Reading Buses and Thames Valley

[AlastairFraser]

Whilst it would be "nice", the practical point is that the Saturday service is tendered (and you can't arbitrarily remove it from one firm and give it to another) whilst Carousel has elected to take a commercial risk on the Mon to Fri service.

Not certain how having a single operator will incentivise the bus for leisure travel?

Perhaps it will be retendered soon, I take your point about fulfillment of the existing contract though.
Single operator would help people who already have a zonal ticket and want to use it for leisure travel/shopping on the weekends. Reading traffic in particular is awful, and already needing the ticket to commute or for other purposes on weekdays incentivises use on the weekends.

 

[Deerfold]

Not certain how having a single operator will incentivise the bus for leisure travel?

Because people buy a season ticket for work or school and then use the bus for leisure on a weekend, using the same pass.

Whilst it would be "nice", the practical point is that the Saturday service is tendered (and you can't arbitrarily remove it from one firm and give it to another) whilst Carousel has elected to take a commercial risk on the Mon to Fri service.

To be fair, if Carousel see it as good bus territory and decide to register on a Saturday, most tenders have a clause allowing the council to terminate it early.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Because people buy a season ticket for work or school and then use the bus for leisure on a weekend, using the same pass.

Ok, possibly.

To be fair, if Carousel see it as good bus territory and decide to register on a Saturday, most tenders have a clause allowing the council to terminate it early.

Indeed, they may be obligated to terminate were Carousel were to register a commercial service. My point was that it can't be gifted. An added complication is that the Saturday route is different in that it serves Wargrave

 

[AlastairFraser]

Indeed, they may be obligated to terminate were Carousel were to register a commercial service. My point was that it can't be gifted. An added complication is that the Saturday route is different in that it serves Wargrave

It does serve Upper Wargrave (important distinction, since lower Wargrave is served by the 850 along the A321). I'm sure that a short diversion could be organised if needed. It's barely a 10 min loop, so won't have that much impact on journey times.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It does serve Upper Wargrave (important distinction, since lower Wargrave is served by the 850 along the A321). I'm sure that a short diversion could be organised if needed. It's barely a 10 min loop, so won't have that much impact on journey times

It would remove the recovery time though which is probably why they don’t serve it during the week.

 

[MotCO]

It would remove the recovery time though which is probably why they don’t serve it during the week.

It does serve Upper Wargrave (important distinction, since lower Wargrave is served by the 850 along the A321). I'm sure that a short diversion could be organised if needed. It's barely a 10 min loop, so won't have that much impact on journey times.

The eastbound weekday route takes 50 minutes, and the westbound 53 minutes (according to https://busandtrainuser.com/2025/03/06/reading-and-maidenhead-rejoined-by-bus/ ), so a 10 minute diversion to serve Upper Wargrave would require a PVR increase of +1 at least.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It would remove the recovery time though which is probably why they don’t serve it during the week.

The eastbound weekday route takes 50 minutes, and the westbound 53 minutes (according to https://busandtrainuser.com/2025/03/06/reading-and-maidenhead-rejoined-by-bus/ ), so a 10 minute diversion to serve Upper Wargrave would require a PVR increase of +1 at least.

Is it really needed on a Saturday (assuming that they don't operate the diversion on a Mon-Fri and only on a Sat, when there is less traffic about if the M4 behaves)?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Is it really needed on a Saturday (assuming that they don't operate the diversion on a Mon-Fri and only on a Sat, when there is less traffic about if the M4 behaves)?

All you need is a set of temporary lights and each journey gets progressively later through the day. Also, denies the driver a “comfort break”

 

[JKP]

Upper Wargrave appears to only be served on Wednesdays by Horseman Coaches and the Saturday 127 and neither service the whole village. I therefore assume that either roads are unsuitable or there is very high car ownership.

 

[cactustwirly]

Upper Wargrave appears to only be served on Wednesdays by Horseman Coaches and the Saturday 127 and neither service the whole village. I therefore assume that either roads are unsuitable or there is very high car ownership.

The latter I would imagine, it's very affluent and not very populated

 

[AlastairFraser]

All you need is a set of temporary lights and each journey gets progressively later through the day. Also, denies the driver a “comfort break”

Although the section of the A4 between the A321 roundabout on the Twyford bypass and the Frascati Way roundabout on the Maidenhead ring road is pretty clear most of the time. You should be able to make up time if you have problems closer to Reading (more likely).

The latter I would imagine, it's very affluent and not very populated

I would agree in general, but Blakes Road isn't very wide either. You'd probably have trouble fitting a larger bus down it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Although the section of the A4 between the A321 roundabout on the Twyford bypass and the Frascati Way roundabout on the Maidenhead ring road is pretty clear most of the time. You should be able to make up time if you have problems closer to Reading (more likely).

