More issues with overcrowding preventing children getting to school.

[em81]

In relation to pupils trying to get from Poynton to a college in Stockport, Tim Roca MP has posted the following on his Facebook.

.UPDATE ON 391 BUS SERVICE FROM POYNTON TO AQUINAS COLLEGE
Thank you to all the young people and families who have contacted me about problems with the 391 bus service.

I know the start of term has been disrupted for many students travelling from Poynton to Aquinas College, with buses reaching capacity and leaving students unable to board.

Our young people deserve better. I have contacted Belle Vue and Cheshire East Council, and I will be meeting with the bus company on Friday to discuss these problems and press for urgent action.

I will keep everyone affected updated. If you have experienced any problems with the service, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Email me for updates: tim.roca.mp@parliament.uk
Tim

Facebook

www.facebook.com

Belle Vue ordered 3 x Mercedes Stratas for the route, and have some ex-TfGM Versa hybrids as backup. One of the Stratas also operates the 891 Poynton High School service - which was originally going to be a double decker run by Metroline Bee Network, but they didn't have sufficient drivers to take it on.

It sounds like a repeat of the fiasco where TfGM allowed Little Gem to use a Fiat minibus on the 288, which was grossly inadequate for an airport bus that also carried a significant number of pupils to a High School.

I think councils and PTEs are too reliant on school kids travelling on regular buses or a designated bus that's run by taking a vehicle off a regular service.

Cheshire East's 88/89/188 contract is an example of that. Take a bus off the 89 Northwich to Knutsford to run a Knutsford Academy service. Then find it's too small so contract Belle Vue to run a duplicate 188 service anyway!

 

[mangad]

Poynton High School is in Cheshire East, and whilst there are children who go there from Greater Manchester, I can't imagine why Metroline would be running school buses to it. Metroline run large franchises and so can't bid for non Bee Network services with them. Aquinas is in Stockport but I am not aware of any sixth form colleges in Stockport getting Bee Network services. Certainly Marple college organise their own. Macclesfield college also run their own buses (run by Andrews) from within the Stockport Borough.

I don't live too far from Poynton High school and my understanding is that that the council organise next to nothing for school transport other than the absolute legal minimum. So the school have arranged their own services, currently run by Belle Vue. Given the complete hands off state of the council for schools in their own area, and the fact the 391 is a council funded service, I am thoroughly unsurprised they show no interest in serving a sixth form in a neighbouring borough. Indeed to give an example of Cheshire East's attitude, they closed several tips close to Greater Manchester meaning that residents ended up going to Greater Manchester tips. To the extent that Greater Manchester planned on cracking down and asking for proof of residency. Still, it saved Cheshire East some cash and that's what they care about most.

 

[mayneway]

Metroline run everything that was originally awarded to them in tranche 3. Nothing has been ‘dropped’ because of a lack of drivers.

This story is repeated throughout Greater Manchester. Parents in Glossop and Hollingworth have complained to the Bee Network and their local councillor after students travelling to colleges in Ashton were left at bus stops as buses were full to capacity. Some parents were claiming their children were having to set off more than 2 hours before they started to ensure they got a place on the 237, which is a public service.

Councillors in Denton are also demanding bigger buses are used on some Go North west school services claiming the single deckers (E200’s) are too small and fill up far too quickly leaving school kids behind.

Things will settle down!

 

[Ballyheigue]

What's really needed is a policy that you can only attend a school, college etc in your local authority area, problem solved.

 

[Harpo]

What's really needed is a policy that you can only attend a school, college etc in your local authority area, problem solved.

Might work fine in large towns or cities but not in rural locations.

We have family doing a 16 mile (one way) college commute. The other major one (of two) is nearer (10 miles) but has no regular headway bus. It’s not in their local authority area either.

 

[py_megapixel]

What's really needed is a policy that you can only attend a school, college etc in your local authority area, problem solved.

Reducing education opportunities for thousands of people instead of bothering to solve a very simple capacity problem is precisely the opposite of what we should be doing. The public transport network should open up more possibilities for education, particularly post 16.

Not every local authority will be able to provide for every young person, again particularly post 16.

In this case it seems the problem could quite easily be solved by extending a morning 192 service down to Poynton on schooldays, if TfGM are prepared to do that. I hope they would be, it's not a very long extension and sounds like it would carry a decent load.

