What if bus deregulation had never happened?

[Ghostbus]

You tell wrong. There was an all pervading orthodoxy with bus company management punctuated by the occasional flash of alternative thinking. Managers were capable but ambition was stifled by a requirement to provide services in a regulated environment.

I guess I was hoping given the context it would be assumed I meant ambition that was going unfulfilled due to the pre-deregulation environment.

As for "pathetic CMA", they are there to ensure that cartels aren't formed and other anti-competitive practices.

Hence why I said pathetic. They were so slow that quite often by the time they had completed their investigation and delivered their judgement, it was moot, because the anti-competitive actions of the cartel had already worked. The weaker party had either gone bust or sold up.

 

[gc4946]

I could imagine a strong local unified image (and interavailable tickets) created such as the former Bws Gwynedd network, which comprised both commercial and tendered services, with its distinctive red fronts and yellow band

Bws Gwynedd @ Bangor

The buses that operated the 'Bws Gwynedd' network of services from 1986 to 1998 had one thing in common - they nearly all had red fronts. This involved around 17 operators both large and small adding this feature to a quite a varied collection of buses and coaches both old and new. Largest of...

www.flickr.com

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I guess I was hoping given the context it would be assumed I meant ambition that was going unfulfilled due to the pre-deregulation environment.

Ah, OK. As with any grouping of individuals, there would be a number who were quite happy to go along with the status quo but certainly there were plenty who were frustrated by the regulatory framework and denied the chance to actually manage the business.

The Thatcher government offered a state asset up for sale for less than its balance sheet value. Souter was very quick to gobble it up, seeing it as something being sold at a gross undervalue. Should I hate the player or should I hate the game?

Erm... unlike the large privatisations of gas, water and electric (where the value was determined by the government), the privatisation of the bus industry wasn't done like that. The price wasn't set - people submitted bids on what they thought the business was worth. So anyone could've offered the "true value" in your estimation for Hampshire Bus and other businesses.

I mean, look at Hampshire Bus/Pilgrim Coaches. It was a basket case of an NBC subsidiary, it was losing money, and the fleet had received 5 new vehicles in 5 years (save for a handful of minibuses) and needed investment. Oh, and it was flung into a newly deregulated environment so perhaps that might, just might, have influenced how much people were prepared to pay in an open contest.

Ballinger swinging his ego (other pieces of anatomy are available) all across the north east about how great and wonderful he was- and his fragrant wife was just as bad- really rather stuck in the craw for very similar reasons. Becoming the richest bloke in the north east on the back of it all stunk, to be quite frank.

So that's just personal hatred of a man and his wife....

I’m sure there were countless inefficiencies in the NBC, just as there were- and are- in any large corporation. I’m not sure that has anything to do with the ownership model and everything to do with poor management.

So you think that managers who had acted in one manner for 10/20 years, managing a period of protracted decline in a regulated environment, were suddenly acting differently and that had nothing to do with ownership model.

Ironically, the “poor managers” became the ones who, just a few short years later, became feted for being amazing businessmen. It’s almost as though they had a significant financial incentive in trashing the value of the business to reduce the purchase price before it was sold back to them.

I genuinely can’t name a bus baron who isn’t out wasn’t a villain. Crooks all the way down, to a man.

Yeah, because they were playing the long game. Losing money throughout the 1970s in order to trash the value of the businesses because they could foresee the end of consensus politics in the UK, and a move to a market forces led privatisation and deregulation of the industry. You really think that was why the NBC lost boatloads of cash in the 1970s?

The reality was that from the 1950s onwards, bus patronage was falling, sharply. Part of that were to do with external factors, and some were born of the regulatory environment. The idea that everything was fabulous before 1986 is absolute tosh. Now whether the better solution was compulsory competitive tendering and some form of privatisation is something we will never know but clearly maintaining the status quo wasn't going to improve things.

 

[Tetchytyke]

profits, I can't think of any bus companies that are making double digit profit margins.

Before Covid Stagecoach Newcastle’s margin was in the region of 23%.

Also if the industry didn't get support during Covid the entire industry would have collapsed, passenger numbers fell overnight to less than 10% of normal levels which was simply not sustainable

That would be their bad luck, wouldn’t it. The excessive profits- Souter became a billionaire, Lockhead and Ballinger not far behind- were justified by these people on the basis they were taking commercial risk. But when the muck hit the fan suddenly it’s all about getting the taxpayer to bail them out.

I’d have let them all go to the wall. Stagecoach were struggling? Well Gloag could always sell her castle.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I think NBC's subsidiaries were starting to get a handle on their inefficiencies before deregulation and privatisation kicked in.
My late father worked for East Yorkshire; by the early to mid 80s it had addressed the worst of the losses and was managing a (very) modest investment in new vehicles despite the ending of the bus grant. There were rumours that Hull local route 56 subsided the entire non-trunk rural network in the East Riding, which arrangement obviously could not survive into the commercial era. It would have been interesting to see how it and other subsidiaries fared if the regulated environment had continued.

The idea that everything was fabulous before 1986 is absolute tosh.

Exactly!!
In fact in my lifetime there has never been a "golden era" in the industry (I'm 47).
Before 1986 vehicle presentation was often mediocre and timetables decades old and not fit for purpose. It was too hard to introduce new routes etc; any application would bring forth a flurry of objections from other operators and British Rail- even if none of them operated in the area affected- and would likely be thrown out.
Some PTEs and municipals were quite inefficient - the number of spare vehicles KHCT (Hull) kept for example.
The early years of deregulation were often dire, as scruffy (and sometimes unsafe) vehicles appeared to challenge the established operators - on the most lucrative routes between 8 and 6 Monday to Saturday, naturally.
Even more recently it's a postcode lottery. Are you lucky enough to live in Harrogate.....or is your local route run with an ancient dealer-white Solo that doesn't always turn up...or do you have no bus at all??!!

