North East Combined Authority for Transport

[AutoKratz]

Consultation: Proposal to establish a combined authority for Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

Combined Authority Consultation Report

This consultation seeks views on the proposal that a combined authority for the areas of Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear should be established, and on the proposed structure, constitution and functions of the new authority.

The consultation for the abolition of NEXUS / Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority and the replacement with a North East wide agency is now live and actively seeking the views of institutions and the public.

Because of the North East's resistance to governance change in the past it's critical that members of the public comment and give their views. I believe this is a huge step forward for the North East and can deliver substantial benefits for transport investment and infrastructure and economic growth overall.

Take the time to be part of the consultation, we need to show Eric Pickles we're fully behind this.

 

[pemma]

A similar thing has happened with the councils that were in the 1974-1998 boundary for Cheshire; Warrington, Halton, Cheshire East, Cheshire West & Chester, have formed a combined Cheshire & Warrington local transport body.

 

[Jonny]

Consultation: Proposal to establish a combined authority for Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

Combined Authority Consultation Report

The consultation for the abolition of NEXUS / Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority and the replacement with a North East wide agency is now live and actively seeking the views of institutions and the public.

Because of the North East's resistance to governance change in the past it's critical that members of the public comment and give their views. I believe this is a huge step forward for the North East and can deliver substantial benefits for transport investment and infrastructure and economic growth overall.

Take the time to be part of the consultation, we need to show Eric Pickles we're fully behind this.

It's about time too! Planning so often seems to stop at the TWPTE borders (I live about a mile outside).

 

[blue sabre]

TfNEE - Transport for North Eastern England. Will be a marvellous idea.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's about time too! Planning so often seems to stop at the TWPTE borders (I live about a mile outside).

However, there's got to be a border somewhere?

To be honest, I don't have a problem with the idea of a transport authority for the north. However, it will need to be

• Better than Nexus - they aren't all they're cracked up to be
• Better than Durham and Northumberland CCs
• Not pursue this fundamentally flawed QP/franchising cross subsidy scheme

I've found Durham and Northumberland to be very underwhelming in terms of either support or execution of plans. A malaise that is apparent in the main bus companies esp. Arriva North East though Stagecoach are fairly decent

 

[radamfi]

The nearest thing to this is the combined authority set up in Greater Manchester, which led to the replacement of GMPTE with TfGM. The main advantage is that the authority now has interest in transport as a whole across Greater Manchester, rather than just public transport. Other areas now want what Greater Manchester has. TfGM has almost the same powers as TfL, other than of course, the rather big omission of not being able to control buses due to bus deregulation.

So the proposal in the north-east sounds particularly exciting given that Nexus is currently going for a QC. So the north-east could potentially be the first area outside London to really enjoy TfL style planning ability, as unlike GM they could plan buses, with the additional bonus of this applying to the whole north-east, not just Tyne & Wear.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So the proposal in the north-east sounds particularly exciting given that Nexus is currently going for a QC. So the north-east could potentially be the first area outside London to really enjoy TfL style planning ability, as unlike GM they could plan buses, with the additional bonus of this applying to the whole north-east, not just Tyne & Wear.

Granted, as far as it goes. However, the reason why TfL has had tangible benefits is the phenomenal amount of money that they get to spend.

I have grave misgivings about the QC scheme (as Nexus are seeking to pursue) as it is based on screwing down margin and redistributing that as a cross subsidy to marginal routes......and if we look to the past, that doesn't work.

I would like to see a better approach to public transport in Northumberland and Co Durham. Just don't think the QC scheme will work; seems all very plausible but if large chunks of the country are screwed down at a 5% profit margin....how will that begin to impact on businesses?

