• 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!

West Yorkshire bus franchising

Goldfish62

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
13,108
Good luck with putting that in the contracts. It would end up in court, guaranteed.
Why do you say that? TfL have always had a change of ownership clause in their contracts and it doesn't matter how big and powerful a company is, they have to get permission from TfL before any sale involving contracted operators can go ahead. Which of course is perfectly reasonable.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AndrewP

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
493
Carrying out public sector procurement is always a challenge - not done it for buses (which I have procured in the private sector) for the reasons above - if you relax the standards for one you have to do it for everyone

In reality larger companies often have an advantage due to their purchasing power and ability to apportion overheads across a wider base, although some do counter this by setting up excessive internal administrations, but to make life easier for everyone, the best approach is to have an incremental procurement where people are excluded from the procurement at different stages so they don't have to carry out excessive work for no actual benefit.

Where I do have a lot of sympathy with small businesses is where they are asked to submit excessive amounts of information because it is 'nice to have' (not saying that has happened here) - it drives me crazy when some of my clients want things just in case
 

mangad

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2014
Messages
707
Location
Stockport
Why do you say that? TfL have always had a change of ownership clause in their contracts and it doesn't matter how big and powerful a company is, they have to get permission from TfL before any sale involving contracted operators can go ahead. Which of course is perfectly reasonable.
And how many have they stopped the change of ownership happening? I'd be willing to bet that number is extremely low, and most of their checks will be simple due diligence. They'll want a good look at the money, and that's that. That's fair. That's understandable.

You try and put something in that says "companies of X size can't be taken over by a company of Y size" then you're going to end up with problems.

Think about the potential scenarios.

SME wins a contract. SME's owner falls seriously ill and decides they need to get out of the company for their own health. This kind of thing happens all the time for smaller businesses. They end up with a choice. Close the company and lose money, or sell up. Only people willing to buy the company get rejected for being too big. Owner of company is shafted financially gets very upset. Maybe enough to risk their health on a legal challenge.

Another one. SME wins contract. It doesn't work out financially. They either sell up or go belly up. Again only bidders are big companies. Franchise awarder has a choice. Say "tough" and watch the company collapse and deal with the repercussions. Or allow the sale and break their own rules. You can do either. But if you do the latter, you set a precedent that will be used against you by others. And crikes do the lawyers love a precident.

I could go on.

Like I say, trying to put this stuff in risks legal action. I'm not saying the complaints would win - I'm no legal expert. But it will be threatened at the very least. In a previous job I had a (minor) role in a few tenders for a large (non transport related) public sector organisation. Each one ended up with threats from lawyers from the losers. We had to be so careful at every stage - justify everything, just in case. I'm sure some companies do it as a matter of routine.
 

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
4,545
I’m not sure this is a key point. The small operators only want to run the same sort of small work they do now.

If Stotts won their usual work, I hardly think Stagecoach are going to be thinking ‘we must try and buy Stotts so we can run 10 minibuses around Holmfirth’

The issue is that Stagecoach will be bidding for all the contracts, so might end up with small bus work that various small operators currently run, which as a whole is sizable, along with whatever big contracts they might win
 
Joined
23 Nov 2023
Messages
740
Location
Grimsby
In an earlier post reference is made to a Mayor with an ego problem. This may well be the case but isnt the root cause of franchise operation the appalling job privatised post de regulated groups have made of providing a service, I grew up in Bradford and when I return Im appalled at the poor level of service offered. The situation was the same in Manchester were the operators understandably threw resources where maximum profit was to be gained. When a specific level of profit is required providing a service to the public is secondary. Many areas end up with little or no service. For this reason we need SME operators as they are the ones who will step in and where possible provide a service, for example Connexion service 64. I have mixed feelings regarding Franchise operation and it will be interesting to see how it develops in the future
I think there is a lot of ego involved, not just in the West Yorkshire proposal but in those for Liverpool and South Yorkshire as well.
The sensible, measured approach would have been to sit back and look at the results from the Bee Network after it had bedded in, but instead all three areas are steaming ahead regardless, in West Yorkshire's case with many soundbites and publicity opportunities.

I fully agree regarding the level of service provision currently; I used to live in Morley and then in Leeds itself, and I am consistently shocked by the lack of buses nowadays compared to when I lived in those areas.
However the big groups are doing exactly what deregulation required of them, running only what they can operate profitably and leaving the rest.

