Stagecoach's response to Labour Party & Tyne & Wear regulation

[Tony]

http://m.stagecoach.com/media/news-releases/2014/2014-10-31.aspx?sc_lang=en

[j789]

Think Stagecoach are spot on here. I dread to think what a Labour govt. would do to bus travel but they sure as hell wouldn't improve it. They just don't have a clue and just keep spouting rubbish. Does anyone really believe that Centro would run services better than at present if they had the power? They would just get wrapped up in usual government bureaucracy like everything the local authority gets its hands on.  The Tories aren't great but at least they generally just leave buses alone as they are more obsessed with the trains.  Rant over!

[D10]

The Tories have cut BSOG and are doing nothing to stop the wholesale withdrawal of services across England, especially in rural areas where buses are a lifeline. The Tories are no friends to bus users.

[PM]

The Tories have cut BSOG and are doing nothing to stop the wholesale withdrawal of services across England, especially in rural areas where buses are a lifeline. The Tories are no friends to bus users.

I agree about the cutting of BSOG but it's a myth that increased subsidies lead to vastly improved services. Which is better, services designed by politicians on paper to serve everyone but which end up serving no one or simplified, cut back, easy to understand commercial services? Actually, giving operators the push to commercialize may have improved overall the experience of public transport the passenger gets.

I'm with you though on BSOG cuts especially given the "special treatment" given to railway companies in this respect.

I just don't see the issue with our current public transport system like Labour do. In the North East, they want to cross-subsidise buses to support a loss making ferry!! How ridiculous-bus passengers pay inflated fares to support a political vanity project that clearly cannot sustain itself.

The major issue is politicians assuming they can do a better job than local managers and transport planners with the vision of London in their minds. They forget the massive subsidies and cost to London taxpayers plus the fact that bus use there was always going to grow with the congestion charge/traffic etc.

I'm sorry but as a consumer would I be more tempted to use/informed about using a Go North East Angel 21 or an Arriva Sapphire X20 or a grey NEXUS solo on an empty route. As it is, Labour would like us back in the 1970s transport industry of lower frequencies and fare increases to support no hoper services. GNE attracted criticism back in 2006 for massive service cutbacks and Arriva likewise. Yet the same companies with slimmed down, easily understood networks are both now experiencing ridership increases through new buses/marketing/speculate to accumulate eg Arriva 7-sb200's-will be getting new e400's due to increases in usage. Yet, cross-subsidising would lead to the frequency/size of bus staying the same as investment would be absorbed propping up a ferry. NE operators have promised an extra 13 buses on the roads and partnerships with Nexus. It's frankly nonsensical to suggest Nexus's investment could ever match that made this year by Arriva and in 2013 by GNE.

Why do I doubt that Labour would ever bring this in if they were in power and that's based on the massive assumption that they do regain power.

I firmly believe that politics and buses should be kept as far apart as possible.

[the trainbasher]

I went to Newcastle earlier this year and I think the best way to get the cheapest option for the council is to run it the same as the current situation, in other words the current existing commercial network.

[winston]

I went to Newcastle earlier this year and I think the best way to get the cheapest option for the council is to run it the same as the current situation, in other words the current existing commercial network.

I agree, keep it as is with the addition of a quality partnership (as per the Centro/NX one). Bus operators get to retain their current profit margins on the proviso that they invest regularly to met the commitments, Tyne & Wear PTE gets the opportunity to have a greater say in the services/levels of service that are provided. Keep it simple!

[PM]

I went to Newcastle earlier this year and I think the best way to get the cheapest option for the council is to run it the same as the current situation, in other words the current existing commercial network.

I agree, keep it as is with the addition of a quality partnership (as per the Centro/NX one). Bus operators get to retain their current profit margins on the proviso that they invest regularly to met the commitments, Tyne & Wear PTE gets the opportunity to have a greater say in the services/levels of service that are provided. Keep it simple!

I must admit to being a bit anti the SQBP's on the basis of them being anti-competitive ie competing operators essentially priced out of a market. Also, it has overall little improvement as operators with greater geographical spread ie not really NXWM but say Arriva North East operating yes in Newcastle/TWPTE but also Teeside/Darlington/Durham will just invest less in Durham so as to be able to pump new buses into Newcastle. Same with Stagecoach-new buses for Newcastle, Teesside gets the old ones.

Why should operators in Birmingham have to invest to a certain level when operators in Worcester don't have to? That's fundamentally unfair...

[winston]

I went to Newcastle earlier this year and I think the best way to get the cheapest option for the council is to run it the same as the current situation, in other words the current existing commercial network.

I agree, keep it as is with the addition of a quality partnership (as per the Centro/NX one). Bus operators get to retain their current profit margins on the proviso that they invest regularly to met the commitments, Tyne & Wear PTE gets the opportunity to have a greater say in the services/levels of service that are provided. Keep it simple!

