What could a nationalised bus operator look like?

[M803UYA]

Of course, for a lot of this to happen, the Treasury would have to be abolished.

Governments can issue their own money?

 

[Dai Corner]

Of course, for a lot of this to happen, the Treasury would have to be abolished.

What do you think the Treasury does, and what would replace it?

 

[renegademaster]

he current Government wouldn't nationalise buses and a different Governmsnt (like a Labour one) would likely support the unions.

The Welsh labour government gave the same basic deal as the Tories are offering but they just didn't drag their feet about it

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

What do you think the Treasury does, and what would replace it?

Opinion polls of railforums.co.uk users

 

[GusB]

Abolition of the treasury is getting a bit too far from the topic of the thread (!), so let's get back to discussing what a nationalised operator would look like. Thanks

 

[CBlue]

Perhaps with more drivers (as bus driver could become a more popular career choice if wages are improved), and better maintenance of buses, reliability can be increased.

Not quite the be all and end all - you keep mentioning that "reliability will be better" but don't really explain how.

Nationalised or not, buses will still break down, drivers will be ill, etc. And of course they'll still get stuck in traffic and run late if improvements aren't made to infrastructure in the form of bus priority and so on.


Before you mention that a nationalised operator would be able to introduce more priority measures....they wouldn't be able to. The politicians in local government who make those sorts of decisions tend to listen to whoever shouts loudest, in this case motorists, hence the removal of bus lanes in many towns and cities across the country with the argument that they "cause congestion". This same listening to "shouts loudest" would unfortunately apply to service provision. There are stories of how some operators (GM buses springs to mind) retaining housing estate services that local councillors lived on yet cut others, simply as they were easier to do.

This doesn't really square with increased money going into nationalised public transport operations. Ipswich Buses for example is a municipal operator and therefore publicly owned. It has struggled for a few years now with an older fleet and piecemeal replacement when buses got too old, with congestion in the town causing reliability to be a mess.

Yes, there are better municipal operators like Lothian out there but I can't see that being replicated countrywide.

 

[Dai Corner]

The Welsh labour government gave the same basic deal as the Tories are offering but they just didn't drag their feet about it

As we're in the buses part of the forum, I must point out that the Welsh Government has cut bus subsidies,as well as imposing the 20mph speed limit which has increased operating costs. The results are predictable.

 

[Deerfold]

What are the reliability problems that nationalisation would solve?

Ask railway staff (especially drivers) whether privatisation resulted in better wages or not.

The present Government has not awarded generous pay increases.

Recent years have seen poor rises, but privatisation certainly saw train drivers' pay increase faster then inflation.

 

[Dai Corner]

Recent years have seen poor rises, but privatisation certainly saw train drivers' pay increase faster then inflation.

Exactly.

Nationalisation of the bus industry could well see wages stagnate with no opportunity for staff to move to other employers for higher pay and better T&C's.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Not quite the be all and end all - you keep mentioning that "reliability will be better" but don't really explain how.

Having reserve drivers, adding bus lanes and prioritising buses, having back up buses which drivers can operate and that can operate the route.

 

[Busaholic]

The ability to incentive operators is the key reason why London buses are now much better than they were before privatisation.

That's a contentious statement; for a start, London Transport ceased to be nationalised on the first day of the 1970s, over two decades before privatisation occurred. Second, the early years of privatisation produced very mixed results, with some of the operators falling well below the lowest points of state or local government ownership, meaning little or no service for weeks on routes like the 60 or 185, whereas other nearby routes had their usual service. Things improved dramatically when Peter Hendy and Leon Daniels were taken on by Transport for London under the Mayor Ken Livingstone and services expanded dramatically in response to the Congestion Charge and, perhaps, a low flat fare encouraging greater public use. At present, there is still genuine competitive tendering for routes among companies, but I think this may well reduce as the 'big boys' either see off smaller ones or buy garages from each other, etc. With the recent change in Arriva ownership, who knows if operating London bus routes will remain core?

