law on subsidised services

[Teflon Lettuce]

I wonder if anyone can help.

What is the law on subsidised services competing with commercial services?

As my memory serves me a council is not allowed to subsidise services that substantially compete with an established commercial service. However events here in Wales over the last couple of years have made me wonder.

 

[northwichcat]

They also have to withdraw funding if a new commercial service is registered even if the new service is at a lower frequency than the existing one.

I don't know the exact rules but I'm under the impression the 46 Northwich to Warrington Network Warrington service is subsided despite the commercial 45 Northwich to Warrington GHA Coaches service. However, it's not the Northwich to Warrington element of the 46 service that's subsided but Northwich to Anderton-Comberbach with Comberbach to Warrington being commercial and as GHA don't go via Anderton the subsided 46 service can remain.

 

[CatfordCat]

Don't think it's quite as simple as all that.

The 1985 Act included a duty on councils "not to inhibit competition" - this is generally what's used to argue that tendered services should not get in the way of commercial services.

This has been modified by subsequent transport acts (from memory 2000 and 2008), which give councils more flexibility to meet whatever's set out in their bus strategy. And I'm not sure the original was ever tested in court to see exactly what it means.

There has always been a difficulty where there is a commercial route from A to B to C, and a need for a tendered service from A to D that can only get there via B.

I am fairly sure that a council is not compelled to withdraw the minute a speculative commercial service appears, particularly if it's a lot lower frequency. I don't know the services being discussed here, but I'm sure it would not be reasonable for a council to withdraw a half hourly town service if someone else registered two commercial journeys a day, for example.

And even less so if the commercial service was registered by an operator who's miffed about not winning the contract (I think councils can legally drag such operators up to the office of fair trading if they do that, although again not aware of any case law where this has actually happened) - in such circumstances, the outcome of council withdrawing the tendered service is often rapid withdrawal of the 'commercial' service and another go at tendering for it.

The sort of situation where there are a few commercial journeys on a route that the council considers to need a higher frequency is an awkward one. Again, I think it could come down to case law of what's "reasonable" - council thinking a service needed to be every 15 minutes against a commercial 20 minute headway probably wouldn't be. An hourly service against two a day probably would be.

Edit to add - just noticed that the op refers to Wales. I think chunks of the Transport Acts have been further modified by subsequent Welsh legislation.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Don't think it's quite as simple as all that.

The 1985 Act included a duty on councils "not to inhibit competition" - this is generally what's used to argue that tendered services should not get in the way of commercial services.

This has been modified by subsequent transport acts (from memory 2000 and 2008), which give councils more flexibility to meet whatever's set out in their bus strategy. And I'm not sure the original was ever tested in court to see exactly what it means.

There has always been a difficulty where there is a commercial route from A to B to C, and a need for a tendered service from A to D that can only get there via B.

I am fairly sure that a council is not compelled to withdraw the minute a speculative commercial service appears, particularly if it's a lot lower frequency. I don't know the services being discussed here, but I'm sure it would not be reasonable for a council to withdraw a half hourly town service if someone else registered two commercial journeys a day, for example.

And even less so if the commercial service was registered by an operator who's miffed about not winning the contract (I think councils can legally drag such operators up to the office of fair trading if they do that, although again not aware of any case law where this has actually happened) - in such circumstances, the outcome of council withdrawing the tendered service is often rapid withdrawal of the 'commercial' service and another go at tendering for it.

The sort of situation where there are a few commercial journeys on a route that the council considers to need a higher frequency is an awkward one. Again, I think it could come down to case law of what's "reasonable" - council thinking a service needed to be every 15 minutes against a commercial 20 minute headway probably wouldn't be. An hourly service against two a day probably would be.

Edit to add - just noticed that the op refers to Wales. I think chunks of the Transport Acts have been further modified by subsequent Welsh legislation.

what about where there is a long standing commercial service from A to B via C and a competitor registers and then later deregisters a service from A to C or C to B... can the council then put out a tender to replace the deregistered service (especially if that service runs at similar times to the original commercial service)?

