West Yorkshire bus franchising

[tomoufc]

Almost two weeks later, and stop with a shelter which had both paper timetables and an electronic display now still has a new one with an empty timetable frame and no electronic display. Why is everything WYCA touches rather third rate?

Did you ask them? I don’t think many WYCA employees will be reading this.

 

[Steve440]

West Yorkshire Combined Authority confirms intent to award bus contracts

www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk

The West Yorkshire Combined Authority has today confirmed its intent to award contracts to bus operators who have submitted tenders to operate the larger contracts for Round One of its franchised network.

We can confirm that we intend to award contracts for Weaver Network services to:

• First West Yorkshire (services in the Huddersfield area and parts of Leeds)
• TransDev (services in the Dewsbury area)

This follows a robust and competitive process carried out to the highest standards over the last 10 months.

We now enter a standstill period before contracts are officially signed on 29 August at the earliest. The procurement process remains subject to legal requirements.

The first Weaver Network services are due to launch in Spring 2027, with franchising introduced in phases across West Yorkshire through to the end of 2028.

Information about smaller contracts and school service contracts will follow in due course.

 

[John HG1]

Somehow surprised to see Transdev pick up a contract. Arriva don't seem to do well out of tendering.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Somehow surprised to see Transdev pick up a contract. Arriva don't seem to do well out of tendering.

I'm not surprised to see Arriva lose Dewsbury, but wasn't expecting Transdev to pick it up. I was expecting Go Ahead to perhaps win, but it looks likely they'll do better in one of the smaller lots or school contracts with that planning application submitted. I was expecting Transdev to do well with Keighley but I'm quite happy to see them win in Dewsbury.

First also doing quite well in retaining Huddersfield & Bramley, already doing better than Manchester. It will be interesting to see if they manage to retain Hunslet, Bradford or Halifax or pick up somewhere else entirely.

 

[Andyh82]

Still no detail about what services are actually included in each contract

 

[Leedsbusman]

Still no detail about what services are actually included in each contract

They don’t start until the spring so there’s no urgency to be telling the passengers that just yet!

 

[TheWierdOne]

Still no detail about what services are actually included in each contract

They don’t start until the spring so there’s no urgency to be telling the passengers that just yet!

Especially if WYCA are intending to undertake reorganisation or remembering of routes. I don’t think they are planning anything of the sort, and I can’t recall them having done consultations to that end. But that is the sort of thing I think you would design before tendering, but announce afterwards as part of a build up to Franchise Day 1 on the very minor off-chance a contract winner suddenly turns around after winning a tender and says something like “actually those services you’re proposing will be completely impossible to run.”

 

[Andyh82]

They don’t start until the spring so there’s no urgency to be telling the passengers that just yet!

Especially if WYCA are intending to undertake reorganisation or remembering of routes. I don’t think they are planning anything of the sort, and I can’t recall them having done consultations to that end. But that is the sort of thing I think you would design before tendering, but announce afterwards as part of a build up to Franchise Day 1 on the very minor off-chance a contract winner suddenly turns around after winning a tender and says something like “actually those services you’re proposing will be completely impossible to run.”

It doesn’t have to be public facing on the ‘Metro’ site, but there is no list anywhere not even in the detailed documents on the combined authority site. You’d think there might be a list in the ‘notes to editors’ to avoid the press misreporting the news.

A full list of what services were in each contract in Manchester was widely known around here for ages before the contracts started.

 

[Leedsbusman]

It doesn’t have to be public facing on the ‘Metro’ site, but there is no list anywhere not even in the detailed documents on the combined authority site. You’d think there might be a list in the ‘notes to editors’ to avoid the press misreporting the news.

A full list of what services were in each contract in Manchester was widely known around here for ages before the contracts started.

Thing is there’s no need to provide that information to the public yet.
Obviously those who need to know it will know it. Those who want to know will either have to wait or try an FOI request.

 

[mattb7tl]

Thing is there’s no need to provide that information to the public yet.
Obviously those who need to know it will know it. Those who want to know will either have to wait or try an FOI request.

