First Group: General Discussion

[Cesarcollie]

The current 72 is a collection of withdrawn bits plus an attempt to boost frequency on the Chelmsford - Witham corridor. It covers some roads in Chelmsford which had lost their original service, then Gershwin Boulevard and Conrad Road in Witham which would otherwise have been unserved from November 2015 when First withdrew the 132/133 Halstead - Braintree - Witham (except that Conrad Road was covered by the replacement Stephensons 38/38a service anyway). With a PVR of 4, the 72 always seemed something of an extravagance which was unlikely to pay its way. I doubt that finding homes for displaced Braintree staff was the rationale given the acute driver shortage at pretty much all Essex depots at the time.

 

[THarris123]

First really is run bad in quite a few areas, I think a lot of this is due to the debt mountain they have and it's become a vicious circle.

They don't invest in operations because they're not making money which leads to services not being viable and cuts which leads to less money being made which leads to more service cuts, even less investment which leads to even poorer returns and even less services being viable and more service cuts and even less investment. It's like a vicious circle.

Really the purchase of Laidlaw all those years back is really coming to haunt them now, the debt is crippling the business and pretty much the whole bus network is in decline and a vicious circle that shows no kind of stopping is in progress.

Got it in one

 

[Dentonian]

Yet there are plenty of shift workers all over the place but the bus companies had failed to keep up with the changing peace of the world. If your spent money on a car to get to work then why on earth would you take the bus at the weekends?? The traditional bus model of business isn't broken, it just private companies have become fat cats and have lost there pioneering spirit to make changes when needed.

Private companies never had the "pioneering spirit" in most places. Nothing "pioneering" or innovative about running buses along exactly the same route as the incumbant, but 6 minutes in front and maybe 5% cheaper. Unless the innovation was registering ghost services they never intended to run or to employ bus drivers who can't speak the same language as their customers.

 

[THarris123]

They never had the "pioneering spirit" in most places. Nothing "pioneering" or innovative about running buses along exactly the same route as the incumbant, but 6 minutes in front and maybe 5% cheaper. Unless the innovation was registering ghost services they never intended to run or to employ bus drivers who can't speak the same language as their customers.

That clearly worked for Webberbus...

 

[F Great Eastern]

Private companies never had the "pioneering spirit" in most places. Nothing "pioneering" or innovative about running buses along exactly the same route as the incumbant, but 6 minutes in front and maybe 5% cheaper. Unless the innovation was registering ghost services they never intended to run or to employ bus drivers who can't speak the same language as their customers.

That is mostly due to de-regulation though more than anything - if there were commercial operators allowed but head to head running and bus wars were prevented by having specific regulations to prevent them, you'd see more innovation and less of that kind of tactic.

The problem with de-reg is operators don't want to spend lots of money building up a market and a route only for another operator to piggy back on that investment by starting when the initial operator has done all the expensive donkey work of building the route up and generating demand.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That is mostly due to de-regulation though more than anything - if there were commercial operators allowed but head to head running and bus wars were prevented by having specific regulations to prevent them, you'd see more innovation and less of that kind of tactic.

The problem with de-reg is operators don't want to spend lots of money building up a market and a route only for another operator to piggy back on that investment by starting when the initial operator has done all the expensive donkey work of building the route up and generating demand.

Not the case - Stagecoach most certainly have built up markets and most people are s**t scared of tackling them. Transdev are pretty decent at building up routes.

The issue with First is hubris in Moir's empire building, highly centralised decision making, unrealistic returns and then building up a shed load of debt that has effectively hamstrung First.

I know people who actually work as bus company managers (including at First in the past) and the issues that are hurting the industry are collapsing city/town centre footfall (literally journeys not being made - see a 5% drop in Boxing Day footfall). upward pressure on drivers' wages caused by staff shortages, increasing traffic congestion (you can't another 4m inhabitants in ten years from 2001 without expecting an increase in cars on UK roads plus a raft of parcel vans delivering).

These are fundamental macro shifts in society. Remember that in the regulated age, there was a similar massive shift when TV arrived, devastating patronage on evening services.

