• 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!

Go Cornwall Bus

MB162435

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
1,259
Location
Penryn
OTS And hopleys are Both great little businessEs so you will be seeing things done well with pride. Comparing the OTS or Hopleys parts to GA parts is like comparing apples to Pears
They are both pretty good, never caught any of their services for quite a few years but the drivers seem happy, buses near enough on time and the buses clean, you can't ask for much more really

Pre- TfC the only time I've seen Go-ahead buses were the 11/11As with the Eclipses, they seem pretty decent, shame they left but a less complicated operation
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DaveHarries

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2011
Messages
2,297
Location
England
I have been on the 11/11A from Wadebridge to Plymouth a few times when at work: good value and a nice ride with those Eclipses.

Dave
 

MB162435

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
1,259
Location
Penryn
I have been on the 11/11A from Wadebridge to Plymouth a few times when at work: good value and a nice ride with those Eclipses.

Dave
Never went on one but they looked cleaner and had more presentable interiors than most buses from Cornish operators
 

MB162435

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
1,259
Location
Penryn
Thankfully TfC will distract from Kernows prices, with theirs being even higher on mirrored routes, except within town zones where they’re cheaper.
My experience of TfC is The Newquay area, so I’m encountering some truly shocking agency drivers (not all of them, and the few permanent staff I’ve met seemed decent people)
At the moment, and Kernow do hike their prices quite a bit, they certainly haven't got a brilliant record in the fares area, I can pay the same price from Penryn- Truro as I can Penryn-Carnon Downs on the U1 for example, even tho it's less distance, so Kernow could quite easily catch up with TfC, and they could offer better deals on the app like Kernow do given time

Aren't the agency drivers only temp until pernamnet drivers are recruited anyway?
 

MB162435

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
1,259
Location
Penryn
The main issue with TfC And the negative issues is with agency drivers who do as they please and don’t take care so much of the vehicles. Have a look on enthusiast groups on Facebook in comments if they haven’t been moderated, I know you’re on most of them. There is comments from TfC drivers elsewhere on the network commenting about the poor standards and vehicle damage at Newquay. Newquay is majority agency drivers. A photo taken in a good place to start looking.

On the front line I can assure you passengers are complaining like I’ve never heard before about TfC.

First group social media is irrelevant in my observations on another operator. I will comment what I’ve seen and witnessed which many won’t have seen under restrictions that have been in place. I’ll continue to say what I’ve seen In a factual way and you all can decide On those facts. I will contribute my opinion on the subject which is exactly that.
It's totally relevant, you can't say some Kernow's drivers have shocking driving, or that they're fares are ridiculous, or the buses are terrible can you, you're gonna be critical of TfC, they're your rival after all

I certainly can't criticise my employer, whilst praising their rivals that's for sure, you are bound to be the same
 

MB162435

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
1,259
Location
Penryn
In fairness Kernow have sacked those with the worst record.... have a guess where the majority are now employed....
But they're ex-drivers, you can't have a go at current, and no surprise you would say the rivals have worst drivers
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
But they're ex-drivers, you can't have a go at current, and no surprise you would say the rivals have worst drivers
Generally what happens in employment the worst staff get fired In all businesses. A good 95% of those recently dismissed have turned up at TfC.
 

Hophead

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2013
Messages
1,192
Yes, completely agree with this.

It doesn't have to be done like this though. TfL doesn't evaluate bus service tenders in this way. It uses a small dedicated team all of whom have bus operational backgrounds rather than using its standard procurement team. Also, while of course TfL uses MEAT as an overriding principle it doesn't stick to rigid quality scoring. It merely demonstrates how quality criteria have been taken into account in the evaluation papers and avoid being backed into a corner where you have to make an award that you know isn't going to work. You might think that CC, wanting to be another TfL, would gave done some research on this aspect.

Furthermore, TfL seldom require the contract to start in less than 6 months; in some cases, 9 or 10 months notice is given. And that's just be for one or two routes, rather than an entire new network.
 

