Greater Manchester smartcard scheme (ATOS agreement terminated and revised plan)

Rail Ranger · 15 Aug 2015

Two comments on this interesting discussion:

It is actually possible to buy a 7-day or monthly ticket for bus, train and tram in GM but only in the form of a point to point season ticket (rail station to Metrolink zone) with a BusCard Extra add-on (covering all buses in GM).

The relatively high take-up of System One tickets in GM is probably linked to the north/south split of bus operations between First and Stagecoach which doesn't exist elsewhere because in every other PTE area the bus company was sold as a single company, not broken in two prior to sale (on Government orders) as in GM.

RailUK Forums

radamfi · 15 Aug 2015

Rail Ranger said:
The relatively high take-up of System One tickets in GM is probably linked to the north/south split of bus operations between First and Stagecoach which doesn't exist elsewhere because in every other PTE area the bus company was sold as a single company, not broken in two prior to sale (on Government orders) as in GM.

On the other hand, other PTE areas had a mix of NBC and PTE operations before deregulation.

HSTEd · 20 Aug 2015

radamfi said:
But why would they bother to agree to devolution if they intended that the bus barons would have their way anyhow?

Because devolution plays well with various elements of the Conservative base and with target seats in and around Manchester where they believe they can make headway in gutting Labour's major remaining strongholds.

radamfi · 20 Aug 2015

HSTEd said:
Because devolution plays well with various elements of the Conservative base and with target seats in and around Manchester where they believe they can make headway in gutting Labour's major remaining strongholds.

That would work if they actually let devolution happen and therefore allow bus regulation, but if devolution is blocked because of pressure from the bus industry, won't that look as if the government was squelching on the deal, which would therefore cause electoral damage?

plcd1 · 20 Aug 2015

radamfi said:
That would work if they actually let devolution happen and therefore allow bus regulation, but if devolution is blocked because of pressure from the bus industry, won't that look as if the government was squelching on the deal, which would therefore cause electoral damage?

Well possibly but this "Northern Powerhouse" stuff is the apparent brainchild of George Osborne. He seems to have been carte blanche by Cameron to maraude over all parts of domestic policy regardless of the consequences or whether he's even thought about what he means. I suspect the "bus reregulation" stuff was seen as an "easy" giveaway by Osborne in his efforts to blackmail local political leaders in Greater Manchester. I suspect there are anguished howls emanating from the depths of DfT Towers as they somehow try to craft the Bus Bill and avoid being mauled by the big bus groups. The bus groups have additional leverage because of their strong involvement in rail franchises so this is no way as easy as it looks. I expect there is a lot of lobbying going on in the background to avoid too much regulation.

I agree there are possible political consequences if local politicians in Greater Manchester don't like what eventually materialises in the Bill. However the whole thing is a farce anyway because I can't see government agreeing to the seizure of bus company assets so the bus cos are free to walk away if the proposed bus franchise / route contract terms are too onerous. Without a massive injection of funding the ITA can't fund a comprehensive network or infill the gaps in the network / add evening and Sunday routes. I've seen nothing that suggests a stack of money is about to be delivered to the ITA's front door so this sense of "local control" is an Osborne con trick. I also think there may be very undesirable consequences on cross border services in the GM area when the ramifications of the eventual Bus Bill are worked through. That's just my wild speculation of course but there is so little understanding of buses in Government that the potential for a massive cock up is, IMO, considerable.

edwin_m · 21 Aug 2015

plcd1 said:
I agree there are possible political consequences if local politicians in Greater Manchester don't like what eventually materialises in the Bill. However the whole thing is a farce anyway because I can't see government agreeing to the seizure of bus company assets so the bus cos are free to walk away if the proposed bus franchise / route contract terms are too onerous. Without a massive injection of funding the ITA can't fund a comprehensive network or infill the gaps in the network / add evening and Sunday routes. I've seen nothing that suggests a stack of money is about to be delivered to the ITA's front door so this sense of "local control" is an Osborne con trick. I also think there may be very undesirable consequences on cross border services in the GM area when the ramifications of the eventual Bus Bill are worked through. That's just my wild speculation of course but there is so little understanding of buses in Government that the potential for a massive cock up is, IMO, considerable.

