If you thought after the shootout between Velvet and Bluestar matters had settled down in Eastleigh, think again, as Mystery Contributor reports…
Phil Stockley’s Black Velvet Travel has been trading for actively 10 months and has been through some growing pains.
Stockley rerouted his core ex-Bluestar/Red Rocket commercial service A in Eastleigh following a period of disruption owing to town centre roadworks, while reducing its frequency from half-hourly to hourly.
The New Forest services gained on Hampshire tender in May have already been surrendered (they finish after last operation on 10th January 2009), with the amount of dead mileage and the lack of full fare passengers stated to be the cause.
Services for Barton Peveril sixth form college in Eastleigh, which started in September, seem to be operating well, but have also brought problems, with the scruffy red/aluminium Volvo Olympian which was hired from Ensign to ensure sufficient buses were available for the start-up still being in use three months later. These college journeys also increased the staff requirement, and despite market leading pay rates, Stockley seems to struggle to recruit staff. Indeed, operations manager Taz Kelley has relinquished his position to become a driver who co-owns the company! In his place is an operations controller, who brings a wealth of experience from Go South Coast and who shares responsibility for day-to-day running of the company with Stockley.
Service B, which immediately solicited a forthright response from Bluestar in the form of Beep!Bus running 3 minutes in front of all journeys, has not been a commercial success, and as a large part of its purpose was to get staff to Southampton for crew changeovers on the New Forest routes, it too ceases on 10th January 2009.
From the following week, Velvet maintains its A and college services, but also starts its most intense competition to date with Bluestar. There are two new services—an off-peak hourly service to Southampton via Boyatt Wood, Airport Parkway and Portswood using the college deckers and a quarter-hourly fast between Eastleigh and Fair Oak (marketed as the Fair Oak Flyer) using low floor DAFs. These will really up the ante. Bluestar will want to respond, but will a direct move of resources from Beep!Bus attract the attention of the competition authorities?
In a slick move, Velvet’s publicity reassures B passengers that Beep!Bus B will continue. Upon withdrawal, it passes the blame squarely on Bluestar. Interesting times ahead for Eastleigh.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Velvet Refocus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Didn't Stockley know what the passenger numbers on the 35-300 were likely to be, and that most would be pass-holders? What about the dead mileage(and drivers' time too)? Was that not taken in to his sums before tendering?
"In his place is an operations controller, who brings a wealth of experience from Go South Coast and who shares responsibility for day-to-day running of the company with Stockley."
You can name me if you want, I'm not ashamed of public exposure ;o) . . . Thank you for the "wealth of experience" comment, assuming it was intended in a nice way! The comment is not quite correct however; I am actually responsible for the day to day running which has allowed Phil to take a more back scene role. Allegedly!
"Services for Barton Peveril sixth form college in Eastleigh, which started in September, seem to be operating well, but have also brought problems, with the scruffy red/aluminium Volvo Olympian which was hired from Ensign to ensure sufficient buses were available for the start-up still being in use three months later."
Not quite correct - we have had no real problems on the BPC runs at all other than the normal run of the mill stuff any operator can expect; the Volvo Oly has been loaned to us by Ensign for other reasons and whilst has been immensely useful at times yes it is scruffy hence why we don't use it unless we have to! It is due to return to them in the very near future.
"These college journeys also increased the staff requirement, and despite market leading pay rates, Stockley seems to struggle to recruit staff. "
I have to ask what you have based this comment on - I could if so inclined show you the two files of applications we have received since starting up, well over a hundred I do believe although I haven't actually counted them . . . we are actively recruiting at the moment and a new driver has taken up the offer of employment and starts with us on Monday.
"Didn't Stockley know what the passenger numbers on the 35-300 were likely to be, and that most would be pass-holders? What about the dead mileage(and drivers' time too)? Was that not taken in to his sums before tendering?"
Of course he did; if you know him - which I assume from the comment you don't - then you would know that there is simply no way he would take a gamble unless he thought it could work. Whilst I am obviously not going to disclose commercially sensitive information believe me when I say it was a very close call as to whether we continued with it and that the factors quoted are not the whole picture by any means.
I'm sure plenty more will have responses to what I've said and I look forward to the discussion that will follow!
Ant.
I think Phil is a "glass half fill" rather tha a "glass half empty" sort of guy. He's incredibly optimistic, perhaps too optimistic? All the better for that but that is the reason why the 35 is marginal?
As for BP, weren't the problems relating to loadings caried free on the normal netwotk?
"believe me when I say it was a very close call as to whether we continued with it and that the factors quoted are not the whole picture by any means."
Do you think that Velvet might at some time in the future even consider expanding its ops beyond Eastleigh area, say, westward again?
"In his place is an operations controller, who brings a wealth of experience from Go South Coast"
If you count taking pictures all day as a wealth of experience then the above statement is true!
In reality I understand "couldn't hack it as an inspector and was scared of doing NatEx to London" would be a more truthful statement!
"I think Phil is a "glass half fill" rather tha a "glass half empty" sort of guy. He's incredibly optimistic, perhaps too optimistic? All the better for that but that is the reason why the 35 is marginal?"
Indeed - and I'm sure he would be the first to agree with you. The 35is less than marginal and always will be but the express between Southampton and Ringwood is far less clear cut and was always the stronger side of the service. . .
"As for BP, weren't the problems relating to loadings caried free on the normal netwotk?"
