TrawsCambria / TrawsCymru

[TheGrandWazoo]

The bus services in the area are also rather poor, judging by a quick Google for the timetables. So, if they are empty it could be because they don't provide a useful option to those who have alternative means of travel, rather than lack of demand. I think the current poor service is one of the reasons I suggested a TrawsCambria route, if there was a more useful normal service between Lampeter and Llandovery (that could be shown as a connecting service on the TrawsCambria network map) there would be much less need for a Traws one.

That depends. What's the difference between the 280 and 281, the timetables seem to list the same stops, unless I've missed something? And I note they both make some detours. If the TrawsCymru route doesn't make the detours, then giving the remaining local service a seperate number makes sense.

Ok, history lesson. The historic S52 (and before that 701) service that linked Aber with South Wales operated via Lampeter and then went over the top via Pumpsaint to Llanwrda, then via Llandeilo and Ammanford to Swansea. It really withered on the vine in the 1960s/1970s and by deregulation in 1986, it was in very bad shape. So much so that a tendered service that was operated from Lampeter to Llanwrda was quickly pulled as it was getting 1 passenger in every 3 journeys!!

The fact is that public transport must reflect the needs and wants of the travelling public and in Wales, that is often dictated by topography, not necessarily distance. Therefore, you're much more likely to travel to along the valleys; the hills are physical and mental barriers to travel. That is the case with such a service as you propose. I suspect I know the area much better than you though I don't claim to be an expert!!

You can't just look at a map and say "put a service there". In truth, where is the market? Better to focus on improving and extending existing flows. You can, of course, point to the T4 (704) as a service that did introduce regular links to some areas that didn't have them BUT it did combine a number of existing services and it does run logically down the valley into Newtown (which was a major improvement).

The 280/1 is identical between Carmarthen and Llandeilo but has a slight variation onward to Llandovery. In truth, it does a number of double runs into villages, and I'm not convinced that it really fits with a TC service. However, I don't think the money is available to improve it anyway.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Ok, history lesson. The historic S52 (and before that 701) service that linked Aber with South Wales operated via Lampeter and then went over the top via Pumpsaint to Llanwrda, then via Llandeilo and Ammanford to Swansea. It really withered on the vine in the 1960s/1970s and by deregulation in 1986, it was in very bad shape. So much so that a tendered service that was operated from Lampeter to Llanwrda was quickly pulled as it was getting 1 passenger in every 3 journeys!!

The fact is that public transport must reflect the needs and wants of the travelling public and in Wales, that is often dictated by topography, not necessarily distance. Therefore, you're much more likely to travel to along the valleys; the hills are physical and mental barriers to travel. That is the case with such a service as you propose. I suspect I know the area much better than you though I don't claim to be an expert!!

You can't just look at a map and say "put a service there". In truth, where is the market? Better to focus on improving and extending existing flows. You can, of course, point to the T4 (704) as a service that did introduce regular links to some areas that didn't have them BUT it did combine a number of existing services and it does run logically down the valley into Newtown (which was a major improvement).

The 280/1 is identical between Carmarthen and Llandeilo but has a slight variation onward to Llandovery. In truth, it does a number of double runs into villages, and I'm not convinced that it really fits with a TC service. However, I don't think the money is available to improve it anyway.

I've avoided this debate this time round as I think I've made my views clear in the past on the way the 40/40c timetable has been tendered to conflict with 701

however I must comment on this latest strange idea to operate a service over the mountains between Lampeter and Llanwrda... and I have to agree with TheGrandWazoo... where on earth would the passengers appear from? As someone who lives in the area I cannot see how a service would pay for itself without railway sized subsidies.

there are half a dozen houses at tafarn jem, the same at Harford... then there's Pumpsaint which might stretch to a couple of dozen houses... then nothing until you get to Pumpsaint.

of course there are a couple of villages just off the main road which could problably triple the number of people given access to the service... but that would neccessitate the buses traversing single track roads... hardly a TrawsCymru service...

there's a reason why there is no regular service along this corridor... it's because there is nowhere near enough people living there.... of course if you wish to allow sheep to travel on the service it just MIGHT pay it's way!

On the issue of physical barriers.. it is a well known fact within the bus industry that even in flat territory people still to this day, with all our modern technology and infrastructure, tend to travel the way the water flows... ie along valleys... a case in point is the service between Luton and Milton Keynes... when MK was started in 1967 an attempt was made to connect it to Luton... that attempt failed as did numerous further attempts.. it wasn't until the virgin rail link was started with heavy railway sponsorship that a successful service was started... THIRTY FIVE years later.

just a point to note.. the 701 has always operated via Carmarthen and has never operated over the mountains... it was the 611 that operated this route

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Quite right. Senior moment - was it 610/11 in Western Welsh days? Became S52 with Crosville and then X52 when joint with SWT.

701 went via the current route largely from Bangor to Cardiff whilst 702 went via Brecon and Newtown to Liverpool?

 

[Rhydgaled]

701 went via the current route largely from Bangor to Cardiff whilst 702 went via Brecon and Newtown to Liverpool?

The TrawsCambria Wikipedia page says it was:

• 700 Cardiff-Brecon-Builth Wells-Llandrindod Wells-Newtown-Machynlleth-Dolgellau-Porthmadog-Caernarfon-Bangor
• 701 Cardiff-Swansea-Carmarthen-Lampeter-Aberystwyth-Machynlleth-Dolgellau-Betws y Coed-Blaenau Ffestiniog-Llandudno-Rhyl
• 702 Cardiff-Cwmbran-Builth Wells-Rhayader-Newtown-Wrexham-Chester-Liverpool

And of course the T4 was previously 704. On that basis, using the last digit of the old 70x numbers for the new network would give:

• TC0 (Aberystwyth) - Machynlleth - Dolgellau - Porthmadog - Caernarfon - Bangor
• TC1 Carmarthen - Lampeter - Aberystwyth
• TC2 Newtown - Welshpool - Oswestry - Wrexham
• TC4 Cardiff/Merthyr - Brecon - Newtown

