WM Bus Photos Forum

Just read on the Diamond website that the West Midlands Bus Partnership will be ending on the 29th of August...

Also worth noting Diamond will be pulling off the 32 from this date and will no longer be operating the 42 between Tipton and Dudley...

https://www.diamondbuses.com/news/wmb_service_changes/

Back to a free for all on the 31 then!

Quote from: Westy on June 24, 2021, 12:59:34 PM
Back to a free for all on the 31 then!

Will the NX buses be repainted back into Crimson? Would make sense I guess.

Very strange would have thought ticket agreements like this would be good for passengers on routes, so seems an odd change rather than introducing it on more routes such as 94, 16, 50, etc.
Then again claribels on 94 don't even match the ticket prices with NX, they don't do the £1 ticket for concessionary passes in the mornings like the other operators and charge full fares, so anyone with one lets them go past.

Quote from: 2206 on June 24, 2021, 04:04:48 PM
Very strange would have thought ticket agreements like this would be good for passengers on routes

It has to make business sense for the operators as well.

It'll be interesting to see if some passengers will still try to use one operator's ticket on the other!

Surely, when the timetable posters are reprinted (yet!) again for that corridor, TfWm could put a note on the poster about the change in arrangements (or is that too simple?)

Also, I guess the 'joint' leaflets will not be printed again, so I hope when leaflets are able to be produced,  Diamond do actually send paper copies to the Travelshops, assuming the 'official ' version will be Nx only.

Quote from: Michael Bevan on June 24, 2021, 12:03:41 PM
Just read on the Diamond website that the West Midlands Bus Partnership will be ending on the 29th of August...

Also worth noting Diamond will be pulling off the 32 from this date and will no longer be operating the 42 between Tipton and Dudley...

https://www.diamondbuses.com/news/wmb_service_changes/

I was surprised it lasted this long to be honest, I suspected at the time this was some kind of 'trial', hence why there was no widespread rollout of this concept.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 24, 2021, 04:44:30 PM
It has to make business sense for the operators as well.

That is true, and clearly this arrangement is not benefitting Diamond in the way they would have liked I guess.

So is it safe to assume that this 'West Midlands Bus' partnership concept is now dead in the water?

I suspect that because of the livery colour, I assume chosen by TfWM, it looked to many that NXWM ran the entire 31,32,40,42,43. The livery, in my opinion, should always have been a neutral colour. The partnership scheme was just an attempt to benefit NXWM, their favoured operator, in my opinion.

Quote from: fleetline6477 on June 24, 2021, 07:47:30 PM
I suspect that because of the livery colour, I assume chosen by TfWM, it looked to many that NXWM ran the entire 31,32,40,42,43. The livery, in my opinion, should always have been a neutral colour. The partnership scheme was just an attempt to benefit NXWM, their favoured operator, in my opinion.

It saved both operators a lot of operating costs without reducing the total number of passenger carried on the service by keeping a good frequency

Quote from: Steveminor on June 24, 2021, 04:44:30 PM
It has to make business sense for the operators as well.

Steve is right.  Steve is very aware as a member of the Bus Alliance the steps we took to create reform.  TfWM approach on Bus Service Improvement plans will interesting. 

I thought that Partnership was meant to be the way of the future under the Governments bus proposals recently announced. Far better for operators to do it on a voluntary basis rather than be forced into joint timetabling or similar?

Quote from: D10 on June 24, 2021, 08:23:12 PM
I thought that Partnership was meant to be the way of the future under the Governments bus proposals recently announced. Far better for operators to do it on a voluntary basis rather than be forced into joint timetabling or similar?

This is not the exact words, but the principle is the same.  The National Bus Strategy sets out that a Local Transport Authority or similar organisation to decide whether or not it is going to look to create an Enhanced Partnership scheme or a Franchising arrangement.  This can change at a later stage, but they have to decide this by the end of June.

After deciding they have to create a Bus Service Improvement Plan and they expect parts of it to be in place by the end of March 2022.  The BSIP is supposed to identify areas of failure/ need correction in the market and a strategy to deal with that.

Clearly TfWM have time to set out both these points.   

From a Diamond perspective, there is no commercial sense in operating in partnership and losing money, against operating outside a partnership and making money.    Clearly as we return to commercial realities we need to either see changes to arrangements which have been identified as an issue for nearly 2 years or those arrangements need to terminate.




Simon 

@SimonDunn - Is Diamond keeping those early Sunday morning journeys on the 31, when this change kicks in?

It is maybe worth pointing out that as we are both bus alliance members myself and Simon have spoken on this subject at great length. I am aware of the reasons for his decision to withdraw from the partnership routes and fully agree with those reasons. In fact it's hard to see how any other operator would join a partnership route with the current arrangements.
The National bus strategy calls for LTAs & operators to work together on BSIP proposals however they must be reasonable proposals for both the LTA & operators.
Simon has set out his position I do not see anything in his proposals to reform current QA arrangements which are unreasonable.

Quote from: Westy on June 24, 2021, 09:24:22 PM
@SimonDunn - Is Diamond keeping those early Sunday morning journeys on the 31, when this change kicks in?

Our 31 service on a Sunday starts at 0840 hrs


Simon

Quote from: Tony on June 24, 2021, 08:06:52 PM
It saved both operators a lot of operating costs without reducing the total number of passenger carried on the service by keeping a good frequency

I suppose it will put them back up now?

It will be interesting to see which operator gets the benefit, now things will be back to square one.

Logic suggests NX with the more options onwards will be the winner.

Hope both operators will be prepared for all the passengers moans, when they try to use one operator's ticket on the other!

One side effect of this is it reduces the "value" validity further.

Over the past few years that ticket hasn't been value for money (at one stage you could do Kingswinford to Bloxwich or Weoley to Walsall on it)

Diamond saver tickets are now cheaper

It seems to me that pulling out runs the risk of TfWM taking the line that if operators won't co-operate voluntarily we will go down the franchise route?

Quote from: mikestone on June 26, 2021, 11:23:28 AM
It seems to me that pulling out runs the risk of TfWM taking the line that if operators won't co-operate voluntarily we will go down the franchise route?

I don't see much evidence that franchising offers any significant benefits, look at what has happened to London over recent years with falling passenger numbers and cut backs. Likewise, the legal ramifications would be huge if they tried to force off companies from a route they have been on for many decades. The compensation if the company won against the authority would be huge.

A much better idea (and one NWM should be instigating) is to scrap monopoly laws and allow one company to run all services under the conditions that having that privilege meant they had to run all services including loss making ones. Get rid of those rules about not allowing cross subsidy from profitable routes and allow this to happen to make a large network financially viable long term. The company running the services would have no risk of competition so more investment long term and passengers would have the reassurance that routes wouldn't be cut because of the legal agreements in place.

NXWM would need to be allowed to purchase Diamond's possessions in the West Midlands (plus Redditch and Kidderminster as useful bolt ons) so diamond could invest more in the northwest region. Maybe Claribels too. The other little companies competing on West Midlands routes don't exactly offer anything NXWM don't already on routes so could be easily compensated and removed. As for the larger groups competing across county borders, route partnerships could be made with Arriva on the 110, First on the 144 (or NXWM just  but Worcester garage) and Stagecoach on Coventry services.

This may be very wishful thinking but having this sort of one operator system would be far more beneficial to all concerned than franchising which would lead to a race to the bottom in standards as companies are forced to cut costs to compete on contract prices.

Quote from: j789 on June 26, 2021, 12:11:40 PM
Maybe Claribels too. The other little companies competing on West Midlands routes don't exactly offer anything NXWM don't already on routes so could be easily compensated and removed.

Claribels don't really offer anything NX already do on the 94 really.
NX run the 55/94 routes at every 4 minutes City Centre - Ward End. Claribels are every 18 minutes and have cut back the rest of the comercial network in recent years so 94 runs at the reduced frequency and the Chelmsley to Solihull/Ward End - Chelmsley via Shard End corridors are NX only.
Most of the routes Claribels and Evergreen run are the tendered routes, I would think they are tendered because they are loss making, so NX might not want to run them at a loss anyway I guess?

Quote from: j789 on June 26, 2021, 12:11:40 PM
I don't see much evidence that franchising offers any significant benefits, look at what has happened to London over recent years with falling passenger numbers and cut backs. Likewise, the legal ramifications would be huge if they tried to force off companies from a route they have been on for many decades. The compensation if the company won against the authority would be huge.

A much better idea (and one NWM should be instigating) is to scrap monopoly laws and allow one company to run all services under the conditions that having that privilege meant they had to run all services including loss making ones. Get rid of those rules about not allowing cross subsidy from profitable routes and allow this to happen to make a large network financially viable long term. The company running the services would have no risk of competition so more investment long term and passengers would have the reassurance that routes wouldn't be cut because of the legal agreements in place.

NXWM would need to be allowed to purchase Diamond's possessions in the West Midlands (plus Redditch and Kidderminster as useful bolt ons) so diamond could invest more in the northwest region. Maybe Claribels too. The other little companies competing on West Midlands routes don't exactly offer anything NXWM don't already on routes so could be easily compensated and removed. As for the larger groups competing across county borders, route partnerships could be made with Arriva on the 110, First on the 144 (or NXWM just  but Worcester garage) and Stagecoach on Coventry services.

This may be very wishful thinking but having this sort of one operator system would be far more beneficial to all concerned than franchising which would lead to a race to the bottom in standards as companies are forced to cut costs to compete on contract prices.

Or maybe NX and Diamond negotiating running bus routes wholly, e.g Diamonds 4 and 4H to swap with NX 12/12A. This is only a theory because I know some people wouldn't want to be stuck with Diamond doing all there service 12/12A and some Diamond passengers won't like being stuck with NX on their 4/4H. Bus passes would have to be universal as well.

Having only one commercial operator would break CMA rules cant just do that in a commercialised economy as ours. Lots of smaller operators do bring value to the network I.e I.e Claribels & diamond 75 services banga 530 service diamond 002 service.


I am not averse to franchising the network as any potential profit risks for operators would be underwritten by the franchise agreements. This could lead to a whole wealth of opportunities for different cohorts of society. Cant see tfwm having the funding to do this.

The best way is via the e.p however the LTAs & operators have to work in "partnership" to do this & must treat ALL operators equally.

Quote from: 2206 on June 26, 2021, 12:22:55 PM
Most of the routes Claribels and Evergreen run are the tendered routes, I would think they are tendered because they are loss making, so NX might not want to run them at a loss anyway I guess?

In my suggestion above I mentioned that scrapping the rules about cross subsidy of loss making routes by profitable ones so that the one operator would operate everything. They couldn't pick or choose routes like now. However, this would still be a positive situation for the operator as Overall, this would still be a profitable enterprise for the one company and far better for passengers having to only deal with one operator.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 26, 2021, 02:04:40 PM
The best way is via the e.p however the LTAs & operators have to work in "partnership" to do this & must treat ALL operators equally.