KendalKing

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2009
Messages
1,642
Location
North Lancs
Furthermore, TfL seldom require the contract to start in less than 6 months; in some cases, 9 or 10 months notice is given. And that's just be for one or two routes, rather than an entire new network.
Having worked for Go-Ahead London, these routes could have PVR from 8-Buses to 22-Buses. Which is still a lot of drivers, to be found and route trained.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
A few points:
a) nobody has suggested there is anything suspicious about the relationship between Corserv (of which Cormac is a part) and Go Ahead. However, it is a fact (as already pointed out by others) that Corserv do not pay rent or business rates. The unfairness of this has been raised in official meetings by councillors in relation to other businesses. The fact that Go Ahead are using Corserv facilities is, therefore, of interest.
b) the council is about to waste huge sums of money on providing new routes or journeys for which there is no evidence of demand. An officer who likes to play with timetables appears to have been given a free hand. In addition to examples already quoted I would add the doubling of frequency on the Truro to St Mawes service 50, between Redruth and Truro on service 46, between Penzance and St Ives on service 16, and between Bodmin Parkway and Wadebridge on services 10 and 11. Also there is the reinstatement of Saturday journeys across the county. They were withdrawn a few years as they were running empty. They will soon be back. There is also the new hourly 89 between Bodmin and Truro. This will only serve 'end to end' traffic as intermediate points eg Indian Queens and Fraddon to Truro already have three buses an hour to Truro. CC have been keen to promote the increased rail service so the 30min frequency by bus from Bodmin to Bodmin Parkway and then the connecting 30min frequency by train to Truro should suffice. The 89 wasn't even included in the base level of services tendered.
c) it is good that Go Ahead have subcontracted to Hopleys, OTS and Travel Cornwall for some services. Surely there should be another operator on that list - First Kernow. This would make sense particularly for the tendered bits on which FK are the main commercial operator including A1, A17, M6, T1/T2, U4, 24, 27, 87. As far as I am aware there has been no approach. There is no agreement on interavailability of tickets so the passengers will suffer. So much for One Public Transport
Yours is the best post I've seen on here since I started the thread, and I hope doesn't get drowned out by the usual voices, even my own! I think Cornwall Council have Covid-19 to thank, in a backhanded way, from being subjected to a lot more opprobrium about how this has all been handled.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,250
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Yours is the best post I've seen on here since I started the thread, and I hope doesn't get drowned out by the usual voices, even my own! I think Cornwall Council have Covid-19 to thank, in a backhanded way, from being subjected to a lot more opprobrium about how this has all been handled.

Agreed, particularly on the last line.

There is no agreement on interavailability of tickets so the passengers will suffer. So much for One Public Transport

Unless we have a new Ride Cornwall arrangement or ticket interoperability, it's going to be a more expensive trip back to Kernow for me when this is over. Or I'll take the VW (car) instead.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
A few points:
a) nobody has suggested there is anything suspicious about the relationship between Corserv (of which Cormac is a part) and Go Ahead. However, it is a fact (as already pointed out by others) that Corserv do not pay rent or business rates. The unfairness of this has been raised in official meetings by councillors in relation to other businesses. The fact that Go Ahead are using Corserv facilities is, therefore, of interest.
b) the council is about to waste huge sums of money on providing new routes or journeys for which there is no evidence of demand. An officer who likes to play with timetables appears to have been given a free hand. In addition to examples already quoted I would add the doubling of frequency on the Truro to St Mawes service 50, between Redruth and Truro on service 46, between Penzance and St Ives on service 16, and between Bodmin Parkway and Wadebridge on services 10 and 11. Also there is the reinstatement of Saturday journeys across the county. They were withdrawn a few years as they were running empty. They will soon be back. There is also the new hourly 89 between Bodmin and Truro. This will only serve 'end to end' traffic as intermediate points eg Indian Queens and Fraddon to Truro already have three buses an hour to Truro. CC have been keen to promote the increased rail service so the 30min frequency by bus from Bodmin to Bodmin Parkway and then the connecting 30min frequency by train to Truro should suffice. The 89 wasn't even included in the base level of services tendered.
c) it is good that Go Ahead have subcontracted to Hopleys, OTS and Travel Cornwall for some services. Surely there should be another operator on that list - First Kernow. This would make sense particularly for the tendered bits on which FK are the main commercial operator including A1, A17, M6, T1/T2, U4, 24, 27, 87. As far as I am aware there has been no approach. There is no agreement on interavailability of tickets so the passengers will suffer. So much for One Public Transport

