First Group: General Discussion

[tbtc]

Eventually I'm going to get around to looking at fleet which is up to the age of 2003 (53), which I'm personally expecting First to withdraw nearly all of that by the end of 2020

I find these lists really interesting - I'm not a "vehicles" person (routes, timetables, maps etc, but I struggle to keep up with vehicle numbers), so getting some kind of "bigger picture" on a list like this is welcome.

I'd suspect that South Yorkshire will come off badly against such criteria though - a lot of Tridents/ ALX400s/ B7Ls from around 2002 will need replacing in the next few years - partly because First seem to invest in the fleet here every six years or so (B10BLEs in 1998ish, Commonwealth Games B7Ls in 2002, lots go Geminis in 2007/8, Streetlites in 2014).

First South Yorkshire Ltd did not expect this:

Your vague comment means that I don't understand what you didn't expect about the FSY figures (expected them to be better or expected them to be worse?).

But they look about right - costs down and revenue down because the local operations are seeing reductions in PVR due to the "partnerships".

Questions for 2017/2018s will be:

Does the running costs (to get buses from Sheffield/ Doncaster to operate Rotherham town services) count for much against the obvious savings from closing Midland Road? And how much longer will some of those routes be viable (given the need to get buses and drivers from Sheffield/ Doncaster - especially given the inevitable breakdowns/ crashes where replacements will take longer to arrive)

Was Midland Road's revenue a fair reflection of the cost of upgrading/ painting all of the vehicles for far flung operations? i.e. did the recent losses include a hidden subsidy to other First divisions who got "mates rates" for the work done at Midland Road?

 

[THarris123]

I've deliberately not commented but I will break with convention!

I do agree that Wells is a relatively small part of First S&A. Therefore it's impact on the overall performance of the business is likely to be consequently small.

Now, as with us all, I don't know how the individual routes perform so this is based purely on experience. Of the three current corridors, the 376 has long been regarded as a good performer hence it receiving regular intakes of new fleet and I'd suspect that the 173/4 is a decent performer. The 126 is more sporadic in my experience and, of course, would've been affected by WB and isn't a pot of gold. In that respect, Mr Harris probably has a valid point - I say probably because we can't say because none of us are party to the P&Ls.

However, I do have to question the logic around the 375/377. Those routes were being attacked by WB37/38 so a comparison to their current position isn't like for like. The 377 was probably the stronger and may have been washing its face. I suspect the 375 was haemorrhaging cash - 3 vehicles carrying next to nothing for much of the day whilst WB were in attendance. It was no surprise to see it withdrawn.

Getting away from the Wells-centricity, there were some other pups that were put down with the 234 being the most obvious. However, without knowing the full details, it is impossible to know what the truth is behind FSAs performance; instinctively it doesn't feel that there's so much duff stuff to outweigh the good and to such an extent.

Btw: I would be surprised if a driver is pulling in £400 an hour in revenue - think about it

Agree with pretty much all that. Thanks for your comments.

The 375/377 was just an assumption on my part so sorry if I mislead anyone on that.

The £400 thing - I've been told by a couple of people what it is, but can't remember and trying to do the calculations with the state I'm in at the moment is not a good idea - January isn't always the most relaxing month for accountants

 

[overthewater]

The oldest fleet profile is likely to be First Glasgow, where over 25% of its fleet meets this criterion.

That begs the question how First be able to replace that elderly fleet in Glasgow. Even with this years order, it would only get current fleet elsewhere rid of there old buses. Glasgow going to have to get injection of new buses just to get over the hump.

Your vague comment means that I don't understand what you didn't expect about the FSY figures (expected them to be better or expected them to be worse?).

I thought it would have been better.

 

[Volvodart]

That begs the question how First be able to replace that elderly fleet in Glasgow. Even with this years order, it would only get current fleet elsewhere rid of there old buses. Glasgow going to have to get injection of new buses just to get over the hump.

I suspect it will be a combination of cuts, new buses and newer buses coming from elsewhere replaced by new buses or the result of cuts.

 

[overthewater]

I suspect it will be a combination of cuts, new buses and newer buses coming from elsewhere replaced by new buses or the result of cuts.

When will it ever end. Mind you I still wonder why someone moved some of the core trunk routes from No1 to No2.

Lets hope its more minor cuts to non core routes and First just takes a hit and gets some new buses. Mind you those ex Olympic stock have done well, maybe First should do it again, get 100 odd 56/57 regs from London if possible.

 

[THarris123]

When will it ever end. Mind you I still wonder why someone moved some of the core trunk routes from No1 to No2.

Lets hope its more minor cuts to non core routes and First just takes a hit and gets some new buses. Mind you those ex Olympic stock have done well, maybe First should do it again, get 100 odd 56/57 regs from London if possible.

