VOSA today:
PB1074031/5 - COMPASS COMMUNITY TRANSPORT LTD T/A COMPASS COMMUNITY TRANSPORT, UNITS 11 - 12, SANDMERE ROAD, LEECHMERE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SUNDERLAND, SR2 9TP
Variation Accepted: Operating between Washington Galleries and Doxford Park Shops given service number 37 effective from 27-Jul-2014. To amend Timetable.
Another day, another dawn...
Compass allocated Iveco MX06CTY to services 37/8X today, with a paper destination display hardly even being visible behind the driver's wiper.
What's more irritating, is that for the first time, I saw the ticketing process that goes on on these 'vans'. Without ticket machines for obvious reasons, I saw the driver of service 37 issuing green paper slips on which he had to write the ticket details with a pen. The driver subsequently ripped part of this green paper slip away from the main part of the book, very much like a raffle ticket book.
Following on from discussion in the Gateshead Central Taxis thread - an operator also renowned for operating 'van-like' buses on their contracted services - it begs the question: Why are these operators still being awarded contracts? While I can understand that it makes commercial sense to Nexus to award these contracts on the basis of the cheapest bid, it does make you wonder why Nexus cannot see that the quality of the bus service is immensely low (especially on contracts previously operated by some of the bigger operators and/or the contracts which are jointly operated by one big operator and one smaller independent).
Without getting too off-topic (as I appreciate we have a separate thread for this), with the threat of Quality Contracts upon us, it makes you wonder whether the parties who put in the cheapest bid will continue to be awarded these contracts - regardless of the quality provided by these operators... Or, does that appeal more, given that fines will be issued?
(03 Jun 2014, 4:29 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Another day, another dawn...
Compass allocated Iveco MX06CTY to services 37/8X today, with a paper destination display hardly even being visible behind the driver's wiper.
What's more irritating, is that for the first time, I saw the ticketing process that goes on on these 'vans'. Without ticket machines for obvious reasons, I saw the driver of service 37 issuing green paper slips on which he had to write the ticket details with a pen. The driver subsequently ripped part of this green paper slip away from the main part of the book, very much like a raffle ticket book.
Following on from discussion in the Gateshead Central Taxis thread - an operator also renowned for operating 'van-like' buses on their contracted services - it begs the question: Why are these operators still being awarded contracts? While I can understand that it makes commercial sense to Nexus to award these contracts on the basis of the cheapest bid, it does make you wonder why Nexus cannot see that the quality of the bus service is immensely low (especially on contracts previously operated by some of the bigger operators and/or the contracts which are jointly operated by one big operator and one smaller independent).
Without getting too off-topic (as I appreciate we have a separate thread for this), with the threat of Quality Contracts upon us, it makes you wonder whether the parties who put in the cheapest bid will continue to be awarded these contracts - regardless of the quality provided by these operators... Or, does that appeal more, given that fines will be issued?
The 79 had the vehicle normally allocated to the 37 again today.
No idea where the normal Solo is.
Re QCS/Nexus contract, does the vehicle meet the contract spec?
If it does - great. If not - is it any different to one of the other contractors sticking an unsuitable vehicle on a Nexus contracted route?
Regardless, something needs to be done regarding the 'quality' of the vehicles.
(03 Jun 2014, 9:42 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]The 79 had the vehicle normally allocated to the 37 again today.
No idea where the normal Solo is.
Re QCS/Nexus contract, does the vehicle meet the contract spec?
If it does - great. If not - is it any different to one of the other contractors sticking an unsuitable vehicle on a Nexus contracted route?
Regardless, something needs to be done regarding the 'quality' of the vehicles.
Was that the vehicle that is meant to be allocated to the 37 (the Bluebird with a destination display) or the vehicle which is usually allocated to the 37 (an Iveco van)?
No, I don't believe it does. I think it was gtom who got in touch with Nexus regarding the use of vans and non-Nexus liveried vehicles before, and he was told the vans were only meant to be allocated when no other vehicles were available. We can see the amount of fines CCT have amassed each period in the documents aureolin shared recently - quite high given they have so few contracts.
