First Group: General Discussion

[Andyh82]

So they’ve paired Aberdeen and Glasgow with York. I wonder if Andy Cullen has any knowledge of the Scottish bus market?

To be honest York probably runs itself. The fleet is sorted for a while, being entirely electric, and the service network is very static and very rarely changes. You’d assume most attention will be on Glasgow and Aberdeen, Glasgow in particular being a much more complex business.

I know people are just wanting to throw stones at First here, but bus company managers regularly move around the country, including some very respected ones, even in the olden days it happened.

 

[markymark2000]

It is truly a wonderful business model, hoover up taxpayer subsidy (50% of their revenue)

According to the annual bus statistics Operator Revenue section (including chart 14), in England the estimated operator revenue is 52% passengers receipts. The remaining 48% comes in the form of tenders, subsidies, concessionary passes and fare cap.

In England, during the year ending March 2025, estimated total operating revenue was comprised of several sources, namely:

• 52% passenger receipts
• 24% local funding
• 12% concessionary fare reimbursement
• 8% from National Bus Fare Cap (NBFC)
• 3% from BSOG
• 1% from CBSSG, BRG and BSOG Plus

Good luck with the last part, I remember trying to get passenger date from a council bus route years ago, it took alot of toing and throwing as neither the council nor the bus company know what to do. Then it boild down to the fact why do you want the information.

Fully agree. I've certainly had a number of rejections to FOIs from councils insisting that passenger numbers and how much the council pays towards full tenders is commercially sensitive. It's as if they are trying to cover up how wasteful many councils spend bus funding on silly projects.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Subsidies in all their forms, BSOG, tendered contracts, ENCTS reimbursement, plus whatever supported services they run on behalf of local authorities.

The deeper issue is that as these companies become ever more dependent on the public purse, the old defence of "it is private money, so it is none of your business" falls apart entirely. If the majority of your revenue is underwritten by the taxpayer, you should be subject to FOI. Including commercial services as they would not exist without the large fuel subsidies.

Sorry but you're confusing "public money" with subsidies.

Take ENCTS reimbursement. The actual word "reimbursement" is the big clue. They are being reimbursed for a fare (and indeed, it is usually a fraction of the fare) - the person being subsidised is the pass holder NOT the operator. Remember when the ENCTS pass was introduced, and it still persists now that An operator should be 'no better and no worse off' than if there was no scheme unquote. It is the individual being subsidised not the operator, and the same applies to the fare cap.

As for supported services... Well, they're paying an operator to provide a service. That's like you or I being paid to work. That is already covered by FOI in any case (from the local authority etc).

The only real subsidy is BSOG, which is a more opaque "subsidy" but essentially, it is a subsidy paid to the operator in order to keep fares lower than they would otherwise need to be (so another payment that benefits the passenger), and of course, when the CamBorne coalition was in charge, it was halved and fares had to increase to compensate. The only reason it wasn't withdrawn completely was that it was realised that it was a smart way of leveraging power over operators.

However, if we were to apply Matt's principles to real life...

These ENCTS holders are already receiving state pensions which is, of course, public funds. They aren't a pension pot - it is funded by direct taxation. Same with all receivers of state benefits. In that case, we should have means testing of people's entitlements to make sure that not only are people are genuinely in need of those funds; we must ensure that they aren't wasting their money on tattoos and vapes (to echo another poster's views on another post!). In fact, we could extend that to all public employees - we're paying their wages so we should have the right to see what they're making out of us. Of course, they're spending these pensions and benefits in shops, buying food etc so perhaps we need to ensure that we have full visibility of Tescos, Lidl, etc financials too

I'm being flippant, of course, but the idea that you should have total visibility of a commercial organisations books because a) you're paying them to provide a service and b) you're compensating them for giving discounted travel to individuals, seems rather unlikely.Just because @overthewater couldn't get data on a supported service... well, they could've put in an FOI to the local authority as they are the contracting entity. No operator would be allowed to share that information without the consent of the local authority so not surprised that they pointed OTW in that direction.

