South Yorkshire Franchise Proposals

[GusB]

South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority has recommended franchising as the preferred option for buses.

Bus franchising in South Yorkshire is recommended as path of reform - routeone

Franchising of bus services in South Yorkshire is set for formal adoption as the preferred path for future reform, SYMCA has said.

www.route-one.net

Franchising of bus services in South Yorkshire has been recommended as the preferred path for reform by the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA).

That position is contained within a franchising assessment. The document has been withheld from public release by SYMCA, as had the proposed franchising scheme, but broad outcomes of the assessment are detailed in a summary paper published online.

It notes that four potential options for franchising were considered alongside enhanced partnership (which is already in place) and ‘enhanced partnership plus’.

Completion of the assessment follows the issue in 2022 of a notice of intention to carry out that task. At an SYMCA board meeting on 12 March, members will be asked to approve the next stage of the move towards eventual reregulation, which is an independent audit of the proposed franchising scheme.

The above-mentioned summary paper is attached.

 

[YorkRailFan]

If I were at the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), I would've waited to see how the West Yorkshire franchising scheme was going (ie, a year or so after its implemented) before going down the same path.

 

[HullRailMan]

There’s a mayoral election in May so file this under ‘seen to be doing something’ at this stage.
I agree it would be prudent to watch and learn from other areas before fully implementing.

 

[Trainman40083]

Maybe TM Travel will win more business

 

[JD2168]

Maybe TM Travel will win more business

They can barely run what they have at the minute with cancellations a regular occurrence.

 

[py_megapixel]

If I were at the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), I would've waited to see how the West Yorkshire franchising scheme was going (ie, a year or so after its implemented) before going down the same path.

There’s a mayoral election in May so file this under ‘seen to be doing something’ at this stage.
I agree it would be prudent to watch and learn from other areas before fully implementing.

The service as it stands is an embarrassment to the city and there seems to be no enthusiasm from First and Stagecoach to improve things of their own accord. My experience is that the buses are dated and dirty, that they tend to bunch very easily (including on some routes e.g. 52 actually being timetabled with the uneven headways), that they routinely don't turn up at all, that live information is patchy and near-useless where it does exist, that service information in general is badly presented and difficult to find, and of course that the fares are not integrated.

Usually I agree with the idea of taking lessons from elsewhere. But in this case, as far as I'm concerned, very little could make the service worse short of actively sabotaging it, so change can't come soon enough.

 

[mangad]

If I were at the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), I would've waited to see how the West Yorkshire franchising scheme was going (ie, a year or so after its implemented) before going down the same path.

Why wait? Greater Manchester already has franchised buses - if you want learning, look to the other side of the Pennines!

 

[YorkRailFan]

Why wait? Greater Manchester already has franchised buses - if you want learning, look to the other side of the Pennines!

By that metric, you may as well look at London. You're comparing apples and oranges as Manchester is very different to South Yorkshire, whilst West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire of course have differences, they are similar, especially compared to Manchester.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

By that metric, you may as well look at London. You're comparing apples and oranges as Manchester is very different to South Yorkshire, whilst West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire of course have differences, they are similar, especially compared to Manchester.

In what way is Manchester very different to South Yorkshire? Apart from being on the wrong side of the Pennines, you're talking about a major Northern conurbation with some semblance of complimentary heavy and light rail. There's the same mix of big city, smaller satellite towns, Pennine ruralness - it's just that Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire are considerably bigger than South Yorkshire.

London is very different.

 

[YorkRailFan]

In what way is Manchester very different to South Yorkshire? Apart from being on the wrong side of the Pennines, you're talking about a major Northern conurbation with some semblance of complimentary heavy and light rail. There's the same mix of big city, smaller satellite towns, Pennine ruralness - it's just that Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire are considerably bigger than South Yorkshire.

London is very different.

Manchester is one of the largest cities in the UK, it features one of the largest airports in the UK outside of London. West and South Yorkshire are regions, they spread out far more than Greater Manchester does.

 

[mangad]

Manchester is one of the largest cities in the UK, it features one of the largest airports in the UK outside of London. West and South Yorkshire are regions, they spread out far more than Greater Manchester does.

Bus franchising is in Greater Manchester, not the City of Manchester. And you'll find plenty of places in Greater Manchester that are small towns, even villages that are close to rural areas.

I'd strongly suggest knowing the area properly before assuming that South Yorkshire can only ever learn anything useful from West Yorkshire.

