TfGM Bus franchising

[domcoop7]

Everyone at Bolton working for Diamond has the exact same job when GoAhead take over. Same viz-a-viz Stagecoach... I'm told that the aim is to have every garage and every staff role working on the same pay and conditions as each other, so if you moved depots, nothing changes but your location.

That's the theory. There's no reason why an existing commercial company (with obligations to its shareholders) have to do anything to facilitate that though. The rules (TUPE) impose obligations on the new operators to take on staff on their existing terms and conditions. If Diamond think that drivers are going to jump ship / move internally or they're going to have natural wastage and not want to pay for training and recruitment, then Burnham's going to have to dip into his pocket (or, more realistically, into council tax payers' pockets) to pay for it. Diamond has no reason, legal or moral, to help TfGM take its business away.

As for all TfGM contracted drivers having the same pay and conditions, this is "harmonisation". Given the TUPE regulations I referred to above mean that staff are transferred on their existing pay and conditions, the only way harmonisation can take place is if everyone is brought up to the highest level of pay, and their conditions made equal to whatever are the most favourable.

I suppose there will still be one or two employees with grandfathered conditions dating back to GM Buses days, so in effect that means all new staff getting the pay, holiday conditions, rostering rules of those few hold-outs. The other way it could be done is to negotiate with the unions for a new harmonised scheme that has less favourable conditions, but (usually) offset by a one-off "bonus". Either way, it either means more cash, or look forward to strikes in December 2023, or scrap that as an idea and keep each depot / garage on whatever terms they have but gradually change them.

Even then, I suspect such a requirement would probably breach quite a few EU laws that are (currently) still retained in UK law, including Article 56 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the Public Contracts Regulations. And given his pro-EU credentials, surely Burnham wouldn't want to take advantage of a Tory Brexit Benefit even if he could, would he?

Have also heard that when franchises come into effect, the outgoing operator is liable for "outstanding maintenance fees" for the first 3 months following the change. Presumably to stop anyone running the buses into the ground then simply walking away...

I believe this only applies to companies who are already franchised. Pre-franchising the buses owners aren't obliged to do or pay anything to TfGM. They may choose to sell them, and if they do no doubt there will be warranty that they are of a certain condition, mileage, service record, etc.

I suspect when this hits the streets there is going to be quite a reaction! I wonder what TfGM will do. If they put them out to tender will Diamond bid? Where will anyone get the staff from? And is this an over-reaction to make a few bucks out of the last few months of the status quo? High risk strategy if it is.

I don't think it's a high risk strategy. In fact it makes perfect sense. If you get fired or given notice on employment, for example, it's quite common to be put on gardening leave or paid a lump sum in lieu of notice, because once you know you aren't wanted anymore, and there's no future, all bets are off.

Likewise for Diamond, why do anything at this point that involves spending any money or taking any risk? Best option is to deregister anything that's not at risk of being snapped up by a nearby operator and cut your losses and concentrate on activity that does have a future. And if TfGM are forced to tender the routes, and if your operation is the only realistic bidder, all the better.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the way all the current operators play it once they discover they've lost the franchise for their routes.

 

[M60lad]

Currently at the moment most if not some of Diamond's Bury services do interwork with other services to get them to/from Bolton for example during the week some of the buses on 472/474s interwork with 524 and on Sunday's some 163s interwork at Bury with daytime 511.

 

[ic31420]

I'm.a bit confused by this...
Does this mean that these services wil stop operation, even if just for a period?

If the 575 stops that'll be an issue for lots of folk, including me and mine.


Difficult to see how Burnham's bus franchising is improving things on that route.

 

[RELL6L]

The Diamond 163 has a 2hr 36 minute round trip, running every 12 minutes that 13 buses should be on the road at any one time. During the week it doesn't appear to interwork with anything. Given that it doesn't pass the depot either I think this makes it somewhat awkward to operate. Do drivers manage 2 round trips in a duty? Or is it run cleverly enough that they can run 1½ round trips in a duty with a break at the Manchester end? Either way this cannot be the most efficient route to run. Based at Queens Road might be easier but it's the 'wrong' end of the route - but then so it is for many routes it does operate, like the 17 and 135, because there is no depot in Bury or Rochdale.

In theory yes, these routes will stop operation. In the case of the 575 that's only the Diamond commercial version, mainly shorts between Bolton and Horwich, not the Arriva service through to Wigan nor the contracted evening and Sunday service. I can't see that though, they'll have to be replaced in some way.

