• 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!

TfGM Bus franchising

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,571
Location
Yorkshire
To keep with a Manchester example (although the Gateshead one is the historical classic): TfGM is already a pseudo-Verkehrsverbund. They do not need to enforce franchising to perform what sensible, well-rounded discussions could create. They could produce network, rather than individual route, timetables. They could include trams in the System One ticket range (or whatever they are called now). They could engage with the bus operators for their thoughts on fares (My knowledge is scratchy here, but don't "PTEs" count as a body that can act as an intermediary for harmonising fares?).

Perhaps if the tram was the same fare as the bus people would be more inclined to use it. That it isn't (who sets tram fares?) explains why passengers may prefer to use the bus. What is the situation with ENCTS validity on the tram?

I can't help but think if TfGM used the money it must be spending on these reports and investigations into franchising on the currently existing network (publicity, etc.), it might not require the franchising to start with...

Does TfGM control many of these prices?

In West Yorkshire the multimodal tickets are controlled by a holding company - percentages are owned by all the local bus companies and the WYCA with representatives voting on behalf of the rail companies.
WYCA has only a small proportion of the votes to set fares. All the rail and bus companies are out to get as large a share of the money as they can.
Perhaps this is why there is no daily ticket that allows travel at any time (except at weekends). There's no good reason why day train and bus tickets should not be purchasable on an NFC-enabled phone (as bus-only tickets and weekly and longer seasons are), but they're not available. Nor are they available on the bus that would be the first step on most multi-modal journeys. They're sold at just 6 locations in the county for the undated version and are not available at unstaffed stations or on trains.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,571
Location
Yorkshire
Traditionally TfL (and previously, LRT) tendered routes in tranches, not individually. TfL still do that, it's just the tranches are smaller and may just be one route rather than the whole town area or whole LB garage operation as was done back in the late 80s/early 90s (still shudders remembering Bexleybus...)

In fact, you can see the current tendering schedule and all the tranches here:

https://tfl.gov.uk/forms/13923.aspx


Although routes are tendered in tranches, contracts are almost always awarded for individual routes (except combinations like the 389/399 which use 1 bus for both routes).
Many bus companies quote a price for individual routes and a better price for a combination of routes. Usually the combination price wins.
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,569
Does TfGM control many of these prices?

In West Yorkshire the multimodal tickets are controlled by a holding company - percentages are owned by all the local bus companies and the WYCA with representatives voting on behalf of the rail companies.
WYCA has only a small proportion of the votes to set fares. All the rail and bus companies are out to get as large a share of the money as they can.
Perhaps this is why there is no daily ticket that allows travel at any time (except at weekends). There's no good reason why day train and bus tickets should not be purchasable on an NFC-enabled phone (as bus-only tickets and weekly and longer seasons are), but they're not available. Nor are they available on the bus that would be the first step on most multi-modal journeys. They're sold at just 6 locations in the county for the undated version and are not available at unstaffed stations or on trains.

Yes, it’s basically the same in Greater Manchester. The company being GMTL.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
The news today that Rotala are buying First's Bolton operation, along with the earlier sale of the Queens Road depot to Go Ahead adds to the need for franchising to come sooner rather than later.

It will be even harder to make a success of the buses if the private operators are allowed to tear apart the First network in the northern half of the city. Whilst First and Go Ahead are still accepting each others tickets at the moment, the process has already started, with neither advertising the other's routes.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
The news today that Rotala are buying First's Bolton operation, along with the earlier sale of the Queens Road depot to Go Ahead adds to the need for franchising to come sooner rather than later.

It will be even harder to make a success of the buses if the private operators are allowed to tear apart the First network in the northern half of the city. Whilst First and Go Ahead are still accepting each others tickets at the moment, the process has already started, with neither advertising the other's routes.

Presumably both Go Ahead and Rotala are reasonably happy with the prospect of franchising in the near future as a way of increasing their market share in the conurbation. Otherwise they wouldn't have made their recent acquisitions.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
First has accepted Franchising is going to happen and has moved on, the only real opponent fighting against it is Stagecoach which took over management of the local bus operators lobby group OneBus from First a couple of years ago.
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
The news today that Rotala are buying First's Bolton operation, along with the earlier sale of the Queens Road depot to Go Ahead adds to the need for franchising to come sooner rather than later.

It will be even harder to make a success of the buses if the private operators are allowed to tear apart the First network in the northern half of the city. Whilst First and Go Ahead are still accepting each others tickets at the moment, the process has already started, with neither advertising the other's routes.
I assume that they still take the multi operator tickets and the local PTE can already advertise all operators routes.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Bit of an update on this. The agenda for the Combined Authority meeting next month contains a number of documents relevant to the proposed franchising scheme.
https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=2678&Ver=4

It looks like the audit has been completed and between October and January they will undertake the consultation with stakeholders.

