Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[TheGrandWazoo]

But they didn't buy any publicly owned operation. Until now, your argument for compensation has been based on the fact that at some point in history, you can find a link between an existing operator and a former PTE operator.

No - my argument is that there is a worth to the business. The obvious two firms are First and Stagecoach and yes, they paid a value for the business (and so it wasn't legalised theft). That is goodwill. Same applies to the other businesses.

As ever, you're conflating things, and at least when asked a question, I endeavour to answer comprehensively.

 

[radamfi]

No - my argument is that there is a worth to the business. The obvious two firms are First and Stagecoach and yes, they paid a value for the business (and so it wasn't legalised theft). That is goodwill. Same applies to the other businesses.

As ever, you're conflating things, and at least when asked a question, I endeavour to answer comprehensively.

I think edwin_m put forward rather good arguments against compensation. Can you address them?

 

[radamfi]

Would it work better if the areas were given to their present operator, with a presumption of renewal (unlike the "fresh tender each time" approach used on the railway)?

But would you get value for money that way? That approach isn't unheard of. Ofcom sometimes allow automatic renewals of TV/radio licences depending on certain requirements. For example, local radio stations currently get an automatic renewal of their FM licence if they agree to broadcast on DAB as well. I think you would need a strong regulator if you did that.

 

[Rod Harrison]

I was reading on the Dublin Bus thread that the brand (i.e. the livery) is worth €28m. I wonder what value is placed on the liveries of Stagecoach, Arriva , First and other operators? Will Andy Burnham pick fruit off the Labour Magic Money tree to compensate these companies if they pursue it in court or just put up Council Tax and fares?

 

[Dentonian]

Would it work better if the areas were given to their present operator, with a presumption of renewal (unlike the "fresh tender each time" approach used on the railway)?

Surely, that would defeat the object and still raise the hackles of the OFT/MMC/CMA (or whatever they will be called by 2020 ish). At this stage it is unclear what First and Stagecoach's intentions are anyway, and the reason Bus Reform - don't forget, no final decision on Franchising, EQPs or anything else has been made yet - is supported so widely, is the poor performance of those two companies. Also, I don't know all the legal technicalities about this argument, but surely, there will be a similar number of buses (possibly more) required post Reform as now. If it so happens that say, First and Stagecoach still run in GM, but reduced fleet/operating centres, it would mean someone else, whether Rotala, Transdev, Go-Ahead or whoever, will need to take on those assets. Whether or not GMCA are "honest brokers", wouldn't it mean that those Operators would effectively "compensate" First and Stagecoach, rather than the Taxpayer.........or nobody?

 

[Dentonian]

I was reading on the Dublin Bus thread that the brand (i.e. the livery) is worth €28m. I wonder what value is placed on the liveries of Stagecoach, Arriva , First and other operators? Will Andy Burnham pick fruit off the Labour Magic Money tree to compensate these companies if they pursue it in court or just put up Council Tax and fares?

Can we stop with this "Magic Money Tree" hypocracy; HS2 (£108bn); Crossrail 1/2 (£30bn+); Thameslink, Elisabeth Line, Heathrow Runway 3 (£19bn) etc, etc. For goodness sake, we now even have £35 million to relieve the frustration of rail users going under tunnels. I'm sure, the thousands of car-less tax-payers up and down the country who are in danger of losing their zero contract/shift based jobs due to county's scrapping subsidised buses will be feel much better that someone is getting faster broadband on their way to Hatton Garden or the West End.

Besides, the value of those three "brands" in GM is probably a negative figure anyway.

 

[Dentonian]

.

And yes, I don't discriminate on the basis of large groups. Take Jim Stones - they have built up their business very assiduously over the years, filling the gap after First closed Atherton depot. Imagine that Leigh area is tendered as a package and someone like Stagecoach win. They would lose their business overnight, lovingly developed over many years without a penny. It just is not right.