 

[DragonEast]

The current 72 is a collection of withdrawn bits plus an attempt to boost frequency on the Chelmsford - Witham corridor....

All true. Though I wonder too if there was the benefit of getting their mits on some developer funds as well? The trouble of course is that the money runs out, and that might be a problem down the road for a few other new and expanded services too . . .

EDIT When I first heard of it I did wonder if the 72 was an Aunt Sally service, set up so it could be cut when the next Head Office request came along. A bit cynical, I know; but I believe their predecessors did have form when it came to playing fast and loose with the passengers. And with First's Head Office to deal with, who could blame them?

 

[Lezlee]

We now know a couple of them, the 41/72 around Chelmsford, withdrawn. They both cannibalise other First routes. The changes too might displace some of the worst wrecks from the fleet! And they are cuts that seem to neatly sidestep any political upset, (or at least any that matters).

The 72 is amazing. It, or some variant, appears every couple of years; then disappears a couple of years later. It's a cycle that's been going on for decades. All grist to the mill that Eastern National/First Essex are the clueless wonders (or another acronym)! Though I suppose it did give drivers displaced from the closed Braintree depot something to do temporarily!

It is true the 41 and 72 will be withdrawn. Boreham and most of Chelmsford city areas will be covered by amendments to other routes. The important change is that there will be a reduction in PVR and staff requirements. There are 18 changes in total planned and most city centre routes will be amended in some way, be it frequency or routes. For example, the service 45 will be reduced to a 15 minute frequency from 12 and the core part of the service 42 (Galleywood to Broomfield) will be increased to a 10 minute frequency. Service 70 will be reduced to a 30 minute frequency, with the 42 extended every 30 minutes to Braintree to form a combined frequency of 15 minutes between Chelmsford and Braintree. Service 70/71 will also be changed so the Marks Tey to Colchester section will have a 15 minute frequency.

I have heard that PVR will be reduced across other depots and am wondering what these changes mean for the Braintree outstation, which only services the 70 and some of the 352 workings.

All in all, from what I have read, the changes have been made quite intelligently and do not leave any large area without a service.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Not the case - Stagecoach most certainly have built up markets and most people are s**t scared of tackling them. Transdev are pretty decent at building up routes.

I wasn't saying it was the issue with First - look at the post I replied to.

I was simply saying that it's an issue with the lack of pioneering spirit in the bus industry in the UK and it's certainly true - I know of two smaller operators who cite that reason as why they won't start up a new route and invest in it - they know after spending a huge amount on vehicles and drumming up demand that some bigger operator can just swoop in and run just ahead of them and/or slightly cheaper having had to bear none of the costs that the incumbent did - that is the definition of piggy backing on someones investment and is a massive downside to deregulation because it allows predatory tactics.

The issues with First are manifold but some are their own doing and some of them are not, but this is a bus business that has been in decline even when other bus businesses were not.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I wasn't saying it was the issue with First - look at the post I replied to.

I was simply saying that it's an issue with the lack of pioneering spirit in the bus industry in the UK and it's certainly true - I know of two smaller operators who cite that reason as why they won't start up a new route and invest in it - they know after spending a huge amount on vehicles and drumming up demand that some bigger operator can just swoop in and run just ahead of them and/or slightly cheaper having had to bear none of the costs that the incumbent did - that is the definition of piggy backing on someones investment and is a massive downside to deregulation because it allows predatory tactics.

The issues with First are manifold but some are their own doing and some of them are not, but this is a bus business that has been in decline even when other bus businesses were not.

That may be an issue though more often than not, travel patterns are well established often following major arterial routes and other geographical features. Stagecoach are actually quite good at giving things a punt as are Transdev (and Blazefield before that). You are right in First's case that even in the good days, anything approaching innovation was actually poor thought through and executed. Bright ideas like FTR and Greyhound....

In the case of First, it has actually been a case of smaller operators being able to carve a niche after First have exited.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That clearly worked for Webberbus...

Webberbus' strategy was patently ridiculous and I said so at the time.

