West Yorkshire bus franchising

[mattb7tl]

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

No worries. I would not worry about your services. It will be controlled by the authority with the same powers but achieved with permits which is technically not franchising hence missing from the scheme. Your services are apart of every growth related document as core services.

This document (Pg.7) covers the basics of the permits and confirms why the services are missing from the franchising scheme.

https://westyorkshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s42106/Item%206%20-%20Bus%20Franchising%20Update.pdf

 

[tomoufc]

No worries. I would not worry about your services. It will be controlled by the authority with the same powers but achieved with permits which is technically not franchising hence missing from the scheme. Your services are apart of every growth related document as core services.

This document (Pg.7) covers the basics of the permits and confirms why the services are missing from the franchising scheme.

https://westyorkshire.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s42106/Item%206%20-%20Bus%20Franchising%20Update.pdf

Thanks. This appears to show that WYCA will indeed not take the same approach as Greater Manchester. Therefore, unless something changes, it seems that we will have services between two franchised areas, operated by non-franchised services. What is not explained is why WYCA have chosen a different approach to TfGM. Surely it’s not just an oversight?

 

[JasonL]

Thanks. This appears to show that WYCA will indeed not take the same approach as Greater Manchester. Therefore, unless something changes, it seems that we will have services between two franchised areas, operated by non-franchised services. What is not explained is why WYCA have chosen a different approach to TfGM. Surely it’s not just an oversight?

I wonder what will happen with the 587 route from Halifax to Rochdale operated by Team Pennine, the 590 from Halifax to Rochdale via Todmorden and the 591/92 to Burnley operated by First Halifax?

 

[tomoufc]

I wonder what will happen with the 587 route from Halifax to Rochdale operated by Team Pennine, the 590 from Halifax to Rochdale via Todmorden and the 591/92 to Burnley operated by First Halifax?

Indeed. Extraordinary, it seems to me, the logical conclusion is that First maintain their depots in Calderdale, and run services more or less as before.

 

[Geeves]

Indeed. Extraordinary, it seems to me, the logical conclusion is that First maintain their depots in Calderdale, and run services more or less as before.

The choice won't be one for First to take if WY Metro take over the various depots as in Manchester.

It doesn't seem in the realms of impossibility that WY and GM could work together to see that cross border services continue, after all it's supposed to be for the benefit of the passengers now Vs profit making. The current cross border services go back into old school bus world so when WY goes the same way it's neighbour it will surely be different. Heck they might even improve cross border runs!

Rochdale, Oldham, Huddersfield and Halifax have lost many connections over the past 30 years. Let's hope we see an improvement

 

[Goldfish62]

It doesn't seem in the realms of impossibility that WY and GM could work together to see that cross border services continue, after all it's supposed to be for the benefit of the passengers now Vs profit making.

Believe it or not TfGM, WY, Merseyside Warrington, etc have a continual dialogue about cross-boundary services, especially so in the light of franchising.

 

[tomoufc]

The last two posts are interesting and somewhat reassuring, but it remains the case, I think, that WYCA have not publicly stated that cross border services to GM, run by buses with garages in WY, for example will be part of the weaver network.

If I’m wrong about this, could someone please provide a reference or link? Otherwise I may have to submit an FOI. Cheers

 

[johncrossley]

I wonder what will happen with the 587 route from Halifax to Rochdale operated by Team Pennine

Isn't that already tendered by West Yorkshire? So that would be a natural conversion to the Weaver network.

 

[tomoufc]

Isn't that already tendered by West Yorkshire? So that would be a natural conversion to the Weaver network.

Not if they stick to the letter of what they have said publicly - that no cross border services will be franchised.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As ever, I think folks are perhaps being a bit too literal or binary in what may happen. As we saw in GM, there was a more nuanced approach with different approaches in different circumstances.

In West Yorkshire, I think it's likely that routes like the 36 or X52 or Coastliner will continue to operate into the WY area but subject to permits, very much as the 125 operates into Bolton from Preston. Other routes will make more sense to be franchised, others not. The 66 to Skipton would probably be one that I could see franchised despite heading over into North Yorkshire for instance as Keighley depot will be a Weaver garage - where else could it be run from by Transdev? Burnley?

