The end of Sullivan Buses (in London)

[700007]

I know this is probably going to crop up in the London Buses 'masterthread' eventually if it hasn't already but thought it may be good to warrant it's own discussion.

Sullivan's has announced due to repeated delayed payments affecting their cash flow and the inability to be able to renegotiate contracts to more favourable prices post Covid, they are immediately ceasing all TfL operations tonight.

Routes affected 217 298 299 327 389 399 549 W9 605 617 629

299 confirmed to be going to Go-Ahead London (early) tomorrow from what I have been told by a very reliable source but I have no official online source. 299, for context, was already due to go to Go-Ahead from February 2025 but this has now been brought forward on an emergency basis to begin a 'limited' service tomorrow.

No confirmed operators lined up for the others and I understand TfL are in emergency out of hours talks with all other bus companies across London to try and take on the remaining routes.

Really unprecedented and a lot to talk about with the fall out of all of this.

549 was originally due to be withdrawn next month so unsure how that pans out if it will get an emergency operator or just be left 'for dead' until the unrelated Waltham Forest network restructuring takes place in September.

Source: Sullivan's twitter https://x.com/Sullivanbuses/status/1819428901971808300

The press release reads:

"Following a meeting with TfL we are withdrawing all of our TfL routes from end of service, Friday 2nd August.... TfL owed us at the time of a meeting in June regarding [our concerns and future] £130,000 which for an SME is a lot of money. Our Commercial Operations are unaffected"

 

[BJames]

Just seen this myself. This is fascinating.

So am I correct in understanding that this means that other than the 299 as mentioned above, there will be no service on the routes Sullivan operated? (Edit - I have no doubt TfL are desperately trying to source alternative operators as soon as possible)

I live in an area that has quite a few Sullivan routes that I use fairly regularly (mainly 217/W9/298) - the 217 runs at the end of my road (alongside the 231 - which is Metroline and will continue to run but I expect a lot busier). The W9 has been extremely unreliable of late but it is still a very important route for many, around Highlands Village and Grange Park etc. Thankfully schools are out at the moment, it is usually very busy with the Grange Park schools heading into Grange Park and Enfield and up towards Chase Farm.

Sullivan are also heavily involved in Rail Replacement work for TfL - at least, I used their rail replacement to Seven Sisters last time the overground was shut for engineering works, which was not too long ago at all.

 

[Busaholic]

I know this is probably going to crop up in the London Buses 'masterthread' eventually if it hasn't already but thought it may be good to warrant it's own discussion.

Sullivan's has announced due to repeated delayed payments affecting their cash flow and the inability to be able to renegotiate contracts to more favourable prices post Covid, they are immediately ceasing all TfL operations tonight.

Routes affected 217 298 299 327 389 399 549 W9 605 617 629

299 confirmed to be going to Go-Ahead London (early) tomorrow from what I have been told by a very reliable source but I have no official online source. 299, for context, was already due to go to Go-Ahead from February 2025 but this has now been brought forward on an emergency basis to begin a 'limited' service tomorrow.

No confirmed operators lined up for the others and I understand TfL are in emergency out of hours talks with all other bus companies across London to try and take on the remaining routes.

Really unprecedented and a lot to talk about with the fall out of all of this.

549 was originally due to be withdrawn next month so unsure how that pans out if it will get an emergency operator or just be left 'for dead' until the unrelated Waltham Forest network restructuring takes place in September.

Source: Sullivan's twitter https://x.com/Sullivanbuses/status/1819428901971808300

The press release reads:
"Following a meeting with TfL we are withdrawing all of our TfL routes from end of service, Friday 2nd August.... TfL owed us at the time of a meeting in June regarding [our concerns and future] £130,000 which for an SME is a lot of money. Our Commercial Operations are unaffected"

It's not unprecedented for London bus routes suddenly to virtually cease running in the age of commercially contracted out operations, unfortunately, although it's been a fair time since it last happened. One of the reasons for East Thames Buses being created was to attempt to assist in this scenario. The London bus routes that last befell this fate were, if I remember correctly, the 42 and the 185, and before that the 60 suffered for months for a different reason. The average passenger rightly cannot understand, for instance, standing in Vauxhall Bridge Road, why ten no. 36s come along before a 185 shows up, probably full up, and wants to know why TfL can't just switch a bus from one route to another. We all know the reasons why not, but I for one think too much was sacrificed when TfL chose this mode of operation.

 

[Mwanesh]

Lets see how TFL sort this one .If it was the provinces it will be called greed of bus barons .