 

[KendalKing]

And even less so if the commercial service was registered by an operator who's miffed about not winning the contract (I think councils can legally drag such operators up to the office of fair trading if they do that, although again not aware of any case law where this has actually happened) - in such circumstances, the outcome of council withdrawing the tendered service is often rapid withdrawal of the 'commercial' service and another go at tendering for it.

This as happen a couple times, in Cumbria with the X35 Kendal - Barrow service.

This service is now being operated commercially by Stagecaoch as the X6

 

[CatfordCat]

what about where there is a long standing commercial service from A to B via C and a competitor registers and then later deregisters a service from A to C or C to B... can the council then put out a tender to replace the deregistered service (especially if that service runs at similar times to the original commercial service)?

I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but...

If new commercial service got withdrawn and old commercial service was still there, council would probably take the view that what was there to start with was quite adequate thanks all the same.

If old commercial service got withdrawn, and new commercial service didn't cover all the ground, then council might do something to try and fill those gaps.

If there was an existing commercial service which then had commercial competition, and the end result was both operators withdrawing, then council would probably feel a need to do something.

Another thing that has happened occasionally is that operators have started new and speculative commercial services, then withdrawn them after a short while in the hope that council will tender for a replacement service. Especially when money is tight, councils are reluctant to get drawn in to that sort of thing.

There is no legal definition of what sort of bus services councils should procure to meet gaps in the commercial market. It's for individual councils to decide what its policies are and what sort of services it considers "socially necessary", and then to go about procuring those services in accordance with EU and national law about procuring things in general / procuring local bus services in particular.

Then there's the question of whether they have the finances to provide all the services they would like to provide, and setting policies to decide how they will prioritise what services to provide.

ETA - There is a DfT document "Tendering road passenger transport contracts: best practice guidance" which is a bit more user friendly than trawling through chunks of law (and bear in mind that if you find an original of the 1985 Act, that won't tell you what bits have been modified or repealed by subsequent law) but it's still 89 pages - link

 

[freetoview33]

I'm sure in a lot of cases a council wouldn't even wish to carry on spending money where there is a commercial alternative.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They also have to withdraw funding if a new commercial service is registered even if the new service is at a lower frequency than the existing one.

Councils *can* use subsidy to increase the frequency of a commercial service. It was in the past done on a number of routes in MK, though much of it has now been withdrawn or taken commercial because of funding cuts.

What they also can do, practically, is argue for a tendered route to be retained on relatively tenuous grounds, e.g. a short section of route not otherwise served - they aren't restricted only to running a shuttle.

MK Council seriously hacked off a local commercial operator by doing exactly that, and that operator pulled out in a blaze of glory leaving only the tendered route, which remains in place.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

ok for clarity I was referring to the following example:

Bryans Coaches have run the 701 Aberystwyth-Carmarthen- Swansea- Cardiff for a number of years.

About 6 months ago First Cymru introduced the X12 Carmarthen- Swansea direct. The service was a commercial failure and First, quite rightly announced it's withdrawal

3 days before the route is due to be withdrawn it has been announced that "at the 11th hour" Carmarthenshire County Council is funding the X12, without any formal tendering process.

As the route was originally intended as an attack on a commercial service and has departures from each end in direct competition with the established service surely it is illegal for the Council to arbitarily hand over money to one operator to keep it's service going without either giving money to the other operator or formally tendering the journeys it wishes to keep going?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As the route was originally intended as an attack on a commercial service and has departures from each end in direct competition with the established service surely it is illegal for the Council to arbitarily hand over money to one operator to keep it's service going without either giving money to the other operator or formally tendering the journeys it wishes to keep going?

No, it's perfectly legal as a short-term measure, though I believe plans have to be made to go to tender within a specified period of time. I forget what that period of time is, though the intention of it is to allow them to maintain service. It's not overly dissimilar in concept to direct awards in rail franchising, though on a much smaller scale.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

No, it's perfectly legal as a short-term measure, though I believe plans have to be made to go to tender within a specified period of time. I forget what that period of time is, though the intention of it is to allow them to maintain service. It's not overly dissimilar in concept to direct awards in rail franchising, though on a much smaller scale.

so it is perfectly legal for a council to fund a service in direct competition with a commercial service then? I'm sure that if it had been the other way round and it had been the small independent operator that had withdrawn their service the council wouldn't have dared to do the same to a multi national corporate operator!

