kendall17
Forum Member
Justice for the 96!
Posts: 4,515
|
Post by kendall17 on Jan 10, 2024 22:23:23 GMT 1
My understanding is that operators are not allowed to pick and choose what buses accept metro products as this would make a mockery of its product. It clearly states that ALL buses are accepted within West Yorkshire except coaches, special services etc. Metro also state that all operators are paid fairly. Exactly, it just seems funny that other operators which have done university services have had no trouble, and also there are less used bus routes in my local area like SquarePeg's no.9, wasn't that busy and you don't see them complaining about Metro in any way and they've been going on for a decade now so have been doing well at this point. Aren't all Squarepeg's routes tendered?
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jan 17, 2024 23:02:45 GMT 1
2 New deckers have arrived in livery and in srtvice on the 398/399 work. Scania Omnilink Deckers YT09 BKA & YT09 BNA. Looking at BT the baby solo seems to be back in the road as it's been on the 61/61a this week.
|
|
kendall17
Forum Member
Justice for the 96!
Posts: 4,515
|
Post by kendall17 on Jan 17, 2024 23:38:40 GMT 1
The Esteem is up for sale, surplus to requirements.
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jan 18, 2024 0:40:29 GMT 1
The Esteem is up for sale, surplus to requirements. Actually they've officaly had it for sale from October when the Omnidekkas were first put up for sale.
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 18, 2024 22:14:53 GMT 1
Any repaints on the way for the company. Heard rumours about a N94 going but not too sure with the New omnicitys coming
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 18, 2024 22:23:00 GMT 1
The Esteem is up for sale, surplus to requirements. Actually they've officaly had it for sale from October when the Omnidekkas were first put up for sale. don’t think they’ve been been bought by anyone yet
|
|
|
Post by rikki85 on Jan 19, 2024 20:48:38 GMT 1
My understanding is that operators are not allowed to pick and choose what buses accept metro products as this would make a mockery of its product. It clearly states that ALL buses are accepted within West Yorkshire except coaches, special services etc. Metro also state that all operators are paid fairly. If they are operating a Metro contract, then Metro can dictate whatever they wish as part of that contract, including accepting Mcards. Metro have no say on commercial operations. I'm sure they'd like them to be accepted, but cannot set rules for commerially run routes. Actually, Yorkshire Buses are taking action contrary to their legal and statutory obligations. YB seem such to be run by petulant children
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 19, 2024 21:04:48 GMT 1
Any repaints on the way for the company. Heard rumours about a N94 going but not too sure with the New omnicitys coming?
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,154
|
Post by joseph on Jan 19, 2024 21:14:53 GMT 1
Why do Yorkshire Buses, or any other bus company for that matter have to accept M Card products just because they want to run services commercially in West Yorkshire as I've heard all operators must sign up? It's wrong if that's the case as it's a bit like a gang master saying 'if you want to operate on our patch you must accept this poorly paid product or you can't operate here', if it's the case then it could easily be seen as a cartel style tactic the bigger firms who are part of the West Yorkshire Ticketing Company seem to be using to stop commercial competition.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Jan 19, 2024 21:47:42 GMT 1
Why do Yorkshire Buses, or any other bus company for that matter have to accept M Card products just because they want to run services commercially in West Yorkshire as I've heard all operators must sign up? It's wrong if that's the case as it's a bit like a gang master saying 'if you want to operate on our patch you must accept this poorly paid product or you can't operate here', if it's the case then it could easily be seen as a cartel style tactic the bigger firms who are part of the West Yorkshire Ticketing Company seem to be using to stop commercial competition. Or it's part of the regulatory framework for the area in which you've decided to run buses. In the same way that any bus copanies in England and Wales have to give notice to VOSA, any bus company in London has to have it accepted by TfL (and any who want to run in Manchester will have to do similar). I'm not sure if they can opt out, but remember how annoying it used to be in Manchester having a ticket that was supposed to be for all buses, that wasn't accepted by a couple of the samller companies. I'd be surprised if they can opt out just for certain services unless they're special in some way. I'll also remind you that the company that runs the MCard scheme is owned by the bus and train companies (with WYCA having a small shareholding). I can't see the large companies wanting to make reimbursement uncompetitive for themselves and if they force through unfair rules the competition authority might be having some words.