 

[radamfi]

Admittedly, I have been sceptical about the ability of delivering an effective QC as a result of a lack of funding. But it might be more cost effective if the area covered is larger. Funding might become slightly easier in the years to come due to an improving economy and possibly an incoming Labour government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Answering the question about the effect on the industry of a smaller margin, well that is not my concern. I expect operators to deliver the quality and level of service that they are being paid for. Competitive tendering is accepted in many industries, and if anything the private sector has prospered as a result. Sure, I expect margins will go down as the big operators will no longer have their unregulated monopolies. That is hopefully how the taxpayer saves money in the long run. But there will still be a bus industry.

If you went straight from the pre-86 situation to a QC, it would feel like a radical Thatcherite privatisation plan. It is only because we have implemented an extreme form of deregulation in the meantime that QCs are seen very differently by free marketeers.

 

[ainsworth74]

TfNEE - Transport for North Eastern England. Will be a marvellous idea.

Is Teesside no longer in the North East?

It seems a reasonable idea but I fear it will mean that the Teesside region will be even more passed over than it already is (other than the odd bits of loose change we get) if it isn't included within this new structure.

 

[alwaystouchout]

Wouldn't it be wise to include Teesside too along with Durham, T&W and Northumberland?

I have thought for a long time that strategic transport authorities covering the city-focused regions, ie. North East (Newcastle), North West (Manchester/Liverpool) are a great idea.

 

[WatcherZero]

The nearest thing to this is the combined authority set up in Greater Manchester, which led to the replacement of GMPTE with TfGM. The main advantage is that the authority now has interest in transport as a whole across Greater Manchester, rather than just public transport. Other areas now want what Greater Manchester has. TfGM has almost the same powers as TfL, other than of course, the rather big omission of not being able to control buses due to bus deregulation.

So the proposal in the north-east sounds particularly exciting given that Nexus is currently going for a QC. So the north-east could potentially be the first area outside London to really enjoy TfL style planning ability, as unlike GM they could plan buses, with the additional bonus of this applying to the whole north-east, not just Tyne & Wear.

Their becoming quite common now though theres minor differences between them they each have more powers in certain areas and fewer elsewhere as they are all customised deals, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Lancashire, Liverpool, North East.

 

[Spaceflower]

I am all for this.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Answering the question about the effect on the industry of a smaller margin, well that is not my concern. I expect operators to deliver the quality and level of service that they are being paid for. Competitive tendering is accepted in many industries, and if anything the private sector has prospered as a result. Sure, I expect margins will go down as the big operators will no longer have their unregulated monopolies. That is hopefully how the taxpayer saves money in the long run. But there will still be a bus industry.

If you went straight from the pre-86 situation to a QC, it would feel like a radical Thatcherite privatisation plan. It is only because we have implemented an extreme form of deregulation in the meantime that QCs are seen very differently by free marketeers.

Well, you should care. Anyone who has a private pension should care, as many of the shareholders are pension funds.

Also, how do bus companies get the funds to invest into their businesses. Through retained profits? Why do shareholders invest? For financial returns. People who run bin collections (e.g. Biffa) make around 12% - that's more than First do and not much worse than Stagecoach. Now it's ok to have a number of low risk, low margin businesses (e.g. Stagecoach's London ops) but if you're going to peg everything back to 5% across the country, then the model doesn't work. People will invest elsewhere where they can get a decent dividend/return.

I'm all for better planning and co-ordination. That's great. I'm all for increased expenditure. That is what is actually needed. When TfL tried to "live within their means", that was when expenditure and patronage fell. That is the crux of the matter; we, as a country, need to find decent levels of public transport funding and we just don't. The current set up of local authorities in the North would be improved by a non bureaucratic, non political body to manage and coordinate activities. I'm not against that at all, especially if it were allocated funds by either LAs or central government and was free to manage without intervention.

However, the idea of a Robin Hood style robbing from good services to prop up a wider network? It just doesn't work and what happens is you have good routes being exploited (e.g. reduced headways) to prop up crap. It happened in the 1970s/1980's.

