TfGM Bus franchising

[johncrossley]

It says in the Facebook message posted earlier that the 362 comes under the Wigan franchise, and the 575 comes under the Bolton franchise, together with Vantage.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

The 471 is currently run out of Diamond's Bolton depot and according to the text, routes currently run out of that depot (except for some Bolton and Wigan local services, which are the small franchises) will come under the Bolton franchise. So it looks like the 471 will be run by Go North West.

 

[Snex]

The rationale behind the purchase of the depots is two fold in that it levels the playing field in not making it advantageous to operators with existing garages in the right areas. It also helps remove additional profit/working capital costs that would be associated with those depots.

The other point about TUPE is that staff invariably transfer to the new provider. Granted, there may be a few Rotala drivers who will stay and move to Eccles. However, the vast majority of Stagecoach Wigan drivers are going to live local in the town or nearby towns like Ashton in Makerfield - they aren't going to move to Chorley.

As for vacating depots, that might be why TfGM are looking at getting new sites (like in Wigan).

Thank you for that, makes more sense in their reasoning.

 

[abbo1234]

The situation with 362 is going to be interesting as I hope whoever takes it on realises that they will need single deckers for the route because of the low-bridge at Coppull, unless they plan on revising the route and operating it via the Old Parish diversion which avoids the bridge altogether

Stagecoach have increased the licence for vehicles at Chorley so i wonder if they are thinking about registering a Chorley to Wigan service.

I was under the impression that cross boundary services are not included. Stagecoach will not be happy if they lose the 125 Preston to Bolton. However, I could be wrong.

 

[class17]

Stagecoach have increased the licence for vehicles at Chorley so i wonder if they are thinking about registering a Chorley to Wigan service. Interesting times.

Stagecoach now run Lancashire County Council services Chorley to Southport and Chorley to Ormskirk.

 

[abbo1234]

Stagecoach now run LCC services Chorley to Southport and Chorley to Ormskirk.

Yes but that does not need an extra 13 vehicles.

 

[Deerfold]

Isn't the point of this about the routes as to me this just seems like a big f you to Stagecoach and Rotala. There's still enough operators around to fight each other ie. Arriva, Diamond, Stagecoach, the independents, potentially even the likes of Transdev operating out of Lancashire aswell.

Presumably Manchester don't want companies wasting energy fighting each other day-to-day. That energy can be put into proving quality bus services and attracting car drivers.

 

[F262YTJ]

Is the 362 under franchising or would that remain separate? I am thinking it's a bit odd as Arriva could run the 362 from St Helens interworking with routes which come from that way like the 352 and 320.

The 362 used to be run from St Helens to Chorley but was split into the present 352 From St Helens to Wigan and the present 362 Wigan to Chorley. It has been run by several depots in its time Wigan (Ribble and North Western), Skelmersdale (North Western and Arriva and St. Helens(352) and Bolton today.

It was a former Ribble route.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Stagecoach have increased the licence for vehicles at Chorley so i wonder if they are thinking about registering a Chorley to Wigan service.

I was under the impression that cross boundary services are not included. Stagecoach will not be happy if they lose the 125 Preston to Bolton. However, I could be wrong.

Stagecoach now run Lancashire County Council services Chorley to Southport and Chorley to Ormskirk.

Yes but that does not need an extra 13 vehicles.

Been speculated that Stagecoach will take on the Chorley to Blackburn service as well. Cross boundary services like the 125 aren't included in the TfGM packages so they won't need to register a Chorley to Wigan service. If it was part of the package, they wouldn't be able to do so anyway. The 125 is already largely operated by Chorley outstation (plus Preston depot) anyway?

 

[Snex]

Presumably Manchester don't want companies wasting energy fighting each other day-to-day. That energy can be put into proving quality bus services and attracting car drivers.

Yeah agreed, I meant from a tender point of view there though, think you misread it. If you only have one company bidding for each tender then you won't get good value for the taxpayer as they can just bid whatever they want as it's either a take it or it's not running.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yeah agreed, I meant from a tender point of view there though, think you misread it. If you only have one company bidding for each tender then you won't get good value for the taxpayer as they can just bid whatever they want as it's either a take it or it's not running.

