• 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!

CT4N (Community Transport for Nottingham)

MEC

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2025
Messages
71
Location
City of Glass
Were the BYDs reliable? On the one occasion I checked out the route, there seemed to be very few in service; mostly parked up at Queens Drive.
This is Purley speculation, but from a driver he told me that 2 years before they lost the medilink all BYDs went to London to get a lot of work done on them. I don't think the batteries can degrade so badly in the space of 2 years that they can no longer run a service. When I asked him about range he said that they all get about 5-7 hours worth of range, which isn't terrible considering their age. He then said why they often didn't get used is because they needed a banksman to reverse into the charging spaces. So a driver would come in to swap buses but be wouldn't be able to put his bus on charge because there was no one else to help him reverse into the bay. So the driver would often just leave the bus at queen's drive and that service would not run. Again Purley speculation.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JJM22

Member
Joined
23 May 2025
Messages
40
Location
UK
This is Purley speculation, but from a driver he told me that 2 years before they lost the medilink all BYDs went to London to get a lot of work done on them. I don't think the batteries can degrade so badly in the space of 2 years that they can no longer run a service. When I asked him about range he said that they all get about 5-7 hours worth of range, which isn't terrible considering their age. He then said why they often didn't get used is because they needed a banksman to reverse into the charging spaces. So a driver would come in to swap buses but be wouldn't be able to put his bus on charge because there was no one else to help him reverse into the bay. So the driver would often just leave the bus at queen's drive and that service would not run. Again Purley speculation.
The problem with that range is that one round trip on Medilink is 1.5 hours, so not sufficient for full day. Especially if some are off for maintenance issues
 

MEC

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2025
Messages
71
Location
City of Glass
The problem with that range is that one round trip on Medilink is 1.5 hours, so not sufficient for full day. Especially if some are off for maintenance issues
I agree with that but they had about 13 so arguably was enough for full day
 

Trainman40083

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2024
Messages
4,522
Location
Derby
This is Purley speculation, but from a driver he told me that 2 years before they lost the medilink all BYDs went to London to get a lot of work done on them. I don't think the batteries can degrade so badly in the space of 2 years that they can no longer run a service. When I asked him about range he said that they all get about 5-7 hours worth of range, which isn't terrible considering their age. He then said why they often didn't get used is because they needed a banksman to reverse into the charging spaces. So a driver would come in to swap buses but be wouldn't be able to put his bus on charge because there was no one else to help him reverse into the bay. So the driver would often just leave the bus at queen's drive and that service would not run. Again Purley speculation.
Purely maybe.. But you'd have thought the issue would be solved, rather than ignored.
 

andyb87

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2025
Messages
77
Location
mansfield
Were the BYDs reliable? On the one occasion I checked out the route, there seemed to be very few in service; mostly parked up at Queens Drive.
I guess here we are talking about Medilink, for which a number of vehicles were outstationed at Queens Drive P&R site. I also think that the basic schedules were heavily peaked in those days. For many years Medilink was funded in partnership by the City Council and Nottingham University Hospitals. CT4N was for years CC operator of choice for niche markets. They also had some electric Solos. I had a spate of travelling on Medilink and found neither the BYDs or Solos more reliable or not than standard buses. We are however talking about early electrics with the ensuing developmental and maintenance issues so I would expect current designs to be more durable and reliable. I think the electrics were funded by City Council, probably owned by them and maintained by them too. The CT4N depot at Sherwood Bus Garage was never set up for major maintenance, which was contracted out, a bit of a challenge with unconventional vehicles!
 

Ballyheigue

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2025
Messages
313
Location
Leeds
Buses not being able to back into charging points (ok allegedly) without a banksman, allegedly no banksman available, bus garage not set up for heavily maintaining these electric vehicles so it's contracted out which presents obvious complex challenges even to a child, no wonder they were in so much debt as the management team seem to not know what they're doing! Surely they were given all the information they needed to have before tendering and should have worked out exactly what they needed to have in place to be able to successfully operate these electric buses without risk of anything going wrong? If you don't know much about these buses, particularly how reliable they will be before taking up the tender you either turn it down or you have a back up plan for when they go wrong, it's so obvious! As for driver sickness, I'm not surprised, they probably were looking for other jobs given how bad this company seems to have been. They must have employed Saints as I'd have to proper roast the management team until their heads blew off!
 

pjnathanail

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2012
Messages
391
Location
Loughborough
The reality is that the economics of operating any bus company of any size and ownership structure / operating model is hugely challenging at the moment. That’s why we’re seeing smaller operators close down, either in a planned or unplanned way, and larger operators close depots and divest themselves of underperforming parts of their business.

