• 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!

West Yorkshire Bus Franchising to go ahead

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
And if they have got their sums wrong, as Nexus most demonstrably did, that should be challenged?
It’s about trying to find a technicality to subvert the process because they didn’t like the outcome.

It worked in the north east, because the relevant tribunal at the time just accepted everything that Arriva and Go (they of the anti-competitive carving up of territory) said. And all the promises the operators made disappeared off on the breeze, just as I predicted they would. It’s a mystery why the bus networks in Tyneside are now dead on their feet.

Thankfully it didn’t work in Manchester. Hopefully it won’t this time either.
 

stevieinselby

Member
Joined
26 May 2023
Messages
190
Location
Selby
Forgive me, I don't really understand buses, and have only just found this thread. Will this proposal to franchise, get rid of all the fly by night, cowboy operators, such as Watersons, and Globe Holidays who frankly turn up when they want, with buses only fit for the scrap yard and accountable to nobody? I hope so.

As an occasional user of my local routes, 485 and 249 for context, I would love to see one operator, one brand, and a set standard of bus, both livery and interior. It would install a bit of confidence in bus usage, in the West Yorkshire back waters, where we get any operation that happens to own a bus.
One key difference between the WY proposals for franchising and what Manchester have done is that the WY plan is specifically designed to be more accommodating to small operators.

So within each area (not necessarily each local authority, there are more areas than LAs), there will usually be one "large" lot that will cover the core routes into the main urban centre and then a number of "medium" and "small" lots covering minor routes and those serving outlying towns and villages, which could be down to just a handful of buses in some cases. That means that small operators will be able to put in viable bids. That hasn't been the case in Manchester, where (in tranche 1) out of the 4 operators the smallest have about 50 vehicles.

However, I'm sure that WY will be keeping a close eye on operations, as this is their flagship policy that they will be judged by the public on, and if there are any dodgy companies who are not living up to the standards that WY set then I'm sure they will take action to bring them into line or kick them out. Yes, in due course there will be a standardised livery and more standardisation in terms of the fleet, although we shouldn't expect wholesale replacement of all vehicles on day 1, it will take time to upgrade the fleet.

(Not sure what the issue with Globe's fleet is, nearly half of their buses are 70-reg or later - I know that might not be much consolation if the route you're on never sees those newer buses!)
 
Joined
8 Feb 2021
Messages
468
Location
York

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,448
One key difference between the WY proposals for franchising and what Manchester have done is that the WY plan is specifically designed to be more accommodating to small operators.

So within each area (not necessarily each local authority, there are more areas than LAs), there will usually be one "large" lot that will cover the core routes into the main urban centre and then a number of "medium" and "small" lots covering minor routes and those serving outlying towns and villages, which could be down to just a handful of buses in some cases. That means that small operators will be able to put in viable bids. That hasn't been the case in Manchester, where (in tranche 1) out of the 4 operators the smallest have about 50 vehicles.

However, I'm sure that WY will be keeping a close eye on operations, as this is their flagship policy that they will be judged by the public on, and if there are any dodgy companies who are not living up to the standards that WY set then I'm sure they will take action to bring them into line or kick them out. Yes, in due course there will be a standardised livery and more standardisation in terms of the fleet, although we shouldn't expect wholesale replacement of all vehicles on day 1, it will take time to upgrade the fleet.

(Not sure what the issue with Globe's fleet is, nearly half of their buses are 70-reg or later - I know that might not be much consolation if the route you're on never sees those newer buses!)