Adding routes to that to get the maximum of 10 with the TC-prefix I advocate, might get something like:

• TC0 (Aberystwyth) - Machynlleth - Dolgellau - Porthmadog - Caernarfon - Bangor
• TC1 Carmarthen - Lampeter - Aberystwyth
• TC2 Newtown - Welshpool - Oswestry - Wrexham
• TC3 Wrexham - Corwen - Bala - Dolgellau - Barmouth
• TC4 Cardiff/Merthyr - Brecon - Newtown
• TC5 Aberystwyth - Aberaeron - Cardigan - Somewhere*
• TC6 (New Quay / Aberaeron) - Lampeter - Llandovery - Brecon - Abergavenny
• TC7 Corwen OR Wrexham - Ruthin - Denbigh - Rhyl
• TC8 Swansea - Ystradgynlais - Brecon - Hereford
• TC9 One of:
  • St. Davids - Haverfordwest - Narberth
  • St. Davids - Haverfordwest - Whitland - Carmarthen - Llandeilo - Llandovery
  • Pembroke - St. Clears - Carmarthen - Llandeilo - Llandovery
  • St. Davids - Haverfordwest - Whitland - Carmarthen - Cross Hands - Ammanford
  • Pembroke - St. Clears - Carmarthen - Cross Hands - Ammanford

*Options available:

• Fishguard Harbour
• Whitland
• Narberth, and maybe onto Tenby
• Haverfordwest (NOT via Fishguard), and maybe onto Pembroke

You can't just look at a map and say "put a service there". In truth, where is the market?

You (or somebody else) made a good point that there's not much population between Lampeter and Llandovery. So, the market (if there is one) is elsewhere.

You are almost certainly correct that you know the area better than I do, so maybe there really isn't a market for the service I proposed. But the object of it really was to provide a link from Aberystwyth/Lampeter/Ceredigion in general through to Brecon/Abergavenny. If there is a market, it's a long-distance market, not a local one.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Adding routes to that to get the maximum of 10 with the TC-prefix I advocate, might get something like:

• TC0 (Aberystwyth) - Machynlleth - Dolgellau - Porthmadog - Caernarfon - Bangor
• TC1 Carmarthen - Lampeter - Aberystwyth
• TC2 Newtown - Welshpool - Oswestry - Wrexham
• TC3 Wrexham - Corwen - Bala - Dolgellau - Barmouth
• TC4 Cardiff/Merthyr - Brecon - Newtown
• TC5 Aberystwyth - Aberaeron - Cardigan - Somewhere*
• TC6 (New Quay / Aberaeron) - Lampeter - Llandovery - Brecon - Abergavenny
• TC7 Corwen OR Wrexham - Ruthin - Denbigh - Rhyl
• TC8 Swansea - Ystradgynlais - Brecon - Hereford
• TC9 One of:
  • St. Davids - Haverfordwest - Narberth
  • St. Davids - Haverfordwest - Whitland - Carmarthen - Llandeilo - Llandovery
  • Pembroke - St. Clears - Carmarthen - Llandeilo - Llandovery
  • St. Davids - Haverfordwest - Whitland - Carmarthen - Cross Hands - Ammanford
  • Pembroke - St. Clears - Carmarthen - Cross Hands - Ammanford

*Options available:

• Fishguard Harbour
• Whitland
• Narberth, and maybe onto Tenby
• Haverfordwest (NOT via Fishguard), and maybe onto Pembroke

your proposals are a clear example of what is so wrong with the TrawsCymru network.

the problem with the network is it is designed by people with no real professional knowledge of running bus and coach services (politicians). Arguably the best way to grow a long distance network would be for it to organically grow based on the experience of those who do the job day in day out. One only has to look to the Greyhound service between Cardiff and Swansea or, dare I say it, the 701 to see what can be done when professionals are left to get on with the job they know

Sure you can look to the T4/X4 and say that that is a success, but most of that success was achieved whilst the service was a fully commercial one.

It's about time that politicians at both local and national level understood the law as to their role providing bus services.. which is to support SOCIALLY NECCESSARY services and NOT to socially engineer the network they want... that was the point of deregulation... to stop political interference in the provision of bus services.

One only has to look at the ridiculous levels of support given to the direct rail service between Holyhead and Cardiff and the helicopter service between the same points to see what happens when politicians are allowed to decide where the public want to travel!

Sure lay down criteria for what standards you want to buy into the TrawsCymru brand... but leave it to the professionals to decide where their customers want to travel and when.

Certainly if the WAG's intention is to set up a long distance network of services across Wales then it will always be doomed to failure for one major reason... long distance passengers want to travel on a coach and not a bus.

have we as taxpayers not thrown enough money at this failed attempt at social engineering?

of course politicians being what they are will continue to say they know best.

incidently, if the money allocated for supporting the TrawsCymru "network" was put back into the general pot for bus service support would there be any need to cut the re-imbursement rate for concessionary passes...

be sure, come July, many many communities in Wales will have their services withdrawn or severely reduced..

a case of hurting the many to support the few?

 

[transmanche]

that was the point of deregulation... to stop political interference in the provision of bus services.

I rather think it was more to do with the dogmatic belief that competition would produce better and cheaper services. And that worked out well didn't it?

(Yet the only place where deregulation did not happen, now has better and cheaper services.)

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I rather think it was more to do with the dogmatic belief that competition would produce better and cheaper services. And that worked out well didn't it?

(Yet the only place where deregulation did not happen, now has better and cheaper services.)

the only reasons why London has a better service is because the quango that is Transport for London is headed by bus professionals and it is provided with HUGE subsidy... the services in London may be cheaper at the point of use... but look at how much it costs the taxpayer to provide those cheap services.

and in any case London proves my point about political interference and whim.

