Services Safeguarded
 
With the help of cash boost from the Bus Service Improvement Plan, we will continue to fund a number of bus services across our region ?
 
These include:
 
- Services 17/18 in Darlington until March 2026
- Services 6/6A in Darlington and Stockton until March 2026
- Services 1&2 in Redcar and Cleveland until March 2026
- Service RP1 Riverside Park, in Middlesbrough, until March 2026
- Services X40/X41 for Wynyard until March 2026
- Service 101 serving Teesport until August this year
- Tees Flex until August this year
- Service 16 in Darlington until August this year [website however states March 2026]
- Services 3&4 in Darlington from April to March 2026
- Service 29 in Middlesbrough from April to March 2026
- Service 3 in Redcar and Cleveland from April to March 2026
 
Plenty of work is continuing with bus operators on the above and a number of other routes, so watch this space ?

For more information ️ https://orlo.uk/wRWaO

(17 Feb 2025, 6:25 pm)No Jimmi wrote Services Safeguarded
 
With the help of cash boost from the Bus Service Improvement Plan, we will continue to fund a number of bus services across our region ?
 
These include:
 
- Services 17/18 in Darlington until March 2026
- Services 6/6A in Darlington and Stockton until March 2026
- Services 1&2 in Redcar and Cleveland until March 2026
- Service RP1 Riverside Park, in Middlesbrough, until March 2026
- Services X40/X41 for Wynyard until March 2026
- Service 101 serving Teesport until August this year
- Tees Flex until August this year
- Service 16 in Darlington until August this year [website however states March 2026]
- Services 3&4 in Darlington from April to March 2026
- Service 29 in Middlesbrough from April to March 2026
- Service 3 in Redcar and Cleveland from April to March 2026
 
Plenty of work is continuing with bus operators on the above and a number of other routes, so watch this space ?

For more information ️ https://orlo.uk/wRWaO

Seems a lack of BSIP in Hartlepool.

X40/X41 timetable needs looking at because nearly every day buses are running up to 20 minutes late.

I can't be bothered to hunt it down but does anyone know if the electric vehicles are going ahead at Darlington and Redcar? Believe the orders had to be placed before Jan 2025 or the funding was lost.

Obviously Arriva are very quiet on their orders in recent times though.

(17 Feb 2025, 6:58 pm)Economic505 wrote Seems a lack of BSIP in Hartlepool.

It’s very annoying because neither stagecoach or the combined authority seem to care about Hartlepool hence why we currently have two darts which are now 21 years old still in daily service and no new buses, no new routes or anything that could improve services in the town.

(17 Feb 2025, 6:58 pm)Economic505 wrote Seems a lack of BSIP in Hartlepool.

North and West of Stockton is worse imo considering there's places like Stillington, Redmarshall, Carlton, Sadberge and Long Newton with absolutely no bus service at all and it's not as if the places are hamlets in the middle of nowhere either.

(18 Feb 2025, 7:23 pm)Storx wrote North and West of Stockton is worse imo considering there's places like Stillington, Redmarshall, Carlton, Sadberge and Long Newton with absolutely no bus service at all and it's not as if the places are hamlets in the middle of nowhere either.

At least Stockton has had something with the service 6 and X40 X41 where as Hartlepool has not had anything.

(18 Feb 2025, 11:13 pm)col87 wrote At least Stockton has had something with the service 6 and X40 X41 where as Hartlepool has not had anything.

The X40/X41 is technically Hartlepool aswell, in council terms, as parts of Wynyard are in their area.

The 6 and X40/X41 are awful routes though and make no sense, especially the 6. That would be much better doing something like: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.56259...?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D with a second route dealing with the Yarm to Ingleby Barwick side, ideally not heading towards Stockton at all.

Bar around 100yds near the A66 the whole of that route is currently unserved by buses, especially in the Hartburn area. Absolutely shocking for an urban area imo.

(18 Feb 2025, 11:13 pm)col87 wrote At least Stockton has had something with the service 6 and X40 X41 where as Hartlepool has not had anything.

