What could a nationalised bus operator look like?

[Bletchleyite]

Why do you think having politicians, with many conflicting priorities, in charge instead of senior managers with just one will lead to buses becoming a more viable option for people?

Many bus company senior managers indeed have just one priority - profit.

This conflicts rather with passengers' interests. Better to have multiple interests rather than one bad one?

 

[Deerfold]

Because profits aren't the incentive, customer service is, meaning that a better, more frequent, and more reliable service is prioritised. This will then mean that people see the bus as a more viable option and use it instead of driving.

I still don't see how that link works. It'd be great if it did, but you're just listing a series of things with no connection as to how they're linked. In nationalised industries you get people who are dedicated to customer service and those who do the bare minimum, there's no guarantee everyone will have a great experience.

I've had great customer service from nationalised, municipal and private bus operators and dreadful service, too.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Why do you think having politicians, with many conflicting priorities, in charge instead of senior managers with just one will lead to buses becoming a more viable option for people?

The bus company would still be lead by a senior manager with experience.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2023 ==

I still don't see how that link works. It'd be great if it did, but you're just listing a series of things with no connection as to how they're linked. In nationalised industries you get people who are dedicated to customer service and those who do the bare minimum, there's no guarantee everyone will have a great experience.

I've had great customer service from nationalised, municipal and private bus operators and dreadful service, too.

Staff would be trained and brought up to the new standard.

 

[Deerfold]

Staff would be trained and brought up to the new standard.

Why can't that be done in a private company?

Why is it more likely to happen in a nationalised company?

You seem to be missing my point each time - before you answer can you think "have I explained why this will only happen in a national bus company"? or we could be here forever.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Why can't that be done in a private company?

Why is it more likely to happen in a nationalised company?

You seem to be missing my point each time - before you answer can you think "have I explained why this will only happen in a national bus company"? or we could be here forever.

Because there would be one, consistent standard.

 

[Titfield]

The bus company would still be lead by a senior manager with experience.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2023 ==


Staff would be trained and brought up to the new standard.

Are you aware of how much reluctance to undertake the Drivers CPC there has been by drivers?

Many older part timers - often school run drivers employed by small operators - decided to retire rather than participate in the training.

Have you read the book about Stagecoach which describes what they (Brian Souter and Ann Gloag) found in the NBC subsidiaries they bought?

 

[randyrippley]

Have you read the book about Stagecoach which describes what they (Brian Souter and Ann Gloag) found in the NBC subsidiaries they bought?

Enlighten us

 

[Dai Corner]

The bus company would still be lead by a senior manager with experience.

Many bus company senior managers indeed have just one priority - profit.

What priorities would the managers of a nationalised bus company be given? Minimise subsidies or even make a profit to contribute to other public spending? Or would they be given a specification and told to send the bill to the Governments? Maybe be given a budget and told to do the best they can with it (who decides what 'best' means?)?

 

[YorkRailFan]

Have you read the book about Stagecoach which describes what they (Brian Souter and Ann Gloag) found in the NBC subsidiaries they bought?

I have not.

Are you aware of how much reluctance to undertake the Drivers CPC there has been by drivers?

Many older part timers - often school run drivers employed by small operators - decided to retire rather than participate in the training.

Yes, but with multiple younger drivers and the possibility for smaller, independent drivers to stay on, this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

What priorities would the managers of a nationalised bus company be given? Minimise subsidies or even make a profit to contribute to other public spending? Or would they be given a specification and told to send the bill to the Governments? Maybe be given a budget and told to do the best they can with it (who decides what 'best' means?)?

Trying to offer the best customer service to passengers.

 

[Dai Corner]

.



Trying to offer the best customer service to passengers.

And the Governments would just pick up the bill, whatever it came to? I can't see any finance minister ever agreeing to that.

 

[YorkRailFan]

And the Governments would just pick up the bill, whatever it came to? I can't see any finance minister ever agreeing to that.

Obviously as mentioned before, the Treasure would have to be abolished with the Government freely spending. But that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[Dai Corner]

Obviously as mentioned before, the Treasure would have to be abolished with the Government freely spending. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Right. So which of the other three priorities I identified should a nationalised bus company without unlimited funding be given?

