(Yesterday, 9:12 pm)Andreos1 wrote They've had long enough to make a positive impact on the paying public, adapt networks and grow numbers. 
I'd argue they've failed at each one of them.

---

Prior to 86, the TWPTE network did what it needed to do, provided a service and only covered a proportion of the equivalent NECA area.
Commercial/nationalised operations worked alongside it and offered an alternative.
Think of the limited stop 72x series on Durham Road vs the slower 2x alternatives.

Those on longer journeys supplemented the lack of shorter hops and got a quicker trip. 

Northern/United saw a gap and it worked for them.

I can't see why the network can't adapt and move with the times 40 odd years on this time.

The Passenger Transport Executive certainly knew how to create a network of buses and run it. When feeling sentimental, I often look at the copies of the early PTE timetable booklets, and marvel at how we used to travel.

(Yesterday, 9:33 pm)Adrian wrote It's not as simple as that either. Those services are very likely going to have to apply for service permits to run into the franchising area, and part of that is retailing and accepting NECA fares within that area. This happens within the Bee Network for some of Transdev's stuff especially - the X41/X43 spring to mind. 

I don't think it's clear cut with any of the services you mention though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of them operate for 50% or more of the mileage in the NECA area. The X12 for example is about 3/4 in the NECA area, so it's well within their gift to run their own service and decline a service permit for the commercially operated service. They would just have to register the service parallel with the traffic commissioner, so that the route into Stockton and Middlesbrough is covered.

For all of them, it’s above 75% of mileage, and 7/8A/X12 aside would be rather difficult to run without depots being opened where I’ve suggested. It’s certainly going to be a challenge for NECA and it’ll be interesting to see how they play it out although my money is on service permits being granted and operate under similar rulings to those found with Bee Network on the various routes into the Manchester region

As much as I'd like to see the scheme be successful, I have my doubts as the current Director of Transport at NECA was the MD at Nexus at the time of QCS and the current MD of Nexus was the lead officer for QCS at the time at Nexus.

I'm sure it will go swimmingly

(Yesterday, 9:40 pm)220631612 wrote For all of them, it’s above 75% of mileage, and 7/8A/X12 aside would be rather difficult to run without depots being opened where I’ve suggested. It’s certainly going to be a challenge for NECA and it’ll be interesting to see how they play it out although my money is on service permits being granted and operate under similar rulings to those found with Bee Network on the various routes into the Manchester region

I suppose that raises another question, and whether for the 25% or so mileage that remains unregulated, whether they see it as being commercially viable for them. 

Unless they do something completely different, then the service permit will be subject to selling and accepting NECA fares within the franchised area.

I don't think it'll be that difficult to run any of those as franchised services, depending on how they are allocated to lots. For me it'd make sense to stick some of them into smaller lots, allowing independents to bid for and win the work.

(Yesterday, 10:08 pm)Adrian wrote I suppose that raises another question, and whether for the 25% or so mileage that remains unregulated, whether they see it as being commercially viable for them. 

Unless they do something completely different, then the service permit will be subject to selling and accepting NECA fares within the franchised area.

I don't think it'll be that difficult to run any of those as franchised services, depending on how they are allocated to lots. For me it'd make sense to stick some of them into smaller lots, allowing independents to bid for and win the work.

imo if they don't get to keep some of the services it would be a disaster for Darlington.

Darlington depot would be looking a very weak depot if they're left with the town services and the X66/X67 only. There's only way that would be going and the fact they've chosen to electrify it I'd assume they're expecting to keep most of the work long term aswell.

(Yesterday, 10:20 pm)Storx wrote imo if they don't get to keep some of the services it would be a disaster for Darlington.

Darlington depot would be looking a very weak depot if they're left with the town services and the X66/X67 only. There's only way that would be going and the fact they've chosen to electrify it I'd assume they're expecting to keep most of the work long term aswell.

As harsh as it sounds, NECA are going to be tasked with doing what works best for people who live in the communities served by those cross-border routes, as oppose to what's in the best interests of a commercial operator. The finer detail should be in the scheme that we're yet to see, but I can't see the Durham leaders accepting a two-tier system which sees their residents paying more than elsewhere on the network.