I expect most of the old stock to be gone by 2020 if that - that's technically four years of new buses - probably about 30-50 a year would clear them.

 

[GaryMcEwan]

When will it ever end. Mind you I still wonder why someone moved some of the core trunk routes from No1 to No2.

Lets hope its more minor cuts to non core routes and First just takes a hit and gets some new buses. Mind you those ex Olympic stock have done well, maybe First should do it again, get 100 odd 56/57 regs from London if possible.

First don't operate in London so that it will be a bit of a challenge unless they take the Tower Transit stock that was originally First if they were looking too offload some buses.

 

[Volvodart]

The problem is that most of the London stock available is just about as old as the buses First Glasgow need replacing.

 

[THarris123]

First don't operate in London so that it will be a bit of a challenge unless they take the Tower Transit stock that was originally First if they were looking too offload some buses.

Well there's not a lot of need to replace them all - DDA is out of the way so no legal requirement.

 

[Volvodart]

Well there's not a lot of need to replace them all - DDA is out of the way so no legal requirement.

Glasgow will need over 200 in the next 3 years if there are not cuts (assuming they last for 18 years of age). That must be about 25% of the likely First new bus purchases for that time. If you add in First's commitments to the likes of Bristol and Leeds, there is not going to be much left for elsewhere, unless they increase the amount of buses they order (which is unlikely with how UK bus is performing).

 

[overthewater]

First don't operate in London so that it will be a bit of a challenge unless they take the Tower Transit stock that was originally First if they were looking too offload some buses.

I was thinking of buying up ex stock from the second hand market.

The problem is that most of the London stock available is just about as old as the buses First Glasgow need replacing.

I was hoping for some 10 year stock as a stop gap measure to help out over 4 years. That put spanner in the works of my idea.

Well there's not a lot of need to replace them all - DDA is out of the way so no legal requirement.

If there just the older Diesel buses and the new mayor want the newer tech buses in service, I had hope a tone of cheap ex stock would be up for grabs.

 

[Deerfold]

Bus companies are not allowed to run bus services on a loss - FSW has explained that many times on the forum.

I'd be interested to know what's stopping them.

 

[freetoview33]

As mentioned I would have expected the last few years to have been very tough, with the fluctuation of fuel prices, the DDA deadlines, wage rises, cuts in subsidies, more traffic, more housing so more places to serve with less resources and adapting to this is hard for any business.

 

[overthewater]

As mentioned I would have expected the last few years to have been very tough, with the fluctuation of fuel prices, the DDA deadlines, wage rises, cuts in subsidies, more traffic, more housing so more places to serve with less resources and adapting to this is hard for any business.

Just look at Tesco, Asda and Morrison.

The problem for public transport is there is no Aldi or Lidl nipping in to bring in a new order which results in the big players having to change tact.

Also there is no one waiting in the wings if one of the big player goes pop like Woolies.

 

[ChathillMan]

I'd be interested to know what's stopping them.

In reality so long as service makes a "contribution" to the overall running of the depot, ways are found commercially to keep a service on. It's when they start to drag the performance of a depot down when the problems occur.

However by rights if they can't make a service pay they should withdraw it and let someone else have a go. If not this can be seen as anti competative behaviour. God knows how this could be proved, but it's true.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'd be interested to know what's stopping them.

They're not allowed to run at a loss on a route for competition reasons. It's highly unlikely they'd be any referral to CMA if it's not a competitive route but if two firms are competing, they can't run at a loss to run the competitor off the road.

 

[THarris123]

Taken from Steve Whites fleet list - a list of the total number of vehicles which are 53 reg and older by area.

Aberdeen - Coach 3, Decker 8, Single 19
Berkshire - Decker 2, Single 11
Cymru - Decker 4, Single 55
East England - Coach 2, Decker 124, Single 88
Edinburgh - Decker 24, Single 19
Glasgow - Decker 118, Single 107
Hampshire - Decker 30, Single 12
Manchester - Bendy 1, Decker 32, Single 33
Midland Red - Coach 2, Decker 3, Single 9
Midlands - Single 17
PMT - Decker 1, Single 29
South West - Coach 6, Decker 65, Single 82
South Yorkshire - Decker 69, Single 92
West of England - Bendy 2, Decker 84, Single 19
West Yorkshire - Decker 73, Single 92

Total Coaches 53 reg and older 13
Total Bendies 53 reg and older 3
Total Deckers 53 reg and older 637
Total Singles 53 reg and older 684

Total Vehicles 53 reg and older 1337
So that's basically 330 odd vehicles each year that I think will be replaced up to end of 2020.

 

[overthewater]

Taken from Steve Whites fleet list - a list of the total number of vehicles which are 53 reg and older by area.

