Arriva - license revocation?

[Deerfold]

I am suggesting that all bus services need to be continuously monitored using similar methods that TfL use. There would of course be a financial implication, but operators could agree to pool their systems together to cut costs, perhaps involving TfL. If standards rise as a result, it may partly or fully pay for itself in improved patronage. There would no longer be any need for public inquiries for poor reliability, so that would be a saving.

As I told you last time we were discussing GPS a large portion of the cost of TfL's system is the on-bus kit - there is no huge saving by pooling costs - the memory and storage required by the central system increase for each bus in service too.

If the logs are available then the guilt (or otherwise) will be easy to prove. If the logs show big gaps in service and the operator doesn't seem to be aware of it, then that is very worrying. Or if they do know the logs are showing bad performance and the operator is choosing not to rectify the situation, that surely is also problematic.

The point is, if reports like the TfL one I posted earlier were created continuously, and there were automatic penalties for missing reliability targets, then there would be no hiding place for the operator and issues would have to be fixed immediately. This thread would not exist.

As it stands at the moment, the data is being collected for the operator's sole benefit and possibly as an input to real time info systems. I wouldn't be surprised if the TC has no right to demand access to logs.

TfL produce these reports for all routes - I know the people who wrote them (and the time/effort/cost involved in that). They then prioritise which get action to improve them as resources are limited. Sadly some issues can take a long time before they can be addressed by TfL.

 

[radamfi]

As I told you last time we were discussing GPS a large portion of the cost of TfL's system is the on-bus kit - there is no huge saving by pooling costs - the memory and storage required by the central system increase for each bus in service too.

I remember you saying that. It would appear that, according to this thread, the cost of the equipment isn't the issue, it is the analysis. That's why I mentioned teaming up with TfL, given that they already do this processing for all TfL routes.

 

[Jonny]

Just that a public enquiry is being held as they allegedly did not run some of the registered services.

They really need to watch it as Ms Bell is not one to be messed with. They have already been in trouble with her before.

I seem to recall that Ms Bell was more than willing to pull UK North's operator's licence back in 2006 (and an associate called "GM Buses", not to be mistaken for any other bus operator) when sufficient evidence was presented. Although, to be fair, Arriva aren't that bad and the allegation isn't as serious.

 

[Y961 XBU]

i just think they should look at the PVR or the worst 3 routes and withdraw that amount of Ops Licences, chances are Arriva would then pull of a service at least witch in turn would give someone else a chance to run a reliable service for the travelling Public

 

[edwin_m]

Also, you mention integration. I know an instance where several long standing joint services were split with operators then operating respective halves. Thus severing through links and removing operator ticket interavailability.

It is ironic that some of the few remaining vestiges of bus regulation in GB outside London actually act to harm the passenger.

In a deregulated market an unscrupulous dominant operator can take advantage of the many barriers to entry to prevent a competitor getting a foothold and threatening their captive market. This happens now to a large extent, when a dominant operator employs predatory timetables and fare levels and usually gets away with it. Multi-operator tickets, which by law any local operator can participate in, are run by joint committees of operators so the dominant can keep them at a price that makes them unattractive to most passengers compared with their own single-operator tickets.

Where competition does exist the result can often be fragmentation of the network and confusion of passengers. The best bus networks in GB outside London tend to be run by "benevolant" dominant operators, often with the local council retaining a stake and setting social rather than profit-driven objectives. However in most areas one of the big groups has gained a near-monopoly and often provides poor service at high fares.

A regulated market similar to London doesn't have to mean high subsidies. If another area could regulate but retain today's service levels then total costs would remain largely the same, with some costs transferring from the operator to the authority. These would probably be outweighed by the extra passengers attracted by co-ordinated timetables and interavailable fares, and operator profit margins would probably also be lower to reflect the introduction of genuine competition and the fact the operator is not taking revenue risk. "Genuine competition" because contracts would be let on a level playing field, a dominant would no longer be able to make use of predatory techniques and any operator winning a contract would automatically become part of a network with interavailable fares.

