• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Peddle is an interesting one - he's very commercially minded yet very conservative - when he ran MK Metro it basically operated like a municipal - reliable and conservative but no innovation whatsoever - indeed almost everyone I think thought it *was* a municipal, and when Arriva bought it up and rebranded a lot of people thought it was a privatisation.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Peddle is an interesting one - he's very commercially minded yet very conservative - when he ran MK Metro it basically operated like a municipal - reliable and conservative but no innovation whatsoever - indeed almost everyone I think thought it *was* a municipal, and when Arriva bought it up and rebranded a lot of people thought it was a privatisation.

Depends who you talk to. Some people called it MK Deathrow. Sure that Teflon Lettuce (elsewhere on this board) will have a view as he worked for MK Metro.

Guess you have to remember what he got when he bought MK from Stagecoach though, in truth, it was very much as it had been at CHL. A disparate fleet of aged Merc minibuses, and a number of low cost subsidiaries with ancient, archaic fleet. I don't think he did anything revolutionary - he just got on with sorting out the c**p both in terms of fleet, service provision, and service quality. You may say conservative and I think I know what you mean but really a case of just getting the thing sorted out. That was what it needed! Mind you, best move on - don't want a yellow card myself ;)
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
The bus had a 28% market share for journeys into Manchester on phase 1 - that dropped to less than 10%. I'd suggest that the bus typically benefited from areas such as Stretford or Old Trafford for example; places where the time disbenefit of bus was outweighed by the frequency disbenefit of the train. Remove the frequency disbenefit and why wouldn't someone travel by tram - it stands to reason!

In phase 1, the longer journeys (ex Alt/Bury) would have been the core of the existing rail customer base. That a former bus user (who would typically be shorter duration journeys) would suddenly be taking many more with Metrolink - why? Average journey length is just over 4 miles (for the entire network) and given that the longer distance journeys would have been skewed towards rail users, then where are the shorter journeys coming from to drag the average down?

Also, that on subsequent phases that weren't on an existing rail alignment, you are suggesting that virtually all that passenger base has been drawn from new trips and car users?

I really don't understand why you believe that something as good as Metrolink, despite a few flaws like the impact of the seating potentially precipitating Dentonian's impending rectal prolapse, wouldn't be seen as worthwhile alternative to people's travel needs over a bus and that abstraction will occur.

Instead, it seems that you would wish to place the decline of bus services solely at the door of the operators. Are operators culpable? Yes. Are they totally culpable? No. Has Metrolink had a major impact on bus services on those corridors where it has been introduced - Yes, and rightly so.

ps I know you mentioned Julian Peddle and the voracity of his claims - any view of the transcript from Buses? Also, you mentioned him being an apologist for Stagecoach. To be fair, he's been consistent in his views of the big 5 in the UK.

Fraid I didn't buy the July issue of Buses; maybe someone else on the board?

Average trip length across Metrolink is actually 6.5 miles not 4 miles. There are relatively few trips of between 1 and 4 miles as not many tram users board in the inner suburban stops on any line, except for Eccles/Mediacity. What pulls down the average trip length are the larger numbers (around 1.4 million a year) of short distance journeys within the City Zone itself. Of course, it is those same inner suburban areas that are the prime territory for current bus operators

And yes; I am suggesting that the overwhelming proportion of growth in Metrolink trips into the city centre has been due to new business and switchers from car use. Cars are how the vast majority of urban and suburban travellers get about; and overwhelmingly tram users report that if they had not travelled on the tram, they would have used a car. The same is just as true of the busway; this now carries some 55,000 passengers per week; where the hourly bus services it directly replaced can have carried no more than 5,000 per week. But again your question confuses 'passenger base' with 'passenger trips'.

Which is the main point; loss of market share does not itself impact on bus operations; that only happens if the loss of market share results in a loss of business.

So, when the survey asked the question "if you were to travel to Manchester City Centre tomorrow, by which mode would you do so?" 28% of respondents along the Phase 1 Metrolink corridor answered 'bus' before the rail line closed. Whereas after the tram service opened, less than 10% answered 'bus' to the same question. But that does not at all mean that 28% of trips into the city centre were formerly by bus; which then reduced to 10% of such trips. Most likely the major proportion of those counted within the 'bus' market share (both before and after), never travelled into Manchester city centre at all. In which case, the 'loss' of the market share in respect of those respondents would have had no effect on the viability of bus services in Altrincham and Bury.

I am not placing the decline of market services solely at the door of the operators; the evidence is much stronger that the 'culprit' is deregulation - which in the name of 'increasing competition' actually removed all the structures preventing the establishment of monopolies. It is not the fault of the operators that they are monopoly providers (at least not mostly), it is simply in the nature of bus operations that profitability is much greater when one provider controls a particular route. But monopolies they are; and like all commercial monopolies they find that their profitability is best assured by reducing service levels, increasing prices, and preferentially serving user populations with the highest yield per head, Which in bus operations means concentrating on routes that maximise short-distance trips and regular daily travellers; while penalising those travelling longer distances and who are won't be travelling the same route every day.

