West Midlands Bus Partnership to End

[2206]

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?

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. 

[Westy]

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!)

[Steveminor]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[Steveminor]

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

[Simon Dunn]

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.

[Tony]

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?

[Steveminor]

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.

[2206]

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.

[Steveminor]

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)

[IMarkeh]

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.

[Steveminor]

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.

[j789]

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.

[don]

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.

[don]

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.