Fairness is important however it isn't possible to treat the large company in exactly the same way as the small one. For example, NXWM have built up their large network over a long period of time and this should have far more influence over the future network than operators only running a few services. You can't really say that they should be treated the same as it's not realistic.

Otherwise any cow boy (of which there have been a fair few historically in the west Mids) could start running one bus on any route and demand they have an equal right to bidding to operator the route because they should be treated the same. It's not realistic to expect that, it must be done in relation to the size of the current network being run.

I meant all operators should have an equal say in how e.p & network move forward & how QAs are formed  At present one operator has such a dominant position that their needs and requirements are put first potentially to the detriment of others.

Take the failure of the current partnership routes

Quote from: Steveminor on June 26, 2021, 04:40:18 PM
I meant all operators should have an equal say in how e.p & network move forward & how QAs are formed  At present one operator has such a dominant position that their needs and requirements are put first potentially to the detriment of others.

Take the failure of the current partnership routes

I would use the same argument though. Why should smaller operators have the same day as the largest one? They haven't invested anything near what the larger operator has done and the risk to them is much smaller financially (although I acknowledge scaling also presents risks to smaller operators). I just don't see how anyone can think it's going to be an acceptable situation where the current largest operator has to sacrifice most for the suggested changes where the smaller operators have most to gain. It's just not a realistic expectation for Diamond or whoever to be on the same terms with NWM as NXWM.

Surely it's only NX that could only do the 'entire' network anyway?

NX has several garages in the area, while realistically Diamond only has one.

There's no way Diamond could run every single WM area bus from Tividale!

(Unless you were expecting NX employees to be TUPE'd to Diamond. Would Diamond employees be expected to be TUPE'd to NX?

Based on Diamond's accquisition of Arriva Wednesfield business & the sale of Arriva Cannock to D&G, if that's how it worked!)

Quote from: Westy on June 26, 2021, 05:36:37 PM
Surely it's only NX that could only do the 'entire' network anyway?

NX has several garages in the area, while realistically Diamond only has one.

There's no way Diamond could run every single WM area bus from Tividale!

(Unless you were expecting NX employees to be TUPE'd to Diamond. Would Diamond employees be expected to be TUPE'd to NX?

Based on Diamond's accquisition of Arriva Wednesfield business & the sale of Arriva Cannock to D&G, if that's how it worked!)

All

Both Franchising and EHP set out legal provisions to protect the interests of "small" operators.  So any singular operator objective would breach the Bus Services Act, CMA desire and ultimately would never in the current framework get through the relevant tests.

From a Diamond Bus perspective, the key issue to resolve the problems in the market is Ticketing.  We have suggested a number of structures to address this, supported by a leading Transport Economist paper.  The easiest way and I believe has support within TfWM is to create one fare structure and cross operator ticketing through NBus, removing any other Multi Operator Journey options.   In the first instance NBus fares should reduce to the level offered by National Express.   

In return there should be more governance on operators.  I am sure there are many areas this could and should cover.  However, investment, qualify standards, service frequency immediately jump out.

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

Quote from: Simon Dunn on June 26, 2021, 09:05:48 PM
I believe has support within TfWM is to create one fare structure and cross operator ticketing through NBus, removing any other Multi Operator Journey options.   In the first instance NBus fares should reduce to the level offered by National Express.   

Thats a good idea, I guess it would be good if it could be expanded to cover the small number of areas the NX bus pass currently covers outside of the NWM pass area as well. Coleshill and Water Orton on the X70, etc.
And also as well as having passes/ day tickets priced the same, they should have all single fares priced at the same price, so there is no difference between different operators across the region, including £1 concessionary fare ticket in regards to Claribels.
Could even get rid of the giving change on some operators in regards to cash fares and have an exact cash fare & contactless policy across the entire network for uniformity and faster boarding times.

Quote from: 2206 on June 26, 2021, 09:09:07 PM
Thats a good idea, I guess it would be good if it could be expanded to cover the small number of areas the NX bus pass currently covers outside of the NWM pass area as well. Coleshill and Water Orton on the X70, etc.
And also as well as having passes/ day tickets priced the same, they should have all single fares priced at the same price, so there is no difference between different operators across the region, including £1 concessionary fare ticket in regards to Claribels.
Could even get rid of the giving change on some operators in regards to cash fares and have an exact cash fare & contactless policy across the entire network for uniformity and faster boarding times.

It would be political difficult to breach the West Midlands boundaries.  That being said the NBus does currently span outside the West Midlands.  What I have set out is our principal position, the finer detail would need to be discussed.

Quote from: Simon Dunn on June 26, 2021, 09:05:48 PM

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.

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

Quote from: j789 on June 26, 2021, 10:56:22 PM
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.

Quote from: j789 on June 26, 2021, 10:56:22 PM
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.


     

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?

Quote from: don on June 27, 2021, 10:15:24 PM
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. 

 

Quote from: don on June 27, 2021, 10:15:24 PM

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

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?

Quote from: Steveminor on June 28, 2021, 07:28:51 AM
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.

Quote from: don on June 28, 2021, 08:10:59 AM
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.   

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

Quote from: Steveminor on June 28, 2021, 08:45:13 AM
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.

Quote from: Simon Dunn on June 28, 2021, 08:37:32 AM
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.

Quote from: 2206 on June 28, 2021, 08:48:59 AM
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

Quote from: 2206 on June 28, 2021, 08:48:59 AM
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 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:

QuoteMerry 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

Quote from: the trainbasher on June 28, 2021, 09:58:05 AM
Look at the 139 corridor now. Every 20 minutes, with less departures per hour overall out of Merry Hill 16 years later.

The 80 used to be every 20 minutes minor route now every 10 minutes, along Icknield Port Road.

X20/X21/X22 have gone up in frequency and capacity at the QE/Uni from 636/98/99 days and X12/X70 through the Bromford is every 10 mins, 72 was every 20, X51 up to every 10 mins, 1 through Moseley has increased. So some Birmingham NXWM routes seem to have seen opposite trend. Are there any others?

Quote from: the trainbasher on June 28, 2021, 09:58:05 AM
The downside to network downsizing is that its usually routes that serve areas that can't support a commercial service that get cuts first.

Some places like Monument Road, in a high bus area as well, so always surprised me there isn't a way it could be served commercially, as Five Ways Island nearby must have 100's of buses an hour. 

There used to be 5 buses an hour on the Cannock corridor down my road at one point!

Now, over the past couple of years or so, it's been off & on!

(Not helped by certain neighbours hogging the on street parking,  including a local authority worker parking his work van & his private car!)

This highlights the problem of having 1 or an extremely dominant operator. The heyday of the west Midlands was when you had a much larger selection of operators who between them had quite a large market share.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 28, 2021, 11:26:19 AM
This highlights the problem of having 1 or an extremely dominant operator. The heyday of the west Midlands was when you had a much larger selection of operators who between them had quite a large market share.

Please tell me how that helped. The vast majority were just out to take money off the dominant operator. Only a very few like Ludlows actually provided the public with anything more than a choice on a busy road.

Birmingham Coach Pete's Travel Serverse Travel Hansons Zaks coaches. All had their own routes that added to the network. Yes there was overlap but it gave passengers the choice

Quote from: Tony on June 28, 2021, 11:28:40 AM
Please tell me how that helped. The vast majority were just out to take money off the dominant operator. Only a very few like Ludlows actually provided the public with anything more than a choice on a busy road.

I am sure you appreciate under the current legislation the only way to prevent overlaps is through Franchising.

Quote from: Simon Dunn on June 28, 2021, 12:29:21 PM
I am sure you appreciate under the current legislation the only way to prevent overlaps is through Franchising.

I wasn't referring to the overlaps, even things like Serveverse's 97 that continued to Tamworth were imaginative and provided something not provided by any other operator. But some operators, provided nothing at all, those that don't do anything other than copy someone else's routes exactly and don't even bid for tendered work offer nothing to the general public.

Operators operating plain white buses with no fleetnames, and in some cases very small bit of paper for legals would not be missed by the general public, yes they will get on if they turn up first, but if they disappeared tomorrow would the ordinary passenger even notice?

Minimum vehicle requirements would be part of the ep & would not be an issue for any reputable operator.
Yes there used to be a selection of operators that did not add any real value to the network but there were a lot that did & that's what we need a more even market share of operators that are willing to add real value to the network, something that with current arrangements is hard to see happening.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 28, 2021, 01:13:26 PM
Yes there used to be a selection of operators that did not add any real value to the network

In recent years I think Joes Travel 11A/11C, AMPM Travel, Social Travel 11C, Sunny Travel 120/71E/72, Sandwell Travel 80, RK Travel 11A, Discount Travel 966/97/11A/Sunday 87, GRS Travel 11A/11C/16, VIP Travel, Hi Ride 40X (when in later years it just ran along the 11 route Perry Barr - City Hospital - Bearwood) fell into that category.

Plus Discount Travel 11C and Claribels 94 which are still about.

Stuff like Diamond 16 with the extension to West Bromwich adds value to the network I think.

We're talking about operators, not individual services. In that list even Social Travel tried to innovate with the 74A & 74S over cannock although ultimately unsuccessful at least they tried.
But yes there were a few that did nothing in terms of value to passengers or innovation of routes added very little value.

I say value to passengers as an operator that has invested in newer vehicles than their competitors to attract passengers could be seen to add value as the case with Royal Diamond on the 9 or when Arriva launched sapphire on the 110 (before platinum)

Quote from: Steveminor on June 28, 2021, 08:45:13 AM
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

I am very interested by this message. What sort of ticketing arrangements do you think could bring us back to the era of inventive routes?
It is certainly something which I would like to see but I am unsure what could be done as most of the smaller companies now seem to not want their own commercial routes, just revenue extraction or tenders. These are easy, quite guaranteed money routes. Operators don't seem to want to take commercial risk. Yes one or two will but even then, that is few and far between.

I certainly welcome some more information to back up what you are saying here.

I believe the current reimbursement rates for encts is not high enough, although the statement says an operator should be no better or worse off for accepting encts the reality is that if you had a service that was only carrying encts pass holders you would not be able to make it commercially viable that in itself coupled with the evidence through lack of rural community services that primarily carry encts passengers shows the current arrangements dont work.
I believe the national bus strategy will try to tackle that issue.

The national bus strategy also calls for cross operator ticketing at little to no premium. I believe that if nbus was priced the same as the nx equivalent product then this would remove one of the barriers to innovative new routes. The strength of the nx products is such that a large percentage of passengers will take a more indirect route to their destination simply due to the fact that the direct service would require them to buy a "slightly" more expensive product. I believe that also where a passenger has bought another operators pass then that operator should reimburse the other one for acceptance of their product at a fair amount.