But all that is ancient history now; deregulation resulted in a drop of 25% in patronage in the metropolitan cities over two or three years. What has been determining the more recent decline in bus patronage is much more due to traffic congestion impacting on service reliability. Which is where franchising could potentially yield a big pay-back. Resolving congestion issues requires major infrastructure investment. But in a deregulated environment, it isn't possible to link that investment into growth in fare revenue - TfGM can fund tram infrastructure partly through 'prudential borrowing' against extra fares from increased tram patronage; they cannot (at present) do the same from increased bus patronage. But, as I understand it, that is exactly the aspiration that underpins the (yet unpublished) Greater Manchester Spatial Framework. Designate particular peripheral areas for housing development; linked into the city centre and other employment destinations using dedicated bus routes; funding those bus routes from a combination of developer contributions and fare revenue income over above the franchise operator compensation payments.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Average trip length across Metrolink is actually 6.5 miles not 4 miles. There are relatively few trips of between 1 and 4 miles as not many tram users board in the inner suburban stops on any line, except for Eccles/Mediacity. What pulls down the average trip length are the larger numbers (around 1.4 million a year) of short distance journeys within the City Zone itself. Of course, it is those same inner suburban areas that are the prime territory for current bus operators

That's a curious one as the drop on the Bury and Altrincham lines took 7 million journeys out and removed 32 million passenger kms - only 4.5kms per journey. Even taking a slightly longer reference period for phase 1 (1991-3) took 72m passenger kms and 9m journeys so phase 1 would indicate that average journey length for heavy rail was 8km (5 miles).

And yes; I am suggesting that the overwhelming proportion of growth in Metrolink trips into the city centre has been due to new business and switchers from car use. Cars are how the vast majority of urban and suburban travellers get about; and overwhelmingly tram users report that if they had not travelled on the tram, they would have used a car. The same is just as true of the busway; this now carries some 55,000 passengers per week; where the hourly bus services it directly replaced can have carried no more than 5,000 per week. But again your question confuses 'passenger base' with 'passenger trips'

I'm not confusing passenger base with passenger trips. I just don't really see why the change of mode such materially change passenger usage in so far as a person would make 6 bus trips but when Metrolink opens, they a) wouldn't be attracted to Metrolink or b) if they were, they'd make more trips.

However, the central tenet is this belief that a car owner (who has a pre-existing asset that they already use) would be more inclined to switch to Metrolink than someone who is already a public transport user. It goes against experience elsewhere. More pertinently, you mention the Busway - when GMPTE were proposing this, their own estimates were:
  • Estimated patronage – 2.0 million trips/year
    • 20% previous car users
    • 8% new trips
    • 72% existing bus passengers
Even GMPTE were of the opinion that the vast majority would come from existing bus passengers and being taken not just for journeys to/from Manchester city centre but a range of other local trips.

Now let me be very clear. I am really pleased that Metrolink has been a success - I am not some fervent pro-bus foil-hatter who adopts some Animal Farm mentality of good and bad and that trams are some evil to be combated. I'm pro public transport and hope that when and if the other extensions come to fruition, that they are a huge success and continue to grow passenger numbers.

I'm realistic enough to realise that when that happens, there will be casualties in local bus provision. The idea that the extension from Eccles to Trafford Centre won't substantially impact on bus routes from one to the other and that the majority will come from disaffected/rejuvenated car users and not existing public transport users seems unrealistic - it's both counter intuitive but also borne out by experience elsewhere. Even Nottingham, where bus operators are generally better than GM, saw a 4% drop in total bus ridership when the phase 2 of NET was rolled out.

That operators in Nottingham have managed to claw some of that back perhaps indicates some of what could or should be done in GM.

However, it would be as great a misrepresentation of statistics to use the overall drop in GM bus patronage, and ignore the impact of Metrolink on that (as well as the decline of some of the major centres in GM), as some sort of justification for franchising. Rather, perhaps TfGM should cast an eye along the East Lancs and see what has happened in the Liverpool City Region and learn those lessons.
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
That's a curious one as the drop on the Bury and Altrincham lines took 7 million journeys out and removed 32 million passenger kms - only 4.5kms per journey. Even taking a slightly longer reference period for phase 1 (1991-3) took 72m passenger kms and 9m journeys so phase 1 would indicate that average journey length for heavy rail was 8km (5 miles).

The Metrolink trip distances are from the official statistical series. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/light-rail-and-tram-statistics-lrt. Maybe British Rail got their numbers mixed up? Wouldn't have been the first time.

I'm not confusing passenger base with passenger trips. I just don't really see why the change of mode such materially change passenger usage in so far as a person would make 6 bus trips but when Metrolink opens, they a) wouldn't be attracted to Metrolink or b) if they were, they'd make more trips.

