Bee Network Service/Route Discussion

[mayneway]

Thanks for confirming what I suspected.

The great unknown is how much public money will have been spent on this whole exercise (over and above what TfGM were paying the previous operators in terms of subsidy for non-commercial routes); only then will we be able to judge whether we got value for money. Will we ever be able to piece those figures together, because I can't see TfGM publishing them, particularly if they are not favourable to Andy Burnham's case.

I haven't come across any figures in the public domain as yet. Are there any, please?

Everyone has an opinion on the whole thing. As a driver working within it my honest opinion is nothing is any better.
Just before tranche 2 kicked in we were all supplied with uniforms which included a green waterproof hi viz jacket, fleece and hi viz vests. Weeks later TFGM decided the green wasn’t safe and wanted ALL staff to wear orange so new uniforms were provided to all Tranche 1 and 2 staff and I’m told it cost TFGM £47,000!
The biggest issue by far is the driver shortage which is getting bigger. Lots of drivers are walking away from the job to work in other sectors because of the way it’s changed. I think to potential new drivers it all looks very unappealing

 

[M60lad]

Out of interest considering First are currently covering some Saturday journeys on 216 would the First vehicles have had to have 216 programmed in to their displays or do all Bee Network vehicles have all Bee Network routes programmed into their displays now so they can be used on various Bee Network routes from another depot should the need like this arise?

 

[tomoufc]

and the taxpayer will ultimately end up paying for the extra resources (vehicles and drivers) so that the cars of Jo(e) Public can carry on causing congestion. I've seen somewhere an article describing how much slower bus routes have become since the 1960s or 70s but can't now find it.

Agree. A big part of the problem appears to be school traffic, to the extent that there are separate timetables for summer holidays, with increased journey speed. It’s quite incredible just how many children are driven quite short distances to school these days. TfGM do have a program of School Streets (time closures of streets to private motor vehicles), backed up by local authorities having new powers to use ANPR cameras for enforcement. As much as we need lots of bus priority measures, School Streets could prove important in reversing the downward spiral into ever greater congestion.

Against the risk that the Bee Network may become ever more expensive to run thanks to putting more busses on every increasingly congested route, is the economic fact that local authorities are now much more directly exposed to bus finances. In theory this should help them overcome their historic disinclination to support bus priority, which inevitably inconveniences motorists, and hence a large chunk of the electorate.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Agree. A big part of the problem appears to be school traffic, to the extent that there are separate timetables for summer holidays, with increased journey speed. It’s quite incredible just how many children are driven quite short distances to school these days. TfGM do have a program of School Streets (time closures of streets to private motor vehicles), backed up by local authorities having new powers to use ANPR cameras for enforcement. As much as we need lots of bus priority measures, School Streets could prove important in reversing the downward spiral into ever greater congestion.

There is a terrific irony. Parents will often cite safety - I recall my childhood days and the risk of child abduction seemed much more real than today. Instead, the risk is more from RTAs from elevated traffic levels.

I would point out that once upon a time, many mothers were housewives. Now many have jobs so the idea of spending an extra 30-45 mins each morning walking to/from school simply isn't doable.

Against the risk that the Bee Network may become ever more expensive to run thanks to putting more busses on every increasingly congested route, is the economic fact that local authorities are now much more directly exposed to bus finances. In theory this should help them overcome their historic disinclination to support bus priority, which inevitably inconveniences motorists, and hence a large chunk of the electorate.

This is exactly the problem. Yes, you can add in additional resources but for every bus added in (depending how you wish to allocate fixed vs marginal costs), that's an extra £100-200k p.a. However, it is a double whammy as adding in greater running time makes buses less attractive, and so reduces the income. All the while, you're not tackling the root problem.

Given the climbdown on the Clean Air Zone, I don't see Andy Burnham rushing to upset the motoring lobby anytime soon. But hey...public ownership...