Trouble is that to quote another Jim S; Jim Stones is a "ruby in a mountain of rocks". Every other post-dereg "independant" has been a poor quality, "cowboy"; Many, openly declaring their motive was to "get back at their former employer" (GMT), and most others operating outside the law or at best on the very edge of it.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Can we stop with this "Magic Money Tree" hypocracy; HS2 (£108bn); Crossrail 1/2 (£30bn+); Thameslink, Elisabeth Line, Heathrow Runway 3 (£19bn) etc, etc. For goodness sake, we now even have £35 million to relieve the frustration of rail users going under tunnels. I'm sure, the thousands of car-less tax-payers up and down the country who are in danger of losing their zero contract/shift based jobs due to county's scrapping subsidised buses will be feel much better that someone is getting faster broadband on their way to Hatton Garden or the West End.

While your axe-grinding on behalf of such people is doubtless justified by your own situation to some degree or other I should point out that there are other non-drivers on this forum, myself included, who do not believe it is government's job to "bail us out" when the shortcomings of making such a personal decision as not driving become clear.

Besides, the value of those three "brands" in GM is probably a negative figure anyway.

Very much agree. Given the corporate power of the parent organisations they should be doing much, much better in delivering reliable services.

Trouble is that to quote another Jim S; Jim Stones is a "ruby in a mountain of rocks". Every other post-dereg "independant" has been a poor quality, "cowboy"; Many, openly declaring their motive was to "get back at their former employer" (GMT), and most others operating outside the law or at best on the very edge of it.

Also very true. Anyone remember Citybus? Or Bu-Val?

 

[Dentonian]

While your axe-grinding on behalf of such people is doubtless justified by your own situation to some degree or other I should point out that there are other non-drivers on this forum, myself included, who do not believe it is government's job to "bail us out" when the shortcomings of making such a personal decision as not driving become clear.

Two points on that: Firstly, if everybody drove, the country would come to a complete stand still. People (and politicians) cannot continue to drone on about congestion and pollution, and then formulate transport policies (and economics) that will make those problems worse and worse.

Secondly, and more relevantly, you will notice that ALL the examples I quote are from the M25 bubble. Why should London have a forest of Magic Money Trees, but no one else can have even a sapling? After all, London's congestion problems are largely of its own making, in demand the economy is centralised their and then whingeing there is no room to house and transport the people to control the economy. London controls the Free market economy, but demands financial protection from it's downsides, whilst wanting to keep all the benefits of its upside.

Its all very well saying the (London) Government shouldn't "bail out" those that DON'T create congestion - whether the reason is wealth, health or principles (mostly the first two), but you obviously believe it IS the Government's job to "bail out" the rich using the taxes of the poor.

Charles Darwin meets Margaret Thatcher at the pearly gates (with no comment as to which way either, or both, went next!); Darwin explains the Theory of Evolution and Law of the Jungle to Thatcher. Thatcher says, that's crazy; can't we tax the antelopes and gazelles to subsidise the leopards and tigers?

On a personal level, the one selfish comfort for me was the naive thought that living in large, low car-ownership area with well loaded buses from 0600 to 1900 (and later until the licensing laws changed) meant I would always have a good service under the free market. Compared to others referenced above, it is still the case, but more and more we are seeing these captive market services squeezed (headways slashed, fares increasing way beyond inflation, punctuality problems not addressed and vehicle quality reduced), simply because the Operators know most of the "customers" don't have a choice. This has only happened in the last 3 years though, it wasn't that "personal" for the first 28 years of De-reg.

 

[radamfi]

Over the couple of decades, there has been a huge growth in city centre office work at the expense of suburban blue collar and business park employment. This phenomenon has impacted on both London and Manchester and should be good news for increasing public transport mode share.

In London that has meant severe overcrowding on all modes of public transport. Manchester city centre has also boomed and so trains and trams are now crowded at peak times, but what about the buses? Any losses in outer area patronage should be more than made up in improved city centre usage, as the bus network is already geared up for radial movements. So if Manchester's buses aren't booming as a result of this shift from suburban to city centre employment they are doing something seriously wrong.

 

[radamfi]

Also very true. Anyone remember Citybus? Or Bu-Val?

I remember both. Bu-Val was mostly a tendered service operator primarily around Rochdale. Citibus were ropey, to say the least. I remember an advert inside a GM Bus being defaced (probably by a GM Buses driver) with the words "Working for a Citibus free city".