In an area where the local bus market has always been thin, the idea that you can run brand new buses with attendant high lease charges etc was madness. The only surprise being that they lasted so long.

Had they been sensible enough to stick to the only really decent corridors (Taunton to Bridgwater/Wellington) and operating the Park and Ride properly alongside various college and tendered work, they could have had a decent business. The routes to Wells were the first sign that they had delusions of grandeur, but I knew they'd lost the plot when they believed that they could operate from Bridgwater to Yeovil commercially with new fleet.

 

[DragonEast]

All in all, from what I have read, the changes have been made quite intelligently and do not leave any large area without a service.

Agreed. Long overdue, and indeed First Essex would have to be barmy not to have made these sort of changes. They are, perhaps, fortunate among many First OpCos in having the network to adapt. But I think this is just the start, and no-where near the end of creating a bus service fit for the twenty-first century. That's the problem. The world is changing so fast that we all have trouble in keeping up. The past is not always the best guide to the future.

 

[overthewater]

Nurse - this man has lost his medication again
I'm not certain what has prompted this outburst....

First point: I do stand by, even if the passengers are dropping by 5-10% are year, there changing travel patterns across the UK,yet the amount of cars on the roads has increased, the amount of congestion has increased. The bus compaines have failed to keep pace with what the public wants now. If people get fed up and end up buying cars, it very very hard to get them back. Once bitten twice shy......

Second point: Well as some has mentioned Blockhead he because a fat cat with the cream.

 

[F Great Eastern]

You are right in First's case that even in the good days, anything approaching innovation was actually poor thought through and executed. Bright ideas like FTR and Greyhound.

FTR, Greyhound and several other innovations suffered from a typical First problem that they were released to much fanfare and looked like they could have potential but ultimately were flawed and the company got bored with them after a while and stopped given them the attention to detail they needed and stopped focusing on the nuts and bolts of the service and everything felt neglected.

The only place First really innovated and invested in the last few years and successful is in Ireland being the first operator to run non stop buses almost 24 hours a day between Dublin and Cork and Dublin and Belfast and the last the accounts between 2014-2016 show that they got a massive return on that investment - so much so, that made a profit of €8m last year and they only have a fleet of 69!

However the tri-axle 53 seat vehicles on the Belfast route are now approx 9 years old and needing replacement and there has been a rumour that it's going to be done on the cheap with a shorter 2 axle coach with the same number of seats - which considering there is a bus war on that route primarily about vehicle spec - is pure lunacy.

It's like the Stansted X30 issue - they have a good service and when the vehicles are up for replacement they try and do it on a cheap which turns a successful service into one which no longer fulfills it's potential, mix that with poor management of good ideas, lack of investment and a focus on cost savings, a mountain of debt and poor acquisitions and poor management under Lockhead in his later years and you have a toxic mix.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

First point: I do stand by, even if the passengers are dropping by 5-10% are year, there changing travel patterns across the UK,yet the amount of cars on the roads has increased, the amount of congestion has increased. The bus compaines have failed to keep pace with what the public wants now. If people get fed up and end up buying cars, it very very hard to get them back. Once bitten twice shy......

Second point: Well as some has mentioned Blockhead he because a fat cat with the cream.

It's late... However, you may wish to work out why bus patronage may have fallen in line with cuts to local authority budgets and the cut to BSOG renumeration?

eCommerce is destroying the high street and shopping trips have been an essential staple of bus travel. Read this and it may prove enlightening http://uk.businessinsider.com/future-british-high-street-internet-brexit-retail-2017-8

Also, the usual bus to work market is also under attack. In some small part by increased working from home though not that big a deal. The issue is that we used to have large employers with lovely fixed rosters etc and with a critical mass of workers. That is now less prevalent - we have smaller enterprise parks and even where there are large numbers of staff, they may be at distribution centres located at a peripheral location. Take Pineham Park in Northampton where there are large distribution centres for Sainsbury's, Carlsberg, Morrisons etc. They have a raft of different shift times etc for the warehouse and admin staff and they can vary from day to day especially this time of year. As for the truck drivers, you can forget it - their shifts have no structure in reality. Of course, you have to get staff from all over Northampton into one peripheral location and that's without factoring in that because their is such a premium on staff on the run up to Christmas, agencies are running their own minibuses for free as an inducement. It's not helped that the ENCTS funding is also an absolute horlicks so the grey hordes get a free pass and this drives the cost up for regular punters (esp ad-hoc ones)