 

[tomoufc]

I would point out that once upon a time, many mothers were housewives. Now many have jobs so the idea of spending an extra 30-45 mins each morning walking to/from school simply isn't doable.

In my experience, such are the traffic levels around schools, for the most part I think it actually takes parents longer to drive that part of their trip than to walk it (especially when you consider loading and unloading the vehicle, turning, and any extras like de-icing). So school streets effectively make the decision for you. Thankfully, there's some good evidence that people generally appreciate the enforced modal choice. Of course, you will always get some objections. And some councils have introduced innovative solutions like 'walking busses', to free parents from the need to escort. That take resource investment, of course.

The problem is that, we basically have no other choice - any substantial improvement to the transport system will mean some short-term pain for some motorists.

 

[markymark2000]

If lots of staff walked out all at once is not that down to a management issue?

I don't think it was always going to be a management issue but more, anyone who has half a clue could see it was going to happen. In Tranche 1, some Stagecoach staff moved from Wigan out to other Stagecoach depots. In Tranche 2, loads of First staff left Oldham to move to Rochdale (which left Oldham short staffed and relying on loan drivers). Tranche 3, loads of Stagecoach staff left Hyde Road and Ashton to move to other Stagecoach depots.
Some people like the ways of working, some people may be brand loyal etc. This is going to be an issue now every few years because of the way in which the franchises operate. If Stagecoach win back Ashton at the next tendering route and someone else wins Oldham, a good number of drivers will move back from Oldham to Ashton etc.

 

[mayneway]

I don't think it was always going to be a management issue but more, anyone who has half a clue could see it was going to happen. In Tranche 1, some Stagecoach staff moved from Wigan out to other Stagecoach depots. In Tranche 2, loads of First staff left Oldham to move to Rochdale (which left Oldham short staffed and relying on loan drivers). Tranche 3, loads of Stagecoach staff left Hyde Road and Ashton to move to other Stagecoach depots.
Some people like the ways of working, some people may be brand loyal etc. This is going to be an issue now every few years because of the way in which the franchises operate. If Stagecoach win back Ashton at the next tendering route and someone else wins Oldham, a good number of drivers will move back from Oldham to Ashton etc.

Completely agree.
There wasn’t that many drivers actually moving from Hyde road, Sharston and Ashton though, then within the first week of Metroline there was suddenly a big shift. Various reasons are being banded about but regardless of any labour shift there was a massive shortage of drivers before franchising and there will continue to be a shortage.

 

[markymark2000]

Completely agree.
There wasn’t that many drivers actually moving from Hyde road, Sharston and Ashton though, then within the first week of Metroline there was suddenly a big shift. Various reasons are being banded about but regardless of any labour shift there was a massive shortage of drivers before franchising and there will continue to be a shortage.

Well of course, people 'give it a go' as they are TUPEd over, they have nothing to lose and it keeps them on their regular commute, but then and as soon as changes happen, everyone jumps and goes back to what feels more familiar.

I agree that there was a shortage to start with, but then any major changes like Bee Network and the huge changes with new rules or new ways of doing things because the depot is under new management, will make things even worse. I suspect that Stockport and Middleton didn't have as bad issues for example as people there kept their employer and only had to adapt to the Bee Network ways of working, not Bee Network and new operators ways of working.

 

[mangad]

Some people like the ways of working, some people may be brand loyal etc. This is going to be an issue now every few years because of the way in which the franchises operate. If Stagecoach win back Ashton at the next tendering route and someone else wins Oldham, a good number of drivers will move back from Oldham to Ashton etc.

What happens next time is going to be entirely dependent on who wins what franchises. We're talking huge amounts of What Ifs here. And that assumes they're even re-let. Maybe everything will be brought in house. Maybe a Reform candidate will become Mayor and deregulate everything again. Who knows. What we do know is that by that point, the Bee Network will be a far more known entity for drivers. That element of change won't be there.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Well of course, people 'give it a go' as they are TUPEd over, they have nothing to lose and it keeps them on their regular commute, but then and as soon as changes happen, everyone jumps and goes back to what feels more familiar.