 

[GusB]

Manchester is one of the largest cities in the UK, it features one of the largest airports in the UK outside of London. West and South Yorkshire are regions, they spread out far more than Greater Manchester does.

Greater Manchester is still a collection of towns and cities, so comparisons can still be drawn with areas such as West and South Yorkshire. How spread out they are is irrelevant, as is the size of the airport.

Besides, constantly comparing this place with that place is dragging the thread off topic; let's get back to discussing the proposals for South Yorkshire, please.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Indeed, Greater Manchester is a collection of towns that surround Manchester itself, and there are a lot of parallels. For Doncaster, read Wigan. For Rotherham, read Bolton, or even places like Dinnington being a bit like Irlam. Geographically, there are a lot of similarities.

More importantly, the challenges that franchising is seeking to address are similar across a number of northern cities. Not helped by industrial decline and the replacement of old capital intensive industries with lower paid jobs and fragmented travelling patterns, these cities have seen bus patronage decline over many years. In fact, Sheffield and Manchester had two of the most competitive bus markets yet were typified by two operators (First and Stagecoach) of which one presided over a decline and one was actually pretty decent.

In terms of the proposals, they are clearly looking at what the best policy is in terms of asset ownership in vehicles and depots. TfGM has the depots (in the main) as well as a number of the vehicles, whilst others are supplied by the operators. I wasn't aware that Doncaster was owned by the Combined Authority (CA) and clearly that is one option. Liverpool City Region is pursuing a more prescriptive approach, and in these SY proposals, they have four options and getting the experience of TfGM would seem to make sense.

Clearly, the fact that the operators couldn't get themselves sorted for a consistent approach meant an Enhanced Partnership wasn't tenable to the CA. TBH, that was always likely to be the case, even if the operators had been united. Perhaps more disappointing is that a partnership was introduced and was handled poorly by the PTE as well as the operators. Also, the Sheffield Clean Air Zone was targeted at "the most polluting vehicles" except that it didn't cover private cars. So once again, you do wonder if the problems of bus reliability will be tackled when the city council won't seek to do anything to upset car drivers.

 

[bussnapperwm]

To be honest, I get the feeling all of the PTE areas are going to go down the franchising route eventually

 

[ALEMASTER]

To be honest, I get the feeling all of the PTE areas are going to go down the franchising route eventually

I think you are right. Not only is that the way the political wind is blowing but from the operators point of view the dynamics post covid are much more difficult commercially - changed demand, rising operating costs, increasing traffic congestion, skint local authorities struggling to invest in infrastructure and insufficient budget for tendered services, industry wide driver shortages and the rest!

Of course the big question about franchising is does the SYMCA have enough money firstly to set it all up and secondly to subsidise the operation sufficiently. The other big question is will the local councils start to be a bit more supportive of public transport?

The service as it stands is an embarrassment to the city and there seems to be no enthusiasm from First and Stagecoach to improve things of their own accord. My experience is that the buses are dated and dirty, that they tend to bunch very easily (including on some routes e.g. 52 actually being timetabled with the uneven headways), that they routinely don't turn up at all, that live information is patchy and near-useless where it does exist, that service information in general is badly presented and difficult to find, and of course that the fares are not integrated.

Usually I agree with the idea of taking lessons from elsewhere. But in this case, as far as I'm concerned, very little could make the service worse short of actively sabotaging it, so change can't come soon enough.

Not sure that is entirely true.

Stagecoach have a brand new fleet of Enviro400 MMCs on routes 52 and 120. The Gold buses Stagecoach run on the X17 are generally of a high standard too. Much of the First bus fleet whilst not new is refurbished, painted in a new local livery and looking smart. I'd concede TM Travel aren't great on the fleet presentation but they are mainly tendered services and getting clobbered by Sheffield City Council's clean air zone with fines for every bus that isn't Euro6 that runs in the City Centre.

Live information for First and Stagecoach is available on their apps and in the case of Stagecoach also on their website. Tracking is available for all operators on bustimes.org.

There is a range of Travelmaster day/week/28 day tickets valid on all operators and all modes of transport (https://www.sytravelmaster.com/)

Traffic congestion and roadworks are the responsibility of the local councils, nothing the bus operators can do about them.

