West Yorkshire bus franchising

[Dwarfer1979]

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.

It should be possible to seperate out some routes that are small enough and/or remote enough to not be particularly efficient to include in the big tender batches from large centralised depots (the geography of the Yorkshire CAs being particularly suited to this) and tender them as normal bus tenders rather than pushing them into route groups and put in complicated bidding processes. You can put all the livery, ticket acceptance etc requirements on those you want to make them operate as part of a network. If it is possible to restrict bidding for large contracts to certain size of businesses (and I have heard of CAs preparing for franchising have minimum pre-existing turnover requirements to bid for contracts) then it should also then be possible to restrict access to these contracts to a maximum size of business to protect from big groups swooping in and it is a system they already use so wouldn't be major cost implications for the CA in terms of staffing or outside assistance.

If you selected the right routes for this it would save costs, these are the sorts of routes that SMEs are cheaper on due to how services are scheduled and how pay agreements at larger companies would kick in - plus with these big centralised depots there are going to be lots of routes that are entirely remote from and so there is little to no efficiency advantage for a larger company to cover than anyone else.

This gives the positive local news of supporting local businesses, actually helps efficient delivery of remote and low demand services better suited to small & local management and retains a underlying pool of locally connected businesses that provide a brake on the worst behaviours of big company contract management (the tendency to see variation as profit - additions to the network are priced high as there is no choice but to pay them) as the smaller operators being available will give the option to not have to use one operator.

 

[sytransport]

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 ==


Tell me how it will work then

All operators in a franchise are paid by the local authority to run the services. Supporting SMEs is actually a much cheaper option…

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

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.

It should be possible to seperate out some routes that are small enough and/or remote enough to not be particularly efficient to include in the big tender batches from large centralised depots (the geography of the Yorkshire CAs being particularly suited to this) and tender them as normal bus tenders rather than pushing them into route groups and put in complicated bidding processes. You can put all the livery, ticket acceptance etc requirements on those you want to make them operate as part of a network. If it is possible to restrict bidding for large contracts to certain size of businesses (and I have heard of CAs preparing for franchising have minimum pre-existing turnover requirements to bid for contracts) then it should also then be possible to restrict access to these contracts to a maximum size of business to protect from big groups swooping in and it is a system they already use so wouldn't be major cost implications for the CA in terms of staffing or outside assistance.

If you selected the right routes for this it would save costs, these are the sorts of routes that SMEs are cheaper on due to how services are scheduled and how pay agreements at larger companies would kick in - plus with these big centralised depots there are going to be lots of routes that are entirely remote from and so there is little to no efficiency advantage for a larger company to cover than anyone else.

This gives the positive local news of supporting local businesses, actually helps efficient delivery of remote and low demand services better suited to small & local management and retains a underlying pool of locally connected businesses that provide a brake on the worst behaviours of big company contract management (the tendency to see variation as profit - additions to the network are priced high as there is no choice but to pay them) as the smaller operators being available will give the option to not have to use one operator.

Thanks to @Dwarfer1979 for those comments.

The reality is that you can create cost effective smaller packages and rules that encourage SMEs, and also remove some of those barriers through having slimmed down procurement processes. This is part of the idea behind having mandatory 30 days payment terms and the provisions of the 2023 Procurement Act in order to help smaller businesses.

A slimmed down procurement could have a much lower requirement in terms of a tender submission with a base specification (livery, vehicles etc all specified) and a set of much lighter touch technical questions. It is possible.

Asking for 2000 words on a your approach to driver development policy (with examples) is all well and good for a major corporate, as is providing your Social Value policy. That is then scored and moderated so that Go Ahead score 71.55% vs Arriva's 69.39%, let alone being arguable how much value it provides, but it is a significant barrier to smaller businesses that could actually provide good services and at a lower cost.

 

[tomoufc]

Thanks to @Dwarfer1979 for those comments.

The reality is that you can create cost effective smaller packages and rules that encourage SMEs, and also remove some of those barriers through having slimmed down procurement processes. This is part of the idea behind having mandatory 30 days payment terms and the provisions of the 2023 Procurement Act in order to help smaller businesses.

A slimmed down procurement could have a much lower requirement in terms of a tender submission with a base specification (livery, vehicles etc all specified) and a set of much lighter touch technical questions. It is possible.

