Shortage of buses to replace trains

[zwk500]

Surely Network Rail should source the buses. They would be for passengers of any TOC on that line. NR know when they are doing a possession, so would know they have to book buses, and to book them early. At the same time they book cranes and track workers. And like any input into a piece of work, if its not available, then the work is cancelled.

TOCs advise NR what their passenger management strategy is, and work closely with NR to ensure it's suitable.

This slapdash approach has to be resolved. Its become the subject of satire.

Engineering works aren't planned in the pub on a Thursday afternoon.

 

[joncombe]

The buses were canceled ln the day without any reason added to their cancellation in the live departure boards on the Network Rail all.

Yes, this seems very typical of SWR these days, put replacement buses in the timetable then on the day say "oops sorry, we couldn't get enough/any buses". I saw that about half of them were canclled and opted to use the tube to Heathrow and then the RA2 coach to get back as I knew I couldn't rely on the replacement buses running.

From what I remember the engineering work was at Weybridge. However there were no trains at all from Woking. Why not? It shouldn't be hard to run something like a Woking to Basingstoke and Woking to Guildford shuttle at least (to connect with the diverted trains from London going via Guildford), for example. Yet they didn't bother and instead said there would be replacement buses between Weybridge and Woking but it looked like at least half of them didn't run. At least if there is difficulty getting buses, run the buses for the shortest distance possible should be the sensible approach.

If they are going to go down the route of telling passengers to book taxis and claim the cost back that is very rapidly going to end up costing more than simply paying the bus/coach companies more so it's worth their while doing the work.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, this seems very typical of SWR these days, put replacement buses in the timetable then on the day say "oops sorry, we couldn't get enough/any buses". I saw that about half of them were canclled and opted to use the tube to Heathrow and then the RA2 coach to get back as I knew I couldn't rely on the replacement buses running.

From what I remember the engineering work was at Weybridge. However there were no trains at all from Woking. Why not? It shouldn't be hard to run something like a Woking to Basingstoke and Woking to Guildford shuttle at least (to connect with the diverted trains from London going via Guildford), for example. Yet they didn't bother and instead said there would be replacement buses between Weybridge and Woking but it looked like at least half of them didn't run. At least if there is difficulty getting buses, run the buses for the shortest distance possible should be the sensible approach.

If they are going to go down the route of telling passengers to book taxis and claim the cost back that is very rapidly going to end up costing more than simply paying the bus/coach companies more so it's worth their while doing the work.

Given they just send the bill to the DfT they might actually wake up and realise that they either need to pay the appropriate rate to hire RRBs or just come clean and not sell tickets to destinations that have no service.

 

[Horizon22]

For a variety of reasons, many EU workers dont want to work in the UK any more. The increasing wages available nearer home, and a better tax code in the EU (no IR35) mean many can work close to home, without the costs of running another home in the UK.
That led to HGV driver shortage, so they poached bus drivers. All this came to a head when Covid struck, and HGV and bus tests effectively stopped.

I am well aware of the issues as to why there's fewer bus drivers, but I was replying to the comment about "one of the problems these days is the huge volume of weekend engineering work requiring replacement buses" which seems to imply there is more than usual, which I countered there isn't and can't be responsible for the current issues.

 

[Goldfish62]

I am well aware of the issues as to why there's fewer bus drivers, but I was replying to the comment about "one of the problems these days is the huge volume of weekend engineering work requiring replacement buses" which seems to imply there is more than usual, which I countered there isn't and can't be responsible for the current issues.

It's generally acknowledged in the bus industry that while there are still plenty of accute staff shortages the situation has eased somewhat when compared to last year. Yet it is only in the past few months that the railways have started having these cover problems.

If the railways won't recognise that operators' costs have increased and thus pay them accordingly the bus operators are not going to be quite so keen to work for them as they were.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I agree, but having increasing cases of no rail replacement is unacceptable, and needs to be taken into account, I suggest.

If it be the case that a shortage of trains is the case, then why should there not also be a shortage of buses, in the same logic?

 

[Class 170101]

If the railways won't recognise that operators' costs have increased and thus pay them accordingly the bus operators are not going to be quite so keen to work for them as they were.

Something to with the DfT I expect wanting to cut costs.

 

[Clarence Yard]

This problem has been there since COVID and actually there were issues before with some big possessions. Demand outstrips supply.

