(30 Jun 2020, 1:16 pm)Big O wrote Well, some of those services are not much better, they're unprofessionally run with terrible terrible vehicles, buses often miss out sections of the route, the list goes on. I agree the big three should be using some of their profits to run routes at night, and maybe stepping away from high-spec buses to trim costs could help. But the fact still remains the stand in operator(s) are terrible and are not apt to run a service..

(01 Jul 2020, 1:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote These independents aren't unique in missing out sections. Whether authorised by control for 'operational reasons' or not, I've more than one experience as a passenger of seeing one of the bigger boys miss sections of the route.

I'm not sure that would suddenly stop, should the bigger boys decide to operate these services commercially, rather than the taxpayer fund it. 
One positive of a contracted service not running or operating, is the potential for financial clawback. Would that be the case with say GNE and a commercial service?

What might be a 'terrible, terrible vehicle' to you or others, is a lifeline to those living on the route. Dunno about you, but I'd rather a 'terrible, terrible vehicle' rock up, than nothing at all.

(01 Jul 2020, 1:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote These independents aren't unique in missing out sections. Whether authorised by control for 'operational reasons' or not, I've more than one experience as a passenger of seeing one of the bigger boys miss sections of the route.

I'm not sure that would suddenly stop, should the bigger boys decide to operate these services commercially, rather than the taxpayer fund it. 
One positive of a contracted service not running or operating, is the potential for financial clawback. Would that be the case with say GNE and a commercial service?

What might be a 'terrible, terrible vehicle' to you or others, is a lifeline to those living on the route. Dunno about you, but I'd rather a 'terrible, terrible vehicle' rock up, than nothing at all.

(01 Jul 2020, 1:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote These independents aren't unique in missing out sections. Whether authorised by control for 'operational reasons' or not, I've more than one experience as a passenger of seeing one of the bigger boys miss sections of the route.

I'm not sure that would suddenly stop, should the bigger boys decide to operate these services commercially, rather than the taxpayer fund it. 
One positive of a contracted service not running or operating, is the potential for financial clawback. Would that be the case with say GNE and a commercial service?

What might be a 'terrible, terrible vehicle' to you or others, is a lifeline to those living on the route. Dunno about you, but I'd rather a 'terrible, terrible vehicle' rock up, than nothing at all.

(01 Jul 2020, 7:43 pm)Big O wrote A lifeline they still pay for...It's not free even if it is advertised as free. You pay somehow whether through council tax or whatever other means. If it were free then you couldn't complain.

With regards to me, when waiting at a bus stop, I'd like a bus to show up to run the bus route. Not a greenhouse or freezer dependent on the season. 

I do like the tendered services, coming from London I prefer that model, but if the contracted company isn't all that great and make a decent return which doesn't seem to be reinvested into the business, then why not stop awarding them these services. As I said Stanley Travel look like a fantastic company with a very professional image, I would love it if they had the majority of the tendered services. Another is A-Line. I'm all for the small firms if they actually do as they're supposed to.

(02 Jul 2020, 10:19 am)Andreos1 wrote I'm not sure what you mean by 'free'.

The greenhouse/freezer situation you describe isn't unique to these independents, just as missing out sections of the route isn't.

Streetlites aren't my favourite vehicles and they're often like greenhouses in the summer. The need to add an extra opening window to a batch post-delivery emphasises the design-flaw of them. The pleather seats aren't comfortable during the hot weather and can be just as uncomfortable in the colder months. 
Does that mean they're not suitable, like the vehicles you mention? 
Sitting towards the rear of the downstairs saloon on a B9 is painful in the warm weather due to the heat thrown out by the engine. Sitting above the driver in the winter is horrendous due to the whistling and wind blowing through. Does that mean they're not suitable?

(03 Jul 2020, 1:01 pm)Big O wrote On the other vehicles, there is climate control or effective ventilation to a degree. I know what it's like downstairs on a B9 due to the heat thrown out on the engine, but you have the ability to move around if you find it unbearable. Likewise, with sitting on top of the driver, you can move around, there is plenty of space too. Where do you move to on one of those Mellors, you move from one uncomfortable seat to another. 

The E-leather seats on the Streelites are operator spec, so not quite sure where you're going with that one...