It is already publicly available via the lottering strategy. It is not a route list but it is a map of services for each lot.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm not surprised to see Arriva lose Dewsbury, but wasn't expecting Transdev to pick it up. I was expecting Go Ahead to perhaps win, but it looks likely they'll do better in one of the smaller lots or school contracts with that planning application submitted. I was expecting Transdev to do well with Keighley but I'm quite happy to see them win in Dewsbury.

First also doing quite well in retaining Huddersfield & Bramley, already doing better than Manchester. It will be interesting to see if they manage to retain Hunslet, Bradford or Halifax or pick up somewhere else entirely.

It's a good win for Transdev, given that they lost out in Manchester with the smaller Rochdale package.

Perhaps First has learnt some lessons with their limited success in Manchester and Merseyside? They will certainly be relieved and it's a rare retention in the world of franchising - only Stagecoach doing so with Middleton and Stockport IIRC?

 

[Leedsbusman]

It is already publicly available via the lottering strategy. It is not a route list but it is a map of services for each lot.

I think that may be out of date now - and doesn’t split work out into the different contracts just the ‘areas’.

 

[mattb7tl]

It's a good win for Transdev, given that they lost out in Manchester with the smaller Rochdale package.

Perhaps First has learnt some lessons with their limited success in Manchester and Merseyside? They will certainly be relieved and it's a rare retention in the world of franchising - only Stagecoach doing so with Middleton and Stockport IIRC?

Transdev, assuming they win the contract, have just about doubled the amount of patronage they carry in the region this is also assuming they do not win any other contracts. The sky is the limit with franchising.

 

[Andyh82]

Transdev, assuming they win the contract, have just about doubled the amount of patronage they carry in the region this is also assuming they do not win any other contracts. The sky is the limit with franchising.

They may still have lost Waterloo in this phase, if they haven’t won any small contracts or schools in Huddersfield area

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Transdev, assuming they win the contract, have just about doubled the amount of patronage they carry in the region this is also assuming they do not win any other contracts. The sky is the limit with franchising.

It's not really because, as we've seen elsewhere, the contracts tend to be awarded to multiple corporates.

And as Rotala are experiencing, you can lose work too.

 

[mattb7tl]

They may still have lost Waterloo in this phase, if they haven’t won any small contracts or schools in Huddersfield area

They have effectively doubled their patronage, even when you account for the loss of Keighley and Waterloo. Keighley only represents around 5% of the regions total patronage, while Waterloo accounts for a tiny fraction of Huddersfield.

Huddersfield itself represents around 10% of the regions patronage, and within that, Transdev accounts for only around 15%. So even assuming both Keighley and Waterloo are lost, they carry more with just a single win.

It's not really because, as we've seen elsewhere, the contracts tend to be awarded to multiple corporates.

And as Rotala are experiencing, you can lose work too.

Compared to deregulation it is night and day.

Franchising creates the opportunity for significant amounts of market share to change hands every 5 to 7 years, with relatively low barriers to entry. That creates something genuinely worth competing for not just individual routes, but a substantial share of the market. Operators can lose work under franchising, absolutely, but they can also win it back, expand their share, or enter markets they previously had little presence in. That competitive pressure did not exist under deregulation. With the exception of competing for crappy tenders that carry an insignificant amount of patronage.

 

[Volvodart]

Perhaps First has learnt some lessons with their limited success in Manchester and Merseyside? They will certainly be relieved and it's a rare retention in the world of franchising - only Stagecoach doing so with Middleton and Stockport IIRC?

They said that they received good feedback from Merseyside about their bid there.

 

[YorkRailFan]

It's a good win for Transdev, given that they lost out in Manchester with the smaller Rochdale package.

Perhaps First has learnt some lessons with their limited success in Manchester and Merseyside? They will certainly be relieved and it's a rare retention in the world of franchising - only Stagecoach doing so with Middleton and Stockport IIRC?

I think First will be hoping to retain Hunslet out of their remaining depots up for franchising, given the investment they've put in to install charging facilities. Same with Transdev in Keighley.

Bradford will be interesting, certainly somewhere Go Ahead will want to pick up. They've already expanded a lot in the City through tendering so will likely be hoping to win the franchising bid.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Compared to deregulation it is night and day.