 

[HSTEd]

There are lot sof routes in Greater Manchester that are hopelessly overbussed, see the 142/143/144/42/43/111/15 complex.
Services could be withdrawn there without significantly impacting patronage, if it just meant that every passenger could use the first bus on the right route.

That would provide substantial operational savings to cover improvements on other routes without causing a significant burden on the taxpayer.

 

[Stan Drews]

Over the couple of decades, there has been a huge growth in city centre office work at the expense of suburban blue collar and business park employment. This phenomenon has impacted on both London and Manchester and should be good news for increasing public transport mode share.

In London that has meant severe overcrowding on all modes of public transport. Manchester city centre has also boomed and so trains and trams are now crowded at peak times, but what about the buses? Any losses in outer area patronage should be more than made up in improved city centre usage, as the bus network is already geared up for radial movements. So if Manchester's buses aren't booming as a result of this shift from suburban to city centre employment they are doing something seriously wrong.

A huge growth in city centre office work? Really??
I would have said the complete opposite was true of our cities, with more and more office space moving to cheaper areas outwith the centres, and often closer to the motorways. In the case of Manchester, many within a short distance of the M60, so ideal for car commuting.

Buses have been banished from a number of important city centre streets in Manchester (often to allow the trams free movement), so journey times have increased on almost all bus routes, and that's before you add in the extra time required to negotiate the main arterial routes to/from the suburbs.

 

[radamfi]

A huge growth in city centre office work? Really??
I would have said the complete opposite was true of our cities, with more and more office space moving to cheaper areas outwith the centres, and often closer to the motorways. In the case of Manchester, many within a short distance of the M60, so ideal for car commuting.

That was certainly the case until about 20 years ago but the trend has reversed somewhat more recently, London being the extreme case. Young professionals now seem to prefer urban living, and one can't help but notice the countless apartment blocks in and around Manchester and Salford city centres. Maybe there is a lot more walking to work now as many of these apartment blocks are very close to the city centre, meaning less need to travel by bus. Driving licence holding among the under 30s is now less than it used to be, as car ownership and usage isn't such a big deal to that demographic. They would rather spend their money on electronic technology and travelling abroad than "old tech" like cars. Again, that should help public transport usage.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Two points on that: Firstly, if everybody drove, the country would come to a complete stand still. People (and politicians) cannot continue to drone on about congestion and pollution, and then formulate transport policies (and economics) that will make those problems worse and worse.

Very true. And it was one of Thatcher's worse blind spots that she couldn't understand that reality. As for policy making it's hardly surprising when transport has such a low priority. Politicians are more interested in big picture ideas like global carbon trading and suchlike. It's actually a good reason for devolving transport decision making to a more local level, the decision makers are more likely to have relevant direct experience.

Secondly, and more relevantly, you will notice that ALL the examples I quote are from the M25 bubble. Why should London have a forest of Magic Money Trees, but no one else can have even a sapling? After all, London's congestion problems are largely of its own making, in demand the economy is centralised their and then whingeing there is no room to house and transport the people to control the economy. London controls the Free market economy, but demands financial protection from it's downsides, whilst wanting to keep all the benefits of its upside.

The problem is that London is actually different to the rest of the country, in particular it has a large transient population predominantly consisting of foreigners who expect to stay for only a couple of years and who view the high cost of London motoring as not even worth contemplating. This population generates a considerable additional level of demand for public transport which makes it very easy to justify the level of provision found in the capital. Though of course it still stinks that a completely different way of organising buses is deemed necessary for London.

Its all very well saying the (London) Government shouldn't "bail out" those that DON'T create congestion - whether the reason is wealth, health or principles (mostly the first two), but you obviously believe it IS the Government's job to "bail out" the rich using the taxes of the poor.

Charles Darwin meets Margaret Thatcher at the pearly gates (with no comment as to which way either, or both, went next!); Darwin explains the Theory of Evolution and Law of the Jungle to Thatcher. Thatcher says, that's crazy; can't we tax the antelopes and gazelles to subsidise the leopards and tigers?

