(06 Jul 2026, 5:31 pm)Storx wrote Personally still think this will be disaster but more because of the clowns in charge. The absolute state of the Transport North East website, or whatever it's called, just sums everything up.

Tobyn Hughes was part of a team which couldn't even win a tender which they set, embarrassingly bad stuff.

The Metro is an absolute shambles as it is, yet somehow these people are now going to run a bus network aswell...

It really doesn't though, does it? Have you read the franchise scheme assessment yet, or even started reading it?

From what I've read so far, It's been put together excellently, and I feel is fair in some of the conclusions that it reaches. Of course, this is only an extremely detailed assessment, so I'm not sure it'll ever compare to some off the cuff comments on a forum.

As enthusiasts, I guess it's noteworthy that the intended strategic depot acquisitions are: Ashington, Blyth, Consett, Deptford, Durham, Percy Main, Riverside, Slatyford, South Shields, Sunderland, Walkergate and Washington.

Winners of the medium (now large) contracts would be allocated depots from the above list within that area. From what I gather, and although it's not equivocal in what I've read so far, if an operator won say large contract A (Washington and Sunderland) plus a couple of the smaller contracts, they wouldn't be able to run those smaller contracts from the same strategic depots as allocated from the larger lots.

On vehicle acquisition, they haven't reached a final decision on it, but it appears they're looking at three options: Operators provide vehicles, Buses go to winning bidder at book value, Buses go to the delivery body and leased back to the operator.

Personally I disagree with the MSA looking at option 1 as the approach, as it'll deter bidders from outside of the region, so I'm surprised they're not immediately looking at option 2 or 3. I can see why the 2nd is more attractive to the MSA, but 3 must be best in the long-term, with further EVs coming.

(06 Jul 2026, 7:23 pm)Adrian wrote It really doesn't though, does it? Have you read the franchise scheme assessment yet, or even started reading it?

From what I've read so far, It's been put together excellently, and I feel is fair in some of the conclusions that it reaches. Of course, this is only an extremely detailed assessment, so I'm not sure it'll ever compare to some off the cuff comments on a forum.

As enthusiasts, I guess it's noteworthy that the intended strategic depot acquisitions are: Ashington, Blyth, Consett, Deptford, Durham, Percy Main, Riverside, Slatyford, South Shields, Sunderland, Walkergate and Washington.

Winners of the medium (now large) contracts would be allocated depots from the above list within that area. From what I gather, and although it's not equivocal in what I've read so far, if an operator won say large contract A (Washington and Sunderland) plus a couple of the smaller contracts, they wouldn't be able to run those smaller contracts from the same strategic depots as allocated from the larger lots.

On vehicle acquisition, they haven't reached a final decision on it, but it appears they're looking at three options: Operators provide vehicles, Buses go to winning bidder at book value, Buses go to the delivery body and leased back to the operator.

Personally I disagree with the MSA looking at option 1 as the approach, as it'll deter bidders from outside of the region, so I'm surprised they're not immediately looking at option 2 or 3. I can see why the 2nd is more attractive to the MSA, but 3 must be best in the long-term, with further EVs coming.

Firstly thank you for putting people in their place, (if that's the right phrase) we live in a world now where everyone has a go or critiques without being at all or even a little informed of what their talking about. In my opinion if franchising didn't work they wouldn't have done it in London for so long....I know there are pros and cons but it's got to be better than what we have now!

For the last bit you mentioned I can see them potentially using option 2 for the initial buses for the contracts, and then option 3 for any new vehicles and at the end of the first contracts after 8 years or however long it is all older buses will be phased out anyways leaving all buses owned by NEMSA to be leased out with the renewal of contracts, and probably with quite a few network changes by that point.

And regarding the depots does it mean that we will have one main operator (in Angel network branding) per area being - Gateshead/Washington, South Shields/Sunderland, NT/Northumberland, County Durham. Obviously not taking into account the small contracts which I'm guessing will benefit smaller operators such as GCT and Northstar etc....

(06 Jul 2026, 7:23 pm)Adrian wrote It really doesn't though, does it? Have you read the franchise scheme assessment yet, or even started reading it?