Souter became a billionaire,

I don't really get the anti- Souter vitriol on here. The guy and his sister started with one bus, which he drove and she made sandwiches to sell onboard, and built up to an international transport group. IMO they worked hard and got the rewards they deserved... you'd be gutted if you had put that graft in but only had enough for a pint left afterwards!!
There were some crooks around just after deregulation, but most of them sold the assets, pocketed the cash and ran away from the bus industry as fast as their newly-acquired helicopter could carry them.

 

[DunsBus]

I guess I was hoping given the context it would be assumed I meant ambition that was going unfulfilled due to the pre-deregulation environment.

Hence why I said pathetic. They were so slow that quite often by the time they had completed their investigation and delivered their judgement, it was moot, because the anti-competitive actions of the cartel had already worked. The weaker party had either gone bust or sold up.

The late, great Nicholas Ridley went on record as saying he could see no difference between running buses and running a sweetshop. His grand vision of deregulation was for lots of bus companies each with their own owner-drivers. That was never going to happen, nor was it likely to ever do so.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Before Covid Stagecoach Newcastle’s margin was in the region of 23%.

Except it wasn't. It was just over 12% in the last full year before Covid and 16% in the year before that.

That would be their bad luck, wouldn’t it. The excessive profits- Souter became a billionaire, Lockhead and Ballinger not far behind- were justified by these people on the basis they were taking commercial risk. But when the muck hit the fan suddenly it’s all about getting the taxpayer to bail them out.

I’d have let them all go to the wall. Stagecoach were struggling? Well Gloag could always sell her castle.

They were taking the commercial risk in any ordinary time. Clearly, those weren't ordinary times.

Based on the same rationale, you'd have been equally fine with all the other businesses in other sectors that were adversely affected e.g. hospitality, going to the wall?

I think NBC's subsidiaries were starting to get a handle on their inefficiencies before deregulation and privatisation kicked in.
My late father worked for East Yorkshire; by the early to mid 80s it had addressed the worst of the losses and was managing a (very) modest investment in new vehicles despite the ending of the bus grant. There were rumours that Hull local route 56 subsided the entire non-trunk rural network in the East Riding, which arrangement obviously could not survive into the commercial era. It would have been interesting to see how it and other subsidiaries fared if the regulated environment had continued.

It was certainly the case that from early 1980s, there was a much greater emphasis on cost control. In many NBC firms, that was the result of Market Analysis Project schemes (mainly in Southern England). However, even without that formal exercise, they were busy cutting services and driving through some efficiencies - consolidating services, replacing single deckers with double decks. However, even then, there were still great areas that weren't tackled.

The late, great Nicholas Ridley went on record as saying he could see no difference between running buses and running a sweetshop. His grand vision of deregulation was for lots of bus companies each with their own owner-drivers. That was never going to happen, nor was it likely to ever do so.

Absolutely - ideological lunacy is not confined to any single political affiliation. The fact is that markets are often typified with a reduction in competitors, as larger ones swallow the smaller ones. I don't know whether he truly believed that statement or not but clearly, there was always going to be consolidation and the bus industry is no different.

There is an irony that re-regulation with Bee Network has seen an overall decrease in smaller enterprises.

 

[gc4946]

Looking back prior to deregulation in Portsmouth/SE Hampshire and parts of adjoining West Sussex there was a certain element of economical working as the result of the MAP (Market Analysis Project) by merging routes to make them longer, e.g. Southdown 327 between South Parade Pier-Rowlands Castle, Southdown 357 South Parade Pier-Westbourne (West Sussex).
Even Portsmouth Corporation's buses prior to October 1986, most routes ran half hourly daily and only the old 17/18 were there buses more often than every 15 minutes.
After deregulation the 327/357 routes vanished. Rowlands Castle lost its direct service to Portsmouth, only ran to/from Havant, and was served by Hants & Sussex/Southern Motorways and other operators who subsequently won tenders from Hampshire County Council.
Deregulation fragmented previous links viable under cross subsidy but meanwhile urban area frequencies often improved on major routes.

 

[Man of Kent]

Before Covid Stagecoach Newcastle’s margin was in the region of 23%

Except it wasn't. It was just over 12% in the last full year before Covid and 16% in the year before that.

And for the record, of the three companies that Stagecoach purchased directly from NBC, only Hampshire Bus came at a discount (£2.2m for £2.8m-worth of assets). At Cumberland, Stagecoach paid double the asset value (£2.8m for £1.4m) and a 30% premium at United Counties (£4.0m for £2.8m). (All figures from the 1990 National Audit Office report into the sale of NBC).

 

[Megafuss]

Before Covid Stagecoach Newcastle’s margin was in the region of 23%.


That would be their bad luck, wouldn’t it. The excessive profits- Souter became a billionaire, Lockhead and Ballinger not far behind- were justified by these people on the basis they were taking commercial risk. But when the muck hit the fan suddenly it’s all about getting the taxpayer to bail them out.

I’d have let them all go to the wall. Stagecoach were struggling? Well Gloag could always sell her castle.

