(13 May 2014, 5:45 pm)aureolin wrote We've discussed Nexus imposed fines for non compliance over and over. I do now have a whole bunch of information though, so it probably justifies it's own thread. All information below is in rich text format.

(13 May 2014, 5:47 pm)Dan wrote Period 1 of 2013/14...

Compass Community Transport MC 7105 £1,079.52 0.43 11

Shock.

(13 May 2014, 6:11 pm)aureolin wrote Yep there's certainly no surprises there!

GNE seem to be the worst offenders by a country mile in terms of lost mileage.

(13 May 2014, 8:01 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Being one of the biggest contractors, you would assume they have the most resources.
If they cant cope with a couple of contracts now, I dread to think how they would manage under a QCS scheme!

(13 May 2014, 8:38 pm)tyresmoke wrote Depends if there's any incentives! If you're going to cover the mileage with a non compliant vehicle (which you'd then get fined for anyway, I assume?) then why bother when it's easier just to lose the mileage.

(13 May 2014, 8:01 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Being one of the biggest contractors, you would assume they have the most resources.
If they cant cope with a couple of contracts now, I dread to think how they would manage under a QCS scheme!

(14 May 2014, 5:27 am)Dan wrote Being one of the biggest contractors, you'd also expect the largest number of penalties to be given to Go North East.
I'd assume that Compass Community Transport and Gateshead Central Taxis were actually in the worst position on that table given their huge fines each period for four or five contracts.

Go North East know they'll receive a penalty for lost mileage and/or incorrect vehicle type, but it still happens - despite, as you say, the company having the most resources out of all of the Tyne & Wear bus operators. I think that in itself suggests that operators need more flexibility - ridiculous demands are set for some of these contracts (i.e. Euro 5). I appreciate that's the contract GNE have agreed to just like I've agreed to paying for Sky for 18 months or whatever, but the penalty totals are overwhelming. You'd wonder if the smaller companies on the table were actually making any money from these contracts or not...

Is the 'Uniform Irregularity' column to do with the livery of vehicles? If so, I'd hate to see that filled in...

(14 May 2014, 5:44 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote A company the size of GNE, (with the legal team and experts in contract terms & conditions) will have studied the demands prior to signing and carried out some form of due diligence.
They will have known fine well what resources (both vehicles and staffing) were in place before agreeing to the contract and the punishments for not adhering to those terms.
If at any point they felt the company did not have the resources or felt the terms were unfair, then they could have walked away and not entered into agreement with Nexus.
Despite all of that, they signed and agreed to the terms and conditions.

Nobody held a gun to GNE's head - nor did they with any of the other operators.

(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?

(14 May 2014, 5:56 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote 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.

(14 May 2014, 6:06 am)Dan wrote I'll go back to some of the points I raised in my post in an edit before you saw it...

Nexus creates a contract with requirements that one could argue are completely unnecessary, and an operator agrees to those terms for the simple fact that they probably need the work. For smaller operators such as Compass Community Transport (did we discuss that CCT is a charity or have I just made that up?), this is likely to be quite a big chunk of work but they still want to make a bit of profit as any business would, so they go for it.

The contract they've won for a service has timings which are difficult to stick to - this leads to delays almost every day - but this smaller operator realises that, if they incur lost mileage to make up time, they will receive a penalty. As such, their hands are tied, and customers are inconvenienced by the delay which grows increasingly throughout the day.

The operator realises one morning that the vehicle that they usually allocate is unable to go out on the road that day, and their backup vehicle is also VOR. The operator is forced to either send out a vehicle which does not comply with the contract which they signed OR they can loan a vehicle from another operator (Kinglsey's did this with an E200 of A-Line's just a few days ago for service 33). Either way, they're out of pocket. Less profit is made.

Less profit is made - this happens regularly and amounts to over £1000 each month. This smaller operator sees a new contract coming up and it's a good opportunity for their company to grow and expand, as well as the company seeing opportunities for increased profit levels. However, because they've incurred £1000 penalties each month, they can't afford a new bus for the contract.

They can't afford a new bus for the contract, and the bigger operator gets the contract. It's a dog eat dog world...

(14 May 2014, 6:13 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Kingsleys also had an A-line Dart out on scholars work the other day.
The contract is usually operated by a decker.

There may have been fines, but the kids got to school - just as the oap's were able to get their pension after Compass stuck an alternative on or commuters/people going on a break managed to travel on East Coast with the borrowed East Midlands HST set.
Fines, rental costs or whatever else incurred may make a dent in profits, but good will and customer satisfaction is maintained.

Aye, Compass is a charity.

(14 May 2014, 6:20 am)Dan wrote Apart from when the bus runs late continuously!

I think it's Go North East's Q2 that I've heard drivers complaining about. As soon as you arrive into Haymarket, you're back out again trying to make up time... A never-ending cycle.

We've seen operators review punctuality issues by increasing layover time and interworking two services (recent example being GNE's X35/X36) and other changes which often mean that the PVR of a service goes up by one. Can't recall the last time I saw a Nexus contract change so that timings were made more manageable and the PVR increased by one? More expensive for Nexus, but would ensure customer satisfaction is maintained...

Unless you can come up with an example or two, it seems operators who agree to these contracts are seeing falling profit levels and trying to maintain customer satisfaction, but the parties behind the contracts aren't doing their bit...!

(14 May 2014, 10:42 am)gtom wrote Compass turned over £1m at the last accounts filing (it spent £970k)

Its own assets are around £240k

Still small fry compared to GNE mind

(14 May 2014, 1:31 pm)eezypeazy wrote Aren't we jumping to conclusions with only part of the picture, though?

Surely to properly understand how each operator is performing, don't we need to know the total number of contracts each holds, and the mileage and PVR relating to each one? And wouldn't an explanation for each failure to perform to the letter of the contract also complete the picture?

(14 May 2014, 1:44 pm)aureolin wrote There's a list elsewhere on the forum, which was also provided by Nexus. It indicates all fully or partially secured services, as well as anything else contracted out. I'll link that when I get home.