Comparing the Compass 37 and the GNE 37 - although the vehicles GNE allocate may not be Nexus liveried all of the time, they are almost always Euro 5 (I can only recall two instances where this has not been so) and have always had working destination displays. There is no issue with quality for GNE.
(03 Jun 2014, 9:51 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Was that the vehicle that is meant to be allocated to the 37 (the Bluebird with a destination display) or the vehicle which is usually allocated to the 37 (an Iveco van)?
No, I don't believe it does. I think it was gtom who got in touch with Nexus regarding the use of vans and non-Nexus liveried vehicles before, and he was told the vans were only meant to be allocated when no other vehicles were available. We can see the amount of fines CCT have amassed each period in the documents aureolin shared recently - quite high given they have so few contracts.
Comparing the Compass 37 and the GNE 37 - although the vehicles GNE allocate may not be Nexus liveried all of the time, they are almost always Euro 5 (I can only recall two instances where this has not been so) and have always had working destination displays. There is no issue with quality for GNE.
The Bluebird.
My schedule on a morning is a bit out of kilter, so don't see the first 37 of the day like I used to. It always tended to be the Bluebird whenever I have seen it though - either when popping to see the folks or doing whatever it is I have to do.
Who mentioned GNE and their workings on the 37 or other Nexus contracts :p
Apart from drivers not knowing about Nexus tickets (almost as bad as Belmont ANE drivers) and whether the service can accept them, their allocation usually does meet the spec.
I can't recall not seeing a Solo of some description on the 37 - but that should be the case, given the size of the fleet and proportion of suitable vehicles, compared to a smaller independent, such as Compass.
However, we all know GNE have a record, just look at that document of aureolins you mentioned
(03 Jun 2014, 10:04 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]The Bluebird.
My schedule on a morning is a bit out of kilter, so don't see the first 37 of the day like I used to. It always tended to be the Bluebird whenever I have seen it though - either when popping to see the folks or doing whatever it is I have to do.
Who mentioned GNE and their workings on the 37 or other Nexus contracts :p
Apart from drivers not knowing about Nexus tickets (almost as bad as Belmont ANE drivers) and whether the service can accept them, their allocation usually does meet the spec.
I can't recall not seeing a Solo of some description on the 37 - but that should be the case, given the size of the fleet and proportion of suitable vehicles, compared to a smaller independent, such as Compass.
However, we all know GNE have a record, just look at that document of aureolins you mentioned
The usual allocation is one of the vans. An enthusiast I talk to actually informs me of when something besides a van turns up, given that it interworks with the evening 8X service and it may be worthy of a photograph.
Regarding CCT's allocations...
I am not aware of a Cadet having ever been allocated to service 37. It is very rare for a Solo to turn up on the 37 (more common on Sunday 8X), the Bluebird used to be the regular until the Cadets were brought in, and ever since, it has seemingly been a van with the odd working being the Bluebird these days.
You mentioned other contractors? It therefore did seem appropriate to mention that the Go North East variation of service 37 is usually operated to a much higher standard than that set by Compass - like I say, the vehicles Go North East allocate always have a destination display and are Euro 5 99% of the time (although this can be in the form of the Sunderland Connect backup or indeed a SimpliCity Versa).
Go North East do have a 'record', but is this not to be expected when you consider the amount of contracts/tendered services they operate compared to the likes of Compass? Perhaps if I have a few minutes tomorrow, I will sort the spreadsheet which aureolin uploaded with Nexus' contracts for 2013/14. Should shed some light on the differences in the amount of contracts, and then give us some numbers to work on for the fines gained in one period.
I really cannot see issues with quality on Go North East's half, but if you can, so be it...