 

[Titfield]

Enlighten us

(1) Most NBC subsidiaries had large engineering facilities whose productivity was low and costs were very high. IIRC Brian Souter said he could order a replacement recon engine and have it delivered ready for installation the next day at a fraction of the price that NBCs own works could provide them for. Again IIRC nearly all the former NBC engineering firms (which were split off and then privatised) closed down.
(2) The administration departments of NBC subsidiaries were grossly over staffed - in part caused by the break up of some of the bigger NBC companies which then all built up their own empires.
(3) NBC companies running coach subsidiaries which were grossly uneconomic.
(4) Running bus stations and other facilities which cost a great deal (council tax, maintenance etc) which added little value.
(5) An inability to separate out revenue and costs by route so that they knew which activities were worthwhile and which were not.
(6) A reluctance to tackle intransigence of local authorities to provide funding.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Right. So which of the other three priorities I identified should a nationalised bus company without unlimited funding be given?

That last one.

Maybe be given a budget and told to do the best they can with it (who decides what 'best' means?)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2023 ==

(1) Most NBC subsidiaries had large engineering facilities whose productivity was low and costs were very high. IIRC Brian Souter said he could order a replacement recon engine and have it delivered ready for installation the next day at a fraction of the price that NBCs own works could provide them for. Again IIRC nearly all the former NBC engineering firms (which were split off and then privatised) closed down.
(2) The administration departments of NBC subsidiaries were grossly over staffed - in part caused by the break up of some of the bigger NBC companies which then all built up their own empires.
(3) NBC companies running coach subsidiaries which were grossly uneconomic.
(4) Running bus stations and other facilities which cost a great deal (council tax, maintenance etc) which added little value.
(5) An inability to separate out revenue and costs by route so that they knew which activities were worthwhile and which were not.
(6) A reluctance to tackle intransigence of local authorities to provide funding.

Which book is this?

 

[randyrippley]

(1) Most NBC subsidiaries had large engineering facilities whose productivity was low and costs were very high. IIRC Brian Souter said he could order a replacement recon engine and have it delivered ready for installation the next day at a fraction of the price that NBCs own works could provide them for. Again IIRC nearly all the former NBC engineering firms (which were split off and then privatised) closed down.
(2) The administration departments of NBC subsidiaries were grossly over staffed - in part caused by the break up of some of the bigger NBC companies which then all built up their own empires.
(3) NBC companies running coach subsidiaries which were grossly uneconomic.
(4) Running bus stations and other facilities which cost a great deal (council tax, maintenance etc) which added little value.
(5) An inability to separate out revenue and costs by route so that they knew which activities were worthwhile and which were not.
(6) A reluctance to tackle intransigence of local authorities to provide funding.

But how much of that was just verbal dross just to blacken the existing management and justify the takeovers? They had to claim there were savings to be made, otherwise the bankers wouldn't have backed them. The comments you list are all typical asset-stripping propaganda.

 

[Titfield]

But how much of that was just verbal dross just to blacken the existing management and justify the takeovers? They had to claim there were savings to be made, otherwise the bankers wouldn't have backed them. The comments you list are all typical asset-stripping propaganda.

The one by Christian Wolmar.

You may think they were propaganda but as someone who worked for a NBC subsidiary at the time there was a great deal of truth in the points made.

When the company was privatised (sold to mgt) it made exactly the same sort of changes that Stagecoach did elsewhere.

I am not sure the word takeover is always appropriate. Quite a few of the Management Teams who bought NBC subsidiaries suddenly found it was much more difficult to run a bus company than they had thought it would be because suddenly they faced competition from local independents who had much lower cost bases. It was a very harsh learning curve for some and many chose to sell out when Stagecoach or others offered an exit route.

It is also worth reading the book by Tom Maclachlan about the break up of London Transport and again how difficult it became for many as soon as competition reared its head - and bear in mind in the context of London this is about tendering to operate a specific route ie it is all about cost and not revenue. Many organisations become flabby / bloated over time and this is what had happened to LT and NBC. Same applied in Scotland with SBG.

And to go back to @YorkRailFan - define best customer service as it applies to bus passengers, what you think current operators arent doing and how you think a nationalised bus company would do it.