Oh, and don't kid yourself that a Labour government will get in and suddenly things will be fine. Firstly, they were responsible for the cock up that is ENCTS. Secondly, they'll be hamstrung by whatever spending restraints are in force and that spending on health and education will come first, and thirdly, I don't think they'll get in. They chose the wrong brother as leader, and as the economic cycle progresses, increased economic confidence and growth will only help the Tories.

 

[AutoKratz]

Is Teesside no longer in the North East?

It seems a reasonable idea but I fear it will mean that the Teesside region will be even more passed over than it already is (other than the odd bits of loose change we get) if it isn't included within this new structure.

Teesside was originally included in the Combined Authority in the early stages however it was deemed to be more beneficial to link up with the North East Local Enterprise Partnership (NELEP) to create a stronger case. This has meant that the Combined Authority area is the same as the LEP area and therefore does not include Teesside.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, you should care. Anyone who has a private pension should care, as many of the shareholders are pension funds.

Also, how do bus companies get the funds to invest into their businesses. Through retained profits? Why do shareholders invest? For financial returns. People who run bin collections (e.g. Biffa) make around 12% - that's more than First do and not much worse than Stagecoach. Now it's ok to have a number of low risk, low margin businesses (e.g. Stagecoach's London ops) but if you're going to peg everything back to 5% across the country, then the model doesn't work. People will invest elsewhere where they can get a decent dividend/return.

I'm all for better planning and co-ordination. That's great. I'm all for increased expenditure. That is what is actually needed. When TfL tried to "live within their means", that was when expenditure and patronage fell. That is the crux of the matter; we, as a country, need to find decent levels of public transport funding and we just don't. The current set up of local authorities in the North would be improved by a non bureaucratic, non political body to manage and coordinate activities. I'm not against that at all, especially if it were allocated funds by either LAs or central government and was free to manage without intervention.

However, the idea of a Robin Hood style robbing from good services to prop up a wider network? It just doesn't work and what happens is you have good routes being exploited (e.g. reduced headways) to prop up crap. It happened in the 1970s/1980's.

Oh, and don't kid yourself that a Labour government will get in and suddenly things will be fine. Firstly, they were responsible for the cock up that is ENCTS. Secondly, they'll be hamstrung by whatever spending restraints are in force and that spending on health and education will come first, and thirdly, I don't think they'll get in. They chose the wrong brother as leader, and as the economic cycle progresses, increased economic confidence and growth will only help the Tories.

Just to clarify....

The Combined Authority has nothing to do with NEXUS and the ITA's proposal for Quality Contracts in Tyne and Wear, it's a separate consultation. The outcome of the Quality Contracts does not affect the Combined Authority Proposal.

 

[radamfi]

Well, you should care. Anyone who has a private pension should care, as many of the shareholders are pension funds.

Also, how do bus companies get the funds to invest into their businesses. Through retained profits? Why do shareholders invest? For financial returns. People who run bin collections (e.g. Biffa) make around 12% - that's more than First do and not much worse than Stagecoach. Now it's ok to have a number of low risk, low margin businesses (e.g. Stagecoach's London ops) but if you're going to peg everything back to 5% across the country, then the model doesn't work. People will invest elsewhere where they can get a decent dividend/return.

I'm all for better planning and co-ordination. That's great. I'm all for increased expenditure. That is what is actually needed. When TfL tried to "live within their means", that was when expenditure and patronage fell. That is the crux of the matter; we, as a country, need to find decent levels of public transport funding and we just don't. The current set up of local authorities in the North would be improved by a non bureaucratic, non political body to manage and coordinate activities. I'm not against that at all, especially if it were allocated funds by either LAs or central government and was free to manage without intervention.

However, the idea of a Robin Hood style robbing from good services to prop up a wider network? It just doesn't work and what happens is you have good routes being exploited (e.g. reduced headways) to prop up crap. It happened in the 1970s/1980's.