This would ensure passengers got a seamless system of payment whichever route or operator they chose to travel with & could take a more direct service whilst giving operators confidence to trial new direct connections with the knowledge that there access to 100% of the passenger base.

With passenger levels expected to be suppressed for quite a long time (if the ever recover to pre covid levels) this is essential to ensure the network as it is survives let alone increasing it.


For me & Mr Dunn to be singing from the same hymn sheet basically says the others have got to change their tune & listen to 2 long term bus men.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 28, 2021, 08:28:39 PM
I believe the current reimbursement rates for encts is not high enough, although the statement says an operator should be no better or worse off for accepting encts the reality is that if you had a service that was only carrying encts pass holders you would not be able to make it commercially viable that in itself coupled with the evidence through lack of rural community services that primarily carry encts passengers shows the current arrangements dont work.
I believe the national bus strategy will try to tackle that issue.

The national bus strategy also calls for cross operator ticketing at little to no premium. I believe that if nbus was priced the same as the nx equivalent product then this would remove one of the barriers to innovative new routes. The strength of the nx products is such that a large percentage of passengers will take a more indirect route to their destination simply due to the fact that the direct service would require them to buy a "slightly" more expensive product. I believe that also where a passenger has bought another operators pass then that operator should reimburse the other one for acceptance of their product at a fair amount.

This would ensure passengers got a seamless system of payment whichever route or operator they chose to travel with & could take a more direct service whilst giving operators confidence to trial new direct connections with the knowledge that there access to 100% of the passenger base.

With passenger levels expected to be suppressed for quite a long time (if the ever recover to pre covid levels) this is essential to ensure the network as it is survives let alone increasing it.


For me & Mr Dunn to be singing from the same hymn sheet basically says the others have got to change their tune & listen to 2 long term bus men.

This is starting to sound like you're saying NXWM are the bad guys just because they have the dominance which means your companies can't make as much money as you can't compete. Of course you want a system where NXWM wouldn't dominate as much as it gives you far less commercial risk. However, it is clear that this financial aspect is the main reason for these suggestions, not to improve the passenger experience. I certainly am not criticising you for these viewpoints as anyone in your position would say the same thing about reducing the dominant operators network coverage. Equally however, if I started running tomorrow on Diamond's  002 route, I don't think they'd be particularly supportive of your idea of them paying me to accept their passes. Likewise, why should NXWM pay competitors for accepting their passes when on moist routes there will be a NXWM shortly behind?

I can think of very few areas in the West Mids that are not covered to at least a decent degree by NXWM and therefore fail to see what improvement any of these suggestions would do for passengers. You can currently travel from Cannock to Leamington Spa or Nuneaton for £4 on high frequency routes using the same operator. No other area in England offers this range of coverage and I would argue that the dominant operator in the West Midlands has done, and continues to offer, far more good than bad. I have worked in the industry for a long time for First and think the vast majority of West Midlands bus users would far prefer the current set up there than the shocking provision in Worcestershire.

Overall though, I still think my original suggestion earlier on in this thread solves all these issues. Have only one operator running everything (suitably compensating other companies so they are not losing out and can then invest in new markets), allow cross subsidy of profitable routes to support loss making ones and the company has to sign an agreement maintaining a minimum standard of services and outlawing cuts to routes. Having one operator would be far more beneficial than having multiple operators, even if shared ticketing etc was used.

It's small things like having one place to pick up lost property for example, rather than 15 different potential places from different operators that really make a big difference to the passenger experience.The same with information channels, one Twitter or facebook account, one customer service number etc so passengers know exactly who to contact without any fuss. That  one company would be profitable long term and still be able to run loss making services. It is win-win for both operator and passengers.

An interesting post @j789 - I must say this arrangement or one similar seems to me to be the only way a partnership agreement involving commercial operators can work. I have also watched with interest the many You Tube videos taken of various routes (some are pretty good - especially when taken from the upstairs front) - the one of route 16 was really very interesting in that a Diamond overtook the NX Platinum at a stop and then was seen to be waved on by some passengers at some stops. I wasn't really sure whether this was because of the fares/tickets (perhaps prepaid), preferring to sit upstairs on a double decker, wanting to use the WiFi or simply choosing one operator over the other (or liking grey coloured buses rather than blue) - who knows. The clear thing on this journey was the NXWM picked up at each stop whereas the Diamond did not as a result of what I said above and had disappeared from view quite quickly (certainly between Handsworth Wood Road and Villa Road). I'm sure the opposite happens sometimes and this wasn't necessarily typical - nonetheless v interesting.

It seems to me the only other model to achieve a service suited to passenger needs would be franchising, with services planned both through grandfather rights (long established services) with services planned using transport planning techniques by the transport authority. I'm not sure the outcome would be much different from the current network but I guess it would give a service more related to need developed using scientific methods. I'm not sure how much route changes are planned based on survey data or literally, trial and error by operators until the best is achieved, along with response to feedback from user groups and Champions.

The one area which is not really discussed in this thread is the introduction of zero emission vehicles - I can't see how this isn't a major item for both TfWM and the operators. I get the bus priority (presumably more Sprint on major corridors) but how do you extend this to suburban routes like the 18 and 002 (or 11a/11c) which inevitably cross lots of radial routes with corresponding conflict with radial route bus priority. And his do you resolve City and Town Centre bus congestion?

All interesting stuff.

I still don't understand why Diamond is pulling out of the existing partnership routes when there is not an agreed new partnership or other arrangement planned - perhaps @Simon Dunn could comment? I am guessing it simply isn't viable and is costing them - a shame, really if that is the case.

Quote from: don on June 29, 2021, 12:20:01 AM
I still don't understand why Diamond is pulling out of the existing partnership routes when there is not an agreed new partnership or other arrangement planned - perhaps @Simon Dunn could comment? I am guessing it simply isn't viable and is costing them - a shame, really if that is the case.

In my response 

« Reply #34 on: Yesterday at 06:17:56 AM »

I said the following

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.

A victim of their own success, benefactors of others short comings, predatory bad guy, call them what you will. The problem is that with such a high dominance and with their own ticket range of the same dominance we have lost a lot of the innovation that we once had. The national bus strategy dies state the government does not want to lose the entrepreneurial spirit that de regulation has bought.
We have to tackle these thorny issues of ticketing and quickly for operators and passengers benefit or clearly the only model that will work is franchising.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 29, 2021, 07:23:26 AM
A victim of their own success, benefactors of others short comings, predatory bad guy, call them what you will. The problem is that with such a high dominance and with their own ticket range of the same dominance we have lost a lot of the innovation that we once had. The national bus strategy dies state the government does not want to lose the entrepreneurial spirit that de regulation has bought.
We have to tackle these thorny issues of ticketing and quickly for operators and passengers benefit or clearly the only model that will work is franchising.

I'm not quite sure NXWM would describe themselves as the victim! It seems from your statement above is purely based on your own companies not being able to compete so you looking for a way to increase the success of those companies. Please tell me one positive for passengers that your suggestion of multiple operators has? All I have heard so far are reasons that would be positive for your company's bottom line, nothing that actually would benefit passengers more than what they have now.

As for innovation, I have seen very little innovation off any other company in the West Midlands, including larger operators like Stagecoach. NXWM has innovated with route changes, eg X51, x20/21/22. They also introduced the £1 inner city fare. They have introduced electric and gas buses into the West Midlands, soon to be joined by Hydrogen buses too. They went fully accessible across their networkin 2010, before other big areas like Manchester- that is innovation. The Sprint services are the next step in this innovation. (Even the changes to the 11a/c show innovation to solve the age old problem on that route of delays and bunching).

Likewise, I don't think certain companies in the past running 2 minutes in front of the main operator is innovation, just profit chasing and offering no benefits to passengers. Running clapped out darts and Leyland Nationals was not innovation. The only independent that showed any real innovation since deregulation was Yourbis with their new routes, some of which are still run (76 for example). Why doesn't your company try running new routes and offering new connections, that would be innovative.

We're you involved with Pete's travel at some point I seem to remember reading here (apologies if not)? They did the usual competitor trick of running just in front of the opposition. I look at the poor transport network offered in Redditch now, this was a direct result of them competing with First and dragging everything down to bottom in terms of standards. Compare what was around in that area in the 1990s with what they have now with diamond? Only 1 bus an hour to Birmingham, etc. Competition certainly did that area no favours and it's a joke if you think certain companies ever offered innovation. They didn't. I seem to remember 20 or so years ago Birmingham Coach trying to run Ludlows out of business bu operating a few minutes in front on their routes. So I wouldn't even say Diamond could take credit for the 002 route, it was Ludlows creation.

You describe an image of a broken transport system in the West Midlands. It is not broken at all, you only need to look over the border to Worcestershire to see a real broken system.

A very one eyed view of the direction of travel for the West Midlands network of bus operators, or rather what's left of it. Many of the 'innovations' you refer to on NXWM's part (Sprint, zero emissions buses) are as a result of bid wins or tendered initiatives where public money has been made available and an operator appointed via its business case. In many cases smaller operators or even medium sized ones wouldn't have had a cat in hells chance of shifting NX from pole position for these schemes as they wouldn't have the time, resource or reach to prepare viable bids for them, hence the happy monopoly they find themselves in today. The only reason NX would have gone into a partnership arrangement with another operator in the first place was to reduce their PVR on those routes whilst still selling products online that guarantee them revenue whilst actually operating less buses. No wonder they were so keen.

As Simon said earlier, a reform of the all operator ticketing scheme which is now nbus would have meant many more of the good, innovative smaller operators being retained. The local transport authority appeared to wilfully destroy the product over the years leaving the door wide open for NX to loss lead it out of relevance. The reform was needed years and years ago and sadly it's probably too late now. The reimbursement rates further suffered when the all operator schemes moved over to digital products. It's quite ironic that the LA spent years investing in the upgrading of that product and persuading other operators to integrate it whilst significantly reducing reimbursements to the point where the passenger was barely worth claiming for. Meanwhile the NX product marched on unhindered.

The result is now a largely useless multi operator product that nobody buys, needs or uses and coupled with the double whammy of hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted by the LA altering it and reinventing it and upgrading it whilst at the same time making it utterly irrelevant.

Only when the LA faces up to this and addresses it will operators turn their attentions to being innovative. Meanwhile any fortunate survivors just attempt to float.

Dunno if I've missed this.

We know Diamond is amending their timetable,  but is Nx amending theirs as well?