Routemasters were only kept for so long because the mayor (Ken Livingstone) demanded they be kept...

when he was finally convinced by the professionals that the RM had finally worn out the next new thing was introduced on the whim of the quango ie hendy's bendies.

of course as soon as the mayor changed there was a rush to replace all the artics on his say so... not for operational or economic reasons.... just because the mayor didn't like them... I wonder how much that whole episode cost with broken lease agreements.... replacement costs etc... and let's not forget johnson's vanity project the borismaster.... each vehicle costing nearly twice the price of a standard decker.... and that's excluding development costs.

NO a regulated environment does not produce the cheapest and best service possible.

The problems caused by deregulation can firmly be laid at the hands of those that have not come to terms with their changed role... local politicians.

 

[transmanche]

the only reasons why London has a better service is because the quango that is Transport for London is headed by bus professionals and it is provided with HUGE subsidy... the services in London may be cheaper at the point of use... but look at how much it costs the taxpayer to provide those cheap services

Compared to how much bus subsidies cost other authorities in providing a basic and expensive service? It's a bargain.

So let's look at this 'HUGE subsidy'. According to the DfT in 2011/2012 net government subsidy per passenger journey[*] in English Non-Metropolitan Areas was 70.2p. In Metropolitan (ie PTE) Areas it was 53.6p. Whereas in London it was just 36.6p.

So per passenger journey, bus services in London receive far less subsidy than services elsewhere. Surprising, eh?

* DfT definition: "Net government support comprises Public Transport Support, Bus Service Operators Grant and Concessionary Travel Reimbursement."

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Compared to how much bus subsidies cost other authorities in providing a basic and expensive service? It's a bargain.

So let's look at this 'HUGE subsidy'. According to the DfT in 2011/2012 net government subsidy per passenger journey[*] in English Non-Metropolitan Areas was 70.2p. In Metropolitan (ie PTE) Areas it was 53.6p. Whereas in London it was just 36.6p.

So per passenger journey, bus services in London receive far less subsidy than services elsewhere. Surprising, eh?

* DfT definition: "Net government support comprises Public Transport Support, Bus Service Operators Grant and Concessionary Travel Reimbursement."

well that seems a bit strange and even perverse when you consider that TfL bus services receive about £500 million per year! for a population of about 8 million people... of course buses in London are much more intensively used...

I'm sure that most members of the general public are not interested in how much subsidy is involved per passenger journey but are more interested in how much tax they pay per head of population.

of course there is the perverse situation whereby people living within the TfL area only subsidise their own services through national and local taxes... but due to a quirk of the funding of services those outside london are expected to subsidise their own services AND those of london due to the fact that TfL gets a block grant from the government... paid for through national taxes.

if every local authority was able to have the spending levels of london for it's bus services then there wouldn't be the problems outside london that we are now experiencing... here in wales the funding through concessionary fares reimbursement is about to be cut by one THIRD... this following on from last year's 25% cut in BSOG!

 

[transmanche]

well that seems a bit strange and even perverse when you consider that TfL bus services receive about £500 million per year! for a population of about 8 million people... of course buses in London are much more intensively used...

Half of all bus journeys in England are on TfL buses. In 2011/2012 that totalled 2.324 billion journeys.

Source: DfT (Compared to 2.355bn in the rest of England.)

In 2011/2012 TfL bus network was subsidised to the tune of £393 million, not £500m. But that was subsidy by TfL, not direct from central Government. Financing of TfL and PTEs is a bit more complex than that.

Source: House of Commons Transport Committee.

I'm sure that most members of the general public are not interested in how much subsidy is involved per passenger journey but are more interested in how much tax they pay per head of population.

Really? If they have an interest, surely they'd be more interested in how much tax they pay personally?

of course there is the perverse situation whereby people living within the TfL area only subsidise their own services through national and local taxes... but due to a quirk of the funding of services those outside london are expected to subsidise their own services AND those of london due to the fact that TfL gets a block grant from the government... paid for through national taxes.

Yes, TfL gets a block grant from central government - although a significant part of that has been reduced in favour of retaining a proportion of London business rates instead. But all PTEs (and councils) get a block grant from central government - albeit in a roundabout way.

And don't forget that TfL have other sources of income: such as the Congestion Charge.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

In 2011/2012 TfL bus network was subsidised to the tune of £393 million, not £500m. But that was subsidy by TfL, not direct from central Government. Financing of TfL and PTEs is a bit more complex than that..

So assuming that the population is about 8 million people that works out as a subsidy of approxiamately £49 per head of population. And that is BEFORE you add in BSOG and concessionary fare reimbursement. I'm sure many local authorities would wish that level of investment in their bus services.

tbh it doesn't really matter what the exact figures are... it is generally accepted throughout the bus industry whether it be operator, local authority or TfL itself, that TfL has a significantly higher cost operation than the rest of the UK.

In fact Peter Hendy himself was quoted as saying that PTEg's demands were unrealistic unless the taxpayers in their areas were prepared to pay much higher council tax to pay for the improvements. and I am sure that Peter Hendy is probably in the best position to know the true cost of the levels of service he provides.

back to my original point though... do we really want a centrally planned network designed by people who don't really know what they are talking about?

who can forget the glory days at Tyne and Wear when the PTE in it's wisdom decided that all bus services south of the Tyne should terminate in Gateshead and all the customers should be forced to change onto the Metro to get to Newcastle... literally within spitting distance of where they wanted to go?

do we really want political interference destroying commercially viable services?

 

[transmanche]

So assuming that the population is about 8 million people that works out as a subsidy of approxiamately £49 per head of population.

Well it's a decision that the electorate of London have chosen to fund.

And that is BEFORE you add in BSOG and concessionary fare reimbursement.

I don't believe that's the case. My understanding is that London Councils pay TfL £276m for concessionary travel and that goes into a central TfL 'pot'. TfL then use that money to do what they wish. Don't forget that £276m funds free travel on bus/tube/train/DLR and tram- and of course it pays for the significant number of ENCTS pass holders using buses when visiting London. Plus Londoners fund free travel for children, many students, all over-60s and many forces veterans.