I don't know a lot of these areas well enough to comment, but the Sedgefield <-> Stockton link I know is important. I suspect it's the same for Bishop Auckland and Shildon into Darlington.

I think a better example of where a service permit would be more appropriate, may be something like the 685. Roughly 50/50 of what will be within the NECA franchising area and what won't be.

(10 hours ago)Adrian wrote As harsh as it sounds, NECA are going to be tasked with doing what works best for people who live in the communities served by those cross-border routes, as oppose to what's in the best interests of a commercial operator. The finer detail should be in the scheme that we're yet to see, but I can't see the Durham leaders accepting a two-tier system which sees their residents paying more than elsewhere on the network.

I don't know a lot of these areas well enough to comment, but the Sedgefield <-> Stockton link I know is important. I suspect it's the same for Bishop Auckland and Shildon into Darlington.

I think a better example of where a service permit would be more appropriate, may be something like the 685. Roughly 50/50 of what will be within the NECA franchising area and what won't be.

Let’s hope they consider these links and sorts of arrangements not take the simple solution such as cutting the 685 at the border point! Let’s hope this is something that’s considered and a solution is forthcoming

(10 hours ago)Adrian wrote As harsh as it sounds, NECA are going to be tasked with doing what works best for people who live in the communities served by those cross-border routes, as oppose to what's in the best interests of a commercial operator. The finer detail should be in the scheme that we're yet to see, but I can't see the Durham leaders accepting a two-tier system which sees their residents paying more than elsewhere on the network.

I don't know a lot of these areas well enough to comment, but the Sedgefield <-> Stockton link I know is important. I suspect it's the same for Bishop Auckland and Shildon into Darlington.

I think a better example of where a service permit would be more appropriate, may be something like the 685. Roughly 50/50 of what will be within the NECA franchising area and what won't be.

So all routes which operate inside and outside the franchised area will require a permit? The 685 will continue to be operated by Stagecoach, but will need a permit? Nothing else changes on those routes as they won't be franchised?, so will presumably operate in their own livery?

On the subject of cross-border services, the Peter Hogg X74 BSIP funding was for 3 years when it replaced the 131/808 in January 2024, does this mean it could potentially be withdrawn in January next year?

(10 hours ago)OrangeArrow49 wrote So all routes which operate inside and outside the franchised area will require a permit? The 685 will continue to be operated by Stagecoach, but will need a permit? Nothing else changes on those routes as they won't be franchised?, so will presumably operate in their own livery?

On the subject of cross-border services, the Peter Hogg X74 BSIP funding was for 3 years when it replaced the 131/808 in January 2024, does this mean it could potentially be withdrawn in January next year?

For Bee Network the only vehicles not controlled by TFGM are from depots outside of the area so for Transdev they run in own livery with routes that are run by TFGM like 184 that is bee network. So 685 would be difficult as it’s run by two depots inside area and one outside.

(8 hours ago)Coastliner700 wrote For Bee Network the only vehicles not controlled by TFGM are from depots outside of the area so for Transdev they run in own livery with routes that are run by TFGM like 184 that is bee network. So 685 would be difficult as it’s run by two depots inside area and one outside.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. Yeah, that makes sense. Presumably if Slatyford depot wasn't Stagecoach anymore, the 685 would move from there but still be operated by a depot inside the franchised area, whichever depot Stagecoach got instead and still be operated by Carlisle depot as well. Surely if the route is shared between Slatyford and Carlisle, the Slatyford buses will be franchised and the Carlisle buses will run in Stagecoach livery?

Franchising Legal Framework and Compliance:

Registration Split: Services operating wholly within a franchised area are managed by the LTA. However, a service that crosses from a franchised area into a non-franchised area ("partial franchising") often requires complex, coordinated registration with the Traffic Commissioner, or a specific service permit to allow it to operate.

Service Permits: If the joint operators need to enter the franchised area from their commercial area, they may need a "service permit" to ensure their service complements, rather than competes with, the franchised network.

Joint Authority: If the two areas are managed by different local transport authorities, they can act jointly to manage the, in effect, mixed-model, setting up a unified framework that covers both areas.

