Substantive bus service withdrawals post-Covid

[markymark2000]

Okay @markymark2000 lets imagine some numbers.

Marky Buses has a relatively simple one PVR route which has annual running costs of £100,000. Pre-covid the annual revenue was £110,000, providing you with a fairly respectable £10,000 profit, giving you a +10% margin.

However, you are only currently at 80% of pre-covid passenger/revenue levels, so annual revenue is now down to £88,000, and to compound the problem your costs have risen by 10%, meaning you are now making an annual loss of £22,000, (a -20% margin). You tried putting your fares up by 10%, which resulted in some passenger loss, but did give you a 5% yield, so revenue is now up to £92,400, reducing your losses to £17,600, and now just a -16% margin.

Bearing in mind many bus services across the UK weren’t achieving anything like a 10% margin pre-covid, this is perhaps a generous example!

So, as all the experienced managers in the bus industry always get it wrong, we’d be delighted to hear how the management at Marky Buses will go about turning around this dilemma.

Hypotheticals mean absolutely nothing to me. You can't sit and work out what to do with a route based off a few random figures. Every route has different needs and needs to be dealt with differently. Based off the actual cuts to services listed above (not random hypotheticals, actual cuts listed), you can draw conclusions and categorise them into 'greed', 'self inflicted', 'smart accounting', 'some changes could/should be made before outright cut' or 'genuine, need to cut due to lower usage' or 'fair cut, alternatives available'. Once you start looking at things differently, you start to see that the the majority (not all, must stress, not all bus operators before you start selectively quoting) of bus operators are not making cuts which fit the 'genuine need to cut services due to lower usage' or 'fair cut, alternatives available', most fit under the other categories. Purely to use Trent Barton as an example, they have killed off the 141 over the past year or so with down right shocking reliability and people have simply found alternative ways to get around. This is therefore 'self inflicted'. Their actions have sent passengers away. On the other hand, Spondon Flyer I would say comes under 'changes should be made before cut' as it left a good amount of Spondon without a proper bus service but the fast bit was covered by the Ilkeston Flyer so some changes could have been made to generate new usage while still pushing people onto the Ilkeston Flyer who want the faster journey. Using 1 bus hourly rather than 2 buses every 2 minutes, you've halved the operating costs and trying something different with the route rather than it running fast could have made a difference. Purely 2 examples there. An example of greed would be Arriva Merseyside who are planning to drop an already overcrowded service corridor down from 4 to 2 buses and have those 2 remaining bph plod around another estate when they can already be full and standing with the existing passengers. Cram more and more people onto a bus and then slowly people will move onto other transport modes. But that's ok because they have won a few year tender and that takes priority.

I think that comment about LTA officers is highly insulting, but I will assume its made through lack of knowledge.

I am sure some LTAs might be like that, but most are running on a much reduced staff, and have been for a number of years. It's not just me saying this, the DfT recognise it too by providing Capacity Funding to LTAs and by setting up a Centre of Excellence under Bus Back Better. And of course, the local political situation also dictates a lot of what officers do. I can think of several things we provide because a prominent councillor tells us to, despite it not being in line with policy.

My comments are made as a generalisation from the numerous ones that I have had dealings with. There will be some amazing LTA officers but there are more poor than good. Sorry to say.
Even on reduced staff, I expect the people who are employed to at least try and make the bus network as good as it can be and not sit there intentionally killing off routes so that they don't have to fund them in the future. There are even examples on this forum from Citistar showing how shocking some LTAs are and while some of it may be down to the political situation, In my experience, officers aren't even willing to do things that are within their remit and so it's somewhat unsurprising that some councillors will try and take charge and demand things done their way because some officers can't/won't do their job now and why would councils give any more money to a department which has a track record of decline and no potential for growth (least with the current mindset of the council). Transport teams in my local area all just hide away and avoid all contact with the public because they know that it would show them up for how poor they are.

As for commercial operators "trying it on" some might be, but if you're running an hourly inter-urban service with 3 buses but revenue is about 80% how do you propose cutting that? Fine if you have a dozen buses running a high frequency route, you can cut a bus, or even two, without too many passengers noticing. But companies also need to consider the contribution each route makes to the overheads. You can't cut 20% of a Managing Director, or (rarely) sell off part of a depot because you don't need all of the maintenance pits now.

On lower frequency routes it is harder to make cuts but not impossible. Lower frequency routes you're best trying to work with the local community to increase patronage rather than opting straight for cuts (by working with the local community, I mean the local bus users and residents, not councillors as they don't know what local areas need as most of them don't even live in the areas they represent or ignore all communications from their constituents (some good councillors but significantly more bad than good). Your comments on councillors above is interesting too.

As others have said, costs are rising too. Not just fuel, but one operator has told us that glass prices have gone up 300%. Good luck claiming that back when the locals decide to throw bricks at your evening buses. Other spare parts have also rocketed in price, if they are obtainable.

That explains why First has cut evening buses in some areas. Vandalism is of course a valid reason to cut services but they should be put back after a few months if possible as the situation may have eased.

I hope readers will understand that I don't feel able to give specific examples but in my LTA area, whilst there are a few frequency reductions which will remain in place until driver numbers increase, we don't anticipate any commercial withdrawals, nor any tenders to be handed back. But make no mistake, many routes are only just the right side of the survival line.

I know you can't give specific examples but you say about routes only just on the survival line. I then ask of the operators in your area, how many are actively promoting their services to passengers and trying to get new passengers onboard? Not a random social media post which is only seen by existing passengers who may follow them (given on the whole, very few passengers actually follow bus companies on social media) but local, targeted paid advertising. How good is the ongoing reliability and are any changes being communicated well to passengers (where possible via bus stops digital signage where it exists, signs in the bus station and online). Are the buses being provided of a decent quality or just any old shack which looks a state and isn't very comfortable.
Just a few things there which could move the route more away from the survival line and into the safe zone. Many of the passenger reductions and the reason why I believe that numbers are sticking around 80% in some places is due to the shocking service provided by operators. Some routes near me spent 6 months or so with a lot of cancellations but many weren't posted online or if they were, it was quite late on so people just gave up using the bus as it was too unreliable.

 

[ChrisC]

Purely to use Trent Barton as an example, they have killed off the 141 over the past year or so with down right shocking reliability and people have simply found alternative ways to get around. This is therefore 'self inflicted'. Their actions have sent passengers away.