I'm sure many local authorities would wish that level of investment in their bus services.

Like I said earlier, voters in Greater Manchester chose not to have a congestion charge in order to help fund better public transport. And that was their choice.

Londoners have chosen differently.

tbh it doesn't really matter what the exact figures are...

I assume you're only saying that because the figures you quoted were completely wrong.

back to my original point though... do we really want a centrally planned network designed by people who don't really know what they are talking about?

Are you suggesting that the people managing the bus network in TfL don't know what they're doing?

who can forget the glory days at Tyne and Wear when the PTE in it's wisdom decided that all bus services south of the Tyne should terminate in Gateshead and all the customers should be forced to change onto the Metro to get to Newcastle... literally within spitting distance of where they wanted to go?

Oh dear, oh dear. Forced were they? At gunpoint?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I assume you're only saying that because the figures you quoted were completely wrong.

Are you suggesting that the people managing the bus network in TfL don't know what they're doing?

Oh dear, oh dear. Forced were they? At gunpoint?

I am not here to be patronised... I am here to have a mature debate. I said what I said because whether the figure is 500million or 393million it does NOT alter the fact that London's bus services are much better funded than any other in the UK.

I did not suggest that the people managing London's bus network don't know what they are doing... in fact if you bothered to take your blinkers off as you read My post you would have seen that I quoted Peter Hendy as knowing what he is talking about.. I wonder do you actually know who Peter Hendy is?

The reason why the people running London's buses know what they are doing is because they are all ex bus men.. that is not generally the case within the PTE's and local authorities...

and yes, while there were no guns involved Tyne and Wear PTE DID force people off the buses in Gateshead to complete their journeys by the neat little trick of using Section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 and withdrew the Road Service licences for ALL services running across the Tyne.

I stand by my central point that if here in wales the WAG stopped cutting BSOG and concessionary fares re-imbursement then commercial services would remain just that and they wouldn't then have to throw money at a socially engineered network which, judging by the results so far, none of the travelling public want.

as I have said before you only have to look at how the 701, Greyhound and T4/X4 services have grown commercially compared to X32/T2 X94 have struggled with all the political interference...

perhaps you really do believe that Stagecoach, First and a local coach company whose owner was instrumental in the establishment of the original TrawsCambria network know less between them about developing and running a commercially successful bus service than a load of politicians who probably haven't been anywhere near a bus since they left school?

 

[Rhydgaled]

your proposals are a clear example of what is so wrong with the TrawsCymru network.

the problem with the network is it is designed by people with no real professional knowledge of running bus and coach services (politicians).

I'm not a politician! You are half right though, since I don't have "real professional knowledge of running bus and coach services". I'm guessing you do have such knowledge, so what would services would you suggest for the TrawsCyrmu network?

Sure you can look to the T4/X4 and say that that is a success, but most of that success was achieved whilst the service was a fully commercial one.

If by T4 you are refering to the TrawsCymru T4, wasn't the 704 already successful before it became the T4? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the 704 was ever commercial.

Certainly if the WAG's intention is to set up a long distance network of services across Wales then it will always be doomed to failure for one major reason... long distance passengers want to travel on a coach and not a bus.

I refer you to the Winkler review. The author(s) appears to be a bus user and has "concluded that the use of low floor buses with coach-style interiors, [snip], is a necessary and acceptable compromise." This decision was based on:

• the TrawsCambrian consultation findings that 56% said that they preferred low floor buses versus 34% who favoured a high floor coach,
• a high level of satisfaction (8.1 out of 10) with the Tempos on the T4 and
• accessibly for disabled passengers

incidently, if the money allocated for supporting the TrawsCymru "network" was put back into the general pot for bus service support would there be any need to cut the re-imbursement rate for concessionary passes...

How big is the cut compared to the TrawsCymru subisdy? The Winkler report, if I'm reading it right, says £2.32m per anum revenue cost for the five routes.

do we really want political interference destroying commercially viable services?

That depends. If the result of "commercially viable services" is an Arriva CymruExpress-like fiasco then please no. Sure we've lost the fast service between Cardigan and Aberaeron/Aberystwyth, which is annoying, but most of the comments I've head other passengers making to each other seem to favour Richards Bros over Arriva.

I stand by my central point that if here in wales the WAG stopped cutting BSOG and concessionary fares re-imbursement then commercial services would remain just that and they wouldn't then have to throw money at a socially engineered network which, judging by the results so far, none of the travelling public want.

I agree that WAG should stop cutting the general bus subsidy. However, with the Arriva operation in Aberystwyth (with all their non-acceptance of other operator's tickets etc.) still fresh in my mind I think that subsidy would be better used to pay for contracted services than given directly to operators in the form of BSOG.

As for the public not wanting TrawsCambria, the four years for which patronage figures are available (not the most recent I grant you) show year-on-year growth on X50 and 704/T4. The other routes had growth some years also.

as I have said before you only have to look at how the 701, Greyhound and T4/X4 services have grown commercially compared to X32/T2 X94 have struggled with all the political interference...

The X32 went commercial for a while didn't it? And it still struggled. As for the 701, it may be a money spinner for the operator but an infrequent service like that isn't really all that useful as a general public transport service.

I say again, let's see some alternative proposals from professionals so we actually have something tangible to compare against what TrawsCambria/TrawsCymru offered/offers.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm not a politician! You are half right though, since I don't have "real professional knowledge of running bus and coach services". I'm guessing you do have such knowledge, so what would services would you suggest for the TrawsCyrmu network?

I'm sorry I wasn't casting aspertions on your abilities to come up with a network... although I probably don't agree with much of your proposals... my comment was directed at the politicians

I refer you to the Winkler review. The author(s) appears to be a bus user and has "concluded that the use of low floor buses with coach-style interiors, [snip], is a necessary and acceptable compromise." This decision was based on:

• the TrawsCambrian consultation findings that 56% said that they preferred low floor buses versus 34% who favoured a high floor coach,
• a high level of satisfaction (8.1 out of 10) with the Tempos on the T4 and
• accessibly for disabled passengers

How big is the cut compared to the TrawsCymru subisdy? The Winkler report, if I'm reading it right, says £2.32m per anum revenue cost for the five routes.