I must admit to being a bit anti the SQBP's on the basis of them being anti-competitive ie competing operators essentially priced out of a market. Also, it has overall little improvement as operators with greater geographical spread ie not really NXWM but say Arriva North East operating yes in Newcastle/TWPTE but also Teeside/Darlington/Durham will just invest less in Durham so as to be able to pump new buses into Newcastle. Same with Stagecoach-new buses for Newcastle, Teesside gets the old ones.

Why should operators in Birmingham have to invest to a certain level when operators in Worcester don't have to? That's fundamentally unfair...

But equally why shouldn't competing operators invest to a level that matches the size of their business or within that operators financial constraints. On say one of these forthcoming 'Gold Corridors' why should say NX put out a complete new fleet to match Centro's infrastructure improvements, then a competing operator along the same old corridor continue to use its same old buses and benefit from the improvements made along the corridor? If said operator can't afford new, it could provide newer refurbished buses etc

There's nothing to stop any SQP's being county wide, with each PTE area having representation on the SQP's panel.

You can't compare the likes of Birmingham to Worcester, completely different size for starters, different operating issues, different fare structures. Each area would need to be looked at on its own merits.

[PM]

I went to Newcastle earlier this year and I think the best way to get the cheapest option for the council is to run it the same as the current situation, in other words the current existing commercial network.

I agree, keep it as is with the addition of a quality partnership (as per the Centro/NX one). Bus operators get to retain their current profit margins on the proviso that they invest regularly to met the commitments, Tyne & Wear PTE gets the opportunity to have a greater say in the services/levels of service that are provided. Keep it simple!

I must admit to being a bit anti the SQBP's on the basis of them being anti-competitive ie competing operators essentially priced out of a market. Also, it has overall little improvement as operators with greater geographical spread ie not really NXWM but say Arriva North East operating yes in Newcastle/TWPTE but also Teeside/Darlington/Durham will just invest less in Durham so as to be able to pump new buses into Newcastle. Same with Stagecoach-new buses for Newcastle, Teesside gets the old ones.

Why should operators in Birmingham have to invest to a certain level when operators in Worcester don't have to? That's fundamentally unfair...

But equally why shouldn't competing operators invest to a level that matches the size of their business or within that operators financial constraints. On say one of these forthcoming 'Gold Corridors' why should say NX put out a complete new fleet to match Centro's infrastructure improvements, then a competing operator along the same old corridor continue to use its same old buses and benefit from the improvements made along the corridor? If said operator can't afford new, it could provide newer refurbished buses etc

There's nothing to stop any SQP's being county wide, with each PTE area having representation on the SQP's panel.

You can't compare the likes of Birmingham to Worcester, completely different size for starters, different operating issues, different fare structures. Each area would need to be looked at on its own merits.

It's just very hard and very wrong to force operators to invest according to how successful they are. Ultimately, would you look at overall financial standing or individual route performance which councils shouldn't have access to anyway. Then, if you've got a loss making service that is a key network link do you have to spend a ridiculous amount on new buses/refurbs the route can't afford or drop the route and passengers lose out. Ultimately, the partnership is between NX and Centro, no one else. Therefore, no other operator has to and has signed up to investing a minimum amount so Centro couldn't backtrack and force them to as it would be unfair and illegal. I agree ideally improvements by centro and councils would encourage operators to invest but I don't see how it can be enforced.

I agree-unfair comparison but nearest non West Midlands city I could think of!

I just think there's a real danger of trying to benefit passengers so much that competition ceases so yes buses may be better but frequencies lower and fares higher.

Unless PTE's only like dealing with one operator and hate enterprising small businesses... Oh wait  ::)

[winston]

I went to Newcastle earlier this year and I think the best way to get the cheapest option for the council is to run it the same as the current situation, in other words the current existing commercial network.

I agree, keep it as is with the addition of a quality partnership (as per the Centro/NX one). Bus operators get to retain their current profit margins on the proviso that they invest regularly to met the commitments, Tyne & Wear PTE gets the opportunity to have a greater say in the services/levels of service that are provided. Keep it simple!

I must admit to being a bit anti the SQBP's on the basis of them being anti-competitive ie competing operators essentially priced out of a market. Also, it has overall little improvement as operators with greater geographical spread ie not really NXWM but say Arriva North East operating yes in Newcastle/TWPTE but also Teeside/Darlington/Durham will just invest less in Durham so as to be able to pump new buses into Newcastle. Same with Stagecoach-new buses for Newcastle, Teesside gets the old ones.

Why should operators in Birmingham have to invest to a certain level when operators in Worcester don't have to? That's fundamentally unfair...