You are absolutely correct on this one. The 141 service only today has seen numerous cancellations throughout the day including the first buses this morning and the last bus in each direction this evening. It’s bad enough that the last bus leaves Mansfield towards Nottingham as early as 6pm but even more disgraceful cancelling that bus. This has been happening for months now with the peak time buses into Nottingham in the morning regularly cancelled when people need to get to work. Also the first bus after 9.30am, used by ENCTS passengers for shopping trips from the villages into Hucknall and Nottingham is regularly cancelled. Trent Barton post the cancellations each day on Twitter but for the average passenger, especially elderly people, they don’t know about this and have had months of standing at a bus stop for an hourly bus which doesn’t turn up. No wonder the majority of former regular passengers have stopped using it. I have been trying to leave my car at home and use public transport more. To do this I now, rather than relying on the 141, I drive 2 miles to another village, park up, and use Stagecoach buses. Without my car I would find it very difficult.

 

[RT4038]

I know you can't give specific examples but you say about routes only just on the survival line. I then ask of the operators in your area, how many are actively promoting their services to passengers and trying to get new passengers onboard? Not a random social media post which is only seen by existing passengers who may follow them (given on the whole, very few passengers actually follow bus companies on social media) but local, targeted paid advertising. How good is the ongoing reliability and are any changes being communicated well to passengers (where possible via bus stops digital signage where it exists, signs in the bus station and online). Are the buses being provided of a decent quality or just any old shack which looks a state and isn't very comfortable.
Just a few things there which could move the route more away from the survival line and into the safe zone. Many of the passenger reductions and the reason why I believe that numbers are sticking around 80% in some places is due to the shocking service provided by operators. Some routes near me spent 6 months or so with a lot of cancellations but many weren't posted online or if they were, it was quite late on so people just gave up using the bus as it was too unreliable.

There are bus companies out there that do not think it is worth the resources to do these things - if the route doesn't make good money without loads of resource and effort then instead it will be cut and cut until it is withdrawn. That is their commercial prerogative. Resource and effort is often not present in anything like sufficient quantity and anyway, if it were and the services successful, there would be brickbats about fat cat bus companies and demands that the money generated by these efforts and resources be ploughed back into running uneconomic services (or the Government awarding itself cheap concessionary fare reimbursement deals etc ). We get the bus companies and services that we deserve.

 

[Stan Drews]

Hypotheticals mean absolutely nothing to me. You can't sit and work out what to do with a route based off a few random figures. Every route has different needs and needs to be dealt with differently. Based off the actual cuts to services listed above (not random hypotheticals, actual cuts listed), you can draw conclusions and categorise them into 'greed', 'self inflicted', 'smart accounting', 'some changes could/should be made before outright cut' or 'genuine, need to cut due to lower usage' or 'fair cut, alternatives available'. Once you start looking at things differently, you start to see that the the majority (not all, must stress, not all bus operators before you start selectively quoting) of bus operators are not making cuts which fit the 'genuine need to cut services due to lower usage' or 'fair cut, alternatives available', most fit under the other categories. Purely to use Trent Barton as an example, they have killed off the 141 over the past year or so with down right shocking reliability and people have simply found alternative ways to get around. This is therefore 'self inflicted'. Their actions have sent passengers away. On the other hand, Spondon Flyer I would say comes under 'changes should be made before cut' as it left a good amount of Spondon without a proper bus service but the fast bit was covered by the Ilkeston Flyer so some changes could have been made to generate new usage while still pushing people onto the Ilkeston Flyer who want the faster journey. Using 1 bus hourly rather than 2 buses every 2 minutes, you've halved the operating costs and trying something different with the route rather than it running fast could have made a difference. Purely 2 examples there. An example of greed would be Arriva Merseyside who are planning to drop an already overcrowded service corridor down from 4 to 2 buses and have those 2 remaining bph plod around another estate when they can already be full and standing with the existing passengers. Cram more and more people onto a bus and then slowly people will move onto other transport modes. But that's ok because they have won a few year tender and that takes priority.


My comments are made as a generalisation from the numerous ones that I have had dealings with. There will be some amazing LTA officers but there are more poor than good. Sorry to say.
Even on reduced staff, I expect the people who are employed to at least try and make the bus network as good as it can be and not sit there intentionally killing off routes so that they don't have to fund them in the future. There are even examples on this forum from Citistar showing how shocking some LTAs are and while some of it may be down to the political situation, In my experience, officers aren't even willing to do things that are within their remit and so it's somewhat unsurprising that some councillors will try and take charge and demand things done their way because some officers can't/won't do their job now and why would councils give any more money to a department which has a track record of decline and no potential for growth (least with the current mindset of the council). Transport teams in my local area all just hide away and avoid all contact with the public because they know that it would show them up for how poor they are.


On lower frequency routes it is harder to make cuts but not impossible. Lower frequency routes you're best trying to work with the local community to increase patronage rather than opting straight for cuts (by working with the local community, I mean the local bus users and residents, not councillors as they don't know what local areas need as most of them don't even live in the areas they represent or ignore all communications from their constituents (some good councillors but significantly more bad than good). Your comments on councillors above is interesting too.


That explains why First has cut evening buses in some areas. Vandalism is of course a valid reason to cut services but they should be put back after a few months if possible as the situation may have eased.


I know you can't give specific examples but you say about routes only just on the survival line. I then ask of the operators in your area, how many are actively promoting their services to passengers and trying to get new passengers onboard? Not a random social media post which is only seen by existing passengers who may follow them (given on the whole, very few passengers actually follow bus companies on social media) but local, targeted paid advertising. How good is the ongoing reliability and are any changes being communicated well to passengers (where possible via bus stops digital signage where it exists, signs in the bus station and online). Are the buses being provided of a decent quality or just any old shack which looks a state and isn't very comfortable.
Just a few things there which could move the route more away from the survival line and into the safe zone. Many of the passenger reductions and the reason why I believe that numbers are sticking around 80% in some places is due to the shocking service provided by operators. Some routes near me spent 6 months or so with a lot of cancellations but many weren't posted online or if they were, it was quite late on so people just gave up using the bus as it was too unreliable.

So, to summarise, you’ve advice for Marky Buses is to work with the local community and spend some money on targeted advertising. Thanks for that.