I suppose the bidders don't know how many others have bid for the same franchise as them.

I do think that when public bodies put something out to tender, they should also estimate the realistic cost of providing the same in-house. That way bidders will always have something to compete with.

 

[Soundwave]

I suppose the bidders don't know how many others have bid for the same franchise as them.

I do think that when public bodies put something out to tender, they should also estimate the realistic cost of providing the same in-house. That way bidders will always have something to compete with.

I think they should be able to work out the "going rate" plus inflatiom, plus a profit margin relatively easily with some reasonable wage and maintenance assumptions, so then they know they ain't being fleeced.

Of course if it was a proper head-to-head, you could end up with an embarrassing situation whereby the "home team" loses, like when the NEXUS inhouse Metro bid got beat by DB Regio.

 

[py_megapixel]

Of course if it was a proper head-to-head, you could end up with an embarrassing situation whereby the "home team" loses, like when the NEXUS inhouse Metro bid got beat by DB Regio.

That's the whole point though. You expect the in-house bid to lose. (If you didn't, why bother putting it out to tender?)

If you go through the process expecting it to be contracted to the private sector (and presenting it to the public in that way), then if the in-house bid wins, you can capitalise on the good publicity for that.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yeah agreed, I meant from a tender point of view there though, think you misread it. If you only have one company bidding for each tender then you won't get good value for the taxpayer as they can just bid whatever they want as it's either a take it or it's not running.

I suppose the bidders don't know how many others have bid for the same franchise as them.

I do think that when public bodies put something out to tender, they should also estimate the realistic cost of providing the same in-house. That way bidders will always have something to compete with.

Exactly. Bidders won't know who else is bidding (unless they indulge in some highly illegal collusion) so they are obliged to put their best foot forward. At least, that's the theory.

The whole franchising premise was also based on having a reasonable expectation of likely costs, so they had that to benchmark against and, as @Soundwave states, you can come up with some reasonable ball park figures. In public sector procurement, they need to know this anyway as they can exclude any bids that are excessively low

 

[WatcherZero]

Rotala have published an update to their staff listing changes, some have been mentioned already.

Arriva 362 and Diamond 635 transferred to Large Wigan depot franchise
Vantage, Arriva 575 and some school services transferred to the Large Bolton depot franchise while some small local services will be transferred to Eccles.

Diamonds Eccles depot will operate 7 smaller franchises consisting of 42 routes.
Salford: 29, 65, 66, 70, 74, 75, 79
Wigan East: 126, 132, 634, 990
Farnworth-Blackrod: 129, 521
Bolton North: 507, 525, 526, 527, 533, 535, 537, 541, 544, 907, 925
Bury-Farnworth: 511, 512, 513, 557, 916
Leigh-Atherton: 516, 583, 584, 588, 590, 594, 596, 597, 984
Bolton South: 559, 573, 574, 915
And until 2025 the following out of franchised area tendered services X50, 150, 254, 370, 371.

 

[domcoop7]

The 362 used to be run from St Helens to Chorley but was split into the present 352 From St Helens to Wigan and the present 362 Wigan to Chorley. It has been run by several depots in its time Wigan (Ribble and North Western), Skelmersdale (North Western and Arriva and St. Helens(352) and Bolton today.

It was a former Ribble route.

Off topic (sorry) but I seem to remember it ran on to Liverpool along the route of the current 10 from St Helens back in the day under Ribble?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Rotala have published an update to their staff listing changes, some have been mentioned already.

Arriva 362 and Diamond 635 transferred to Large Wigan depot franchise
Vantage, Arriva 575 and some school services transferred to the Large Bolton depot franchise while some small local services will be transferred to Eccles.