The bus industry has been contracting for years and in some parts of the country there are problems with the number of firms who now want to do this work, irrespective of the money being offered. Getting drivers has become an issue for some so they would rather concentrate on delivering their fixed contracts.

I know of one driver who was contacted by three companies who were active on one particular weekend, each having committed to the work and were desperate for drivers.

You add in the increased costs for the bus industry and the cost constraints that the rail industry now has and it is a recipe for disaster.

 

[philthetube]

It would be possible to do something about driver shortages, at a cost, Network rail could employ them, on a four day week basis, provide transport to wherever needed, accommodate the drivers and hire in the vehicles, it is not usually buses which are lacking but drivers. It would probably not work for coach jobs but should be fine for buses.

 

[markymark2000]

NRE has a note about a lack of available buses to provide rail replacement services for Thameslink this weekend, leaving some periods uncovered. This appears to be becoming more frequent and I wonder whether engineering works are currently planned with bus availability in mind or, if not, will they have to be in future?

There isn't a shortage of buses really. It's a shortage of companies willing to work for a pitful wage and lack of rail replacement providers who are willing to find more operators with buses. North Wales Coast had a shortage of buses but no one dared to ask Alpine (the biggest coach company in North Wales) to take on any of the work. Cardiff Valleys were short, they got firms in from Birmingham before going to Edwards Coaches (the biggest coach firm in South Wales). It's barmy.

One reason why some bus and coach operators choose to avoid rail replacement work is the money on offer.

Rates offered on many of the new contracts are dismal and as such, people won't get out of bed for the work.

As has been said above Leave the TOCs to manage their affairs and NR the infrastructure, NR have enough to sort out without sorting out stuff they know nothing about.

There would be some big benefits to someone else monitoring the rail replacement buses as right now there is a lot of waste. Gloucester to Cheltenham often has buses following eachother. Gloucester to Lydney last year had TFW buses running and then literally 5 minutes later Cross Country ran. All because neither firm would work properly together. Had they worked together, it would have halved the amount of buses needed.



From my view, as well as the money side of it, it is the huge waste of buses. Whether it be buses following eachother (sometimes same firm, sometimes other firms), buses following trains as someone has forgotten to amend timetables or whether it be inefficient schedules. There is so much waste, it is unreal. A good one that I like is Avanti Macclesfield to Wilmslow (when either route is shut so they divert the trains and shuttle people). They gave too much time for the run and tried to get shed loads of layover so they put out a tender for 4 buses. A company did a proper timetable which still had the same departure times and cut it down to 2 buses. 1/2 the resources used.
Another example would be TFW Conwy Valley line. A full block on this line used to be done with 1 Llew Jones bus all day with a driver change. Now the service uses 3 buses all day as it's timed for 1 driver per bus so each bus does one way, then has a full break until the next trip (rather than having 5 minutes off and then returning). Other related issues is buses being requested to follow trains or a common TFW one is they reinstate a train but forget to cancel the bus and so the bus runs empty for a laugh while the train carries everyone. Or if a bus is asked to go somewhere emergency to get passengers, TFW 'forget' to inform bus operators that the next train has moved people and the buses are no longer needed.

The second point that I would make is that some TOCs need to request vehicles better. On many commuter lines for example, rather than demanding a coach or service bus, ask for a 'seated capacity' (as per councils do for local bus tenders) and let operators send whatever bus they feel they can provide. Operators have coaches doing other things and so by instantly demanding coaches, the pool of vehicles available reduces massively. By accepting more service buses, a lot more firms could put in bids. I include high quality firms in that too. To throw an example out there, Pulhams from Gloucestershire, a quality operator and their service buses are of decent spec as well. What is wrong with them running 30-40 minutes up the road rather than it being coaches transporting people up the road.