 

[WatcherZero]

No, it's perfectly legal as a short-term measure, though I believe plans have to be made to go to tender within a specified period of time. I forget what that period of time is, though the intention of it is to allow them to maintain service. It's not overly dissimilar in concept to direct awards in rail franchising, though on a much smaller scale.

Something like 30 days. Really they are supposed to put it out to open tender as quickly as possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

so it is perfectly legal for a council to fund a service in direct competition with a commercial service then? I'm sure that if it had been the other way round and it had been the small independent operator that had withdrawn their service the council wouldn't have dared to do the same to a multi national corporate operator!

Often it's the latter that step in and help because they have the capacity. But technically yes they could do that.

In this case were the services identical (route, frequency, hours of operation)? If not it seems justified to maintain service levels at least in the short term.

 

[quarella]

http://www.bryanscoaches.co.uk/701%20times%20sept%202014%20one%20side.pdf

http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/timetables_xhtml/timetable_pdf.php?source_id=2&service=X12&routeid=11827291&operator=24&op_id=24&from_timetable1=1&day=1

Links to the timetables above.
A route the lenghth of the 701 is bound to operate over the same as others. I think the Bryan's service does definitely fulfill a need but I do not see the services as competitive based on the timetable. For example the first X12 is in Swansea an hour and a half before Bryan's depart Carmarthen. The only close clash is around 1730 with First departing five minutes earlier but arriving in Cross Hands and Carmarthen after the Bryan's service.
Bryan's or any other operator could have and are still perfectly entitled to register a service between Carmarthen and Swansea. They haven't. Someone in the council either thinks it is worthwhile, or has had their ear bent.
One final point. I may go out of my way to travel on such vehicles but based on views that have been expressed on this forum it would appear that not everyone wants to travel on a 15 year old coach still in the livery (with names removed) of it's previous operator with a bit of board in the corner of the windscreen for the destination. It is just like the early days of bus deregulation.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

http://www.bryanscoaches.co.uk/701%20times%20sept%202014%20one%20side.pdf

http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/timetables_xhtml/timetable_pdf.php?source_id=2&service=X12&routeid=11827291&operator=24&op_id=24&from_timetable1=1&day=1

Links to the timetables above.
A route the lenghth of the 701 is bound to operate over the same as others. I think the Bryan's service does definitely fulfill a need but I do not see the services as competitive based on the timetable. For example the first X12 is in Swansea an hour and a half before Bryan's depart Carmarthen. The only close clash is around 1730 with First departing five minutes earlier but arriving in Cross Hands and Carmarthen after the Bryan's service.
Bryan's or any other operator could have and are still perfectly entitled to register a service between Carmarthen and Swansea.

I'm sure that there is a case for infill services to be tendered to improve the links between Carmarthen- Cross Hands- Swansea with the winner of the tender having to accept tickets from the commercial service, however the X12 was definitely put on as an attempt to undermine the 701. First had never shown any interest in the route until they won the T1 assuming they would have a monopoly of the route and then found out there was a small independant operator that wasn't going to get out of the way.

And if you don't believe that, they have already changed the T1 timetable slightly to make sure that the T1 stays ahead of the 701 all the way from Carmarthen to Aberaeron. The reason that they gave was to "improve timekeeping" although the only problem with timekeeping has been persistent EARLY running.

One final point. I may go out of my way to travel on such vehicles but based on views that have been expressed on this forum it would appear that not everyone wants to travel on a 15 year old coach still in the livery (with names removed) of it's previous operator with a bit of board in the corner of the windscreen for the destination. It is just like the early days of bus deregulation.

Unfortunately for the travelling public the law doesn't take regard of what vehicles they would like to travel on.

If the vehicles used by Bryans Coaches are legal under the terms of the various laws that govern these things, then surely Bryans Coaches' service is protected by the law from unfair competition?

which brings me to my original point... surely a council giving money without a tendering process to keep one service going when there are alternative commercially provided facilities is unfair competition?

and are you really telling me that an average person would rather trundle along the M4/ A48 in a bone rattling dennis dart with hard seats (which could be anything up to TWENTY years old- yes First do have vehicles that old) rather than a coach with very comfortable seats? Remember Bryans often use their tour coaches with extra legroom on these services.

