(21 Feb 2014, 10:59 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]Only looked at a glance as I'm on the mobile, but it's extremely worrying. I do think it backs up that concessionary travel for free is unsustainable from the council's/PTEs point of view, but are the operators going to make that sort of return if it didn't exist? I don't think you'd have anywhere near as many journeys.
(21 Feb 2014, 11:13 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]There is another document (lost the link) that stated patronage rose on average between 20-30% on introduction of the 60+ concessionary pass in Scotland.
The grants/subsidies/handouts given to the operators as a result, saw some operators go out and purchase new vehicles (the operators admitted this in the report).
(21 Feb 2014, 10:59 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]Only looked at a glance as I'm on the mobile, but it's extremely worrying. I do think it backs up that concessionary travel for free is unsustainable from the council's/PTEs point of view, but are the operators going to make that sort of return if it didn't exist? I don't think you'd have anywhere near as many journeys.
(25 Feb 2014, 1:26 pm)Chris wrote [ -> ]The more I think about this, the more I think the industry needs to move away from BSOG. Get rid. Yes, it's handy. But all of the political interferance that comes with it isn't.
(25 Feb 2014, 4:55 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Regardless of political interference, the BSOG scheme needs to end.
Taxpayers funding smartcard technology, wifi or contributing towards new vehicles - not for me.
Particularly when investors (including foreign banks), benefit from the upturn in passenger numbers and revenue.
The amount given to PLC operators in the form of BSOG (forgetting passes) is totally unjustified.
(25 Feb 2014, 5:35 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]The issue for me is that it's a grant and doesn't need to be paid back. We shouldn't forget that without it though, I'm sure there'd be a good few independents put out of business?
Perhaps a rethink on the fund is needed rather than complete withdrawal?
(25 Feb 2014, 6:01 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Possibly restrict it to organisations not exceeding a certain amount of revenue or profit then, such as the smaller independents.
I cant think of any justification, why me, you or your next door neighbour should pay our taxes into a system, that ensures multi-million pound, multi-national companies can buy new vehicles (or in the case of the railways), refurbish/buy new trains.
If the system was nationalised/regionalised then yes, there is justification to keep BSOG, because ultimately, the money will be returned into local/central government coffers.
As it stands, that BSOG money isn't returned into local or national coffers at all, but supplements s new purchase or two, wifi or smartcard technology and the pot of German government, Mr Soutars offshore bank account (and the Airdrie Savings Bank) or some foreign investment fund on Wall Street - whilst passengers see poorer services.
We don't get Government handouts (austerity saw the end to that), yet the money is being thrown at multi-million pound organisations as though it is going out of fashion.
(25 Feb 2014, 9:35 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]Yep, you could always argue the money is best spent elsewhere. Even if it went into the local government pot though, it then creates further arguments of who or what deserves that money more? Do we increase the spend on welfare, or do we choose to keep local libraries open?
BSOG was designed to keep fares down and to enable operators to run services that may not otherwise be profitable. Do we actually have any proof that this is working? Fares have risen well above the rate of inflation for so long now, and because of commercial confidentiality, we'll never know how profitable service A B or C is.
(27 Feb 2014, 12:49 pm)Chris wrote [ -> ]BSOG in principle is fine. But surely operators in your major cities on your heavily used routes can live without it.
Profit isn't a dirty word, so I've got no problem operators making a profit whilst claiming BSOG. Other industries are offered incentives/favourable rates/inducements/bribes all the time and still go on to make a profit - e.g. Build your shiny new factory in our post code and we'll give you massively reduced rates for 10 years/pay for you to relocate etc...
No, just the interferance aspect for me. If operators are relying on BSOG just to stay in business then I'd argue they're in pretty bad shape anyway.
Concessionary travel is slightly different in that politics, rather than transport policy will decide its fate. If it stays it needs to be either funded properly; means tested so only those who really need it get it; users pay a small annual charge; paid (and taxed) via pension or whatever.
For both issues surely it can't be beyond the wit of man to come up with something that works for everyone.
(27 Feb 2014, 6:29 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]I don't have a problem with concessionary passes - the majority of passengers have paid into the system, so cant see an issue with them getting one or two perks back.
The operators are given a rebate (all be it one they don't necessarily approve of).
