National express West Midlands

TheGrandWazoo · 20 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
I already explained

Not very clearly... In terms of cost leakages (whatever they are) and transaction costs? You do know that when buses were in full public control, the costs were much higher than the private sector?

For politicians, it is much easier to give a contractor a kicking (or throw them under the bus) than to accept responsibility. Always nice to have a bullet magnet than dealing with it yourself. And if you think that is wishful thinking... well, that is politics, like it or not.

RailUK Forums

tomoufc · 20 Aug 2026

TheGrandWazoo said:
Not very clearly... In terms of cost leakages (whatever they are) and transaction costs? You do know that when buses were in full public control, the costs were much higher than the private sector?

For politicians, it is much easier to give a contractor a kicking (or throw them under the bus) than to accept responsibility. Always nice to have a bullet magnet than dealing with it yourself. And if you think that is wishful thinking... well, that is politics, like it or not.

Cash leakages arise from costs of finance not present in state owned provision, such as shareholder dividend payments and additional borrowing costs. Transaction (or ‘interface’) costs arise from the fragmented nature of provision not present under state ownership, such as bidding and franchising costs and additional legal fees.

And yes I think in this instance, that pressing ahead with franchising on the bases that it will minimise political exposure for WMCA would be wishful thinking in the extreme, not least because that in itself is a political decision. But that’s not something I can prove, and so we may well indeed disagree.

TheGrandWazoo · 20 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
Cash leakages arise from costs of finance not present in state owned provision, such as shareholder dividend payments and additional borrowing costs. Transaction (or ‘interface’) costs arise from the fragmented nature of provision not present under state ownership, such as bidding and franchising costs and additional legal fees.

And yes I think in this instance, that pressing ahead with franchising on the bases that it will minimise political exposure for WMCA would be wishful thinking in the extreme, not least because that in itself is a political decision. But that’s not something I can prove, and so we may well indeed disagree.

You think that a directly owned bus operation will be cheaper and more efficient to run than a franchised operation, even with dividend payments and the costs of managing it. Given the history of nationalised and municipal bus operations in the UK, I'd suggest that is wishful thinking.

Deerfold · 20 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
tomoufc said:

Franchising is completely unnecessary IMO, especially when you have effectively already created a municipal operator. For those wondering whether municipal operation is impossible thanks to municipalities’ lack of ability to deal with unions, or because it creates inefficiencies that can only be addressed through competition (albeit in the limited sense of competition for rather than in the market), I’d point you to Nottingham, Blackpool and Edinburgh.

The only problem is the sunk costs of the franchising process itself. WYCA would be better to swallow them, IMO, because franchising won’t generate additional social or economic returns.

Click to expand...

Nottingham, Blackpool and Edinburgh still tender routes, with them often not going to the municipal. All have had bus wars in the last 20 years. If you want to travel on another operator besides NCT, you'll pay an extra £1.20 for a day ticket.

tomoufc · 20 Aug 2026

Deerfold said:
Nottingham, Blackpool and Edinburgh still tender routes, with them often not going to the municipal. All have had bus wars in the last 20 years. If you want to travel on another operator besides NCT, you'll pay an extra £1.20 for a day ticket.

Yes but surely the vast majority of services are provided directly by the municipal? Unless I’m mistaken and NCT is a brand?

tomoufc · 20 Aug 2026

TheGrandWazoo said:
You think that a directly owned bus operation will be cheaper and more efficient to run than a franchised operation, even with dividend payments and the costs of managing it. Given the history of nationalised and municipal bus operations in the UK, I'd suggest that is wishful thinking.

Happy to look at the data, if you have it. Cheers.

TheGrandWazoo · 21 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
Happy to look at the data, if you have it. Cheers.

It is a fact that the National Bus Co, after creation, operated at a loss in most of its early years, accumulating over £31 million in net losses during its first seven years alone, even with substantial government grants and recorded a loss of £19m in 1976, just seven years after creation.

By 1975, the losses had wiped out its cash reserves. This was as passenger figures fell and costs rose outstripping inflation and the ability to increase fares.

Hansard refers - glad to have been of assistance.

tomoufc · 21 Aug 2026

TheGrandWazoo said:
It is a fact that the National Bus Co, after creation, operated at a loss in most of its early years, accumulating over £31 million in net losses during its first seven years alone, even with substantial government grants and recorded a loss of £19m in 1976, just seven years after creation.

By 1975, the losses had wiped out its cash reserves. This was as passenger figures fell and costs rose outstripping inflation and the ability to increase fares.

Hansard refers - glad to have been of assistance.

Hansard refers? Which debate?

The privatisation of busses did indeed cut costs in many respects, but that was on the back of a very successful effort at attacking staffing levels and wages. I don’t see the relevance here.

TheGrandWazoo · 21 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
Hansard refers? Which debate?

The privatisation of busses did indeed cut costs in many respects, but that was on the back of a very successful effort at attacking staffing levels and wages. I don’t see the relevance here.