Not entirely sure I'm with you on this - do you mean the normal services overloading with BPC students and causing a problem for the "regular" passengers? If so then yes there are certain journies on the A we have identified on certain days that require a larger vehicle but then any operator will tell you starting any new service is a learning curve and you constantly have to adapt almost on a daily basis. Which we do!
"Do you think that Velvet might at some time in the future even consider expanding its ops beyond Eastleigh area, say, westward again?"
Never say never is one of my mottos but obviously it would have to be in our and our passengers interests to do so. As I said, the reasons for withdrawing the 35/300 is not as straight forward as the publicly quoted reasons and other factors played their part in it.
Ant
"If you count taking pictures all day as a wealth of experience then the above statement is true!
In reality I understand "couldn't hack it as an inspector and was scared of doing NatEx to London" would be a more truthful statement!"
Yeah fair enough I take pictures and didn't like doing NatEx, little unfair to say I couldn't "hack it" as an Inspector as you were not there to know the circumstances. Perhaps you will be brave enough to publicly tell us who you are instead of hiding behind "anonymous"?
No? Didn't think so somehow . . . but thats your choice. I however have nothing to hide so feel free to continue the character assasination at your leisure.
Ant
Ant, forget Anonymous at 2209.
Congrats on the promotion, well deserved. You've worked hard at Velvet (as elsewhere).
Anne
It can't look very professional if a bus driver keeps getting off their bus for photo shots!
The Fair Oak Flyer will REALLY annoy BS! However, BS started it with the silly Beep!Bus competition.
"The Fair Oak Flyer will REALLY annoy BS! However, BS started it with the silly Beep!Bus competition."
I would have thought that Velvet started it, trying to think there was room for two operators in Eastleigh? Would you part your own money with your own bus operation in this town, known for being difficult bus territory, in a yard next to a plc, as if to further get their attention?
Their difficult experience with the B says a lot. Irrespective of their wishes and a fairy tale ending for the family run newcomer, Beep trumped them.
I also note the comments re driver recruitment when, ironically, only this week the Velvet bus blog mourns the passing of a driver to, you guessed it, Bluestar's uni-link operation.
All very interesting stuff. Here are a few thoughts from me...
"Didn't Stockley know what the passenger numbers on the 35-300 were likely to be, and that most would be pass-holders? What about the dead mileage(and drivers' time too)? Was that not taken in to his sums before tendering?"
Well we knew as far as we could know, but the 300 being a brand new service you can never know for sure. In fact the 35 has not met expectations whereas the 300 has exceeded expectations. However, in our costings we did envisage setting up an outstation to minimise the dead mileage and our quest for a site has proved fruitless so it is costing us more than we expected. This, coupled with wider strategic considerations that Ant hinted at, led us to our final conclusion.
"Services for Barton Peveril... have also brought problems"
"As for BP, weren't the problems relating to loadings caried free on the normal netwotk?"
Problems? What problems? Could someone please explain what the problems are because I've obviously missed them. In actual fact we think we've delivered the Barton Peveril services with great success, with to date no trips missed or serious delays incurred.
As Ant has said, yes taking on a huge operation like this does pose a few tests, but that's the normal run of business. Nothing to be scared of and you learn as you go along. We are very very happy with the way things have gone on the BP work.
"In reality I understand "couldn't hack it as an inspector and was scared of doing NatEx to London" would be a more truthful statement!"
Quit the personal attacks. What's wrong with a sensible debate about the issues? Let me say loud and clear that Ant is doing a first class job and long may it remain so!
"Do you think that Velvet might at some time in the future even consider expanding its ops beyond Eastleigh area, say, westward again?"
Yes we certainly would, but it's hard to see it happening any time soon. As we head towards the end of our first year of operation - in common with most new small start-up businesses - we have learned loads of lessons, had some good experiences and some bad ones, had the most fun imaginable but also experienced some pretty nasty low points, and have a huge list of things we would do differently if we had our time again as well as the things that would do exactly the same.
The net result of all the above is the 12th January 2009 network, which shows quite clearly where we see our short to medium term ambitions, so any westward expansion will probably not be soon.
"I would have thought that Velvet started it, trying to think there was room for two operators in Eastleigh?"
I'm not sure why people think that competition in the bus industry has to be a fight to the death with an eventual monopoly, whereas in other industries it's perfectly possible for businesses to coexist in competition, with each identifying their niche markets and promoting the strong points of their products.
We believe there is a gap in the market in our area for a locally focussed operator providing reliable, friendly service, and nothing we have seen in the last year has told us otherwise.
"Their difficult experience with the B says a lot."
What difficult experience?
"Irrespective of their wishes... Beep trumped them."
The B was designed to feed buses and drivers on to the 300. We've withdrawn the 300, so we've withdrawn the B. The good bits live on in the form of 500. Trumped in what way precisely?
"I also note the comments re driver recruitment when, ironically, only this week the Velvet bus blog mourns the passing of a driver to, you guessed it, Bluestar's uni-link operation."
So a driver left us? He's the third one to do so by choice, the fourth overall. He has left on very good terms, his reasons for leaving are very well understood but ultimately private and if we were embarrassed by it in some way, I'd hardly be shouting about it on my blog!
As Ant has said we have well over 100 applications either sitting on file or been turned down. We turn down approximately 70-80% of the applications we receive because we are in the happy position of being able to be highly selective.
One thing that does not keep me awake at night is recruitment - I guarantee that most bus companies would kill to have recruitment 'problems' like ours :-)
Anyway, keep the (constructive) comments coming, it's all interesting stuff!