There is nothing to say that the London bus franchise system necessarily needs to have London levels of subsidy. The Mayor and his predecessor have chosen to flood the roads with buses because it is the only quick way to provide the increase transport capacity the capital needs to function. Even with the congestion charge, buses in the centre are very slow-moving and therefore have high costs per bus-mile. This is less bad further out but fares are still much lower than cost recovery.

TfGM could choose to keep service levels and fares broadly the same, in which case the bus network's costs and revenues would also stay the same but operators would not be able to extract as much profit. The principal barrier to new operators entering the market is the predatory practices of the local incumbents, which would largely be eliminated under a franchising system. It is relatively easy to set up a new bus operator (unlike a rail franchise) so there is a likelihood of First and Stagecoach facing genuine competition for route tenders.

However, if done properly, integrating the networks, tickets and timetables of the bus operators and Metrolink ought to result in extra passengers. Except in the unlikely event of the ITA adopting a low-fares policy, this would result in more extra revenue than extra cost.

The big bus operators seem happy to bid in London at much lower margins than they expect in deregulated cities, reflecting the lack of revenue risk. Any that don't can, indeed, take their buses elsewhere.

plcd1 · 21 Aug 2015

edwin_m said:
There is nothing to say that the London bus franchise system necessarily needs to have London levels of subsidy. The Mayor and his predecessor have chosen to flood the roads with buses because it is the only quick way to provide the increase transport capacity the capital needs to function. Even with the congestion charge, buses in the centre are very slow-moving and therefore have high costs per bus-mile. This is less bad further out but fares are still much lower than cost recovery.

TfGM could choose to keep service levels and fares broadly the same, in which case the bus network's costs and revenues would also stay the same but operators would not be able to extract as much profit. The principal barrier to new operators entering the market is the predatory practices of the local incumbents, which would largely be eliminated under a franchising system. It is relatively easy to set up a new bus operator (unlike a rail franchise) so there is a likelihood of First and Stagecoach facing genuine competition for route tenders.

However, if done properly, integrating the networks, tickets and timetables of the bus operators and Metrolink ought to result in extra passengers. Except in the unlikely event of the ITA adopting a low-fares policy, this would result in more extra revenue than extra cost.

The big bus operators seem happy to bid in London at much lower margins than they expect in deregulated cities, reflecting the lack of revenue risk. Any that don't can, indeed, take their buses elsewhere.

And commercial operators don't "flood" certain corridors with buses to try to grab revenue or to protect their market share? And sometimes at the cost of buses on other routes?

A large part of the funding in London is actually to cover the cost of a range of fare concessions that have a much larger impact on buses than the tube / rail. The other significant issue in the London regime is that "subsidy" funds the purchase of new vehicles / refurbishment of existing ones for second contract terms. TfL have presented the funding numbers for the bus network in a revised way, at the request of the London Assembly, to show how the funding breaks down. Without these concessions and with a different mechanism for vehicle purchase and adding back in the Freedom Pass revenue foregone then the bus network makes an operating surplus.

TfL Business Plan - see page 40 of the pdf for a breakdown of bus subsidy.

My concern for further "devolution" is that the result will be a bigger mess than we already have. I understand why people are fed up with buses in the former Met counties but you can't restore bus networks without funding. There is no promise of that funding - in fact the last 5 years of savagery towards local government funding will simply get worse and worse. I don't see where Mr Osborne has promised extra money / budget stability to help TfGM / GMITA build a proper bus network. If the politicians think they are going to sequester the bus companies revenue base and assets (as in Tyne and Wear's plans) then they'll simply be outdone by the bus companies who simply won't let that happen. I can't see a Tory Chancellor presiding over a change that will damage significant private sector businesses who employ a lot of people across the country.

edwin_m · 21 Aug 2015

plcd1 said:
And commercial operators don't "flood" certain corridors with buses to try to grab revenue or to protect their market share? And sometimes at the cost of buses on other routes?

