martinsh
Established Member
PlusBus in Brimingham seems to cover the whole Network WestMidlands area, so go to www.networkwestmidlands.co.uk and click on Maps. There are 6 maps covering the whole area.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Bus tickets/fares
- Thread starter DJ_K666
- Start date
- Status
PlusBus in Brimingham seems to cover the whole Network WestMidlands area, so go to www.networkwestmidlands.co.uk and click on Maps. There are 6 maps covering the whole area.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TfL cash fares are really a 'penalty' fare for not having Oyster. The 'real' flat single is a mere £1.30 which can take you from Croydon to Heathrow or Kingston to Dorking.
This seems to apply to all the PTE areas. Plusbus to Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Wakefield, Keighley,.... are all valid throughout West Yorkshire
(actually a bit of a shame for the Keighley one - it'd probably be more usful for it to edge into North Yorkshire and Lancashire than be valid in Golcar.
Statto
Established Member
TFL fares used to be 70p for short journeys like this outside Zone 1 as well.
TfL journeys used to be 70p for *any* journey outside zone 1 (with fares inside (and in or out) being £1) before all fares were equalised at £1. This was the case *10* years ago though!
tom1649
Member
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 975
Aren't alot of today's problems due to the 1986 deregulation of bus services outside of London?
Deregulation was supposed to encourage competition and keep fares down. (Whether you believe this was the real reason behind it is another matter). In reality many rural areas lost most or all of their services and fares have risen above inflation.
Deregulation was supposed to encourage competition and keep fares down. (Whether you believe this was the real reason behind it is another matter). In reality many rural areas lost most or all of their services and fares have risen above inflation.
shinkansen1966
Member
I have been banging on about this for years. The deregulation has:
- allowed a free for all on the commerically profitable routes
- left local councils having to fund the remainder of the bus network
- fragmented our bus network allowing foreign ownership - with profits repatriated outside the UK. For instance, Bournemouth's Yellow Buses are owned by the Paris state owned RATP transport authority
- given passengers complex operator specific bus fares with little effort to provide unity or intergration of tariff structures
- local bus operators with local knowledge (remember Maidstone & District or Yorkshire Traction) have steadily been replaced by indentikit corporates, one of which is now owned by German state railways
- given us the situation where we now pay private bus companies to convey the over 60s around
so ....
- why did Labour do almost nothing about this during their 13 years ?
- why was London spared this deregulation ?
- and why has Northern Ireland kept a state owned bus network ?
Buses were not considered a major electoral issue under Labour (or indeed under any UK government) so it isn't that surprising that little was done to reverse deregulation. Labour were also trying to shed their socialist image so reversing rail privatisation or bus deregulation would have gone against that.
However, there were (and are) a lot of Labour politicians in their heartlands who were deeply unhappy with bus deregulation so the Transport Act 2000 enabled the creation of Quality Partnerships and Quality Contracts (QCs), which effectively means replacement of deregulation with London-style tendering. Unfortunately, the conditions were QCs were so strict that no authority could meet them, which may well have been what the government intended. Some authorities proposed QCs as a 'threat' to make the incumbent operators improve. For example, when Coventry threatened QCs, Travel West Midlands set up a Travel Coventry brand with service improvements, leading to the council shelving its plans.
The conditions for QCs were relaxed in Transport Act 2008, and some ITAs are starting to develop plans for them, with West Yorkshire's plans advanced furthest. Before the 2010 general election, the Conservatives said they would repeal QCs if they won and advised authorities not to waste time and money preparing for them but as the result was a coalition they have remained in place.
There are still significant barriers to an establishment of a QC. The incumbent operators will likely take the authority to court for confiscation of their businesses. There is also the question of where competing operators will get their depot space from.
The reason for London being spared deregulation has been debated for years but I have not come across a definitive reason.
Northern Ireland has historically been separate from GB in transport terms. For example, the National Bus Company did not cover Northern Ireland. So bringing in deregulation in England, Scotland and Wales would not automatically create legislation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was at the height of the Troubles in the 80s and buses were regularly destroyed so NI got a special bus grant for vehicle replacement. Therefore, buses in Northern Ireland were not profitable therefore deregulation was pointless.