The TVCA is too Middlesbrough/ Stockton Darlington / Yarm centric. Hartlepool is out on the periphery.

---

(18 Feb 2025, 11:40 pm)Storx wrote The X40/X41 is technically Hartlepool aswell, in council terms, as parts of Wynyard are in their area.

The 6 and X40/X41 are awful routes though and make no sense, especially the 6. That would be much better doing something like: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.56259...?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D with a second route dealing with the Yarm to Ingleby Barwick side, ideally not heading towards Stockton at all.

Bar around 100yds near the A66 the whole of that route is currently unserved by buses, especially in the Hartburn area. Absolutely shocking for an urban area imo.

Good point regarding Hartlepool Wynyard. The powers that be should have recognised this when creating the X40/41.

(18 Feb 2025, 11:41 pm)Economic505 wrote The TVCA is too Middlesbrough/ Stockton Darlington / Yarm centric. Hartlepool is out on the periphery.

To be honest, from an outsider, it feels like there is no plan at all and it's just whoever shouts the most. The 1/2 in East Cleveland are bonkers routes when there's commercial routes doing the main flows and they're paying for Teesflex to do the bits inbetween. Just does not make sense.

How they can keep not having bus services in urban / sub urban areas, at all, is shocking aswell. Nexus gets slagged off, and rightly so at times, but there's not areas like Hartburn which are busless.

I know that's a big problem at the West side of Hartlepool aswell which are virtually busless or have the token 3/3A lingering around which is all good as long as you don't leave the house after 6pm.

(18 Feb 2025, 11:55 pm)Storx wrote To be honest, from an outsider, it feels like there is no plan at all and it's just whoever shouts the most. The 1/2 in East Cleveland are bonkers routes when there's commercial routes doing the main flows and they're paying for Teesflex to do the bits inbetween. Just does not make sense.

How they can keep not having bus services in urban / sub urban areas, at all, is shocking aswell. Nexus gets slagged off, and rightly so at times, but there's not areas like Hartburn which are busless.

I know that's a big problem at the West side of Hartlepool aswell which are virtually busless or have the token 3/3A lingering around which is all good as long as you don't leave the house after 6pm.

A lot of people want a bus service connection West View to the Headland as well.  It’s less than 5 minutes in a car but can take a good 20 - 30 minutes on the bus and that’s if you can make the connection to the 6 or 23/24
Yes you can also argue Greatham has the 36 but it doesn’t actually go into the Village itself and it’s probably a good 15 minute or so walk to get from the furthest end of the Village to the Bus Stop on the edge of it.  Still I suppose it’s better than Dalton Piecey which is completely cut off altogether unless you can actually get lucky with Teesflex. Burbank area of the town has nothing either apart from the Paul’s Travel Mini bus which has a bit 4 journeys a week if that.  

Yes the X40 X41 is great if you live in Wolviston or Wynyard and yes bafflingly it can be classed as Hartlepool but let’s be honest we all know it’s actually Stockton area and does nothing for anyone who is actually in the Hartlepool area although Ben and the TVCA did actually spin it to say they did something for Hartlepool.   

I can also agree it does seem to be a case for whoever is friendly enough and if the TVCA is actually bothered instead of actually looking to see where services should be happening.  It shouldn’t be because Stagecoach or Arriva can’t make a profit on some existing services and have got an extra handout, or as a nice way of helping a business ( I mean technically Tesco and Teesport should pay for the 101 since it technically a work service same with Amazon who should pay for the X40 X41 ) They is no thought at all proposals for vital services get ignored while in some cases like Saltburn it’s payed for 3 competing services with Arriva, Teesflex and the 1/2.   It should be managed better but I doubt it will be anytime soon.  
As for the 6 I think we all know that only even exists so they is at least one bus to the white elephant I mean Teesside Airport. I doubt many people will actually use it from Stockton to Yarm or even to the Airport itself.

(18 Feb 2025, 11:55 pm)Storx wrote To be honest, from an outsider, it feels like there is no plan at all and it's just whoever shouts the most. The 1/2 in East Cleveland are bonkers routes when there's commercial routes doing the main flows and they're paying for Teesflex to do the bits inbetween. Just does not make sense.