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 19, 2024 22:42:03 GMT 1
Why do Yorkshire Buses, or any other bus company for that matter have to accept M Card products just because they want to run services commercially in West Yorkshire as I've heard all operators must sign up? It's wrong if that's the case as it's a bit like a gang master saying 'if you want to operate on our patch you must accept this poorly paid product or you can't operate here', if it's the case then it could easily be seen as a cartel style tactic the bigger firms who are part of the West Yorkshire Ticketing Company seem to be using to stop commercial competition. Or it's part of the regulatory framework for the area in which you've decided to run buses. In the same way that any bus copanies in England and Wales have to give notice to VOSA, any bus company in London has to have it accepted by TfL (and any who want to run in Manchester will have to do similar). I'm not sure if they can opt out, but remember how annoying it used to be in Manchester having a ticket that was supposed to be for all buses, that wasn't accepted by a couple of the samller companies. I'd be surprised if they can opt out just for certain services unless they're special in some way. I'll also remind you that the company that runs the MCard scheme is owned by the bus and train companies (with WYCA having a small shareholding). I can't see the large companies wanting to make reimbursement uncompetitive for themselves and if they force through unfair rules the competition authority might be having some words. agreed but atleast they will earn more money from contract
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Jan 19, 2024 22:44:15 GMT 1
Or it's part of the regulatory framework for the area in which you've decided to run buses. In the same way that any bus copanies in England and Wales have to give notice to VOSA, any bus company in London has to have it accepted by TfL (and any who want to run in Manchester will have to do similar). I'm not sure if they can opt out, but remember how annoying it used to be in Manchester having a ticket that was supposed to be for all buses, that wasn't accepted by a couple of the samller companies. I'd be surprised if they can opt out just for certain services unless they're special in some way. I'll also remind you that the company that runs the MCard scheme is owned by the bus and train companies (with WYCA having a small shareholding). I can't see the large companies wanting to make reimbursement uncompetitive for themselves and if they force through unfair rules the competition authority might be having some words. agreed but atleast they will earn more money from contract Who will from what contract?
|
|
joseph
Forum Member
Posts: 1,154
|
Post by joseph on Jan 20, 2024 8:53:15 GMT 1
agreed but atleast they will earn more money from contract Who will from what contract? I think he means contracted work (113, 398/9) rather than normal bus work (29) should they be forced to pull the plug on the 29 for not taking M Cards. Personally, I'd approach the University for them to fully fund the 29 as part of a private contract with exclusive use to University students only or threaten to withdraw it citing that First also couldn't make it work, no other operator has expressed interest and WYCA have previously said they're not funding it, the big wig professors and chancellors in charge would soon be coughing up lol.
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Jan 20, 2024 12:18:28 GMT 1
Why do Yorkshire Buses, or any other bus company for that matter have to accept M Card products just because they want to run services commercially in West Yorkshire as I've heard all operators must sign up? It's wrong if that's the case as it's a bit like a gang master saying 'if you want to operate on our patch you must accept this poorly paid product or you can't operate here', if it's the case then it could easily be seen as a cartel style tactic the bigger firms who are part of the West Yorkshire Ticketing Company seem to be using to stop commercial competition. Or it's part of the regulatory framework for the area in which you've decided to run buses. In the same way that any bus copanies in England and Wales have to give notice to VOSA, any bus company in London has to have it accepted by TfL (and any who want to run in Manchester will have to do similar). I'm not sure if they can opt out, but remember how annoying it used to be in Manchester having a ticket that was supposed to be for all buses, that wasn't accepted by a couple of the samller companies. I'd be surprised if they can opt out just for certain services unless they're special in some way. I'll also remind you that the company that runs the MCard scheme is owned by the bus and train companies (with WYCA having a small shareholding). I can't see the large companies wanting to make reimbursement uncompetitive for themselves and if they force through unfair rules the competition authority might be having some words. No ticketing scheme is compulsory like that, even in London it isn't compulsory to accept on commercial services (what limited ones there may be) only on TfL contracts. The only compulsory scheme is the concessionary bus pass because that is a statutory one outlined by parliamentary legislation which basically means that operators cannot choose to opt out but councils, within certain specified categories, can exclude or include routes as they wish. If you made these schemes compulsory there would be no incentive for councils to actually ensure proper reimbursement (even with concessions there is a stated framework to calculate reimbursement even if many feel it is insufficient to properly cover costs), even without compulsory inclusion the issues of market dominance can mean that reimbursement can be an issue for smaller operators and you see what happened in Merseyside