Competition heats up between Transdev and Connexions

[theblackwatch]

I think all firms suffer the occasional problems. Yesterday, the Weddderburn was being operated by a decker as 1924 (the Dublin Solo) had apparently overheated. The other week, while on the 36 to Leeds, I saw a Connexions bus by the side of the road in moortown, clearly having failed. On the other hand, when I had to go to work on the bus once, my Transdev vehicle had to stop near Rudding Park and wait for the fitter to come out - so things happen on both sides!

 

[johntea]

Sounds like you were getting by on an oversight in how the old app dealt with the evening ticket, which is only meant to be valid for one evening, it seemed to be getting mixed up with the day ticket, which on mobile was intended to be valid for 24 hours

Has anyone tried buying a day ticket yet with the new app? Be interested to see if they also have the 4AM expiry or still 24 hours.

 

[Stan Drews]

This has turned into a bit of rant, for which I apologise. But the bottom line here is that the big companies won't touch the routes not because there is no market, but simply because they are difficult. But if they persisted they could easily develop them into popular routes, both for the longer portions and for more localised journeys, including travel to and from stations along the route.

So, how much of your hard earned cash would Bantamzen Buses invest in trying to develop this potential market? £50k, £100k, £250k, £500k ??

 

[theblackwatch]

I see that the Damn Yankee restaurant in Harrogate re-opens on November 10th. I wonder if there will be some joint promotion with Connexions?

 

[Bantamzen]

So, how much of your hard earned cash would Bantamzen Buses invest in trying to develop this potential market? £50k, £100k, £250k, £500k ??

Oh I don't know, let's call it a straight million and have flunkies on-board serving tea from china tea-sets.....

May I ask, are you a senior figure in First Group, because you certainly sound like one? That's the kind of pathetic language they used when they started to run services down. Basically unless their buses are having people rammed in sideways so they can make uber-profits, then they don't want to know. I have seen it time and again, unwanted services are left to rot, are subject to more and more delays & cancellations, are serviced by the oldest stock in the fleet, all to what I can only assume is to de-motivate passengers so they can cancel the routes to concentrate on the premium, high capacity routes. They certainly did this with the 649/650/652/653/655/656/755, and they are currently engaged in the same tactic on the 626. It wasn't that there was no market, they just for operational and profit reasons didn't want to run them anymore.

And now a question for you. I assume you are aware of the severe traffic congestion that towns like Otley, Guiseley, Shipley suffer each day. So I also assume that you don't imagine that all that traffic is Leeds-bound, especially the flow between the three. Therefore if people are driving in large numbers between them, is there a potential market? And if so with the almost complete absence of a bus route serving the many population centres between them that are not easily accessible by rail, how much a year do you think it costs the local economy in lost time and productivity?

 

[SCH117X]

So write to other operators and see if whether they file your letter in the wastebin.

 

[Stan Drews]

Oh I don't know, let's call it a straight million and have flunkies on-board serving tea from china tea-sets.....

May I ask, are you a senior figure in First Group, because you certainly sound like one? That's the kind of pathetic language they used when they started to run services down. Basically unless their buses are having people rammed in sideways so they can make uber-profits, then they don't want to know. I have seen it time and again, unwanted services are left to rot, are subject to more and more delays & cancellations, are serviced by the oldest stock in the fleet, all to what I can only assume is to de-motivate passengers so they can cancel the routes to concentrate on the premium, high capacity routes. They certainly did this with the 649/650/652/653/655/656/755, and they are currently engaged in the same tactic on the 626. It wasn't that there was no market, they just for operational and profit reasons didn't want to run them anymore.

And now a question for you. I assume you are aware of the severe traffic congestion that towns like Otley, Guiseley, Shipley suffer each day. So I also assume that you don't imagine that all that traffic is Leeds-bound, especially the flow between the three. Therefore if people are driving in large numbers between them, is there a potential market? And if so with the almost complete absence of a bus route serving the many population centres between them that are not easily accessible by rail, how much a year do you think it costs the local economy in lost time and productivity?

I have no connection to First whatsoever, ...senior or otherwise!

I don't disagree with any of your assertions about traffic flows etc, however I've been trying to get a feel for your level of understanding regarding the commercial operation of bus services. I note you've only provided a flippant response to my query regarding the level of financial commitment you'd make if it was your own bus company that was going to invest in the level of service you've criticised others for withdrawing or failing to take up. Therefore I will have to assume that it's probably something you don't have great knowledge of, which is perfectly understandable as that would be the case for the majority of enthusiasts.

 

[Bantamzen]

I have no connection to First whatsoever, ...senior or otherwise!

I don't disagree with any of your assertions about traffic flows etc, however I've been trying to get a feel for your level of understanding regarding the commercial operation of bus services. I note you've only provided a flippant response to my query regarding the level of financial commitment you'd make if it was your own bus company that was going to invest in the level of service you've criticised others for withdrawing or failing to take up. Therefore I will have to assume that it's probably something you don't have great knowledge of, which is perfectly understandable as that would be the case for the majority of enthusiasts.