Fourthly, TOCs need to start looking at suitable local bus services to convey some local passengers where these have capacity and would provide a suitable alternative journey. What I mean by this is there is no huge time penalty, the service roughly follows the railway line and passengers journeys would be made significantly better. TFW did it twice I think when the NW Coast had issues getting buses and ticket acceptance was put on the 12 from Rhyl to Llandudno. Of course that covers people travelling between Colwyn Bay, Abergele and Rhyl. The other bonus was that many people using the NW Coast trains want to go to Llandudno and so rather than them going to Junction on the bus and then faffing to change onto a train, they managed to get onto the 12 and be in Llandudno in probably around the same amount of time as it would have taken using the bus and train combo (adding in connections and walking from the rail station into Llandudno town). That then enabled more capacity for passengers travelling over to Bangor. As well as the obvious helping to move people during blockades, better partnerships with local bus companies could also get more people moved during emergency times where proper rail replacement is being requested but it can't get there quick enough, emergency ticket acceptance could be put in place in 10 minutes rather than 1.5 hours awaiting a coach company to get a bus to the relevant point. I know TFW does also try to get ticket acceptance on the T4C when the valleys are shut from Ponty to Cardiff (but they ignore the fact the T4C doesn't stop near any of the train stations. They don't get ticket acceptance on the 132 though which serves more of the stops). TFW does like Cardiff Bus ticket acceptance too but they don't promote the routes and journey opportunities so people don't make use of the acceptance because they have no clue on any of the details. In short, TFW does it but where it would make a difference, they don't do it but areas where it doesn't do much, they have ticket acceptance. Amazing isn't it. IT would be much better to work with bus operators on a reimbursement per rail ticket accepted basis.



In short, there are plenty of buses available, you have to pay up for them though and use them efficiently. A combination of low pay and inefficient use of the available buses means that you get the current situation. The railways 'pfft, normal buses are for peasants, we aren't working with them firms' attitude needs to change too since local buses can fill gaps in the rail replacement provision so easily and the lack of working with other transport modes means passengers suffer and train companies spend a lot of money on delay repay because peoples journeys get delayed by longer than they actually need to be.

 

[Horizon22]

It's generally acknowledged in the bus industry that while there are still plenty of accute staff shortages the situation has eased somewhat when compared to last year. Yet it is only in the past few months that the railways have started having these cover problems.

If the railways won't recognise that operators' costs have increased and thus pay them accordingly the bus operators are not going to be quite so keen to work for them as they were.

No it really isn’t - see my thread from 2021

 

[Wolfie]

Is there some reason train drivers can't drive buses like?

Any reason bus drivers can't drive trains like?

Either option is equally implausible.

 

[43066]

No it really isn’t - see my thread from 2021

I see the government was blaming it on Covid back then. What excuse will they use now, I wonder.

 

[TUC]

The general rule seems to be get a taxi, get a receipt and they'll reimburse. What else do you suggest they do?

Completely unacceptable as it assumes passengers have enough money to pay for a long taxi ride and can do without it whilst watihg for/risking not receiving reimbursementl.

Saying 'it's the customer's problem, not mine', is always an indication of a poor attitude in business.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2023 ==

How does NR know how many to book, from where to where etc? That is the TOC expertise as its their business. Who organises any extra station staff etc to help during the works?

It is not beyond the wit of TOCs and Network Rail to have representatives work together to plan requirements. NR is in the best position to commission RRBs that reflect the actual current position of engineering works and which meet the needs of multiple TOCs that serve overlapping routes, but this needs to be informed by TOCs advising on likely passenger numbers and by them arranging station staff.

 

[43066]

Completely unacceptable as it assumes passengers have enough money to pay for a long taxi ride and can do without it whilst watihg for/risking not receiving reimbursementl.

Saying 'it's the customer's problem, not mine', is always an indication of a poor attitude in business.

But discouraging travel and paying for the odd taxi is likely to be cheaper.

You’re the one who has consistently complained about the cost of the railway. It’s clear that TOCs (whose expenditure has to be signed off by the DfT) aren’t currently willing or able to pay enough to secure RRBs. Unless you’re now saying you’re happy for more tax payers’ and fare payers’ money to be used?

 

[Edsmith]

Completely unacceptable as it assumes passengers have enough money to pay for a long taxi ride and can do without it whilst watihg for/risking not receiving reimbursementl.

Saying 'it's the customer's problem, not mine', is always an indication of a poor attitude in business.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2023 ==

It's certainly not ideal but what is the alternative?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2023 ==

It would be possible to do something about driver shortages, at a cost, Network rail could employ them, on a four day week basis, provide transport to wherever needed, accommodate the drivers and hire in the vehicles, it is not usually buses which are lacking but drivers. It would probably not work for coach jobs but should be fine for buses.

I can't see how that would be workable, where would they be based? They would spend most of their time sat around doing nothing.

