Service 45 Walsall to West Bromwich

[Ginger66]

So TfWM are looking at this service over the next six months while it sorts out it's long term future to see where the issue lies 

My suggestion would be as follows

• Re route the 40 around Charlemont Farm so it covers that part of the 45 route. Wednesbury - Stone Cross then via Charlemont Farm then normal line of route same in reverse.
• If 4M is every 20 mins re route via Bescot and Yew Tree then normal line of route 

Therefore both routes are covered to a satisfactory level of service.  But I know you can't please everyone.  

[Jack]

So TfWM are looking at this service over the next six months while it sorts out it's long term future to see where the issue lies

My suggestion would be as follows

• Re route the 40 around Charlemont Farm so it covers that part of the 45 route. Wednesbury - Stone Cross then via Charlemont Farm then normal line of route same in reverse.
• If 4M is every 20 mins re route via Bescot and Yew Tree then normal line of route

Therefore both routes are covered to a satisfactory level of service.  But I know you can't please everyone. 

Make the 4M more longer and probably unreliable. Best bet would probably be the 4 itself not the 4H or 4M being made to do that but I still don't think that's the best of ideas sending any of them through the 45.

[Jack6101]

So TfWM are looking at this service over the next six months while it sorts out it's long term future to see where the issue lies

My suggestion would be as follows

• Re route the 40 around Charlemont Farm so it covers that part of the 45 route. Wednesbury - Stone Cross then via Charlemont Farm then normal line of route same in reverse.
• If 4M is every 20 mins re route via Bescot and Yew Tree then normal line of route

Therefore both routes are covered to a satisfactory level of service.  But I know you can't please everyone. 

It would be better to put the 4 along there instead of 4M 

[Lukeee]

Would it be worth reinstating the 401E as that end of the route always seemed to be buiser (obviously I don't have any figures to hand) but it managed to sustain both the 401E and 45 for years.

[Ginger66]

Would it be worth reinstating the 401E as that end of the route always seemed to be buiser (obviously I don't have any figures to hand) but it managed to sustain both the 401E and 45 for years.

True so 45/401 to stone cross could be beneficial.  

[Jack]

I initially said to keep the Walsall - Yew Tree link, i.e the 401E....

[Westy]

Surely if you altered the 40 in any way, both operators will have to do the change, not just the one?

[Stu]

So TfWM are looking at this service over the next six months while it sorts out it's long term future to see where the issue lies

My suggestion would be as follows

• Re route the 40 around Charlemont Farm so it covers that part of the 45 route. Wednesbury - Stone Cross then via Charlemont Farm then normal line of route same in reverse.
• If 4M is every 20 mins re route via Bescot and Yew Tree then normal line of route

Therefore both routes are covered to a satisfactory level of service.  But I know you can't please everyone. 

Personally, I would prefer it if there was some kind of consultation undertaken that involved the people who actually use this route and others in the area, in order to find a way for this service to continue.

It makes me laugh that TfWM are somehow 'puzzled' that this 'previously profitable' service now requires taxpayer funding.

NX gave up the service as it was no longer commercially viable for them, so Diamond then agreed to take it on, but just a few months later they too determined that it was no longer viable either.

You can apply some simple mathematics here:
- If the number of passengers (patronage) has 'remained' at the same levels since 2021
- If the amount of revenue collected has remained at the same levels - due to 'frozen' fares
- If the cost of operating this (and any other) bus service has increased since 2021 - due to 'inflation' and other costs that have risen since 2021, fuel, energy, maintenance, labour etc

Then it is not hard to work out why "previously profitable" commercial bus services are now 'loss-making' and require subsidies to keep them operationally viable.

"Freezing fares" and keeping them at 2018-2019 prices is great news for bus passengers, but is not great news for bus operators, as it means that in 'real-terms' their revenues are actually decreasing in-line with inflation.

The 'expectation' that more people would be 'attracted' to switching to using buses, as a result of fares being frozen/reduced, hasn't quite happened.

There's a balance that needs to be struck somewhere though. The general public have become (reluctantly) accepting that most other things have gone up in price and cost more now, yet bus fares have stayed the same.

I work in a business outside of public transport provision - we sell products online on places such as eBay, its a bit like eBay turning around and saying that we have to keep selling this particular product at the same price we sold it in 2019 - well it costs us more to buy now as our wholesalers have put their prices up, and it costs us more to post this as Royal Mail have put their prices up, and our business costs more to run as electricity and gas prices have gone up, also the staff we employ to fulfil the orders have had a pay increase due to the national minimum wage going up... well now we're selling this product at a loss, and we don't get any bailouts or subsidy from eBay, so we just simply stop selling this product on that marketplace.

...and that's what happens with the 'deregulated bus market'.

The more that TfWM have to 'step in and provide funding for services', the more compelling the case for 'franchising' becomes.

[j789]

...and that's what happens with the 'deregulated bus market'.

The more that TfWM have to 'step in and provide funding for services', the more compelling the case for 'franchising' becomes.

I do not see a compelling case for franchising from these sort of routes needing subsidy. Even in the heady pre-covid days, the profit made would not have been significant hence why the 15% decrease (and rising costs in other areas) in passenger numbers has had such an adverse effect on them now needing subsidy.

Your argument will only hold weight when it is the trunk routes - the 529, 4, the main Brum trunk routes, etc etc that suddenly need subsidy to continue running. Then we have a problem.