 

[stuartl]

I think that once people have changed from using a bus to their car getting them back is a monumental task. With a car they don't have to walk to the nearest stop in bad weather etc. Unless there is a very frequent service then the overall journey time by bus will always be longer.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A profit of around £1M is appropriate, with enough cash flow to buy new buses, pay drivers properly, conduct maintenance, etc. Regarding WG, I was talking about the 510 to Wadebridge, I regularly did it, extremely convenient. I thought that the 6/6A and 5A were the only routes between Exeter and Okehampton when the train ran?

So you think that a million pound profit is appropriate for a business that turns over 900 million a year? A return of 0.11%. I think not.

I know you were talking about the 510. That went direct from Wadebridge/Camelford to Launceston and onto Exeter so 1hr 45 Wadebridge to Okey. However, you were saying that you think it's likely people would like to use the 95 to transfer onto the 6 at Bude, but poor connections preclude this. Given it takes 2hrs to go Wadebridge to Bude and then another hour to go to Okehampton, the likelihood that anyone wants to do that journey is rather remote.

Because profits aren't the incentive, customer service is, meaning that a better, more frequent, and more reliable service is prioritised. This will then mean that people see the bus as a more viable option and use it instead of driving.

Funnily enough, in the nationalised era (in the 1980s) when many National Bus Companies were heavily loss-making, customer service was also sadly lacking. Have you forgotten the days of NBC Nationals with brown vinyl seats? Moreover, despite this, the National Bus Co actually withdrew all their North Cornwall services in 1971, leaving it to the independent sector.

Your 5/5A in York - wasn't every 20 mins but every 30 mins as the city services ran at lower levels to cross subsidise the rural routes AND, before you point to current day reliability, services in the 1970s were equally as bad. Strikes meant spare parts were sparse, new bus delivery lead times were extended (so older buses had to work longer and so fail), maintenance staff and drivers were hard to recruit.

(1) Most NBC subsidiaries had large engineering facilities whose productivity was low and costs were very high. IIRC Brian Souter said he could order a replacement recon engine and have it delivered ready for installation the next day at a fraction of the price that NBCs own works could provide them for. Again IIRC nearly all the former NBC engineering firms (which were split off and then privatised) closed down.
(2) The administration departments of NBC subsidiaries were grossly over staffed - in part caused by the break up of some of the bigger NBC companies which then all built up their own empires.
(3) NBC companies running coach subsidiaries which were grossly uneconomic.
(4) Running bus stations and other facilities which cost a great deal (council tax, maintenance etc) which added little value.
(5) An inability to separate out revenue and costs by route so that they knew which activities were worthwhile and which were not.
(6) A reluctance to tackle intransigence of local authorities to provide funding.

But how much of that was just verbal dross just to blacken the existing management and justify the takeovers? They had to claim there were savings to be made, otherwise the bankers wouldn't have backed them. The comments you list are all typical asset-stripping propaganda.

Sorry @randyrippley but it is absolutely correct. My late father worked for such an NBC subsidiary in a small country bus depot with a PVR of 18 vehicles and an allocation of 22. To support this, that depot had:

• Depot manager/engineering manager
• Four fitters (maintenance staff)
• Two cleaners
• One depot admin
• Two inspectors
• A separate travel/enquiry office, staffed by two ladies of dubious customer care credentials

Twelve support staff for 18 buses on the road, and this despite being 12 miles from a major depot in the next town.

I can point you to lots of other examples in the same firm. A person in the Central Works who was employed to make spare parts for what were, by then, obsolete Setright machines as certain depots would not accept using manual Almex ones. Another town with a proper depot building (no maintenance) for 5 vehicles....plus a spare that was again about 15 miles from the main depot.

 

[YorkRailFan]

And to go back to @YorkRailFan - define best customer service as it applies to bus passengers, what you think current operators arent doing and how you think a nationalised bus company would do it.

I'm not going to generalise, that would be unfair, but having a brand to be proud of and uphold could make some drivers a bit friendlier as well as more helpful.

The one by Christian Wolmar

I'm a fan of Christain's work, so thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[Deerfold]

Because there would be one, consistent standard.

