West Yorkshire bus franchising

[Tetchytyke]

There is absolutely no reason why smaller SME franchises can't exist (and indeed, government policy is to provide greater SME presence in public service provision) but then again, the Procurement Regs realistically act against it and the way in which GM and LCRA have conducted franchising also excludes smaller businesses.

There are two main issues with SMEs though:
1. The business model of the SMEs doesn't always lend itself to the new franchising model; and
2. The successful SMEs will become acquisition targets for the big boys.

Starting with (2), you mention HTL (Huyton Travel) who were a successful SME when Merseyside designed their franchising scheme to try and include successful SMEs like HTL. Which is exactly why Tower Transit came along and got their chequebook out. The owners of HTL quite sensibly decided to cash in. We've seen the same in West Yorkshire: Fourways Coaches would have been a well-positioned SME for the smaller contracts, which is precisely why they're now owned by Go-Ahead.

You can't really legislate against this. Owners of successful SMEs need to be able to cash in when the time is right.

As for (1), part of the point of franchising is to move away from the situation where the main daytime service is operated by the big operator and the evening/Sunday service is operated by the smaller operator.

TLC Travel use their buses during the daytime for the housing estate/supermarket/hospital routes under tender. But these tenders aren't enough of a business base by themselves so they use the same buses for the evening/Sunday routes dropped by the big operator. You can structure the housing estate/supermarket/hospital routes into a specific contract or set of contracts for SMEs but would those routes, by themselves, give the SMEs enough of a margin? I'm not convinced they would.

You could leave the situation as it is now with some of the Bradford routes recently cancelled by First- the daytime tender (replacing the First commercial route) is with Go-Ahead and the evening/Sunday tender is with TLC Travel. But that's messy from a franchising perspective.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There are two main issues with SMEs though:
1. The business model of the SMEs doesn't always lend itself to the new franchising model; and
2. The successful SMEs will become acquisition targets for the big boys.

Starting with (2), you mention HTL (Huyton Travel) who were a successful SME when Merseyside designed their franchising scheme to try and include successful SMEs like HTL. Which is exactly why Tower Transit came along and got their chequebook out. The owners of HTL quite sensibly decided to cash in. We've seen the same in West Yorkshire: Fourways Coaches would have been a well-positioned SME for the smaller contracts, which is precisely why they're now owned by Go-Ahead.

You can't really legislate against this. Owners of successful SMEs need to be able to cash in when the time is right.

As for (1), part of the point of franchising is to move away from the situation where the main daytime service is operated by the big operator and the evening/Sunday service is operated by the smaller operator.

TLC Travel use their buses during the daytime for the housing estate/supermarket/hospital routes under tender. But these tenders aren't enough of a business base by themselves so they use the same buses for the evening/Sunday routes dropped by the big operator. You can structure the housing estate/supermarket/hospital routes into a specific contract or set of contracts for SMEs but would those routes, by themselves, give the SMEs enough of a margin? I'm not convinced they would.

You could leave the situation as it is now with some of the Bradford routes recently cancelled by First- the daytime tender (replacing the First commercial route) is with Go-Ahead and the evening/Sunday tender is with TLC Travel. But that's messy from a franchising perspective.

I do agree with some of what you say.

SMEs could become acquisition targets... as indeed any operator can be. That is effectively what the law of duopoly states is the logical conclusion in ANY market. Clearly the smaller SMEs have created a business where they can do a blend of work with schools, daytime infills, and evening/Sun tenders. SME tenders packages will need to be carefully considered IF they decide to have them. LCRA decided not to have them, despite a government commitment to source from SMEs.

Within reason, you are able to set the rules of the game. So can you insist an organisation has a minimum turnover... yes, you can, and so it can be done the other way. In addition, every contract has a change of ownership clause so the authority will have the right to say if you purchase X operator, we can invoke the clause and you could be left with nothing.