I think with the 685 it's a complex one as it ticks boxes for all of the above with probably the easiest solution being "Joint Authority" which in theory Stagecoach already has under it's current operation of the service between North East & Cumbria Divisions.

But you know our LTA are thick as pig shit and will split the contract to how it used to be between Arriva/Stagecoach and put it through as a "Registration Split" more than likely at Hexham.

Appreciate these may not be answerable but, what happens with companies like Weardale and Stanley who operate a mix of service and coach/hire work?

Similarly, what of companies that don't own their depots but sublet the space from somewhere else?

Maybe something like they're doing in Liverpool where the smaller operators are being offered the chance to bid on smaller contracts?

We are all going to need to get our heads around how a franchise system works. (Reading the full NECA report is homework I have yet to do ...)

As I understand it, for services that cross the boundary  of the franchised area, I think the rules are:
- a franchised service can extend outside its home area, just needs that part of the service registrering with the Traffic Commissioner. The route, timetable and fares etc for the section outside the franchised area are still determined under the terms franchising scheme, so most likely will be decided by the franchising LTA. (This is common around the edges of TfL.) 
- a non-franchised service can operate into the franchised area if the franchising LTA decides it complements services in the franchised area, as per Malarkeyss message.  (This is common around the edges of TfGM, such as services to Manchester from Lancashire, etc. I don't think there is currently any material franchised operation crossing the boundary of TfGM.)

Around the borders of the NECA area, assuming the franchise is going to cover the whole region, I think it will be like this:
- the services into Berwick from Scotland will be permit operations.
- the services into Carlisle and Alston will surely be franchised?  (The route of 685 is about 80% in NECA; I don't think there is anything to stop the franchised operator having buses based outside the NECA area, and for that matter, in principle nothing to prevent a permit operation being run from a depot in the franchised area.)
- the services between County Durham and Tees Valley will be franchised UNLESS NECA for some reason deliberately leaves room for them so they are "complementary" and they area able to run "commercially". But remember that even though much of the current Arriva services are not under a DCC subsidy contract, they are almost certainly only "commerically viable" because of the BSOG+ paid to them by DfT. I think that under the franchising all that funding will transfer to NECA for them to choose how to spend; plus NECA fares will apply (with the funding of the national farecap also transferring from DfT to NECA). 

Re Weardale and Stanley Travel: the bus services will become subject to the franchise system. Plenty of them are already, effectively, as bar a few they aready run under DCC contracts. It will be interesting to see how all this turns out for their considerable school contract operations.

I don't want to rant but there are a lot of missing links out there. Are they going to fill these?
I only mention this because of an idea I had to run a network of EV or Diesel Citylines that would connect directly from a persons nearest main road to the Entrance of an ASDA, B&Q, Primary Care Centre, etc... The routes would be fixed obivously.

(10 hours ago)OrangeArrow49 wrote So all routes which operate inside and outside the franchised area will require a permit? The 685 will continue to be operated by Stagecoach, but will need a permit? Nothing else changes on those routes as they won't be franchised?, so will presumably operate in their own livery?

On the subject of cross-border services, the Peter Hogg X74 BSIP funding was for 3 years when it replaced the 131/808 in January 2024, does this mean it could potentially be withdrawn in January next year?

No - any route that isn't franchised and wishes to operate into the franchised area would need to apply for a service permit to do so. The traffic commissioner won't accept any registrations for the franchised area, as that falls to the franchising authority from commencement date. If a service permit is granted to a commercial operator, it's unlikely they'll be required to apply the network livery, but they may be asked to display some material internally and to retail/accept NECA fares within the franchising area.

There's no restrictions on a franchised service starting/terminating outside of the franchised area, but they must also register the (whole) route with the traffic commissioner.

The complications would come, if for example, TVCA changed their mind and implemented bus franchising. If NECA chose to operate the 1 from Tow Law to Darlington, then at that point it'd need a service permit from TVCA for the Darlington part, rather than registration with the traffic commissioner. That's because the whole area is covered by franchising schemes, albeit two separate franchising authorities.