Oh, and don't kid yourself that a Labour government will get in and suddenly things will be fine. Firstly, they were responsible for the cock up that is ENCTS. Secondly, they'll be hamstrung by whatever spending restraints are in force and that spending on health and education will come first, and thirdly, I don't think they'll get in. They chose the wrong brother as leader, and as the economic cycle progresses, increased economic confidence and growth will only help the Tories.

Most people, unless they hold actual Stagecoach/Go-Ahead etc. shares directly, would not face a significant fall in the value of their investments if Stagecoach/Go-Ahead lose money or even go bust as the pension funds hold a wide portfolio of investments.

Bidders would of course need to allow for a reasonable amount of profit when submitting their tender, otherwise there is no point bidding. If the tender requires new buses then the price would go up accordingly.

Transdev and Arriva already operate lots of buses in franchised operations in supposedly more socialist countries of Europe like the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. These franchises often require new buses at the start. They wouldn't bother bidding if it was not profitable enough.

You've got to run buses in all parts of town, not just to sink estates and university campuses.

Naturally, the ideal outcome is a QC accompanied by decent funding. I am assuming decent funding as you can't run a proper bus service without it. We've already discussed what could be done with extra funding under deregulation and the answer was, not that much. Fares cannot be directly subsidised. There could be some benefit in increasing BSOG, pushing some tendered routes into commercial territory again, but fares would become unregulated on more routes and the extra funding would largely go on more profits.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Most people, unless they hold actual Stagecoach/Go-Ahead etc. shares directly, would not face a significant fall in the value of their investments if Stagecoach/Go-Ahead lose money or even go bust as the pension funds hold a wide portfolio of investments.

Bidders would of course need to allow for a reasonable amount of profit when submitting their tender, otherwise there is no point bidding. If the tender requires new buses then the price would go up accordingly.

Transdev and Arriva already operate lots of buses in franchised operations in supposedly more socialist countries of Europe like the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. These franchises often require new buses at the start. They wouldn't bother bidding if it was not profitable enough.

You've got to run buses in all parts of town, not just to sink estates and university campuses.

Naturally, the ideal outcome is a QC accompanied by decent funding. I am assuming decent funding as you can't run a proper bus service without it. We've already discussed what could be done with extra funding under deregulation and the answer was, not that much. Fares cannot be directly subsidised. There could be some benefit in increasing BSOG, pushing some tendered routes into commercial territory again, but fares would become unregulated on more routes and the extra funding would largely go on more profits.

Hang on there. We're not talking about most people; small shareholders have very little exposure or influence. It's the big financial institutions that hold sway such as UBS who hold nearly 6% of Go Ahead Group. For Stagecoach, there are 38,000 shareholders yet only 120 organisations and individuals (e.g. Gloag and Souter) own 88% of the groups' shares.

It's fine for Arriva, Stagecoach or Go Ahead to have a range of operations that can comprise a mix of low risk/low reward stuff (e.g. euro franchising, TfL) but if everything is driven down to 5% margin, then this will affect either investment and dividends and why should UPS, a Pension Fund or anyone invest in them? You say "a reasonable amount of profit" - that's not what Nexus are saying or using for their calculations.

Now if you look at Stagecoach, their best performing (in terms of margin) business is Midland Red South. They have a bit of Warwick Uni work but are they reliant on Universities and sink estates? No.

You're old enough to remember the regulated days of the NBC, when cross subsidy was rampant. Services on ever widening headways to compensate for a mass of unremunerative services; my main route as a kid was every 30 mins with middle aged VRs whilst now its every 20 mins with nearly new long Solos.

What Nexus are promoting with QCs is a moms apple pie utopia where you can screw down the operators to 5%, whilst having newer buses, more buses, and lower fares for the majority. What's not to like? It is too good to be true.

What needs to happen is decent funding but that isn't going to happen, irrespective of the colour of government that we get in 2015.

 

[radamfi]

Many if not most private transport companies in the world operate primarily or totally in regulated environments. Transdev have operations all over the world but only have deregulated operations in the UK. Even First and Stagecoach have much if not most of their business in regulated rail franchising or regulated London bus franchising.