Most of Europe's buses have gone down the tendering route, similar to London, or stayed as state owned companies. So foreign involvement is commonplace. Arriva run lots of buses in the Netherlands and Denmark. Veolia have many Dutch bus franchises and now control the majority of buses in the country after taking over Transdev. But nowhere else has British style bus deregulation.
Even without QCs, deregulation is slowly dying. Deregulation currently survives because there is a captive market that is willing to pay enough levels of bus fare to keep the route viable. This has failed in most of Surrey, for example, because the captive market is too small, possibly due to very high levels of car ownership, high wage costs and poor traffic conditions. Intuitively, America should have bus deregulation, as it is the home of capitalism, low subsidy and the 'free market', but in actual fact buses are heavily subsidised in America with low fares. It would not be possible to deregulate local buses in America because you would end up with no commercially registered services. Most very poor Americans drive so are not captive bus users, whereas very poor people in the UK typically don't drive, so bus companies can rely on their business, no matter how poor the service.
However, there were (and are) a lot of Labour politicians in their heartlands who were deeply unhappy with bus deregulation so the Transport Act 2000 enabled the creation of Quality Partnerships and Quality Contracts (QCs), which effectively means replacement of deregulation with London-style tendering. Unfortunately, the conditions were QCs were so strict that no authority could meet them, which may well have been what the government intended. Some authorities proposed QCs as a 'threat' to make the incumbent operators improve. For example, when Coventry threatened QCs, Travel West Midlands set up a Travel Coventry brand with service improvements, leading to the council shelving its plans.
The conditions for QCs were relaxed in Transport Act 2008, and some ITAs are starting to develop plans for them, with West Yorkshire's plans advanced furthest. Before the 2010 general election, the Conservatives said they would repeal QCs if they won and advised authorities not to waste time and money preparing for them but as the result was a coalition they have remained in place.
There are still significant barriers to an establishment of a QC. The incumbent operators will likely take the authority to court for confiscation of their businesses. There is also the question of where competing operators will get their depot space from.
The reason for London being spared deregulation has been debated for years but I have not come across a definitive reason.
Northern Ireland has historically been separate from GB in transport terms. For example, the National Bus Company did not cover Northern Ireland. So bringing in deregulation in England, Scotland and Wales would not automatically create legislation in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland was at the height of the Troubles in the 80s and buses were regularly destroyed so NI got a special bus grant for vehicle replacement. Therefore, buses in Northern Ireland were not profitable therefore deregulation was pointless.
Most of Europe's buses have gone down the tendering route, similar to London, or stayed as state owned companies. So foreign involvement is commonplace. Arriva run lots of buses in the Netherlands and Denmark. Veolia have many Dutch bus franchises and now control the majority of buses in the country after taking over Transdev. But nowhere else has British style bus deregulation.
Even without QCs, deregulation is slowly dying. Deregulation currently survives because there is a captive market that is willing to pay enough levels of bus fare to keep the route viable. This has failed in most of Surrey, for example, because the captive market is too small, possibly due to very high levels of car ownership, high wage costs and poor traffic conditions. Intuitively, America should have bus deregulation, as it is the home of capitalism, low subsidy and the 'free market', but in actual fact buses are heavily subsidised in America with low fares. It would not be possible to deregulate local buses in America because you would end up with no commercially registered services. Most very poor Americans drive so are not captive bus users, whereas very poor people in the UK typically don't drive, so bus companies can rely on their business, no matter how poor the service.
Last edited:
Statto
Established Member
You could imagine the free for all in London should the buses there be deregulated, some corridor routes are bad enough[notably Oxford Street] with regulated services.:cry:
I like the idea of London style regulation in the provinces, however i doubt under the currant climate Money would be made available to local authorities to implement any such scheme should it be proposed.
Anyone who's been to Manchester, will know about the crazy saturation of buses on the Wilmslow Road corridor[were you can have 5 buses a minute turning up]yet you could be a couple of miles off that corridor & lucky to have a 30min service Anyone remember the cowboy bus company UK North, which made the situation even worse, especially at Piccadilly Gardens.
