• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What is bus franchising?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
15 Sep 2019
Messages
734
Location
Back in Geordieland!
As title.

I read articles about Manchester which invariably mention " London style" levels of bus services and fares, but rarely mention London style subsidies.

My understanding; The local authority sets up a level of service they require, timetables, running times, type of bus, fares. They keep the fare money.

The bus companies then bid with a price they are prepared to operate those services on. Lowest bid wins. I am assuming sealed bids.

Any profits or loses belong to the authority.

Have I got this right?

Cheers, Geordiedriver.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Man of Kent

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
712
Yep, that's broadly it. The winning bidder may not be the lowest in financial terms, as there are usually quality criteria too.

The big difference between Manchester and London is that the former is putting out complete depots as a single tender, rather than the route-by-route approach used in the capital.

It essentially means that bus operators have as much influence over services as waste collection companies do over household bins.
 

Leedsbusman

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
449
Location
Layton
As title.

I read articles about Manchester which invariably mention " London style" levels of bus services and fares, but rarely mention London style subsidies.

My understanding; The local authority sets up a level of service they require, timetables, running times, type of bus, fares. They keep the fare money.

The bus companies then bid with a price they are prepared to operate those services on. Lowest bid wins. I am assuming sealed bids.

Any profits or loses belong to the authority.

Have I got this right?

Cheers, Geordiedriver.
Pretty much - though the operator would also make a profit and generally one which is less risky.
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,823
Pretty much - though the operator would also make a profit and generally one which is less risky.
Yep, the franchising authority essentially takes most of the risk. Assuming the contract has penalties for poor performance, there is still some risk for the operator. However, if they got there sums right when bidding, and have a suitable mark up built in, then it should be much less risky than currently. Of course, it can also be argued that there is little potential for rewarding good performance, which was at least an option for quality operators prior to the pandemic. Whether those times return is very much a question we all wish we could answer with some degree of certainty!
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
4,750
Location
Hope Valley
There is presumably a degree of 'moral hazard' about bus franchising in an 'integrated public transport' context.

The local authority obviously wants to maximise bus revenue and one way of doing that it is always rubbishing the local rail service so that people are persuaded to switch to the buses (or indeed locally-controlled trams/metro, if available). With local rail services in England (outside London and Liverpool) funded at national level it will be the DfT that has to cope with the increased subsidy need for local rail.

Have I got this right?
 

Man of Kent

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
712
There is presumably a degree of 'moral hazard' about bus franchising in an 'integrated public transport' context.

The local authority obviously wants to maximise bus revenue and one way of doing that it is always rubbishing the local rail service so that people are persuaded to switch to the buses (or indeed locally-controlled trams/metro, if available). With local rail services in England (outside London and Liverpool) funded at national level it will be the DfT that has to cope with the increased subsidy need for local rail.

Have I got this right?
None of the authorities currently pursuing franchising is doing it to maximise revenue. That's what nasty private sector operators do under deregulation. The public sector aim will be to maximise passenger numbers - at least, it will be as long as someone else pays for the resultant gap between costs and revenue.
 

RogerOut

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2019
Messages
131
Location
Sussex
I believe in London, operators tender for individual routes. It’s normally a five year contract. The fares are set by TFL, not sure about the timetables.
I know that when I worked for Stagecoach in London, when they won one of their new routes, they actually added another bus to the frequency.
I guess an operating company can keep a route or win one by default, if no one else bids for it.
The TFL model is unique to London though.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
4,750
Location
Hope Valley
None of the authorities currently pursuing franchising is doing it to maximise revenue. That's what nasty private sector operators do under deregulation. The public sector aim will be to maximise passenger numbers - at least, it will be as long as someone else pays for the resultant gap between costs and revenue.
Thanks for this. So the motivation to rubbish local, DfT-funded, rail services is still there. It’s just that bus passenger journeys is the driver, rather than filthy lucre.
 

Roger1973

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2020
Messages
746
Location
Berkshire
I believe in London, operators tender for individual routes. It’s normally a five year contract. The fares are set by TFL, not sure about the timetables.
I know that when I worked for Stagecoach in London, when they won one of their new routes, they actually added another bus to the frequency.
I guess an operating company can keep a route or win one by default, if no one else bids for it.
The TFL model is unique to London though.