As it is, franchising is very much just a game for the big corporates.

 

[anothertyke]

I do agree with some of what you say.

SMEs could become acquisition targets... as indeed any operator can be. That is effectively what the law of duopoly states is the logical conclusion in ANY market. Clearly the smaller SMEs have created a business where they can do a blend of work with schools, daytime infills, and evening/Sun tenders. SME tenders packages will need to be carefully considered IF they decide to have them. LCRA decided not to have them, despite a government commitment to source from SMEs.

Within reason, you are able to set the rules of the game. So can you insist an organisation has a minimum turnover... yes, you can, and so it can be done the other way. In addition, every contract has a change of ownership clause so the authority will have the right to say if you purchase X operator, we can invoke the clause and you could be left with nothing.

As it is, franchising is very much just a game for the big corporates.

I think that decision is helped by a clear sighted view of the long term effects of carving out niches. Included in that is whether SMEs doing that kind of mix of 'midibus' work are ultimately lower cost than the big boys for a given desired quality. That proposition has been forcefully challenged on here but I would like to believe that local labour mkts, lower dead mileage etc can counteract the scale effects and that there is a strategic benefit to the franchisor of maintaining a competitive fringe as part of the scene.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The cross-border services are going to be interesting.

WYCA have openly said that the basis for not franchising cross-border routes is because of the recent changes to the legislation underpinning franchising. This allows franchised regions to impose more conditions on service permit operators whilst they are operating in the franchised area, including on fares and frequencies. So the Mayor is right to say that routes not operated by Weaver Network depots will be exactly the same as those operated by Weaver Network depots: the law lets them set those requirements as conditions for being given the permit.

In general, I can see where they are coming from, especially if you think of the cross-border routes being operated from outside of West Yorkshire. They can make Transdev or Globe or whoever abide by Weaver Network rules and, if they don't, they can take their permit off them.

What I can't see is anything to confirm whether franchised depots will be allowed to operate cross-border routes or not. They can't in Manchester but I can't see whether WYCA have said either way. I may have missed it as the website which contains the WYCA minutes is blocked to non-UK IPs.

If they can then what happens with the 590/591/592 and the 66 will just be covered by the service permits and there won't be any difference between those routes and the franchised ones. Where it will get messy is if they can't: if Halifax's franchised depot can't run the 590/591/592 anymore, who on earth would?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2026 ==

As it is, franchising is very much just a game for the big corporates.

I think so too, and I think it is a shame. I'm just struggling to see how it can be otherwise. Even in London with route-by-route franchising it has ended up with the big operators running everything, what happened with Sullivan's Buses being a perfect example of the problems that SMEs face in a regulated environment.

 

[mattb7tl]

What I can't see is anything to confirm whether franchised depots will be allowed to operate cross-border routes or not. They can't in Manchester but I can't see whether WYCA have said either way. I may have missed it as the website which contains the WYCA minutes is blocked to non-UK IPs.

If they can then what happens with the 590/591/592 and the 66 will just be covered by the service permits and there won't be any difference between those routes and the franchised ones. Where it will get messy is if they can't: if Halifax's franchised depot can't run the 590/591/592 anymore, who on earth would?

Oldham operates the 184, which crosses into West Yorkshire.

It may not technically be "franchised" in the legal sense, as it could instead be operating under the service permit regime, with a contract that mirrors the same (or very similar) terms and conditions as a franchised agreement. From a passenger perspective, there is effectively no difference as the buses are yellow, the tickets are accepted, and nobody on the street would know the legal distinction.

That is essentially why the service permit regime exists to deal with these cross-boundary situations. When people submit information requests asking whether a route will be franchised, they are often asking the wrong question and end up receiving a legalistic answer that sounds far more scary and significant than it is in practice.

 

[Steve440]

What I'd love to see the Weaver people do is air conditioning in it's bus stations, instead some like Leeds are greenhouses! Ok so many won't be waiting too long but some will be if buses miss and you don't want to give up your place in the queue.