The only answer is that both of those propositions do seem to be apparent in the data: So; suppose a regular bus user (say a college student) before Metrolink opens made an average of 6 return bus trips per week, of which one per month involved travelling all the way into Manchester, and the other 25 or so, were into college and back again. After Metrolink opens, they take the tram into Manchester 3 times a week, but still use the bus for their regular journeys into college. Primarily because the bus is cheaper (especially with a Unirider card), likely more convenient stops and you can reckon to get a seat.

As to your second question; this is a consistent characteristic of light rail travel in cities - average frequency of use always increases compared to previous public transport trips by former modes. Former rail users increase their trips a lot; former bus users increase their use even more. The dynamics of this are complex, as they interact with car use; but again a specific example may help. Suppose a family, before the tram line opened, used their car on a weekday primarily for the school run; with one adult family member taking the bus into work in the city centre. But at the weekend, when the family went into town, they took the car. When the Metrolink opens, the weekday commute converts from bus to tram. But in a high proportion of cases, the weekend family trip into town also is now done by tram. Equally if a family are travelling into town of an evening.

Which is fundamental to the economics of light rail operation; most public transport operators reckon to have to earn enough in peak periods to cover low earning off-peak periods. But Metrolink makes as much money off-peak as it does at peak - there is almost no period of the week when the system is not operating at a profit.
However, the central tenet is this belief that a car owner (who has a pre-existing asset that they already use) would be more inclined to switch to Metrolink than someone who is already a public transport user. It goes against experience elsewhere. More pertinently, you mention the Busway - when GMPTE were proposing this, their own estimates were:
  • Estimated patronage – 2.0 million trips/year
    • 20% previous car users
    • 8% new trips
    • 72% existing bus passengers
Even GMPTE were of the opinion that the vast majority would come from existing bus passengers and being taken not just for journeys to/from Manchester city centre but a range of other local trips.

GMPTE did get their numbers wrong; they thought the busway might eventually carry 2.0 million trips per year - but it exceeded that in the first 12 months. Second year was 2.7 million; third year likely more than 3 million. The switch from previous public transport is immediate; car switching takes time as there is an inhibition (especially amongst lower income households) to have a car and not using it everyday. But cars have to pass their MOT, and then need repairs, insurance and so on. Over a period of around five years the result is that many households find they can make do with only the one car - keeping that for school and recreation trips.

But your major tenet is exactly correct; a high proportion of regular car users only do so with strong reluctance; offered a viable public transport alternative (or indeed access to safe cycling infrastructure) they will switch to that alternative. The spectacular decline in the attractiveness of urban driving is the single biggest factor determining changes in transport demand. You could watch TV for a year and never see a car advertisement presenting their product as a means of urban transport.

Now let me be very clear. I am really pleased that Metrolink has been a success - I am not some fervent pro-bus foil-hatter who adopts some Animal Farm mentality of good and bad and that trams are some evil to be combated. I'm pro public transport and hope that when and if the other extensions come to fruition, that they are a huge success and continue to grow passenger numbers.

I'm realistic enough to realise that when that happens, there will be casualties in local bus provision. The idea that the extension from Eccles to Trafford Centre won't substantially impact on bus routes from one to the other and that the majority will come from disaffected/rejuvenated car users and not existing public transport users seems unrealistic - it's both counter intuitive but also borne out by experience elsewhere. Even Nottingham, where bus operators are generally better than GM, saw a 4% drop in total bus ridership when the phase 2 of NET was rolled out.

That operators in Nottingham have managed to claw some of that back perhaps indicates some of what could or should be done in GM.

However, it would be as great a misrepresentation of statistics to use the overall drop in GM bus patronage, and ignore the impact of Metrolink on that (as well as the decline of some of the major centres in GM), as some sort of justification for franchising. Rather, perhaps TfGM should cast an eye along the East Lancs and see what has happened in the Liverpool City Region and learn those lessons.

Don't disagree with that at all TGW; expanding the tram network will reduce bus patronage on specific corridors. My criticism was of those (as with Mr Peddle) who put this forward as a major inhibition against expanding bus usage; and as threatening the financial viability of any franchising (or other partnership) scheme. Certainly a railway (or tramway) that links towns along a corridor is likely to be fatal for a bus service that attempted to do the same thing. But in a major conurbation, the conflict in business share is much less apparent. That is true for Merseyrail as it is for Metrolink.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
The Metrolink trip distances are from the official statistical series. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/light-rail-and-tram-statistics-lrt. Maybe British Rail got their numbers mixed up? Wouldn't have been the first time.

The figures I quoted were from GMPTE not BR. Using the DfT figures, it shows that the average journey length in phase 1 was just c.4 miles, declining from 5 miles.

The only answer is that both of those propositions do seem to be apparent in the data

Are they apparent in the data? Seems to be more a hunch. Still doesn't really explain why many existing bus passengers would not transfer their journeys to Metrolink, especially if they would selectively do so as you now suggest.