Although regulation doesn't require high subsidy, high subsidy is only possible with regulation. London chose to pay for more and better services and lower fares because this was and is the only way to keep London moving. However they could only do so because their tendered system gives TfL full control over these aspects; for any other authority in GB anything beyond a very small intervention would be deemed illegal state aid or unfair competition. Hence, although other cities are gradually approaching London's level of congestion, the remedy of paying for better bus services is largely denied to them. And in rural areas the downward spiral continues of more congestion, slower journeys, higher fares, fewer passengers and fewer buses.

I don't claim to know any bus managers but I believe many of them would privately agree that the buses worked best before 1986 when there was a measure of regulation and co-ordination and the service was treated as a network rather than a series of routes. I would go further and advocate the German/Swiss model of full fares and timetable intergration between modes. However few of them would say so in public because it is not in the interests of people who run the big operators.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

i just think they should look at the PVR or the worst 3 routes and withdraw that amount of Ops Licences, chances are Arriva would then pull of a service at least witch in turn would give someone else a chance to run a reliable service for the travelling Public

As I said earlier, unless you know the nature of the allegation and the extent, then attempting to recommend any punitive or restorative measures is pretty much impossible.

It's like saying that someone is in court charged with "something violent". Is it murder or affray?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although regulation doesn't require high subsidy, high subsidy is only possible with regulation. London chose to pay for more and better services and lower fares because this was and is the only way to keep London moving. However they could only do so because their tendered system gives TfL full control over these aspects; for any other authority in GB anything beyond a very small intervention would be deemed illegal state aid or unfair competition. Hence, although other cities are gradually approaching London's level of congestion, the remedy of paying for better bus services is largely denied to them. And in rural areas the downward spiral continues of more congestion, slower journeys, higher fares, fewer passengers and fewer buses.

I don't claim to know any bus managers but I believe many of them would privately agree that the buses worked best before 1986 when there was a measure of regulation and co-ordination and the service was treated as a network rather than a series of routes. I would go further and advocate the German/Swiss model of full fares and timetable intergration between modes. However few of them would say so in public because it is not in the interests of people who run the big operators.

And that's not true either.

Except in some areas (notably T&W), bus and train services pre 1986 worked in splendid isolation much of the time. However, some managers may have enjoyed it. There was rampant cross-subsidy, and the NBC haemorraged money like never before and that was despite NBG.

The German or Swiss models (or indeed any other high quality service) requires investment. I would ask you to look at polling of the general public and what they believe the main areas for public spending should be. Transport doesn't enter into it.

As for your critique on rural buses, the truth is that the major routes are actually more popular and have more buses than ever before. Suggest you pick a pre 86 timetable and compare with today.

Where the main differences now lay are that those services that are unremunerative and who should be supported by local authorities aren't as public spending cuts come year after year (and some LAs decided that as its not a statutory duty, they won't support services). Also, evening services have declined but that's a reflection of society and is no different to the decline in the 1950s when TV replaced cinema as an evening's entertainment
Even Radamfi has admitted that the amount spent on TfL is tiny compared to elsewhere. Why would you think that you can get something for nothing?

 

[Qwerty133]

On another similar note, I've recently seen buses with legals for 'Arriva Midlands (North) LTD' operating services operated by 'Arriva Midlands LTD'. Is this permitted, or yet another bit of incompetence by a certain depot manager and transport manager at Arriva.

 

[Deerfold]

I remember you saying that. It would appear that, according to this thread, the cost of the equipment isn't the issue, it is the analysis. That's why I mentioned teaming up with TfL, given that they already do this processing for all TfL routes.

I don't see anyone saying the cost of the equipment isn't an issue - it's part of the cost. As is employing people to analyse the data. And people to enforce the rules against any company misbehaving.

As I've said many times to you, I'd love there to be money available to do all these things. You say many times that this money should be available but give no indication how we can persuade those in authority that this money should be made available.

 

[edwin_m]

Except in some areas (notably T&W), bus and train services pre 1986 worked in splendid isolation much of the time. However, some managers may have enjoyed it. There was rampant cross-subsidy, and the NBC haemorraged money like never before and that was despite NBG.

I never said we had inter-modal integration before 1986, just that the bus network itself was more integrated.

There was rampant cross-subsidy, and the NBC haemorraged money like never before and that was despite NBG.
...
Where the main differences now lay are that those services that are unremunerative and who should be supported by local authorities aren't as public spending cuts come year after year (

In those days the money from the profitable services went to subsidise the unprofitable ones. Today the money from the profitable services goes to the shareholders and the unprofitable ones are paid for from the public purse or disappear altogether. I know which I would prefer.