How they can keep not having bus services in urban / sub urban areas, at all, is shocking aswell. Nexus gets slagged off, and rightly so at times, but there's not areas like Hartburn which are busless.

I know that's a big problem at the West side of Hartlepool aswell which are virtually busless or have the token 3/3A lingering around which is all good as long as you don't leave the house after 6pm.

Vast majority of the routes which they support were one of these: due to be withdrawn/cut such as the Arriva 12 (now 6), 17 & 18 in Darlington, councillors have kicked up a fuss wanting a service of some form or it serves some area of employment, so looks good for PR (Amazon, Teesport). If you lost your service years ago, then tough luck! Areas like Sadberge, Longnewton, Hartburn or Stillington have: a token, awkward council fleet service that you have to gain a membership to use, TeesFlex or nothing.

Some of these routes could likely be done better, better use of resources (17 had 20+ minute sit in Darlington Town Centre after each round trip, although has since been tagged onto the 8/8A cycle) and more areas served.

(19 Feb 2025, 6:27 pm)col87 wrote A lot of people want a bus service connection West View to the Headland as well.  It’s less than 5 minutes in a car but can take a good 20 - 30 minutes on the bus and that’s if you can make the connection to the 6 or 23/24
Yes you can also argue Greatham has the 36 but it doesn’t actually go into the Village itself and it’s probably a good 15 minute or so walk to get from the furthest end of the Village to the Bus Stop on the edge of it.  Still I suppose it’s better than Dalton Piecey which is completely cut off altogether unless you can actually get lucky with Teesflex. Burbank area of the town has nothing either apart from the Paul’s Travel Mini bus which has a bit 4 journeys a week if that.  

Yes the X40 X41 is great if you live in Wolviston or Wynyard and yes bafflingly it can be classed as Hartlepool but let’s be honest we all know it’s actually Stockton area and does nothing for anyone who is actually in the Hartlepool area although Ben and the TVCA did actually spin it to say they did something for Hartlepool.   

I can also agree it does seem to be a case for whoever is friendly enough and if the TVCA is actually bothered instead of actually looking to see where services should be happening.  It shouldn’t be because Stagecoach or Arriva can’t make a profit on some existing services and have got an extra handout, or as a nice way of helping a business ( I mean technically Tesco and Teesport should pay for the 101 since it technically a work service same with Amazon who should pay for the X40 X41 ) They is no thought at all proposals for vital services get ignored while in some cases like Saltburn it’s payed for 3 competing services with Arriva, Teesflex and the 1/2.   It should be managed better but I doubt it will be anytime soon.  
As for the 6 I think we all know that only even exists so they is at least one bus to the white elephant I mean Teesside Airport. I doubt many people will actually use it from Stockton to Yarm or even to the Airport itself.

I must admit from outsider locally there does seem to be some massive gaps in Hartlepool most of them which would be solved with something similar to these 2 routes:

Route 1: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.68580...?entry=ttu
Route 2: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.70084...?entry=ttu

The service on parts of them is non existent and bar the bit to Elwick it's literally all urban. Route 2 mainly being about connections to the massive retail park at the South of town and the hospital. Route 1 should be every 30 minutes aswell imo, it's literally that urban.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyde0gw4q7o

Hartlepool push for franchising. 
Houchen says no, because "Franchising buses would mean years of costly bureaucracy, handing hundreds of millions to companies like Arriva and Stagecoach , and a significant tax increase on local people - something I've promised never to do,"

I hope someone highlighted the hypocrisy in the BIB.
How much are SNE getting off him at the moment? 
I've lost track.

(26 Feb 2025, 10:40 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyde0gw4q7o

Hartlepool push for franchising. 
Houchen says no, because "Franchising buses would mean years of costly bureaucracy, handing hundreds of millions to companies like Arriva and Stagecoach , and a significant tax increase on local people - something I've promised never to do,"

I hope someone highlighted the hypocrisy in the BIB.
How much are SNE getting off him at the moment? 
I've lost track.