I’m sure that Carousel have put in appropriate running time.

The Saturday 127 has a different route with Wargrave and in Maidenhead - it’s not a simple fix.

 

[cactustwirly]

I’m sure that Carousel have put in appropriate running time.

The Saturday 127 has a different route with Wargrave and in Maidenhead - it’s not a simple fix.

Woodley also

 

[Roger1973]

While Wokingham Council probably have a contract clause allowing them to terminate the contract for the Saturday 127, it might be a stand-alone contract, it might be part of the contract for some of the other routes on the Reading - Twyford - Wokingham corridor, or even part of a contract for a wider network that includes some town routes in Wokingham.

And there's no guarantee that Carousel would win any new contract - Thames Valley or AN Other might win any new contract. There are provisions for a local authority to award a bus contract without a formal tender process (known as 'de minimis') although there are financial limits on this, and a council's own policies may prevent or limit this (use of 'de minimis' for small contracts is something councils are allowed to do, not something they are required to do.)

It has been part of the deregulated market since 1986 that you can end up with tendered journeys operated by a different operator to the main commercial service. I can't remember the detail now, but some years ago I encountered a route that had a commercial weekday daytime service, and three separate county council contracts, with three other operators, one each for the weekday evening service, the Sunday service, and a few early Saturday journeys.

Councils can include contract conditions about acceptance of commercial operators' tickets on tendered journeys - although many still limit this to return tickets issued on the day and not weekly (etc) tickets, and there are technology issues in recognising other operators' tickets with QR codes, or smart cards, or handling daily / weekly capping on contactless card payments.

Whether there is a clause in Wokingham's contracts allowing this to be applied retrospectively to an existing contract when a commercial service suddenly appears after several years' absence, I wouldn't like to say.

And councils don't have simple powers (other than implementing a full multi-operator ticket scheme) to require commercial operators to accept the contract operator's tickets.

 

[Deerfold]

And there's no guarantee that Carousel would win any new contract - Thames Valley or AN Other might win any new contract. There are provisions for a local authority to award a bus contract without a formal tender process (known as 'de minimis') although there are financial limits on this, and a council's own policies may prevent or limit this (use of 'de minimis' for small contracts is something councils are allowed to do, not something they are required to do.)

If the current contract was to be terminated, I don't think anyone was suggesting there would be a new one. And that was only in a very specific combination of circumstances.

 

[greenline712]

@Roger1973 has provided a very clear summary of how the separation between commercial and contracted routes can work . . . anything is possible in theory, such as early termination of a contract, although if there isn't a good reason (poor performance, non-compliant vehicles, for example), then considerable financial penalties can be applied, to the benefit of the operator. It has to be thus, otherwise operators would never tender for a contract, especially if new buses are specified. The concept of signing up for a 5-year lease on a bus only to have the contract removed at short notice would frighten most accountants!

In the case of Wokingham and Route 127 . . . examination of the timetables for Routes 121-129 shows that there is considerable interworking of buses, and that all services are "operated under contract to Wokingham BC". I can't confirm the length of the current contract, but I recall that these services have operated to the same basic timetables for many (certainly around 10) years. Making a change to one small element of the contract is really pretty pointless . . . better to let the contract run its course.

I reckon this is why Carousel have carefully steered clear of a Saturday timetable on Route 127 . . . although I daresay they'd like to introduce one !!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

@Roger1973 has provided a very clear summary of how the separation between commercial and contracted routes can work . . . anything is possible in theory, such as early termination of a contract, although if there isn't a good reason (poor performance, non-compliant vehicles, for example), then considerable financial penalties can be applied, to the benefit of the operator. It has to be thus, otherwise operators would never tender for a contract, especially if new buses are specified. The concept of signing up for a 5-year lease on a bus only to have the contract removed at short notice would frighten most accountants!

In the case of Wokingham and Route 127 . . . examination of the timetables for Routes 121-129 shows that there is considerable interworking of buses, and that all services are "operated under contract to Wokingham BC". I can't confirm the length of the current contract, but I recall that these services have operated to the same basic timetables for many (certainly around 10) years. Making a change to one small element of the contract is really pretty pointless . . . better to let the contract run its course.

I reckon this is why Carousel have carefully steered clear of a Saturday timetable on Route 127 . . . although I daresay they'd like to introduce one !!

Exactly, and thanks to @Roger1973 for his comments.

It's not a case of being overly pessimistic or putting obstacles in the way. More that it is less straightforward than people might suppose.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I’m sure that Carousel have put in appropriate running time.

The Saturday 127 has a different route with Wargrave and in Maidenhead - it’s not a simple fix.

It's not a super simple fix, but it's a matter of common sense cooperation between the tendering authority and Carousel.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's not a super simple fix, but it's a matter of common sense cooperation between the tendering authority and Carousel.