As to your second question; this is a consistent characteristic of light rail travel in cities

Indeed, the improved accessibility, frequency and overall attraction of new infrastructure will certainly increase patronage from existing rail users, new trips and transfer from cars. That I can't deny and the same applies to bus passengers. Moreover, if we're talking "consistent characteristics" then it's equally characteristic that trains and trams will take trade off buses.

GMPTE did get their numbers wrong; they thought the busway might eventually carry 2.0 million trips per year - but it exceeded that in the first 12 months. Second year was 2.7 million; third year likely more than 3 million

They may have understated their projections in order to ensure the perception of success!!! However, two points I could perhaps point to.

1. Yes, the scheme may have beaten its projections but did GMPTE really get the split of new/car/existing bus that far out? Undoubtedly they will have used some methodology to ascertain that split, possibly based on experience elsewhere in GM (Metrolink) or similar schemes. I can't believe it would have been some arbitrary figure or use the random number function in Excel.
2. If they have got their numbers wrong on that, and on the rail figures earlier, I could rather mischievously question whether TfGM should be running or franchising anything!

Don't disagree with that at all TGW; expanding the tram network will reduce bus patronage on specific corridors. My criticism was of those (as with Mr Peddle) who put this forward as a major inhibition against expanding bus usage; and as threatening the financial viability of any franchising (or other partnership) scheme. Certainly a railway (or tramway) that links towns along a corridor is likely to be fatal for a bus service that attempted to do the same thing. But in a major conurbation, the conflict in business share is much less apparent. That is true for Merseyrail as it is for Metrolink.

Indeed, whilst I think we have opposing views in many respects, we clearly have common ground as well. I can understand and appreciate your views - I may not agree entirely but I do respect them.

To my mind, franchising in and of itself won't correct the issues. Some of them are outside of the control of TfGM, bus operators and even the local authorities. The internet shopping explosion isn't going away but will continue to impact on bus service patronage in many areas and I don't see Rochdale reinventing itself with artisan bakeries or niche boutiques. You have areas with a lack of economic activity and the benefits cap has really impacted those areas that used to be the bedrock of bus services. Those macro-economic issues are difficult to avoid.

The Liverpool example (and others) show it is possible to turn the tide in the current environment and that franchising isn't a necessity. Perhaps the threat of franchising is the catalyst for a real, genuine and enforceable partnership where Metrolink can expand, bus operators can react around it, and they can benefit from decent bus priority that gives them cost benefits (lower PVR) and improved competitiveness vs the private car, and in return, they have enforceable conditions on ticketing, investment in fleet etc.

The other reality is that there are probably corridors where growth may well be achievable (e.g. Bolton to Bury, for instance). Some are not simply because Metrolink is now the primary public transport link (e.g. Denton to Manchester) and some will just have little potential because of the wider social and economic factors that influence travel. Hence why I think growth is achievable (see Liverpool), it may be difficult to necessarily repeat that level or that seen n Bristol.

Finally, think this has been a really good discussion. I think we both respect each others knowledge and opinions, whilst not necessarily sharing them! However, I will dip out now, only as I really am beginning to repeat myself and perhaps the thread (and perhaps the board or world) and me, needs a little rest.
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
Indeed, whilst I think we have opposing views in many respects, we clearly have common ground as well. I can understand and appreciate your views - I may not agree entirely but I do respect them.

To my mind, franchising in and of itself won't correct the issues. Some of them are outside of the control of TfGM, bus operators and even the local authorities. The internet shopping explosion isn't going away but will continue to impact on bus service patronage in many areas and I don't see Rochdale reinventing itself with artisan bakeries or niche boutiques. You have areas with a lack of economic activity and the benefits cap has really impacted those areas that used to be the bedrock of bus services. Those macro-economic issues are difficult to avoid.

The Liverpool example (and others) show it is possible to turn the tide in the current environment and that franchising isn't a necessity. Perhaps the threat of franchising is the catalyst for a real, genuine and enforceable partnership where Metrolink can expand, bus operators can react around it, and they can benefit from decent bus priority that gives them cost benefits (lower PVR) and improved competitiveness vs the private car, and in return, they have enforceable conditions on ticketing, investment in fleet etc.

The other reality is that there are probably corridors where growth may well be achievable (e.g. Bolton to Bury, for instance). Some are not simply because Metrolink is now the primary public transport link (e.g. Denton to Manchester) and some will just have little potential because of the wider social and economic factors that influence travel. Hence why I think growth is achievable (see Liverpool), it may be difficult to necessarily repeat that level or that seen n Bristol.

Finally, think this has been a really good discussion. I think we both respect each others knowledge and opinions, whilst not necessarily sharing them! However, I will dip out now, only as I really am beginning to repeat myself and perhaps the thread (and perhaps the board or world) and me, needs a little rest.