Also, remember that Tracy Brabin signed the White Rose Agreement and that it was said by David Skaith, Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, said they were looking at plans where you could see a single ticket across buses, trains and other forms of public transport across Yorkshire.

“People across Yorkshire have a strong local identity, but when it comes to keeping communities safe, getting to work or college, or doing business, people don’t care about boundaries between one area of Yorkshire or another,” he said.

“They just care that they’re connected to opportunity and that’s what the White Rose Agreement is all about." https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/25...sign-new-deal-drive-growth-improve-transport/

So I suspect that they will try to have a blend of franchised and permitted services and it's not as hard and fast as initially seems.

 

[tomoufc]

As ever, I think folks are perhaps being a bit too literal or binary in what may happen. As we saw in GM, there was a more nuanced approach with different approaches in different circumstances.

In West Yorkshire, I think it's likely that routes like the 36 or X52 or Coastliner will continue to operate into the WY area but subject to permits, very much as the 125 operates into Bolton from Preston. Other routes will make more sense to be franchised, others not. The 66 to Skipton would probably be one that I could see franchised despite heading over into North Yorkshire for instance as Keighley depot will be a Weaver garage - where else could it be run from by Transdev? Burnley?

Also, remember that Tracy Brabin signed the White Rose Agreement and that it was said by David Skaith, Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, said they were looking at plans where you could see a single ticket across buses, trains and other forms of public transport across Yorkshire.

So I suspect that they will try to have a blend of franchised and permitted services and it's not as hard and fast as initially seems.

So a different approach to GM, which is hard and fast?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So a different approach to GM, which is hard and fast?

Even TfGM isn't hard and fast.

632 runs from Wigan to Chorley every 30 mins, 237 Ashton to Glossop every 20 mins - both are Bee Network routes, as is the 341 (Hyde to Glossop) and, of course, the 184 from Oldham to Huddersfield. I guess it's a judgement call as to what is predominantly in your patch so assume that was why 632 was franchised but something like the 320 wasn't.

The point is that they won't franchise routes that aren't predominantly in Weaver zone (and operated from depots within it) - no massive tendrils stretching out from Leeds to Ripon or Scarborough. Others like the 66 make more sense as the rest of the depot is going to be franchised.

The real question is the "half and half" routes; will they enforce some cutting of links like the 7 at Wetherby and the 591 at Todmorden? THAT is the bigger question.

 

[JasonL]

Even TfGM isn't hard and fast.

632 runs from Wigan to Chorley every 30 mins, 237 Ashton to Glossop every 20 mins - both are Bee Network routes, as is the 341 (Hyde to Glossop) and, of course, the 184 from Oldham to Huddersfield. I guess it's a judgement call as to what is predominantly in your patch so assume that was why 632 was franchised but something like the 320 wasn't.

The point is that they won't franchise routes that aren't predominantly in Weaver zone (and operated from depots within it) - no massive tendrils stretching out from Leeds to Ripon or Scarborough. Others like the 66 make more sense as the rest of the depot is going to be franchised.

The real question is the "half and half" routes; will they enforce some cutting of links like the 7 at Wetherby and the 591 at Todmorden? THAT is the bigger question.

That would go off by the depot where routes are run from. Like the 320 is operated from Arriva's St. Helens garage in Merseyside, so that's the main reason why the 320 is NOT a Bee Network service, same with the 34 and 352.

 

[Leedsbusman]

Even TfGM isn't hard and fast.

632 runs from Wigan to Chorley every 30 mins, 237 Ashton to Glossop every 20 mins - both are Bee Network routes, as is the 341 (Hyde to Glossop) and, of course, the 184 from Oldham to Huddersfield. I guess it's a judgement call as to what is predominantly in your patch so assume that was why 632 was franchised but something like the 320 wasn't.