Also, evening services have declined but that's a reflection of society and is no different to the decline in the 1950s when TV replaced cinema as an evening's entertainment

So why have evening bus and Tube services in London, and rail services in many places, been booming in recent years?

 

[radamfi]

I don't see anyone saying the cost of the equipment isn't an issue - it's part of the cost. As is employing people to analyse the data. And people to enforce the rules against any company misbehaving.

As I've said many times to you, I'd love there to be money available to do all these things. You say many times that this money should be available but give no indication how we can persuade those in authority that this money should be made available.

I guess I am kind of trying to believe it is possible regardless of the odds against but deep down I know it is a hopeless case. It does make me ashamed to be British and I am emigrating soon, mostly because of the British attitude to both buses and cycling. I remember writing the same thing on Usenet back in the 90s but I never had the balls. People encouraged me to stay to see things improve.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I never said we had inter-modal integration before 1986, just that the bus network itself was more integrated.

In those days the money from the profitable services went to subsidise the unprofitable ones. Today the money from the profitable services goes to the shareholders and the unprofitable ones are paid for from the public purse or disappear altogether. I know which I would prefer.

So why have evening bus and Tube services in London, and rail services in many places, been booming in recent years?

Hmmm.... were you around in those days? If so, take the rose tints off.

I remember plenty of places where the bus network was less than integrated. In fact, you had instances where an NBC operator could not pick up in town so as not to upset the local corporation. No interavailability of tickets etc.

DO NOT KID YOURSELF THAT THE PRE-DEREG NETWORK WAS SELF SUSTAINING WITH GOOD SERVICES PAYING FOR WEAKER ONES. It never did. It received huge amounts of subsidy (both direct and indirect such as NBG), had masses of debts written off, and was unsustainable. One of the main reasons behind dereg was to enable privatisation and so save costs. In 1981, Hants & Dorset lost £2m - how much is that in today's money. And that was with every new bus being subsidised by about 40%.

Evening bus and tube may be booming in London. Is that heavily subsidised? Do you see a lot of boarded up pubs around? Has the evening bus provision been decimated? In some counties, there aren't any evening services to speak of now. London is the exception not the rule

 

[Deerfold]

Hmmm.... were you around in those days? If so, take the rose tints off.

I remember plenty of places where the bus network was less than integrated. In fact, you had instances where an NBC operator could not pick up in town so as not to upset the local corporation. No interavailability of tickets etc.

It varied a lot. I was lucky enough to live in a PTE area where there was interavailability of ticketing between Council services, NBC and independent operators.

DO NOT KID YOURSELF THAT THE PRE-DEREG NETWORK WAS SELF SUSTAINING WITH GOOD SERVICES PAYING FOR WEAKER ONES. It never did. It received huge amounts of subsidy (both direct and indirect such as NBG), had masses of debts written off, and was unsustainable. One of the main reasons behind dereg was to enable privatisation and so save costs. In 1981, Hants & Dorset lost £2m - how much is that in today's money. And that was with every new bus being subsidised by about 40%.

And how much does the council now have to pay for subsidised services? Is that for a similar network to what there used to be?

If all these companies were doing so badly why did anyone buy them?

Evening bus and tube may be booming in London. Is that heavily subsidised? Do you see a lot of boarded up pubs around? Has the evening bus provision been decimated? In some counties, there aren't any evening services to speak of now. London is the exception not the rule

Isn't it a vicious circle though? Bus services are removed so people cannot afford to go out - or go out less often as they have to pay for a taxi rather than a bus fare. I'd go out far more often in Bradford or Leeds if there were still night buses. When I lived near Halifax the night buses were withdrawn despite mine often having standing room only on a double decker.

The pubs then get less trade and close, fewer people use the remaining bus services and so on.

 

[radamfi]

In some of the PTE areas, there was a reasonable attempt to improve integration between modes as well as generally improving bus services, especially in the final years before deregulation. In most PTE areas, ultra-low fares policies were famously adopted and ridiculed by the all-conquering Thatcherites of the time, except in my home PTE of Greater Manchester which was probably the least PT-friendly conurbation which preferred massive service cuts and high fare rises, although there was no fare rise from about 1981 to 1985 despite fairly high inflation. As a result, patronage in Greater Manchester fell to a considerably lower level than in the West Midlands despite almost identical populations, a trend which continues until today.