I'd say the non-compliance fines for an operator of GNE's size are worrying, and certainly shouldn't be expected. The expectation should be zero, and I'd be very surprised if someone at exec level isn't targeting at that. I do agree though that 9/10 the non-compliance fine doesn't impact on customer quality.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:14 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]The usual allocation is one of the vans. An enthusiast I talk to actually informs me of when something besides a van turns up, given that it interworks with the evening 8X service and it may be worthy of a photograph.
It is very rare for a Solo to turn up on the 37, the Bluebird used to be the regular until the Cadets were brought in, and ever since, it has seemingly been a van with the odd working being the Bluebird these days.
You mentioned other contractors? It therefore did seem appropriate to mention that the Go North East variation of service 37 is usually operated to a much higher standard than that set by Compass - like I say, the vehicles Go North East allocate always have a destination display and are Euro 5 99% of the time (although this can be in the form of the Sunderland Connect backup or indeed a SimpliCity Versa).
Go North East do have a 'record', but is this not to be expected when you consider the amount of contracts/tendered services they operate compared to the likes of Compass? I really cannot see issues with quality on Go North East's half, but if you can, so be it...
Will have to keep my eyes open next time I pop round to the folks (the 37 is the only bus that serves their estate), with the house in view of the bus stop.
As I say, it tends to be the Bluebird whenever I am round theirs - but if your enthusiast friend says it is the van, so be it...
Mind, I never said there was a quality issue with the GNE allocation to the 37 or any other bus that is allocated to it, commenting on the fact a Solo is the usual allocation...
What I did say, was that they have a record - look at the fines for non-compliance.
I haven't done any maths, but it will be interesting to see fines vs the fleet size/suitable vehicles to see if these smaller independents are as bad as made out.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:20 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]I'd say the non-compliance fines for an operator of GNE's size are worrying, and certainly shouldn't be expected. The expectation should be zero, and I'd be very surprised if someone at exec level isn't targeting at that. I do agree though that 9/10 the non-compliance fine doesn't impact on customer quality.
The expectation should be zero? In an ideal world, perhaps. In reality; vehicles will always break down, there will often be traffic issues, and unforeseen VORs can often lead to depots struggling a lot more than usual (indeed there was one period last year where both of Deptford's "Nexus" branded Solos were VOR for quite some time).
I could be completely wrong, but I'm sure the level of non-compliance fines will be higher for the likes of CCT/GCT when taking into account the number of contracts operated. eezypeazy did mention this in the thread you made originally.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:23 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Will have to keep my eyes open next time I pop round to the folks (the 37 is the only bus that serves their estate), with the house in view of the bus stop.
As I say, it tends to be the Bluebird whenever I am round theirs - but if your enthusiast friend says it is the van, so be it...
Mind, I never said there was a quality issue with the GNE allocation to the 37 or any other bus that is allocated to it, commenting on the fact a Solo is the usual allocation...
What I did say, was that they have a record - look at the fines for non-compliance.
I haven't done any maths, but it will be interesting to see fines vs the fleet size/suitable vehicles to see if these smaller independents are as bad as made out.
I can't do anything other than repeat myself, and as I'm sure you've read my posts, I shan't.
Regarding fleet size - should we not be looking at spare vehicle percentage at each depot (or overall company) opposed to the fleet size in total? I'm not aware of any documents available on the public domain that do allow us to have such information, though
We must remember that Go North East often don't have control over the amount of spare vehicles that they have, as Go-Ahead will set group targets in which operators have to comply. If they set a target of 12% spare vehicles at each depot, Percy Main can't be having 18% whilst a depot for Brighton and Hove is actually meeting the 12% target.
Smaller independents such as CCT do have control over this - their limiting factor is the amount of revenue which they generate. Mind, that's not a great deal, given the amount of fines they get!
(03 Jun 2014, 10:25 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]The expectation should be zero? In an ideal world, perhaps. In reality; vehicles will always break down, there will often be traffic issues, and unforeseen VORs can often lead to depots struggling a lot more than usual (indeed there was one period last year where both of Deptford's "Nexus" branded Solos were VOR for quite some time).