Thank you for the appreciative words TGW; and I indeed agree with most of what you are saying above. There are indeed substantial shifts in working, shopping and leisure environments at the moment, some of which are problematic for maintaining bus services in particular. My perspective (as I should be apparent) is that one such major shift - and I suspect the one with the greatest impact on the future configuration of urban transport, is the shift from car to non-car modes of transport for peak period travel in and around town centres. Combined with a an increasing tendency for substantial traffic generators to choose locations in and around those centres. This change is certainly strongly differentiated between economic and ethic populations; it is a lot stronger in metropolitan centres, in populations with higher educational qualifications, in more affluent populations, and in populations born in the EU; but it is apparent in most places in GM; not just in Manchester itself. Oldham is the only urban centre in GM where car use at peak periods is still increasing.

The logic of this is that every year there are more people aspiring to find regular modes of urban travel that don't involve driving themselves. 20 years ago we saw an equivalent change happening in longer distance intercity travel, and as in that case, there seems to be no going back - travellers may well switch from one non-car transport mode to another; but they rarely return to regular driving. So fundamentally there is a synergy in non-car travel modes; the more people travel into town by bike, the more in the long term may consider doing the same trip by bus if their circumstances change. And so on.

The puzzle then is why bus services have have taken so long to benefit from this fundamental change in travel habits (there are exceptions, but mainly in the South East and South West).

I see three factors as having restricted and inhibited growth in bus patronage:

- the brand image of bus travel remains tainted with memories of fag-ash and screaming schoolkids. Many travellers who readily ride a crowded tram or train still balk at regular travel by bus;
- deregulation bus operators have tended to build their competitive business models and fare structures on capturing exactly the demographic group (low income inner urban households) where the underlying shift away from car use is weakest and longest delayed;
- there are serious problems with the quality of bus services - especially due to congestion, pollution and service unreliability. A lot of this is associated with the same long-term factors. So; traffic in inner suburbs is congested in part due to increased numbers of on-line delivery vans; plus the people who are now taking the tram into work have to leave their cars somewhere so bus services must now negotiate fare more stretches of parked vehicles.

I would agree than none of these three actively require franchising to be resolved - there are plentiful examples of successful rebranded bus services, and of simplified fares, without franchising. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that the third point above will indeed be easier to address in a franchised market. It seems to require both supportive regulation and major infrastructure investment; for instance, I cannot see the programme of replacing the entire uban bus fleet with non-polluting vehicles being feasible except through centralised vehicle purchasing, and that takes away a major supposed rationale for retaining the current operator model. The future for many inner urban bus corrdiors I suspect, will look a lot more like the 'Glider' and 'Sprint' networks; and those logically imply franchised operation.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I would agree than none of these three actively require franchising to be resolved - there are plentiful examples of successful rebranded bus services, and of simplified fares, without franchising. Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that the third point above will indeed be easier to address in a franchised market. It seems to require both supportive regulation and major infrastructure investment; for instance, I cannot see the programme of replacing the entire uban bus fleet with non-polluting vehicles being feasible except through centralised vehicle purchasing, and that takes away a major supposed rationale for retaining the current operator model.

But surely the big operators like Stagey, First and Arriva are best placed to have exactly those economies of scale, just as have worked successfully in changing the national fleet from high floor to low floor since around 2000?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
But surely the big operators like Stagey, First and Arriva are best placed to have exactly those economies of scale, just as have worked successfully in changing the national fleet from high floor to low floor since around 2000?

I know I was going to keep quiet (!) but that one did catch my eye. Centralised vehicle purchasing was what brought us the Borismaster.....:oops:
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I know I was going to keep quiet (!) but that one did catch my eye. Centralised vehicle purchasing was what brought us the Borismaster.....:oops:
I'd suggest political interference in technical matters was what brought us the Borismaster, though it wouldn't have happened without TfL having the powers and funding to make it so (buying the vehicles and requiring the operators to use them). Before that London seemed to be doing fine by requring vehicles to meet an output-based specification that all the big suppliers could meet and the operators procure through their own central purchasing systems. This encouraged the industry to develop innovations such as hybrid drives.

One would hope Manchester didn't go down this road, although there might be a place for limited public ownership of standard specification buses as practised by some councils. Doing this for some route tenders might encourage small operators who could struggle to fund their own fleets on the basis of a fixed term franchise.
 

Blackpudding

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2016
Messages
393
I'd suggest political interference in technical matters was what brought us the Borismaster, though it wouldn't have happened without TfL having the powers and funding to make it so (buying the vehicles and requiring the operators to use them). Before that London seemed to be doing fine by requring vehicles to meet an output-based specification that all the big suppliers could meet and the operators procure through their own central purchasing systems. This encouraged the industry to develop innovations such as hybrid drives.

One would hope Manchester didn't go down this road, although there might be a place for limited public ownership of standard specification buses as practised by some councils. Doing this for some route tenders might encourage small operators who could struggle to fund their own fleets on the basis of a fixed term franchise.