with operators going to the wall because reimbursement for schemes was insufficient - even more so if operator controlled as it is possible for the large operators to dominate decision making and set the product to their liking and undermine their competitors without being in breach of competition rules in this circumstance. Where this comes in it is normally actually the other way round, to participate in the ticketing scheme you have to meet certain standards and/or participate in a voluntary partnership, rather than forcing acceptance without a separate advantage. It is actually quite common for there to be conflict between the larger operators (who want a higher sale price to differentiate from their own brand product, but will accept lower reimbursement per usage as they have high volume routes so a take a high percentage of the total income and often price their own brand season tickets that way anyway) and smaller operators (who want a more competitive price but a reimbursement that reflects their needs). It becomes more complicated when trains get involved, we had a scheme which include train & bus and despite the bus operators having over 75% of the usage they received less than half of the revenue in total because the train operators got what they demanded and the bus operators had to divide the rest - this imbalance led to my employers pulling out of the scheme for a while but in this case it was a purely leisure product (the price was 50% more than any operator specific equivalent) which meant that we saw very little transfer to other products so we returned to the scheme as what income we got was all additional which is not the case with MCard which is a general usage product intended to be used by regular passengers. It does need to be remembered that this service is primarily a University Student focussed service, so most passengers will be eligible for these discounted tickets (a much different ratio to almost any other service so a standard reimbursement will not work out fair and unlike First there isn't a large volume elsewhere to compensate) and that usage is probably not linked to the acceptance of the discount in the same way (the other factor in reimbursement calculation is a generation factor for the product and on a service like this it is very different from a bus for locals to town) so participation of this service brings limited benefit for a cost implication. The 29 is not a standard route so this is a very specific issue and it would not be a surprise to see routes like this excluded from such schemes.
|
|
|
Post by rikki85 on Jan 20, 2024 15:23:13 GMT 1
Or it's part of the regulatory framework for the area in which you've decided to run buses. In the same way that any bus copanies in England and Wales have to give notice to VOSA, any bus company in London has to have it accepted by TfL (and any who want to run in Manchester will have to do similar). I'm not sure if they can opt out, but remember how annoying it used to be in Manchester having a ticket that was supposed to be for all buses, that wasn't accepted by a couple of the samller companies. I'd be surprised if they can opt out just for certain services unless they're special in some way. I'll also remind you that the company that runs the MCard scheme is owned by the bus and train companies (with WYCA having a small shareholding). I can't see the large companies wanting to make reimbursement uncompetitive for themselves and if they force through unfair rules the competition authority might be having some words. No ticketing scheme is compulsory like that, even in London it isn't compulsory to accept on commercial services (what limited ones there may be) only on TfL contracts. The only compulsory scheme is the concessionary bus pass because that is a statutory one outlined by parliamentary legislation which basically means that operators cannot choose to opt out but councils, within certain specified categories, can exclude or include routes as they wish. If you made these schemes compulsory there would be no incentive for councils to actually ensure proper reimbursement (even with concessions there is a stated framework to calculate reimbursement even if many feel it is insufficient to properly cover costs), even without compulsory inclusion the issues of market dominance can mean that reimbursement can be an issue for smaller operators and you see what happened in Merseyside with operators going to the wall because reimbursement for schemes was insufficient - even more so if operator controlled as it is possible for the large operators to dominate decision making and set the product to their liking and undermine their competitors without being in breach of competition rules in this circumstance. Where this comes in it is normally actually the other way round, to participate in the ticketing scheme you have to meet certain standards and/or participate in a voluntary partnership, rather than forcing acceptance without a separate advantage. It is actually quite common for there to be conflict between the larger operators (who want a higher sale price to differentiate from their own brand product, but will accept lower reimbursement per usage as they have high volume routes so a take a high percentage of the total income and often price their own brand season tickets that way anyway) and smaller operators (who want a more competitive price but a reimbursement that reflects their needs). It becomes more complicated when trains get involved, we had a scheme which include train & bus and despite the bus operators having over 75% of the usage they received less than half of the revenue in total because the train operators got what they demanded and the bus operators had to divide the rest - this imbalance led to my employers pulling out of the scheme for a while but in this case it was a purely leisure product (the price was 50% more than any