To be fair can't disagree with him though, for once. I have a feeling some of these franchising plans will end up being costly for the tax payer, much more than a few subsidised services.

I have a feeling the NECA one could backfire massively as it's all easy to get growth in somewhere in Newcastle, but get the same growth in Bishop Auckland isn't happening and without any growth it's just an expense since Arriva and GoAhead make more money from a contract vs commercial so the money has to come from somewhere.

Municipals bus operators yes, as it removes the shareholders but not franchising as it effectively just protects shareholders from any losses and throws it all at the tax payer instead and there's a lot of weak routes in the North East.

I feel some like Kim are just jumping on a bandwagon ignoring that the NECA area is very different to London and Manchester and London bleeds money anyway.

It's not like the franchising of trains exactly went well which this model isn't exactly a million miles away from...

(26 Feb 2025, 10:57 pm)No I Storx wrote To be fair can't disagree with him though, for once. I have a feeling some of these franchising plans will end up being costly for the tax payer, much more than a few subsidised services.

I have a feeling the NECA one could backfire massively as it's all easy to get growth in somewhere in Newcastle, but get the same growth in Bishop Auckland isn't happening and without any growth it's just an expense since Arriva and GoAhead make more money from a contract vs commercial so the money has to come from somewhere.

Municipals bus operators yes, as it removes the shareholders but not franchising as it effectively just protects shareholders from any losses and throws it all at the tax payer instead and there's a lot of weak routes in the North East.

I feel some like Kim are just jumping on a bandwagon ignoring that the NECA area is very different to London and Manchester and London bleeds money anyway.

It's not like the franchising of trains exactly went well which this model isn't exactly a million miles away from...

So we in Hartlepool have to put up with a commercially shite service. Christ, there’s not even any competition! I’d rather give Kim a chance than the moribund Houchen, who still had his head up Thatchers pussy .

(26 Feb 2025, 11:15 pm)Economic505 wrote So we in Hartlepool have to put up with a commercially shite service. Christ, there’s not even any competition! I’d rather give Kim a chance than the moribund Houchen, who still had his head up Thatchers pussy .

Definitely not, but there's not enough funding to do a decent public network since it's all about keeping the cost as low as possible. The councils are skint, as it is around here, the last thing they need is to be subsidising a full bus network aswell since franchising backfired.

The UK badly needs to invest in public transport and treat it as a service rather than an expense like most EU countries do, especially with rail. No-one has invested in public transport in the UK since Thatcher properly imo.

(26 Feb 2025, 10:57 pm)Storx wrote To be fair can't disagree with him though, for once. I have a feeling some of these franchising plans will end up being costly for the tax payer, much more than a few subsidised services.

I have a feeling the NECA one could backfire massively as it's all easy to get growth in somewhere in Newcastle, but get the same growth in Bishop Auckland isn't happening and without any growth it's just an expense since Arriva and GoAhead make more money from a contract vs commercial so the money has to come from somewhere.

Municipals bus operators yes, as it removes the shareholders but not franchising as it effectively just protects shareholders from any losses and throws it all at the tax payer instead and there's a lot of weak routes in the North East.

I feel some like Kim are just jumping on a bandwagon ignoring that the NECA area is very different to London and Manchester and London bleeds money anyway.

It's not like the franchising of trains exactly went well which this model isn't exactly a million miles away from...

But he's already handing out a shed load of money. 

The 1 and 2, Teesflex, the 101, the service that goes around Riverside Park in Middlesbrough, the X40/41... The list goes on. 

What's the difference between this and the scheme he's rejecting?

(26 Feb 2025, 11:15 pm)Economic505 wrote So we in Hartlepool have to put up with a commercially shite service. Christ, there’s not even any competition! I’d rather give Kim a chance than the moribund Houchen, who still had his head up Thatchers pussy .

There's an image I didn't want to have. 
Scarred for life now!

(27 Feb 2025, 10:38 am)Andreos1 wrote But he's already handing out a shed load of money. 