To suddenly bring in such a massive change just because these sort of minor routes (before the lectures start yes for those passengers affected of course they see it as important but in the grander scheme of things related to franchising, this really isn't strong evidence) can't make a profit anymore is totally wrong.

The ignorant anti-NX brigade will of course be up in arms about such comments despite being the reality concerning franchising. It doesn't work unless you have a bottomless pit of money. We need to accept in the modern world, some routes aren't feasible anymore and just accept that - offer the best service we can but don't try to match something from the past when times were so different.

[Stu]

I do not see a compelling case for franchising from these sort of routes needing subsidy. Even in the heady pre-covid days, the profit made would not have been significant hence why the 15% decrease (and rising costs in other areas) in passenger numbers has had such an adverse effect on them now needing subsidy.

Your argument will only hold weight when it is the trunk routes - the 529, 4, the main Brum trunk routes, etc etc that suddenly need subsidy to continue running. Then we have a problem.

To suddenly bring in such a massive change just because these sort of minor routes (before the lectures start yes for those passengers affected of course they see it as important but in the grander scheme of things related to franchising, this really isn't strong evidence) can't make a profit anymore is totally wrong.

The ignorant anti-NX brigade will of course be up in arms about such comments despite being the reality concerning franchising. It doesn't work unless you have a bottomless pit of money. We need to accept in the modern world, some routes aren't feasible anymore and just accept that - offer the best service we can but don't try to match something from the past when times were so different.

Just to add to my previous post, which I may have submitted without properly concluding, I'm personally NOT in favour of or arguing the case for franchising, but pointing out how certain people will use this current situation as an excuse to advocate  for it.

Deregulation was intended to 'open the free market', which it did for some years, but it seems now that the "walls are closing in"

[j789]

Just to add to my previous post, which I may have submitted without properly concluding, I'm personally NOT in favour of or arguing the case for franchising, but pointing out how certain people will use this current situation as an excuse to advocate  for it.

Deregulation was intended to 'open the free market', which it did for some years, but it seems now that the "walls are closing in"

I agree with this. I think deregulation was a good idea initially and, I have no doubt, has saved the tax payer significant money since 1986 than what would have needed to be spent if things can continued to be nationalised (similar to the situation with the trains post British Rail). However, you are right in that its success is not what it once was.

Deregulation worked really well when the subsidy money from the local authority could be spent on those routes that were always borderline - very much needed but also not economically viable without subsidy, the Solihull to Coventry routes are ideal examples of this since the 1970s even.

Unfortunately, the case is now that these sort of routes suffer from reduced funding, and subsequent frequency reductions/cuts because of the need to subsidise more routes that traditionally could be operated commercially. If local authority subsidy levels had been maintained to the same level that they were in the late 1980s, then there wouldn't be the issues we have now. Sadly, transport has seem to be an easy target for cost cutting in recent decades and the result is what we have now.

Most infuriating is the fact that the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining those higher transport subsidies in past years would have been only a tiny % of the amount that franchising the whole system would cost now.

[metrocity]

Personally, I would prefer it if there was some kind of consultation undertaken that involved the people who actually use this route and others in the area, in order to find a way for this service to continue.

It makes me laugh that TfWM are somehow 'puzzled' that this 'previously profitable' service now requires taxpayer funding.

NX gave up the service as it was no longer commercially viable for them, so Diamond then agreed to take it on, but just a few months later they too determined that it was no longer viable either.

You can apply some simple mathematics here:
- If the number of passengers (patronage) has 'remained' at the same levels since 2021
- If the amount of revenue collected has remained at the same levels - due to 'frozen' fares
- If the cost of operating this (and any other) bus service has increased since 2021 - due to 'inflation' and other costs that have risen since 2021, fuel, energy, maintenance, labour etc

Then it is not hard to work out why "previously profitable" commercial bus services are now 'loss-making' and require subsidies to keep them operationally viable.

"Freezing fares" and keeping them at 2018-2019 prices is great news for bus passengers, but is not great news for bus operators, as it means that in 'real-terms' their revenues are actually decreasing in-line with inflation.

The 'expectation' that more people would be 'attracted' to switching to using buses, as a result of fares being frozen/reduced, hasn't quite happened.

There's a balance that needs to be struck somewhere though. The general public have become (reluctantly) accepting that most other things have gone up in price and cost more now, yet bus fares have stayed the same.

I work in a business outside of public transport provision - we sell products online on places such as eBay, its a bit like eBay turning around and saying that we have to keep selling this particular product at the same price we sold it in 2019 - well it costs us more to buy now as our wholesalers have put their prices up, and it costs us more to post this as Royal Mail have put their prices up, and our business costs more to run as electricity and gas prices have gone up, also the staff we employ to fulfil the orders have had a pay increase due to the national minimum wage going up... well now we're selling this product at a loss, and we don't get any bailouts or subsidy from eBay, so we just simply stop selling this product on that marketplace.

...and that's what happens with the 'deregulated bus market'.

The more that TfWM have to 'step in and provide funding for services', the more compelling the case for 'franchising' 

It will soon become less relevant with the forthcoming changes to ticket types, but the original loadings on the 46 TFWM refer to will include NX travelcard, a significsnt number of which disappear and use alternative services when a new operator takes over a previously operated NX route

[Solo1]

like the post above diamond ran 401e for ages competing with nxbus  45  & nx withdraw it diamond extend the 401e to cover & o not paying wonder if run it hourly it would pay instead