Messages

Timing isn't an issue due to the circumstances.

There's loads of operators in the Midlands, just not bus operators. Don't forget, coaches were being used too.

https://flic.kr/p/2kJaWeU

One of the main issues is availability of Euro 6 vehicles, it would be horrendous press for TfWM to relax the rulings to allow more polluting buses into clean air zones, no matter what situation presents itself. Also, coaches are no good on stop start urban work, even the 'accessible' vehicles of modern times wouldn't deal with your average bus passenger with pushchairs, wheelchairs, shopping etc. 

Also, there is a reason coach drivers choose that work, absolutely no chance would they be willing to work multiple weeks driving through the sh*tholes  of Brum instead of cushy school workings or OAP tours. No chance!

Just on itv news worse case scenario no buses for 12 weeks

Happened in Sheffield with First about 15 years ago when I worked there. Was the beginning of a slippery slope that allowed Stagecoach in after taking over Yorkshire Traction.

Hopefully NX have more sense than First did then and meet the drivers half way. 

If NX cancel low-revenue services but put buses out on the 50 when Diamond are running the route then it shows where the true priorities lie. If anything, the TfWM routes should be the ones that have priority coverage as they are the routes they're being partially subsidised.

In your perfect world maybe but certainly not in the world of business. It makes perfect business sense to put your limited (very limited in this scenario) resources on your most profitable routes, other routes including tendered will miss out.
There may be some penalty for not fulfilling tendered services but it would still be far less than the loss of income from that bus not being on the profitable route.

Look at Stagecoach, you honestly think they prioritise their West Mids tenders over their profitable routes in Warwickshire? Driver shortage = tendered routes suffering first pretty much every time (unless the tender itself is particularly lucrative of course!).

NX is a business, they won't purposefully help a rival company by staying off a route they compete on, in the same way Diamond would prioritise the 50 over less profitable stuff if their drivers ever unionised and went on strike.

A resolution hasn't been found in months of negotiations so I highly doubt one will be found in 2 weeks, both sides are poles apart

Perhaps but negotiating and talking the talk is completely different to the reality of striking and walking the walk! It's not as simple as saying months of failed negotiations means a compromise isn't possible, it just needs a sensible offer on the table that would then need to go back to members for a vote and would ultimately delay the mid March strikes whether accepted or not.

I'd be very surprised if an updated offer was not offered in the very near future by NX, whether it would be enough for 50.1% in favour is anyone's guess though.

I think so if its the case could TFWM pull contracts from nxbus and gave them to other companies

Ridiculous comment. You honestly think there is a big surplus of drivers available for these other companies to do this? Look at the issues the whole industry faces currently, there just aren't enough good drivers.
Do you think those striking drivers are going to suddenly decide to just quit and go to another company where the long term job and wage conditions will in no way match what the drivers are currently fighting for at NX?
You think Stagecoach or similar are going to just manic up some new drivers when they themselves can't run their current full quota of routes.

This whole situation is a mess and hopefully common sense from all sides will come through and some sort of compromise reached in the next 2 weeks.

To me, it's simple business economics. I never went to university so I don't have any degree in 'business management' or anything like that, but I've worked for enough businesses - both successful and failed - to have an understanding of how this all works.

I remember being exasperated reading news stories last year from small business owners struggling with energy price increases. There was one lady, a hairdresser, complaining to the local media about how she was struggling to pay her electricity bills at her salon, but she didn't want to increase the prices she charged her clients.

Now while that is a pretty noble gesture, unfortunately it doesn't make for a successful business model, if you fail to increase the price of your services offered, as your own costs of providing that service increase as well.

Sometimes you have to 'let the market decide' - perhaps most of your clientele are happy to pay the increased price, but you'll lose some customers in the process - but ultimately you have to do what you need to do in order to keep your business viable.

Same principle applies to bus services, perhaps there are other options that Diamond could have taken, such as reducing service frequencies to match passenger demand, which would have reduced operating costs and perhaps kept these services operationally 'viable'.

It concerns me though the 'level of expectation' that the Government should step in and provide funding, because then that becomes the first step towards 'bus franchising' via the back-door.

I agree with most of your points but not the final paragraph. The industry needs a period of financial stability for the next 2-3 years, where companies do not need to take undue commercial risks, but equally can continue to provide the level of service that is there currently.

Hopefully, as long as there are no other massive set backs similar to that caused by COVID, passengers numbers should start to edge back up over that 2-3 year period. This would ensure that once funding did cease (or at least reduce) after those 3 or so years, passenger numbers would be more stable and better able to support more routes commercially than the current situation allows.

This year, or even next, is far too soon for financial support to be pulled. It needs a sensible longer term plan that would maximise benefits for passengers, give operator's increased confidence for the future, and also mean that more routes can continue to be run commercially in the future so less long term expense to the tax payer. Win win win in my opinion!

It's a far cry from the days that the (then) Birmingham Coach Company was running buses a few minutes in front of the incumbent operator Ludlows on the 002, in the battle for customers on the route.