Quote from: andy41 on June 29, 2021, 06:15:19 PM
A very one eyed view of the direction of travel for the West Midlands network of bus operators, or rather what's left of it. Many of the 'innovations' you refer to on NXWM's part (Sprint, zero emissions buses) are as a result of bid wins or tendered initiatives where public money has been made available and an operator appointed via its business case. In many cases smaller operators or even medium sized ones wouldn't have had a cat in hells chance of shifting NX from pole position for these schemes as they wouldn't have the time, resource or reach to prepare viable bids for them, hence the happy monopoly they find themselves in today. The only reason NX would have gone into a partnership arrangement with another operator in the first place was to reduce their PVR on those routes whilst still selling products online that guarantee them revenue whilst actually operating less buses. No wonder they were so keen.

As Simon said earlier, a reform of the all operator ticketing scheme which is now nbus would have meant many more of the good, innovative smaller operators being retained. The local transport authority appeared to wilfully destroy the product over the years leaving the door wide open for NX to loss lead it out of relevance. The reform was needed years and years ago and sadly it's probably too late now. The reimbursement rates further suffered when the all operator schemes moved over to digital products. It's quite ironic that the LA spent years investing in the upgrading of that product and persuading other operators to integrate it whilst significantly reducing reimbursements to the point where the passenger was barely worth claiming for. Meanwhile the NX product marched on unhindered.

The result is now a largely useless multi operator product that nobody buys, needs or uses and coupled with the double whammy of hundreds of thousands of pounds wasted by the LA altering it and reinventing it and upgrading it whilst at the same time making it utterly irrelevant.

Only when the LA faces up to this and addresses it will operators turn their attentions to being innovative. Meanwhile any fortunate survivors just attempt to float.

Please name these former 'innovative' companies. Apart from the already mentioned Yourbus and Ludlows, which other companies in the West Midlands in the last 35 years have been innovative, rather than just chosen to run 2 minutes in front of WMT/TWM/NXWM. If you think any of those other companies would have offered a better service over these years than that provided by NXWM, that is laughable in the extreme.

I have used a regular bus user in the West Midlands since the 1980s and worked in the industry in Worcestershire for many years too. I am so Pro-NXWM because what they offer is superior to most other places around Britain. Passengers benefit from having one known operator, they don't want multiple operators.

Quote from: j789 on June 29, 2021, 07:15:57 PM
Please name these former 'innovative' companies. Apart from the already mentioned Yourbus and Ludlows, which other companies in the West Midlands in the last 35 years have been innovative, rather than just chosen to run 2 minutes in front of WMT/TWM/NXWM. If you think any of those other companies would have offered a better service over these years than that provided by NXWM, that is laughable in the extreme.

I have used a regular bus user in the West Midlands since the 1980s and worked in the industry in Worcestershire for many years too. I am so Pro-NXWM because what they offer is superior to most other places around Britain. Passengers benefit from having one known operator, they don't want multiple operators.

My responses and comments have been made to put the record straight on our position, why we have exited the partnership agreements and my own personal view of the future.  I prefer not to critique other operators.  No Operator is perfect, and I am certain every comment made whether that be about running buses in front of other peoples services, more or less anything can be levelled at every operator at some point in their past.

What is inevitable whether anyone likes it or not, change is coming.  The National Bus Strategy and the Bus Services Act sets the tone for this.  I have offered my opinion for what it is worth. 

Quote from: j789 on June 29, 2021, 07:15:57 PM
Please name these former 'innovative' companies. Apart from the already mentioned Yourbus and Ludlows, which other companies in the West Midlands in the last 35 years have been innovative, rather than just chosen to run 2 minutes in front of WMT/TWM/NXWM. If you think any of those other companies would have offered a better service over these years than that provided by NXWM, that is laughable in the extreme.

I have used a regular bus user in the West Midlands since the 1980s and worked in the industry in Worcestershire for many years too. I am so Pro-NXWM because what they offer is superior to most other places around Britain. Passengers benefit from having one known operator, they don't want multiple operators.

This is a nonsense argument. The competition at the times you describe was based on frequency gaps and price point. Operators saw the former TWM main corridors as underbussed and overpriced, so they put an offer out there. It was taken up by customers who wanted high frequency and value for money. In many cases, both operators benefitted from an increase in footfall.

NX later decided to counter this. Not by running buses 2 minutes in front of the other operator, but by flooding the routes with extra frequency and PVR and slashing the fare offer. It's the same trick in different clothes and I'm not complaining about it, but you can't see that.

NX's employment of these tactics, their loss leading on commercial products and a very helpful LA who continually made sure the price point for the all operator product was set above the NX product, whilst also decreasing reimbursements across the board in real terms, soon culminated in an unviable operating territory for anyone that wasn't NX.

The reward for the customer was then realignment of the NX services that remained away from inconvenient sections of route that tied the bus up and created extra PVR that they could then save by sticking to main roads and expecting customers to walk.

So please take your rose couloured spectacles off.

Quote from: j789 on June 29, 2021, 07:15:57 PM
Please name these former 'innovative' companies. Apart from the already mentioned Yourbus and Ludlows, which other companies in the West Midlands in the last 35 years have been innovative, rather than just chosen to run 2 minutes in front of WMT/TWM/NXWM. If you think any of those other companies would have offered a better service over these years than that provided by NXWM, that is laughable in the extreme.

I have used a regular bus user in the West Midlands since the 1980s and worked in the industry in Worcestershire for many years too. I am so Pro-NXWM because what they offer is superior to most other places around Britain. Passengers benefit from having one known operator, they don't want multiple operators.

Central connect used to run the 192 Birmingham- Kidderminster and the 123 Merry Hill- Perry Barr. And can I remind you that the 417 now 4H was a ludlows route that got taken over when diamond took over. Nx are the ones that have jumped to compete on the 4H. Do we need nx on the 4H? @j789

Quote from: Trident 4194 on June 29, 2021, 08:26:33 PM
Central connect used to run the 192 Birmingham- Kidderminster and the 123 Merry Hill- Perry Barr. And can I remind you that the 417 now 4H was a ludlows route that got taken over when diamond took over. Nx are the ones that have jumped to compete on the 4H. Do we need nx on the 4H? @j789

Well, the 123 and 192 were both tenders so there was no innovation there, they just won the contracts from Centro and Worcestershire respectively.

Quote from: Trident 4194 on June 29, 2021, 08:26:33 PM
Central connect used to run the 192 Birmingham- Kidderminster and the 123 Merry Hill- Perry Barr. And can I remind you that the 417 now 4H was a ludlows route that got taken over when diamond took over. Nx are the ones that have jumped to compete on the 4H. Do we need nx on the 4H? @j789

I said Ludlows were an innovative company (and yourbus) but no one has so far given any other examples!!! 123 was ex midland red routes combined. In fact the 'Red' were probably best placed to have competed against WMT but they messed up.

As for the 4H, NXWM don't need to be on there no. But equally then do Diamond need to be on the part of the 4 route from West Brom to Walsall? Or the 16? Or the 50? They have NXWM buses up to every 4 minutes, they really don't need to be on there too but they are and it still works as the status quo is now.  That is not a realistic suggestion to make about the 4H as it's not for any route with competition. It's the survival of the fittest, adapt or fail.

Quote from: andy41 on June 29, 2021, 08:18:15 PM
This is a nonsense argument. The competition at the times you describe was based on frequency gaps and price point. Operators saw the former TWM main corridors as underbussed and overpriced, so they put an offer out there. It was taken up by customers who wanted high frequency and value for money. In many cases, both operators benefitted from an increase in footfall.

NX later decided to counter this. Not by running buses 2 minutes in front of the other operator, but by flooding the routes with extra frequency and PVR and slashing the fare offer. It's the same trick in different clothes and I'm not complaining about it, but you can't see that.

NX's employment of these tactics, their loss leading on commercial products and a very helpful LA who continually made sure the price point for the all operator product was set above the NX product, whilst also decreasing reimbursements across the board in real terms, soon culminated in an unviable operating territory for anyone that wasn't NX.

The reward for the customer was then realignment of the NX services that remained away from inconvenient sections of route that tied the bus up and created extra PVR that they could then save by sticking to main roads and expecting customers to walk.

So please take your rose couloured spectacles off.

Rose tinted spectacles may be put aside! Please list these routes you say NXWM have removed to inconvenience passengers? Most of the cases you discuss need to look at the bigger picture. Is it better to inconvenience a small section of passengers by making the route more reliable by missing out certain sections and thus benefitting 95% of the other passengers on the route? I think so and clearly the increased passenger numbers on these high frequency corridors (pre-COVID) proved that. Sometimes, decisions have to be taken for the greater good.

I would say from your previous posts you are very anti - NXWM so maybe we balance the world out in our stances. However, I see a network of services that cater for the vast majority of the West Midlands travelling public, clearly you don't but I really can't see why.

Quote from: j789 on June 29, 2021, 08:50:35 PM
Rose tinted spectacles may be put aside! Please list these routes you say NXWM have removed to inconvenience passengers? Most of the cases you discuss need to look at the bigger picture. Is it better to inconvenience a small section of passengers by making the route more reliable by missing out certain sections and thus benefitting 95% of the other passengers on the route? I think so and clearly the increased passenger numbers on these high frequency corridors (pre-COVID) proved that. Sometimes, decisions have to be taken for the greater good.

I would say from your previous posts you are very anti - NXWM so maybe we balance the world out in our stances. However, I see a network of services that cater for the vast majority of the West Midlands travelling public, clearly you don't but I really can't see why.

I agree. Lots of innovation from NX X20/X21/X22, X51, Platinum, Electric Buses etc.

Meanwhile take a look at Discount Travel Solutions on the 11C, you can catch one of their buses one way, yet can't even return on them the other way. And they are timetabled to run at random times of day with a big gap for lunch in the middle of the day, with a couple of  old darts. An operator who lack any innovation at all I think.
Or that extremely scruffy looking E200 vehicle in London livery that Evergreen had on the 28A today in comparison to even the older buses in the fleet Geminis/Omnilinks/Tridents that NX run. The same E200 bus doesn't even have a working destination display on it.
Operators like Sunny Travel & Joes Travel who ran step entrance vehicles for many years after NX.

Claribels have an every 18 minute frequency (not even clock face frequency) on a main road corridor where NX fequency is much higher, and another operator who schedule a gap in service for lunch as if nobody needs to travel at that time of day, luckily nobody has to rely on them because NX continue to operate.
Lots of these small operators disappear after about 5/6PM as well, NX run a good service for the majority up until about midnight on most services.

Name other innovative operators. That's a challenge let's see.
Birmingham coach company, north Birmingham busways, Stevenson's, midland choice, Hansons, serverse Travel, Burman Travel, Frontline Buses, vanguard coaches.

Is that enough for you or do I keep going.

Oh & previous comment yes I did work for Pete's Travel 377X 452 628 & 96A were just a few of my innovations at that firm. Shall I go on.

As simon said every operator at some point gone head to head competing with another. At the time that's what deregulation was about operators competing to bring different benefits fares etc to the travelling public. Would you tell Morrisons they cant sell milk because Asda sell milk.