I agree that there was a shortage to start with, but then any major changes like Bee Network and the huge changes with new rules or new ways of doing things because the depot is under new management, will make things even worse. I suspect that Stockport and Middleton didn't have as bad issues for example as people there kept their employer and only had to adapt to the Bee Network ways of working, not Bee Network and new operators ways of working.

Of course, you may well have had a number of people who simply stayed with Stagecoach anyway because of things like pensions (which aren't included in TUPE).

Instances like this always happen - you're right in saying that a) it wasn't a management issue and b) it was always likely to happen.

 

[mayneway]

Of course, you may well have had a number of people who simply stayed with Stagecoach anyway because of things like pensions (which aren't included in TUPE).

Instances like this always happen - you're right in saying that a) it wasn't a management issue and b) it was always likely to happen.

To clarify, Stagecoach were actually disappointed so few staff were moving over to stay with stagecoach. Ashton the week before Metroline took over was over staffed. A couple of drivers had moved to Oldham and Stockport but that was it. Within days of Metroline coming in there seems to have been a mass walk out leaving them very short.

Can’t comment on Sharston and Whythenshawe but Hyde road and Ashton are a mess! And unlike Go North West that had the same issues in Tranche 1 with an army of agency drivers on standby, Metroline have their hands tied and are not allowed to use them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Feb 2025 ==

Out of interest considering First are currently covering some Saturday journeys on 216 would the First vehicles have had to have 216 programmed in to their displays or do all Bee Network vehicles have all Bee Network routes programmed into their displays now so they can be used on various Bee Network routes from another depot should the need like this arise?

They will have programmed in by First.
Destinations are down to the operator. Stagecoach have just removed all the Hyde Road, Sharston and Ashton destinations in their latest update!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

To clarify, Stagecoach were actually disappointed so few staff were moving over to stay with stagecoach. Ashton the week before Metroline took over was over staffed. A couple of drivers had moved to Oldham and Stockport but that was it. Within days of Metroline coming in there seems to have been a mass walk out leaving them very short.

Can’t comment on Sharston and Whythenshawe but Hyde road and Ashton are a mess! And unlike Go North West that had the same issues in Tranche 1 with an army of agency drivers on standby, Metroline have their hands tied and are not allowed to use them

In fairness, that is a little odd. If you're going to move, do it before/on transfer to protect your pension (if you're a long server) or if you simply fancy staying with your existing employer.

Alternatively, you wait for a few weeks to see how its panning out. That's the usual pattern, not go after a week.

Why are Metroline prohibited from using agency drivers?

 

[tomoufc]

In fairness, that is a little odd. If you're going to move, do it before/on transfer to protect your pension (if you're a long server) or if you simply fancy staying with your existing employer.

Alternatively, you wait for a few weeks to see how its panning out. That's the usual pattern, not go after a week.

Why are Metroline prohibited from using agency drivers?

I didn’t realise they were prohibited. I thought that was their decision.

Are these First busses running with BN stickers and/or ticket machines. It all seems quite messy, but perhaps less messy than T1’s over-reliance on agency staff?

 

[Tetchytyke]

In fairness, that is a little odd. If you're going to move, do it before/on transfer to protect your pension (if you're a long server) or if you simply fancy staying with your existing employer.

Alternatively, you wait for a few weeks to see how its panning out. That's the usual pattern, not go after a week.

I'm purely hypothesising here, but would there be any contractual provisions between Stagecoach and TfGM preventing them 'pinching' too many staff at transfer? Contractual provisions that might, say, not prevent that happening a week after the transfer?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm purely hypothesising here, but would there be any contractual provisions between Stagecoach and TfGM preventing them 'pinching' too many staff at transfer? Contractual provisions that might, say, not prevent that happening a week after the transfer?

