What could a nationalised bus operator look like?

[YorkRailFan]

A lot of speculating here, and no political party has talked about nationalising buses sadly. Would be interested to read people's thoughts.

My thoughts are:
- A nationalised bus service in London operated by TFL (Not Stagecoach, Go Ahead, Arriva and Abellio).
- A nationalised service for Manchester operated by TFGM under the Bee Network branding.
- A nationalised service for West Yorkshire with North Yorkshire operating the Coastliner into Leeds among other services, operated by West Yorkshire using the Metro or a new brand.
- Birmingham having a nationalised bus service with easy connectivity between buses, trams and trains operated by a new combined Midlands authority covering the West and East Midlands.
- Newcastle having a new nationalised bus service operating one brand with easy connectivity between buses, the Tyne & Wear Metro and Mainline trains.
- The North East (outside of Newcastle and West Yorkshire) having one nationalised company operating one brand, operated by a collaboration between North Yorkshire County Council, Durham County Council, Northumberland Council and East Yorkshire County Council, as well as Transport NE. Services would also operate into West Yorkshire (like Coastliner) and Newcastle (like a lot of current Arriva services like X15, X18, X20, X21 and X22.)
- A nationalised bus service operated by Lancashire County Council and Cumbria County Council with communication with Manchester, Liverpool and the North East to help services Cross regions. Once again, all operating under one brand.
- Services in Sheffield being operated by South Yorkshire County Council with integration between buses, trams and Mainline trains, collaboration between other Councils will be in place to help services Cross regions. Once again, one brand.
- Transport For Cornwall taking over the operation of Go Cornwall Bus and working with Devon County Council for Cross region services (as currently crossing between Devon and Cornwall is difficult thanks to onward connections and little to no communication between bus operators.)
- Welsh buses operating under one brand, operated by TFW to help integration with TFW Rail.
- Scottish buses coming under state control, operating under one brand to help integration with Scotrail and other local public transport services.
- Services in the South West coming under one brand operated by a collaboration between multiple Councils.
-Services in the South East coming under one brand with Essex Council, Kent Council, East Sussex Council, West Sussex Council, Surrey Councim and others.
- Services operated in Liverpool coming under one brand with close integration with Merseyrail and being operated by Merseyside Council.
- Services in the Anglia, Bedfordshire, Chilterns and others would come under one brand operated by their respective councils.

 

[Leedsbusman]

A lot of speculating here, and no political party has talked about nationalising buses sadly. Would be interested to read people's thoughts.

My thoughts are:
- A nationalised bus service in London operated by TFL (Not Stagecoach, Go Ahead, Arriva and Abellio).
- A nationalised service for Manchester operated by TFGM under the Bee Network branding.
- A nationalised service for West Yorkshire with North Yorkshire operating the Coastliner into Leeds among other services, operated by West Yorkshire using the Metro or a new brand.
- Birmingham having a nationalised bus service with easy connectivity between buses, trams and trains operated by a new combined Midlands authority covering the West and East Midlands.
- Newcastle having a new nationalised bus service operating one brand with easy connectivity between buses, the Tyne & Wear Metro and Mainline trains.
- The North East (outside of Newcastle and West Yorkshire) having one nationalised company operating one brand, operated by a collaboration between North Yorkshire County Council, Durham County Council, Northumberland Council and East Yorkshire County Council, as well as Transport NE. Services would also operate into West Yorkshire (like Coastliner) and Newcastle (like a lot of current Arriva services like X15, X18, X20, X21 and X22.)
- A nationalised bus service operated by Lancashire County Council and Cumbria County Council with communication with Manchester, Liverpool and the North East to help services Cross regions. Once again, all operating under one brand.
- Services in Sheffield being operated by South Yorkshire County Council with integration between buses, trams and Mainline trains, collaboration between other Councils will be in place to help services Cross regions. Once again, one brand.
- Transport For Cornwall taking over the operation of Go Cornwall Bus and working with Devon County Council for Cross region services (as currently crossing between Devon and Cornwall is difficult thanks to onward connections and little to no communication between bus operators.)
- Welsh buses operating under one brand, operated by TFW to help integration with TFW Rail.
- Scottish buses coming under state control, operating under one brand to help integration with Scotrail and other local public transport services.
- Services in the South West coming under one brand operated by a collaboration between multiple Councils.
-Services in the South East coming under one brand with Essex Council, Kent Council, East Sussex Council, West Sussex Council, Surrey Councim and others.
- Services operated in Liverpool coming under one brand with close integration with Merseyrail and being operated by Merseyside Council.
- Services in the Anglia, Bedfordshire, Chilterns and others would come under one brand operated by their respective councils.