It is proposed that franchising will be brought in in three phases - contracts to be let in 2021 for an area roughly comprising Bolton, Wigan and Salford, 2022 for Oldham, Rochdale and the Northern half of Manchester, 2023 for South Manchester, Tameside, Trafford and Stockport.

The list of services included in the scheme appears to only include routes wholly within Greater Manchester, so there's going to be a lot of routes needing a permit to continue operating.
 

David Verity

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2014
Messages
126
Location
Holmfirth West Yorkshire
Bit of an update on this. The agenda for the Combined Authority meeting next month contains a number of documents relevant to the proposed franchising scheme.
https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=2678&Ver=4

It looks like the audit has been completed and between October and January they will undertake the consultation with stakeholders.

It is proposed that franchising will be brought in in three phases - contracts to be let in 2021 for an area roughly comprising Bolton, Wigan and Salford, 2022 for Oldham, Rochdale and the Northern half of Manchester, 2023 for South Manchester, Tameside, Trafford and Stockport.

The list of services included in the scheme appears to only include routes wholly within Greater Manchester, so there's going to be a lot of routes needing a permit to continue operating.

Link to the consultation document for anyone who hasn't seen it
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Is this now a TfGM fait accompli....or will a referendum be held in all the ten local authority areas, similar what occurred quite a few years ago, in which the public could vote on the proposals set out?
There should be an attempt to consult with all the public, given that the franchising proposals will lead to profligacy. Most of the conurbation does not have a high enough population density to support very frequent services where one doesn't need to consult a timetable, which is the only circumstance where bus use might actually be a choice rather than undertaken as there is no alternative. Therefore, it is much cheaper to continue with the current arrangements and only subsidise selected "essential" services Mon-Sat 0800-1800. Other local authorities, such as Cumbria, East Cheshire and Stoke, have a much more prudent approach to public transport provision.
 
Last edited:

David Verity

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2014
Messages
126
Location
Holmfirth West Yorkshire
There should be an attempt to consult with all the public, given that the franchising proposals will lead to profligacy. Most the conurbation does not have a high enough population density to support very frequent services where one doesn't need to consult a timetable, which is the only circumstance where bus use might actually be a choice rather than undertaken as there is no alternative. Therefore, it is much cheaper to continue with the current arrangements and only subsidise selected "essential" services Mon-Sat 0800-1800. Other local authorities, such as Cumbria, East Cheshire and Stoke, have a much more prudent approach to public transport provision.
So far as I am aware the situation hasn't changed - the vast majority wanted to see it happen but the same vast majority didn't want to see their money being used to pay for it. The danger is that Joe Public will grow tired of the perfect storm of words and will find something more interesting to think about.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The current TfGM proposals would appear to be similar to what a Corbyn/Momentum politburo would have set out if they had won the last General Election.

God knows what else they would have in surprise for the electorate in such a scenario.
 

David Verity

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2014
Messages
126
Location
Holmfirth West Yorkshire
The current TfGM proposals would appear to be similar to what a Corbyn/Momentum politburo would have set out if they had won the last General Election.

God knows what else they would have in surprise for the electorate in such a scenario.
The politicos in Greater Manchester have form when it comes to buses. Deregulation was treated as a smash and grab raid on "our buses" and they decided that if they buried their heads in the sand for long enough Labour would be re-elected and it would all go away. Well that didn't happen did it? Time for a bit of old fashioned revenge?
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The politicos in Greater Manchester have form when it comes to buses. Deregulation was treated as a smash and grab raid on "our buses" and they decided that if they buried their heads in the sand for long enough Labour would be re-elected and it would all go away. Well that didn't happen did it? Time for a bit of old fashioned revenge?

Labour had first to be elected before it was possible for "Time for a bit of old fashioned revenge" to be enacted with them being in power, but we all know in our deepest hearts who really would be running the Labour Party had they won the last election
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There should be an attempt to consult with all the public, given that the franchising proposals will lead to profligacy.

Will they?

Most the conurbation does not have a high enough population density to support very frequent services where one doesn't need to consult a timetable, which is the only circumstance where bus use might actually be a choice rather than undertaken as there is no alternative.

Completely untrue. Done well, even infrequent bus services can be attractive, particularly when going into a big city where driving is highly unpleasant.