Surely air con is not going to work when the boarding doors are constantly opening and closing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Oldham operates the 184, which crosses into West Yorkshire.

It may not technically be "franchised" in the legal sense, as it could instead be operating under the service permit regime

The 184 is a franchised service run by a franchised depot. It's just one which is franchised under the Greater Manchester scheme.

When West Yorkshire comes into franchising it will need a service permit for the bit in WY. I can't imagine WYCA would be obstructive.

As you say, the issue with the 590/1/2 is different in that it won't be franchised. The service will effectively be a franchised route as it'll be subject to all the same conditions, but it won't be franchised.

But the question is who on earth would operate it? That's the question I don't have the answer to: can a franchised depot run non-franchised services? They can't in GM. I don't know what WYCA have decided.

 

[mattb7tl]

The 184 is a franchised service run by a franchised depot. It's just one which is franchised under the Greater Manchester scheme.

When West Yorkshire comes into franchising it will need a service permit. I can't imagine WYCA would be obstructive.

But the issue with the 590/1/2 is different in that it won't be franchised. If it can be run by a franchised depot it won't be an issue, it will effectively be a franchised route as it'll be subject to all the same conditions. But that's the question I don't have the answer to: can a franchised depot run non-franchised services? They can't in GM. I don't know what WYCA have decided.

How do you know it is legally franchised?

It was not part of the franchising scheme in Greater Manchester. It was initially operated outside of it by Firstbus, partly to allow it to continue running from a non franchised depot outside of the region. First then proceeded to cut the service and both authorities had to step in quickly with funding support before it was ultimately brought into Tranche 2, a couple months later.

So in that sense, it was not simply always franchised in a clean, settled way. It evolved, quickly, into the franchised network as a practical solution to keep the route operating. This will be the case with the 590s.

 

[Ballyheigue]

Surely air con is not going to work when the boarding doors are constantly opening and closing.

It'll at least keep it that bit cooler, something needs to be done as the temperatures become unbearable during hot periods. Some of the fault is the sheer amount of glass, who ever thought glass in the roof was a good idea never heard of greenhouses or polytunnels lol.

 

[stevieinselby]

The cross-border services are going to be interesting.

WYCA have openly said that the basis for not franchising cross-border routes is because of the recent changes to the legislation underpinning franchising. This allows franchised regions to impose more conditions on service permit operators whilst they are operating in the franchised area, including on fares and frequencies. So the Mayor is right to say that routes not operated by Weaver Network depots will be exactly the same as those operated by Weaver Network depots: the law lets them set those requirements as conditions for being given the permit.

In general, I can see where they are coming from, especially if you think of the cross-border routes being operated from outside of West Yorkshire. They can make Transdev or Globe or whoever abide by Weaver Network rules and, if they don't, they can take their permit off them.

What I can't see is anything to confirm whether franchised depots will be allowed to operate cross-border routes or not. They can't in Manchester but I can't see whether WYCA have said either way. I may have missed it as the website which contains the WYCA minutes is blocked to non-UK IPs.

If they can then what happens with the 590/591/592 and the 66 will just be covered by the service permits and there won't be any difference between those routes and the franchised ones. Where it will get messy is if they can't: if Halifax's franchised depot can't run the 590/591/592 anymore, who on earth would?

I believe that WYCA's view of operating permit services from franchised depots is that they will consider each case on its merits. Where a depot has ample capacity to run a permit service alongside the franchised routes allocated to it then they may grant permission for that to happen – especially if that route has traditionally been operated from that depot, such as the 66 from Keighley.