Surely “Nationalised” means owned by the national government - like the National Bus Company was. What you have described is local authority owned - or municipal ownership.

 

[Dai Corner]

Welsh buses operating under one brand, operated by TFW to help integration with TFW Rail.

Can't really comment on the others but the two public sector bus companies in Wales have recently cut services, partly in response to reductions in subsidy.

Subsides mileage in Wales has reduced by 52% over the last few years but commercial mileage has increased.

Why do you think nationalisation would be a good thing?

 

[YorkRailFan]

Can't really comment on the others but the two public sector bus companies in Wales have recently cut services, partly in response to reductions in subsidy.

Subsides mileage in Wales has reduced by 52% over the last few years but commercial mileage has increased.

Why do you think nationalisation would be a good thing?

I agree that Wales has had a lot of issues with TFW Rail, but one has to remember that the Welsh Government has a small budget and that budget has to be spent on a lot of things, which transportation isn't the largest priority. Nationalisation is better in the long term.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2023 ==

Surely “Nationalised” means owned by the national government - like the National Bus Company was. What you have described is local authority owned - or municipal ownership.

A nationalised coach company should exist and local bus services providing inter-regional services can always be nationalised under Westminster instead of local authorities working together.

 

[JonathanH]

A nationalised coach company should exist and local bus services providing inter-regional services can always be nationalised under Westminster instead of local authorities working together.

What you are actually arguing is that you want a more comprehensive bus and coach network, with more public money to provide it.

Clearly that doesn't have to be provided by a nationalised operator. However, I suspect that the subsidiary argument underlying your view is that the additional subsidy required shouldn't be paid out as profit.

 

[Dai Corner]

I

I agree that Wales has had a lot of issues with TFW Rail, but one has to remember that the Welsh Government has a small budget and that budget has to be spent on a lot of things, which transportation isn't the largest priority. Nationalisation is better in the long term.

The Welsh Government had whatever budget it wants through its tax raising powers. It's increased spending on rail while reducing that on buses.

Why do you think nationalising the bus services would improve them? Even the Government themselves only want to francise them.

 

[GCH100]

A National network of bus services is what is coming to some areas. London and parts of Greater Manchester already have a network controlled by TfL and TfGM. The rest of Greater Manchester and Merseyside will follow, possibly to be followed by West Yorkshire, Tyne & Wear, Greater Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and South Yorkshire. If the Conservative Mayor, Andy Street, should lose his seat at some stage, then no doubt the same will happen there. Then in Scotland and Wales leaders there are talking about nationalised networks; indeed in Wales, the Government have already bought one independent.

You should also add to the fact that in some areas the local Council operate buses, namely Lothian Buses, Highland Council and Dumfries and Galloway Councils in Scotland, Blackpool Transport, Warrington's own Buses, Nottingham City Transport, Ipswich Buses and Reading Buses in England and Cardiff Bus and Newport Transport plus an independent operator, whose name escapes me, in Wales.

Outside these areas quite frankly It is doubtful the local authorities will want the bother, except perhaps in a few if Labour come to power for a sustained period.

Whether its the right thing to do remains the million dollar question. I think in rural areas maybe local community groups funded by some sort of tax levy or subscription in rural areas could take on local routes to stop them being cut.

Whatever happens I doubt we will go back to the situation in the 1970s, when all buses were run by National Bus Company, Scottish Bus Group, Muncipals and PTEs. It's just too expensive, when in future money will be limited, because the budgets for things like health and education will continue to grow particularly through modern technology and greater life expectancy.

 

[Deerfold]

Surely “Nationalised” means owned by the national government - like the National Bus Company was. What you have described is local authority owned - or municipal ownership.

Not necessarily. In West Yorkshire we used to have both. They worked together to provide services under the MetroBus brand.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Nov 2023 ==

Whatever happens I doubt we will go back to the situation in the 1970s, when all buses were run by National Bus Company, Scottish Bus Group, Muncipals and PTEs. It's just too expensive, when in future money will be limited, because the budgets for things like health and education will continue to grow particularly through modern technology and greater life expectancy.