Asking for 2000 words on a your approach to driver development policy (with examples) is all well and good for a major corporate, as is providing your Social Value policy. That is then scored and moderated so that Go Ahead score 71.55% vs Arriva's 69.39%, let alone being arguable how much value it provides, but it is a significant barrier to smaller businesses that could actually provide good services and at a lower cost.

I suppose the counter argument is that the fewer the specifications, the less it looks like franchising and more like the status quo.

 

[stevieinselby]

I suppose the counter argument is that the fewer the specifications, the less it looks like franchising and more like the status quo.

While that might be true in a very rural area where there are few commercial services, it would still be a huge step-change in major metropolitan areas where the majority of services have hitherto been operated commercially and without any form of procured contract with the transport authority.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I suppose the counter argument is that the fewer the specifications, the less it looks like franchising and more like the status quo.

I think you may have misread my comment. You have the same base specification which is consistent across the network, whether that is uniform, or livery, or moquette and all that stuff. All that is the same for a large or small package.

The lowering of the bar is in the tender response - the stuff that the general public never sees, is massively resource heavy and favours the big corporate beasts, and arguably has little value except in being to score a potential supplier.

While that might be true in a very rural area where there are few commercial services, it would still be a huge step-change in major metropolitan areas where the majority of services have hitherto been operated commercially and without any form of procured contract with the transport authority.

The irony is, the SMEs tend to have been confined to tendered services....where the tendering authority has always had the wherewithal to specify vehicles specs and liveries etc but seldom has on grounds of cost.

 

[tomoufc]

I think you may have misread my comment. You have the same base specification which is consistent across the network, whether that is uniform, or livery, or moquette and all that stuff. All that is the same for a large or small package.

The lowering of the bar is in the tender response - the stuff that the general public never sees, is massively resource heavy and favours the big corporate beasts, and arguably has little value except in being to score a potential supplier.

In that case, you are only retaining the more cosmetic elements of franchising.

 

[Andyh82]

In that case, you are only retaining the more cosmetic elements of franchising.

The majority of the public will notice franchising based on the large contracts

In the past some of the minibus networks have had vehicles in ‘Metro Connect’ livery when that was a thing. I can’t see any reason why networks like this couldn’t have carried on with normal tendering, just with a higher specification.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In that case, you are only retaining the more cosmetic elements of franchising.

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. I'll spell it out...

The lowering of the bar is solely confined to making the tendering process simpler and more straightforward.

The actual service delivery, the product specification that the public are supposed to actually experience, is consistently applied and does not change whether it is an SME or a megacorp.

Please tell me you understand?

 

[MotCO]

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?

• And some employees prefer working for a small company where the managing director knows everyone
• And some passengers enjoy seeing the same familiar drivers - it has been known for drivers to be concerned where a regular passenger has not turned up and alerted the relevant authorities.
• A small company may have better staff relations

Also smaller units may be more fleet of foot to react to changing circumstances.

 

[Deerfold]

• And some employees prefer working for a small company where the managing director knows everyone
• And some passengers enjoy seeing the same familiar drivers - it has been known for drivers to be concerned where a regular passenger has not turned up and alerted the relevant authorities.
• A small company may have better staff relations

Also smaller units may be more fleet of foot to react to changing circumstances.

When the 900 Huddersfield to Hebden Bridge (re) started in the 90s, First won the tender. Part of the specifications were too have a small regular team on that route (in practice, the same driver except when he was on leave).

 

[Steve440]

• And some employees prefer working for a small company where the managing director knows everyone
• And some passengers enjoy seeing the same familiar drivers - it has been known for drivers to be concerned where a regular passenger has not turned up and alerted the relevant authorities.
• A small company may have better staff relations

Also smaller units may be more fleet of foot to react to changing circumstances.

As a passenger, I have regular experience of a small operator in West Yorkshire (I won't say which). For most of the time my local service is reliable except for the usual caveat with regards to unpredictable traffic chaos. BUT, when things go wrong (very occasionally), I have tried to contact said operator who has just not made any attempt to reply. Metro just say contact the operator so we just go round in circles. It seems a shame that the operator, which is usually very good just don't seem to have any customer service expertise. I know for a fact that journeys have been missed on my local tendered service but I don't seem to be able to report the matter and presumably the operator will be paid for running something they are not. Presumably with franchising, when things go wrong then the point of contact will be with Weaver Network and hopefully there will be more accountability. So, there you have it, small operators are not always perfect.