Some good stuff in here so here we go.... (ps I come in peace)

a) I would sincerely venture that some people are indeed inferring that there is something untoward about the relationship between Conserv and Go Ahead. Put bluntly, I'd ask this
  • Is there any evidence that Corserv are undercutting commercial operators?
  • Is there any evidence that Go Ahead are paying below the market rate and have so gained an unfair commercial advantage?
  • Is there any evidence that Go Ahead have benefited in the scoring of the bid from the relationship with Corserv (i.e. CC have a vested interest in awarding to Go Ahead)?
  • If the answer is No, then I'd suggest the inference and suggestion stops, not least because we start to get into legal territory!
I would highlight that in private industry, it is commonplace NOT to allocate overheads to fledgling operations until they are up and running. This may seem like creative accountancy but it is often done as a priming exercise as these businesses become established. That is what seems to be happening here. NOTE: for those who decry such accountancy methods, you could point to First moving their depreciation terms in order to artificially inflate the health of the business a couple of years ago!

b) I wholeheartedly agree. Whilst I've mentioned some of the most glaring examples, you have provided many more. It's the area that annoys me most. There is a real opportunity to make some fundamental improvements to bus services, and to move people out of their cars and onto public transport, with funding that could only have been dreamed about.

As you say, it seems that they have made decisions based on no empirical evidence on demand. If they have undertaken research, I would really like to see the methodology employed. I cited the new routes that look like someone has simply looked at a map and seen a gap, rather than assessing why the gap might exist. In terms of the enhancements, I question if there is much scope to grow patronage. For instance, you mention the doubling of the 16 - do we think that there is going to be some great improvement in ridership, or will it merely dilute the patronage that is already there, so we get a 5% growth for 100% additional cost?? I know where my money is at

c) I appreciate exactly where you're coming from. Of course, the tie up between Go Ahead, and people like OTS and Hopleys, was a smart move by GA. It derisked the exercise to an extent and probably sold their bid better. That was GA's decision and, of course, they weren't going to approach their only serious competitor.

The issue here surrounds the council again. First of all, they should have ensured that there was an all operator ticket that firms were signed up to (a bus only Ride Cornwall), but also it is entirely within the gift of the council to have specified inter-availabiity of First tickets on those tendered journeys on the A17 or T1/T2 et al. Similarly, it would have been sensible for the creation of joint timetabling; I know this was touched on in the past and that FK asked for details of journeys so they could be shown in their booklet.


Unless their is actual evidence on a), then really it is nothing more than innuendo. If anyone does have evidence, then I'd suggest they take your scoop to the press.

However, in terms of b) and c), then I am fully on board. It's classic "playing at buses" by CC and, I fear, a waste of money and the opportunity to have really made some fundamental change. Instead, they have said "this is how it's going to be" rather than entering into meaningful partnership with FK, PCB and for that matter, Stagecoach and a host of smaller operators. They could have, and should have, had a vision ahead of award as to how get more people on buses. That's what the operators would have wanted. Instead, you've got a worse situation on the routes mentioned, and PCB getting paid to run empty buses.

As regards the sense of awarding a single supplier on a short time scale, it would seem they have learnt nothing from similar issues at Powys and Dorset. In the case of the latter, I might suggest a wry smile appeared on Alex Carter's face! And yes, I agree with others in that the Covid 19 outbreak has proven to be a benefit to both PCB and CC. Had it been a full timetable, the ludicrous timescale and approach would have been highlighted so that the mess isn't over the press is down to good fortune, if you can call a deadly bat virus that. Doubtless, CC would've been placing the blame squarely on the operator had it been a full "go live".
 

MB162435

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
1,259
Location
Penryn
Generally what happens in employment the worst staff get fired In all businesses. A good 95% of those recently dismissed have turned up at TfC.
Beggers can't be choosers I suppose, one hopes if that is the case they will become more ruthless as time goes on with standards
 

jammy36

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2013
Messages
295
Some good stuff in here so here we go.... (ps I come in peace)

a) I would sincerely venture that some people are indeed inferring that there is something untoward about the relationship between Conserv and Go Ahead. Put bluntly, I'd ask this
  • Is there any evidence that Corserv are undercutting commercial operators?
  • Is there any evidence that Go Ahead are paying below the market rate and have so gained an unfair commercial advantage?
  • Is there any evidence that Go Ahead have benefited in the scoring of the bid from the relationship with Corserv (i.e. CC have a vested interest in awarding to Go Ahead)?
  • If the answer is No, then I'd suggest the inference and suggestion stops, not least because we start to get into legal territory!
I would highlight that in private industry, it is commonplace NOT to allocate overheads to fledgling operations until they are up and running. This may seem like creative accountancy but it is often done as a priming exercise as these businesses become established. That is what seems to be happening here. NOTE: for those who decry such accountancy methods, you could point to First moving their depreciation terms in order to artificially inflate the health of the business a couple of years ago!