 

[Joe Paxton]

Here's the full text of the Sullivan Buses press release:

Press Release

Cessation of TfL services

Following a meeting with Transport for London (TfL) we have reluctantly decided to withdraw from our TfL contracts from Friday night 2nd August.

Pressures on TfLs funding have clearly had a direct impact on our decision. Unfortunately, the remuneration for providing TfLs services has not kept pace with the increasing costs of service delivery. In addition, financial penalties as a result of an increase in traffic congestion post Covid, has further impacted on the viability of our TfL contracts.

At Sullivan Buses we have a number of contracts due to expire early next year. Under normal circumstances larger businesses would continue to renew contracts throughout the year. Therefore, the increased rates on new services would help to mitigate against any losses experienced on expiring contracts. Nonetheless despite tendering for numerous services, Sullivan Buses has not been successful in renewing our contracts. TfL have also failed to provide us with any meaningful feedback on tenders submitted.

In June we met with TfL representatives to discuss this and other issues the business was facing. TfL told us that they struggled to incorporate small businesses such as ours within their corporate model. Sullivan Buses is the only small business (SME) operating bus services for TfL in London. At that meeting we were unable to agree a way forward. The meeting ended with TfL requesting a date for our business to hand back all contracts.

At the time of the meeting in June TfL owed our business over £130,000. This is a considerable sum of money for a small business and the lack of these funds have undoubtedly impacted upon our ability to deliver the contracted services. Although the matter was resolved shortly afterwards, but not before TfL asked if they could 'repay in instalments'.

Coupled with delays in payments by TfL, we have decided that we can no longer sustain the further cuts necessary to meet the decreasing income received from TfL. Any inevitable reduction in funding will lead to a further decline in performance and this is not something we are willing to support.

During our discussion today we have offered TfL a solution that would alleviate travel disruption for many thousands of bus users.

TfL have assured us they will be working to restore services as quickly as possible.

Our Commercial operations in Hertfordshire are unaffected and will continue to operate as normal. Furthermore, we look to forward to once again developing our work outside of the capital.

Dean Sullivan
Managing Director

TfL Routes affected: 217, 298, 299, 327, 389, 399, W9, 605, 606, 617, 629, & 549.

Sullivan Buses is London's only independent bus operator having supplied bus services and rail replacement services for London since 2002.
Sullivan Buses is the only SME delivering bus services for Transport for London.
In the last three years two other small businesses have left London. Australian owned Tower Transit exited London in 2021 and Community Interest Company, Hackney Community Transport ceased operations in 2022. No new operators have entered London since.
We estimate that the shortfall in income from TfL contracts exceeds £200,000 per month.
The company employs 230 staff either directly or indirectly on TfL services. All are based at our South Mimms Depot in Hertfordshire.
Our commercial services in Hertfordshire will continue as normal. These include routes: 84, 303, 306, 306A, 330, 331, 354, 355, 356, 358, 397, 398, 832, 833, 950 & 951.

 

[matt_world2004]

Sullivans buses suffered from poor performance in London

 

[markymark2000]

Uno have announced that they will be running a very limited service on the 298

Log in to Facebook

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

www.facebook.com

Urgent Announcement

Unfortunately, Sullivans Buses are no longer able to operate the 298 between Potters Bar and Arnos Grove

We have been working with Transport for London to put together a skeleton timetable for tomorrow.

We will supply further information as things develop, we are currently working on arranging for staff to operate the service on Sunday

And for next week. Please bear with us.

(Photo below shows the timetable. Sadly not easy to copy and paste due to how Uno have done it. Sorry).

 

[alex397]

Uno have announced that they will be running a very limited service on the 298

Log in to Facebook

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

www.facebook.com

(Photo below shows the timetable. Sadly not easy to copy and paste due to how Uno have done it. Sorry).

Obviously not great for passengers, but for an enthusiast it will be fascinating to see which vehicles they use, and how they organise this. They probably have some spare TfL spec vehicles to use from their current TfL work, but I’m sure photographers will be eager to see some pink and purple buses on the route.
For those unaware, Uno are due to formally take over the 298 in Feb 2025 anyway. I wonder if that will be brought forward as a permanent solution.

 

[markymark2000]

Obviously not great for passengers, but for an enthusiast it will be fascinating to see which vehicles they use, and how they organise this. They probably have some spare TfL spec vehicles to use from their current TfL work, but I’m sure photographers will be eager to see some pink and purple buses on the route.
For those unaware, Uno are due to formally take over the 298 in Feb 2025 anyway. I wonder if that will be brought forward as a permanent solution.