I think it is risky because Diamond have retained quite a lot of work and this action is likely to p*ss TfGM off quite significantly. Some sections of route will need to be covered including the 163 between Middleton and Bury and while it does duplicate the 17 between Middleton and Manchester it is hard to see this section losing 5bph.

Are Diamond really losing so many drivers? Given that everyone will be able to transfer on the same terms to Go North West this seems dramatic. If so, where are they going - and how will Go North West resource it come the change? Could go seriously pear-shaped!

 

[ic31420]

Thanks for the update.

Will operators be free to keep running commercial services once franchising takes over?

Is there a list of what services are commercial and not?

How does the Preston/Chorley to Bolton via Horwich 125/126 services stand in this? Are they going to be taken in by TFGM? I know they run significantly out of borough, but the GMZone side of the operation has always been heavily subsidised and consequently cheaper.

And going off at a tangent, are TfGM looking at anything to soften the transition at the borders?

There are a number of times I don't use the bus because it gets stupidly expensive when you cross in to Lancashire, eg Ramsbottom to Helmshore and Horwich to Addington.

 

[WatcherZero]

I believe this only applies to companies who are already franchised. Pre-franchising the buses owners aren't obliged to do or pay anything to TfGM. They may choose to sell them, and if they do no doubt there will be warranty that they are of a certain condition, mileage, service record, etc.

The way it's working is that they can agree to a sell a bus to TfGM to pass to their successor before the transfer (and hundreds already have been) but the price is determined by the individual buses' condition at time of transfer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2023 ==

Will operators be free to keep running commercial services once franchising takes over?

Commercial cross border services can be approved but will face an abstraction test similar to Open Access rail operators, are the services they propose directly competing with an existing service or are they a new route? And they will be required to meet the same fare structure and operating rules, this is to prevent revenue raids.
Existing cross border services will continue but they have to agree to honor Bee Network tickets and meeting all the rules and requirements of the franchised operators once they cross the border, a couple have transferred though e.g. Arriva's service from Wigan to Coppull has become a franchised service even though it wasn't previously operated from within GM.

 

[Leedsbusman]

The way it's working is that they can agree to a sell a bus to TfGM to pass to their successor before the transfer (and hundreds already have been) but the price is determined by the individual buses' condition at time of transfer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2023 ==



Commercial cross border services can be approved but will face an abstraction test similar to Open Access rail operators, are the services they propose directly competing with an existing service or are they a new route? And they will be required to meet the same fare structure and operating rules, this is to prevent revenue raids.
Existing cross border services will continue but they have to agree to honor Bee Network tickets and meeting all the rules and requirements of the franchised operators once they cross the border, a couple have transferred though e.g. Arriva's service from Wigan to Coppull has become a franchised service even though it wasn't previously operated from within GM.

Arriva’s 362 is Wigan to Chorley via Coppull and is run from their Bolton depot within GM. Do you have a source for how the cross boundary stuff will work? I’m aware there will be a London style permit scheme but not seen any reference to abstraction tests etc.

 

[Goldfish62]

Arriva’s 362 is Wigan to Chorley via Coppull and is run from their Bolton depot within GM. Do you have a source for how the cross boundary stuff will work? I’m aware there will be a London style permit scheme but not seen any reference to abstraction tests etc.

The service permit scheme regulations are primarily dictated by the Bus Services Act 2017, S4, paras 123P - T. Far too long to reproduce in full here, but here's the link and a relevant extract:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/21/crossheading/franchising-scheme

(5)The authority or authorities must grant the service permit applied for if they are satisfied that—

(a)the proposed service will benefit persons making journeys on local services in the area to which the scheme relates, and

(b)the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.

(6)The authority or authorities may not grant the service permit applied for if they are not satisfied as to the matters in subsection (5)(a) and (b).

The scheme legislation while similar to London differs in three particular respects (GLA Act 1999 covers London Service Permits):
A: A London service permit may not be granted if it is considered to NOT be in the interests of the London public, whereas a Service Permit MUST be granted if it is considered beneficial to the travelling public.
B: Routes operating under London service permits cannot legally participate in the Mayor's/TfL's fares scheme, whereas it's open to the local transport authority how they treat Service Permit routes.
C: All London service permit applications are subject to formal consultation with the relevant London boroughs, police and other interested parties. There doesn't seem to any similar requirement for Service Permits.