I'll give up, now.

 

[M803UYA]

I'm a fan of Christain's work, so thanks, I'll check it out.

It's been out since the late 1990s and is worth your time. Whilst Stagecoach aren't as warm and cuddly as many have you believe, they know how to operate a bus service and have a rough idea what the customer wants. Or the people who founded it did, anyhow.

Yes, but with multiple younger drivers and the possibility for smaller, independent drivers to stay on, this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

I'm not sure you understand your point here. The bus and coach industry is not one where there are hordes of younger people queuing up to join it. Once you get down to school contract operators you're in the hands of semi-retired/retired people doing it for a bit of money and some order/structure 39 weeks a year. Justifying a full time wage on that work increases the costs of running the contracts, and we're talking about work which changes hands because operator xx down the road is £2.50 a day cheaper than current operator of the school contract.

Consider, too, that those drivers who drive for independent operators might choose to drive for small independent operators. I have worked for large operations (not as a driver) and I drive for a small independent these days 39 weeks a year thanks to mental health issues. I can tell you drivers in small independent firms are much better treated than ones in large firms. In the company I work in, I'm a person, with an actual name, and a family, hobbies and interests and I know all my passengers. I can look at the traffic and predict my arrival at the destination within 5 minutes here or there.

In a large company I'm line xxx on a roster and have a payroll number, management live upstairs in some isolated planet where we might get to wave at them if we're considered fortunate to be graced with their presence.

If you told me I was losing my job at a small operator and could either drive for a large one from a very distant depot then I've got a two word reply for you. The second word of that reply is 'off' and I'm not allowed to use the first word as it's very naughty and I don't want the mods telling me off. Go back to 2011 and look at the Great Dorset Tendering Disaster when Damory (part of Go South Coast) decided to do an all school routes tender for the entire county, along with the local bus routes. One of their complaints was 'that the existing drivers in the companies didn't want to come to us' So seems I'm not the only one with those sorts of thoughts. Look at Greater Themchester Manchester - hordes of agency drivers driving on the work because existing ones won't work for the large firms.

Younger people are unwilling to tolerate the nonsense older generations have in the workplace. That's why the bus industry has serious trouble attracting and retaining driving staff. Simply encouraging the older generation to 'leave' will result in no buses at all.

 

[Titfield]

Small operators - or at least a good owner who does the rostering - works hard to ensure that drivers needs are met: can you get someone to cover Friday as Fred has to go to the doctors or can Jeff and Pete swap shifts because Pete wants an early finish as he is off on holiday the next day.

It all sounds very trivial but it makes a big difference to staff especially when these are the very same people who will get you out of a hole when there is a problem.

Big companies can not manage this sort of relationship with their drivers., it is obvious why but it can be a big factor why older drivers decide they prefer to work for a small operator.

 

[YorkRailFan]

It's been out since the late 1990s and is worth your time. Whilst Stagecoach aren't as warm and cuddly as many have you believe, they know how to operate a bus service and have a rough idea what the customer wants. Or the people who founded it did, anyhow.

In my opinion, Stagecoach is the best of the big operators in the UK.

'm not sure you understand your point here. The bus and coach industry is not one where there are hordes of younger people queuing up to join it. Once you get down to school contract operators you're in the hands of semi-retired/retired people doing it for a bit of money and some order/structure 39 weeks a year. Justifying a full time wage on that work increases the costs of running the contracts, and we're talking about work which changes hands because operator xx down the road is £2.50 a day cheaper than current operator of the school contract.

Consider, too, that those drivers who drive for independent operators might choose to drive for small independent operators. I have worked for large operations (not as a driver) and I drive for a small independent these days 39 weeks a year thanks to mental health issues. I can tell you drivers in small independent firms are much better treated than ones in large firms. In the company I work in, I'm a person, with an actual name, and a family, hobbies and interests and I know all my passengers. I can look at the traffic and predict my arrival at the destination within 5 minutes here or there.

In a large company I'm line xxx on a roster and have a payroll number, management live upstairs in some isolated planet where we might get to wave at them if we're considered fortunate to be graced with their presence.