Living in Eastleigh i can tell you that the people of Eastleigh, Hedge End & the Barton Peveril students appreciate having a realible bus service that Velvet provide which is total contrast to what they get from the big boys next door.
"I also note the comments re driver recruitment when, ironically, only this week the Velvet bus blog mourns the passing of a driver to, you guessed it, Bluestar's uni-link operation."
If we are going to start having a pop at everybody on here it is nice to see that the driver mourned above who now works for Uni-link a completely seperately operated company from bluestar was out driving the bluestar 3 on Wednesday evening & also very funny how on the Bluestar 2,3,18 & C1's in the past couple of days have been Uni-link liveried buses.
"In his place is an operations controller, who brings a wealth of experience from Go South Coast"
If you count taking pictures all day as a wealth of experience then the above statement is true!
In reality I understand "couldn't hack it as an inspector and was scared of doing NatEx to London" would be a more truthful statement!
Meow move around the saucer of milk & make room for more management from the so called regions premier bus operator & their associated companies.
From the Blog Owner:
This particular topic has proved a very popular one and I would encourage more to comment constructively on Velvet’s refocus. May I thank those who’ve done so already, two from lofty positions within Velvet.
If anyone else can add to or help explain anything they’ve seen in either the post or comments, they are most welcome.
I would just request that commenters please desist from making attacks that can seemingly and so easily be ascribed to individuals.
Many thanks.
Phil Stockley said:
"I'm not sure why people think that competition in the bus industry has to be a fight to the death with an eventual monopoly"
Tell that to Go South Coast! That seemed to be their view when they over registered almost exactly with the Beep!Bus B. They even were quoted in the press as protecting "their" patch.
The Fight to the Death mentality seems to be the case in all bus competition issues. Often it is literally so and there are only a few exceptions where competition remains after a period.
The original post is about Velvet but inevitably some people have used this as an opportunity to comment on Bluestar, uni-link and individual personalities within both B* and BVT. Maybe that adds interest, maybe it doesn't.
My personal and professional view is that it is all an interesting thread but somehow amazing the thread morphs into comments on the daily activities of one driver and one uni-link bus (3344) which is being used as a Bluestar fleet vehicle and before a potential repaint can be applied it has inevitably began to appear on Bluestar routes in an emergency capacity this week due to problems with other vehicles in our fleet. Unfortunately, these kind of problems happen and they are not unique to us, especially in the kind of conditions we've had this week. Hope that clarifies the issue before certain people resort to unfounded broadbrush statements about the continuing performance of Bluestar in general.
For the record, and I can obviously only speak for myself, but I do not condone any of the personal attacks on this blog but I trust my fellow GSC managers would agree with that.
Just carry on watching and posting (and I second Phil by using the word constructively - yes, shock horror, we do agree on some things!), and I'm sure more will be written about buses in Eastleigh before we're done...
I can't believe that someone says it is Velvet's fault for starting it as there's no room for two operators.
Of course there will always be room for a dedicated quality operator.
Anyway, their first route was the A, which who gave up??
If there was only room for one operator then the A would no longer exist. Well done to Velvet!
"In his place is an operations controller, who brings a wealth of experience from Go South Coast"
Please.....what experiance? Pray, do tell?
"Please.....what experiance? Pray, do tell?
Well, if you think that he has had no prior experience, then he's doing an even finer job than first thought!
I thought this was a blog about the Industry, not a spiteful venting ground for who knows (and cares less) what.
I'd almost rather read about the slightly different lens glass used on the one off ........
Take it somewhere else.
But what none of the commentators have said so far is how will Velvet's new services be received. Are they the right direction for the company, effectively competing with BlueStar 2 in both directions from Eastleigh?
I consider that the best way for BlueStar to fight back is to concentrate some management time on the 2 to ensure more consistant vehicle quality (too many step buses and tiny MPDs at present)and to try and ensure that the timetable is maintained reliably, eliminating if possible the gaps in service which occur all too frequently at the moment. Even the Sunday service doesn't work, with buses from Eastleigh towards Fair Oak often 15 minutes late during shopping hours.
Being retired I have spent some time looking in to the Bus Wars story, the reason for the WAR reported first did not make sense to me. Being a business man it is my opinion that there are enough wars in the world with out my evening news paper printing this seemingly one sided story. So I am trying to restore some balance in to this bus war.
First I ask you if someone started dipping their fingers in your pie in these hard times, would you not defend your pie. You would unless is it did not taste good, If it was bad you would discard it and not look back.
BLACK VELVET drew first blood, no question; it is Black Velvet with the aggressive attitude! If you can’t take it Black Velvet, don’t dish it out!
Firstly I will say that a private company running a public service is a contradiction in terms, some will loose, usually the passengers, but in this case a bus company may be construed as wilfully rocking the boat, the end result effects only the public.
At the end of the day passengers have no other loyalty than to them selves, which ever bus comes along first will do, what ever the colour of bus or even price of ticket! Passengers in general are not interested in a bus war they are not ultimately going to win or benefit from.
However there are I am sure some people who would be swayed by this story of Goliath and David, poor David. The truth is somewhat different and the statement in reader’s comments about the Rich gambling with the public is not, in my opinion, so far from the truth. I will say that I would not invest my money in a company who, as it is reported in the main article, actively rely on poaching from another company! Very dodgy, would you invest or use the company?
There is a word which comes to mind and the word is ethics! Another word could be morals!
Whilst investigating the bus war I came across the following paragraph in an extract from the velvet bus blog web site ( http://velvetbus.blo
gspot.com/ ) namely from paragraph 15 dated Sunday 28th December, posted by Phil Stockley (is this the ex Managing Director of Blue Star!)