In West Yorkshire we had subsidiaries of the NBC, municipal companies *and* several smaller independent companies.

 

[JKP]

A National network of bus services is what is coming to some areas. London and parts of Greater Manchester already have a network controlled by TfL and TfGM. The rest of Greater Manchester and Merseyside will follow, possibly to be followed by West Yorkshire, Tyne & Wear, Greater Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and South Yorkshire. If the Conservative Mayor, Andy Street, should lose his seat at some stage, then no doubt the same will happen there. Then in Scotland and Wales leaders there are talking about nationalised networks; indeed in Wales, the Government have already bought one independent.

You should also add to the fact that in some areas the local Council operate buses, namely Lothian Buses, Highland Council and Dumfries and Galloway Councils in Scotland, Blackpool Transport, Warrington's own Buses, Nottingham City Transport, Ipswich Buses and Reading Buses in England and Cardiff Bus and Newport Transport plus an independent operator, whose name escapes me, in Wales.

Outside these areas quite frankly It is doubtful the local authorities will want the bother, except perhaps in a few if Labour come to power for a sustained period.

Whether its the right thing to do remains the million dollar question. I think in rural areas maybe local community groups funded by some sort of tax levy or subscription in rural areas could take on local routes to stop them being cut.

Whatever happens I doubt we will go back to the situation in the 1970s, when all buses were run by National Bus Company, Scottish Bus Group, Muncipals and PTEs. It's just too expensive, when in future money will be limited, because the budgets for things like health and education will continue to grow particularly through modern technology and greater life expectancy.

Local Authorities in Scotland already have the power to operate their own bus services. It is notable that none have gone down that route. Lothian is a remnant from earlier times, the other Councils mentioned and others are generally Section 22 operations (Transport Act 1978) I think Western Isles and Shetland Isles Councils are the only ones to have operators licences.

And no, the Scottish Bus Group should not be allowed to return. The only way forward to my mind is through franchising by local Councils. This includes cross boundary and cross Border routes.

 

[W-on-Sea]

If it were actually to be nationalised....

Hopefully: not like the National Bus Company
In reality: probably more like the National Bus Company than one might hope for, albeit with no heavily encouraged purchases of often somewhat spartan vehicles made by nationalised bus manufacturers.

Devolving more power to local authorities (at county, unitary authority, etc) level seems more the way to go, while retaining the (theoretically) superior market-mindedness of private-sector operators. And with more explicit provision for supporting cross-border services.

 

[Flying Snail]

What could a nationalised bus operator look like?​

It could look like the one that already exists and is properly nationalised not the franchise or partnership models you mentioned.

(The one I'm guessing you are completely unaware of)

 

[renegademaster]

It could look like the one that already exists and is properly nationalised not the franchise or partnership models you mentioned.

(The one I'm guessing you are completely unaware of)

Ulsterbus?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

____________
Wouldn't a nationally owned Intercity coach company duplicate national rail too much? I could see the case of Westminster tendering routes that don't have good rail links between them though.

I wouldn't really want Westminster managing the inns and outs of local routes of Sheerness or Llandudno either , I think devolution would be better, I don't think most councils would be excited about taking on the risk of running their own bus companies and would just rather keep farming it out to Stagecoach and bunch

 

[johncrossley]

A lot of speculating here, and no political party has talked about nationalising buses sadly. Would be interested to read people's thoughts.

What do you perceive to be the advantage compared to using competitive tendering? Many cities and regions around the world have tendered out some or all of their local buses to private companies. I haven't heard of a major transport authority regretting the implementation of competitive tendering and then bringing the operations back into public ownership. Usually you get same or better service at much lower cost. Hardly anyone advocates bringing London buses back into state ownership. I can see some merit in allowing the public sector to bid for services in competition with the private sector, like East Thames Buses, especially if competition for tenders becomes weak leading to higher costs.

 

[YorkRailFan]

What do you perceive to be the advantage compared to using competitive tendering? Many cities and regions around the world have tendered out some or all of their local buses to private companies. I haven't heard of a major transport authority regretting the implementation of competitive tendering and then bringing the operations back into public ownership. Usually you get same or better service at much lower cost. Hardly anyone advocates bringing London buses back into state ownership. I can see some merit in allowing the public sector to bid for services in competition with the private sector, like East Thames Buses, especially if competition for tenders becomes weak leading to higher costs.

