West Yorkshire bus franchising

[Leyland Bus]

I contacted West Yorkshire Combined Authority regarding the concern that including Tracy Brabin’s name on the side of buses could give rise to bias during election periods, and they have advised that the final livery design won't include the name of the mayor. It will just say “Mayor of West Yorkshire” The bus that was used on Monday was purely for the network identity unveil.

As predicted, shocking...

 

[TUC]

Go-Ahead's Surrey and Sussex-based division might have something to say about that.

They might, but since West Yorkshire Metro had the name first....

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not sure if this would be better in a dedicated thread, but somewhat lost in amongst the West Yorkshire Rapid Transit announcement were plans for new bus stations in Wakefield and Bradford.
The problems with the current Bradford Interchange have been done to death on here, but I'm a bit surprised by the Wakefield announcement. The structure itself is the newest of West Yorkshire's larger bus stations other than Halifax, though unlike the rest it is owned and operated by Arriva and not the PTE/ITA/Combined Authority. Surely it would make more sense to transfer the ownership, unless (a) Arriva are demanding a ridiculous sum to do so, or (b) there are issues with the structure itself despite it being under 30 years old.

 

[noddingdonkey]

I think the issue is that the roof needs considerable work (it leaks and WYCA have recent experience of fixing Leeds which is a similar design). The design is said to also facilitate anti social behaviour and vandalism.

I Imagine that Arriva have little incentive to do anything about it with franchising on the horizon.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think the issue is that the roof needs considerable work (it leaks and WYCA have recent experience of fixing Leeds which is a similar design). The design is said to also facilitate anti social behaviour and vandalism.

I Imagine that Arriva have little incentive to do anything about it with franchising on the horizon.

I'm not sure how the design of Wakefield facilitates anti-social behaviour any more than Leeds or Huddersfield does, other than the stupid market stalls that make the concourse far too narrow. The disused market complex next door probably doesn't help matters either.
Though Arriva's lack of incentive to do anything probably also extends to tackling the security issues.

 

[GoneSouth]

I think the issue is that the roof needs considerable work (it leaks and WYCA have recent experience of fixing Leeds which is a similar design). The design is said to also facilitate anti social behaviour and vandalism.

I Imagine that Arriva have little incentive to do anything about it with franchising on the horizon.

Arriva are not the type of company to do anything proactively, their fleet of vehicles looks horrible, their rail operations have been abysmal and their poor employed management relationship left many thousands of people stranded for weeks not that long ago in West Yorkshire.

I can’t see a leaky roof being of interest to them.

 

[Andyh82]

Results of the ‘dynamic market’ for Phase 1 have been revealed. This is basically everyone throwing their hat in the ring before the formal bidding process begins. Phase 1 covers Huddersfield, North Kirklees and half of Leeds

West Yorkshire Bus Franchising Dynamic Market - Find a Tender

www.find-tender.service.gov.uk

Part A covers the large franchises, and basically every major business group in the country have entered the market (along with, strangely, DM Motor Services). Part B would be the small franchises where every major group and pretty much every existing independent has applied. Part C is school contracts.

Part LOT-0001. Part A - Authority Provided Depots

ARRIVA YORKSHIRE LIMITED
DIAMOND BUS (NORTH WEST) LIMITED
DM MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED
FIRST WEST YORKSHIRE LIMITED
METROLINE WEST YORKSHIRE LIMITED
THE GO-AHEAD GROUP LIMITED
THE YORKSHIRE TRACTION COMPANY LIMITED
TOWER TRANSIT OPERATIONS LTD
TRANSDEV BLAZEFIELD LIMITED
TRANSPORT UK (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
WEST MIDLANDS TRAVEL LIMITED
WHIPPET COACHES LIMITED