 

[em81]

The 891 was a Stagecoach Manchester route. It was also contracted by TfGM as it's taking Greater Manchester pupils to school so their parents pay their council tax to Stockport council, not Cheshire East council.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 08:09 ==

What's really needed is a policy that you can only attend a school, college etc in your local authority area, problem solved.

That doesn't work when there's a village 3 miles from the nearest town and the council border between them. You could end up sending children to a school 15 miles away, instead of 3 miles away.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 08:13 ==

Metroline run everything that was originally awarded to them in tranche 3. Nothing has been ‘dropped’ because of a lack of drivers.

Are you sure about that? There's a 891 page on the Bee Network site showing "no departures today" and no mention of it being a non-Bee Network service.

891 Stockport - Heaviley - Great Moor - Hazel Grove - Poynton

See departure times for every stop on this route. Major stops include: Stockport - Heaviley - Great Moor - Hazel Grove - Poynton

tfgm.com

 

[mangad]

Are you sure about that? There's a 891 page on the Bee Network site showing "no departures today" and no mention of it being a non-Bee Network service.

891 Stockport - Heaviley - Great Moor - Hazel Grove - Poynton

See departure times for every stop on this route. Major stops include: Stockport - Heaviley - Great Moor - Hazel Grove - Poynton

tfgm.com

The 391 isn't a Bee Network service and if you look that up on TfGM you will see nothing in the live departures to tell you that either.

The 891 to Poynton High is run by Belle Vue. Belle Vue do not have any Bee Network contracts at this time.

 

[em81]

The 391 isn't a Bee Network service and if you look that up on TfGM you will see nothing in the live departures to tell you that either.

The 891 to Poynton High is run by Belle Vue. Belle Vue do not have any Bee Network contracts at this time.

I'm aware the 391 contract is Cheshire East. It was actually a Belle Vue manager who said they'd taken on the 891 as Metroline couldn't run it, as well as saying D&G struggled with capacity on the 88/188, which is why they were asked to run the additional 188. But then he also sounded very confident (at the time) that returning the leased Enviro 200s and buying Stratas wouldn't create any issues.

There must be some joint agreements in place regarding the 391 extending into the Bee Network area, and the 891 being covered as part of a Cheshire East contract.

 

[BusesOfTheNW]

The 891 was initially ran by Metroline (Hyde Road I think) but upon the 391 coming up for re-tender in April 2025 the route was transferred to Belle Vue.

 

[mangad]

I'm aware the 391 contract is Cheshire East. It was actually a Belle Vue manager who said they'd taken on the 891 as Metroline couldn't run it, as well as saying D&G struggled with capacity on the 88/188, which is why they were asked to run the additional 188. But then he also sounded very confident (at the time) that returning the leased Enviro 200s and buying Stratas wouldn't create any issues.

I had a look at the Railway Media Timetable archive, and there's a timetable for September 2024 showing the 891 being run by Belle Vue at that time so ahead of the Bee Network hitting Stockport. It was previously run by Stagecoach, assume from either Stockport or Sharston depots. If it was Sharston then it wouldn't have been possible for Metroline to run it as it wasn't take into the Bee Network, and as a large franchise Sharston wouldn't be able to bid for Cheshire's work.

There must be some joint agreements in place regarding the 391 extending into the Bee Network area, and the 891 being covered as part of a Cheshire East contract.

391 will be run under the permit scheme.

 

[duncombec]

Moving away from Stockport for a moment, on a similar subject, the following article has appeared on the RouteOne website this week (https://www.route-one.net/news/councils-are-out-of-touch-with-realities-of-coaching/):

A Welsh coach operator has accused local authorities of failing to understand the commercial realities of running vehicles, arguing that inflexible procurement and contract management is placing essential school transport providers under growing pressure.

Speaking to routeone anonymously, the operator says councils in its area frequently impose demanding conditions while failing to give sufficient consideration to rising fuel, wage, maintenance and finance costs.

Their warning follows a tender submitted amid the recent rise in fuel prices. The company priced in that risk after the local authority declined to offer assistance, but the owner reveals it was told more than two months later that its bids had been unsuccessful because they were too expensive.

Under some longer-term contracts, businesses must also absorb cost increases for several years before becoming eligible for an inflationary uplift, leaving them exposed to sharp increases in operating costs during the early years of the agreement.