I won't comment on the competency of the Winkler report as I haven't read it, though TheGrandWazoo obviously has and he was scathing about it's professionalism.

what I will say is that it does appear to have been a box ticking exercise... the report seems to conclude that everything that's being done is right and perfect

why is a compromise neccessary? and how can a compromise be acceptable?

you quote a figure of 56% preferring a low floor bus over 34% preferring a coach... but they are meaningless figures... how many of those passengers were travelling long distance (ie over 90 mins) how many were travelling end to end? how many were just travelling to the nearest town from a village?

One of the main criticisms levelled at the 20 run by arriva was the frequent use of ordinary buses (with coach style interiors) when the coaches were unavailable for any reason

.... If the result of "commercially viable services" is an Arriva CymruExpress-like fiasco then please no.

I agree that WAG should stop cutting the general bus subsidy. However, with the Arriva operation in Aberystwyth . still fresh in my mind I think that subsidy would be better used to pay for contracted services than given directly to operators in the form of BSOG.

I agree that the Arriva exit was a fiasco... in truth they had been trying to find a way out of Aber for over 10 years... Arriva's problem is they are still wedded to the idea that every service should make 15% profit... we are now left in the situation that the 40/ 40c are tendered even though they are more than likely profitable without subsidy... but who's going to run them commercially when they know money is going to be thrown at such an important trunk route?

Without wanting to re-open the debate about competing with the 701 it does seem perverse that public money is being used to compete against it...

I would point out that concessionary fares reimbursement is NOT a subsidy... it is payment for a service provided... a service which operators are required by law to provide.. can you name any other industry where you are forced to provide a service and then forced to take the payment offered whether that payment is fair or not?

... As for the 701, it may be a money spinner for the operator but an infrequent service like that isn't really all that useful as a general public transport service.

A hard fact about commercial operation.... unless you provide the service people want then it won't be a money spinner... if the 701 is a money spinner then the operator must be doing something right!... in fact judging by the loadings now compared to this time last year I predict that the 701 will need a further journey added to cope with the summer peak demand...

 

[transmanche]

I said what I said because whether the figure is 500million or 393million it does NOT alter the fact that London's bus services are much better funded than any other in the UK.

Well they're 'better funded' because that's what the electorate of London have chosen. But they're only 'better funded' in terms of a monetary amount purely because London is much larger than any other city in the country. As I demonstrated, per passenger journey, London buses receive much less subsidy than buses elsewhere in England.

On that basis, the 'London model' delivers; much better services, cheaper services and requires less subsidy than the 'commercial model' used outside of London.

I did not suggest that the people managing London's bus network don't know what they are doing...

Well when you say:

do we really want a centrally planned network designed by people who don't really know what they are talking about?

and:

and in any case London proves my point about political interference and whim.

what are we expected to think?

I wonder do you actually know who Peter Hendy is?

Well being as I linked to the evidence he gave to the Commons Transport Select Committee... what do you reckon?

Tyne and Wear PTE DID force people off the buses in Gateshead to complete their journeys by the neat little trick of using Section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1968 and withdrew the Road Service licences for ALL services running across the Tyne.

Well using the word "forced" is really emotive language. And it's nonsense too.

More accurately; T&W PTE recast their bus routes as part of an integrated local transport network when the Metro opened. Bus routes were designed to feed into Metro interchanges, rather than duplicate Metro routes. Add to that integrated timetables and a proper integrated fare system. It was an amazing success and boosted public transport usage. That all sounds quite sensible to me. TBH, you're the only person I've ever heard suggesting that somehow the T&W integrated transport network wasn't a positive thing for public transport!

In fact it was bus deregulation which wrecked T&W's integrated transport network - with buses competing directly with Metro rather complementing it. And the local transport network has never properly recovered from it. So no wonder that Nexus want to introduce the 'London model' to T&W.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

In fact it was bus deregulation which wrecked T&W's integrated transport network - with buses competing directly with Metro rather complementing it. And the local transport network has never properly recovered from it. So no wonder that Nexus want to introduce the 'London model' to T&W.

if the integrated network with people being forced to change onto the metro to complete their journeys was such a successful and popular concept how did deregulation wreck that integration? SURELY if thew integrated network was what people wanted then they would have continued traipsing off the bus at Gateshead to complete their journey by Metro. The fact is the travelling public spoke loud and clear once given the choice... they chose to complete their journey on the bus.

Strange that you think that the local transport network was ruined by deregulation. When I lived in Newcastle 10 years ago I had the choice of 2 services operated by stagecoach... one ran every 10 mins and the other every 7-8 mins... I could also chose to use a go-ahead service which ran every 8-10 mins... on top of that their was an Arriva service every 15 mins... even on eves and suns I had to wait no more than 8-10 mins for a bus...

the buses were always busy... and strangely on the occassions when I used the Metro that was also very busy.

In fact of all the places I've lived outside of London I would say that Newcastle was the one with the best provision AND use of bus services.

which just goes to prove that competition without political interference works!

In any case this forum is to discuss the TrawsCymru network and how best to provide services in rural wales... to compare London (or Tyne and Wear) with Wales is not comparing like for like.

Furthermore considering that you are taking one small line from one post and another small line from another post to try to show me up as ignorant then I will not be responding to any further posts from you... anyone reading my posts will see that I have nothing but respect for TfL, my problem is with political interference from non professionals.

Luckily most people on here do not have to resort to cheap shots... they are able to have a mature debate... something you seem incapable of.

 

[transmanche]

if the integrated network with people being forced to change onto the metro to complete their journeys was such a successful and popular concept how did deregulation wreck that integration?

Because each commercial company wanted to maximise its own profit, rather than the network as a whole. So (as I said) they competed with Metro rather than complemented it.