 

[Cesarcollie]

As a passenger, I have regular experience of a small operator in West Yorkshire (I won't say which). For most of the time my local service is reliable except for the usual caveat with regards to unpredictable traffic chaos. BUT, when things go wrong (very occasionally), I have tried to contact said operator who has just not made any attempt to reply. Metro just say contact the operator so we just go round in circles. It seems a shame that the operator, which is usually very good just don't seem to have any customer service expertise. I know for a fact that journeys have been missed on my local tendered service but I don't seem to be able to report the matter and presumably the operator will be paid for running something they are not. Presumably with franchising, when things go wrong then the point of contact will be with Weaver Network and hopefully there will be more accountability. So, there you have it, small operators are not always perfect.

Correct. And neither are large ones……

 

[Steve440]

Correct. And neither are large ones……

No, but large ones usually have a customer service department who reply, even if it is just a standard form.

 

[tomoufc]

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse. I'll spell it out...

The lowering of the bar is solely confined to making the tendering process simpler and more straightforward.

The actual service delivery, the product specification that the public are supposed to actually experience, is consistently applied and does not change whether it is an SME or a megacorp.

Please tell me you understand?

So how are you going to maintain the same level of specification while reducing the bureaucratic demands for the franchise bidder. I understand what you’re hoping for, but you haven’t told me how you can get it.

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

As a passenger, I have regular experience of a small operator in West Yorkshire (I won't say which). For most of the time my local service is reliable except for the usual caveat with regards to unpredictable traffic chaos. BUT, when things go wrong (very occasionally), I have tried to contact said operator who has just not made any attempt to reply. Metro just say contact the operator so we just go round in circles. It seems a shame that the operator, which is usually very good just don't seem to have any customer service expertise. I know for a fact that journeys have been missed on my local tendered service but I don't seem to be able to report the matter and presumably the operator will be paid for running something they are not. Presumably with franchising, when things go wrong then the point of contact will be with Weaver Network and hopefully there will be more accountability. So, there you have it, small operators are not always perfect.

This has been my experience with TLC, repeatedly.

 

[markymark2000]

So how are you going to maintain the same level of specification while reducing the bureaucratic demands for the franchise bidder. I understand what you’re hoping for, but you haven’t told me how you can get it.

TFW TrawsCymru seems to manage it.
They provide the vehicles, have a strong specification on the livery, uniform, fares and timetables. Operators deal with the day to day duties and operational things. T2, T3, T4, T5, T8, T10 are all operated by local independants.

 

[Cesarcollie]

No, but large ones usually have a customer service department who reply, even if it is just a standard form.

Hmmm. I’ve come across quite a few who don’t !

 

[Tetchytyke]

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

The whole point of franchising is that the big corporates can’t do what they want.

The SME thing is a tough one.

Many of the SMEs in West Yorkshire have carved out a niche for themselves in the margins, the likes of TLC running the evening and Sunday services that the big corporates didn’t want to run commercially. With franchising it is inevitable that those tenders will be rolled back into the big area contracts and the SMEs aren’t going to win those (and nor would they want to). That’s part of the point of franchising, to stop the big corporates cherry-picking routes, creaming the profit, and expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill for the rest.

I personally don’t think that trying to construct contracts that only SMEs can bid for is ever going to work, as there’s no easy way of preventing the good SMEs from being hoovered up by bigger companies. We saw that in Merseyside with Huyton and with Fourways in West Yorkshire.

Creating a situation where you prevent an SME owner from cashing in and selling up when the big boys come calling isn’t desirable either, because that’s a big part of the business model of SMEs.

I think the best way of sorting it is to mandate a certain level of subcontracting. Make the big corporate have at least one SME partner in any bid. At least then the likes of Squarepeg might still have some sort of business. But that’s not really ideal either.

 

[JKP]

So how are you going to maintain the same level of specification while reducing the bureaucratic demands for the franchise bidder. I understand what you’re hoping for, but you haven’t told me how you can get it.

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


This has been my experience with TLC, repeatedly.