I was asked & answered as honestly as I can what I believe is the best way to put the entrepreneurial spirit back into the bus network whilst providing a good network that works for both operators and travelling public. This in my opinion is what the national bus strategy is looking to do.

Covid has given this push to provide a better network & there are many challenges yet to come for the bus industry to regain lost patronage, whatever happens it's going to be a very interesting new normal.

Let's not look back now on who did what to who & let's solve these challenges & come up with arrangements that allow ALL operators to survive & grow profitably whist giving passengers a joined up network

Wonder if walsall community transport will repaint their buses if west Midlands bus
is coming to an end

Quote from: Steveminor on June 29, 2021, 11:16:42 PM
Name other innovative operators. That's a challenge let's see.
Birmingham coach company, north Birmingham busways, Stevenson's, midland choice, Hansons, serverse Travel, Burman Travel, Frontline Buses, vanguard coaches.

Is that enough for you or do I keep going.

Oh & previous comment yes I did work for Pete's Travel 377X 452 628 & 96A were just a few of my innovations at that firm. Shall I go on.

As simon said every operator at some point gone head to head competing with another. At the time that's what deregulation was about operators competing to bring different benefits fares etc to the travelling public. Would you tell Morrisons they cant sell milk because Asda sell milk.

I was asked & answered as honestly as I can what I believe is the best way to put the entrepreneurial spirit back into the bus network whilst providing a good network that works for both operators and travelling public. This in my opinion is what the national bus strategy is looking to do.

Covid has given this push to provide a better network & there are many challenges yet to come for the bus industry to regain lost patronage, whatever happens it's going to be a very interesting new normal.

Let's not look back now on who did what to who & let's solve these challenges & come up with arrangements that allow ALL operators to survive & grow profitably whist giving passengers a joined up network

Frontline / serverse didn't they all just jump on the bandwagon of operating on the  94, 97, 96 .

I was always curious who promoted tmw to create the 377 extension that saw it go erdington , bromford and c wood.

There was a lot of innovation in the 90s from the independents but not a lot of it has lasted  as a % 30 % of it??.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 29, 2021, 11:16:42 PM
Name other innovative operators. That's a challenge let's see.
Birmingham coach company, north Birmingham busways, Stevenson's, midland choice, Hansons, serverse Travel, Burman Travel, Frontline Buses, vanguard coaches.

Is that enough for you or do I keep going.

Oh & previous comment yes I did work for Pete's Travel 377X 452 628 & 96A were just a few of my innovations at that firm. Shall I go on.

As simon said every operator at some point gone head to head competing with another. At the time that's what deregulation was about operators competing to bring different benefits fares etc to the travelling public. Would you tell Morrisons they cant sell milk because Asda sell milk.

I was asked & answered as honestly as I can what I believe is the best way to put the entrepreneurial spirit back into the bus network whilst providing a good network that works for both operators and travelling public. This in my opinion is what the national bus strategy is looking to do.

Covid has given this push to provide a better network & there are many challenges yet to come for the bus industry to regain lost patronage, whatever happens it's going to be a very interesting new normal.

Let's not look back now on who did what to who & let's solve these challenges & come up with arrangements that allow ALL operators to survive & grow profitably whist giving passengers a joined up network

There it is again, profits profits profits, absolutely nothing to do with improving the passenger experience, just wanting a bigger slice of the network for yourself. What exactly would you do if your company ran more routes? Have crazy frequencies that are non-sensical?

Also, those innovations from the companies you list? The vast majority didn't work out long term? You blame NXWM but maybe it should be put down to bad business management of those companies. Being innovative and being profitable are 2 completely different things, I'd expect someone in the industry to know that and not to take the simplistic stance that the failure of most of those operators was down to NXWM. Your company used to use coaches on bus routes, was that innovation? What about all those clapped out Nationals and Darts used by others, what a great advert for using the bus that gave, I think not! You are deluded if you think that was innovative. One example, Petes on the 22 using city buses against NXWM accessible buses. Which company was offering the best service for passengers, not 'innovative' Petes that is for sure!

You never answered the question of the situation Petes caused in Redditch and the race to the bottom in terms of standards that created. The current poor network in Redditch is a direct result of this and was certainly not innovation or of any benefit to passengers. Why don't clarinets start operating there and offer new services for those passengers. Let me guess why, lack of profits!

All I see is a lack of willingness from certain companies to try new things, just playground whining about it being unfair. It's a competitive marketplace, compete or fail, don't moan about it.

Quote from: j789 on June 30, 2021, 07:16:53 AM
There it is again, profits profits profits, absolutely nothing to do with improving the passenger experience, just wanting a bigger slice of the network for yourself. What exactly would you do if your company ran more routes? Have crazy frequencies that are non-sensical?

Also, those innovations from the companies you list? The vast majority didn't work out long term? You blame NXWM but maybe it should be put down to bad business management of those companies. Being innovative and being profitable are 2 completely different things, I'd expect someone in the industry to know that and not to take the simplistic stance that the failure of most of those operators was down to NXWM. Your company used to use coaches on bus routes, was that innovation? What about all those clapped out Nationals and Darts used by others, what a great advert for using the bus that gave, I think not! You are deluded if you think that was innovative. One example, Petes on the 22 using city buses against NXWM accessible buses. Which company was offering the best service for passengers, not 'innovative' Petes that is for sure!

You never answered the question of the situation Petes caused in Redditch and the race to the bottom in terms of standards that created. The current poor network in Redditch is a direct result of this and was certainly not innovation or of any benefit to passengers. Why don't clarinets start operating there and offer new services for those passengers. Let me guess why, lack of profits!

All I see is a lack of willingness from certain companies to try new things, just playground whining about it being unfair. It's a competitive marketplace, compete or fail, don't moan about it.

Perhaps you could show all the other operators what they have been missing and what innovation really is?

https://www.gov.uk/apply-vehicle-operator-licence

Quote from: metrocity on June 30, 2021, 07:32:25 AM
Perhaps you could show all the other operators what they have been missing and what innovation really is?

https://www.gov.uk/apply-vehicle-operator-licence

Daft argument, it's not me banging on about how innovative small operators have been in the West Midlands since 1986. Perhaps you should read the earlier posts properly. I am questioning what exactly this so called innovation was (and still am unsure as the evidence provided so far isn't exactly strong), nowhere am I saying I could do a better job! Just questioning comments made by others about NXWM.

Quote from: j789 on June 30, 2021, 07:16:53 AM
There it is again, profits profits profits, absolutely nothing to do with improving the passenger experience, just wanting a bigger slice of the network for yourself. What exactly would you do if your company ran more routes? Have crazy frequencies that are non-sensical?

Also, those innovations from the companies you list? The vast majority didn't work out long term? You blame NXWM but maybe it should be put down to bad business management of those companies. Being innovative and being profitable are 2 completely different things, I'd expect someone in the industry to know that and not to take the simplistic stance that the failure of most of those operators was down to NXWM. Your company used to use coaches on bus routes, was that innovation? What about all those clapped out Nationals and Darts used by others, what a great advert for using the bus that gave, I think not! You are deluded if you think that was innovative. One example, Petes on the 22 using city buses against NXWM accessible buses. Which company was offering the best service for passengers, not 'innovative' Petes that is for sure!

You never answered the question of the situation Petes caused in Redditch and the race to the bottom in terms of standards that created. The current poor network in Redditch is a direct result of this and was certainly not innovation or of any benefit to passengers. Why don't clarinets start operating there and offer new services for those passengers. Let me guess why, lack of profits!

All I see is a lack of willingness from certain companies to try new things, just playground whining about it being unfair. It's a competitive marketplace, compete or fail, don't moan about it.

There is nothing wrong with standards of bus services in Redditch.  The network is a reflection of usage and demand.  The fares are within the lowest in the country if not the lowest. 

Been there twice mate & got bought out twice, young family now so the position I'm in suits the life I need. Maybe you should have a go?

Serverse was inventive the longstanding 96 to Tamworth through villages that today see hardly any buses serverse ran through those hourly or the 70 which today forms the basis of the 75.
Those operators aren't about now well some  were through the owners having serious health conditions or those guys are no longer with us & some are gone through operator buy outs.
Routes change as the market is ever changing but a lot of those routes or the basis of them still exists today.

When it comes to Redditch the best thing that happened was First pulling out as there is much more investment now than there had been from First towards the end

Quote from: j789 on June 30, 2021, 07:43:45 AM
Daft argument, it's not me banging on about how innovative small operators have been in the West Midlands since 1986. Perhaps you should read the earlier posts properly. I am questioning what exactly this so called innovation was (and still am unsure as the evidence provided so far isn't exactly strong), nowhere am I saying I could do a better job! Just questioning comments made by others about NXWM.

You don't seem willing to allow others to have a view unless it matches your narrative

People who express themselves in the manner you have simply illustrate an ignorance that theirs is the only relevant view

Quote from: metrocity on June 30, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
You don't seem willing to allow others to have a view unless it matches your narrative

People who express themselves in the manner you have simply illustrate an ignorance that theirs is the only relevant view

No that is not true at all. I have replied to comments made by others protesting that the current transport system is broken in the West Midlands, just because there is a dominant operator. I have merely argued this is not the case at all and West Midlands passengers have it very good compare to neighbouring counties. Perhaps you don't agree. However, saying I'm ignorant to their views is daft in the extreme, I am just highlighting the other side of the argument. Those two advocating changes are doing so as it would clearly benefit their companies and future profits. Please tell me I'm wrong if this is not the case?

Where exactly do you think the money to invest in new vehicles comes from if not from profits????

Quote from: Steveminor on June 30, 2021, 07:55:07 AM
Been there twice mate & got bought out twice, young family now so the position I'm in suits the life I need. Maybe you should have a go?

Serverse was inventive the longstanding 96 to Tamworth through villages that today see hardly any buses serverse ran through those hourly or the 70 which today forms the basis of the 75.
Those operators aren't about now well some  were through the owners having serious health conditions or those guys are no longer with us & some are gone through operator buy outs.
Routes change as the market is ever changing but a lot of those routes or the basis of them still exists today.

When it comes to Redditch the best thing that happened was First pulling out as there is much more investment now than there had been from First towards the end

Steve before commenting on Redditch, please look at the historical picture and the Redditch network in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was a far stronger network then, even in the early days of first ownership. I know because I have worked in this area for a long period of time. As for no investment, the reason is as I stated, the competition caused a race to the bottom in standards so first we're never going to invest there. You honestly think Diamond would have invested to the same degree if First were still there, of course not. Your old company did create that situation through competition. First certainly didn't help matters by failing to really fight back but don't be so naive to think Redditch is better now than 15 or 20 years ago. It really isn't. The 146 used to be half hourly during First operation, now it's scrapped. What services there have actually improved frequency since those days?