 

[Busaholic]

One final point. I may go out of my way to travel on such vehicles but based on views that have been expressed on this forum it would appear that not everyone wants to travel on a 15 year old coach still in the livery (with names removed) of it's previous operator with a bit of board in the corner of the windscreen for the destination. It is just like the early days of bus deregulation.

Are First really that bad round your way?!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Are First really that bad round your way?!

I think that the poster was referring to Bryans Coaches... but round here First still have a number of R reg darts... even a few P reg ones and one N reg one that I know of... although the X12 is nominally a "Cymru Clipper" service we all know how good First are at getting the right buses on the right routes!

I for one prefer to use a vehicle designed for express work to go on a long distance journey than use a bog standard service bus!

 

[duncombec]

http://www.bryanscoaches.co.uk/701%20times%20sept%202014%20one%20side.pdf

http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/timetables_xhtml/timetable_pdf.php?source_id=2&service=X12&routeid=11827291&operator=24&op_id=24&from_timetable1=1&day=1

Links to the timetables above.
A route the lenghth of the 701 is bound to operate over the same as others. I think the Bryan's service does definitely fulfill a need but I do not see the services as competitive based on the timetable. For example the first X12 is in Swansea an hour and a half before Bryan's depart Carmarthen. The only close clash is around 1730 with First departing five minutes earlier but arriving in Cross Hands and Carmarthen after the Bryan's service.
Bryan's or any other operator could have and are still perfectly entitled to register a service between Carmarthen and Swansea. They haven't. Someone in the council either thinks it is worthwhile, or has had their ear bent.

I'm no expert on these matters, but I think here is the main point. These services operate over the same route, but at primarily different times - and the journey that does run at approximately the same time could easily be explained away as for the convenience of day or return ticket holders. To a non-local, it seems to me that the X12 complements, rather than competes against the 701, and as has been suggested, there is nothing to stop Bryan's registering extra journeys if they wish.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "de minimis" funding (or has that gone out of fashion?), whereby a council can use a certain portion of it's tendered budget on direct grants to operators to either keep socially-necessary journeys on an otherwise commercial service, or to keep a service running until a more convenient time to tender it (e.g. an area review). It certainly makes for cleaner timetables than Milton Keynes, where there can easily be four operators (Mon-Fri, Sat, Sun, Evening or any combination) on the same route!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm no expert on these matters, but I think here is the main point. These services operate over the same route, but at primarily different times - and the journey that does run at approximately the same time could easily be explained away as for the convenience of day or return ticket holders. To a non-local, it seems to me that the X12 complements, rather than competes against the 701, and as has been suggested, there is nothing to stop Bryan's registering extra journeys if they wish.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "de minimis" funding (or has that gone out of fashion?), whereby a council can use a certain portion of it's tendered budget on direct grants to operators to either keep socially-necessary journeys on an otherwise commercial service, or to keep a service running until a more convenient time to tender it (e.g. an area review). It certainly makes for cleaner timetables than Milton Keynes, where there can easily be four operators (Mon-Fri, Sat, Sun, Evening or any combination) on the same route!

I was aware of de minimis. I don't know whether the figures have been increased since the 1985 Act but at the time it was up to a maximum of £4K for any de minimis agreement subject to a maximum of £20K per annum to any one operator.

I'm also aware, having lived in MK of how well that arrangement was used in the days of MK Metro to maintain, as far as possible a comprehensive network under one operator... since totally ruined by Arriva's ridiculous demands for double digit profits on every journey.

My reason for starting this thread was because the X12 was clearly designed to abstract custom and undermine the 701/ 750 (as I have already stated) and that it must be illegal for a county council to then subsidise that service to continue when there are commercial alternatives available at SUBSTANTIALLY similar times...

Sure I agree there is an argument for continuing support for journeys that facilitate travel from swansea to carmarthen, but not in the opposite direction.