I don't have an issue with operators making a profit.
I do have issues with millions of pounds of money being thrown at these companies, new purchases, WiFi, smartcard technology and whatever else being purchased as a result.
The big operators have the money and means to purchase new vehicles, fit WiFi, fit smartcard technology and other things without BSOG.
They don't need the money.
(27 Feb 2014, 6:35 pm)Kuyoyo wrote [ -> ]BSOG is the posh way of saying Fuel Duty Rebate - so it's the operators money being returned to them, NOT taxpayer's money. And what that does is reduces costs on services that, if that cost was added onto it, would be likely for the cut, like say the 71.
So by all means, keep banging on about BSOG and it being taken away, but then you'll end up with only main corridor routes and very little services like the 71 and East Durham services.
(27 Feb 2014, 6:59 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]'the posh way of saying Fuel Duty Rebate'?
Since when has the fuel duty rebate paid for stuff like new buses and smartcards?
Its a pot of funds, that includes the fuel rebate (a rebate on 49p isn't a bad little earner).
Do the companies not make enough money to pay for new technology and passenger handouts without a few quid in handouts like?
(27 Feb 2014, 7:02 pm)Kuyoyo wrote [ -> ]It doesn't pay for WiFi or new buses - the previous year's profits do that! The 'repayment' will be used to pay for the following year's fuel.
(27 Feb 2014, 7:11 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]I cant be bothered to dig out the thread or links - but if you have a look around the site, you will maybe find the link which shows the BSOG is paying for more than fuel.
(27 Feb 2014, 6:35 pm)Kuyoyo wrote [ -> ]So by all means, keep banging on about BSOG and it being taken away, but then you'll end up with only main corridor routes and very little services like the 71 and East Durham services.
(28 Feb 2014, 1:26 pm)Chris wrote [ -> ]Not banging on, merely thinking out loud. The gist of which, was that main corridor routes could easily live without it, but your marginal routes would still need it. Instead of giving everyone a reduced rate universally, why not concentrate it to those areas/networks that need it?
I think saying it's just operators getting their own money back is perhaps no longer strictly the case (hence the change of name from 'rebate'), a bit like saying road tax funds the upkeep of the roads....
It still comes from the public purse, regardless of how it was raised. The recent headline figure is something like 44% of operators income comes via Government (in whatever guise).
For the record, in my eyes neither BSOG nor Concessionary travel are subsidies.
(28 Feb 2014, 2:05 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Yet, passengers have a poorer frequency than in years gone
(28 Feb 2014, 6:08 pm)citaro5284 wrote [ -> ]In years gone by, was it not just the 722/723/735 that operated from Worswick Street through Low Fell to CLS. The 722/723 left Newcastle 00, 10, 25, 40, and the 735 was hourly, so 5 buses an hour along the Low Fell corridor to CLS, and if I remember correctly, the 735 terminated in CLS somewhere and 2 of the 722/723 services terminated at Durham whilst the other 2 carried on to Darlington. Compare that with now when you have a 21 every 7/8 minutes, 8 an hour to CLS, and 4 an hour to Durham.
The X1 was hourly (when it was linked to the X10 operated by Chester depot and Arriva), which is now half hourly, so there is an increase again from Newcastle to Durham via Low Fell.
It was only when Classic started to operate a service to compete with the 722/723 (the 21) that the services were increased.
(28 Feb 2014, 6:08 pm)citaro5284 wrote [ -> ]In years gone by, was it not just the 722/723/735 that operated from Worswick Street through Low Fell to CLS. The 722/723 left Newcastle 00, 10, 25, 40, and the 735 was hourly, so 5 buses an hour along the Low Fell corridor to CLS, and if I remember correctly, the 735 terminated in CLS somewhere and 2 of the 722/723 services terminated at Durham whilst the other 2 carried on to Darlington. Compare that with now when you have a 21 every 7/8 minutes, 8 an hour to CLS, and 4 an hour to Durham.
The X1 was hourly (when it was linked to the X10 operated by Chester depot and Arriva), which is now half hourly, so there is an increase again from Newcastle to Durham via Low Fell.
It was only when Classic started to operate a service to compete with the 722/723 (the 21) that the services were increased.
