Much of the funding for free WiFi on buses in the north east came from the Better Bus Fund, so I'd say the innovation is actually coming from PTE and government money rather than operator initiative.
And that's working on the assumption that Sapphire and Max are actually innovative. I'm not convinced that putting some e-leather seats and Moovbox equipment in a 14 year old ex-London bus is particularly innovative, welcome though the refurbishment is, but the fact that Arriva think it is says more about them than anything else.
I think the 36- along with the X43 in Lancashire- is an extreme example because of the particular demographics of the route. You don't see the same level of investment or genuine innovation on the rest of Transdev Harrogate's routes, unless you consider trying to run Harrogate Coach Travel out of business as "innovative".
I would agree that money is the big thing for improving services, but that leads me to wonder why the operators up here are waiting for DfT and PTE money before doing fairly basic stuff like installing Moovbox on their buses. Why aren't the bus companies investing their own money in improvements? That, we're told, is why the de-regulated bus industry is much better than the regulated one, after all.
My issue at the moment is that nothing changes unless the PTE or the government pays for it, the industry provides little or no internal investment of their own, yet the PTE has no control over what the industry does. An excellent example of this was in West Yorkshire, where Metro spent a fortune on accessible bus stops- at First's insistence- only for First to change the routes a year later and leave those stops without a service. It's no wonder that some of the PTE investment records are poor (allegedly) with that level of co-operation from the bus companies.
Whether a commitment of years rather than 56 days comes about through an imposed franchise or a voluntary agreement doesn't really matter to me. Voluntary agreements can work- Oxford now has a stable network where the two big bus companies work in tandem rather than trying to run each other off the road- and I'd be very happy indeed with an Oxford style service.
What matters to me is a stable and reliable bus network. In defence of Stagecoach, we do have that with them, but Go are forever changing their routes in Gateshead and Arriva aren't a great deal better, especially on Teesside. I don't see how councils can invest when the bus companies move the goalposts so often.
Some fair points there.
I do think that perhaps the way forward is to create the Oxford style agreements and yes, legislate to replace the 56 day rule with perhaps 180 day rule.
There is a balance to be struck in terms of "fiddling" and then having a such a stable network that it fails to reflect changing requirements. Teesside was such an example - Arriva had a big change (Viva Arriva) in 2006 (?) because it was really a bit of a hangover since 1986 or at least 1995 when peace broke out; however, the tendered stuff didn't change and it really was apparent how outdated the route structure was. However, I do agree that some firms are seemingly forever tinkering and that does no good.
I also agree with your views on the Arriva Max vehicles. It does seem bizarre to spend that on a 14 year vehicle. However, most of the Sapphire vehicles have been brand new and they are a improvement on the standard vehicle (in most people's eyes).
The 36 may be demographics but hey, that's the same for all bus routes and networks. The decline in Redcar and East Cleveland may well be related to the overall decline in economic activity and depopulation, and the closure of the steel works will only exacerbate that.
I remember the 36 from my youth. It was hourly Ripon to Harrogate, half hourly to Leeds. Standard fare were vinyl seated VRs and Nationals and later some WY Olympians. It was competition (Harrogate to Ripon) that initially raised that frequency! However, it still is a remarkable transformation.
I do agree with Neil - Sapphire or Gold are not exactly revolutionary. However, they are initiatives that are driving passenger growth and that has to be a good thing. Yet, I do still agree that it is hardly now innovative; such details are now standard on First and free wifi is now almost becoming a human right! Greater innovation are things like the 36, the new RedArrow and X5 coaches, and now the new Falcon service.
Some bus companies don't help themselves. First chronically mismanaged their business and adopting a fundamentally inept business model. Arriva have flashes of inspiration. NX also treated their business as a cash cow - they've seen the folly of that. If you don't feed the cow, yields will diminish and eventually it will die!
However, I see the stupidity of some local authorities and it really does concern me. Neil rightly mentioned about reliability and journey speeds. Bus companies want that but it's not helped when the Liverpool mayor arbitrarily removes bus lanes. Cue unreliability and the need to introduce more vehicles just to maintain the network - an extra £1m that Arriva have to fund for no benefit!
I don't believe in defending the industry irrespective. They don't get it right but similarly, I don't think the solution is franchising for the reasons I've outlined. If we're not going to invest in buses (and modes other than car and train) then I do think innovative partnerships are the way forward. I'd also point out that in many cases, we have integration but we are so poor at publicising it, you could scream. To many people, PlusBus is a state secret and when buses do serve rail stations, they are relegated to some side street so not to disadvantage the taxis or drop off zones and the information provided is atrocious.
). But I think most do realise they are just a posh bus with the same underlying issues as any other bus. Something like the X5 is a layer of quality higher - almost a rail service with rubber tyres.