If by that rather condescending remark you mean I have no working knowledge of bus operations, then you are correct I don't. However that does not remove the fact that deregulation has led to situations like this, where companies can pick and choose what they operate. The point I am making here is that the public transport network is a key part of this country's infrastructure, and as such a key part of the economy. Something that has been argued over in this area for a long time. The remarks I made about your post and First were not flippant at all, I moved to this area not too long after First ditched many of the routes in question and as a commuter I took a keen interest in what was going on transport wise (I don't drive so need the network). And it just so happens that a friend of my wife's family is a senior political figure in the area, and so at various get togethers I discussed at length the situation. What I learnt was that the routes ditched were actually generally well used, and that following their withdrawals it was noted at various levels of local government that the traffic subsequently worsened considerably in a short space of time, suggesting a direct correlation. Obviously much representation was made to First before and after the decision, but they responded with much of the same kind of language that you used. Basically they the general impression left was that they didn't want the routes for operational reasons, rather than due to lack of use.

And herein lies the problem, being as I stated a key part of the infrastructure just like power, water, communications, public transport should not be able to be so easy ditched and abandoned on an operational whim. I'm no fan of the current rail franchise system, but at least that states what operators must provide when bidding. And failure to do so comes with penalties. The same should apply to the bus operators in my humble opinion. This entire thread began because two operators are engaged in a (pardon my language) p***ing contest over a handful of routes. I subsequently made the point that rather than engaging in this nonsense one or both might like to explore new possibilities left by other operators, where there is clear demand. If we are talking finances here, how much money have TransDev & Connexions p***ed up against the wall in their ongoing spat? Surely some of the that would have been better used growing their brands. TransDev in particular have been making inroads into the market in Bradford, and with their already established routes in the area it would seem like an ideal opportunity to grow. After all they are not shy in taking on risky new routes, look at the new CityZap between Leeds and Manchester, a logistical nightmare given how often the M62 clogs up and the growing capacity offered by TransPennine & Northern on the rails. The route I suggested would neatly link up various other TrasDev services, so would seem to be a more natural fit. But instead they continue to waste time and money engaging in a toe-to-toe with their near rivals.

Finally to address the issue of cost when starting or restarting a route, that is a problem faced by all businesses. The difference is, or at least was that there was in places like West Yorkshire an opportunity to seek some level of subsidy, particularly where a PTE was asking for operators. And where there is a genuine need for a route, i.e. because traffic levels are chronic, I have no problems with companies asking for a PTE to share the risk. But as budgets wane and the idea of subsidy becomes unthinkable in the public eye, this becomes a non-starter. So the traffic gets worse, the economy suffers a little bit more and nobody has the balls to actually tackle the solution. This is what is wrong with deregulation.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If by that rather condescending remark you mean I have no working knowledge of bus operations, then you are correct I don't. However that does not remove the fact that deregulation has led to situations like this, where companies can pick and choose what they operate. The point I am making here is that the public transport network is a key part of this country's infrastructure, and as such a key part of the economy. Something that has been argued over in this area for a long time. The remarks I made about your post and First were not flippant at all, I moved to this area not too long after First ditched many of the routes in question and as a commuter I took a keen interest in what was going on transport wise (I don't drive so need the network). And it just so happens that a friend of my wife's family is a senior political figure in the area, and so at various get togethers I discussed at length the situation. What I learnt was that the routes ditched were actually generally well used, and that following their withdrawals it was noted at various levels of local government that the traffic subsequently worsened considerably in a short space of time, suggesting a direct correlation. Obviously much representation was made to First before and after the decision, but they responded with much of the same kind of language that you used. Basically they the general impression left was that they didn't want the routes for operational reasons, rather than due to lack of use.

And herein lies the problem, being as I stated a key part of the infrastructure just like power, water, communications, public transport should not be able to be so easy ditched and abandoned on an operational whim. I'm no fan of the current rail franchise system, but at least that states what operators must provide when bidding. And failure to do so comes with penalties. The same should apply to the bus operators in my humble opinion. This entire thread began because two operators are engaged in a (pardon my language) p***ing contest over a handful of routes. I subsequently made the point that rather than engaging in this nonsense one or both might like to explore new possibilities left by other operators, where there is clear demand. If we are talking finances here, how much money have TransDev & Connexions p***ed up against the wall in their ongoing spat? Surely some of the that would have been better used growing their brands. TransDev in particular have been making inroads into the market in Bradford, and with their already established routes in the area it would seem like an ideal opportunity to grow. After all they are not shy in taking on risky new routes, look at the new CityZap between Leeds and Manchester, a logistical nightmare given how often the M62 clogs up and the growing capacity offered by TransPennine & Northern on the rails. The route I suggested would neatly link up various other TrasDev services, so would seem to be a more natural fit. But instead they continue to waste time and money engaging in a toe-to-toe with their near rivals.

Finally to address the issue of cost when starting or restarting a route, that is a problem faced by all businesses. The difference is, or at least was that there was in places like West Yorkshire an opportunity to seek some level of subsidy, particularly where a PTE was asking for operators. And where there is a genuine need for a route, i.e. because traffic levels are chronic, I have no problems with companies asking for a PTE to share the risk. But as budgets wane and the idea of subsidy becomes unthinkable in the public eye, this becomes a non-starter. So the traffic gets worse, the economy suffers a little bit more and nobody has the balls to actually tackle the solution. This is what is wrong with deregulation.