Manchester has lots of small contracts. In practice though all the small contracts in phase 1 went to Diamond, and all in phase 2 went to First except a couple more for Diamond. They might as well have just let it all as one large contract. Same with the multiple large contracts in each phase - if the bidding takes place at the same time and all the major operators bid for every contract using the same costs, the same operator is going to win everything.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
York has just spent a lot of money on new buses, hence the loss for last year
Capital investment goes on the balance sheet, not the profit and loss. The related depreciation is what goes on the profit and loss, and the new buses depreciate over 15-20 years.
 

stevieinselby

Member
Joined
26 May 2023
Messages
190
Location
Selby
Manchester has lots of small contracts. In practice though all the small contracts in phase 1 went to Diamond, and all in phase 2 went to First except a couple more for Diamond. They might as well have just let it all as one large contract. Same with the multiple large contracts in each phase - if the bidding takes place at the same time and all the major operators bid for every contract using the same costs, the same operator is going to win everything.
Ah, fair enough, I hadn't followed the process carefully and just saw that only 4 companies were involved, I hadn't realised that those 4 had just hoovered up lots of small contracts and aggregated them up.
I think WY have been keen to learn lessons from the Manchester process and try to make their process more friendly to small operators ... although what that entails and what they're going to do differently, I couldn't tell you!
 

JD2168

Member
Joined
11 Jul 2022
Messages
932
Location
Sheffield
[QUOTE="stevieinselby, post: 6682656, member:

(Not sure what the issue with Globe's fleet is, nearly half of their buses are 70-reg or later - I know that might not be much consolation if the route you're on never sees those newer buses!)
[/QUOTE]

The newest long E200MMC’s tend to go on the 96 from Barnsley to Wakefield & X20 from Barnsley to Doncaster. I do know they seem short of drivers as they are advertising on the windows of their buses for new drivers. They did take over Waterson’s fleet & some of their Scania’s are scruffy to say the least. I have seen Globe buses on Waterson’s operated 36 from Barnsley to South Elmsall at times.
 

Megafuss

Member
Joined
5 May 2018
Messages
644
It’s about trying to find a technicality to subvert the process because they didn’t like the outcome.

It worked in the north east, because the relevant tribunal at the time just accepted everything that Arriva and Go (they of the anti-competitive carving up of territory) said. And all the promises the operators made disappeared off on the breeze, just as I predicted they would. It’s a mystery why the bus networks in Tyneside are now dead on their feet.

Thankfully it didn’t work in Manchester. Hopefully it won’t this time either.
NEXUS got its sums wrong. Plain and simple. The argument was there to be won and they alone flunked it.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
20,042
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
NEXUS got its sums wrong. Plain and simple. The argument was there to be won and they alone flunked it.
This has been explained to @Tetchytyke on several occasions. Essentially, NEXUS failed to calculate and explain the funding gap between the old world and the new world during the transition period. It was pointed out that whilst their long term projection (i.e. in time, greater passenger numbers will fund enhanced services) might work, there was no acknowledgement of the period where enhanced services (incurring immediate cost) would outstrip revenue, nor how that gap would be funded. @Tetchytyke would also be wise to remember that NEXUS were told this, made to go away and recut their numbers, and still got it wrong in the view of an independent body. Yes, the bus companies had a vested interest in kyboshing the proposal, but painting a picture that plucky NEXUS were undone by evil corporate bodies is simply not true.

Now, in terms of West Yorkshire (and not displeasing the mods), it is entirely natural for a business to try to head off an existential threat. First is clearly the business with most to lose, and IMHO, they've done a poor job in protecting themselves from this. Tracy Brabin was always going to pursue this avenue as it was part of her election campaign but First as the largest operator could've done more in terms of inward investment AND promotion. Granted, it might have been difficult in getting other parties to come to alongside with Transdev perhaps having their own issues, and Arriva being bereft of money or invention. However, First could've done more in raising service standards, improving reliability, and doing the showy things - not just new vehicles but refurbs, and really selling it.

So now it becomes a question as to whether West Yorkshire have got their sums and their processes right? If not, they'll be in the NEXUS position. If they have, they'll have met all the legal requirements, as did Greater Manchester.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,231
Capital investment goes on the balance sheet, not the profit and loss. The related depreciation is what goes on the profit and loss, and the new buses depreciate over 15-20 years.
Yes, but the replaced vehicles will have been depreciated (straight line) over a similar period. However, because of the higher purchase cost of the new vehicles (inflation), the depreciation cost over the next 15-20 years will jump up.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Yes, but the replaced vehicles will have been depreciated (straight line) over a similar period. However, because of the higher purchase cost of the new vehicles (inflation), the depreciation cost over the next 15-20 years will jump up.
Absolutely, but the poster I was replying to seemed to be under the impression that the capital expenditure would be the thing to massively reduce the profits on a one-off basis.

