• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

GM style franchising for London?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fleetmaster

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2023
Messages
353
Location
Hounslow
Anyone see scope in London for a Manchester style patchwork franchising implementation?

I think the territory could sustain 20 distinct concessions, 4 inner London tranches (NE, NW, SE, SW), then two concentric rings of 8 tranches (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW). This reflects the fact the outer ring of eight would be larger areas but require less buses.

Four concessions would be re-tendered per year, cycling the whole system every five years. No one operator can own more than four patches, and it would be expected that all units are operated as individual business units, to ease their transfer as and when a tender is lost.

Route, service, ticket and certain vehicle specifications would continue to be centrally planned.

Units would compete on terms and conditions, business efficiency, contract performance and customer satisfaction.

Unlike Manchester, to foster a sense of competition and pride, I would drop the 100% red rule, and allow the four central areas to have 80% red liveries, the middle 8 with 50% and the outer 8 to choose thier own scheme.

I would let units choose their own name and apply it prominently on buses, with their network status reflected in a standardised tag line, "...a Transport for London bus service".

It would hopefully raise standards across the board, and if not, at least make the London bus scene a little bit more interesting!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,233
Location
Dyfneint
Well that sounds entertainingly destructive for the sake of it. I'd say try it to see, but I have friends in London still.
 

Turtle

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2013
Messages
468
Anyone see scope in London for a Manchester style patchwork franchising implementation?

I think the territory could sustain 20 distinct concessions, 4 inner London tranches (NE, NW, SE, SW), then two concentric rings of 8 tranches (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW). This reflects the fact the outer ring of eight would be larger areas but require less buses.

Four concessions would be re-tendered per year, cycling the whole system every five years. No one operator can own more than four patches, and it would be expected that all units are operated as individual business units, to ease their transfer as and when a tender is lost.

Route, service, ticket and certain vehicle specifications would continue to be centrally planned.

Units would compete on terms and conditions, business efficiency, contract performance and customer satisfaction.

Unlike Manchester, to foster a sense of competition and pride, I would drop the 100% red rule, and allow the four central areas to have 80% red liveries, the middle 8 with 50% and the outer 8 to choose thier own scheme.

I would let units choose their own name and apply it prominently on buses, with their network status reflected in a standardised tag line, "...a Transport for London bus service".

It would hopefully raise standards across the board, and if not, at least make the London bus scene a little bit more interesting!
I can't think of a worse fate for London's transport system. Why go back to pre 1933?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,643
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Competition is a negative feature in urban transport networks. You want integration. Thus this is a terrible idea.

Concentrate on competing with the car.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,611
Location
Northampton
London buses are already subject to competitive tender, this is just a different way to do it.
But what are you gaining over the existing system? Currently London Bus passengers can treat the network as a coherent whole, so it's branded as one to help passengers. What does breaking that corporate identity achieve?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,643
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But what are you gaining over the existing system? Currently London Bus passengers can treat the network as a coherent whole, so it's branded as one to help passengers. What does breaking that corporate identity achieve?

The obsession with competition in certain circles on here?

For an urban system, together is better. The competitor is the car.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,611
Location
Northampton
The obsession with competition in certain circles on here?
I think there's just a fundamental misunderstanding of which level competition is meant to be provided - the idea is the customer still has a seamless service.
For an urban system, together is better. The competitor is the car.
Tbh even outside urban areas, the competitor is the car. Trading shots with each other just lets the car run away with it.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,643
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I think there's just a fundamental misunderstanding of which level competition is meant to be provided - the idea is the customer still has a seamless service.

Indeed. The competition can exist at the point of tendering for an operator if it's felt desirable to have it rather than have the state operate directly.

What you don't need is on-road competition between operators. It segments the offering, results in poorer service and doesn't do much for prices (because they're effectively capped by the price of a taxi or of driving anyway).

Tbh even outside urban areas, the competitor is the car. Trading shots with each other just lets the car run away with it.

I think there's more scope for the market segmentation type of competition on longer trips. Thus, I don't think it's a problem that one can fly (OK, maybe that's not ideal), go by coach, go by LNR for a budget slower trip or go by Avanti for a premium faster trip from London to the North West, for instance. I wouldn't like to see that reduced to only Avanti as the option because that would appeal to fewer people and result in more car trips.

However what is useful is that local connectivity is integrated with all of those modes. Fare integration is probably less important provided whatever local approach to fares is provided is reasonable and convenient (e.g. TfL contactless or PlusBus), but timetable and location integration certainly is.
 

Fleetmaster

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2023
Messages
353
Location
Hounslow
This isn't about on road competition. This is about how it should actually matter (and be obvious) to a customer if there is a difference between an operator that is always outstanding in how they deliver their London franchises and how the poorer ones do.

It's always been duplicitous to pretend to the customer that 100% of their fare paying experience is entirely down to the abilities of TfL.
 

Fleetmaster

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2023
Messages
353
Location
Hounslow
This is true in times of plenty, but doubly so in times of strife, where London operators are quite literally competing between each other on wages and conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top