Not sure where you get that idea from. I just don't believe the begging bowl is justified. We all have to make choices in our lives and live with the consequences. It's the same reason I have little sympathy for L&SE area commuters moaning about season ticket costs, many could live closer to their work but don't want to move to an "inferior" area. Although I will concede that the way the housing market has been seriously distorted in London itself by foreign investors hasn't helped anybody.

On a personal level, the one selfish comfort for me was the naive thought that living in large, low car-ownership area with well loaded buses from 0600 to 1900 (and later until the licensing laws changed) meant I would always have a good service under the free market. Compared to others referenced above, it is still the case, but more and more we are seeing these captive market services squeezed (headways slashed, fares increasing way beyond inflation, punctuality problems not addressed and vehicle quality reduced), simply because the Operators know most of the "customers" don't have a choice. This has only happened in the last 3 years though, it wasn't that "personal" for the first 28 years of De-reg.

Fair comment, though given the long term record of political disinterest in public transport that thought was always going to be a bit of a gamble. This after all is Britain and not the Netherlands. Whether the serious decline you suggest is as recent as just the last 3 years I'm not so sure, I would say it started to become evident after the GFC of 2008. Perhaps living further from Manchester than you I saw my local bus services squeezed a bit earlier.

There are lot sof routes in Greater Manchester that are hopelessly overbussed, see the 142/143/144/42/43/111/15 complex.
Services could be withdrawn there without significantly impacting patronage, if it just meant that every passenger could use the first bus on the right route.

That would provide substantial operational savings to cover improvements on other routes without causing a significant burden on the taxpayer.

Totally agree. And there are other corridors where similar comments apply.

 

[nerd]

No - my argument is that there is a worth to the business. The obvious two firms are First and Stagecoach and yes, they paid a value for the business (and so it wasn't legalised theft). That is goodwill. Same applies to the other businesses.

As ever, you're conflating things, and at least when asked a question, I endeavour to answer comprehensively.

I am afraid we may be going round in circles.

If I buy my council house, I not only acquire legal title to the bricks and mortar; I also acquire an exclusive right to occupy the premises, against anyone else who might wish to live there.

Which was not true for bus operators post deregulation.

What First and Stagecoach bought were bus-owning operations - buses, depots, support facilities. They did not 'buy' an exclusive right to run bus routes or services, against others who might wish to do so; as the whole legal basis of deregulation was that all such 'rights' had been abolished (with no compensation, as it happens). Of course, both Stagecoach and First have since established and defended monopolistic market dominance over particular routes by a range of methods of greater and lesser legality (and the extent of of these local positions of market dominance is reflected in their business models and share price). But the basic point remains that the 'business' they bought and paid for could not legally include goodwill in respect of market dominance; and so there can be no legal basis for the companies to sue for compensation for loss of such goodwill in the event of a franchising scheme, so long as they remain free to compete for future franchise contracts.

 

[Dentonian]

I am afraid we may be going round in circles.

If I buy my council house, I not only acquire legal title to the bricks and mortar; I also acquire an exclusive right to occupy the premises, against anyone else who might wish to live there.

Which was not true for bus operators post deregulation.

What First and Stagecoach bought were bus-owning operations - buses, depots, support facilities. They did not 'buy' an exclusive right to run bus routes or services, against others who might wish to do so; as the whole legal basis of deregulation was that all such 'rights' had been abolished (with no compensation, as it happens). Of course, both Stagecoach and First have since established and defended monopolistic market dominance over particular routes by a range of methods of greater and lesser legality (and the extent of of these local positions of market dominance is reflected in their business models and share price). But the basic point remains that the 'business' they bought and paid for could not legally include goodwill in respect of market dominance; and so there can be no legal basis for the companies to sue for compensation for loss of such goodwill in the event of a franchising scheme, so long as they remain free to compete for future franchise contracts.

I can't speak authoritively for First, but for all my criticism of post-Finglands Stagecoach Manchester, I have never heard any substantiation of claims that Stagecoach acted illegally to protect their "monopoly" - not that any bus company in a free market can ever have a monopoly whilst cars, taxis, rail systems, cycles and (to a lesser extent) human feet still exist, of course. Yes, some of their behaviour at the 192/Hyde Road corridor terminus around Easter 2006 left a lot to be desired, but look at the opposition!