This has been explained to @Tetchytyke on several occasions.
It’s part of the rationale that seems to have been applied by the tribunal, but the biggest part of their decision was that these costs couldn’t be justified because there was an offer of partnership. This offer of partnership was really nothing more than an ambush defence by NEBOA and, as we’ve subsequently seen, has basically not been adhered to in any way shape or form. Which is why Go North East in particular has not knowingly had the same route network in North Tyneside for more than about three consecutive months in the last 7 years.

I’ll criticise Nexus for not foreseeing the ambush defence, but my ire is still with the tribunal for being gullible in swallowing all the promises- none of which were ever adhered to.

Bringing it back on topic, I’ll be honest, I am worried that the same sorts of ambush defence will work again in this case. They didn’t work in Manchester and I sincerely hope that WYPTE have crossed those t’s and dotted those i’s. But I remain worried that First West Yorkshire, who outside of Leeds have been disinterested price-gougers for at least the last 20 years, will persuade a tribunal or court that they’ll now properly invest in the network, honest guv.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,231
Absolutely, but the poster I was replying to seemed to be under the impression that the capital expenditure would be the thing to massively reduce the profits on a one-off basis.
Quite! The poster might find there is a loss this year too then, unless remedial action has been taken or there are other factors at play.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
20,042
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
It’s part of the rationale that seems to have been applied by the tribunal, but the biggest part of their decision was that these costs couldn’t be justified because there was an offer of partnership. This offer of partnership was really nothing more than an ambush defence by NEBOA and, as we’ve subsequently seen, has basically not been adhered to in any way shape or form. Which is why Go North East in particular has not knowingly had the same route network in North Tyneside for more than about three consecutive months in the last 7 years.

I’ll criticise Nexus for not foreseeing the ambush defence, but my ire is still with the tribunal for being gullible in swallowing all the promises- none of which were ever adhered to.

Bringing it back on topic, I’ll be honest, I am worried that the same sorts of ambush defence will work again in this case. They didn’t work in Manchester and I sincerely hope that WYPTE have crossed those t’s and dotted those i’s. But I remain worried that First West Yorkshire, who outside of Leeds have been disinterested price-gougers for at least the last 20 years, will persuade a tribunal or court that they’ll now properly invest in the network, honest guv.
For gods sake man... They couldn't construct a business plan correctly and you're coming out with "ambush defence" and other such stuff. They made a howler... TWICE. The tribunal criticised NEXUS for not pursuing the partnership approach further. In short, NEXUS didn't get their sums right, AND NEXUS didn't follow the rules. However, you seem to think it was a shadowy cabal of bus operators and the tribunal.

There are rules that have to be adhered to within the legislation. Assuming West Yorkshire do that, then franchising will progress. That's what judges will have to decide.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
However, you seem to think it was a shadowy cabal of bus operators and the tribunal.
Oh I don’t think it was shadowy or corrupt, I simply think the bus operators came out with all sorts of wild promises at the last minute and the tribunal fell for it hook, line, and sinker. As you note, the tribunal criticised Nexus for not pursuing partnership working even though NEBOA had resisted any attempts to work in partnership for many years (look how Go North East in particular destroyed the Transfare system) and even though two of the big three had only recently beforehand conducted secret anti-competitive negotiations with each other.

None of those promises ever did come to fruition. And look at the state of the bus network in the north east now.

The operators have tried the same tactic in West Yorkshire, arguing that an “enhanced partnership” offers better value for money. And, as in the north east, the proposals for such a partnership are long on vague promises of jam tomorrow but much much shorter on measurable, tangible, proposals. I really hope it doesn’t work in West Yorkshire and that WYPTE, like TfGM, learn from the errors made by Nexus.
 

noddingdonkey

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
774
The document put before WYCA makes heavy reference to the EP+ proposal and points of difference between it and the franchising model, so it would seem unlikely that a tribuneral could suggest that option was not properly considered. They have also published a very detailed response to First's submission to the consultation.