It is easy to find. You asked for data - you’re welcome.

Deerfold · 21 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
Yes but surely the vast majority of services are provided directly by the municipal? Unless I’m mistaken and NCT is a brand?

In Edinburgh, yes, at the moment. First did have quite a large presence there.
In Nottingham, NCT are the largest operator, but many services are run by trentbarton as well as a handful of small operators. I lived there for 4 years before you could get bus passes valid on more than one bus company and used to swap between the two main operators. Both served where I lived well.
Again, in Preston, Stagecoach operate a substantial percentage of services.

What are you wanting from a municipal? If it's control over the vast majority of services, that's not guaranteed. You can't just hand them tenders for subsided routes.
It doesn't give you a unified ticketing system or stop other companies competing.

tomoufc · 21 Aug 2026

Deerfold said:
In Edinburgh, yes, at the moment. First did have quite a large presence there.
In Nottingham, NCT are the largest operator, but many services are run by trentbarton as well as a handful of small operators. I lived there for 4 years before you could get bus passes valid on more than one bus company and used to swap between the two main operators. Both served where I lived well.
Again, in Preston, Stagecoach operate a substantial percentage of services.

What are you wanting from a municipal? If it's control over the vast majority of services, that's not guaranteed. You can't just hand them tenders for subsided routes.
It doesn't give you a unified ticketing system or stop other companies competing.

It is that control you mention, plus the ability to retain resources that would otherwise be diverted to share and bond holders. I get the point that municipals aren’t a magic bullet. I’d be interested to see if new legislation changed the picture around needing to tender to the private sector.

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

TheGrandWazoo said:
It is easy to find. You asked for data - you’re welcome.

It’s not. And much easier for you than me because presumably you looked it up before posting. But it’s your choice whether to share- are you point scoring or genuinely wishing to debate?

Dwarfer1979 · 21 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
Yes but surely the vast majority of services are provided directly by the municipal? Unless I’m mistaken and NCT is a brand?

All of the best municipals operate in a very commercial manner, very different to the views expressed by politicians who laud local council control, some could be described as almost as ruthless as the better private companies - municipals still have to operate as profitable businesses and given many of the quoted profit margins you actually see achieved by private companies (rather than the notional figure that is claimed they aim for that people assume they achieve) there is probably little difference in actual profit margin either. A concentration on core high frequency corridors to the detriment of areas away from these, leaving them to the tendered network that they seem to often have little interest in, strong route branding and often very ruthless responses to small operators trying to compete. It is also not a given that the existence of a municipal means council and operator working any more closely than a commercial operator, early in my career I actually worked for a council who owned a municipal and the officers in the Passenger Transport Unity were much more friendly towards the incoming independent who was starting competitive services than they ever seemed to be with the managers of the bus operator their employer actually owned.

mangad · 21 Aug 2026

TheGrandWazoo said:
It is easy to find. You asked for data - you’re welcome.

Data provided without citable sources, isn't particularly useful. I can say "buses became 5021% more expensive under deregulation, it's in Hansard, go look for it." It's complete nonsense, I just made it up. But I could argue it is true because I've given a vague place of where to look. You'll never find it, but if it was true, you'd struggle because Hansard is huge.

RT4038 · 21 Aug 2026

tomoufc said:
It is that control you mention, plus the ability to retain resources that would otherwise be diverted to share and bond holders. I get the point that municipals aren’t a magic bullet. I’d be interested to see if new legislation changed the picture around needing to tender to the private sector.

The control can be just as easily got through a franchising system, which is probably more transparent than direct municipal control. The Municipal will have to raise and pay for the capital (or go through leasing companies) which may be more or less than the equivalent of the share and bond holders cut, and take on the whole risk of the undertaking. A municipal would have to compete for this capital with other Council functions. It could delay investment more easily to fund short term social objectives, rather than paying out share and bold holders, but that will probably bite them in the end. What a Municipal can't do is suspend the laws of economics, much as some people would like them to.

TheGrandWazoo · 21 Aug 2026

mangad said:
Data provided without citable sources, isn't particularly useful. I can say "buses became 5021% more expensive under deregulation, it's in Hansard, go look for it." It's complete nonsense, I just made it up. But I could argue it is true because I've given a vague place of where to look. You'll never find it, but if it was true, you'd struggle because Hansard is huge.

I applaud your empirical zeal and whilst the information I posted was specific and hence easy to look up, you can find it at HC Deb 03 August 1976 vol 916 cc1475-84:

Section 41(2) of the Transport Act 1968 places a duty on the company to break even financially, taking one year with another, after account is taken of local authority revenue support contributions, yet last year—the year ending 31st December 1975—the company made a record loss of £19 million, while its debt increased by £22 million, from £99.6 million to £121.6 million. During the same year the number of passenger journeys fell by 137 million and the number of bus miles operated fell by 2 million, yet the number of staff employed by the company increased by 887—from 69,574 to 70,461.