Total Vehicles 53 reg and older 1337
So that's basically 330 odd vehicles each year that I think will be replaced up to end of 2020.

How does that compare with Stagecoach with a bigger fleet and Arriva?

 

[Deerfold]

In reality so long as service makes a "contribution" to the overall running of the depot, ways are found commercially to keep a service on. It's when they start to drag the performance of a depot down when the problems occur.

However by rights if they can't make a service pay they should withdraw it and let someone else have a go. If not this can be seen as anti competative behaviour. God knows how this could be proved, but it's true.

Really? Rosso have been quite clear they've been running theit 482 service at a loss for the last year (in the hope that ridership would improve) but has finally withdrawn it. I'm not surprised they feel they've spent enough on it, but there's been no suggestion they're not allowed to continue running it.

 

[carlberry]

Just look at Tesco, Asda and Morrison.

The problem for public transport is there is no Aldi or Lidl nipping in to bring in a new order which results in the big players having to change tact.

Also there is no one waiting in the wings if one of the big player goes pop like Woolies.

Aldi and Lidl are just low price operations, there are loads of examples of bus firms like that (and they're usually the ones that go pop).

Big players do go pop as well. GHA being an example recently, however there was nobody waiting in the wings when Woolies went under, people just bought their pick and mix from somebody else. When a bus company goes under theres a lot of work that has to go on to replace it.

The big thing that could bring in a new order is Uber, both what it's already done and what it's trying (outside the UK at present) can take traditional bus passengers.

 

[Busaholic]

Really? Rosso have been quite clear they've been running theit 482 service at a loss for the last year (in the hope that ridership would improve) but has finally withdrawn it. I'm not surprised they feel they've spent enough on it, but there's been no suggestion they're not allowed to continue running it.

I'm apt to agree with you. In the wider world, tour companies go bust overnight, often taking bookings mere hours before the collapse. Suddenly they're not allowed to continue at 12.00 having been perfectly solvent at 11.59.It's an obvious nonsense, but does any individual ever get prosecuted under the Companies Act, or whatever? A largeish bus company with many routes could find a case to make a lot of them (a) profitable or (b) unprofitable at a stroke of a pen, or a nudge with the mouse. Apart from anything else, reimbursement for concessionary passes can be treated in so many ways from an accountancy point of view.

 

[Robertj21a]

They're not allowed to run at a loss on a route for competition reasons. It's highly unlikely they'd be any referral to CMA if it's not a competitive route but if two firms are competing, they can't run at a loss to run the competitor off the road.

This rather intrigues me, it's not something I've come across before. I'm struggling to think of what legislation is in place to enable any referral of loss-making on a non-competitive route (I'm well aware of the competition concerns and associated issues).

 

[baza585]

This rather intrigues me, it's not something I've come across before. I'm struggling to think of what legislation is in place to enable any referral of loss-making on a non-competitive route (I'm well aware of the competition concerns and associated issues).

So am I, and even in a competitive situation, the competition law doesn't seem to help when the likes of Webberbus enter the fray!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So am I, and even in a competitive situation, the competition law doesn't seem to help when the likes of Webberbus enter the fray!

There is the potential (albeit unlikely) to be referred if a business acts uncompetitively by registering commercially services that were tendered if only to keep out a potential competitor (though it is unlikely as I say).

The wider issue is an incumbent flooding a route with buses that are loss making in order to kill off a new entrant. That is using financial reserves to stifle competition and is so contrary to competition law.

When Webberbus came in, they could legitimately argue they were introducing competition and were merely pump priming their operation, running at a loss as they built their trade.

If you want an example, see Northumbria MS vs Target Travel

 

[Robertj21a]

There is the potential (albeit unlikely) to be referred if a business acts uncompetitively by registering commercially services that were tendered if only to keep out a potential competitor (though it is unlikely as I say).

The wider issue is an incumbent flooding a route with buses that are loss making in order to kill off a new entrant. That is using financial reserves to stifle competition and is so contrary to competition law.

When Webberbus came in, they could legitimately argue they were introducing competition and were merely pump priming their operation, running at a loss as they built their trade.

If you want an example, see Northumbria MS vs Target Travel

Thanks for that. I can certainly see the 'flooding a route' scenario as a possible one for the competition authorities. Even there it would become quite a difficult situation to determine if all the incumbent did was to simply increase the frequency. I suppose it would come down to just how much 'flooding' is acceptable - perhaps doubling the number of buses would raise eyebrows but trebling them would certainly call for some investigation.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Didn't there use to be a 'rule' whereby if a new operator started on an existing route, the incumbent responded by increasing the frequency of their own service and the new operator withdrew, that the incumbent operator had to continue running at their increased frequency for a time? Presumably on the basis that they had increased the frequency of their service because the business was there, rather than trying to force out the new competitor.

