I'm meant to be working but procrastinating, which route by depot do people think are the most "profitable" (not necessarily highest frequency etc). Probably been done before but... anyway.
My guesses.
BY:- 17
BC:- 60 or 29 (busy corridor, but one of shortest).
PB:- 65 or 638
YW:- 50 (although high freq still shortish vs other routes)
AG:- 1
WB:- Dunno
PE:- 222??
WA:- ????
CV:- 20??
WN:- 59
Knowledge of BC is not there clearly.
How is the 638 the most profitable for PB? Runs exactly the same as the 28 for the most part and I never really see it that full. I'd say either 46 or 101
wb-82
Quote from: Kevin on August 27, 2013, 12:03:53 PM
How is the 638 the most profitable for PB? Runs exactly the same as the 28 for the most part and I never really see it that full. I'd say either 46 or 101
I said the 638 as i thought runs on a busy corridor and is 1 or 2 buses and someone quoted it as being (somewhere can't remember where), however after your comments would now go with the 46 didn't think of that one.
Anyway better do some work now.
PE- 246
WB - 5?
Quote from: Sayeed_M on August 27, 2013, 11:46:34 AM
BC - 29, 98 & 99
Urr... you're joking aren't you? The 98/99 are fairly quiet in comparison.
Possibly the 29 but more likely 900/E. My argument is have you seen the volume of passenger traffic to the Airport/NEC? and not only that a lot of the passengers are foreign so more likely to buy tickets and not have passes.
This could be a good one for the Director.
The answer will be different depending on whether you mean the route that makes the most money overall or the route that makes the highest percentage profit per vehicle.
No one from the company is ever going to post profitablility on an open forum, but some routes people think make a lot of money don't and vice versa
I was talking profitability (margins) so i guess the highest % per bus. I understand is commercially sensitive as I said procrastinating as my spreadsheet (ironically looking at profit margins) are doing my head in.
Are any of them marginally close (probably worth more than your job to say)? :)
U can't base a profitability of a route just by loadings so from WB the 82 would probably beat every thing not only by high loadings but by quick turnaround/low PVR
The 4/4H/4M at Walsall is a very popular service but at every 6 minutes using 21/22 vehicles the cost of operating this service daily must be high so probably not the most profitable service at Walsall it would probably be something like the 311/313 service.
Quote from: dgss1 on August 27, 2013, 04:46:32 PM
U can't base a profitability of a route just by loadings so from WB the 82 would probably beat every thing not only by high loadings but by quick turnaround/low PVR
But you are all forgetting that it interworks with the 87! Which yes I'm sure is profitable, but not as high as the 82
Anyway I think personally that this topic is a bit of a waste of time, there are so so many factors to consider as to whether a route is profitable, just looking at routes from an enthusiasts view isn't going to give a true answer, and like Tony has already said, no real answers will ever be given out so publically and so specifically for each route
From a business point-of-view, the most profitable routes will be the shorter routes, that use fewer buses and staff, yet have a 'high' passenger turnover, ie passengers only using part of the route, with people frequently getting on or off. (PB 46 probably being a good example)
This applies to longer routes too. For example the 126 wouldn't be very profitable if everyone who got on in Birmingham travelled all the way to Wolverhampton, as that same bus would carry the same load of passengers for the 15-odd mile journey. Instead, passengers frequently get on and off, travelling only along certain parts of the route, therefore that gives you a higher passenger turnover. However, the frequency of the service, combined with the large number of buses required to operate at that frequency, will eat into any profit margin, so the service would need a constant stream of passengers getting on and off to keep it viable.
Of course, without knowing the exact numbers of passengers using a particular service, and the running costs involved, we enthusiasts can merely only speculate.
I'd guess the 140/241 would be the most profitable at PN, as they are relatively short, operate (mainly!) with fuel-efficient B7RLEs, aren't high frequency (30 minutes during the day) but still get busy/packed (particularly the 140)
Quote from: nitromatt1 on August 27, 2013, 06:57:04 PM
I'd guess the 140/241 would be the most profitable at PN, as they are relatively short, operate (mainly!) with fuel-efficient B7RLEs, aren't high frequency (30 minutes during the day) but still get busy/packed (particularly the 140)
Then again what about the 9, surely NE would not operate such a route with such a high frequency during the day, without it being profitable.