Where it will get increasingly messy is when more neighbouring areas adopt franchising as well, especially if they have the same model as WYCA, where cross-border routes are not included in the franchises. Because for now, if WYCA declines to allow a cross-border permit service to run from a franchised depot, there is still a reasonable chance of their being a sizeable depot somewhere else along or near the route that could run it ... but if York & North Yorkshire go down the same route and Lancashire follows suit then there's a risk of those cross-border routes not having anyone in a position to operate them. In which case, it is almost certain that one authority or the other would allow it to be run from a franchise depot ... but it's all a bit hazy, and is the aspect of the model that I think WYCA have been the least forthcoming about.

 

[Goldfish62]

Surely air con is not going to work when the boarding doors are constantly opening and closing.

It works very well on the two-door BYDs in London, as well as on multi-doored buses abroad.

 

[Whisky Papa]

The 184 is a franchised service run by a franchised depot. It's just one which is franchised under the Greater Manchester scheme.

When West Yorkshire comes into franchising it will need a service permit for the bit in WY. I can't imagine WYCA would be obstructive.

As you say, the issue with the 590/1/2 is different in that it won't be franchised. The service will effectively be a franchised route as it'll be subject to all the same conditions, but it won't be franchised.

But the question is who on earth would operate it? That's the question I don't have the answer to: can a franchised depot run non-franchised services? They can't in GM. I don't know what WYCA have decided.

Okay, just a thought. Given the bits of the current 590 and 591 outside West Yorkshire are the problem, perhaps a revived 589 covering Rochdale - Todmorden - Burnley would be an option to cover those stretches instead. If hourly, this would just require 3 buses, which might prove an easier option to find a home for.

You could then have a franchised Todmorden - Halifax route, or with a little more ambition, perhaps extend that to Walsden and Portsmouth to stay within the boundary and restore the much-missed two buses per hour on the Rochdale and Burnley roads out of Todmorden.

As a slight aside, I don't know what the future for TLC's current premises at Eastwood is intended to be, given the relative proximity of First's Millwood premises.

 

[Deerfold]

Okay, just a thought. Given the bits of the current 590 and 591 outside West Yorkshire are the problem, perhaps a revived 589 covering Rochdale - Todmorden - Burnley would be an option to cover those stretches instead. If hourly, this would just require 3 buses, which might prove an easier option to find a home for.

It could.

Until franchising comes to Lancashire.


The 72 Skipton to Grassington and Dalesbus services could be interesting, too.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

How do you know it is legally franchised?

It was not part of the franchising scheme in Greater Manchester. It was initially operated outside of it by Firstbus, partly to allow it to continue running from a non franchised depot outside of the region. First then proceeded to cut the service and both authorities had to step in quickly with funding support before it was ultimately brought into Tranche 2, a couple months later.

So in that sense, it was not simply always franchised in a clean, settled way. It evolved, quickly, into the franchised network as a practical solution to keep the route operating. This will be the case with the 590s.

The difference is that TfGM, from the start of the process, were clear that they were going to include those cross-boundary services within the main franchise contracts where they determined they were important to the TfGM network. So how the 184 ended up being incorporated is less important in this discussion than that there was always a clear safety net if TfGM deemed it important, which they clearly did, and the 184 is a full Bee Network route as part of a Bee Network contract.

The difference with West Yorkshire, and the 590 etc, is that West Yorkshire have explicitly said that cross boundary services will not be part of the Weaver Network contracts so that safety net does not exist if existing operators either can't or won't continue running under a permit after franchising comes in. If West Yorkshire follow the TfGM ruling that non-franchise work cannot be operated from Bee Network owned depots then there risks being a limited number of potential operators (though I think the First depot at Rochdale is not owned by TfGM but First so that is a potential home for these cross pennine links) and the remaining routes may not offer sufficient volume to support a remote depot to run as a seperate unit (most of these routes have Bee Network local services paralleling them within Manchester meaning their importance to TfGM is less than on the West Yorkshire side of the border which is why they have historically been Yorkshire based services) raising an issue around long term future if you are relying on operators with a franchise presence if they lose those contracts next time round.