Likewise, in response to Simon, the reason for the low fares are a direct result of competition with first, I remember the £1 day tickets etc. You surely can't be saying that this is an ideal situation for your company as I'm sure you'd prefer higher fares but years of competition have created this situation. The whole of Worcestershire is poorer than previously in all areas. I'm not saying Diamond are to blame for this directly as they are not but equally no one can say the current Worcestershire network from all operators is anywhere near as good as it was in the past.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 30, 2021, 08:16:32 AM
Where exactly do you think the money to invest in new vehicles comes from if not from profits????

Yes and this is why NXWM have invested so much in their fleet yet you are complaining that the system is broken and they are the bad guys. I really don't get it!?!

The way in which operators are reimbursed for the passengers they carry is what needs to change & a method that allows any operator the ability to be innovative with routing without the dominant operators pass being a barrier.
A system that allows passengers to use any bus without financial impact to the passenger or operator.
It's not just in the West Midlands its across the country hence why we have a "National Bus Strategy"

Quote from: j789 on June 30, 2021, 08:23:41 AM
Steve before commenting on Redditch, please look at the historical picture and the Redditch network in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was a far stronger network then, even in the early days of first ownership. I know because I have worked in this area for a long period of time. As for no investment, the reason is as I stated, the competition caused a race to the bottom in standards so first we're never going to invest there. You honestly think Diamond would have invested to the same degree if First were still there, of course not. Your old company did create that situation through competition. First certainly didn't help matters by failing to really fight back but don't be so naive to think Redditch is better now than 15 or 20 years ago. It really isn't. The 146 used to be half hourly during First operation, now it's scrapped. What services there have actually improved frequency since those days?

Likewise, in response to Simon, the reason for the low fares are a direct result of competition with first, I remember the £1 day tickets etc. You surely can't be saying that this is an ideal situation for your company as I'm sure you'd prefer higher fares but years of competition have created this situation. The whole of Worcestershire is poorer than previously in all areas. I'm not saying Diamond are to blame for this directly as they are not but equally no one can say the current Worcestershire network from all operators is anywhere near as good as it was in the past.

Overall bus usage over a long period of time has reduced.  The number of vehicles operated by all operators have reduced.  This is due to many factors, but in essence there has been massive passenger decline.  There is not one reason why.   In this decline some operations have been able to thin out the networks better than others.  If buses are every 3 minutes to reduce to every 5,7,10 is less obvious. 

The problem with the 146 is that it operates over a long distance, parallel to a train service which is cheaper, and quicker.  A bus service will always struggle to exist alongside this. 



Simon

Part of the problem thats caused the decline in revenue, and subsequently route mileage, is ENCTS. ENCTS needs to be reformed or replaced, but any government that will do that will lose the election.

Ideally it should have been made so if you were a resident of say Worcs, the only free travel you got was Worcs, Warks, WM, Staffs, Shropshire and Herefordshire. Not every English County and its dog. That and fairer payments to operators.

The other problem is the Daysaver/Faresaver. But that harks back to DReg, ideally WMT should not have been allowed to keep the Faresaver as their own product and instead the PTE should have kept it as the multi op bus ticket (that and WMT should have been split GM style).

Quote from: Simon Dunn on June 30, 2021, 08:52:32 AM
Overall bus usage over a long period of time has reduced.  The number of vehicles operated by all operators have reduced.  This is due to many factors, but in essence there has been massive passenger decline.  There is not one reason why.   In this decline some operations have been able to thin out the networks better than others.  If buses are every 3 minutes to reduce to every 5,7,10 is less obvious. 

The problem with the 146 is that it operates over a long distance, parallel to a train service which is cheaper, and quicker.  A bus service will always struggle to exist alongside this. 



Simon

I agree with the statement about passenger decline in Worcestershire. All areas have suffered there but no company has really tried to fight back against this trend. I would argue that there should be far more willingness from Worcestershire operators to form similar partnerships to spread cost there, but this is off topic to this specific thread. Even worse with a car friendly council.

However, this highlights how superior the West Midlands is and how much better for passengers in the vast majority of areas there. We really don't know how lucky we are to have the network coverage we do have. I'm pretty sure anyone living in Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Shropshire would think this too.

Quote from: the trainbasher on June 30, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Part of the problem thats caused the decline in revenue, and subsequently route mileage, is ENCTS. ENCTS needs to be reformed or replaced, but any government that will do that will lose the election.

Ideally it should have been made so if you were a resident of say Worcs, the only free travel you got was Worcs, Warks, WM, Staffs, Shropshire and Herefordshire. Not every English County and its dog. That and fairer payments to operators.

The other problem is the Daysaver/Faresaver. But that harks back to DReg, ideally WMT should not have been allowed to keep the Faresaver as their own product and instead the PTE should have kept it as the multi op bus ticket (that and WMT should have been split GM style).

ENCTS - The local authorities are mandated to pay the bus companies to run "blue rinse specials" but the funding for the ENCTS is not ring fenced so it gets spent on other things and therefore the bus companies do not get adequate recompense.

Out of all the PTE areas, the West Midlands was the only PTE area where the ex-PTE bus company was given management of the multi operator bus & rail ticket the "Travelcard", everywhere else the PTE kept those tickets in house so they retained control.

West Midlands PTE were quite happy to sell West Midlands Travel, which they did in 1991 (as were the other PTEs: Merseyside, Tyne & Wear, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire & Strathclyde) and so they had all sold their bus companies as a single company without being split up by 1993.

The odd PTE out was Greater Manchester, the reason that Greater Manchester Buses was split was that GMPTE did not want to sell GMB, they wanted to keep it in house, this did not go down well with the Westminster Government at the time so in 1993 GMPTE were forced to split GMB up into GMB North & GMB South and sell them as separate companies.

This has been one of the most interesting topics ever to follow on this forum, not least thanks to the input from Simon Dunn and Steveminor.

I am not in the bus industry and never have been, nor have I ever run a business of any kind, but some things are clear even to me.

First, all businesses exist in order to make profits, and commercial bus operators are no exception.  From a business perspective, if Diamond are not making sufficient returns on the West Midlands Partnership routes in their current form, they cannot let them become a drain on the business and they are within their rights to withdraw.  From a "responsible operator" perspective, we should remember that the Partnership started in 2018 so Diamond have given it a good go.

Second, I cannot see the suggestion that one commercial operator runs everything working.  Who would decide which routes would be operated in addition to the commercial ones?  That would have to be Transport for West Midlands.  This would mean that the fortunes of a commercial business would depend on a public authority - a situation that no business would tolerate.  I think the only way to do this would be for TfWM to become the operator, just as West Midlands PTE was between 1969 and 1986 - although even then they did not operate 100% of services.

I reckon the bigger question is: would the West Midlands bus network be better if the changes that Simon Dunn and Steveminor want were to happen?  On the one hand, all credit to Simon and Steve who have made a convincing case for change.  On the other, National Express have done considerably better than dominant operators in some other conurbations with frequent services, low fares and good investment.  Franchising has not been suggested here - at least not so far.  But there are areas where multiple through services have disappeared in favour of fewer, higher-frequency routes.  Is that always a good thing?

The National Bus Strategy requires local transport authorities and bus operators to work together, so I can see that TfWM may well have its work cut out keeping all operators onside - if I'm looking at this correctly.

The other thing to consider is funding going forward to deliver the bus strategy in April 2022 Bus service improvement plans. The amount of money the government delivers to each of the LTAS depends on the strength of the BSIP. On the face of it Franchising would provide a stronger BSIP however in the West Midlands the E.P  direction may not in itself have been as strong however what we did have was the QA's & a vehicle to develop more. We no longer have that & before anyone jumps Simon has shared evidence with me regarding how the QA arrangements as they are currently dont work & I fully agree with his reasons for pulling out. In fact please forgive me Simon but I feel it really needs to be said we spoke about the QA'S bearly 12 months ago & their failings in that time something could have been done but clearly no issues were addressed so what else can you do.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that sense prevails or franchising looms as full BSIP plans as to how tfwm will realise the national bus strategy must be submitted to the government in October, which isn't far away.


Let's just get this sorted

Some v interesting posts in this thread, not least reminding us of the history of the PTEs divesting themselves of their operational responsibilities and then being required to sell them (in the case of GM, furthermore splitting into two parts). This was all to do with the politics of the 80s and early 90s.

However the current Government, despite being the same political complexion of the one mentioned above is very different, not least because the PM has experienced being Mayor of London and seeing how public transport in urban areas can create a sea change in travel, when it is reliable, convenient, low cost and provided within consistent quality standards. The world has changed significantly since 1986/the early 90s. One of the key aims of the bus strategy is to aim for, according to the PM, frequencies of 15 mins (unless i heard him wrong).

I'm sure the TfWM proposals will seek to address areas where that's not the case, along with other issues like reliability caused by traffic congestion (leading to more bus priority) and a host of others.
What is not clear is how it is intended that rural services and services outside big conurbations can be improved in a similar way (particularly bus frequencies) without resort to subsidy.

As has been mentioned by a number of people posting, the current bus service provision in West Midlands is remarkably thorough given the largely commercial nature and in many cases meets the frequency and reliability objectives whilst the quality is high and there is a commitment to introduce zero emission vehicles within a set timeframe (including a commitment from the major operator to only introduce new vehicles which comply). One could imagine a lot to be gained on reliability through vastly expanded bus priority and other initiatives.

On ticketing, I don't really see how, if a commercial rather than franchising arrangement is to be maintained, you can square the circle that one of the biggest and most direct commercial 'cards' each operator holds in their pack is the ticketing offers - and surely that's what free market is about?

One thing is for sure, the Bus Strategy is not intended to facilitate multiple operators chasing each on two or three corridors with comparatively 'rich' pickings and saturating it - ignoring the need for providing a cohesive network beyond - that is the broken model of 1986, which is not fit for purpose today. It's not also intended to artificially alter the market to make it easier for a multitude of operators to compete with the indigenous ones per se.

On Redditch, I would love to know whether the Local Authorities or anyone else has done any transport planning work on travel patterns and demand for bus, both existing and future and how interventions might improve usage - unless that is the case then, whilst I understanding the dilemmas faced by him, I think that Simon Dunn's assertions that what is provided now is what is needed may be a little wide of the mark. Similar could be said about Kidderminster and most other similar sized county based/rural market towns around the country - you can't help thinking the part of the government's aim is to address issues in exactly those places. Unfortunately a large proportion of the problem has been created by Government so squeezing budgets and grant to LAs that they often have to choose between, say social care provision and say, transport. Leading to years of decline.

In the West Midlands, in general the system ain't broke as far as users, frequency etc etc are concerned although reliability is an issue in some places owing to traffic congestion.