Reliability could be better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

If it were actually to be nationalised....

Hopefully: not like the National Bus Company
In reality: probably more like the National Bus Company than one might hope for, albeit with no heavily encouraged purchases of often somewhat spartan vehicles made by nationalised bus manufacturers.

Devolving more power to local authorities (at county, unitary authority, etc) level seems more the way to go, while retaining the (theoretically) superior market-mindedness of private-sector operators. And with more explicit provision for supporting cross-border services.

Sadly true about NBC, local control seems to be the way to go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

Whether its the right thing to do remains the million dollar question. I think in rural areas maybe local community groups funded by some sort of tax levy or subscription in rural areas could take on local routes to stop them being cut.

Fully agree with that, local bus companies with family routes, Reliance comes to mind.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

I

The Welsh Government had whatever budget it wants through its tax raising powers. It's increased spending on rail while reducing that on buses.

Why do you think nationalising the bus services would improve them? Even the Government themselves only want to francise them.

Because big bus companies want to cut a lot of vital routes, for example, where I am, Transdev repeatedly says that they want to axe Coastliner 840, which provides vital service to communities.

 

[Dai Corner]

Because big bus companies want to cut a lot of vital routes, for example, where I am, Transdev repeatedly says that they want to axe Coastliner 840, which provides vital service to communities.

Welsh bus operators are cutting subsidised services because Government funding for them is being cut. It's more about politicians' willingness to spend the money than the ownership or governance of the operators.

 

[johncrossley]

Reliability could be better.

Why? When you are paying someone to do a job, you can incentivise them/penalise them to encourage good performance. In the case of persistent poor performance the operator can be sacked. That option isn't available with state ownership or bus deregulation (unless they are unbelievably bad, such as UK North). The ability to incentive operators is the key reason why London buses are now much better than they were before privatisation.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Reliability could be better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==


Sadly true about NBC, local control seems to be the way to go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==


Fully agree with that, local bus companies with family routes, Reliance comes to mind.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==


Because big bus companies want to cut a lot of vital routes, for example, where I am, Transdev repeatedly says that they want to axe Coastliner 840, which provides vital service to communities.

Don't want to get into your life story but can I ask how old you are?

I'm old enough to remember the nationalised industries. In fact, my father was a driver with a National Bus subsidiary. My childhood was paid for by the NBC!

Remember that for the high points of pre 1986, the operations were very inefficient. Greater Manchester buses in the early days of 1986 (before deregulation, and in readiness for it) closed three depots, years after they should have. The National Bus Company was loss making and that was despite overt and indirect subsidy. Also, the NBC was a series of locally managed businesses. Even the most local firms, the municipals, were of varying quality with some very parochial thinking.

Lastly, don't fall for the lie that everything was great pre-deregulation/privatisation. Passenger figures were falling through the floor.

 

[JonathanH]

no political party has talked about nationalising buses sadly

What enhancement does nationalisation bring?

One of the reasons that people often call for rail nationalisation is a perception that public funds should not pay for private profit. Does this apply specifically to the transport sector?

There could be a perception that a nationalised operator wouldn't have such a high hurdle for return on investment and would keep services running that a private operator wouldn't without subsidy.

There could be a view that bus fares could be cheaper, but we have a situation where bus fares are being kept at lower levels presently without public ownership.

Are there others?

 

[M803UYA]

You could just 'acquire' the share capital of the existing bus operations through a holding company owned by government. Let's call it the New National Bus Company (NNBC). It would be similar to Directly Operated Railways and be an operator of last resort. We're already there in some parts of the UK where local authorities provide their own bus service operations using their own drivers and vehicles as the commercial market no longer sees a return in doing so.

If you bought the existing operations, then you'd be able to retain the management presently running them. Whilst some will be good/bad/indifferent in theory they'll know the best for their 'area' and are best placed to plan and provide the services. If other operators wanted to sell to NNBC you could then offer the market value for their vehicles (unless leased, then you novate the vehicle leases across). The same applies to properties, offer the market value for these. This way, there is form of compensation for the operators concerned rather than a confiscation of the business. I guess you could do the latter but there might be some money to be had by the legal profession. Cheaper to just pay people instead?