Yes, broadly speaking, each TFL route is a separate contract (there are a few that are bundled together, and most night routes are attached to a day route, although operators are usually asked for a price for doing the day route on its own - even on a '24 hour route', the night bit is a separate entity contractually) - although operators may offer joint bids, where they can do route A for X price, route B for Y price, or do routes A and B for a combined price of Z (which offers a discount.)

Yes, fares and ticketing is entirely TFL's responsibility, ticket equipment (and some of the other tech) is owned and supplied by TFL. When cash was taken on bus, the revenue went back to TFL (as in operator would invoice TFL for contract price minus revenue each month - don't think they physically had to send cash to TFL!)

Timetables are not exactly set by TFL.

TFL detail the route, and issue a specification along the lines of 'on Sundays, first bus from A to B should be no later than 0600, last bus should be no earlier than 0015, frequency of departures should be no less than every 30 minutes between 0600 and 0900 and after 1800, and no less than every 20 minutes between 0900 and 1800' (obviously this is a very simple one - it can get more complicated on weekdays with some routes having higher frequency in one direction, and most routes have 'pinch points' e.g. departures from A towards B every 10 minutes, but buses must be every 10 minutes at X in the middle of the route (while running time is increasing as the peak hour builds up.)

It sometimes saves a few hours of bus and driver time to run the first bus a bit earlier than specification or last bus a bit later, e.g. if specification would mean buses leaving each end at 00 and 30, but running time is 32 minutes each way - you could do that with 4 buses and 28 minutes stand time at each end, but it's more efficient to start a bit earlier from one end and do it with 3 buses.

The operator is expected to work out running times based on data / observations of existing journeys, what margins and recovery time they think are right to meet the performance standards, and balance the expected bonuses for exceeding targets against the possible resource costs of doing it.

This can sometimes mean adding a bus compared to current - although TFL may question it if an operator puts in a timetable / vehicle requirement that they think is unrealistically tight, or uses far too many buses.

Contracts are usually for 5 years with an extension of another 2 years being offered subject to meeting certain targets.

Yes, I think it's possible for routes only to get one bid (in London and elsewhere) although there's few parts of London where there's a true monopoly, and many operators will bid for routes a bit outside their normal patch just in case. I'm not sure what TFL would do if they only got one bid for a route and the operator was clearly taking the proverbial. Or for that matter if a route got no bids at all - I presume they can make emergency short term arrangements, and try again with the tender, although I'm not aware of this happening.

Depending on what inflation clauses are in the contract, operators are taking a risk that costs will increase beyond what the contract allows, and of course a risk they have been over-optimistic in their sums. There have been one or two London contracts over the years where operators have not been able to get enough drivers on the rates they have tendered on. I think TFL would be within their rights to ask questions before awarding a contract if one operator's bid was very significantly lower than others (through optimism or dubious maths.)
 

javelin

Member
Joined
6 Sep 2021
Messages
133
Location
_
Thanks for this. So the motivation to rubbish local, DfT-funded, rail services is still there. It’s just that bus passenger journeys is the driver, rather than filthy lucre.

I don't notice anywhere seeking franchising that purposefully 'rubbishes' local rail services.

That said, no there isn't a lot of incentive for local authorities to spend a lot of public money to increase private profits. Maybe that's a problem with the way the railway is owned/funded.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
21,027
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Thanks for this. So the motivation to rubbish local, DfT-funded, rail services is still there. It’s just that bus passenger journeys is the driver, rather than filthy lucre.
No it isn't. Arguably what usually happens is that DfT funded rail services, or indeed tram services, tend to abstract trade from bus services and leading to their withdrawal/realignment - please see Borders Railway, Ebbw Vale line, Bathgate line, Manchester Metrolink to Altrincham/Oldham/Rochdale as examples following their introductions.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
4,750
Location
Hope Valley
I don't notice anywhere seeking franchising that purposefully 'rubbishes' local rail services.