Would the franchising authority not oversee and investigate complaints regarding non operation? All sizes of operation would only be supplying the vehicles and drivers. Revenue will be remitted to the Authority and I am assuming that this would be backed up by etm data for each journey with an explanation as to why a journey did not operate if no data supplied. Complaints received regarding drivers could be referred back to the operator.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So how are you going to maintain the same level of specification while reducing the bureaucratic demands for the franchise bidder. I understand what you’re hoping for, but you haven’t told me how you can get it.

The operating specification is fixed. That is what the operator has to work to, and that is what is policed via adherence to KPIs.

I'm sure you're aware that the PA2023 instituted measures designed to make it easier for SMEs such as the creation of framework agreements (reducing the number of times information is requested). You can also reduce the value of contracts so it doesn't trigger such onerous requirements. Make the questions that you do ask really short.

I've done hundreds of tenders in my career - there are ways to do it.

I personally don’t think that trying to construct contracts that only SMEs can bid for is ever going to work, as there’s no easy way of preventing the good SMEs from being hoovered up by bigger companies. We saw that in Merseyside with Huyton and with Fourways in West Yorkshire.

Creating a situation where you prevent an SME owner from cashing in and selling up when the big boys come calling isn’t desirable either, because that’s a big part of the business model of SMEs.

I think the best way of sorting it is to mandate a certain level of subcontracting. Make the big corporate have at least one SME partner in any bid. At least then the likes of Squarepeg might still have some sort of business. But that’s not really ideal either.

We had this before in this thread. I am sure that the contracts that are let have "Change of Ownership" clauses in them so that if a business is sold, the contracting authority has the right to terminate the contract. This is something that any purchaser will (or should) check as part of any due diligence exercise. I've been involved in two instances where such clauses have been invoked and it works both ways (i.e. for contractor and for client).

If an SME has a business model that is predicated on the potential of selling up... Well, going for a franchise might not be for them!

 

[Tetchytyke]

If an SME has a business model that is predicated on the potential of selling up... Well, going for a franchise might not be for them!

I’m thinking of the Squarepegs of this world, the ones who had built up a business independently of the authority on a commercial basis and part of the value of that business to its owner was as an asset with a cash-in value.

They’re upset with franchising because that asset is now worthless.

I am sure that the contracts that are let have "Change of Ownership" clauses in them so that if a business is sold, the contracting authority has the right to terminate the contract.

It’s a fairly standard contractual term and I have it in my line of work. If the owner changes whatever licences you had are null and void unless you get specific permission to change owner.

But if we start going down that road, having a certain number of routes guaranteed for SMEs and preventing those SMEs from selling up or consolidating, I do start to question the point. SMEs are not intrinsically any more (or less!) desirable in a franchising world than any other sort of business is.

If an SME can’t sell itself onwards then it has a very limited value as an asset.

 

[tomoufc]

The operating specification is fixed. That is what the operator has to work to, and that is what is policed via adherence to KPIs.

I'm sure you're aware that the PA2023 instituted measures designed to make it easier for SMEs such as the creation of framework agreements (reducing the number of times information is requested). You can also reduce the value of contracts so it doesn't trigger such onerous requirements. Make the questions that you do ask really short.

I've done hundreds of tenders in my career - there are ways to do it.


We had this before in this thread. I am sure that the contracts that are let have "Change of Ownership" clauses in them so that if a business is sold, the contracting authority has the right to terminate the contract. This is something that any purchaser will (or should) check as part of any due diligence exercise. I've been involved in two instances where such clauses have been invoked and it works both ways (i.e. for contractor and for client).

If an SME has a business model that is predicated on the potential of selling up... Well, going for a franchise might not be for them!

But this is franchising, not tendering! The requirements by definition need to be more onerous. Your way to achieve what you want is to abandon franchising, it seems.

 

[mattb7tl]

The issue with independents stems from the large operators now using the very people they helped hurt as a gotcha against franchising.

If the large operators had not built monopolies over so much of the network, these smaller companies would have had far more opportunity to upscale under deregulation and build the resources needed to compete. The reason so many independents are now resource starved is, in large part, because of the dominance of those larger operators. It is not the job of any authority to clear this up.

And let us not forget that the large operators have killed off more independent bus companies through anti competitive behaviour and the realities of a concentrated deregulated market than franchising ever could.

