(13 Jun 2022, 8:01 pm)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]Thats what I was thinking, just because you put new buses on a route, doesn't dilute the Xline Brand.
Simple reason is that although the 47 will run 'non-stop' like the X45 between the MetroCente and Newcastle, the X45 (unless the X71 is taken into account) will still be the 'flagship' route and the quickest from Consett taking into account frequency.
(13 Jun 2022, 7:30 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I know this comment has been made a couple of times now and I'm just picking your post to quote because it's the most recent, but it would be absolutely ludicrous to suggest this, if the winning bid from the previous commercial operator is the one which is cheapest/represents best value - or are we all an advocate of taxpayers forking out even more money than they need to, to keep these services running, where the commercial operator has 'abandoned' them?
In a similar vein, should SME operators who only run contracted bus services and never take a punt on running a commercial bus service (the likes of your Gateshead Central Taxis, A-line Coaches, etc) be penalised because the only gaps in the market that they exploit are those funded by the taxpayer?
Between you and me, the best value option for the taxpayer, is the commercial operator.
(13 Jun 2022, 8:25 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Between you and me, the best value option for the taxpayer, is the commercial operator.
And whilst that was the most predictable response, clearly that doesn't seem to be an option in today's market as we've seen from all three of the major operators in recent months (some more than others)...
If the stance from the commercial operator is that they can no longer run some of their commercial bus services and the local authority does step in to save them, the options they have are that the cheapest/best value price wins the contract (as per standard tender protocol), or that in some cases, they will purposely choose a more expensive price to exclude the incumbent from winning that contract (unheard of, but it would keep members of this forum happy).
I know which gets my vote, even if in some cases it will result in the incumbent no longer running that same service...
(13 Jun 2022, 8:33 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]And whilst that was the most predictable response, clearly that doesn't seem to be an option in today's market as we've seen from all three of the major operators in recent months (some more than others)...
If the stance from the commercial operator is that they can no longer run some of their commercial bus services and the local authority does step in to save them, the options they have are that the cheapest/best value price wins the contract (as per standard tender protocol), or that in some cases, they will purposely choose a more expensive price to exclude the incumbent from winning that contract (unheard of, but it would keep members of this forum happy).
I know which gets my vote, even if in some cases it will result in the incumbent no longer running that same service...
Except it is not such a polarised choice. There is a perfectly sensible solution which has been described on here not so long ago, whereby if the previous commercial operator doesn't want to take the commercial risk, but wants to bid for an identical tendered service, then this should be on the basis of a block payment with all fare revenue retained by the funding authority. Any profits made could then be reinvested into other public services, or further secured services, and not simply line shareholders pockets. I'm not sure there's any legal way in which an incumbent could be prevented from bidding, or that it would be in anyone's interest to do so as you point out they may ultimately submitted the best VFM tender.
To be honest while we have the current basketcase system whereby an operator can cancel any borderline service then submit a low tender to operate basically the same service, collecting the same level of fares as before, but now plus the shiny extra bit of dosh they get from their tender, why would any operator show any social responsibility and not rinse the taxpayer.
(13 Jun 2022, 10:37 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote [ -> ]Except it is not such a polarised choice. There is a perfectly sensible solution which has been described on here not so long ago, whereby if the previous commercial operator doesn't want to take the commercial risk, but wants to bid for an identical tendered service, then this should be on the basis of a block payment with all fare revenue retained by the funding authority. Any profits made could then be reinvested into other public services, or further secured services, and not simply line shareholders pockets. I'm not sure there's any legal way in which an incumbent could be prevented from bidding, or that it would be in anyone's interest to do so as you point out they may ultimately submitted the best VFM tender.
To be honest while we have the current basketcase system whereby an operator can cancel any borderline service then submit a low tender to operate basically the same service, collecting the same level of fares as before, but now plus the shiny extra bit of dosh they get from their tender, why would any operator show any social responsibility and not rinse the taxpayer.
Not sure I agree there. Personally I think all tenders should consider fares in them as it promotes growth and the operator who gets them actually wants to run the service as if they don't then they will be a loss.
Giving block payments just leads to a scenario like GCT running services to the bare minimum without them marketing them at all so long term it costs the tax payer more.