The reality is, for an independent operator, you need to do one of two things if you’re going to run local bus work. You either need to have a solid coach hire operation which covers your core overheads, and run buses as a sideline (be it commercial, contracted or just rail / schools), or you need to build up a network of commercial bus services.

The latter option might look easier (after all, any operator can run a bus anywhere, any time), but finding a route that the local “big” operator doesn’t want but that still pays its way is very tricky. And even more so in Nottingham where you have a high quality local independent in Trent Barton, alongside a municipal (NCT) that runs a much larger urban network than would be ran if the city was in the hands of a big group.

CT4N for many years were sustained by a City Council who - inexplicably, given they own most of NCT - tendered much of their supported bus network in such a way that the wider commercial sector weren’t massively interested. Medilink the time before Skills won it was tendered on the basis of taking on and running a fleet of early electric technology buses, maintaining but not owning them - unsurprisingly the (many) coach operators around Nottingham who also run buses as a sideline didn’t fancy that!

CT4N’s failure is neither an indictment of their operating model, nor their management. There were positives and negatives to both (as there are with every business). The failure is as a result of a changing market that, as can happen in many industries, simply doesn’t have a place for an operator whose principal focus is contracted bus work. Their cost base was inflated by importing some “big operator” things like having a recognised Trade Union (nothing wrong with that but it pushes your cost base up and smaller independents tend not to have it), but ultimately despite best efforts at diversification, the market has shown that there simply wasn’t enough of the right type of work out there to keep their operation viable.
 

andyb87

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2025
Messages
77
Location
mansfield
The reality is that the economics of operating any bus company of any size and ownership structure / operating model is hugely challenging at the moment. That’s why we’re seeing smaller operators close down, either in a planned or unplanned way, and larger operators close depots and divest themselves of underperforming parts of their business.

The reality is, for an independent operator, you need to do one of two things if you’re going to run local bus work. You either need to have a solid coach hire operation which covers your core overheads, and run buses as a sideline (be it commercial, contracted or just rail / schools), or you need to build up a network of commercial bus services.

The latter option might look easier (after all, any operator can run a bus anywhere, any time), but finding a route that the local “big” operator doesn’t want but that still pays its way is very tricky. And even more so in Nottingham where you have a high quality local independent in Trent Barton, alongside a municipal (NCT) that runs a much larger urban network than would be ran if the city was in the hands of a big group.

CT4N for many years were sustained by a City Council who - inexplicably, given they own most of NCT - tendered much of their supported bus network in such a way that the wider commercial sector weren’t massively interested. Medilink the time before Skills won it was tendered on the basis of taking on and running a fleet of early electric technology buses, maintaining but not owning them - unsurprisingly the (many) coach operators around Nottingham who also run buses as a sideline didn’t fancy that!

CT4N’s failure is neither an indictment of their operating model, nor their management. There were positives and negatives to both (as there are with every business). The failure is as a result of a changing market that, as can happen in many industries, simply doesn’t have a place for an operator whose principal focus is contracted bus work. Their cost base was inflated by importing some “big operator” things like having a recognised Trade Union (nothing wrong with that but it pushes your cost base up and smaller independents tend not to have it), but ultimately despite best efforts at diversification, the market has shown that there simply wasn’t enough of the right type of work out there to keep their operation viable.
✔️
 

MEC

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2025
Messages
71
Location
City of Glass
Purely maybe.. But you'd have thought the issue would be solved, rather than ignored.
Yeah-pure speculation. However the unreliableness was at its worse when CT4N were about to loose the contract anyway, the city council simply allowed them to carry on using the buses after the contract was frozen in April. The council no longer joint funded the medilink after April. So maintenance was definitely not a priority for the city council.
 

BULLSAREMAGIC

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2025
Messages
67
Location
DERBYSHIRE
It is a great pity that CT4N has failed. As has already mentioned they provided services that other companies largely did not want to operate. However when your business is based on supported services you are not fully in control. Councils nationwide have been squeezed financially for many years and often it seems the fitst cut to be made are the supported bus services as this affects only relatively few people. CT4Ns routes have gradually been reduced and with increased costs and reduced income problems mount . Whilst many on this site speculate as to who and how the services are covered by other operators I think it is important to remember the staff whose livelihood has been threatened by this closure. Hopefully I wish them well at what is a difficult time
 

joieman

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2024
Messages
960
Location
Loughborough
The pair of Yutong E12s used on the SEGRO East Midlands Gateway shuttle bus service have been transferred to Kinchbus along with the shuttle service itself.
 