Extract starts
“As I head back out through Southampton I switch the interior lights off, but leave 'Rail Replacement' on the destination screen. This is partly to avoid being confused with a local night bus, but partly so that I can silently boast "look what I've been doing" as if any passer by would be impressed!”
Extract Ends
Firstly according to VOSA (www.vosa.gov.uk / Vehicle and Operator Service Agency the bus industries regulatory body) when a bus is not in public service, the fact it is not in service must be clearly stated on the front of the bus, so why can Black Velvet feel they are exempt from this regulation by displaying “Rail Replacement” when the bus is out of service? Secondly, the night bus refered to in Phil Stockley’s Blog is, I suspect, the N2 Blue Star service from Southampton to Eastleigh and Fair Oak, As a mature adult, I am struggling with the comment “so that I can silently boast, look what I’ve been doing”? Alarm bells ring in my head as I think, who cares about the Black Velvet ego, passengers just want to get from A to B reliably, what is the meaning of this statement? Why would anyone want to boast this at a time of night when no body is about? What ego trip are Black Velvet on?
I read in to this that the passers by are the Blue Star drivers of the N2 and word will get back to HQ about Black Velvet working Rail replacement in the Blue Star area. The statement does not paint a very professional picture of Black Velvet in my opinion, this sort of comment is more likely to be heard in a Childs playground.
Mr Stockley says in the Main article in the Echo that the decision to walk away from the B was pragmatic, I have looked at the services and I would say it is financial; neither the Blue Star Beep bus, or the Black Velvet B, was ever truly busy so the takings were low! However I suspect a lot of OAP passes
My findings are that, Blue Star (Go-Ahead) used to run the A bus from Eastleigh to Hamble which was taken over by Black Velvet, after Blue Star dropped the service, possibly due to low passenger numbers. Blue Star left Black Velvet alone and did not attack the company on this route, but Black Velvet has cut the service down from the original frequency!
Black Velvet then took over the Southampton to Ringwood service, previously run by Wilts and Dorset (Go-Ahead), (possibly dropped due to low passenger numbers) and Wilts did nothing also, despite Blue Star and Wilts being part of the Go-Ahead group, Black Velvet are or have dropped the route for the same reason, so why take it on in the first place?
As I say, I believe Velvet has pulled out of the Ringwood service and has drastically cut down on the frequency of the A, who suffers, the passengers! Why? Because the routes are not financially viable and the OAP passes do not cover the running costs.
Point of fact, the main article printed in the Echo is deceiving, Mr Taz Kelly was not the Operations Manager of Blue Star, never was, and it is my understanding after reading the blog, he is not the operations manager of Black Velvet, he is a driver and part owner, which implies he has little to do with the operations of Black Velvet.
If a route is unsustainable, why take it on? Mr Stockley is reported in the main Echo article to be the ex Managing Director of Blue Star and he should know what routes are sustainable, financially viable and those to stay away from!
Blue Star used to run the evening C from Eastleigh to Hiltingbury and backed out due to very low passenger numbers which equals no money. How long will Black Velvet be able to run the evening C to Hiltingbury, every time I see the evening C to and from Hiltingbury the bus is empty or maybe 1 or 2 OAP passes aboard.
How much does it cost to run a diesel guzzling bus at 8 Miles Per Gallon? Oh and the drivers wages, maintenance, insurance, road fund licence etc.
Blue Star have not set about defending their old evening C route they have left Black Velvet to operate it in peace. But for how long will Black Velvet be able to operate it, how deep are their coffers?
Black Velvet registered a route which encroached on no less than 7 Blue Star Services, namely the B from Boyatt Wood to Southampton, now they have given it up.
The Blue Star Services being encroached on were the E1, E2, E3, C1, C2, 2 and the premier Blue Star route number 1 from Southampton to Winchester (Stagecoach territory) steeling little pieces of several pie’s, Blue Star have an obligation to their staff to keep the money coming in.
Blue Stars reaction by putting on the Beep bus in direct competition to the Black Velvet B, demonstrates a commitment to the future for their employees, by defending the routes the Blue Star drivers operate. Who would not defend their territory?
No one condemned Winston Churchill, or bomber Harris for defending England in the 1940’s so what is all the fuss about with Blue Star defending their territory?
More care in planning routes was not it seems taken, as is stated in Mr Stockleys statement in the Echo. Maybe Black Velvet would be successful without having to "poach" from other companies and deliver a first class sustainable service, if they stopped poaching and became a game keeper!
You will notice, if you look, that the major bus companies, Blue Star, First and Stagecoach manage to co-exist without this nonsense being printed every so often in the Echo, I feel sure they co-operate with un written morals and ethics, which is what Black Velvet do not seem to comprehend. The main bus operators recognise that it is important for all to survive to stay away from each others routes where possible, survival depends on it or perhaps more simply, they have no interest in running routes where another company is well established. So what is Black Velvets agenda?
It is common knowledge in the Southampton bus industry that Mr Stockly departed Blue Star and Go-Ahead under a cloud of bad feeling. Perhaps the sour grapes are leading the way for Black Velvet who it would seem are incapable of being able to make a unique decision in route planning, as demonstrated in the attack on the Blue Star Fair Oak services.
Black Velvet why don’t you evolve, do some lateral thinking and register some original routes? Or perhaps as the ex MD of Blue Star is well aware; this is easier said than done.