It's a tricky one. I've seen clauses put in to contracts in respect of not employing people in management roles because of commercial confidentiality.

I'm not an HR nor legal expert but wonder how legally enforceable it is to stop a driver leaving one firm and going to another?

 

[mangad]

It's a tricky one. I've seen clauses put in to contracts in respect of not employing people in management roles because of commercial confidentiality.

I'm not an HR nor legal expert but wonder how legally enforceable it is to stop a driver leaving one firm and going to another?

Usually in the management scenario, you'd be putting someone on gardening leave, or have some sort of other financial agreement.

I suppose they could go down the route of having a no poach agreement in place as part of the transfer. But that feels like quite a blunt instrument.

The other obvious comment is that generally people will have a notice period and work that out. Although a quick search online suggests Stagecoach's notice period can be as low as a week.

I assume if you were Tupe'd over from Stagecoach to Metroline, then quit to go back to Stagecoach, you'd be on a new contract with Stagecoach and that would impact various legal rights for things like paternity/maternity leave, redundancy calculations etc. Which may bother some people more than others. And I'm assuming that most bus drivers in Greater Manchester now aren't going to be that worried about risks of redundancy.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Usually in the management scenario, you'd be putting someone on gardening leave, or have some sort of other financial agreement.

I suppose they could go down the route of having a no poach agreement in place as part of the transfer. But that feels like quite a blunt instrument.

The other obvious comment is that generally people will have a notice period and work that out. Although a quick search online suggests Stagecoach's notice period can be as low as a week.

I assume if you were Tupe'd over from Stagecoach to Metroline, then quit to go back to Stagecoach, you'd be on a new contract with Stagecoach and that would impact various legal rights for things like paternity/maternity leave, redundancy calculations etc. Which may bother some people more than others. And I'm assuming that most bus drivers in Greater Manchester now aren't going to be that worried about risks of redundancy.

As well as the gardening leave etc, when my business divested part of its activities, there were a range of covenants to stop the recruiting of staff with commercially sensitive information. In this instance, and I again stress that I'm no expert in HR legislation, I think it might be difficult to effectively have a restraint on employment on someone like a bus driver. They should be free to work for whoever.

You are absolutely right that one of the reason why it's odd to not transfer within Stagecoach, TUPE to Metroline and THEN leave is that you do lose your existing contractual rights including service related redundancy calculations and the like. Seems a bit odd, and I've seen a few TUPEs from a distance!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not an HR nor legal expert but wonder how legally enforceable it is to stop a driver leaving one firm and going to another?

My hypothesis- and it's nothing more than internet wittering, really- is that Stagecoach could have had to sign a contract saying that they won't keep too many drivers from that depot. An employee can refuse to transfer under TUPE but that's usually taken as a resignation and not as a way of staying on with your existing employer.

Of course if the drivers transfer to Metroline, serve their notice period, and then re-appear at Stagecoach then it's completely different. And not necessarily an indication on Metroline management. Pre-transfer you could have the restriction on Stagecoach but post-transfer it's not like the drivers will have a non-compete clause.

Are Stagecoach offering inducements to 'new' drivers? If they are, as they are in some areas, then that might well offset any loss of continuity of service. The risk is that you will lose certain legal protections too but, let's face it, no bus drivers in Manchester will be getting made redundant for the forseeable.

 

[Leyland Bus]

My hypothesis- and it's nothing more than internet wittering, really- is that Stagecoach could have had to sign a contract saying that they won't keep too many drivers from that depot. An employee can refuse to transfer under TUPE but that's usually taken as a resignation and not as a way of staying on with your existing employer.

Of course if the drivers transfer to Metroline, serve their notice period, and then re-appear at Stagecoach then it's completely different. And not necessarily an indication on Metroline management. Pre-transfer you could have the restriction on Stagecoach but post-transfer it's not like the drivers will have a non-compete clause.

