(14 May 2014, 5:48 am)Dan wrote I did point that out myself (albeit in fewer words) but do you not think that ensuring a vehicle has the correct minimum number of seats, correct Euro status, all that jazz, is a bit OTT? Especially when you receive a penalty when you don't abide by those conditions out of matters which are perhaps out of the company's hands?
The folk who only have a Nexus-secured route as their only bus service wouldn't really care about a bus being Euro 5 and a bus having more than x amount of seats - assuming they got to sit down themselves...

How are smaller operators (such as Compass and GCT) expected to finance new vehicles to allow them to bid for more contracts (which are likely to have higher requirements) if they're constantly being fined >£1k every month?

Whether it is over the top or not, I go back to the original point - the terms were in black and white and the operators have read and agreed to those terms.

If the operators felt the terms were over the top, not necessary or whatever else, then they are in the position to voice their concerns and bring Nexus back to reality or not bother signing the agreement in the first place.

There must be some money in it for the operators, despite the hefty fines - if there wasn't, then Nexus would have a load of contracts that wouldn't be touched with a barge pole and left sitting un-signed.

edit: Just to add to your point on the ANE/Nexus bus - I was on one early last Bank Hol Monday. It was 15mins late by the second run of the morning.

No idea if it was dropped out to make up time, but it was on time later that afternoon.

Drivers say that Nexus timetables are tight. Drivers also say GNE and ANE timetables are tight