Bus stops and information at them is the responsibility of the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, not the bus operators.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Sadly, I don't hold out much hope here. Not whether it will happen, but whether, if/when it does, it will deliver any significant change. The last time the (then) SYPTE put together a plan for local buses - as part of a bid to secure government funding - they designed what I'd describe as a bit of superficial tinkering around the edges of the then commercial/tendered network and asked for money to deliver that. This was an area where no funding was allotted - and according to rumour at the time, the principal reason the DfT (or whatever it was called) gave was that the plan wasn't anything like creative enough. I foresee the same thing happening again, for I somehow doubt the SYMCA has any more creativity in it than the PTE did back then.

There is much wrong with the bus network hereabouts. There are large and growing places that have no usable service to places people might want to go. True creativity would come from a total redesign of the network, not based on current usage or pattern, but based on likely latent demand (whether currently met or not). Take a map of the area - invert it vertically and laterally (so as to "anonymise it"), signify places of residence and places of destination (work, leisure, etc) according to their size. And ignore, totally, political boundaries. Then draw in roads and rails. And then draw in bus routes to represent the potential traffic these factors may generate. Now, return the map to its proper orientation and use this as the basis.

Acknowledge that serving every odd housing estate and settlement that can be served with as few routes as possible has the effect of making longer journeys way, way less attractive.

And there is currently practically no integration with rail. No account taken of the possibility that the best way to get people from A to B may be to bus them from A to a rail station where they make a well-timed connection, and pay one fare for doing so, rather than bussing them all the way (on a slow and circuitous route).

And as regards fares - yes, we do have "TravelMaster" in its various guises, but it's stupidly expensive, having about doubled in real terms in the last 20 or so years.

 

[mattb7tl]

I don't think councils have any motive to make improvements for many private companies. I don't know how many authorities put up with being exploited by these companies.
I've seen my own authority implement huge amounts of priority, purchase buses for the companies, improve stops, almost anything you can imagine and the result?
We continue to have short running timetables which end at ridiculous times, heavy reliance on public funding despite above average per head usage, service cuts to routes WITH priority with all the bells and whistles, as well as an extremely outdated fleet and this all takes place in the second most profitable operation of First (FWY)!
They have a campaign to promote an EP+ where they promise to solve these issues. It's not only failing to gather attention but they fail to mention we're already in one and haven't delivered on a single promise.
It's inevitable that any urban authority is going to opt for franchising. I think they're tired of being mugged off despite from bowing down to the commands of the bus companies. In the past you could justify private operators because they provided value for the taxpayers' but now they don't pay for anything themselves and expect authorities and taxpayers' to pay for pretty much any expense and yet the public has no control. It's not logical to keep it private, wasn't in the first place. You will never see a world class private bus network. They are all franchised or fully publicly owned.

 

[py_megapixel]

Not sure that is entirely true.

I am. I use this service multiple times a week across several different routes and it's an utter disgrace.

Stagecoach have a brand new fleet of Enviro400 MMCs on routes 52 and 120. The Gold buses Stagecoach run on the X17 are generally of a high standard too. Much of the First bus fleet whilst not new is refurbished, painted in a new local livery and looking smart. I'd concede TM Travel aren't great on the fleet presentation but they are mainly tendered services and getting clobbered by Sheffield City Council's clean air zone with fines for every bus that isn't Euro6 that runs in the City Centre.

The new Stagecoach vehicles are nice but not really enough. On other routes the fleet is generally rather poor. Even on the 52 and 120 you'll often find older Enviros - even single-deckers - substituting. Standards of cleaning leave a lot to be desired as well among all operators.

Live information for First and Stagecoach is available on their apps and in the case of Stagecoach also on their website. Tracking is available for all operators on bustimes.org

The apps are rubbish and don't work properly. For example usually when I open the Stagecoach app it will tell me that there are no bus stops in view even though I am stood at one. Force-closing the app and reopening it fixes the issue. Also the Stagecoach app doesn't show First buses. The First app shows Stagecoach buses but comes with its own set of weird and wonderful bugs.

Bustimes.org is nice, but it's a third-party site, not an official source of information.

The bigger issue though is the timekeeping itself, which is seemingly nonexistent, and the fact that the timetable often has First and Stagecoach services on the same route travelling in pairs, halving the effective frequency.

There is a range of Travelmaster day/week/28 day tickets valid on all operators and all modes of transport (https://www.sytravelmaster.com/)

Travelmaster seems to exist to allow people who are prepared to pay more to buy their way out of the messy uncoordinated system. It's not a true integrated fare system, it's a sticking-plaster solution.