It's worth pointing out that Stagecoach Newcastle operate well over 90% of the network on a wholly commercial basis -

Stagecoach North East are almost notorious for not getting the "begging bowl" out like Go North East do. I don't think anybody could call Stagecoach Busways fares extortionate, so they must be providing a very good service to generate that much profit - which would indicate a very well run operation.

Maybe we should celebrate the excellent job they have been doing!

 

[gc4946]

London, the franchised Bee Network and similar forthcoming initatives from Merseyside, West Yorkshire and Cambridgeshire are the way buses should have been operated from the 1980s; according to a quote from a book, the title I've forgotten, is "allow them to compete for the road, not on the road".
However I won't be surprised if the Bee Network's depot-based franchising becomes a directly-owned Transport for Greater Manchester operation within the next five to ten years. The wheel turns full circle!

 

[Cesarcollie]

Before Covid Stagecoach Newcastle’s margin was in the region of 23%.


That would be their bad luck, wouldn’t it. The excessive profits- Souter became a billionaire, Lockhead and Ballinger not far behind- were justified by these people on the basis they were taking commercial risk. But when the muck hit the fan suddenly it’s all about getting the taxpayer to bail them out.

I’d have let them all go to the wall. Stagecoach were struggling? Well Gloag could always sell her castle.

And the same with the railways, which were underwritten by government for the same purpose (to get key workers to work and provide for other essential journeys)?

 

[Eyersey468]

Before Covid Stagecoach Newcastle’s margin was in the region of 23%.


That would be their bad luck, wouldn’t it. The excessive profits- Souter became a billionaire, Lockhead and Ballinger not far behind- were justified by these people on the basis they were taking commercial risk. But when the muck hit the fan suddenly it’s all about getting the taxpayer to bail them out.

I’d have let them all go to the wall. Stagecoach were struggling? Well Gloag could always sell her castle.

So you would have been happy for millions of people to have been put out of work

 

[Tetchytyke]

So that's just personal hatred of a man and his wife....

Hatred is a strong word. I don’t like people who get given state assets for a song and then try and tell me that it’s all because they’re amazing businessmen and that we should worship their entrepreneurial spirit. I put Lockhead in that category too.

Martin Ballinger showed us all exactly what he was after the Paddington rail crash. The way he treated the victims of his company’s gross negligence was outrageous. Go Ahead, under his helm, strung those poor people along for years.

The only one I truly hate, though, is Souter, and that’s almost entirely because of his campaigning against the repeal of section 28. A supposedly devout Christian who firmly believes in deliberately destroying another person’s business because they wouldn’t sell out to him, just as Jesus himself taught.

So you think that managers who had acted in one manner for 10/20 years, managing a period of protracted decline in a regulated environment, were suddenly acting differently and that had nothing to do with ownership model.

I think the ownership model has nothing to do with it.

I know the story as told by those who love privatisation are that the NBC was moribund and it was only the vim and vigour of the bus barons which saved it. But really, if we’re honest, the more vibrant NBC subsidiaries became the more vibrant private companies and the more stagnant NBC subsidiaries became the more stagnant private companies. London County North East is the perfect example. Everything largely carried on as it was, just more expensively. The barons made their billions and the taxpayer paid for it all. Classic privatising profit and nationalising loss.

Many of the failings of the NBC were due to heavy-handed and inept national management, a centralised one-size-fits-all mess. The shiny new privatised world gave us First and Arriva which are absolutely definitely certainly not companies plagued with heavy-handed and inept national management creating a one-size-fits-all mess. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The supposed “innovation” of the minibuses had already started before privatisation. As for the industrial relations, I’d honestly say the shredding of employment rights did more to sort things out than anything privatisation did. Those drivers who owned shares in their company largely cashed out quickly and got only a little money: a nice holiday, nothing more. As with the building society carpetbagging in the 90s, the riches went to the few.

The ownership model still doesn’t matter much. Lothian and Brighton & Hove are probably the two best bus companies in the UK yet their ownership models are pretty much diametrically opposed.

You’d have got better results by simply giving the local managers a longer leash. Look how BR changed after sectorisation.

So you would have been happy for millions of people to have been put out of work

Brian Souter is worth the thick end of a billion quid. He shouldn’t have been given a single penny in taxpayer aid. If you’re saying he’d have chosen to sack his staff rather than use his own money then, well, you’re really agreeing with me about privatising profit and nationalising loss.

See also: Richard Branson.

 

[Mwanesh]

Hatred is a strong word. I don’t like people who get given state assets for a song and then try and tell me that it’s all because they’re amazing businessmen and that we should worship their entrepreneurial spirit. I put Lockhead in that category too.

Martin Ballinger showed us all exactly what he was after the Paddington rail crash. The way he treated the victims of his company’s gross negligence was outrageous. Go Ahead, under his helm, strung those poor people along for years.

The only one I truly hate, though, is Souter, and that’s almost entirely because of his campaigning against the repeal of section 28. A supposedly devout Christian who firmly believes in deliberately destroying another person’s business because they wouldn’t sell out to him, just as Jesus himself taught.

I think the ownership model has nothing to do with it.

I know the story as told by those who love privatisation are that the NBC was moribund and it was only the vim and vigour of the bus barons which saved it. But really, if we’re honest, the more vibrant NBC subsidiaries became the more vibrant private companies and the more stagnant NBC subsidiaries became the more stagnant private companies. London County North East is the perfect example. Everything largely carried on as it was, just more expensively. The barons made their billions and the taxpayer paid for it all. Classic privatising profit and nationalising loss.