Outside the PTE areas, I would have to agree that buses were nothing special. However, this fact is misused by the deregulation lobby. They claim imposing QCs would be bringing buses back to the inefficient pre-86 situation, conveniently ignoring that buses were not tendered then. It has never been satisfactorily explained why London got tendering and the rest of the country got deregulation, but if tendering had been introduced in 1986 nationwide, the situation today may not be quite so bleak.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It varied a lot. I was lucky enough to live in a PTE area where there was interavailability of ticketing between Council services, NBC and independent operators.




And how much does the council now have to pay for subsidised services? Is that for a similar network to what there used to be?

If all these companies were doing so badly why did anyone buy them?



Isn't it a vicious circle though? Bus services are removed so people cannot afford to go out - or go out less often as they have to pay for a taxi rather than a bus fare. I'd go out far more often in Bradford or Leeds if there were still night buses. When I lived near Halifax the night buses were withdrawn despite mine often having standing room only on a double decker.

The pubs then get less trade and close, fewer people use the remaining bus services and so on.

The cost of supporting the bus network in its many different guises fell markedly after deregulation. It's a matter of record. Some services did disappear but then again, can you really afford to support something like Lampeter to Llanwrda that took one passenger every third journey (which in 1986, it did!)

Why did people buy the bus companies? Easy. They were given away. People could make money and did. The oft quoted example is Southampton bus station that was sold for more than the whole Hampshire Bus Co cost Stagecoach. There were plenty of other examples of property portfolios being generously undervalued. However, there was also the fact that without a need to cross subsidise, businesses could develop their core routes without the brake being constantly applied. Souter recognised all of that.

As for evening buses, there are two very important factors at work. Firstly, you have the issue of supermarkets using alcohol as a loss leader. Why go out and spend £3.50 a pint when you're getting 12 cans for £8? And you can smoke at home rather than shiver on the street? That's why so many pubs have gone to the wall and that has impacted on evening bus trade.

Secondly, the issue is the extension of opening hours. In the past, pubs all closed at 22:30, later extended to 23:00. Buses are aimed at coping with major flows so that suits them. Suddenly, there was a fragmentation with pubs and bars staying open later, some til 12, some til 0200, some later still. Of course, in some Uni towns and party cities, that's something that can be catered for. However, in many a small town, it's fragmented the trade so much and essentially let the taxis step in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In some of the PTE areas, there was a reasonable attempt to improve integration between modes as well as generally improving bus services, especially in the final years before deregulation. In most PTE areas, ultra-low fares policies were famously adopted and ridiculed by the all-conquering Thatcherites of the time, except in my home PTE of Greater Manchester which was probably the least PT-friendly conurbation which preferred massive service cuts and high fare rises, although there was no fare rise from about 1981 to 1985 despite fairly high inflation. As a result, patronage in Greater Manchester fell to a considerably lower level than in the West Midlands despite almost identical populations, a trend which continues until today.

Outside the PTE areas, I would have to agree that buses were nothing special. However, this fact is misused by the deregulation lobby. They claim imposing QCs would be bringing buses back to the inefficient pre-86 situation, conveniently ignoring that buses were not tendered then. It has never been satisfactorily explained why London got tendering and the rest of the country got deregulation, but if tendering had been introduced in 1986 nationwide, the situation today may not be quite so bleak.

Once again, it all points to money! South Yorkshire famously had high levels of patronage but all built on taxation via the rates. With the cuts that have been experienced, and much more to come, they'll be fewer supported services that ever.

The issue of QCs is the believe that you can have new buses, more buses, lower fares, etc and all by taking the margin that firms make down from 18% to near 10% (which is roughly what London operators make). Do the maths - it'll be invigorating for you

Anyway, aren't we all getting away from the point which was Arriva Derby and Traffic Commissioners?

 

[Deerfold]

The cost of supporting the bus network in its many different guises fell markedly after deregulation. It's a matter of record. Some services did disappear but then again, can you really afford to support something like Lampeter to Llanwrda that took one passenger every third journey (which in 1986, it did!)