What do you do for a living, can I ask?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

FTR, Greyhound and several other innovations suffered from a typical First problem that they were released to much fanfare and looked like they could have potential but ultimately were flawed and the company got bored with them after a while and stopped given them the attention to detail they needed and stopped focusing on the nuts and bolts of the service and everything felt neglected.

It's like the Stansted X30 issue - they have a good service and when the vehicles are up for replacement they try and do it on a cheap which turns a successful service into one which no longer fulfills it's potential, mix that with poor management of good ideas, lack of investment and a focus on cost savings, a mountain of debt and poor acquisitions and poor management under Lockhead in his later years and you have a toxic mix.

Can't comment on the X30 - not a route I know. However, I do see it with the Cardiff to Swansea shuttle where what was a good service is making do with ageing ex Greyhound fleet when it really could and should be better.

FTR was fundamentally barking - a bus with higher capital cost, higher staff costs and higher fuel costs that carries the same as a standard single decker? Similarly, Greyhound was also fundamentally flawed. If it costs £250 to run a coach to London and back and you have fewer seats than your competitor (NatEx) then you can't compete on price. However, you can't compete on quality or time with the train. So you're looking for the punters who fall in between these two competitors.....

However, there are plenty of other instances where First have, as you say, poorly executed ideas that may have had the potential.

 

[overthewater]

One thing is for sure its not one single issues that causing the trouble with the bus industry in the uk, but a whole list that come crashing down at the same time. Surly mainland europe are also facing the same problems?

 

[F Great Eastern]

Can't comment on the X30 - not a route I know. However, I do see it with the Cardiff to Swansea shuttle where what was a good service is making do with ageing ex Greyhound fleet when it really could and should be better.

Basically what happened is it was run as a coach service using high specification 49 seat coaches, but then it was changed to be registered as a bus service using coaches to avoid tachograph regulations and a few other technicalities but the downside to this was that it meant that last year they had to remove the coaches from the route as they would not comply with DDA bus guidelines.

So what First decided to do rather than simply register it back as a coach service or buy new coaches was to do it on the cheap by buying small, cheap 30 seat Enviro 200s but still charging the premium prices for a coach service which are now overcrowded on a regular basis and far less comfortable and a complete rip off.

 

[DragonEast]

Can't comment on the X30 - not a route I know. . . .
However, there are plenty of other instances where First have, as you say, poorly executed ideas that may have had the potential.

I do know the X30 - it has good potential for all of commuters, shoppers, business flyers and holidaymakers. The only thing I can congratulate the (many) punters for is their patience and tolerance. And it has two legs, commuters and shoppers from Southend to Chelmsford, a major trunk commuter route without direct rail or competing bus (or coach - even NEx withdrew their limited direct service) and hellish by car; and the Airport stretch from Chelmsford to Stansted, the way out of Essex (and plenty of punters for that, believe me) and fast becoming an employment gateway. A dream service made in heaven you'd have thought . . . poor (nay, ridiculous) investment decisions by First have made it into a hellish one. Sailing with their bow doors open . . .

The best bit of First Essex is probably the Chelmsford Park and Ride, where (and probably because) the County Council hold the purse strings and give the orders (though not enough of them, evidently). Sounds familiar . . .

But the more I learn of First, it strikes me as the apocryphal American company: the Boss decides everything and everyone falls into line, the only problem is that when it all turns t1ts up it turns British and no-one takes responsibility for anything. In the US the Boss would have been fired long ago for the fiasco.

 

[tbtc]

FTR, Greyhound and several other innovations suffered from a typical First problem that they were released to much fanfare and looked like they could have potential but ultimately were flawed and the company got bored with them after a while and stopped given them the attention to detail they needed and stopped focusing on the nuts and bolts of the service and everything felt neglected

Good point.