I recall a public vote taking place to decide what Metro should do with the money they had been allocated for the New Generation Transport (trolleybus) scheme after the latter was abandoned.
I believe the most popular answer was to invest in bus services, giving improved evening and Sunday frequencies and connecting areas not currently served. But this didn't really happen. If it had there probably wouldn't be any demand for franchising to take place.
I'm not sure where they did spend the cash, it was probably on planning another pie-in-the-sky scheme involving a tram/underground/monorail/space rocket.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,347
Location
Yorkshire
I recall a public vote taking place to decide what Metro should do with the money they had been allocated for the New Generation Transport (trolleybus) scheme after the latter was abandoned.
I believe the most popular answer was to invest in bus services, giving improved evening and Sunday frequencies and connecting areas not currently served. But this didn't really happen. If it had there probably wouldn't be any demand for franchising to take place.
I'm not sure where they did spend the cash, it was probably on planning another pie-in-the-sky scheme involving a tram/underground/monorail/space rocket.
If my memory serves, part of the NGT compensation went towards White Rose station... a project that was famously well managed!
I'm also pretty sure that reporting at the time of the cancellation of the trolleybus, had Leeds City Council as the recipient of the compensation rather than the Combined Authority/PTE.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,676
Location
Yorkshire
Why do you say that? TfL have always had a change of ownership clause in their contracts and it doesn't matter how big and powerful a company is, they have to get permission from TfL before any sale involving contracted operators can go ahead. Which of course is perfectly reasonable.
Has TfL ever refused that permission?
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,078
I’m not sure this is a key point. The small operators only want to run the same sort of small work they do now.
Maybe current SME operators could be excluded from the franchising exercise provided they met certain quality thresholds - punctuality, age of vehicles, %age mileage operated etc, but their operations could be included in the network, i.e. they repaint their vehicles, ticket acceptance, are subject to the fares policy etc etc
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,676
Location
Yorkshire
Maybe current SME operators could be excluded from the franchising exercise provided they met certain quality thresholds - punctuality, age of vehicles, %age mileage operated etc, but their operations could be included in the network, i.e. they repaint their vehicles, ticket acceptance, are subject to the fares policy etc etc
How do you decide which routes are covered?
Most SMEs run a significant percentage of tendered work. Some of that work will be won by larger companies.
Do we decide the ones they've most recently won will remain with them in perpetuity?
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,842
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
And how many have they stopped the change of ownership happening? I'd be willing to bet that number is extremely low, and most of their checks will be simple due diligence. They'll want a good look at the money, and that's that. That's fair. That's understandable.

You try and put something in that says "companies of X size can't be taken over by a company of Y size" then you're going to end up with problems.

Think about the potential scenarios.

SME wins a contract. SME's owner falls seriously ill and decides they need to get out of the company for their own health. This kind of thing happens all the time for smaller businesses. They end up with a choice. Close the company and lose money, or sell up. Only people willing to buy the company get rejected for being too big. Owner of company is shafted financially gets very upset. Maybe enough to risk their health on a legal challenge.

Another one. SME wins contract. It doesn't work out financially. They either sell up or go belly up. Again only bidders are big companies. Franchise awarder has a choice. Say "tough" and watch the company collapse and deal with the repercussions. Or allow the sale and break their own rules. You can do either. But if you do the latter, you set a precedent that will be used against you by others. And crikes do the lawyers love a precident.

I could go on.

Like I say, trying to put this stuff in risks legal action. I'm not saying the complaints would win - I'm no legal expert. But it will be threatened at the very least. In a previous job I had a (minor) role in a few tenders for a large (non transport related) public sector organisation. Each one ended up with threats from lawyers from the losers. We had to be so careful at every stage - justify everything, just in case. I'm sure some companies do it as a matter of routine.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I've actually worked in two scenarios where Change of Control clauses have been invoked. In one case, it was because the customer business was sold to a private equity group (with a shell company that had no assets so guarantee of payment for services); the other was part of a supplier business was divested/sold and the customer had previous with the new owner.

These are standard clauses that sit in contracts. And yes, those contracts also have provision for what happens if a business enters administration. It is all standard practice.

Of course, most of the time, these clauses are not invoked but to say that they don't exist or an unenforceable is simply not true.

Like I say, making it simpler also makes it quicker and easier for the big companies. What does that mean in practice? It means it costs them less so they can bid less.