In some areas an awful lot of services disappeared. I've no doubt some were as bad as the example you mention, but many weren't.

Why did people buy the bus companies? Easy. They were given away. People could make money and did. The oft quoted example is Southampton bus station that was sold for more than the whole Hampshire Bus Co cost Stagecoach. There were plenty of other examples of property portfolios being generously undervalued. However, there was also the fact that without a need to cross subsidise, businesses could develop their core routes without the brake being constantly applied. Souter recognised all of that.

I'm struggling to understand why this would be done as a cost-saving measure. In some cases it was political as the government did not want their privatisations to obviously fail. In other areas the companies really did make money - Yorkshire Rider did very well for many people before being bought out by First with few major changes or cuts before then.

As for evening buses, there are two very important factors at work. Firstly, you have the issue of supermarkets using alcohol as a loss leader. Why go out and spend £3.50 a pint when you're getting 12 cans for £8? And you can smoke at home rather than shiver on the street? That's why so many pubs have gone to the wall and that has impacted on evening bus trade.

Secondly, the issue is the extension of opening hours. In the past, pubs all closed at 22:30, later extended to 23:00. Buses are aimed at coping with major flows so that suits them. Suddenly, there was a fragmentation with pubs and bars staying open later, some til 12, some til 0200, some later still. Of course, in some Uni towns and party cities, that's something that can be catered for. However, in many a small town, it's fragmented the trade so much and essentially let the taxis step in.

I'm not pretending that buses and pubs are the only factor in each others fates - though there are many pubs which have not changed their hours or have only changed them on Friday or Saturday nights. Even before these changes I'd have to leave before the pub closed to make a 2300 bus.

 

[Robertj21a]

Shame they can't revoke the licence of the whole of Arriva Midlands, as a daily passenger, I'm beyond fed up at the 'service' level from another depot (South wigston).
There's only 2/3 people benefitting from the current state of said depot (the directors of avenger breakdown services), and it is unusual for the route I travel on not to have at least 1 breakdown every day, and for example on Monday neither the 16:00 or 16:20 buses on an every 20 minute ran, due to 2 separate breakdowns, the Monday before the 16:20 broke down less than a mile past the start point and the 08:00 in the other direction didn't run, and on Friday the 08:50 didn't run, as well as another breakdown at 15:15ish. (and I could give plenty of other occasions in the last 2 weeks as well, and remember that this is just one route)

Hopefully, any problems at the South Wigston depot will be reduced now that they have a batch of brand new buses for the 47/48 and another batch of Volvo B9s transferred in from Tamworth and Derby.

 

[radamfi]

I don't see what the price of vehicles, or where they are built, has to do with anything. If you're implying that the vehicles are of inferior quality, then that is simply not the case.

At the end of the say, vehicle manufacturers need to make a profit so design synergies should be commended. Are you seriously saying that the NB4L is a good idea and other places should follow suit?!

British buses, especially Alexander Dennis vehicles, are generally built to a basic specification with lower build quality to make them more affordable to the cost conscious UK market. For the passenger, that means worse ride quality and more rattles. Operators in mainland Europe that can afford to buy the best generally buy makes like Mercedes Citaro and MAN Lion's City.

My particular bugbear is the lack of double glazing on UK buses. First were actually superior over other groups in this respect for many years as they supplied their Wright bodied Volvos single decks with double glazing. Double glazing gives a significant improvement in passenger comfort as you can clearly see out of the window during cold or wet conditions. The tradition of using double deckers in the UK means double glazing is impractical unless you have 3 axles, which of course would make it prohibitively expensive for a UK operator. Double glazing also reduces fuel economy, again making it more expensive, and requires fixing when steaming up happens between the two panes.

The air cooling on the NBfL does help reduce steaming up of windows a little, assuming it is working properly.

 

[nottinghamcity]

It is ironic that some of the few remaining vestiges of bus regulation in GB outside London actually act to harm the passenger.

In a deregulated market an unscrupulous dominant operator can take advantage of the many barriers to entry to prevent a competitor getting a foothold and threatening their captive market. This happens now to a large extent, when a dominant operator employs predatory timetables and fare levels and usually gets away with it. Multi-operator tickets, which by law any local operator can participate in, are run by joint committees of operators so the dominant can keep them at a price that makes them unattractive to most passengers compared with their own single-operator tickets.