But equally why shouldn't competing operators invest to a level that matches the size of their business or within that operators financial constraints. On say one of these forthcoming 'Gold Corridors' why should say NX put out a complete new fleet to match Centro's infrastructure improvements, then a competing operator along the same old corridor continue to use its same old buses and benefit from the improvements made along the corridor? If said operator can't afford new, it could provide newer refurbished buses etc

There's nothing to stop any SQP's being county wide, with each PTE area having representation on the SQP's panel.

You can't compare the likes of Birmingham to Worcester, completely different size for starters, different operating issues, different fare structures. Each area would need to be looked at on its own merits.

It's just very hard and very wrong to force operators to invest according to how successful they are. Ultimately, would you look at overall financial standing or individual route performance which councils shouldn't have access to anyway. Then, if you've got a loss making service that is a key network link do you have to spend a ridiculous amount on new buses/refurbs the route can't afford or drop the route and passengers lose out. Ultimately, the partnership is between NX and Centro, no one else. Therefore, no other operator has to and has signed up to investing a minimum amount so Centro couldn't backtrack and force them to as it would be unfair and illegal. I agree ideally improvements by centro and councils would encourage operators to invest but I don't see how it can be enforced.

I agree-unfair comparison but nearest non West Midlands city I could think of!

I just think there's a real danger of trying to benefit passengers so much that competition ceases so yes buses may be better but frequencies lower and fares higher.

Unless PTE's only like dealing with one operator and hate enterprising small businesses... Oh wait  ::)

I know of few enterprising small bus businesses, most of them just cherry pick NX's busiest routes, some of them can't even be bothered to remove previous operators fleetnames or give their buses a coat of paint  :o

[Steveminor]

One thing that the centro sqp did was to stop the return of a night network. Sunny travel had withdrawn the buses from the 14 & 120 as they weren't compliant . Now I see that as fair enough. But I had planned a new night network using those buses along the lines of the former petes travel night bus network. I had contacted a lot of bar & club owners/companies who were massively supportive of the project & a deal was being done for them to fund door staff/security for the buses. However Centres response was that since the buses were non low floor they could not operate unless new compliant vehicles were purchased. This was to be a trial which if successful would have resulted in newer buses purchased, but on a limited budget how could sunny afford to update the whole fleet & then basically subside 6 routes until they could pay for themselves, if they ever could. In that respect the Birmingham sqp is wrong.
As to Labours views on the buses. I am all for the idea of basically re regulating the nation's buses. Local authorities are cutting back on their subsidised networks through lack of money when there are some routes which do not require subsidy yet operators won't run them unless paid to do so e.g. 71 Sundays was heavily subsidised for years & years until AMPM commercialised it & even increased the frequency between Solihull & Chelmsley wood from 30 mins to 15 mins & still made a profit. In a re regulated industry this could never happen. Think about the savings councils would make not having to reimburse all those concessionary journeys to all those operators.
What you could have is the core network of routes operated by the pte's.  Then if an operator thought up a NEW route they could apply to the pte to run that route on the same grounds as pte's have for subsidising routes I.E it must not compete with any of the pte's own services & must fill a social required status. I.e connect communities to hospitals train stations or town centres they would be unable to get to unless they had to change bus several times.
Now that would make every company think outside the box in order to survive

[j789]

Think about the savings councils would make not having to reimburse all those concessionary journeys to all those operators.
What you could have is the core network of routes operated by the pte's.  Then if an operator thought up a NEW route they could apply to the pte to run that route on the same grounds as pte's have for subsidising routes I.E it must not compete with any of the pte's own services & must fill a social required status. I.e connect communities to hospitals train stations or town centres they would be unable to get to unless they had to change bus several times.
Now that would make every company think outside the box in order to survive

In theory this sounds like a good idea but in practice in would not work. Having the PTE in charge may start ok but very soon opposition partires in the local government, as well as rate payers from areas which do not have high levels of bus use, would start to argue that they were subsidising routes that didn't benefit themselves and also undermine the aim to run less well used services by subsidising them from better routes. This is the sad fact about politics in that even having a good aim will eventually be undermined by spin from opposition viewpoints and eventually this will lead to cost cutting (eg routes lost, frequencies decreased etc) because saving money makes for better headlines.
The PTEs in control would be far worse. It would be interesting to compare the 'core' NXWM/WMT network of routes with that of WMPTE as I would think that in most cases the key routes now perform better financially (maybe less passengers but more £ profit per journey per route) than they ever did under WMPTE because they are not subsidising loss making routes.