 

[820KDV]

I know you can't give specific examples but you say about routes only just on the survival line. I then ask of the operators in your area, how many are actively promoting their services to passengers and trying to get new passengers onboard? Not a random social media post which is only seen by existing passengers who may follow them (given on the whole, very few passengers actually follow bus companies on social media) but local, targeted paid advertising. How good is the ongoing reliability and are any changes being communicated well to passengers (where possible via bus stops digital signage where it exists, signs in the bus station and online). Are the buses being provided of a decent quality or just any old shack which looks a state and isn't very comfortable.
Just a few things there which could move the route more away from the survival line and into the safe zone. Many of the passenger reductions and the reason why I believe that numbers are sticking around 80% in some places is due to the shocking service provided by operators. Some routes near me spent 6 months or so with a lot of cancellations but many weren't posted online or if they were, it was quite late on so people just gave up using the bus as it was too unreliable.

Together with our 3 main operators we are working on a big promotion for Catch the Bus Month in September. All parties are very keen to work together on this, sharing resources.

I was studying the marketing plan for it today. and it includes messages throughout the month not only on council social media, but also the weekly residents e-newsletter, and the equivalent for councillors, town and parish councils, local business groups and so on. True these messages won't reach all of our intended audience directly, but parish councils pass things on locally, businesses might tell employees and so on.

The bus companies are working on their own plans, knowing that we will support and compliment them. Council staff will assist in distributing paper publicity, for example, but with 3 main and several smaller bus companies it is a more complex message than it would be if there was one dominant operator. How do you, in a simple and easily understood way, for example, "sell" flexi-tickets when each operator has their own version? But we will do what we can.

But, all this planning, all these ideas, are against a background of continuing driver shortages. One of our big three is really struggling at the moment, but the situation seems to have eased elsewhere. How do we "sell" the idea of using the bus if one supplier is below par? That is a big risk, if performance on the ground falls short of the marketing hype. Do we pull the whole campaign to avoid embarrassment for one, but lose the benefit for the rest? That's not all though. We were planning a bus promotion during the summer holidays, but our Public Health team asked us not to proceed as Covid cases are rising significantly locally and the council couldn't be seen to be encouraging mixing in shops, cafes, museums etc through a bus promotion when mixing will already be at a high level with the schools being off.

You are right that the local touch is the way forward. The smallest (but only just) of our big 3 operators is a family run business. And they consider their staff as part of their extended family. Passengers know their driver as each has their own shift, they will do all they can to cover on the day sickness, inputting a bus halfway, and maybe a bit late, rather than cancelling the whole trip. The passengers, generally, understand when this sort of thing happens. Outside of the national groups they were the first in our area with m-tickets (now on their second generation), they have bus tracking via their app, they use social media for news of problems well after the national groups have all signed off for the day, they brought out double decks on the Jubilee holiday weekend the moment drivers reported loads looked as possibly exceeding the capacity of the Enviro 200s originally allocated. Any day now I expect their double decks will have their commercial advertising panels removed, to reveal the school holiday fare offering adverts which are permanently fixed to the bodyside. Their post-Covid recovery out-strips anything the big guys are achieving. Being local matters; hard work is rewarded.

But sadly not every company is in that position, certainly not on every route.

And that's the point. Do they work hard on every route for little return on some, when resource would be better spent (from a company point of view) on making the best performers even better?

We will be asking similar questions of our political masters, recognising we can't do everything with the funding we have. Do they want us to continue to provide the deep rural routes at the level we currently do, but with little or no prospect of growth (even the best marketing can't beat demographics), or do they want us to concentrate on building up the main routes, jointly with the commercial operators where, jointly, we might achieve modal shift, and reduce congestion and pollution? Or do they want both, and decide to fund us accordingly?

 

[Eyersey468]

@markymark2000 in terms of the East Yorkshire 55 service as an example for years we tried to keep the service and its predecessors running but no matter what we did and how hard we tried passenger numbers pre Covid simply weren't high enough west of Elloughton and they hadn't recovered after Covid. If a service is losing money and losing money eventually the operators have to pull the plug

 

[M803UYA]

You can't sit and work out what to do with a route based off a few random figures. Every route has different needs and needs to be dealt with differently. Based off the actual cuts to services listed above (not random hypotheticals, actual cuts listed), you can draw conclusions and categorise them into 'greed', 'self inflicted', 'smart accounting', 'some changes could/should be made before outright cut' or 'genuine, need to cut due to lower usage' or 'fair cut, alternatives available'. Once you start looking at things differently, you start to see that the the majority (not all, must stress, not all bus operators before you start selectively quoting) of bus operators are not making cuts which fit the 'genuine need to cut services due to lower usage' or 'fair cut, alternatives available', most fit under the other categories.

Going on my experience I can tell you that route costing is undertaken by a line on a spreadsheet or as you put it, 'a few random figures'.
Generally the costs of operating the service are present alongside the revenues received.

You could have one profitable route in a bus depot, and a number which cover their costs but little else, and some which are loss making. If you were to withdraw the loss making route(s) you'd lose the vehicles and possibly the drivers (unless those people left to find work elsewhere!). You might not lose the costs of renting/leasing/servicing the depot site, so if you were renting the depot site, then that cost is spread over fewer vehicles. I've mentioned on the Arriva thread the traffic light system they use for route costings - red/amber/green in terms of it's financial performance. I'm sure other groups use similar methods.

My local bus route is one example described above. It's loss making, carrying few passengers and isn't operated by the closest depot of the company. It is instead provided by the depot 20 miles distant with extensive dead mileage - as their operating it means the overheads of the depot are covered. This depot is part of a big 5 group which has just had a 6 week strike about to recommence. So the prospect of our village having no bus service at all in the future is very real.

 

[Stan Drews]

Going on my experience I can tell you that route costing is undertaken by a line on a spreadsheet or as you put it, 'a few random figures'.
Generally the costs of operating the service are present alongside the revenues received.
You could have one profitable route in a bus depot, and a number which cover their costs but little else, and some which are loss making. If you were to withdraw the loss making route(s) you'd lose the vehicles and possibly the drivers (unless those people left to find work elsewhere!). You might not lose the costs of renting/leasing/servicing the depot site, so if you were renting the depot site, then that cost is spread over fewer vehicles. I've mentioned on the Arriva thread the traffic light system they use for route costings - red/amber/green in terms of it's financial performance. I'm sure other groups use similar methods.
My local bus route is one example described above. It's loss making, carrying few passengers and isn't operated by the closest depot of the company. It is instead provided by the depot 20 miles distant with extensive dead mileage - as their operating it means the overheads of the depot are covered. This depot is part of a big 5 group which has just had a 6 week strike about to recommence. So the prospect of our village having no bus service at all in the future is very real.