The point is that they won't franchise routes that aren't predominantly in Weaver zone (and operated from depots within it) - no massive tendrils stretching out from Leeds to Ripon or Scarborough. Others like the 66 make more sense as the rest of the depot is going to be franchised.

The real question is the "half and half" routes; will they enforce some cutting of links like the 7 at Wetherby and the 591 at Todmorden? THAT is the bigger question.

The franchise document is very clear on what routes are within the scheme. No cross boundary routes will be franchised at all. Those which are tendered like 587 will continue to be tendered and therefore be part of Weaver network. Those that are commercial will continue to be so if the operator wants to and WYCA is prepared to issue a service permit.

 

[tomoufc]

Even TfGM isn't hard and fast.

632 runs from Wigan to Chorley every 30 mins, 237 Ashton to Glossop every 20 mins - both are Bee Network routes, as is the 341 (Hyde to Glossop) and, of course, the 184 from Oldham to Huddersfield. I guess it's a judgement call as to what is predominantly in your patch so assume that was why 632 was franchised but something like the 320 wasn't.

Forgive me, but isn't it the case, including in these examples, that the cross border franchised services all run from depots located in Greater Manchester? And also that there are no cross border non-franchised services which run from depots located in Greater Manchester? In which case, there certainly is a hard and fast rule!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2025 ==

The franchise document is very clear on what routes are within the scheme. No cross boundary routes will be franchised at all. Those which are tendered like 587 will continue to be tendered and therefore be part of Weaver network. Those that are commercial will continue to be so if the operator wants to and WYCA is prepared to issue a service permit.

I suppose an important question at this point is whether TfGM's equivalent documents included cross border routes from GM-located depots? If not, perhaps this is something added later in the process?

I'm a bit confused by

tendered and therefore be part of Weaver network

How would that work?

 

[Leedsbusman]

Forgive me, but isn't it the case, including in these examples, that the cross border franchised services all run from depots located in Greater Manchester? And also that there are no cross border non-franchised services which run from depots located in Greater Manchester? In which case, there certainly is a hard and fast rule!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2025 ==


I suppose an important question at this point is whether TfGM's equivalent documents included cross border routes from GM-located depots? If not, perhaps this is something added later in the process?

I'm a bit confused by

How would that work?

Yes the cross boundary routes operates from depots within GM were included in their document. The document and route lists can only be changed with a full public consultation.

As I understand route like the 587 will be procured under existing tendered service legislation and be run pretty much as if they were franchised from a public point of view. It’s just a different contract.

 

[tomoufc]

Yes the cross boundary routes operates from depots within GM were included in their document. The document and route lists can only be changed with a full public consultation.

As I understand route like the 587 will be procured under existing tendered service legislation and be run pretty much as if they were franchised from a public point of view. It’s just a different contract.

Thanks for the clarification. Really sorry to keep doing this - it's not for point-scoring, but because I'm trying to advise a local councilor - but, when you say 'as I understand', is your understanding based on publicly available documentation?

I'm not sure I agree it would be functionally the same. If I buy a ticket from First, running a tendered service, then my passenger rights pertain to my contract with First. Also, while in theory tendering should give local authorities regulatory control -eg to ensure that busses achieve a certain punctuality - we all know that it doesn't.

 

[stevieinselby]

The point is that they won't franchise routes that aren't predominantly in Weaver zone (and operated from depots within it) - no massive tendrils stretching out from Leeds to Ripon or Scarborough. Others like the 66 make more sense as the rest of the depot is going to be franchised.

The real question is the "half and half" routes; will they enforce some cutting of links like the 7 at Wetherby and the 591 at Todmorden? THAT is the bigger question.

The franchise document is very clear on what routes are within the scheme. No cross boundary routes will be franchised at all. Those which are tendered like 587 will continue to be tendered and therefore be part of Weaver network. Those that are commercial will continue to be so if the operator wants to and WYCA is prepared to issue a service permit.

This is where the franchising model starts to get really messy.

Yes, routes like The 36 and Coastliner are obvious candidates for service permits – they are run from depots that are outside West Yorkshire and their primary purpose is to provide connections between West Yorkshire and the outside world, they are pretty clear cut.