I could be completely wrong, but I'm sure the level of non-compliance fines will be higher for the likes of CCT/GCT when taking into account the number of contracts operated. eezypeazy did mention this in the thread you made originally.
Yes - the internal expectation should be zero.
If you bid for a contract that has an expectation of zero instances of non-compliance (as outlined in ITT documentation), then the contractors own expectation should be no different. As far as Nexus are concerned, the contractor has agreed they can do the work to a required standard. I doubt they could give a monkey's chuff about how many vehicles the contractor has off the road etc. That's the contractors problem, and they should have continuity planning around it.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:35 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]Yes - the internal expectation should be zero.
If you bid for a contract that has an expectation of zero instances of non-compliance (as outlined in ITT documentation), then the contractors own expectation should be no different. As far as Nexus are concerned, the contractor has agreed they can do the work to a required standard. I doubt they could give a monkey's chuff about how many vehicles the contractor has off the road etc. That's the contractors problem, and they should have continuity planning around it.
Wasn't it said that Nexus-secured services have 'optimistic' timings? When those timings are a little less 'optimistic', then perhaps traffic won't be such an issue and operators stand more of a chance of being able to stick to time and/or not have to run light to make up time. Maybe then we can look forward to zero expected instances of fines.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:28 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I can't do anything other than repeat myself, and as I'm sure you've read my posts, I shan't.
Regarding fleet size - should we not be looking at spare vehicle percentage at each depot (or overall company) opposed to the fleet size in total? I'm not aware of any documents available on the public domain that do allow us to have such information, though. We must remember that Go North East often don't have control of this, as Go-Ahead will set group targets in which operators do have to comply. If they set a target of 12% spare vehicles at each depot, Percy Main can't be having 18%...
Not sure what you mean by the first bit of your post or which part of my post you are referring to...
As for the second bit, why spare vehicle percentage?
Genuine question.
Compass spare vehicle allocation will be miniscule compared to say GNE's.
The chances of a Compass spare vehicle meeting Nexus spec is smaller than one of GNE's meeting the spec.
So in theory, each time a Compass vehicle is off the road for whatever reason, the chances of obtaining a fine is greatly increased.
GNE, despite having a bigger fleet within a specific depot and whatever the dedicated percentage of spare vehicles is (of which a percentage will meet Nexus spec), they still manage to incur fines on a regular basis.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:38 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Not sure what you mean by the first bit of your post or which part of my post you are referring to...
As for the second bit, why spare vehicle percentage?
Genuine question.
Compass spare vehicle allocation will be miniscule compared to say GNE's.
The chances of a Compass spare vehicle meeting Nexus spec is smaller than one of GNE's meeting the spec.
So in theory, each time a Compass vehicle is off the road for whatever reason, the chances of obtaining a fine is greatly increased.
GNE, despite having a bigger fleet within a specific depot and whatever the dedicated percentage of spare vehicles is (of which a percentage will meet Nexus spec), they still manage to incur fines on a regular basis.
It's really getting on and as I'm typing all of this from my phone, I'm in no position to start quoting above posts in the middle of this post and all that malarkey.
Using the overall amount of vehicles in the fleet would be a silly figure to go from, in my opinion. When the majority of those vehicles are occupied on normal commercial work or other contracted services, they're not available in the depot for use on the contracted service which requires a vehicle because its usual allocation is VOR.
And if Compass' spare vehicle percentage is miniscule compared to that of the larger operators, why are they being trusted to operate services on behalf of Nexus? Does that not immediately suggest the service quality will be lower, some journeys will be missed due to no vehicles being available, etc?
Great - just what we want. Extra money in Nexus' back pocket because they want to give the contract to the lowest bidder no matter what the quality will be as a result.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:44 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]It's really getting on and as I'm typing all of this from my phone, I'm in no position to start quoting above posts in the middle of this post and all that malarkey.