Not wishing to get embroiled in the personal whys and wherefores (ps I don't work for First either) but it raises a number of points....

Firstly, we really must get away from this idea that before deregulation, everything was fine and dandy. I am old enough to remember vinyl seated Nationals and VRs in faded poppy red! Passenger figures were collapsing especially in the shires and this was despite the amount of money that was being spent. Councils were propping up services anyway, the National Bus Co was accruing debt at an astonishing rate, and there were other financial supports. Now, it's fair to say that between 1986 and 2014, ridership fell (outside London) from 4.5bn to 2.8bn (38%) journeys - that seems terrible in 28 years. Then look the previous 14 years fell from 6.5bn - a larger drop in actual terms in half the time and in percentage terms, not far off (31%). In the shires, subsidy was covering 20% of the costs and it was much higher in the PTE areas and yet patronage was falling faster. I know that people think that Nick Ridley and his transport act was all about bus wars and introducing competition - it was about cutting the cost to the taxpayer.

As for the current day, I appreciate that you are stating that there MUST be a market if only be virtue of the raft of cars on the roads locally. I think that's a moot point. Both Transdev and Connexions have attempted to run services speculatively in the past - therefore, one should really ask the question that if there is this seemingly lucrative market not being catered for, why haven't they done so? Quite simply, it's a mirage - there will be people who will NEVER deign to use public transport, or their life is built around or facilitated by the car (got to drop the kids off at the childminder on their way to work), or that common sections of road/route are populated by drivers with a range of disparate origin or destination points.

In fact, in a deregulated world, the fact that a service is not operated commercially is often an indicators of its true demand? Still, that would be an answer for never innovating and yet, as you say, Transdev in particular have been able to innovate and generate growth. Also, during the Labour administration, we had Kickstart schemes where local authorities and operators could put together cases for exactly the type of pump priming of new or enhanced services. Naturally, when the coalition came in, it was classed as obviously wrong, replaced by Better Bus Areas etc. Some were really well thought out schemes (especially the initial tranche) and are still with us - they involved not only investment from the operators (e.g. new vehicles and enhanced frequencies) allied to capital investment in bus priority and other infrastructure. However, the later examples have a number that didn't succeed - simply putting a bus on (built it and they will come) is not enough and so it proved. Nonetheless, it did show the potential of such a scheme if targeted in the right area. That is perhaps the point - in some areas, there is the potential and the ability to develop the market relatively easily - yes, there is a modicum of risk and that has been borne out with Transdev and CityZap. It is a risk - as we saw with Stagecoach, the success of one service into Bristol (SW Falcon) was not replicated with another (Belles Express) despite the raft of cars that apparently head down the M5 and towards the city every day! The question is whether an operator believes that there is a market for an Otley to Bradford/Guiseley type service that is frequent enough to be attractive and can somehow the extended journey times caused by glue pot traffic conditions.....?? First couldn't sustain it (a reflection on their management ethos?) but neither Transdev nor Connexions.... perhaps that is more telling.

You are correct that both parties arguing over the 965 is pathetic - like two bald men arguing over a comb! Unlike some (!), most of us can see the culpability on both sides and that it has little to do with the attractiveness or potential riches of the service. That sort of "personality based" skirmish is actually very rare thankfully. However, I think it's a leap to say that if they weren't arguing over X service, then they could operate Y service - Y service may never be viable irrespective of anything else.

Sorry for the extended missive - not wishing to be too contentious to any individual or business

 

[Bantamzen]

Not wishing to get embroiled in the personal whys and wherefores (ps I don't work for First either) but it raises a number of points....

Firstly, we really must get away from this idea that before deregulation, everything was fine and dandy. I am old enough to remember vinyl seated Nationals and VRs in faded poppy red! Passenger figures were collapsing especially in the shires and this was despite the amount of money that was being spent. Councils were propping up services anyway, the National Bus Co was accruing debt at an astonishing rate, and there were other financial supports. Now, it's fair to say that between 1986 and 2014, ridership fell (outside London) from 4.5bn to 2.8bn (38%) journeys - that seems terrible in 28 years. Then look the previous 14 years fell from 6.5bn - a larger drop in actual terms in half the time and in percentage terms, not far off (31%). In the shires, subsidy was covering 20% of the costs and it was much higher in the PTE areas and yet patronage was falling faster. I know that people think that Nick Ridley and his transport act was all about bus wars and introducing competition - it was about cutting the cost to the taxpayer.

As for the current day, I appreciate that you are stating that there MUST be a market if only be virtue of the raft of cars on the roads locally. I think that's a moot point. Both Transdev and Connexions have attempted to run services speculatively in the past - therefore, one should really ask the question that if there is this seemingly lucrative market not being catered for, why haven't they done so? Quite simply, it's a mirage - there will be people who will NEVER deign to use public transport, or their life is built around or facilitated by the car (got to drop the kids off at the childminder on their way to work), or that common sections of road/route are populated by drivers with a range of disparate origin or destination points.