There is no realistic way to include most independent operators in a franchised network without putting additional money into the system simply to keep them alive. That is always an interesting suggestion, particularly when it tends to come from the same people who argue that franchising is too expensive, yet apparently no amount of additional public money is too much when it comes to preserving small operators.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But this is franchising, not tendering! The requirements by definition need to be more onerous. Your way to achieve what you want is to abandon franchising, it seems.

Sorry but this is tendering. Franchising is a total misnomer because if it were a true franchise operation (like having a Costa franchise), you'd have certain license to do what you wanted (within reason).

These are tenders - you are appointed as a contractor to perform a service to a fixed specification and service level. And if you don't believe me... from TfGM's own website

Where we choose to openly procure and run a competitive tendering exercise for a contract or a Framework, we will advertise the tender on our online E-Tendering portal, ProContract. You can register for free and receive notifications about live opportunities.

In line with procurement regulations, we now publish our high value tender opportunities via ‘Pipeline Notices’ on the Government portal, Find a Tender.

This will be for contracts that we openly tender and are expected to be above the £2 million threshold.

If you are interested in finding out more about our existing contracts and who our current suppliers are, you can find all our older published award notices on the Government portal Contracts Finder; all new ones will now be published on Find a Tender.

Don't get confused with the terminology of the older regime of "tendered services" and the new world of franchising. These are not franchises, despite using that terminology. They are tendered packages of work.

Now I am struggling to put this any more clearly...

The specification (i.e. the quality of service that you need to deliver) is mandated, and clear, and is there to be delivered against. So if you want to make it that a Weaver Network SME must work to particular standards, vehicle types, etc then that is absolutely there to be specified and delivered against, and that is what KPIs are specified to do.

In terms of the selection process, you should have a Procurement Specific Questionnaire that has the minimum things you require from an operator e.g. 3 years published accounts, copy of operators licenses, copies of relevant insurances, and that is all standard. In fact, to make it easier, you recreate a framework that spans across all the tender packages. Then you have some questions in which you can evaluate the tenderers. However, if you're asking an SME to write 2000 words on how they have delivered sustainable operations, or are asking for their Modern Slavery policy, then how is that really going to influence how they will deliver the specification?

Lastly, you do know that HM Government is actively trying to increase SME involvement https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...lan-2025-to-2028#why-smes-should-work-with-us

 

[tomoufc]

Sorry but this is tendering. Franchising is a total misnomer because if it were a true franchise operation (like having a Costa franchise), you'd have certain license to do what you wanted (within reason).

These are tenders - you are appointed as a contractor to perform a service to a fixed specification and service level. And if you don't believe me... from TfGM's own website



Don't get confused with the terminology of the older regime of "tendered services" and the new world of franchising. These are not franchises, despite using that terminology. They are tendered packages of work.

Now I am struggling to put this any more clearly...

The specification (i.e. the quality of service that you need to deliver) is mandated, and clear, and is there to be delivered against. So if you want to make it that a Weaver Network SME must work to particular standards, vehicle types, etc then that is absolutely there to be specified and delivered against, and that is what KPIs are specified to do.

In terms of the selection process, you should have a Procurement Specific Questionnaire that has the minimum things you require from an operator e.g. 3 years published accounts, copy of operators licenses, copies of relevant insurances, and that is all standard. In fact, to make it easier, you recreate a framework that spans across all the tender packages. Then you have some questions in which you can evaluate the tenderers. However, if you're asking an SME to write 2000 words on how they have delivered sustainable operations, or are asking for their Modern Slavery policy, then how is that really going to influence how they will deliver the specification?

Lastly, you do know that HM Government is actively trying to increase SME involvement https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...lan-2025-to-2028#why-smes-should-work-with-us

Yes, they are tendering for franchises. As you say, that’s not the same as ‘tendered services’, which have become the mainstay of SME operations. Why not the same, because franchising is significantly more onerous in terms of specification. So we’re not disagreeing here, it’s just that you think it’s possible to do franchising while making life easier for SMEs who want to participate. I’m not convinced, but if you are please do pass your thoughts on to WYCA, for what it’s worth.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, they are tendering for franchises. As you say, that’s not the same as ‘tendered services’, which have become the mainstay of SME operations. Why not the same, because franchising is significantly more onerous in terms of specification. So we’re not disagreeing here, it’s just that you think it’s possible to do franchising while making life easier for SMEs who want to participate. I’m not convinced, but if you are please do pass your thoughts on to WYCA, for what it’s worth.

