West Yorkshire bus franchising

[stevieinselby]

I'm interested to see what will happen with Arriva's route 164.

Currently it's operated by Castleford depot, which is West Yorkshire, but it has 1 bus an hour staying in West Yorkshire, but the other bus cross the boundary into North Yorkshire. I.E Selby/Sherburn

I know there's a permit system, but who would actually run it? Would Arriva have to move it to be operated from Selby depot and use a permit before franchising begins or would the route be incorporated

It would be easy enough for Arriva to run those buses from Selby on a permit basis, the route was run from Selby for years before it was merged with the Leeds to Garforth route. Alternatively if they win the contract for Castleford then they can apply to run a permit service from that depot, assuming that there is enough capacity (bearing in mind that the contract could involve more buses than they are currently running on West Yorkshire services), WYCA have said that that is allowed it the depot can accommodate the services without having a negative impact on their Weaver services.

The question will be what happens if Arriva don't win Castleford, and then both the operator who does get Castleford and Arriva Selby both apply for permits...

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm interested to see what will happen with Arriva's route 164.

Depends if it is included in the franchise or not, which is for WYCA to decide. There's no reason why cross-boundary services can't be included in the WYCA franchise; there are countless examples in Greater Manchester of cross-boundary services being included in the franchise (including the 184 which is in West Yorkshire for about half the route).

If it is included in the franchise then whoever wins the franchise will operate the route. If WYCA don't include it in the franchise, or if they only include the short journeys to East Garforth in the franchise, then its up to Arriva where they operate it from. I'd imagine they'd operate it from Selby in that case.

 

[stevieinselby]

Depends if it is included in the franchise or not, which is for WYCA to decide. There's no reason why cross-boundary services can't be included in the WYCA franchise; there are countless examples in Greater Manchester of cross-boundary services being included in the franchise (including the 184 which is in West Yorkshire for about half the route).

WYCA have explicitly said that no cross-border routes will be included in the franchises, only routes that are entirely within West Yorkshire. Any cross-border route will need a service permit – although may be operated from a franchise depot if they believe that it can be accommodated without a negative impact on Weaver services. There may also be cases where WYCA subsidises a cross-border service if it does not attract a commercial operator and they believe the service to have value to West Yorkshire.

What I haven't seen any detail on is how they will award permits for commercial services, in particular in the case of multiple operators requesting a permit for effectively the same route or corridor.

 

[Tetchytyke]

WYCA have explicitly said that no cross-border routes will be included in the franchises, only routes that are entirely within West Yorkshire. Any cross-border route will need a service permit – although may be operated from a franchise depot if they believe that it can be accommodated without a negative impact on Weaver services.

Thanks, I'd not see the document before but have now found a link earlier in the thread.

The document refers them making the decision they did because of upcoming changes in legislation which would give them a lot more control over service permit routes (such as the power to mandate fares and service frequency) and also more power to refuse permits. I see the Mayor has also been saying at meetings in Calderdale that the cross-border routes will effectively be the same as the franchised routes. It looks as though they think they can exercise control over the cross-border routes through the permit scheme.

I still can't see a list of what will actually be franchised; the only list seems to be that in the 2024 document and that's more a list of town names than actual routes. I can't see that the hourly 164 short service to East Garforth would be outside franchising. They're also still pretty vague about what will actually happen to the 59x services.

I think TfGM have been more sensible in saying that all routes at a depot are franchised, even the cross-border routes, and that franchised depots can't do non-franchise work from them. WYCA are going to have a tricky situation to manage if a franchised depot and an out-of-area depot both apply for permits for the same cross-border route.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

Thanks, I'd not see the document before but have now found a link earlier in the thread.

The document refers them making the decision they did because of upcoming changes in legislation which would give them a lot more control over service permit routes (such as the power to mandate fares and service frequency) and also more power to refuse permits. I see the Mayor has also been saying at meetings in Calderdale that the cross-border routes will effectively be the same as the franchised routes. It looks as though they think they can exercise control over the cross-border routes through the permit scheme.

Risky, though I think they have a different view on funding service to TfGM, since if you put too much onto a permit service either by increasing the cost of operation or reducing the potential income you will just find the operator not being able to support running it and so withdrawing the service (& as London seems to have found not being able to find a replacement). TfGM took the view that if it wasn't part of the franchise they wouldn't provide any funding for permit services and they have to operate fully commercially within Greater Manchester, I get the impression that WYCA are happy to consider funding permit services seperately (treating them as normal tendered services) which could get round that issue of their demands making a cross boundary services unviable but them not including them in the normal franchises.

