BBC fact check: buses

[Bletchleyite]

About as many people travelling the length and breadth of the country with the pass as the number of people driving their Mercs into town every day to do a spot of begging, so thousands if you read the Daily Express, and a minute fraction of that in the real world. Anyway, anyone who reads 'Buses' mag and follows Bob Hinds's attempts to travel long distances by bus in England (and his trips are planned to the nth degree) will realise that only a masochist would attempt such a thing, given all the things that can (and frequently do) go wrong.

Realistically the benefit of it being national is that it stops political boundaries giving people useless passes. For instance someone who is just outside MK in Aylesbury Vale would, if it was local travel only, just get a pass valid to go to Aylesbury when in fact they'd want to go to MK. Making it national just avoids that issue.

There is a secondary issue with tourist-area Councils having to pay for a lot of use by visitors who don't contribute to the Council Tax pot, but this could be solved in other ways, such as a tourist tax (I'm in favour of the Swiss model there - a per-night tourist tax which would give free local public transport to everyone staying in the area for one or more nights for the duration of their stay as well as helping to fund ENCTS visitors).

 

[Busaholic]

That's pretty much my position, to be fair.

ENCTS is a statutory obligation, whereas supporting bus services through subsidy is not. Councils don't have enough money, they can't not fund ENCTS so non-obligatory spending gets cut instead.

So the daytime core routes- which have been every 10 minutes since the year dot- get the funding and the evening, Sunday and estate minibus services don't. I firmly believe these routes would operate at the same frequencies regardless of ENCTS because they DID operate at those frequencies before ENCTS.

ENCTS isnt funded properly and, truthfully, I don't think it should be. I think eligibility should be restricted to the poor. Those who can pay should pay.

Point by point:-
I'd argue many councils now are not meeting their statutory obligation, which has resulted in many bus services previously provided on a commercial basis have been axed and, particularly in more rural areas, some smaller operators have either gone to the wall or have called it a day, respected and long-standing ones amongst them.

Daytime core routes, operating every 10 minutes since the year dot: wow, what nirvana! I dare say, if you scoured long enough, out of the thousands of routes nationwide you might find a handful that fit that bill, but, in my experience, which I admit is limited to certain parts of the country, if a headway is every 10 minutes now it's likely to have been higher in the past, and those which were 10 minutes thirty years ago are often every 15 now. I don't really understand the point you're making on estate , evening etc services against the core ones, so I'll leave that.

Ah, so you agree ENCTS is not being funded properly (i.e. how it was intended to be)! Why only restrict bus passes to the poor? Why not do the same with the NHS, and force those who can afford it (according to you) to pay for it? It's probably Jacob Rees-Mogg's wet dream.

 

[Typhoon]

Given pensioners have smartcards, it wouldn't be difficult to offer discounted travel instead of free travel, and allow a credit to be given if you used a bus to get to a doctor or hospital, or potentially even a shop that wants their custom. Pay to travel and get a credit by presenting your smartcard to the GP or whatever.

That will go down well. Both my local surgery and hospital are under the cosh and can't copy with the medical tasks they have to do, never mind an admin task that has nothing to do with their core work. And what's to stop me arranging a doctor's appointment because I want a trip into town - there is plenty wrong with me that I save up for my annual review (and I am not alone, I am sure). That'll clog the surgeries up!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, so you agree ENCTS is not being funded properly (i.e. how it was intended to be)! Why only restrict bus passes to the poor? Why not do the same with the NHS, and force those who can afford it (according to you) to pay for it? It's probably Jacob Rees-Mogg's wet dream.

It would probably be better to tweak the tax system so as to get more tax from the rich to fund them getting a bus pass than simply not to give them one, as as I said above it encourages people who might otherwise drive (and cause congestion and accidents due to being older and so having poorer reactions) not to do so.

Indeed, they don't just benefit the passholder, they benefit the time-pushed driver who isn't then sat behind their car in a queue (as they're on the bus) as well as anyone having to breathe the air.

Removing them would have the effect that people who drive will just return to driving.

 

[Typhoon]

It's probably Jacob Rees-Mogg's wet dream.

Your post should have a health warning - I was about to eat!

