|
Post by westyorkshirebus on May 1, 2024 18:30:27 GMT 1
The first phase is planned to be Heavy Woollen, Kirklees and Leeds 3
Which approximates to be Heckmondwike, Dewsbury, Old Fieldhouse Lane, Waterloo and Bramley
So the very first service would probably be one of those, and bear in mind, it’ll probably be a Sunday
|
|
|
Post by wytraveller87 on May 4, 2024 20:53:40 GMT 1
Well there's no surprise that the current mayors of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, and Liverpool City Region, who favour franchising, have retained their positions in this week's local elections.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on May 4, 2024 21:11:29 GMT 1
Well there's no surprise that the current mayors of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, and Liverpool City Region, who favour franchising, have retained their positions in this week's local elections. With Mayor Brabin having got more than 3 times as many votes as the next placed candidate. Richard Parker who has just scraped in as West Midlands Mayor, beating the incumbent, also has franchising in his manifesto.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on May 5, 2024 9:40:36 GMT 1
Just reading the consultation summary document, it appears, Go Ahead and Stagecoach's response to franchising is a lot more positive than other companies, whether them 2 are trying to suck up to the WYCA in order to get some of the franchises, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by wytraveller87 on May 5, 2024 10:58:26 GMT 1
Just reading the consultation summary document, it appears, Go Ahead and Stagecoach's response to franchising is a lot more positive than other companies, whether them 2 are trying to suck up to the WYCA in order to get some of the franchises, I don't know. Stagecoach have changed their tune then, in past they moaned about it and took legal action which they were unsuccessful. Probably because they awarded them with most routes than other companies 🤔
|
|
|
Post by steve440 on May 5, 2024 11:31:35 GMT 1
Just reading the consultation summary document, it appears, Go Ahead and Stagecoach's response to franchising is a lot more positive than other companies, whether them 2 are trying to suck up to the WYCA in order to get some of the franchises, I don't know. They don't have to "suck up" as you put it, they just have to put in a winning bid.
|
|
WYBS
Forum Member
Watch-o
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by WYBS on May 5, 2024 11:55:11 GMT 1
Just reading the consultation summary document, it appears, Go Ahead and Stagecoach's response to franchising is a lot more positive than other companies, whether them 2 are trying to suck up to the WYCA in order to get some of the franchises, I don't know. When I read it I noticed far more mention of Stagecoach commenting than First.
|
|
|
Post by deerfold on May 5, 2024 12:16:38 GMT 1
Just reading the consultation summary document, it appears, Go Ahead and Stagecoach's response to franchising is a lot more positive than other companies, whether them 2 are trying to suck up to the WYCA in order to get some of the franchises, I don't know. Tranches can only be awarded based on what's in the bids or WYCA would be leaving themselves open to legal challenges. Anything other than the cheapest bid will need a convincing explanation.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on May 5, 2024 12:24:56 GMT 1
What happens if a franchise doesn't get any bids, I know this scenario is probably extremely rare, what happens then?
|
|
|
Post by dwarfer1979 on May 6, 2024 9:14:54 GMT 1
Just reading the consultation summary document, it appears, Go Ahead and Stagecoach's response to franchising is a lot more positive than other companies, whether them 2 are trying to suck up to the WYCA in order to get some of the franchises, I don't know. Stagecoach have changed their tune then, in past they moaned about it and took legal action which they were unsuccessful. Probably because they awarded them with most routes than other companies 🤔 New ownership & new senior management. The new owners are foreign based companies who have experience of franchising type arrangements, the very businesses that the old directors were worried of winning the contracts over them, so naturally the new owners will have a different view than previously. Also Stagecoach & Go-Ahead have little to no presence in West Yorkshire so will see it as an opportunity rather than a threat to their existing business, see also the difference between Rotala's attitude to Greater Manchester franchising before & after their purchase of First Bolton.
