I specifically mentioned hackney carriages precisely to convey the higher regulatory burden and general faff (such as an authority literally specifying a hard to aquire paintjob). And afaik some of them are organsied as fleets with depots and employees. Not that being self employed is a breeze these days either.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Does the bus industry have a widespread cultural problem?
- Thread starter py_megapixel
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Even with the caveat of a proper taxi/hackney carriage, the level of legal compliance is a lot, lot higher in bus operation. The cost base is considerably different too.
@RT4038 always talks a lot of sense. Look at the amount of regulation and other outside factors that bus operators have had to encounter rather than the private car (or even taxis).
- Driver CPCs
- Increased Public Liability Insurances,
- Emissions requirements (including Clean Air Zones that don't apply to private cars)
- The need to adhere to PSVAR/DDA (which has meant the adoption of vehicles that cost more to buy, more to run, and have lower capacity)
- Open Data
- Removal of many subsidised services under austerity
- ENCTS being underfunded and therefore necessitating either gaming of the system and/or withdrawal of services
I'm quite sure, relative to potential earnings, hackney carriage burdens are similar. Licensing, insurance, apps, dbs, as well as being at the whim of changing public policy and general travel patterns. They even have specific equipment costs similar to buses - bespoke paint, signage, meter. That's on top of having to clean and maintain an intensively used vehicle and upgrade it far more often than a private car. On the flip side, bus operators have massive economies of scale and huge purchasing power, even against hackney operators working as fleets. We don't even allow hackney cabs (bar London?) to make money from advertising.
Is that the case? In London, there are still many diesel TX4 taxis, which stopped production in 2017.
I would assume bespoke taxis are designed for longer lives, but it's far more common for regional hackney cabs to be standard motor vehicles, where, much like a company car, you want shot of it by the time the extended warranty is up.
Pyewipecarshed
Member
Thank you to @RT4038 and @TheGrandWazoo for some much needed common sense in this thread.
Personally I don't think there is a cultural problem as such, I think the issues are financial worries and general uncertainty.
Financial for the reasons mentioned above, plus at the moment the need to fit next stop displays and announcements to every bus by October. A great idea, yes, and a massive benefit to those who need to use them. But where does the money come from?
If you're a low-margin operator the answer is you cut back elsewhere. Repaints? No! Dented panels? Is it legal, if yes then leave it! Threadbare seats? Leave them!
Then we come to uncertainty. Where is the incentive to invest in an area in which the local whizzkid mayor wants franchising? You could buy the electric, air conditioned buses with inbuilt jacuzzi that some folk on here seem to expect (for their £2 fare!), but then lose the lot a few months down the line.
Or perhaps you're in an area where nobody can decide if they want franchising or not. Or next door to a franchised area and not knowing if you'll get a permit for your cross-border route or lose it and the revenue it earns.
None of this creates a positive environment to either work or invest in.
And yes owt is better than nowt. If you're in an area abandoned by the big groups because the profit margins are not big enough, and where the local authority has no money, then you probably are transported on a battered sixth-hand Enviro 200 that's older than some museum exhibits. It might not be a good advert for the industry, but it's better than nothing at all.
And it won't improve until someone in government stops with the fine words and actually funds the industry properly.
Personally I don't think there is a cultural problem as such, I think the issues are financial worries and general uncertainty.
Financial for the reasons mentioned above, plus at the moment the need to fit next stop displays and announcements to every bus by October. A great idea, yes, and a massive benefit to those who need to use them. But where does the money come from?
If you're a low-margin operator the answer is you cut back elsewhere. Repaints? No! Dented panels? Is it legal, if yes then leave it! Threadbare seats? Leave them!
Then we come to uncertainty. Where is the incentive to invest in an area in which the local whizzkid mayor wants franchising? You could buy the electric, air conditioned buses with inbuilt jacuzzi that some folk on here seem to expect (for their £2 fare!), but then lose the lot a few months down the line.
Or perhaps you're in an area where nobody can decide if they want franchising or not. Or next door to a franchised area and not knowing if you'll get a permit for your cross-border route or lose it and the revenue it earns.
None of this creates a positive environment to either work or invest in.