“Times be hard” for all just now and even more so in the bus industry. If Blue Star, First and Stagecoach can survive without encroaching on each others territory why cant Black Velvet find some unique routes in the same way. There are plenty of roads and housing estates in the area without a bus service which could do with a reliable bus service.
Finally, the privatisation of the bus industry was wrong, the idea Maggie had, did not happen and the rest of the UK is not likely to get a scheme like TFL (transport for London), but then again introducing a system like the railways operate under by tendering for routes, might be a good idea for all us bus passengers
I think that the latest post on this thread has some interesting points, but also a degree of bias.
It really isn't true to say that Velvet have been the aggressive party up to this point.
The poster states that there are many estates which Velvet could serve without encroaching on Blue Star. Where? Boyatt Wood in general and Bosville in particular was the obvious unserved area in Eastleigh - Velvet picked up on that and provided a service which Blue Star replicated.
The Velmore shorts provided on the B in the afternoon were timed to depart Eastleigh at xx35. Why? Because Blue Star cut the C to only run hourly at xx05, and Velvet spotted a gap which they could fill. I fail to see how this is aggressive. Yes, the B runs down The Avenue into Southampton, but surely any service running into Southampton city centre has to run down a busy arterial road to get there. The new 500 will run via Portswood, which sees far more buses than The Avenue provided by First, UniLink and BlueStar. Will they all decide to run 3 minutes in front of Velvet or will they take a more considered view?
As to Velvet cutting the frequency of the A - correct, but the Blue Star frequency was nil - they deregistered the route, so effectively Velvet's hourly commercial service has saved the route from having to be subsidised by the County, if they could afford to do so.
News on what Blue Star are going to be running after 22nd February is not yet common knowledge - our Poster seems to think that half of Blue Star's 2 service between Eastleigh and Fair Oak will be running direct. If so, why? Velvet have registered that route, missing the large Bishopstoke catchment by doing so. Velvet think there is a market for a fast service from Fair Oak, possibly new passengers who will abandon the car if a fast reliable bus is provided. Blue Star have never tried to provide that service, but apparently now want too.
So to repeat my original question, who is really the aggressor?
Its simple. Velvet go on the A. GSC doesn't react. Velvet win tender for 35/300. GSC doesn't react. Velvet go onto sections of Bluestar 1, C and E corridors. GSC react. Velvet are surprised and Velvet supporters get upset. Velvet introduce aggressive competition outside Bluestar Head Office, introducing two services along much of the Bluestar 2 route. GSC will react on Feb 22. All those with Velvet-tinted glasses get upset again.
Who's the aggressor? Follow the logic.
Or to put it another way...
Velvet go on the A AFTER GSC DEREGISTER THE ROUTE
Velvet win tender for 35/300 AFTER GSC RUN THE SERVICE LEVEL DOWN OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS (Velvet obviously didn't read the bit where only the existing operator is allowed to win tenders)
Velvet go onto sections of C and E corridors AFTER GSC PULL OUT OF PARTS OF BOYATT WOOD AND REDUCE THE FREQUENCY ON THE C
Velvet maybe shouldn't be surprised GSC react, after all they must of known that GSC loved Bosville and Velmore really, despite reducing or cutting the services.
Velvet wonder how its possible to be a less aggressive aggressor, then remember that the big companies love deregulation and competition until it happens to them.
BS stop running the A. Velvet step in, but then halve the frequency. BS leave them alone to run it.
W&D stop running the 35, Velvet win it at their own price, but then turn it in. W&D leave them alone to run it.
Velvet wing Barton Peveril contracts previously held by BS. Bs leave them alone to run them.
Velvet create a route that runs parallel to a series of BS routes. BS register the same. It's clearly not worh much revenue, so it's hardly going to hurt Velvet, but it makes a point to them that while they will get left alone on fairly won contracts and routes not operated by GSC, they won't when they compete.
All seems perfectly reasonable thus far.
Velvet get the hump, cancel the 35/300 and their B, and enter head to head competition with BS.
What on earth do people expect to happen next? Of course BS will preotect their business. The whole point of competition is that Velvet can register what they want, and so can BS in return. That's waht competition is all about - there seems to be a general myth that competition is about small businesses being able to compete with big businesses but not vice versa.
Anyone who thinks Mr Stockley is hard done by is living in cloud cuckoo land. He knows exactly what he's doing, and can be pretty sure as to what the consequences will be.
The Velvet fan club may be very worthy followers of their side, but this is business. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword!
What
Of course Bluestar are going to respond to the registration of a main corridor. Wouldn't anyone?
Perhaps Bluestar should think about why Velvet have seen an opportunity on said main corridor, and maybe they shouldn't have taken their eye off the ball with said main corridor, thus encouraging Velvet to see what other opportunities are available in the area. BVT obviously see an opportunity to provide a better service than the incumbent.
Had BVT been left alone with the B, which lets remember was a part replacement for a service GSC didn't want to run anymore-and had GSC decided not to respond in an agressive manner to something innovative then perhaps GSC would not now have a problem which they need to deal with.
BVT would have been busy developing a niche operation focusing on second division roads and leaving Bluestar to run the main lines where the customer increases are most likely. As BVT is a new generation, entreprenurial focused business it will experiment to see what works and what doesn't.
Its better trying, than not bothering at all, and sad to say that is what appears to have happened at GSC. The 35/300 being a case in point - did the 300 exist prior to BVTs arrival on the route-it did once upon a time.
Its very interesting that beep has now been deregistered - so this is clearly an important route for the company, so much so, that at first sight of someone withdrawing they follow suit? If the policy of continual network change and reduction hadn't been followed, you wouldn't have encouraged another company into the area.