 

[Dentonian]

There are lot sof routes in Greater Manchester that are hopelessly overbussed, see the 142/143/144/42/43/111/15 complex.
Services could be withdrawn there without significantly impacting patronage, if it just meant that every passenger could use the first bus on the right route.

That would provide substantial operational savings to cover improvements on other routes without causing a significant burden on the taxpayer.

I must admit that I'm not sure why the Wilmslow Road corridor is deemed to be grossly overbussed. I assume its a combination of it having more buses than any other corridor, and dare I suggest observers are only looking at traditional commuter peak times. There is a very high off-peak demand for buses along Wilmslow Road due to the massive amount of Students - until a couple of years ago, Wilmslow Road/Oxford Road was the most populous campus in Europe - and the county's main Hospital is also there. Unfortunately, I have to visit the MRI as an out-patient least 6 times a year, and statistically that is due to increase massively in the near future, and on the return journeys into Piccadilly (normally anytime between 1230 & 1600) loadings are consistently high. What I will concede is that Student numbers are set to fall, especially at MMU where a large proportion of Students are on Medical courses, and a massive drop is forecast post-Brexit, but surely, there are many more corridors with much lower loadings, especially off-peak.

 

[Dentonian]

A huge growth in city centre office work? Really??
I would have said the complete opposite was true of our cities, with more and more office space moving to cheaper areas outwith the centres, and often closer to the motorways. In the case of Manchester, many within a short distance of the M60, so ideal for car commuting.

Buses have been banished from a number of important city centre streets in Manchester (often to allow the trams free movement), so journey times have increased on almost all bus routes, and that's before you add in the extra time required to negotiate the main arterial routes to/from the suburbs.

Totally agree, and its ironic that both Shaw and radamfi should mention Citibus. It is (now) an open secret that buses were kicked out of the city centre under the City Centre Bus Strategy to accomodate Metrolink. However, at the time, one of the excuses the City Council used was the pollution caused by Citibus and MTL, who between them ran 135 or so buses to/through the city centre, of which well over 100 were 17-19 years old. The other excuse was too dispicable and insensitive to repeat. The big irony was that Citibus sold out to GM Buses North just a week before the strategy was implemented (May/June 1995). It is also worth noting that whilst services to both the north and the east of Manchester were cut back to Piccadilly, most of those to the north have slowly been restored, and then gained extensions to the afore (or is it, aft-) mentioned Oxford Road/MRI. Albeit this has now been reduced to just a 20 minute service on the 18.

Those that lost their cross-city links permanently were all to the east (equivalent to present day services 203-207 and 219), serving numerous low car-ownership suburbs. Notably, even the few people in these catchment areas with access to rail, have their services truncated at Piccadilly as well. Interesting that whichever mode you talk about (except plastic trams, themselves), there is reasonable connectivity between north/west/south across the city, but East is East*, and remains so.

* Not an entirely appropriate phrase, given the book/film of that title were set to the west of the "regional centre".

 

[HSTEd]

I must admit that I'm not sure why the Wilmslow Road corridor is deemed to be grossly overbussed. I assume its a combination of it having more buses than any other corridor, and dare I suggest observers are only looking at traditional commuter peak times.

I have been a student on that corridor for most of the last decade (yes, I know an old man) through three seperate degrees. An BSc(Hons) Chemistry, MPhys Physics and now an MSc Nuclear Science and Technology.
The route is horrendously overbussed unfortunately.

There is a very high off-peak demand for buses along Wilmslow Road due to the massive amount of Students - until a couple of years ago, Wilmslow Road/Oxford Road was the most populous campus in Europe - and the county's main Hospital is also there. Unfortunately, I have to visit the MRI as an out-patient least 6 times a year, and statistically that is due to increase massively in the near future, and on the return journeys into Piccadilly (normally anytime between 1230 & 1600) loadings are consistently high. What I will concede is that Student numbers are set to fall, especially at MMU where a large proportion of Students are on Medical courses, and a massive drop is forecast post-Brexit, but surely, there are many more corridors with much lower loadings, especially off-peak.