Leedsbusman

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
683
Location
Layton
It is a great pity that CT4N has failed. As has already mentioned they provided services that other companies largely did not want to operate. However when your business is based on supported services you are not fully in control. Councils nationwide have been squeezed financially for many years and often it seems the fitst cut to be made are the supported bus services as this affects only relatively few people. CT4Ns routes have gradually been reduced and with increased costs and reduced income problems mount . Whilst many on this site speculate as to who and how the services are covered by other operators I think it is important to remember the staff whose livelihood has been threatened by this closure. Hopefully I wish them well at what is a difficult time
How do you know other operators didn’t want to operate them? Were there no other bidders?
 

zkyx02

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2024
Messages
211
Location
Derby, Derbyshire
LJ16 NMX one of the MediLink branded BYDs is at Evolves Yard (unsure where it actually is). Can’t imagine it’ll be used in service.
 

BULLSAREMAGIC

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2025
Messages
67
Location
DERBYSHIRE
LJ16 NMX one of the MediLink branded BYDs is at Evolves Yard (unsure where it actually is). Can’t imagine it’ll be used in service.
Evolves yard is at WoodYard Lane Foston Derbyshire (just off the A50). There is quite an eclectic selection of vehicles including a BMMO D9.
 

zkyx02

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2024
Messages
211
Location
Derby, Derbyshire
Don't know. All I know about the management is the main guy used to run South Derbyshire Coaches, which got shut down following a public inquiry.
He’s had quite a lot of companies shut down in fairness, he always reappears with someone else’s name… this time he’s using his daughters name to get a O-Licence, he’s probably ran out of relatives to ask at this point.
 

BULLSAREMAGIC

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2025
Messages
67
Location
DERBYSHIRE
Don't know. All I know about the management is the main guy used to run South Derbyshire Coaches, which got shut down following a public inquiry.
The details of his latest run in with the commisioners is on a link on the Lichfield City/South Derbyshire thread at which point he 'evolved'
 

ACBest

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2011
Messages
346
Location
Lincoln
From Monday 24th August, Kinchbus are taking on the 66 between Loughborough and Sutton Bonington - but are only going to be operating peak time journeys, consisting of two return journeys in the morning, and three in the afternoon.


Following CT4N operating it as an all-day service, this move brings the route pretty much full circle to how it was when operated as the 866, which consisted of four round trips, two in the morning, and two in the afternoon.
 

Trainman40083

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2024
Messages
4,522
Location
Derby
From Monday 24th August, Kinchbus are taking on the 66 between Loughborough and Sutton Bonington - but are only going to be operating peak time journeys, consisting of two return journeys in the morning, and three in the evening.


Following CT4N operating it as an all-day service, this move brings the route pretty much full circle to how it was when operated as the 866, which consisted of four round trips, two in the morning, and two in the evening.
That should avoid a strain on Solo 4.
 

MEC

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2025
Messages
71
Location
City of Glass
What will happen to the depot ?
As far as I know it's owned by Nottingham city council. So it's up to them to see what will happen with it, I can't exactly see the need for NCT using it. It has only been this past year where all the buses were kept there.
 

Trainman40083

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2024
Messages
4,522
Location
Derby
On Facebook, on one of the posts about CT4N, someone seems to be suggesting that Notts and Derby are to run the L2/L4/L14. Surprised they have spare buses
 

mayneway

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2024
Messages
884
Location
Manchester
Shame really but I wonder why so many not for profit community companies are going under where as others are thriving? Is it because they're stretching too far beyond the scope of what they can realistically do? Little Red Bus, CT Plus, Manchester Community Transport to name a few of the strugglers, on the other hand the likes of Little White Bus, Upper Wharfedale Community Transport and Western Dales Bus all seem to be doing really well in what are challenging operating areas.
Manchester community transport can’t really be put in that bracket as I don’t think it struggling. At the time the tender market in Manchester was fierce and they simply lost 70% of their work at the same time. Add to that a political game with TFGM one day saying they couldn’t bid on work and the best saying they could.

They could have survived on a smaller scale with the work that remained but there was no guarantee they would retain the work long term, and with new opportunities in West Yorkshire, parent company HCT felt it was easier to close up and move all resources to Huddersfield.

They didn’t go under though. They ceased operations as the majority of their work came to an end, drivers and all other staff were paid, obviously long term they would have closed anyway with the sudden collapse of HCT.
 

MEC

Member
Joined
27 Apr 2025
Messages
71
Location
City of Glass
On Facebook, on one of the posts about CT4N, someone seems to be suggesting that Notts and Derby are to run the L2/L4/L14. Surprised they have spare buses
According to NCT "Following discussions with the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), we’re extending our Turquoise 78 to Nottingham Business Park and Assarts Farm to replace the former Local Link L2 in this area.

A new EMCCA contracted service will replace other parts of the L2 route"
 

Top