There's been some good moves lately because of this in particular the 317, 62 extension and the Tyne Tunnel services which Stagecoach are actively promoting. I could imaging some of the smaller independents would do similar Stanley and Weardale in particular who have pride in their fleets.
For services like GNE though then they should work together and the maximum tender should be the loss for that service for the year and if they agree to that it doesn't go out to tender. If the year goes well they make a profit, if not the tax payer doesn't lose out and they take an element of risk and it's adjusted accordingly every year. It's the best scenario for both ignoring the moral element.
(13 Jun 2022, 10:37 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote [ -> ]Except it is not such a polarised choice. There is a perfectly sensible solution which has been described on here not so long ago, whereby if the previous commercial operator doesn't want to take the commercial risk, but wants to bid for an identical tendered service, then this should be on the basis of a block payment with all fare revenue retained by the funding authority. Any profits made could then be reinvested into other public services, or further secured services, and not simply line shareholders pockets. I'm not sure there's any legal way in which an incumbent could be prevented from bidding, or that it would be in anyone's interest to do so as you point out they may ultimately submitted the best VFM tender.
To be honest while we have the current basketcase system whereby an operator can cancel any borderline service then submit a low tender to operate basically the same service, collecting the same level of fares as before, but now plus the shiny extra bit of dosh they get from their tender, why would any operator show any social responsibility and not rinse the taxpayer.
I'd be intrested to know if you had the same opinion of Spirit Buses when they gave up thier commercial routes?
We ought to be grateful that the local authorities have found extra money to provide replacement services for the passengers affected, even if those services might not be the same as the current ones.
The current pattern clearly doesn't work in many cases.
If the explanation of the new 39B extending to Washington given on here is correct, GNE are expanding at the same time as contracting.
It also looks from the registrations like Nexus are funding the extension of the Q3 back to Wallsend, no doubt following political pressure. The Stagecoach 18 used to run between Walker and Wallsend, funded by Nexus, prior to the Q3 originally being extended.
No-one seems to worry about Stagecoach ceasing commercial operation of the 18, 32/A & 35 in Newcastle and then getting paid by Nexus to keep running them.
Indeed almost all of the Stagecoach expansion in recent times has been funded by Nexus - cross Tyne 10/11 and 317.
Operator cancel route - nexus put out tender-same operator wins tender- better service provided by nexus with earlier bus and later buses- route start making money- operator rubs hands and takes on a commercially-customers top using-operator cancels route
and repeat
(14 Jun 2022, 7:13 am)busmanT wrote [ -> ]No-one seems to worry about Stagecoach ceasing commercial operation of the 18, 32/A & 35 in Newcastle and then getting paid by Nexus to keep running them.
Indeed almost all of the Stagecoach expansion in recent times has been funded by Nexus - cross Tyne 10/11 and 317.
You're not sticking to the script, busmanT! Stagecoach's withdrawal of commercial bus services and retention of these services under contract to Nexus/winning other operators' contracts is them finding gaps in the market, not getting paid to run a bus service on behalf of the local authority!
There's also the argument, that operators such as Gateshead Central, run their bus division 100% on contracts and subsidies.
There's no redistribution of their profit into trying to run any commercial services, yet theres nothing stopping them.
As much as I dislike the current model of the public sector being left to pick up the pieces, I don't think banning operators from bidding is the answer, nor will it achieve value for money for the local authority and the customer base.
I do however think that there needs to be recognition that the current model is unsustainable. Without going down the route of franchising, the funding available is going to be finite. Yet the danger of Arriva and Stagecoach seeing Nexus pick up the pieces big time here, is likely to make them want a slice of that pie themselves. This could very quickly become a vicious circle.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
(14 Jun 2022, 8:10 am)Adrian wrote [ -> ]There's also the argument, that operators such as Gateshead Central, run their bus division 100% on contracts and subsidies.
There's no redistribution of their profit into trying to run any commercial services, yet theres nothing stopping them.
As much as I dislike the current model of the public sector being left to pick up the pieces, I don't think banning operators from bidding is the answer, nor will it achieve value for money for the local authority and the customer base.