Loadings on Stagecoach and Megabus services are, in my experience, consistently high (albeit far higher on Megabus due to the lower cost), loadings on First Buses are relatively low.
Especially the newly introduced 'V' range services that are barely used by students at all, despite running through some of the most heavily trafficked parts of the corridor.

If all buses were accessible using a single pricing scale and a single ticket system, we would be able to prune a significant number of buses out of the timetable without affecting loadings, simply because the First Buses are essentially deadweight for the peak student loadings at this time.

Additionally not many students travelling along the upper part of the corridor make use of the 15 and 111, even though it would be suitable for their journeys.
I think more advertising of what buses are suitable for which journeys would be extremely useful - currently capacity goes to waste as a result. Although it does benefit those of us in the know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, Oxford Road is very overbussed. Huge numbers of empty seats at most times of day.

What it really needs is at most 2 routes (42/43 probably) using bendy buses with off bus ticketing, just like the comparable[1] route in Hamburg (was the 102, now Metrobus something).

[1] Uni halls at one end, uni at the other, and the busiest single number bus route in Europe.

 

[Dentonian]

I have been a student on that corridor for most of the last decade (yes, I know an old man) through three seperate degrees. An BSc(Hons) Chemistry, MPhys Physics and now an MSc Nuclear Science and Technology.
The route is horrendously overbussed unfortunately.

Loadings on Stagecoach and Megabus services are, in my experience, consistently high (albeit far higher on Megabus due to the lower cost), loadings on First Buses are relatively low.
Especially the newly introduced 'V' range services that are barely used by students at all, despite running through some of the most heavily trafficked parts of the corridor.

If all buses were accessible using a single pricing scale and a single ticket system, we would be able to prune a significant number of buses out of the timetable without affecting loadings, simply because the First Buses are essentially deadweight for the peak student loadings at this time.

Additionally not many students travelling along the upper part of the corridor make use of the 15 and 111, even though it would be suitable for their journeys.
I think more advertising of what buses are suitable for which journeys would be extremely useful - currently capacity goes to waste as a result. Although it does benefit those of us in the know.

Actually, my impression is that First loadings (on the 41 & 42) are notably higher than the equivalent Finglands buses. Interesting comments re 15 & 111, and that probably explains why when single deckers are foisted on Hyde Road depot, they tend to stick to the 15 route. Given the current lack of routing discipline that is a miracle in itself, and in that respect it is interesting what you say about "advertising" buses suitable for which journeys. The 42, 42A & 42B, 43 and 111 are ostensibly, hybrid E400 services, noting that the East Didsbury-Reddish section of the 42A is tendered as such. However, it is common to see Magicbuses on 42A & 43 at least, alongside diesel E400s of various marques. Not that the branding concept being shown up as a complete waste of effort (and revenue?) is confined to Wilmslow Road services. The two Manchester depots in particular seem incapable of putting the correct buses on the correct routes, and I don't just mean at peak times when engineering resources are understandably stretched. Indeed, in some cases its a "double whammy". The 201/203 routes lost some newly delivered E400 MMCs to allow the X50 service to the Trafford Centre to be re-branded and upgraded. Yet, a week or so ago, I travelled on one such bus on the X50 (late morning) and observed it was the only MMCs on the route - the rest again were a mix of hybrid and standard diesel E400s. Meanwhile, MMCs are now a minority on 203 (and presumably 201), so it seems the MMCs might be leaving .......

 

[Dentonian]

I agree, Oxford Road is very overbussed. Huge numbers of empty seats at most times of day.

What it really needs is at most 2 routes (42/43 probably) using bendy buses with off bus ticketing, just like the comparable[1] route in Hamburg (was the 102, now Metrobus something).

[1] Uni halls at one end, uni at the other, and the busiest single number bus route in Europe.

So why do I keep having to struggle for a seat back into Piccadilly, even around lunch time? Though admittedly, like any high frequency service, you can often miss 4 or 5 buses whilst waiting for the lights to change, and then wait 6-7 minutes for another handful to turn up.

Besides, there is off-bus ticketing - its called System One - which presumably is appropriate given there are two operators on the main part of the route.