A lot of the old National Bus Company operators ran on a breakeven basis. Early accounts for Southern National show a small loss, and when you compare the timetables of services offered at the time, the focus was on providing a comprehensive service to all locations. In the case of that operator, the resources moved from those loss making routes to ones where the passengers travelled the most. Those services then saw enhancement using the spare resource. If NNBC operated it's bus network on this principle - no profit, no loss that'd allow for a service to provided to everyone for roughly the same operational cost as now. If you wanted to invest in the operations, you could increase (or retain) frequencies where the passengers were making most journeys.

NNBC could then set regional wage rates (you don't want a national agreement due to the disparity of income) and be able to order a consistent number of new buses due to it's fleet size, to a standard specification which further drives down the cost thanks to economies of scale. As for livery, you could design something moderately attractive, yet easy to maintain and the minimal amount of work needed when you transferred a vehicle from one company to another. The old established bus company names do resonate in the areas they serve. There could be a number of services undertaken locally which can be centrally provided from existing operator sites. A driver/management training programme can be centrally planned and locally delivered to a consistent standard. For instance, all of Stagecoach's support functions run out of Stockport (primarily making use of the old GM Buses systems) or Sunderland. So would you have to have an expensive central London office with all the costs of the people within? Not really.

As for how you fund all this - Governments can issue their own money. They do this for their mates as shown during Covid. So you can do it for other things, too!

Railways are much easier to nationalise, simply allow each franchise to terminate naturally and just not renew it. It'd then run under Directly Operated Railways. But for buses you'd need some sort of plan. Deregulation no longer delivers the improvements it did in it's first 20 years and we're just seeing cut after cut on what were commercially viable services. There needs to be a new way of delivering bus services for the benefit of the people who use them. If there's no customers because the product is so unattractive then there's no bus industry in the future.

 

[Man of Kent]

-Services in the South East coming under one brand with Essex Council, Kent Council, East Sussex Council, West Sussex Council, Surrey Councim and others.

So in this mythical company that will operate from Havant to Harwich, where is it all controlled from? A criticism of some of the larger operators is that they are now so large and diverse, they do not know their own patch well enough (Arriva and First probably worst for this). Conversely, the usual award-winning suspects are those that have tended to keep more local and understand where they run (which is why several of the remaining municipals fall into this category).

And are these boundaries in the right place? See the comments about the Transport North East tickets, that Darlington is no longer in County Durham, so isn't part of that scheme. And if it was, what about Richmond? In Darlington's orbit, but not - and never has been - in County Durham either.

To whom is this monolith responsible? If it is genuinely nationalised, there is no local input. If, as with some of the other suggestions, it is a consortium of councils, what if they do not agree on the same policies or level of funding? Have a look at North Somerset's relationship with the West of England Combined Authority and with Somerset County Council, then wonder why many cross-boundary links are withering or have already gone. Or you could compare it with Transport for the North, which couldn't agree on what option for train services through central Manchester, because every constituent council was fighting for its own corner.

Who funds any of this? Again, if nationalised, it will come from central government and face the same problems of convincing treasury officials that it should receive money on perhaps as little as an annual basis. IS there a guarantee of a minimum service level, or does subsidy per head come into play? Even if funded locally, if council X provides more proportionately than council Y, should services and vehicle quality be adjusted to match?

How much of the funding will disappear into extra administrative overheads? Both Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire reckon they will have to take on around 70 extra staff to deal with franchising. Or will the Department for Transport need more staff (and sad to say, in my dealings with them, few are of high calibre or understand the market properly).

Fundamentally who operates the buses is irrelevant. The choice is primarily between the public sector planning the network and the private sector doing the same. The latter is generally better at that, but if you want a more comprehensive network, setting some broad parameters - such as maximising passenger numbers and paying for this - may be a more efficient way of achieving this than wholesale franchising.

Oh, and if it really is about getting more people to make journeys by public transport than by car, then it is the land use system that needs wholesale reform first.

 

[Steve440]

Don't want to get into your life story but can I ask how old you are?

I'm old enough to remember the nationalised industries. In fact, my father was a driver with a National Bus subsidiary. My childhood was paid for by the NBC!