|
|
|
Post by martinsfp on May 13, 2024 8:41:40 GMT 1
This is a good read on the topic of small operators being squeezed out by franchising: “A basic way of starting to settle the SME conundrum is mandating that small contracts cannot run from a depot that hosts a large contract. Such an approach has been mooted in West Yorkshire. “That is trying to put small operators on a level playing field with a large business on operating costs,” Frank suggests, although he believes that it could be pushing procurement rules to their limit.” www.route-one.net/features/how-can-bus-franchising-be-made-to-work-better-for-smes/
|
|
|
Post by sharksmith on May 13, 2024 9:50:56 GMT 1
This is a good read on the topic of small operators being squeezed out by franchising: “A basic way of starting to settle the SME conundrum is mandating that small contracts cannot run from a depot that hosts a large contract. Such an approach has been mooted in West Yorkshire. “That is trying to put small operators on a level playing field with a large business on operating costs,” Frank suggests, although he believes that it could be pushing procurement rules to their limit.” www.route-one.net/features/how-can-bus-franchising-be-made-to-work-better-for-smes/Yes it is very interesting. The only thing I would say is that although it is important to have these small to medium sized operators within the system, it is also important to provide value for money for the taxpayer. If a large group can provide a lower bid simply because they can avoid duplicate costs by running from a single base, should this be disregarded simply to prop up the businesses of smaller companies? In general I am very much against large companies swallowing up all competition, just look at what the supermarkets have done to variety on the high street, but I'm sure one of the major selling points of franchising is that this will provide better value for money. Not so if a potentially much lower bid cannot be accepted due to this kind of condition being enforced. I don't really know another solution to the problem which would protect our small businesses but anything put in place which artificially protects them would appear to come at some cost.
|
|
|
Post by stevieinselby on May 13, 2024 13:04:02 GMT 1
If a large group can provide a lower bid simply because they can avoid duplicate costs by running from a single base, should this be disregarded simply to prop up the businesses of smaller companies? I would say it isn't about "propping up" the businesses of smaller operators, but about recognising that the franchising process is disproportionately more challenging for them because of the admin costs involved. Outside of franchising, they have a perfectly viable business model, but when franchising makes it less cost-effective for them it would be discriminatory not to give them adequate redress.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on May 13, 2024 13:11:39 GMT 1
I think the small operators are just as not if more important than the big operators, and need to be protected at all costs. Without them, a lot of areas wouldn't have buses and I feel certain small operators in West Yorkshire can provide a service that some of the big operators can't.
Some of these small operators have been around, longer than probably 95 percent of us alive and certainly been around longer than the big companies, it would be an absolute tragedy for them to go out of business because of franchising. For example, SquarePeg, Ross Travel, A Lyles, South Pennine and Stotts, will be a major loss to West Yorkshire, I'm hoping Brabin protects these companies!
A lot of these small operators have a dedicated and loyal customer base as well.
|
|
|
Post by sharksmith on May 13, 2024 13:49:18 GMT 1
Let's hope lessons have been learned from Bee Network as it hasn't worked out well for the smaller companies on the other side of the Pennines.
I'm not sure 'protected at all costs' is the best way to proceed. For each good quality independent which you have named, there are a couple of other less well regarded companies who have been highlighted regularly on this forum. You wouldn't want to provide additional help and funding to some of the cowboys who have run services in the area over recent years by giving them a competitive edge. I hope that Metro do a much better job of overseeing their franchises than they have of certain tenders that they seem to have ignored recently
I'd much prefer to see a range of smaller one to three route sized packages, which could be based around current small operators networks, which are maybe of more interest to a small operator and not as attractive for the major players to bother producing a bid for. I think this is much better than positive discrimation which could end up being bad value for money and attracting chancers to have a go at running buses ahead of the more established smaller operator. It's difficult though, as even with the large groups removed from bidding you could end up with a company like A&A winning the current Ross Travel/South Pennine routes franchise with a low bid, I'm sure that's one thing we can all agree on that no-one wants to happen.