b) I wholeheartedly agree. Whilst I've mentioned some of the most glaring examples, you have provided many more. It's the area that annoys me most. There is a real opportunity to make some fundamental improvements to bus services, and to move people out of their cars and onto public transport, with funding that could only have been dreamed about.

As you say, it seems that they have made decisions based on no empirical evidence on demand. If they have undertaken research, I would really like to see the methodology employed. I cited the new routes that look like someone has simply looked at a map and seen a gap, rather than assessing why the gap might exist. In terms of the enhancements, I question if there is much scope to grow patronage. For instance, you mention the doubling of the 16 - do we think that there is going to be some great improvement in ridership, or will it merely dilute the patronage that is already there, so we get a 5% growth for 100% additional cost?? I know where my money is at

c) I appreciate exactly where you're coming from. Of course, the tie up between Go Ahead, and people like OTS and Hopleys, was a smart move by GA. It derisked the exercise to an extent and probably sold their bid better. That was GA's decision and, of course, they weren't going to approach their only serious competitor.

The issue here surrounds the council again. First of all, they should have ensured that there was an all operator ticket that firms were signed up to (a bus only Ride Cornwall), but also it is entirely within the gift of the council to have specified inter-availabiity of First tickets on those tendered journeys on the A17 or T1/T2 et al. Similarly, it would have been sensible for the creation of joint timetabling; I know this was touched on in the past and that FK asked for details of journeys so they could be shown in their booklet.


Unless their is actual evidence on a), then really it is nothing more than innuendo. If anyone does have evidence, then I'd suggest they take your scoop to the press.

However, in terms of b) and c), then I am fully on board. It's classic "playing at buses" by CC and, I fear, a waste of money and the opportunity to have really made some fundamental change. Instead, they have said "this is how it's going to be" rather than entering into meaningful partnership with FK, PCB and for that matter, Stagecoach and a host of smaller operators. They could have, and should have, had a vision ahead of award as to how get more people on buses. That's what the operators would have wanted. Instead, you've got a worse situation on the routes mentioned, and PCB getting paid to run empty buses.

As regards the sense of awarding a single supplier on a short time scale, it would seem they have learnt nothing from similar issues at Powys and Dorset. In the case of the latter, I might suggest a wry smile appeared on Alex Carter's face! And yes, I agree with others in that the Covid 19 outbreak has proven to be a benefit to both PCB and CC. Had it been a full timetable, the ludicrous timescale and approach would have been highlighted so that the mess isn't over the press is down to good fortune, if you can call a deadly bat virus that. Doubtless, CC would've been placing the blame squarely on the operator had it been a full "go live".

A very balanced view as always. In terms of your point a), I don't think your comparison with private industry is entirely correct. Yes, we often see the type of creative accountancy you describe, but ultimately those costs will be included somewhere, even if masked or otherwise opaquely disguised at group level. The accusation (and it is only that at present) is that for Conserv it's not that these costs are hidden, but that they do not exist full stop.

IF this is correct then there must somewhere be an advantage. That advantage might mean that Conserv can generate more profit from the same contracts as a private company could; it might mean that Conserve can offer its services for less money than a private contractor; or it might simply be that the advantage is offset by the disadvantages that come from inheriting public service employees with existing terms and conditions, existing back-office systems, and other legacies that a newly started private enterprise wouldn't be incumbered with. In any scenario there is no suggestion of foul or unfair play by GoAhead.

It is a fine line, but personally think it only right that scrutiny is applied when public funds are being used in such a way. Whether this forum is the right place for such scrutiny can be debated, but given the arrangement is relevant to the overall tender and how this is being delivered, then questioning of the council does not seem unreasonable.
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Some good stuff in here so here we go.... (ps I come in peace)


I would highlight that in private industry, it is commonplace NOT to allocate overheads to fledgling operations until they are up and running.
OK, you fling down the gauntlet (in a peaceable way, of course :)) so I'm forced to pick it up.