A large part of the funding in London is actually to cover the cost of a range of fare concessions that have a much larger impact on buses than the tube / rail. The other significant issue in the London regime is that "subsidy" funds the purchase of new vehicles / refurbishment of existing ones for second contract terms. TfL have presented the funding numbers for the bus network in a revised way, at the request of the London Assembly, to show how the funding breaks down. Without these concessions and with a different mechanism for vehicle purchase and adding back in the Freedom Pass revenue foregone then the bus network makes an operating surplus.

TfL Business Plan - see page 40 of the pdf for a breakdown of bus subsidy.

My concern for further "devolution" is that the result will be a bigger mess than we already have. I understand why people are fed up with buses in the former Met counties but you can't restore bus networks without funding. There is no promise of that funding - in fact the last 5 years of savagery towards local government funding will simply get worse and worse. I don't see where Mr Osborne has promised extra money / budget stability to help TfGM / GMITA build a proper bus network. If the politicians think they are going to sequester the bus companies revenue base and assets (as in Tyne and Wear's plans) then they'll simply be outdone by the bus companies who simply won't let that happen. I can't see a Tory Chancellor presiding over a change that will damage significant private sector businesses who employ a lot of people across the country.

The first part of your post gives a reason why costs would be reduced with more regulation, and the second gives another reason why London buses cost so much. Both of which are reasons why the net costs to the public sector of a regulated network outside London need not be much different from what they are now.

Arguably a fair point about Osborne and the bus barons, but if regulation improves the bus service then there should be more buses transporting more passengers and employing at least as many drivers but probably more productively.

WatcherZero · 21 Aug 2015

Effect of Government cuts in the last 12 months on Greater Manchester have been tallied

£18m cut:
22 services withdrawn, 20 have reduced frequency, 177 renewed
130 services are up for renewal this year.

Of the 950 bus services in the county 275 are subsidised.

plcd1 · 22 Aug 2015

edwin_m said:
The first part of your post gives a reason why costs would be reduced with more regulation, and the second gives another reason why London buses cost so much. Both of which are reasons why the net costs to the public sector of a regulated network outside London need not be much different from what they are now.

Arguably a fair point about Osborne and the bus barons, but if regulation improves the bus service then there should be more buses transporting more passengers and employing at least as many drivers but probably more productively.

Quite by chance I found an article in the latest Bus and Coach magazine about the costs of spreading London's regime to other areas.

http://www.busandcoach.com/media/4277/live-edition-21-08-2015.pdf

It has a short article on a report from the TAS Partnership that's looked at a range of data and the different aspects of TfL's regime. It's estimated how much it would cost to extend those aspects to PTE areas and the Shire counties. The possible extra cost for all aspects in GM is another £97m per annum to achieve a full London style operation.

The report was commissioned by Stagecoach so they'll want the costs to be as high as possible to support their stance! - cynical moi?

The report, and another on PTE bus historical performance, can be downloaded for free from the TAS Partnership website but you have to set up an account.

Xenophon PCDGS · 22 Aug 2015

WatcherZero said:
Effect of Government cuts in the last 12 months on Greater Manchester have been tallied

£18m cut:
22 services withdrawn, 20 have reduced frequency, 177 renewed
130 services are up for renewal this year.

Of the 950 bus services in the county 275 are subsidised.

Has any Government monies come into the TfGM coffers for the Manchester Metrolink system operational and line expansion (2CC) during the same time period ?

WatcherZero · 22 Aug 2015

No, the metrolink network doesnt receive any public money for operational costs. It does receieve some grants towards capital expenditure on expansion projects.

Xenophon PCDGS · 22 Aug 2015

WatcherZero said:
No, the metrolink network doesnt receive any public money for operational costs. It does receieve some grants towards capital expenditure on expansion projects.

Thanks for your clarification of both matters that I queried. So the £18 million in cuts mentioned in your posting could therefore be somewhat lessened by the grant monies for capital expenditure on the Manchester Metrolink system. With the current 2CC Manchester Metrolink project, would any of the grants referred to for capital expenditure that fall into the same financial time period as being that being discussed?