 

[SCH117X]

WYCA have explicitly said that no cross-border routes will be included in the franchises, only routes that are entirely within West Yorkshire. Any cross-border route will need a service permit – although may be operated from a franchise depot if they believe that it can be accommodated without a negative impact on Weaver services. There may also be cases where WYCA subsidises a cross-border service if it does not attract a commercial operator and they believe the service to have value to West Yorkshire.

What I haven't seen any detail on is how they will award permits for commercial services, in particular in the case of multiple operators requesting a permit for effectively the same route or corridor.

That could cause an explosion Harrogate-Wetherby from the Tockwith direction as Transdev will presumably get a permit for the 7

 

[geoffk]

I've just been back to Todmorden, where I used to live, and asked a First driver at the bus station whether they had any electric buses. He didn't expect to see any, even saying that he thought it unlikely that First would be still running in West Yorkshire post-franchising. He was aware that the company had recently pulled out of Cornwall. I didn't get the chance to ask about cross-boundary routes - not that he would have known much more than we do.

 

[mattb7tl]

I've just been back to Todmorden, where I used to live, and asked a First driver at the bus station whether they had any electric buses. He didn't expect to see any, even saying that he thought it unlikely that First would be still running in West Yorkshire post-franchising. He was aware that the company had recently pulled out of Cornwall. I didn't get the chance to ask about cross-boundary routes - not that he would have known much more than we do.

Leeds (Bramley) is currently their only depot in the region operating electric vehicles.

On the franchising point their expected profit margins are unrealistic under both the current deregulated model and any future franchised arrangement. Unless they significantly recalibrate those expectations, they are likely to win very few contracts, if any, due to the large amount of interest our franchising scheme has attracted. The one scenario where they might secure work is if the authority deliberately chooses them to maintain a degree of competition among operators, even at a higher cost to the public purse.

 

[Ballyheigue]

Leeds (Bramley) is currently their only depot in the region operating electric vehicles.

On the franchising point their expected profit margins are unrealistic under both the current deregulated model and any future franchised arrangement. Unless they significantly recalibrate those expectations, they are likely to win very few contracts, if any, due to the large amount of interest our franchising scheme has attracted. The one scenario where they might secure work is if the authority deliberately chooses them to maintain a degree of competition among operators, even at a higher cost to the public purse.

Hunslet Park also operate electric vehicles, but apart from that no others do

 

[GoneSouth]

Hunslet Park also operate electric vehicles, but apart from that no others do

Maybe the old model of buying new in the big cities and cascading to rural or smaller operations has been flipped on its head? I see electric buses in Devon and Gloucestershire for example but none in Leeds. Maybe they’ll receive old knackered electric vehicles eventually as revenge for sending their junk to their country cousins for decades

 

[Leedsbusman]

Maybe the old model of buying new in the big cities and cascading to rural or smaller operations has been flipped on its head? I see electric buses in Devon and Gloucestershire for example but none in Leeds. Maybe they’ll receive old knackered electric vehicles eventually as revenge for sending their junk to their country cousins for decades

Really? There’s ADL, BYD, Yutong, Wrightbus and Mercedes electric buses all running in Leeds.

 

[stevieinselby]

Maybe the old model of buying new in the big cities and cascading to rural or smaller operations has been flipped on its head? I see electric buses in Devon and Gloucestershire for example but none in Leeds. Maybe they’ll receive old knackered electric vehicles eventually as revenge for sending their junk to their country cousins for decades

First Leeds have 80 new Wright electrics, plus 9 Yutongs, 4 BYD ADLs and 4 repowered Wrights – that's about a third of the fleet.
Transdev Harrogate also have electrics on all of their buses running to Leeds.

 

[Saad]

Would Arriva have to move it to be operated from Selby depot and use a permit before franchising begins or would the route be incorporated

I imagine, given it interworks with the 140/141/165, it would likely be incorporated into the Weaver Network, as well as the fact that certain 164s terminate at East Garforth as well

 

[stevieinselby]

I imagine, given it interworks with the 140/141/165, it would likely be incorporated into the Weaver Network, as well as the fact that certain 164s terminate at East Garforth as well

Leeds to Selby is 1h48 each way, so would make an efficient stand-alone route with 4 buses needed to run an hourly service.

Do we even know if the 164 shorts to East Garforth will continue in the same format under Weaver? We've also got First's 19/19A to East Garforth, and Arriva's 165 to Manston Lane and The Springs, so I think every stop along the route is covered and there's always the possibility that WYCA will look to rationalise the network and strengthen core routes instead of having lots of infrequent variations, especially if they turn out to be operationally inconvenient.

 

[SCH117X]

there's always the possibility that WYCA will look to rationalise the network and strengthen core routes instead of having lots of infrequent variations, especially if they turn out to be operationally inconvenient.