Uno have commented that this will be TFL deckers. Bearing in mind, Uno has a number of TFL deckers already from the school fleet. Purely based on their bustimes fleet list and tracking, they have 20 deckers which are just there for the school work. Schools broke up last month so these are just sitting in the depot. Driver wise though, this is probably the best that they could get at short notice.

 

[WAB]

This is no surprise. The Sullivans routes have been dreadful since Covid. It's a pity Dean Sullivan felt the need to throw the toys out of the plan and not allow time for an orderly transition to other operators.

 

[700007]

Once again sorry I don't have official published confirmation (it is out of hours) but I understand that negotiations last night between the operators and TfL have resulted in the following temporary, ongoing arrangement:

217 to be operated by Arriva
298 to be Uno
299 to be Go-Ahead London
W9 to be Stagecoach
549 to be Stagecoach

389/399 will be Go-Ahead as well but will not operate today, Saturday, and there is an aim to try get this sorted in the next few days pending staff training and availability.

327 no confirmed operator (or at least publicly) at this time.

I understand that it is a possibility non-TfL buses may feature on some of the routes including on the 217, 298 and 299 due to lack of available compliant vehicles. In any instance, iBus will not be working for several weeks now neither will the buses have blinds or will they be GPS tracked. Some buses will not have ETM readers and others may be in 'emergency' mode. TfL have essentially not tendered these routes but 'hired' in the operators to just run up and down the routes.

Limited service is running on all routes until further notice and first/last buses may not correspond with the usual public timetables by a long margin.

 

[WAB]

Once again sorry I don't have official published confirmation (it is out of hours) but I understand that negotiations last night between the operators and TfL have resulted in the following temporary, ongoing arrangement:

217 to be operated by Arriva
298 to be Uno
299 to be Go-Ahead London
W9 to be Stagecoach
549 to be Stagecoach

389/399 will be Go-Ahead as well but will not operate today, Saturday, and there is an aim to try get this sorted in the next few days pending staff training and availability.

327 no confirmed operator (or at least publicly) at this time.

I understand that it is a possibility non-TfL buses may feature on some of the routes including on the 217, 298 and 299 due to lack of available compliant vehicles. In any instance, iBus will not be working for several weeks now neither will the buses have blinds or will they be GPS tracked. Some buses will not have ETM readers and others may be in 'emergency' mode. TfL have essentially not tendered these routes but 'hired' in the operators to just run up and down the routes.

Limited service is running on all routes until further notice and first/last buses may not correspond with the usual public timetables by a long margin.

It would help if they had a web page with the revised timetables…

 

[Blindtraveler]

I just think it's sad that tfl, the franchised operations in Manchester and indeed increasingly the new government in Westminster are seemingly unwilling or unable to incorporate small businesses without a great deal of fuss and hassle, or simply have shut the door on the idea all together. As someone affected by this in a totally different non-transport related industry, I can completely understand where Sullivan is coming from and how they feel

 

[700007]

It would help if they had a web page with the revised timetables…

I agree that the (lack of) information from TfL on this matter is scandalous in itself. Nothing has been posted other than I understand a very brief and poorly worded tweet on their Twitter page which has no useful information.

No timetables published, no warnings online, no posters or updates on countdown at bus stops or a dedicated web page outlining the disrupted routes, why and what to expect. It will certainly suck to be a North London bus commuter for the next few days/weeks.

 

[greenline712]

I'll say it again ... you lot really are excessive!!
Did Sullivan's simply walk away? If they did (whether right or wrong), that would give TfL less than 24 hours to arrange for a substitute operator ... who would then need to arrange for buses and drivers, and to compile a timetable and driver duties.
I bet the drivers have been told to report at 0600, 0700 and so on, and someone in the office has knocked together some sort of timetable overnight to run this weekend.
There will probably be a better service from Monday, but this weekend will be patchy at best.
And I "dare" someone to whinge about paper route numbers.

Sorry ... but some of you need to realise that preparing a timetable isn't instantaneous ... there is no button F43 or magic wand !!!

 

[Megafuss]

I just think it's sad that tfl, the franchised operations in Manchester and indeed increasingly the new government in Westminster are seemingly unwilling or unable to incorporate small businesses without a great deal of fuss and hassle, or simply have shut the door on the idea all together. As someone affected by this in a totally different non-transport related industry, I can completely understand where Sullivan is coming from and how they feel

Yep.

In my job, I deal with small and big operators. There is 100% a place for agile SME providers and I've communicated that professionally in my area of work.

However, they simply do not have the manpower or experience completing, what can be complex tender documents these days. Procurement departments simply do not get it. They just see it as a box ticking exercise all must do.