I know it's likely commercially sensitive but I have a worrying concern that part of the reason Diamond has pulled out of the bus partnership has as much to do with pressuring TfWM over the current arrangements as the existing shared routes being uncommercial is concerned - notably, at the same time competitive activity (involving other operators) is increasing on the Walsall to Cannock corridor, part of which the 31 etc partnership routes share within the Walsall Council boundary.

Quote from: don on July 01, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Some v interesting posts in this thread, not least reminding us of the history of the PTEs divesting themselves of their operational responsibilities and then being required to sell them (in the case of GM, furthermore splitting into two parts). This was all to do with the politics of the 80s and early 90s.

However the current Government, despite being the same political complexion of the one mentioned above is very different, not least because the PM has experienced being Mayor of London and seeing how public transport in urban areas can create a sea change in travel, when it is reliable, convenient, low cost and provided within consistent quality standards. The world has changed significantly since 1986/the early 90s. One of the key aims of the bus strategy is to aim for, according to the PM, frequencies of 15 mins (unless i heard him wrong).

I'm sure the TfWM proposals will seek to address areas where that's not the case, along with other issues like reliability caused by traffic congestion (leading to more bus priority) and a host of others.
What is not clear is how it is intended that rural services and services outside big conurbations can be improved in a similar way (particularly bus frequencies) without resort to subsidy.

As has been mentioned by a number of people posting, the current bus service provision in West Midlands is remarkably thorough given the largely commercial nature and in many cases meets the frequency and reliability objectives whilst the quality is high and there is a commitment to introduce zero emission vehicles within a set timeframe (including a commitment from the major operator to only introduce new vehicles which comply). One could imagine a lot to be gained on reliability through vastly expanded bus priority and other initiatives.

On ticketing, I don't really see how, if a commercial rather than franchising arrangement is to be maintained, you can square the circle that one of the biggest and most direct commercial 'cards' each operator holds in their pack is the ticketing offers - and surely that's what free market is about?

One thing is for sure, the Bus Strategy is not intended to facilitate multiple operators chasing each on two or three corridors with comparatively 'rich' pickings and saturating it - ignoring the need for providing a cohesive network beyond - that is the broken model of 1986, which is not fit for purpose today. It's not also intended to artificially alter the market to make it easier for a multitude of operators to compete with the indigenous ones per se.

On Redditch, I would love to know whether the Local Authorities or anyone else has done any transport planning work on travel patterns and demand for bus, both existing and future and how interventions might improve usage - unless that is the case then, whilst I understanding the dilemmas faced by him, I think that Simon Dunn's assertions that what is provided now is what is needed may be a little wide of the mark. Similar could be said about Kidderminster and most other similar sized county based/rural market towns around the country - you can't help thinking the part of the government's aim is to address issues in exactly those places. Unfortunately a large proportion of the problem has been created by Government so squeezing budgets and grant to LAs that they often have to choose between, say social care provision and say, transport. Leading to years of decline.

In the West Midlands, in general the system ain't broke as far as users, frequency etc etc are concerned although reliability is an issue in some places owing to traffic congestion.

I know it's likely commercially sensitive but I have a worrying concern that part of the reason Diamond has pulled out of the bus partnership has as much to do with pressuring TfWM over the current arrangements as the existing shared routes being uncommercial is concerned - notably, at the same time competitive activity (involving other operators) is increasing on the Walsall to Cannock corridor, part of which the 31 etc partnership routes share within the Walsall Council boundary.

Shame the bit of the route I live on, is regarded as an afterthought!

For the past 2 or 3 years,  the route has been taken off & on, & when I questioned it, I was told it was only 4 passengers a week catching it.

If the Walsall to Cannock route down my road does not work for commercial reasons,  then think outside the square!

I wouldn't mind a route serving the Reedswood Retail Park, as the choices are walking for 20 mins, catch a bus to Walsall or Bloxwich instead.

There is a timeframe for preparing & submitting BSIPa to the government & they are quite tight as it is. If there is an issue with current arrangements that makes the E.P route commercially unviable for operators it does no good trying to kick the can down the road & hope the problem goes away.

@Westy that's the problem with current arrangements. It was not viable for another operator to serve your area as passenger numbers were so low due in part because a proportion of those wishing to use the bus wouldn't pay the extra for the nbus product & would walk to the nearest nx bus. Those passenger figures will be larger for nx, however nx will have higher overheads than other operators so reducing the commercial viability of the service. Ourselves chaserider diamond etc would all require less passengers per hour to make a route commercially viable. So if through ticketing you open up the market for all operators to have equal access to passengers then maybe (cant say for certain) but you wouldn't have had service issues like what you have had.

Quote from: Steveminor on July 01, 2021, 04:14:00 PM
@Westy that's the problem with current arrangements. It was not viable for another operator to serve your area as passenger numbers were so low due in part because a proportion of those wishing to use the bus wouldn't pay the extra for the nbus product & would walk to the nearest nx bus.

Probably part the reason for some. But also maybe if the NX routes are more frequent services as well, it'd put people off?
NX figures on the Ladywood 25 can't be that good either, as its tendered. I would think most passengers aren't going to wait for an hourly bus like that in the middle of a big city when there are is a more frequent 80 from by the Fire Station or Hagley Road routes nearby Monumnet Road.
Even though people nearby the BC 25 route may have an NX product.

Quote from: Justin Tyme on June 30, 2021, 11:09:24 PM
But there are areas where multiple through services have disappeared in favour of fewer, higher-frequency routes.  Is that always a good thing?

It was asked if more frequent routes is better for passengers than a couple of hourly routes, more frequent service is going to be more popular I guess.
Which is why i'd think aiming for high frequencies is a good thing as well.

Re 146. I am not sure any interurban bus operator could compete with a rail line that has had so much investment over the last 45 years!

Prior to 1980 Redditch had a few rush hour trains to Birmingham. On the Lichfield line there were trains every 30m to Four Oaks and 60m to Lichfield City.
In May 1978 the cross city line opened with trains every 15minutes from Longbridge to Four Oaks (1 train per hour (tph) extended to Lichfield). In 1980 1 tph was extended from Longbridge to Redditch which was increased to 2tph in 1989 (trains to Lichfield had been increased to 2tph in 1986 - about the time the X12 interurban bus route started is slow withdrawal from Lichfield to Birmingham)
In June 1993 the cross city line was electrified with a 6tph service from Longbridge to Four Oaks (2tph extended to Redditch and Lichfield), adding a passing loop at Alvechurch allowed a 3tph service to be provided to Redditch. Electrification to Bromsgrove in July 2018 allowed the other 3tph which terminated at Longbridge to be extended to Bromsgrove.

Quote from: Steveminor on July 01, 2021, 04:14:00 PM
@Westy that's the problem with current arrangements. It was not viable for another operator to serve your area as passenger numbers were so low due in part because a proportion of those wishing to use the bus wouldn't pay the extra for the nbus product & would walk to the nearest nx bus. Those passenger figures will be larger for nx, however nx will have higher overheads than other operators so reducing the commercial viability of the service. Ourselves chaserider diamond etc would all require less passengers per hour to make a route commercially viable. So if through ticketing you open up the market for all operators to have equal access to passengers then maybe (cant say for certain) but you wouldn't have had service issues like what you have had.

This is not necessarily true at all about lower costs for smaller operators. And before you jump on me saying you've had years of experience, I too have had a lot of experience dealing with route costings in various roles. Driver wages, fuel and vehicle depreciation are the main costs for every operator when costing routes. Larger companies likely pay higher wages but this can be offset by the larger company being in a better position to negotiate fuel contracts and thus get fuel at a cheaper price per gallon. Likewise, larger companies generally have more scope for making use of vehicles for a longer time than smaller ones (through moving between different operating companies) so get more value out of their vehicles. Depot and associated running costs are obviously higher for larger depots but per bus operated this oftendoes not always work out as more expensive verses a smaller depot.

Equally, smaller companies using older vehicles and paying lower wages are generally not going to be able to offer the same quality - good drivers cost money (and are worth it) but paying the minimum wage for drivers will not get you the best drivers, (likewise additional benefits like a decent pension) but this is often the case with some operators as costs are so tight when bidding for contracts. They may be able to bid lower for the contract but the quality for passengers is far from guaranteed compared to what a slightly higher bidding company could offer.

It's been quite eye opening over the years to witness drivers from the companies I have been involved with, who have been sacked for various reasons, often turning up driving for certain other companies. Now everyone is entitled to a job, but it doesn't give a great impression of quality standards of these companies when you see this happening over and over again. They clearly can't attract the best drivers so are forced into taking other companies cast offs.

In summary, cheaper is rarely the best outcome for passengers!

It has to be said that Diamond has invested a lot in new vehicles in the last few years - NXWM has also but has a much bigger fleet to deal with.

I know most of Diamond's new buses are full sized but having been traumatised by Harry Blundred's model and packed to standing minibuses in the late 80s/early 90s in Torbay, I'm afraid the new, modern minibuses used on some services fill me with horror (and this type of vehicle seems to have a similar effect on quite a lot of passengers).

Quote from: j789 on July 01, 2021, 06:01:44 PM
This is not necessarily true at all about lower costs for smaller operators. And before you jump on me saying you've had years of experience, I too have had a lot of experience dealing with route costings in various roles. Driver wages, fuel and vehicle depreciation are the main costs for every operator when costing routes. Larger companies likely pay higher wages but this can be offset by the larger company being in a better position to negotiate fuel contracts and thus get fuel at a cheaper price per gallon. Likewise, larger companies generally have more scope for making use of vehicles for a longer time than smaller ones (through moving between different operating companies) so get more value out of their vehicles. Depot and associated running costs are obviously higher for larger depots but per bus operated this oftendoes not always work out as more expensive verses a smaller depot.

Equally, smaller companies using older vehicles and paying lower wages are generally not going to be able to offer the same quality - good drivers cost money (and are worth it) but paying the minimum wage for drivers will not get you the best drivers, (likewise additional benefits like a decent pension) but this is often the case with some operators as costs are so tight when bidding for contracts. They may be able to bid lower for the contract but the quality for passengers is far from guaranteed compared to what a slightly higher bidding company could offer.

It's been quite eye opening over the years to witness drivers from the companies I have been involved with, who have been sacked for various reasons, often turning up driving for certain other companies. Now everyone is entitled to a job, but it doesn't give a great impression of quality standards of these companies when you see this happening over and over again. They clearly can't attract the best drivers so are forced into taking other companies cast offs.

In summary, cheaper is rarely the best outcome for passengers!

Staff can change operators for a number of reasons not necessarily because they are a cast off I.e sacked or jumped before being pushed. Plenty of ex Claribels staff have ended up with national express   does that mean national express has accepted our cast offs?