Remember that for the high points of pre 1986, the operations were very inefficient. Greater Manchester buses in the early days of 1986 (before deregulation, and in readiness for it) closed three depots, years after they should have. The National Bus Company was loss making and that was despite overt and indirect subsidy. Also, the NBC was a series of locally managed businesses. Even the most local firms, the municipals, were of varying quality with some very parochial thinking.

Lastly, don't fall for the lie that everything was great pre-deregulation/privatisation. Passenger figures were falling through the floor.

I worked for the NBC, starting as a traffic clerk in 1973. One of my responsibilities was to record any lost mileage on a daily basis. Some of the figures were eye-watering, in excess of 20% of mileage at times. This was due to staff and vehicle shortages. The whole operation was very inefficient.

 

[Dai Corner]

Fundamentally who operates the buses is irrelevant. The choice is primarily between the public sector planning the network and the private sector doing the same. The latter is generally better at that, but if you want a more comprehensive network, setting some broad parameters - such as maximising passenger numbers and paying for this - may be a more efficient way of achieving this than wholesale franchising

Or you let the private sector plan their commercial networks and then pay them to fill in the bits they miss out but are considered socially necessary / politically desirable, just as we've been doing for the best part of forty years?

Ultimately the deciding factor is how much the politicians are willing to spend rather than the ownership or governance of the operators.

 

[JonathanH]

Even the big groups today Cross subsidise to some extent - for example putting the newest vehicles on the most lucrative routes and cascading them down over time - to this extent they do see the importance of a network, but clearly there is only so far they can go to maintain truly loss making operations.

There are also areas of the country that the large operators have completely pulled out of where the services are left in the hands of independent operators.

 

[route101]

National Express and Lothian could pass off as state owned with the network and branding as such.

 

[Dai Corner]

National Express and Lothian could pass off as state owned with the network and branding as such.

Lothian is owned by Edinburgh and neighbouring Councils, isn't it? That's 'state owned' in my book.

 

[YorkRailFan]

What enhancement does nationalisation bring?

One of the reasons that people often call for rail nationalisation is a perception that public funds should not pay for private profit. Does this apply specifically to the transport sector?

There could be a perception that a nationalised operator wouldn't have such a high hurdle for return on investment and would keep services running that a private operator wouldn't without subsidy.

There could be a view that bus fares could be cheaper, but we have a situation where bus fares are being kept at lower levels presently without public ownership.

Are there others?

Reliability could be better and drivers would get better wages.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

So in this mythical company that will operate from Havant to Harwich, where is it all controlled from? A criticism of some of the larger operators is that they are now so large and diverse, they do not know their own patch well enough (Arriva and First probably worst for this). Conversely, the usual award-winning suspects are those that have tended to keep more local and understand where they run (which is why several of the remaining municipals fall into this category).

And are these boundaries in the right place? See the comments about the Transport North East tickets, that Darlington is no longer in County Durham, so isn't part of that scheme. And if it was, what about Richmond? In Darlington's orbit, but not - and never has been - in County Durham either.

To whom is this monolith responsible? If it is genuinely nationalised, there is no local input. If, as with some of the other suggestions, it is a consortium of councils, what if they do not agree on the same policies or level of funding? Have a look at North Somerset's relationship with the West of England Combined Authority and with Somerset County Council, then wonder why many cross-boundary links are withering or have already gone. Or you could compare it with Transport for the North, which couldn't agree on what option for train services through central Manchester, because every constituent council was fighting for its own corner.

Who funds any of this? Again, if nationalised, it will come from central government and face the same problems of convincing treasury officials that it should receive money on perhaps as little as an annual basis. IS there a guarantee of a minimum service level, or does subsidy per head come into play? Even if funded locally, if council X provides more proportionately than council Y, should services and vehicle quality be adjusted to match?

How much of the funding will disappear into extra administrative overheads? Both Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire reckon they will have to take on around 70 extra staff to deal with franchising. Or will the Department for Transport need more staff (and sad to say, in my dealings with them, few are of high calibre or understand the market properly).

Fundamentally who operates the buses is irrelevant. The choice is primarily between the public sector planning the network and the private sector doing the same. The latter is generally better at that, but if you want a more comprehensive network, setting some broad parameters - such as maximising passenger numbers and paying for this - may be a more efficient way of achieving this than wholesale franchising.

Oh, and if it really is about getting more people to make journeys by public transport than by car, then it is the land use system that needs wholesale reform first.