TfGM are no stranger to buying standard diesel and hybrid vehicles for Metroshuttle and schools. This has also, as you suggest, enabled smaller operators to participate in the school operations
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
One would hope Manchester didn't go down this road, although there might be a place for limited public ownership of standard specification buses as practised by some councils. Doing this for some route tenders might encourage small operators who could struggle to fund their own fleets on the basis of a fixed term franchise.
Several of the councils that have done this have then had vehicles standing around for months (I believe years in some cases) whilst they decided what to do with them afterwards then resulting in them being flogged of at a loss. Most small operators can get standard spec vehicles easily enough via the rental companies, however the rental companies are reluctant to change the spec too much as they all remember the saga of the London bendies.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
TfGM are no stranger to buying standard diesel and hybrid vehicles for Metroshuttle and schools. This has also, as you suggest, enabled smaller operators to participate in the school operations

Several of the councils that have done this have then had vehicles standing around for months (I believe years in some cases) whilst they decided what to do with them afterwards then resulting in them being flogged of at a loss. Most small operators can get standard spec vehicles easily enough via the rental companies, however the rental companies are reluctant to change the spec too much as they all remember the saga of the London bendies.
Two somewhat contradictory views here, illustrating the sort of issue TfGM will have to work through if they end up as a franchising authority. But the important thing would be that the authoritiy's specification for vehicles, whether owned by themselves or otherwise, should be deliverable by the industry without imposing significant cost penalties in purchase or operation. An exception might be made for something like emission-reducing technologies where the overall public good justifies some extra cost in the bus contracts, but even these should be specifying goals rather than imposing a solution that loses economies of scale.
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
Two somewhat contradictory views here, illustrating the sort of issue TfGM will have to work through if they end up as a franchising authority. But the important thing would be that the authoritiy's specification for vehicles, whether owned by themselves or otherwise, should be deliverable by the industry without imposing significant cost penalties in purchase or operation. An exception might be made for something like emission-reducing technologies where the overall public good justifies some extra cost in the bus contracts, but even these should be specifying goals rather than imposing a solution that loses economies of scale.

Good points edwin. However my original remark was specific to zero-emissions vehicles - with battery power particularly in mind. There are have been reports of large orders for such vehicles over the past few months across the world; but (happy to be corrected) almost all these seem to be from the public authorities of the country concerned. Battery power isn't like high/low floor, where costs are much the same whatever specification is accepted as standard. Bigger batteries cost more than smaller ones, but then need recharging less often, and then weigh a lot more. So picking on a particular size of battery implies particular implications for provision of recharging infrastructure (location and recharging speed). If the infrastructure supports buses with smaller batteries, running buses with bigger batteries will be uneconomic. One possible answer could be for the buses themselves to be purchased by the operator; but for standard batteries to be funded by TfGM. And then there is the issue of heating (and aircon). Heating a bus in the winter can use nearly half its battery output.
 
Last edited:

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Good points edwin. However my original remark was specific to zero-emissions vehicles - with battery power particularly in mind. There are have been reports of large orders for such vehicles over the past few months across the world; but (happy to be corrected) almost all these seem to be from the public authorities of the country concerned.

There is no "commercial" local bus service in wealthy countries outside the UK as far as I know, except possibly in New Zealand, although as I understand it this is a very watered down version of deregulation.

There are at least 150 VDL articulated fully electric battery buses in the Netherlands, including around 100 south of Amsterdam, around 40 in Eindhoven and around 10 in Groningen. The ones near Amsterdam and in Eindhoven are operated by Connexxion, a subsidiary of Transdev (Hermes in Eindhoven is a subsidiary of Connexxion), but of course these are franchised by the relevant provinces. By 2019 there should be around 300 battery buses in the country. The Dutch government has announced that there will be no more new diesel buses after 2025 with all diesel buses withdrawn by 2030.

The VDL buses are fully specified vehicles and so include air-conditioning and double-glazing as would be expected. Given that "all mod cons" are included, the range does not last a whole day so they need recharging every few hours using the overhead pantograph. The BYD/ADL buses on the 521/507 in London "cheat" in winter by using a diesel heater.

So not only is there a high cost in the purchasing of electric buses themselves, there is also a significant cost in extra layover time. This is clearly not compatible with a deregulated bus network. Deregulation survives at the moment because the costs of diesel bus operation can be kept sufficiently low that fares can be increased high enough to cover the costs with profit on top. There would have to be some kind of workaround to prop up deregulation if electric operation is mandated.
 
Last edited:

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
So not only is there a high cost in the purchasing of electric buses themselves, there is also a significant cost in extra layover time. This is clearly not compatible with a deregulated bus network. Deregulation survives at the moment because the costs of diesel bus operation can be kept sufficiently low that fares can be increased high enough to cover the costs with profit on top. There would have to be some kind of workaround to prop up deregulation if electric operation is mandated.
I suspect deregulation is the cause of global warming as well.