In fact, in a deregulated world, the fact that a service is not operated commercially is often an indicators of its true demand? Still, that would be an answer for never innovating and yet, as you say, Transdev in particular have been able to innovate and generate growth. Also, during the Labour administration, we had Kickstart schemes where local authorities and operators could put together cases for exactly the type of pump priming of new or enhanced services. Naturally, when the coalition came in, it was classed as obviously wrong, replaced by Better Bus Areas etc. Some were really well thought out schemes (especially the initial tranche) and are still with us - they involved not only investment from the operators (e.g. new vehicles and enhanced frequencies) allied to capital investment in bus priority and other infrastructure. However, the later examples have a number that didn't succeed - simply putting a bus on (built it and they will come) is not enough and so it proved. Nonetheless, it did show the potential of such a scheme if targeted in the right area. That is perhaps the point - in some areas, there is the potential and the ability to develop the market relatively easily - yes, there is a modicum of risk and that has been borne out with Transdev and CityZap. It is a risk - as we saw with Stagecoach, the success of one service into Bristol (SW Falcon) was not replicated with another (Belles Express) despite the raft of cars that apparently head down the M5 and towards the city every day! The question is whether an operator believes that there is a market for an Otley to Bradford/Guiseley type service that is frequent enough to be attractive and can somehow the extended journey times caused by glue pot traffic conditions.....?? First couldn't sustain it (a reflection on their management ethos?) but neither Transdev nor Connexions.... perhaps that is more telling.

You are correct that both parties arguing over the 965 is pathetic - like two bald men arguing over a comb! Unlike some (!), most of us can see the culpability on both sides and that it has little to do with the attractiveness or potential riches of the service. That sort of "personality based" skirmish is actually very rare thankfully. However, I think it's a leap to say that if they weren't arguing over X service, then they could operate Y service - Y service may never be viable irrespective of anything else.

Sorry for the extended missive - not wishing to be too contentious to any individual or business

I take your points there, but as I came to learn there was still a market when First were running the services into the ground. For whatever ever operational reasons, they managed to take not just one but a number of routes (only one of which was duplicated for the most part by an improving rail service), and generate the perception that there simply wasn't demand. And immediately afterwards and from then on, traffic along the former routes rapidly increased. Now it is common to see mile or more long traffic queues in all of these places previously better connected, and whilst it is true that some people would never been seen dead on public transport (or at least that's what they tell themselves due to social perceptions), there will be plenty of people that would drift back to buses if they were available when they needed them. And I don't deny there is risk in all this, but for whatever daft reason I genuinely thought that when TLC announced the cancellation of the hourly 653 (then re-instating the first service of the day in each direction with subsidy from Metro) TransDev might have seen an opening. OK I was wrong and they didn't, but you can understand my annoyance when they decided to engage in a school playground battle with Connexions over the 965!

The route itself is difficult, that's for sure. But with the exception of some of the peak services, TLC did manage to keep a reasonable timetable. Their biggest problems however were a lack of vehicles (made a lot worse when they suffered some vandalism), and competing along sections where First and/or TransDev operated. Because these two were able to sell more of their own daily & weekly tickets that TLC could only accept with a surcharge, they lost out on a lot of of traffic along large sections of the route. This was always very noticeable coming out of Bradford towards Shipley, and again at Guiseley onwards where large numbers of people would let the 653 sail by whilst they waited for one of the two other operators. In all honesty it was probably always on a hiding to nothing, but not necessarily for the reasons discussed earlier. But being able to offer more wide ranging ticket options, maybe TransDev could have made it work? Hell, maybe Connexions would have joined in too!!

I go back to the point I've been making all along, that the current system simply doesn’t work as well as it should. Perhaps this needs completely revisiting if private companies are to continue to provide the services, although under this current government I can't see it happening, well ever. But hypothetically, maybe something more akin to the rail franchises would be better? Want to operate those high value, high profit routes? Well maybe you also need to provide a model that provides for the lesser facilitated routes. Oh well, I can live in hope although not whilst holding my breath.....

 

[Tetchytyke]

The bus market around Bradford is an interesting conundrum, probably worth its own thread.

Under West Yorkshire there was a market. Under Yorkshire Rider there was a market. It was even still there in the early days of First.

Things change, but not that much.

As for the TLC service, with all due respect, an hourly minibus isn't going to get people out of their cars.

 

[Bantamzen]

The bus market around Bradford is an interesting conundrum, probably worth its own thread.

Under West Yorkshire there was a market. Under Yorkshire Rider there was a market. It was even still there in the early days of First.

Things change, but not that much.

Indeed, particularly towards the North of the city which does seem to be an area First don't particularly like operating in. Its always interesting for example to compare the vehicles used on routes to/through Shipley against those to places like Leeds & Huddersfield. I think one can easily conclude that First treat these services with what at best can be described as a mild neglect. As I have quite a lot of views on this, I may start that thread soon.

As for the TLC service, with all due respect, an hourly minibus isn't going to get people out of their cars.