One thing to add on the specific example of the 685. As part of the franchising scheme, we'll find out what the plans are in terms of acquiring depots and vehicles. If NECA follow suit of others and acquire depots, it's unlikely Stagecoach will be able to run their own commercial service under permit from that depot. It's also working on the assumption that a) Stagecoach wins any tenders, and b) that they win tenders in their current operating area. I do think that NECA would be wise to look at this one in terms of finding a bespoke solution. 

(6 hours ago)F114TML wrote Appreciate these may not be answerable but, what happens with companies like Weardale and Stanley who operate a mix of service and coach/hire work?

Similarly, what of companies that don't own their depots but sublet the space from somewhere else?

It's difficult to say without seeing at least the draft franchising scheme, but Manchester and Merseyside schemes both include scholars lots. If that happens here, they'll be lumped into the tender process with everything else, though I suspect smaller/misc works lots. If they operate buses directly in contract from the schools, I suspect these could fall under private hire and therefore be excluded? I am sure we have at least a handful of those in the region.

In those two regions I mentioned, compulsory purchase orders were issued for depots, but I'm not entirely sure whether that was strategic depots or everything? I suspect that smaller yards aren't what they're looking for, it's the big depots with associated infrastructure.  

(4 hours ago)Busadvocate wrote We are all going to need to get our heads around how a franchise system works. (Reading the full NECA report is homework I have yet to do ...)

As I understand it, for services that cross the boundary  of the franchised area, I think the rules are:
- a franchised service can extend outside its home area, just needs that part of the service registrering with the Traffic Commissioner. The route, timetable and fares etc for the section outside the franchised area are still determined under the terms franchising scheme, so most likely will be decided by the franchising LTA. (This is common around the edges of TfL.) 
- a non-franchised service can operate into the franchised area if the franchising LTA decides it complements services in the franchised area, as per Malarkeyss message.  (This is common around the edges of TfGM, such as services to Manchester from Lancashire, etc. I don't think there is currently any material franchised operation crossing the boundary of TfGM.)

Around the borders of the NECA area, assuming the franchise is going to cover the whole region, I think it will be like this:
- the services into Berwick from Scotland will be permit operations.
- the services into Carlisle and Alston will surely be franchised?  (The route of 685 is about 80% in NECA; I don't think there is anything to stop the franchised operator having buses based outside the NECA area, and for that matter, in principle nothing to prevent a permit operation being run from a depot in the franchised area.)
- the services between County Durham and Tees Valley will be franchised UNLESS NECA for some reason deliberately leaves room for them so they are "complementary" and they area able to run "commercially". But remember that even though much of the current Arriva services are not under a DCC subsidy contract, they are almost certainly only "commerically viable" because of the BSOG+ paid to them by DfT. I think that under the franchising all that funding will transfer to NECA for them to choose how to spend; plus NECA fares will apply (with the funding of the national farecap also transferring from DfT to NECA). 

Re Weardale and Stanley Travel: the bus services will become subject to the franchise system. Plenty of them are already, effectively, as bar a few they aready run under DCC contracts. It will be interesting to see how all this turns out for their considerable school contract operations.

Franchised service: yes, but the whole route needs to be registered with the traffic commissioner for these cross-border services. You can see this with example of the 237 on the Bee Network: https://www.vehicle-operator-licensing.s...ls/629961/

Non-franchised service: yes, but it will be very likely subject to a service permit application. We will however get an example in the Autumn, as you've got Merseyside franchised services from St Helens that cross into the Greater Manchester franchised area.

I don't think it'd be wise to apply blanket policies to any cross-boundary services, otherwise you'll ultimately end up trying to hammer square pegs into round holes. Each area and service is going to need to be assessed to ensure we don't end up with a two tier service, where those in urban areas benefit from good franchised buses, whereas those in rural areas or close to borders are left with the 'old' system. Thankfully though, we should see decision-making based on what people actually want and need, not what is in the best interests of the balance sheet.

It will be interesting to see what they do with depot "holes" in the network as previously mentioned. Bishop Auckland and Peterlee being the two obvious ones. If only Go North East and Arriva both had depots in those two towns that could be used. I suppose there's nothing stopping NECA just renting a yard as an outstation of depots in Durham and Sunderland respectively.