Questioned also is councils’ approach to payments when services are suspended due to school closures. On two recent days when services did not operate, the business was able to claim only 45% of the contract payment; one authority argued the company had not incurred any costs as its vehicles had not left the depot.

“My drivers have mortgages, rent and bills to pay, and they expect to be paid even if they lose a day’s work because a school closes,” the operator says. “The vehicles still have to be taxed, insured, tested and maintained. When the people in authority do not understand the challenges we face every day, that is the single biggest issue.

“If operators were not so reliant on this contract work, they could tell the local authorities to keep it. But for many operators across the country, school work is the bread and butter; it pays the bills throughout the year. I appreciate every operator has its own costs, but I cannot compete in a race to the bottom, and I refuse to.”

That there are no costs if the vehicles don't move is an... interesting... perspective!

 

[Tetchytyke]

That there are no costs if the vehicles don't move is an... interesting... perspective!

The operator got 45% of the normal fee, so it isn't that the council didn't take into account that there are some fixed costs.

But operators keep telling us at great length that their biggest single cost is fuel. A bus that doesn't leave the depot doesn't use any fuel. It doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable position for the council to take. Maybe 45% is too low to cover the fixed costs, but the principle seems reasonable to me.

 

[jumble]

The operator got 45% of the normal fee, so it isn't that the council didn't take into account that there are some fixed costs.

But operators keep telling us at great length that their biggest single cost is fuel. A bus that doesn't leave the depot doesn't use any fuel. It doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable position for the council to take. Maybe 45% is too low to cover the fixed costs, but the principle seems reasonable to me.

I am astonished that the 45% if the reporting is correct did not appear to be laid down in the contract in black and white and so the operator would have nothing to moan about.

 

[em81]

Moving away from Stockport for a moment, on a similar subject, the following article has appeared on the RouteOne website this week (https://www.route-one.net/news/councils-are-out-of-touch-with-realities-of-coaching/):



That there are no costs if the vehicles don't move is an... interesting... perspective!

A decade or two ago it was normal for coach hire companies to buy some old deckers and then bid for school contracts, often using semi-retired drivers in the summer when they were getting more demand for their coach hire service. With various changes like subsidy cuts and accessibility legislation, that's less common now.

 

[styles]

What's really needed is a policy that you can only attend a school, college etc in your local authority area, problem solved.

To an extent this already exists with catchment areas. Also the Education Act (one of them anyway!) sets out the statutory distances local authorities must provide school transport for.

But ultimately there's always going to be pupils travelling further afield for a variety of reasons. It would be better all round to just provide the necessary capacity.

 

[mayneway]

Are you sure about that? There's a 891 page on the Bee Network site showing "no departures today" and no mention of it being a non-Bee Network service.

I was sent a spread sheet of everything awarded in tranche 3 and there’s no ‘891’ listed as being part of Metroline’s contract at either Hyde road or Sharston.
Stagecoach did run some services out that way but obviously when tranche 3 kicked in that probably changed.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The operator got 45% of the normal fee, so it isn't that the council didn't take into account that there are some fixed costs.

But operators keep telling us at great length that their biggest single cost is fuel. A bus that doesn't leave the depot doesn't use any fuel. It doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable position for the council to take. Maybe 45% is too low to cover the fixed costs, but the principle seems reasonable to me.

Fuel isn't the biggest single cost - it's staff costs. Fuel is the greatest variable cost but the fixed costs of a driver, maintenance, licenses, back office etc far outweigh 45%

 

[Deerfold]

I think councils and PTEs are too reliant on school kids travelling on regular buses or a designated bus that's run by taking a vehicle off a regular service.

Cunning with regular buses on many routes having had their frequencies reduced or entirely removed.

I looked recently at how easy the trip to school I did on public buses would now be and realised I'd have to leave an hour earlier to get to school for the same time.

 

[Dwarfer1979]

The operator got 45% of the normal fee, so it isn't that the council didn't take into account that there are some fixed costs.

But operators keep telling us at great length that their biggest single cost is fuel. A bus that doesn't leave the depot doesn't use any fuel. It doesn't seem a particularly unreasonable position for the council to take. Maybe 45% is too low to cover the fixed costs, but the principle seems reasonable to me.