(28 Feb 2014, 7:13 pm)AdamY wrote [ -> ]Re: Durham Road/Low Fell Corridor
The following information is taken from the June 1989 'G4' Bus Timetable which covers Wrekenton/Birtley and Gateshead.
In 1989, before Classic introduced their 21 route, the services listed below ran from Gateshead/Newcastle along Durham Road through Low Fell to various destinations (with Mon-Sat peak time frequency included):
24: Newcastle - Allerdene Estate (half hourly - left Worswick Street at 02/32)
25: Newcastle - Wrekenton (half hourly - left Worswick Street at 09/39)
26: Newcastle - Barley Mow Estate (half hourly - left Worswick Street at 17/47)
28: Newcastle - Kibblesworth (half hourly - left Worswick Street at 24/54)
Cross Tyne (LFC): Newcastle - Allerdene (half hourly - left Newcastle St Thomas Street at 05/35)
231: Newcastle - Hartlepool (hourly - left Worswick Street at 50 mins past the hour)
709: Newcastle - Stanley (hourly - left Worswick Street at 23 mins past the hour)
722: Newcastle - Darlington (hourly - left Worswick Street at 10 mins past the hour)
723: Newcastle - Darlington (three per hour - left Worswick Street at 00/25/40)
728: Newcastle - Stanley (hourly - left Worswick Street at 50 mins past the hour)
735: Newcastle - Houghton-le-Spring (hourly - left Worswick Street at 20 mins past the hour)
X1: Newcastle - Middlesbrough (hourly - left Eldon Square at 15 mins past the hour)
X46: Newcastle - Crook (hourly - left Eldon Square at 47 mins past the hour)
OK (724): Newcastle - Bishop Auckland (hourly - left Newgate Street at 05 mins past each hour)
With the obvious exception of the Cross-Tyne and OK services, these services were operated either jointly or wholly by the Northern group. Not including the 724, 8 buses per hour operated between Newcastle and Chester; 6 buses per hour operated between Newcastle and Durham; and 10 per hour between Newcastle and Birtley. Between Newcastle and Low Fell, there were 18 buses per hour - 21 if you include the Cross-Tyne and OK services.
(28 Feb 2014, 7:19 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]....and I forgot about the two Stanley services - which were the only two routes scheduled to be allocated a single decker.
(28 Feb 2014, 7:35 pm)AdamY wrote [ -> ]...And don't forget the other buses running between Newcastle and Chester:
721: Newcastle - Chester (hourly - left Worswick Street at 27 mins past the hour)
725: Newcastle - East Hedleyhope (hourly - left Worswick Street at 48 mins past the hour)
726: Newcastle - Witton Gilbert (hourly - left Worswick Street at 20 mins past the hour)
733: Newcastle - Chester-le-Street (hourly - left Worswick Street at 35 mins past the hour)
So that's 12 buses per hour between Newcastle and Chester.
(28 Feb 2014, 7:38 pm)Kuyoyo wrote [ -> ]Compared to:
8 buses an hour on 21
Half Hourly on the 28/28A
Half Hourly X21
Half Hourly X25
That's now 14 buses an hour between Newcastle and Chester just from Go North East. Add in the X2, and you've got 16.
(28 Feb 2014, 7:57 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Yeah, I mentioned the Old Durham Road services, but again the 733 was forgotten about.
So in conclusion, I think we can all safely say, that there were more buses and more seats ph between each of the points mentioned then, than there are now.
(28 Feb 2014, 8:02 pm)AdamY wrote [ -> ]Seats, quite possibly when you take into consideration that deckers were certainly more prominent then. But, as Kuyoyo correctly asserts, there are more buses per hour between Chester and Newcastle now than there were in 1989.
(28 Feb 2014, 7:07 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]You forgot the hourly 231 and 724.
Granted going from your figures, it appears there are more buses through Low Fell to Chester - but these are at the expense of the local (and half hourly) 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 (10 buses through Low Fell alone with those 5 services).
You also forgot the hourly x46 to Crook.
So your 5 per hour - plus the 231, 724 and x46 is?
Plus the 10 local services...
In addition to that, passengers had the 721, 725 and 726 via Old Durham Road to Chester.
The 735 terminated initially in Seaham, but then went as far as Houghton, running at the opposite side of the hour to the 231.