Comparing Cormac (established in 2012) to a fledgling operation is like thinking Harry and Meghan are in danger of ending up on the streets of L.A. Corserv, the 100% Cornwall Council funded umbrella company, has well over 2,000 direct employees in Cornwall, with many more in other parts of the SW and Nottingham (don't ask!), with a turnover of £237 million in its last accounts. It has taken over many employees from C.C., including a lot who were previously employed by the various District Councils before the last Labour government arbitrarily abolished them in the name of democracy, backed by both the Conservatives and Lib Dems who each saw their chance to control matters from Truro Central. Many of these employees were forced to re-apply for their existing jobs, often at lower pay. (Yes, I do have chapter and verse, but this is not the place for it.)

I've lived in Cornwall for 32 years, attempting to run a business and keep the waters below my head, and have paid estimated taxes (domestic rates/council tax/business rates/BID levy) of well into a six figure sum in that time to Cornwall Council and its predecessors. I once even made an attempt to become a local councillor, under a (genuinely) independent label, and got a gratifyingly high vote, but not enough to unseat the incumbent.

I regard the lack of scrutiny of Corserv's operations by local councillors to be scandalous, but that's not for this forum. It is aided and abetted by the opaqueness of Corserv's operations and (imo) the poor quality of local councillors, with a few notable exceptions. Covid-19 is a useful smokescreen to ensure that added scrutiny won't be occurring anytime soon. In the meantime, there are various unanswered questions relating to Cornwall Council's contract with PCB, at a price to CC considerably above other tender offers, which require answering, and it's not 'innuendo' to ask these questions, but a democratic right, perhaps even duty. When I'm more well, and not confined to bed, I'll probably get in touch with my local councillor, a good guy but tending to get overwhelmed with the deluge of stuff coming his way, to see if he can get any answers. I'm not holding my breath (a black joke in my current circumstances.)
 
Last edited:

Man of Kent

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
590
Yes, completely agree with this.

It doesn't have to be done like this though. TfL doesn't evaluate bus service tenders in this way. It uses a small dedicated team all of whom have bus operational backgrounds rather than using its standard procurement team. Also, while of course TfL uses MEAT as an overriding principle it doesn't stick to rigid quality scoring. It merely demonstrates how quality criteria have been taken into account in the evaluation papers and avoid being backed into a corner where you have to make an award that you know isn't going to work. You might think that CC, wanting to be another TfL, would gave done some research on this aspect.
Though of course TfL (and predecessors) have got their fingers burnt more than once. The collapse of Durham Travel Services, of Mitcham Belle and the fiasco on route 60, amongst others. To some extent it has only been resolved because small operators rarely bid for TfL contracts these days.

Many moons ago local authority contracts consisted of about 6 pieces of A4 and a response on a single sheet. The introduction of "professional procurement" as TGW describes has done nothing for this process except add reams and reams of paper, for ever-increasing irrelevant questions. I managed to fail the criteria for getting the local subsidiary of a national operator on to a council school contract list, even though we ran local bus services for the same authority.
 

Man of Kent

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
590
OK, you fling down the gauntlet (in a peaceable way, of course :)) so I'm forced to pick it up.

Comparing Cormac (established in 2012) to a fledgling operation is like thinking Harry and Meghan are in danger of ending up on the streets of L.A. Corserv, the 100% Cornwall Council funded umbrella company, has well over 2,000 direct employees in Cornwall, with many more in other parts of the SW and Nottingham (don't ask!), with a turnover of £237 million in its last accounts. It has taken over many employees from C.C., including a lot who were previously employed by the various District Councils before the last Labour government arbitrarily abolished them in the name of democracy, backed by both the Conservatives and Lib Dems who each saw their chance to control matters from Truro Central. Many of these employees were forced to re-apply for their existing jobs, often at lower pay. (Yes, I do have chapter and verse, but this is not the place for it.)

I've lived in Cornwall for 32 years, attempting to run a business and keep the waters below my head, and have paid estimated taxes (domestic rates/council tax/business rates/BID levy) of well into a six figure sum in that time to Cornwall Council and its predecessors. I once even made an attempt to become a local councillor, under a (genuinely) independent label, and got a gratifyingly high vote, but not enough to unseat the incumbent.