 

[zwk500]

It would be possible to do something about driver shortages, at a cost, Network rail could employ them, on a four day week basis, provide transport to wherever needed, accommodate the drivers and hire in the vehicles, it is not usually buses which are lacking but drivers. It would probably not work for coach jobs but should be fine for buses.

This would be shot down by the DfT/Treasury immediately. It would also be very expensive as very few people would want the job.

It is not beyond the wit of TOCs and Network Rail to have representatives work together to plan requirements.

They do. There is a well established process for discussing things like this, and TOCs have every right to object on passenger management grounds. The idea that NR plan all these works in some ivory tower and then surprise the TOCs at the last minute just isn't true.

NR is in the best position to commission RRBs that reflect the actual current position of engineering works and which meet the needs of multiple TOCs that serve overlapping routes, but this needs to be informed by TOCs advising on likely passenger numbers and by them arranging station staff.

TOCs are in by far the best position to procure RRBs for their passengers, after all its their revenue they need to keep happy.

 

[The Planner]

It is not beyond the wit of TOCs and Network Rail to have representatives work together to plan requirements. NR is in the best position to commission RRBs that reflect the actual current position of engineering works and which meet the needs of multiple TOCs that serve overlapping routes, but this needs to be informed by TOCs advising on likely passenger numbers and by them arranging station staff.

So the TOCs provide all the expertise and NR have to deliver it. Who arranges all the facilities and extra staff at the stations, as apart from manor stations, NR has nothing to do with it. How would it be more efficient this way and save any money? Would TOCs provide this resource for free, or does it end up costing NR more to deliver work with no risk to the TOCs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's certainly not ideal but what is the alternative?

The TOC procures the taxis, as at least you have all four seats taken then, not just one? Perhaps not as easy in places where Uber is the main operator, though - is there a corporate Uber site that allows booking for others, or can it only be booked one at a time via the app?

It does sound like Fraser Eagle was a big loss, though, a coach agency might be able to get more companies involved. Also the rules need to change so there is wheelchair provision on every departure, not every vehicle must be accessible, just like not every vehicle is accessible on the train being replaced.

 

[Fleetmaster]

It's worth noting that Covid wiped out a lot of the smaller operators whose bread and butter is schools and private hire work, to whom rail replacement was a natural fit. Less operators in the sector must mean less capacity and higher rates.

In addition, private hire work in general is picking up now, and part of that is obviously the holiday market, further restricting capacity and raising rates. So maybe now it's time for Network Rail to review their policy of preferring to schedule works in the holidays or at weekends, if they're unable to compete on rates or growth potential.

My local bus operator is a large scheduled bus provider, multi-depot and regional in scope, plus National Express work. Due to the reduction in service miles post Covid and drop off in private hire work in general, they seem to have a large surplus of buses and coaches which are presumably accessible, at least the buses, with some in standard livery, some in private hire livery.

They would be a logical partner for more predictable long lead time RR contracts so that the smaller operators are available for more ad hoc work, but you would suspect they want a more permanent relationship and would still charge higher rates than Network Rail might be used to.

 

[43066]

The TOC procures the taxis, as at least you have all four seats taken then, not just one? Perhaps not as easy in places where Uber is the main operator, though - is there a corporate Uber site that allows booking for others, or can it only be booked one at a time via the app?

TOCs often struggle to procure taxis for their own staff during disruption, how would they have the manpower to procure potentially hundreds or thousands of taxis during engineering work?

People will also get wind that a train ticket during engineering now equals an all expenses paid taxi rather than the usual slightly shoddy RRB. Even putting the (impossible) logistics aside, where is the money going to come from when half the population of South East London (or wherever) ends up buying a ticket and contacting the relevant TOC to request their cheap taxi?

EDIT: and another point on shared taxis specifically: what happens when the inevitable claim of sexual assault/robbery is made by someone a TOC has put into a shared taxi? It’s a confined space, with no ability to retreat, and very different to a train or bus.

 

[Edsmith]

The TOC procures the taxis, as at least you have all four seats taken then, not just one? Perhaps not as easy in places where Uber is the main operator, though - is there a corporate Uber site that allows booking for others, or can it only be booked one at a time via the app?