All that said, I don't think I am part of a velvet fan club - or would the GSC fans prefer us to join their love-in? My interest is in seeing the bus industry thrive and in seeing a quality service that will ensure modal shift from cars. Collectively that can be done.
To be honest the attitude that we can't run routes, and no one else can helps present the bus industry in a poor light.
There's enough room for the two operations - Bluestar should be going after the main corridors, running them really well and growing its business and possibly leaving the local routes to someone else-as was the previous policy prior to February 2008. Concentrate on the stuff that makes money, let someone else do the stuff that doesn't reach your margins.
Simple fact-if you run a decent service for your customers and concentrate on the basics, like running reliably, with a consistent vehicle allocation and you will have the customers. If you can't do that, then another company will come along who will. I'm sure the customers will decide whose bus they want to catch - be it a purple or blue one. And of course if someone went for my mainline, I'd respond too.
Whilst the blog owner has encouraged comments- I am surprised that the original article is so one sided and obviously written from a negative viewpoint.
Transdev Yellow Buses and GSC benefit from a sensible, non judgmental, reporting the facts stance whenever relevant news arises so it is disappointing to see the blog veer away from that approach, which I feel is a backwards step.
phew! a lot to reread through here!
i agree with the comments about niche operations. the industry needs them to plug gaps. i reckon that phil stockley has ambitions beond his niche though.
as with all similar wars its easy to say one side or the other started it. i have my views but i know others see things different. what matters is how the pssenger sees it. two operators at war and further network changes. perhaps hants cc can step i with a qc
@ anonymous of 2344 11.01.09, i dont detect too much bias in the original post. it says it wasnt wrotten by the blog owner but mystery contributor btw.
Anonymous (2 January, 17:17) makes some interesting points, and has clearly researched the issue thoroughly, but I think there are some strange omissions and misunderstandings in his analysis, some of which I find surprising, coming from a 'businessman'.
Firstly, his general point that 'a private company running a public service is a contradiction in terms'. Not at all. Any commercial organisation needs to provide a product (goods or services) that their customers want/need, otherwise the business will fail. If such essential items as food can be provided by the commercial sector, with little regulation as to when and where, then there is no reason why transport cannot also be provided in this way. If Sainsburys don't offer products that their customers want, then those customers will go elesewhere - therefore the commercial pressure on the suppliers works in the customers' interest. The customers of the bus industry also have potential alternative suppliers - perhaps not always in the short term - but it is wrong to think that bus passengers are a 'captive market'.
Secondly, the commenter says, of Phil Stockley, that '...he should know what routes are sustainable, financially viable and those to stay away from!' This misses the point that different service providers have different cost structures, and different approaches to marketing, so that an operation that does not provide an adequate rate of return for one business, may nonetheless prove profitable to another provider. The comment also fails to take account of possible social and geographical changes, and of the possibility that different business managers may have new ideas about how to provide a service, and how to (in modern parlance) 'grow the business'.
I guess that his comments about the major bus companies being able to 'co-operate with un written morals and ethics' would raise a few eyebrows in various quarters! Suffice to say that he seems to have missed a few stories from the quite recent past!
I don't think it needs an expert to predict that Velvet will either be taken over by Go Ahead or will go to the wall.
It's well known that Mr Stockley, despite his knowledge, ability and good intentions, left Go Ahead with his tail between his legs. It's suggested that he was failing to Implement cost savings agreed by the board and was it was decided that he should leave. What followed was a story of bruised egos and revenge.
Velvet had a promising start but fell into the trap of wanting to grow too soon and then made the classic mistake of trying to take on the big boys, a road it continues to take and that will lead to its demise.
This weeks service changes show the fragile state of finances at Velvet as it no doubt struggles to service its loan commitments. You'd have thought it was obvious to see that Go Ahead have deeper pockets and sad as it maybe, I think we'll soon be seeing the final chapter of this young company.
Anonymous 12 Jan 11:31, you seem to be making some fairly sweeping assumptions. Claiming that Velvet's service changes show that it is struggling to service its debts and will imminently be going out of business seems to me to be several inferences too far! And possibly putting two and two together and getting a number which is not four. I'm not saying that Velvet are not in a tight financial situation - I have no idea whether they are or not - I'm just saying that you haven't given any evidence whatsoever to back up your bold statements.
I would also disagree that they have grown too fast. Ten vehicles after the first year does not seem unreasonable to me, indeed many others who have ultimately been successful have grown equally fast or even faster. Indeed in Velvet's case it was probably something of a neccessity - the A may be borderline commercial as part of a larger operation, but it is certainly no goldmine. Running the company based solely on that route can only have been a starting block, and certainly wouldn't have been a sustainable situation in its own right for the medium or long term IMO.
I'm also puzzled by your suggestion that they "made the classic mistake of taking on the big boys". Sure, they are doing this now, and I agree that this is a high-risk strategy. But up until this point it is really quite the reverse. The big boys have taken on Velvet, surely?
Beep Bus was surely phase one in Go Ahead's strategy, as if to show velvet that abstraction from its routes would not be welcolmed. If any passengers disappear from bluestar 2, expect a bigger reaction. Why would we not do??
And only one winner... Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
This is no Norfolk Green or Western Greyhound starting up with minibuses and creating a foundation on tendered work - it's trying to emulate a big company too quickly, and the new strategy of creaming off the bigger operator bears a closer resemblence to the many post-dereg upstarts set up by bitter personnel removed from the bigger operators... who are certainly not known for the longevity in a similar way that neither will velvet i expect.