The 7 is run from outside West Yorkshire, so could continue to be run with a service permit ... but is the primary service to Boston Spa, Bramham and Clifford and the only service to Thorner, so there's a democratic deficit for people living in those communities if they don't get a Weaver bus. It isn't impossible that the service could be split, with WYCA franchising the route from Wetherby to Leeds, and Transdev/Connexions running from Harrogate to Wetherby and probably Boston Spa commercially on a permit basis, but that option hasn't featured in the documentation so far so it probably can't happen without a further consultation.

The 66 is run from within West Yorkshire, but as it goes out of the area to Skipton it won't be included in the franchise model. Would whoever wins the Keighley lot be allowed to operate it commercially on a service permit from the Keighley depot, or can the depots only be used to run franchised services?

The 164 is run from within West Yorkshire, and some journeys are entirely within West Yorkshire while others continue on out to Sherburn and Selby. Are WYCA going to franchise an hourly service to East Garforth with the expectation that Arriva or someone else runs an hourly service from Selby alongside it on a service permit? Or are they going to franchise a half-hourly service to (East) Garforth and then anything coming from Selby will be on top of that? Or are they going to ignore the route altogether because some journeys are out of scope? In which case, again you've got a democratic deficit and people living in some parts of WY are being shortchanged.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Forgive me, but isn't it the case, including in these examples, that the cross border franchised services all run from depots located in Greater Manchester? And also that there are no cross border non-franchised services which run from depots located in Greater Manchester? In which case, there certainly is a hard and fast rule!

You were saying that WY was to get no cross border franchised services and I was saying that it may depend on circumstances as in GM. One of those circumstances is whether the service is operated as part of an existing depot that was being franchised.

That's the reason why I suggest that the 64 and especially the 66 are likely to be franchised (sorry @stevieinselby) - they're part of Keighley depot and it would be difficult for Transdev to operate them from another existing depot. Also, they are c.50% in West Yorkshire and provide an important link to Airedale Hospital (66) so I can see them being Weavers.

Now for a route like the 7 - they may view that as a route that has been linked for operational convenience and it's really a Leeds to Wetherby service tagged onto a Wetherby to Harrogate service. They may take the view that they want to disconnect it into those two parts so the southern part is under their full control and the other northern half is under a permit, or they may keep it the way it is and have it all under a permit. That's the joy! I did think of the 164 too being a moot point as well.

Therefore, I think it is unlikely that there will be a black and white rule that NO Weaver bus will go over a boundary, in much the same way as Bee Network doesn't have that rule either.

 

[tomoufc]

You were saying that WY was to get no cross border franchised services and I was saying that it may depend on circumstances as in GM. One of those circumstances is whether the service is operated as part of an existing depot that was being franchised.

That's the reason why I suggest that the 64 and especially the 66 are likely to be franchised (sorry @stevieinselby) - they're part of Keighley depot and it would be difficult for Transdev to operate them from another existing depot. Also, they are c.50% in West Yorkshire and provide an important link to Airedale Hospital (66) so I can see them being Weavers.

Now for a route like the 7 - they may view that as a route that has been linked for operational convenience and it's really a Leeds to Wetherby service tagged onto a Wetherby to Harrogate service. They may take the view that they want to disconnect it into those two parts so the southern part is under their full control and the other northern half is under a permit, or they may keep it the way it is and have it all under a permit. That's the joy! I did think of the 164 too being a moot point as well.

Therefore, I think it is unlikely that there will be a black and white rule that NO Weaver bus will go over a boundary, in much the same way as Bee Network doesn't have that rule either.

Thank you, but doesn't this belief fly in the face of public statements on the matter?

 

[Leedsbusman]

.

That's the reason why I suggest that the 64 and especially the 66 are likely to be franchised (sorry @stevieinselby) - they're part of Keighley depot and it would be difficult for Transdev to operate them from another existing depot. Also, they are c.50% in West Yorkshire and provide an important link to Airedale Hospital (66) so I can see them being Weavers.