Many of the failings of the NBC were due to heavy-handed and inept national management, a centralised one-size-fits-all mess. The shiny new privatised world gave us First and Arriva which are absolutely definitely certainly not companies plagued with heavy-handed and inept national management creating a one-size-fits-all mess. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The supposed “innovation” of the minibuses had already started before privatisation. As for the industrial relations, I’d honestly say the shredding of employment rights did more to sort things out than anything privatisation did. Those drivers who owned shares in their company largely cashed out quickly and got only a little money: a nice holiday, nothing more. As with the building society carpetbagging in the 90s, the riches went to the few.

The ownership model still doesn’t matter much. Lothian and Brighton & Hove are probably the two best bus companies in the UK yet their ownership models are pretty much diametrically opposed.

You’d have got better results by simply giving the local managers a longer leash. Look how BR changed after sectorisation.


Brian Souter is worth the thick end of a billion quid. He shouldn’t have been given a single penny in taxpayer aid. If you’re saying he’d have chosen to sack his staff rather than use his own money then, well, you’re really agreeing with me about privatising profit and nationalising loss.

See also: Richard Branson.

Love or hate Souter the man took chances .I remember seeing Stagecoach buses in Kenya ,Zambia,Mozambique Malawi and Zimbabwe .Business is about taking oppoturnities.The NBC was a basket case.Apart from Lothian , Reading and Blackpool.The other municipals are complemented bu the private sector which you so much despise

 

[greenline712]

I've tried very hard to read some of these posts objectively and without bias . . . but as I've said earlier, I lived through deregulation and privatisation, and I simply don't recognise the picture that @Tetchytyke paints. Yes, there were some chunks of NBC that found it difficult to look forward, but there were also some chunks of NBC that very much embraced the new order.

LCBS, under Derek Fytche, turned itself round from a basket case to a money spinner. I'll point you towards Green Line as an example . . . the old cross-London network was dying on its feet, not because of mis-management necessarily, but because of railway electrification; appalling traffic congestion and a dying market . . . literally, the passengers of old were dying off!! I was working at Eccleston Bridge in July 1976, when a lady turned up asking what time the 701 coach departed to Ascot . . . we told her that the route had been withdrawn the previous September. She said "but I travel by Green Line once a year to visit my sister in Ascot, and have done for 25 years . . . what shall I do now?"

Fytche was an old-school NBC manager . . . he was brought in to save LCBS, and did. There were other managers in NBC that did much the same . . . Harry Blundred was an NBC manager, don't forget . . . his was the minibus solution. The fact that many minibus networks started after deregulation was an accident of timing . . . they would have come along anyway, and with the same former NBC managers. What deregulation did was free up any dormant entreprenurial spirit amongst existing NBC managers.

In many ways, it was the form of privatisation that did for many companies. I worked for LCNW; we were one of the lucky ones who managed to secure a management buyout AND bought the properties. LCNE was saddled with a privatisation whereby the properties were bought by one company, and the services by another. LCNE had to vacate most of their properties in double-quick time; only Harlow and Stevenage survived, as those sites had New Town property covenants on them, so couldn't be sold off.

Neither company survived for very long . . . LCNW had senior management that, frankly, couldn't manage the skin off a rice pudding. LCNE tried a restructuring into smaller companies that was never going to work. In both cases, under-capitalisation was what happened . . . and that is why Souter, Lockhead and the rest saw opportunities and bought the tiddlers at rock-bottom prices. As I said earlier . . . companies with a PVR of 350 buses didn't have the financial clout to survive . . . all the tycoons did was see an opportunity and take it. It wasn't their fault that privatisation by NBC was mis-handled.

It would be quite nice if this thread could come back onto topic without the hatred and bile . . . we're all entitled to opinions, but perhaps keep them to the specifics of deregulation . . . as the thread title implies?

 

[Mwanesh]

I've tried very hard to read some of these posts objectively and without bias . . . but as I've said earlier, I lived through deregulation and privatisation, and I simply don't recognise the picture that @Tetchytyke paints. Yes, there were some chunks of NBC that found it difficult to look forward, but there were also some chunks of NBC that very much embraced the new order.

LCBS, under Derek Fytche, turned itself round from a basket case to a money spinner. I'll point you towards Green Line as an example . . . the old cross-London network was dying on its feet, not because of mis-management necessarily, but because of railway electrification; appalling traffic congestion and a dying market . . . literally, the passengers of old were dying off!! I was working at Eccleston Bridge in July 1976, when a lady turned up asking what time the 701 coach departed to Ascot . . . we told her that the route had been withdrawn the previous September. She said "but I travel by Green Line once a year to visit my sister in Ascot, and have done for 25 years . . . what shall I do now?"

Fytche was an old-school NBC manager . . . he was brought in to save LCBS, and did. There were other managers in NBC that did much the same . . . Harry Blundred was an NBC manager, don't forget . . . his was the minibus solution. The fact that many minibus networks started after deregulation was an accident of timing . . . they would have come along anyway, and with the same former NBC managers. What deregulation did was free up any dormant entreprenurial spirit amongst existing NBC managers.

In many ways, it was the form of privatisation that did for many companies. I worked for LCNW; we were one of the lucky ones who managed to secure a management buyout AND bought the properties. LCNE was saddled with a privatisation whereby the properties were bought by one company, and the services by another. LCNE had to vacate most of their properties in double-quick time; only Harlow and Stevenage survived, as those sites had New Town property covenants on them, so couldn't be sold off.

