you can advise who was behind the funding?

The very fact you are on this forum, points to you being fully conversant with how the internet works. I will point you in the direction of " Who funds Lothian Buses " The answer to your question can be found there.
It's very simple, it's a commercial business, that like any other, uses profits from said business to invest in ventures it deems suitable and hopefully profitable at the same time. The fact that it may incur a loss, is part of running a business. It is factored into the business plan at set up, a time scale is normally given, after which the owners would sit down and re assess the plan and decide how they go forward. This would appear to be what McGill's have done, albeit extremely quickly.
So the short answer is , funding comes from within the business.

 

[oldman]

It's very simple, it's a commercial business, that like any other, uses profits from said business to invest in ventures it deems suitable and hopefully profitable at the same time.

Lothian were able to fund expansion from retained profits but many companies raise funds for investment by issuing shares, borrowing, leasing and so on. McGill's appear to have more debt than Lothian.

 

[WibbleWobble]

They can't change any existing routes as it would break the 90 days rule, So the first point the X27/28 and 72 could be changed is mid January

Existing routes can be changed at less than 90 days' notice, should there be a valid reason for doing so. Replacing another operator's withdrawn service is considered to be a valid reason.

 

[JKP]

Existing routes can be changed at less than 90 days' notice, should there be a valid reason for doing so. Replacing another operator's withdrawn service is considered to be a valid reason.

Not sure where you or Over the Water get 90 days from. As far as I know it is 70 days. 28 days to the local authority and then on approval 42 days to the Traffic Commissioner.

 

[LothianBusesPh]

Not sure where you or Over the Water get 90 days from. As far as I know it is 70 days. 28 days to the local authority and then on approval 42 days to the Traffic Commissioner.

I think it is 70 days in England an 90 days in Scotland.

 

[Stan Drews]

Lothian were able to fund expansion from retained profits…

…and if the profits hadn’t been retained, would the shareholders have perhaps benefited?

'No sign' of annual £6m Lothian Buses dividend returning to Edinburgh Council

The local authority is unlikely to receive any cash from Lothian Buses for the next five years as the council-owned company continues to recover from the pandemic.

www.edinburghlive.co.uk

There is "no sign" of Edinburgh Council's annual £6 million dividend from Lothian Buses returning, bosses have said, as the pandemic continues to impact public transport patronage.

The number of passengers boarding services run by the council-owned bus firm has recovered, although not fully, after patronage fell by over 90 per cent at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak.

Head of finance for Edinburgh City Council Hugh Dunn explained there's been a "lag on people coming back to public transport", adding that additional funds from the Scottish Government to keep bus companies afloat are now no longer being paid.

In past years the council - which owns 91 per cent of Lothian Buses - received £6m a year from revenue, however since the pandemic the local authority has not received the dividend and has budgeted it as a loss.

Edinburgh Council told that Lothian Buses £6m annual dividend not likely to return

 

[CN04NRJ]

…and if the profits hadn’t been retained, would the shareholders have perhaps benefited?

Perhaps you should read up on how municipal bus companies operate in regards to management, ownership and how dividends to the council(s) work?

Besides, any company (or group of companies) can choose to reinvest income how they choose.

 

[GusB]

I think it is 70 days in England an 90 days in Scotland.

It's the same in England and Scotland.

Run a local bus service

Run a bus service in and out of London - registering, London Service Permit, bus registration, public service vehicle operator’s licence, PSV

www.gov.uk

How to register​

You must tell the local authority in England or the local council in Scotland that you’re starting a bus service. You must do this 28 days before you apply to the traffic commissioner.
Apply to the traffic commissioner at least 42 days before your service starts - or 56 days before if your service is in Wales.
This notice period begins on the day when the traffic commissioner accepts your application.

 

[stevenedin]

It’s possible that the 72 could be tweaked to run around Pumpherston and Uphall Station to cover the loss of the 23.

 

[mb88]

It’s possible that the 72 could be tweaked to run around Pumpherston and Uphall Station to cover the loss of the 23.

Layover is quite right as it is (6 minutes at Kirkliston, 7 minutes at Livingston) so I don’t think making any changes that would increase the running time would be a good idea.

 

[Stan Drews]

It's the same in England and Scotland.

Run a local bus service

Run a bus service in and out of London - registering, London Service Permit, bus registration, public service vehicle operator’s licence, PSV

www.gov.uk

The variation in Scotland, is that making a further change to a registration cannot be implemented less than 90 days from the previous change, unless supported using the appropriate short notice form.
This sometimes gets confused as a 90 day notification period, which it isn’t, as the standard 70 days still applies for submitting the application.
Hope that makes sense.

 

[WibbleWobble]

Not sure where you or Over the Water get 90 days from. As far as I know it is 70 days. 28 days to the local authority and then on approval 42 days to the Traffic Commissioner.

It's the same in England and Scotland.

Run a local bus service

Run a bus service in and out of London - registering, London Service Permit, bus registration, public service vehicle operator’s licence, PSV

www.gov.uk

The 90 days is the minimum that a service has to run since it was last registered or varied. My wording was perhaps slightly poor in that regard.

 

[GusB]

The variation in Scotland, is that making a further change to a registration cannot be implemented less than 90 days from the previous change, unless supported using the appropriate short notice form.
This sometimes gets confused as a 90 day notification period, which it isn’t, as the standard 70 days still applies for submitting the application.
Hope that makes sense.

Clear as mud

The 90 days is the minimum that a service has to run since it was last registered or varied. My wording was perhaps slightly poor in that regard.

Yes, it makes sense. Thanks to both of you for the clarification.