Whilst the initial issue may be manageable and only be affecting a couple of routes it does highlight that risk of each authority setting slightly different rules & categories, with the risk that some of these cross boundary routes could by left uncovered as each authority leaves them for others as it doesn't qualify under their categorisations but the neighbouring authority running with a different set of rules/categories also doesn't cover it. Manchester does appear to have done some careful planning before beginning the process and there were not really the big grey areas when you asked (though even then there was a bit of last minute factors in working out how to accommodate permit routes around ticketing & the like) whilst some of the councils following appear to have put less thought into implications and such so there is a lack of clarity about what happens if what is hoped happens doesn't. None of this is a reason not to franchise and this may well all work out perfectly fine in the end once the details become clear but it highlights a general risk and hopefully issues like this being raised and discussed generally may help authorities following make plans for these matters before the process starts so this period of uncertainty doesn't repeat.

TLC Travel use their buses during the daytime for the housing estate/supermarket/hospital routes under tender. But these tenders aren't enough of a business base by themselves so they use the same buses for the evening/Sunday routes dropped by the big operator. You can structure the housing estate/supermarket/hospital routes into a specific contract or set of contracts for SMEs but would those routes, by themselves, give the SMEs enough of a margin? I'm not convinced they would.

TLC actually have a slightly unusual model for an SME these days, though one that is more common in the big conurbations (as the PTEs/Combined Authorities have historically funded more of that work more widely than shire counties) it isn't the normal model generally for SMEs. Many SMEs actually prefer to avoid evenings & sundays and concentrate on daytime services leaving the antisocial hours stuff for big groups (it helps driver retention if most/all drivers aren't required to work lates or sundays). It would be very likely for SMEs to get enough margin just from daytime services, it works everywhere else - you just price up what you are bidding for with the right margin and without evenings/sundays you have lower supervision costs as you need fewer managers/supervisors so it isn't necessarily going to be massively different cost base.

Starting with (2), you mention HTL (Huyton Travel) who were a successful SME when Merseyside designed their franchising scheme to try and include successful SMEs like HTL. Which is exactly why Tower Transit came along and got their chequebook out. The owners of HTL quite sensibly decided to cash in. We've seen the same in West Yorkshire: Fourways Coaches would have been a well-positioned SME for the smaller contracts, which is precisely why they're now owned by Go-Ahead.

Did Merseyside design their system to try and include SMEs? I know they made the right noises around doing so but none of the proposals I ever saw publicly suggested that they actually understood what SMEs actually wanted. What they ended up with certainly doesn't appear to have been designed to accommodate SMEs as it ended up with just 5 big area contracts and then school contracts left for SMEs (fine if your business model is built around school work but there are plenty of SMEs who aren't set up to work school runs and are built around regular bus services) - that they appear to have ended up with some big school contract awards may not show those contracts were also that big but it does show they weren't designed with size restrictions to prevent big groups volume hunting.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So in that sense, it was not simply always franchised in a clean, settled way. It evolved, quickly, into the franchised network as a practical solution to keep the route operating. This will be the case with the 590s.

The 184 was operated out of Oldham before franchising, First had already moved it over from Huddersfield. It was included in the tender.

It wasn't very different to the other cross-boundary routes such as the 100 to Warrington, the 632 to Chorley, or the 237 to Glossop. Pre-franchising they were operated by depots which moved into the franchising model and so the routes were kept in Bee Network after franchising.

WYCA are taking a different approach to TfGM. There are pros and cons. TfGM had certainty on the franchised routes. But TfGM had issues with the TfGM-supported services being operated by non-franchised operators, most notably the 5/5A from Warrington to Altrincham, and it was all a bit of a mess around Lymm for a while. WYCA's flexibility allows them to manage this more easily but the flip side is that they don't have the certainty on the important 590/1/2 corridor.

