West Midlands Bus Partnership to End

[j789]

This is a relatively simple change that will deliver a better, fairer market.  An agreement could happen in weeks, not years.  If something along these lines doesn't happen, I cannot see any Partnership Option being approved and ultimately there is no way that TfWM can move forward and address its market issues (a requirement of ongoing funding through the DfT without Franchising).  In every Franchise scheme, the desire in line again with CMA competition rules is to have no operator larger than 25% market share.

We are heading for interesting times.



Simon

That final sentence though about the CMA desire for no operator to have no more than 25% share is why this whole franchising idea is destined to fail. Unless there is a magic money tree somewhere that will compensate the current larger operators for giving up their long established routes, there is no way this will get put into practise without a massive legal battle enshewing (at no doubt great cost to the tax payer).

The only companies that benefit are the smaller operators so I do understand from yours and SteveMinor's point of view it's of course a good thing as it opens up new opportunities for your companies. But equally NXWM aren't just going to accept giving away the majority of their market. Likewise, are long term NXWM drivers and staff really going to want to be forceably transferred to Diamond or another company, even on the same conditions. I would likely think not.

The logistics of such a set up are eye watering in their complexity that would literally involve thousands of workers changing employer - it just is not feasible to even start to think that this is a realistic option. It would course absolute chaos and in no way could this be good for passengers. Even with Manchester seemingly in favour of franchising, there is no way that a company like stagecoach there (or even First) will happily accept only running 25% of the market. It just won't happen because of the necessary logistics creating a situation worse for passengers, not better.

The London franchising  system is a completely different situation because it has been around for so long and no one company in London really operated more than around 30% after the break up of London Transport. Birmingham and the West Midlands is a different scenario altogether because one company does operator such a large % of the network. It's a very unusual case as an area as most have more than one large operator. However, compared to other regions, the West Midlands performs well so this does not necessarily mean it's a bad thing at all have only one principal operator.

[the trainbasher]

If only WMPTE had been forced to break up like GMPTE had.

That final sentence though about the CMA desire for no operator to have no more than 25% share is why this whole franchising idea is destined to fail. Unless there is a magic money tree somewhere that will compensate the current larger operators for giving up their long established routes, there is no way this will get put into practise without a massive legal battle enshewing (at no doubt great cost to the tax payer).

The only companies that benefit are the smaller operators so I do understand from yours and SteveMinor's point of view it's of course a good thing as it opens up new opportunities for your companies. But equally NXWM aren't just going to accept giving away the majority of their market. Likewise, are long term NXWM drivers and staff really going to want to be forceably transferred to Diamond or another company, even on the same conditions. I would likely think not.

The logistics of such a set up are eye watering in their complexity that would literally involve thousands of workers changing employer - it just is not feasible to even start to think that this is a realistic option. It would course absolute chaos and in no way could this be good for passengers. Even with Manchester seemingly in favour of franchising, there is no way that a company like stagecoach there (or even First) will happily accept only running 25% of the market. It just won't happen because of the necessary logistics creating a situation worse for passengers, not better.

The London franchising  system is a completely different situation because it has been around for so long and no one company in London really operated more than around 30% after the break up of London Transport. Birmingham and the West Midlands is a different scenario altogether because one company does operator such a large % of the network. It's a very unusual case as an area as most have more than one large operator. However, compared to other regions, the West Midlands performs well so this does not necessarily mean it's a bad thing at all have only one principal operator.

[Simon Dunn]

That final sentence though about the CMA desire for no operator to have no more than 25% share is why this whole franchising idea is destined to fail. Unless there is a magic money tree somewhere that will compensate the current larger operators for giving up their long established routes, there is no way this will get put into practise without a massive legal battle enshewing (at no doubt great cost to the tax payer).

The only companies that benefit are the smaller operators so I do understand from yours and SteveMinor's point of view it's of course a good thing as it opens up new opportunities for your companies. But equally NXWM aren't just going to accept giving away the majority of their market. Likewise, are long term NXWM drivers and staff really going to want to be forceably transferred to Diamond or another company, even on the same conditions. I would likely think not.

The logistics of such a set up are eye watering in their complexity that would literally involve thousands of workers changing employer - it just is not feasible to even start to think that this is a realistic option. It would course absolute chaos and in no way could this be good for passengers. Even with Manchester seemingly in favour of franchising, there is no way that a company like stagecoach there (or even First) will happily accept only running 25% of the market. It just won't happen because of the necessary logistics creating a situation worse for passengers, not better.