On a practical basis, what kind of profit would First be making going forward assuming they won lots giving a roughly similar operation to as now? Is it even possible to calculate that?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
20,042
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Oh I don’t think it was shadowy or corrupt, I simply think the bus operators came out with all sorts of wild promises at the last minute and the tribunal fell for it hook, line, and sinker. As you note, the tribunal criticised Nexus for not pursuing partnership working even though NEBOA had resisted any attempts to work in partnership for many years (look how Go North East in particular destroyed the Transfare system) and even though two of the big three had only recently beforehand conducted secret anti-competitive negotiations with each other.

None of those promises ever did come to fruition. And look at the state of the bus network in the north east now.

The operators have tried the same tactic in West Yorkshire, arguing that an “enhanced partnership” offers better value for money. And, as in the north east, the proposals for such a partnership are long on vague promises of jam tomorrow but much much shorter on measurable, tangible, proposals. I really hope it doesn’t work in West Yorkshire and that WYPTE, like TfGM, learn from the errors made by Nexus.
I'm sorry - that's just not true. Even on Nexus' own website, it has the response from NEBOA stating that the consultation as undertaken was flawed, that Nexus had failed to consult properly on the QCS as per the requirements of the legislation see https://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/default/files/NEBOA Consultation Response v3.pdf - this was in 2013. That document from NEBOA was TWO YEARS before the tribunal - that must be the slowest moving, publicly displayed ambush in history!

Also, those promises that you cite didn't come to fruition because they weren't promises. They were proposals made to Nexus, as part of a partnership, that they (Nexus) decided not to act upon. So having had them rejected by Nexus, and Nexus not coming to the party, you blame the operators for not doing things unilaterally?

If West Yorkshire (or anyone) wants to pursue an enhanced partnership, then you can put in legally based obligations on all parties to deliver what they say.

However, West Yorkshire look like they will pursue franchising and, if they do so, they must follow the law. Do that, as Greater Manchester did, then the same result will doubtless occur. If they haven't got it right, and the legal challenge is successful, then that's their issue not the operators.



ps the anti-competitive negotiations were actually how Go Ahead basically outmanoeuvred Arriva with their original expansions into SE Northumberland and the Tyne Valley, and essentially forcing them to cede Hexham and not compete head on. Again, we've covered this enough times
 

Mwanesh

Member
Joined
14 May 2016
Messages
792
Absolutely, but the poster I was replying to seemed to be under the impression that the capital expenditure would be the thing to massively reduce the profits on a one-off basis.


It’s part of the rationale that seems to have been applied by the tribunal, but the biggest part of their decision was that these costs couldn’t be justified because there was an offer of partnership. This offer of partnership was really nothing more than an ambush defence by NEBOA and, as we’ve subsequently seen, has basically not been adhered to in any way shape or form. Which is why Go North East in particular has not knowingly had the same route network in North Tyneside for more than about three consecutive months in the last 7 years.

I’ll criticise Nexus for not foreseeing the ambush defence, but my ire is still with the tribunal for being gullible in swallowing all the promises- none of which were ever adhered to.

Bringing it back on topic, I’ll be honest, I am worried that the same sorts of ambush defence will work again in this case. They didn’t work in Manchester and I sincerely hope that WYPTE have crossed those t’s and dotted those i’s. But I remain worried that First West Yorkshire, who outside of Leeds have been disinterested price-gougers for at least the last 20 years, will persuade a tribunal or court that they’ll now properly invest in the network, honest guv.
Let's even ask the first question. Do the authority have enough funds for the procedure is the first thing.
 

WAB

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
683
Location
Middlesex
One key difference between the WY proposals for franchising and what Manchester have done is that the WY plan is specifically designed to be more accommodating to small operators.

So within each area (not necessarily each local authority, there are more areas than LAs), there will usually be one "large" lot that will cover the core routes into the main urban centre and then a number of "medium" and "small" lots covering minor routes and those serving outlying towns and villages, which could be down to just a handful of buses in some cases. That means that small operators will be able to put in viable bids. That hasn't been the case in Manchester, where (in tranche 1) out of the 4 operators the smallest have about 50 vehicles.