Diamonds Eccles depot will operate 7 smaller franchises consisting of 42 routes.
Salford: 29, 65, 66, 70, 74, 75, 79
Wigan East: 126, 132, 634, 990
Farnworth-Blackrod: 129, 521
Bolton North: 507, 525, 526, 527, 533, 535, 537, 541, 544, 907, 925
Bury-Farnworth: 511, 512, 513, 557, 916
Leigh-Atherton: 516, 583, 584, 588, 590, 594, 596, 597, 984
Bolton South: 559, 573, 574, 915
And until 2025 the following out of franchised area tendered services X50, 150, 254, 370, 371.

That looks mainly like a chunk of what they already do (Salford routes plus those route from Trafford to Wigan) and then the majority of Vision Bus? Whilst there's some Arriva Bolton stuff, the majority will be folded into the main Bolton tranche?

 

[WatcherZero]

The omission thats jumping out at me is the Diamond/Stagecoach operated short mostly midi bus operated Wigan circular routes e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 613, 639, 640, 641 etc.. which are likely making up one or two small Wigan Central or Wigan-Shevington-Standish franchises.

 

[Snex]

I suppose the bidders don't know how many others have bid for the same franchise as them.

I do think that when public bodies put something out to tender, they should also estimate the realistic cost of providing the same in-house. That way bidders will always have something to compete with.

Yeah agreed, catch 22 is it's currently illegal under the Bus Services Act 2017 for TfGM to run any buses as absolutely bonkers as that is and the bus companies will know that.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/21/section/22 - That's the relevant section. I'd assume they'd run it fully public if they could otherwise.

 

[domcoop7]

The omission thats jumping out at me is the Diamond/Stagecoach operated short mostly midi bus operated Wigan circular routes e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 613, 639, 640, 641 etc.. which are likely making up one or two small Wigan Central or Wigan-Shevington-Standish franchises.

One of the arguments for Franchising is the nasty big bad bus companies making £billions in profit (conveniently forgetting the likes of First nearly going bust in Manchester), wrongly diverted buses away from socially necessary areas to concentrate on the profit-making main routes. That meant the need to tender buses to do the diverted sections, and missed out areas.

So why under Franchising are they just replicating 2019's route diagrams? Surely the idea would be to cut down on expense by eliminating some of the formerly tendered routes and diverting the main services?

I mean that, and "wasteful competition" were what I heard as the main arguments against deregulation.

We seem to have changed to "we can paint buses the same colour as trams and hire cycles" and "we might be able to have cheap tickets, but only if the government gives us more money on top of the extra money we've already got" as the main justification now.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yeah agreed, catch 22 is it's currently illegal under the Bus Services Act 2017 for TfGM to run any buses as absolutely bonkers as that is and the bus companies will know that.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/21/section/22 - That's the relevant section. I'd assume they'd run it fully public if they could otherwise.

Yes, it's utterly ridiculous. Clearly some clever lobbying from bus companies was involved there!

If the public authority can provide the services more efficiently or to a higher standard than a private operator - which they will be able to, in some cases - banning them from doing so is essentially throwing public money down the drain for purely ideological reasons.

The government's justification for this was apparently that "passengers will see the most benefit where the commissioning and provision of bus services are kept separate. That purchaser-provider split is a frequent feature of our public services, and as such we do not think authorities should be able to set up new bus companies." (from https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7545/CBP-7545.pdf)

This is waffle which provides no real reasoning. It doesn't stack up logically - if the "purchaser-provider split" was really the best thing for passengers, this is how it would end up naturally, so there would be no need to ban the alternative! Again, it's just a desperate attempt to justify needless enforcement of an ideology.

We seem to have changed to "we can paint buses the same colour as trams and hire cycles" and "we might be able to have cheap tickets, but only if the government gives us more money on top of the extra money we've already got" as the main justification now.

To be fair, that is the actual reason. Not the colour of the paint (though you might as well do it like that - the buses need to be painted regardless of who runs them), but the ability to integrate the ticketing, timetables, marketing and routes to form a system, building public transport as a single concept rather than a load of disconnected modes. This can be incredibly powerful at increasing the proportion of journeys made by public transport.

In Manchester, it will also be able to make existing journeys more frictionless. Combining bus and Metrolink, for example, is a faff, and a people do travel on buses even if there are faster, more comfortable trams running with plenty of capacity on the same route, just because the fares aren't integrated properly.

