(10 Sep 2013, 1:19 pm)aureolin wrote First time I've seen this, but it certainly answers questions of why Network One tickets aren't competitive when compared with corporate season tickets from the big three. Stagecoach + Go North East alone own 52.22% of shares. If Stagecoach and Go North East agree on something as a coalition, such as pricing structure, then no other coalition of share holders can match that controlling stake of 52.22%. They're not daft are they.

(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy wrote The shareholdings are based simply on each participating operator's share of the market in Tyne and Wear, and is the basis on which the revenue from NTL is divided. The Metro share is held by Nexus, who also have a share in respect of the Ferry. A Line is, to the best of my knowledge, the only small operator in Tyne and Wear with a commercial service. The implication is that NTL tickets are not valid on the seasonal Wright Bros service or the 131 Jedburgh service for journeys wholly within Tyne and Wear.

I would imagine that if a new operator was to start a service between, say, Fencehouses and Newcastle, competition law would mean that he would be able to join NTL and be given a shareholding commensurate with his share of the NTL market (assuming he accepted NTL tickets and sold Day Rovers and Transfares if appropriate).

So it shouldn't be a surprise that Metro and Go North East take the lion's share of NTL revenue, as the nature of their operations are going to be more suited to multi-modal journeys. It would be interesting to know what the Ferry's split of the PTE's holding amounts to.

(10 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm)eezypeazy wrote The shareholdings are based simply on each participating operator's share of the market in Tyne and Wear, and is the basis on which the revenue from NTL is divided. The Metro share is held by Nexus, who also have a share in respect of the Ferry. A Line is, to the best of my knowledge, the only small operator in Tyne and Wear with a commercial service. The implication is that NTL tickets are not valid on the seasonal Wright Bros service or the 131 Jedburgh service for journeys wholly within Tyne and Wear.

I would imagine that if a new operator was to start a service between, say, Fencehouses and Newcastle, competition law would mean that he would be able to join NTL and be given a shareholding commensurate with his share of the NTL market (assuming he accepted NTL tickets and sold Day Rovers and Transfares if appropriate).

So it shouldn't be a surprise that Metro and Go North East take the lion's share of NTL revenue, as the nature of their operations are going to be more suited to multi-modal journeys. It would be interesting to know what the Ferry's split of the PTE's holding amounts to.

(10 Sep 2013, 2:14 pm)aureolin wrote Shareholdings of NTL and the share of NTL revenue taken are two completely separate things though. Your shareholding stake in a limited company gives you voting powers. Your share of NTL revenue doesn't give you anything but hard cash.

Regarding the Fencehouses example (it's funny how that keeps cropping up ). It's a private limited company with share capital. As such, the company cannot be forced to sell shares to the new operator. Not even anti-competitive laws would dictate this. As a company director for a limited company, I'm actually contractually bound to offer any shares I wish to sell to other shareholders, prior to offering them to a 3rd party. This is not uncommon practice.

(10 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm)eezypeazy wrote Re Arriva's share: Correct, but that would be their share of the total market, including Metro. I doubt that the Hexham/Ashington swap had much of an effect, as what they lost in the Tyne Valley (four buses per hour?) they probably gained on the Ashington corridor; and GNE combined it into their operations, effectively reducing some overbussing between Crawcrook and Newcastle (or 'drastically reducing service levels', if you're a glass half empty person!).

In many respects, you could trace Arriva's lower market share back to the Metro Integration period in about 1982/3, when United (as was) gave up their share of Newcastle-Throckley/West Denton/Chapel House/Heddon and Newcastle-Newbiggin Hall to the PTE's buses, in exchange for being the sole operator on the Newcastle-Tynemouth service (previously shared by PTE, Tynemouth and Wakefield's). Or further back - swapping their Newcastle-High Spen for Venture's Prudhoe Town Service in 1969. Or even further back - swapping their share of Newcastle-Darras Hall for the Corporation's Newcastle-Branch End back in the 1930's. Taking the longer perspective, you could draw the conclusion that, at various times, their management made the wrong decisions. If the swaps had gone the other way, they might today be a major operator in outer west Newcastle.

(10 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm)eezypeazy wrote NTL is different. It's merely a Competition Act-compliant method of offering multi-modal, multi-operator ticketing. If the scheme was not open to participation by any and all operators, it would not meet the competition requirements of various Transport Acts and the Competition Act (and its special multi-operator ticketing arrangements) and would be declared illegal. Without knowing the articles of association of NTL, I can't claim this to be the gospel truth, but I'm fairly certain that's how it works.

(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy wrote Yes, A1 Buses will be able to join NTL and share in the revenue. After your Fencehouses service is successfully established, you might want to try a service into Sunderland, thereby increasing your NTL revenue share. Let's say that you then build up a successful operation via Washington and Heworth to Newcastle and all is going well and that A Line want to sell to you and you want to buy them. You'll need to be careful at this stage - if you want to buy a neighbouring operation, you might find yourself referred to the Competition Commission. You'll need to declare your hand to the CC fairly early on in the negotiations, ie., before A Line tell you about their costs, margins, and fares, because such talk might breach competition law. Then the CC might block the deal if they rule that it would lead to a decrease in the amount of competition in the area....