After all, it is all public transportation.

WatcherZero · 22 Aug 2015

No capital grants cant be used to fund the revenue (running) costs and cant be diverted to something other than they were awarded for unless they are general funding allocations not directed at any specific project.

Rail Ranger · 23 Aug 2015

As I think I've mentioned before, TfGM do provide some funding towards the operation of Metrolink. This is in the form of financial support for free travel on Metrolink for GM holders of the English National Concessionary Pass and payment of the track access charges to Network Rail for the use of the line between south of Timperley and Altrincham station.

edwin_m · 23 Aug 2015

Rail Ranger said:
As I think I've mentioned before, TfGM do provide some funding towards the operation of Metrolink. This is in the form of financial support for free travel on Metrolink for GM holders of the English National Concessionary Pass and payment of the track access charges to Network Rail for the use of the line between south of Timperley and Altrincham station.

The reimbursement for concessionary travel also goes to bus operators, including holders from the rest of England whereas only passes from Greater Manchester are valid on Metrolink.

Rail Ranger · 23 Aug 2015

The Metrolink operator also receives funding from TfGM to accept certain rail and System One tickets in the Metrolink City Zone and to accept rail tickets on the Altrincham line on Sundays.

WatcherZero · 24 Aug 2015

System One is a private company set up to redistribute farebox revenue to the correct recipient, not an arm of TfGM though. Metrolink itself is also a shareholder in the company selling tickets and receiving its share of the revenue for passengers carried.

Rail Ranger · 24 Aug 2015

Yes the Metrolink operator is part of System One and receives income from such products as the bus and tram daysaver, the tram and train daysaver and the tram, train and bus daysaver. TfGM provides funding to the Metrolink operator to accept System One and other products in the City Zone which otherwise would not be valid on Metrolink. These include the bus and train daysaver, the Countycard, the Rail Ranger, the Traincard (this is not a System One ticket), rail tickets to "Manchester CTLZ" and rail tickets between rail stations in the TfGM area which are "Route Metrolink (GM)" and so can be used on the tram to cross the city centre.

WatcherZero · 25 Aug 2015

Check the accounts, page 35 and 36, they break down metrolink and non-metrolink spending and they give a total of 0 concessionary support to Metrolink, as the network is a concession rather than a franchise they simply ask their operator to honour them and the operator aren't out of pocket as they are only being paid to manage the system they don't take a cut of revenue or profit. You might wonder then where that money is going, its the money to pay the operator. According to the accounts revenue is £59.3m and expenditure is £45.9m, giving a gross operating profit of £13.8m (which is then recycled to pay the interest on the capital expenditure loans for expansion).

http://tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/StatementOfAccounts/TfGM-2015-Statement-of-Accounts.pdf

pemma · 7 Sep 2015

Revised plan now available:

Altrincham Messenger said:
TRANSPORT chiefs have revised plans for 'smart' travel in Greater Manchester after a contract with key service supplier Atos was terminated.

A report said revised service could be in place by the end of the year and will include:

• introducing a smart phone app, enabling passengers to buy and download Metrolink tickets through their smartphone;

• upgrading of the network’s 250-plus ticket machines so people can use contactless bank cards to buy printed tickets.

• On the buses measures include supporting the principal bus operators’ (Arriva, First and Stagecoach) introduction of smart ticketing in Greater Manchester by:

• enabling passengers to load a range of pre-paid travelcards onto smartcards for use on bus services across Greater Manchester;

• assisting smaller bus companies in being part of the smart ticketing future too by ensuring they have the right on-board kit and back-office connections.

Councillor Andrew Fender, chairman of the TfGM Committee, said: “These initiatives will benefit tram and bus passengers and will make these travel choices more appealing options in future,"

So nothing for rail yet, just Metrolink and buses.

http://www.messengernewspapers.co.u...vel_is_on_the_way_for_public_transport_users/

radamfi · 7 Sep 2015

jcollins said:
So nothing for rail yet, just Metrolink and buses.