SME bidders are almost one man bands going up against operators with dedicated bid teams with the resources to get ISO and training accreditations etc to help with bid scores.

No wonder they are put off.

 

[baza585]

Can't say I'm surprised Sullivan's have given up TfL work.

TfL have lost the plot since Khan appointed Seb Dance as Deputy Mayor for Transport. The guy knows nothing about transport and I'm not convinced he's ever been on a bus, except maybe for a photo shoot.

 

[johncrossley]

We all know the reasons why not, but I for one think too much was sacrificed when TfL chose this mode of operation.

TfL didn't "choose" this type of operation, it was imposed on London Regional Transport by the Thatcher government. I suppose TfL could have taken back buses into state ownership once they took over, but that mode of operation is more expensive, so we would have fewer buses given the same amount of subsidy. Obviously the new Labour government is open to state owned bus companies and Khan sounds enthusiastic about that, but given the new Chancellor has imposed austerity again, this probably won't be a runner for a few years at least.

 

[matt_world2004]

Can't say I'm surprised Sullivan's have given up TfL work.

TfL have lost the plot since Khan appointed Seb Dance as Deputy Mayor for Transport. The guy knows nothing about transport and I'm not convinced he's ever been on a bus, except maybe for a photo shoot.

Sullivans were not a good performing operator and this is further reinforced by them withdrawing from their contract with 6 hours notice.

Anyone who has had the pleasure of taking their rail replacement buses and their school buses know this

 

[RJ]

Whilst I have no comment to make on Sullivan Buses, it is telling that over the last few months, some of the larger operators have been throwing contracts back at TfL by way of activating the early termination clauses and probably rebidding for them. The inference is they have become unsustainable to operate at the existing contract price.

Larger operations will have the ability to absorb some level of cost increase temporarily at least by cross subsidising from their profitable work - their ability to do so perhaps more so than that of a much smaller operator.

And costs have increased. Fuel and energy are big ones. Rates and utilities. The cost of labour. Drivers’ wages are at an all time high, demand for good engineers is unprecedented and I’m increasingly seeing large operators using external suppliers to provide specialist maintenance services, which is expensive for operators who already have their own engineering workshops and staff. The cost of repairs and fleet downtime has increased because of various dramas in supply chains.

A lot of reliability/PVR reduction schemes had to be put in as a result of covid - road speeds increased, buses were scratching around and reliability was at an all time high, which meant lots of Quality Incentive Contract bonuses being paid out. I’m sure many routes have since had running times restored at TfL’s expense but I wonder if these contract variations ended up decreasing profits overall.

TfL have a legal obligation to accept the cheapest deliverable bid for routes. I wonder if the practice of operators putting in bids with razor thin or even negative margins to accrue market share is going to come to an end, as it is clear they will rack up losses and have to surrender contracts if costs move against them.

One thing TfL probably can’t afford to do is be too lenient with the deductible mileage process and rules. While nobody wants any deductions, if it was an inherently unfair system then no supplier would be willing to work with it.

I expect the cost of operating the bus network will continue to shoot up - and bids will have to be submitted with a higher price per mile by all to protect against cost spikes.

 

[700007]

I'll say it again ... you lot really are excessive!!
Did Sullivan's simply walk away? If they did (whether right or wrong), that would give TfL less than 24 hours to arrange for a substitute operator ... who would then need to arrange for buses and drivers, and to compile a timetable and driver duties.
I bet the drivers have been told to report at 0600, 0700 and so on, and someone in the office has knocked together some sort of timetable overnight to run this weekend.
There will probably be a better service from Monday, but this weekend will be patchy at best.
And I "dare" someone to whinge about paper route numbers.

Sorry ... but some of you need to realise that preparing a timetable isn't instantaneous ... there is no button F43 or magic wand !!!

As someone who has experience dealing with this sort of stuff in my day to day job, I know full well how much leg work it is to make a bus service run. I also am wildly impressed that in the matter of hours a variety of operators have stepped in at the last minute with no notice.

I don't think however it is asking a lot for TfL to put warnings across the local Enfield bus network on countdown, and online, that the routes will be subject to severe disruption over the next few days and weeks even with a few hours notice. They keep referring to that annoying and vague phrase 'journey cancellations' that makes it sound like the odd bus might be missing here and there and not that for example the 298 is only running until 6pm today vice the usual midnight finish (not either Uno or TfLs fault here, just the nature of the situation). That's hardly an odd cancellation and ultimately TfL is the one who would have specified the timetable so should be able to outline the very basis of this online 'i.e. The 298 will run every 40 minutes' even if no exact times can be published.