I like the idea of London style regulation in the provinces, however i doubt under the currant climate Money would be made available to local authorities to implement any such scheme should it be proposed.
Anyone who's been to Manchester, will know about the crazy saturation of buses on the Wilmslow Road corridor[were you can have 5 buses a minute turning up]yet you could be a couple of miles off that corridor & lucky to have a 30min service Anyone remember the cowboy bus company UK North, which made the situation even worse, especially at Piccadilly Gardens.
shinkansen1966
Member
Excellent explanation of the state of the bus industry here in the UK. Especially to someone like me who doesn't drive, lives in London and periodically visits W Yorkshire. Just emailed them to find out where they are with their own QCs.
And article here shows the reponse for bus companies
http://www.busandcoach.com/newspage.aspx?id=5549&categoryid=0
http://www.wymetro.com/news/releases/110617.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic.rss
explains that West Yorkshire's councillors have approved the continuation of work towards London style franchising. Note that Conservative councillors in West Yorkshire are also behind it.
The pdf link at the bottom of the report has detailed minutes of the meeting which agreed to proceed.
My fear is that QCs will not work as hoped because of poor funding. Metro claim that they can offer a better service with the same amount of funding as now. The logic being that bus companies make 'excessive profits' on main routes during the daytime with large amounts of taxpayers' money being spent to subsidise the service at less profitable times. Under QCs, profits from profitable services and money saved from wasteful competition (where it exists) can pay for a proportion of today's subsidised services. But there will undoubtedly be significant costs in setting up QCs. Hopefully increased patronage will help make it viable.
explains that West Yorkshire's councillors have approved the continuation of work towards London style franchising. Note that Conservative councillors in West Yorkshire are also behind it.
The pdf link at the bottom of the report has detailed minutes of the meeting which agreed to proceed.
My fear is that QCs will not work as hoped because of poor funding. Metro claim that they can offer a better service with the same amount of funding as now. The logic being that bus companies make 'excessive profits' on main routes during the daytime with large amounts of taxpayers' money being spent to subsidise the service at less profitable times. Under QCs, profits from profitable services and money saved from wasteful competition (where it exists) can pay for a proportion of today's subsidised services. But there will undoubtedly be significant costs in setting up QCs. Hopefully increased patronage will help make it viable.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
There was a change in legislation in April 2011. I cannot comment on your area, but in Greater Manchester and other PTE areas in the North of England, holders of the National Concessionary Pass scheme for the over 60's have to pay FULL FARE on Monday to Friday beween 0001 to 0930.
What's quite funny is the amount of people with a National Concessionary Pass that get on the bus between those hours, ask the driver how much the fare is and then are very surprised at how much the fare is.
I must agree with them though, the price of bus fares in the Liverpool area is rediculous. £1.80 to go one stop, or the whole journey. £3.70 for a day ticket.
In comparison, for people within the area I live in; £2.10 return to Liverpool city centre on the train.
schwa
Member
I did laugh at all the buses in HK with FirstGroup interiors when I visited last year!
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 9,956
Nottingham City Transport
Single £1.70
Return/All Day: £3.40
All day group/family: £8 weekdays £4 weekends & holidays
Single £1.70
Return/All Day: £3.40
All day group/family: £8 weekdays £4 weekends & holidays
That was not a change in legislation, as such, but mere cost-cutting by TfGM, bringing them into line with most other authorities which didn't offer any discount to pass holders before 0930.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I have a letter from GMPTE, the forerunners to TfGM, dated 3rd March 2011 in which it states:-
Concessionary Bus Fare changes approved to come into effect on 3rd April 2011
"The standard flat 80p concessionary fare available to certain groups, payable before 0930 from Monday to Friday, including the holders of the over 60's NTCP travel pass. is now being rationalised into different sections. For children of school age and certain other groups, this is now being replaced by a fare equivalent to no more than half the operators normal full adult fare.