 

[820KDV]

An interesting discussion, and I'm sure others will have different experiences, but to take my home market town, bus services have improved considerably since the days of the National Bus Company.

The route to the big city to the west was every 40 minutes (that's a difficult frequency to remember as a passenger!) dropping to hourly just before de-regulation. At de-regulation it went to hourly and soon attracted competition from a small independent. The former NBC company withdrew a few years ago at which point the independent upped their frequency to provide a 20 minute headway. True, that dropped to half-hourly after Covid, but next weekend the half-hourly service gets joined by an hourly express service, so much of the route is back to 3 buses an hour. At de-regulation, Sundays were just three round trips with a Transit, next Sunday the service goes from 90 minutes to hourly, and they often use double decks when events are happening in the city.

The route to the south was hourly, splitting at the next market town to serve two different routes to the destination town. Competition came and the former NBC company went, with the independent now running every half an hour via one route, albeit to the detriment of the smaller village. No Sunday service yet, that declined and eventually disappeared under NBC auspices in 1983.

The route to the big town north east of us had an hourly service at de-regulation, today its every 20 minutes weekdays and half hourly on Sundays, with high spec, double decks just a few years old compared to a "hand me down" fleet under NBC. This route has remained, albeit via privatisation and then acquisition by one of the big groups, with what is identifiably the same company as in the latter NBC years.

To the north of us is largely rural, and was run by a number of coach companies on very complex and passenger unfriendly timetables, not only lacking clock face departures, but with varying routes, and with many journeys running on different days of the week. Now: hourly, one operator and a consistent route, albeit still council supported, with some of the previous detours and diversions now served by their own supported routes.

Finally our town buses. Well, most went in 1978, when the country routes were amended to serve some of the estates, but others went without. Three routes appeared with Ford Transits from the NBC company just before de-regulation, but they soon pulled out leaving it to the independent. Now we have four town minibus routes, plus two additional ones for the new estates, although it has to be said that the council has gradually stepped in over the years and now the whole town network is supported.

Was the NBC good or bad? Has private enterprise been positive or negative? Has a proactive council been important? What is for sure, there is no one answer.

And on the subject of bus priority, Bus Back Better is very keen on them, and Boris Johnson was very keen to be seen as being behind the policy. The Leader of our council is also a Conservative, and has ambitions to be an MP. So, whatever anyone might think of Mr Johnson, it was very much in the Council Leader's interest to "tow the Party line" if he is to achieve his ambitions. So, have we got lots more Bus Lanes? No, and the Leader has said repeatedly that he won't give a single inch of road space which cars can currently use to buses (or cycles, as it happens), even if Government funding via the Bus Service Improvement Plan pays for it. That's the reality.

 

[Simon75]

Don't want to get into your life story but can I ask how old you are?

I'm old enough to remember the nationalised industries. In fact, my father was a driver with a National Bus subsidiary. My childhood was paid for by the NBC!

Remember that for the high points of pre 1986, the operations were very inefficient. Greater Manchester buses in the early days of 1986 (before deregulation, and in readiness for it) closed three depots, years after they should have. The National Bus Company was loss making and that was despite overt and indirect subsidy. Also, the NBC was a series of locally managed businesses. Even the most local firms, the municipals, were of varying quality with some very parochial thinking.

Lastly, don't fall for the lie that everything was great pre-deregulation/privatisation. Passenger figures were falling through the floor.

On similar lines.
Looking at some old NBC timetables, it seemed some services were overbused, and were cut at privatisation

 

[Dai Corner]

On similar lines.
Looking at some old NBC timetables, it seemed some services were overbused, and were cut at privatisation

Even before privatisation, NBC had a Market Analysis Project (MAP) which resulted in routes and mileage being cut in some cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With buses I'm less than convinced that actually nationalising makes sense.

I could see the sense in direct operation in London, Greater Manchester, Birmingham, Merseyside etc, as it removes an unnecessary profit layer from the contracts and allows greater flexibility. Though harmonising T&Cs would be a complex process and you'd end up with strikes, when they occur, taking everything out.