operator specific equivalent) which meant that we saw very little transfer to other products so we returned to the scheme as what income we got was all additional which is not the case with MCard which is a general usage product intended to be used by regular passengers. It does need to be remembered that this service is primarily a University Student focussed service, so most passengers will be eligible for these discounted tickets (a much different ratio to almost any other service so a standard reimbursement will not work out fair and unlike First there isn't a large volume elsewhere to compensate) and that usage is probably not linked to the acceptance of the discount in the same way (the other factor in reimbursement calculation is a generation factor for the product and on a service like this it is very different from a bus for locals to town) so participation of this service brings limited benefit for a cost implication. The 29 is not a standard route so this is a very specific issue and it would not be a surprise to see routes like this excluded from such schemes. Somewhat different to the offical viewpoint WYCA/Metro which is YB are acting contrary to legal and statutory obligations.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Jan 20, 2024 19:52:27 GMT 1
Or it's part of the regulatory framework for the area in which you've decided to run buses. In the same way that any bus copanies in England and Wales have to give notice to VOSA, any bus company in London has to have it accepted by TfL (and any who want to run in Manchester will have to do similar). I'm not sure if they can opt out, but remember how annoying it used to be in Manchester having a ticket that was supposed to be for all buses, that wasn't accepted by a couple of the samller companies. I'd be surprised if they can opt out just for certain services unless they're special in some way. I'll also remind you that the company that runs the MCard scheme is owned by the bus and train companies (with WYCA having a small shareholding). I can't see the large companies wanting to make reimbursement uncompetitive for themselves and if they force through unfair rules the competition authority might be having some words. No ticketing scheme is compulsory like that, even in London it isn't compulsory to accept on commercial services (what limited ones there may be) only on TfL contracts. The only compulsory scheme is the concessionary bus pass because that is a statutory one outlined by parliamentary legislation which basically means that operators cannot choose to opt out but councils, within certain specified categories, can exclude or include routes as they wish. If you made these schemes compulsory there would be no incentive for councils to actually ensure proper reimbursement (even with concessions there is a stated framework to calculate reimbursement even if many feel it is insufficient to properly cover costs), even without compulsory inclusion the issues of market dominance can mean that reimbursement can be an issue for smaller operators and you see what happened in Merseyside with operators going to the wall because reimbursement for schemes was insufficient - even more so if operator controlled as it is possible for the large operators to dominate decision making and set the product to their liking and undermine their competitors without being in breach of competition rules in this circumstance. Where this comes in it is normally actually the other way round, to participate in the ticketing scheme you have to meet certain standards and/or participate in a voluntary partnership, rather than forcing acceptance without a separate advantage. It is actually quite common for there to be conflict between the larger operators (who want a higher sale price to differentiate from their own brand product, but will accept lower reimbursement per usage as they have high volume routes so a take a high percentage of the total income and often price their own brand season tickets that way anyway) and smaller operators (who want a more competitive price but a reimbursement that reflects their needs). It becomes more complicated when trains get involved, we had a scheme which include train & bus and despite the bus operators having over 75% of the usage they received less than half of the revenue in total because the train operators got what they demanded and the bus operators had to divide the rest - this imbalance led to my employers pulling out of the scheme for a while but in this case it was a purely leisure product (the price was 50% more than any operator specific equivalent) which meant that we saw very little transfer to other products so we returned to the scheme as what income we got was all additional which is not the case with MCard which is a general usage product intended to be used by regular passengers. It does need to be remembered that this service is primarily a University Student focussed service, so most passengers will be eligible for these discounted tickets (a much different ratio to almost any other service so a standard reimbursement will not work out fair and unlike First there isn't a large volume elsewhere to compensate) and that usage is probably not linked to the acceptance of the discount in the same way (the other factor in reimbursement calculation is a generation factor for the product and on a service like this it is very different from a bus for locals to town) so participation of this service brings limited benefit for a cost implication. The 29 is not a standard route so this is a very specific issue and it would not be a surprise to see routes like this excluded from such schemes. I didn't suggest there was a compulsory fare system in London - though there will be for operators wanting to run cross-border services in Manchester. I said there were rules for operating in London that companies that want to run there have to accept.