 

[RT4038]

Looking at the two timetables, the X12 appears to compliment the Bryan's Coaches service, which only operates 2 or 3 times per day. The X12 also operates via Hendy, which 701/750 does not.

Local authorities can augment commercial services with tendered operations if they so wish. In this case I would expect that they have done picked up this service on the current timetable to maintain continuity of operation. A complaint by Bryan's Coaches to the Authority concerned about the 1725/1730 ex Swansea clash would probably result in the 1725 being retimed in due course (at retendering). Local Authorities generally do not want to waste money subsidising services that compete with commercial services,( 'compete' being quite a subjective term), nor do they usually want to cause commercial services to be withdrawn (unless the standard or frequency etc. is not serving their public well enough - another subjective opinion) .

 

[iantherev]

Might there not be an issue that the X12 is worked by low floor vehicles whereas the Bryan's service is worked with high floor coaches?

 

[quarella]

I'm sure that there is a case for infill services to be tendered to improve the links between Carmarthen- Cross Hands- Swansea with the winner of the tender having to accept tickets from the commercial service, however the X12 was definitely put on as an attempt to undermine the 701. First had never shown any interest in the route until they won the T1 assuming they would have a monopoly of the route and then found out there was a small independant operator that wasn't going to get out of the way.

And if you don't believe that, they have already changed the T1 timetable slightly to make sure that the T1 stays ahead of the 701 all the way from Carmarthen to Aberaeron. The reason that they gave was to "improve timekeeping" although the only problem with timekeeping has been persistent EARLY running.



.

I thought this was about the X12. Suddenly you bring the T1 in. As part of the Traws Cymru network I would have thought any timetable alterations would need agreement from the Welsh Government. The service I looked at Bryan’s are ahead from Felinfach school, not all the way to Aberaeron. If predatory activities are taking place then the Traffic Commissioner can look into it. Ask Cardiff Bus if the big boys always win in those fights. However again I repeat that Bryan’s and other operators were able to tender to operate the T1 and are at liberty to register a commercial service if they so wish. http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/assets/pdfs/wales/booklets/T1_23022015.pdf The T1 is a Welsh government awarded contract service offering a frequent (for West Wales) service which First happened to be awarded. Would your opposition have been the same had say Richard’s Bros become the operator?

Unfortunately for the travelling public the law doesn't take regard of what vehicles they would like to travel on.

If the vehicles used by Bryans Coaches are legal under the terms of the various laws that govern these things, then surely Bryans Coaches' service is protected by the law from unfair competition?

which brings me to my original point... surely a council giving money without a tendering process to keep one service going when there are alternative commercially provided facilities is unfair competition?

and are you really telling me that an average person would rather trundle along the M4/ A48 in a bone rattling dennis dart with hard seats (which could be anything up to TWENTY years old- yes First do have vehicles that old) rather than a coach with very comfortable seats? Remember Bryans often use their tour coaches with extra legroom on these services.

I am fully aware that some of First’s fleet is up to twenty years old. Nearer thirty for the Volvos in Cornwall. They do not tend to be used for routes of over 3 hours. I have no problem with the vehicles used, and while you say “they often use their tour coaches” I usually see the same vehicle arriving or leaving Cardiff on time day after day with a rare alternative vehicle which suggests good maintenance and reliability. There have been threads on this forum regarding poor destination display including illumination, on board passenger information systems, Wi-Fi provision, bus stop information.
In the past couple of months I have done the full X35 Jurassic Coast explorer from Poole to Exeter which takes 4.5 hours and the X95 Edinburgh to Carlisle, 3.5 hours on service buses and found them to be perfectly acceptable.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The service I looked at Bryan’s are ahead from Felinfach school, not all the way to Aberaeron....However again I repeat that Bryan’s and other operators were able to tender to operate the T1 and are at liberty to register a commercial service if they so wish.

Obviously you don't know the area that well... The road between Lampeter and Aberaeron has only TWO short stretches where it is safe to overtake IF you're lucky enough for the road to be clear... in effect the changes to First's timetables hinder the progress of the 701 after Lampeter... as to your comment about the tendering process you seem to be labouring under the idea that the 701 came after the T1. That is incorrect. Bryans Coaches have been operating the 701 for about 7 years having worked hard to build it from a twice weekly operation to twice daily.