The London franchising  system is a completely different situation because it has been around for so long and no one company in London really operated more than around 30% after the break up of London Transport. Birmingham and the West Midlands is a different scenario altogether because one company does operator such a large % of the network. It's a very unusual case as an area as most have more than one large operator. However, compared to other regions, the West Midlands performs well so this does not necessarily mean it's a bad thing at all have only one principal operator.

I am not pro Franchising. 

As the founding member of the Judicial Review against Franchising in Manchester.  I have a good understanding of what is happening and the proposals put forward by TfGM/GMCA.  If you read their decision they claim to have no obligation to compensate businesses.  When we consider any level of compensation then profitability becomes relevant.

Various Market studies set out the key requirements for successful bus operation and the need for depots in Key locations.  Through EHP minimum entry requirements can be set this which as a barrier to entry. 

Ultimately what you need to consider with passenger numbers at 65%.  The government schemes expected to come to an end.  What will bus passenger numbers return to and how will the bus network survive?   None of the most optimistic projects expect to see a 85% return immediately.  On this basis, what and who will last?

Is Franchising better than massive service reductions? 

The proposal I have made could see the network thin out with less of an effect to passengers and ultimately and logically if this running out happens with the loss of routes.   Smaller operators with lower operating costs could look at them.


     

[don]

So for the West Midlands, does an 85% return to normal equate to, from the point of view of passengers, and over simplistically, a 15% reduction in service provision (say on a 10 min frequency service currently on a corridor), say a 12 min frequency instead?

And how would changes in the current arrangements, just saying smaller operators take a larger slice than currently, pan out in terms of meeting objectives for provision of 100% zero emission vehicles?

I don't totally get from a passenger's point of view how your proposals would benefit/address such items as services outside of core periods (such as evenings and early mornings, which key workers rely on), changing to zero emissions, and providing a full service coverage without increase in LA subsidy - I can see how changes may benefit some smaller companies but would that benefit the service provided across the board?

Unless the current partnership routes are running at a loss for operators, or only margins which are considered unsustainable, I cannot see why an operator would pull out of them other than to maximise margins by, for instance running competitive services on an otherwise established route at lucrative times? Whilst that is, of course permitted and the basic model since 1986, it hardly seems good for the overall service provided across a region and would appear simply and purely arranged to maximise profitability?

[Simon Dunn]

So for the West Midlands, does an 85% return to normal equate to, from the point of view of passengers, and over simplistically, a 15% reduction in service provision (say on a 10 min frequency service currently on a corridor), say a 12 min frequency instead?

And how would changes in the current arrangements, just saying smaller operators take a larger slice than currently, pan out in terms of meeting objectives for provision of 100% zero emission vehicles?

I don't totally get from a passenger's point of view how your proposals would benefit/address such items as services outside of core periods (such as evenings and early mornings, which key workers rely on), changing to zero emissions, and providing a full service coverage without increase in LA subsidy - I can see how changes may benefit some smaller companies but would that benefit the service provided across the board?

Unless the current partnership routes are running at a loss for operators, or only margins which are considered unsustainable, I cannot see why an operator would pull out of them other than to maximise margins by, for instance running competitive services on an otherwise established route at lucrative times? Whilst that is, of course permitted and the basic model since 1986, it hardly seems good for the overall service provided across a region and would appear simply and purely arranged to maximise profitability?

If the West Midlands is currently a 2,000 vehicle market.  Then 15% service reduction equates to 300 vehicles.  It would be difficult to imagine the cuts spread evenly and my understanding is that a number of services will be cut. 

Zero Emission vehicles are coming over time.  Their will be phased introduction over many years. 

I am not sure the point you are making about smaller operators and I am not sure who you are calling "smaller operators".  What I have said is that in my opinion the easiest way to get a EHP to work in the West Midlands is a reform on NBus.  Part of an EHP is that all parties make commitments.   Commitments can come from frequency, minimum standards, enhancements, etc.

In late 2019 we started the discussion around partnership reform with TfWM.  A 20% passenger decline, the impact of inflation since will result in its current form at least a 20% loss. 

 

[Steveminor]

I don't totally get from a passenger's point of view how your proposals would benefit/address such items as services outside of core periods (such as evenings and early mornings, which key workers rely on), changing to zero emissions, and providing a full service coverage without increase in LA subsidy - I can see how changes may benefit some smaller companies but would that benefit the service provided across the board?

You forget that a number of routes currently operating with nxwm on evenings & sundays have previously been operated by other operators on a commercial basis.

X70 previously 590 was opened by servers travel in the evenings until twm put on a competing service.

Service 71 actually had 2 other operators competing on a sunday ampm & diamond & then later sunny travel until nxwm added a competing service.