Not sure whether it was a regulation, rule, traffic commissioner view expressed.

On a similar vein, when there has been intense competition on key routes (e.g. south out of Manchester to Southern Cemetary or Hazel Grove?) that the operators were called before the TC and they imposed a condition that service regulators had to be employed, full vehicle diagrams provided to them, and proper timetables run rather than 'at frequent intervals' or similar.

 

[Dai Corner]

Thanks for that. I can certainly see the 'flooding a route' scenario as a possible one for the competition authorities. Even there it would become quite a difficult situation to determine if all the incumbent did was to simply increase the frequency. I suppose it would come down to just how much 'flooding' is acceptable - perhaps doubling the number of buses would raise eyebrows but trebling them would certainly call for some investigation.

Municipal Newport Transport doubled the frequencies on their 15/16 to Bettws and 35/36 to Duffryn when privately owned New Adventure Travel started to compete (having won the schools contract from NT incidentally). I think the NT 15/16 was a higher frequency than NATs service and the 35/36 the same frequency.

I'm not sure who (if anyone) may be competing unfairly here or how deep each company's pockets are but as far as I know the CMA weren't interested (or aware).

 

[THarris123]

Didn't there use to be a 'rule' whereby if a new operator started on an existing route, the incumbent responded by increasing the frequency of their own service and the new operator withdrew, that the incumbent operator had to continue running at their increased frequency for a time? Presumably on the basis that they had increased the frequency of their service because the business was there, rather than trying to force out the new competitor.

Not sure whether it was a regulation, rule, traffic commissioner view expressed.

On a similar vein, when there has been intense competition on key routes (e.g. south out of Manchester to Southern Cemetary or Hazel Grove?) that the operators were called before the TC and they imposed a condition that service regulators had to be employed, full vehicle diagrams provided to them, and proper timetables run rather than 'at frequent intervals' or similar.

I wonder if that explains the BoS 55/77 and Webberbus 38?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Didn't there use to be a 'rule' whereby if a new operator started on an existing route, the incumbent responded by increasing the frequency of their own service and the new operator withdrew, that the incumbent operator had to continue running at their increased frequency for a time? Presumably on the basis that they had increased the frequency of their service because the business was there, rather than trying to force out the new competitor.

Not sure whether it was a regulation, rule, traffic commissioner view expressed.

On a similar vein, when there has been intense competition on key routes (e.g. south out of Manchester to Southern Cemetary or Hazel Grove?) that the operators were called before the TC and they imposed a condition that service regulators had to be employed, full vehicle diagrams provided to them, and proper timetables run rather than 'at frequent intervals' or similar.

You are quite correct on the latter part - it has happened and Manchester was one such location IIRC.

There is no hard and fast rule but TCs and the competition authorities have certainly ruled in the past. Often, it has taken longer for action to be taken than it has for one party to walk away.

The Northumbria example involved Target Travel who introduced a half hourly service from Blyth to Newcastle competing with Northumbria. They used a mix of old grant coaches and deckers in dealer white with lower fares. Northumbria responded by slashing fares and the introducing another two routes increasing their service from 6 buses per hour to 10 per hour. These were operated by Leyland Nationals brought up from Kentish Bus and similarly painted all white. Target complained to the TC and the OFT. They walked away but NMS were brought in front of the TC and ordered to maintain all the services for a designated time and fares were also controlled IIRC.

There have also been other instances but I remember the detail of that particularly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder if that explains the BoS 55/77 and Webberbus 38?

It explains why First couldn't flood certain routes with buses though a number of services and corridors did have frequency increases.

 

[THarris123]

You are quite correct on the latter part - it has happened and Manchester was one such location IIRC.

There is no hard and fast rule but TCs and the competition authorities have certainly ruled in the past. Often, it has taken longer for action to be taken than it has for one party to walk away.

The Northumbria example involved Target Travel who introduced a half hourly service from Blyth to Newcastle competing with Northumbria. They used a mix of old grant coaches and deckers in dealer white with lower fares. Northumbria responded by slashing fares and the introducing another two routes increasing their service from 6 buses per hour to 10 per hour. These were operated by Leyland Nationals brought up from Kentish Bus and similarly painted all white. Target complained to the TC and the OFT. They walked away but NMS were brought in front of the TC and ordered to maintain all the services for a designated time and fares were also controlled IIRC.

There have also been other instances but I remember the detail of that particularly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It explains why First couldn't flood certain routes with buses though a number of services and corridors did have frequency increases.

I was referring to how 55 stayed around for so long - First flooded the market of that route, so had to keep it going for a time (October) after Webberbus had gone.