SURELY if thew integrated network was what people wanted then they would have continued traipsing off the bus at Gateshead to complete their journey by Metro. The fact is the travelling public spoke loud and clear once given the choice... they chose to complete their journey on the bus.

Interesting definition of the word "choice" there.

With deregulation the common fare structure was abandoned and the price of multi-operator tickets increased. So economic necessity rather than free choice meant people had to stick to one mode or another.

Bus usage and public transport usage overall in T&W declined after deregulation. In the first few years of deregulation Metro passenger numbers fell by 23% and bus passenger numbers fell by 16%. Yeah that's a real success story... :roll:

In any case this forum is to discuss the TrawsCymru network and how best to provide services in rural wales... to compare London (or Tyne and Wear) with Wales is not comparing like for like.

You were the one who brought up Tyne & Wear. Not me. And you seem surprisingly ill-informed of the facts - which are well documented.

I suggest that you read WJ Tyson's paper "Effect of deregulation on service co-ordination in the Metropolitan areas" published in the September 1990 edition of the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. He looked specifically at the Gateshead Interchange situation. His conclusion? It "vindicated the pre-deregulation policy of terminating services at Gateshead". But apparently you know better.

The only beneficiaries of deregulation in T&W were car manufacturers and dealers.

Furthermore considering that you are taking one small line from one post and another small line from another post to try to show me up as ignorant then I will not be responding to any further posts from you...

I'm not the one showing you up an ignorant - you're doing that quite well yourself...

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I suggest that you read WJ Tyson's paper "Effect of deregulation on service co-ordination in the Metropolitan areas" published in the September 1990 edition of the Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. He looked specifically at the Gateshead Interchange situation. His conclusion? It "vindicated the pre-deregulation policy of terminating services at Gateshead". But apparently you know better.

Wow! That generated a flurry of posts. In short, the reasons for bus deregulation were many fold. Not only was it a pre-cursor to privatisation, it was seen as a means of reducing costs. Remember that in regulated times, the amount of subsidy that was flung at the bus industry (both directly in terms of revenue support plus indirectly such as new bus grant) was huge. Oh, and bus patronage was falling despite that.

Getting the argument back on track (i.e. to TrawsCymru), the report that has been created by the Bevan Foundation is almost worthless. The lack of empirical evidence, with the idea that having a chat with some Stagecoach managers and a few people in Merthyr bus station acts as evidence, is frankly not much more than a desktop exercise. You may as well do as Rhydgaled has done and look at a map in the privacy of your bedroom.

As an little aside, I had a look at my 1968 Western Welsh timetable. Interestingly, the 611 had only 3 Aberystwyth to Ammanford journeys (with a fourth short working from Lampeter to Ammanford). The Carmarthen to Llandovery service was part of the 750 Brecon to Tenby service with only 4 journeys between Carm and Llandovery. Goes to show that things weren't always better in the past

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Getting the argument back on track (i.e. to TrawsCymru), the report that has been created by the Bevan Foundation is almost worthless. The lack of empirical evidence, with the idea that having a chat with some Stagecoach managers and a few people in Merthyr bus station acts as evidence, is frankly not much more than a desktop exercise. You may as well do as Rhydgaled has done and look at a map in the privacy of your bedroom.

There was also a public "consultation in Aberystwyth bus station last weekend for 3 hours... the point of the exercise was to get public feedback on the services provided... with specific reference to 40/40c X50 and T2... this was AFTER the tender documents for 40/40c had been released.

it really does make me wonder whether WAG and local authorities are interested in providing the services our community needs or whether, as the evidence suggests, they are trying to impose a network that they deem suitable with no reference to anyone... welcome back to the worst days of pre-deregulation?

I've said it before and I will say it again... leave the running of bus services to the professionals who know where the custom is, or is likely to be.

I really am surprised that Bryan's Coaches haven't mounted a legal challenge to the fact that there are subsidised journeys operating in direct competition with their commercial operation... something which is deemed illegal in the 1985 Transport Act... surely there can be no operational problem with the timetable for 40/ 40c being retarded by 5 mins so that the 701 is given first pickings of the passengers... which after all is required by law...

or how about approaching the operator and offering a de minimis payment for the affected journeys to encourage them to integrate their service with the tendered service... thus saving the councils money by not providing a duplicate service at those times?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

My personal favourite from the Henry Winkler report was:

There is no guide on the ‘time penalty’ that bus passengers are prepared to accept. The Wales Transport Forum’s 2003 report suggested a differential between bus and car on TrawsCymru routes of just 15% - which is in effect a non-stop service. In the absence of a guide, a rule of thumb should be that TrawsCymru services should ideally be no more than 33% longer than by car, and never more than 50% longer. These figures are no more than my personal views as a bus user and further research amongst passengers should be undertaken to establish if this is reasonable.

One might think that this would be something linked to average journey length, for which the data is available?? Or this one...

What is known, however, is that passenger demand across much of mid Wales is insufficient to support a large-scale commercial bus network. In Wales as a whole, 30% of the bus network is non-commercial services but this rises to more than 95% in Powys. Splitting what demand there is between express and local services seems likely to result, at best, in two, underused subsidised services or, at worst, the prospect of a nearly empty, Government-subsidised coach service bypassing communities where people have no means of getting to work or college.

The decision is ultimately one of political priorities – whether the need for speed outweighs the need for a bus service. My view is that it does not.

Surely it's about what customers' want?

In all fairness, there are some valid points within the report but it does seem like a poor brief (or one deliberately skewed) has blighted the output.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

My personal favourite from the Henry Winkler report was:

There is no guide on the ‘time penalty’ that bus passengers are prepared to accept. The Wales Transport Forum’s 2003 report suggested a differential between bus and car on TrawsCymru routes of just 15% - which is in effect a non-stop service. In the absence of a guide, a rule of thumb should be that TrawsCymru services should ideally be no more than 33% longer than by car, and never more than 50% longer. These figures are no more than my personal views as a bus user and further research amongst passengers should be undertaken to establish if this is reasonable.