 

[jon0844]

That will go down well. Both my local surgery and hospital are under the cosh and can't copy with the medical tasks they have to do, never mind an admin task that has nothing to do with their core work. And what's to stop me arranging a doctor's appointment because I want a trip into town - there is plenty wrong with me that I save up for my annual review (and I am not alone, I am sure). That'll clog the surgeries up!

My surgery has a computer to 'check in' and I can't see why you couldn't tap your card on that and get a credit. I would expect any surgery to have a few words if someone just booked an appointment to get a free ride into town. Maybe a way to threaten removal of the facility?

I can't see why modern technology can't make the free travel a fairer system, given the current system makes travel for those who pay more unaffordable because operators can't afford to lower fares if most of their income is from bus passes, and that income is based on the average fare.

It isn't as if we have to introduce a complex smartcard system. It already exists. That's one thing the Government/councils got right. An ITSO card that could do a lot more than it does.

What we can't do is axe them completely, and I don't think it would be fair to make everyone pay. I can see perhaps scope for half fare or even 75% off. Maybe free travel at certain times or weekends.

Something should be done, and I am simply coming up with suggestions.

(For clarification, I am not suggesting the surgery giving a credit would actually pay anything. It would be funded by the Government as it is now, only in a different way to giving free travel for every single use).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see why modern technology can't make the free travel a fairer system

You don't need any technology to make it fairer. Simply fully fund it via national general taxation. Or if you want to play tech, bill all journeys back to the *home* local authority (registered pass address) to avoid the issue of holiday destination local authorities having to pay for a lot of travel from a meagre taxation budget.

 

[jon0844]

You don't need any technology to make it fairer. Simply fully fund it via national general taxation. Or if you want to play tech, bill all journeys back to the *home* local authority (registered pass address) to avoid the issue of holiday destination local authorities having to pay for a lot of travel from a meagre taxation budget.

Well there you go, there's an idea of using the technology smarter.

I think there's a lot that can be done.

For one, I think the way councils are paying bus operators based on average fares is flawed. It makes bus travel for people who could make buses viable too expensive, so those people drive, cycle, walk or .. well, whatever they do, it won't be by bus.

So as time goes on, buses get reduced in service frequency. Start later, end earlier and even commuters can't rely on them as they can't get one to the train station, or home if they don't leave the office dead on time and have no delays. You wouldn't go one way by bus if you have no way home (except maybe an expensive taxi) so you'll drive and park nearby, clogging up local roads.

I am speaking from experience here. Eventually you'll lose loads of bus services. Forget a decent Saturday service and Sunday's? Well good luck unless you're on a main road that has to be used to run buses from one town to another, or serves a hospital. The council may still subsidise those. Some of them anyway.

It's ironic that many operators finally accept contactless card payments. Some give change vouchers if you don't have the right money. It has never been easier to just hop on a bus and not worry about how you're going to pay. But so much damage has been done in the last 10+ years that the only bus users are the people who have no choice.

If you can't get more people to use buses, as a convenient alternative to the car when you're not lugging shopping or equipment around, then eventually bus pass users won't actually have any buses to use them on.

 

[alex397]

Incidentally, I think its worth mentioning that ENCTS is for disabled people too, not just the elderly. I often notice in ENCTS discussions (and in publicity), this seems to get overlooked.
I know of many disabled people who regularly use this pass, and who really benefit from it. Considering the disabled get punished enough by this current government, I do hope ENCTS will always be available to disabled people.

 

[Typhoon]

Incidentally, I think its worth mentioning that ENCTS is for disabled people too, not just the elderly. I often notice in ENCTS discussions (and in publicity), this seems to get overlooked.
I know of many disabled people who regularly use this pass, and who really benefit from it. Considering the disabled get punished enough by this current government, I do hope ENCTS will always be available to disabled people.

Good point. Wouldn't it be ironic if, now that buses have to be accessible to those with disabilities, we made it financially more difficult to use them?

 

[philthetube]

the services where revenue was hardest hit were the rural occasional ones which run very infrequently, maybe even only one or two days a week. All passengers on those are pensioners, they were all paying half fare and the journey was subsidised by the council, now they all pay nothing, no revenue to the council, who can no longer afford to pay for the service, so no bus. The users would have been better off had free travel never arrived.

 

[The Ham]

One way you could fairly easily tax the rich wood be to do something like had been done for child benefit but for state pensions.

In that if you earn over a certain threshold the government (in your self assessment process) apply an extra tax so that by a certain threshold you end up with £0.