Quote from: Stuharris 6360 on August 27, 2013, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: nitromatt1 on August 27, 2013, 06:57:04 PM
I'd guess the 140/241 would be the most profitable at PN, as they are relatively short, operate (mainly!) with fuel-efficient B7RLEs, aren't high frequency (30 minutes during the day) but still get busy/packed (particularly the 140)
Then again what about the 9, surely NE would not operate such a route with such a high frequency during the day, without it being profitable.
As Tony has already stated, it is not necessarily the high-frequency routes that are the most profitable, for the reasons I have suggested above.
Quote from: Stu on August 27, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
Quote from: Stuharris 6360 on August 27, 2013, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: nitromatt1 on August 27, 2013, 06:57:04 PM
I'd guess the 140/241 would be the most profitable at PN, as they are relatively short, operate (mainly!) with fuel-efficient B7RLEs, aren't high frequency (30 minutes during the day) but still get busy/packed (particularly the 140)
Then again what about the 9, surely NE would not operate such a route with such a high frequency during the day, without it being profitable.
The same with Matt's comments above, only one of those things makes much difference, the 140 is hardly a short route, fuel consumption on vehicles, which although important overall to the company, won't make that much difference to a route, and if you are doing profitablility by % frequency makes no difference at all to this question, although if you doubled the frequency without doubling the passenger numbers it would obviously drop.
It is possible for an hourly long route using a trident to be the winner, specially if people are getting on and off all the way along the route. It is also possible for a short 5 minute frequency route using Enviro 200s to win.
As Tony has already stated, it is not necessarily the high-frequency routes that are the most profitable, for the reasons I have suggested above.
Quote from: Stu on August 27, 2013, 07:14:58 PM
Quote from: Stuharris 6360 on August 27, 2013, 07:02:14 PM
Quote from: nitromatt1 on August 27, 2013, 06:57:04 PM
I'd guess the 140/241 would be the most profitable at PN, as they are relatively short, operate (mainly!) with fuel-efficient B7RLEs, aren't high frequency (30 minutes during the day) but still get busy/packed (particularly the 140)
Then again what about the 9, surely NE would not operate such a route with such a high frequency during the day, without it being profitable.
The same with Matt's comments above, only one of those things makes much difference, the 140 is hardly a short route, fuel consumption on vehicles, which although important overall to the company, won't make that much difference to a route, and if you are doing profitablility by % frequency makes no difference at all to this question, although if you doubled the frequency without doubling the passenger numbers it would obviously drop.
It is possible for an hourly long route using a trident to be the winner, specially if people are getting on and off all the way along the route. It is also possible for a short 5 minute frequency route using Enviro 200s to win.
As Tony has already stated, it is not necessarily the high-frequency routes that are the most profitable, for the reasons I have suggested above.
WN 126
My question is do the Hybrids make any difference to the profitability of a route.
Obviously they are more expensive to buy, but are cheaper? to run.
I would if NE would ever consider buying Hybrids in large numbers or are they only buying them when they get them subsidised?
The staff bus must make the most profit as without it, many drivers would struggle to get to work, thus not been able to drive the bus in the first place. 8)
Quote from: domino.99 on August 27, 2013, 08:19:19 PM
WN 126
As stated above its not exactly the long distance routes that are the most profitable. Surely routes such as the 59 and 529 which aren't as long would be just as if not more profitable? (Correct me if i'm wrong ;))
Also, the 1, 22 and 23 must be profitable to justify the large investment of large numbers of hybrids.
Quote from: NXWM Spectra on August 27, 2013, 10:20:01 PM
Also, the 1, 22 and 23 must be profitable to justify the large investment of large numbers of hybrids.