Since the company was formed it has made a profit in only three out of seven years. In each of the other four years there has been a loss. Over the past seven years total losses have exceeded profits by £31.4 million—and this despite fuel duty rebates, revenue support and other central and local government grants amounting to £122.1 million over the seven-year period.

It was this financial implosion that led to the NBC's Viable Network Project, privatisation and deregulation.

AndrewP · 21 Aug 2026

Sensible short term approach in my view with future transfers being from one organisation and the incumbent not having a huge advantage. They can now be both a property company for depots and leasing company for buses.

There is the potential for the local authority to set up a bus company to bid for franchises as well this demonstrating that public ownership can offer value (or not) whilst maintaining accountability.

Bletchleyite · 21 Aug 2026

AndrewP said:
There is the potential for the local authority to set up a bus company to bid for franchises as well this demonstrating that public ownership can offer value (or not) whilst maintaining accountability.

TfL have done that in the past though I don't think there's one active at the moment. What was it, East Thames Buses Ltd? I think it was.

TheGrandWazoo · 21 Aug 2026

Bletchleyite said:
TfL have done that in the past though I don't think there's one active at the moment. What was it, East Thames Buses Ltd? I think it was.

It was East Thames, formed after the collapse of Harris Bus.

mangad · 21 Aug 2026

TheGrandWazoo said:
It was East Thames, formed after the collapse of Harris Bus.

Sold off by Boris Johnson.

This is another challenge with municipal bus companies. There are those politicians ideologically opposed to the public sector running anything, and who like to sell things off.

James H · 21 Aug 2026

Bletchleyite said:
TfL have done that in the past though I don't think there's one active at the moment. What was it, East Thames Buses Ltd? I think it was.

Sadiq Khan had a manifesto commitment to set up another one, and it's part of the current TfL business plan to do so

AndrewP · 21 Aug 2026

TheGrandWazoo said:
It was East Thames, formed after the collapse of Harris Bus.

The difference here was that it was more of an operator of last resort to keep services running - I remember them on the number 1

I was thinking more of an arms length company run commercially but for the benefit of the community not the shareholders

Leyland Bus · 21 Aug 2026

Bletchleyite said:
TfL have done that in the past though I don't think there's one active at the moment. What was it, East Thames Buses Ltd? I think it was.

Didn't they resurrect London Buses Limted as the legal entity but named it East Thames Buses to not upset the private companies?? Could be miss remembering that...

Either way, do TfL not still have London Buses Limited as a dormant entity??

RT4038 · 21 Aug 2026

AndrewP said:
Sensible short term approach in my view with future transfers being from one organisation and the incumbent not having a huge advantage. They can now be both a property company for depots and leasing company for buses.

There is the potential for the local authority to set up a bus company to bid for franchises as well this demonstrating that public ownership can offer value (or not) whilst maintaining accountability.

Not forgetting that all the Electric buses (and possibly others) are leased already.....

mangad · 21 Aug 2026

Leyland Bus said:
Didn't they resurrect London Buses Limted as the legal entity but named it East Thames Buses to not upset the private companies?? Could be miss remembering that...

Either way, do TfL not still have London Buses Limited as a dormant entity??

London Buses Limited is still registered and isn't a dormant company according to Companies House. No legal name changes registered, but if you find the accounts from 2000 (and yes I am the kind of person who does that), they say:

PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY
The Company which was dormant for most of the year, re-commenced trading on 25th March 2000 as an operator of public passenger transport services in Greater London.

BUSINESS REVIEW
The Company obtained an operator's licence and took over responsibility to run seven operational routes in Greater London. The Directors are satisfied with the progress of the Company in the brief
period under review.

The latest accounts say it's the legal entity that operates Dial a Ride.

Deerfold · 21 Aug 2026

mangad said:
London Buses Limited is still registered and isn't a dormant company according to Companies House. No legal name changes registered, but if you find the accounts from 2000 (and yes I am the kind of person who does that), they say:

The latest accounts say it's the legal entity that operates Dial a Ride.

With the section of TfL that deals with buses being London Bus Services Limited.

tomoufc said:
It is that control you mention, plus the ability to retain resources that would otherwise be diverted to share and bond holders. I get the point that municipals aren’t a magic bullet. I’d be interested to see if new legislation changed the picture around needing to tender to the private sector.

The control I said they don't have?
Councils own 80% of the shares in NCT with Transdev owning the rest. It typically pays a dividend.

ScottGallagher · 21 Aug 2026

Could West Midlands Buses be franchised out as one entity rather than clusters of routes as it has in Manchester?

Cesarcollie · 21 Aug 2026

TheGrandWazoo said:
It was East Thames, formed after the collapse of Harris Bus.

And it was one of the worst performing London operators………actually something of an embarrassment for TfL!

National express West Midlands

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member