Don. Although I'm not a fan of the mellors personally I have to say the low operating costs of these vehicles at a time when LTA funding has reduced has no doubt been the saviour of a lot of routes around the uk with costs going to be squeezed more in the future I can see a larger growing market for these vehicles although the government has to change its stance on zebra funding.

Slight gear change.

I noticed on a Diamond 326 going back to Bloxwich the other day  there was a notice about the changes.

There is going to be a similar notice on Nx vehicles isn't there?

There wasn't anything on the X51 I caught today.

Quote from: j789 on June 30, 2021, 08:57:23 PM
I agree with the statement about passenger decline in Worcestershire. All areas have suffered there but no company has really tried to fight back against this trend. I would argue that there should be far more willingness from Worcestershire operators to form similar partnerships to spread cost there, but this is off topic to this specific thread. Even worse with a car friendly council.

However, this highlights how superior the West Midlands is and how much better for passengers in the vast majority of areas there. We really don't know how lucky we are to have the network coverage we do have. I'm pretty sure anyone living in Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Shropshire would think this too.

The West Midlands has benefited from much higher usage to start with.  The nature and density of the housing, and the historical reliance on buses.  The decline in total bus numbers Bus passengers has happened everywhere.  As a result the total number of buses operating everywhere has reduced. 

The impacts of COVID will speak this up and the idea of the National Bus Strategy is to reverse that decline, through pro buses measures.

Quote from: don on July 01, 2021, 12:04:45 PM
Some v interesting posts in this thread, not least reminding us of the history of the PTEs divesting themselves of their operational responsibilities and then being required to sell them (in the case of GM, furthermore splitting into two parts). This was all to do with the politics of the 80s and early 90s.

However the current Government, despite being the same political complexion of the one mentioned above is very different, not least because the PM has experienced being Mayor of London and seeing how public transport in urban areas can create a sea change in travel, when it is reliable, convenient, low cost and provided within consistent quality standards. The world has changed significantly since 1986/the early 90s. One of the key aims of the bus strategy is to aim for, according to the PM, frequencies of 15 mins (unless i heard him wrong).

I'm sure the TfWM proposals will seek to address areas where that's not the case, along with other issues like reliability caused by traffic congestion (leading to more bus priority) and a host of others.
What is not clear is how it is intended that rural services and services outside big conurbations can be improved in a similar way (particularly bus frequencies) without resort to subsidy.

As has been mentioned by a number of people posting, the current bus service provision in West Midlands is remarkably thorough given the largely commercial nature and in many cases meets the frequency and reliability objectives whilst the quality is high and there is a commitment to introduce zero emission vehicles within a set timeframe (including a commitment from the major operator to only introduce new vehicles which comply). One could imagine a lot to be gained on reliability through vastly expanded bus priority and other initiatives.

On ticketing, I don't really see how, if a commercial rather than franchising arrangement is to be maintained, you can square the circle that one of the biggest and most direct commercial 'cards' each operator holds in their pack is the ticketing offers - and surely that's what free market is about?

One thing is for sure, the Bus Strategy is not intended to facilitate multiple operators chasing each on two or three corridors with comparatively 'rich' pickings and saturating it - ignoring the need for providing a cohesive network beyond - that is the broken model of 1986, which is not fit for purpose today. It's not also intended to artificially alter the market to make it easier for a multitude of operators to compete with the indigenous ones per se.

On Redditch, I would love to know whether the Local Authorities or anyone else has done any transport planning work on travel patterns and demand for bus, both existing and future and how interventions might improve usage - unless that is the case then, whilst I understanding the dilemmas faced by him, I think that Simon Dunn's assertions that what is provided now is what is needed may be a little wide of the mark. Similar could be said about Kidderminster and most other similar sized county based/rural market towns around the country - you can't help thinking the part of the government's aim is to address issues in exactly those places. Unfortunately a large proportion of the problem has been created by Government so squeezing budgets and grant to LAs that they often have to choose between, say social care provision and say, transport. Leading to years of decline.

In the West Midlands, in general the system ain't broke as far as users, frequency etc etc are concerned although reliability is an issue in some places owing to traffic congestion.

I know it's likely commercially sensitive but I have a worrying concern that part of the reason Diamond has pulled out of the bus partnership has as much to do with pressuring TfWM over the current arrangements as the existing shared routes being uncommercial is concerned - notably, at the same time competitive activity (involving other operators) is increasing on the Walsall to Cannock corridor, part of which the 31 etc partnership routes share within the Walsall Council boundary.

I have set out my reasons for exiting the routes and my opinion of the future.  Whether you chose to believe that is your choice.  Considering I have shared with TfWM and other Bus Alliance members including National Express an economist report which sets out the current viability and route issues.  If it was false it would be easy to pull it apart.

In terms of Worcestershire.  I agree that a whole network review needs to happen.  I think it was around a year before COVID Worcestershire County Council had a consultation and unfortunately only 2,000 people responded.  We have pushed with Worcestershire the needs to do this again, jointly as we all need to access whether the network meets the peoples needs today.

Quote from: Steveminor on June 28, 2021, 08:28:39 PM
I believe the current reimbursement rates for encts is not high enough, although the statement says an operator should be no better or worse off for accepting encts the reality is that if you had a service that was only carrying encts pass holders you would not be able to make it commercially viable that in itself coupled with the evidence through lack of rural community services that primarily carry encts passengers shows the current arrangements dont work.
I believe the national bus strategy will try to tackle that issue.

The national bus strategy also calls for cross operator ticketing at little to no premium. I believe that if nbus was priced the same as the nx equivalent product then this would remove one of the barriers to innovative new routes. The strength of the nx products is such that a large percentage of passengers will take a more indirect route to their destination simply due to the fact that the direct service would require them to buy a "slightly" more expensive product. I believe that also where a passenger has bought another operators pass then that operator should reimburse the other one for acceptance of their product at a fair amount.

This would ensure passengers got a seamless system of payment whichever route or operator they chose to travel with & could take a more direct service whilst giving operators confidence to trial new direct connections with the knowledge that there access to 100% of the passenger base.

With passenger levels expected to be suppressed for quite a long time (if the ever recover to pre covid levels) this is essential to ensure the network as it is survives let alone increasing it.


For me & Mr Dunn to be singing from the same hymn sheet basically says the others have got to change their tune & listen to 2 long term bus men.

Thank you for your reply and sorry for being slow getting back to you. I have been keeping up with the discussion though through my phone (I struggle to post on forums with my phone).
I 100% agree with you on ENCTS. It's always surprised me that no one gets the logic that if ENCTS reimbursement goes up, more routes become viable so less tenders needed and more new innovative routes come about. People just reply blankly and blame dereg for the issues. I am interested that you say the NBS will look to tackle this as I saw no mention of the ENCTS pass there.


For cross operator ticketing. The idea is great and I really hope that it takes off with more schemes coming about. The issue that I forsee is county borders but that is another discussion.
I don't think it would be fair to reduce nBus to the same as the NXWM ticket purely because I can see how that has been done in Merseyside and it negatively affects businesses quite a lot since instead of getting the whole ticket amount, you instead get a percentage of the fare. Given the flexibility such a ticket brings, I think the small premium for a multi operator ticket is ok. This will affect some routes yes but it does encourage you to build up a network and give passengers the best value for money.
We will have to disagree on the last point. For small operators, this could do more bad than good. Yes it's good if everyone using your bus is extracted from another bus operator but say you were the primary operator of a route and another firm duplicated your route and revenue extracted, how happy would you be to then reimburse them for competing with you? That is asking for key corridors to be flooded. I understand your side of the arguement for such a scheme but I think it could really backfire and you would be livid if you were an operator with a lot of commercial routes and others jumping on them to steal revenue.


Change is needed in the industry but no one will address some of the key issues because it's political suicide. Either you annoy a lot of your voters reducing ENCTS eligability and/or valididty or your spend a lot of money in extra subsidy paying for it. Yes it should pay off with less tenders/funded routes but it's a short term risk and a lot of operators would run with the money, not make more commercial routes so you kind of need to only give an uplift to those who agree to take on tenders commercially.

This is from the Diamond Facebook page:


🔻New Announcement Regarding West Midland Partnership Services.
Early this year Diamond announced that we had given notice on our participation in the West Midlands Partnership service agreement, as the current arrangement was not viable for us to consider further.
Since early August we have been in negotiations with TfWM and National Express West Midlands to try and agree a process, whereby the partnership services can continue to be operated sustainably.
Whilst a final arrangement is yet to be reached, Diamond Bus has agreed that we will continue to accept and sell NX tickets on partnership routes for a further 4-week period, National Express will also continue to accept and sell Diamond Value products - as per the current agreement.
It is hoped that within this 4-week period a final agreement can be reached in the interest of both the partnership service passengers and our business needs.
The published timetable changes from 29th August 2021, will continue to go ahead as planned however the ticketing arrangements will not be changed at this time.

Quote from: Steve3229vp on August 26, 2021, 01:46:09 PM
This is from the Diamond Facebook page:


🔻New Announcement Regarding West Midland Partnership Services.
Early this year Diamond announced that we had given notice on our participation in the West Midlands Partnership service agreement, as the current arrangement was not viable for us to consider further.
Since early August we have been in negotiations with TfWM and National Express West Midlands to try and agree a process, whereby the partnership services can continue to be operated sustainably.
Whilst a final arrangement is yet to be reached, Diamond Bus has agreed that we will continue to accept and sell NX tickets on partnership routes for a further 4-week period, National Express will also continue to accept and sell Diamond Value products - as per the current agreement.
It is hoped that within this 4-week period a final agreement can be reached in the interest of both the partnership service passengers and our business needs.
The published timetable changes from 29th August 2021, will continue to go ahead as planned however the ticketing arrangements will not be changed at this time.

It might be a bit early, but do we have an update on this yet?

The partnership.will fully end on Sunday

Quote from: Steveminor on September 23, 2021, 08:56:47 PM
The partnership.will fully end on Sunday

If you mean this Sunday coming, hope the word is getting out quick, especially over the ticket non-acceptance?

Statement on Diamond Facebook site

Quote from: Steveminor on September 24, 2021, 03:01:33 PM
Statement on Diamond Facebook site

Nope, nothing there. There's a tweet 'embedded' on the website, but when you click through to view it on Twitter, "this tweet has been deleted"

Quote from: Stu on September 24, 2021, 05:47:43 PM
Nope, nothing there. There's a tweet 'embedded' on the website, but when you click through to view it on Twitter, "this tweet has been deleted"

I did see it on Facebook as well, but appears to have gone.

Glad it's not just me then!

I've heard a deal may have been agreed at the last minute, hence why it's gone.

Diamond are giving nx a bit more time to reach agreement.
No-one can say Diamond aren't being as reasonable as possible

What are they aiming for?

Presumbly just the ticket arrangements, as I'd be very surprised if they went back to the joint timetable.

Simon has already stated his reasons on here