There is no denying it, those Mellors are absolutely rubbish, they're a cheap and nasty way of running a service with no incentive for the passenger. The opening windows are of little effect due to their design, they have awful ride quality, the seats specified show there is no thought process there, the pitch of the seats and space between them shows off how poor a design they are; its either they're not meant to have that many seats in them or they're all just incorrectly fitted.

(06 Jul 2020, 3:09 pm)Andreos1 wrote If they're incorrectly fitted or there's too many seats in, then I'm surprised it hasn't been picked up on any DVSA checks.
I'm not 100% sure if Mellor meet NSSTA requirements or not, but again I would have thought the seating arrangements would have been checked at some point.

As I said previously, a bus (regardless of type or size) is better than no bus - particularly when the big boys don't see enough profit in it.
Just look at Hartlepool. I'd guess they would be over the moon to see one of these Mellor's rock up on an evening than the buses they have on an evening currently...

(06 Jul 2020, 6:02 pm)Storx wrote I haven't been on those Mellor's but they really remind of a modern version of the Vario's Arriva used to have which used to be erm interesting as an understatement. Surely they can't be 'that' bad.

(06 Jul 2020, 7:46 pm)Andreos1 wrote I can't remember using the Vario to be honest.
However, like the Tucana - the Strata does its job. It fills a gap that would otherwise be left.
If the Tucana was good enough for TFL...

(06 Jul 2020, 7:46 pm)Andreos1 wrote I can't remember using the Vario to be honest.
However, like the Tucana - the Strata does its job. It fills a gap that would otherwise be left.
If the Tucana was good enough for TFL...

(06 Jul 2020, 8:34 pm)Big O wrote The Tucana is used on specialised routes, for people who have mobility issues and not on your route to town...

(06 Jul 2020, 8:53 pm)Andreos1 wrote What about the ones used by GCT?

(07 Jul 2020, 12:44 pm)Big O wrote I'm, sure you know what I mean, but routes such as the 335 until very recently, which is a busy one.  The 319 similarly, the 13 at times can be very busy. I'm not sure if you get my drift but I'll be ending the discussion right here.

(07 Jul 2020, 3:19 pm)Andreos1 wrote I don't know what you mean. 
If the likes of the 319 are busy and loadings are tight, then GCT could allocate a bigger vehicle or Nexus can insist on one next time the contract is up for renewal. 

You mentioned the independents missing sections of route out previously. As confirmed by others, it goes on with commercial services too. Either way it's unacceptable, but something that franchising can help remove or at least reduce by financial clawbacks. 

The fact is, these smaller buses are being used on routes abandoned by the bigger boys. 
Hartlepool have nowt. Do you want T&W to go down the same route or do you want people to have a lifeline service (all be it with a smaller vehicle)?

These smaller vehicles seem to be making a comeback (or they were prior to social distancing). Whether they're better than the bread-vans which came about after de-reg is another thing.
Whether it's dial a ride type services or contracted, they're allowing operators to cover areas that would otherwise have been left alone. In some cases, it has created enough demand to increase the vehicle size.

I'm all for re-regulation, but feel that contracted/franchised services is a better alternative to the some of the defragmented messes we see now. Particularly when it comes to benefiting the taxpayer.

(07 Jul 2020, 8:19 pm)tyresmoke wrote Totally agree with Andreos here... be careful what you wish for! Let's give an example using completely fictitious numbers...

Lets suppose you're tendering for a bunch of services, and you have £1 million to spend, with 10 services to cover. If prices come back at £120000 for a big bus on 10 services, or £100000 with a minibus being used. 
Do you take the bids for a minibus at a total cost of £1m and cover all 10 services or use your £1m to cover 8 of them with big buses... then decide which two are you going to drop as you've got no money left?...

(07 Jul 2020, 3:19 pm)Andreos1 wrote I don't know what you mean. 
If the likes of the 319 are busy and loadings are tight, then GCT could allocate a bigger vehicle or Nexus can insist on one next time the contract is up for renewal. 

You mentioned the independents missing sections of route out previously. As confirmed by others, it goes on with commercial services too. Either way it's unacceptable, but something that franchising can help remove or at least reduce by financial clawbacks. 

The fact is, these smaller buses are being used on routes abandoned by the bigger boys. 
Hartlepool have nowt. Do you want T&W to go down the same route or do you want people to have a lifeline service (all be it with a smaller vehicle)?