If you have an app for Metrolink tickets, surely that could easily give you the day tickets for bus/tram, bus/train/tram and train/tram that currently come from the Metrolink ticket machines?

You would hope that the railway would have mobile ticketing in any case for the whole country in the near future. Belgium, Germany and Switzerland allow you to buy most if not all walk on tickets and load them onto your phone without needing to print or collect.

pemma · 7 Sep 2015

radamfi said:
If you have an app for Metrolink tickets, surely that could easily give you the day tickets for bus/tram, bus/train/tram and train/tram that currently come from the Metrolink ticket machines?

Not necessarily. TOCs which have introduced mobile ticketing only allow tickets to be purchased for their own services using it, not the full range available from a TVM. It could be the same with Metrolink mobile ticketing.

HSTEd · 8 Sep 2015

In other words - they will do a bit of tiny equipment refit and that will be that.

No actual smart tickets.

radamfi · 9 Nov 2015

There is now a "get me there" app, which offers:

£7 peak day
£5 off-peak day
£5.80 weekend

plus 7 day point to point tickets

No combined bus/tram or tram/train tickets.

theshillito · 10 Nov 2015

radamfi said:
There is now a "get me there" app, which offers:

£7 peak day
£5 off-peak day
£5.80 weekend

plus 7 day point to point tickets

No combined bus/tram or tram/train tickets.

I like how the first screenshot on the iOS App Store listing has a tweet at the bottom apologizing for delays.

As for smart cards, sounds like they won't be implementing a touch-in, touch-out thing and instead loading travelcards onto them, which is a bit naff.

richardio123 · 10 Nov 2015

theshillito said:
I like how the first screenshot on the iOS App Store listing has a tweet at the bottom apologizing for delays.

As for smart cards, sounds like they won't be implementing a touch-in, touch-out thing and instead loading travelcards onto them, which is a bit naff.

They will but this is just as a substitute whilst they fix the previous mess which ATOS made.

edwin_m · 10 Nov 2015

Nottingham is supposed to be implementing one of these car systems - smaller city but still with multiple operators having their own fares. It will be interesting to see how that goes.

radamfi · 17 Nov 2015

I've just had an email inviting me to get a free 'get me there' smartcard. They are now offering day and longer period tickets, for buses only at present, basically smartcard versions of the printed tickets, but at lower price. For example, a day ticket is £5 instead of £5.60.

It is far from ideal, however, as you can buy these tickets from the driver and get a printed receipt, so doesn't save any time at all compared to buying the printed ticket from the driver and showing the paper ticket on subsequent buses. They should have organised ordering online or through local shops. The only outlet where you can get the tickets appears to be Travelshops, and these are only located in major town centres, and one-day tickets can only be bought on the bus.

It appears that any ITSO card will work so if you have one from another area or company then you don't need another one. That is how it was meant to be from the start with ITSO, but this is the first time I've seen interoperability presented in this way.

http://www.getmethere.co.uk/help.php#a70

Check to see if your card has a round blue logo on it that says ITSO. If it does then you should be able to buy and load get me there travelcards onto your existing smart card.

ITSO is the UK Government standard for smart ticketing and only cards issued by ITSO-compliant smart card schemes will work with get me there.

Please note that London's Oyster scheme is not ITSO-compliant and you therefore can't load get me there travelcards onto an Oyster card.

What happens if you have a product from another region or company already loaded on the card? Metrobus state that if you have multiple ticket types loaded onto the card, the driver asks you which one you want to use.

https://www.metrobus.co.uk/smart-card/faq/using-the-key/10/

What happens if I have multiple ticket types loaded onto my card, how can I be sure the correct ticket is activated?

When you place the card on the reader the driver will ask you which ticket you wish to use and will activate that ticket for you.

I would hope that this would not be necessary if the ticket types are for different companies/regions.

rebmcr · 18 Nov 2015

radamfi said:
They should have organised ordering online or through local shops.

Give them a chance.

Greater Manchester smartcard scheme (ATOS agreement terminated and revised plan)

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member