[Tony]

Think about the savings councils would make not having to reimburse all those concessionary journeys to all those operators.
What you could have is the core network of routes operated by the pte's.  Then if an operator thought up a NEW route they could apply to the pte to run that route on the same grounds as pte's have for subsidising routes I.E it must not compete with any of the pte's own services & must fill a social required status. I.e connect communities to hospitals train stations or town centres they would be unable to get to unless they had to change bus several times.
Now that would make every company think outside the box in order to survive

In theory this sounds like a good idea but in practice in would not work. Having the PTE in charge may start ok but very soon opposition partires in the local government, as well as rate payers from areas which do not have high levels of bus use, would start to argue that they were subsidising routes that didn't benefit themselves and also undermine the aim to run less well used services by subsidising them from better routes. This is the sad fact about politics in that even having a good aim will eventually be undermined by spin from opposition viewpoints and eventually this will lead to cost cutting (eg routes lost, frequencies decreased etc) because saving money makes for better headlines.
The PTEs in control would be far worse. It would be interesting to compare the 'core' NXWM/WMT network of routes with that of WMPTE as I would think that in most cases the key routes now perform better financially (maybe less passengers but more £ profit per journey per route) than they ever did under WMPTE because they are not subsidising loss making routes.

There is another serious flaw in Steve's way as well

PTE are running a frequent service down a main road, carries good loads at the city end but far fewer at the far end as a lot of routes do. Someone decides it would be a good idea to run a service halfway down the main road then turning off into to serve an area only previously served by a route to a different town centre.

PTE refuse permission as it extracts revenue from the profitable part of their route. People on that estate never get new service which would be both profitable and useful

[PM]

One thing that the centro sqp did was to stop the return of a night network. Sunny travel had withdrawn the buses from the 14 & 120 as they weren't compliant . Now I see that as fair enough. But I had planned a new night network using those buses along the lines of the former petes travel night bus network. I had contacted a lot of bar & club owners/companies who were massively supportive of the project & a deal was being done for them to fund door staff/security for the buses. However Centres response was that since the buses were non low floor they could not operate unless new compliant vehicles were purchased. This was to be a trial which if successful would have resulted in newer buses purchased, but on a limited budget how could sunny afford to update the whole fleet & then basically subside 6 routes until they could pay for themselves, if they ever could. In that respect the Birmingham sqp is wrong.
As to Labours views on the buses. I am all for the idea of basically re regulating the nation's buses. Local authorities are cutting back on their subsidised networks through lack of money when there are some routes which do not require subsidy yet operators won't run them unless paid to do so e.g. 71 Sundays was heavily subsidised for years & years until AMPM commercialised it & even increased the frequency between Solihull & Chelmsley wood from 30 mins to 15 mins & still made a profit. In a re regulated industry this could never happen. Think about the savings councils would make not having to reimburse all those concessionary journeys to all those operators.
What you could have is the core network of routes operated by the pte's.  Then if an operator thought up a NEW route they could apply to the pte to run that route on the same grounds as pte's have for subsidising routes I.E it must not compete with any of the pte's own services & must fill a social required status. I.e connect communities to hospitals train stations or town centres they would be unable to get to unless they had to change bus several times.
Now that would make every company think outside the box in order to survive

Steve

As someone who has worked with competing operators and improved services eg Pete's 404 and numerous others that had frequency increases and fares reductions, how can you argue for re-regulation that would get rid of the hard work operators have put in responding to the market. Fundamentally, you can only argue for re-regulation if you think the system has failed and urban bus networks are worse than they were, like some Labour politicians do.

If you think deregulation has brought improved marketing, services people want combined with competition on selected corridors and for non-commercial services to keep operators on their toes then it's very hard to argue for re-regulation.

Your night bus network and 119 at Pete's as Tony says that was a portion of existing routes wouldn't have been possible in a regulated environment as yes, they could suggest them but wouldn't be allowed to run them as the PTE would want the revenue to cross-subsidise. Yet they are ideas that did/could have improved services...

On a side note, weren't night routes along the lines of the Pete's ones re-introduced by GWM and then scrapped due to low usage? Would they really be even close to viable, even with marketing/promotion/consultation with clubs etc.

[Steveminor]

Firstly with the night services. Yes GEN did try them and end up cancelling them due to low passengers but they introduced them just before we hit that financial crisis which led to a downturn in trade. It's picked up since & I think they would work. I'm not the only one with this view NX obviously think so with their introduction of the 24hr routes (not the ones I would have started with but still).
Yes in big cities like ours deregulation has worked, but if you look at the rural areas they have definitely suffered especially as of late. Many communities have less buses than ever or even no bus at all as operators want profit & councils can't afford to subsidies them. Remember when an operator puts in the tender price they are also factoring profit into that price. What business would want to run just for break even.
We need to look at the bigger picture & if I "someone who loves competition & loves the cherry picking as some of you see it. Thinks so then maybe just maybe we need to change the direction we're going.