Therefore, I think it is unlikely that there will be a black and white rule that NO Weaver bus will go over a boundary, in much the same way as Bee Network doesn't have that rule either.

The 66 cannot be franchised as the scheme does not include a service linking Keighley with Skipton.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The 66 cannot be franchised as the scheme does not include a service linking Keighley with Skipton.

I'm suggesting that pragmatism may win out

As was said in the franchising doc https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/med...form-s123g-report-on-franchising-decision.pdf

The vast majority of cross-boundary services are currently operated commercially, and under the proposed franchising scheme, the part of such services which operates within West Yorkshire could continue to be run under the service permit regime within the franchise area, assuming such services meet the criteria for the granting of a service permit. Where services that are currently considered commercial by an operator but could become uncommercial by the introduction of franchising, as described by Arriva, then the Combined Authority would have the ability if necessary to let those services, if they cease commercial operation, (with the services permitted as cross-boundary services within West Yorkshire), as would neighbouring authorities.

The 66 would a clear example where if Transdev couldn't operate it, then it could become a franchised operation.

What can't be franchised would be a service like Skipton to Grassington which is operated by Keighley depot and is fully outside WY.

 

[gc4946]

This is where the franchising model starts to get really messy.

Yes, routes like The 36 and Coastliner are obvious candidates for service permits – they are run from depots that are outside West Yorkshire and their primary purpose is to provide connections between West Yorkshire and the outside world, they are pretty clear cut.

The 7 is run from outside West Yorkshire, so could continue to be run with a service permit ... but is the primary service to Boston Spa, Bramham and Clifford and the only service to Thorner, so there's a democratic deficit for people living in those communities if they don't get a Weaver bus. It isn't impossible that the service could be split, with WYCA franchising the route from Wetherby to Leeds, and Transdev/Connexions running from Harrogate to Wetherby and probably Boston Spa commercially on a permit basis, but that option hasn't featured in the documentation so far so it probably can't happen without a further consultation.

The 66 is run from within West Yorkshire, but as it goes out of the area to Skipton it won't be included in the franchise model. Would whoever wins the Keighley lot be allowed to operate it commercially on a service permit from the Keighley depot, or can the depots only be used to run franchised services?

The 164 is run from within West Yorkshire, and some journeys are entirely within West Yorkshire while others continue on out to Sherburn and Selby. Are WYCA going to franchise an hourly service to East Garforth with the expectation that Arriva or someone else runs an hourly service from Selby alongside it on a service permit? Or are they going to franchise a half-hourly service to (East) Garforth and then anything coming from Selby will be on top of that? Or are they going to ignore the route altogether because some journeys are out of scope? In which case, again you've got a democratic deficit and people living in some parts of WY are being shortchanged.

I'm a regular user of the 7 to/from Thorp Arch (Trading) Estate and have travelled over the full length of that route. I hope the 7 doesn't get split at Wetherby. There's a fair number of people travelling from Bramham, Clifford and Boston Spa to/from Harrogate for work and leisure purposes, also for medical appointments at Harrogate Hospital which is also on the number 7 route. There's also people going to/from the Thorp Arch (Trading) Estate from both the Leeds and Harrogate directions. I think it should run under a service permit adhering to Weaver Network fare conditions within West Yorkshire. Additionally we don't know if they'll be pick up/set down restrictions, or limited stops, between Leeds and Seacroft bus stations.

 

[John HG1]

While it may be the case that First, for example, could continue to operate some cross-boundary routes commercially this assumes that they retains the franchise in that area. If they were to lose Halifax to, say, Arriva (don't laugh!) would First continue to operate Calder Valley to Greater Manchester commercially? Doesn't seem likely. But would Arriva (or anyone else) take it on commercially?
There are too may imponderables regarding cross-boundary services. It would be nice to think that the various authorities would be more concerned about supporting the travelling public's journey requirements than protecting their own boundaries, but the bureaucratic mind doesn't always seem to work like that.