Thats what the latest report points to

3.22
Proposed service improvements tested under franchising in the Assessment included:
• Core route frequency uplifts – mostly representing uplifts back to the service provided pre-Covid-19.
• Reduced duplication of services – allowing resources to be used elsewhere on thenetwork.
• Rationalisation and improved timetable coordination on various corridors across the region which are currently served by more than one operator.• Rationalisation of commercial / supported services to improve efficiency of services

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

 

[gc4946]

Arriva's 164 and 165 run via Cross Gates, pass the housing development built on the site of Barnbow armaments factory, Thorpe Park and the Springs, a major developing out of town shopping centre and business park, I hope those links remain under franchising regime.

 

[stevieinselby]

Arriva's 164 and 165 run via Cross Gates, pass the housing development built on the site of Barnbow armaments factory, Thorpe Park and the Springs, a major developing out of town shopping centre and business park, I hope those links remain under franchising regime.

I'm sure a route will still run that way, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to have just two routes running to Garforth – one running via Manston Lane and one via Colton – and one running to East Garforth and the other to Kippax and Castleford ... especially if they can have an overall uplift in the total number of buses on the corridor, and they can potentially use the permit for the Selby bus to fill any minor gaps in the provision of direct services.

 

[geoffk]

But then you have have the Tyne and Wear Metro trains as well

But what was wrong with Merseytravel? Every one knows what it is and where it is, whereas Metro is almost meaningless. Sorry to digress slightly. Weaver Network doesn't mean much either.

 

[mattb7tl]

But what was wrong with Merseytravel? Every one knows what it is and where it is, whereas Metro is almost meaningless. Sorry to digress slightly. Weaver Network doesn't mean much either.

Weaver links to our history and regional identity. It will simply gain meaning with time once the brand is aged and developed it will mean more than "Metro"

 

[Ballyheigue]

Weaver links to our history and regional identity. It will simply gain meaning with time once the brand is aged and developed it will mean more than "Metro"

But I bet the name Weaver means nothing to the majority using it, especially in Leeds. I personally don't hail from any weavers lol, my ancestry isn't even from this country too which I suspect is the same for many living in Leeds. They should have gone for a name that can be easily remembered, and sounds more transit or transport like.

 

[mattb7tl]

But I bet the name Weaver means nothing to the majority using it, especially in Leeds. I personally don't hail from any weavers lol, my ancestry isn't even from this country too which I suspect is the same for many living in Leeds. They should have gone for a name that can be easily remembered, and sounds more transit or transport like.

The name does not need to be literally ancestral to carry meaning.

The weaver past is literally all around you. The mill conversions people live in, work in, or walk past every day. The grand victorian architecture built on textile money, the cobbled streets, the warehouse districts, all of it is a physical legacy of that industry. You do not need to know a weaver personally for the name to resonate. It is embedded in the very fabric of our towns and cities.

 

[Ballyheigue]

The name does not need to be literally ancestral to carry meaning.

The weaver past is literally all around you. The mill conversions people live in, work in, or walk past every day. The grand victorian architecture built on textile money, the cobbled streets, the warehouse districts, all of it is a physical legacy of that industry. You do not need to know a weaver personally for the name to resonate. It is embedded in the very fabric of our towns and cities.

I still think it won't mean anything to most people, not even in Bradford that's full of mills. In fact I'd go so far as to say people may link the name to something more old rather than modern, thoughts of cloth caps and whippets spring to mind when you think of old mills and cobbled streets lol.

 

[mattb7tl]

I still think it won't mean anything to most people, not even in Bradford that's full of mills. In fact I'd go so far as to say people may link the name to something more old rather than modern, thoughts of cloth caps and whippets spring to mind when you think of old mills and cobbled streets lol.

It will mean infinitely more than a generic transport brand, like Metro.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It will mean infinitely more than a generic transport brand, like Metro.

And what about Oyster, where's the transport conection? And yet it was extremely succerssful for London. WYCA had to choose something to identify their transport network. Simply using West Yorkshire is problematic as the traditional area of that name is rather greater than that covered by the CA. And any other geographic name would likely have implied a bias to one part of the area over the rest. As such a non-geographic name is a good idea and Weaver most certainly does have a local theme to it even if some are unable to see it. Ultimately it's just a name: get used to it.

 

[mattb7tl]

And what about Oyster, where's the transport conection? And yet it was extremely succerssful for London. WYCA had to choose something to identify their transport network. Simply using West Yorkshire is problematic as the traditional area of that name is rather greater than that covered by the CA. And any other geographic name would likely have implied a bias to one part of the area over the rest. As such a non-geographic name is a good idea and Weaver most certainly does have a local theme to it even if some are unable to see it. Ultimately it's just a name: get used to it.