I hope that this clarifies the fact that the information on our website was in omission by not stating that the concessionary fare for the over 60's holders of the NTCP travel pass was being increased to FULL FARE in the said time period, as the pre-existing entitlement for Concessionary Fare to such a group was being removed from the NCTP scheme. As a result, any over 60's holder of an NTCP travel pass, travelling in those stated periods of up to 0930 from Monday to Friday, would be liable to pay the operator's full adult fare.
The holders of the over 60's NTCP travel pass are now being withdrawn from this scheme. I hope that this clarifies the information on our website was not clear and whilst I believe the information stated there was accurate, I accept that it could be worded in a clearer manner and I have brought this to the attention of our media team".
This letter was signed by Stuart Johnson, Customer Relations Manager.
For the benefit of those not familiar with GM concessions, over 60s and children have paid the same low flat fare for decades, long before the introduction of free bus travel.
Before April, GMPTE/TfGM paid for over 60s to travel at a flat fare before 0930. This was an enhancement of the statutory requirement for free travel after 0930. They did not have to offer this discount. It was a policy decision by GMPTE. Very few places gave/give free travel to over 60s before 0930. TfL still give free bus travel to all passholders in England 24 hours a day. Does anyone else offer free or discounted travel to over 60s before 0930?
After April, GMPTE/TfGM decided they couldn't afford this extra discount so they decided to remove this entitlement. TfGM still give free travel to over 60s on trains and trams after 0930 which is a discretionary policy decision, not enjoyed in most parts of the country. TfGM also give free bus travel between 11pm and midnight, which is also discretionary.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Did WY Metro have a flat 50p fare for rail travel in certain times of the day from Monday to Friday by certain holders of the NTCP travel pass within their administered area of West Yorkshire...and if so, is this still the current charge?
To go back to my earlier posting, I do not live within the area boundaries administered by TfGM. I was interested at the time to receive clarification from them of what changes were being made by them in April 2011 with regard to over 60's holders of the NTCP travel pass who use their service provision prior to 0930 from Monday to Friday in their area.
Yes, still 50p for West Yorkshire passholders. I notice they also allow free bus travel until midnight.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Very true, I find this pretty irritating :roll: I don't visit London very often, so it makes little sense for me to bother with all the kerfuffle of messing about with an Oyster application, loading the 'start up' fee onto it, etc. Why should I be punished for choosing to pay for my travel by another means?! Particularly most of the punters who travelled on the bendy bus routes used to ride arond for nothing every day! I also really don't like TfL's approach of encouraging everybody to register their Oyster card; call me paranoid but I find the idea of the 'powers that be' knowing exactly where I travel to and from on each occasion a bit creepy!
Very true, I find this pretty irritating :roll: I don't visit London very often, so it makes little sense for me to bother with all the kerfuffle of messing about with an Oyster application, loading the 'start up' fee onto it, etc. Why should I be punished for choosing to pay for my travel by another means?! Particularly most of the punters who travelled on the bendy bus routes used to ride arond for nothing every day! I also really don't like TfL's approach of encouraging everybody to register their Oyster card; call me paranoid but I find the idea of the 'powers that be' knowing exactly where I travel to and from on each occasion a bit creepy!
The reasons behind favouring Oyster are simple - speeding up boarding. An oyster touch is far quicker than a cash transaction with the driver. Indeed if you're travelling in central London, as you might expect a visitor to be, you can't use cash on the buses but have to prebuy your ticket at the stop. If you're travelling extensively you might as well get a travelcard anyway.
I'll admit I was disappointed when the roadside machines removed the option to buy a day ticket - if they're replaced it with the ability to issue travelcards that would have been fine but I supect there were issues of security of the stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Note that free tram/train travel are only offered to residents of GM who qualify.
Very true, I find this pretty irritating :roll: I don't visit London very often, so it makes little sense for me to bother with all the kerfuffle of messing about with an Oyster application, loading the 'start up' fee onto it, etc. Why should I be punished for choosing to pay for my travel by another means?! Particularly most of the punters who travelled on the bendy bus routes used to ride arond for nothing every day! I also really don't like TfL's approach of encouraging everybody to register their Oyster card; call me paranoid but I find the idea of the 'powers that be' knowing exactly where I travel to and from on each occasion a bit creepy!