In doing so you could remove the very rich from claiming state pensions and thus save the government this money.

As to be honest how many pensioners earning over (say) £50,000 actually need the state pension?

Yes there may not be many of them in the greater scheme of things, but there could be a fair few who are in employment who already benefit by not having to pay National Insurance. Even just 7,000 people loosing their pension payments (they wouldn't loose it totally, just they wouldn't be paid out until their income falls below a certain threshold) would save something like £45 million a year. Although it is a small amount in the greater scheme of things is only impacting something like 0.01% of the population. Of course increase the numbers impacted and the savings go up, but you're not likely to find much sympathy for those who would complain (especially given that families with children have been impacted in a similar way and the amount of income that they already have).

£45 million would allow an extra 3.5% to be contributed to the ENCTS funding. Which although not a huge amount, could be used in targeted funding for certain routes (i.e. allowing Councils to subsidy certain routes by paying a premium for each user). As applying a blanket increase across the network wouldn't do much to improve things, as it would increase profits for those routes which are going to be run anyway whist not being enough to save most of those routes which could do with the extra support.

 

[Typhoon]

Yes there may not be many of them in the greater scheme of things, but there could be a fair few who are in employment who already benefit by not having to pay National Insurance. Even just 7,000 people loosing their pension payments (they wouldn't loose it totally, just they wouldn't be paid out until their income falls below a certain threshold) would save something like £45 million a year. Although it is a small amount in the greater scheme of things is only impacting something like 0.01% of the population. Of course increase the numbers impacted and the savings go up, but you're not likely to find much sympathy for those who would complain (especially given that families with children have been impacted in a similar way and the amount of income that they already have).

The underlined - ah, now that is a nonsense. Now that the retirement age is heading above 65, why should people stop paying NI? It can't be said that it is to fund your pension. On retirement I found I had over 43 years contributions, I wasn't allowed to stop when I reached 30 (which it was at the time). Others will easily exceed this. It also goes towards the NHS which over 65s use.*

The cut off for the pension, I am not so certain given governments' track record on such things. Doubtless the £50k would be frozen and maybe reduced and soon enough it would be affecting the average pensioner. I've no problem with the idea in theory, I just don't trust politicians.

Incidentally, whenever people talk about why pensioners shouldn't get the bus pass, they say that pensioners like Lord Sugar get it. He is eligible but I would be surprised if he thought he could justify the time filling in the form and getting the passport photo done. And would he ever say "Don't worry about getting the car out, James, I'll catch the bus today!" - I think not.

However, I fear the thread is solely becoming a discussion on ENCTS!

* - I should declare an interest - I no longer work. I have looked at part time work but am now a full-time carer so would have to dump some of these responsibilities on Social Services or the NHS.

 

[Typhoon]

Realistically the benefit of it being national is that it stops political boundaries giving people useless passes. For instance someone who is just outside MK in Aylesbury Vale would, if it was local travel only, just get a pass valid to go to Aylesbury when in fact they'd want to go to MK. Making it national just avoids that issue.

Not only 'want' but 'need'. There must be a fair chance that major health resources are in MK.

However people such as me would hardly be affected - only one local route, hourly, goes outside the District boundary and the County boundary is half a day away* making the pass even more unequal than at present.

And what about routes that cross the boundary, then cross back again (there is a thread somewhere). How do you make sure that pensioners are not getting off at the 'wrong' stop for their pass to be valid?

* - leave at 09:30, cross the boundary just after 13:15 if buses run to time. Just time for a cup of tea and a bun before I have to return.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not only 'want' but 'need'. There must be a fair chance that major health resources are in MK.

True. Of course you could come up with a complex zonal system to allow for it, but realistically hardly anyone is using these passes for "silly" journeys so making them national is just easier and shouldn't cost a whole lot more than local passes with sensible coverage.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ah, so you agree ENCTS is not being funded properly (i.e. how it was intended to be)! Why only restrict bus passes to the poor? Why not do the same with the NHS, and force those who can afford it (according to you) to pay for it? It's probably Jacob Rees-Mogg's wet dream.

Many parts of the NHS are means-tested: the GP appointment may be free, but the prescription you come out with certainly isn't.