Any business, regardless of the industry in which it functions, should know it’s ‘red/amber/green’ products or services. Those that don’t, are likely to struggle. They may use different terminology, but the basic principle remains.

 

[markymark2000]

There are bus companies out there that do not think it is worth the resources to do these things - if the route doesn't make good money without loads of resource and effort then instead it will be cut and cut until it is withdrawn. That is their commercial prerogative. Resource and effort is often not present in anything like sufficient quantity and anyway, if it were and the services successful, there would be brickbats about fat cat bus companies and demands that the money generated by these efforts and resources be ploughed back into running uneconomic services (or the Government awarding itself cheap concessionary fare reimbursement deals etc ). We get the bus companies and services that we deserve.

cut and cut and cut is the reason why we are in the mess and as has been mentioned with Arriva, it doesn't work because that route gets cut and then the depot overheads have to be covered by less routes so then the remaining routes make less money.

It might be their commercial prerogative but if they aren't willing to attempt to make a route viable then we shouldn't be providing them with any funding. Some routes of course won't make money, that's a given but a firm should at least make an effort for routes to get back to 100% usage or at least high 90s. It's been mentioned on other threads such as the Yellow Buses thread that a route there wasn't going to make lots of money but they used higher quality buses on the route to try and scrape the extra few passengers using the higher quality over other operators. It may not seem much but a few extra passengers can go a long way and if someone is struggling that much, that is something that should be looked at.

Much better sending money to that rather

So, to summarise, you’ve advice for Marky Buses is to work with the local community and spend some money on targeted advertising. Thanks for that.

I'd say thats a good part of it. Shopping and work habits have changed as has leisure trends. For years the industry has failed to adapt to that and such many routes have failed. If some changes could be made so the local communities or tourists or whatever can make use of the route, why wouldn't something like that be looked at? The leisure sector is booming but still most buses ignore the leisure market (especially if it includes a slight diversion).

Going on my experience I can tell you that route costing is undertaken by a line on a spreadsheet or as you put it, 'a few random figures'.

The context behind that is you need to see a route and know what demographic you are dealing with, the potential opportunities etc etc. Just just someone throwing random figures out and saying 'what do you do here', you need more details to make a full and proper analysis of how you would deal with the route.

Together with our 3 main operators we are working on a big promotion for Catch the Bus Month in September. All parties are very keen to work together on this, sharing resources.

I was studying the marketing plan for it today. and it includes messages throughout the month not only on council social media, but also the weekly residents e-newsletter, and the equivalent for councillors, town and parish councils, local business groups and so on. True these messages won't reach all of our intended audience directly, but parish councils pass things on locally, businesses might tell employees and so on.

The bus companies are working on their own plans, knowing that we will support and compliment them. Council staff will assist in distributing paper publicity, for example, but with 3 main and several smaller bus companies it is a more complex message than it would be if there was one dominant operator. How do you, in a simple and easily understood way, for example, "sell" flexi-tickets when each operator has their own version? But we will do what we can.

Another topic idea but I'd be interested if catch the bus week ever does much for patronage? I rarely ever see focus on the local networks during the week, just nationalised, yeah, catch the bus. If I was a driver, nothing stands out normally as 'I should get the bus this week because [reason].

But, all this planning, all these ideas, are against a background of continuing driver shortages. One of our big three is really struggling at the moment, but the situation seems to have eased elsewhere. How do we "sell" the idea of using the bus if one supplier is below par? That is a big risk, if performance on the ground falls short of the marketing hype. Do we pull the whole campaign to avoid embarrassment for one, but lose the benefit for the rest?

Extremely valid. The driver shortage has a lot to say for itself. We can only hope the DaFT sort their stuff out and help get drivers through training quicker. It'd be good to see some more operators going down a more localised advertising for drivers rather than, in the case of Stagecoach in my area who send out a tweet every now and again (which is hardly seen because you'd have to follow them to see the tweet). I think councils also have a small part to play here in making sure that there are facilities for drivers. Manchester for example, there are basically no facilities in the city centre bar Shudehill. Any other route like the many which go to Picc Gardens, drivers have no facilities which understandably makes the job less desirable. More onus on the operators here but councils can help in the recruitment by making the day to day more pleasant.

That's not all though. We were planning a bus promotion during the summer holidays, but our Public Health team asked us not to proceed as Covid cases are rising significantly locally and the council couldn't be seen to be encouraging mixing in shops, cafes, museums etc through a bus promotion when mixing will already be at a high level with the schools being off.

That's a shame. I'd say more but I ain't opening up a can of worms.

You are right that the local touch is the way forward. The smallest (but only just) of our big 3 operators is a family run business. And they consider their staff as part of their extended family. Passengers know their driver as each has their own shift, they will do all they can to cover on the day sickness, inputting a bus halfway, and maybe a bit late, rather than cancelling the whole trip. The passengers, generally, understand when this sort of thing happens. Outside of the national groups they were the first in our area with m-tickets (now on their second generation), they have bus tracking via their app, they use social media for news of problems well after the national groups have all signed off for the day, they brought out double decks on the Jubilee holiday weekend the moment drivers reported loads looked as possibly exceeding the capacity of the Enviro 200s originally allocated. Any day now I expect their double decks will have their commercial advertising panels removed, to reveal the school holiday fare offering adverts which are permanently fixed to the bodyside. Their post-Covid recovery out-strips anything the big guys are achieving. Being local matters; hard work is rewarded.

But sadly not every company is in that position, certainly not on every route.

It's great to hear your side of it with regards to the independent who sounds like they are doing a sterling job at the moment. I really hope that their successes continue. Of course not every route will succeed and I'll always stand by that. If a company is doing their best then that is really good but in the instances where operators are shocking and doing bare minimum, they should be criticised for that. In other industries where people get a choice over their provider, people vote with their feet. Unfortunately due to the nature of of the industry, competition isn't really the answer but we should be trying to raise the standards to match that shown by your example.

And that's the point. Do they work hard on every route for little return on some, when resource would be better spent (from a company point of view) on making the best performers even better?

We will be asking similar questions of our political masters, recognising we can't do everything with the funding we have. Do they want us to continue to provide the deep rural routes at the level we currently do, but with little or no prospect of growth (even the best marketing can't beat demographics), or do they want us to concentrate on building up the main routes, jointly with the commercial operators where, jointly, we might achieve modal shift, and reduce congestion and pollution? Or do they want both, and decide to fund us accordingly?

