West Yorkshire bus franchising

[tomoufc]

A lot of cynicism here about the branding, but missing the main point that the brand needs to be consistent and recognisable whatever it’s called and whatever it looks like. This manages to do both, so I’m happy. I’m more interested in how it will lead to improvements. The situation in my part of WY is currently very poor.

 

[mattb7tl]

A lot of cynicism here about the branding, but missing the main point that the brand needs to be consistent and recognisable whatever it’s called and whatever it looks like. This manages to do both, so I’m happy. I’m more interested in how it will lead to improvements. The situation in my part of WY is currently very poor.

Exactly.

Put yourself in the shoes of a new passenger. At the moment you see a private companies bus, the operator branding is the most visible thing, so you naturally end up looking for that companies app or information. Then you board at a Metro stop or station, get off at another Metro stop or station, and the whole thing like a gimmick and not a proper transport network.

Over time, every part of that journey being clearly Weaver changes that. The bus, stops, information, app, fares and wider network all start to feel like one system rather than a messy collection of operators. That consistency builds recognition and trust in a way partnership cannot achieve.

 

[Steve440]

Exactly.

Put yourself in the shoes of a new passenger. At the moment you see a private companies bus, the operator branding is the most visible thing, so you naturally end up looking for that companies app or information. Then you board at a Metro stop or station, get off at another Metro stop or station, and the whole thing like a gimmick and not a proper transport network.

Over time, every part of that journey being clearly Weaver changes that. The bus, stops, information, app, fares and wider network all start to feel like one system rather than a messy collection of operators. That consistency builds recognition and trust in a way partnership cannot achieve.

At last, someone who gets it. I for one, welcome this initiative and can only hope that services improve. Time will tell of course, but I am quietly optimistic.

 

[Andyh82]

None of this means they have to have a poor livery

It seems if you are aligned with the idea politically, you’ll accept any old thing, because “at least it’s not “worst bus”

 

[mattb7tl]

None of this means they have to have a poor livery

It seems if you are aligned with the idea politically, you’ll accept any old thing, because “at least it’s not “worst bus”

It is subjective.

It is a unique livery, and they clearly have not played it safe or followed the current trend of simple straight lines and minimal shapes. With strong rebrands, especially among enthusiasts who are already attached to the existing identity, the default reaction is often negative until people have had repeated exposure to it. That is why my usually opinionated self has not really landed on a firm view yet. I am naturally going to be negatively biased against it at first, simply because it is new and unfamiliar and designed against the status quo.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

None of this means they have to have a poor livery

It seems if you are aligned with the idea politically, you’ll accept any old thing, because “at least it’s not “worst bus”

Exactly this.

The idealogues will simply accept anything because of what it allegedly symbolises. I'm a franchise sceptic in so far as how the franchises will need to be financed going forward and the political considerations and compromises that may be involved.

However, if you're going to have a brave new world, a vibrant cohesive image is a must. It's all subjective and personal taste but the Strathclyde inspired orange (sorry, red) for South Yorkshire is a damn sight bolder than this green apology of an image. Yes, a consistent image is part of the raison d'etre for doing this - that has been stated throughout. As for uniqueness and playing it safe... there's a reason why designers are successful and others aren't.

 

[Andyh82]

It is subjective.

It is a unique livery, and they clearly have not played it safe or followed the current trend of simple straight lines and minimal shapes. With strong rebrands, especially among enthusiasts who are already attached to the existing identity, the default reaction is often negative until people have had repeated exposure to it. That is why my usually opinionated self has not really landed on a firm view yet. I am naturally going to be negatively biased against it at first, simply because it is new and unfamiliar and designed against the status quo.

I should point out I don’t mind the name or the colours, it’s the fact the only interesting bit has been sidelined so much it leaves just a block of green.

Either put the squiggles on the lower panels just not on the skirt, or maybe fit a much bigger fleetname

I same in ok with the name, I’m still not entirely convinced they couldn’t have gone with metrobus. Especially as we keep hearing it will be a slow roll out. I wonder how many signs with the ‘M’ there must be. There must be 100s in one bus station, even signs in the toilets like ‘No smoking’ are Metro branded

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I should point out I don’t mind the name or the colours, it’s the fact the only interesting bit has been sidelined so much it leaves just a block of green.

Either put the squiggles on the lower panels just not on the skirt, or maybe fit a much bigger fleetname

I same in ok with the name, I’m still not entirely convinced they couldn’t have gone with metrobus. Especially as we keep hearing it will be a slow roll out. I wonder how many signs with the ‘M’ there must be. There must be 100s in one bus station, even signs in the toilets like ‘No smoking’ are Metro branded

Dare I would suggest but had they kept the Metro M brand for the reasons that I've outlined before (e.g. established name, brand identity, etc), then perhaps a restoration of the Huddersfield Corporation livery might have enabled a brighter livery/image?