Neither company survived for very long . . . LCNW had senior management that, frankly, couldn't manage the skin off a rice pudding. LCNE tried a restructuring into smaller companies that was never going to work. In both cases, under-capitalisation was what happened . . . and that is why Souter, Lockhead and the rest saw opportunities and bought the tiddlers at rock-bottom prices. As I said earlier . . . companies with a PVR of 350 buses didn't have the financial clout to survive . . . all the tycoons did was see an opportunity and take it. It wasn't their fault that privatisation by NBC was mis-handled.

It would be quite nice if this thread could come back onto topic without the hatred and bile . . . we're all entitled to opinions, but perhaps keep them to the specifics of deregulation . . . as the thread title implies?

Thank you for stating facts which most wont hear

 

[RT4038]

As I said earlier . . . companies with a PVR of 350 buses didn't have the financial clout to survive . . . all the tycoons did was see an opportunity and take it. It wasn't their fault that privatisation by NBC was mis-handled.

And even worse the small municipals - Darlington ,Hartlepool, Lancaster etc with less than 100 buses (some quite a lot less!)

Your post makes a lot of good points and the situation of London Country was mirrored with many other NBC firms albeit often to a lesser degree. The municipals by and large had a very hard time - their managements often having little experience of commerciality at all.

I've tried very hard to read some of these posts objectively and without bias . . .

It would be quite nice if this thread could come back onto topic without the hatred and bile . . . we're all entitled to opinions, but perhaps keep them to the specifics of deregulation . . . as the thread title implies?

Quite.

 

[johncrossley]

When New Labour had big money to spend on buses, it chose to give nearly all of it to London, even though it had a mayor who humiliated the official Labour Party candidate in the election. The other big cities were largely ignored, probably because deregulation meant it was too much hassle. Had deregulation not happened, maybe the other big cities could have had some of what London got.

 

[Statto]

And even worse the small municipals - Darlington ,Hartlepool, Lancaster etc with less than 100 buses (some quite a lot less!)

Your post makes a lot of good points and the situation of London Country was mirrored with many other NBC firms albeit often to a lesser degree. The municipals by and large had a very hard time - their managements often having little experience of commerciality at all.


Quite.

Some of the smaller municipals ended up being forced out of business through bus wars, Boro'line Maidstone was one of the first operators to suffer this fate, when Maidstone & District launched a bus war against them, Stagecoach have been more prolific running other operators out of business with Darlington & Lancaster being the notable cases, ironically Stagecoach ended up selling Darlington to Arriva in the late 00s.

 

[Man of Kent]

Some of the smaller municipals ended up being forced out of business through bus wars, Boro'line Maidstone was one of the first operators to suffer this fate, when Maidstone & District launched a bus war against them, Stagecoach have been more prolific running other operators out of business with Darlington & Lancaster being the notable cases, ironically Stagecoach ended up selling Darlington to Arriva in the late 00s.

The Maidstone situation was a little more complicated than that. Boro'line moved into London tendering, but overstretched itself financially. While M&D's actions hastened its demise, M&D argued it was protecting both its own position from another competitor coming into the town, as well as safeguarding services for passengers, if Boro'line did cease. Indeed, pretty much every service was already covered when the collapse finally came.

 

[Tetchytyke]

all the tycoons did was see an opportunity and take it. It wasn't their fault that privatisation by NBC was mis-handled

I hate the game. Should I hate the player? It’s a bit more complicated. I don’t necessarily blame the bus barons for seeing an opportunity to snap up a business at a massive discount and leaping on to it from a great height. I do have more of an issue with them then telling me that they’re amazing entrepreneurs and that we should all worship them.

I simply don't recognise the picture that @Tetchytyke paints. Yes, there were some chunks of NBC that found it difficult to look forward, but there were also some chunks of NBC that very much embraced the new order.

That’s what I said, you may be confusing it with what others have said.

Parts of NBC were forward thinking, parts were not. The bits that were forward thinking before privatisation remained forward thinking. The bits that didn’t, well, didn’t. Privatisation changed bugger all, except to make some rather undeserving and odious men billionaires.

I picked on LCNE but, to be honest and as you say, they were really the victims of AJS, in exactly the same way West Yorkshire Road Car were.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2025 ==

The municipals by and large had a very hard time - their managements often having little experience of commerciality at all.

It came down to size. Small municipals with a large ex-NBC neighbour were driven off the road (both figuratively and, in some cases, literally) very very quickly. The big fish ate the little ones. That’s capitalism and all that, but the ethics of it were disgraceful. So much for Sir Brian following the teachings of Jesus Christ; on the third day the Lord did not say “thou must destroy the business of a competitor when he didst refuse to sell his business to you at a steep discount”.

The smaller ex-NBCs had similar issues, though they didn’t tend to have a competitor in the next town.

The bigger municipals were absolutely fine. The only difference between the useless and moribund WYPTE Metrobus municipal and the thrusting and enterprising privatised Yorkshire Rider was the garish new paint job. Oh, and the bi-annual huge fare rises.

 

[Numpt33]

As for the politics of public transport, any municipal transport system is inherently political. Away from the obvious trunk routes the decisions about where buses run, and when, is almost entirely a political decision. I don’t think there is anything wrong in these transport networks being designed and controlled by politicians who are directly elected- and directly accountable- for their decisions.

Maybe absolutely nothing will change with Bee Network compared to what we had immediately before. But the decisions being made are being made by people who are accountable for those decisions.

And I’ll tell you what, we’d also have been spared UK North of Manchester if we’d always had a planned network in Manchester. I think we can all agree would only have been a good thing.