 

[Andyh82]

You can integrate ticketing without franchising - I know Andy Burnham likes to pretend that SystemOne doesn’t exist, but even if we pretend it doesn’t, they’ve already integrated ticketing with the £2 single, £5 all day ticket. If they wanted/had funding, they could extend that concept to Metrolink as well

 

[WatcherZero]

System One is a not for profit private company going all the way back to bus deregulation and it sought to maintain integrated fares (primarily multi-operator children's fares) in the denationalized environment. Each of the local transport providers (Bus companies, Metrolink, Northern and TPE) have a shareholding (indeed since Tram came along I believe TfGM is the single largest shareholder). Its entirely voluntary and has no commercial motivation to provide better value than the operators own individual tickets, indeed as with rail ticketing many operators choose to undercut it with their single operator only tickets so that they get a larger revenue share. All it does is simply pass the revenue through to the operators minus running costs and a 50% contribution to the running cost of the local travel telephone enquiries line.

It always has integrated tram and rail ticketing in its products, however it doesnt include regulated (peak) rail journeys in any of its products and participation and acceptance is voluntary, it cant force operators to accept tickets or participate in the scheme. As an aside the Flexi bus tickets (3, 5 and 10 day journeys during a 28 day period) are being withdrawn from 8th of January.

 

[landgateblue]

The omission thats jumping out at me is the Diamond/Stagecoach operated short mostly midi bus operated Wigan circular routes e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 613, 639, 640, 641 etc.. which are likely making up one or two small Wigan Central or Wigan-Shevington-Standish franchises.

The big bosses at Stagecoach told the drivers at Wigan that there would be no loss of work!

 

[markymark2000]

System One is a not for profit private company going all the way back to bus deregulation and it sought to maintain integrated fares (primarily multi-operator children's fares) in the denationalized environment. Each of the local transport providers (Bus companies, Metrolink, Northern and TPE) have a shareholding (indeed since Tram came along I believe TfGM is the single largest shareholder). Its entirely voluntary and has no commercial motivation to provide better value than the operators own individual tickets, indeed as with rail ticketing many operators choose to undercut it with their single operator only tickets so that they get a larger revenue share. All it does is simply pass the revenue through to the operators minus running costs and a 50% contribution to the running cost of the local travel telephone enquiries line.

If this is what he wanted so badly, why not simply buy System One rather than forcing franchising?

For the fares, I think it's worth noting the fact that TFGM demands make the fares higher than they need to be. I made a spreadsheet recently. In almost all instances, Manchester is much higher priced and that will be due to TFGM. This was made for a comparison against PTE areas admittedly so doesn't include Blackpool or Nottingham who also have bus and tram tickets but I will add them below in text.

Nottingham Bus and tram, £5.70
Blackpool Bus and Tram, £6.60

[Image shows a comparison of multi modal and multi operator tickets offered in Manchester, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, West Midlands and West Yorkshire]

It always has integrated tram and rail ticketing in its products, however it doesnt include regulated (peak) rail journeys in any of its products and participation and acceptance is voluntary, it cant force operators to accept tickets or participate in the scheme. As an aside the Flexi bus tickets (3, 5 and 10 day journeys during a 28 day period) are being withdrawn from 8th of January.

Acceptance is voluntary but the vast majority of operators accept it. I can't think of anyone who does normal local bus services who doesn't accept it. Train operators I think all participate too, even where the journey options are limited like Avanti and Cross Country, the only journeys which can be made on the ticket is Stockport to Piccadilly.

As for forcing operators into the scheme, they could put it into tender requirements to accept the ticket if they so wished.

One of the arguments for Franchising is the nasty big bad bus companies making £billions in profit (conveniently forgetting the likes of First nearly going bust in Manchester), wrongly diverted buses away from socially necessary areas to concentrate on the profit-making main routes. That meant the need to tender buses to do the diverted sections, and missed out areas.