I am not saying don't do it. What I am saying is that it is not a silver bullet that will save everything for SMEs. And personally I highly doubt it will change much in terms of outcome because it doesn't favour SMEs in any way.
It isn't a silver bullet.

However, it helps to level the playing field by removing one of the major obstacles to SMEs bidding. That's what Square Peg are saying - it disproportionately impacts SMEs as the corporates have the skills and financial resources to bid whereas SMEs... less so.

Personally I think Squarepeg simply need to pack up now and relocate elsewhere, they're on to a lost cause as they won't get a look in so they should withdraw from all contracted routes as soon as they can find enough work for 20 vehicles in another location. North Yorkshire's not that far away and it may even be some decent commercial service opportunities. Take Seamer for example, very underserved by the 843 (and 28 on the edge of the village) so could do with a commercially provided alternative. Lancashire isn't too far away either, if Lonsdale Buses can make a go of connecting settlements commercially over that way then Squarepeg have a chance too. There's rail replacement work all over the shop too, lots of opportunities out there so they should focus on saving the business now before it's too late.
Eh?.... A business with premises, and a workforce, and a proprietor that probably lives within a few miles of the depot should up sticks and move? Scarborough is 75 miles from their base, Burnley is 45 miles. It's just not viable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

How do you decide which routes are covered?
Most SMEs run a subject percentage of tendered work. Some of that work will be won by larger companies.
Do we decide the ones they've most recently won will remain with them in perpetuity?
The plan for Greater Manchester was to create packages of work that SMEs could realistically tender for. They couldn't be operated from a "core" Bee Network depot. It's not a direct award to an operator - they have to tender.

There's no guarantee that they will win but a simpler bidding process that requires less resources can make it easier for SMEs
 
Last edited:

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,078
How do you decide which routes are covered?
Most SMEs run a subject percentage of tendered work. Some of that work will be won by larger companies.
Do we decide the ones they've most recently won will remain with them in perpetuity?
I'm sure an SME would be happier to have a contract for their current number of buses / operated mileage (maybe not their current routes, but similar) than no contract at all.
 

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
13,676
Location
Yorkshire
The plan for Greater Manchester was to create packages of work that SMEs could realistically tender for. They couldn't be operated from a "core" Bee Network depot. It's not a direct award to an operator - they have to tender.

There's no guarantee that they will win but a simpler bidding process that requires less resources can make it easier for SMEs
That's not what the post i was replying to was proposing.

I'm sure an SME would be happier to have a contract for their current number of buses / operated mileage (maybe not their current routes, but similar) than no contract at all.
I'm sure they would.
I've still got the same questions.
 

tomoufc

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2014
Messages
358
Small franchises shouldn't be any different to tendering a few interworking routes in the current system. Take the Todmorden local T network for example, a little 3 bus (rough guesstimate) tender currently. I see no reason why this can't be tendered in the same way as now but with a few conditions on higher vehicle spec and metro taking responsibility for a few things such as ticket machines and open data.
Because the Todmorden (and Hebden Bridge) services are a disgrace. We need franchising to improve reliability. The last thing we need is to go through this process for several years and end up with the same operator running a tendered service.
 

markymark2000

On Moderation
Joined
11 May 2015
Messages
5,090
Location
Great Britain
Because the Todmorden (and Hebden Bridge) services are a disgrace. We need franchising to improve reliability. The last thing we need is to go through this process for several years and end up with the same operator running a tendered service.
How does franchising improve reliability over the current tendered operation? The timetables are still dictated by the West Yorkshire Metro and the traffic doesn't suddenly disappear under franchising. Roadworks don't just stop because of the franchising either. You can't just change the operator and somehow it all becomes more reliable. The only ways to improve the reliability is to put more buses into the network, which will sky rocket the costs (as franchised buses tend to cost more per vehicle anyway, and you are adding another bus into the cycle to make them ultra reliable, but very inefficient).
 

Leedsbusman

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
683
Location
Layton
Because the Todmorden (and Hebden Bridge) services are a disgrace. We need franchising to improve reliability. The last thing we need is to go through this process for several years and end up with the same operator running a tendered service.
Out of interest why do you see a difference? If WYCA can’t control standards on Todmorden as a tendered service how will it do better as a Franchise? Is it hope or an understanding that different behaviours will be mandated.
 

tomoufc

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2014
Messages
358
Out of interest why do you see a difference? If WYCA can’t control standards on Todmorden as a tendered service how will it do better as a Franchise? Is it hope or an understanding that different behaviours will be mandated.
Because franchising in Manchester has greatly improved reliability. Also at the moment, if busses don’t turn up you’ve got nowhere to get information from. Theoretically, you can call TLC travel, but they never answer. And if you call metro, all they do is try calling TLC and look at Bus Times tracking themselves. There’s no network management.
 