It does sound like Fraser Eagle was a big loss, though, a coach agency might be able to get more companies involved. Also the rules need to change so there is wheelchair provision on every departure, not every vehicle must be accessible, just like not every vehicle is accessible on the train being replaced.

Aside from anything else I don't think shared taxis are a good idea especially for lone females.

 

[bunty0657]

It's worth noting that Covid wiped out a lot of the smaller operators whose bread and butter is schools and private hire work, to whom rail replacement was a natural fit. Less operators in the sector must mean less capacity and higher rates.

This is a gross exaggeration. Those running school transport were protected to varying degrees as contract payments, or percentages thereof, largely continued while schools were closed. A number of financially fragile coach operators went quickly and others sold up and closed down in an orderly fashion, but the damage to the coach industry was ultimately nowhere near as bad as a few irresponsible bodies had suggested it would have been.

The reasons why some/most/many coach operators avoid rail replacement are obvious: It doesn't pay enough, and they have plenty of other work to choose from. That is before rather lax observance of payment terms in the past by at least one of the large RR providers is considered.

As for other posts advocating widespread use of taxis: Nice idea, but where are the thousands required coming from?

 

[Krokodil]

There's a shortage of taxi drivers as well as everything else.

 

[STINT47]

I work for a local bus company in the East Midlands who have in the past done rail replacement work but do not anymore.

After covid driver shortages meant that each day we were cancelling lots of services. These have now eased thanks to recruitment, but we are still not where we want to be and rely on people doing overtime. This gets worse at weekends, which is also when engineering work happens.

Another problem is keeping buses on the road due to struggles obtaining spare parts when buses break down. We are currently cancelling buses every day due to broken buses sitting in the depot awaiting spare parts from suppliers

If we did rail replacement work we would be committing drivers and buses and then potentially leaving our own passengers by the side of the road when services don't run.

If the money for rail work was amazing we might still go for it but profits are marginal at best. One TOC wanted to put us on standby all weekend with no guarantee of how much work and money we would get. Why would we take this when we can run our own services and know they will turn a good profit?

ToCs are competing for limited drivers and buses but their bids are uncompetitive both in terms of money and conditions offered. I'm not surprising that no buses are them sourced for passengers.

 

[Edsmith]

I work for a local bus company in the East Midlands who have in the past done rail replacement work but do not anymore.

After covid driver shortages meant that each day we were cancelling lots of services. These have now eased thanks to recruitment, but we are still not where we want to be and rely on people doing overtime. This gets worse at weekends, which is also when engineering work happens.

Another problem is keeping buses on the road due to struggles obtaining spare parts when buses break down. We are currently cancelling buses every day due to broken buses sitting in the depot awaiting spare parts from suppliers

If we did rail replacement work we would be committing drivers and buses and then potentially leaving our own passengers by the side of the road when services don't run.

If the money for rail work was amazing we might still go for it but profits are marginal at best. One TOC wanted to put us on standby all weekend with no guarantee of how much work and money we would get. Why would we take this when we can run our own services and know they will turn a good profit?

ToCs are competing for limited drivers and buses but their bids are uncompetitive both in terms of money and conditions offered. I'm not surprising that no buses are them sourced for passengers.

Interesting post and I suspect many bus and coach operators are in a similar position. That takes the biscuit a TOC expecting you to be on standby all weekend with no guarantee of anything.

 

[RJ]

Interesting post and I suspect many bus and coach operators are in a similar position. That takes the biscuit a TOC expecting you to be on standby all weekend with no guarantee of anything.

There are differing policies for standby. I think every procurer will pay a fixed hourly rate for a standby duty. Some say all mileage done is chargeable. Some say only mileage above a certain threshold is chargeable. And some say no mileage is chargeable because the pay is the same as a running duty. I don't think anyone gets paid nothing for providing a bus for standby and not doing any runs.

 

[STINT47]

I don't think anyone gets paid nothing for providing a bus for standby and not doing any runs.

This is correct. Our company is offered some money but the exact amount is unknown.

It does vary from contract to contract but at a time when we are struggling to cover our own routes and have offers for more lucrative jobs with guaranteed higher income why would we go with the rail replacement work

 

[Roger1973]

It would be possible to do something about driver shortages, at a cost, Network rail could employ them, on a four day week basis, provide transport to wherever needed, accommodate the drivers and hire in the vehicles, it is not usually buses which are lacking but drivers. It would probably not work for coach jobs but should be fine for buses.