If West Yorkshire follow the TfGM ruling that non-franchise work cannot be operated from Bee Network owned depots then there risks being a limited number of potential operators (though I think the First depot at Rochdale is not owned by TfGM but First so that is a potential home for these cross pennine links)

It's all much less certain with WYCA. They've not said that franchised depots can do non-franchised work and they've not said that they can't do it either. @stevieinselby says they're taking a case-by-case approach. That would explain why I can't see anything definitive either way.

My best assumption is that they are working on the basis that the Halifax franchise winner will want to take on the 590/1/2 and will want to operate it as a permit service. But if it's not included in the franchise then, presumably, the Halifax franchise winner can't be forced to take the 590/1/2 on. And they might look at the finances and decide it isn't worth the hassle.

So what happens then? Rochdale's TfGM franchisee can't operate them. Would First's non-franchised depot want to? Possibly not if they've just been given a bloody nose by WYCA, or if First win the Halifax franchise and decide it isn't financially worthwhile. Otherwise you'd look at Transdev Burnley? WYCA could easily end up looking very silly.

 

[BradK2017]

The 184 was operated out of Oldham before franchising, First had already moved it over from Huddersfield. It was included in the tender.

It wasn't very different to the other cross-boundary routes such as the 100 to Warrington, the 632 to Chorley, or the 237 to Glossop. Pre-franchising they were operated by depots which moved into the franchising model and so the routes were kept in Bee Network after franchising.

WYCA are taking a different approach to TfGM. There are pros and cons. TfGM had certainty on the franchised routes. But TfGM had issues with the TfGM-supported services being operated by non-franchised operators, most notably the 5/5A from Warrington to Altrincham, and it was all a bit of a mess around Lymm for a while. WYCA's flexibility allows them to manage this more easily but the flip side is that they don't have the certainty on the important 590/1/2 corridor.


It's all much less certain with WYCA. They've not said that franchised depots can do non-franchised work and they've not said that they can't do it either. @stevieinselby says they're taking a case-by-case approach. That would explain why I can't see anything definitive either way.

My best assumption is that they are working on the basis that the Halifax franchise winner will want to take on the 590/1/2 and will want to operate it as a permit service. But if it's not included in the franchise then, presumably, the Halifax franchise winner can't be forced to take the 590/1/2 on. And they might look at the finances and decide it isn't worth the hassle.

So what happens then? Rochdale's TfGM franchisee can't operate them. Would First's non-franchised depot want to? Possibly not if they've just been given a bloody nose by WYCA, or if First win the Halifax franchise and decide it isn't financially worthwhile. Otherwise you'd look at Transdev Burnley? WYCA could easily end up looking very silly.

Rochdale depot is owned directly by First rather than TfGM, so they could operate it from Rochdale as they already have a commercial unit there operating stuff like the Amazon contract & Rail Replacements, they could keep it at Todmorden, with that becoming an outstation of Rochdale.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This is a railway thing primarily, but is related to the adoption of the Weaver Network branding:
I visited Outwood station recently and noticed that the brick mosaic of WYPTE's "M" logo which was situated at the entrance to the car park has been dug out and tarmacked over. The one depicting the BR double arrow logo is still in place. This change looked a couple of months old by the time I saw it, but hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere.

 

[geoffk]

The 184 was operated out of Oldham before franchising, First had already moved it over from Huddersfield. It was included in the tender.

It wasn't very different to the other cross-boundary routes such as the 100 to Warrington, the 632 to Chorley, or the 237 to Glossop. Pre-franchising they were operated by depots which moved into the franchising model and so the routes were kept in Bee Network after franchising.

WYCA are taking a different approach to TfGM. There are pros and cons. TfGM had certainty on the franchised routes. But TfGM had issues with the TfGM-supported services being operated by non-franchised operators, most notably the 5/5A from Warrington to Altrincham, and it was all a bit of a mess around Lymm for a while. WYCA's flexibility allows them to manage this more easily but the flip side is that they don't have the certainty on the important 590/1/2 corridor.