However, I'm sure that WY will be keeping a close eye on operations, as this is their flagship policy that they will be judged by the public on, and if there are any dodgy companies who are not living up to the standards that WY set then I'm sure they will take action to bring them into line or kick them out. Yes, in due course there will be a standardised livery and more standardisation in terms of the fleet, although we shouldn't expect wholesale replacement of all vehicles on day 1, it will take time to upgrade the fleet.

(Not sure what the issue with Globe's fleet is, nearly half of their buses are 70-reg or later - I know that might not be much consolation if the route you're on never sees those newer buses!)
Is the intention for the small operators to be mainly existing local firms? Can't think of many which have the sort of structure to run a decent small operation - TLC, Squarepeg, Globe, Stotts.
 

stevieinselby

Member
Joined
26 May 2023
Messages
190
Location
Selby
Is the intention for the small operators to be mainly existing local firms? Can't think of many which have the sort of structure to run a decent small operation - TLC, Squarepeg, Globe, Stotts.
I believe that was the plan, yes. Connexions might be interested in any lots on the eastern side of Leeds as well if there are any lots that don't run in the evenings or on Sundays! And there could be coach operators looking to branch out or potentially new start-ups as well, although obviously they will have an uphill battle to prove their viability.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
3,004
Location
London
I was under the impression that the rules that West Yorkshire (and previously Greater Manchester) have to follow are less onerous than was necessary under Quality Contracts. Otherwise they would not have waited so long.
 

M803UYA

Member
Joined
24 May 2020
Messages
647
Location
Under my stone....
This link takes you to the consultation responses from the various operators.

Some of the submissions are rather interesting - Squarepeg on p485
A: I have grave concerns about the WYCA ability to ensure these vehicles are kept to an acceptable standard by the current franchise operator. Under Mybus, most vehicles were in a poor condition and not maintained properly with few exceptions. We know this having painted eighty of them. The Accessbus fleet, in most cases, suffered the same fate with vehicles in a dreadful state being operated. We refused to repaint these vehicles for WYCA because they were clearly not being looked after by the operator in question. However, our concerns were ignored and excuses were made for the operator in question by WYCA, The operator went bust in September of 2022. What steps will WYCA take to ensure vehicles are up to standard? Some operators fail to look after vehicles they own, I can't see that that they'll look after vehicles they don't?

First's response starts at P618 - ending at P797 this from the covering letter (but it's expanded on in much detail)
Summary of Key Points We have identified a number of critical deficiencies in the consultation, which should be addressed by WYCA now to ensure a fair and compliant consultation. If these shortcomings are not addressed, the franchising proposals would not meet the criteria set out in the Transport Act 2000 and may be challenged. We consider that WYCA has failed to disclose sufficient detail of the Assessment such that the requirements of the Transport Act 2000 are not met, and this results in consultees being unable to make definitive responses to the consultation