 

[Leedsbusman]

The service permit scheme regulations are primarily dictated by the Bus Services Act 2017, S4, paras 123P - T. Far too long to reproduce in full here, but here's the link and a relevant extract:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/21/crossheading/franchising-scheme

The scheme legislation while similar to London differs in three particular respects (GLA Act 1999 covers London Service Permits):
A: A London service permit may not be granted if it is considered to NOT be in the interests of the London public, whereas a Service Permit MUST be granted if it is considered beneficial to the travelling public.
B: Routes operating under London service permits cannot legally participate in the Mayor's/TfL's fares scheme, whereas it's open to the local transport authority how they treat Service Permit routes.
C: All London service permit applications are subject to formal consultation with the relevant London boroughs, police and other interested parties. There doesn't seem to any similar requirement for Service Permits.

I’m aware of the legislation - but despite a report to GMCA last autumn which authorised consultation there appears as yet to be no published GM cross boundary permit scheme.

 

[Goldfish62]

I’m aware of the legislation - but despite a report to GMCA last autumn which authorised consultation there appears as yet to be no published GM cross boundary permit scheme.

Certainly leaving it a bit late.

 

[Deerfold]

The service permit scheme regulations are primarily dictated by the Bus Services Act 2017, S4, paras 123P - T. Far too long to reproduce in full here, but here's the link and a relevant extract:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/21/crossheading/franchising-scheme

The scheme legislation while similar to London differs in three particular respects (GLA Act 1999 covers London Service Permits):
A: A London service permit may not be granted if it is considered to NOT be in the interests of the London public, whereas a Service Permit MUST be granted if it is considered beneficial to the travelling public.
B: Routes operating under London service permits cannot legally participate in the Mayor's/TfL's fares scheme, whereas it's open to the local transport authority how they treat Service Permit routes.
C: All London service permit applications are subject to formal consultation with the relevant London boroughs, police and other interested parties. There doesn't seem to any similar requirement for Service Permits.

However TfL is also allowed to have a London Local Service Agreement (instead of an LSP) where the service does participate in the London fare scheme. There used to be quite a few of these, but no longer as operators have decided they can't make money on that.

 

[Goldfish62]

However TfL is also allowed to have a London Local Service Agreement (instead of an LSP) where the service does participate in the London fare scheme. There used to be quite a few of these, but no longer as operators have decided they can't make money on that.

Absolutely correct. Legally identical to the contracted routes within Greater London. However these disappeared years ago not only for straight commercial reasons but also the increasingly bespoke ticketing and performance reporting requirements.

 

[158756]

Certainly leaving it a bit late.

With the franchise contracts already awarded surely they must know which routes are going to get a permit so they know which routes the franchises will operate? We know (presumably) Arriva will not be granted a permit for the 362, but if they were going to refuse permits for e.g the Wigan-Skem/St Helens routes the franchisee would need to know they were expected to take on that work.

 

[johncrossley]

The consequence of a lack of commercial services crossing the TfL boundary is that, in general, TfL has either taken over all or part of cross-boundary services, or they terminate just inside the TfL boundary. In the TfGM case, you might see long cross-boundary routes split. An obvious example is the 125 from Bolton to Preston. If Stagecoach no longer find the route commercially viable because of the requirement to follow TfGM ticketing regulations, that might end up being split at either Horwich or Chorley.

 

[domcoop7]

An article in the Manchester Evening News today from Diamond suggests the reason for the cutback is commercial contingency in that if they faced a driver shortage, due to the notice period for the Traffic Commissioners, they wouldn't be able to withdraw services whereas if they had to hire new drivers to run the services, they couldn't offer any guaranteed employment beyond the franchise start date (which in practice means they'd have to pay way over the going rate to entice drivers for what could turn out to be a job that doesn't exist four months later). Hence the decision to withdraw now.

They also say that even if TfGM offers to subsidise them, they "aren't minded" to continue to run.

Whilst there's a commercial reason for them doing what they have (and as I said upthread, I expect this will happen again when the Tranche 2 and Tranche 3 contracts are announced), I suspect there's a touch of sour grapes from Rotala here. Not that you could blame them, mind.