 

[johncrossley]

While it may be the case that First, for example, could continue to operate some cross-boundary routes commercially this assumes that they retains the franchise in that area. If they were to lose Halifax to, say, Arriva (don't laugh!) would First continue to operate Calder Valley to Greater Manchester commercially? Doesn't seem likely. But would Arriva (or anyone else) take it on commercially?
There are too may imponderables regarding cross-boundary services. It would be nice to think that the various authorities would be more concerned about supporting the travelling public's journey requirements than protecting their own boundaries, but the bureaucratic mind doesn't always seem to work like that.

If the depot is being used for Weaver buses, can it also be used for commercial services?

 

[JasonL]

While it may be the case that First, for example, could continue to operate some cross-boundary routes commercially this assumes that they retains the franchise in that area. If they were to lose Halifax to, say, Arriva (don't laugh!) would First continue to operate Calder Valley to Greater Manchester commercially? Doesn't seem likely. But would Arriva (or anyone else) take it on commercially?
There are too may imponderables regarding cross-boundary services. It would be nice to think that the various authorities would be more concerned about supporting the travelling public's journey requirements than protecting their own boundaries, but the bureaucratic mind doesn't always seem to work like that.

I don't think Greater Manchester would want anymore Arriva services operating in their county

 

[mattb7tl]

The franchise document is very clear on what routes are within the scheme. No cross boundary routes will be franchised at all. Those which are tendered like 587 will continue to be tendered and therefore be part of Weaver network. Those that are commercial will continue to be so if the operator wants to and WYCA is prepared to issue a service permit.

Bingo.

This topic always becomes a game of 'what if' when it shows up. It is just a case where services are handled via two separate legal mechanisms for different types of services which both achieve the same result of being apart of the Weaver or Bee Network.

Tendered, commercial, franchised to franchised, any scenarios are handled via service permits. The authority is going to have it all set up three months before the launch of the first tranche.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't think Greater Manchester would want anymore Arriva services operating in their county

I don't think they have the power of veto!!

As regards the use of depots, the telling lines are in https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/med...form-s123g-report-on-franchising-decision.pdf - section 3.2.11

As part of evolving the depot strategy, consideration would be given to whether there could be additional capacity to support some of these services within an Authority provided Lot A depot, should those services require letting as secured services under existing powers, whilst ensuring that such an approach did not distort competition in respect of those services, by providing a benefit to the Lot A operator.

How that reads is that they MIGHT but they would have to be convinced that the operator isn't getting an unfair advantage by getting facilities or management/admin/maintenance at a lower rate than any other operator.

As I said before, the routes may not be on this list (if that's where people are referencing https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/med...rkshire-bus-franchising-scheme-march-2024.pdf) but then again, the 587 doesn't appear either. The reality is that if a service is likely to be lost because a commercial operator declines to continue, then options are open to WYCA.

 

[tomoufc]

I don't think they have the power of veto!!

As regards the use of depots, the telling lines are in https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/med...form-s123g-report-on-franchising-decision.pdf - section 3.2.11


How that reads is that they MIGHT but they would have to be convinced that the operator isn't getting an unfair advantage by getting facilities or management/admin/maintenance at a lower rate than any other operator.

As I said before, the routes may not be on this list (if that's where people are referencing https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/med...rkshire-bus-franchising-scheme-march-2024.pdf) but then again, the 587 doesn't appear either. The reality is that if a service is likely to be lost because a commercial operator declines to continue, then options are open to WYCA.

Thanks for this clarification. Cold comfort for passengers in the upper Calder Valley, who are seeking improvements in services, not just a way to continue the status quo.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Thanks for this clarification. Cold comfort for passengers in the upper Calder Valley, who are seeking improvements in services, not just a way to continue the status quo.

The Upper Calder Valley is a really interesting area. First obviously only have their Todmorden parking ground and don't know if that will be taken on by WYCA. Even were it to be retained by First, not certain how you'd operate a permit operation. I do share your views - Upper Calderdale has been poorly served in recent years (and the 579 to Sowerby Bridge is a shadow of itself) by First.

It is predominantly the Skipton and Todmorden areas where you have these challenges - less so on the Eastern margins.