TfGM-website, timetable updates and general news concerning TfGM bus stations.

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's good that nobody else does selective quoting of statistics!

I do hope that you're not referring to Andy Burnham referring to the decline from the mid 1980s to now without mentioning any abstraction by Metrolink or improved rail services in GM? Nor the lack of looking at the decline from the mid 1950s to the mid 1980s despite the substantial amount of local (rates) and national (new bus grant) that was provided as subsidy. Are there any social or economic developments that might have occurred in that time? Has a large radial motorway been built? Perhaps some idea of the amount of support that London has received? Perhaps Manchester could have some sort of congestion charge - might be an idea worth considering

In reality and with tongue out of cheek, this is a moderately interesting set of headlines. However, I'd be more interested to see the real meat on the bones, and also see something more long term - why a 3 year plan when what is really needed more strategic for 5 to 7 years? Multi-operator ticket price freezes means the differential between these and operator specific ones may narrow so can part of the partnership be to simply move to multi operator full stop - is this part of the simplification?

As Carl eloquently states, most of the issues in bus operation can and should be solved by the local authorities. Apparently, such is the cash strapped nature of things with certain LAs, that bus lane cameras are not enforced and so motorists use them with impunity. Having worked with the public sector, the idea of full on regulation or even franchising leaves me cold. That is aside from when politicians get involved - such stuff as the culling of bendis in London, the creation of the Borismaster, and even the hopper fare show what happens when decisions are made from a political standpoint. Partnership is the way forward in my opinion - get the roads sorted, remove the plethora of free or cheap on street parking, enforce traffic restrictions (like ticketing courier vans in bus lanes) and have good bus priority whilst, at the same time, get real enforceable commitments via an agreed and legally enforceable framework with the operators so they meet their end of the bargain.

PS this is not to absolve operators of blame in the past. Whilst Stagecoach have creditably consistently invested, First have been guilty of cyclical non investment and then a splurge of spending when forced to. We saw a lot in the late noughties but then little until they got a shoeing and that prompted a lot in 2005-9, then little until 2012-4 and little since other than for Vantage. When I first moved to Manchester, many of my local buses were Arriva that were mainly 20 year old+ re-engined Nationals in Bee Line livery.

 

[HSTEd]

It's good that nobody else does selective quoting of statistics!
The problem is London had a different delivery model and a completely different level of public finance. Outside London the delivery model has produced good results in certain areas requiring limited public finance, none at all in recent years in some areas.

Buses recieve enormous public subsidy throughout England and Wales.
Massive amounts are expended on concessionary travel schemes and BSOG.
To the point where public subsidy amounts to a substantial fraction of the entire income of bus operators in England and Wales.

Just changing the delivery model will achieve next to nothing. The things that could achieve big change are increasing the amount of money available for buses and increasing the road space available for them. Both of these are already under the control of local politicians and they've mostly failed to deliver. This isn't going to change!

It would enable desperately need bus service and fare rationalisation.
Routes like those on Oxford Road are massively overbussed because of the artificial distinction between regular Stagecoach and 'Magicbus' Services, and the shear number of unnecessary route numbers confuses everyone involved.
The short stopping of busway buses by First also worsens congestion and increases overall costs - buses run along a crowded corridor almost empty as a result.

There is an enormous amount of fat to trim if proper rationalisation, of the type that is only possible with franchising, was to occur.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is an enormous amount of fat to trim if proper rationalisation, of the type that is only possible with franchising, was to occur.

I can well imagine these words being said by a certain Mr. Beeching. Do you wish to emulate his posterity?

 

[carlberry]

Buses recieve enormous public subsidy throughout England and Wales.
Massive amounts are expended on concessionary travel schemes and BSOG.
To the point where public subsidy amounts to a substantial fraction of the entire income of bus operators in England and Wales.

It would enable desperately need bus service and fare rationalisation.
Routes like those on Oxford Road are massively overbussed because of the artificial distinction between regular Stagecoach and 'Megabus' Services, and the shear number of unnecessary route numbers confuses everyone involved.
The short stopping of busway buses by First also worsens congestion and increases overall costs - buses run along a crowded corridor almost empty as a result.