Also don't forget that these smaller operators will likely lose all local identity and their vehicles will just become a bus which looks like all the others and the companies will become more anonymous to the general passenger. No matter how excellent they are operating their own routes, they will just become another Yellow...Green...Pink bus and only be as well regarded as the rest of the network is.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on May 13, 2024 14:43:43 GMT 1
Let's hope lessons have been learned from Bee Network as it hasn't worked out well for the smaller companies on the other side of the Pennines. I'm not sure 'protected at all costs' is the best way to proceed. For each good quality independent which you have named, there are a couple of other less well regarded companies who have been highlighted regularly on this forum. You wouldn't want to provide additional help and funding to some of the cowboys who have run services in the area over recent years by giving them a competitive edge. I hope that Metro do a much better job of overseeing their franchises than they have of certain tenders that they seem to have ignored recently I'd much prefer to see a range of smaller one to three route sized packages, which could be based around current small operators networks, which are maybe of more interest to a small operator and not as attractive for the major players to bother producing a bid for. I think this is much better than positive discrimation which could end up being bad value for money and attracting chancers to have a go at running buses ahead of the more established smaller operator. It's difficult though, as even with the large groups removed from bidding you could end up with a company like A&A winning the current Ross Travel/South Pennine routes franchise with a low bid, I'm sure that's one thing we can all agree on that no-one wants to happen. Also don't forget that these smaller operators will likely lose all local identity and their vehicles will just become a bus which looks like all the others and the companies will become more anonymous to the general passenger. No matter how excellent they are operating their own routes, they will just become another Yellow...Green...Pink bus and only be as well regarded as the rest of the network is. I certainly won't want A and A Coach Travel to be involved, total cowboy operation and won't do anyone any good. Don't want them to pick up any routes, certainly won't benefit the passenger, WYCA, or the brand. I think I did mention it a bit wrong. Your quite right there is a few operators in West Yorkshire who don't have the best reputations WYCA and Metro do need to be a bit more proactive, for example, the route 30 tender, should have been stripped from them a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by sharksmith on May 13, 2024 15:02:05 GMT 1
Let's hope lessons have been learned from Bee Network as it hasn't worked out well for the smaller companies on the other side of the Pennines. I'm not sure 'protected at all costs' is the best way to proceed. For each good quality independent which you have named, there are a couple of other less well regarded companies who have been highlighted regularly on this forum. You wouldn't want to provide additional help and funding to some of the cowboys who have run services in the area over recent years by giving them a competitive edge. I hope that Metro do a much better job of overseeing their franchises than they have of certain tenders that they seem to have ignored recently I'd much prefer to see a range of smaller one to three route sized packages, which could be based around current small operators networks, which are maybe of more interest to a small operator and not as attractive for the major players to bother producing a bid for. I think this is much better than positive discrimation which could end up being bad value for money and attracting chancers to have a go at running buses ahead of the more established smaller operator. It's difficult though, as even with the large groups removed from bidding you could end up with a company like A&A winning the current Ross Travel/South Pennine routes franchise with a low bid, I'm sure that's one thing we can all agree on that no-one wants to happen. Also don't forget that these smaller operators will likely lose all local identity and their vehicles will just become a bus which looks like all the others and the companies will become more anonymous to the general passenger. No matter how excellent they are operating their own routes, they will just become another Yellow...Green...Pink bus and only be as well regarded as the rest of the network is. I certainly won't want A and A Coach Travel to be involved, total cowboy operation and won't do anyone any good. Don't want them to pick up any routes, certainly won't benefit the passenger, WYCA, or the brand. I think I did mention it a bit wrong. Your quite right there is a few operators in West Yorkshire who don't have the best reputations WYCA and Metro do need to be a bit more proactive, for example, the route 30 tender, should have been stripped from them a long time ago. Fortuately I don't think there's any chance they would be awarded a franchise but putting obstacles in the way of bids could quite easily lead to unforseen consequences, just like putting your finger in a dam near Amsterdam, you solve one problem and it opens up others.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on May 13, 2024 18:30:30 GMT 1
This is a good read on the topic of small operators being squeezed out by franchising: “A basic way of starting to settle the SME conundrum is mandating that small contracts cannot run from a depot that hosts a large contract. Such an approach has been mooted in West Yorkshire. “That is trying to put small operators on a level playing field with a large business on operating costs,” Frank suggests, although he believes that it could be pushing procurement rules to their limit.” www.route-one.net/features/how-can-bus-franchising-be-made-to-work-better-for-smes/I’m sure this rule is already in place in Manchester The issue being that Diamond lost their existing big operation but then won loads of the small contracts You could for example see a Diamond equivalent establishing a base say in Elland and mopping up all the Calderdale and Huddersfield small contracts pushing out Stotts, South Pennine, TLC, Team Pennine and there is nothing that could be done about it.
|
|
mattb7tl
Forum Member
Streetlites 🛐
Posts: 765
|
Post by mattb7tl on May 13, 2024 19:31:37 GMT 1
I'm gonna say the opposite and say it is a better system for smaller operators In the private world their only opportunities for expansion are gaining more contracts for routes that carry a total of three people a year. They won't ever run a meaningful route like the 16 or 56. In this case as long as they are willing to scale and can place a competitive bid they aren't stuck with the bottom of the barrel scraps.