Also ignoring the fact that bus operators within London, under a franchising model, actually make significantly better profits because they can bid more daft prices. Stagecoach put in one of their annual reports that the London profits covered the losses of the rest of the divisions through Covid.

So why under Franchising are they just replicating 2019's route diagrams? Surely the idea would be to cut down on expense by eliminating some of the formerly tendered routes and diverting the main services?

Presumably because it's the best way of doing things. This whole thing was nothing more than Burnham wanting control over everyones lives and pandering to huge lobbyists such as WeOwnIt. He knows damn well that the bus network is better now than it will be in public hands. TFGM can't even sort school tenders in a timely manor now. They've no hope of sorting a proper bus network. As with the tendered buses though, it will simply be a case of those who shout loudest get the buses and those who have a life and contribute to society via taxes, those who have no time to be petitioning for buses because they have to attend work, will be pushed aside so that freeloading grannys can get a door to door bus. After all, that is what the tendered buses in Manchester area. All of the TFGM cuts which keep happening are met with backlash by some councillors (who conveniently blame big bad bus operators for TFGMs spending cuts. How that works is anyones guess) and the same few councillors get their way time and time again. David Mellor from Stockport is one such councillor.

I mean that, and "wasteful competition" were what I heard as the main arguments against deregulation.

All that wasteful competition which most of the time is actually a collection of routes ran by different operators serving different markets. Manchester - Walkden for example. Diamond and Stagecoach branch off into different places. If this 'wasteful competition' was reduced, is that not an easy way of saying frequencies will be reduced. Lower frequencies clearly make buses less attractive and so less people choose to travel.
Similarly Manchester - Middleton. Each firm does things differently. First and Stagecoach go way off through their own kind of exclusive areas. Diamond and GoAhead do run up Rochdale Road but beyond that, they branch off into their own areas. Again, a reduction would mean cutting frequencies. I notice how that was never mentioned. How can you keep the high frequencies which people like while reducing competition between routes. You can add to that the fact that the competition means lower fares in these areas, under franchising, the fares in these areas will jump quite high.

We seem to have changed to "we can paint buses the same colour as trams and hire cycles" and "we might be able to have cheap tickets, but only if the government gives us more money on top of the extra money we've already got" as the main justification now.

That was all just side reasons. Main one is Burnham wants control. Very much like the SNP with independence, Burnham thinks that a vote for him is a vote for bus franchising. He will do absolutely anything to have control. Doesn't matter if nothing changes, it costs a fortune and people hate it in the end, the fact that he has the power to control a bit of peoples lives, he thrives off it. He sees the dictatorship and communist governments elsewhere and that is his vision for Manchester basically.

Most of the things which he has promised to do with franchising, Conservative West Midlands has done better with their partnership scheme or other PTEs have done it better using existing resources. Burnham won't admit any of that though because it invalidates all of the cases he makes for franchising. His lie count it about on par with the conservatives through Covid and that is saying something but he has zero accountability so it doesn't matter what he says, people believe it.

If franchising really was the best way forwards, why was the consultation so heavily biased? The only reason for a biased consultation is to push through what you want to while blinding the public to the realities. If franchising is the best way to go, why didn't West Midlands go for it? Conservative ran, they would have got the funding for that easily. If franchising was the best way to go, why has nothing changed in the first place and why were no proper plans put forward to people to show the difference franchising can make rather than just constant bullet pointing which, in my opinion, shows quite clearly that they have no clue how they will act on any of their promises. TFGM staff are already worried about how they will deliver on the things Burnham is promising and that is without route specific proposals. The scheme will be a failure but no one will admit it as Burnahm is treated like some sort of god.

 

[Leyland Bus]

If this is what he wanted so badly, why not simply buy System One rather than forcing franchising?

For the fares, I think it's worth noting the fact that TFGM demands make the fares higher than they need to be. I made a spreadsheet recently. In almost all instances, Manchester is much higher priced and that will be due to TFGM. This was made for a comparison against PTE areas admittedly so doesn't include Blackpool or Nottingham who also have bus and tram tickets but I will add them below in text.