There is an enormous amount of fat to trim if proper rationalisation, of the type that is only possible with franchising, was to occur.

Concessionary travel schemes and BSOG apply equally within London. BSOG helps to level the playing field slightly against the fuel subsidy given to railways, electric car owners and airlines for example. Concessionary travel schemes are no more a subsidy to public transport than the winter fuel payment is a subsidy to the electric companies or the pension is a subsidy to the makers of Werther's originals. The actual subsidy (money paid to run buses over and above fares) appears to be something like 3 times as much spent in London as in the rest of England and Wales, that is what produces better bus services!

Your other point appears to be that franchising is good because it'll reduce the number of buses available. Not a great selling point but a realistic outcome in that the system ends up with the buses that the great and the good have decided that people need which isn't the same as the ones they want.

I've got nothing against the idea of a centrally managed public transport system, the issue however is the people that do the managing and politicians are not the people that should be doing it. Equally 'greedy bus company owners' aren't most people's first choice either, however they're a lot more likely to give people what they want and usually avoid telling people what they need.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Buses recieve enormous public subsidy throughout England and Wales.
Massive amounts are expended on concessionary travel schemes and BSOG.
To the point where public subsidy amounts to a substantial fraction of the entire income of bus operators in England and Wales.


It would enable desperately need bus service and fare rationalisation.
Routes like those on Oxford Road are massively overbussed because of the artificial distinction between regular Stagecoach and 'Megabus' Services, and the shear number of unnecessary route numbers confuses everyone involved.
The short stopping of busway buses by First also worsens congestion and increases overall costs - buses run along a crowded corridor almost empty as a result.

There is an enormous amount of fat to trim if proper rationalisation, of the type that is only possible with franchising, was to occur.

I can well imagine these words being said by a certain Mr. Beeching. Do you wish to emulate his posterity?

You may think that buses receive enormous subsidy across England and Wales but, of course, we only have to see the difference in London. Buses there received nearly £700m in bridging the gap whilst GM spends about £100m and, in the case of ENCTS, it is not a subsidy to anyone but the pensioner who no longer has to pay the fare themselves.

Whilst there may be some overbussing on the odd corridor (assuming HST meant Stagecoach and MagicBus), to suggest that this is some massive opportunity clearly runs contrary to the other old accusation in that it's a captive market and companies are exploiting a monopoly position. Put it another way, let's assume that you could somehow save 40 vehicles from all this fat trimming - that equates to about £5m a year. Not much when you think about it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Concessionary travel schemes and BSOG apply equally within London. BSOG helps to level the playing field slightly against the fuel subsidy given to railways, electric car owners and airlines for example. Concessionary travel schemes are no more a subsidy to public transport than the winter fuel payment is a subsidy to the electric companies or the pension is a subsidy to the makers of Werther's originals. The actual subsidy (money paid to run buses over and above fares) appears to be something like 3 times as much spent in London as in the rest of England and Wales, that is what produces better bus services!

Your other point appears to be that franchising is good because it'll reduce the number of buses available. Not a great selling point but a realistic outcome in that the system ends up with the buses that the great and the good have decided that people need which isn't the same as the ones they want.

I've got nothing against the idea of a centrally managed public transport system, the issue however is the people that do the managing and politicians are not the people that should be doing it. Equally 'greedy bus company owners' aren't most people's first choice either, however they're a lot more likely to give people what they want and usually avoid telling people what they need.

I might also point out that Andy Burnham is minded to approve a pollution zone whereby the worst polluting vehicles have a charge levied. Can you guess which class of vehicle he is minded not to charge though?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Routes like those on Oxford Road are massively overbussed because of the artificial distinction between regular Stagecoach and 'Megabus' Services, and the shear number of unnecessary route numbers confuses everyone involved.