 

[HSTEd]

Actually, my impression is that First loadings (on the 41 & 42) are notably higher than the equivalent Finglands buses. Interesting comments re 15 & 111, and that probably explains why when single deckers are foisted on Hyde Road depot, they tend to stick to the 15 route. Given the current lack of routing discipline that is a miracle in itself, and in that respect it is interesting what you say about "advertising" buses suitable for which journeys. The 42, 42A & 42B, 43 and 111 are ostensibly, hybrid E400 services, noting that the East Didsbury-Reddish section of the 42A is tendered as such. However, it is common to see Magicbuses on 42A & 43 at least, alongside diesel E400s of various marques. Not that the branding concept being shown up as a complete waste of effort (and revenue?) is confined to Wilmslow Road services. The two Manchester depots in particular seem incapable of putting the correct buses on the correct routes, and I don't just mean at peak times when engineering resources are understandably stretched. Indeed, in some cases its a "double whammy". The 201/203 routes lost some newly delivered E400 MMCs to allow the X50 service to the Trafford Centre to be re-branded and upgraded. Yet, a week or so ago, I travelled on one such bus on the X50 (late morning) and observed it was the only MMCs on the route - the rest again were a mix of hybrid and standard diesel E400s. Meanwhile, MMCs are now a minority on 203 (and presumably 201), so it seems the MMCs might be leaving .......

I think it would be better if we had a letter prefix for the Oxford Road bus system, O1 and upwards as appropriate.
As it currently stands the confusion is growing, especially as people at the Fallowfield Halls can no longer advertise "any bus with a 4" as suitable for the city centre, as the new 141 goes off towards the new MMU Campus.

If we could have O+2 numbers for buses going into the city centre and O+3 for others or somesuch that would be a big help, and the end of things like A numbers which just confuse people even more. The number of times I have been on buses that have been delayed because people don't know where the 42A goes is rather astonishing.

Additionally, it might be best to reduce the frequencies on the 142/143 and provide a bus that simply runs from the MMU campus, via RNCM to the Fallowfield Campus halls and turns around in the vicinity of the Armitage Sports Centre's South Entrance, perhaps negotiating with the University of Manchester to get space for an off-road turnaround.

That way, we could provide the capacity on the heavily trafficked university section of the route with the minimal buss requirements and without the palahva that comes from dragging in adn out of the city centre.
The peak load does not go into the city centre after all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why do I keep having to struggle for a seat back into Piccadilly, even around lunch time? Though admittedly, like any high frequency service, you can often miss 4 or 5 buses whilst waiting for the lights to change, and then wait 6-7 minutes for another handful to turn up.

Yes, it’s poorly regulated and the bus lanes, even the new layout, are very poorly designed and do not promote good progress.

Besides, there is off-bus ticketing - its called System One - which presumably is appropriate given there are two operators on the main part of the route.

No, I mean ceasing onboard sales. It wastes a heck of a lot of time.

 

[Dentonian]

The 141 isn't really that "new" and tbh, might not last that long given the reduction in demand for MMU. My brother works there and he tells me applications for courses is dropping rapidly due in part to Brexit but also because of the high pressure and low pay in the NHS compared to private practice and Health services abroad. Additionally, "british" students tend to be more local to GM so don't reside in HORs and travel to the University mostly by car. Added to that Stagecoach want to "have their cake and eat it" with the 141. It seems the original service was drawn up as a contract between the company and MMU but they registered it as a local service to claim the stupidly named BSOG. Further, rather than register it with 8 weeks notice the original service (2015?) was copied to TFGM with little more than 8 days notice - and with no advance warning of the service's existence - leaving TFGM to pick up the flack from MMU when students couldn't get timetables at the start of the University year!