Some innovations work, some don't. Stagecoach's "TaxiBus" seemed like a good idea at the time, but didn't last. The highly respected Lothian Buses have tried things that didn't work (e.g. "demand responsive" services to Edinburgh Airport).

But with First, there's always a suspicion that they don't give innovations long enough (hence "ftr" being launched with huge fanfare on routes then cutback then removed from that area). Too many things are over-hyped and under-thought.

There's also the problem that they seem to think too much about the flagship routes with little consideration for what those vehicles are going to be able to move onto after five years (once the flagship routes are due for an update). So you have a number of low floor DDA-complaint B10BLAs parked up, rotting at the back of garages whilst First waited for a certain percentage of depreciation to kick in, before they could justify scrapping them, whilst other services nearby were run with high floor "unaccessible" vehicles.

I can see the logic in the approach of "we don't sell vehicles to other operators", but if you do that then you have to make sure that (a) your vehicles are designed to last at least fifteen years and (b) you give them a good mid-life overhaul. First though... they order shiny toys for flagship routes, then don't have a "Plan B" for them once the lustre wears off, so are left with a stockpile of redundant vehicles that aren't that old, whilst other (conventional) buses are sweated into teenage years without a proper refurb. We've had R-reg B10BLEs running around Sheffield with the old red/yellow "Mainline" seat covers many many years after Barbie seats became the norm.

Contrast the situation in London over the years. Stagecoach are smart enough to lease buses for the capital, so that tender wins/ losses (which can mean an influx of dozens of vehicles at a time) are separate to the "provincial" vehicle recruitment. Tameside (Manchester) gets the new buses that Manchester needs, instead of being dependent upon tenders in Thames-side (London). Whereas First (when they had London operations) took the approach of ordering virtually nothing for potentially profitable places like Sheffield, just cascading Marshall bodied Darts and knackered Tridents out to the "provinces" as hand-me-downs.

Actually, talking of new buses, there's another thing. Stagecoach are good at keeping a regular supply of new buses to "secondary" areas like Barnsley - areas that may not be as profitable as the big city stuff (Manchester, Newcastle etc) but it keeps local fleets up to date and it maintains a relatively consistent approach across the UK. First, on the other hand, seem to take the approach of "we'll order a hundred buses for Leeds one year, then a hundred buses for Glasgow a couple of years later, then a hundred buses for Bristol a couple of years after that, and the other areas can make do with cascades from these operations". Here in Sheffield, we got fifty B7Ls after the 2002 Commonwealth Games, but then virtually nothing for five years... then maybe fifty Geminis... then five years of famine... then the Streetlites turned up in large number... now we are back to meagre rations (whilst retaining our BLEs). That's not how to run a business.

It's a tough market out there, and (like a number of other companies in the corporate era) First have been saddled with huge debts, but there should be some success stories for First - the only way that they seem to "win" nowadays is when they find a local Council / Authority/ PTE with a huge budget to spend on bus improvements (Bristol Metrobus, Bus 18 in Leeds... the clean air in Glasgow). There's very little innovation or success coming from First themselves - if a bit of local Government aren't paying the bill then they don't seem to be assertive enough to challenge improvements off their own bat.

In contrast, Stagecoach's Barnsley operations (not a big place, a town that's seen it's share of economic downturns over the years...) has had a number of commercial innovations in recent years. It can sustain a night bus (unlike the university city of Sheffield). There's a new hourly coach service to Leeds. There's a half hourly express down the M1 to Meadowhall at weekends (and school holidays). None of this relied upon grandiose mega-plans funded by local government - they've just carefully added to the existing services and tried to find new markets. If you can innovate in a town like Barnsley (where recession seems a way of life) then why can't First innovate in larger places?