Nottingham Bus and tram, £5.70
Blackpool Bus and Tram, £6.60
View attachment 126039
[Image shows a comparison of multi modal and multi operator tickets offered in Manchester, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, West Midlands and West Yorkshire]




Acceptance is voluntary but the vast majority of operators accept it. I can't think of anyone who does normal local bus services who doesn't accept it. Train operators I think all participate too, even where the journey options are limited like Avanti and Cross Country, the only journeys which can be made on the ticket is Stockport to Piccadilly.

As for forcing operators into the scheme, they could put it into tender requirements to accept the ticket if they so wished.





Also ignoring the fact that bus operators within London, under a franchising model, actually make significantly better profits because they can bid more daft prices. Stagecoach put in one of their annual reports that the London profits covered the losses of the rest of the divisions through Covid.


Presumably because it's the best way of doing things. This whole thing was nothing more than Burnham wanting control over everyones lives and pandering to huge lobbyists such as WeOwnIt. He knows damn well that the bus network is better now than it will be in public hands. TFGM can't even sort school tenders in a timely manor now. They've no hope of sorting a proper bus network. As with the tendered buses though, it will simply be a case of those who shout loudest get the buses and those who have a life and contribute to society via taxes, those who have no time to be petitioning for buses because they have to attend work, will be pushed aside so that freeloading grannys can get a door to door bus. After all, that is what the tendered buses in Manchester area. All of the TFGM cuts which keep happening are met with backlash by some councillors (who conveniently blame big bad bus operators for TFGMs spending cuts. How that works is anyones guess) and the same few councillors get their way time and time again. David Mellor from Stockport is one such councillor.


All that wasteful competition which most of the time is actually a collection of routes ran by different operators serving different markets. Manchester - Walkden for example. Diamond and Stagecoach branch off into different places. If this 'wasteful competition' was reduced, is that not an easy way of saying frequencies will be reduced. Lower frequencies clearly make buses less attractive and so less people choose to travel.
Similarly Manchester - Middleton. Each firm does things differently. First and Stagecoach go way off through their own kind of exclusive areas. Diamond and GoAhead do run up Rochdale Road but beyond that, they branch off into their own areas. Again, a reduction would mean cutting frequencies. I notice how that was never mentioned. How can you keep the high frequencies which people like while reducing competition between routes. You can add to that the fact that the competition means lower fares in these areas, under franchising, the fares in these areas will jump quite high.



That was all just side reasons. Main one is Burnham wants control. Very much like the SNP with independence, Burnham thinks that a vote for him is a vote for bus franchising. He will do absolutely anything to have control. Doesn't matter if nothing changes, it costs a fortune and people hate it in the end, the fact that he has the power to control a bit of peoples lives, he thrives off it. He sees the dictatorship and communist governments elsewhere and that is his vision for Manchester basically.

Most of the things which he has promised to do with franchising, Conservative West Midlands has done better with their partnership scheme or other PTEs have done it better using existing resources. Burnham won't admit any of that though because it invalidates all of the cases he makes for franchising. His lie count it about on par with the conservatives through Covid and that is saying something but he has zero accountability so it doesn't matter what he says, people believe it.

If franchising really was the best way forwards, why was the consultation so heavily biased? The only reason for a biased consultation is to push through what you want to while blinding the public to the realities. If franchising is the best way to go, why didn't West Midlands go for it? Conservative ran, they would have got the funding for that easily. If franchising was the best way to go, why has nothing changed in the first place and why were no proper plans put forward to people to show the difference franchising can make rather than just constant bullet pointing which, in my opinion, shows quite clearly that they have no clue how they will act on any of their promises. TFGM staff are already worried about how they will deliver on the things Burnham is promising and that is without route specific proposals. The scheme will be a failure but no one will admit it as Burnahm is treated like some sort of god.

I think your bias and hatred against Burnham is completely unnecessary in all of this. Unless you know him personally, I think you should leave what you think of him out of it. Besides, we've had the status quo now for years, this is happening come what may, so why not just see what happens before canning something before it's even set off... Just a thought, it's nice to be kind.