In all honesty I am surprised this contingency wasn't planned for. They could, e.g. have issued 12 month contracts as Franchisees to all existing operators before the franchising competition results were announced to effectively "freeze" the situation as it is during the transition. When monopoly organisations were opened to competition for instance, there was usually a transitional period where the former monopoly is required to have a licence and that license has "universal service obligations". Not the same thing of course, but they could have worked something out.

===

In terms of cross-boundary, back in the day from what I can tell, PTEs used to co-operate with other PTEs but not so much with NBC or commercial operators. I suspect that mindset would continue so that, for example, the Wigan to St Helens or Oldham to Huddersfield bus routes would be jointly organised with Merseyside / West Yorkshire. Wigan to Skelmersdale (which is a short-running of Wigan to Southport) maybe OK because there's a PTE at each end. Wigan / Bolton to Preston I'd suspect all bets are off if Stagecoach pulls out - they'll just add a route to Go North West to/from Standish / Horwich. I can't see Burnham funding Big Bad Private Companies where much of the benefit is on the Preston to Leyland / Chorley sections. Ditto the East Lancs & Rossendale services. And of course he announced he also wants control over Northern Rail services that travel within Greater Manchester, so we can look forward to rail eventually being curtailed at the GM boundary in due course too! Marvellous!

 

[Bletchleyite]

With the franchise contracts already awarded surely they must know which routes are going to get a permit so they know which routes the franchises will operate? We know (presumably) Arriva will not be granted a permit for the 362, but if they were going to refuse permits for e.g the Wigan-Skem/St Helens routes the franchisee would need to know they were expected to take on that work.

It would seem very strange to terminate the Southport-Ormskirk-Skem-Wigan short, so I'd be sure something will be worked out on this one. Demand from Wigan to Skelmersdale is significant.

 

[neilcobbe]

It would seem very strange to terminate the Southport-Ormskirk-Skem-Wigan short, so I'd be sure something will be worked out on this one. Demand from Wigan to Skelmersdale is significant.

They'll soon be dusting off the Abbey Lakes terminus. On a serious note, could they do what they did in Ribble/GMT days have loading restrictions where Ribble couldn't pick up/set down before Abbey Lakes on Skem routes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'll soon be dusting off the Abbey Lakes terminus.

Did that used to be a double-ended Ribble and Wigan terminus? Crikey.

On a serious note, could they do what they did in Ribble/GMT days have loading restrictions where Ribble couldn't pick up/set down before Abbey Lakes on Skem routes?

I suppose they could, but I think Arriva are more likely to come to an agreement so it just runs at GM fares within GM and their fares in Lancashire (and probably in due course Merseyside fares within Southport!)

 

[Pinus contorta]

They'll soon be dusting off the Abbey Lakes terminus. On a serious note, could they do what they did in Ribble/GMT days have loading restrictions where Ribble couldn't pick up/set down before Abbey Lakes on Skem routes?

I was just looking on Google Maps earlier to see if the turning circle was still there. Looks like it is still just about usable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was just looking on Google Maps earlier to see if the turning circle was still there. Looks like it is still just about usable.

Is this it? It's right on the border, identified by the controlled emission zone sign (but now a car park):

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

 

[Pinus contorta]

Is this it? It's right on the border, identified by the controlled emission zone sign (but now a car park):

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Yes that's right.

I was looking at the Google street view in connection with 'bus stop relics' on another thread on here. There used to be a sign attached on the bus stop on opposite side of the road to the Abbey Lakes T/C saying beware of buses reversing. Must have been a relic from when the buses were crewd and reversing was only allowed under supervision. I only recall the terminus in use in the 1980's up until Deregulation. Er..... 629 & 655 GMT turned round there while the Ribble Southport & Skem flew past

 

[GusB]

Back to discussing franchising, please

 

[Statto]

Arriva’s 362 is Wigan to Chorley via Coppull and is run from their Bolton depot within GM. Do you have a source for how the cross boundary stuff will work? I’m aware there will be a London style permit scheme but not seen any reference to abstraction tests etc.

I'm puzzled what is going to happen to cross border routes operated by depots outside the GM area.

Arriva operate 34, 320, 352, 360, 375, 385, 395 into GM from St Helens or Southport depots, outside the GM area. These can be busy routes, & are cross border route. Billinge & Orrell are large areas in GM where the only routes are cross border routes.

Warrington too operate a couple of routes from their Warrington depot into GM.

 

[markymark2000]

I'm puzzled what is going to happen to cross border routes operated by depots outside the GM area.