 

[Volvodart]

They are now taking the hit with the recent start to scrapping the FTRs and presumably the other artics when they no longer have a use for them.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Contrast the situation in London over the years. Stagecoach are smart enough to lease buses for the capital, so that tender wins/ losses (which can mean an influx of dozens of vehicles at a time) are separate to the "provincial" vehicle recruitment. Tameside (Manchester) gets the new buses that Manchester needs, instead of being dependent upon tenders in Thames-side (London). Whereas First (when they had London operations) took the approach of ordering virtually nothing for potentially profitable places like Sheffield, just cascading Marshall bodied Darts and knackered Tridents out to the "provinces" as hand-me-downs.

I think leasing vehicles for tendered services is a rather sensible idea, although long leased vehicles for commercial work of a non standard spec on leases that cannot be ended early can be a cost burden if the demand for that route collapses due to any factor, be that recession, competition, infrastructure etc.

First found that out to their cost in Ireland when they ordered 19 very high spec tri-axle coaches for Dublin - Airport routes on 9 year leases before the recession hit, they were delivered after the recession and demand dropped off a cliff so they were not needed and couldn't be used on Intercity routes due to lack of toilets so spent over 6 years running around half empty guzzling fuel.

Actually, talking of new buses, there's another thing. Stagecoach are good at keeping a regular supply of new buses to "secondary" areas like Barnsley - areas that may not be as profitable as the big city stuff (Manchester, Newcastle etc) but it keeps local fleets up to date and it maintains a relatively consistent approach across the UK. First, on the other hand, seem to take the approach of "we'll order a hundred buses for Leeds one year, then a hundred buses for Glasgow a couple of years later, then a hundred buses for Bristol a couple of years after that, and the other areas can make do with cascades from these operations". Here in Sheffield, we got fifty B7Ls after the 2002 Commonwealth Games, but then virtually nothing for five years... then maybe fifty Geminis... then five years of famine... then the Streetlites turned up in large number... now we are back to meagre rations (whilst retaining our BLEs). That's not how to run a business.

That is totally true - I've seen exactly the same in a lot of operations in First, it happens in Eastern Counties as well, Ipswich had new vehicles for the Superoutes in the late 90s, saw nothing more apart from hand me downs, until a very old decker fleet was replaced in 2004, more hand me downs until a batch of new saloons arrived in 2009, thankfully the hand me downs have been better in recent years and newer than before, but still the same pattern, the newest vehicles are from 2013 that arrived last year from Scotland.

As you say what happens in Stagecoach is a better spread and you don't see areas go years without new vehicles and various numbers of hand me downs in between - of course I would expect the big cities and the most commercially successful areas to get more investment, but the feast or famine stuff with First is ridiculous - I was in Glasgow last year and honestly for what is a huge city for First the fleet is a disgrace.

 

[F Great Eastern]

They are now taking the hit with the recent start to scrapping the FTRs and presumably the other artics when they no longer have a use for them.

The problem with buying specialist vehicles which have limited viability for cascades in your business is that the resale market is not always great and you end up having them sit around for no real use for them afterwards as First has found out here to it's own cost.

The problem with the Streetcar was not just that they were very specialist vehicles for First, they were also very unique vehicles in the market so leasing wasn't really going to be an option for such vehicles as the lessor would want to recoup all costs and make a profit over the whole of the lease because of doubts of being able to sell them on later.

That would just result in First having to pay even more than buying them outright and the lease costs would be enormous on a short lease and expensive on a long lease.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The problem with the Streetcar was not just that they were very specialist vehicles for First, they were also very unique vehicles in the market so leasing wasn't really going to be an option for such vehicles as the lessor would want to recoup all costs and make a profit over the whole of the lease because of doubts of being able to sell them on later.

The problem with Streetcar is that without a closed network and off bus ticketing, you would need two people (a driver and a customer assistant) so doubling your staff costs. Then factor in that they're more expensive to buy, more expensive to run in terms of fuel and maintenance, and yet only seat 42 when a standard Eclipse seats 43. So more cost and for what?

 

[DragonEast]

The problem with Streetcar is that without a closed network and off bus ticketing, you would need two people (a driver and a customer assistant) so doubling your staff costs. Then factor in that they're more expensive to buy, more expensive to run in terms of fuel and maintenance, and yet only seat 42 when a standard Eclipse seats 43. So more cost and for what?