I was not aware that the Megabus services that depart from their stand on Shudehill bus station to far-flung destinations such as London, Cardiff and Bristol to name but a few now include calling at any of the bus stops on Oxford Road, but I am willing to add this to my meagre bus knowledge of the Manchester area if you can kindly let me know which Megabus services make such calls and of the stops that are called at.

 

[HSTEd]

I was not aware that the Megabus services that depart from their stand on Shudehill bus station to far-flung destinations now include calling at any of the bus stops on Oxford Road, but I am willing to add this to my meagre bus knowledge of the Manchester area if you can kindly let me know which Megabus services make such calls and of the stops that are called at.

Sorry, I mean't Magicbus

In my defence the colour schemes of the two are similar.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sorry, I mean't Magicbus.....In my defence the colour schemes of the two are similar.

Try using that as an excuse to have a run out to London for the same price as to the Manchester Royal Infirmary....

 

[carlberry]

Try using that as an excuse to have a run out to London for the same price as to the Manchester Royal Infirmary....

Should be possible if you book far enough in advance!! (plus 50p extra fee)

 

[HSTEd]

Concessionary travel schemes and BSOG apply equally within London. BSOG helps to level the playing field slightly against the fuel subsidy given to railways, electric car owners and airlines for example.

Airlines are hardly a competitor with bus services!
Why should buses receive reduced cost fuel?
If anything, if the argument of road damage scaling by the fourth power of axle weight is anything to go by, they should have more expensive fuel than things like taxis!
And there should be an extra high tax rate for fuel used in heavyweight double deckers.

Concessionary travel schemes are no more a subsidy to public transport than the winter fuel payment is a subsidy to the electric companies or the pension is a subsidy to the makers of Werther's originals.

So artificially creating a market for a product that would be otherwise undesirable is not a subsidy to the people who produce that product?
If not for ENTCS the cratering of non London bus service use would be even more drastic.

The actual subsidy (money paid to run buses over and above fares) appears to be something like 3 times as much spent in London as in the rest of England and Wales, that is what produces better bus services!

If you exclude the hundreds of millions of free journeys given away by the government at enormous expense, creating an artificial market that would otherwise not exist?

Buses in London are actually used by people for useful

Your other point appears to be that franchising is good because it'll reduce the number of buses available. Not a great selling point but a realistic outcome in that the system ends up with the buses that the great and the good have decided that people need which isn't the same as the ones they want.

All that would change is that the "great and the good" would be somewhat answerable to the public, rather than being managers who are only answerable to shareholders that rarely if ever use the buses themselves.

I've got nothing against the idea of a centrally managed public transport system, the issue however is the people that do the managing and politicians are not the people that should be doing it. Equally 'greedy bus company owners' aren't most people's first choice either, however they're a lot more likely to give people what they want and usually avoid telling people what they need.

Bus company owners will do whatever is best for them. They couldn't care less about creating a useful transport system.

They are also against franchising because it reduces the barriers to entry and thus threatens the cozy oligopoly they currently enjoy.
Anyone who has enough buses to run a single route (even a low intensity minor one) in a franchising system can bid and gain a foot in the door.

EDIT:

There were 2.24 billion bus journeys in London in 2016/17.
There 0.94 billio bus journeys in non-London Metropolitan Areas.

Subsidies to bus operators in London totalled ~£940m per annum in that year.
Subsidies to bus operators in non-London Metropolitan Areas totalled ~£500m per annum in that year.

So actually London buses had a lower subsidy per passenger journey.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There were 2.24 billion bus journeys in London in 2016/17.
There 0.94 billio bus journeys in non-London Metropolitan Areas.

Subsidies to bus operators in London totalled ~£940m per annum in that year.
Subsidies to bus operators in non-London Metropolitan Areas totalled ~£500m per annum in that year.

So actually London buses had a lower subsidy per passenger journey.

Surely there's a massive economy of scale there???

 

[HSTEd]

Surely there's a massive economy of scale there???

Economies of scale that are only obtained by actually moving very large numbers of passengers.