Leedsbusman

Member
Joined
9 May 2021
Messages
683
Location
Layton
Because franchising in Manchester has greatly improved reliability. Also at the moment, if busses don’t turn up you’ve got nowhere to get information from. Theoretically, you can call TLC travel, but they never answer. And if you call metro, all they do is try calling TLC and look at Bus Times tracking themselves. There’s no network management.
How much has reliability improved in GM. I’m still not sure I’m convinced that the organisation who cannot manage the Todmorden contract will be any better at managing a Todmorden franchise.
 

Goldfish62

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
13,108
Has TfL ever refused that permission?
Yes. Or rather it's been made clear that a potential sale of Company A to Company B would not be countenanced before it got to the formal stage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

These are standard clauses that sit in contracts. And yes, those contracts also have provision for what happens if a business enters administration. It is all standard practice.

Of course, most of the time, these clauses are not invoked but to say that they don't exist or an unenforceable is simply not true.
Absolutely. All standard stuff.
 
Last edited:

mangad

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2014
Messages
707
Location
Stockport
Yes. Or rather it's been made clear that a potential sale of Company A to Company B would not be countenanced before it got to the formal stage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Absolutely. All standard stuff.
And they are all very different to potentially saying "you can't sell your small company to Stagecoach."
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,842
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
And they are all very different to potentially saying "you can't sell your small company to Stagecoach."
What is it that you don’t understand?

You can sell your business.

However, the contracting authority has the right to invoke a change of control clause (and they usually exist) so they can terminate the contract in that circumstance. I literally looked at a contract today with that provision.

If Stagecoach wanted to buy that small business, part of their due diligence would be to see what contracts could be at risk.
 

mangad

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2014
Messages
707
Location
Stockport
What is it that you don’t understand?

You can sell your business.

However, the contracting authority has the right to invoke a change of control clause (and they usually exist) so they can terminate the contract in that circumstance. I literally looked at a contract today with that provision.

If Stagecoach wanted to buy that small business, part of their due diligence would be to see what contracts could be at risk.
Before you accuse me of not understanding things, please go back and read what I said originally. It's not far up the thread.

If you do, you will see I raised this whole thing because people were complaining that SMEs are at a complete disadvantage in franchising. And I pointed out it's easy to say that and not give solutions. But solutions that support SMEs are few and thin in the ground. And one suggestion that followed was to put a size limit on the operator.

I brought this up in relation to putting size restrictions on the size of a franchise and how difficult it would be. This would restrict companies from selling to certain other companies.

That's because if you insist on a certain franchise only being an SME you HAVE to have controls on who a company is selling to. Have to. You have to else the whole thing does not work. So you have to say to SME Bus Co that no, sorry, no matter what the circumstances you cannot sell to Stagecoach because this is an SME contract. You would be putting restrictions of the like that don't currently exist (to my knowledge) anywhere else in the bus sector. and as I said earlier, probably would end up in the courts.

I am very sorry if that wasn't clear to you. Hopefully now you have reread everything you will understand my point.

But anyway this is clearly going nowhere. there are no solutions to the SME problem that won't simply be used by big groups as well. End of.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Stotts, Little Gem, Vision, Nexus, Belle Vue, Tyrers all ran local buses within Manchester.

Little Gem left the scene way before franchising. Belle Vue only entered it - in a limited way - to fill in after Little Gem left, although they did run school buses. They haven't shown much interest in public buses over the years although they do run one route for Cheshire East. Vision I believe I mentioned as I did Nexus and Stotts. Tyrers didn't operate in my area so I have no knowledge of what they did.

But that's a handful of companies running a few services. Nothing compared to what there used to be. Most of the SMEs sold up or went bust Little Gem, MCT) way. Oh and the directors of Stotts were in their 80s if I remember correctly. How long would they have stayed in business.
This is on top of Warringtons Own Buses and High Peak losing out on a little bit of work and funding as a result of franchising but it was only a minor part of the business.
I am willing to be corrected but as far as I know High Peak 's loss was a few short journeys on the 199 in the evening that were a short term thing anyway.
Very few independent in Manchester you say? The evidence suggests otherwise.
I stand by my assertion for the reasons above. I am not discounting the impact but Belle Vue - for example - regularly gained and lost schools contracts. They regularly needed to adapt and they do. Anyone in the schools market does.