It's a bit of both isn't it really. Making big routes better is of course really important but you can't leave the local people behind on lesser routes. There may not be huge scope for growth on rural routes but working with the residents who live along the route, there could be just 1 place that they want to go but can't get there and that could make the difference to getting a few more onboard. I think even some rural routes have potential but many councils don't like trying something slightly different like Compass 99/Salisbury Reds 102/103 services which run to key points but via villages on demand.
The big routes with big potential should of course be pushed too but if it's a big route with big potential, it should be more work on the operator. Hopefully the partnerships will help that but that relies upon everyone being on the same page and wanting growth. Unfortunately the LTAs that are local to me do not have that mindset and nor do the operators. That is why I said the things that I did previously. From what it sounds though, you are in one of the much better LTAs.

@markymark2000 in terms of the East Yorkshire 55 service as an example for years we tried to keep the service and its predecessors running but no matter what we did and how hard we tried passenger numbers pre Covid simply weren't high enough west of Elloughton and they hadn't recovered after Covid. If a service is losing money and losing money eventually the operators have to pull the plug

There will always be those instances and as I've said above, if a company has tried to make a service recover or get the numbers up, I think it's fair for it to be cut back accordingly. It's going to happen at some point.

 

[daodao]

It might be their commercial prerogative but if they aren't willing to attempt to make a route viable then we shouldn't be providing them with any funding. Some routes of course won't make money, that's a given but a firm should at least make an effort for routes to get back to 100% usage or at least high 90s. It's been mentioned on other threads such as the Yellow Buses thread that a route there wasn't going to make lots of money but they used higher quality buses on the route to try and scrape the extra few passengers using the higher quality over other operators. It may not seem much but a few extra passengers can go a long way and if someone is struggling that much, that is something that should be looked at.

Private bus operators are commercial companies. They are not charities providing a social service. If a route is clearly unprofitable, it needs to be cut, otherwise the company attempting to run it could go bankrupt. The same applies to other "public" transport, including air and rail. In certain circumstances, central/local government can provide limited subsidies for "essential" services, so that significant towns (say population 5000 or more) are not completely "cut off", but given the dire financial state of the UK, this can't be very much. Greater Manchester's profligacy can't/shouldn't be mirrored elsewhere; the government needs to bring TfGM to heel for the way it wastes money, and the proposed "franchising" system needs to be thrown into the bin.

 

[johncrossley]

Private bus operators are commercial companies. They are not charities providing a social service. If a route is clearly unprofitable, it needs to be cut, otherwise the company attempting to run it could go bankrupt. The same applies to other "public" transport, including air and rail. In certain circumstances, central/local government can provide limited subsidies for "essential" services, so that significant towns (say population 5000 or more) are not completely "cut off", but given the dire financial state of the UK, this can't be very much. Greater Manchester's profligacy can't/shouldn't be mirrored elsewhere; the government needs to bring TfGM to heel for the way it wastes money, and the proposed "franchising" system needs to be thrown into the bin.

Why would you have a problem with public transport provision provided by compulsory tendering when virtually all major cities have heavily subsidised state owned and state run services? The trend seems to be towards free or nearly free services, regardless of the financial situation in that location. For example, nationwide free transport in Luxembourg, free buses in Calais and Dunkerque and 1 euro flat fare (including interchange) in much of the surrounding area of northern France. The privatised systems in London and Scandinavia are considered neoliberal by comparison. London probably has the most expensive city transport in the world and Manchester isn't much better and in the case of buses is a lot more expensive.

 

[Dai Corner]

Why would you have a problem with public transport provision provided by compulsory tendering when virtually all major cities have heavily subsidised state owned and state run services? The trend seems to be towards free or nearly free services, regardless of the financial situation in that location. For example, nationwide free transport in Luxembourg, free buses in Calais and Dunkerque and 1 euro flat fare (including interchange) in much of the surrounding area of northern France. The privatised systems in London and Scandinavia are considered neoliberal by comparison. London probably has the most expensive city transport in the world and Manchester isn't much better and in the case of buses is a lot more expensive.

London bus fare £1.65
Newport bus fare £2.00
Cardiff bus fare £2.00

Newport's and Cardiff's buses are state owned and operated. They cover a much smaller area than London.

 

[johncrossley]

London bus fare £1.65
Newport bus fare £2.00
Cardiff bus fare £2.00

Newport's and Cardiff's buses are state owned and operated. They cover a much smaller area than London.

You are talking about buses only. A typical single fare (changing from bus to tube) in London (Zone 1 to 2) costs £4.85 (peak).

Newport and Cardiff are not heavily subsidised as they operate under deregulation and are modest sized cities. @daodao was talking about Greater Manchester so my post was primarily about large cities like London, Paris and Vienna. Free transport probably isn't viable in big cities (unlike the smaller ones I mention in the earlier post) but most big cities have heavily subsidised transport, which was my main point. Competitive tendering is normally used as a cost saving exercise. @daodao would find much more to criticise outside the UK where they still have large big city municipal operators.

 

[Dai Corner]

You are talking about buses only. A typical single fare (changing from bus to tube) in London (Zone 1 to 2) costs £4.85 (peak).

Newport and Cardiff are not heavily subsidised as they operate under deregulation and are modest sized cities. @daodao was talking about Greater Manchester so my post was primarily about large cities like London, Paris and Vienna. Free transport probably isn't viable in big cities (unlike the smaller ones I mention in the earlier post) but most big cities have heavily subsidised transport, which was my main point. Competitive tendering is normally used as a cost saving exercise. @daodao would find much more to criticise outside the UK where they still have large big city municipal operators.

For the record, a typical Cardiff train fare is £3.40 (no off-peak reduction). £5.40 v London's £4.85.

It could be argued that Cardiff and Newport are subsidised in that they aren't expected to pay a dividend to their owners. Most of Newport's evening and Sunday services, which are no doubt loss-making, are operated under contract to TfW on a DRT basis.

Why should only urban areas deemed 'large' have subsidised public transport?

 

[johncrossley]

For the record, a typical Cardiff train fare is £3.40 (no off-peak reduction). £5.40 v London's £4.85.