Put it another way - working and responding to tenders is what I do. I have worked on hundreds over the last 20 years. Even in the public sector, I’ve seen the straight forward and the complex.

What is your professional insight?

 

[tomoufc]

Put it another way - working and responding to tenders is what I do. I have worked on hundreds over the last 20 years. Even in the public sector, I’ve seen the straight forward and the complex.

What is your professional insight?

I’m anonymous.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I’m anonymous.

I didn’t ask for your name. I asked for your professional insight.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

So how are you going to maintain the same level of specification while reducing the bureaucratic demands for the franchise bidder. I understand what you’re hoping for, but you haven’t told me how you can get it.

What we are talking about removing are the several thousand word essays on "corporate responsibility", "social inclusion policies", "environmental improvements" and all the other unrelated box ticking exercises that the big contract specs include, reducing the requirements for dedicated contract managers just for the CA or other non-operational roles no matter how big the contract (there was a report that TfGM mandated each operator to have a dedicated Contract Manager and a Social Inclusion Manager on top of the normal team even for the small group tenders but if you win multiple contracts you only need one per company) and reducing the million pound bonds and multi-million pound turnover requirements for route contracts that are valued at less than £250000 a year. We are not talking about reducing the specification of the vehicles or the required response levels for complaints from the operators, just how many forms they have to complete to win the work and how much money they must have to bid.

We operate many tenders with age requirements, with specification requirements and even with livery requirements and many contracts mandate complaint handling timescales and procedures - it is entirely possible to ensure the same level of specification to the customer on a few small contracts without needing all the bureaucratic demands of the big batches.

In any case with these franchises so much of the customer facing role is taken on by the Combined Authority, if for no other reason that they are pretty reluctant to tell passengers who runs each bus & route (TfGM don't clearly list the actual operator on their timetables & apart from the legal lettering there is no apparent reference to the operator on the vehicles) so it is not hugely relevant how good or bad existing customer services systems are.

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

The issue with independents stems from the large operators now using the very people they helped hurt as a gotcha against franchising.

If the large operators had not built monopolies over so much of the network, these smaller companies would have had far more opportunity to upscale under deregulation and build the resources needed to compete. The reason so many independents are now resource starved is, in large part, because of the dominance of those larger operators. It is not the job of any authority to clear this up.

I work for a medium sized regional group, a couple of hundred buses (not quite Rotala sized but around the next size band down) which I assume from this would mean you think we are large enough to compete for franchises. The big group franchises are still too big, if one contract is the size of half the rest of your business all tied to a single contract that is a hell of a risk and in any case I have been told that the company still isn't large enough to qualify for those contracts and I have heard if such sized companies struggling to get onto small franchise bids due to turnover requirements.

How many 500 vehicle operators do you think don't exist purely because the big groups were so rapacious 20 years ago? There are less small operators these days for many reasons and few of them are because the big groups exist as they do - it is harder and more expensive to enter the industry than it has ever been (at least since 1986 in terms of legislation but cost wise probably ever), it is harder to remain compliant with legislation (you may say these quality standards around information and accessibility are good things, I do think this myself, but it has made it more expensive and difficult for the smaller operator to keep going) and the extended period of austerity 15-20 years ago followed by COVID 5/6-years ago really broke that pathway to entry. If you then add multiple authorities, politicians & governments threatening to take your business off you for no compensation when they feel like it (which is what franchising in this form is for a smaller operator, like it or not, WMCA won't be bothered to buy out Banga Bus or Carolean like they did National Express) it makes entering the bus market a so much less attractive place to put your money.

And let us not forget that the large operators have killed off more independent bus companies through anti competitive behaviour and the realities of a concentrated deregulated market than franchising ever could.

There is no realistic way to include most independent operators in a franchised network without putting additional money into the system simply to keep them alive. That is always an interesting suggestion, particularly when it tends to come from the same people who argue that franchising is too expensive, yet apparently no amount of additional public money is too much when it comes to preserving small operators.