No business has a right to survive, especially if they are reliant on public tenders. Diversity in your business is key. The number of operators who left the business completely in Greater Manchester is actually very very low.
 
Last edited:

BULLSAREMAGIC

Member
Joined
2 Dec 2025
Messages
67
Location
DERBYSHIRE
The rush by the mayor to franchise the services does surprise me, As someone mentioned earlier waiting for longer analyse of Manchesters performance would seem sensible. Is the money from central government only available for so long hence the regional mayors rush? The other question that bothers me and not just in West Yorkshire is where is the money coming from to replace these hundreds of new vehicles whose lifespan is untested to date. I would welcome any information on thsi
 

mattb7tl

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
253
Location
Huddersfield
The rush by the mayor to franchise the services does surprise me, As someone mentioned earlier waiting for longer analyse of Manchesters performance would seem sensible. Is the money from central government only available for so long hence the regional mayors rush? The other question that bothers me and not just in West Yorkshire is where is the money coming from to replace these hundreds of new vehicles whose lifespan is untested to date. I would welcome any information on thsi
The only money which isn't indefinite is the transition costs.

Franchising uses the same existing indefinite pool of money used for deregulation. If it stopped you could also say goodbye to deregulated networks so it is a bit of a pointless "what if" because it applies to every system.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,078
The only money which isn't indefinite is the transition costs.

Franchising uses the same existing indefinite pool of money used for deregulation. If it stopped you could also say goodbye to deregulated networks so it is a bit of a pointless "what if" because it applies to every system.
Define Transition Costs. Is that the cost of introducing the new set-up, or does it include the cost of evaluating whether or not to go ahead with franchising?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
22,842
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Before you accuse me of not understanding things, please go back and read what I said originally. It's not far up the thread.

If you do, you will see I raised this whole thing because people were complaining that SMEs are at a complete disadvantage in franchising. And I pointed out it's easy to say that and not give solutions. But solutions that support SMEs are few and thin in the ground. And one suggestion that followed was to put a size limit on the operator.

I brought this up in relation to putting size restrictions on the size of a franchise and how difficult it would be. This would restrict companies from selling to certain other companies.

That's because if you insist on a certain franchise only being an SME you HAVE to have controls on who a company is selling to. Have to. You have to else the whole thing does not work. So you have to say to SME Bus Co that no, sorry, no matter what the circumstances you cannot sell to Stagecoach because this is an SME contract. You would be putting restrictions of the like that don't currently exist (to my knowledge) anywhere else in the bus sector. and as I said earlier, probably would end up in the courts.

I am very sorry if that wasn't clear to you. Hopefully now you have reread everything you will understand my point.

But anyway this is clearly going nowhere. there are no solutions to the SME problem that won't simply be used by big groups as well. End of.
Ok, just for clarity. I've not said, at any point, anything about insisting certain tenders are only available to SMEs.

What I have said is that you can make the tender process less onerous. That's in the creation of smaller packages; they tried this in Manchester by having some smaller packages plus a caveat that they couldn't be run from existing Bee Network provided depots. That helps to level the playing field. Unfortunately, the complexity of the tender process demands a lot of onerous bid submissions and that skews things towards the large corporates who have the skills and the financial ability to fund the bid response. By reducing the complexity, you are helping to level the playing field; that doesn't mean that SMEs are going to win. The large corporates may still do but at least the SMEs have a fighting chance which they haven't at the moment.

However, and I will reiterate this, the contracts do not have a stipulation that says you cannot sell your business. As I said, if Square Peg wanted to sell to Stagecoach, they could. However, public (and private) sector contracts typically have clauses that allow you to terminate a contract if a business is sold. It doesn't matter if it's buses or whatever - those clauses are perfectly acceptable in law. Stagecoach, as part of their due diligence, would be aware of this too. I am no lawyer but I'm a commercial manager and I've seen these umpteen times and seen them activated just twice. They exist, even if you think they don't but they are seldom used.