True integration means that a ticket valid for a journey on any bus or tram is always valid for the same journey on any other bus or tram without exception.

Traffic congestion and roadworks are the responsibility of the local councils, nothing the bus operators can do about them.

Bus stops and information at them is the responsibility of the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, not the bus operators.

These last two points basically argue that there's nothing the operators can do about some of this on their own. That may or may not be true, but I think it's quite understandable that the SYMCA/councils won't do anything about it on their own either. After all, budgets are increasingly stretched and they won't see any return on their investment if all it does is increase passenger numbers for the private bus company.

The problem could really be summarised by the word "fragmentation". The system is split between too many different organisations, so there is no real guiding mind and no incentive for any one of them to try to improve things. Getting the whole thing under unified control must therefore be a step in the right direction.

 

[Trainman40083]

I am. I use this service multiple times a week across several different routes and it's an utter disgrace.


The new Stagecoach vehicles are nice but not really enough. On other routes the fleet is generally rather poor. Even on the 52 and 120 you'll often find older Enviros - even single-deckers - substituting. Standards of cleaning leave a lot to be desired as well among all operators.


The apps are rubbish and don't work properly. For example usually when I open the Stagecoach app it will tell me that there are no bus stops in view even though I am stood at one. Force-closing the app and reopening it fixes the issue. Also the Stagecoach app doesn't show First buses. The First app shows Stagecoach buses but comes with its own set of weird and wonderful bugs.

Bustimes.org is nice, but it's a third-party site, not an official source of information.

The bigger issue though is the timekeeping itself, which is seemingly nonexistent, and the fact that the timetable often has First and Stagecoach services on the same route travelling in pairs, halving the effective frequency.


Travelmaster seems to exist to allow people who are prepared to pay more to buy their way out of the messy uncoordinated system. It's not a true integrated fare system, it's a sticking-plaster solution.

True integration means that a ticket valid for a journey on any bus or tram is always valid for the same journey on any other bus or tram without exception.


These last two points basically argue that there's nothing the operators can do about some of this on their own. That may or may not be true, but I think it's quite understandable that the SYMCA/councils won't do anything about it on their own either. After all, budgets are increasingly stretched and they won't see any return on their investment if all it does is increase passenger numbers for the private bus company.

The problem could really be summarised by the word "fragmentation". The system is split between too many different organisations, so there is no real guiding mind and no incentive for any one of them to try to improve things. Getting the whole thing under unified control must therefore be a step in the right direction.

Almost sounds like Great British Buses, a division of Great British Railways. "Public transport for the public. Integration in action.

 

[ALEMASTER]

Sadly, I don't hold out much hope here. Not whether it will happen, but whether, if/when it does, it will deliver any significant change. The last time the (then) SYPTE put together a plan for local buses - as part of a bid to secure government funding - they designed what I'd describe as a bit of superficial tinkering around the edges of the then commercial/tendered network and asked for money to deliver that. This was an area where no funding was allotted - and according to rumour at the time, the principal reason the DfT (or whatever it was called) gave was that the plan wasn't anything like creative enough. I foresee the same thing happening again, for I somehow doubt the SYMCA has any more creativity in it than the PTE did back then.

There is much wrong with the bus network hereabouts. There are large and growing places that have no usable service to places people might want to go. True creativity would come from a total redesign of the network, not based on current usage or pattern, but based on likely latent demand (whether currently met or not). Take a map of the area - invert it vertically and laterally (so as to "anonymise it"), signify places of residence and places of destination (work, leisure, etc) according to their size. And ignore, totally, political boundaries. Then draw in roads and rails. And then draw in bus routes to represent the potential traffic these factors may generate. Now, return the map to its proper orientation and use this as the basis.

Acknowledge that serving every odd housing estate and settlement that can be served with as few routes as possible has the effect of making longer journeys way, way less attractive.

And there is currently practically no integration with rail. No account taken of the possibility that the best way to get people from A to B may be to bus them from A to a rail station where they make a well-timed connection, and pay one fare for doing so, rather than bussing them all the way (on a slow and circuitous route).

And as regards fares - yes, we do have "TravelMaster" in its various guises, but it's stupidly expensive, having about doubled in real terms in the last 20 or so years.

Travelmaster stupidly expensive - you're having a laugh! A weekly Citybus ticket is £20.10 - that is just £2.87 a day.

 

[Harpers Tate]

It all depends on which part of it you focus on.