The T1 is a Welsh government awarded contract service offering a frequent (for West Wales) service which First happened to be awarded. Would your opposition have been the same had say Richard’s Bros become the operator?

In short.... yes!

 

[Martin1988]

Did the introduction of commercial services by first in the South Gloucestershire area, mean that South Gloucestershire Council were legally oblighed to stop funding routes such as the X27, 329, 482,483 and 581 this time a year ago?

Obviously the X27 got taken on by Wessex on a commercial basis before subsequently getting withdrawn but the route taken by the 46 is different to that taken by the 329. Specifically the 46 doesn't venture into as much of North Yate and as a result I personally don't consider it a replacement for the 329.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Did the introduction of commercial services by first in the South Gloucestershire area, mean that South Gloucestershire Council were legally oblighed to stop funding routes such as the X27, 329, 482,483 and 581 this time a year ago?

Obviously the X27 got taken on by Wessex on a commercial basis before subsequently getting withdrawn but the route taken by the 46 is different to that taken by the 329. Specifically the 46 doesn't venture into as much of North Yate and as a result I personally don't consider it a replacement for the 329.

In short, yes. When First registered those services, SGC had to withdraw the tenders. However, they could've amended the X27 to run non-stop or some other route from North Yate to Bristol but decided not to.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Obviously you don't know the area that well... The road between Lampeter and Aberaeron has only TWO short stretches where it is safe to overtake IF you're lucky enough for the road to be clear... in effect the changes to First's timetables hinder the progress of the 701 after Lampeter... as to your comment about the tendering process you seem to be labouring under the idea that the 701 came after the T1. That is incorrect. Bryans Coaches have been operating the 701 for about 7 years having worked hard to build it from a twice weekly operation to twice daily!

The fact that Bryan's have registered across a length of route on a couple of journeys a day does not preclude the supporting of a tendered service that is far in excess of that (with both T1 and X12).

Where specific journeys are in conflict then the operator should raise an objection or, more simply, retime their journeys. That Bryan's haven't done so with the 701 probably illustrates the extent of any issue.

 

[Tom B]

Of course a private operator is welcome to decide what to operate, without any obligation to explain or justify its actions.

Example:

Company A operates a particular route. They declare that it is unprofitable and that they wish to withdraw it. The council decides it is socially necessary so they conduct a tender process and Company B wins the tender, so they go out and buy new vehicles and recruit new staff. Company A is unhappy and therefore decides not to withdraw their commercial service and instead they will (magically run it at a profit/ run it at a loss out of the goodness of their hearts/ etc), so the council write to Company B and tell them their tender has been cancelled because Company A has taken on the service commercially. (Out of interest, does Company B have any recourse if they have spent money based on a contract which was subsequently cancelled before it began?).

Another example of these problems has been seen in some places, for example a route runs from A-B-C. The section between A-B is relatively busy, and the incumbent operator runs several inter-worked services on this section. However, the section B-C goes through the countryside and a few villages. The council put a tender out between B-C only so, naturally, only the incumbent operator wins the award as they're willing to operate between A-B as well. Alternatively, you may have one particular journey on a one-off route at an obscure time of day which is only of interest to the one operator who happens to have a vehicle in the area at the time coming off another (commercial) route!

 

[northwichcat]

Company A operates a particular route. They declare that it is unprofitable and that they wish to withdraw it. The council decides it is socially necessary so they conduct a tender process and Company B wins the tender, so they go out and buy new vehicles and recruit new staff. Company A is unhappy and therefore decides not to withdraw their commercial service and instead they will (magically run it at a profit/ run it at a loss out of the goodness of their hearts/ etc), so the council write to Company B and tell them their tender has been cancelled because Company A has taken on the service commercially. (Out of interest, does Company B have any recourse if they have spent money based on a contract which was subsequently cancelled before it began?).