Are Stagecoach offering inducements to 'new' drivers? If they are, as they are in some areas, then that might well offset any loss of continuity of service. The risk is that you will lose certain legal protections too but, let's face it, no bus drivers in Manchester will be getting made redundant for the forseeable.

When all this franchising was being formulated we were told (in engineering atleast) that the idea was for all drivers/skills/grades etc would all be on the same money and conditions to stop large swathes of employees migrating to other tranches/companies because of better pay offers but this was supposed to be dealt with *after* all 3 tranches were running... Now I've heard little of it since and wonder if it was a pre franchise carrot perhaps that's been quietly dropped...

 

[tomoufc]

My hypothesis- and it's nothing more than internet wittering, really- is that Stagecoach could have had to sign a contract saying that they won't keep too many drivers from that depot. An employee can refuse to transfer under TUPE but that's usually taken as a resignation and not as a way of staying on with your existing employer.

Of course if the drivers transfer to Metroline, serve their notice period, and then re-appear at Stagecoach then it's completely different. And not necessarily an indication on Metroline management. Pre-transfer you could have the restriction on Stagecoach but post-transfer it's not like the drivers will have a non-compete clause.

Are Stagecoach offering inducements to 'new' drivers? If they are, as they are in some areas, then that might well offset any loss of continuity of service. The risk is that you will lose certain legal protections too but, let's face it, no bus drivers in Manchester will be getting made redundant for the forseeable.

I agree, and if I was a Unite organiser, I'd be putting significant efforts into pay campaigns. There’s huge potential to establish pattern bargaining, with a tight labour market.

 

[mayneway]

I believe a ban was put on the use of agency drivers in between the start of Tranche one and tranche 2. Burnham famously stood in Leigh bus station and admitted there had been problems with agency drivers and that they would be phased out within 3 months - when asked who would replace them he claimed there were 100’s of new recruits going through the training school - not sure where they all ended up.

At the start of Tranche 2 a number of drivers at Queens road handed their notice in to Stagecoach with the intention of returning to work for Go North west via the two agency’s being used. TFGM very quickly put a stop to it bringing in the new policy that drivers must not have worked for another Bee Network operator in the previous 6 months - all the drivers retracted their notice.

There is a complete ban on agency staff being used in Tranche 2 and 3 although I believe Swans, Tyrers and Selweyns have provided some drivers initially.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2025 ==

When all this franchising was being formulated we were told (in engineering atleast) that the idea was for all drivers/skills/grades etc would all be on the same money and conditions to stop large swathes of employees migrating to other tranches/companies because of better pay offers but this was supposed to be dealt with *after* all 3 tranches were running... Now I've heard little of it since and wonder if it was a pre franchise carrot perhaps that's been quietly dropped...

We were told there would be one pension provider for all operators - again something that’s been quietly overlooked.

Of course when an operator loosing a depot offers every member of engineering a £3000 ‘relocation’ bonus to stay with them and move to their other depot it’s really not going to stop swathes of staff going!

No such bonuses are needed with drivers - the operator simply offers to carry over the drivers service.

 

[D9006]

I believe a ban was put on the use of agency drivers in between the start of Tranche one and tranche 2. Burnham famously stood in Leigh bus station and admitted there had been problems with agency drivers and that they would be phased out within 3 months - when asked who would replace them he claimed there were 100’s of new recruits going through the training school - not sure where they all ended up.

At the start of Tranche 2 a number of drivers at Queens road handed their notice in to Stagecoach with the intention of returning to work for Go North west via the two agency’s being used. TFGM very quickly put a stop to it bringing in the new policy that drivers must not have worked for another Bee Network operator in the previous 6 months - all the drivers retracted their notice.

There is a complete ban on agency staff being used in Tranche 2 and 3 although I believe Swans, Tyrers and Selweyns have provided some drivers initially.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2025 ==


We were told there would be one pension provider for all operators - again something that’s been quietly overlooked.