Franchising creates the opportunity for significant amounts of market share to change hands every 5 to 7 years, with relatively low barriers to entry. That creates something genuinely worth competing for not just individual routes, but a substantial share of the market. Operators can lose work under franchising, absolutely, but they can also win it back, expand their share, or enter markets they previously had little presence in. That competitive pressure did not exist under deregulation. With the exception of competing for crappy tenders that carry an insignificant amount of patronage.

You said "the sky's the limit" but that's not the case. Not least because they will always seek to create/maintain competitive tension so hence the award to a range of operators rather than create an inadvertent monopoly.

As we've said earlier, and as Square Peg's reaction has been, the reality is that Public Procurement of this type is really, really onerous and is not suited to small and medium sized businesses.

If you believe that it is a some unalloyed fantastic business opportunity for everyone, well the reality is that incumbents will definitely lose out and the barriers to entry for a truly small operator are really high; only if you're a large corporate who isn't currently in that geography is it really an opportunity.

 

[JKP]

You said "the sky's the limit" but that's not the case. Not least because they will always seek to create/maintain competitive tension so hence the award to a range of operators rather than create an inadvertent monopoly.

As we've said earlier, and as Square Peg's reaction has been, the reality is that Public Procurement of this type is really, really onerous and is not suited to small and medium sized businesses.

If you believe that it is a some unalloyed fantastic business opportunity for everyone, well the reality is that incumbents will definitely lose out and the barriers to entry for a truly small operator are really high; only if you're a large corporate who isn't currently in that geography is it really an opportunity.

I note that the North East Mayoral Authority are planning to franchise a number of routes on an individual basis for which the paperwork will hopefully be less onerous. At least one area seems to be taking notice that the answer is to give SMEs a chance.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I note that the North East Mayoral Authority are planning to franchise a number of routes on an individual basis for which the paperwork will hopefully be less onerous. At least one area seems to be taking notice that the answer is to give SMEs a chance.

We can but hope.

In Merseyside, the indies were originally hopeful that they'd get small packages to bid for. Then they decided for procurement reasons to roll them into the large packages but that there was always schools work for SMEs to bid for but it was the big corporates that won out. We shall see what gives with West Yorkshire.

One thing that springs to mind, and apologies if this has already been clarified...

The Woollen district has one "prime" depot with Dewsbury, and this has been awarded to Transdev. The current Heckmondwike depot has (from what I can see) c.65-70 vehicles allocated to it. Are those services (in part) rolled into Dewsbury, and/or is that a smaller package that is offered out?

 

[John HG1]

Presumably the end of Lyles/Longstaff service work in Dewsbury.

 

[Andyh82]

Without sounding like a Reach PLC news site, so we know the EXACT DATE tranche 1 of the weaver network actually starts, or is that something else the public doesn’t need to know yet?

 

[Deerfold]

Without sounding like a Reach PLC news site, so we know the EXACT DATE tranche 1 of the weaver network actually starts, or is that something else the public doesn’t need to know yet?

I believe the current exact date is 'Spring 2027'.

Thing is there’s no need to provide that information to the public yet.
Obviously those who need to know it will know it. Those who want to know will either have to wait or try an FOI request.

Manchester were a lot more transparent, so those who depend on certain routes had a pretty good idea what was happening to them.

 

[Bristol LHS]

I note that the North East Mayoral Authority are planning to franchise a number of routes on an individual basis for which the paperwork will hopefully be less onerous. At least one area seems to be taking notice that the answer is to give SMEs a chance.

London experience suggests that individual routes doesn’t automatically lead to a proliferation of SME operators (accepting the barriers to entry are perhaps higher in London, but TfL have lost what they once had).

I suspect the paperwork is the bigger barrier, and the corporates are always going to be able to throw more human resource at that, and build experience from bidding in multiple geographies. A better approach might have been to expect large players to subcontract a percentage of their work to SMEs, or to partner with SMEs on their bids.

 

[stevieinselby]

One thing that springs to mind, and apologies if this has already been clarified...

The Woollen district has one "prime" depot with Dewsbury, and this has been awarded to Transdev. The current Heckmondwike depot has (from what I can see) c.65-70 vehicles allocated to it. Are those services (in part) rolled into Dewsbury, and/or is that a smaller package that is offered out?