I regard the lack of scrutiny of Corserv's operations by local councillors to be scandalous, but that's not for this forum. It is aided and abetted by the opaqueness of Corserv's operations and (imo) the poor quality of local councillors, with a few notable exceptions. Covid-19 is a useful smokescreen to ensure that added scrutiny won't be occurring anytime soon. In the meantime, there are various unanswered questions relating to Cornwall Council's contract with PCB, at a price to CC considerably above other tender offers, which require answering, and it's not 'innuendo' to ask these questions, but a democratic right, perhaps even duty. When I'm more well, and not confined to bed, I'll probably get in touch with my local councillor, a good guy but tending to get overwhelmed with the deluge of stuff coming his way, to see if he can get any answers. I'm not holding my breath (a black joke in my current circumstances.)
Well Corserv generated dividends of £5.5m for Cornwall Council last year, so it's not all bad news.

Incidentally, a new company was set up last autumn, Corserv Property Ltd, which possibly might have been in connection with the intention to provide space for bus operators. In general I would say the financial reporting needed by larger companies for Companies House is more transparent (and easier to access) than that for local councils.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,084
Furthermore, TfL seldom require the contract to start in less than 6 months; in some cases, 9 or 10 months notice is given. And that's just be for one or two routes, rather than an entire new network.

And this tends to be a contract renewal of an existing route. There are staff who could be TUPEd to the new operator (although subject to any staff shortages at the relinguishing company).
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
OK, you fling down the gauntlet (in a peaceable way, of course :)) so I'm forced to pick it up.

I'm not certain you have picked it up. The questions I asked were:
  • Is there any evidence that Corserv are undercutting commercial operators?
  • Is there any evidence that Go Ahead are paying below the market rate and have so gained an unfair commercial advantage?
  • Is there any evidence that Go Ahead have benefited in the scoring of the bid from the relationship with Corserv (i.e. CC have a vested interest in awarding to Go Ahead)
You didn't answer any of those.

It is perfectly right and proper to exercise one's democratic right to ask how public bodies spent your money.

What is innuendo is to suggest impropriety in that undercutting of rates below the commercial level to gain an unfair advantage, or to suggest that Go Ahead have been favoured in an award because of the view that there was a vested interest in such an award.

A very balanced view as always. In terms of your point a), I don't think your comparison with private industry is entirely correct. Yes, we often see the type of creative accountancy you describe, but ultimately those costs will be included somewhere, even if masked or otherwise opaquely disguised at group level. The accusation (and it is only that at present) is that for Conserv it's not that these costs are hidden, but that they do not exist full stop.

IF this is correct then there must somewhere be an advantage. That advantage might mean that Conserv can generate more profit from the same contracts as a private company could; it might mean that Conserve can offer its services for less money than a private contractor; or it might simply be that the advantage is offset by the disadvantages that come from inheriting public service employees with existing terms and conditions, existing back-office systems, and other legacies that a newly started private enterprise wouldn't be incumbered with. In any scenario there is no suggestion of foul or unfair play by GoAhead.

And indeed, a balanced response from you.

You are, of course, correct to say that if Corserv are charging market rates but not incurring the standard costs of business (i.e. property costs), then they will be recording higher profits. Now the question is whether this is a short term measure or a permanent fixture - the latter would be unfair. When setting up the "3rd party, commercial operations" as you might call it, then you will have a cash flow issue as new business is won. That can be mitigated by not paying tenancy costs to CC (arguably wooden dollars) but I fully agree that it is a situation that can't persist ad infinitum as it skews the financial reporting.

People may say that such practices don't happen in the commercial world; I can testify differently. For example, I was involved in a project with a public sector organisation about 18 months ago. The tender required the taking on of two sets premises (which were procured by said organisation) with the tenderers involved in the provision of operations (mainly people) in said premises. Both premises came with a six month rent free period. The idea is that is maintains cashflow whilst operations are being set up. Neither the public sector organisation NOR any of the tendering parties were small businesses so whilst I recognise the Harry and Meghan comments from @Busaholic, that really isn't reflected.

You are right to highlight the issue with public sector employees. I appreciate @Busaholic and his comments on how staff terms and conditions have been changed; I confess my ignorance on that issue. However, pay and conditions for public sector are tricky as whilst take home may be equivalent to the private sector, issues such as funding pensions deficits for gold standard pensions in the past are anything but a level playing field.

