+- North East Buses (https://northeastbuses.co.uk/forums)
+-- Forum: Local Bus Scene (https://northeastbuses.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Operations, Management & Infrastructure (https://northeastbuses.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Pricing (/showthread.php?tid=324)
RE: Pricing - Adrian - 06 Nov 2014
I'm certainly not against high frequency services, but in business terms, streamlining is always about cutting cost and increasing operating margins. Although most businesses try to do this whilst maintaining the level of service, through reducing internal overheads (i.e. premises, rates, staffing, etc).
In the sense of our bus networks, streamlining has resulted in a reduction of the service offered. Operators can be keen to point out that main corridors may have a higher number of buses per hour, or a certain service might have doubled in frequency, but there's a much bigger picture to look at here.
RE: Pricing - tyresmoke - 06 Nov 2014
Having spent plenty of time talking to various people in higher positions than me I can see the argument from both sides.
Streamlining networks into a number of high frequency services makes them much easier to market and easier to understand for customers, however it's not great when parts of the network see a reduced (or no) service just to make them simpler.
There has to be an argument for early and late services to all link up, it would be great if we could have early morning services that all connected... however what happens when those services use 8 buses instead of 6, as an example? There is no way that the extra cost could be justified.
I myself used to use the bus to get to work regularly, but unfortunately council cuts saw the early morning subsidised services removed, and therefore I now use the car to get to work. A lot of people are in the same boat, I know on my regular morning run that I used, there was a number of people that connected onto other services, both to Durham, Middlesbrough and beyond.
RE: Pricing - Andreos1 - 06 Nov 2014
(06 Nov 2014, 6:27 pm)tyresmoke Having spent plenty of time talking to various people in higher positions than me I can see the argument from both sides.
Streamlining networks into a number of high frequency services makes them much easier to market and easier to understand for customers, however it's not great when parts of the network see a reduced (or no) service just to make them simpler.
There has to be an argument for early and late services to all link up, it would be great if we could have early morning services that all connected... however what happens when those services use 8 buses instead of 6, as an example? There is no way that the extra cost could be justified.
I myself used to use the bus to get to work regularly, but unfortunately council cuts saw the early morning subsidised services removed, and therefore I now use the car to get to work. A lot of people are in the same boat, I know on my regular morning run that I used, there was a number of people that connected onto other services, both to Durham, Middlesbrough and beyond.
Which essentially means, that although the marketing may attract custom, the operators could be loosing custom too.
Depending on the changes, the operator may be worse off - despite spending thousands of pounds in associated costs in the re-jig.
Of course, it could be the opposite and numbers rise. Which is of little consolation to those with a poorer level of service, but paying more.
RE: Pricing - MurdnunoC - 06 Nov 2014
(06 Nov 2014, 2:27 pm)Dan I'm very much the same, and have never really understood the hate against high frequency streamlined services connecting major hubs opposed to direct round the world services.
I frequently have to make journeys to Houghton-le-Spring from the Stadium of Light Metro station - I have the 35 which takes me right there, but this takes slightly longer, so I'd rather jump off the 35 and jump onto the 20 instead.
(06 Nov 2014, 5:09 pm)Dan We have also identified many pricing anomalies in bus fares throughout the region in this thread too. Chris pointed out that, at one point (and possibly still is the case), a BuzzFare used to be cheaper than a return ticket on service 69. One could also consider this to be another anomaly, but a BuzzFare ticket in this example would therefore allow this journey to potentially be shorter, cheaper, and have greater flexibility due to the fact a BuzzFare ticket could be used on multiple services (with higher frequencies) rather than just one.
Changing buses will always be subject to opinion, but if streamlined frequent services manage to offer the aforementioned factors, it could be argued that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Granted, this won't be the same in every example...
First of all, I have absolutely no problem in changing buses providing doing so gets me to my destination quicker than the bus that goes around the world. In my pre-motoring days (when I used have a bus-pass), there have been plenty of occasions where I've switched buses at Metrocentre (usually on to Stagecoach's 100 service) in an attempt to get into Newcastle a little bit quicker. Likewise, when Rowlands Gill had direct services which ran to Gateshead. The hub and spoke model works when one wishes to travel to destinations placed near to the centre of the hub, or, when one lives near to the centre of the hub and wishes to travel to destinations placed further up the spoke.