The key shortcomings are summarised below. 1. Margins As shown in section 3.2 of Oxera’s report, there is strong evidence to suggest that margins earned from commercial bus operations in West Yorkshire lie considerably below those published within the Assessment, with the Assessment estimating commercial EBIT margins of 12%–13% in West Yorkshire. Data from statutory accounts indicates that total margins for the three biggest operators in the region have margins which lie considerably below these levels. Further these cannot be explained by accounting for losses made on supported service contracts. Where this is indeed an error, we conclude that it is likely to materially distort the potential for savings which might be secured through lower margins within a franchising scenario. The Net Present Value (“NPV”) of the franchising option could be reduced by £200m to £250m. We understand from Simon Warburton’s letter of 3 rd January that adjustments have been made to operator data to account for patronage recovery and growth since the period the data covers, and to allow for the end of Bus Recovery Grant payments. However, we consider this cannot explain the difference between Oxera’s estimates of commercial margins and those assumed in WYCA’s Assessment, given confirmation provided by your advisers during our meeting on November 24 that the impact of these adjustments on operator margins lies within 1%.
2. Fleet requirements The Assessment underestimates the current peak fleet requirement and accordingly, the number of zero-emission buses that WYCA is expected to purchase under Franchising. In turn this means that the Capital Expenditure requirement on WYCA could be under-estimated by up to £223m and could be even higher if WYCA’s assumption around ZEBRA funding does not come to fruition. Whilst we acknowledge that when we met on 24th November, you provided some clarification on figures relating to the size of the fleet used in the Assessment, including the proposed fleet strategy and the approach to the acquisition of vehicles, your responses have not addressed the discrepancy between the current fleet size of 1,755 and the 893 buses assumed in WYCA’s lotting strategy. We refer you to section 4.2 of Oxera’s report.
3. Network enhancements We are concerned that the timetable coordination, service rationalisation and removal of duplicate services proposed within the Assessment are unlikely to collectively deliver material efficiencies. We note that you have confirmed that the costs of operating the additional service frequency are included in the Assessment. However, based on analysis contained within section 3.3.1 of Oxera’s report, we remain concerned that the frequency enhancements proposed of between 20 - 50% across 51 routes, based on Oxera’s findings and First’s operational experience, will likely come at considerable additional costs, including many more drivers, and we cannot see that these have been adequately accounted for within the Assessment.

Whilst piloting my small coach on my school contract this morning, I had BBC Radio Leeds chuntering away. Tracy Brabin made very clear that the 'enhancements to services' were at no cost to the taxpayer. Fortunately I didn't have little people on board when I blurted out my reply..... :D

P622 of the covering note:
Concerns on the shortcomings of the consultation I must advise that we remain of the view that WYCA has failed to disclose sufficient detail of the Assessment such that the requirements of the Transport Act 2000 are not met, and this results in consultees being unable to make definitive responses to the consultation. Where we have seen detail (such as on the fares sensitivities) we have material concerns about its analytical credibility. We are also of the view that based on the information that has been published, the requirements under the Transport Act 2000, to demonstrate that the franchising option is affordable and provides value for money, have not been demonstrated as being met. Indeed, based on what we have seen of the analysis that has been carried out for you, it is apparent that the franchising option: • offers worse value for money than EP+; • is unaffordable, given the budget available; • poses significant risks to taxpayers, passengers and operators in West Yorkshire in its current proposed form. We are therefore of the view that a decision made by the Mayor on the basis of the current Assessment, cannot be supported by the evidence presented.
First remains committed to working in partnership with WYCA to deliver the best possible services for the people of West Yorkshire. We hope that you will consider our response in that spirit.

Contrast this with Arriva's announcement today which was broadly positive (given the potential loss of business) - First seem a little 'quiet'. Presumably as their challenge is forthcoming.
 

Leedsbusman

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
186
Location
Layton
This link takes you to the consultation responses from the various operators.

Some of the submissions are rather interesting - Squarepeg on p485


First's response starts at P618 - ending at P797 this from the covering letter (but it's expanded on in much detail)




Whilst piloting my small coach on my school contract this morning, I had BBC Radio Leeds chuntering away. Tracy Brabin made very clear that the 'enhancements to services' were at no cost to the taxpayer. Fortunately I didn't have little people on board when I blurted out my reply..... :D

P622 of the covering note:


Contrast this with Arriva's announcement today which was broadly positive (given the potential loss of business) - First seem a little 'quiet'. Presumably as their challenge is forthcoming.
I haven't seen any First commentary, but here are links to Transdev and Arriva quotes:

Speaking afterwards to the Keighley News, Transdev chief executive officer Henri Rohard said: "We welcome the announcement by mayor Brabin and look forward to working with her and the combined authority to secure positive benefits for our customers and the wider travelling public in West Yorkshire. Co-operation between the public and private sectors is always welcome, not least as we are moving in the same direction of travel to secure longer-term investment and improvements for West Yorkshire’s bus network."