From what I've read so far, It's been put together excellently, and I feel is fair in some of the conclusions that it reaches. Of course, this is only an extremely detailed assessment, so I'm not sure it'll ever compare to some off the cuff comments on a forum.

As enthusiasts, I guess it's noteworthy that the intended strategic depot acquisitions are: Ashington, Blyth, Consett, Deptford, Durham, Percy Main, Riverside, Slatyford, South Shields, Sunderland, Walkergate and Washington.

Winners of the medium (now large) contracts would be allocated depots from the above list within that area. From what I gather, and although it's not equivocal in what I've read so far, if an operator won say large contract A (Washington and Sunderland) plus a couple of the smaller contracts, they wouldn't be able to run those smaller contracts from the same strategic depots as allocated from the larger lots.

On vehicle acquisition, they haven't reached a final decision on it, but it appears they're looking at three options: Operators provide vehicles, Buses go to winning bidder at book value, Buses go to the delivery body and leased back to the operator.

Personally I disagree with the MSA looking at option 1 as the approach, as it'll deter bidders from outside of the region, so I'm surprised they're not immediately looking at option 2 or 3. I can see why the 2nd is more attractive to the MSA, but 3 must be best in the long-term, with further EVs coming.

I've had a quick flick through but I'm not sure where this growth is coming from. From I'm reading they're planning to tender, the exact same network as now which we all know doesn't work. 

I really don't see, from a passenger, where there's any real difference at all - from now. It's very different to somewhere like Manchester where you've got trams and multiple operators fighting in the same areas which cause issues. The North East doesn't have that, it's either Arriva, Stagecoach or GoNorthEast (bar a very few areas). 

The fares are already £2.50 so there's not much scope in that area.

(06 Jul 2026, 7:49 pm)logidoodah wrote Firstly thank you for putting people in their place, (if that's the right phrase) we live in a world now where everyone has a go or critiques without being at all or even a little informed of what their talking about. In my opinion if franchising didn't work they wouldn't have done it in London for so long....I know there are pros and cons but it's got to be better than what we have now!

For the last bit you mentioned I can see them potentially using option 2 for the initial buses for the contracts, and then option 3 for any new vehicles and at the end of the first contracts after 8 years or however long it is all older buses will be phased out anyways leaving all buses owned by NEMSA to be leased out with the renewal of contracts, and probably with quite a few network changes by that point.

And regarding the depots does it mean that we will have one main operator (in Angel network branding) per area being - Gateshead/Washington, South Shields/Sunderland, NT/Northumberland, County Durham. Obviously not taking into account the small contracts which I'm guessing will benefit smaller operators such as GCT and Northstar etc....

What the London network which is a black hole which is funded by the rail side which the North East doesn't have? Nor does it have funds from elsewhere to cover it either?

(06 Jul 2026, 8:00 pm)Storx wrote I've had a quick flick through but I'm not sure where this growth is coming from. From I'm reading they're planning to tender, the exact same network as now which we all know doesn't work. 

I really don't see, from a passenger, where there's any real difference at all - from now. It's very different to somewhere like Manchester where you've got trams and multiple operators fighting in the same areas which cause issues. The North East doesn't have that, it's either Arriva, Stagecoach or GoNorthEast (bar a very few areas). 

The fares are already £2.50 so there's not much scope in that area.


What the London network which is a black hole which is funded by the rail side which the North East doesn't have? Nor does it have funds from elsewhere to cover it either?

I think you’ve misunderstood one part. Contracts will be awarded based on the network that exists, but once they are awarded that will remain the base network for the lifetime of the contract (7 or 8 years), which simply is not the case now. That doesn’t mean there can’t be enhancements or new routes, just like in areas that already have a franchise scheme.

(06 Jul 2026, 7:49 pm)logidoodah wrote Firstly thank you for putting people in their place, (if that's the right phrase) we live in a world now where everyone has a go or critiques without being at all or even a little informed of what their talking about. In my opinion if franchising didn't work they wouldn't have done it in London for so long....I know there are pros and cons but it's got to be better than what we have now!

For the last bit you mentioned I can see them potentially using option 2 for the initial buses for the contracts, and then option 3 for any new vehicles and at the end of the first contracts after 8 years or however long it is all older buses will be phased out anyways leaving all buses owned by NEMSA to be leased out with the renewal of contracts, and probably with quite a few network changes by that point.