However, and this is one critique of the model, what if one wishes to travel between locations placed near to the top of two different spokes? For this, I'll use my example between Rowlands Gill and Stanley but a similar example could be used for, say, Ryhope/Silksworth and Herrington Burn/Houghton-le-Spring. The afore mentioned locations all used to have direct buses but have saw revisions which mean passengers are forced to change buses. In my example, the journey between Rowlands Gill and Stanley used to take approx 30 mins using the direct bus. Now, it takes somewhere in the region of 60-90 minutes taking into account waiting times etc.
Moving onto the 69 example, if this direct bus did not exist, journey times between Whickham and Winlaton would increase if people were forced to change at the nearest hub, Metrocentre.
Valid arguments can always be made over the streamlining of services especially if the service in question receives poor patronage. However, there will be always someone, somewhere, who'll be disadvantaged if this service is withdrawn.
RE: Pricing - Andreos1 - 06 Nov 2014
(06 Nov 2014, 6:58 pm)AdamY First of all, I have absolutely no problem in changing buses providing doing so gets me to my destination quicker than the bus that goes around the world. In my pre-motoring days (when I used have a bus-pass), there have been plenty of occasions where I've switched buses at Metrocentre (usually on to Stagecoach's 100 service) in an attempt to get into Newcastle a little bit quicker. Likewise, when Rowlands Gill had direct services which ran to Gateshead. The hub and spoke model works when one wishes to travel to destinations placed near to the centre of the hub, or, when one lives near to the centre of the hub and wishes to travel to destinations placed further up the spoke.
However, and this is one critique of the model, what if one wishes to travel between locations placed near to the top of two different spokes? For this, I'll use my example between Rowlands Gill and Stanley but a similar example could be used for, say, Ryhope/Silksworth and Herrington Burn/Houghton-le-Spring. The afore mentioned locations all used to have direct buses but have saw revisions which mean passengers are forced to change buses. In my example, the journey between Rowlands Gill and Stanley used to take approx 30 mins using the direct bus. Now, it takes somewhere in the region of 60-90 minutes taking into account waiting times etc.
Moving onto the 69 example, if this direct bus did not exist, journey times between Whickham and Winlaton would increase if people were forced to change at the nearest hub, Metrocentre.
Valid arguments can always be made over the streamlining of services especially if the service in question receives poor patronage. However, there will be always someone, somewhere, who'll be disadvantaged if this service is withdrawn.
Just me nit picking, but the 35a links Silksworth to Herrington Burn/Houghton. It was the removal of the 141 that meant the Ryhope link was lost.
I take your point though and agree with it wholeheartedly.
Hub and Spoke works to a degree, but there still needs to be exceptions to that rule, for the system to benefit the majority - not just those lucky enough to have umpteen buses an hour passing their home, going in all directions.
RE: Pricing - MurdnunoC - 06 Nov 2014
(06 Nov 2014, 7:03 pm)Andreos1 Just me nit picking, but the 35a links Silksworth to Herrington Burn/Houghton. It was the removal of the 141 that meant the Ryhope link was lost.
I take your point though and agree with it wholeheartedly.
Hub and Spoke works to a degree, but there still needs to be exceptions to that rule, for the system to benefit the majority - not just those lucky enough to have umpteen buses an hour passing their home, going in all directions.
It was the 141 I was thinking of in this example but I completely forgot about the 35/35A serving Silksworth.
My bad as this kids say these days.
RE: Pricing - Acky81 - 10 Nov 2014
(06 Nov 2014, 7:10 pm)AdamY It was the 141 I was thinking of in this example but I completely forgot about the 35/35A serving Silksworth.
My bad as this kids say these days.
Then the 238 comes around bringing a ryhope houghton link back
RE: Pricing - gtom - 22 Nov 2014
The Angel vs The X2
Durham Road (Windsor Road) to Gateshead Interchange
Go North East - £2.70
Arriva £2.20
GNE's reasoning - I can travel from/to Barley Mow (around 2.5 miles away)....great fantastic.