Someone fancied it and thought everyone else would too? We all do it, sometime or another. Businesses aren't immune. It's always seemed to me to be the big risk with the emphasis on making everything "sexy". It works if you've got it, and not if you haven't. Being rational all the time is soooooo boring - not. Better than taking the magic potion and dancing with the fairies!

Is Streetcar an American invention? Look over the pond. What a temptation! They're not the first, if so, and they won't be the last, no doubt.

But seriously I think First have a big problem, among others, they are not competitive on quality of service (nor on fares). The two things that matter. Add to that the image problem: it all looks pale, uninteresting, blocky and old-fashioned. How do they get noticed? What's to be done? I don't think any of us actually know. There is no single, universal, or magical, solution. I wouldn't be surprised if it sends them into panic, even stupidity, sometimes. It's that intractable.

Bringing it local, I suspect it's where First Essex's "success" lies, in following the first Commandment "Don't compete with anyone else" (because you don't). Whether passengers consider it success may be a different question though.

 

[F Great Eastern]

The problem with Streetcar is that without a closed network and off bus ticketing, you would need two people (a driver and a customer assistant) so doubling your staff costs. Then factor in that they're more expensive to buy, more expensive to run in terms of fuel and maintenance, and yet only seat 42 when a standard Eclipse seats 43. So more cost and for what?

Of course - there were those operational problems as well, without a doubt, the focus of my last post was simply looking at them from a cascade and a cost point of view and any potential resale market - pretty much all of the bendy buses acquired these days are on lease and for tendered/contracted operations tend to be on leases for the duration of the contract for sensible reason and nothing specialist like the Streetcar.

The point I was trying to make is there was a large financial risk on taking on a vehicle such as a Streetcar because of the factors that I outlined and the operational ones that you outlined - there was no way they could have got them without buying them outright, the leasing companies wouldn't have agreed affordable leases because of the risk of not being able to sell them on later - they'd have been better not going after them at all.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Someone fancied it and thought everyone else would too? We all do it, sometime or another. Businesses aren't immune. It's always seemed to me to be the big risk with the emphasis on making everything "sexy". It works if you've got it, and not if you haven't. Being rational all the time is soooooo boring - not. Better than taking the magic potion and being off with the fairies!

Classic case of emperors new clothes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Of course - there were those operational problems as well, without a doubt, the focus of my last post was simply looking at them from a cascade and a cost point of view and any potential resale market - pretty much all of the bendy buses acquired these days are on lease and for tendered/contracted operations tend to be on leases for the duration of the contract for sensible reason and nothing specialist like the Streetcar.

The point I was trying to make is there was a large financial risk on taking on a vehicle such as a Streetcar because of the factors that I outlined and the operational ones that you outlined - there was no way they could have got them without buying them outright, the leasing companies wouldn't have agreed affordable leases because of the risk of not being able to sell them on later - they'd have been better not going after them at all.

You can lease anything depending on what terms you’re prepared to sign up to. Know what you’re saying in terms of cascading or residual value and that’s difficult enough with conventional bendis. FTR was just a fundamentally flawed idea and whilst I’ve criticised Moir before, I struggle to comprehend the thought process behind it; I mean, it was patently dumb!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

duplicate post deleted

 

[F Great Eastern]

You can lease anything depending on what terms you’re prepared to sign up to. Know what you’re saying in terms of cascading or residual value and that’s difficult enough with conventional bendis.

You can but with something specialist where there is an unproven market for it, the lessor is far more likely going to want to recoup the whole cost of the vehicle on the initial lease due to fears about not being able to place the asset again or sell it, which will result the lease either being long and/or the overall cost of lease being very high, which negates any benefit from leasing in the first place.

The only place bendy buses tend to be ordered right now are for contracted operations, park and rides and airport shuttles etc - normally these services are tendered for a medium term duration and often the operators who procure vehicles for such operations will have the leases for the vehicles aligned with the contract dates.