 

[stevieinselby]

The idealogues will simply accept anything because of what it allegedly symbolises.

While the ideologues in the anti side will never accept it because of what it allegedly symbolises.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

While the ideologues in the anti side will never accept it because of what it allegedly symbolises.

Do you think?

I'm arguably in the anti camp (though I feel just typically sceptical) but it's a fait accompli so it's academic. My point is that if you accept part of the justification of the approach is a strong consistent and cohesive image that lends itself to growing public transport, you should have something marketable and strong.

For instance, Liverpool is happening. They are building on an existing image - a strong image that doesn't require a wholesale tearing up of the existing world, and that helps the speed at rolling it out.





Instead, West Yorkshire is going down an alternative route, and I think it's a bit underwhelming (subjective) and they could build on what they have.

 

[mattb7tl]

Instead, West Yorkshire is going down an alternative route, and I think it's a bit underwhelming (subjective) and they could build on what they have.

I’m trying to understand why you see a generic soul devoid transport brand as stronger than something that has actually been personalised around the region and history.

You might not like the livery and that is fair enough because that part is subjective, but the wider brand package is clearly stronger. The name, the design language, the social media material and the wider presentation all feel much more distinctive than simply building further around the existing brand which has always felt more like an administrative transport label than a proper public facing network brand.

There is a reason large brands increasingly try not to be overly corporate and have started to rebrand to appear that way. They have a laugh on social media, use a more human tone, and try to feel like something people can actually relate to rather than a faceless institution. Everybody hates corperate speak and actions, so why retain a brand which enforces that negative image?

 

[Steve440]

I’m trying to understand why you see a generic soul devoid transport brand as stronger than something that has actually been personalised around the region and history.

You might not like the livery and that is fair enough because that part is subjective, but the wider brand package is clearly stronger. The name, the design language, the social media material and the wider presentation all feel much more distinctive than simply building further around the existing brand which has always felt more like an administrative transport label than a proper public facing network brand.

There is a reason large brands increasingly try not to be overly corporate and have started to rebrand to appear that way. They have a laugh on social media, use a more human tone, and try to feel like something people can actually relate to rather than a faceless institution. Everybody hates corperate speak and actions, so why retain a brand which enforces that negative image?

Well said. Let's give it time.

 

[Goldfish62]

Do you think?

I'm arguably in the anti camp (though I feel just typically sceptical) but it's a fait accompli so it's academic. My point is that if you accept part of the justification of the approach is a strong consistent and cohesive image that lends itself to growing public transport, you should have something marketable and strong.

For instance, Liverpool is happening. They are building on an existing image - a strong image that doesn't require a wholesale tearing up of the existing world, and that helps the speed at rolling it out.

View attachment 204570View attachment 204571

View attachment 204572

Instead, West Yorkshire is going down an alternative route, and I think it's a bit underwhelming (subjective) and they could build on what they have.

Totally agree.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I’m trying to understand why you see a generic soul devoid transport brand as stronger than something that has actually been personalised around the region and history.

You might not like the livery and that is fair enough because that part is subjective, but the wider brand package is clearly stronger. The name, the design language, the social media material and the wider presentation all feel much more distinctive than simply building further around the existing brand which has always felt more like an administrative transport label than a proper public facing network brand.

There is a reason large brands increasingly try not to be overly corporate and have started to rebrand to appear that way. They have a laugh on social media, use a more human tone, and try to feel like something people can actually relate to rather than a faceless institution. Everybody hates corperate speak and actions, so why retain a brand which enforces that negative image?

Erm.... because Metro is an existing strong brand that has been used in various forms since the 1970s and adorns each and every bus station and stop in the county. It has an existing brand recognition that most organisations would love to have.

The wider brand package, the wider presentation stuff - you can do all that with an updated Metro. LRCA have done that and it wasn't as if they decided that they had to have the Scousers network or something equally as localised or distinctive? I want to see something that is bold and arresting - a corporate pallet and look that is quickly rolled out, is consistent, distinctive on a dark Yorkshire day. Look at other countries that we are supposed to emulate - the strong image of Berlin's transport network doesn't rely on a dirty green pallet but a vibrant yellow. The same is the case in Copenhagen.