 

[mattb7tl]

Sorry but you're confusing "public money" with subsidies.

Take ENCTS reimbursement. The actual word "reimbursement" is the big clue. They are being reimbursed for a fare (and indeed, it is usually a fraction of the fare) - the person being subsidised is the pass holder NOT the operator. Remember when the ENCTS pass was introduced, and it still persists now that An operator should be 'no better and no worse off' than if there was no scheme unquote. It is the individual being subsidised not the operator, and the same applies to the fare cap.

As for supported services... Well, they're paying an operator to provide a service. That's like you or I being paid to work. That is already covered by FOI in any case (from the local authority etc).

The only real subsidy is BSOG, which is a more opaque "subsidy" but essentially, it is a subsidy paid to the operator in order to keep fares lower than they would otherwise need to be (so another payment that benefits the passenger), and of course, when the CamBorne coalition was in charge, it was halved and fares had to increase to compensate. The only reason it wasn't withdrawn completely was that it was realised that it was a smart way of leveraging power over operators.

However, if we were to apply Matt's principles to real life...

These ENCTS holders are already receiving state pensions which is, of course, public funds. They aren't a pension pot - it is funded by direct taxation. Same with all receivers of state benefits. In that case, we should have means testing of people's entitlements to make sure that not only are people are genuinely in need of those funds; we must ensure that they aren't wasting their money on tattoos and vapes (to echo another poster's views on another post!). In fact, we could extend that to all public employees - we're paying their wages so we should have the right to see what they're making out of us. Of course, they're spending these pensions and benefits in shops, buying food etc so perhaps we need to ensure that we have full visibility of Tescos, Lidl, etc financials too

I'm being flippant, of course, but the idea that you should have total visibility of a commercial organisations books because a) you're paying them to provide a service and b) you're compensating them for giving discounted travel to individuals, seems rather unlikely.Just because @overthewater couldn't get data on a supported service... well, they could've put in an FOI to the local authority as they are the contracting entity. No operator would be allowed to share that information without the consent of the local authority so not surprised that they pointed OTW in that direction.

Call it what you like, a subsidy, a reimbursement, the money still originates from the public purse and ends up in an operators accounts. The "no better, no worse off" principle for ENCTS is also largely theoretical; reimbursement rates are negotiated locally and operators routinely argue they are being under reimbursed, which rather implies they think the arrangement affects their bottom line one way or another.

BSOG is not paid only on tendered services, it flows to commercial operations too. So even your supposedly "pure" commercial routes are receiving a direct government fuel subsidy. A commercial service (almost all of them) that would collapse without a fuel duty rebate is not really a commercial service in any meaningful sense of the word.

Tesco comparison, fun bit of rhetoric, no relevance. Tesco isn't granted a government fuel subsidy to keep lorries running. Tesco is not paid by local authorities to open stores in unprofitable areas. Tesco doesn't receive reimbursement via a state administered scheme every time a pensioner uses their free bus pass to go shopping. If they received half their revenue through public mechanisms, and are kept alive by said mechanisms, yes, it should face greater scrutiny and should not be entitled to obscurity. The difference is it does not.

The core point stands, a company that is structurally dependent on public money, in all various forms, however you want label them, should not be entitled to the same opacity as a genuinely private enterprise. It is increasingly not their money they are spending even when they claim a service is "commercial"

 

[Fletcj10]

Wilfreda Beehive joins rapidly growing FirstGroup coach business

FirstGroup has continued its purchase of coach operators with the acquisition of Adwick-le-Street business Wilfreda Beehive.

www.route-one.net

Another acquisition!

 

[overthewater]

I'm being flippant, of course, but the idea that you should have total visibility of a commercial organisations books because a) you're paying them to provide a service and b) you're compensating them for giving discounted travel to individuals, seems rather unlikely.Just because @overthewater couldn't get data on a supported service... well, they could've put in an FOI to the local authority as they are the contracting entity. No operator would be allowed to share that information without the consent of the local authority so not surprised that they pointed OTW in that direction.