The 1 and 2, Teesflex, the 101, the service that goes around Riverside Park in Middlesbrough, the X40/41... The list goes on. 

What's the difference between this and the scheme he's rejecting?

The massive cost difference, it all relies on the government actually giving the funds to fund the franchising. If Reeves decides next week to cut the BSIP funding in half then where's the money coming from? At least with those 5 services they can binned off immediately and no-one would care. Increasing the council tax to fund the 1 in Crook - as someone's paying for it, won't be popular in Redcar.

Btw I was doing some digging and if you do franchising you come liable for BSOG payments aswell as it's not allowed for tenders. Not really an issue in London where it takes 20 minutes to do 2 miles but it's a big big problem on something like the X4 or X93 where the miles some rack up. Someone has to pay for it.

Without proper funding from Westminister it's just kicking the can down the road but instead of some shareholders taking the risk, we're taking it instead through our council tax / business rates.

(27 Feb 2025, 12:14 pm)Storx wrote The massive cost difference, it all relies on the government actually giving the funds to fund the franchising. If Reeves decides next week to cut the BSIP funding in half then where's the money coming from? At least with those 5 services they can binned off immediately and no-one would care. Increasing the council tax to fund the 1 in Crook - as someone's paying for it, won't be popular in Redcar.

Btw I was doing some digging and if you do franchising you come liable for BSOG payments aswell as it's not allowed for tenders. Not really an issue in London where it takes 20 minutes to do 2 miles but it's a big big problem on something like the X4 or X93 where the miles some rack up. Someone has to pay for it.

Without proper funding from Westminister it's just kicking the can down the road but instead of some shareholders taking the risk, we're taking it instead through our council tax / business rates.

You're still missing the point relating to the hypocrisy. He's doing what he says he refuses to do. 
Whether that's on a smaller or larger scale, he's giving them money. 

The franchise system can work different. 

If an operator wants to run a tranche or routes, they pay to do that.
Not the taxpayer or local authority.
It's far from ideal, but at least we aren't seeing the handouts we see currently.

(27 Feb 2025, 1:13 pm)Andreos1 wrote You're still missing the point relating to the hypocrisy. He's doing what he says he refuses to do. 
Whether that's on a smaller or larger scale, he's giving them money. 

The franchise system can work different. 

If an operator wants to run a tranche or routes, they pay to do that.
Not the taxpayer or local authority.
It's far from ideal, but at least we aren't seeing the handouts we see currently.

ah no arguments on the hypocrisy point, I was just talking about the general point really.

Happy to be corrected though but aren't the franchises working the opposite way round though ie. the tax payer / LA pays the operator the run the buses and they take the fares rather than the opposite way around, which is less risky - basically how these tenders work anyway. I know there's reports that the franchising has cost £135m to setup in Manchester which is an awful lot of money and that's a few years ago aswell.

Personally I hate the tranche system where they buy depots and vehicles out, it's a horrid waste of money and would rather they do it the TFL way and force the operators to deal with that sort of stuff and do the tendering route by route. The vast majority of the North East has multiple operators in an area so there's enough competition around. I'm not sure what we're exactly gaining by franchising it out when we provide the fleet, depot, timetables, fare structure, branding and so on. What exactly are the private operators doing...? Not to mention it effectively puts all independents out of business.

(26 Feb 2025, 10:57 pm)Storx wrote To be fair can't disagree with him though, for once. I have a feeling some of these franchising plans will end up being costly for the tax payer, much more than a few subsidised services.

I have a feeling the NECA one could backfire massively as it's all easy to get growth in somewhere in Newcastle, but get the same growth in Bishop Auckland isn't happening and without any growth it's just an expense since Arriva and GoAhead make more money from a contract vs commercial so the money has to come from somewhere.

Municipals bus operators yes, as it removes the shareholders but not franchising as it effectively just protects shareholders from any losses and throws it all at the tax payer instead and there's a lot of weak routes in the North East.

I feel some like Kim are just jumping on a bandwagon ignoring that the NECA area is very different to London and Manchester and London bleeds money anyway.