As for corporate brands trying not be overly corporate... some do, some don't and whilst you may think that some are rebranding, others are heading the other way. So yeah, you can have Yorkshire Tea but wake me up when we have Calder (instead of Amazon)

It is not an anti-franchise carping. In fact - it's the opposite. If it's going to happen, and it is, then make it the best and most attractive and coherent brand, and one that's flexible and easily recognisable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I’m trying to understand why you see a generic soul devoid transport brand as stronger than something that has actually been personalised around the region and history

It hasn’t been personalised though, they’ve chosen a random part of a random industry and tried to retrofit a back story. Not all of West Yorkshire was in the textile trade and not all of the textile trade was weaving.

They may as well have called it the Rhubarb Network. It probably has more modern relevance and more local relevance.

The branding is rubbish. The livery is rubbish. Of course this is just my subjective opinion. But they are.

Doesn’t mean I disagree with the underlying principle though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

For instance, Liverpool is happening. They are building on an existing image - a strong image that doesn't require a wholesale tearing up of the existing world, and that helps the speed at rolling it out.

Absolutely.

MetroBus and Metro has been a brand in West Yorkshire for almost 50 years, first in green and then in red. I’m in my 40s and can’t remember a time there wasn’t MetroTrain.

It is a strong brand because of its longevity.

Changing it now to something as banal as Weaver Network just smacks, to me, of some advertising executive trying to rip everything up for the sake of it.

 

[mattb7tl]

It hasn’t been personalised though, they’ve chosen a random part of a random industry and tried to retrofit a back story. Not all of West Yorkshire was in the textile trade and not all of the textile trade was weaving.

You can link every major town in the region to textiles in some form. I do not think that argument really holds. The name is clearly a nod to the regions industrial heritage, not an attempt to produce a biblically accurate breakdown of every local trade and manufacturing process.

It does not need to represent every single town. It just needs to feel rooted in the place, and the new brand does that far more than a generic corporate transport brand ever would.

Erm.... because Metro is an existing strong brand that has been used in various forms since the 1970s and adorns each and every bus station and stop in the county. It has an existing brand recognition that most organisations would love to have.

By that logic, no organisation should ever rebrand once it has existed for long enough.

Metro is background infrastructure. Bus stops, bus stations, timetables and the odd bit of information. It has been there for decades, but passengers do not really interact with it in a meaningful way. They do not board a metro bus, use a metro run service, or usually think to complain to metro when something goes wrong. That is the problem. If people do not engage with a brand, they do not build loyalty or trust in it. Metro is familiar, but passive. It sits in the background. Weaver, under franchising, will be apart of every single part of your bus journey.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

By that logic, no organisation should ever rebrand once it has existed for long enough.

Metro is background infrastructure. Bus stops, bus stations, timetables and the odd bit of information. It has been there for decades, but passengers do not really interact with it in a meaningful way. They do not board a metro bus, use a metro run service, or usually think to complain to metro when something goes wrong. That is the problem. If people do not engage with a brand, they do not build loyalty or trust in it. Metro is familiar, but passive. It sits in the background. Weaver, under franchising, will be apart of every single part of your bus journey.

No - that’s not logic. Firms will rebrand if their image is devalued or damaged or ceases to be relevant but most don’t because they recognise the strength of an established brand.

As for your opinion that Metro just provide the infrastructure and that it’s “passive” - yeah, only to someone who has an interest in public transport. The average person doesn’t see that - they see a well known, recognisable brand. It’s already in their consciousness (and sub conscious) but no, let’s leave that behind for a dowdy image based around a dead industry because that’s dynamic and bold!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Metro is background infrastructure. Bus stops, bus stations, timetables and the odd bit of information. It has been there for decades, but passengers do not really interact with it in a meaningful way. They do not board a metro bus, use a metro run service, or usually think to complain to metro when something goes wrong.

I don't know how old you are, but MetroBus was first used as a brand in the late 70s. It is fifty- yes, fifty- years old. Nothing that has been around that long is 'generic.'

MetroTrain is a similar age (and I think it is a real shame that MetroTrain as a brand has faded away in the last ten years).

It isn't background infrastructure but let's assume that it is: so what? It is a long established and understood transport brand. It's been around for longer than my lifetime, and I'm in my mid-40s. Metro is public transport in West Yorkshire.

By that logic, no organisation should ever rebrand once it has existed for long enough.

History is littered with organisations who re-branded to show themselves as new and thrusting, chose a crap brand or a crap livery, and repented at leisure.

How much did Royal Mail's rebrand as Consignia cost? What about BA and its world liveries?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

You can link every major town in the region to textiles in some form.

You can link most of West Yorkshire to rhubarb.

I'm joking about Rhubarb Network but I'm also not joking.

 

[stevieinselby]

I don't know how old you are, but MetroBus was first used as a brand in the late 70s. It is fifty- yes, fifty- years old. Nothing that has been around that long is 'generic.'