Which unfortunately the system outside London now fails to do.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Economies of scale that are only obtained by actually moving very large numbers of passengers.

Which unfortunately the system outside London now fails to do.

Not the only factor. Population density will also massively influence cost of operation/subsidy per passenger.

 

[WatcherZero]

The bus target is about what fleet renewal would be anyway and they can apply to government for a grant that covers the difference between a bus and a hybrid bus purchase price.

Its indeed an attempt to prevent franchising and being entirely led by Stagecoach (the press release was even published by Stagecoach rather than OneBus), they've stepped up from every bus having a couple of stickers to actually proposing TfL style common livery, the rest of it is baubles though.

 

[158756]

They are also against franchising because it reduces the barriers to entry and thus threatens the cozy oligopoly they currently enjoy.
Anyone who has enough buses to run a single route (even a low intensity minor one) in a franchising system can bid and gain a foot in the door.

It lowers the barriers to entry into the market for other established bus operators, and also raises the possibility for any current operator of losing market share or even the whole operation, probably leaving them with an owned, worthless, depot.

If you have one bus, it is much harder to enter the London market than any tendered services outside the capital. The preponderance of cowboy operators or well-meaning ones without the financial resources has not encouraged quality of service on those routes. (Though of course they may have saved some that would otherwise have been lost.) I'm sure it's been suggested that franchising in Manchester would consist of larger packages rather than individual routes, which will put off the current small operators never mind any start-ups.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How do people on this thread view Manchester Community Transport as a bus company?

 

[carlberry]

So artificially creating a market for a product that would be otherwise undesirable is not a subsidy to the people who produce that product?
If not for ENTCS the cratering of non London bus service use would be even more drastic.

If you exclude the hundreds of millions of free journeys given away by the government at enormous expense, creating an artificial market that would otherwise not exist?

Buses in London are actually used by people for useful

As the effect of ENTCS for the bus companies is negative (i.e. they get less money, to the extent that services have been withdrawn because of it) then it's not a subsidy.

I assume from the above that letting pensioners use the bus more is bad and it'll be better if they just stayed home and died earlier, saving a lot of money. However subsidising buses in London is good because people in London, it appears, use them for something better than what the people outside London use them for. However London also gives free rides to children which is also creating an artificial market so is this good because it's Londoners doing it or bad because it's artificial?

 

[Bungle965]

How do people on this thread view Manchester Community Transport as a bus company?

I'd they are okay, I wouldn't really stretch more than that.
They have relatively recently been taken over by the HCT Group resulting in a slightly different branding on their buses now.
They play their trade with allot of tendered work from TfGM which appears to be a relatively successful model for them.
Sam

 

[HSTEd]

As the effect of ENTCS for the bus companies is negative (i.e. they get less money, to the extent that services have been withdrawn because of it) then it's not a subsidy.

Right, we will withdraw ENTCS entirely, and I take it the bus industry would support it because the effect on the industry is negative?
Huge numbers of the remaining routes are only anywhere near viable because pensioners ride them all day.

I assume from the above that letting pensioners use the bus more is bad and it'll be better if they just stayed home and died earlier, saving a lot of money.

Did I say that?
Did I say I was against the idea of public money being spent on subsidising bus operations?

Whether pensioners should be "allowed" to use the bus more often or whatnot is not the question.
The fact remains that it is a subsidy, and phrasing it a way that attempts to paint anyone who questions its nature as a heartless monster is not helpful to the discussion.

However subsidising buses in London is good because people in London, it appears, use them for something better than what the people outside London use them for. However London also gives free rides to children which is also creating an artificial market so is this good because it's Londoners doing it or bad because it's artificial?

Why are subsidies bad? All I said was that the bus industry is heavily subsidised and this means that bus companies outside London can hardly claim they are better because they consume less public money, when they only do this because they don't even manage to move many people any more.
London gets more passenger journeys per pound of public money expended.
The system outside london is propped up by the taxpayer in an inefficient manner that does nothign to produce a system that people might actually want to use for anything other than pottering around all day to get out of the house.