And regarding the depots does it mean that we will have one main operator (in Angel network branding) per area being - Gateshead/Washington, South Shields/Sunderland, NT/Northumberland, County Durham. Obviously not taking into account the small contracts which I'm guessing will benefit smaller operators such as GCT and Northstar etc....

The idea appears to be that that the large contracts are won by an operator, and they run all the services allocated to that depot. e.g. large lot B would include Deptford, Sunderland and South Shields strategic depots for that lot of contracts. I don't think this is dissimilar from the approach that Manchester took.

In terms of branding, it looks like the assessment is based on everything being in on uniform livery, but with allowances for route branding (e.g. for Park and Ride services). I suspect this will be more a 'sub-branding' though, rather than massively out of design spec. It does state that some stuff, e.g. scholars, won't be required to go into the livery, but will have the same appearance standards. That sounds sensible to me.

They make a lot of reference about the smaller lots being designed for SMEs, but I hope they manage to prevent what happened in Manchester, with smaller lots going to large operators. There is a requirement from SMEs to provide their own depots, which seems like a missed opportunity. 

I'd have quite liked t o see NEMSA invest in some smaller sites that can be reutilised with contract changes. Build them as a multi-operator design, so you've not only got shared welfare and breakout facilities, re-fuelling, wash and light maintenance, but you'd also have shared office space that could be used. That would also create the ability to store and resell fuel, at a more competitive rate that the MSA could purchase it for.

(06 Jul 2026, 8:00 pm)Storx wrote I've had a quick flick through but I'm not sure where this growth is coming from. From I'm reading they're planning to tender, the exact same network as now which we all know doesn't work. 

I really don't see, from a passenger, where there's any real difference at all - from now. It's very different to somewhere like Manchester where you've got trams and multiple operators fighting in the same areas which cause issues. The North East doesn't have that, it's either Arriva, Stagecoach or GoNorthEast (bar a very few areas). 

The fares are already £2.50 so there's not much scope in that area.

What the London network which is a black hole which is funded by the rail side which the North East doesn't have? Nor does it have funds from elsewhere to cover it either?

I don't mean to sound patronising, but you really need to spare some time to properly read and consider what is in the documents that have been published. You're not going to get that from a 'quick flick'. 

There's whole sections on the economic and financial cases, covering hundreds of pages. The 'not much scope' on fares is a commitment to "A significant simplification of the fares and ticketing offer, replacing the approximately 370+ different bus tickets on offer with a simple zonal system for single tickets and multi-operator / multi-modal daily plus weekly caps." and "Fares will not increase above inflation, and the size of the network will be maintained, for at least the first ten years of franchised services." for a start. Is that not scope? Fares have generally risen above the rate of inflation for as long as I remember.

The child poverty action plan parts of the assessment also cover things like free travel for under 18s and maintaining the £1/£3 for under 22s.

Like I say, you really need to spare some time to read it properly. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but you're not going to get a big bang improvement on day one.

(06 Jul 2026, 8:11 pm)markydh wrote I think you’ve misunderstood one part. Contracts will be awarded based on the network that exists, but once they are awarded that will remain the base network for the lifetime of the contract (7 or 8 years), which simply is not the case now. That doesn’t mean there can’t be enhancements or new routes, just like in areas that already have a franchise scheme.

As well isn't the "current network" we're talking about worse than the network that will be implemented as it has shrunk since 2024 (if that is the one they will use) 

May have my year wrong but it's from a certain timeframe I think...

Noticed Hexham Depot has not been mentioned in the planned phase roll out, presuming it would've gone into Phase 1 or 2.

(06 Jul 2026, 8:30 pm)logidoodah wrote As well isn't the "current network" we're talking about worse than the network that will be implemented as it has shrunk since 2024 (if that is the one they will use) 

May have my year wrong but it's from a certain timeframe I think...

I'm pretty sure it is, but I couldn't see reference to it in the documents published. I'll ask about it at one of the consultation events.

(06 Jul 2026, 8:27 pm)Adrian wrote I don't mean to sound patronising, but you really need to spare some time to properly read and consider what is in the documents that have been published. You're not going to get that from a 'quick flick'. 