There is nothing in the current model of bus service operation that would stop it working if electric operation was MANDATORY, it wont work if it's optional (as it is now) in the same way that low floor operation and Euro 1,2,3,4 etc operation didn't catch on until it become mandatory and ENCTS acceptancy wouldn't work if it wasn't mandatory. If buses have to be (whatever the latest fade is) to operate in Manchester (or Glasgow, Oxford etc) then the bus companies respond. Somebody has to pay for it, either the passenger or the tax payer, and if it's introduced too quickly then the cost will be significant. Anything that causes increases in fares has the side effect of making car usage more popular which then causes more pollution and congestion.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I suspect deregulation is the cause of global warming as well.

There is nothing in the current model of bus service operation that would stop it working if electric operation was MANDATORY, it wont work if it's optional (as it is now) in the same way that low floor operation and Euro 1,2,3,4 etc operation didn't catch on until it become mandatory and ENCTS acceptancy wouldn't work if it wasn't mandatory. If buses have to be (whatever the latest fade is) to operate in Manchester (or Glasgow, Oxford etc) then the bus companies respond. Somebody has to pay for it, either the passenger or the tax payer, and if it's introduced too quickly then the cost will be significant. Anything that causes increases in fares has the side effect of making car usage more popular which then causes more pollution and congestion.

But surely the costs of electric operation are so high, certainly in the immediate future, that operators would not be able to register commercial services without making a loss? Fares would be have to be increased to such a high level that too many people would stop using them.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
[QUOTE="TheGrandWazoo, post: 3575860, member: 19354") that there are probably corridors where growth may well be achievable (e.g. Bolton to Bury, for instance). Some are not simply because Metrolink is now the primary public transport link (e.g. Denton to Manchester) and some will just have little potential because of the wider social and economic factors that influence travel. Hence why I think growth is achievable (see Liverpool), it may be difficult to necessarily repeat that level or that seen n Bristol.


Afore ye go can I just check there is no typo in the sentence about Denton to M'cr? As there is no rail based PT anywhere near most of the corridor at present.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
I see three factors as having restricted and inhibited growth in bus patronage:

- the brand image of bus travel remains tainted with memories of fag-ash and screaming schoolkids. Many travellers who readily ride a crowded tram or train still balk at regular travel by bus;
- deregulation bus operators have tended to build their competitive business models and fare structures on capturing exactly the demographic group (low income inner urban households) where the underlying shift away from car use is weakest and longest delayed;
- there are serious problems with the quality of bus services - especially due to congestion, pollution and service unreliability. A lot of this is associated with the same long-term factors. So; traffic in inner suburbs is congested in part due to increased numbers of on-line delivery vans; plus the people who are now taking the tram into work have to leave their cars somewhere so bus services must now negotiate fare more stretches of parked vehicles.

1 & 3 are linked. The perception of "polluting" buses comes largely from the class ridden media - yet more footage of Hybrid Enviro400s on BBC Breakfast this morning, when discussing pollution links to heart enlargement. NoX & PM10 emissions per bus have reduced THIRTY fold since the 1960s (based on Euro6s); the overall bus fleet has also declined (c.1750 in GM now, compared to 3000 in 1986 for instance) and Granada revealed the 10 worst roadside pollution hot spots in GM from an Environmental study and only ONE (Princess Road into Hulme) had more than 4 peak buses per hour (each way) registered! Most were on/near the M60/M62. The situation wasn't helped by an erroneous IPPR North report claiming only 10% of GM's buses were Electric, Hybrid or Euro6 and 20% were Euro3 or worse. In fact, the figures are 35% and 11% respectively. BBC NWs interpretation of that report was that buses and HGVs were the sole cause of roadside pollution in GM. Private cars, taxis and LGVs are all super-Green apparently. As for unreliability; yes, there is a problem of unreliability and poor punctuality - hence why integration will never work - but buses are nowhere near as bad as local rail on either score. And before anyone thinks thats a dig at Arriva Trains Northern; punctuality on the Hope Valley Line has always been poor. In fact, May 21 to June 30 this year was about as good as its ever been, but it was back to its worst in July. Blame is not solely Northern's either, which again is why it will always be so.............and why the class based prejudice against buses and their customers is skewing the argument.

2. Depending on your definition of "inner urban", I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that competitive business models and fare structures are built around low income households, unless you mean squeezing these low income/low car ownership households purely because there is no (perceived) competition. Obviously, they've never heard of uber, Gett and now Wambamm.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Anything that causes increases in fares has the side effect of making car usage more popular which then causes more pollution and congestion.

I thought it was OK to charge high fares as long as those idiot local politicians don't get a look in? A high fare, low subsidy deregulated system is considered more desirable than the alternatives even if it means more car trips and more pollution.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
But surely the costs of electric operation are so high, certainly in the immediate future, that operators would not be able to register commercial services without making a loss? Fares would be have to be increased to such a high level that too many people would stop using them.