ENCTS isn't properly funded and hasn't ever been properly funded, yet it still costs £1.2bn every year. I know it's not a huge sum of money in a national scale but it is about 75% of the cost of the total disability benefit budget, seeing as someone else mentioned disabled people. Even more tellingly, it's about six times the size of the budget to support essential bus services.

My biggest gripe with ENCTS is that it costs so much money yet is trashing the provision of essential bus services. The people who supposedly benefit most- the disabled and elderly- lose their bus service from the estates so that other people can have a free jolly to the seaside.

Meanwhile working age people on benefits can't afford to leave their house because a return to town on the bus costs 10% of their money for the week.

Don't even get me started on the Gold Card scheme for Metro up here...

 

[Tetchytyke]

realistically hardly anyone is using these passes for "silly" journeys

Depends how you define silly. I don't think people abuse the system, but they do take full advantage of the scheme for day trips. I don't blame people- if by some miracle ENCTS still exists in 35 years when I get to retire I would too- and nobody should feel guilty for doing it. But there is a cost attached to those day trips.

The same people who cry and wail that they've "paid into it all their life" (even though it didn't exist ten years ago) will cry and wail when the local bus gets scrapped or the local library closes, as though these things aren't linked to the drain on council finances that ENCTS is. We spend £350m a year more on ENCTS than we do on libraries: isn't that just mad?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends how you define silly. I don't think people abuse the system, but they do take full advantage of the scheme for day trips. I don't blame people- if by some miracle ENCTS still exists in 35 years when I get to retire I would too- and nobody should feel guilty for doing it. But there is a cost attached to those day trips.

And a benefit as well - cheap day trips mean old people not just staying at home frying their brain on daytime TV as used to happen. Being able to travel easily and cheaply drives all sorts of benefits.

OK, someone who manages a 30 grand annual pension probably doesn't need one, but that's what the tax system is for. Better to tax them the value of the benefit over their lifetime and let them have it (and get their car off the road) than to just go "ner, you can't have one".

And yes, there is an element of sour grapes of denying something small like that to someone who has paid higher-rate tax their whole life. Upping that tax by a few quid a month to pay for it doesn't have that effect, hence it being a better approach.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Better to tax them the value of the benefit over their lifetime and let them have it (and get their car off the road) than to just go "ner, you can't have one".

There's certainly an argument for that, but of course pensions are a tax efficient way of saving. The richest people have the biggest pensions and have made the biggest tax savings throughout their lives.

I think it is digusting, to be quite frank, that poor working age people have to pay full whack, yet pensioners whose net income is significantly more than mine get their jollies for free. Taking the family to town from mine costs the thick end of fifteen quid on the bus. It's that high to compensate for ENCTS. Poor working age people don't leave the house as a result (or, judging by my client base, skip the Metro fare and get a £500 fine as a result).

I don't disagree with there being a benefit to getting the cars off the road; taking the bus to Whitby is better than them taking the Jag. But the current system is stacked towards wealthy and able-bodied people, the very people who are most likely to be out and about anyway and can afford to pay for their own jollies. The benefit is totally skewed.

The people most likely to be sitting at home stewing are still there at home stewing. The minibuses running round the town estates have all gone, so if you can't walk to the main road for the commercial service you're not going anywhere.

 

[The Ham]

The underlined - ah, now that is a nonsense. Now that the retirement age is heading above 65, why should people stop paying NI? It can't be said that it is to fund your pension. On retirement I found I had over 43 years contributions, I wasn't allowed to stop when I reached 30 (which it was at the time). Others will easily exceed this. It also goes towards the NHS which over 65s use.*

The cut off for the pension, I am not so certain given governments' track record on such things. Doubtless the £50k would be frozen and maybe reduced and soon enough it would be affecting the average pensioner. I've no problem with the idea in theory, I just don't trust politicians.

Incidentally, whenever people talk about why pensioners shouldn't get the bus pass, they say that pensioners like Lord Sugar get it. He is eligible but I would be surprised if he thought he could justify the time filling in the form and getting the passport photo done. And would he ever say "Don't worry about getting the car out, James, I'll catch the bus today!" - I think not.

However, I fear the thread is solely becoming a discussion on ENCTS!

* - I should declare an interest - I no longer work. I have looked at part time work but am now a full-time carer so would have to dump some of these responsibilities on Social Services or the NHS.