Better idea: just start a taxi operation, there's far less regulation!

(10 Sep 2013, 3:03 pm)eezypeazy wrote Yes, A1 Buses will be able to join NTL and share in the revenue. After your Fencehouses service is successfully established, you might want to try a service into Sunderland, thereby increasing your NTL revenue share. Let's say that you then build up a successful operation via Washington and Heworth to Newcastle and all is going well and that A Line want to sell to you and you want to buy them. You'll need to be careful at this stage - if you want to buy a neighbouring operation, you might find yourself referred to the Competition Commission. You'll need to declare your hand to the CC fairly early on in the negotiations, ie., before A Line tell you about their costs, margins, and fares, because such talk might breach competition law. Then the CC might block the deal if they rule that it would lead to a decrease in the amount of competition in the area....

Better idea: just start a taxi operation, there's far less regulation!

(10 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm)eezypeazy wrote AFAIK, it's not a question of "buying" NTL shares. NTL is simply a way of dividing up the revenue between scheme participants based on market share (however that is measured). In all probability, A1 Buses will help to grow the total market, so there'll be more NTL revenue to go round, but there's a risk - say, for example, everyone on all your buses every morning buys from you a T&W Day Rover ticket, and shows it on their return. You've got the revenue from the morning, and you record the ticket use in the afternoon. BUT let's say that they all use each Day Rover on two other operators' buses, and they record the use of the ticket. You therefore owe the other operators a share of your NTL takings for the ticket use. So, you've banked the cash, but you also have a liability to NTL. Equally, when you accept a Day Rover sold elsewhere, you're clocking up an NTL credit.

My understanding of such schemes is that, at the end of a given accounting period, there will be some sort of declaration of takings and usage and an appropriate division of the proceeds. In some periods you might gain, or you might find you owe money to the scheme.

I'm guessing, but I'd bet that the NTL 'assets' and 'liabilities' relate entirely to cash waiting to be reconciled.

(10 Sep 2013, 3:15 pm)eezypeazy wrote Aureolin - without sight of the Articles of Association, we're going to continue this "oh yes they would - oh no they wouldn't" discussion.

The DfT Guidance documents on setting up such schemes are here.

If (for example) National Express decided to set up a local bus network in the Fencehouses/Sunderland/South Shields/Washington/East Gateshead/Newcastle area, they would be able to join NTL and NTL would have to welcome them to the scheme... otherwise, the NTL directors could be found in Durham Jail!

(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy wrote As Far As I Know

AFAIK, each NTL participant holds shares in accordance with their market share... a new operator cannot be barred from joining NTL because that would be anti-competitive... At the date of joining, the shareholding would be amended accordingly, revenue divvied up amongst the previous shareholders the day before... if any scheme members' share of the market changes, their share of the revenue changes. So, for example, a Metro extension to Washington would almost inevitably see the PTE's share increase and GNE's fall (excluding the effect of new market generation).

NTL is a limited company, but I'd guess that the 'shares' are nominal and can't be bought and sold. And I haven't added them up, but are there 100 shares by any chance?

It really is very, very simple!

(But I still think taxis would be a safer option!)

(10 Sep 2013, 3:58 pm)eezypeazy wrote NTL is a limited company, but I'd guess that the 'shares' are nominal and can't be bought and sold. And I haven't added them up, but are there 100 shares by any chance?

(10 Sep 2013, 4:14 pm)aureolin wrote 1034 shares in total valued at £1 per share, giving of course a total share capital of £1,034. It's a strange number, and what I don't understand is that if it's a partnership, why isn't every 'invitee' just sold a single share valued at £1?

(10 Sep 2013, 4:32 pm)eezypeazy wrote Because it's only a mechanism for dividing up revenue from a multi-modal, multi-operator ticketing scheme by market share... nothing more, nothing less...

What's difficult to understand about that?

(12 Sep 2013, 8:07 pm)Andreos1 wrote Just a thought, based on eezypeazy's suggestion that the Network Ticketing shares are divided out to members, based on the % of the market share they have.

I wonder if this is this decided annually or more often?

(12 Sep 2013, 8:29 pm)busman101 wrote The shares in NTL remain the same as far as I know and the revenue is apportioned on usage across the partner operators - so if a new operator came into local bus operation and wanted to accept NTL tickets then they would get their share of the revenue pot rather than a share of the company

(12 Sep 2013, 8:29 pm)busman101 wrote The shares in NTL remain the same as far as I know and the revenue is apportioned on usage across the partner operators - so if a new operator came into local bus operation and wanted to accept NTL tickets then they would get their share of the revenue pot rather than a share of the company

(12 Sep 2013, 8:50 pm)aureolin wrote That was my argument, which was apparently incorrect. From what I've seen now I'd say it works exactly how eezypeazy described.

if any scheme members' share of the
market changes, their share of the revenue
changes. So, for example, a Metro extension to
Washington would almost inevitably see the
PTE's share increase and GNE's fall