It does seem a crazy strategy to tackle a big group head on. Bluestar have every reason to defend their network in the short term and no doubt as much resourse as they need to do it. Velvet on the other hand can't surely believe that they will take even half of Bluestar's revenue from Fair Oak, but with two buses committed to do so. It's bizarre - Bluestar left them alone on the A and indeed still have even now; they left them alone on the 35/300 which they tendered at their own variation and price, yet got it so badly wrong they walked away. How can Velvet claim to be the passengers' saviour when they walk away from a 2 year (?) contract after a few months! This looks like General Custer's last stand!
Anonymous (12 Jan 18:13) said...
"And only one winner... Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
...and the new strategy of creaming off the bigger operator bears a closer resemblence to the many post-dereg upstarts set up by bitter personnel removed from the bigger operators... who are certainly not known for the longevity in a similar way that neither will velvet i expect."
An interesting comment, in view of Bluestar's early history! There are some parallels, although some points of difference as well!!
Ah RC169, you beat me to it! All this is ironic really given Bluestar's lineage as Solent Blue Line. Rather like Stagecoach's early history compared to its current professional approach.
I sense in all these comments we may be seeing history written before us or we are seeing some interesting predictions.
Finally, no one has commented on the fact that from today Wilts has the 35 back. Not much of a timetable but an easily understood.
The history of Solent Blue Line is a very good lesson. Southern Vectis were rumoured to be pouring cash into it to keep it afloat until they managed to buy that part of Hampshire Bus from Stagecoach. It wasn't sustainable, and even today the 18s are the only remnants left of the original Solent Blue Line, and I dare say they are only generating good profit levels because they are part of a wider business sharing all the overheads.
Anonymous (12 Jan 23:16) said...
"Southern Vectis were rumoured to be pouring cash into it to keep it afloat until they managed to buy that part of Hampshire Bus from Stagecoach. It wasn't sustainable, and even today the 18s are the only remnants left of the original Solent Blue Line"
I too had heard those rumours, and they continued after the acquisition of the Southampton area Hampshire Bus operations.
More recently, it seemed that Blue Line/Bluestar were really not covering any more ground in Southampton than H&D had in the pre-deregulation era, bearing in mind H&D's operations on the 35, 54, 88/88A and to some degree the 36 services, all of which served quite significant areas within the city boundary. I guess that the takeover of Unilink recently would have altered the balance to some degree.
Bluestar making a profit? It was losing money prior to the last MDs arrival in 2004, the rot had set in with the management prior to then.
I imagine Bluestar still loses money - cutback after cutback indicates this -though to be fair to them I don't know the numbers and could therefore be quite wrong. You could always spend a pound at companies house and find out. No problem with cutting back - if it helps your position and enables you to bring the business into the black.
The issue is where they return to withdrawn routes to make a point to someone who was trying to fill a gap. That does your operating costs no favours - neither will having to now defend your mainline - though they need to defend that and they are perfectly entitled to.
Operating costs will not have been contained due to beep which will have brought a cost onto the business they could have done without. The over-reaction may point to their financial position? Its probably better, if not going the right way with Uni-Link.
If it still loses money it has not repaid Go-Ahead any of its investment, and given they lost £2m in Birmingham, and wrote the value of the business to zero and sold it for the debts, they may seek to offload it somewhere else? FirstGroup perhaps?
Why the fuss over 35/300? It's called experimentation. An entrepreneurial business will experiment to see if something will work. The fact someone wants to experiment seems to be a good thing to my mind. Better than sitting there and doing nothing?
Bluestar and GSC fans appear to forget their own heritage when giving Velvet a kick on here- Solent Blue Line's first incarnation was a small operation which expanded quickly, creaming off Southampton Citybus on several routes.
It matured into something sizeable - and one wonders if Velvet will do same. Stagecoach was once a small company running a few buses, and expanded their operation quickly by competing with others.
At the end of the day the customers will decide who they want to go with. If GSC doesn't provide a bus service people want to use, then perhaps their attention is better focused on doing so?
But who really cares?
If Stockley wants to try his chances against Bluestar, so what, and if he goes bust, so what. There will still no doubt be an hourly A provided by someone, and Barton Peveril will still have their contract buses taking their students to college.
Velvet is a very small fish in a big pond, and Eastleigh, with it's traffic problems, low concessionary reimbursment, and the presence of Stagecoach, Go Ahead and First, not to mention Brijan at the other end of the market, isn't the place where dreams are going to be created for any new bus company.
Stockley hasn't created anything new and exciting or anything unique in the bus industry. He's just another guy trying to make a living out of a business like many others across the UK.
If anyone thinks Go Ahead invested lots in Bluestar think again - it probably drove down the value of Southern Vectis Group when they bought it- it probably owes them nothing at all.
But Velvet isn't that relevant, Uni-link is a jewel in the crown and makes Go Ahead's business at Bluestar valuable at last.
So people think he was the saviour of Bluestar - ask yourselves why he isn't there any more. Aren't the latest cuts restoring the sort of sensible and viable frequencies that he abandoned for unsustainable growth.
About time for me to stick my oar in briefly, following on from some very interesting and thought-provoking comments.
Firstly, however much some people may choose not to want to believe it, I'm going to repeat for the umpteenth time that the creation of Velvet is not an act of revenge against Go South Coast.
I have a lot of respect for much of what GSC has achieved and have no axe to grind with any individuals there. I simply do not bear grudges - sometimes to the frustration of those around me who might wish me to be a little more forceful in that regard.