Therefore, it is much cheaper to continue with the current arrangements and only subsidise selected "essential" services Mon-Sat 0800-1800. Other local authorities, such as Cumbria, East Cheshire and Stoke, have a much more prudent approach to public transport provision.

Stagecoach does well in Cumbria because it can charge higher fares to the tourists (I was going to say "fleece" but the service is really very good). East Cheshire and Stoke? Hardly beacons of how to do it and no integration whatsoever. British provincial bus services are, by and large, dire.

The politicos in Greater Manchester have form when it comes to buses. Deregulation was treated as a smash and grab raid on "our buses" and they decided that if they buried their heads in the sand for long enough Labour would be re-elected and it would all go away. Well that didn't happen did it? Time for a bit of old fashioned revenge?

Please, go to Germany and see a proper integrated city public transport system (not a set of bus routes, an integrated system - actually integrated, not the way we bleat about it here then not do it) in action.

Why on earth would you not want that here?
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Will they?



Completely untrue. Done well, even infrequent bus services can be attractive, particularly when going into a big city where driving is highly unpleasant.



Stagecoach does well in Cumbria because it can charge higher fares to the tourists (I was going to say "fleece" but the service is really very good). East Cheshire and Stoke? Hardly beacons of how to do it and no integration whatsoever. British provincial bus services are, by and large, dire.



Please, go to Germany and see a proper integrated city public transport system (not a set of bus routes, an integrated system - actually integrated, not the way we bleat about it here then not do it) in action.

Why on earth would you not want that here?
It's all a matter of LSD. Post Brexit, the UK can't afford the same level of public transport subsidy as wealthy EU states.
 

David Verity

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2014
Messages
126
Location
Holmfirth West Yorkshire
Labour had first to be elected before it was possible for "Time for a bit of old fashioned revenge" to be enacted with them being in power, but we all know in our deepest hearts who really would be running the Labour Party had they won the last election
I think we've overlooked a stage here - the seeds of the present scenario were sown when George Osborne promised the regions a giant bag of sweeties if they decided to have an elected mayor. Cue Messrs Burnham/Rotheram/Jarvis all looking for their place in the Hall of Fame and spending loads of other people's money. After all they know far more about running buses than the professionals.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's all a matter of LSD. Post Brexit, the UK can't afford the same level of public transport subsidy as wealthy EU states.

It's really not. You can achieve the same thing with less subsidy by charging higher fares (and by savings by not overbussing the likes of Oxford Road but still taking the same fares income or a little more due to the removal of the "race to the bottom" competition there). Other than the nonsensical lack of fares integration between bus and rail, London's higher rail fares are an example.

Cumbria was quoted as an example of commercial services being good - it achieves that, like the Isle of Wight[1] does, by charging comparatively high fares, mostly to tourists (i.e. the single and day tickets are quite expensive, but the weeklies and longer much more reasonably priced, a clever bit of market differentiation in an area where you get quite a lot of reasonably well-off tourists but generally the locals are quite poor).

[1] Possibly the best rural bus network in the world - though I really wish Island Line would be integrated into it properly now it has been decided that it will stay open.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
It's really not. You can achieve the same thing with less subsidy by charging higher fares (and by savings by not overbussing the likes of Oxford Road but still taking the same fares income or a little more due to the removal of the "race to the bottom" competition there). Other than the nonsensical lack of fares integration between bus and rail, London's higher rail fares are an example.

Cumbria was quoted as an example of commercial services being good - it achieves that, like the Isle of Wight[1] does, by charging comparatively high fares, mostly to tourists (i.e. the single and day tickets are quite expensive, but the weeklies and longer much more reasonably priced, a clever bit of market differentiation in an area where you get quite a lot of reasonably well-off tourists but generally the locals are quite poor).

[1] Possibly the best rural bus network in the world - though I really wish Island Line would be integrated into it properly now it has been decided that it will stay open.
If you go to an integrated network that people can understand rather than a bewildering variety of operators, timetable and tickets, you're going to attract more passengers. Even more so if the bus is integrated with other modes and provides the "last mile" link that trains or trams can't do, with these feeders operating in areas of low traffic congestion and therefore being quick and reliable. That has the scope to promote a virtuous circle where more passengers means more revenue which can be ploughed back into the service, all the time reducing car use and therefore reducing congestion delays and starting to change the social attitude that buses are for people with no alternative (so further cutting evening and weekend service is not the way to go!).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If you go to an integrated network that people can understand rather than a bewildering variety of operators, timetable and tickets, you're going to attract more passengers. Even more so if the bus is integrated with other modes and provides the "last mile" link that trains or trams can't do, with these feeders operating in areas of low traffic congestion and therefore being quick and reliable. That has the scope to promote a virtuous circle where more passengers means more revenue which can be ploughed back into the service, all the time reducing car use and therefore reducing congestion delays and starting to change the social attitude that buses are for people with no alternative (so further cutting evening and weekend service is not the way to go!).