Of course when an operator loosing a depot offers every member of engineering a £3000 ‘relocation’ bonus to stay with them and move to their other depot it’s really not going to stop swathes of staff going!

No such bonuses are needed with drivers - the operator simply offers to carry over the drivers service.

I’m not sure about complete ban on agency drivers in Tranche 2 and 3, I have had 2 agency firms offering me very good money above £20 an hour, with guarantee of 50 hours per week at all depots in south Manchester and in Bolton too

 

[mayneway]

I’m not sure about complete ban on agency drivers in Tranche 2 and 3, I have had 2 agency firms offering me very good money above £20 an hour, with guarantee of 50 hours per week at all depots in south Manchester and in Bolton too

Well I work for Stagecoach in a tranche 2 depot and know for a fact agency drivers cannot be used. We have tonnes of loan drivers from all over the country propping things up and when you weigh up what they are getting paid together with hotel rooms, lease cars and food allowances it would probably be cheaper to use agency.
Likewise Metroline are failing lots of boards due to staff shortages - First have been brought in to cover work it’s that bad. Again probably cheaper to use agency if they could!

 

[TheSmiths82]

As it was cold, and I was going to a pub near Oxford Street I decided to get the bus into town last night rather than walk another half a mile at both ends for the Metrolink. It was tracking fine so I left my house. The bus arrived at the terminus on time, but it was two minutes late getting to my stop. Looking at the timetable it seems the timetable allows three minutes to get to my stop from the previous three stops. It is a distance of 0.6 miles and there is several traffic lights and pedestrian crossings in that allocated three minutes. If I was driving 3 minutes would be doable at that time of night but only just. I have never known a bus to be on time on that particular stop, it is often more than 5 minutes late and is one reason I mostly just get the tram.

I think TGFM really need to have a good look at the timetables and make them a bit more realistic, but that might require an extra bus on some routes so I can see why they won't want to do it.

 

[johncrossley]

I think TGFM really need to have a good look at the timetables and make them a bit more realistic, but that might require an extra bus on some routes so I can see why they won't want to do it.

They are actually adding additional journey time to many timetables, meaning extra buses needed, but you can see recent posts by other forum members criticising that. They would prefer timetables to be tightly timed, even if it means poor reliability.

Bee Network is a complete mess. They're trying to run high frequency services on an individual journey punctuality basis rather than by headway

That's a good point. Why don't TfGM copy TfL on high frequency services and aim to have buses evenly spaced, rather than slavishly sticking to a timetable?

 

[TheSmiths82]

Well I work for Stagecoach in a tranche 2 depot and know for a fact agency drivers cannot be used. We have tonnes of loan drivers from all over the country propping things up and when you weigh up what they are getting paid together with hotel rooms, lease cars and food allowances it would probably be cheaper to use agency.
Likewise Metroline are failing lots of boards due to staff shortages - First have been brought in to cover work it’s that bad. Again probably cheaper to use agency if they could!

If they are struggling so much to get staff it is almost as if the drivers are not being paid enough. Brexit may be having an effect here too as they used to be a lot of Eastern European bus drivers but I rarely see them now. Sadly too many people don't want to be bus drivers as it is a lot of responsibility for not much reward. I am interested in buses and I would quite like to work in the transport industry if I was looking for another job, but I don't think I could ever be a bus driver.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2025 ==

They are actually adding additional journey time to many timetables, meaning extra buses needed, but you can see recent posts by other forum members criticising that. They would prefer timetables to be tightly timed, even if it means poor reliability.



That's a good point. Why don't TfGM copy TfL on high frequency services and aim to have buses evenly spaced, rather than slavishly sticking to a timetable?

I think on routes like the 192 they really need to just do it on a frequency basis. I have seen so many times lots of 192's all stuck at a bus stop making up time, then there will be some sort of delay and a gap in service for 15 minutes. I find the 192 particularly bad in the morning heading towards Hazel Grove for this although I must admit I don't often get the 192 do I often drive down the A6 and notice it.