There might be some people out there who would be OK with a job where they were working every weekend, away from home 3 nights over every weekend, but I'm not sure there would be that much of a rush for it. And the economics of paying people a full time wage for 2 days' productive work a week plus the hotel bills would probably be a bit alarming.

It's possible there have been some blockades big enough for hotelling bus / coach drivers (and I know that's gone on for really big events like the Commonwealth Games, where the big PLC operators have drafted in drivers and buses from around the country) but there can't be many.

It does sound like Fraser Eagle was a big loss, though, a coach agency might be able to get more companies involved.

I'm not sure the operators who waited ages to get paid by Fraser Eagle, or who had outstanding bills when they went pop, would agree.

First (for example) effectively have their own coach agency, it used to be called First Rail Support (it's changed its name since, but can't remember what to) who procure coaches / buses for planned and emergency rail replacement jobs. And there is (or at least was a few years ago) a team at Go-Ahead London who were effectively an agency doing rail replacement for the Southern / South Eastern / Thameslink Great Northern network, although they seemed able to cover a proportion with their own buses.

I'm not sure that an independent agency would do any better, and may want to take a bigger profit out of it all which would either come from squeezing the operators more, or more money from 'the railways.'

If the money for rail work was amazing we might still go for it but profits are marginal at best. One TOC wanted to put us on standby all weekend with no guarantee of how much work and money we would get. Why would we take this when we can run our own services and know they will turn a good profit?

That does seem a bit ludicrous. When I've known stand-by coaches, the operator has got a rate that covers the driver's wages and hire of coach for the day (and in some cases the first X miles per day), and then a marginal amount per mile (if needed) which covers the fuel and mileage related costs.

 

[markymark2000]

It's possible there have been some blockades big enough for hotelling bus / coach drivers (and I know that's gone on for really big events like the Commonwealth Games, where the big PLC operators have drafted in drivers and buses from around the country) but there can't be many.

Doesn't even need to be a big block. There are a number of weekend blocks where coach operators get their drivers in a hotel as it saves on driver costs (such as getting the drivers back to the depot or having a second driver take on the duty so that the bus can go through the night)

First (for example) effectively have their own coach agency, it used to be called First Rail Support (it's changed its name since, but can't remember what to) who procure coaches / buses for planned and emergency rail replacement jobs. And there is (or at least was a few years ago) a team at Go-Ahead London who were effectively an agency doing rail replacement for the Southern / South Eastern / Thameslink Great Northern network, although they seemed able to cover a proportion with their own buses.

Most of the parent companies of the train operators have their own travel solutions companies, basically giving themselves the contracts to run the rail replacement buses.
Abellio has a travel solutions style company who sort buses for EMR, Greater Anglia, LNWR/WMR and TFW.
Arriva Road Transport sorts Cross Country, Grand Central and Northern.
First now have First Travel Solutions who do provide coaches for Avanti, GWR, Hull Trains, Lumo, TPE and South Western Railway. As they are now a travel solutions company though, they also do a lot of events and worker buses. I do believe that First now also do C2C (as Ensign Bus had the contract but now First has bought them out)
GoAhead does still have their rail replacement side who sort all the buses for the GTR contract as well as South Eastern.
Stagecoach sort buses for LNER and soon to be Chiltern.

I'm not sure that an independent agency would do any better, and may want to take a bigger profit out of it all which would either come from squeezing the operators more, or more money from 'the railways.'

No matter who sorts the buses, all the companies basically do is try to provide what the TOC requests. The TOC gives a timetable and says 'we want this covering with buses that meet this spec'. The 3rd party rail replacement providers then try to cover the work in line with the budgets that have been agreed with the TOC at the point of winning the tender to be the rail replacement provider. While yes, the 3rd party companies would be taking a cut, at the same time, there end up just trying to provide what the train companies ask for.

The issue, in part, comes from the travel solutions style companies bidding in low budgets so that they can get the contract and then when they win the contract, think 'oh poop, we can't get buses for that budget anymore'. The old contracts under franchising were significantly higher than the new contracts being provided now under management contracts. I know that for a like for like duty, comparing the old contract 2 years ago with one travel solutions firm to a new contract with a different travel solutions firm (same line, same block, same trips), the pay has more than halved. Almost overnight, halved.