Yes, the hourly minibus was never going to convince many people to use it instead of drive, especially as it was very low key. As I mentioned earlier some people in Otley didn't even know about the brief spell of hourly services until it was withdrawn, having followed a long spell of a 2-3 times a day service that for part of the operation only ran to Shipley. Add to that the fact that for large parts of the route it was competing with First and/or TransDev for passengers where many would already have a daily or weekly ticket from one meant they were very hamstrung from the very beginning. With hindsight they probably were not the best operator to try this out commercially, not that I blame them for trying but they just didn't have the capacity and the finances to stick in out long enough to grow the market. Ironically towards the end some of the services started to get very busy with fare paying passengers, a lot of workers at places like Denso on Otley Road started to find the regular services very useful for the various shifts there. But by this point TLC had already decided on withdrawal, and so that was that save the one subsidised early morning service to and from Pool.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The bus market around Bradford is an interesting conundrum, probably worth its own thread.

Under West Yorkshire there was a market. Under Yorkshire Rider there was a market. It was even still there in the early days of First.

Things change, but not that much.

As for the TLC service, with all due respect, an hourly minibus isn't going to get people out of their cars.

Sorry but that's just not true. 30 years ago, typewriters were really common and you could be the best typewriter manufacturer and still not have a market now!

As well as the usual issues common to the bus industry (and the faults of First as have been listed ad nauseum), there is a real "disruptor" here and it's the train lines. They were pretty lousy in the dim and distant past. Electrification helped in the mid 1990s though the Class 308(?)s were rather elderly; the new Class 333s changed things completely and they arrived in 1999. As a public transport person, I'm pleased to see the massive improvement and that is reflected in the growth of patronage on those routes. In the first 10 years (1999-2009), growth p.a. was nearly 20%. In fact, this now means more stations and more trains!

Those sorts of figures will undoubtedly have impacted the bus links. I don't dispute that this couldn't have come at a worse time as First rowed back on investment and service quality across the country (though I always felt Leeds did somewhat better than other places - cue Calderline getting ancient ex London Metrobuses as an example). However, it is telling that someone as entrepreneurial as Transdev don't fancy it.

The fact is that where buses have an advantage over trains is where a) train reliability is poor and b) where any time advantage by train is wiped out by less than central train stations or c) cost (especially where twirly passes are a factor).

 

[Bantamzen]

Sorry but that's just not true. 30 years ago, typewriters were really common and you could be the best typewriter manufacturer and still not have a market now!

As well as the usual issues common to the bus industry (and the faults of First as have been listed ad nauseum), there is a real "disruptor" here and it's the train lines. They were pretty lousy in the dim and distant past. Electrification helped in the mid 1990s though the Class 308(?)s were rather elderly; the new Class 333s changed things completely and they arrived in 1999. As a public transport person, I'm pleased to see the massive improvement and that is reflected in the growth of patronage on those routes. In the first 10 years (1999-2009), growth p.a. was nearly 20%. In fact, this now means more stations and more trains!

Those sorts of figures will undoubtedly have impacted the bus links. I don't dispute that this couldn't have come at a worse time as First rowed back on investment and service quality across the country (though I always felt Leeds did somewhat better than other places - cue Calderline getting ancient ex London Metrobuses as an example). However, it is telling that someone as entrepreneurial as Transdev don't fancy it.

The fact is that where buses have an advantage over trains is where a) train reliability is poor and b) where any time advantage by train is wiped out by less than central train stations or c) cost (especially where twirly passes are a factor).

While you are correct that the improved rail service will have had some impact, many of the areas served by the now lost routes have seen large numbers of new housing developments, with potentially a lot more to come. As far as the Wharfe Valley line goes, any further capacity is going to be difficult without considerable infrastructural improvements save perhaps the odd 2x3 331 runs. And in all of this traffic has continued to grow suggesting that the extra rail capacity has not soaked up the lost bus passenger journeys.

I'm not sure why you brought typewriters in, as far as I can see the issues are with people commuting to work, going shopping, and other leisure activities and these are still very much as relevant as they were 30 years ago, in fact demand is greater than ever. And if the trains can't offer what is needed, the roads are close to capacity, then another transport solution is needed. So unless hyperloop technology as moved on to a cheap and viable option, then your typewriter reference is about as relevant as, well my hyperloop technology comment just then!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think Bradford-Ilkley has gone as a viable bus route because of the trains, as you say. But no trains run to Otley. I know Bradford isn't the main traffic draw from Wharfedale, but I genuinely cannot believe there isn't a direct bus from Bradford to Otley.

It's not the only massive gap caused by First's uselessness, either, as Halifax to Keighley shows.

I'm guessing Bradford-Otley is just far enough out of Transdev's patch that they don't see it as worthwhile with the dead mileage. They'd probably also suffer the same issue as TLC, in that most commuters will already have a FirstWeek ticket.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

While you are correct that the improved rail service will have had some impact, many of the areas served by the now lost routes have seen large numbers of new housing developments, with potentially a lot more to come. As far as the Wharfe Valley line goes, any further capacity is going to be difficult without considerable infrastructural improvements save perhaps the odd 2x3 331 runs. And in all of this traffic has continued to grow suggesting that the extra rail capacity has not soaked up the lost bus passenger journeys.