And yes owt is better than nowt. If you're in an area abandoned by the big groups because the profit margins are not big enough, and where the local authority has no money, then you probably are transported on a battered sixth-hand Enviro 200 that's older than some museum exhibits. It might not be a good advert for the industry, but it's better than nothing at all.
And it won't improve until someone in government stops with the fine words and actually funds the industry properly.
All established organisations, regardless of industry, can fall into the trap of concentrating on their internal business processes and fail to look at what is happening elsewhere. The panic sets in later when they realise that the customers have gone the disruptors that they had ignored such as Flixbus/Lidl/Netflix etc.
I am pretty sure that, if Government (local and central) had not intervened with funding, the bulk of public bus services would have died out during the 1970s and 80s. A bit like the USA really. We might well have gone the 'shared taxi' style route, eventually with mass produced minibuses, in the busier areas, only viable with the drivers, standards and economic model of the black economy, as can be found in many areas of the world. I am not sure the 'disruptors' of Flix/Lidl/Netflix are really a good example - more like candle manufacturers and their (other than niche) replacement by the Electricity Industry.
Well how else do you get there to drive the first ones, or go home after the last ones get in the garage?
Many years ago, when I first started work, if you couldn't walk or cycle you caught the early staff bus. If you started a bit later, you caught the first or subsequent town service bus. Home by bus after your shift, or in the middle of your spreadover. Reverse in the afternoon/evening. Your family travelled by bus too , as did you if you hadn't had enough of them, to visit relatives/friends/town, on any rare rest days or periods when you weren't working as much overtime as possible to get a decent wage packet.....
I know why the current situation is as it is, but that doesn't alter that nowadays Drivers (and other Staff, of all grades) in the main do not use the product as a customer.
Last edited:
But the cost of maintenance of a superannuated bus could well be higher than a more moderrn bus.If you can get a grant for an EV and the electrical infrastructure, then the running costs may be lower than the superannuated Enviro 200.
Something which has not been mentioned so far is the quality of the ride of buses and the comfort of the passengers. If bus operators and managers (and maybe those in Councils responsible for road quality) took the time to travel by bus, they will experience this first hand. British roads are not kind to buses, but they do tend to find every bump and pothole, which you don't feel in cars. Cars are much more comfortable, and easier to accommodate my 6ft 5in frame - on buses, I have to sit at an angle because my legs simply won't fit. Can buses be made more comfortable with a smoother ride to help attract more passengers?
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Indeed but that does favour the larger operator (though some, like Falcon Coaches, are also getting EVs). Commercial EV charging is still a dream in many places and the electrification process is going to take time.
The issue of leg room is mentioned. Operators have a judgement call on how many seats is comfortable and with low floor access, you now have fewer seats in larger vehicles. A Wright Eclipse is typically 43 seats with a single door at c.12m whilst in olden days, you'd have an 11m RELL being a 53 seater.
The question is... would you pay higher fares for more legroom so the 43 seater become 39 or 37? Most people wouldn't so operators accept that they need more seats to generate revenue.
As for a smoother ride... it's difficult. Again, we can have the plushest seats or the heavyweight chassis for ride quality. We know that comes at a cost but is there any evidence that this is offset by more passengers. I know that this can then leave you open to the other charge of "well, you might as well have wooden benches in that case" but it is a compromise **
** Note that in Europe, comfort is often lacking on city buses as they've decided that journey durations make comfort irrelevant.
This sentence demonstrates the cultural problem, as it fails to appreciate that the greater control over buses that franchising brings is a widely public desire.
I don't think it does, that's a bus industry supporter's view, for the majority of that wider public don't actually use a bus from one month to the next. And if you ask the electorate do they want public funds spent on buses, or on something they actually use (or not taken from them in taxes in the first place) I think you know the answer.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Or perhaps it also illustrates that whilst we can go for populist slogans - I seem to remember another campaign about taking back control.... In the end, it boils down to money, whichever way you want to slice it.
KHCT
Member
I imagine the number of car owners out there who would swap for a bus simply because of a "smoother ride" could be counted on one hand...and still have some fingers left over.
If you can get a grant for an EV, this is typically for 75% of the difference between a new Diesel and an EV. Grants for infrastructure are also (when available) only 75% too. So there is still the new Diesel price + about 33% or so to find, plus 25% for the charging infra. Not inconsiderable sums of money, for only just above marginal tendered work.