Part LOT-0002. Part B and C - Operator Provided Depots

A LYLES & SON LIMITED
ARRIVA YORKSHIRE LIMITED
B & H TRAVEL LTD
DIAMOND BUS (NORTH WEST) LIMITED
DM MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED
E. STOTT & SONS LIMITED
FIRST WEST YORKSHIRE LIMITED
HARROGATE COACH TRAVEL LIMITED
J & B TRAVEL LIMITED
KILVINGTONS OF LEEDS LTD
LETHER'S TRAVEL LTD
ROSS TRAVEL LIMITED
SQUAREPEG BUSES LTD
STRINGERS PONTEFRACT MOTORWAYS LTD
TETLEY'S MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED
THE GO-AHEAD GROUP LIMITED
THE YORKSHIRE TRACTION COMPANY LIMITED
TLC TRAVEL LIMITED
TOWER TRANSIT OPERATIONS LTD
TRANSDEV BLAZEFIELD LIMITED
WEST MIDLANDS TRAVEL LIMITED
WEST YORKSHIRE TRAVEL LIMITED
WHIPPET COACHES LIMITED

 

[Steve440]

Also this with regard to procurement of new buses:

WYCA - Modern Gov

westyorkshire.moderngov.co.uk

Over 170 and up to 322 for tranche 1 seems to suggest 322 is the total PVR and the over 170 presumably would relate to what state the fleet is left in by the incumbent operator if they do not win the franchise(s).

 

[47550]

So First group get two dibs at parts B & C now that they own Tetleys.

 

[Steve440]

So First group get two dibs at parts B & C now that they own Tetleys.

Don't forget that this is just the pre-qualifying list, it doesn't mean that all firms will bid, but then again, why wouldn't they. Also surprising that there is no mention of South Pennine.

 

[Ballyheigue]

Don't forget that this is just the pre-qualifying list, it doesn't mean that all firms will bid, but then again, why wouldn't they. Also surprising that there is no mention of South Pennine.

Wasn't too surprised as South Pennine have been concentrating on South Yorkshire and even Derbyshire of late, their cross pennine routes wouldn't be affected so they can still keep the Honley base for these, however what will happen to the 309, will they merge it onto some of the cross pennine routes?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Presumably "The Yorkshire Traction Company Limited" is the old "Tracky" now trading as Stagecoach in Yorkshire?

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

Presumably "The Yorkshire Traction Company Limited" is the old "Tracky" now trading as Stagecoach in Yorkshire?

Yes, that's right

 

[markymark2000]

Don't forget that this is just the pre-qualifying list, it doesn't mean that all firms will bid, but then again, why wouldn't they. Also surprising that there is no mention of South Pennine.

Is there a condition that operators here must have a proper operators licence? If so, that would discount South Pennine as they run off charity bus permits.

 

[nikos]

Have I missed something? Why isn't Yorkshire Buses listed? https://yorkshirebuses.co.uk/ Seems weird for a relatively new company not to bid for the franchising scheme.

 

[Ballyheigue]

Have I missed something? Why isn't Yorkshire Buses listed? https://yorkshirebuses.co.uk/ Seems weird for a relatively new company not to bid for the franchising scheme.

I think they've previously ruled themselves out wanting instead to concentrate longer term on private contracts such as rail replacement work or company shuttle services.

 

[mattb7tl]

Have I missed something? Why isn't Yorkshire Buses listed? https://yorkshirebuses.co.uk/ Seems weird for a relatively new company not to bid for the franchising scheme.

It is hilarious.

The mayor very clearly announces franchising ambitions. A year or two later this company shows up. They continuously complain about franchising despite starting a company knowing it is going to take place to then not even join the dynamic market?

If you are a member of the more local forum you may have also seen the company crashing out on customers, the authority and other bus companies.

 

[markymark2000]

If you are a member of the more local forum you may have also seen the company crashing out on customers, the authority and other bus companies.

Meanwhile I've caught them multiple times driving around with operators licence disc in the window and no legal lettering on the side. They love to blame Metro for things too that are not Metros fault. Very silly operator, always crying wolf over something.

 

[nikos]

It is hilarious.