These smaller vehicles seem to be making a comeback (or they were prior to social distancing). Whether they're better than the bread-vans which came about after de-reg is another thing.
Whether it's dial a ride type services or contracted, they're allowing operators to cover areas that would otherwise have been left alone. In some cases, it has created enough demand to increase the vehicle size.

I'm all for re-regulation, but feel that contracted/franchised services is a better alternative to the some of the defragmented messes we see now. Particularly when it comes to benefiting the taxpayer.

(08 Jul 2020, 11:24 am)Big O wrote The used bus market offers a chance to pick up similarly sized midi-buses, only a few years old, that may use more in terms of diesel but offer a better quality throughout the life of the contract than the Mellors. The Mellors offer a false economy and are completely knackered after their contract.  Whereas a properly maintained E200 could be used over the span of two or three contracts.  

 Not every route can use midibuses, such as the K2 due to its Sharon Close section, however better planning by Nexus could see the withdrawal and joining of some services together to ensure they are not paying for 2 contacts when they could pay for 1. Sending the 335 to Killingworth replacing the K2 in part is something I think could be beneficial and create a through-link from Quorum to Killingworth and without the need to change at Four Lane Ends.

(09 Jul 2020, 11:17 am)Storx wrote I never understand why Nexus don't just start their own little network, I know the upfront costs will be a bit more but over time it'll surely pay for itself.

Could easily work like.

Mon - Fri:
W1 Morning to early evening -> runs onto 11 at night
W3 Morning to early evening -> runs onto 19 at night
Then have some deckers / full singles around which run the likes of commuter services and school bus runs which should work together that then run the extra evening services such as the 41 and 42 and 59 and K2 etc inbetween.

Sat - Sun:
Metro Replacement + Unprofitable Services

Better than spending money on tendering and giving money to other people to run it as basic as they possibly can and also don't have to spend money on Metro Replacements every weekend.

(09 Jul 2020, 11:25 am)cbma06 wrote I don’t think Nexus should be running anything, I think Go-Ahead Group should have a go and purchase the Metro system from DB (Stagecoach runs the tram services in Sheffield). DB are running everything into the ground and have a bowl out for cash handouts and grants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09 Jul 2020, 11:25 am)cbma06 wrote I don’t think Nexus should be running anything, I think Go-Ahead Group should have a go and purchase the Metro system from DB (Stagecoach runs the tram services in Sheffield). DB are running everything into the ground and have a bowl out for cash handouts and grants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09 Jul 2020, 12:08 pm)Big O wrote Not sure if you have insider information but what DB does, is not illegal or explicit...I can't imagine British companies based abroad sending money to any other country but Britain, so what's the problem when DB do it? Having worked for DB, they're not a bad firm at all, the administration could be a bit better than it is now, but they are by no means a terrible company and in fact, the Chiltern Railways franchise is probably the best in the land. I'm not fond of Grand Central but I think things will change once the 180s are ridden of. 

Also, I'm sure DB does not own the Metro System.

(09 Jul 2020, 12:12 pm)tyresmoke wrote Nexus run the Metro system, plain and simple. They tried to franchise it out (for want of a better word) to DB which lasted a few years before they took it back in house 2-3 years ago. DB have no involvement in Metro.

(11 Jul 2020, 1:14 am)Big O wrote I never suggested they did...was only answering the post in question. 

(11 Jul 2020, 6:56 am)tyresmoke wrote Aye it was cbma06 who was suggesting DB were still involved despite them having left the scene years ago. Nexus only tried to use them as a scapegoat anyway in my opinion then had no choice but to take it back in house from public pressure, or that was the impression I got. It’s hardly been a glowing operation since then, which suggests the fundamental basics of operating it just aren’t where they’re meant to be, regardless of who is the public face operating it.

(11 Jul 2020, 10:07 am)Andreos1 wrote There was a raft of funding available from central government, the conditions attached to it meant that the day to day running had to be franchised out. 
DB got it for a couple of years, Nexus got the funding and then the contract ran out. 

That's essentially it. 

I don't think Nexus wanted to do it that way and got out as soon as they could - after getting the funding.

(11 Jul 2020, 10:55 am)tyresmoke wrote Ah right! Wasn't aware of that. Makes sense though