I don't think you can compare pre-86 NBC with franchising. NBC was an inefficient state owned monopoly. Compulsory tendering and privatisation in London gave slightly improved services in most cases whilst slashing subsidy and operating costs at the same time. Costs only became high after the formation of TfL because the mayor wanted vastly expanded services and low fares. I would be surprised if even a poorly funded QC would be worse than NBC pre-86.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Many if not most private transport companies in the world operate primarily or totally in regulated environments. Transdev have operations all over the world but only have deregulated operations in the UK. Even First and Stagecoach have much if not most of their business in regulated rail franchising or regulated London bus franchising.

I don't think you can compare pre-86 NBC with franchising. NBC was an inefficient state owned monopoly. Compulsory tendering and privatisation in London gave slightly improved services in most cases whilst slashing subsidy and operating costs at the same time. Costs only became high after the formation of TfL because the mayor wanted vastly expanded services and low fares. I would be surprised if even a poorly funded QC would be worse than NBC pre-86.

That would be Transdev, part of Caisse des Depots who have a wide range of interests outside of transport. Within their transport portfolio, they have Veolia Auckland who make nearly 11% so how Nexus feel they'll get 5% from operators, lord knows. And, of course, First has divested its London bus operations whilst rail operations (whilst making a margin of 4.4%) take up little capital. This is because the ROSCOs make the money and its more than 5%

Alternatively, you can follow the Brighton and Hove model of an enlightened bus operator and a practical council to double bus patronage in 20 years. Now that would be the ideal solution

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am with Ainsworth as finding the omission of Teeside as a potential problem.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well, you should care. Anyone who has a private pension should care, as many of the shareholders are pension funds.

Many of the shareholders of Stagecoach plc are, er, Brian Souter and Ann Gloag.

I don't think Brian Souter's personal wealth affects my pension, but I might be wrong.

As for investment, I'm unclear what benefits the £1bn in dividends taken out of Stagecoach since 2007 have brought us. I know that the people of the north east pay for those dividends though: Busways' profit margin is well north of 20%. Given the number of R and T-reg buses still in operation with Busways in Newcastle, it can't even be argued the sky-high fares are bringing us new buses.

I also don't remember the Corporations and NBC struggling to buy new buses.

Transdev have operations all over the world but only have deregulated operations in the UK. Even First and Stagecoach have much if not most of their business in regulated rail franchising or regulated London bus franchising.

Transdev still have a London Buses operation. First, on the other hand, do not: their depots were sold to Go-Ahead, Metroline and Transit Systems.

Stagecoach don't really want to be in London either, as Souter repeatedly tells us. They sold up back in 2006 and they're only back because Souter was able to buy back the business from Macquarie Bank for a tidy £200m profit. Souter doesn't really like regulation or interference, they get in the way of his business. Just look at Darlington or Preston. Or maybe don't if you think the privatised bus industry is functional.

But for every Brian Souter, there's a Comfort DelGro or a RATP who are happy to run the services in London for a 5-7% margin.

 

[radamfi]

Transdev still have a London Buses operation.

I meant that Transdev don't have deregulated services anywhere other than the UK.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Many of the shareholders of Stagecoach plc are, er, Brian Souter and Ann Gloag.

I don't think Brian Souter's personal wealth affects my pension, but I might be wrong.

As for investment, I'm unclear what benefits the £1bn in dividends taken out of Stagecoach since 2007 have brought us. I know that the people of the north east pay for those dividends though: Busways' profit margin is well north of 20%. Given the number of R and T-reg buses still in operation with Busways in Newcastle, it can't even be argued the sky-high fares are bringing us new buses.

I also don't remember the Corporations and NBC struggling to buy new buses.



Transdev still have a London Buses operation. First, on the other hand, do not: their depots were sold to Go-Ahead, Metroline and Transit Systems.