I'm not sure why you brought typewriters in, as far as I can see the issues are with people commuting to work, going shopping, and other leisure activities and these are still very much as relevant as they were 30 years ago, in fact demand is greater than ever. And if the trains can't offer what is needed, the roads are close to capacity, then another transport solution is needed. So unless hyperloop technology as moved on to a cheap and viable option, then your typewriter reference is about as relevant as, well my hyperloop technology comment just then!

Because it is a classic example of a disruptor - people are still typing letters and documents but there's been a technological leap that renders the old solution moribund. This is the same to an extent - not ignoring First's dubious commitment to quality post millennium, there is a question whether any bus service would really be able to compete over the Guiseley to Bradford section because a better, quicker alternative in the train.

Take David's (ala Arctic Troll) point on the absence of an Otley to Bradford service but given Leeds is the pre-eminent draw, the market to Bradford is relatively limited and Otley in itself is not a large place.

 

[Bantamzen]

Because it is a classic example of a disruptor - people are still typing letters and documents but there's been a technological leap that renders the old solution moribund.

But what is the great leap in technology available to people using the commuter route in question? Answer, there isn't. Yes there is a reasonable increase in rail capacity, but clearly nowhere near enough to prevent the ever worsening congestion. And it is this congestion that is at the heart of the problem.

This is the same to an extent - not ignoring First's dubious commitment to quality post millennium, there is a question whether any bus service would really be able to compete over the Guiseley to Bradford section because a better, quicker alternative in the train.

Yes if you are close to a station, and the destination is similar then obviously the train rules over the bus. I do the very same myself. But there are areas where walking to the station involves a not inconsiderable distance, and given the lack of parking facilities some commuters who might have chosen a bus operating closer to home no longer have the option. Take for example the reasonably new development around High Royds in Menston. From some parts it can be a 20 minute walk up the road to the station, and if people are commuting in the opposite direction then they might be more likely to simply sack that off in favour of driving and using that 20 minutes going in the right direction. However if a reasonably regular bus service operated along the flow towards Shipley (assuming this is the direction they would be taking) then a 5 minute walk to the main road might be considered reasonable. People don't like having to travel any substantial amount of distance just to start a commute, as I'm sure you'll agree.

(This of course is just an example off the top of my head, although because I know people who live there that do commute towards Bradford and do drive because the station is some distance in the opposite direction)

Take David's (ala Arctic Troll) point on the absence of an Otley to Bradford service but given Leeds is the pre-eminent draw, the market to Bradford is relatively limited and Otley in itself is not a large place.

There's no doubt that Leeds is the draw from Otley, but don't discount the numbers that do travel elsewhere. Its all too easy to assume that because Leeds is the draw, people in that part of the world will only ever travel in that direction. Clearly though this is not the case, just by simple observation of the flows coming to and from Otley not all of it heads towards Leeds, a significant amount flows towards Guiseley and lots towards Shipley. And also don't assume that services can only be successful being filled end to end. I'm sure some people in Otley would welcome a more direct service towards Guiseley (given the 33A veers off into Menston village), as would some people along other portions of the route that are not so close the railway stations.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But what is the great leap in technology available to people using the commuter route in question? Answer, there isn't. Yes there is a reasonable increase in rail capacity, but clearly nowhere near enough to prevent the ever worsening congestion. And it is this congestion that is at the heart of the problem.

Yes if you are close to a station, and the destination is similar then obviously the train rules over the bus. I do the very same myself. But there are areas where walking to the station involves a not inconsiderable distance, and given the lack of parking facilities some commuters who might have chosen a bus operating closer to home no longer have the option. Take for example the reasonably new development around High Royds in Menston. From some parts it can be a 20 minute walk up the road to the station, and if people are commuting in the opposite direction then they might be more likely to simply sack that off in favour of driving and using that 20 minutes going in the right direction. However if a reasonably regular bus service operated along the flow towards Shipley (assuming this is the direction they would be taking) then a 5 minute walk to the main road might be considered reasonable. People don't like having to travel any substantial amount of distance just to start a commute, as I'm sure you'll agree.

(This of course is just an example off the top of my head, although because I know people who live there that do commute towards Bradford and do drive because the station is some distance in the opposite direction)

There's no doubt that Leeds is the draw from Otley, but don't discount the numbers that do travel elsewhere. Its all too easy to assume that because Leeds is the draw, people in that part of the world will only ever travel in that direction. Clearly though this is not the case, just by simple observation of the flows coming to and from Otley not all of it heads towards Leeds, a significant amount flows towards Guiseley and lots towards Shipley. And also don't assume that services can only be successful being filled end to end. I'm sure some people in Otley would welcome a more direct service towards Guiseley (given the 33A veers off into Menston village), as would some people along other portions of the route that are not so close the railway stations.

Maybe I'm not making it clear - the old 653 that used to link Otley with Bradford used, I would suggest, to manage with a substantial amount of through traffic from along the route. The train from Guiseley or Shipley has abstracted that. It is no coincidence that the improvements in the train service are proportionate to the decline in bus services - it is an effect that we've seen with Borders Railway.