This happened on other routes too, including the 004 Harborne to Merry Hill.

How times change.

Ironically, certain elements of this situation are not that different to those crazy days of competing on marginal routes. Both operators were losing money running together on that route, just like it appears Diamond are now, hence possible withdrawal. Unfortunately, the aim of BCC  was pretty much to either drive Ludlows out of business and take the routes or swallow them up as a merger. It worked a few years later with the buyout but the 004/007 particularly were already on their way out by then.

[Firrivapress Retrenchment continues...]

Firrivapress Retrenchment continues...

NX and First pulled out of London sometime ago now - I think 10-14 years ago. That made good commercial sense from what I can tell. When First pulled out from Kidderminster and Redditch (10 years ago now- wow) I think most people said "good riddance". The people of Hereford agreeing with that sentiment a few years later.  

I think you'll find the general bus using population of Redditch and Kidderminster severely regretted First's withdrawal from those areas and the subsequent level of service that was provided by the current operator there, particularly in the early years after takeover (it has improved since then although the route network has contracted a lot). I think you may find though if you asked those same people now they'd very happily say 'First - please come back!'

Am I right in thinking that this is what the Covid Bus Service Support Grant did, and (to a lesser extent) the Bus Recovery Grant is doing until the end of March?

Yes pretty much very similar to that idea, it's just that there shouldn't be a 'end' date to it, it should run for as long as necessary for the industry to get back on its feet. March 2023 is certainly far too soon for this help to be ending.

I'm not suggesting there should be any 'massive' increase in fares, but a realistic 'modest' increase might help matters.
During the Covid pandemic, the government did its level best to discourage and dissuade people from using buses because they were 'unsafe' and that people "might die".
That kind of messaging is quite damaging, admittedly, however I don't think increased subsidies are any kind of viable long-term solution, and while the Government is partly responsible for this mess, I don't think that using public taxpayers money to support private commercial enterprise is a good viable long-term solution.

That messaging put out during COVID is the exact(!!!) reason why the government should put these subsidies in place. Even the service decreases in 1986 caused by de-regulation didn't have the same negative impact as what has happened since 2020. The government owes this industry big time.

All the criticism of NX, Diamond, etc for withdrawing services should be redirected to the politicians who created this situation - they could have handled things so much better and without the negatives now associated with bus (and to a lesser extent train) travel. Those passengers may well be lost forever despite what innovations operators try.

I know it doesn't sit well with some people bailing out private companies, but I think the context those companies operate in needs to be fairly weighed up. The bus industry is in trouble and it is only with public financial help that things can at least start to get back on track.

@j789 Whilst I agree with what you are saying about central government funding, how do you deal with the big elephants in the room. Namely, whilst NX, Diamond and Chaserider would probably put funding to good use, others would simply increase management bonuses and shareholder payments whilst paying lip service to route improvements/protection they would use to justify said payments.

Secondly, central government interferene. If the political news is to be believed today, central government are restricting pots of monies to councils for certain things unless they agree to the Civil Service policy of how to clear chewing gum from Park Benches. I would not want such micro management of the bus industry, even if it wasn't privatised.

Thirdly if we have private firms receiving public money, the return should be innovation and not less of the same failed routes. I suggested an extension to the 16, @Westy has made some other good suggestions. How do you ensure that so routes such as the 45,  002 and 226 can live on?

Interesting points you make here from my previous comments. I'd suggest any subsidy should come with stringent conditions that the current level of service must be maintained as a minimum. 

The subsidy would cover the running costs to make the service break even, not necessarily profitable, eg the company would not lose money operating the service but may not make much of a profit either. This is a 'halfway house' solution that operators would need to accept. Share holders probably wouldn't be in favour be for 'the greater good' I'd hope most operators would see the short term need for this over the next few years.

No company is perfect but it would be an easy system to police from s government perspective. Paying a set amount per service would ensure any private company profiteering was kept to a minimum whilst at the same time helping those same companies not have to have so much commercial risk in their operations- that is a win win situation in my eyes compared to the alternative of doing nothing except hiking fares and withdrawing services. 

I realise, we're probably starting to go off topic here, so if it ends up being split, fair enough, but I'd rather see the context kept together for now, but anyway, when was the last major fare increase in the area(The one that happened at the start of the year normally!)?

I'm thinking in the mid 10's.

If we had kept the annual increase, instead of freezing every year since, would we be in this situation, with or without the pandemic to account?

Are we now (excuse the language) 'having our **** handed to us on a plate'?

Sure, it's been nice no major fare increases for the past few years, but surely deep down, we knew this couldn't last forever.

It'll be interesting to see how big the future increase might be.

Well if the answer being suggested here is to massively increase fares that will ONLY lead to even less passengers using the bus. 

In an ideal world, if the current 80-85% passenger levels compared to pre-COVID were maintained alongside a 20% increase in fares (and also subsequent higher reimbursement from concessionary passes), then you could argue that would offset the passenger loss. Sadly of course, in reality what would happen with such a fare rise would be another loss of 10% or more passengers which would again make the service unviable leading to a further fare hike.