I can't see Milton Keynes City Council ever being competent enough to run a bus service, and in a "franchising for everyone" system I'd more see sense in them putting out to tender planning and operating the entire local network in the manner Jersey did with Libertybus on the basis of "here's our budget, what can you get out of it?". (It's amazing how many people think they already do, as it's very much a single-operator city now). I don't think a "Milton Keynes City Council Buses Ltd" would be any good.

I don't see the sense in having a single National Bus Company. And coaches seem to work well commercially so leave them be.

The exception on coaches would be Wales and Scotland, where integrating domestic coaches with rail in the same booking and fares system would make sense as there are so many gaps in the rail system that they fill quite well.

 

[Goldfish62]

So this mass nationalisation of bus companies, would it also include all the private operators that have successfully operated since the dawn of the motorbus over a century ago?

 

[YorkRailFan]

So this mass nationalisation of bus companies, would it also include all the private operators that have successfully operated since the dawn of the motorbus over a century ago?

The large ones at minimum, small independent ones may remain.

 

[Goldfish62]

The large ones at minimum, small independent ones may remain.

And the reasoning behind that is what?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

Why? When you are paying someone to do a job, you can incentivise them/penalise them to encourage good performance. In the case of persistent poor performance the operator can be sacked. That option isn't available with state ownership or bus deregulation (unless they are unbelievably bad, such as UK North). The ability to incentive operators is the key reason why London buses are now much better than they were before privatisation.

Quite. And East Thames Buses also illustrates that perfectly. Performance was lamentable.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And the reasoning behind that is what?

Exactly. I'm not certain why an independent like, the Delaine, would be privatised. I mean, what constitutes "small"?

Quite. And East Thames Buses also illustrates that perfectly. Performance was lamentable.

I think @johncrossley has got it slightly wrong when saying

The ability to incentive operators is the key reason why London buses are now much better than they were before privatisation.

There is no incentivisation to operators. Do they get a share of increased revenue? Does a bonus/malus scheme operate that they get bonus payments for service above the minimum?

The "incentive" is avoiding penalties. In London, and it may happen in Manchester in time, is that operators simply build that into their submission and have a higher cost base.

 

[YorkRailFan]

And the reasoning behind that is what?

Bringing bus services back into public hands, meaning a more reliable, frequent bus service.

 

[Dai Corner]

Bringing bus services back into public hands, meaning a more reliable, frequent bus service.

Why would an industry under the direction of politicians result in a more reliable, frequent bus service?

Can you give comparative statistics between, say, Cardiff Bus and First Cymru in Swansea?

 

[YorkRailFan]

Why would an industry under the direction of politicians result in a more reliable, frequent bus service?

Can you give comparative statistics between, say, Cardiff Bus and First Cymru in Swansea?

It would be under local control with local priorities at heart.

 

[JonathanH]

It would be under local control with local priorities at heart.

The local priority may still be that the bus network is commercially viable, given other things to fund, alongside public transport. Some councils are effectively bankrupt.

 

[JKP]

It would be under local control with local priorities at heart.

Not true. Depends on the local political party in control and whether there is sufficient monies available.

Pre deregulation I can remember cross boundary bus routes being cut because one local authority did not want their residents travelling out of the area to shop.

Today, there is a long distance bus route to the west of me that travels through five local authority areas which requires subsidising. Three pay a subsidy, one refuses and the others contribution is merely to pay the bus station departure charges.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Not true. Depends on the local political party in control and whether there is sufficient monies available.

Pre deregulation I can remember cross boundary bus routes being cut because one local authority did not want their residents travelling out of the area to shop.

Today, there is a long distance bus route to the west of me that travels through five local authority areas which requires subsidising. Three pay a subsidy, one refuses and the others contribution is merely to pay the bus station departure charges.