There's whole sections on the economic and financial cases, covering hundreds of pages. The 'not much scope' on fares is a commitment to "A significant simplification of the fares and ticketing offer, replacing the approximately 370+ different bus tickets on offer with a simple zonal system for single tickets and multi-operator / multi-modal daily plus weekly caps." and "Fares will not increase above inflation, and the size of the network will be maintained, for at least the first ten years of franchised services." for a start. Is that not scope? Fares have generally risen above the rate of inflation for as long as I remember.

The child poverty action plan parts of the assessment also cover things like free travel for under 18s and maintaining the £1/£3 for under 22s.

Like I say, you really need to spare some time to read it properly. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but you're not going to get a big bang improvement on day one.

Don't worry didn't take it offensive. I just see serious funding issues with this, and I honestly hope I'm wrong. 

Honestly, I think the whole franchising is just flawed in general doing this tranche stuff. If we provide the buses, provide the depot, provide the routes, provide the timetables, provide the drivers then what the hell are we paying for as tax payers? It's a shareholders pipe dream, take 7.5% I think it was quoted in the documents, for bluntly doing absolutely nothing and if things go well you'll make even more money, if it goes wrong then you'll banging on the door demanding more and the councils reserves are going to be used to fund it all. Not to mention your locked in.

Franchising has it's place for the likes of Stanhope, Berwick and Rothbury where opening a depot wouldn't make sense, but this ban on municipal bus companies needs to be removed asap and that's where all the local areas should be going. 

Promising no fare increases, all these extra cheap tickets etc is dangerous. It's the exact thing Khan done in London and TFL's Buses have been out of control the past few year with huge cuts to try and get it under control since the Underground isn't making as much. 

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I can see one of these schemes and not particularly the North East crashing and burning big time.

(I don't think there'll be actual issue with implementation for the record btw)

I think the big mentality change here for those on the forum is that public buses are not supposed to return profit in real terms. They create economic opportunities for people to work, enjoy leisure time and stay connected. That’s what the bee network has done for Manchester. Don’t be fooled by the bright lights of the city centre, areas like Ashton, wynthenshaw and Oldham etc etc are similarly profiled to the north east and they’re seeing tangible benefits

(06 Jul 2026, 10:05 pm)Ambassador wrote I think the big mentality change here for those on the forum is that public buses are not supposed to return profit in real terms. They create economic opportunities for people to work, enjoy leisure time and stay connected. That’s what the bee network has done for Manchester. Don’t be fooled by the bright lights of the city centre, areas like Ashton, wynthenshaw and Oldham etc etc are similarly profiled to the north east and they’re seeing tangible benefits

If only there was a like button!

This is of course covered in great detail in the scheme assessment too, which is why people should really take the time to read the documentation and respond to the consultation.

(Yesterday, 10:14 am)Adrian wrote If only there was a like button!

This is of course covered in great detail in the scheme assessment too, which is why people should really take the time to read the documentation and respond to the consultation.

No like button, but can rate the comment

(06 Jul 2026, 10:05 pm)Ambassador wrote I think the big mentality change here for those on the forum is that public buses are not supposed to return profit in real terms. They create economic opportunities for people to work, enjoy leisure time and stay connected. That’s what the bee network has done for Manchester. Don’t be fooled by the bright lights of the city centre, areas like Ashton, wynthenshaw and Oldham etc etc are similarly profiled to the north east and they’re seeing tangible benefits

Exactly, I'm sick as a bus driver telling regular passengers that their bus to work is about to get cut, and they'll have a longer journey to work, or be stranded completely when it's the last bus being cut. Hopefully some stability in the network allows these people to rely on these services indefinitely without the fear of them being cut.

Stability will be a big win.
And also, hopefully, a performance incentive/penalty system built into the franchise contracts that should improve reliability. In the deregulated system, the only real sanction for failing to operate commercial buses has been the sense of fouling their own financial nest, but that has not been strong enough to prevent prolonged periods (years) of v poor operation. Both GNE and Arriva have been v poor at times from some depots; Stagecoach has seemingly had fewer visible problems, but maybe they hid things better. Even services under contract to Nexus etc have seemingly had their problems (with GCT etc) so fingers crossed for something robust.