Just to be clear I did get the information in the end and it was FOI. However it took over a week of "Ping pong" between the local council, departments and the bus company, because no one know who had the legal right to give permission, and the council kept saying we don't hold that information. It was bit like that yes minster sketch " policy of administration and the administration of policy" In the end, one of them come back and asked me:

* Why I wanted the information,
* What I was going do with the information.

I told them, I wanted to prove outright the contract needed a bigger bus. The following week I was given the data and told it was for my own use own and could not be shared with anyone ( I still have those printouts). However at the exact same time the council contract I asked about got given the bigger bus, continued to do so mostly for the next 6 years. It seemed like the council wasn't keep a close eye on the passenger numbers. The hassle I had with a council bus route will be small fries compared to what mattb7tl would be after, which was point I was trying to make first time around

Wilfreda Beehive joins rapidly growing FirstGroup coach business

FirstGroup has continued its purchase of coach operators with the acquisition of Adwick-le-Street business Wilfreda Beehive.

www.route-one.net

Another acquisition!

It's never ended with first at the min, its a shame it just coach operations.

 

[mattb7tl]

I told them, I wanted to prove outright the contract needed a bigger bus. The following week I was given the data and told it was for my own use own and could not be shared with anyone ( I still have those printouts). However at the exact same time the council contract I asked about got given the bigger bus, continued to do so mostly for the next 6 years. It seemed like the council wasn't keep a close eye on the passenger numbers. The hassle I had with a council bus route will be small fries compared to what mattb7tl would be after, which was point I was trying to make first time around

It soon will not be an issue for myself and my area with the arrival of franchising. It is such a shame for areas not opting for public ownership as that it is straight up not possible to fight any commercial changes because it requires proof which is not possible to obtain because it is "commercially sensitive" despite the fact no service is truly commercial after all the subsidies. It means people in deregulated areas will have to trust their local company has a good subjective opinion on demand.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Wilfreda Beehive joins rapidly growing FirstGroup coach business

FirstGroup has continued its purchase of coach operators with the acquisition of Adwick-le-Street business Wilfreda Beehive.

www.route-one.net

Another acquisition!

Will this mean that the Sundays only 51 (Doncaster-Norton) previously operated by Yorkshire Buses will transfer over to First? (South Yorkshire division specifically?) Seeing as Wilfreda Beehive were the ones meant to take over the service following the closure of Yorkshire Buses...

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Call it what you like, a subsidy, a reimbursement, the money still originates from the public purse and ends up in an operators accounts. The "no better, no worse off" principle for ENCTS is also largely theoretical; reimbursement rates are negotiated locally and operators routinely argue they are being under reimbursed, which rather implies they think the arrangement affects their bottom line one way or another.

No - it's not a case of you calling it what you like.

You said subsidy - it is but NOT to the operator. And if operators routinely argue that they are being under reimbursed (and they all are so it's pretty consistent)... in what way is that a subsidy to them? Yes, it affects their bottom line and in one way, not another.

You blithely quote 50% as publicly funded revenue when most of those funds are paid as a subsidy for passengers in either ENCTS or Fare Cap. Political decisions that were introduced as pre-election bribes - one to secure the grey vote, another to try and placate the cost of living crisis; don't try to argue that they weren't.

Much of the rest is the payment of public money for the provision of franchised (TfGM or TfL) or to secure subsidised services, all of which under competitive tender and subject to procurement regulations so yes, you do get full oversight on those through your elected bodies. The Tesco line was obviously a bit of fun but for info, certain key demographics DO get food vouchers and assistance, and there have always been Social Fund loans, or indeed how VAT isn't charged on certain items and we assume that this is passed onto the consumer but here's the point. I can talk about how government contracts (local and central) work, the level of oversight that they enjoy, how they look to shift risk onto the service provider (e.g. fixed and firm pricing for x years, no ability to reflect higher levels of CPI, and so on) and many other facets.

The idea that there's no oversight on franchised/tendered services is frankly not true. What the Authority share, how and why is a different matter, and that was where @overthewater came in.