The issue with trying to keep up to a timetable on high frequency routes is you will always get bunching, where one bus seems to end up stopping at every stop and the one behind overtakes everything only having to stop at the odd stop causing it to be early while the other one is now late.

 

[johncrossley]

If they are struggling so much to get staff it is almost as if the drivers are not being paid enough. Brexit may be having an effect here too as they used to be a lot of Eastern European bus drivers but I rarely see them now. Sadly too many people don't want to be bus drivers as it is a lot of responsibility for not much reward. I am interested in buses and I would quite like to work in the transport industry if I was looking for another job, but I don't think I could ever be a bus driver.

Staff shortages don't seem to be an issue in London and I'd be surprised if the job market in Manchester is tighter. Maybe the pay needs to be improved?

 

[py_megapixel]

I think high frequency routes in Manchester have basically always been timetabled rather than headway managed. As others have said, it doesn't make much sense. I can understand why TfGM wouldn't want to change that in the early days but I hope they do fairly soon.

In the case of the 192, I think it's so frequent that some bunching is almost inevitable however you manage the service

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If they are struggling so much to get staff it is almost as if the drivers are not being paid enough. Brexit may be having an effect here too as they used to be a lot of Eastern European bus drivers but I rarely see them now. Sadly too many people don't want to be bus drivers as it is a lot of responsibility for not much reward. I am interested in buses and I would quite like to work in the transport industry if I was looking for another job, but I don't think I could ever be a bus driver.

The whole Covid/Brexit debacle has had an impact. You had people who headed back to their home countries during the lockdowns understandably - whilst some people were furloughed, it was easier to head back to the home country. Once there, Brexit rules changed so they can't readily return. You also had a number of drivers, and indeed the populace in general, who simply decided that it was the opportunity to retire early having enjoyed an enforced break.

Chatting to one acquaintance, and he's gone from working on the buses (with the requirement to work nights and Sundays) to driving an HGV. Same sort of money but Mon to Fri days.

Remember that lorry drivers are paid more and that's funded by simply adding a penny onto an item in a shop. I guess we would all like to see drivers (and fitters) getting paid more but practically, how do you fund that? Increased fares?

 

[158756]

More driver shortages today

https://tfgm.com/bus-disruptions-cancellations

Due to operational issues, customers may have an additional wait for a bus service on some routes in south Manchester this evening.

We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

The list of bus routes affected include: 15, 38, 42, 43, 50, 76, 85, 86, 101, 103, 111, 142, 143, 150, 201, 202, 203, 247, 250, 255, 256, 370 and X50.

This webpage will be updated regularly, please check before you travel and take extra care when making your journey.

You can also check for any disruption to public transport services on our travel alerts hub.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2025 ==







Edit: This was intended as a new post, 14th Feb

Today's update sounds like Metroline's problems are getting worse rather than better

https://tfgm.com/bus-driver-availability-service-gap

Bus Driver Availability - Service Gap
Friday 14 February 2025
Due to driver availability, some bus services may experience delays and disruption to operation today. The depots are trying to find cover for as many journeys as possible.

The following services may experience gaps in service of approximately 60 minutes:

15, 38, 42, 42A, 43, 50, 51, 76, 85, 86
101, 103, 142, 143, 150
201, 203, 216, 219, 230, 231, 237, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 255, 256, 263
313, 347, 370, 371
X50

Bus Ticket Acceptance
Bus tickets will be accepted on the Airport, Altrincham, Ashton Metrolink and East Didsbury lines today (until 9pm this evening), to help you continue your journey. Please present your bus ticket to Metrolink staff on inspection. We're very sorry for any inconvenience caused.

What options do TfGM have in this situation? Presumably their other operators aren't overflowing with drivers either. Are Metroline being fined for failing to operate the contracted service?