Politicians of all stripes invest money in wherever they will gain and retain votes. This however means that areas with few public transport users will have more divestment, and vice versa. Anywhere which has rubbish bus priority would have an even worse bus service than it does now.

You are right that municipal services are political, but nothing in the last 30 years suggests political accountability, especially at the local level. One thing about maximising profit is that it means bums on seats. The only truly safe service is one which is profitable - the public sector's resources are finite, but NBC had lots of basketcase routes which were run due to loud shouting from some quarters, not because it was needed.

 

[DunsBus]

I picked on LCNE but, to be honest and as you say, they were really the victims of AJS, in exactly the same way West Yorkshire Road Car were.

AJS, I recall, worked in conjunction with property developers Parkdale. Their plan was simple. Buy a company, flog the garages, sell the services on for a handsome profit.

No wonder AJS had been and gone within the space of a few years - their work was done.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

It's hard to speculate what would have happened to the municipal operators if deregulation hadn't occurred. The strongest ones would have continued, as indeed has happened despite deregulation, but as has been noted some were basket cases. Some of those would have probably been kept going regardless by hard-headed councils (again as did happen in some cases- for example any study of Chester City Transport begs the question of how it continued until 2007 despite no obvious signs of a profit).
Others would have closed due to "tough choices". Possibly some would have sold out to the local NBC company.
Would Maidstone still have tried to enter London? Would Blackpool still have bought Fylde? It's certainly interesting to wonder!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2025 ==

AJS, I recall, worked in conjunction with property developers Parkdale. Their plan was simple. Buy a company, flog the garages, sell the services on for a handsome profit.

No wonder AJS had been and gone within the space of a few years - their work was done.

IIRC Alan Stevenson (the managing director of AJS) was also involved with Parkdale Holdings

 

[Statto]

It's hard to speculate what would have happened to the municipal operators if deregulation hadn't occurred. The strongest ones would have continued, as indeed has happened despite deregulation, but as has been noted some were basket cases. Some of those would have probably been kept going regardless by hard-headed councils (again as did happen in some cases- for example any study of Chester City Transport begs the question of how it continued until 2007 despite no obvious signs of a profit).
Others would have closed due to "tough choices". Possibly some would have sold out to the local NBC company.
Would Maidstone still have tried to enter London? Would Blackpool still have bought Fylde? It's certainly interesting to wonder!

Halton Transport is another municipal that you think how it was kept going for that long (Halton went bankrupt early 2020, just as Covid was starting to hit), & most of Halton's routes were duplicated by Arriva.

One result of deregulation, is operators ability to register new (& also withdraw) routes without any objections, before deregulation, anyone could object to new routes to the Traffic Commissioner, which is why you saw a lot of joint services & why you saw companies (mostly NBC companies) not being able to carry local passengers on some routes, particularly if their was a municipal operating on that route.

Southport was one of those Towns until deregulation, which Ribble services couldn't carry local passengers on their services, & that's long after the municipal became part of Merseyside PTE.

 

[Snex]

I might be in a minority but if it was the way it was I'd argue it would be even worse in most areas.

Buses might have been profitable in the 1970's but generally they're not nowadays with lots of government bailouts.

Without any central government support then who's going to be paying for it? Councils are skint as an understatement, the last thing they're going to be doing is spending the little money they've got on buses and no government has shown real interest in public transport.

You just have to look at the few public rail services which are council run such as the Tyne and Wear Metro which has been starved for investment for years or the general state of our road network.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Hatred is a strong word. I don’t like people who get given state assets for a song and then try and tell me that it’s all because they’re amazing businessmen and that we should worship their entrepreneurial spirit. I put Lockhead in that category too.

It's already been demonstrated that they weren't. There was an independent assessment by the National Audit Office on the sale of the NBC. That demonstrated that, in the round, the assets went for what they were independently valued (by three different means) at.

Not only that, when you look at the number of businesses that were sold to their management teams because they were the only bidders, it is pretty revealing. If this was such a giveaway, you might have thought more would've piled in...yet they didn't.

Martin Ballinger showed us all exactly what he was after the Paddington rail crash. The way he treated the victims of his company’s gross negligence was outrageous. Go Ahead, under his helm, strung those poor people along for years.

The only one I truly hate, though, is Souter, and that’s almost entirely because of his campaigning against the repeal of section 28. A supposedly devout Christian who firmly believes in deliberately destroying another person’s business because they wouldn’t sell out to him, just as Jesus himself taught.

In the history of business, you have always had businessman that try to lessen liability to business; it's not a shocker. He may also have been under strict instructions from corporate lawyers. Don't get me wrong - he may have been a sociopath. Doesn't mean he wasn't a skilled businessman. Similarly, I dislike Brian Souter's views on section 28. However, I am able to separate the abhorrence of someone's homophobic views, with the recognition that they were a very skilled businessman.

However, I think we're moving away from the question of what deregulation may have brought.

I think the ownership model has nothing to do with it.

I know the story as told by those who love privatisation are that the NBC was moribund and it was only the vim and vigour of the bus barons which saved it. But really, if we’re honest, the more vibrant NBC subsidiaries became the more vibrant private companies and the more stagnant NBC subsidiaries became the more stagnant private companies. London County North East is the perfect example. Everything largely carried on as it was, just more expensively. The barons made their billions and the taxpayer paid for it all. Classic privatising profit and nationalising loss.

Deregulation and privatisation were inextricably linked. However, it was clear that if you had deregulation, then privatisation would come with it as you can't have a state owned operator being propped up against a commercial provider. That led to the break-up of larger NBC firms in readiness for both. It is also clear that, as a manager, when you've got skin in the game and freedom to manage, you act a lot more differently.