It's not like the franchising of trains exactly went well which this model isn't exactly a million miles away from...

As much as you and others keep bringing up the cost, have you considered what the cost is of not delivering a franchising scheme? What is the cost to the economy, say for people not to be able to take jobs because of the impossible/unreasonable commute, people missing interviews because it's unreliable, developments struggling because of transport links and businesses failing because they're not getting the footfall?

As Andreos1 has suggested multiple times before, we're already paying a fortune for not having a franchising scheme anyway. We hand out millions to commercial operators and we have no control over it, except for where it's a contracted service.

You may say London bleeds money, but how many people in London have ever genuinely turned down work due to not being able to get there, or not being able to cover shifts due to unsociable hours and a lack of transport? I'd go as far as saying none. Transport is a public service and it should be treated as such. There's a cost to operate it, it doesn't necessarily break even, but the benefits outweigh the cost.

As much as I didn't support Kim as a candidate for Mayor, you have to remember that she was elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver this. So what you call bandwagon jumping is actually delivering a commitment.

(27 Feb 2025, 1:35 pm)Adrian wrote As much as you and others keep bringing up the cost, have you considered what the cost is of not delivering a franchising scheme? What is the cost to the economy, say for people not to be able to take jobs because of the impossible/unreasonable commute, people missing interviews because it's unreliable, developments struggling because of transport links and businesses failing because they're not getting the footfall?

As Andreos1 has suggested multiple times before, we're already paying a fortune for not having a franchising scheme anyway. We hand out millions to commercial operators and we have no control over it, except for where it's a contracted service.

You may say London bleeds money, but how many people in London have ever genuinely turned down work due to not being able to get there, or not being able to cover shifts due to unsociable hours and a lack of transport? I'd go as far as saying none. Transport is a public service and it should be treated as such. There's a cost to operate it, it doesn't necessarily break even, but the benefits outweigh the cost.

As much as I didn't support Kim as a candidate for Mayor, you have to remember that she was elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver this. So what you call bandwagon jumping is actually delivering a commitment.

Aye no arguments on the reasons for it - I agree, but I have a fear that there's no funding for it - at all. Like if Westminister guaranteed the money for 10 years, without any way of cancelling it, then fair play as it's risk free but they're not even commiting to finishing the Tyne Bridge works, or the future BSIP funds as it is. What happens next year when the government decides that the cost cutting is coming from the BSIP fund because of the black hole, inflation or whatever reason they have this week?

I really wouldn't be surprised to see it happen either and then the whole thing is screwed as you'll either have to find money from the council who don't have a pot to piss in or go on a severe cut down of costs and we're back to square one anyway - potentially even worse.

Kim doesn't help that she bows down to her masters at ever opportunity and won't criticise Labour HQ either mind. Her response to the slashing of the funds to Durham was just downright weak and like others have said in the past this is the same area that celebrating getting a small chunk of the money they wanted under BSIP in the first place.

Least in the current case if the money dried up it would only be a few mostly unused services impacted, not the whole network. Not saying that's good mind but it's the best of the worst. Obviously in an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue as the state would treat transport as a service not a cost for the economic benefits you mentioned.

(27 Feb 2025, 2:12 pm)Storx wrote Aye no arguments on the reasons for it - I agree, but I have a fear that there's no funding for it - at all. Like if Westminister guaranteed the money for 10 years, without any way of cancelling it, then fair play as it's risk free but they're not even commiting to finishing the Tyne Bridge works, or the future BSIP funds as it is. What happens next year when the government decides that the cost cutting is coming from the BSIP fund because of the black hole, inflation or whatever reason they have this week?

I really wouldn't be surprised to see it happen either and then the whole thing is screwed as you'll either have to find money from the council who don't have a pot to piss in or go on a severe cut down of costs and we're back to square one anyway - potentially even worse.

Kim doesn't help that she bows down to her masters at ever opportunity and won't criticise Labour HQ either mind. Her response to the slashing of the funds to Durham was just downright weak and like others have said in the past this is the same area that celebrating getting a small chunk of the money they wanted under BSIP in the first place.