Pyewipecarshed
Member
I stand by my original sentence. I don't work in the bus industry, so my opinion does not form part of its culture.
What we currently have is a crop of mayors with zero transport experience believing that they know better than professionals within the industry. More worryingly none of them seems to have the common sense to wait and see how franchising works in Manchester before ploughing ahead with their own schemes.
And whilst they rubbish the status quo and promise some kind of transport Shangri-la they are causing much uncertainty and resentment in the bus industry and stymieing investment in the here and now.
As for public desire the average passenger could not care less who actually operates the bus or administers the service, they just want a bus to turn up on time and at a time when they wish to travel.
The first Bee Network services started in September 2023. So that will three years soon. We're at the point now where some of the franchises have come up for renewal with contracts awarded last week. How long do we wait to see how well it's working?
I don't think it is a question of how well it is working , more of how much it is costing , and how that going to be funded going forward?
What functions does a Mayor control that is more visible than newly painted bright yellow buses? I'm not sure about the need for Mayors, and if they have to persuade the general public that they are a 'good thing', they have to do something demonstrable, such as painting buses yellow aka franchising.
I would have included cost in any review of how it's working (a comprehensive review would include costs amongst things like reliability, passenger satisfaction and no doubt some other things, in my mind), but the question remains. Like I say, it's been nearly three years? How long do we wait? How much information do we need? How long do we stall and wait and review, just in case it's the wrong thing?
If I could personally point to one thing that I think is holding this country back, it's the absolute obsession with not spending money on anything because it might cost something. Buses have long fallen into that bucket. Now there's people - cross party as well - prepared to go out there and bat for them, and say "we can do better. We must do better."
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
It all depends how you measure success? There are some on this forum who essentially see anything brought in public control as success - they are ideologically opposed to private sector and the market; the absolute antithesis of Nicholas Ridley. Public control = success...end of.
Then you have the TfGM press releases that are unremittingly positive but with very little nuance. For example, punctuality has increased from 66% to 80%. How has that been achieved... Well, it's two fold. Operators have built in costs/resources (which is ultimately reflected in tender prices) and then there's the overt bit that TfGM has changed certain routes to have increased PVRs with more recovery time - same headways but more resources which is more cost. Has that greater reliability been reflected in YoY passenger growth on a like for like basis to offset those costs? That's the nuance that isn't provided.
Similarly, we can see that passenger numbers have increased. However, have they increased more than in other areas like Brighton or Portsmouth that have now recovered their Covid losses? Some of that will be part of the national recovery. And how have they increased... Have these routes increased as a result of increases to morning, Sunday and evening journeys so how are those increases lining up against costs?
@RT4038 is right to mention the funding. The £134m that it cost to set up the scheme was a dowry from the government. The ongoing cost of the operations are not funded from central government - that falls on the farebox and the taxpayer. As people know, I've been sceptical but only because I struggle to see how the profit differential between the "bus barons exploitation of the masses" and paying contractors is that great. Therefore, funding is dependant on taxpayers and passenger growth. Whilst these claims of control, integration and a single image are made, I don't see how it fundamentally tackles the issues that affects Greater Manchester's buses which are too fold - burgeoning traffic congestion and the decline in local towns impacting the demand for travel. Most people on these boards are public transport advocates - not only do we love public transport, we act in ways that are atypical. We love a multi-modal journey but most people don't like the hassle.
Measuring success is multi faceted and means different things to different people.
I lived in Greater London for a long time and now in Greater Manchester (in both cases, before and after the start of the Mayoral roles) so I am perhaps biased from my experiences. One of the things that Ken Livingstone did was make a very public mark on public transport, no doubt knowing that it's a highly visible, highly tangible thing that people link to the Mayoralty. Mayors have lots of important roles and functions, but if we're honest, those roles are not always seen, not always visible (and probably not comprehensive enough.) But public transport, well that's there and in your face. For the ex-PTE areas, it also puts someone demonstrably in charge, someone whose agenda you can vote for for right or wrong. Who made the decisions for London's public transport before that? Who decided what was the right strategy for Greater Manchester before hand? How do you get multiple councils to agree to do something? Now there's someone visible and responsible. Do we need them in every area? Dunno. But they're very powerful when done right, and their success (or failure) on public transport gives something tangible so they can do everything else.
