The consolidation of the English bus operating industry continues apace with news that drivers from Bullock’s Coaches have this week received letters from their employer stating that Bullock’s local bus services will transfer to Stagecoach.
R Bullock & Son is the only *independent* commercial operator left on the infamous Wilmslow Road. This corridor was once held aloft as both a deregulation success and a deregulation failure, depending upon your point-of-view. It was a licence to print money, thanks principally to the number of students along it. It was home to stiff competition between Greater Manchester Buses South (latterly Stagecoach), Wall’s, and Fingland’s. It spawned Stagecoach’s Manchester's Magic Bus, as a no-frills competition spoiler. Latterly, it also saw acknowledged cowboy UK North ply the road.
Bullock’s decision leaves Fingland’s as the only competition along the corridor, a company owned by East Yorkshire. The Manchester Buses blog suggests that the little-used Bullock’s service will simply be absorbed and will therefore disappear. If so, what real need is there for the separate identity Magic Bus services?
In south Manchester, Stagecoach appears to be steamrollering its competition, following the recent purchase of other long-standing independent Mayne’s. Contrast this to the north, where First currently seems content to co-exist with its independents. In the current climate, how long is that likely to last?
Bullock’s started as a typical 1920s haulier-come-passenger transport provider. It concentrated on bus and coaches work, remaining small. Small, till deregulation, that is. It was one of deregulation’s unsung heroes, grasping the Transport Act 1985’s opportunities with both hands. It expanded considerably, with over 80 vehicles at its peak. Service work has declined somewhat since c.2001.
i Additional information and photos by Omnibuses’ Northern Correspondent
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Unsung Hero to Vanish
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
As a user of Stagecoach services in Manchester, I have zero problem with them expanding. Their monthly ticket is relatively cheap, many of the buses are new - compared with Arriva or First in the city - and the frequency of them is better also. The newer buses are also more comfortable, quiter and faster. Consolidation may be seen as bad but when the service of the monopolist is actually better is it worth caring?
Yes it is worth caring because when one operator comes to dominate a city or at least part of of it and where they have no competition then prices will rocket and the service will become worse as the operator who ever that maybe will have no Competition left and will do what they like
It's not really the case though that there will be 'no competition'. The competitor to the bus is the car. The continued growth of public transport can only be achieved through a better service and a price which reflects the value gained from it. It has nothing to do with how many operators are out there but to offer a service of quality which people will be happy to use. Only this way can a company make a profit.
Potentially the biggest losers when one operator has a monopoly will be the local authorities who put socially necessary services out to tender. When there is only one operator in an area capable of operating a tendered service, then they will be able to choose their price, and it probably won't be a cheap one! Thus, indirectly, the council tax payers of the affected area also lose out.
I agree that, from another angle, the bus service needs to be competitive against using the car, or bicycle, or even walking. But some degree of competition between operators is also in the public interest.
Re comments from RC169. I can see what you're saying but it seems like the system of putting a non-profitable service out to tender needs to be changed if a monopoly exists in a particular area. In many other industries - TV for example - if you wish to have the opportunity to make money from one service, then you must also carry out other services that make a loss but are needed in the community. The bus company could then be given a fixed price (which can be tied to costs or inflation adjusted or whatever) to carry out the service. Maybe I've missed something but putting socially needed services out to tender is perhaps not the best way to get the job done in the first place.
Well, local authorities use tendering for a wide variety of services that they buy-in, so I presume that it is considered generally to work satisfactorily. I'm not sure how your suggestion would work in practice - are you suggesting that, if it is deemed that in a particular area (presumably by the OFT) there was one monopoly operator, then the local authorities could 'require' that operator to fill in any 'gaps' in their commercial network for a price fixed by the local authority? I suppose it might work, but I can imagine that operators would complain if they considered the price offered to be too low (shades of the Senior Citizens' Nationwide Free Travel reimbursements here!) I suspect that the administration of such a system would be cumbersome, and that it really is simpler to ensure that such a monopoly is not allowed to develop in the first place.
As a regular user of Bullocks buses for many years, they will be seriously missed for their reasonable fares,good timing keeping and reliability and above all the friendly and helpful drivers. It is an irony that the that the Bullocks 157 service is rumoured to disappear under Stagecoach and yet Manchester will be introducing congestion charges in 2013 and it is pledging to spend £3billion on public transport improvements. Why are these issues connected? This service connects Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme and Cheadle with numerous Hospitals and two Universities within the congestion one. Many thousands of the staff live in these areas, and with some rush hour service increase and an inventive marketing campaign, could be persuaded to return to public transport.
I don't think there have been any announcements about what changes Stagecoach will make to the routes. Certainly where there is a direct Stagecoach service already then maybe the Bullocks service will go, but I wouldn't see anything drastic happening otherwise. Has anyone noticed anything on former Maynes routes?
As for tenders, there are plenty of people willing to have a go. Have you notice the ugly little white buses on the 44?
Magicbus is a successful brand and I would imagine it will remain as it is provides a very useful segmentation of the market along that corridor.
Finally, I am not sure that all Bullocks routes are involved. The 147 has been mentioned as staying with Bullocks.
Post a Comment