Least in the current case if the money dried up it would only be a few mostly unused services impacted, not the whole network. Not saying that's good mind but it's the best of the worst. Obviously in an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue as the state would treat transport as a service not a cost for the economic benefits you mentioned.

What do you do then, invest in nothing for fear it may be cut? Communities are literally being abandoned because of substandard bus services, yet they remain the most used form of public transport in the country.

Both TVCA and NECA are funded directly from Government, and with exception of the historic arrangement on the Transport Levy in Tyne and Wear, it's without a penny coming from Council budgets. 

Kim's inability to stand up to Labour HQ is another story, and one for another thread...!

(27 Feb 2025, 2:39 pm)Adrian wrote What do you do then, invest in nothing for fear it may be cut? Communities are literally being abandoned because of substandard bus services, yet they remain the most used form of public transport in the country.

Both TVCA and NECA are funded directly from Government, and with exception of the historic arrangement on the Transport Levy in Tyne and Wear, it's without a penny coming from Council budgets. 

Kim's inability to stand up to Labour HQ is another story, and one for another thread...!

Honestly, I really don't have an answer. I agree that something needs done but we need a culture change from Westminister and right now it's just not there and franchising is just making a safe haven for the same operators who have ran stuff crap for years.

Personally I'd rather see them ran publically though but at arms length rather than franchised, similar to say RATP or whatever who do it really well if you ask me. Once you've already bought the depots, the vehicles and what not you've got everything you need anyway - obviously the legal issues would need to change though.

Gannon can have his input on ideas, but I'd rather he was as far away as he can be from actually having any input in actually doing anything. Similar to what benefit is there to GoAhead being anywhere near anything, they're completely useless as an understatement. Just get rid of them completely if you ask me as they're the biggest problem, and them running the same services under a franchise agreement isn't going to magically fix anything.

(27 Feb 2025, 1:28 pm)Storx wrote ah no arguments on the hypocrisy point, I was just talking about the general point really.

Happy to be corrected though but aren't the franchises working the opposite way round though ie. the tax payer / LA pays the operator the run the buses and they take the fares rather than the opposite way around, which is less risky - basically how these tenders work anyway. I know there's reports that the franchising has cost £135m to setup in Manchester which is an awful lot of money and that's a few years ago aswell.

Personally I hate the tranche system where they buy depots and vehicles out, it's a horrid waste of money and would rather they do it the TFL way and force the operators to deal with that sort of stuff and do the tendering route by route. The vast majority of the North East has multiple operators in an area so there's enough competition around. I'm not sure what we're exactly gaining by franchising it out when we provide the fleet, depot, timetables, fare structure, branding and so on. What exactly are the private operators doing...? Not to mention it effectively puts all independents out of business.

There are a couple of ways of doing it. 

The way you've suggested, which seems flawed on so many levels. 

Or, the bidder pays to run the services in a specific area, keeping the fares. 
This seems to benefit both parties and is far less of a risk to the Taxpayer.
It also means we don't see subsidised routes and the network can be designed for the people who use them.

https://www.centreforcities.org/publicat.../#benefits

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2024/W21/823198066

(27 Feb 2025, 3:22 pm)Andreos1 wrote There are a couple of ways of doing it. 

The way you've suggested, which seems flawed on so many levels. 

Or, the bidder pays to run the services in a specific area, keeping the fares. 
This seems to benefit both parties and is far less of a risk to the Taxpayer.
It also means we don't see subsidised routes and the network can be designed for the people who use them.

https://www.centreforcities.org/publicat.../#benefits

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2024/W21/823198066

I know it's gone a bit off topic but I'm not sure if tranches would work up here. Obviously in the urban areas it'll work well but there's big problems in the rural areas. Like picking out somewhere like Bishop Auckland there's no depot anywhere nearby and the depot which serves Bishop Auckland is out of area (Darlington).

Also can't see anyone wanting to pay for routes out there either as I can't imagine they make much money, if any at all. 

