West Midlands Bus Partnership to End

[Ian Hardy]

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.

[Justin Tyme]

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.

[Steveminor]

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

[don]

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.

[Westy]

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.

[Steveminor]

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.

[Steveminor]

@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.

[2206]

@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.

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.

[busfan2847]

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.

[j789]

@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!

[don]

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).

[Steveminor]

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.

[Westy]

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.

[Simon Dunn]

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.

[Simon Dunn]

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.