 

[HSTEd]

Not the only factor. Population density will also massively influence cost of operation/subsidy per passenger.

I attempted to control for this by only comparing to non-London metropolitan areas.
Rather than the general countryside.

 

[Deerfold]

Right, we will withdraw ENTCS entirely, and I take it the bus industry would support it because the effect on the industry is negative?
Huge numbers of the remaining routes are only anywhere near viable because pensioners ride them all day.

Did I say that?
Did I say I was against the idea of public money being spent on subsidising bus operations?

Whether pensioners should be "allowed" to use the bus more often or whatnot is not the question.
The fact remains that it is a subsidy, and phrasing it a way that attempts to paint anyone who questions its nature as a heartless monster is not helpful to the discussion.

It is a subsidy. To Pensioners. If a bus company cannot afford to run a service that is full, but only has ENTCS holders on, then it doesn't sound like a subsidy to the bus operators. Bus operators cannot choose whether they accept ENTCS or not, whereas they bid to operate council-subsidised services if they think it's worth their while.

Before ENTCS we didn't have no schemes for pensioners. It's not clear exactly what would happen if we withdrew ENTCS. Passenger numbers would fall, but income per passenger would undoubtedly go up. I suspect some operators would support its withdrawal and some would not. And pretty much all of them would support changes to it.

 

[Stan Drews]

The whole premise of the ENCTS schemes is that bus operators should be no better or no worse off. Therefore if they did not exist, bus operators should be no better or worse off financially. However, it would have a huge impact on the viability of virtually all tendered services, where there is insufficient demand from fare payers to make them commercially viable.
All the bus operators I’ve worked for have focused their efforts on attracting/maintaining full fare paying passengers, as their primary concern. I know a number of very senior industry figures who would be quite happy if ENCTS (in its current form) was done away with, as they would at least have full control of their revenue stream. Their businesses may be smaller, but very likely they’d see higher margins!

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure what bus subsidy via ENTCS has to do with TfGM timetable updates and general discussion as that seems to me to be a national issue. I would therefore request that anyone who wishes to discuss the topic further do so on a new thread. Any further posts on that topic are liable for deletion.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Amongst the very long last monthly TfGM bus updates was that Diamond have a new number 13 service covering Worsley, Monton and Salford Quays running Mondays to Saturdays.

 

[Josie]

One change that's been missed is the Monday to Friday 125 no longer serves Walton Summit, buses now follow the evening & weekend route from Clayton Brook to Bamber Bridge.

I remember seeing this on the TfGM latest service changes, as well as the above post about it. But the 125 timetable currently showing on the TfGM website makes no mention of the change, and indeed maintains that Mon-Fri daytime buses go via Walton Summit; and this afternoon I travelled to Preston on the 125, and buses were running via Walton Summit in both directions. Google searches for "125 Walton Summit" and similar haven't thrown anything up - I now can't find any reference to the route change online! Was it changed back? Did it never happen?

[edit: missed a word]

 

[Blackpudding]

Some of the proposed timetable changes for April 2019 here:
https://www.gmcameetings.co.uk/meet...for_greater_manchester_services_sub-committee

Note that First propose to make changes to Bolton and Oldham depot routes.

 

[Ant158]

First look to have finally given up on route 415 altogether, wonder if Stagecoach will take it on and increase the frequency again.

 

[lincman]

First look to have finally given up on route 415 altogether, wonder if Stagecoach will take it on and increase the frequency again.

It looks as if First have given up in Oldham altogether, along with the 415 the 58 is going, it makes you wonder what will be left to sell

 

[Blackpudding]

It looks as if First have given up in Oldham altogether, along with the 415 the 58 is going, it makes you wonder what will be left to sell

On VOSA today First also cancelled the 340 Hyde to Oldham which is a tendered TfGM evening contract together with the 353/354 Carrcote/Mossley to Ashton which is another TfGM contract if memory serves me correctly which runs during the day.