It is generic inasmuch as there are hundreds of cities around the world that use "Metro" for some or all parts of their urban transport network, and some of them have been going for a lot longer than 50 years – the Paris Métro opened in 1900. In the UK alone, we've got the Tyne & Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, West Midlands Metro, Metrobus (Go-Ahead), Metrobus (MCV), MetroWest and probably others as well that I've missed – it's as generic as it gets.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Erm.... because Metro is an existing strong brand that has been used in various forms since the 1970s and adorns each and every bus station and stop in the county. It has an existing brand recognition that most organisations would love to have.

The wider brand package, the wider presentation stuff - you can do all that with an updated Metro. LRCA have done that and it wasn't as if they decided that they had to have the Scousers network or something equally as localised or distinctive? I want to see something that is bold and arresting - a corporate pallet and look that is quickly rolled out, is consistent, distinctive on a dark Yorkshire day.

It hasn’t been personalised though, they’ve chosen a random part of a random industry and tried to retrofit a back story. Not all of West Yorkshire was in the textile trade and not all of the textile trade was weaving. They may as well have called it the Rhubarb Network. It probably has more modern relevance and more local relevance.

The branding is rubbish. The livery is rubbish. Of course this is just my subjective opinion. But they are. Doesn’t mean I disagree with the underlying principle though. MetroBus and Metro has been a brand in West Yorkshire for almost 50 years, first in green and then in red. I’m in my 40s and can’t remember a time there wasn’t MetroTrain.

It is a strong brand because of its longevity. Changing it now to something as banal as Weaver Network just smacks, to me, of some advertising executive trying to rip everything up for the sake of it.

Metro - Here to get you there. Can't get a stronger brand and tagline than that, the brash red, blue and grey brightens up a dreary looking town centre and screams West Yorkshire's public transport network where as Weaver Network doesn't.

Then there were MetroTrain, MetroConnect, MetroRural, MetroLocal, for a short while there were MetroKio (based on Merseytravel's M to Go), Metro DayTripper (a network of summer holiday bus services to attractions as well as one to the Peak District - all numbered in the 95x range), there is also MetroLine and all for a short period before relocating to Leeds when Metro was based in Wakefield - Metro House. The brand is very strong, so why change something that transparently works?

The day when Queen Tracy is booted off her throne, will be the day that most taxpayers will rejoice on not seeing their hard earned cash being wasted on yet more rebranding.

 

[Steve440]

You can link every major town in the region to textiles in some form. I do not think that argument really holds. The name is clearly a nod to the regions industrial heritage, not an attempt to produce a biblically accurate breakdown of every local trade and manufacturing process.

It does not need to represent every single town. It just needs to feel rooted in the place, and the new brand does that far more than a generic corporate transport brand ever would.


By that logic, no organisation should ever rebrand once it has existed for long enough.

Metro is background infrastructure. Bus stops, bus stations, timetables and the odd bit of information. It has been there for decades, but passengers do not really interact with it in a meaningful way. They do not board a metro bus, use a metro run service, or usually think to complain to metro when something goes wrong. That is the problem. If people do not engage with a brand, they do not build loyalty or trust in it. Metro is familiar, but passive. It sits in the background. Weaver, under franchising, will be apart of every single part of your bus journey.

This is similar to Greater Manchester Transport which had existed since 1974. Replaced by the Bee Network, within the last three years this has become well known. I don't think many people living in Greater Manchester will not have heard of the Bee Network. Weaver Network hopefully will achieve similar prominence in West Yorkshire over the next three years.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This is similar to Greater Manchester Transport which had existed since 1974. Replaced by the Bee Network, within the last three years this has become well known. I don't think many people living in Greater Manchester will not have heard of the Bee Network. Weaver Network hopefully will achieve similar prominence in West Yorkshire over the next three years.

Except I would argue that GMT didn't have the same brand recognition as Metro.

Also, Bee Network is a bright image (though I think the shade of yellow is a bit wishy-washy) and has a bit of impact. Weaver Network in canal sludge green... not for me.

It is generic inasmuch as there are hundreds of cities around the world that use "Metro" for some or all parts of their urban transport network, and some of them have been going for a lot longer than 50 years – the Paris Métro opened in 1900. In the UK alone, we've got the Tyne & Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, West Midlands Metro, Metrobus (Go-Ahead), Metrobus (MCV), MetroWest and probably others as well that I've missed – it's as generic as it gets.

It may be generic in one respect but it IS a strong, locally recognised brand as well.