I suggest that you read what @Roger1973 and @greenline712 have written and you'll appreciate it isn't as easy as that.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I suggest that you read what @Roger1973 and @greenline712 have written and you'll appreciate it isn't as easy as that.

Thank you, I did read what they had to say. I would reflect that this is a waste of public money to run a tendered money IF Carousel would be willing to run a Mon-Sat 127 without subsidy.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Thank you, I did read what they had to say. I would reflect that this is a waste of public money to run a tendered money IF Carousel would be willing to run a Mon-Sat 127 without subsidy.

Yes but perhaps those issues are why Carousel hasn't registered a service. Think about it...

Carousel - they have a direct 127 through the week. However, on a Saturday, they will divert that around Wargrave. That removes any recovery time in the timetable, and removes any consistency in the timetable between Mon-Fri and with Sat.

TVB - They have an existing contract. There is the question of how you serve Woodley though perhaps you replace the 127 with 128 journeys and assume that TVB are ok with that? However, you will still have to pay for that contact AND pay Carousel a de-minimis payment for serving those areas of Wargrave where the 850 doesn't reach.

Now if Carousel do want to introduce a Saturday 127, they may argue that Wokingham BC should not support a tendered variant but whether they want to serve Wargrave is another matter. Remember that this is quite a brave move by Carousel - who's to say that it will prove successful. We will have to wait and hope but let's not run before we walk

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes but perhaps those issues are why Carousel hasn't registered a service. Think about it...

Carousel - they have a direct 127 through the week. However, on a Saturday, they will divert that around Wargrave. That removes any recovery time in the timetable, and removes any consistency in the timetable between Mon-Fri and with Sat.

TVB - They have an existing contract. There is the question of how you serve Woodley though perhaps you replace the 127 with 128 journeys and assume that TVB are ok with that? However, you will still have to pay for that contact AND pay Carousel a de-minimis payment for serving those areas of Wargrave where the 850 doesn't reach.

Now if Carousel do want to introduce a Saturday 127, they may argue that Wokingham BC should not support a tendered variant but whether they want to serve Wargrave is another matter. Remember that this is quite a brave move by Carousel - who's to say that it will prove successful. We will have to wait and hope but let's not run before we walk

I guess we'll wait and see if it is successful.

 

[Fletcj10]

Thames Valley seam to have ordered a "suite" of new buses for the routes.... unsure what suite means in terms of numbers (credit to The Oxford & Chiltern Bus Page - https://www.oxford-chiltern-bus-page.co.uk/Weekly Briefing nr 338 -090325.html)

Thames Valley seam to have ordered a "suite" of new buses for the routes.... unsure what suite means in terms of numbers (credit to The Oxford & Chiltern Bus Page - https://www.oxford-chiltern-bus-page.co.uk/Weekly Briefing nr 338 -090325.html)

It seams these are also the new livery's (Green for Slough/Windsor & Purple for Maidenhead)

 

[johnsy112]

Thames Valley seam to have ordered a "suite" of new buses for the routes.... unsure what suite means in terms of numbers (credit to The Oxford & Chiltern Bus Page - https://www.oxford-chiltern-bus-page.co.uk/Weekly Briefing nr 338 -090325.html)
View attachment 175980


It seams these are also the new livery's (Green for Slough/Windsor & Purple for Maidenhead)
View attachment 175981View attachment 175982

They’ve not got the biggest network left in Maidenhead.

 

[citybus2500]

Thames Valley seam to have ordered a "suite" of new buses for the routes.... unsure what suite means in terms of numbers (credit to The Oxford & Chiltern Bus Page - https://www.oxford-chiltern-bus-page.co.uk/Weekly Briefing nr 338 -090325.html)
View attachment 175980


It seams these are also the new livery's (Green for Slough/Windsor & Purple for Maidenhead)

Is that a bit of a frequency reduction on the "historic route 1"?

 

[Deerfold]

Is that a bit of a frequency reduction on the "historic route 1"?

There is on Monday to Friday, presumably to use the same resource on the extended route.

 

[Flange Squeal]

The current White Bus 01 uses two vehicles on weekdays offering a range of frequencies from as little as 45 mins to 2.5/3.5 hours, with these latter big gaps being in the morning and afternoon when the 01 vehicles are doing school runs. The weekday W1 section between Windsor and Dedworth uses another bus, which also does the P1. So the corridor that is becoming Thames Valley's 01 current uses three vehicles on weekdays, and one on Saturdays

The forthcoming Thames Valley 1 replaces the three weekday vehicles currently used on the 01 and W1 with just one single vehicle running the full Ascot > Windsor > Dedworth length, so a drop in resource. The bus stays on the route all day though, which means there are no longer gaps of up to 3.5 hours, but the use of only one bus does mean the more frequent weekday daytime frequency of as little as 45 mins goes. The length of time for a shopping trip in Windsor is probably about right, but if using the service for appointments at either hospital then this could result in a lengthy wait between arrival and appointment and/or appointment and bus home. The tender desired a two-hourly frequency and the result is roughly even-ish 2h15 interval on weekdays. On Saturdays, the route remains Windsor to Ascot using one vehicle just like now. The new frequency is roughly 2h30 versus current 1h15-2h15, but to a more consistent routing on all journeys making it simpler to understand plus the forthcoming link to the Savill Gardens visitor centre which might hopefully generate a bit of custom?