 

[Leedsbusman]

System One is a not for profit private company going all the way back to bus deregulation and it sought to maintain integrated fares (primarily multi-operator children's fares) in the denationalized environment. Each of the local transport providers (Bus companies, Metrolink, Northern and TPE) have a shareholding (indeed since Tram came along I believe TfGM is the single largest shareholder). Its entirely voluntary and has no commercial motivation to provide better value than the operators own individual tickets, indeed as with rail ticketing many operators choose to undercut it with their single operator only tickets so that they get a larger revenue share. All it does is simply pass the revenue through to the operators minus running costs and a 50% contribution to the running cost of the local travel telephone enquiries line.

It always has integrated tram and rail ticketing in its products, however it doesnt include regulated (peak) rail journeys in any of its products and participation and acceptance is voluntary, it cant force operators to accept tickets or participate in the scheme. As an aside the Flexi bus tickets (3, 5 and 10 day journeys during a 28 day period) are being withdrawn from 8th of January.

Stagecoach is the largest shareholder with 74/216. TFGM has 5 shares.

 

[johncrossley]

Also ignoring the fact that bus operators within London, under a franchising model, actually make significantly better profits because they can bid more daft prices. Stagecoach put in one of their annual reports that the London profits covered the losses of the rest of the divisions through Covid.

You generally expect that the income they receive from TfL covers the cost of running the service plus a little profit, so that is not unexpected. The operating costs wouldn't have changed much because of Covid. Maybe they went down because of reduced road traffic. Outside London they were happy to take the profits earned before Covid, but have been unwilling to absorb losses since Covid and have gone cap in hand to the government for nearly three years now.

All that wasteful competition which most of the time is actually a collection of routes ran by different operators serving different markets. Manchester - Walkden for example. Diamond and Stagecoach branch off into different places. If this 'wasteful competition' was reduced, is that not an easy way of saying frequencies will be reduced. Lower frequencies clearly make buses less attractive and so less people choose to travel.
Similarly Manchester - Middleton. Each firm does things differently. First and Stagecoach go way off through their own kind of exclusive areas. Diamond and GoAhead do run up Rochdale Road but beyond that, they branch off into their own areas. Again, a reduction would mean cutting frequencies. I notice how that was never mentioned. How can you keep the high frequencies which people like while reducing competition between routes. You can add to that the fact that the competition means lower fares in these areas, under franchising, the fares in these areas will jump quite high.

Higher frequency doesn't necessarily mean more passengers. You don't gain many more passengers by increasing frequency beyond every 10 minutes. TfL typically run every 10-12 minutes and prefers to allow overcrowding rather than increase frequency.

Manchester's roads were flooded with buses in the late 80s and early 90s. Mileage was well in excess of what was operated pre-1986. That didn't translate into increased patronage.

If franchising really was the best way forwards, why was the consultation so heavily biased?

Consultation is not the same as negotiation. Same as a consultation during redundancies at work. If it was a negotiation it wouldn't be called a consultation. The principle of a consultation is that the organisation has an idea of what it wants to do but is open to suggestions for alternatives or modifications. There is no obligation to take on board any suggestions, but some suggestions may be incorporated into the plan if the organisation sees fit.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Besides, we've had the status quo now for years, this is happening come what may, so why not just see what happens before canning something before it's even set off...

To be honest, from the point that the courts decided that Stagecoach and Rotala didn't have a justifiable legal argument, we've know this was going to happen.

However, that doesn't mean that everyone has to accede to a proscribed view, otherwise the forum becomes nothing more than excited gricers talking about how X bus operated Y route instead of its usual Z route. I may not agree with @markymark2000 in every facet of his argument (and indeed, there's a chunk I do differ on) - it is ok to have different views as long as you can substantiate those. Otherwise we get into the situation of sticking cheese in our ears to block out those views that don't chime with our own

My concerns (FWIW) have always been three fold.