To draw another comparison... Whilst I don't quite go for the tag of "the People's Network" in South Yorkshire, I can go with it because the current Travel South Yorkshire is really quite dull and low profile and there's a vibrancy in that bright orange.

 

[noddingdonkey]

I think another angle is that it's a phased roll out, so being able to differentiate the experience on the franchised operation to the legacy operation may be important - particularly if there is different ticket validity.

On a separate note, is it just me or would the new moquette not be out of place on a Christmas jumper?

 

[geoffk]

I'll reserve judgement on the livery until I've seen it. Will the buses on the 590/591 through the Calder Valley be in the Weaver livery or, because they are cross-boundary, the operator's livery? If the latter, then passengers won't see "one system rather than a messy collection of operators", as said in #332.

 

[Steve440]

I'll reserve judgement on the livery until I've seen it. Will the buses on the 590/591 through the Calder Valley be in the Weaver livery or, because they are cross-boundary, the operator's livery? If the latter, then passengers won't see "one system rather than a messy collection of operators", as said in #332.

Nobody seems to know what is going to happen with the 590/591 yet but that's in the last tranche so we will have to wait and see.

 

[John HG1]

Irrespective of views on the name & livery, I was less than impressed by this logo seen today.

 

[JasonL]

I'll reserve judgement on the livery until I've seen it. Will the buses on the 590/591 through the Calder Valley be in the Weaver livery or, because they are cross-boundary, the operator's livery? If the latter, then passengers won't see "one system rather than a messy collection of operators", as said in #332.

Whether the 590/91/92 gets franchised or not, those routes still need to be operated by someone. They're really important routes that links Halifax to Rochdale and Burnley.

 

[mattb7tl]

I'll reserve judgement on the livery until I've seen it. Will the buses on the 590/591 through the Calder Valley be in the Weaver livery or, because they are cross-boundary, the operator's livery? If the latter, then passengers won't see "one system rather than a messy collection of operators", as said in #332.

No one truly knows.

My takeaway after reading the documents is that the authority do not want to handle cross boundary services under the franchising legal framework. Instead, through a separate legal mechanism, the Service Permit Regime.

In the case of services like the 590/591, that does not mean they will be left as commercial routes (which they cannot). The authority could still issue a contract for those services separately from the franchising scheme, with standards and conditions that mirror a franchised contract. So, on the street, the service functions the exact same as other services on the Weaver Network. It just cannot legally be a called a franchised service. People keep asking the wrong question when submitting an FOI.

A quote from WYCA:

"Services subject to the regime would include cross boundary services which operate for part of their route outside the boundary, tendered services under powers from the 1985 Transport Act (socially necessary services which do not fall within the franchising scheme), commercial services which could operate to fill in gaps in the franchised network, and other non-standard provision like work shuttle buses and tourist services."

 

[stevieinselby]

Whether the 590/91/92 gets franchised or not, those routes still need to be operated by someone. They're really important routes that links Halifax to Rochdale and Burnley.

I don't think there's any doubt that these core cross-border routes will continue to be operated by someone, but the point is that depending on what the terms and conditions of the permits for these services are, passengers might not get quite that seamless and homogenous experience with all buses being in Weaver green. That kind of boundary effect is inevitable at some point, especially as more neighbouring areas also move to franchising, so there will continue to be some buses in red, blue and various other colours operating in amongst the green. And while it might mean that it doesn't look quite as neat and tidy having the odd red or blue or yellow bus in amongst the green, it might also usefully highlight to passengers which buses are not part of the Weaver network if they can continue to be run in the operator's own colour scheme.

 

[GoneSouth]

You can link every major town in the region to textiles in some form. I do not think that argument really holds. The name is clearly a nod to the regions industrial heritage, not an attempt to produce a biblically accurate breakdown of every local trade and manufacturing process.

It does not need to represent every single town. It just needs to feel rooted in the place, and the new brand does that far more than a generic corporate transport brand ever would.


By that logic, no organisation should ever rebrand once it has existed for long enough.

Metro is background infrastructure. Bus stops, bus stations, timetables and the odd bit of information. It has been there for decades, but passengers do not really interact with it in a meaningful way. They do not board a metro bus, use a metro run service, or usually think to complain to metro when something goes wrong. That is the problem. If people do not engage with a brand, they do not build loyalty or trust in it. Metro is familiar, but passive. It sits in the background. Weaver, under franchising, will be apart of every single part of your bus journey.

Agree here. Manchester’s Bee network is wholly based on the city of Manchester bee. I don’t see the people of Oldham, Rochdale or Stockport dismiss the branding as Rubbish just because it didn’t include a Wigan pie or a picture of Morrissey because he’s a famous Salfordian!