Cross boundary routes would be handled by Westminster.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

The local priority may still be that the bus network is commercially viable, given other things to fund, alongside public transport. Some councils are effectively bankrupt.

Remember that this would the nationalisation of buses would only happen under a different Government (I don't say Labour as I doubt Labour will) so Councils will get additional funding.

 

[Man of Kent]

Cross boundary routes would be handled by Westminster.

And how would that work? What mechanism would there be to align policies of the local controlling authorities with those of central government? What if they cannot agree on funding? There are, as others have described, plenty of examples where neighbours cannot agree.

This proposal is actually a recipe to accelerate the ending of cross boundary routes!

 

[Mwanesh]

It would be under local control with local priorities at heart.

Are you sure about that. I will give you an example of all the municipal operators left. In South Wales we have Cardiff Bus and Newport Bus. They are even failing to serve the cities properly. I could go on some places don't even have buses after early evening. Reading and Lothian do their best. Nottingham and Trent compliment each other. Ipswich Bus and First do the same in their area.

 

[Deerfold]

Exactly. I'm not certain why an independent like, the Delaine, would be privatised. I mean, what constitutes "small"?

I think @johncrossley has got it slightly wrong when saying

There is no incentivisation to operators. Do they get a share of increased revenue? Does a bonus/malus scheme operate that they get bonus payments for service above the minimum?

The "incentive" is avoiding penalties. In London, and it may happen in Manchester in time, is that operators simply build that into their submission and have a higher cost base.

In London there is a base cost for each route. The company is paid a percentage of that with lost mileage removed.

They can then have a bonus or a penalty depending on the reliability of the route.

For Low Frequency routes this is measured by the percentage of buses on time at various points on the route.

For High Frequency routes this is measured by how big gaps are between buses. There is a target for Excess Waiting Time with bonuses or penalties at various figures above and below this. There are also penalties for too many "Long Gaps" - gaps of twice the timetabled time or more between consecutive buses.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

Are you sure about that. I will give you an example of all the municipal operators left. In South Wales we have Cardiff Bus and Newport Bus. They are even failing to serve the cities properly. I could go on some places don't even have buses after early evening. Reading and Lothian do their best. Nottingham and Trent compliment each other. Ipswich Bus and First do the same in their area.

No municipal is currently run by councils. They are owned by councils, which is not quite the same.

 

[Dai Corner]

In London there is a base cost for each route. The company is paid a percentage of that with lost mileage removed.

They can then have a bonus or a penalty depending on the reliability of the route.

For Low Frequency routes this is measured by the percentage of buses on time at various points on the route.

For High Frequency routes this is measured by how big gaps are between buses. There is a target for Excess Waiting Time with bonuses or penalties at various figures above and below this. There are also penalties for too many "Long Gaps" - gaps of twice the timetabled time or more between consecutive buses.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==



No municipal is currently run by councils. They are owned by councils, which is not quite the same.

I don't know about other municipal operators but the majority of the Directors of Newport Transport are Councillors or Council officers.

I'd say that was 'run by the Council' even though the staff aren't Council employees.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Are you sure about that. I will give you an example of all the municipal operators left. In South Wales we have Cardiff Bus and Newport Bus. They are even failing to serve the cities properly. I could go on some places don't even have buses after early evening. Reading and Lothian do their best. Nottingham and Trent compliment each other. Ipswich Bus and First do the same in their area.

First is a big private company and are a nightmare, and don't even get me started on Go Ahead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2023 ==

And how would that work? What mechanism would there be to align policies of the local controlling authorities with those of central government? What if they cannot agree on funding? There are, as others have described, plenty of examples where neighbours cannot agree.

This proposal is actually a recipe to accelerate the ending of cross boundary routes!

Cross boundary routes could also be funded and run by a new organization which could be created.

 

[Dai Corner]

First is a big private company and are a nightmare, and don't even get me started on Go Ahead.

A few posts ago I asked if you had stats to support your opinions.

If you can't produce any, just tell us about your personal experiences of publicly owned operators and compare them with First in York.