The mayor very clearly announces franchising ambitions. A year or two later this company shows up. They continuously complain about franchising despite starting a company knowing it is going to take place to then not even join the dynamic market?

Mindboggling. At first I thought they were set up to possibly take over Arriva Yorkshire when they finally pull the plug - but to not bid? And lose the 7 or so service routes they have? Just what sort of set up is this? Are they banking on a Reform landslide scrapping the whole thing? Being taken over, merged or wound up? Can they really get by on private contracts? Just what was the point?

 

[mattb7tl]

Mindboggling. At first I thought they were set up to possibly take over Arriva Yorkshire when they finally pull the plug - but to not bid? And lose the 7 or so service routes they have? Just what sort of set up is this? Are they banking on a Reform landslide scrapping the whole thing? Being taken over, merged or wound up? Can they really get by on private contracts? Just what was the point?

Exactly.
Reform voters overwhelmingly support public ownership of public services. In the case of buses, it is 65%, higher than conservative voters at 48%, which were the party to allow bus franchising. They certainly won't be scrapping franchising without going against the interests of their voters.

 

[Ballyheigue]

In complete fairness to Yorkshire Buses, they have experience in the private market so will probably plan ahead when the time is right to pull out of public transport, which given where they are mostly operating is a while off yet. They probably know there is a risk they won't get any contracts (look at Manchester) so to mitigate that risk they've decided not to be included. I think most their routes are tenders anyway so they'll just give each one up as it comes up for tender whilst gradually moving into the private market. To be fair on the company regarding jobs, drivers will know the company has a limited life span in public transport operation so they'll know where they stand, and the owners may well just decide to close anyway and move onto another job, you don't have to be a bus operator all your life lol.

 

[citybus2500]

Just because an operator isn't on the list doesn't mean they didn't try.

More to the point, how on earth did DM MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED meet the requirements for Lot As!!

 

[mattb7tl]

Just because an operator isn't on the list doesn't mean they didn't try.

More to the point, how on earth did DM MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED meet the requirements for Lot As!!

If an operator did not sign up to the dynamic market they are not allowed to bid for the first round of services unless you mean something else?

 

[Swimbar]

Just because an operator isn't on the list doesn't mean they didn't try.

More to the point, how on earth did DM MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED meet the requirements for Lot As!!

DM Motor Services have metro school contracts.

 

[tomoufc]

Hi everyone. I wonder if I could ask for some help, please.

I live in Todmorden, which is right on the border with Lancashire and Greater Manchester. The main bus services we have are cross border routes from Halifax to Burnley and Rochdale, both operated by First West Yorkshire. My local councillors think there’s a very real risk they won’t be included in the Weaver Network franchising plans. This wouldn’t be good, as it now seems to be the most realistic way to address some serious shortcomings in services after recent cuts.

Does anyone know if cross border issues have yet been resolved in the Weaver Network franchising plans?

If things follow the same pattern as the Bee Network, despite being cross border services, they should be included in the franchising plans, as they operate out of garages in West Yorkshire (Todmorden has a small First garage, but I’m not sure if some of the busses run out of another First garage in Halifax too).

Thanks for your help

 

[JasonL]

Hi everyone. I wonder if I could ask for some help, please.

I live in Todmorden, which is right on the border with Lancashire and Greater Manchester. The main bus services we have are cross border routes from Halifax to Burnley and Rochdale, both operated by First West Yorkshire. My local councillors think there’s a very real risk they won’t be included in the Weaver Network franchising plans. This wouldn’t be good, as it now seems to be the most realistic way to address some serious shortcomings in services after recent cuts.

Does anyone know if cross border issues have yet been resolved in the Weaver Network franchising plans?

If things follow the same pattern as the Bee Network, despite being cross border services, they should be included in the franchising plans, as they operate out of garages in West Yorkshire (Todmorden has a small First garage, but I’m not sure if some of the busses run out of another First garage in Halifax too).