(Yesterday, 4:23 pm)Busadvocate wrote Stability will be a big win.
And also, hopefully, a performance incentive/penalty  system built into the franchise contracts that should improve reliability. In the deregulated system, the only real sanction for failing to operate commercial buses has been the sense of fouling their own financial nest, but that has not been strong enough to prevent prolonged periods (years) of v poor operation. Both GNE and Arriva have been v poor at times from some depots; Stagecoach has seemingly had fewer visible problems, but maybe they hid things better. Even services under contract to Nexus etc have seemingly had their problems (with GCT etc) so fingers crossed for something robust.

As with Manchester and the Weaver network, there's some pretty robust measures in with a carrot and stick approach.

Operators can earn incentives for exceeding targets but equally earn deductions if performance falls short linked to reliability, punctuality and failure to operate
Rectification plans and intervention

Where performance falls short, the Delivery Body (DB) can require corrective action through formal contractual remedies. The plan specifically refers to rectification plans and intervention by the DB. It can then lead to termination etc etc

One benefit is we've got the likes of Metroline and Stagecoach who are really well prepped and versed to run these things, we're not the pilot

I can't help but be pessimistic about the whole thing to be honest.

On paper, sounds great, will be a huge political win. In reality, I cannot see the growth they are expecting, not without incurred additional cost (I.e extra resources to run more services and/or cheaper fare initiatives) that will outweigh the benefit.

London and Manchester both need government funding to work and they have the critical population mass to achieve a self sustaining network. Yet, they haven't. As more come online, that financial pressure will only increase.

Once a good chunk of England goes franchised, most major areas are planning for it, pressure on public funds will dramatically increase. Where is that coming from? Increases in general taxation or a local mayor tax?  For a country who already has a huge debt, namely the welfare bill, this isn't a sustainable long term plan, not without extra funding coming in to pay for it.

Operators will bid with a guaranteed margin, plus they will cost in assumptions for fines to an extent. Essentially, they will have a window of failing funded by their franchise payment. Most operators now speak very fondly towards the inevitable as they know a stable expected income is a preferable position. The risk doesn't sit with them anymore, great stuff.

Maybe, once public authorities control the buses and can see the poor state of congestion and lack of priority across the region, which is a key negative diverter to any modal shift, we might see a bigger push on things like that, forcing modal shift in some cases to pay the whole thing pay. Preventing cars from entering city centres or penalising the private car to offset the cost.

I just cannot see this working long term, without significant government funding across all regions which has to come from somewhere. At best, it's a vanity project that will secure votes for a few years until people see nothing has really changed except the colour of the bus.

(11 hours ago)Superman wrote I can't help but be pessimistic about the whole thing to be honest.

On paper, sounds great, will be a huge political win. In reality, I cannot see the growth they are expecting, not without incurred additional cost (I.e extra resources to run more services and/or cheaper fare initiatives).

London and Manchester both need government funding to work and they have the critical mass to achieve a self sustaining network.

Once a good chunk of England goes franchised, pressure on public funds will dramatically increase. Where is that coming from? Increases in general taxation or a local mayor tax?  For a country who has a huge debt, this isn't a sustainable long term plan, not without extra funding.

Operators will bid with a guaranteed margin, plus they will cost in assumptions for fines. Essentially, they will have a window of failing funded by their franchise payment. Most operators now speak very fondly towards the inevitable as they know a stable expected income is a preferable position.

Maybe, once public control the buses and can see the poor state of congestion and lack of priority, we might see a bigger push, forcing modal shift in some cases to pay the whole thing pay.

I just cannot see this working long term, without significant government funding across all regions which has to come from somewhere.

The North East, without any franchising scheme in place, cost us £125 million of public funds last year. More than half of the operators income came from the public purse. If we're paying out such significant sums of money anyway, then why not set up a franchising scheme and develop the network to fit into your overall objectives for the region.

I think it's easy to say 'where's it coming from?' in terms of funding, but it doesn't really offer an alternative view to the published financial modelling. Why don't you think it's sustainable, what do you think they've got wrong in the model or haven't properly considered?