I do however think that there needs to be recognition that the current model is unsustainable. Without going down the route of franchising, the funding available is going to be finite. Yet the danger of Arriva and Stagecoach seeing Nexus pick up the pieces big time here, is likely to make them want a slice of that pie themselves. This could very quickly become a vicious circle.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
The main thing stopping GCT running commercial in gateshead in GNE. I'm sure you've heard of bargain bus!
(14 Jun 2022, 8:58 am)Rob44 wrote [ -> ]The main thing stopping GCT running commercial in gateshead in GNE. I'm sure you've heard of bargain bus!
Don't be daft...
We have seen other operators, Stagecoach in particular, launch competing services with Go North East which don't receive funding, and Go North East's response if anything has been to reduce their own service offering. Even small changes in Sunderland like the Stagecoach 20 in Pennywell has seen Go North East convert the operation of service 39 from a full-size single-deck to a minibus.
I don't think any operators are as 'territorial' as they perhaps once were.
Gateshead Central are more than welcome to set up their own commercial services, either competing with Go North East (or any other operator for that matter) or by exploting a gap in the market - but they don't.
(14 Jun 2022, 7:13 am)busmanT wrote [ -> ]We ought to be grateful that the local authorities have found extra money to provide replacement services for the passengers affected, even if those services might not be the same as the current ones.
The current pattern clearly doesn't work in many cases.
If the explanation of the new 39B extending to Washington given on here is correct, GNE are expanding at the same time as contracting.
It also looks from the registrations like Nexus are funding the extension of the Q3 back to Wallsend, no doubt following political pressure. The Stagecoach 18 used to run between Walker and Wallsend, funded by Nexus, prior to the Q3 originally being extended.
No-one seems to worry about Stagecoach ceasing commercial operation of the 18, 32/A & 35 in Newcastle and then getting paid by Nexus to keep running them.
Indeed almost all of the Stagecoach expansion in recent times has been funded by Nexus - cross Tyne 10/11 and 317.
Hopefully it would make sense to do it that way although, it'll be a long route and will probable's need bigger buses.
Looks like: (although some area's could be the wrong way around)
39: Pennywell - Sunderland - Doxford International - Houghton-Le-Spring - Hourly
39A: Pennywell - Sunderland - Doxford International - Hourly (current route)
39B: Pennywell - Sunderland - Tunstall Bank - Doxford Park - Doxford International - East Herrington - Shiney Row - Biddick Woods - Washington - Hourly
Combined service of every 20 minutes on the common section - Pennywell to Doxford?
39 PVR - 2
39A PVR - 2
39B PVR - 2
Combined PVR - 8
Probs have worked it out wrong
(14 Jun 2022, 7:29 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]You're not sticking to the script, busmanT! Stagecoach's withdrawal of commercial bus services and retention of these services under contract to Nexus/ winning other operators' contracts is them finding gaps in the market , not getting paid to run a bus service on behalf of the local authority!
Exploiting gaps surely?
(14 Jun 2022, 9:10 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]Don't be daft...
We have seen other operators, Stagecoach in particular, launch competing services with Go North East which don't receive funding, and Go North East's response if anything has been to reduce their own service offering. Even small changes in Sunderland like the Stagecoach 20 in Pennywell has seen Go North East convert the operation of service 39 from a full-size single-deck to a minibus.
I don't think any operators are as 'territorial' as they perhaps once were.
Gateshead Central are more than welcome to set up their own commercial services, either competing with Go North East (or any other operator for that matter) or by exploting a gap in the market - but they don't.
Ok, maybe this is in the past but i believe I asked on another thread.... Say GCT gets the 29 in its current form and the timetable is timed so it leaves just in front of the 53/54 to saltwell park or A-Line run the 28 in its current form and it leaves gateshead just before the 56/57 to qe and wrekenton.. are you saying GNE would be happy to "work with" these services even if it ment fare paying passengers to use a rival, all be it a secured service?
(14 Jun 2022, 9:16 am)Rob44 wrote [ -> ]Ok, maybe this is in the past but i believe I asked on another thread.... Say GCT gets the 29 in its current form and the timetable is timed so it leaves just in front of the 53/54 to saltwell park or A-Line run the 28 in its current form and it leaves gateshead just before the 56/57 to qe and wrekenton.. are you saying GNE would be happy to "work with" these services even if it ment fare paying passengers to use a rival, all be it a secured service?