Thanks for your help

It should be resolved. The 184 running from Oldham to Marsden/Huddersfield is run by Bee Network since First Huddersfield was not willing to do the route. I don't see a problem for Weaver Network running the 590 to Rochdale and the 591/92 to Burnley since both routes are mostly in West Yorkshire.

 

[stevieinselby]

It should be resolved. The 184 running from Oldham to Marsden/Huddersfield is run by Bee Network since First Huddersfield was not willing to do the route. I don't see a problem for Weaver Network running the 590 to Rochdale and the 591/92 to Burnley since both routes are mostly in West Yorkshire.

You may not see a problem with it, except that WYCA has explicitly said that it is only contracting routes that run entirely within West Yorkshire, and any cross-border services that commercial operators deem viable or neighbouring authorities want to contract can operate with a permit but they won't be getting involved. Which is not a sustainable position in a world where an increasing number of WYCA's neighbours will be operating a franchise model if other authorities take the same view!

 

[tomoufc]

You may not see a problem with it, except that WYCA has explicitly said that it is only contracting routes that run entirely within West Yorkshire, and any cross-border services that commercial operators deem viable or neighbouring authorities want to contract can operate with a permit but they won't be getting involved. Which is not a sustainable position in a world where an increasing number of WYCA's neighbours will be operating a franchise model if other authorities take the same view!

Thank you. Sorry, but can you point to where they have said this? It’s exactly this information I’m looking for. If this is their official position, we need to know so that we may act on it. Cheers.

 

[mattb7tl]

Hi everyone. I wonder if I could ask for some help, please.

I live in Todmorden, which is right on the border with Lancashire and Greater Manchester. The main bus services we have are cross border routes from Halifax to Burnley and Rochdale, both operated by First West Yorkshire. My local councillors think there’s a very real risk they won’t be included in the Weaver Network franchising plans. This wouldn’t be good, as it now seems to be the most realistic way to address some serious shortcomings in services after recent cuts.

Does anyone know if cross border issues have yet been resolved in the Weaver Network franchising plans?

If things follow the same pattern as the Bee Network, despite being cross border services, they should be included in the franchising plans, as they operate out of garages in West Yorkshire (Todmorden has a small First garage, but I’m not sure if some of the busses run out of another First garage in Halifax too).

Thanks for your help

Learnt a lot about the whole process a good six months ago when the topic appeared on the more locally focused forum.

As they operate across the boundary they will technically not be part of the franchised network. Instead, they are to operate under what is called a service permit issued by both of the transport authorities. It is why they don't appear on the list of franchised services, alongside other cross-boundary routes.

This is simply a different legal mechanism it is designed to ensure these services meet the same standards. The authorities can set conditions on tickets, fares, and quality, so in practice, for passengers, it is going to function as a fully integrated part of the network on both sides of the border.

except that WYCA has explicitly said that it is only contracting routes that run entirely within West Yorkshire,

Service permits are not contracts but simply a licence or authorisation which is why it is wrote in such a way.

 

[tomoufc]

Learnt a lot about the whole process a good six months ago when the topic appeared on the more locally focused forum.

As they operate across the boundary they will technically not be part of the franchised network. Instead, they are to operate under what is called a service permit issued by both of the transport authorities. It is why they don't appear on the list of franchised services, alongside other cross-boundary routes.

This is simply a different legal mechanism it is designed to ensure these services meet the same standards. The authorities can set conditions on tickets, fares, and quality, so in practice, for passengers, it is going to function as a fully integrated part of the network on both sides of the border.

Service permits are not contracts but simply a licence or authorisation which is why it is wrote in such a way.

Thank you. This is how cross border services operate in the Bee Network area, where the depot lies outside of Greater Manchester. But cross border services using GM-based depots are run by Bee Network. The equivalents of the 590/2 in GM are franchised services. So that suggests a different approach from TfGM by WYCA.

Again, however, I have to ask (because this is what I need to know), can you point to any public documentation that confirms this?

Thanks for your help