I'm not sure any operator says fuel is the single biggest cost, staff costs are the biggest costs (probably around half the hourly cost of providing a bus once all the costs/taxes are added to the hourly wage are the drivers costs alone) with fuel second but as GrandWazoo said most variable (both in frequency of changes, at least for smaller operators who can't hedge, and size of those swings). You would probably need to be up at 60-70% of contract price to not leave the operator out of pocket.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I was sent a spread sheet of everything awarded in tranche 3 and there’s no ‘891’ listed as being part of Metroline’s contract at either Hyde road or Sharston.

Sounds like a game of Chinese whispers.

Franchise depots in GM can't be used for non-franchise work. So it is true that Hyde Road couldn't continue to operate this service. It isn't because of a lack of drivers or a lack of willing from Metroline, it is because they're not allowed to under the franchise agreement.

It appears to have been tendered by Cheshire East, so if the tender didn't specify sufficient capacity then that would be a tendering issue.

I am astonished that the 45% if the reporting is correct did not appear to be laid down in the contract in black and white and so the operator would have nothing to moan about.

It seems odd that the contract doesn't specify what happens if the school is closed on a day when it should be open. Does the operator have to run the bus anyway or can they cancel it? And if it is cancelled do they get paid, and if so, how much.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like it was included in the contract but the operator doesn't like that it was. It'll certainly be true that the operator won't have much scope to negotiate on this term, the councils do increasingly take the view of 'like it or lump it' because of their own budgetary pressures.

Councils may or may not understand the pressures facing transport operators, I think some do and some don't. But even the ones who do understand the pressures on operators also have their own financial pressures, councils cannot spend money that they do not have. So yes, councils are going to push down very hard on both price and T&Cs and operators are going to be left with a choice of liking it or lumping it.

Fuel isn't the biggest single cost - it's staff costs. Fuel is the greatest variable cost but the fixed costs of a driver, maintenance, licenses, back office etc far outweigh 45%

As I said, there are two parts: the value, and the principle. The principle seems fair. I don't know if the value is fair, I'd defer to your knowledge there.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Reading between the lines, it sounds like it was included in the contract but the operator doesn't like that it was. It'll certainly be true that the operator won't have much scope to negotiate on this term, the councils do increasingly take the view of 'like it or lump it' because of their own budgetary pressures.

Councils may or may not understand the pressures facing transport operators, I think some do and some don't. But even the ones who do understand the pressures on operators also have their own financial pressures, councils cannot spend money that they do not have. So yes, councils are going to push down very hard on both price and T&Cs and operators are going to be left with a choice of liking it or lumping it.

I guess it depends on the circumstances. I'm sure that operators will be aware of school terms and that is of course factored in. If in this instance, perhaps it was something like the school was closed for weather or some other unforeseen short notice reason, it is probably reasonable not to pay for the fixed and semi-variable costs?

The public sector has a very interesting approach to procurement!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The public sector has a very interesting approach to procurement!

Oh, there's definitely an attitude in many procurement teams that they're doing everyone a favour by offering out a tender and that the contractors should just be grateful for whatever they get given. It's not exclusive to the public sector, mind.

 

[robertclark125]

One solution, in the 1990s, for this, was in my home town, cardenden. It's in the catchment area for lochgelly high school. That opened in 1987, replacing high schools in cardenden and Ballingry. In the early years, there was still a them and us attitude, and there were problems, all of which are non existent now. However, kirkcaldy High School is only a mile further away than lochgelly, and some families were choosing to send their children to kirkcaldy High school instead.

The number of pupils from cardenden going there, resulted in overcrowding on local bus services to cardenden, and so in 1994, the local community council organised its own, dedicated, school bus from cardenden to kirkcaldy High school. Parents paid £10 a week per pupil, and the work was contracted out to Reekie of kinglassie. This certainly eased the overcrowding.

But, by the mid 2000s, possibly 2010, with all the issues at lochgelly high school sorted, and the them and us problems eliminated, the numbers of pupils using the dedicated bus from cardenden, to kirkcaldy High school, were small, and also, with reekie ending coach hire to concentrate on car servicing, the service came to an end.

As cardenden is not in the catchment area for kirkcaldy High school, fife council were not obliged to provide a service from cardenden to kirkcaldy High school.

It's a novel idea, and I wonder if community councils should look at this concept.

 

[em81]

It appears to have been tendered by Cheshire East, so if the tender didn't specify sufficient capacity then that would be a tendering issue.

It would be on behalf of TfGM. There can be cross-border contracts that get funding from both the councils the route serves.