You appear to be convinced that smaller operators are more expensive than big companies, they aren't and never have been otherwise they would never win contracts in the first place. Smaller companies have lower costs generally and the large groups economies of scale just don't make up for the amount of extra back office costs that they pick up. There is work that big groups will be more cost effective at, the high volume work like the core commercial network which comprise most routes in franchising, and work that small companies are more cost effective at, the 1 or 2 bus local service focused away from major centres which I suggested could be done as single route contracts with similar tender documentation to current tenders, so it is simply a horses for courses matter. Most CAs seem to be focussing entirely on big groups and are accepting inefficiencies on these smaller services whilst removing the last vestiges of the local bus industry that may prove useful long term when circumstances change.

 

[tomoufc]

What we are talking about removing are the several thousand word essays on "corporate responsibility", "social inclusion policies", "environmental improvements" and all the other unrelated box ticking exercises that the big contract specs include, reducing the requirements for dedicated contract managers just for the CA or other non-operational roles no matter how big the contract (there was a report that TfGM mandated each operator to have a dedicated Contract Manager and a Social Inclusion Manager on top of the normal team even for the small group tenders but if you win multiple contracts you only need one per company) and reducing the million pound bonds and multi-million pound turnover requirements for route contracts that are valued at less than £250000 a year. We are not talking about reducing the specification of the vehicles or the required response levels for complaints from the operators, just how many forms they have to complete to win the work and how much money they must have to bid.

We operate many tenders with age requirements, with specification requirements and even with livery requirements and many contracts mandate complaint handling timescales and procedures - it is entirely possible to ensure the same level of specification to the customer on a few small contracts without needing all the bureaucratic demands of the big batches.

In any case with these franchises so much of the customer facing role is taken on by the Combined Authority, if for no other reason that they are pretty reluctant to tell passengers who runs each bus & route (TfGM don't clearly list the actual operator on their timetables & apart from the legal lettering there is no apparent reference to the operator on the vehicles) so it is not hugely relevant how good or bad existing customer services systems are.

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


I work for a medium sized regional group, a couple of hundred buses (not quite Rotala sized but around the next size band down) which I assume from this would mean you think we are large enough to compete for franchises. The big group franchises are still too big, if one contract is the size of half the rest of your business all tied to a single contract that is a hell of a risk and in any case I have been told that the company still isn't large enough to qualify for those contracts and I have heard if such sized companies struggling to get onto small franchise bids due to turnover requirements.

How many 500 vehicle operators do you think don't exist purely because the big groups were so rapacious 20 years ago? There are less small operators these days for many reasons and few of them are because the big groups exist as they do - it is harder and more expensive to enter the industry than it has ever been (at least since 1986 in terms of legislation but cost wise probably ever), it is harder to remain compliant with legislation (you may say these quality standards around information and accessibility are good things, I do think this myself, but it has made it more expensive and difficult for the smaller operator to keep going) and the extended period of austerity 15-20 years ago followed by COVID 5/6-years ago really broke that pathway to entry. If you then add multiple authorities, politicians & governments threatening to take your business off you for no compensation when they feel like it (which is what franchising in this form is for a smaller operator, like it or not, WMCA won't be bothered to buy out Banga Bus or Carolean like they did National Express) it makes entering the bus market a so much less attractive place to put your money.

You appear to be convinced that smaller operators are more expensive than big companies, they aren't and never have been otherwise they would never win contracts in the first place. Smaller companies have lower costs generally and the large groups economies of scale just don't make up for the amount of extra back office costs that they pick up. There is work that big groups will be more cost effective at, the high volume work like the core commercial network which comprise most routes in franchising, and work that small companies are more cost effective at, the 1 or 2 bus local service focused away from major centres which I suggested could be done as single route contracts with similar tender documentation to current tenders, so it is simply a horses for courses matter. Most CAs seem to be focussing entirely on big groups and are accepting inefficiencies on these smaller services whilst removing the last vestiges of the local bus industry that may prove useful long term when circumstances change.

Interesting, thanks.

Out of interest, why do they have lower costs, considering their disadvantages arising from economies of scale? I always assumed it was lower staffing costs, related to lower levels of unionisation. (I’m not suggesting life working for a big corporate is a cosy either, by the way).

It should probably be noted that WYCA take CSR extremely seriously, especially in procurements. I get the point about box ticking, but there would have to be some alternative way of demonstrating that they are ‘good employers’.