There were some knockings of greater commercial freedom in the NBC but I'd struggle to say they were vibrant! Northumbria was a very dynamic post deregulation animal but it bore no relation to predecessor United Auto in its approach. Northern General was very passive as an NBC operator - mind you, it had to be as many of its operations were determined by the PTE - but was very different after deregulation. Brighton and Hove wasn't a dynamic operator - it was only created in 1986 - and the only real evidence of local buses having any innovation came with the Shuttle concept and that was also adopted by Brighton Borough Tspt as it was an East Sussex CC initiative.

In fact, when I think of the things that did change in NBC days, they were because of deregulation. Would National Express have introduced Rapide without deregulation of coach services? I doubt it. Minibuses... see below. In the bus operations, the only real innovations that spring to mind were things like Green Line's airport services, the introduction of limited stop services (like Southdown's Stagecoach and United's Tynelink) and those were also products of coach deregulation.

Many of the failings of the NBC were due to heavy-handed and inept national management, a centralised one-size-fits-all mess. The shiny new privatised world gave us First and Arriva which are absolutely definitely certainly not companies plagued with heavy-handed and inept national management creating a one-size-fits-all mess. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

However, Stagecoach and Go Ahead, who you seem to have the greatest resentment against, didn't follow that model. It is possible that you can have groups as long as you empower the managers locally to make decisions.

Funny that you mention Arriva. It's decline is squarely attributable to the former parent Deutsche Bahn being massively undercapitalised and unable to invest. That is also a consideration when looking at nationalised industries... the ability to invest is again often tempered by the political choices that are made.

The supposed “innovation” of the minibuses had already started before privatisation. As for the industrial relations, I’d honestly say the shredding of employment rights did more to sort things out than anything privatisation did. Those drivers who owned shares in their company largely cashed out quickly and got only a little money: a nice holiday, nothing more. As with the building society carpetbagging in the 90s, the riches went to the few.

The ownership model still doesn’t matter much. Lothian and Brighton & Hove are probably the two best bus companies in the UK yet their ownership models are pretty much diametrically opposed.

You’d have got better results by simply giving the local managers a longer leash. Look how BR changed after sectorisation.

The innovation of minibuses came from Harry Blundred making the connection about low headways as a barrier to travel in Exeter, compared to Oxford where he'd come from. He also realised that it would be a fine defensive (and offensive) tool in the upcoming deregulated world. So he successfully argued about doing a trial operation to prove the concept.

The fact is that you can't separate deregulation and privatisation out and the consequent impacts. They were intrinsically linked. The regulated world meant no competition, so no need to face into difficult issues, and so we had an ever increasing subsidy and falling bus patronage. That's a fact.

Deregulation would mean that changes had to take place and, in the few years before d-day, the NBC/SBG and even some municipals and their managers were getting ready for the new world. That meant converting town networks to minibuses, and renegotiating terms and conditions of employment. I mean, they could've kept running inefficiently and have fleets of Atlanteans and VRs lumbering around but they'd have been destroyed by new entrants with lower cost bases.

It came down to size. Small municipals with a large ex-NBC neighbour were driven off the road (both figuratively and, in some cases, literally) very very quickly. The big fish ate the little ones. That’s capitalism and all that, but the ethics of it were disgraceful. So much for Sir Brian following the teachings of Jesus Christ; on the third day the Lord did not say “thou must destroy the business of a competitor when he didst refuse to sell his business to you at a steep discount”.

Well, it's been mentioned but as we're here, let's talk Darlington. The pervading view is that Stagecoach simply ran them off the road. The reality... rather different. Apart from the fact that it was in 1986/7, United Auto (remember this was a National Bus Company subsidiary at this time) went in with a competitive minibus network starting just before de-reg and then expanding it after. Actually, United was privatised and that led to competition reducing. Later came the sacking of United's MD (as North East Bus rationalised their management) and with his redundancy, he set up a brand new operation in Darlington against United, who then responded with more services.

DTC was caught in the crossfire, responded by also expanding operations and it was so weakened that it was put up for sale. The sale process involved Yorkshire Traction and Stagecoach, the former offering the highest price. Stagecoach stated that the union approached them and that prompted their actions - I don't know how true that is. Stagecoach's actions were deplorable; it was ultimately a pyrrhic victory and cost them a lot. That said, it was absolutely the case that whilst Stagecoach carried the can, the factors were a lot more complex.

AJS, I recall, worked in conjunction with property developers Parkdale. Their plan was simple. Buy a company, flog the garages, sell the services on for a handsome profit.

No wonder AJS had been and gone within the space of a few years - their work was done.

The sale process specifically invited that sort of deal - London Country SW went the same way. TBH, London Country NE was a basket case with much worse IR issues than other LC subsidiaries.

I might be in a minority but if it was the way it was I'd argue it would be even worse in most areas.

Buses might have been profitable in the 1970's but generally they're not nowadays with lots of government bailouts.

Without any central government support then who's going to be paying for it? Councils are skint as an understatement, the last thing they're going to be doing is spending the little money they've got on buses and no government has shown real interest in public transport.

You just have to look at the few public rail services which are council run such as the Tyne and Wear Metro which has been starved for investment for years or the general state of our road network.

Buses weren't profitable in the 1970s. They could have been (as they had the passengers) but the overheads were massively greater. Part of that was an inability to push one person operation as quickly as possible, but there were plenty of other inefficiencies. Remember that new buses were 50% funded by the New Bus Grant, and there was a load of other subsidies.