Passengers in the UK have been used to paying the driver in cash which is clearly inefficient in terms of boarding times, hence the resistance to smartcards. Some operators have tried to cut down these boarding times using exact fare systems but these have their own critics. Even before smartcards, many parts of Europe have had to buy tickets in advance from a shop or a machine to get the cheapest fare. It may not even be possible to buy a ticket on the bus.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
AFAIK, that applies to all schemes which involve rail.
shinkansen1966
Member
Very true, I find this pretty irritating :roll: I don't visit London very often, so it makes little sense for me to bother with all the kerfuffle of messing about with an Oyster application, loading the 'start up' fee onto it, etc. Why should I be punished for choosing to pay for my travel by another means?! Particularly most of the punters who travelled on the bendy bus routes used to ride arond for nothing every day! I also really don't like TfL's approach of encouraging everybody to register their Oyster card; call me paranoid but I find the idea of the 'powers that be' knowing exactly where I travel to and from on each occasion a bit creepy!
Look on the positive side:
Oyster card users are rewarded because they board quicker
It's cheaper for TfL to deal with Oyster cards than handle cash
If you buy an Oyster card with cash, and leave it unregistered, no-one will know where you've been. There's no 'encouragement' to register, just the 'benefit' of protecting the card's value.
The initial Oyster card deposit is cheeky. But you will always get the best price with your Oyster card during the day. And you save a quid or more on each trip. Keep one in your wallet ! Sitting there with your bank cards.
Do you know this for a 100% fact ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When I travel on buses outside London, I'm always struck by the length of time it takes to get everyone on board, faffing around with change and the sometime odds fares like £2.05.
Last edited:
Cheeky but needed as it's possible for an Oyster card to have a negative balance and you need an incentive for people to not just replace it.
You can get the deposit back when you return the card.
TfL figures show fare dodging on bendy buses to be about 4% of passengers I think. Many people do not touch in as a fair few are on travelcards (including paper ones).
Especially when there's been a poorly publicised farechange (my local bus company Keighley and District used to be very good at notifying people of changes afew weeks in advance but not just sticks something on their websita day or two before a change. The last one where an off-peak day ticket went from £3 to £3.20 slowed things down a lot as it's a very popular ticket (cheaper than 2 singles in many cases) and many got on with £3 in their hand.
shinkansen1966
Member
And this is where the WYMetro plans for London bus style operations will benefit the travelling public: simplified fares, the possible use of Oyster cards and well publisiced fare changes. London's fare changes are announced months ahead.
I like the way the Association of West Yorkshire Bus Operators has sprung up from nowhere and proposed an alternative to WYMetro's QC proposals. I mean what are the bus operators worried about ? It's bus passengers who stand to benefit. What's wrong with that ?
PS .. I've used Keighley & District services a fair bit when visiting relatives in Silsden. It's not a bad operation. Punctual, reasonably frequent.
London's fares are nearly always announced around September for a January start and change only once a year. They are also synchronised with national fare revision. I can only think of one year in the last 10 where there was a bus fare reduction which came in around September. Commercial bus fare can change at any time.
They're certainly one of the better operators about, but they seem to be moving in the wrong direction. You can no longer get a map of their K-Zone anywhere showing the limits of its validity, just a list of stop names which only mean much if it's the route you reguarly use. I know where Bar House lane is on my route which is the limit of its validity. I e-mailed them about last year and was told they were working on it. I e-mailed asking why they now give so little notice of fare changes and got no response.
Sister company Yorkshire Coastliner user to have a list of common single, day and period return fares on its website - these have all disappeared.
Assuming you go from Keighley, you'll pass my house!
West Yorkshire's bus companies have had it good for so long and have a lot to lose so it was a last ditch attempt to stop QCs. I am still not totally convinced that Metro will go through with it and will chicken out at some point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
TfL is actually quite generous. The deposit really is a deposit and is refundable. You have to pay a non-refundable fee to have a Dutch OV-Chipkaart. And the OV-Chipkaart expires after 5 years, when you have to buy a new one.
- Status