Precisely this. A fully integrated large-city transport model is highly successful in basically all countries where one is operated. Why would the UK be any different? Is it that English exceptionalism kicking in again?
 

Cesarcollie

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2016
Messages
524
Precisely this. A fully integrated large-city transport model is highly successful in basically all countries where one is operated. Why would the UK be any different? Is it that English exceptionalism kicking in again?

But how much do these ‘highly succesful’ models cost the public purse? And will the taxpayers of Greater Manchester be prepared to pay?
 

Cesarcollie

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2016
Messages
524
That depends on the fare levels.

The actual operation should be cheaper as you have less duplication.

But presumably (some) reduction in duplication will be more than offset by the staffing/tendering/monitoring/bureaucracy cost of the TfGM tendering structure? And the passenger expectations of ‘integration ‘ will be to pay less, or certainly no more, than they are paying currently?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But presumably (some) reduction in duplication will be more than offset by the staffing/tendering/monitoring/bureaucracy cost of the TfGM tendering structure? And the passenger expectations of ‘integration ‘ will be to pay less, or certainly no more, than they are paying currently?

Possibly.

TBH, I think a trial was much needed, so let's have this one go ahead. If it's a flop, don't roll it out anywhere else. If it's successful, as I strongly believe it will be, then every other English city above a certain size should follow. (Policy for Scotland/Wales is up to them).

Not sure what size, but in principle towns and cities where there is a substantial service of primarily city buses, rather than smaller places where most of the local service is provided incidentally by regional buses carrying on elsewhere outside of the town/city/PTE area. Certainly (in no particular order) Liverpool, Preston, Leeds, probably York, Newcastle, Birmingham and Milton Keynes would be examples where it could make sense, but Lancaster and Durham might be two smaller cities where it might not, because they're not really big enough to have much in the way of local services that don't go a fair way outside of the town/city. Probably best to start with the PTEs because they already have relevant structures and skills in place to some extent.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
TBH, I think a trial was much needed, so let's have this one go ahead. If it's a flop, don't roll it out anywhere else. If it's successful, as I strongly believe it will be, then every other English city above a certain size should follow.
Excuse my cynicism but depends on what the success criteria actually is? And doubtless, Mr Burnham will ensure that success is achieved.

The actual operation should be cheaper as you have less duplication.
However, we're always told there's no competition. I don't think there's actually a peace dividend to be had. Certainly not enough to outweigh the additional administration let alone to fund all the other promised benefits.
 

David Verity

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2014
Messages
126
Location
Holmfirth West Yorkshire
Possibly.

TBH, I think a trial was much needed, so let's have this one go ahead. If it's a flop, don't roll it out anywhere else. If it's successful, as I strongly believe it will be, then every other English city above a certain size should follow. (Policy for Scotland/Wales is up to them).

Not sure what size, but in principle towns and cities where there is a substantial service of primarily city buses, rather than smaller places where most of the local service is provided incidentally by regional buses carrying on elsewhere outside of the town/city/PTE area. Certainly (in no particular order) Liverpool, Preston, Leeds, probably York, Newcastle, Birmingham and Milton Keynes would be examples where it could make sense, but Lancaster and Durham might be two smaller cities where it might not, because they're not really big enough to have much in the way of local services that don't go a fair way outside of the town/city. Probably best to start with the PTEs because they already have relevant structures and skills in place to some extent.
We can discuss integration ad nauseum but nothing will be integrated unless a sensible level of private car use is factored in - and the politicos wouldn't have the bottle to do that because it would lose them votes. It's already been put to a public vote in Greater Manchester and Edinburgh and was roundly rejected. When a Clean Air Zone was floated for Sheffield a reporter asked if private cars would be taxed - "oh no" says the Councillor "we don't want to discourage people from driving into the city".
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
In Germany the strategy seems to be to recognise that cars are necessary for some journeys, but to provide a good public transport alternative for as many of them as possible. I believe also (based on some discussions with Germans some years back, but I don't think it has changed) that fuel tax revenues are directed to public transport. This comes back into the debate that was raging a few weeks ago here on road use charging for electric vehicles. To me public transport subsidy is an entirely reasonable use of taxes on car use, as providing a good alternative reduces the environmental impacts of the car and the need to build more roads. However this would require a major shift in national policy so isn't within the control of GM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top