Which is why I did propose creating authorities looking over multiple districts and working with other authorities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

You could just 'acquire' the share capital of the existing bus operations through a holding company owned by government. Let's call it the New National Bus Company (NNBC). It would be similar to Directly Operated Railways and be an operator of last resort. We're already there in some parts of the UK where local authorities provide their own bus service operations using their own drivers and vehicles as the commercial market no longer sees a return in doing so.

If you bought the existing operations, then you'd be able to retain the management presently running them. Whilst some will be good/bad/indifferent in theory they'll know the best for their 'area' and are best placed to plan and provide the services. If other operators wanted to sell to NNBC you could then offer the market value for their vehicles (unless leased, then you novate the vehicle leases across). The same applies to properties, offer the market value for these. This way, there is form of compensation for the operators concerned rather than a confiscation of the business. I guess you could do the latter but there might be some money to be had by the legal profession. Cheaper to just pay people instead?

A lot of the old National Bus Company operators ran on a breakeven basis. Early accounts for Southern National show a small loss, and when you compare the timetables of services offered at the time, the focus was on providing a comprehensive service to all locations. In the case of that operator, the resources moved from those loss making routes to ones where the passengers travelled the most. Those services then saw enhancement using the spare resource. If NNBC operated it's bus network on this principle - no profit, no loss that'd allow for a service to provided to everyone for roughly the same operational cost as now. If you wanted to invest in the operations, you could increase (or retain) frequencies where the passengers were making most journeys.

NNBC could then set regional wage rates (you don't want a national agreement due to the disparity of income) and be able to order a consistent number of new buses due to it's fleet size, to a standard specification which further drives down the cost thanks to economies of scale. As for livery, you could design something moderately attractive, yet easy to maintain and the minimal amount of work needed when you transferred a vehicle from one company to another. The old established bus company names do resonate in the areas they serve. There could be a number of services undertaken locally which can be centrally provided from existing operator sites. A driver/management training programme can be centrally planned and locally delivered to a consistent standard. For instance, all of Stagecoach's support functions run out of Stockport (primarily making use of the old GM Buses systems) or Sunderland. So would you have to have an expensive central London office with all the costs of the people within? Not really.

As for how you fund all this - Governments can issue their own money. They do this for their mates as shown during Covid. So you can do it for other things, too!

Railways are much easier to nationalise, simply allow each franchise to terminate naturally and just not renew it. It'd then run under Directly Operated Railways. But for buses you'd need some sort of plan. Deregulation no longer delivers the improvements it did in it's first 20 years and we're just seeing cut after cut on what were commercially viable services. There needs to be a new way of delivering bus services for the benefit of the people who use them. If there's no customers because the product is so unattractive then there's no bus industry in the future.

I think it's a good idea, but local authorities should be allowed more control over services with new regions created solely for this to allow better Cross border (in terms of crossing counties) travel.

 

[Dai Corner]

Reliability could be better and drivers would get better wages.

What are the reliability problems that nationalisation would solve?

Ask railway staff (especially drivers) whether privatisation resulted in better wages or not.

The present Government has not awarded generous pay increases.

 

[YorkRailFan]

What are the reliability problems that nationalisation would solve?

Ask railway staff (especially drivers) whether privatisation resulted in better wages or not.

The present Government has not awarded generous pay increases.

The current Government wouldn't nationalise buses and a different Governmsnt (like a Labour one) would likely support the unions.

Perhaps with more drivers (as bus driver could become a more popular career choice if wages are improved), and better maintenance of buses, reliability can be increased.

 

[johncrossley]

The current Government wouldn't nationalise buses and a different Governmsnt (like a Labour one) would likely support the unions.

Perhaps with more drivers (as bus driver could become a more popular career choice if wages are improved), and better maintenance of buses, reliability can be increased.

Nationalisation means higher costs and therefore reduced ability to afford better wages. Don't be fooled by Labour, by the way. They had bus deregulation for 13 years from 1997 to 2010, the whole time they were in office last time.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Nationalisation means higher costs and therefore reduced ability to afford better wages. Don't be fooled by Labour, by the way. They had bus deregulation for 13 years from 1997 to 2010, the whole time they were in office last time.

Of course, for a lot of this to happen, the Treasury would have to be abolished.