The traffic congestion you see - are those people heading from the centre of Otley? Are they heading to the centre of Bradford or are they increasingly in smaller, more scattered and disparate locations rather than the large central employers? There will be a myriad of different journey patterns, origins and destinations. We are ever more challenged in this especially in our working lives. Of those, how many are driving from their three bed, edge of town, Barratt cul de sac and into Menston as a type of park and ride? They may have built their life around the car - drop the kids at the childminder, divert into the gym on the way home from work, do the shopping on a Friday night? That is before you even consider those people (and they are numerous) who would not be seen dead on any bus!

I don't doubt that those folks (though I suspect they'd be limited) would love a more direct service rather than veering off - is there really the people to justify that? It is often a quandary in services - do you provide a more direct journey and hope to attract passengers or are you merely diluting things.

Clearly, Transdev don't feel there is a market from Otley into Guiseley and Bradford, and neither do Connexions. As I've said before, the sort of Kickstart scheme that limits the risk for operators and shares it with the public sector would be welcome return. However, both firms are not adverse to having a punt whether that be CityZap or Conn with York to Harrogate and latterly the Ripon locals. In fact, the latest CityZap is well outside Transdev's area so they're prepared to do it even with dead mileage.

The truth is that the market that was traditionally there for the 653 was a mix of differing journey types as well you highlight. However, the train has taken a substantial chunk out of Menston, Guiseley and Shipley and so undermining the Otley end so the service was no longer viable. Is there a demand/market? Possibly! Is it commercially viable? Dubious. However, getting back to the original thrust, two firms squabbling over the 965 isn't going to bring it back from the dead

 

[SCH117X]

Has anyone tried buying a day ticket yet with the new app? Be interested to see if they also have the 4AM expiry or still 24 hours.

Transdev have confirmed on Google Play that the app tickets have the same validity as those bought on bus and therefore have a 4am expiry.

 

[SUB62]

My observations re the downfall of the 653 were due to First using old buses. As there were a lot of breakdowns which meant people didn't rely on the last bus so this got axed due to low patronage and this carried on until the last bus was too early to be of any use to commuters. Bradford to Otley was always busy on a market day but concessions don't go far to pay for a service. To give First their due they did try a Bradford to Ilkley service on a Sunday (650?)
I do seem to remember when High Royds was turned into housing there was an incentive to give people Metrocards but I don't know the outcome of that.

 

[SCH117X]

I remember a very strange sight one Saturday afternoon of a H&D vehicle working a 653 short from Harrogate to Otley presumably because of a broken down First bus - the passengers all looked rather smug!

 

[theblackwatch]

Didn't the 653 run through to Knaresborough one Sundays at one time in many the late 90s/early 2000s?

On another note, has anyone else spotted this elsewhere on the forum?
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ew-ticket-machines.146049/page-7#post-3182101

 

[Bantamzen]

Maybe I'm not making it clear - the old 653 that used to link Otley with Bradford used, I would suggest, to manage with a substantial amount of through traffic from along the route. The train from Guiseley or Shipley has abstracted that. It is no coincidence that the improvements in the train service are proportionate to the decline in bus services - it is an effect that we've seen with Borders Railway.

The traffic congestion you see - are those people heading from the centre of Otley? Are they heading to the centre of Bradford or are they increasingly in smaller, more scattered and disparate locations rather than the large central employers? There will be a myriad of different journey patterns, origins and destinations. We are ever more challenged in this especially in our working lives. Of those, how many are driving from their three bed, edge of town, Barratt cul de sac and into Menston as a type of park and ride? They may have built their life around the car - drop the kids at the childminder, divert into the gym on the way home from work, do the shopping on a Friday night? That is before you even consider those people (and they are numerous) who would not be seen dead on any bus!

I don't doubt that those folks (though I suspect they'd be limited) would love a more direct service rather than veering off - is there really the people to justify that? It is often a quandary in services - do you provide a more direct journey and hope to attract passengers or are you merely diluting things.

Clearly, Transdev don't feel there is a market from Otley into Guiseley and Bradford, and neither do Connexions. As I've said before, the sort of Kickstart scheme that limits the risk for operators and shares it with the public sector would be welcome return. However, both firms are not adverse to having a punt whether that be CityZap or Conn with York to Harrogate and latterly the Ripon locals. In fact, the latest CityZap is well outside Transdev's area so they're prepared to do it even with dead mileage.

The truth is that the market that was traditionally there for the 653 was a mix of differing journey types as well you highlight. However, the train has taken a substantial chunk out of Menston, Guiseley and Shipley and so undermining the Otley end so the service was no longer viable. Is there a demand/market? Possibly! Is it commercially viable? Dubious. However, getting back to the original thrust, two firms squabbling over the 965 isn't going to bring it back from the dead

Whilst I take your points on trains and middle class perceptions, I disagree that these are enough to make such a route commercially unviable. There is in my opinion more than enough demand for at least an hourly operation, providing the capacity was right. TLC did try hard but when they have had to occasionally replace the usual Solos with a 13 seat ex-Access bus, it hardly sent the right message. As I say this isn't TLC's fault, they were hamstrung from the beginning. But a bigger operator with better capacity could have made it work, so long as they didn't resort to First's neglect and axe tactics.