Stagecoach don't really want to be in London either, as Souter repeatedly tells us. They sold up back in 2006 and they're only back because Souter was able to buy back the business from Macquarie Bank for a tidy £200m profit. Souter doesn't really like regulation or interference, they get in the way of his business. Just look at Darlington or Preston. Or maybe don't if you think the privatised bus industry is functional.

But for every Brian Souter, there's a Comfort DelGro or a RATP who are happy to run the services in London for a 5-7% margin.

So few sentences, so many issues to clarify.

You don't remember the NBC and Corporations struggling to buy new buses? You don't then remember the new bus grant. They received substantial subsidies. Also, many NBC firms made substantial losses; Hants & Dorset lost £2m in 1980. Of course, these losses were underwritten by the government. It would also be prudent to mention that after the Tories came to power in 1979, the NBG was scrapped and organisations such as the NBC were put on a tighter financial leash - the losses were supposed to stop. Hence, from 1981 onwards, look at the number of new buses that were delivered in that time e.g. National 2s and Olympians in southern England

East Kent didn't get anything
Southdown had a batch of N2s (as did B&H)
M&D got some Metrobus 2s and 3 diverted Olyms
H&D had 10 Olympians
WN Group had about 15 Olympians
Southern Vectis had a positively mental 20 or so Olyms

You may also look at how many new vehicles Portsmouth, Maidstone, Southampton and Plymouth got in this time. Of course, new vehicle expenditure could afford to be trimmed as various MAP schemes saw swingeing service cuts and much reduced PVRs

I did mention Messrs Gloag and Souter in respect of Stagecoach but there's another raft of large shareholders who are financial institutions. However, I also pointed out that Go Ahead has 13% of its shares held by Capital Life and UBS, whilst Scottish Widows and Standard Life are major shareholders in First Group. My works pension is managed by Scottish Widows and if you have a private pension, you might care to see who and where they invest it.

Stagecoach do make +20% profits with Busways. Yes, there are some R and T reg buses working. However, they though they are due to go imminently, being replaced by 30 odd new vehicles in Sunderland. Did you not know that? Or not see the raft of e400 deckers that are 6 years old or less? The other issue is that Arriva North East doesn't make much money and Go North East reckon their profits are much nearer 10% than 20% so whilst it's all lovely to focus on the evil Stagecoach profits, the truth is a little different. After all, Stagecoach have the best routes.

RATP - that would be the state owned French business? Do they have shareholders to satisfy? Also, ComfortDelGro have an average profit margin of c.12% though currency fluctuations do have to be factored in.

 

[radamfi]

It may well be that if the UK does move over to a mostly franchised arrangement in the future, there may be a much greater role for publicly owned operators such as RATP, Abellio etc. and First and Stagecoach may get out of UK local buses into something more profitable.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It may well be that if the UK does move over to a mostly franchised arrangement in the future, there may be a much greater role for publicly owned operators such as RATP, Abellio etc. and First and Stagecoach may get out of UK local buses into something more profitable.

Given how QCs have receded in both West Yorkshire and Merseyside, with only Nexus still actively pursuing them, I doubt it.

The irony is that in the North East, Teesside will sit outside the planning area and arguably, that's the place that needs the most help!

 

[radamfi]

Given how QCs have receded in both West Yorkshire and Merseyside, with only Nexus still actively pursuing them, I doubt it.

The irony is that in the North East, Teesside will sit outside the planning area and arguably, that's the place that needs the most help!

It depends on how long commercial bus service provision can survive. Chunks of southern England are already fully deregistered and if this trend spreads to most of the country then we may well almost have QCs by default anyway if everything is tendered. Bus services will become mostly unprofitable if a sizable proportion of bus users switch to electric bikes or driverless taxis, should technology advance sufficiently.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It depends on how long commercial bus service provision can survive. Chunks of southern England are already fully deregistered and if this trend spreads to most of the country then we may well almost have QCs by default anyway if everything is tendered. Bus services will become mostly unprofitable if a sizable proportion of bus users switch to electric bikes or driverless taxis, should technology advance sufficiently.