I do wonder about the 22/23. Heavily used in rush hour but loadings can be quite light off peak. I'd be interested to know the full reasons behind the routes selected for Hybrid operation. The 22/23 are ideal candidates due to the stop start nature of the routes so from that perspective they make perfect sense but from a profitability perspective I don't know. Certainly when I lived on the 50 route, albeit 6 years ago, that always seemed to carry greater loadings at all times of the day despite the competition (Pete's Travel) and higher frequency.
97 for BC... even with a 4-minute frequency most loadings on a Trident are full. Much much much more profitable than the 98 and 99!!!
Quote from: JB93 on August 28, 2013, 02:47:30 AM
97 for BC... even with a 4-minute frequency most loadings on a Trident are full. Much much much more profitable than the 98 and 99!!!
Nobody pays on the 97. Its a free service.
::)
The 97 has such a high frequency with what I imagine is quite a big PVR and is always running, so I imagine running costs aren't cheap
Quote from: Liverpool Street on August 28, 2013, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: JB93 on August 28, 2013, 02:47:30 AM
97 for BC... even with a 4-minute frequency most loadings on a Trident are full. Much much much more profitable than the 98 and 99!!!
Nobody pays on the 97. Its a free service.
::)
just like the 74 and 75......... :D :P
301 must bring in a bit-busy buses, short route, quick turnaround and even with the competition on there, still seems busy
A full bus doesn't always mean lots of profit!
All figures below are ficticious and do not relate to any company or any route!
First of all look at how much it costs per hour to run a bus
£10 drivers wage
£10 fuel (14 miles in one hour at 7mpg and £5/gallon)
£10 depreciation/rental costs/insurance
£10 engineering/admin/garage
£40 total per hour to run bus
Now you have a double decker on a route that takes one hour from on end of route to other that carries 60 passengers during the journey, most traveling from town at one end to town at other end. Each paying an average 80p (yes although the single fare is £2 the average paid is much lower because of repeat use of day ticket/concessionary reimbursement/split of season tickets/child fares.
Total take £48 - profit £8.
Now you have a route like the 335/336 where the bus goes Walsall-Alumwell-Walsall-Alumwell-Walsall in an hour.
You use a midi bus so costs will be slightly less, so say operating costs £38 per hour. within that hour that bus does 4 journeys (two round trips). On each trip bus carries an average of 20 passengers at the same average of 80p each.
Total take is £64 - profit £36
This shows that a half full B6 could in theory be making 4 times the profit that a full Enviro 400 is making!
Again all these figures are for comparison, I do not know the current costs or revenue of any route so couldn't post them even if I wanted to.
Quote from: Tony on August 28, 2013, 06:50:45 PM
A full bus doesn't always mean lots of profit!
All figures below are ficticious and do not relate to any company or any route!
First of all look at how much it costs per hour to run a bus
£10 drivers wage
£10 fuel (14 miles in one hour at 7mpg and £5/gallon)
£10 depreciation/rental costs/insurance
£10 engineering/admin/garage
£40 total per hour to run bus
Now you have a double decker on a route that takes one hour from on end of route to other that carries 60 passengers during the journey, most traveling from town at one end to town at other end. Each paying an average 80p (yes although the single fare is £2 the average paid is much lower because of repeat use of day ticket/concessionary reimbursement/split of season tickets/child fares.
Total take £48 - profit £8.
Now you have a route like the 335/336 where the bus goes Walsall-Alumwell-Walsall-Alumwell-Walsall in an hour.
You use a midi bus so costs will be slightly less, so say operating costs £38 per hour. within that hour that bus does 4 journeys (two round trips). On each trip bus carries an average of 20 passengers at the same average of 80p each.
Total take is £64 - profit £36
This shows that a half full B6 could in theory be making 4 times the profit that a full Enviro 400 is making!
Again all these figures are for comparison, I do not know the current costs or revenue of any route so couldn't post them even if I wanted to.
Wasnt that one of the founding principles of petes travel-with short routes and quick turnaround of buses eg 404e/401e/402e etc?