What doesn't change in all this is that whilst this question has been raised in a council meeting, and rightly so, I still have yet to see any evidence that there's any impropriety with Go Ahead, and that surely is the main issue on this thread.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Though of course TfL (and predecessors) have got their fingers burnt more than once. The collapse of Durham Travel Services, of Mitcham Belle and the fiasco on route 60, amongst others. To some extent it has only been resolved because small operators rarely bid for TfL contracts these days.

Many moons ago local authority contracts consisted of about 6 pieces of A4 and a response on a single sheet. The introduction of "professional procurement" as TGW describes has done nothing for this process except add reams and reams of paper, for ever-increasing irrelevant questions. I managed to fail the criteria for getting the local subsidiary of a national operator on to a council school contract list, even though we ran local bus services for the same authority.

I remember those issues. The collapse of DTS following the extra marital activities of a director, the overstretching of Mitcham Belle, and the Capital Logistics (not to be confused with Capital Citybus) shambles on the 60.

And you are definitely right on the issue of public sector procurement. Just been working on one tender that came with a >100 page tender document, a >400 page contract (I kid you not), and a 30 page IT summary (nothing technical but an overview on systems) as dessert. Oh, and 3 pages of high level data that you had to use to create an operational solution and commercial budget that you are expected to sign up to in blood.

In response, and to make sure all relevant boxes were ticked, we had to create a full response whilst keeping to strict page limits. I think it was a brief 300 pages or so. Public sector procurement is big on process and yet can't give you the simple information you need to create a robust operational and commercial proposal, so invariably the budget is wrong. The process is just the fig leaf to say "hey, we did all this".
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,084
And you are definitely right on the issue of public sector procurement. Just been working on one tender that came with a >100 page tender document, a >400 page contract (I kid you not), and a 30 page IT summary (nothing technical but an overview on systems) as dessert. Oh, and 3 pages of high level data that you had to use to create an operational solution and commercial budget that you are expected to sign up to in blood.

In response, and to make sure all relevant boxes were ticked, we had to create a full response whilst keeping to strict page limits. I think it was a brief 300 pages or so.

I was involved in letting some public sector procurements. Whilst I agree that the spec has to be detailed enough to identify precisely what has to be delivered (but not how), the responses were word-limited and only covered areas which were essential in understanding how the contract was to be delivered and experience of other services provided in order to be able to assess each bid. The length of the contract (number of pages) has probably increased over time and in the early days there was probably a bit of naivity on the part of the public sector organisation, and holes were exposed; the result is probably a belt-and-braces approach to try to cover off any possible attempt by the contractor to escape their responsibilities.

A good working relationship with a contractor where there is a bit of give and take in order that a good service is provided is much better than constant haggling over each sub-clause in a contract.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I was involved in letting some public sector procurements. Whilst I agree that the spec has to be detailed enough to identify precisely what has to be delivered (but not how), the responses were word-limited and only covered areas which were essential in understanding how the contract was to be delivered and experience of other services provided in order to be able to assess each bid. The length of the contract (number of pages) has probably increased over time and in the early days there was probably a bit of naivity on the part of the public sector organisation, and holes were exposed; the result is probably a belt-and-braces approach to try to cover off any possible attempt by the contractor to escape their responsibilities.

A good working relationship with a contractor where there is a bit of give and take in order that a good service is provided is much better than constant haggling over each sub-clause in a contract.
You know the pain!!

The problem is that if there was half as much effort in giving everyone the right information in which to tender against, you wouldn’t need the belt and braces.:p
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,930
Though of course TfL (and predecessors) have got their fingers burnt more than once. The collapse of Durham Travel Services, of Mitcham Belle and the fiasco on route 60, amongst others. To some extent it has only been resolved because small operators rarely bid for TfL contracts these days.

Many moons ago local authority contracts consisted of about 6 pieces of A4 and a response on a single sheet. The introduction of "professional procurement" as TGW describes has done nothing for this process except add reams and reams of paper, for ever-increasing irrelevant questions. I managed to fail the criteria for getting the local subsidiary of a national operator on to a council school contract list, even though we ran local bus services for the same authority.
This is true, and there were some truely terrible operators around in the 1990s. However, all the failures you've listed were in London Transport Buses days when the lowest cost won and quality wasn't taken into account. Hence why the entire network managed to break even for a week or so! Route 60 is best forgotten, but that was over 20 years ago.