It could be argued that Cardiff and Newport are subsidised in that they aren't expected to pay a dividend to their owners. Most of Newport's evening and Sunday services, which are no doubt loss-making, are operated under contract to TfW on a DRT basis.

Why should only urban areas deemed 'large' have subsidised public transport?

Of course, subsidised public transport is normal in developed western societies, regardless of city size. I was only quoting big cities in reply to a post about Greater Manchester.

 

[Typhoon]

I get your point but what happens when costs rise and margins fall? Something has to give and that something is loss making work.

Exactly, for the good of the company as a whole it has to be loss making stuff that gets cut, not taking buses off people that use them to prop up a heavily loss making no hoper of a route

Surely it would make more sense to support a profitable service at less profitable times rather than an unprofitable route at all. For instance if a route is generally profitable but a couple of early morning journeys marginal, keeping those journeys going may mean passengers stick with the route. When I (occasionally) get the first bus in the morning, there are some passengers - postal workers, supermarket staff, for instance. Cut those journeys, the workers will find other ways of getting to work - cadge a lift, go by bike, whatever - or request a transfer to a different branch. Not only is the outgoing revenue lost but the return revenue is too. At least keeping those journeys helps the route stay viable.

It is difficult to breathe life into an unprofitable route except through a miracle. Not even a new housing estate does it, it just clogs up the roads and makes buses more unreliable.

 

[Dai Corner]

Surely it would make more sense to support a profitable service at less profitable times rather than an unprofitable route at all. For instance if a route is generally profitable but a couple of early morning journeys marginal, keeping those journeys going may mean passengers stick with the route. When I (occasionally) get the first bus in the morning, there are some passengers - postal workers, supermarket staff, for instance. Cut those journeys, the workers will find other ways of getting to work - cadge a lift, go by bike, whatever - or request a transfer to a different branch. Not only is the outgoing revenue lost but the return revenue is too. At least keeping those journeys helps the route stay viable.

It is difficult to breathe life into an unprofitable route except through a miracle. Not even a new housing estate does it, it just clogs up the roads and makes buses more unreliable.

You could turn that argument round and try introducing a few earlier and later journeys on a loss-making or marginal route to see if it attracted enough additional passengers to make it profitable, of course.

 

[Eyersey468]

Surely it would make more sense to support a profitable service at less profitable times rather than an unprofitable route at all. For instance if a route is generally profitable but a couple of early morning journeys marginal, keeping those journeys going may mean passengers stick with the route. When I (occasionally) get the first bus in the morning, there are some passengers - postal workers, supermarket staff, for instance. Cut those journeys, the workers will find other ways of getting to work - cadge a lift, go by bike, whatever - or request a transfer to a different branch. Not only is the outgoing revenue lost but the return revenue is too. At least keeping those journeys helps the route stay viable.

It is difficult to breathe life into an unprofitable route except through a miracle. Not even a new housing estate does it, it just clogs up the roads and makes buses more unreliable.

I wasn't talking about one or two marginal journeys on an otherwise profitable route, I was talking about routes thar are losing money hand over fist.

You could turn that argument round and try introducing a few earlier and later journeys on a loss-making or marginal route to see if it attracted enough additional passengers to make it profitable, of course.

There are some routes where that might work but by no means all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Private bus operators are commercial companies. They are not charities providing a social service. If a route is clearly unprofitable, it needs to be cut, otherwise the company attempting to run it could go bankrupt.

Correct, but you can see a clear difference between typical Arriva (who just cut, cut and cut) and, say, Transdev Yorkshire, which makes very substantial marketing efforts to attract custom.

Arriva pretty much doesn't do marketing at all. In Milton Keynes they do literally nothing at all bar put the buses on the road in generic livery* with the destination on the front and their generic website. It is their prerogative not to do so and to fail if they wish, of course, but it's not a great way to run a business, more a sign of a small business wanting to close down for retirement than a large business that *could* make more money.

Transdev manages to make a good job of running buses in one of the poshest towns in the country, perhaps a Yorkshire St. Albans, where you can be sure incumbent Arriva isn't doing anywhere near as well. (I think Uno also do a bit there too and seem at least a little better).

* There are a few Sapphire branded vehicles, but these are just "polished turds"; there's no marketing or improved service concepts behind them, they're just there. And in many ways they are a downgrade, e.g. sticky e-leather seats instead of moquette, and they're shorter and more cramped than the older full size single decks some of them replaced.

 

[M803UYA]

The context behind that is you need to see a route and know what demographic you are dealing with, the potential opportunities etc etc. Just just someone throwing random figures out and saying 'what do you do here', you need more details to make a full and proper analysis of how you would deal with the route.

I'd not say it was 'random' - but you'd be starting as the route costing stage and by identifying the service as requiring attention. Some operators would withdraw it, with the consequences potentially of a depot shutting a few years after. Some might look to eliminate trips on the timetable.

To give an example, if you had a one bus working timetable you might remove the lunchtime journey which was covered by another driver. You'd look at the ticket machine data to inform your decision. It's dangerous to solely rely on this as the best fiddle is not to issue a ticket... so you might leave the office and have a ride on the service. Well I used to. Every time I did this I used to find out things I'd otherwise not have known from sitting at a desk.

Could you market the service? Have you previously done so?
So you can see from the above I'd not look to immediately withdraw the service - it'd be a final resort having exhausted options. But how i'd look at it isn't always how the rest of the industry looks at it, but hopefully that gives a little insight into 'how'.

 

[RT4038]

Correct, but you can see a clear difference between typical Arriva (who just cut, cut and cut) and, say, Transdev Yorkshire, which makes very substantial marketing efforts to attract custom.

Arriva pretty much doesn't do marketing at all. In Milton Keynes they do literally nothing at all bar put the buses on the road in generic livery* with the destination on the front and their generic website. It is their prerogative not to do so and to fail if they wish, of course, but it's not a great way to run a business, more a sign of a small business wanting to close down for retirement than a large business that *could* make more money.

Transdev manages to make a good job of running buses in one of the poshest towns in the country, perhaps a Yorkshire St. Albans, where you can be sure incumbent Arriva isn't doing anywhere near as well. (I think Uno also do a bit there too and seem at least a little better).

* There are a few Sapphire branded vehicles, but these are just "polished turds"; there's no marketing or improved service concepts behind them, they're just there. And in many ways they are a downgrade, e.g. sticky e-leather seats instead of moquette, and they're shorter and more cramped than the older full size single decks some of them replaced.