It's all much less certain with WYCA. They've not said that franchised depots can do non-franchised work and they've not said that they can't do it either. @stevieinselby says they're taking a case-by-case approach. That would explain why I can't see anything definitive either way.

My best assumption is that they are working on the basis that the Halifax franchise winner will want to take on the 590/1/2 and will want to operate it as a permit service. But if it's not included in the franchise then, presumably, the Halifax franchise winner can't be forced to take the 590/1/2 on. And they might look at the finances and decide it isn't worth the hassle.

So what happens then? Rochdale's TfGM franchisee can't operate them. Would First's non-franchised depot want to? Possibly not if they've just been given a bloody nose by WYCA, or if First win the Halifax franchise and decide it isn't financially worthwhile. Otherwise you'd look at Transdev Burnley? WYCA could easily end up looking very silly.

The solution may be to break the 590/1/2 to run Halifax - Todmorden so it can be part of the franchised operation, maybe extended to Walsden, where there in a turning circle, but there would still need to be a Rochdale service run by somebody.

 

[aswilliamsuk]

While on the subject WYCA, weren't the first franchise awards due in "late June"? Have they been delayed again?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

While on the subject WYCA, weren't the first franchise awards due in "late June"? Have they been delayed again?

If they did the award on 30th June, it wouldn't be announced until the expiry of the mandatory standstill period.

 

[Steve440]

While on the subject WYCA, weren't the first franchise awards due in "late June"? Have they been delayed again?

It was put back by one month to allow more time for operators to submit their bids.

 

[mattb7tl]

While on the subject WYCA, weren't the first franchise awards due in "late June"? Have they been delayed again?

Contracts are expected to be awarded in August 2026.

 

[tomoufc]

The solution may be to break the 590/1/2 to run Halifax - Todmorden so it can be part of the franchised operation, maybe extended to Walsden, where there in a turning circle, but there would still need to be a Rochdale service run by somebody.

That would leave quite a large part of Todmorden cut off from busses. Also there’s a decent amount of people that travel Tod to Burnley, and places in between.

 

[Ballyheigue]

That would leave quite a large part of Todmorden cut off from busses. Also there’s a decent amount of people that travel Tod to Burnley, and places in between.

You've also got those who travel from Luddendenfoot/Mytholmroyd/Hebden Bridge to Burnley/Rochdale because even though trains are quicker, the bus isn't all that bad time wise and it's cheaper.

 

[Deerfold]

You've also got those who travel from Luddendenfoot/Mytholmroyd/Hebden Bridge to Burnley/Rochdale because even though trains are quicker, the bus isn't all that bad time wise and it's cheaper.

Especially with Luddendenfoot not having trains. Once you're on the bus, it's loess likely to be quicker by changing.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The cross-border services are going to be interesting.

If they can then what happens with the 590/591/592 and the 66 will just be covered by the service permits and there won't be any difference between those routes and the franchised ones. Where it will get messy is if they can't: if Halifax's franchised depot can't run the 590/591/592 anymore, who on earth would?

Could the Todmorden outstation be converted to a full sized none franchised depot? As in some extra land is bought for a few spare buses, maintainance and fuel facilities.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Could the Todmorden outstation be converted to a full sized none franchised depot? As in some extra land is bought for a few spare buses, maintainance and fuel facilities.

The cost would far outweigh the benefit

 

[tomoufc]

The cost would far outweigh the benefit

I suspect that they’ll be run as weaver network services, and will cross into Greater Manchester and Lancashire, as now. I know this isn’t what has been announced so far, but any other arrangement would be messier and cause more of a political headache.

From memory, this is the last tranche area to join the network, so perhaps attention has been concentrated on other matters so far?