If you told me I was losing my job at a small operator and could either drive for a large one from a very distant depot then I've got a two word reply for you. The second word of that reply is 'off' and I'm not allowed to use the first word as it's very naughty and I don't want the mods telling me off. Go back to 2011 and look at the Great Dorset Tendering Disaster when Damory (part of Go South Coast) decided to do an all school routes tender for the entire county, along with the local bus routes. One of their complaints was 'that the existing drivers in the companies didn't want to come to us' So seems I'm not the only one with those sorts of thoughts. Look at Greater Themchester Manchester - hordes of agency drivers driving on the work because existing ones won't work for the large firms.

Younger people are unwilling to tolerate the nonsense older generations have in the workplace. That's why the bus industry has serious trouble attracting and retaining driving staff. Simply encouraging the older generation to 'leave' will result in no buses at all.

I have no issues with smaller bus companies, these companies provide some of the best bus services in the UK, my issue is with the larger bus companies that are raking it in while providing sub-par bus services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2023 ==

I'll give up, now.

Pleasure talking to you.

 

[Dai Corner]

I have no issues with smaller bus companies, these companies provide some of the best bus services in the UK, my issue is with the larger bus companies that are raking it in while providing sub-par bus services.

Even ones who rake in profits of more than 0.1% of revenue? I doubt many owner-operators would bother for that little.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I have no issues with smaller bus companies, these companies provide some of the best bus services in the UK, my issue is with the larger bus companies that are raking it in while providing sub-par bus services.

These bus companies are not raking it in. Once upon a time, you had operators making double digit returns. First Bus made 6.5% - that's decidedly average. Go Ahead (regional bus) made 5.8%.

Might I ask in what way these are sub-par services, and how nationalisation will put this right?

 

[gc4946]

The big bus companies, First, Stagecoach, Arriva, Go-Ahead and Mobico (formerly National Express) are publicly listed on the stock market whose ultimate bottom line is generating profit and dividends for their shareholders.
Nationalised operators would operate on a break-even basis, with surpluses shared in an agreed proportion between the operator and the Department for Transport (DfT).
They would be assessed by the DfT on multiple parameters such as service reliability and coverage of areas served.
Finance would be from central government, directly and borrowing through "external financing limits", also income from fares and local government, schools and works contracts.
A nationalised operator would offer staff full pension rights and other conditions analogous to non-departmental public bodies' practices.

 

[Dai Corner]

The big bus companies, First, Stagecoach, Arriva, Go-Ahead and Mobico (formerly National Express) are publicly listed on the stock market whose ultimate bottom line is generating profit and dividends for their shareholders.
Nationalised operators would operate on a break-even basis, with surpluses shared in an agreed proportion between the operator and the Department for Transport (DfT).
They would be assessed by the DfT on multiple parameters such as service reliability and coverage of areas served.
Finance would be from central government, directly and borrowing through "external financing limits", also income from fares and local government, schools and works contracts.
A nationalised operator would offer staff full pension rights and other conditions analogous to non-departmental public bodies' practices.

How would the passengers be affected?

 

[Titfield]

How would the passengers be affected?

Well if they are tax payers they would see the amount of tax they pay going up.

These ideas are all very well but they translate into massive increases in cost. The managers have no incentive to be efficient and thus costs balloon out of control.

 

[YorkRailFan]

ven ones who rake in profits of more than 0.1% of revenue? I doubt many owner-operators would bother for that little.

First and many others are making far more than that.

Might I ask in what way these are sub-par services, and how nationalisation will put this right?

Bus companies not allocating enough drivers to routes meaning passengers are waiting beside a road with no information whatsoever about whether or not their bus is coming. Nationalization would allow for more funding, meaning more drivers, more vehicles, more routes, higher frequency.

 

[gc4946]

Nationalisation won't at first change things massively. The local company's name will stay the same.
What'll first happen are steps to make the buses more reliable.
The operator can employ more drivers and fitters under the new public sector conditions. It'll invest in newer buses.
Because there's less of a profit imperative, a nationalised operator can be in a better position enhancing services to poorly-served urban and rural areas, including running orbital routes and other services which would be too expensive for a profit-making operator to start up but could make money in the long run.