As for the reimbursement for fare cap and ENCTS... Well, perhaps that is a fair point....maybe you're right and that individuals/services should be self sustaining. Remove the fare caps and the concessionary schemes and we'll see what is truly commercial.

Just to be clear I did get the information in the end and it was FOI. However it took over a week of "Ping pong" between the local council, departments and the bus company, because no one know who had the legal right to give permission, and the council kept saying we don't hold that information.

Erm... to be clear. The contracting entity was the council. They have the right to provide information - First (or any operator) doesn't have the right to provide information on a service they were providing without authority from the council.

 

[Murray J]

Will this mean that the Sundays only 51 (Doncaster-Norton) previously operated by Yorkshire Buses will transfer over to First? (South Yorkshire division specifically?) Seeing as Wilfreda Beehive were the ones meant to take over the service following the closure of Yorkshire Buses...

Probably not, maybe in the long-term but route training doesn't happen overnight.

 

[sytransport]

Probably not, maybe in the long-term but route training doesn't happen overnight.

First already run the 51 on evenings.

Will this mean that the Sundays only 51 (Doncaster-Norton) previously operated by Yorkshire Buses will transfer over to First? (South Yorkshire division specifically?) Seeing as Wilfreda Beehive were the ones meant to take over the service following the closure of Yorkshire Buses...

Why would if? What other acquisition has this been the case for? It’s a completely different O-licence.

 

[Pit_buzzer]

First already run the 51 Monday to Saturday so no training involved. Maybe it would go the other way and wilfreda will become a low cost unit and take on the whole service and maybe some other odds and ends

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Will this mean that the Sundays only 51 (Doncaster-Norton) previously operated by Yorkshire Buses will transfer over to First? (South Yorkshire division specifically?) Seeing as Wilfreda Beehive were the ones meant to take over the service following the closure of Yorkshire Buses...

Perhaps it's a little early on that but we'll find out soon enough It's another interesting acquisition from First, that is without question.

 

[Marcus Fryer]

Why would it? What other acquisition has this been the case for? It’s a completely different O-licence.

There are parallels here with First taking over the Bath Bus Company and transferring the A4 route to First West of England.

 

[sytransport]

There are parallels here with First taking over the Bath Bus Company and transferring the A4 route to First West of England.

But Bath Bus Company is what it is in the name, a bus company. These are coach acquisitions and are very different in this aspect.

 

[markymark2000]

There are parallels here with First taking over the Bath Bus Company and transferring the A4 route to First West of England.

If you look at York Pullman and Ensign though which would probably be more comparable, these continue to operate independently despite the networks overlapping with First local bus. They also have sufficient work away from local bus to keep these as separate standalone businesses.

 

[tbtc]

I know people are just wanting to throw stones at First here, but bus company managers regularly move around the country, including some very respected ones, even in the olden days it happened

Agreed

There's various things going on here

Firstly, big companies have always reshuffles etc, sometimes for strategic reasons, sometimes because someone leaves which might be an opportunity/reason to merge/split roles, maybe depending on potential replacements

Secondly, most of these senior roles discussed are more about managing groups of people/budgets than requiring particular knowledge of whether the 18a is diverted or which bus is next to be repainted. I think we, as enthusiasts, are sometimes guilty of not trusting anyone in a firm who isn't an actual driver, but if you've got thousands of staff then that requires a lot of back office. If I was responsible for both Aberdeen and York, I'd probably want to trust that the people in each location could do their jobs and focus on the support that they'd need, rather than having to focus on the small stuff

Thirdly, First are probably more at the mercy of the winds of change than other big groups, being heavily involved in areas approaching/at franchising. It's understandable (to me) that they'd restructure so that focus could be given to the areas dealing with long term contracts and to the places dealing with everyday competition

Fourthly, it's easy to be cynical about any large organisation, but some of the criticism is OTT. Especially as I've seen on this forum that dinner enthusiasts are using Freedom Of Information to obtain sound recordings of station announcements/ duty rosters etc - not exactly things I thought of as priorities when Blair introduced the legislation