 

[MotCO]

Squarepeg Buses has taken its buses off the road today to demonstrate at West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) headquarters in Leeds to protest against the region’s franchising process. https://www.route-one.net/news/squarepeg-buses-mounts-west-yorkshire-bus-franchising-protest/

I must admit I do have some sympathy. When you have worked hard to provide a well-run popular bus company, only ti have the rug pulled from under your feet is not good news.

Squarepeg Buses mounts West Yorkshire bus franchising protest​

Operator says Combined Authority has not done enough to protect SMEs in reregulation process​

SME operator Squarepeg Buses will temporarily withdraw its fleet from service at 1000hrs on Thursday 16 July and travel in convoy to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) headquarters in Leeds to protest against the region’s franchising process.
Small operator disagreement with how franchising in West Yorkshire is being handled has been present for some time, but the Squarepeg approach is the most direct action yet.
The operator says the protest will highlight “a system that increasingly favours large national operators over successful local businesses, ultimately reducing competition and choice for passengers.”
WYCA has not yet publicly named any winners of bus franchise contracts. Squarepeg wants the authority to ensure that decisions on awards “place greater emphasis on proven operational performance, passenger satisfaction, and the contribution made by independent local operators to the communities they serve.”
The business adds that it has worked hard for 15 years to establish a strong reputation, and now carries thousands of passengers per day with one of the lowest complaint rates in the region.
“Despite this, the company is set to lose all of its [work] to larger operators, some of which trade under local names but are owned by national PLCs headquartered outside West Yorkshire,” the operator adds.
Squarepeg entered franchise contract tendering “following repeated assurances from WYCA during both the public consultation and procurement process that independent operators in West Yorkshire would not suffer the same fate as many of their counterparts in Greater Manchester.”
However, it believes that the outcome in West Yorkshire “appears to contradict those assurances, and raises serious questions about the future role of independent operators in the region.”
The business says that the franchising process in West Yorkshire places a disproportionate burden on SME bidders through complex procurement requirements, extensive paperwork, and significant bid costs. Those “are far easier for large organisations with dedicated bid writing, legal and compliance teams to absorb.”
In addition, Squarepeg alleges that contract packages are often difficult for smaller operators to bid for, while what it describes as “turnover restrictions and limited flexibility” further reduce scope for local incumbents to succeed.
It says that if SME operators in West Yorkshire disappear under franchising, the benefits of genuine competition will be lost, as will local knowledge and accountability. “This protest is not simply about Squarepeg losing contracts,” a spokesperson adds. “It is about who is standing up for passengers and local independent operators.
“For 15 years, we have delivered reliable services, met Metro’s standards, and invested in our communities. We were repeatedly assured that West Yorkshire would not follow the path taken in Greater Manchester and that independent operators would continue to play an important role.
“Sadly, the outcome appears to tell a different story. We believe that proven performance should count for more than the ability to produce a polished tender document.”
The operator acknowledges that the protest will inconvenience customers and says it has not taken the decision lightly.
“But unless concerns about the franchising process are heard now, we believe that the public could face fewer choices, less competition, and a bus network increasingly controlled by a handful of large operators. This protest is about protecting the future of local bus services and putting the passenger first.”

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Squarepeg Buses has taken its buses off the road today to demonstrate at West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) headquarters in Leeds to protest against the region’s franchising process. https://www.route-one.net/news/squarepeg-buses-mounts-west-yorkshire-bus-franchising-protest/

I must admit I do have some sympathy. When you have worked hard to provide a well-run popular bus company, only ti have the rug pulled from under your feet is not good news.

I said this in Jan 2018 in relation to Greater Manchester franchising..

What is different with the buses bill is that this is a deliberate aim to remove business from those who currently operate it. It seems very popular to "stick it to Souter" or whatever, but it equally affects the smaller players. Why should Jim Stones lose their business - that seems much closer to "legalised theft" than the selling off of GMN/GMS!

...but I was wrong.

It actually disproportionately affects smaller operators. Clearly indicates Square Peg have lost their business.