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on May 13, 2024 19:38:41 GMT 1
I can't see a company like Ross Travel or Stotts trying to compete with Stagecoach. Don't know if Ross Travel or Stotts can place a bid as competitive as the big boys.
All the independents have virtually gone in Manchester because of franchising, they just couldn't be able to compete with Go Ahead, Stagecoach, multi-million pound companies
I can't see any other company providing an excellent service on the routes South Pennine serve.
We've seen a lot of times independent companies going out of business, because they grow too big too soon
|
|
|
Post by stephen01 on May 13, 2024 20:14:09 GMT 1
I can't see a company like Ross Travel or Stotts trying to compete with Stagecoach. Don't know if Ross Travel or Stotts can place a bid as competitive as the big boys. All the independents have virtually gone in Manchester because of franchising, they just couldn't be able to compete with Go Ahead, Stagecoach, multi-million pound companies I can't see any other company providing an excellent service on the routes South Pennine serve. We've seen a lot of times independent companies going out of business, because they grow too big too soon Stotts would still have their general coach hire as well as National express work. EP+ would have given everyone an even "playing field" to work on and would have cost less than Franchising for the local councils & the WYCA. Ross Travel, Stringers, Lyles & Station Coaches will still have their coach work.
|
|
pricel
Forum Member
Posts: 487
|
Post by pricel on May 13, 2024 20:58:00 GMT 1
I can't see a company like Ross Travel or Stotts trying to compete with Stagecoach. Don't know if Ross Travel or Stotts can place a bid as competitive as the big boys. All the independents have virtually gone in Manchester because of franchising, they just couldn't be able to compete with Go Ahead, Stagecoach, multi-million pound companies I can't see any other company providing an excellent service on the routes South Pennine serve. We've seen a lot of times independent companies going out of business, because they grow too big too soon Not all independents are gone in Greater Manchester, afaik Visions runs some school contracts and Stotts have won a bid for school contracts in Tranche 3.
|
|
|
Post by shelf81 on May 13, 2024 21:20:07 GMT 1
I'm gonna say the opposite and say it is a better system for smaller operators In the private world their only opportunities for expansion are gaining more contracts for routes that carry a total of three people a year. They won't ever run a meaningful route like the 16 or 56. In this case as long as they are willing to scale and can place a competitive bid they aren't stuck with the bottom of the barrel scraps. I'm not sure what you mean by independents not running a 'meaningful' route such as the 16 or 56, as if an operator wanted to operate them as long as they could find the staff & vehicles required there is nothing stopping them under the current system, or the likes of Stotts deciding to start expanding on their doorstep with the Golcers/Colne Valley routes against First what have seen cuts.
|
|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on May 13, 2024 21:30:50 GMT 1
I can't see a company like Ross Travel or Stotts trying to compete with Stagecoach. Don't know if Ross Travel or Stotts can place a bid as competitive as the big boys. All the independents have virtually gone in Manchester because of franchising, they just couldn't be able to compete with Go Ahead, Stagecoach, multi-million pound companies I can't see any other company providing an excellent service on the routes South Pennine serve. We've seen a lot of times independent companies going out of business, because they grow too big too soon Not all independents are gone in Greater Manchester, afaik Visions runs some school contracts and Stotts have won a bid for school contracts in Tranche 3. The Tranche 3 school contracts haven’t been awarded yet
|
|
|
Post by rodneytrotter on May 13, 2024 21:44:05 GMT 1
I'm gonna say the opposite and say it is a better system for smaller operators In the private world their only opportunities for expansion are gaining more contracts for routes that carry a total of three people a year. They won't ever run a meaningful route like the 16 or 56. In this case as long as they are willing to scale and can place a competitive bid they aren't stuck with the bottom of the barrel scraps. I'm not sure what you mean by independents not running a 'meaningful' route such as the 16 or 56, as if an operator wanted to operate them as long as they could find the staff & vehicles required there is nothing stopping them under the current system, or the likes of Stotts deciding to start expanding on their doorstep with the Golcers/Colne Valley routes against First what have seen cuts. I think Squarepeg is the perfect example of your post. They have meaningful routes and have expanded.
|
|