Deregulation might have been sold on a dream of market led innovation but the real motive was subsidy reduction...and in that case, it worked

 

[RT4038]

When New Labour had big money to spend on buses, it chose to give nearly all of it to London, even though it had a mayor who humiliated the official Labour Party candidate in the election. The other big cities were largely ignored, probably because deregulation meant it was too much hassle. Had deregulation not happened, maybe the other big cities could have had some of what London got.

I think it is very difficult to speculate - if the conditions for deregulation were not there (i.e. Margaret Thatcher's government), why would there have been New Labour about 10 years later? It is pretty inconceivable that Margaret would not have done something to reduce the bus subsidy budget, in the conditions of rising costs and falling passenger numbers, and the general economic situation of the time. If you want to think about what would have happened if Margaret had not won in 1979, we might as well be speculating as to what might have happened if the 1930 act regulating buses in the first place had not happened. Country sinking into an economic swamp and living standards reducing thereby increasing public transport use, but that public transport being provided by desperate self employed minibus drivers as in many 3rd world countries? Who knows? All pretty worthless considering really, because we are where we are.

I might be in a minority but if it was the way it was I'd argue it would be even worse in most areas.

Buses might have been profitable in the 1970's but generally they're not nowadays with lots of government bailouts.

Without any central government support then who's going to be paying for it? Councils are skint as an understatement, the last thing they're going to be doing is spending the little money they've got on buses and no government has shown real interest in public transport.

You just have to look at the few public rail services which are council run such as the Tyne and Wear Metro which has been starved for investment for years or the general state of our road network.

Well quite possibly. We might have ended up with an AMTRAK type situation; hardly any buses but the skeleton service still operating costing an arm and a leg to provide?

Deregulation and privatisation were inextricably linked. However, it was clear that if you had deregulation, then privatisation would come with it as you can't have a state owned operator being propped up against a commercial provider. That led to the break-up of larger NBC firms in readiness for both. It is also clear that, as a manager, when you've got skin in the game and freedom to manage, you act a lot more differently.

You certainly do. Many of the innovations where barely or not at all considered in the nationalised / municipal regulated era. Why would they be - the taxpayer was picking up the tab and there was considerable inertia to do things differently and stir up Industrial Relations issues, which the Politicians would not back you on. When it's your own money at stake (either as an investment, or your job) it is remarkable what can be done. Margaret knew that.

There were some knockings of greater commercial freedom in the NBC but I'd struggle to say they were vibrant! Northumbria was a very dynamic post deregulation animal but it bore no relation to predecessor United Auto in its approach. Northern General was very passive as an NBC operator - mind you, it had to be as many of its operations were determined by the PTE - but was very different after deregulation.

To be fair to Northern General - the 'Go-ahead Northern' brand came out a couple of years before deregulation. It was certainly seen as forward thinking at the time, compared to other NBC concerns in the area and wider afield.

Funny that you mention Arriva. It's decline is squarely attributable to the former parent Deutsche Bahn being massively undercapitalised and unable to invest. That is also a consideration when looking at nationalised industries... the ability to invest is again often tempered by the political choices that are made.

This was a big issue before deregulation/privatisation -don't forget that a major impetus for the MAP project was to reduce the capital requirement of replacing buses once new bus grant disappeared , hence the concentration on reducing the peak vehicle requirement. Undercapitalisation was a major problem for the municipal sector too.

Well, it's been mentioned but as we're here, let's talk Darlington. The pervading view is that Stagecoach simply ran them off the road. The reality... rather different. Apart from the fact that it was in 1986/7, United Auto (remember this was a National Bus Company subsidiary at this time) went in with a competitive minibus network starting just before de-reg and then expanding it after. Actually, United was privatised and that led to competition reducing. Later came the sacking of United's MD (as North East Bus rationalised their management) and with his redundancy, he set up a brand new operation in Darlington against United, who then responded with more services.

DTC was caught in the crossfire, responded by also expanding operations and it was so weakened that it was put up for sale. The sale process involved Yorkshire Traction and Stagecoach, the former offering the highest price. Stagecoach stated that the union approached them and that prompted their actions - I don't know how true that is. Stagecoach's actions were deplorable; it was ultimately a pyrrhic victory and cost them a lot. That said, it was absolutely the case that whilst Stagecoach carried the can, the factors were a lot more complex.

Darlington Borough Transport was in a serious problem before privatisation. It operated as near a perfect service that I have ever come across - but at the cost that about one third of the operating costs were covered by the ratepayers (as they were then!), and this before capital and asset costs were taken into account. Capital was short and competing with all of the other activities of the Borough. Right at the start, many difficult decisions had to be taken, in an unknown future environment, many of them politically very difficult and uncomfortable for a (fairly competent) bewildered Labour administration seven years into Margaret's government. Unsurprisingly, some of these decisions would not have been taken with hindsight, but this legacy left the relatively small 'arms-length' undertaking in a very weak position , as you quite rightly point out.

Deregulation might have been sold on a dream of market led innovation but the real motive was subsidy reduction...and in that case, it worked

Quite.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I was a student in Salford in the early-1970s and most Salford Corporation buses terminated at Victoria bus station on the Salford side of the River Irwell. From there it was necessary to cross the bridge on foot to access Manchester. There was a through service, I think the 95 & 96, operated jointly with Manchester Corporation but if any other Salford bus encroached on Manchester there would be uproar. It all seems rather pathetic now, but even under SELNEC the nonsense persisted.