That said, no there isn't a lot of incentive for local authorities to spend a lot of public money to increase private profits. Maybe that's a problem with the way the railway is owned/funded.
Perhaps it's more of a 'North of England' thing, but a lot of local civic leaders on both sides of the Pennines regularly seem to be quoted saying that they think that local rail services are a 'shambles', 'disgrace', 'kick in the teeth', etc.
 

javelin

Member
Joined
6 Sep 2021
Messages
133
Location
_
Perhaps it's more of a 'North of England' thing, but a lot of local civic leaders on both sides of the Pennines regularly seem to be quoted saying that they think that local rail services are a 'shambles', 'disgrace', 'kick in the teeth', etc.
Because they are a shambles, disgrace, and a kick in the teeth. But those same local civic leaders are also the most vocal in the country calling for more government investment in said local rail services and the infrastructure to improve them.

Getting back to the purpose of the thread, will authorities that control bus services through franchising be tempted to serve, for instance, locally-owned light rail stops over heavy rail stations, purely for financial reasons? Possibly, but then the question then becomes why don't local authorities have a stake in local rail?
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,143
Location
Yorkshire
Yes, I think it's possible for routes only to get one bid (in London and elsewhere) although there's few parts of London where there's a true monopoly, and many operators will bid for routes a bit outside their normal patch just in case. I'm not sure what TFL would do if they only got one bid for a route and the operator was clearly taking the proverbial. Or for that matter if a route got no bids at all - I presume they can make emergency short term arrangements, and try again with the tender, although I'm not aware of this happening.
TfL used to have East Thames Buses to use if they decided not to award a contract. I don't think they ever did that, but they did use them to take over routes at short notice when other operators collapsed.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
In Manchester at least their version of bus franchising is more integrated with rail not more competing. At the moment theres about two dozen central bus stations varying in scale from the half dozen stands of Eccles to 20 odd in the main towns, airport and city centre. The franchising plan however is to shift routes to converge on rail stations in the smaller towns to create mini transport hubs as often the bus route goes to the town centre and not the just out of town rail station. It should make a lot more bi-modal journeys possible.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,041
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's interesting that the term "franchising" is used at all. Does it perhaps originate from rail franchising, even though it's not even similar to that? Neither is actually a franchise, they are contracts.

A better term for it is "regulated operation by way of contracting of operation to private operators", though it is a mouthful! Perhaps a useful shortened version is "bus contracting".

Franchising is a term to describe where a company or individual "buy into" operating their business under a larger business's well regarded name, adopting some or all of their business practices and their product range. All Subway sandwich shops, for instance, are franchised - a company decides to operate one, so pays the Subway company for the rights to do so and to supply them product to sell, and they run it as their own business at their own risk. Many McDonalds are too, and quite a lot of (but not all) "major brand" hotels.

A hypothetical "bus franchise" under the conventional understanding of the term would be that say Stagecoach and First pay TfGM to operate buses under the name "Bee Network", but do so at their own commercial risk and planning their own routes and times etc, so they'd be running a commercial, for-profit business at their own risk but passengers would never know unless they asked or read the legal lettering (though to some extent TfGM might regulate where they operate, e.g. to stop them competing with each other, in a similar way that Subway might prevent a restaurant opening too near another one as it might make both non-viable and so damage their brand in terms of attractiveness to future franchisees). This is nowhere near what is happening.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
3,510
Location
London
I don't remember the term "franchising" used in the early days of London tendering. Many people called it "privatisation", even though most routes were run by LBL subsidiaries which had yet to be sold off.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
21,027
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
It's interesting that the term "franchising" is used at all. Does it perhaps originate from rail franchising, even though it's not even similar to that? Neither is actually a franchise, they are contracts.

A better term for it is "regulated operation by way of contracting of operation to private operators", though it is a mouthful! Perhaps a useful shortened version is "bus contracting".
You're right - the use of the word franchise is a misnomer.

It's simply the provision of a contracted service.
I don't remember the term "franchising" used in the early days of London tendering. Many people called it "privatisation", even though most routes were run by LBL subsidiaries which had yet to be sold off.
IIRC, they were simply called tendered routes.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
104,041
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
IIRC, they were simply called tendered routes.

That of course is the term used for Councils contracting operation of unremunerative services. And what is happening is basically that alongside a ban on commercial operation (and presumably London style licences for regional services into the area?)

Perhaps something like "compulsory bus tendering" is the best description of what is being introduced?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top