The question is though - Is the Transdev approach more profitable than that of Arriva in Milton Keynes? I am not sure that the answer is cut and dry.....

 

[markymark2000]

Private bus operators are commercial companies. They are not charities providing a social service. If a route is clearly unprofitable, it needs to be cut, otherwise the company attempting to run it could go bankrupt. The same applies to other "public" transport, including air and rail. In certain circumstances, central/local government can provide limited subsidies for "essential" services, so that significant towns (say population 5000 or more) are not completely "cut off", but given the dire financial state of the UK, this can't be very much. Greater Manchester's profligacy can't/shouldn't be mirrored elsewhere; the government needs to bring TfGM to heel for the way it wastes money, and the proposed "franchising" system needs to be thrown into the bin.

If it's clearly unprofitable and had to be cut over time due to circumstances outside of the operators control or the operators has tried to make it work but it just hasn't, that's fine. No issue. Some routes just will never be commercial. If however, as Bletchleyite has posted, an operator is lazy and just 'exists' then they cut routes and slowly try to kill local demand (I have reason to believe that is what Arriva has done in Wales previously. Kept faffing with the intention of killing demand so that a competitor doesn't then jump on the route and risk the viability of one of their core routes), they should be forced to take huge losses as a consequence of them intentionally killing demand (which affects not just them but the wider bus network as people make connections or lose trust overall in the bus network).

It is difficult to breathe life into an unprofitable route except through a miracle. Not even a new housing estate does it, it just clogs up the roads and makes buses more unreliable.

In fairness, that's because most bus operators don't advertise within the new developments and if it requires a slight diversion, operators down right refuse to serve it without substantial funding. Councils don't request funding to improve nearby bus infrastructure and when bus improvements are requested, they are often one of the last things to be done (like bus gates. See Milton Park in Didcot where the 'South' bus gate could have been opened ages ago but kept being pushed back so no bus could go through the estate. That's all another topic though.

Correct, but you can see a clear difference between typical Arriva (who just cut, cut and cut) and, say, Transdev Yorkshire, which makes very substantial marketing efforts to attract custom.

Arriva pretty much doesn't do marketing at all. In Milton Keynes they do literally nothing at all bar put the buses on the road in generic livery* with the destination on the front and their generic website. It is their prerogative not to do so and to fail if they wish, of course, but it's not a great way to run a business, more a sign of a small business wanting to close down for retirement than a large business that *could* make more money.

Transdev manages to make a good job of running buses in one of the poshest towns in the country, perhaps a Yorkshire St. Albans, where you can be sure incumbent Arriva isn't doing anywhere near as well. (I think Uno also do a bit there too and seem at least a little better).

* There are a few Sapphire branded vehicles, but these are just "polished turds"; there's no marketing or improved service concepts behind them, they're just there. And in many ways they are a downgrade, e.g. sticky e-leather seats instead of moquette, and they're shorter and more cramped than the older full size single decks some of them replaced.

And when Arriva cut routes, we should eliminate them from putting in a tender bid (or ignore their bid). They killed the route, why should we then fund them to keep it going as it essentially incentivises cutting marginal routes. Run at 10k profit or cut it, throw in a tender and make 20k profit. No change to costs, no loss of work. Easy bit of extra money. Instead we should be encouraging companies to keep routes going and encourage them to try as much as possible before cuts (if they have actually done as much as possible to make the route work then it's a fair cut and should be allowed to bid)

 

[RELL6L]

I have updated the table for the latest information I have come across, including reprieves for Edinburgh to Dumfries, Trent Barton 141, Diamond X20, Stagecoach 93 Carlisle to Bowness on Solway, Carousel routes in Bucks, Go North East routes dropped. Some of these haven't been before and there are also new entries in the chart of shame for Stagecoach Manchester 237 and 358. I am not including urban routes so the Stagecoach Manchester 150 wouldn't count (I know this is a bit arbitrary but I claim the right as OP ). Anyone have any news on any of these? And feel free to advise or corrections!