 

[Roger1973]

On the Saturday 127 -

There's still a lot of 'if' here.

I don't think any of us here know whether Carousel might or might not want to run a Saturday service on a commercial basis. If they did, there's nothing to stop them registering it, whether there's an existing contracted service or not.

I also don't think any of us here know exactly what the status of existing Wokingham Council contract/s are (I don't - anything I have said is speculation based on having handled contracted services both at local authorities and bus operators, but elsewhere.)

Any contract will probably have an early termination clause, rather than it being absolutely guaranteed for the full 5 - 7 year life - a 3 month notice period is not unusual, but I don't think there's any law specifying it. Although if councils get in to the habit of terminating contracts early for no good reason, then operators will not be very happy, and are likely to increase their future prices to allow for this risk, as it may in turn louse up their vehicle or premises leasing agreements.

Also, while councils have a 'duty not to inhibit competition' I don't think the precise meaning of this has ever been tested in court. While it would not be right for councils to run tendered services wholly against commercial services, it gets more of a grey area if a commercial service runs direct from A to D, but council wants a service that goes via B and C.

Or where there's a long established contracted service and an operator registers a speculative commercial route over all or part of it, which might be under notice of variation or termination before the 3 month notice period on the existing contract is up.

How much public money would be spent on an early termination, the cost of running a tender exercise, and almost inevitably a higher cost for the new contract compared with how much would be spent keeping the existing contract running, albeit with more overlap with a new commercial route? (and how much more still if it's all done hastily and the commercial route disappears again and needs replacing with a new contracted service?)

It's also a grey area how far a council can change an existing contract without re-tendering the whole thing. Again, I don't think there's any detailed rule, and it may depend on a council's own procedures and standing orders. There are many circumstances where it would be a nonsense for council to insist on no change at all to what's been tendered during a contract - obvious examples would be changing journeys to connect with a new train timetable, or if a school opens / closes / changes its times, or changes of route brought about by highway network changes. Usually these can be done within the existing contract resources / cost, or with a bit of negotiation if it adds to or reduces mileage / vehicle hours.

If (and we're still in the realms of 'if' here) Carousel wanted to run a commercial Saturday 127, then it might be possible for Wokingham to negotiate a change to the existing contract, either to reduce Saturday resources (removing the existing tendered journeys might or might not save a whole bus / driver duty for the day, depending on how it inter-works with other routes. And as it wouldn't save a weekday bus, it's only got the potential to save the direct costs of Saturday journeys.) Alternatively, it might be practical to divert the existing resources to cover bits that wouldn't be on the new commercial route and / or enhance Saturday services elsewhere on the tendered network.

On the (0)1 -

I hope that RBWM have agreed the change of operator with His Majesty - the operator must need permission to use the private roads in Windsor Great Park.

While I'm aware that White Bus changed ownership from the Jeatt family a few years ago, there can't be many routes left that have been with their original independent operator since before the 1930 Transport Act. Obviously this isn't a factor that councils can take in to account when awarding contracts.

I must try and decide whether to go and travel on it again before the change (last time I did, White Bus had recently acquired an Optare Delta or two for the route...)

 

[markymark2000]

Thames Valley Buses have applied to TFL for a London Service Permit for a new route, the 704, running from Maidenhead to Heathrow via Taplow and Slough Monday-Saturday hourly.
Not the most extensive timetable as it doesn't run much in the evenings or really early morning, but a pretty strong start.

Permit details can be found either in the attached PDF below or by going to https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/london-service-permit-consultations and then clicking the Thames Valley Buses 704 link under 'new applications' (It's the top link as of the time of writing).

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thames Valley Buses have applied to TFL for a London Service Permit for a new route, the 704, running from Maidenhead to Heathrow via Taplow and Slough Monday-Saturday hourly.
Not the most extensive timetable as it doesn't run much in the evenings or really early morning, but a pretty strong start.

Permit details can be found either in the attached PDF below or by going to https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/london-service-permit-consultations and then clicking the Thames Valley Buses 704 link under 'new applications' (It's the top link as of the time of writing).

Interesting. This sounds like the old First Berks Maidenhead to Heathrow route 4.