It's also the same price to Barley Mow from Durham as it is to Newcastle
Go Ahead are monopolised fleecing con artists
RE: Pricing - citaro5284 - 22 Nov 2014
(22 Nov 2014, 7:39 pm)gtom The Angel vs The X2
Durham Road (Windsor Road) to Gateshead Interchange
Go North East - £2.70
Arriva £2.20
GNE's reasoning - I can travel from/to Barley Mow (around 2.5 miles away)....great fantastic.
It's also the same price to Barley Mow from Durham as it is to Newcastle
Go Ahead are monopolised fleecing con artists
Cannot have the monopoly if Arriva are running a service surely??
RE: Pricing - Adrian - 22 Nov 2014
I don't agree with simplified fares over short hop fares at all, but it can be a difficult one when it comes down to price discrepancies between two operators. As soon as the fares became identical, people would be accusing them of price fixing. For the same reason, it's cheaper to buy Transfares on one compared to the other, when you look at Metro and GNE. I can't remember which is which mind.
RE: Pricing - Andreos1 - 22 Nov 2014
Whilst GNE don't have a total monopoly between the two points, it is pretty damn close.
I would love to see the individual unit cost breakdown for each run on both services.
On one hand, you have a green decker, which cost the company an alleged circa £100k (after discounts). It was fitted out with extras, boasts fuel saving measures which is supposed to lower costs (and help the environment) and receives government funding/handouts/subsidies of various types.
It has a PVR of 12/13 and cost the greater of the two, to set up initially.
On the other hand, you have a service which uses two different vehicles types (half of which cost a similar amount to the competitors vehicles), are less fuel efficient and lack the added extras of its green cousins. Again, it receives various government handouts/subsidies/grants.
Wages and insurance costs will be similar.
Yet, the service which costs more to run per mile/per hour - is the cheaper of the two.
Is the green decker costing more to cover the cost of installing the free added extras? Are the fares higher so the initial costs of setting the route up is recouped quicker? Are they charging more for the convenience of a 'regular' service or are the company profiteering?
RE: Pricing - gtom - 22 Nov 2014
It's equally awful customer service to say 'well you can travel further with us'
GNE do hold a virtual monopoly versus a limited stop express service and they know it. The Angel is a woefully run service with some of the most miserable drivers on planet Earth. Admitting the reliability issues are not of their own making but pricing and service is.
They don't care because they know they don't have to.
RE: Pricing - Dan - 22 Nov 2014
(22 Nov 2014, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 On one hand, you have a green decker, which cost the company an alleged circa £100k (after discounts). It was fitted out with extras, boasts fuel saving measures which is supposed to lower costs (and help the environment) and receives government funding/handouts/subsidies of various types.
It has a PVR of 12/13 and cost the greater of the two, to set up initially.
With reference to some of your figures...
Go North East was awarded with a grant of £1,119,235 towards the cost of 15 Volvo B5LH/Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 vehicles, which works out at approximately £75,000 per vehicle. In total, these vehicles cost approximately £4,120,000. Go North East contributed £200,000 per bus (as they would have done with a normal Vovo B9TL).
RE: Pricing - Andreos1 - 22 Nov 2014
Fat finger typo - doesn't alter the crux of the post though.
More expensive to set up than ANE and each run is cheaper per mile/per hour due to the greater fuel economy.
RE: Pricing - Dan - 22 Nov 2014
(22 Nov 2014, 11:25 pm)Andreos1 Fat finger typo - doesn't alter the crux of the post though.
More expensive to set up than ANE and each run is cheaper per mile/per hour due to the greater fuel economy.
I think it would be easier to compare per hour.
Although they're far from frequent on services X1/X2 these days (Pulsars and Lowlanders seem to make up much of Durham's workings opposed to the branded vehicles), it'd be best to use Arriva's VDL DB300/Wright Gemini vehicles for comparison.
Although each individual run of Go North East's 21 may be cheaper to run, I'd imagine it could potentially be a different story when looking at the whole picture... For every two buses per hour on the X2 between Newcastle and Chester-le-Street, there are eight buses per hour on the 21. Likewise from Newcastle to Durham, there are still two buses per hour on the X2, but four on the 21.