The barrier to entry on evenings & sundays is lower passenger levels & competition would only dilute passenger numbers further.
Remove this barrier & reform nbus & ticketing  & I can see no reason why other operators would not operate evening & sundays if it were commercially viable.

Indeed with lower operating costs you may find more operators other than nxwm operating a variety of services at any time of day or night

[don]

I would have thought that zero emission buses would have been a large initial cost (and performance objective) factor, given that excluding Coventry, on the market size you've stated that would be a commitment of over 200 vehicles a year (Coventry occurs much quicker than that). In reality the fuel cost might change as a result as well, and particularly if diesel costs are one of the key drivers of inflationary pressure.

For smaller operators I meant operators who have a smaller percentage of the market (I was thinking in terms of route mileage rather than number of vehicles). I would include all but the company with the largest percentage in this, so this would include Diamond and any others operating, and recognising that Stagecoach, Arriva and D and G operate at the periphery also (though their services, unlike generally Diamond, Claribel etc) operate into a town from beyond the WM border. NXWM operates several services which do this also.

Thanks for clarifying re your focus on n bus.

Regarding service cuts, I would doubt TfWM would want whole services cut so would possibly be looking to the most cost effective way of achieving balance (which may mean adjusting subsidies - possibly upwards - to keep some of those routes). Cuts to frequencies (where they are already high) are less likely to impact the user.

The long term impact of Covid, is, I guess more of an unknown but this is surely more likely (from observation of train services and knowledge of firms cutting overheads like office space owing to the proven ability to operate based on home working) more likely to impact the level of commuting for work (for those who can work from home) rather than anything else. So the cut in usage is possibly a more focussed issue in terms of impact on operators and operations?

[don]

You forget that a number of routes currently operating with nxwm on evenings & sundays have previously been operated by other operators on a commercial basis.

X70 previously 590 was opened by servers travel in the evenings until twm put on a competing service.

Service 71 actually had 2 other operators competing on a sunday ampm & diamond & then later sunny travel until nxwm added a competing service.

The barrier to entry on evenings & sundays is lower passenger levels & competition would only dilute passenger numbers further.
Remove this barrier & reform nbus & ticketing  & I can see no reason why other operators would not operate evening & sundays if it were commercially viable.

Indeed with lower operating costs you may find more operators other than nxwm operating a variety of services at any time of day or night

I live in a town where the presence of a bus after 7 pm is, and has been since 1986, something which doesn't happen. There are two operators (one major group and one smaller independent). Sunday services have been non existent until relatively recently when the major operator decided to run services on a specific corridor running through the town as a commercial operation. Many services are relatively low frequency and subsidised. The major operator is talking of pulling out of one of the garages, which provides some of the services (a little similar to Arriva with Cannock). There are no barriers to other operators just the fact it's commercially marginal or unviable. But in terms of the service available and fares, I'd love to live in the West Midlands (or London).

Whilst I take your point re X70 and 71, I think NXWM provides a full service on each and I'm not sure users have suffered as a result of how this has panned out?

I understand that for commercial companies it's difficult, and there's a need to protect their interests, but in terms of the end user, I'm not entirely sure how having a myriad of operators would make services more reliable, efficient, clean and zero emission?

The franchising model in London does provide an excellent service (although subject to the party political meddling by those holding the purse strings, particularly when the Government is a different political party than the mayor). Conversely the service in the West Midlands is also excellent though is operated broadly by one dominant large operator, another on a spread basis across a broad area, several independents, and a couple of larger groups operating across border at the periphery.

I shall observe with interest how this progresses.

[Simon Dunn]

I live in a town where the presence of a bus after 7 pm is, and has been since 1986, something which doesn't happen. There are two operators (one major group and one smaller independent). Sunday services have been non existent until relatively recently when the major operator decided to run services on a specific corridor running through the town as a commercial operation. Many services are relatively low frequency and subsidised. The major operator is talking of pulling out of one of the garages, which provides some of the services (a little similar to Arriva with Cannock). There are no barriers to other operators just the fact it's commercially marginal or unviable. But in terms of the service available and fares, I'd love to live in the West Midlands (or London).

Whilst I take your point re X70 and 71, I think NXWM provides a full service on each and I'm not sure users have suffered as a result of how this has panned out?

I understand that for commercial companies it's difficult, and there's a need to protect their interests, but in terms of the end user, I'm not entirely sure how having a myriad of operators would make services more reliable, efficient, clean and zero emission?

The franchising model in London does provide an excellent service (although subject to the party political meddling by those holding the purse strings, particularly when the Government is a different political party than the mayor). Conversely the service in the West Midlands is also excellent though is operated broadly by one dominant large operator, another on a spread basis across a broad area, several independents, and a couple of larger groups operating across border at the periphery.