I'm still waiting for hoverboards......

 

[34D]

The nearest thing to this is the combined authority set up in Greater Manchester, which led to the replacement of GMPTE with TfGM. The main advantage is that the authority now has interest in transport as a whole across Greater Manchester, rather than just public transport. Other areas now want what Greater Manchester has. TfGM has almost the same powers as TfL, other than of course, the rather big omission of not being able to control buses due to bus deregulation.

So the proposal in the north-east sounds particularly exciting given that Nexus is currently going for a QC. So the north-east could potentially be the first area outside London to really enjoy TfL style planning ability, as unlike GM they could plan buses, with the additional bonus of this applying to the whole north-east, not just Tyne & Wear.

Surely the West Yorkshire ITA is nearer to Nexus-land than TfGM is?

 

[radamfi]

I don't think West Yorkshire ITA has much more power than the PTA did at the moment. TfGM has taken over some of the highway responsibilities previously undertaken by the 10 districts.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't think West Yorkshire ITA has much more power than the PTA did at the moment. TfGM has taken over some of the highway responsibilities previously undertaken by the 10 districts.

I don't think that's what 34D meant by "nearer".

 

[Tetchytyke]

Stagecoach do make +20% profits with Busways. Yes, there are some R and T reg buses working. However, they though they are due to go imminently, being replaced by 30 odd new vehicles in Sunderland. Did you not know that? Or not see the raft of e400 deckers that are 6 years old or less? The other issue is that Arriva North East doesn't make much money and Go North East reckon their profits are much nearer 10% than 20% so whilst it's all lovely to focus on the evil Stagecoach profits, the truth is a little different. After all, Stagecoach have the best routes.

I don't think I'd agree that Stagecoach have the best routes, with Go Ahead having all of suburban Gateshead, most of North Tyneside and a fair wedge of South Tyneside (away from the South Shields town services) and plenty of presence in Sunderland. Stagecoach do have stratospheric fares though and an interesting view on what they can run competitive. I doubt Nexus have forgotten what Stagecoach did to them with the daytime 15/32 routes, claiming they were uncommercial and demanding they be tendered only to decide that they were commercial after all when Nexus gave the contract to somebody else.

Go Ahead don't have the best history in terms of telling the truth, shall we say, so take everything they say with a huge dollop of salt. Whilst they want us all to forget about the anti-competitive practices they shared with Arriva, I don't think Nexus have.

I don't quite understand how new buses in Sunderland gets rid of the R-reg Darts (cascaded from Sunderland 18 months ago) or the T-reg MAN/ALX300s in Newcastle. Not that I 100% care anymore, I moved to London in March.

Arriva don't make much money because of where they operate.

Hence, from 1981 onwards, look at the number of new buses that were delivered in that time e.g. National 2s and Olympians in southern England

I guess it depends where you look.

In West Yorkshire, where I'm originally from, the PTE bought plenty of new buses from Roe's, both Olympians and Atlanteans. The last of those only went out of service a year or two ago. West Yorkshire Road Car also bought plenty of Olympians and National 2s, as did Yorkshire Woollen/West Riding.

RATP - that would be the state owned French business? Do they have shareholders to satisfy? Also, ComfortDelGro have an average profit margin of c.12% though currency fluctuations do have to be factored in.

I don't know what Metroline's profit margin is, but I would be surprised if it is much higher than the 5-10% that you see elsewhere in London. Currency fluctuations with Singapore will affect Comfort DelGro's overall profitability.

My point about RATP is not that they have shareholders to satisfy, more that if Souter wants to take his bat and ball home then other operators will gladly step in. Although the absence of shareholders at RATP rather undermines your argument that you need shareholder investment to expand; RATP are expanding rather rapidly (and are doing a better job with Metrolink than Stagecoach did).