One might think that this would be something linked to average journey length, for which the data is available?? Or this one...

What is known, however, is that passenger demand across much of mid Wales is insufficient to support a large-scale commercial bus network. In Wales as a whole, 30% of the bus network is non-commercial services but this rises to more than 95% in Powys. Splitting what demand there is between express and local services seems likely to result, at best, in two, underused subsidised services or, at worst, the prospect of a nearly empty, Government-subsidised coach service bypassing communities where people have no means of getting to work or college.

The decision is ultimately one of political priorities – whether the need for speed outweighs the need for a bus service. My view is that it does not.

Surely it's about what customers' want?

In all fairness, there are some valid points within the report but it does seem like a poor brief (or one deliberately skewed) has blighted the output.

From what you have said about the Winkler report here and in other posts it seems that the whole design of the TrawsCymru network is based on guesswork and assumption.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

From what you have said about the Winkler report here and in other posts it seems that the whole design of the TrawsCymru network is based on guesswork and assumption.

You could say that....I couldn't possibly comment

Here's another classic bit:

First, the Optare Tempos in use meet the requirements of the majority of passengers. A passenger consultation in 2010 established that the top three priorities for users of services were availability of toilets, additional leg room and luggage space. A slight majority (56%) said that they preferred low floor buses whereas 34% said they favoured a high floor coach.

The Optare Tempos are low floor, and offer additional leg room and luggage space. They also offer features that are standard on coaches in the form of high-backed, comfortable seating, double glazing and air conditioning, Wifi and some tables. Customer satisfaction surveys undertaken on the T4 show a high level of satisfaction with the vehicles, with a score of 8.1 out of 10 – the highest rated feature of the T4 service. The only feature on passengers’ wish
list missing from the T4 is an on-board toilet. Some informal feedback suggests that tables are not a requirement.

Second, I believe that prioritising the accessibility of a low floor vehicle over the comfort of a coach is the right balance. A number of experts in the bus industry informed me that low floor coaches are simply not manufactured, so use of ordinary, high floor coaches on TrawsCymru services would mean that vehicles are not accessible to anyone with a mobility impairment, including wheelchair users, older people unable to climb steps or people with young children in buggies. Providing publicly funded transport services which are inaccessible to the very people the service is supposed to help runs counter to the Welsh Government’s commitment to equality and inclusion and, in my view, would not be appropriate.

That assumes that pensioners cannot ascend coaches which is doubtless why Shearings operate fleets of Tempos......

Or that NatEx and Stagecoach have purchased loads of high floor coaches that don't meet DDA.....

Some informal feedback - "a man in a pub said to me...."

I don't doubt that Ms Winkler (or Dr Winkler) is a very honest, earnest individual but this seems so ill-specified and lightweight - it's the Ford R192 of reports (one for the kids there)! Or indeed a Bedford YMQ as used to appear in the mid 1980s on SWT's input to the X52.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

You could say that....I couldn't possibly comment

Here's another classic bit:

First, the Optare Tempos in use meet the requirements of the majority of passengers. A passenger consultation in 2010 established that the top three priorities for users of services were availability of toilets, additional leg room and luggage space. A slight majority (56%) said that they preferred low floor buses whereas 34% said they favoured a high floor coach.

The Optare Tempos are low floor, and offer additional leg room and luggage space. They also offer features that are standard on coaches in the form of high-backed, comfortable seating, double glazing and air conditioning, Wifi and some tables. Customer satisfaction surveys undertaken on the T4 show a high level of satisfaction with the vehicles, with a score of 8.1 out of 10 – the highest rated feature of the T4 service. The only feature on passengers’ wish
list missing from the T4 is an on-board toilet. Some informal feedback suggests that tables are not a requirement.

Second, I believe that prioritising the accessibility of a low floor vehicle over the comfort of a coach is the right balance. A number of experts in the bus industry informed me that low floor coaches are simply not manufactured, so use of ordinary, high floor coaches on TrawsCymru services would mean that vehicles are not accessible to anyone with a mobility impairment, including wheelchair users, older people unable to climb steps or people with young children in buggies. Providing publicly funded transport services which are inaccessible to the very people the service is supposed to help runs counter to the Welsh Government’s commitment to equality and inclusion and, in my view, would not be appropriate.

That assumes that pensioners cannot ascend coaches which is doubtless why Shearings operate fleets of Tempos......

Or that NatEx and Stagecoach have purchased loads of high floor coaches that don't meet DDA.....

Some informal feedback - "a man in a pub said to me...."

I don't doubt that Ms Winkler (or Dr Winkler) is a very honest, earnest individual but this seems so ill-specified and lightweight - it's the Ford R192 of reports (one for the kids there)! Or indeed a Bedford YMQ as used to appear in the mid 1980s on SWT's input to the X52.

I can only assume that the owner of Bryan's Coaches is a very rich man then... if OAP's are unable to negotiate the steps on coaches then he has obviously invented some sort of levitation machine.. seeing as though around half the passengers on the 701 are pensioners lol

I wonder does the WAG have shares in Optare? they do seem to have a fixation with Tempos... surely if they want the best compromise vehicle they would be better off choosing something more heavyweight such as Scania or Volvo... not a lightly constructed vehicle such as the Tempo?

 

[Bwsbro]

Following the expansion of the Megabus Network to Holyhead and Aberystwyth in recent months

London Victoria - Manchester - Holyhead (For Dublin)
London Victoria - Cardiff - Swansea - Carmarthen - Lampeter - Aberystwyth

It Seems that Bangor in North Wales is to be added to the Megabus network with Stopping at Chester and Manchester. Hopefully this can connect with the Traws Network providing an alternative way to travel for passengers

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Following the expansion of the Megabus Network to Holyhead and Aberystwyth in recent months

London Victoria - Manchester - Holyhead (For Dublin)
London Victoria - Cardiff - Swansea - Carmarthen - Lampeter - Aberystwyth

It Seems that Bangor in North Wales is to be added to the Megabus network with Stopping at Chester and Manchester. Hopefully this can connect with the Traws Network providing an alternative way to travel for passengers

Megabus can't become part of the TrawsCymru network for the same reason as Nat Ex... you have to pre-book and cannot make spur of the moment decisions to travel and pay on the coach.