Citybus is useless if you happen to need to cross over an invisible line on a map - even if you are making a relatively short journey.

Countywide weekly £29 online; £32.20 in person. Used for 5 days (more realistic) = £6.44/day. For use on a bus system that has bus services with 2 hour gaps in the evenings, and no validity on trains. Goes up to £7.54 if you add trains into the mix. These are not the sort of price levels (nor indeed service levels) that will draw people out of their cars.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't think councils have any motive to make improvements for many private companies. I don't know how many authorities put up with being exploited by these companies.
I've seen my own authority implement huge amounts of priority, purchase buses for the companies, improve stops, almost anything you can imagine and the result?
We continue to have short running timetables which end at ridiculous times, heavy reliance on public funding despite above average per head usage, service cuts to routes WITH priority with all the bells and whistles, as well as an extremely outdated fleet and this all takes place in the second most profitable operation of First (FWY)!
They have a campaign to promote an EP+ where they promise to solve these issues. It's not only failing to gather attention but they fail to mention we're already in one and haven't delivered on a single promise.
It's inevitable that any urban authority is going to opt for franchising. I think they're tired of being mugged off despite from bowing down to the commands of the bus companies. In the past you could justify private operators because they provided value for the taxpayers' but now they don't pay for anything themselves and expect authorities and taxpayers' to pay for pretty much any expense and yet the public has no control. It's not logical to keep it private, wasn't in the first place. You will never see a world class private bus network. They are all franchised or fully publicly owned.

Exploited? How are they being exploited?

First West Yorkshire may well be the second most profitable opco, but I suspect that the majority of that money is made in Leeds, rather than Kirklees and Calderdale, and that is reflected in where the investment ends up. That said, I do think that there are routes that do need greater investment such as the Calder Valley services and outside of Leeds, promotion and investment has been lacking. As for Arriva, my views on them are well known as "not positive"

However, I would ask... If the local authorities have been in an Enhanced Partnership, why didn't they make it so watertight so that operators were compelled to deliver against certain investment promises?

Will people go for franchising? Of course they will. It's being painted as a no lose situation to people. As I've said before, it's all a bit brexity.... you can have an imperfect reality, or the sunlit uplands and having your cake and eat it. As for services not being part of the private sector in the first place... not in the Wakefield borough. Even the trams were privately owned and run IIRC.

Going back to South Yorkshire, the real acid test will be if they seek to address the issues of bus priority in Sheffield and Doncaster, and that of the cross border links with West Yorkshire that have really declined in the last 20 years.

 

[JD2168]

I am. I use this service multiple times a week across several different routes and it's an utter disgrace.


The new Stagecoach vehicles are nice but not really enough. On other routes the fleet is generally rather poor. Even on the 52 and 120 you'll often find older Enviros - even single-deckers - substituting. Standards of cleaning leave a lot to be desired as well among all operators.

I must admit I had a slight chuckle when a new E400MMC went past with the I’m a brand new bus adverts on it whilst a 56/07 plate E400 from Ecclesfield depot was picking up on 1/88 routes

 

[johnnychips]

It all depends on which part of it you focus on.

Citybus is useless if you happen to need to cross over an invisible line on a map - even if you are making a relatively short journey.

Countywide weekly £29 online; £32.20 in person. Used for 5 days (more realistic) = £6.44/day. For use on a bus system that has bus services with 2 hour gaps in the evenings, and no validity on trains. Goes up to £7.54 if you add trains into the mix. These are not the sort of price levels (nor indeed service levels) that will draw people out of their cars.

This is easy to say, but how much subsidy, with all the other demands on them are local authorities able to provide? Given massive government cuts, demands on social care and education, I’m afraid good public transport is moving into the ‘would be nice to have, but we really can’t afford it’ territory.

Sure, lots of marginal improvements could be made, and I’m sure there are many daft anomalies in timetables that we can point out. But I’m extremely satisfied with my £37-odd ticket per week that lets me commute from Sheffield to a Doncaster suburb five days a week, with not much hassle usually, and then to the edges of Derbyshire at the weekend to go walking.

 

[Harpers Tate]

In June 2004 an annual TravelMaster cost £555. Using the BofE inflation calculator that equates to £953.41 in January 2024. And the present price represents a 30% real terms increase. Let's remember - these were commercial prices. If the present rate is the least they can accept and remain commercial - that must be driven substantially by lost traffic. The rhetorical question the industry should be asking is - why?