Where competition does exist the result can often be fragmentation of the network and confusion of passengers. The best bus networks in GB outside London tend to be run by "benevolant" dominant operators, often with the local council retaining a stake and setting social rather than profit-driven objectives. However in most areas one of the big groups has gained a near-monopoly and often provides poor service at high fares.

A regulated market similar to London doesn't have to mean high subsidies. If another area could regulate but retain today's service levels then total costs would remain largely the same, with some costs transferring from the operator to the authority. These would probably be outweighed by the extra passengers attracted by co-ordinated timetables and interavailable fares, and operator profit margins would probably also be lower to reflect the introduction of genuine competition and the fact the operator is not taking revenue risk. "Genuine competition" because contracts would be let on a level playing field, a dominant would no longer be able to make use of predatory techniques and any operator winning a contract would automatically become part of a network with interavailable fares.

Although regulation doesn't require high subsidy, high subsidy is only possible with regulation. London chose to pay for more and better services and lower fares because this was and is the only way to keep London moving. However they could only do so because their tendered system gives TfL full control over these aspects; for any other authority in GB anything beyond a very small intervention would be deemed illegal state aid or unfair competition. Hence, although other cities are gradually approaching London's level of congestion, the remedy of paying for better bus services is largely denied to them. And in rural areas the downward spiral continues of more congestion, slower journeys, higher fares, fewer passengers and fewer buses.

I don't claim to know any bus managers but I believe many of them would privately agree that the buses worked best before 1986 when there was a measure of regulation and co-ordination and the service was treated as a network rather than a series of routes. I would go further and advocate the German/Swiss model of full fares and timetable intergration between modes. However few of them would say so in public because it is not in the interests of people who run the big operators.

An insightful observation, I sort of got the Nottingham reference here

 

[edwin_m]

An insightful observation, I sort of got the Nottingham reference here

I actually think the Nottingham operators are among the best anywhere, and it's one of the few places where bus patronage has increased. But some of that sort of thing goes on even here.

 

[G0ORC]

To put the lid on this thread here's the results of the inquiry as reported by the Derby Telegraph.

Looks like a storm in a teacup to me....

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/ARR...s-city-route/story-24535485-detail/story.html

TRANSPORT giant Arriva has been given a formal warning after it failed to respond to a customer complaint about missing buses on a temporary route.

The deputy traffic commissioner Fiona Harrington issued the warning following a complaint from a passenger about a route between Derby’s bus and train stations.

A traveller using the pseudonym “Redacted” complained about two missing buses on January 29.

Ms Harrington said in her hearing report: “Having made a complaint, Redacted has failed to receive a direct response.

“This is directly contrary to Arriva’s assurances that passengers are important to them.”

Additionally, she expressed concern that mechanical problems were blamed for the failure of the service to run on January 29 and that alternative buses were not used to remedy the problems.

Ms Harrington was assured by the bus company that the matter had been investigated thoroughly and a number of improvements were being implemented.

These included: improvements in complaints handling; driver training to clarify when buses are able to be used or withdrawn from service, depending on the identified fault; a reduction in safety inspection intervals from 42 to 35 days and having sufficient contingency vehicles, which is nine over and above the 70 buses in use at present.

The RL1 service was introduced as a shuttle service between the rail station and bus station following the closure of the London Road bridge for replacement over 12 months ago, and allowing people to reach London Road Community Hospital.

It currently carries between 8,000 and 9,000 passengers each month but will be withdrawn once the bridge reopens, which is proposed for November 27.

The hearing was told that the city council had only received a single complaint and the local authority “was happy with the service provided” and “it had been generally well received”.

Ms Harrington said in her hearing report: “I am trusting the company to continue to review the quality of customer service and service reliability from the Derby depot so that passengers can rely on the advertised services and trust Arriva will respond effectively and in a timely manner to operational difficulties experienced.”

Ms Harrington said she did not want to suggest that a formal warning was a “soft decision”.

She said: “I consider Arriva has taken the hearing very seriously and I am trusting that it will take the formal warning equally seriously.

“In the event of further complaints and issues regarding reliability, then more serious action may result.

“I am trusting Arriva to understand that it has to get things right going forwards.”