I think you are confused. I am defending the use of a more locally focused non-transport name.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I still think it won't mean anything to most people, not even in Bradford that's full of mills. In fact I'd go so far as to say people may link the name to something more old rather than modern, thoughts of cloth caps and whippets spring to mind when you think of old mills and cobbled streets lol.

I tend to agree with you.

You have Metro - a long established recognisable name that’s been in existence for 50 years in various guises but can be modern. That it’s used in Merseyside or T&W means nothing outside enthusiast circles.

Alternatively, you get a new identity that harks back to a bygone era, and one with little relevance to Leeds or the Wakefield area.

Seems a bit of an odd path.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I think you are confused. I am defending the use of a more locally focused non-transport name.

Erm.. I was agreeing with you!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I was never a big fan of the "Metro" name precisely because it wasn't geographically specific... though I'm not convinced "Weaver Network" is any better. My gut instinct would be to keep it simple- would calling it "West Yorkshire Transport" (or if we're keeping with the modern sensibilities "Transport for West Yorkshire") be so bad? It feels like Ms Brabin saw what Mr Burnham was doing over the hills with the "Bee Network" and wanted some of that glory to rub off on her... can't say it's worked so far!

My own family history (on the paternal side) is in the textile industry, but I don't think it's universal enough to be the chosen focus for the name, if such a focus should be desired anyway. Bradford, Calderdale, Huddersfield and the Heavy Woollen District (no K-word, thanks!) have that history, but Wakefield, the Five Towns and the hinterland south of Huddersfield were predominantly coal-mining areas. "Weaver Network" sounds completely random for people there. There's also the rather unfortunate impression of the word "weave"- it suggests a bus route that goes all round the houses instead of taking a quick and direct path, to me at least.

Then again do bees have any cultural significance to people in Wigan or Oldham? I was always under the impression that it was a (city of) Manchester thing.

At least we haven't gone down the communist cringe route that our neighbours to the South have!

And what about Oyster, where's the transport conection? And yet it was extremely succerssful for London. WYCA had to choose something to identify their transport network. Simply using West Yorkshire is problematic as the traditional area of that name is rather greater than that covered by the CA. And any other geographic name would likely have implied a bias to one part of the area over the rest. As such a non-geographic name is a good idea and Weaver most certainly does have a local theme to it even if some are unable to see it. Ultimately it's just a name: get used to it.

Oyster was just the name for the smartcard ticketing system. If Ken Livingstone had tried to rebrand the entire TfL empire as "Oyster Network" he'd have probably got a fair bit of pushback.
How would "West Yorkshire" be problematic? West Yorkshire was invented in 1974 and is no older than the PTE/ITA/CA/whatever we call it this week. The West Riding of Yorkshire is the historic name which covered a greater area.

 

[tbtc]

You have Metro - a long established recognisable name that’s been in existence for 50 years in various guises

Maybe that's part of the problem though

Whilst there's probably a desire for a New Broom approach to create a whole new swanky identity (especially with Greater Manchester setting the template with Bee Network, rather than the decades-old GMPTE), there's also a question about what "Metro" meant to the people of West Yorkshire

As the provider of little but 'socially necessary' services for decades, a focus group might find that Metro might just be associated with elderly school buses or the minibuses ferrying elderly/disabled passengers around - the transport equivalent of a Council House - there for those most in need , but not the desirable option

(I was going to liken it to the stigma over NHS glasses in the 1980s, before things became ironically cool - I'm showing my age though)

That's not to criticise those services, or the professionals who worked for the PTE in the decades when deregulation meant private operators creamed off the profitable stuff, leaving the 'worthy' services for Metro to deal with

But if the idea is to create a new unified network that will appeal to a wider range of people then using the name associated only with the bus routes that nobody else would provide would suggest that the buses were only the "last resort"

I'm a bit of a nostalgist, we all seem to be, but Weaver feels a fresh start, which is what WY buses need

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

How would "West Yorkshire" be problematic? West Yorkshire was invented in 1974 and is no older than the PTE/ITA/CA/whatever we call it this week. The West Riding of Yorkshire is the historic name which covered a greater area.

Technically incorrect, the official name of the administrative area was "County of York, West Riding". Locals talking to outsiders not familiar with the concept of Ridings would tend to talk about West Yorkshire to avoid having to give the explanation. And the West Riding covered a very much bigger area than the modern metropolitan version: it included nearly all of what has been known as South Yorkshire since 1974 (a name, which despite initial resistance due to there never having been a South Riding, is largely accepted by people in that area today) as well as places such as Harrogate, Ripon and Skipton, few of whose latter-day residents would take kindly to being associated with urbanised West Yorkshire (Metropolitan). So yes, depending on the context the use of plain West Yorkshire can be problematic.