"Franchising is assessed to be affordable, feasible and deliverable – and offers benefits including significantly greater value for money, increased public influence, and greater fulfilment of the MSA’s strategic objectives as discussed above." was one of the concluding remarks of the independently assured scheme.

On operators, yes, absolutely they will bid with a margin, but they're still going to have to competitively bid against other operators. As we've seen with Manchester, the cards don't all fall as expected. 

NEMCA and the Local Authorities will be more than aware of where traffic priority or road improvement schemes are needed, but the barriers have always been not having the funding and the power to influence the delivery of the schemes. The MSA grants the Mayor some powers to deliver on this, but remember that she's only two years in to the first term of a new authority. They can't deliver everything overnight, and even if they could, they still need a further devolution of power from Government. 

One of the barriers to securing funding has always been the business case. Look at it this way: you want to deliver a bus priority scheme, but in your business case, you actually have zero control over how many (if any) buses will actually use this scheme in the future. Look at Centrelink and Wardley Bus Gate. The former cost £17 million for no buses to use it just over 10 years later. Infrastructure and delivery under the same roof makes perfect sense to avoid this type of nonsense in the future.

Yes, the report says it is affordable, but it also says the data provided by the operators was of varying quality and, in many cases, wasn't robust enough. Or perhaps that's just shorthand for "the numbers weren't as good as expected, so assumptions were made that support the business case". Either way, that should be the immediate red flag for anyone who understands the financial side of developing a business case. The underlying numbers simply aren't robust enough to justify diving head first into something on this scale.

Parking the vision of perfectly reliable buses, service levels that mirror those before 1986, and very cheap fares, which, let's be honest, is probably what much of the public expects based on how this is being sold. The cost is the single biggest driver of the whole proposal, and I worry that as more of these schemes come online across the country, the pressure on the public purse will increase significantly compared with the current system. I don't think it's sustainable, nor do I think it will deliver what people expect, certainly not without some form of additional local taxation. The only guaranteed outcome is that, eventually, all the buses will be painted the same colour.

That said, I'm also a realist. Politics will win here because it's a manifesto pledge and an obvious vote winner. The majority will be in favour because many local people believe this will immediately deliver prompt and reliable buses, perfectly designed routes, better timetables and a transformed network. I'm far less convinced the reality will match those expectations, even months or years later.

I simply cannot see how it works financially. The funding currently provided to operators doesn't disappear under franchising. It still has to be built into the business case. ENCTS and BSOG, by far the two largest funding streams, will still be paid, with the likelihood of regular additional revenue support on top, as we've seen in places such as London and Manchester.

This is the additional funding I'm referring to. Even London's franchised bus network requires substantial ongoing public subsidy rather than operating on a financially self sustaining basis. If many more areas move to franchising and require similar levels of ongoing support, the cumulative cost to central government becomes significant over time.

That strikes me as a major funding challenge that hasn't really been addressed. As a taxpayer, like everyone else, I'd want to know where that money will come from in five or ten years' time. Will taxes have to increase, will new local funding mechanisms be introduced, or will spending have to be reduced elsewhere? Those are questions that deserve clear answers before committing to such a significant change.

Instead, I worry that many of these franchising debates are driven more by emotion than evidence, with the existing bus operators often portrayed as the villains simply because they operate for profit. Whether or not franchising is the right answer should be judged on robust evidence, realistic financial assumptions and long term affordability, not on whether private operators are seen as inherently good or bad.

I think there is something in Superman's scepticism about assumptions of growth - it does feel rather magical. I also share the scepticism about the prospects for material net extra funding.
But also Adrian is right to highlight how much of the operators' income is public funding these days. IF there is net new public funding that gives any scope for improved services, the current deregulated environment makes that very difficult to achieve as soon as it impinges on "commercial" services. It is possible that Burnham's ideas on devolution will give extra scope, too.
The barrier to material bus priority is surely an unwillingness to cause much upset to car drivers, not lack of powers or lack of certainty about the details of future bus services.
re Centrelink: only slightly tongue in cheek, was this not a case of a poor scheme in the first place? I suspect it was case of "we want to do something; this is something that can be done (using ring-fenced special funding?), so let's do it" . Do we really think the world would be better if buses were forced to go that way?