One advantage of franchising - or any Reform - would be to tidy up service numbers. 46, 47, 48, 49 have all now been "free" for some time, for instance. Also, whilst my own experience still suggests only a minimal reduction in frequency could be justified given the much lower loadings on other corridors (141 notwithstanding), one thought would be to restore a meaningful link between Piccadilly and MRI for outpatients. For those unfamiliar with the MRI complex, Outpatients is much closer to Upper Brook Street than to Oxford Road. Whilst it could be argued that the Boulevard is an alternative, it should be noted that in recent months the 130 has been reduced from a reliable fast link every 30 minutes to an hourly service with poor punctuality even off-peak; and the 18 has been halved to every 20 minutes and re-routed away from Upper Brook Street (albeit it only served UBS/Grafton Street towards Manchester). The only other alternative is the 147 (also well loaded, btw), but this only serves the Rail Station, with stops quite a walk from London Road, never mind Piccadilly Gardens.

 

[HSTEd]

One advantage of franchising - or any Reform - would be to tidy up service numbers. 46, 47, 48, 49 have all now been "free" for some time, for instance.

If the 4x number range could be reserved entirely for the Oxford Road/University corridor that would be a major advantage.
Although I do think service number rationalisation is in order.
If we could have a short Fallowfield-Uni contraction of the 142/143, those two services could be rolled back into the 42 and 43 respectively.
In my experience they tend to be extremely lightly loaded below fallowfield due to the shear number of buses that have to be laid on for that section.

Also, whilst my own experience still suggests only a minimal reduction in frequency could be justified given the much lower loadings on other corridors (141 notwithstanding),

Unfortunately other corridors can't take advantage of the rationalisation of competing operators into a unified timetable.
I imagine we would still end up with peak time service intervals approaching or below 60 seconds, just that people would move far more efficiently since almost everyone would pile onto the first bus that came

one thought would be to restore a meaningful link between Piccadilly and MRI for outpatients. For those unfamiliar with the MRI complex, Outpatients is much closer to Upper Brook Street than to Oxford Road. Whilst it could be argued that the Boulevard is an alternative, it should be noted that in recent months the 130 has been reduced from a reliable fast link every 30 minutes to an hourly service with poor punctuality even off-peak; and the 18 has been halved to every 20 minutes and re-routed away from Upper Brook Street (albeit it only served UBS/Grafton Street towards Manchester). The only other alternative is the 147 (also well loaded, btw), but this only serves the Rail Station, with stops quite a walk from London Road, never mind Piccadilly Gardens.

The 147 is a bit of a mess, caused by the University paying passes for people who use it, at least until North Campus is finally put out of it's misery - although with the delays to the engineering building when that will be is anyone's guess.

I think a high capacity University-Fallowfield Bendy route would be exceptionally useful for reducing the loading on the other buses, and the faster loading would permit more students to be moved more quickly.

 

[Dentonian]

Yes, it’s poorly regulated and the bus lanes, even the new layout, are very poorly designed and do not promote good progress.



No, I mean ceasing onboard sales. It wastes a heck of a lot of time.

So what do occasional users such as Hospital outpatients/visitors use? Or are we saying that people without "smart" phones and internet bank accounts should be banned from using public transport? As for "contactless", there is no point explaining it to me at 55yo, as the only conversation I've overheard on the subject came the last time I went to my dentists. When I went to reception to book my next appointment, there was a smartly dressed woman of about 30 paying for her treatment and discussing her next appointment. From the conversation I overheard she was a working Mum (office job in Manchester, iirc) and when the receptionist suggested paying "contactless", she said "What's Contactless?" So clearly, even the younger generation supposedly driving the demand for new technology and our lives to be controlled by EE, "InstaTwitFace" and international cyberfraudsters, don't all understand these things themselves.

I agree with you regarding the new road layout though. Let's face it, its basically purely a massive cycle lane with buses tolerated at best, and off-peak at least, Portland Street takes far longer to traverse than it did before the work started.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what do occasional users such as Hospital outpatients/visitors use?

A TVM at busy stops, or purchase from a local shop, tobacconist etc as they do in many other European countries.

It has not been possible to buy a ticket on board London buses for some time, and this has not been causing any significant issues.

 

[Robertj21a]

A TVM at busy stops, or purchase from a local shop, tobacconist etc as they do in many other European countries.

It has not been possible to buy a ticket on board London buses for some time, and this has not been causing any significant issues.

Indeed, this is one area where the UK lags desperately behind - and causes so many delays.