1. First of all, this is nationalisation. Stagecoach are essentially losing an asset that they paid £12m for in 2012, and get no recompense aside from market value of the property. That does not seem appropriate.
2. Secondly, that there has been a view espoused that all it needs is public control and things will be massively better, often with "London style" this and that thrown in. When it's pointed out that London has spent an inordinate amount of money on its buses in the past, and that that is the most important element in this (i.e. a properly funded transport system), it is said that can't be achieved in a deregulated world - that is simply not true. There are many things that could and should be done in order to support buses such as decent priority. Instead, the benefits are always about ticketing - multimodal/integrated etc etc which is something that enthusiasts (and I count myself amongst this group) really value yet for most normal passengers, it really is of no consequence unless, of course, they will now lose direct links through "rationalisation"
3. The money aspect is also covered by the "development" of the network. It is often said that there are masses of wasteful duplication and yet it is said that there are too many cosy territorial arrangements so frequencies are actually depressed. I certainly doubt whether there's a huge peace dividend ready to be released. Otherwise, the money comes from somewhere and I fear it is cutting links and mileage to funnel people onto trams/trains. Also, I fear we will get into the TfL (Transport for London) situation where we see major links (that actually make the money) being downgraded whilst suburban hobby horses flourish.

You generally expect that the income they receive from TfL covers the cost of running the service plus a little profit, so that is not unexpected. The operating costs wouldn't have changed much because of Covid. Maybe they went down because of reduced road traffic. Outside London they were happy to take the profits earned before Covid, but have been unwilling to absorb losses since Covid and have gone cap in hand to the government for nearly three years now.

They might well have been fine in taking the profits before 2020 but Covid is THE defining event of our lives. The Covid support grants were simply that there would have been no services during the lockdowns, and a lot fewer now.

Higher frequency doesn't necessarily mean more passengers. You don't gain many more passengers by increasing frequency beyond every 10 minutes. TfL typically run every 10-12 minutes and prefers to allow overcrowding rather than increase frequency.

Manchester's roads were flooded with buses in the late 80s and early 90s. Mileage was well in excess of what was operated pre-1986. That didn't translate into increased patronage.

This is not true. TfL used to have many routes in excess of 10 minute headways (and still has some) - it is simply that they cannot afford to have those headways anymore. They COULD have mitigated the impact but their dogmatic approach of "full route or not at all" means that short workings over the busiest parts of routes are disregarded.

Consultation is not the same as negotiation. Same as a consultation during redundancies at work. If it was a negotiation it wouldn't be called a consultation. The principle of a consultation is that the organisation has an idea of what it wants to do but is open to suggestions for alternatives or modifications. There is no obligation to take on board any suggestions, but some suggestions may be incorporated into the plan if the organisation sees fit.

In employment legislation, the need to consult in enshrined and is aimed at finding an agreeable solution even if ultimately, that is the best means of managing a redundancy situation.

The TfGM (Transport for Greater Manchester) consultation was more of a referendum and was almost Brexit like in approach of "imperfect reality vs sunlit uplands". What will become the new reality in Greater Manchester, we will have to see. I don't doubt that it will be viewed by its proponents as a success but I can't see what the actual targets/measures were for success. Can anyone provide that?

 

[WibbleWobble]

For those wondering, my informant has advised that the two remaining small bus franchises will be run by Go North West, as TfGM have decided to lump them in with the larger Wigan franchise. The number of buses is apparently only very small - a quick look online suggests these would be the 613, 630, 639 and 640/641, so a total PVR of 6 (so either 3+3 or 4+2).

 

[Goldfish62]

For those wondering, my informant has advised that the two remaining small bus franchises will be run by Go North West, as TfGM have decided to lump them in with the larger Wigan franchise. The number of buses is apparently only very small - a quick look online suggests these would be the 613, 630, 639 and 640/641, so a total PVR of 6 (so either 3+3 or 4+2).

Yes, my informant told me the same.

Also ignoring the fact that bus operators within London, under a franchising model, actually make significantly better profits because they can bid more daft prices. Stagecoach put in one of their annual reports that the London profits covered the losses of the rest of the divisions through Covid.

None of that is true, but then it's OT so I won't go into a demolition job.