Sadly I doubt this service will ever been seen again any time soon. I know some traders in Otley have lamented the loss of such services over the years. As the traffic has choked the town and the range of places fed by bus reduced so the number of people willing to shop there has reduced. And this is all because of the way we allow our public transport to be run, or in the case of First not.

The spat raging between TransDev and Connexions is just the icing on the top of a very sorry tale.

 

[Deerfold]

Didn't the 653 run through to Knaresborough one Sundays at one time in many the late 90s/early 2000s?

It ran as the 654. It was slightly more direct than the 653 and extended to Knaresborough hourly, but with a later start and earlier finish than on weekdays.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Whilst I take your points on trains and middle class perceptions, I disagree that these are enough to make such a route commercially unviable. There is in my opinion more than enough demand for at least an hourly operation, providing the capacity was right. TLC did try hard but when they have had to occasionally replace the usual Solos with a 13 seat ex-Access bus, it hardly sent the right message. As I say this isn't TLC's fault, they were hamstrung from the beginning. But a bigger operator with better capacity could have made it work, so long as they didn't resort to First's neglect and axe tactics.

Sadly I doubt this service will ever been seen again any time soon. I know some traders in Otley have lamented the loss of such services over the years. As the traffic has choked the town and the range of places fed by bus reduced so the number of people willing to shop there has reduced. And this is all because of the way we allow our public transport to be run, or in the case of First not.

The spat raging between TransDev and Connexions is just the icing on the top of a very sorry tale.

Now I think you're deliberately being obtuse re: middle class - think I've tried to explain but I'll leave it there.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It ran as the 654. It was slightly more direct than the 653 and extended to Knaresborough hourly, but with a later start and earlier finish than on weekdays.

IIRC, the 653 was Knaresborough to Bradford through the week in the late 80's. Seem to recall that once YR bought WYRCC's ops at Bradford, Leeds and Otley, they soon dropped the Knaresborough leg (a condition on the sale by AJS?) except on Sundays.

Seem to recall that it was operated by late model VRs at that point - not the newest vehicles but not the oldest either.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

There's no doubt that Leeds is the draw from Otley, but don't discount the numbers that do travel elsewhere. Its all too easy to assume that because Leeds is the draw, people in that part of the world will only ever travel in that direction. Clearly though this is not the case, just by simple observation of the flows coming to and from Otley not all of it heads towards Leeds, a significant amount flows towards Guiseley and lots towards Shipley. And also don't assume that services can only be successful being filled end to end. I'm sure some people in Otley would welcome a more direct service towards Guiseley (given the 33A veers off into Menston village), as would some people along other portions of the route that are not so close the railway stations.

The 33 also serves Menston village.

The thing I should also point out is that the 967 use to serve Menston on a Sunday until early January 2017 when that was withdrawn between Menston and Otley, which really knackered it for me, my mate and his Brazilian wife heading to Otley and no 967 turns up - so we walked it instead.

I do feel that it has to be said that the 967 and the 923 could do well being run as a single service from Menston to Tadcaster (or even York), how much folk would use that on a Sunday? A new bus link plus it'd open up a new market for the Bradford area.

---

Connextionbuses or TLC could run an X53 in the peaks and the 653 in the off peaks - hell even Transdev may even join in, after all they do run The Shuttle, Aireline and Wharfedale Links, why not for a Transdev flavour "Wharfeline" from Bradford to Otley or even Harrogate! Surely Connexionbuses could even join in but what matters is that there is a market there, its just not being fully used.

Someone mentioned the 650 - yes this ran from Bradford to Ilkley and used whatever reject that First had at the back of Bowling Back Lane. Again, Connextionbuses could resurect the service and run it in some form and link it with a 653 which would give Transdev a run for their money.

 

[Andyh82]

Why does everyone see Otley to Bradford as on Transdev's radar. Yes they've picked up the Otley minibus tenders, but the only big buses they run into Bradford are well established ones from Keighley.

 

[SCH117X]

Given Conn bleat on about providing links no else will (although their has been a distinct lack of anything creative from them in last few years as they continue their almost fruitless obsession with taking Transdev on) then the fact they have not seen Otley- Bradford as a way to make a few pennies speaks for itself.

 

[Deerfold]

Why does everyone see Otley to Bradford as on Transdev's radar. Yes they've picked up the Otley minibus tenders, but the only big buses they run into Bradford are well established ones from Keighley.

Perhaps they're harking back to the days of West Yorkshire when they ran all the various Bradford - Guiseley routes as well as the Keighley and Harrogate operations.

It does seem odd that a section of route that had a bus at least every 10 minutes (Shipley to Guiseley) for many years now only gets one bus an hour.

Many of these routes were removed by First, not because they made a loss, but because they were returning less than 8% on the capital spent on them.

The same reasons were behind the removal of the Keighley - Halifax (-Huddersfield) and Halifax - Oldham services in the same era.