 

[LUYMun]

299 confirmed to be going to Go-Ahead London (early) tomorrow from what I have been told by a very reliable source but I have no official online source. 299, for context, was already due to go to Go-Ahead from February 2025 but this has now been brought forward on an emergency basis to begin a 'limited' service tomorrow.

Go Ahead London has begun running the 299 this morning, with a Tweet announcing with (and, admittedly, a not very good Photoshop!).

x.com

x.com

At Transport for London’s request, we started operating Route 299 (Cockfosters to Muswell Hill) from our Northumberland Park Garage this morning. Andrew Edwards, Operations Director said: “A big thank you to so many colleagues for going above and beyond to ensure continuity of service. We are initially running around 70 per cent of the timetable and intend to increase that to 100 per cent over the coming days, as more drivers and buses become available. In the meantime, we ask passengers to please work with us.” Chris McKeown, Engineering Director, added: “We strive to deliver high quality public transport for our communities and thank TfL for asking us to run the 299’s. This has been a big logistical challenge and one that has been achieved thanks to a dedicated team effort. Well done to all involved.” Colleagues from Northumberland Park Garage gathered for a commemorative photo this morning as we commence operations on Route 299.

 

[matt_world2004]

Hasn't this screwed the drivers of these routes for Sullivan? The convention when a route changes operator is that the drivers have the option of being TUPE'd across. The chaotic nature of this contract means it is unlikely to have happened.

 

[Millercool21]

Having no electric buses is also part of the reason I believe, correct me if I'm wrong but I think there depots are not compatible with EV chargers.

 

[py_megapixel]

neither will the buses have blinds

This specific issue is purely TfL's fault for their years of insistence on physical printed blinds rather than the dot matrix displays that have been standard everywhere else for years. Their failure to keep with the times here means that rather than simply reconfiguring some software, which could be done in a short time, they will have to waste time and money ordering new blinds.

 

[A0wen]

TfL didn't "choose" this type of operation, it was imposed on London Regional Transport by the Thatcher government.

But to be fair, that was 40 years ago when technology was very different and TFL's been in existence almost 25 years.

That TFL have failed to adapt or develop their procurement model so that it doesn't disadvantage smaller companies is entirely TFL's fault. And it is the procurement model which has led to this, not politics.

 

[matt_world2004]

But to be fair, that was 40 years ago when technology was very different and TFL's been in existence almost 25 years.

That TFL have failed to adapt or develop their procurement model so that it doesn't disadvantage smaller companies is entirely TFL's fault. And it is the procurement model which has led to this, not politics.

How could the procurement model be improved for small operators? When the very nature of tfl concession agreements, mean they have to be highly detailed, require high levels of performance and data from the operator to monitor those performance levels.

Any TfL contract is going to run into the hundreds of pages so you don't get operators running Thorpe park buses on TfL contracted routes.

 

[A0wen]

How could the procurement model be improved for small operators? When the very nature of tfl concession agreements, mean they have to be highly detailed, require high levels of performance and data from the operator to monitor those performance levels.

Any TfL contract is going to run into the hundreds of pages so you don't get operators running Thorpe park buses on TfL contracted routes.

Because TFL should be looking to simplify things, not make them more onerous so it limits the number of possible suppliers.

In many ways TFL is proving as resistant to change and as dogmatic as LT was in its worst years - the example of insisting on old style blinds when dot matrix / LED destination boards are standard on vehicles outside London. It's that kind of "not invented here" resistant to change mentality which LT excelled at in the 60s amd 70s - and TFL is niw doing the same.

 

[johncrossley]

Does it even matter if small operators are totally blocked from the system? All you care about as a London bus user is whether buses run a good service, and that is generally more likely with a bigger company. Taxpayers (both the national taxpayer and the Council Tax payer in London) care about value for money, so perhaps we are paying more because only large firms with a depot nearby are tendering. This is where the Manchester system of area or depot tendering might be better, so that large operators that currently don't have a depot in the area can tender. But the advantage of single route tendering is that disruption is less severe if one operator is on strike or suddenly stops operating like Sullivan. There are usually other routes in the area still operating.

 

[Snow1964]

Sullivan had been warning for some time that they might have to give up on TfL work. They have been unable to source (at reasonable prices) hybrid buses for couple of years.

Reading the tweet, suggests that TfL have not been reimbursing on time and clearly late payments don't help small businesses.

I wonder if TfL failed to pay on time, and being end of month salaries were due, and TfL didn't sort it so Dean Sullivan pulled the plug.