I shall observe with interest how this progresses.

I am not sure if you have seen the National Bus Strategy paper.  It is encouraging and it places focus on Local Transport Authorities/Combined Authorities/Operators to reverse decline.  Not through increased long term subsidy but through prioritising bus.  It will be interesting to see how this influences change, and potentially enhancing as a choice of travel.   

[Steveminor]

Would the 75 002 530 etc exist if there were only one operator. There are a whole host of services that could exist & be commercially viable if you remove some of the barriers around ticketing for example. Over the course of deregulation some of the so called "smaller" operators have come up with some very inventive routes which has added to the network. That has been lost recently due to the market dominance of one operator & the dominance of their own ticketing products. If these issues can be resolved then I see no reason why we can't go back to that era.

Operators & LTAs need to rebuild their networks & with the wealth of knowledge via the many different operators we have in the west Midlands is it not better to do it together

[2206]

Would the 75 exist if there were only one operator.

3 operators operating Birmingham International - Business Park on that at present it seems all with their own different tickets/passes NXWM as X12, Diamond and Claribels. Not sure how it benefits passengers, having to wait for a specific operator.

The Sutton trips that claribels run are tendered services I imagine, as they were ran by Diamond/Central Buses before.

[don]

I am not sure if you have seen the National Bus Strategy paper.  It is encouraging and it places focus on Local Transport Authorities/Combined Authorities/Operators to reverse decline.  Not through increased long term subsidy but through prioritising bus.  It will be interesting to see how this influences change, and potentially enhancing as a choice of travel.

Laudable aims but from what I've seen so far, this involves central government allocating a large chunk of finance to achieve this (subsidy). I will be interested to see how it pans out in the West Midlands.

I'm not sure whether the aims can be achieved without losing some of the subsidised, marginal services but let's see - at least the strategy sounds positive.

[Steveminor]

3 operators operating Birmingham International - Business Park on that at present it seems all with their own different tickets/passes NXWM as X12, Diamond and Claribels. Not sure how it benefits passengers, having to wait for a specific operator.

The Sutton trips that claribels run are tendered services I imagine, as they were ran by Diamond/Central Buses before.

Pre covid the X12 was not there & with passenger numbers both Claribels and Diamond buses would run with full loads so yes that benefitted the passengers as they had little time to wait for the next bus. Since 98% had network passes with the other 2% single fares then ticketing was not a problem with both operators making profit. That's really where we need to be across the network

[the trainbasher]

3 operators operating Birmingham International - Business Park on that at present it seems all with their own different tickets/passes NXWM as X12, Diamond and Claribels. Not sure how it benefits passengers, having to wait for a specific operator.

The Sutton trips that claribels run are tendered services I imagine, as they were ran by Diamond/Central Buses before.

The Sutton trips date back to the Warks subsidised 757 service which was part of a fitted 15 min frequency with the 717, 767 & 777 between Coleshill and Airport.
It then got split IIRC (Hams Hall comes to mind) but then rejoined by Central Buses as part of a revised subsidy, which Diamond took over on purchase of CB.

[the trainbasher]

The downside to network downsizing is that its usually routes that serve areas that can't support a commercial service that get cuts first.

There again the ENCTS scheme hasn't helped

An interesting find in a 2005 Dudley Council document found this:

Merry Hill Bus Station is served by up to 59 departures per hour during Monday to Saturday daytimes and 26 per hour in the evenings and on Sundays. Buses access the Bus Station via Times Square Avenue, which in turn is accessed from The Boulevard. The key route are 'Showcase' service 139, which operates via Halesowen and Quinton to Birmingham and operates every 12 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes (every 30 minutes evenings and Sundays).

The majority of the network is provided on a commercial basis by the region's dominant operator, Travel West Midlands, who operate many of the high frequency services and many of the local services in the 'core' area. However, a number of other operators also provide services to Merry Hill, the most important of which is Go West Midlands which operates under the Birmingham Coach Company, People's Express and Diamond Bus brands, and operates an expanding network throughout the Black Country. Smaller operators such as Ludlows and Hansons operate services to Weoley Castle, Bromsgrove, Stourbridge and Kinver, whilst Whittle operates the X95 weekly shopping service from Kidderminster.

Look at the 139 corridor now. Every 20 minutes, with less departures per hour overall out of Merry Hill 16 years later.

Heck, you can't even get a direct bus to Kiddy or Bromsgrove now (a change in Halesowen or Stourbridge is required).

The only improvements to the ex Ludlows services is the 002. The other ones are pale imitations of themselves or non existant