An example of something very close is the 130 Sunday and Bank Holiday service between Macclesfield and Manchester. GHA Coaches lost the contract to D&G Bus but GHA Coaches decided to reduce the frequency to operate the timetable with 1 less bus without the council's support. Once GHA's service revision application was accepted by the Traffic Commissioner, a notice was put on both the D&G Bus website and Cheshire East council website saying as GHA Coaches have decided to run the route commercially the contract awarded to D&G Bus will now not start. As it was a Sunday and Bank Holiday service D&G Bus didn't need to acquire additional buses but would have needed to find more drivers willing to work Sundays and Bank Holidays.

 

[quarella]

Obviously you don't know the area that well... The road between Lampeter and Aberaeron has only TWO short stretches where it is safe to overtake IF you're lucky enough for the road to be clear... in effect the changes to First's timetables hinder the progress of the 701 after Lampeter... as to your comment about the tendering process you seem to be labouring under the idea that the 701 came after the T1. That is incorrect. Bryans Coaches have been operating the 701 for about 7 years having worked hard to build it from a twice weekly operation to twice daily.

I am familiar with the road. However the published timetable states that the Bryan's service is ahead at Felin-Fach. If Bryan's are unable to adhere to their timetable due to conflict with another service then there are measures that can be taken. At it's most basic a slight retiming up to traffic commisioner involvement. As both services are scheduled to leave Lampeter at 1715 common sense would dictate that if it is on time the Bryan's service departs first.
Developed or redeveloped the service? I travelled on the 701 when it was a Traws Cambria service from Cardiff - Holyhead. I think it is a needed route and do support independent operators advising friends of the existance of the service.
Others have gone into the tendering process in depth between our postings but it does not matter in the slightest who was operating which service first. Rightly or wrongly the bus industry is competitive. It was up till the 1930s then, after 50 years of state control it became so again in accordance with the 1985 Transport Act.
From this diversion onto the T1 to return to your original issue of the X18 between Carmarthen and Swansea. If you feel that correct procedures were not followed in the award of a subsidy for the operation of that service there are bodies that can deal with such matters.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I am familiar with the road. However the published timetable states that the Bryan's service is ahead at Felin-Fach. If Bryan's are unable to adhere to their timetable due to conflict with another service then there are measures that can be taken. At it's most basic a slight retiming up to traffic commisioner involvement. As both services are scheduled to leave Lampeter at 1715 common sense would dictate that if it is on time the Bryan's service departs first.

Common sense may dictate that... but a closer inspection of the timetable will show that the T1 is scheduled to arrive in Lampeter at 10 past the hr.. meaning it is on the stop first. Living in Lampeter I can confirm that the T1 regularly leaves 1 or 2 minutes early and when it doesn't it sits there until the 701 indicates to pull away and then immediately pulls out in front... seems as though First drivers are not aware of the rule of common sense.

Others have gone into the tendering process in depth between our postings but it does not matter in the slightest who was operating which service first. Rightly or wrongly the bus industry is competitive. It was up till the 1930s then, after 50 years of state control it became so again in accordance with the 1985 Transport Act.
From this diversion onto the T1 to return to your original issue of the X18 between Carmarthen and Swansea. If you feel that correct procedures were not followed in the award of a subsidy for the operation of that service there are bodies that can deal with such matters.

Actually it DOES matter who was operating what first... the rules are different for tendering a service where a commercial service pre-exists compared to when a commercial service is started against a tendered service.

By making the bald comment about it being a competitive environment you clearly miss the point I was trying to get clarified.. what does the law say about a county council arbitarily giving subsidy to continue a service that a company deems to be no longer commercially viable when there are facilities already in existence operated commercially.

My issue was rules concerning subsidised services in general, and was only prompted by the situation that has developed on the X12/701. In particular I was wondering if there is anything in law that defines when a service no longer competes.. eg a service leaving at exactly the same time obviously competes as does one that leaves 5 or 10 minutes earlier... but what about one that runs 10 minutes after? or half an hour before? where is the cut off.

And yes, as a Council Tax payer living in Carmarthenshire I have asked for an explanation from them, however judging by previous enquiries to them I don't hold out much hope of them even bothering to reply!

 

[WatcherZero]

Generally if theres a commercial hourly service or better you wouldn't put a subsidised service on it but you might subsidise early morning or evening service times that the commercial operator has chosen not to operate.