A spokesperson for Arriva Yorkshire said: "We welcome confirmation of Mayor Tracy Brabin’s intention to move towards a franchising model for local bus services in West Yorkshire.
"We know from our experience in London and across Mainland Europe that franchised networks can deliver the successful and high performing services that local communities deserve.
"We look forward to working closely with the Mayor and her team to help achieve their ambitions for improved bus services for passengers in West Yorkshire."
Edit - found First's. Rather more lukewarm:
Andrew Cullen, Managing Director of First Bus in West Yorkshire, said:

“Our highly experienced teams of drivers and colleagues in engineering, operations and network support are focused on doing what’s best for our customers in West Yorkshire day in, day out and helping them to love and use the bus.

Going forward, we want to continue working with WYCA to deliver more improvements to bus operations for our communities, building on our investment in West Yorkshire’s largest zero emission bus fleet.

“We are reviewing the detail underlying today’s decision and, in the meantime, look forward to understanding WYCA’s next steps, following the Mayor’s recommendation to proceed with the proposed franchising scheme.”
 
Joined
8 Feb 2021
Messages
468
Location
York
There's been a very interesting internal notice go out from First about the franchising. Loads of waffle but "we already have a strong relationship with WYCA and will continue to do so" as well as the above public bit
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,448
Curious to see positive responses from Arriva and Transdev, given both have so far failed to win any contracts in Greater Manchester. Is there any reason to think they will fare any better in West Yorkshire?
 

mattb7tl

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
29
Location
Huddersfield
Curious to see positive responses from Arriva and Transdev, given both have so far failed to win any contracts in Greater Manchester. Is there any reason to think they will fare any better in West Yorkshire?
Transdev has a great relationship with the WYCA. They got their part of the partnership done far quicker than any of the other companies and they didn't suprise the authority out of the blue by asking for an extra million like a certain one did...
Arriva apparently didn't bid at all in Manchester, which was apparently due to the takeover. Since the bidding process is in three years the company will already be fully taken over and ready to compete in the bidding process.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,245
Location
York
Curious to see positive responses from Arriva and Transdev, given both have so far failed to win any contracts in Greater Manchester. Is there any reason to think they will fare any better in West Yorkshire?
Transdev has Team Pennine which operates a large network in West Yorkshire and Arriva has a large presence in Wakefield as well as Leeds. But Transdev also has a lot of routes that leave West Yorkshire such as Coastliner and their services to Wetherby.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,255
What will the effect be on West Yorks/Gtr Manchester cross-boundary routes, if and when franchising starts in WY? One of these is my old route, 590 Halifax - Rochdale via Todmorden. I think the only others now are 587 Halifax - Rochdale via Ripponden and 184 Huddersfield - Oldham. All these are coming up as Bee Network on the TfGM website. I think only 184 is part of a TfGM franchise, is that right?
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,245
Location
York
What will the effect be on West Yorks/Gtr Manchester cross-boundary routes, if and when franchising starts in WY? One of these is my old route, 590 Halifax - Rochdale via Todmorden. I think the only others now are 587 Halifax - Rochdale via Ripponden and 184 Huddersfield - Oldham. All these are coming up as Bee Network on the TfGM website. I think only 184 is part of a TfGM franchise, is that right?
Same effect as services operating from West Yorkshire to North and South Yorkshire, most likely. They'll remain under the brand and operator they currently do.
 

WAB

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2015
Messages
683
Location
Middlesex
Same effect as services operating from West Yorkshire to North and South Yorkshire, most likely. They'll remain under the brand and operator they currently do.
So there will be a small island of commercially-operated routes in the borderlands between West Yorkshire and Manchester? I think a joint running approach would be more sensible. If necessary though, it would make sense for West Yorkshire to run them as that's where they are all currently operated from.

It's more of an issue than it is for the boundaries with North Yorkshire and South Yorkshire. Franchising in N. Yorks is unlikely so there will be plenty of commercial operators to run the cross-boundary services. To South Yorkshire, the cross-boundary links are already very poor (is there anything significant except Wakefield to Barnsley?) so leaving those routes to South Yorkshire franchising is unlikely to be much of an issue.
 
Last edited:

Top