Arriva operate 34, 320, 352, 360, 375, 385, 395 into GM from St Helens or Southport depots, outside the GM area. These can be busy routes, & are cross border route. Billinge & Orrell are large areas in GM where the only routes are cross border routes.

Warrington too operate a couple of routes from their Warrington depot into GM.

To be fair, the Warrington routes into GM, the 19 and 28, the only go for 10 minutes into GM and would likely pass revenue abstraction tests. 1/2 of the route in GM is serving areas where other routes don't serve.

The 22A route is part funded by TFGM. I can't see it lasting much longer either as Merseytravel keep trying to replace it at tenders. Warrington took on the contract then cut some of the estates it served as they are too incompetent to do due diligence. Add to that the overly confusing and down right stupid looping around Earlestown. It's a joke of a route.

 

[RELL6L]

I cannot imagine that anything working into GM from depots outside will be affected. This includes the Arriva ones above into Leigh & Wigan, Stagecoach 111 into Wigan, Stagecoach 125 and Blackburn 1 into Bolton, Rosso 461/463 into Bury, Rosso 464, First W Yorks 590 and Team Pennine 587 into Rochdale, High Peak 394 into Stepping Hill, High Peak 199 Skyline into Stockport, D&G 130 into the airport, D&G 88 and Warrington CAT5, X5 into Altrincham, Warrington 19 & 28 into Leigh, Warrington 22A into Wigan.

The ones that will undoubtedly be impacted are those running out from inside GM. There are not so many, those I can think of are Arriva 362, First Oldham 184, Stagecoach 237, Stotts 341, Stagecoach 358, Go NW 100. These will presumably simply be part of the franchise process.

In both cases ignoring obscure and very infrequent routes. Anything major I have missed?

I am sure we aren't going back to the old days of no through buses between Littleborough and Todmorden - change at the county boundary at Summit as used to be the case to the 1960s. Bet that was fun in the rain and the snow!

 

[markymark2000]

I cannot imagine that anything working into GM from depots outside will be affected. This includes the Arriva ones above into Leigh & Wigan, Stagecoach 111 into Wigan, Stagecoach 125 and Blackburn 1 into Bolton, Rosso 461/463 into Bury, Rosso 464, First W Yorks 590 and Team Pennine 587 into Rochdale, High Peak 394 into Stepping Hill, High Peak 199 Skyline into Stockport, D&G 130 into the airport, D&G 88 and Warrington CAT5, X5 into Altrincham, Warrington 19 & 28 into Leigh, Warrington 22A into Wigan.

Some routes may be affected if they have too much abstraction. Such as the Arriva 34, 320 and 360

Maybe also 352, 375, 385, 395 which combined have 8 buses per hour along Ormskirk Road. That's a lot of revenue abstraction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some routes may be affected if they have too much abstraction. Such as the Arriva 34, 320 and 360

Maybe also 352, 375, 385, 395 which combined have 8 buses per hour along Ormskirk Road. That's a lot of revenue abstraction.

More likely they'll come to an agreement with those operators for it to be a GM service inside GM and a commercial one outside of it, i.e. some sort of direct award. That's the pragmatic approach. It'll cost them a lot more to tender their own duplicate if those went away or ran non-stop inside GM.

There's plenty of this sort of peripheral stuff within the edges of TfL's area.

 

[johncrossley]

Part of the reason why most cross boundary non-TfL routes were withdrawn was the need to have Oyster equipment on the bus. There might be similar technological issues in GM.

 

[daodao]

To be fair, the Warrington routes into GM, the 19 and 28, the only go for 10 minutes into GM and would likely pass revenue abstraction tests. 1/2 of the route in GM is serving areas where other routes don't serve.

There are other Warrington routes that enter Greater Manchester, in particular the X5 and CAT5 into Altrincham, with the CAT5 in direct competition with Arriva route 247 between Partington and Altrincham. These routes would need to be considered when the third phase of TfGM franchising takes place.

 

[RELL6L]

There are other Warrington routes that enter Greater Manchester, in particular the X5 and CAT5 into Altrincham, with the CAT5A in direct competition with Arriva route 247 between Partington and Altrincham. These routes would need to be considered when the third phase of TfGM franchising takes place.

The 5A no longer exists. One school journey on the CAT5 runs via Partington but it's a school journey and it doesn't take the same route even then. I don't think these routes provide any competition to anyone in GM.