Define Transition Costs. Is that the cost of introducing the new set-up, or does it include the cost of evaluating whether or not to go ahead with franchising?
My understanding is that transition costs represent the cost of transitioning to the new world. That's the acquisition of assets, setting up the systems and infrastructure to manage the network, and even down to stuff like signage. It'll be some 9000 line beast of an MS Project :D
 

Magrar

On Moderation
Joined
20 Jun 2026
Messages
183
Location
Reading
Because franchising in Manchester has greatly improved reliability. Also at the moment, if busses don’t turn up you’ve got nowhere to get information from. Theoretically, you can call TLC travel, but they never answer. And if you call metro, all they do is try calling TLC and look at Bus Times tracking themselves. There’s no network management.
I recently visited Hebden Bridge as a tourist.

Entirely on a whim, merely having seen a minibus tottering around, I decided to risk a journey up to a remote village up a steep hill (pretty famous iirc, toursit central, but mostly on coach tours or personal transport). I like a hike, but this was pretty far.

All I needed was bustimes. Even if I hadn't seen the bus number, it would have been trivial to figure it out, and thus when and where to get on and off.

As you may know, this was not without trepidation. I knew I was only a gearbox failure away from a very expensive taxi ride to ensure I didn't miss my train back to Holiday HQ (Bradford). But bustimes in the first instance, and then the clean, well maintained bus and polite cheery driver, all reassured me.

That's the thing about lifeline buses. The people running them generally do care. But on a small infequent route, what does it matter why a bus hasn't turned up? You know what you need to do, arrange alternative means (or wait for hours).

I have literally zero interest in downloading some goddawful bespoke metro (Metro?) app and figuring out all its nonsense functions and foibles to plan journeys and get real time information either for planned journeys or to find out what's gone wrong. I want to enjoy my holiday.

The only conceivable benefit of franchising you should accept, is turn up and go frequencies, and/or Swiss levels of mechanical and staffing reliability. You're being sold better information and network organisation instead, and maybe one extra bus every two hours I guess, because it's far cheaper.

I use bustimes for all my travel needs, despite all my regular buses being slick corporate behemoths with as much digital information I could ever want.

Although amusingly, when on a recent bus diversion, I could find zero information, either from the company or the public body that subsidises the "socially necessary" routes and maintains the bus stops and their (on that occasion, fictional, paper timetables). They have their own goddawful planner and other app based nonsense. Never tiring of trying to shove it down your throat. Using my taxes to do it.

The driver knew in advance, telling us in rather cryptic fashion as we boarded (no real skin off his nose if passengers were none the wiser). I'm pretty sure it was roadworks related. We would be delayed but not miss our stop.

The mandated internal electronic displays helpfully said "Bus on diversion". Cheers. Any more info? You have an infinitely scrolling tool there, you know. Nope. Bus says no.

So as far as the network level was concerned, there will have been no advance information, had I consulted their app. The company one might have perhaps, but its so hard to use, I'd have been back on route before I figured it out.

Bustimes just helpfully had a bus half a mile off route driving at a 90 degree angle to it, but all on a simple uncluttered map to remind you the chosen diversion route wasn't as mad as it seemed. Up ten dots, across two, and down ten, space invader style.

Without bustimes, I felt as potentially lost and powerless as a tourist, should that bus have conked out. And I live in that city! It has decent daytime frequencies, but evenings, and during a diverion? Not so much. Enough to potentially ruin my plans.

I had left in good time for such scenarios and worse, only because of my travelling companion's nervous disposition (which was not unduly perturbed by also being with me on that little bus up the hill), my usual practice being to cut it fine.

I am not looking forward to paying more for information I don't need, and probably quite negligable improvements in frequency, when the time comes for my region. There's loads more routes could be put on, but ask a hundred residents what they should be, you'll get a hundred different answers.

The market spoke well here. I did not like losing my little direct but half hourly mostly empty minibus to the shopping centre, instead forced to change in the city centre or a random roundabout up the road, but such measures have held the price of a day ticket down remarkably well.

But even though they have the powers (and legal obligation) to subsidise socially necessary buses, my little bus has not been seen for many a year. Even though bustimes would increase its usefulness tenfold compared to the paper timetable days. And it's even more socially necessary, with the NHS and other services setting up in the increasingly vacant shops.

But if a tiny company set it up and ran it on a shoestring, a local bus for local people, there'd be an instant competing registration, with not a peep from our public network bodies.