The point being, if you are a higher rate tax payer, you would already be about £90 a week better off once you reach retirement age by not paying NI.

 

[MedwayValiant]

Would it be especially complicated to code the ENCTS such that it was only valid in designated local authorities, to include the county of residence and those neighbouring?

The precise details would be up for discussion, but for instance a pass issued by Kent or Medway might be valid in (let us say) Kent + Medway, Greater London, East Sussex, Surrey, and Thurrock. That would mean that no one would lose out by living on the edge of a county, but that a pass holder who can afford to take a holiday in (say) Blackpool would have to pay fares. Meanwhile, the pass holder living in Blackpool gets free travel in (say) Lancashire + Blackburn + Blackpool, Cumbria, and Greater Manchester, but has to pay fares if she is able to take a holiday on the south coast.

Abolishing the ENCTS entirely would lose an election and so it will never happen, but I don't think that many could have a serious issue with an arrangement such as this. How much money it would save we don't really know, but the local authorities in resort areas wish us to believe that it's lots and lots.

 

[carlberry]

Would it be especially complicated to code the ENCTS such that it was only valid in designated local authorities, to include the county of residence and those neighbouring?

The precise details would be up for discussion, but for instance a pass issued by Kent or Medway might be valid in (let us say) Kent + Medway, Greater London, East Sussex, Surrey, and Thurrock. That would mean that no one would lose out by living on the edge of a county, but that a pass holder who can afford to take a holiday in (say) Blackpool would have to pay fares. Meanwhile, the pass holder living in Blackpool gets free travel in (say) Lancashire + Blackburn + Blackpool, Cumbria, and Greater Manchester, but has to pay fares if she is able to take a holiday on the south coast.

Abolishing the ENCTS entirely would lose an election and so it will never happen, but I don't think that many could have a serious issue with an arrangement such as this. How much money it would save we don't really know, but the local authorities in resort areas wish us to believe that it's lots and lots.

It would appeal to a small group of authorities (and to an extent the associated bus companies) however it would add a level of complication that would add cost to every use of the card so the majority of companies/councils are not going to be interested. The holiday issue isn't the major issue with the scheme and, as you said, no party is going to suggest major changes to it if they want to win an election.

 

[Dai Corner]

Another way of interpreting the article is that sending a large vehicle around a fixed route at fixed times in the hope that enough people find it useful is no longer a viable proposition. Not enough people use it, even if it's free.

Perhaps we need to look at alternatives, whether it's demand-responsive buses, taxi passes instead of bus passes, free or subsidised cars or fuel for people prepared to give neighbours lifts on a frequent basis or something else?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it be especially complicated to code the ENCTS such that it was only valid in designated local authorities, to include the county of residence and those neighbouring?

I doubt that would save much, to be honest, though it would solve the issue of "holiday destination" Councils having a disproportionately high cost. To me a better option would be that all travel for a given individual would be billed to the local authority for the address registered to their pass.

The increased cost was due to free travel being introduced in areas where it was previously not offered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's certainly an argument for that, but of course pensions are a tax efficient way of saving. The richest people have the biggest pensions and have made the biggest tax savings throughout their lives.

That's a typically "not fair" way of putting it. While the headline "savings" figure is going to be higher, the people you are talking about will have paid far more actual tax through their life than someone on a much lower wage.

I think it is digusting, to be quite frank, that poor working age people have to pay full whack, yet pensioners whose net income is significantly more than mine get their jollies for free. Taking the family to town from mine costs the thick end of fifteen quid on the bus. It's that high to compensate for ENCTS. Poor working age people don't leave the house as a result (or, judging by my client base, skip the Metro fare and get a £500 fine as a result).

And that is because ENCTS isn't funded properly so causes high single fares. And also because wages are too low. Solve the actual problems rather than shouting "it's not fair".

It's worth noting that a family of 4 or 5 in a medium family car is a very efficient way to travel both in terms of pollution and in terms of road space. Families travelling by car are not the priority to get off the roads. For those who don't drive, private hire taxis are often cheaper than the bus for that kind of group journey anyway.

The people most likely to be sitting at home stewing are still there at home stewing. The minibuses running round the town estates have all gone, so if you can't walk to the main road for the commercial service you're not going anywhere.