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 21, 2024 21:56:07 GMT 1
Anyone know when next repaint is? Noticed there hasn’t been one for a while except from the ones that came with it when new to fleet
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jan 21, 2024 23:28:58 GMT 1
Anyone know when next repaint is? Noticed there hasn’t been one for a while except from the ones that came with it when new to fleet at the moment the priority will be just focusing on maintainence & MOTs.
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on Jan 22, 2024 9:14:25 GMT 1
I didn't suggest there was a compulsory fare system in London - though there will be for operators wanting to run cross-border services in Manchester. I said there were rules for operating in London that companies that want to run there have to accept. My reference to London was that if TfL, who have never been deregulated and have had total control over bus operation/registration within their boundaries for nearly 40 years haven't been able to (or chosen to) implement such a ruling then it is unlikely to be an easy or simple thing to get powers to do. London, like a number of other authorities (Nottingham did this as well) work the other way round by tying access to their ticketing products to providing higher standards of operation or participating in Quality Partnership schemes to be able to participate in such products. There are plenty of services that operate in the TfL area, almost all cross-boundary but I think there are one or two wholly within where funding comes from outside parties (like developers or organisations for the use of their customers so technically 'open door') where the operator has decided that the business gain from participation is outweighed by the cost of meeting the requirements for that participation.
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 23, 2024 7:53:19 GMT 1
Anyone know when next repaint is? Noticed there hasn’t been one for a while except from the ones that came with it when new to fleet at the moment the priority will be just focusing on maintainence & MOTs. thought this myself but did hear something about DFJ going
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on Jan 23, 2024 12:44:26 GMT 1
I didn't suggest there was a compulsory fare system in London - though there will be for operators wanting to run cross-border services in Manchester. I said there were rules for operating in London that companies that want to run there have to accept. My reference to London was that if TfL, who have never been deregulated and have had total control over bus operation/registration within their boundaries for nearly 40 years haven't been able to (or chosen to) implement such a ruling then it is unlikely to be an easy or simple thing to get powers to do. London, like a number of other authorities (Nottingham did this as well) work the other way round by tying access to their ticketing products to providing higher standards of operation or participating in Quality Partnership schemes to be able to participate in such products. There are plenty of services that operate in the TfL area, almost all cross-boundary but I think there are one or two wholly within where funding comes from outside parties (like developers or organisations for the use of their customers so technically 'open door') where the operator has decided that the business gain from participation is outweighed by the cost of meeting the requirements for that participation. It can't be that hard. I'll say again, operators in Manchester will have to accept Bee tickets. I referenced London as having a different regulatory framework from most of the country without it making them the mafia. I didn't think TfL were bothered about everyone accepting TfL tickets. Some operators used to have contracts where they did, but the rate of reimbursement became lower and lower and would have required additional kit to check Oystercards and the like at a time when most operators didn't take any smartcards or debit/credit cards.
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jan 23, 2024 13:48:13 GMT 1
at the moment the priority will be just focusing on maintainence & MOTs. thought this myself but did hear something about DFJ going DFJ is still in daily use on 113.
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on Jan 23, 2024 13:59:02 GMT 1
at the moment the priority will be just focusing on maintainence & MOTs. thought this myself but did hear something about DFJ going so Mr Carr has confirmed on one of the enthusiasts pages on FB 6 weeks ago that there's a back log at the painters and it'll be Feb the earliest with DFJ going first followed by YB02.
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 24, 2024 7:55:15 GMT 1
thought this myself but did hear something about DFJ going so Mr Carr has confirmed on one of the enthusiasts pages on FB 6 weeks ago that there's a back log at the painters and it'll be Feb the earliest with DFJ going first followed by YB02. oh great news! nice to see the repaints starting again
|
|
|
Post by YN56_Scanias! on Jan 28, 2024 16:50:26 GMT 1
Seen a comment on enthusiasts group on Facebook saying that they’ve heard about DFJ going for repaint next week through the grapevine
|
|