Fare hikes lead to a vicious circle that would speed up route withdrawals, not slow them down.

The money extra bus companies need to run their services should not come from current passengers having to pay more, it should come from central government with increased subsidies to operators. This is the ONLY solution that will work long term, fare increases in this time of financial hardship would be an absolute disaster for the industry.

Your constant argument about Birmingham trunk routes is fairly irrelevant given that Diamond have stated 'Unfortunately, all our Commercial Services are loss-making in the TfWM area.' In fact, I'd argue some Birmingham trunk routes are more susceptible to passenger losses due to commuters now working from home on many days of the week.

The reality is if Diamond withdraw their loss making 16/50, there will not be a tender for them. I'm sure they will be hoping replacement tenders are procured for some of the 002, 45 and 226 given the lack of bidders of late!

Perhaps I am in the 'la la land of enthusiasts' as you say, but it is probably more of an accurate view than having done a few trips into Birmingham up the Bristol Road a few years ago!

You really do show a complete lack of understanding of the underlying issues here in those statements - you have no acknowledgment that it is years of government incompetence and underfunding of the bus industry that has led to this grim reality we are all facing currently. 

Trust me no larger transport company wants to have to resort to running routes under tender compared to running them commercially - it is financial suicide in the long run, just look at how many of the smaller companies in the West Midlands, who mostly were running tendered services, over recent years have either gone under or been taken over. That is the reality of the situation that you seem to want to ignore. Look what happened with IGo as a prime example of what predominately tendered operation can lead to financially.

Profitable commercial operation allows the operator to try new things and build future growth. Tendered routes do not provide that as there is always the risk a few years later that another company gets the tender - why risk trying anything new on those routes when your company  likely won't see any benefit in future years? Whereas running them commercially the operator is more likely to try new things, use better vehicles, etc.

You seem to suggest companies like Diamond withdraw services Willy nilly as they want tender funding. However, surely you can see that operating the routes commercially is much better for the company long term so this really is last resort stuff. Post-COVID, you'd be hard pressed to find any larger bus company who hasn't been forced to either withdraw or significantly change their service offerings. Ironically, the short term cost to government of increasing bus subsidies by guaranteeing operators a set amount for every route they operate (so that withdrawals like these can be prevented and operators could actually start meaningful planning for the future without the financial burdens they currently face)  would actually be far less than the costs associated with having to tender routes.

Take your aim at the government and its lack of bus funding, not immature pops at people highlighting the operating reality in 2023. 

I think to describe the 002, 226 and 45 as 'peripheral routes not serving Birmingham' kind of shows his PLC driven mentality. In fact, I'm not sure what whether they serve or not serve Birmingham has to do with it at all!

No living in the real world not the la la land of enthusiasts! As for focusing on routes serving Birmingham, the reason why they are not in danger of withdrawal is because they still have enough passengers to support them commercially even if they are 20% less than pre-COVID days. That is a commercial reality - serving major population centres along fairly fast trunk routes adds extra protection for operators as the profit margins on those are generally far higher than other services. You'll notice Diamond aren't changing their 16 and 50 services despite these having competition on yet routes like the 002 with little competition are at risk because of what I explain above.

It is true that peripheral routes, particularly those convoluted routes serving many places like the 002, are more at risk as they don't have the commercial margins to lose 20% of passengers and still be sustainable, whereas trunk city routes still do. It's not really that difficult to see this reality surely!

So effectively what you are saying is that it is alright for Birmingham to have a bus service, but residents of Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall, who come under the same Combined Authority and have a combined population similar than Birmingham, can have cuts?

Franchising in both Manchester and London have attracted more operators bidding for routes than the current commercial/subsidised network in the WM area. I mean, some routes in the last WM tender round had only 1 bidder - whereas in the Franchise round for Manchester, even operators who have no operations there have been bidding for bus services.

No that is not what I am saying at all! Clearly you missed the underlying message of that post.

What I am saying is that those advocating franchising as this amazing solution to all bus industry ills completely ignore the fact that the current status quo is absolutely fine regarding the main trunk routes in the West Midlands (accepting current driver shortages as mentioned in my post).

What these 'franchise' promoters are saying is that it will protect the periphal routes that are less profit making - that is the point I made not that non-Birmingham areas shouldn't have a good service. However, what is true is that tax payers shouldn't have to foot a never ending bill for services that are now loss making and unsustainable. 

What you are suggesting is that every route should be saved because of some fanciful notion that it was sustainable in the past. Times change sadly and we need to look at things realistically. Ultimately, as harsh as it sounds, why should the majority have to subsidise through increased taxes the minority using these routes (whose numbers are clearly reducing year on year hence the reason for commercial withdrawal). 

Sadly some people do not live in the real world when it comes to long term financial planning. Franchising would just kick the can down the road a few more years without solving the underlying problem of lack of government investment in the bus industry. The ultimate outcome would be the same but massive amounts of tax payer money would have been wasted over those extra years trying to keep routes alive that just can't survive now.