There is a nice local company set up by local people up here recently. A mix of subsidised and commercial routes, new travel opportunities. It's depot is probably someone's back shed, its fleet a mix of well loved well presented well driven second hand buses. Maybe not reliable, but you'd hardly notice given the terrible record of the major groups around here. It will not have a chance in franchising. Not a chance.

Their managers and drivers will go back from whence they came, the big groups.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,078
My understanding is that transition costs represent the cost of transitioning to the new world. That's the acquisition of assets, setting up the systems and infrastructure to manage the network, and even down to stuff like signage. It'll be some 9000 line beast of an MS Project :D

The only money which isn't indefinite is the transition costs.

Franchising uses the same existing indefinite pool of money used for deregulation. If it stopped you could also say goodbye to deregulated networks so it is a bit of a pointless "what if" because it applies to every system.

@TheGrandWazoo I agree. The point I was making was that @mattb7tl had not also included the hand out for deciding whether or not to go ahead with franchising, which, I believe, is in addition to the money used for deregulation.
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,272
Because the Todmorden (and Hebden Bridge) services are a disgrace. We need franchising to improve reliability. The last thing we need is to go through this process for several years and end up with the same operator running a tendered service.
When First lost the contract it went to Tyrer, who made a total balls of the services before they had the contract revoked in 2012. First took it back on a temporary basis before TLC won the contract and have ran the services since.

The other reason as to why the services are, in your view, "a disgrace" is because of the low number of passengers (its mostly a rural part of Calderdale), lack of promotion (where are the proper printed timetables and network maps? oh its all online, seperately - what use is that to the tourist?) and the other other reason is its not ran by First. Hebden Bridge itself is built up the side of a valley and is wedged between the A646, a canal, a river and a railway with no space for any real improvement. Even building a bypass to the south of the town would be a struggle. The same sort of applies to Todmorden which is why Clough Foot has the service it gets, as its only a smatter of houses on the hillside.

The only service improvements that both Todmorden and Hebden requires is a direct bus to the Yorkshire Dales (via Widdop) and in Hebden Bridge's case the 2330 something flexi bus returning but only for Friday and Saturday nights and the 59x routes just need the 593 returing so each route runs hourly - my idea of a new 593 would be to route it from Halifax to Todmorden via Sowerby Bridge and Mankinholes, making it a proper walkers bus whilst at the same time creating new connections.

Plus I don't think the Reform ran Calderdale Council will be happy with franchising, I can see a scenario where they may wish to directly fund some services themselves.
 

Whisky Papa

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2019
Messages
720
When First lost the contract it went to Tyrer, who made a total balls of the services before they had the contract revoked in 2012. First took it back on a temporary basis before TLC won the contract and have ran the services since.

The other reason as to why the services are, in your view, "a disgrace" is because of the low number of passengers (its mostly a rural part of Calderdale), lack of promotion (where are the proper printed timetables and network maps? oh its all online, seperately - what use is that to the tourist?) and the other other reason is its not ran by First. Hebden Bridge itself is built up the side of a valley and is wedged between the A646, a canal, a river and a railway with no space for any real improvement. Even building a bypass to the south of the town would be a struggle. The same sort of applies to Todmorden which is why Clough Foot has the service it gets, as its only a smatter of houses on the hillside.

Fair comment, other than Clough Foot is served by the Rossendale 7, and probably at the same level as it has been in decades.

The only service improvements that both Todmorden and Hebden requires is a direct bus to the Yorkshire Dales (via Widdop) and in Hebden Bridge's case the 2330 something flexi bus returning but only for Friday and Saturday nights and the 59x routes just need the 593 returing so each route runs hourly - my idea of a new 593 would be to route it from Halifax to Todmorden via Sowerby Bridge and Mankinholes, making it a proper walkers bus whilst at the same time creating new connections.

Now I'm totally baffled. As a resident of Todmorden, I've no interest in going to the Yorkshire Dales by bus, thank you.

What is needed is the restoration of the 30 minute services to Burnley and Rochdale, and if no increase in headway can be managed, a reliable 30 minute headway to Halifax, including evenings and Sundays. Restoration of the full evening service on the minibus routes might be a bonus - they finish by 2100 now.

With regard to your suggestions of ramblers routes - have you ever tried driving even a minibus over Widdop? And how is your Sowerby Bridge to Mankinholes 593 intended to be routed?

Plus I don't think the Reform ran Calderdale Council will be happy with franchising, I can see a scenario where they may wish to directly fund some services themselves.
Presumably they will have their say through the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, no?
 

Top