Also on the Aber route if you board at Aber you aren't allowed to disembark until Carmarthen. If you get on at Lampeter you have to travel to Swansea (though for the life of me I don't see how it can be enforced)

this hardly fits in with the brief of TrawsCymru.

tbh, although I haven't got up early enough or stayed up late enough to observe the Megabus into Aber, I really can't see that it is a useful service for anyone.

Megabus is aimed at students... students aren't exactly renowned for being early risers...

 

[WestyAds]

tbh, although I haven't got up early enough or stayed up late enough to observe the Megabus into Aber, I really can't see that it is a useful service for anyone.

Megabus is aimed at students... students aren't exactly renowned for being early risers...

I took the Megabus from Aber to Cardiff last month and was surprised at how many people were on it - there were about 20-25 of us waiting at Aber, plus another dozen or so at Carmarthen. A few students among them, who had clearly decided, as had I, that the astounding cheapness of the trip outweighed the annoyance of an early start. Loads of people waiting to get on at Cardiff, so I was quite relieved to be getting off there.

Whilst it's obviously not for everyone, I'd disagree that it's not a useful service. It's a very handy - and much cheaper - alternative to the train for anyone looking to get out of Aber for the weekend who doesn't want to get held up on a service that stops at every corner.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I took the Megabus from Aber to Cardiff last month and was surprised at how many people were on it - there were about 20-25 of us waiting at Aber, plus another dozen or so at Carmarthen. A few students among them, who had clearly decided, as had I, that the astounding cheapness of the trip outweighed the annoyance of an early start. Loads of people waiting to get on at Cardiff, so I was quite relieved to be getting off there.

Whilst it's obviously not for everyone, I'd disagree that it's not a useful service. It's a very handy - and much cheaper - alternative to the train for anyone looking to get out of Aber for the weekend who doesn't want to get held up on a service that stops at every corner.

I did say that I hadn't seen the loadings... one thing that might surprise you is that the megabus is actually no quicker than the 701 from aber to cardiff both are timetabled to take 4 hours.

I suppose for those who want the inconvenience of the timings and the discomfort of "coach" seats no better than a school bus coach seat and with the maximum number of seats legally allowed (with the legal minimum legroom) then the bargain fares are worth going for...

and of course there is the added inconvenience of having to know well beforehand that you want to travel so you can book your ticket online... whereas on 701 you just turn up and pay your fare on the coach!

for my money I will choose a proper coach as provided on 701, greyhound or Nat Ex... with proper full coach seats and proper leg room

certainly on My few trips by megabus it wasn't a civilised experience!

 

[WestyAds]

I did say that I hadn't seen the loadings... one thing that might surprise you is that the megabus is actually no quicker than the 701 from aber to cardiff both are timetabled to take 4 hours.

I suppose for those who want the inconvenience of the timings and the discomfort of "coach" seats no better than a school bus coach seat and with the maximum number of seats legally allowed (with the legal minimum legroom) then the bargain fares are worth going for...

and of course there is the added inconvenience of having to know well beforehand that you want to travel so you can book your ticket online... whereas on 701 you just turn up and pay your fare on the coach!

for my money I will choose a proper coach as provided on 701, greyhound or Nat Ex... with proper full coach seats and proper leg room

certainly on My few trips by megabus it wasn't a civilised experience!

Slightly quicker on the Megabus as it's 3hrs35mins Aber to Cardiff (0640-1015). Have to say that, at 6ft5, I had no problem with the amount of legroom - certainly no less comfortable than on the 701. I have to admit that my opinion of the 701 is slightly biased on account of the lecture the driver elected to give to each of us boarding at Aberystwyth last time I used the service about how we really should have telephoned the day before to let them know we were travelling, which struck me as odd for a supposedly "hop-on" service.

Still, I suspect it's very much horses for courses and, as they're targeting very different markets (students versus locals and concessionary pass holders) I'm sure they can both continue to run without taking too much trade away from each other. Three direct services to Cardiff a day hardly constitutes flooding the market. If anything, Megabus is probably looking to target Nat Ex passengers with an alternative, cheaper route to London.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Slightly quicker on the Megabus as it's 3hrs35mins Aber to Cardiff (0640-1015).

true on sat and sun... on fri and mon it leaves aber 20 mins earlier. I suppose it's the same as the difference between an all stns train and a semi-fast... there may be only 15-20 mins difference between the 2 but the all stns will always seem to take much much longer than the semi-fast

I have to admit that my opinion of the 701 is slightly biased on account of the lecture the driver elected to give to each of us boarding at Aberystwyth last time I used the service about how we really should have telephoned the day before to let them know we were travelling, which struck me as odd for a supposedly "hop-on" service.

I'm surprised by this... I use 701 regularly and as far as I am aware the official policy is that it is a pay as you board service.. HOWEVER you are able to make a reservation at least 24hrs before so that you can guaruntee that you will be able to get to where you want. Certainly I have heard the drivers advise people that "there is no need to pre-book... however if you know that you want to travel in advance and/ or you know that you NEED to be able to get to your destination then it is ADVISED that you pre-book" certainly from what I have seen on busy days that is very sound advice as the coach can very quickly fill up.

It is no different to Greyhound who give priority first to those that have booked on the web, followed by return ticket holders, then full fare payers, then concessionaries.... I was on the 701 the other day and heard some pensioners at swansea telling the driver they never use the greyhound now cos they never know how long it'll be before they can get a coach home!

I wonder, did you phone Bryan's Coaches and comment on the lecture you was given? I know that their customer service is 2nd to none and they would be horrified to know this had happened.