Operator & route	Between	Outcome	Funded
Go Cornwall 11	Liskeard to Bodmin Parkway, hourly	Reprieved, mostly hourly, temporary. Through route to Bodmin town, Wadebridge and Padstow lost but still connections
Stagecoach South West 92	Totnes to Dartmouth, roughly two hourly	Reprieved, similar timetable	Devon
Stagecoach West 32,132	Newent to Ross & Ledbury, each two hourly	Withdrawn except school journeys to Ross. Gloucester to Newent remains
Stagecoach South / Reading 7	Aldershot to Reading, hourly, connecting at Hartley Wintney	Withdrawn. Some remains Aldershot to Fleet and Hartley Wintney, Reading Buses have covered Reading to Riseley, both much reduced
Arriva Kent 308	Gravesend to Sevenoaks, every 90 minutes	Reprieved, operated by Redroute to same times	Kent
Arriva Kent 155	Chatham to Maidstone, hourly through service	Still runs Chatham to Borstal, rest cut back to school journeys, very occasional shopper bus
Metroline 84	Barnet to St Albans via Potters Bar, 30 minutes	Reprieved between Potters Bar and St Albans by Sullivan, withdrawn Potters Bar to Barnet	Hertfordshire
Stagecoach Oxford 200	Banbury to Daventry hourly	Reprieved temporarily	Oxfordshire & Northamptonshire
Stagecoach East 41	Bedford to Northampton, currently 90 minutes	Still running every 90 minutes
Centrebus 19	Melton Mowbray to Nottingham, two hourly	Withdrawn
Travel Wright	All services ceased, not sure if anything was commercial or substantive.	Some been taken over. 367 Newark to Collingham and beyond remains, Gem Mini Travel. Some lost?
Hulley X57	Snake Pass, Ladybower to Glossop, two hourly	Withdrawn. Maybe a special case as introduction was so recent.
Arriva Midlands North 9	Wolverhampton to Bridgnorth, hourly	Temporary reprieve, unchanged	Shropshire
Arriva Midlands North 544/546	Shrewsbury to Little Lythe / Pulverbatch, combined hourly	Temporary reprieve, unchanged	Shropshire
Arriva Midlands N 738/740	Knighton to Ludlow, 4 times a day	Reprieved temporarily	Shropshire
Arriva North East 86	Bishop Auckland to Toft Hill, hourly	Replaced by Rural Link 87	Durham
Stagecoach Worcester 144	Bromsgrove to Longbridge (& Birmingham), hourly	Temporary NXWM service 144a every 70 minutes	Worcestershire
East Yorkshire 45	Market Weighton to Driffield, two hourly	Token service, mostly withdrawn, through links to day trip in Bridlington lost.	E Yorkshire
East Yorkshire 55	Elloughton to Gilberdyke, hourly	Retained off peak, all peak service to Hull withdrawn	E Yorkshire
Stagecoach N Lancs 80,81	Lancaster to Kirkby Lonsdale and Ingleton, hourly combined	Reprieved within Lancashire by K Lonsdale Coach Hire in different format, token replacement in Yorkshire	Lancashire
Stagecoach East Kent 7	Canterbury to Herne Bay via Hoath, hourly	Withdrawn between Canterbury and Hillborough (Herne Bay)
High Peak Transpeak	Derby to Matlock, hourly	Reprieved, continues unchanged	Derbyshire
Diamond 15	Tamworth to Hurley, hourly	Proposed to withdraw
Diamond X20	Solihull to Stratford, hourly	Replaced by Stagecoach X20, hourly	Warwickshire
Diamond 35	Walsall to Lichfield, hourly	Proposed to withdraw
Diamond 52	Redditch to Kidderminster, hourly	Proposed to withdraw
Diamond 247	Redditch to Evesham via Alcester, hourly	Proposed to withdraw
Stagecoach Devon 1	Tiverton to Cullompton via Uffculme, hourly	Replaced by Stagecoach funded service 373	Devon
Stagecoach Devon 4	Cranbrook to Honiton half hourly, Axminster hourly	Replaced by Stagecoach funded services 44/44A, reduced frequency	Devon
Stagecoach Devon 9A	Seaton to Lyme Regis, hourly	Partly replaced by Axe Valley Mini Travel service 378, 2-5 journeys per day	Devon
Stagecoach Cumbria 93/A	Carlisle to Bowness on Solway, 5 journeys	Reprieved	Carlisle and Allerdale councils
Stagecoach West Scotland X34/36	Glasgow to Ardrossan, hourly	X36 temporary reprieve, hourly Glasgow to Dalry, 2 peak journeys Ardrossan	SPT / Scottish government?
Trent Barton 141	Nottingham to Hucknall, Mansfield, Sutton via villages, hourly	Reprieved by Nottinghamshire for a year	Nottinghamshire
Go North East 25	Chester-le-Street to Langley Park, 30 mins	Replaced by Weardale 725, hourly	Durham
Go North East 30 & 31	Stanley to Quaking Houses 2bph, East Stanley 1bph	Replaced by J H Travel, same times	Durham
Carousel 103	Amersham to Rickmansworth, hourly	Partly replaced by Arriva 335/336, four journeys to Amersham	Bucks, Herts?
Carousel 40	High Wycombe to Thame	Being continued by Red Rose, mainly commercial
Stagecoach West Scotland 101/101A/102	Edinburgh to Biggar, hourly, 4 journeys to Moffat and Dumfries, tendered	Reprieved until March 2023	Scottish Borders?
Stagecoach Manchester 237	Ashton under Lyne to Glossop, every 20 mins	Only just announced – from October, may not be the full picture
Stagecoach Manchester 358	Stockport to Marple, New Mills, Hayfield, hourly	Only just announced – from October, may not be the full picture

 

[Typhoon]

Way, way back in post #29:

Big cuts in Worcester. 31 and 37 withdrawn entirely...

The 31/37 look to be a total PVR of 3 - probably more work on tender for LMS.

From the First Worcester website:

Great News!

Services 31/31A & 32

We're pleased to confirm that following the continuation of support from Worcestershire County Council, services 31/31A & 32 will continue to operate their current timetables until 30 October 2022.

Service 37

We'll no longer be operating service 37, the last day of operation will be on Saturday 23 July 2022.

For journeys to and from Gheluvelt Park, please use service 36 or 144.

(My emphasis.)
Part of the 37 (Bevere) is being covered by diverting the Diamond's 303 (from their website)

We are pleased to announce that Diamond Bus 303 service will be amended from 24 July to cover part of the former 37 route which was recently cancelled by First Bus around Bevere.

There will probably be a lot of this - putting off cuts until someone finally decides there is no magic money tree/ diverting routes to serve some parts of withdrawn routes. Unfortunately, once it is found that no money is forthcoming, the news may not be so great after all.

 

[miklcct]

In fairness, that's because most bus operators don't advertise within the new developments and if it requires a slight diversion, operators down right refuse to serve it without substantial funding.

Diverting a bus route to serve new developments is a great way to kill an existing routes, because as the route becomes circuitous, people won't use it anymore.

 

[Surreyman]

RELL6L, I am being pedantic but route 7 Aldershot - Reading is/was run by Stagecoach South. Not South East, which is Kent/East Sussex based.

 

[Dai Corner]

Diverting a bus route to serve new developments is a great way to kill an existing routes, because as the route becomes circuitous, people won't use it anymore.

Well, it depends whether you gain more passengers from the new development than you lose due to the longer journey time. Don't forget most bus passengers don't have any choice.

 

[markymark2000]

Diverting a bus route to serve new developments is a great way to kill an existing routes, because as the route becomes circuitous, people won't use it anymore.

Depends on the development. Some can be served easier than others and some can be served at minimal time penalty.

Case by case basis but there are many instances where a bus could be provided at minimal impact on current passengers.

 

[RT4038]

Diverting a bus route to serve new developments is a great way to kill an existing routes, because as the route becomes circuitous, people won't use it anymore.

I agree, in a generalised way. Obviously each case would stand on its merits (as some posters have pointed out)depending on the geography, traffic patterns and nature of the development. More often than not it doesn't do an existing route much good, except for the short term boost in revenue from s106 funding.

 

[Flange Squeal]

RELL6L, I am being pedantic but route 7 Aldershot - Reading is/was run by Stagecoach South. Not South East, which is Kent/East Sussex based.

The Aldershot to Reading route was also not strictly a pandemic casualty either - it was split in half (with a short overlap in the middle) back in April 2018. Stagecoach continued running the southern half Aldershot - Fleet - Hartley Wintney, but Reading Buses took over running the northern half Fleet - Hartley Wintney - Reading. Both operators used the 7 number, but the through Aldershot to Reading route had therefore already been severed nearly two years prior to the pandemic.

What has happened since the pandemic is Reading Buses withdrawing the Fleet to Riseley section of their northern half of the old route.