I applaud many of GSC's initiatives - take a look at SVOC for example to see some great things going on.... Christmas Day buses - wow, love it!
However I do sincerely believe that there is an opportunity in the market for a company in the Eastleigh area, exploiting what I see as some weaknesses in the current provision, and I am fortunate to be in a position to have a go at that opportunity.
Time will tell whether it is real or illusory and I respect many of the comments that might suggest that we are running a fool's errand. Of course we run the risk of failure. However, we are not afraid to try things, and I could not live with myself if - having been given the chance to exploit the opportunity that I see - I had chosen an 'easy option' elsewhere.
On the other hand, our belief at the moment is that we can secure a viable long-term niche for ourselves and there is a long term strategy in place that we firmly intend to bring to fruition.
Of course the market will evolve over time and indeed has done so significantly in the 18 months or so since we first wrote the business plan. Things have worked out exactly as we had predicted in some areas and totally unexpectedly in other ways.
There is no reason to suppose that that evolution will suddenly stop and the current service provision will remain fixed forever. The market will continue to evolve and we will continue to evolve with it.
Whatever people may think, our service B was carefully designed to position buses and drivers into Southampton for the 300 without competing head-on with Bluestar. It would not be possible to design a less confrontational route with a timetable that stood little chance of abstracting much existing business. It linked several areas that Bluestar had either withdrawn from or reduced frequency, and it seems to us to be 'a bit rich' to say the least for a company to reduce its provision in this way and then seek to prevent others from filling the gaps.
While some reaction was maybe to be expected, there is no doubt that the sheer amount of time and effort - both operationally and in marketing resource - that our competitors have expended on the Beep brand could well be looked upon enviously by some of their passengers on other routes. We take it as a compliment, but it undoubtedly caused us to feel less reserved about seeking opportunities on their core network.
Of course we do expect them to defend that core network, but long-term, viable competition is a feature of many industries - and indeed seen as a good thing in many industries as it drives up standards, choice and ultimately demand, so we do not feel intimidated by this.
My final comment however is that much of the current hysteria that seems to have developed around this subject - both in the media and among commentators and indeed some participants on the ground - is unwelcome and a distraction. I include in this some of the comments attributed to me. I learned once from a colleague in another part of the country, now retired, whose opinions I regard extremely highly, that 'slanging matches' especially in public are best avoided, as we all wish to promote public transport as a 'good thing' and such hysteria only undermines public confidence.
It is in this context that we will continue to seek to establish Velvet as a bus brand respected for our customer service, reliability and entrepreneurialism!
Let the debate continue!
The latest comments on this thread continue to be thought provoking and instructive at the same time.
The GSC takeover of Uni-Link is credited with improving profitability at Blue Star. Uni-Link still runs as a stand alone operation, with it's own OM, AOM, Controllers, Drivers and vehicles. It seems to me to be a high cost operation, but equally the on-bus revenue is staggering considering how much travel is pre-paid. It is a thoroughly professional operation; so all credit to those involved.
Phil Stockley continues to state that his company was not set up to take on BlueStar - I tend to see where he is coming from but believe that he was and is aware that at least some of his income was bound to be at the expense of Blue Star. His philosophy of trying to grow the overall market for bus travel by providing a niche service whilst BlueStar concentrate on their core services sounds admirable, but there is still a question mark in my mind as to whether Eastleigh is big enough for this approach to succeed. Towns of this size where two operators compete on commercial services are rare (Kings Lynn, with Norfolk Green and First comes to mind). I still believe that to really get car drivers on to buses a carrot and stick approach is needed, and there is no stick in Eastleigh.
Having said all of that, the attention to detail for which Velvet are becoming known, such as the high quality glossy timetable released to accompany this change, certainly don't indicate a 'here today, gone tomorrow' operation, so I suspect that the claim to be 'well financed with long term backers' is probably true, and that as a result BlueStar are probably stuck with Velvet for the long term.
I think the main problem is that Velvet and Phil Stockley are simply operating in the wrong area.
If Phil had set up Velvet away from his former employer then he might well stand a better chance of making a success of a high quality operation. As it is, no PLC is going to sit back and watch as its market share is eaten away.
On the other hand, Stockley is known to drivers in the Eastligh area. I know that there are those who think he struggles to get drivers but other evidence including people posting here suggest this is a major advantage for him. Drivers respect Stsockley. IS the same true of GSC?
In my experience drivers like nice bosses. Problem is that you can be a nice boss and make a big loss. Drivers may change their minds when there's no money to pay their wages!
This is a business, and unless you make the money, it doesn't matter how nice you are. The bus business is a tough old game, especially with underfunded free travel.
Hornby may not be Mr Nice in some drivers' eyes, but from what I hear he's turned his predecessor's huge losses into a profit...and that's probably the nicest thing he could do for them, even if they don't recognise it!
But, all the talking aside how is it seen to be going? If the two companies are at "war", is this seen on the battle groung in Eastleigh Bus Station?
Evidence since the Fair Oak Flyer started is that it is carrying, but not in huge numbers. It is also more reliable than BlueStar 2 as it doesn't have to run through to/from Southampton. Anecdotal evidence is that BlueStar are running extra buses when they can rosource then, although I haven't seen any. Both operators are certainly maintaining a strong visual staff presence in the bus station, where Velvet seem to benefit by having the stand nearer to the main shopping area. Velvet's new 500 to Southampton seems to be very quiet, and doesn't seem to attract much attention from GSC at the moment.
Post a Comment