It'll be interesting to see what the plans are tbh. There's similar problems up in Northumberland at places like Alnwick aswell where the nearest small operator is Wooler unless I've missed someone and that's a coach business so not sure they'll be too keen to sell up when they have a business outside of the tenders.

Haven't seen any discussion on it, as far as I'm aware

(27 Feb 2025, 1:35 pm)Adrian wrote people missing interviews because it's unreliable

This point around reliability, punctuality etc always makes me laugh.

Various politicians argue that a franchised world will deliver big improvements to reliability (amongst other things) but in reality, will it?

Whether commercial or franchised, buses in the North East lack any significant levels of bus priority in most of our main towns and city centres. Certainly nothing that makes big impact. The two solutions are either :- more capital spend on bus priority infrastructure, which local authorities are clearly against (Newcastle City for example declaration that they will never put a bus lane on the Coast Road), or a massively increased cost to the authority to 'tender' services with 25% more resource requirement, which increases journey time and pushes people into cars. 

The system needs a rethink, but franchising is an expensive assumed solution, but it won't deliver.

Operators will build in penalty payments into their bid for a standard London style approach. Ultimately costing the public purse more money, whilst. Equally, no operator will be bidding big money to run a traunch the opposite way around either (i.e. run a set of routes with revenue risk), as the revenue will need to be declared at the bid stage, which will show it doesn't stack up - who is responsible if it doesn't? Either the authority needs to underwrite it, or the operator reduces the payments to assume a margin. I'm not sure this way is even legal within the framework to be honest. 

Not disregarding the various points made, but franchising only works if you ignore the balance sheet behind it. Someone is picking up that bill and it won't be the private operators.

(27 Feb 2025, 4:30 pm)Superman wrote This point around reliability, punctuality etc always makes me laugh.

Various politicians argue that a franchised world will deliver big improvements to reliability (amongst other things) but in reality, will it?

Whether commercial or franchised, buses in the North East lack any significant levels of bus priority in most of our main towns and city centres. Certainly nothing that makes big impact. The two solutions are either :- more capital spend on bus priority infrastructure, which local authorities are clearly against (Newcastle City for example declaration that they will never put a bus lane on the Coast Road), or a massively increased cost to the authority to 'tender' services with 25% more resource requirement, which increases journey time and pushes people into cars. 

The system needs a rethink, but franchising is an expensive assumed solution, but it won't deliver.

Operators will build in penalty payments into their bid for a standard London style approach. Ultimately costing the public purse more money, whilst. Equally, no operator will be bidding big money to run a traunch the opposite way around either (i.e. run a set of routes with revenue risk), as the revenue will need to be declared at the bid stage, which will show it doesn't stack up - who is responsible if it doesn't? Either the authority needs to underwrite it, or the operator reduces the payments to assume a margin. I'm not sure this way is even legal within the framework to be honest. 

Not disregarding the various points made, but franchising only works if you ignore the balance sheet behind it. Someone is picking up that bill and it won't be the private operators.

In reality, I believe it can, yes. 

Operators are very quick to blame traffic congestion for reliability issues, and whilst I accept that it is a large contributing factor, it's not the only factor. Operators have for years published unrealistic timetables, which seldom factor in that congestion exists. We've seen with the Bee Network that TfGM have had to throw more buses into some routes to improve that reliability, whereas commercial operators just don't bother most of the time.

I can remember having to rely on the Arriva 56/57/57A/X12 services at peak times 10-12 years ago, and they were an absolute nightmare. Buses would run in pairs, end up extremely late or worse, turn up and go straight past you because they're full. That didn't need capital investment on bus priority, it needed capital investment by the operator.

Councils of course need to do more to improve capital investment and bus infrastructure, but one of the barriers has always been that they don't control the bus network. They could spend £20 million on a scheme and end up with no buses using it. At least the Combined Authority having overall control over transport would give some guarantee for that capital investment, and we've seen it works in Manchester for example. Most of the City Centre road network was redesigned around the trams having priority, and it works really well.