I believe the Hybrid nature of the "Angel" branded vehicles only doubles the fuel economy when compared with something similar (ie the Wright Gemini vehicles allocated to service X2). As such, providing this is correct, the running costs (when looking at fuel costs alone) would be the same on the Newcastle - Durham runs. The extra four buses per hour to Chester-le-Street see an additional cost.
I think Newcastle - Durham via the 21 route is approximately 16 miles in total, and Newcastle - Chester-le-Street is approximately 9 miles in total. Go North East therefore operates 36 extra miles in each direction (ie 72) compared to Arriva, at an extra cost.
There are also a number of other factors to consider when thinking about running costs, such as the driver's wages. If a driver has served Go North East for 35 years (there are quite a number of long-time servers at Chester-le-Street), s/he is going to be on a very high wage. This could potentially be another factor where Go North East's running costs are higher.
So all in all, I'd suggest that Go North East's fares are probably higher to cover the additional costs of running a 7.5 minute frequency service... Go North East will also be wanting to recover the costs from the free Wi-Fi offered on-board "Angel" service 21 too, as you have already suggested. If all of those costs are being covered by the higher prices, and there is still a larger amount of profit than usual, then yes, the company has got a good product/service and they're making the most of it.
RE: Pricing - Andreos1 - 23 Nov 2014
So if the company are looking to cover the costs of the WiFi, then customers are paying a privilege for it (whether they use it or not) and it isn't free...
Re: RE: Pricing - Dan - 23 Nov 2014
(23 Nov 2014, 9:48 am)Andreos1 So if the company are looking to cover the costs of the WiFi, then customers are paying a privilege for it (whether they use it or not) and it isn't free...I suppose so, but customers have the perception that it is free because they don't have to pay for direct access to the Wi-Fi.
McDonalds - and other businesses - work in a very similar way. Indeed, McDonalds charges you a tiny percentage for the ability to sit inside of the restaurant, even if you might choose to take your "meal" out.
RE: Pricing - gtom - 23 Nov 2014
(23 Nov 2014, 10:15 am)Dan I suppose so, but customers have the perception that it is free because they don't have to pay for direct access to the Wi-Fi.
McDonalds - and other businesses - work in a very similar way. Indeed, McDonalds charges you a tiny percentage for the ability to sit inside of the restaurant, even if you might choose to take your "meal" out.
On this basis can I claim a partial refund for all of the non hybrid journeys I've been on. B7 refund? Wifi very rarely works, I've even got an email from GNE customer services stating as much
Do I get reduced costs on evenings, Sundays? No 7 minutes
Re: RE: Pricing - Dan - 23 Nov 2014
(23 Nov 2014, 10:23 am)gtom On this basis can I claim a partial refund for all of the non hybrid journeys I've been on. B7 refund? Wifi very rarely works, I've even got an email from GNE customer services stating as much
Do I get reduced costs on evenings, Sundays? No 7 minutes
Can you claim a partial refund when you don't choose to use the Wi-Fi in a McDonalds restaurant?
I take it you haven't kept up with posts in the "Latest" thread over the past few months where citaro5284 has kept us up to date with Icomera's progress through fixing every single vehicle in the fleet? Go North East now has remote software which enables them to see if a vehicle's Wi-Fi isn't working - which is why every bus in the fleet which is fitted with Wi-Fi IS now working...
With regards to your latter point - what's the frequency of the X2 on evenings and Sundays?
RE: Pricing - Adrian - 23 Nov 2014
(23 Nov 2014, 9:48 am)Andreos1 So if the company are looking to cover the costs of the WiFi, then customers are paying a privilege for it (whether they use it or not) and it isn't free...
See, whilst I don't agree with it, it must be said (and I'm sure you'll agree) that every business does just that.
You go to a cafe for a scone, and it'll be priced as such to assume that every customer that purchases one, is going to have a portion of butter and a portion of jam with it. Same way as a chippy will include salt and vinegar expense to work out their margin on fish and chips, and price accordingly. I might not want salt and vinegar, but I'm paying for it anyway.