Lastly, the Wilfreda Beehive announcement is interesting, First planning on a future as a coach operator. Maybe this and other recent acquisitions are purely strategic, maybe there's an element of owners willing to sell out as the market/legislation gets tougher. Stagecoach/ Arriva/ Go Ahead etc are less at the mercy of PTE-area franchising (so may see these as opportunities rather than potentially losses), but at least First have an eye on the future

 

[fgwrich]

Agreed

There's various things going on here

Firstly, big companies have always reshuffles etc, sometimes for strategic reasons, sometimes because someone leaves which might be an opportunity/reason to merge/split roles, maybe depending on potential replacements

Secondly, most of these senior roles discussed are more about managing groups of people/budgets than requiring particular knowledge of whether the 18a is diverted or which bus is next to be repainted. I think we, as enthusiasts, are sometimes guilty of not trusting anyone in a firm who isn't an actual driver, but if you've got thousands of staff then that requires a lot of back office. If I was responsible for both Aberdeen and York, I'd probably want to trust that the people in each location could do their jobs and focus on the support that they'd need, rather than having to focus on the small stuff

Thirdly, First are probably more at the mercy of the winds of change than other big groups, being heavily involved in areas approaching/at franchising. It's understandable (to me) that they'd restructure so that focus could be given to the areas dealing with long term contracts and to the places dealing with everyday competition

Fourthly, it's easy to be cynical about any large organisation, but some of the criticism is OTT. Especially as I've seen on this forum that dinner enthusiasts are using Freedom Of Information to obtain sound recordings of station announcements/ duty rosters etc - not exactly things I thought of as priorities when Blair introduced the legislation

Lastly, the Wilfreda Beehive announcement is interesting, First planning on a future as a coach operator. Maybe this and other recent acquisitions are purely strategic, maybe there's an element of owners willing to sell out as the market/legislation gets tougher. Stagecoach/ Arriva/ Go Ahead etc are less at the mercy of PTE-area franchising (so may see these as opportunities rather than potentially losses), but at least First have an eye on the future

On that, let’s not forget that the whole business model for companies like First Group have all somewhat changed from what they have been operating over the last few decades too. First Group, Having seen themselves grow from a bus company to a bus company that operates railways, to a railway company that operates buses, has been steadily shrinking back to a bus company that will only soon have the open access side of Rail to bring in extra revenue on top of what it can earn from buses.

Arriva will soon be in a similar position too, though their finances have seemed shaky for some time but will be left with GC. Go-Ahead only has Elizabeth Line left on the railway side whilst Transport UK will only have Merseyrail. Stagecoach of course has nothing but buses now.

 

[Goldfish62]

On that, let’s not forget that the whole business model for companies like First Group have all somewhat changed from what they have been operating over the last few decades too. First Group, Having seen themselves grow from a bus company to a bus company that operates railways, to a railway company that operates buses, has been steadily shrinking back to a bus company that will only soon have the open access side of Rail to bring in extra revenue on top of what it can earn from buses.

Arriva will soon be in a similar position too, though their finances have seemed shaky for some time but will be left with GC. Go-Ahead only has Elizabeth Line left on the railway side whilst Transport UK will only have Merseyrail. Stagecoach of course has nothing but buses now.

Don't forget that First takes over the London Overground concession from next month.

 

[317 forever]

Just to be clear I did get the information in the end and it was FOI. However it took over a week of "Ping pong" between the local council, departments and the bus company, because no one know who had the legal right to give permission, and the council kept saying we don't hold that information. It was bit like that yes minster sketch " policy of administration and the administration of policy" In the end, one of them come back and asked me:

* Why I wanted the information,
* What I was going do with the information.

I told them, I wanted to prove outright the contract needed a bigger bus. The following week I was given the data and told it was for my own use own and could not be shared with anyone ( I still have those printouts). However at the exact same time the council contract I asked about got given the bigger bus, continued to do so mostly for the next 6 years. It seemed like the council wasn't keep a close eye on the passenger numbers. The hassle I had with a council bus route will be small fries compared to what mattb7tl would be after, which was point I was trying to make first time around




It's never ended with first at the min, its a shame it just coach operations.