But over the last year or so, passenger numbers in London have been falling. In the centre of London, reducing passenger numbers have led to a quite a significant revamp of services - e.g., cancelling the Red Arrow routes, and changing routes and termini at a rate which I can't recall before. It maybe a bit of chicken and egg - falling passenger numbers leads to fewer buses which leads to fewer passengers and so on. The excuse given was that services were being redirected to the suburbs, but I think their passenger numbers are also declining. The overall PVR in London has been falling of late, despite the introduction of Superloop services. Arguably Superloop was another highly visible improvement to bus services, but congestion, 20 mph limits, and restricted road widths from the introduction of cycle lanes has, has taken its toll. So, yes, the Mayor has had an effect, but not necessarily a positive effect.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Again, this is all very intangible and based on perception. Success in Greater Manchester hasn't established unless it's to make buses more in the public consciousness; that won't count for much if passenger figures respond.
Ken Livingstone isn't my natural political ideological partner but I do see that there was a vision AND having people to make things happen. Some of that involved doing things that would've been unpopular like the Congestion Charge and indeed, moving to cashless. However, we must also recognise that this was in a time before social media so you could do unpopular things and weather the storm relatively easily.
Passenger numbers haven't been falling for the last year; they've been falling since the peak in 2014. Despite a move to contactless and the use of dual door vehicles, and even the reduction of routes in the most congested central area, bus speeds have been falling. Despite a move to the hopper fare, passenger numbers are down.
That's because of a series of decisions whereby buses are now slower (average 8.3 mph) such as removal of road space for active travel and removal of bus priority. Because of the Hopper fare and large increases in operating costs filtering through into tender prices, it means that a growing gap in revenue vs. costs has necessitated service cuts and reductions in headways which, in turn, makes buses less attractive.
London is caught in a vicious circle and it's largely the making of Boris and Sadiq garnering headlines rather than the more sensible Ken Livingstone approach (and I didn't think I'd be saying that at one time).
stevieinselby
Established Member
Harrogate is a wealthy town with high car ownership – but it has a much better bus network than many comparable towns. Transdev/Blazefield have for a long time invested in better quality buses, especially on The 36. It doesn't seem an unreasonable connection to suggest that the high standards of comfort on board are a significant factor in getting more people to switch to using the bus. (That on its own probably won't swing a huge number of people, but as part of a total package, it's hard to dispute that it has worked.)
Indeed; I was just considering the recent past.
Would you care to expand? Oyster was introduced in 2003, three years into Livingstone's reign, but what was its gestation period - did Livingstone instigate it? The other thing I remember about Ken was the introduction of bendy buses (good for Red Arrow, bad for other routes?), and the introduction of the Congestion Charge and removal of Routemasters.. Boris introduced the new Routemaster, which may have been a victim of the rapidly changing technology in bus propulsion, and cancelled the western Congestion Zone. As I said above, Khan reduced PVRs in central London and the suburbs, made several changes to routes, and introduced Superloop. I can't remember who introduced 20mph limits and expansion of cycle paths.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
That was what I was referring to in the previous para.
Boris was the main proponent of cycle lanes though I think the plans were largely delivered under Sadiq Khan's tenure. Don't get me wrong - I'm a keen cyclist so deffo not anti bike. However, the plans as put forward and realised have massively impacted buses. Most famously is the Waterloo Bridge bus lane being replaced by a cycle lane but also in places like Lea Bridge Road in Walthamstow where buses once enjoyed priority but are now stuck in the gluepot traffic as everyone else.
The NBfL (aka Borismaster) was a Boris populist idea to have a dedicated bus for London. Lots of the usual wiffle. Having a two person crew was never cost effective and two staircases were folly. Cancelling the Western Congestion Zone - more Boris populism that was very short sighted, as was his war on bendy buses.
The Hopper ticket was a central part of the Khan election promise but it depressed revenue. Of course, that's fine if it generates more passengers but that's not been the case. Superloop appears to have been a hastily conceived move to placate ULEZ protestors.