A variation on a theme from Radamfi
  • About 5 years ago, it was that as Arriva had retreated from Surrey (with the council having to support a number of services) that it presaged an era of more greater levels of council support nationally, commercial services representing a decreasing proportion of UK bus services and so tipping the balance again to a supported, controlled regime
  • Then it was that decreasing BSOG would force commercial bus services to be reduced and eventually tipping the balance again to a supported, controlled regime
  • Now it's that the bus industry will need to be all electric by a week on Tuesday or something and that they will be unable to be commercial and so tipping the balance again to a supported, controlled regime
It's almost like you've a one track mind and merely interpret information to support an ingrained, ideological wish.

Think Carl was on the money. The reality is more likely that such moves will be a case of supporting transition to new tech over a period of time via some GBF or other such funding. However, we do seem to have drifted significantly from the subject of this thread.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
  • Now it's that the bus industry will need to be all electric by a week on Tuesday or something and that they will be unable to be commercial and so tipping the balance again to a supported, controlled regime
It's almost like you've a one track mind and merely interpret information to support an ingrained, ideological wish.

But I'm not the only one who has thought about this. You can see it was nerd who brought up this issue first.

Think Carl was on the money. The reality is more likely that such moves will be a case of supporting transition to new tech over a period of time via some GBF or other such funding. However, we do seem to have drifted significantly from the subject of this thread.

I could argue that you and carlberry also have a "one track mind" and wish to preserve the current system even by creative manipulations such as this. If the industry is supposed to be genuinely "commercial" then they should pay the full costs of getting vehicles to meet whatever cleanliness requirements come in.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I could argue that you and carlberry also have a "one track mind" and wish to preserve the current system even by creative manipulations such as this. If the industry is supposed to be genuinely "commercial" then they should pay the full costs of getting vehicles to meet whatever cleanliness requirements come in.

Pragmatism, my dear Radamfi.

Many commercial industries are given dispensations to support fundamental transition depending on speed and scale of transition. That might be in direct financial support or phasing such as PSVAR. That’s only sensible!
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
But I'm not the only one who has thought about this. You can see it was nerd who brought up this issue first.

I could argue that you and carlberry also have a "one track mind" and wish to preserve the current system even by creative manipulations such as this. If the industry is supposed to be genuinely "commercial" then they should pay the full costs of getting vehicles to meet whatever cleanliness requirements come in.
I'm old enough to have experianced the previous system and have no wish to preserve the current system, except where people suggest something worse! The problem is the industry will pay the costs, the competition wont in the short term (taxis and cars) and even trains are given tax breaks that the bus (in part) and coach (in full) industry dosent have. Cities have dirty air because internal combustion engines are dirty, reducing the number of engines is the only way forward however focusing on the engines that are most efficient (in terms of moving people per pollution cost) is a stupid way of dealing with the issue.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I'm old enough to have experianced the previous system and have no wish to preserve the current system, except where people suggest something worse! The problem is the industry will pay the costs, the competition wont in the short term (taxis and cars) and even trains are given tax breaks that the bus (in part) and coach (in full) industry dosent have. Cities have dirty air because internal combustion engines are dirty, reducing the number of engines is the only way forward however focusing on the engines that are most efficient (in terms of moving people per pollution cost) is a stupid way of dealing with the issue.

We're not advocating the previous system. What is proposed is a privatised system like in London, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and probably elsewhere.

Whilst diesel engines are relatively good compared to petrol engines in terms of carbon emissions they are far worse for particulate matter which is the key issue for air quality in urban areas.

As an aside, electric buses are much more pleasant to ride in than a diesel bus. They are much quieter and the vehicle doesn't vibrate when stationary. I've ridden on electric artics so much recently that getting on a diesel bus again feels so retrograde.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Whilst diesel engines are relatively good compared to petrol engines in terms of carbon emissions they are far worse for particulate matter which is the key issue for air quality in urban areas.
There are several potential reasons why diesel buses are a good target for reducing emissions:
  • Bus engines are running for much longer each day than the average car and probably most vans too.
  • Buses spend proportionately more time in city centres where the pollution problems are greatest (in terms of the number of people breathing the air, even if the actual pollution is higher at somewhere like a motorway junction).
  • Buses are run by a relatively small number of operators with maintenance done by (mostly!) competent staff at a small number of depots. So it's relatively less difficult to introduce new technology.
  • To some extent bus operators are reliant on public funding so it may be possible to apply public pressure for them to improve (obviously limited under the current regime).
This suggests that buses would be a good place to start, as is actually happening. Many of the same factors apply to taxis or private hire vehicles and I would like to see tougher rules for these too, as London is starting to do. However taxis/PHVs are mostly owner-operated and serviced at a wide range of locations. Their drivers are also numerous and have considerable political clout.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top