Are there any bus operations you would like First to take over?

 

[overthewater]

Are there any bus operations you would like First to take over?

That more of general observation comment I made, All there buying is coach operations, which means they don't see much growth within the bus industry moving forward.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That more of general observation comment I made, All there buying is coach operations, which means they don't see much growth within the bus industry moving forward.

RATP London - Feb 2025 and RATP Bath - Dec 2025? Added over 1000 buses to First!

The other major groups aren’t really buying either; Go Ahead are mainly buying coach firms and someone like Proctors is predominantly coaches with a few buses… rather like First’s purchase of York Pullman or Lakeland.

 

[mangad]

How many good quality bus operators are even available to buy? Short of something like McGills, Rotala, Transdev or Centrebus suddenly selling up, it really doesn't feel like there is going to be much of interest to any large operators out there. They've snaffled up most of the big companies a long time ago.

 

[markymark2000]

which means they don't see much growth within the bus industry moving forward.

To look at it another way, is there much benefit in buying up bus companies these days? They will spent lots of money buying the company and doing everything up, only for in a few years the council to come along and swipe it from under them.

And as proved in Manchester, having an existing base in the area doesn't always mean anything when it comes to bidding for work. Metroline had nothing at all in Manchester and then suddenly won a few franchises. It's probably easier to plod on and then when the franchises come up, bid for them and try to expand that way.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

To look at it another way, is there much benefit in buying up bus companies these days? They will spent lots of money buying the company and doing everything up, only for in a few years the council to come along and swipe it from under them.

Definitely one factor. Which is why they're looking at coach businesses now. That, and they now see bus operations that return margins of less than 10% (and with the most lucrative metropolitan areas now likely to be franchised and lower margins resulting) so buying coach firms with a healthy contract base makes.

 

[Bristol LHS]

To be honest York probably runs itself. The fleet is sorted for a while, being entirely electric, and the service network is very static and very rarely changes. You’d assume most attention will be on Glasgow and Aberdeen, Glasgow in particular being a much more complex business.

I’m sure that’s First’s thinking. Whether I’d take my eye off a business that has Go-Ahead and Transdev on its doorstep, and is heavily reliant on a couple of key partnerships (Unibus, Park and Ride), I’m not so sure. Untethered from the rest of Rider, it’s an isolated operation encircled by smart operators who’d love to get their hands on the territory.

 

[Mwanesh]

It soon will not be an issue for myself and my area with the arrival of franchising. It is such a shame for areas not opting for public ownership as that it is straight up not possible to fight any commercial changes because it requires proof which is not possible to obtain because it is "commercially sensitive" despite the fact no service is truly commercial after all the subsidies. It means people in deregulated areas will have to trust their local company has a good subjective opinion on demand.

You honestly think public ownership solves everything.

 

[mattb7tl]

You honestly think public ownership solves everything.

I can simply put in a request with a publicly controlled network to gain any facts and figures on the network. So yes, it solves this issue, and many others.

 

[markymark2000]

I can simply put in a request with a publicly controlled network to gain any facts and figures on the network. So yes, it solves this issue, and many others.

In theory you are right. In reality, you will struggle. Local authorities are refusing FOIs are a stupid rate these days and hiding away things under all of the various exemptions. Anything that they can do to not release information, especially if they are wanting to cover something up such as wasteful spending or silly decisions, they will do.

If the government do clamp down on FOI too like they are wanting to, you will also struggle and up different to how things are now.

 

[chubs]

Has anyone had to re-register for the First app? Not a regular user any more but had an account for years from my pre covid commuting days that was still active last year.

The app also seems to have no provision for viewing tap and go journeys, whilst other operators using ticketer have no issue showing them. There is a website link to view them which has minimal functionality and doesnt work.

Their customer service centre are unable to explain any of the above.