The number of elderly people on buses would suggest that isn't a great issue, particularly given that it's not just about walking to the main road, it's about walking usually far further around the shops at the far end too. There are of course subsidised Dial a Ride schemes for those who can't walk any distance, as well as Motability cars and the likes. I don't think it's the kind of problem you suggest.

 

[Typhoon]

The point being, if you are a higher rate tax payer, you would already be about £90 a week better off once you reach retirement age by not paying NI.

Sorry if it isn't clear. The nonsense is the higher rate tax payer doesn't pay NI. I think they should have to pay (along with all other over 65s in employment). I cannot understand why not - most people will have clocked up 35 years NI well before they get to 65 so it is not directly linked to their pension. Also all over 65s are eligible to use the NHS to which at least some of NI goes to. £90 for each higher rate over 65 would raise quite a bit (plus the contributions from the less well paid over 65).

 

[MedwayValiant]

It would appeal to a small group of authorities (and to an extent the associated bus companies) however it would add a level of complication that would add cost to every use of the card so the majority of companies/councils are not going to be interested.

That's a fair comment, unless that field is actually already there. Does the machine on a bus which reads a pass know which local authority issued that pass? If it doesn't, then Bletchleyite's suggestion ...

I doubt that would save much, to be honest, though it would solve the issue of "holiday destination" Councils having a disproportionately high cost. To me a better option would be that all travel for a given individual would be billed to the local authority for the address registered to their pass.

... won't work as the system stands. But if it does, then my suggestion is not a major coding task.

I am aware that there a few special local arrangements. For instance, a Medway-issued pass can be used within Medway from 0900, but other authorities' passes cannot be used until 0930. People who get on my local buses at 0900 don't see their passes reject and then have to show them to the driver for visual inspection, so the system must know which passes are Medway-issued. Whether the system can only tell between Medway / Not Medway, or whether it knows how many Derbyshire-issued passes were used in Chatham last week, I do not know.

A Northumberland-issued pass can be used on some routes in Scottish Borders, and a Scottish Borders-issued pass can be used to Berwick upon Tweed. Does the system know when to accept these, or are they just shown to the driver?

 

[edwin_m]

Another way of interpreting the article is that sending a large vehicle around a fixed route at fixed times in the hope that enough people find it useful is no longer a viable proposition. Not enough people use it, even if it's free.

Perhaps we need to look at alternatives, whether it's demand-responsive buses, taxi passes instead of bus passes, free or subsidised cars or fuel for people prepared to give neighbours lifts on a frequent basis or something else?

Certainly not in major cities, where fixed route bus service is viable, indeed essential - unless they have implausibly comprehensive rail networks. The alternatives are simply too space-inefficient to provide a service once urban density reaches a certain limit; effectively the city would have to be demolished to make enough space for the roads and car parks.

For more rural areas it's obviously more debatable. A reasonable level of funding (tin hat on - a fraction of what is thrown at the railways) might increase the frequency enough that the service becomes useful to people other than than those who have absolutely no alternative, and could reduce the cost per passenger as well as starting to make a dent in car traffic. Even more so if the bus and rail networks are integrated with rail providing the trunk hauls and buses acting as feeders.

 

[Eyersey468]

That's a fair comment, unless that field is actually already there. Does the machine on a bus which reads a pass know which local authority issued that pass? If it doesn't, then Bletchleyite's suggestion ...



... won't work as the system stands. But if it does, then my suggestion is not a major coding task.

I am aware that there a few special local arrangements. For instance, a Medway-issued pass can be used within Medway from 0900, but other authorities' passes cannot be used until 0930. People who get on my local buses at 0900 don't see their passes reject and then have to show them to the driver for visual inspection, so the system must know which passes are Medway-issued. Whether the system can only tell between Medway / Not Medway, or whether it knows how many Derbyshire-issued passes were used in Chatham last week, I do not know.

A Northumberland-issued pass can be used on some routes in Scottish Borders, and a Scottish Borders-issued pass can be used to Berwick upon Tweed. Does the system know when to accept these, or are they just shown to the driver?

The ticket machines we have are programmed to recognise the local areas passes and certain other ones, others just show up as ENCTS. As our machines are programmed with all the relevant start times etc I imagine the Northumberland and Scottish ones will be too.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Having sat behind Derek and Mabel doing 35mph on the A69 all the way from Brampton to Hexham, I've changed my mind. Keep ENCTS and take their car off them!