Using the overall amount of vehicles in the fleet would be a silly figure to go from, in my opinion. When the majority of those vehicles are occupied on normal commercial work or other contracted services, they're not available in the depot for use on the contracted service which requires a vehicle because its usual allocation is VOR.
And if Compass' spare vehicle percentage is miniscule compared to that of the larger operators, why are they being trusted to operate services on behalf of Nexus? Does that not immediately suggest the service quality will be lower, some journeys will be missed due to no vehicles being available, etc?
Great - just what we want. Extra money in Nexus' back pocket because they want to give the contract to the lowest bidder no matter what the quality will be as a result.
Isn't EU law that the tender goes to the lowest bidder? Nexus may love the bid to go to an operator providing a bid which is much higher - they can't if it is the case re EU law. Their hands are tied.
For all we know, Compass have put their bid in, based on a new vehicle arriving in the depot - either on hire or bought outright, for the deal to fall through, the vehicle to suffer mechanical failure or a whole host of other reasons.
Suppose it isn't that different to GNE bidding for a stack of DCC contracts 10yrs ago and having to acquire deckers from all over the shop in order to fulfill the deal.
There were issues with those acquired vehicles and fortunately, alternatives (although extremely unreliable) were available.
(03 Jun 2014, 10:54 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ][NEGATIVE SQUARED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER B]Isn't EU law that the tender goes to the lowest bidder? Nexus may love the bid to go to an operator providing a bid which is much higher - they can't if it is the case re EU law. Their hands are tied.[/b]
For all we know, Compass have put their bid in, based on a new vehicle arriving in the depot - either on hire or bought outright, for the deal to fall through, the vehicle to suffer mechanical failure or a whole host of other reasons.
Suppose it isn't that different to GNE bidding for a stack of DCC contracts 10yrs ago and having to acquire deckers from all over the shop in order to fulfill the deal.
There were issues with those acquired vehicles and fortunately, alternatives (although extremely unreliable) were available.
I personally hadn't realised that? Does seem like quite a silly law unless you know the reasoning behind it..?
(04 Jun 2014, 5:50 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]I personally hadn't realised that? Does seem like quite a silly law unless you know the reasoning behind it..?
Neither did I, until seeing it on here and hearing about it elsewhere.
Presumably the aim is to increase competition in the private sector, whilst lowering costs in the public sector.
Get your teeth around this:
http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-386-8761?se...blicsector#
(04 Jun 2014, 6:15 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Neither did I, until seeing it on here and hearing about it elsewhere.
Presumably the aim is to increase competition in the private sector, whilst lowering costs in the public sector.
Get your teeth around this: http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-386-8761?se...blicsector#
Ta - will have a look later when I'm back on the laptop and more awake!
(04 Jun 2014, 6:15 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Neither did I, until seeing it on here and hearing about it elsewhere.
Presumably the aim is to increase competition in the private sector, whilst lowering costs in the public sector.
Get your teeth around this: http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-386-8761?se...blicsector#
Out of interest, do you know if this differs in London?
The results of all tender competitions are published on the TfL website, including the identity of the winner, the number of bids, the value of the winning bid and, where relevant, the reason for not selecting the lowest cost bid.
Source:
http://sti-india-uttoolkit.adb.org/mod3/se3/005_2.html
Judging by the above quote, the lowest cost bid is not always selected by TfL.
(04 Jun 2014, 4:21 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Out of interest, do you know if this differs in London?
Source: http://sti-india-uttoolkit.adb.org/mod3/se3/005_2.html
Judging by the above quote, the lowest cost bid is not always selected by TfL.
No idea, but presuming Tfl follow EU legislation, it will fall under the MEAT evaluation.
There is mention of it in that link I gave you earlier, but in summary:
Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) approach
A balance between quality and cost
Once an authority has determined that it is appropriate to use the MEAT approach to evaluate the tenders for its procurement, it needs to decide the weighting split between quality and price (or cost). In a MEAT evaluation, the quality and price scores are converted into percentages in accordance with the pre-set weightings to create a combined score that should identify the successful bidder.