Small operators can and still do bid and Sullivans and Uno have managed perfectly fine, although the bureaucracy, performance standards and reporting requirements are not something I'd want to get involved in.

I perhaps didn't explain what I was trying to get across too well. It seems to be the case that CC has stuck to a rigid scoring system which can result in giving an answer you don't like, but can't then be changed without a strong rationale.
TfL avoids this by not having a rigid scoring system, thus generally avoiding having to make awards that they fear may be unsustainable. They can use this system because they used an experienced team rather than standard procurement staff who are most used to procuring "widgets" rather than the minutiae of bus operations.

In respect of routes generally not changing hands that's really not true these days, and even where routes stay with the incumbent the evaluation is still as thorough as where routes change hands.

In respect of volume, routes are more often than not awarded as joint packages, sometimes across tendering tranches, with award packages consisting of up to a couple of hundred buses and worth up to £50m pa.

Clearly a lower risk scenario for CC would have been to award FK and PCB all their existing evening and Sunday work on commercial routes they already run, and have a mix of operators on the all-day supported routes, while getting an all-operators day ticket up and running. I say that with the proviso of course that the bids submitted may never have allowed such an ideal mix.

By awarding everything to one operator a huge amount of performance risk has been imported into the entire supported network and although we'll never know, it would be interesting to find out if it was taken into account in the evaluation, or whether the people doing the evaluation had the knowledge and experience to evaluate the risks. This incidentally is not a criticism of PCB.

On the point of the notice period, yes, with TfL it's ideally nine months, which is largely based on manufacturer lead times. Three months is an absurdly short mobilisation period for such a large amount of work and CC clearly appear to have left the whole tendering process far too late.

I'll stop waffling now!
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,084
TfL avoids this by not having a rigid scoring system, thus generally avoiding having to make awards that they fear may be unsustainable. They can use this system because they used an experienced team rather than standard procurement staff who are most used to procuring "widgets" rather than the minutiae of bus operations.

In respect of routes generally not changing hands that's really not true these days, and even where routes stay with the incumbent the evaluation is still as thorough as where routes change hands.

Are there many instances when TfL only receive one bid for a conrtract? If so, is the scoring as robust as usual, or is the preference to award a contract rather than not?
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,084
The problem is that if there was half as much effort in giving everyone the right information in which to tender against, you wouldn’t need the belt and braces.:p

I think the problem was that, before the services were originally offered for tender, the specs were not very well set out, and only time and experience has improved this.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Clearly a lower risk scenario for CC would have been to award FK and PCB all their existing evening and Sunday work on commercial routes they already run, and have a mix of operators on the all-day supported routes, while getting an all-operators day ticket up and running. I say that with the proviso of course that the bids submitted may never have allowed such an ideal mix.

By awarding everything to one operator a huge amount of performance risk has been imported into the entire supported network and although we'll never know, it would be interesting to find out if it was taken into account in the evaluation, or whether the people doing the evaluation had the knowledge and experience to evaluate the risks. This incidentally is not a criticism of PCB.

On the point of the notice period, yes, with TfL it's ideally nine months, which is largely based on manufacturer lead times. Three months is an absurdly short mobilisation period for such a large amount of work and CC clearly appear to have left the whole tendering process far too late.

I'll stop waffling now!

It wasn't waffle - It's all eminently rational. The award of the eve/Sun work as you say would be sensible. They couldn't just awar d with a competitive process but they could've done it on a route by route basis.

The bit about risk is entirely right and it sits with CC, as does the "absurdly short mobilisation period". That is what we should be lambasting the council for!
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I think the problem was that, before the services were originally offered for tender, the specs were not very well set out, and only time and experience has improved this.

Sorry, I should have clarified. The tender I've worked on has a detailed spec as to what is expected. Just no actual detailed data (and this is for existing activity). It's like putting out a tender for a pair of trousers (belt and braces ;) geddit) and with a detailed spec of the style of trouser, the material, the number of belt loops etc but not being able to say how many they want or in which waist size but asking for a price. However, enough of my woes!!!

As @Goldfish62 says, this has the hallmarks of a specified cock up but the cause will only be shown by the symptoms/effect that will be borne by PCB and the travelling public, just as was seen with the Dorset debacle.
 

Top