I don't think there's anything in the public domain that clarifies this – presumably bidders may have had more detail – but there's nothing to say that WYCA can't and won't reorganise how routes are allocated. So it may be that some of the routes currently run from Heckmondwike will be included in the Dewsbury lot, and others are let as small lots (which wouldn't include the depot, so could be several small lots rather than one "big" small lot, if that makes sense) – but there could potentially be routes currently run from Dewsbury that they separate out and put in small lots if they think it could be more operationally efficient for them to be run by an independent further out.

 

[tomoufc]

I honestly don’t understand the obsession with saving SMEs. Their demise is inevitable with franchising. Any mechanism to keep them going will just add to public subsidy.

 

[sytransport]

I honestly don’t understand the obsession with saving SMEs. Their demise is inevitable with franchising. Any mechanism to keep them going will just add to public subsidy.

Excellent attitude. Screw local businesses, let’s allow big corporations to do what they want with our money.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't think there's anything in the public domain that clarifies this – presumably bidders may have had more detail – but there's nothing to say that WYCA can't and won't reorganise how routes are allocated. So it may be that some of the routes currently run from Heckmondwike will be included in the Dewsbury lot, and others are let as small lots (which wouldn't include the depot, so could be several small lots rather than one "big" small lot, if that makes sense) – but there could potentially be routes currently run from Dewsbury that they separate out and put in small lots if they think it could be more operationally efficient for them to be run by an independent further out.

Thank you - I didn't know if I was being more thick than normal and had missed something

I honestly don’t understand the obsession with saving SMEs. Their demise is inevitable with franchising. Any mechanism to keep them going will just add to public subsidy.

Look at it this way

• You are fuelling a rise to having just a few huge corporates (and in time, that might reduce competition)?
• When Arriva loses Woollen, it might lose £25m of revenue and £1.5m of profit plus some overhead recovery but it will survive.
  • Square Peg loses out... they lose their livelihood. Comments suggesting they could move to Lancashire or North Yorkshire are simply not sensible
• The issue is not about SMEs not being cost effective and needing more public subsidy. There is every likelihood that a procurement system that, by default if not design, excludes SMEs will exclude operators whose cost base and margin expectations are LOWER.
• Also, local businesses are more likely to spend their money locally; not so large international conglomerates, so less likely to benefit the very people paying for it
• The problem is that the procurement process is so onerous that small operators don't have the skills to tender, or to do so will cost a fortune. For all parties, those costs will flow through to the tender prices (albeit over 7 years, it's more of a rounding error) so there is no saving
• Finally, the UK Government has a commitment to support SMEs because that's often where the most innovative ideas come from

Now do you understand?

 

[tomoufc]

Thank you - I didn't know if I was being more thick than normal and had missed something


Look at it this way

• You are fuelling a rise to having just a few huge corporates (and in time, that might reduce competition)?
• When Arriva loses Woollen, it might lose £25m of revenue and £1.5m of profit plus some overhead recovery but it will survive.
  • Square Peg loses out... they lose their livelihood. Comments suggesting they could move to Lancashire or North Yorkshire are simply not sensible
• The issue is not about SMEs not being cost effective and needing more public subsidy. There is every likelihood that a procurement system that, by default if not design, excludes SMEs will exclude operators whose cost base and margin expectations are LOWER.
• Also, local businesses are more likely to spend their money locally; not so large international conglomerates, so less likely to benefit the very people paying for it
• The problem is that the procurement process is so onerous that small operators don't have the skills to tender, or to do so will cost a fortune. For all parties, those costs will flow through to the tender prices (albeit over 7 years, it's more of a rounding error) so there is no saving
• Finally, the UK Government has a commitment to support SMEs because that's often where the most innovative ideas come from

Now do you understand?

But my point is that it doesn’t seem to be possible to have a procurement process that doesn’t so exclude, unless you are willing to pay for the extra costs involved in upskilling SMEs to be involved, and to ameliorate their competitive disadvantage arising from lack of economies of scale. A far simpler solution would be municipalisation, which would allow for much more extensive local spillover effects.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2026 ==

Excellent attitude. Screw local businesses, let’s allow big corporations to do what they want with our money.

Tell me how it will work then