No-one was available for comment from Arriva.

On its website the company says it “values the custom” of passengers.

It adds: “We try to run all buses on time. However, sometimes things outside our control, like traffic congestion or road works, might affect your journey. We will work with others to reduce the impact wherever possible.”

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually think the Nottingham operators are among the best anywhere, and it's one of the few places where bus patronage has increased. But some of that sort of thing goes on even here.

Nottingham does seem to be an odd island of operators who compete to be of the best quality rather than the lowest price. More, please.

Neil

 

[LateThanNever]

It is ironic that some of the few remaining vestiges of bus regulation in GB outside London actually act to harm the passenger.

In a deregulated market an unscrupulous dominant operator can take advantage of the many barriers to entry to prevent a competitor getting a foothold and threatening their captive market. This happens now to a large extent, when a dominant operator employs predatory timetables and fare levels and usually gets away with it. Multi-operator tickets, which by law any local operator can participate in, are run by joint committees of operators so the dominant can keep them at a price that makes them unattractive to most passengers compared with their own single-operator tickets.

Where competition does exist the result can often be fragmentation of the network and confusion of passengers. The best bus networks in GB outside London tend to be run by "benevolant" dominant operators, often with the local council retaining a stake and setting social rather than profit-driven objectives. However in most areas one of the big groups has gained a near-monopoly and often provides poor service at high fares.

A regulated market similar to London doesn't have to mean high subsidies. If another area could regulate but retain today's service levels then total costs would remain largely the same, with some costs transferring from the operator to the authority. These would probably be outweighed by the extra passengers attracted by co-ordinated timetables and interavailable fares, and operator profit margins would probably also be lower to reflect the introduction of genuine competition and the fact the operator is not taking revenue risk. "Genuine competition" because contracts would be let on a level playing field, a dominant would no longer be able to make use of predatory techniques and any operator winning a contract would automatically become part of a network with interavailable fares.

Although regulation doesn't require high subsidy, high subsidy is only possible with regulation. London chose to pay for more and better services and lower fares because this was and is the only way to keep London moving. However they could only do so because their tendered system gives TfL full control over these aspects; for any other authority in GB anything beyond a very small intervention would be deemed illegal state aid or unfair competition. Hence, although other cities are gradually approaching London's level of congestion, the remedy of paying for better bus services is largely denied to them. And in rural areas the downward spiral continues of more congestion, slower journeys, higher fares, fewer passengers and fewer buses.

I don't claim to know any bus managers but I believe many of them would privately agree that the buses worked best before 1986 when there was a measure of regulation and co-ordination and the service was treated as a network rather than a series of routes. I would go further and advocate the German/Swiss model of full fares and timetable intergration between modes. However few of them would say so in public because it is not in the interests of people who run the big operators.

Know it's a month late, but don't come here often!
What a very, very insightful observation.

 

[starrymarkb]

A traveller using the pseudonym “Redacted” complained about two missing buses on January 29.

Hahahahaha - Some High Quality Journalism there! Redacted just means their name has been removed from the public documents!

 

[Y961 XBU]

Looks to me that Arriva have had a lucky escape

 

[Busaholic]

If Arriva had just responded to the initial complaint they probably could have avoided all this.

 

[Robertj21a]

Looks to me that Arriva have had a lucky escape

Hardly anything particularly serious in any event.

 

[Y961 XBU]

Hardly anything particularly serious in any event.

They have been done by the TC not to long ago for the same thing so i would say getting a warning is a lucky escape considering the first time around they where made to run 2 evening services for free

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

They have been done by the TC not to long ago for the same thing so i would say getting a warning is a lucky escape considering the first time around they where made to run 2 evening services for free

Sorry but I think you're confusing things.

The first offence was a failure to operate as per the service registration. IIRC, the actual issue wasn't that major (in terms of customer impact and definitely more cock-up than conspiracy) but it was a technical omission and they were punished quite severely

This latest offence is much less severe. They had (understandable) problems but then failed to respond to a customers' correspondence. Hence, a few stern words but hardly in the same ball park as the first offence
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Know it's a month late, but don't come here often!
What a very, very insightful observation.

I don't claim to know any bus managers but I believe many of them would privately agree that the buses worked best before 1986

More opinion that insight....