TfGM have a history of specifying minimum total capacity for tenders, while Cheshire East have always done seated capacity. So for Cheshire East a 24 seater Strata is the same as a 24 seater Solo even if the Solo can carry more standees.

Cheshire used to have clauses in contracts that if demand increases the larger vehicle or additional journey should covered by the additional fare revenue. I don't know if that's still the case with the new contracts.

I think a problem with tenders longer than 12 months is school demand can vary greatly from one academic year to the next.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Oh, there's definitely an attitude in many procurement teams that they're doing everyone a favour by offering out a tender and that the contractors should just be grateful for whatever they get given. It's not exclusive to the public sector, mind.

You're quite right in that it's a very extensive, hard nosed approach that the procurement world seem to enjoy, and indeed, not confined to the public sector. I have had a couple of interesting private sector ones that would have thinking that you're dealing with sociopaths if not psychopaths.

With public sector, they are scarred by the idea that any cost overrun will be splashed on the front page of the Daily Mail so hence their inflexibility.

 

[RT4038]

You're quite right in that it's a very extensive, hard nosed approach that the procurement world seem to enjoy, and indeed, not confined to the public sector. I have had a couple of interesting private sector ones that would have thinking that you're dealing with sociopaths if not psychopaths.

With public sector, they are scarred by the idea that any cost overrun will be splashed on the front page of the Daily Mail so hence their inflexibility.

In my experience there will always be the Procurement Team who try to squeeze every last drop out of the contractor(s); usually because there will always be the Contractor who has given them good reason to need to do so.

 

[GarethC]

I think a problem with tenders longer than 12 months is school demand can vary greatly from one academic year to the next.

Key thing to note with this case, Aquinas College is a sixth form college and as you go through the year demand will drop as students learn to drive (and take their friends). As it's post 16 there's no general requirement for the LA to fund travel and no formal catchment areas.

As it's a high performing Catholic college it draws people from across a wide area. When I went to Aquinas 25 years ago, I had friends getting the train to college from Buxton, Glossop (via Piccadilly) and bus, bike and walk from across Stockport.

Interesting to note now I live in Suffolk. The buses to Suffolk One (sixth form) are busy in September and get emptier as the year progresses.

 

[markymark2000]

This is an issue every September and it normally works itself out in the end.

For schools, students tend to travel on one bus because that is what the school advertises and students aren't aware of all of the alternatives, then throughout September students adapt their travel patterns to avoid overcrowded buses, meet up with friends before school to go to the shop, get to school early for some reason etc.
For colleges, they get all the students in normally for the first bit and then students start to spread out a LOT more as their timetables become more flexible and similar to schools they make friends and adjust around meeting friends and avoiding overcrowded buses. As Gareth says too, Sixth form and colleges some students learn to drive or get lifts with friends.

What needs to happen, across bus operators and schools/colleges is communicate better for the September peak to make it smoother. Spending a few bob on a bus and driver to duplicate a service that you believe will overflow in September, is almost certainly lower, than the ongoing costs (both financially and time) of meetings and letters to discuss how to fix the problem for the rest of the school term, despite it being a short term problem. Everyone spends far too long looking at a long term solution (school year) for a very short term problem (September) and by the time a fix is made, the demand has dropped and everyones reputation has been dragged through the mud.

I am generalising here and so there will be places where it won't fix itself within september, but in lots of cases it will fix itself but there needs to be better comms from all parties to mitigate this in the first place by ensuring that operators are aware of uptake in a
Something of note though with the 391, it's tendered. Fully tendered. It seems silly to be bashing Belle Vue for their choice of vehicle unless the vehicle standards/specs are lower than what is in the tender/contract. The onus would then be on the council or college/school to properly communicate and get changed made to the tender (if possible and within procurement rules) or source alternative transport.

 

[mangad]

Something of note though with the 391, it's tendered. Fully tendered. It seems silly to be bashing Belle Vue for their choice of vehicle unless the vehicle standards/specs are lower than what is in the tender/contract. The onus would then be on the council or college/school to properly communicate and get changed made to the tender (if possible and within procurement rules) or source alternative transport.

Te first bus from Stockport and the last bus to Stockport are commercially run, according to this timetable. Presumably the contract wanted a bus from Macclesfield around 7am, and Belle Vue is in Stockport, so presumably they decided to run it in service rather than run it empty. Even if it does take far longer to get to Macclesfield that way.