There's many an example of GNE of saying there's not enough money in it for them, running under subsidy and then suddenly finding out it is viable when a competitor wins the contract.
(14 Jun 2022, 6:02 am)DeltaMan wrote [ -> ]I'd be intrested to know if you had the same opinion of Spirit Buses when they gave up thier commercial routes?
I'm not familiar with Spirit Buses so can't comment.
(14 Jun 2022, 7:13 am)busmanT wrote [ -> ]No-one seems to worry about Stagecoach ceasing commercial operation of the 18, 32/A & 35 in Newcastle and then getting paid by Nexus to keep running them.
Indeed almost all of the Stagecoach expansion in recent times has been funded by Nexus - cross Tyne 10/11 and 317.
It makes no difference who the operator is, it is the model that is rotten. It does appear however to be a particular tactic of GNE at present however to milk the system dry given the sheer number of cancellations etc as compared to the relatively limited scale of other operator's cuts, backed up with a consultation that has drawn pretty strong criticism across the board - intended to pressure the taxpayer funding to secure the routes.
(14 Jun 2022, 8:10 am)Adrian wrote [ -> ]I do however think that there needs to be recognition that the current model is unsustainable. Without going down the route of franchising, the funding available is going to be finite. Yet the danger of Arriva and Stagecoach seeing Nexus pick up the pieces big time here, is likely to make them want a slice of that pie themselves. This could very quickly become a vicious circle.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
And this is the root of the problem. Operator not making enough profit, cancel services, win back said services with a whack of taxpayer cash, supposedly use this cash to "grow" the services - supposedly we then see services become commercially viable again though when has this ever happened, regardless of operator. As I said in my previous post, there's no reason (other than social and moral responsibility) for an operator to do anything other than offer up lower revenue routes, knowing they will likely win them back with a helping of extra cash to add to the coffers. The system is rotten, and the private operators are capitalising on it (some more than others).
(14 Jun 2022, 10:55 am)stagecoachbusdepot wrote [ -> ]I'm not familiar with Spirit Buses so can't comment.
It makes no difference who the operator is, it is the model that is rotten. It does appear however to be a particular tactic of GNE at present however to milk the system dry given the sheer number of cancellations etc as compared to the relatively limited scale of other operator's cuts, backed up with a consultation that has drawn pretty strong criticism across the board - intended to pressure the taxpayer funding to secure the routes.
And this is the root of the problem. Operator not making enough profit, cancel services, win back said services with a whack of taxpayer cash, supposedly use this cash to "grow" the services - supposedly we then see services become commercially viable again though when has this ever happened, regardless of operator. As I said in my previous post, there's no reason (other than social and moral responsibility) for an operator to do anything other than offer up lower revenue routes, knowing they will likely win them back with a helping of extra cash to add to the coffers. The system is rotten, and the private operators are capitalising on it (some more than others).
There's some good points in here, but the key to it all is the commercial team.
Why aren't they working on new opportunities? Why aren't they identifying new routes? Why aren't they looking at the changing travel patterns we keep hearing about and changing the routes, rather than culling them?
(14 Jun 2022, 8:10 am)Adrian wrote [ -> ]There's also the argument, that operators such as Gateshead Central, run their bus division 100% on contracts and subsidies.
There's no redistribution of their profit into trying to run any commercial services, yet theres nothing stopping them.
As much as I dislike the current model of the public sector being left to pick up the pieces, I don't think banning operators from bidding is the answer, nor will it achieve value for money for the local authority and the customer base.
I do however think that there needs to be recognition that the current model is unsustainable. Without going down the route of franchising, the funding available is going to be finite. Yet the danger of Arriva and Stagecoach seeing Nexus pick up the pieces big time here, is likely to make them want a slice of that pie themselves. This could very quickly become a vicious circle.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I'd not blame them if they tried to be honest. Might as well join the race to the bottom whilst holding out their begging bowl like GNE are!
Don't drop it on the way though! There's gonna be another operator sniffing about looking for that loose change.
East Durham area changes; the 62A and the one journey each way X62 will remain, both under tender by DCC. Can’t see anyone other then GNE going for the 62A, hopefully DCC renumber it the 208 again otherwise there’ll be a 62A and no 62!