We reported yesterday evening at 1912 that Plymouth Citybus has new owners—Go Ahead. It was no doubt a long afternoon in Plymouth’s council chamber. Only time will tell whether this is good or bad for Plymothians. If the discerning audience at Omnibuses is anything to go by, if Citybus had to sell, readers preferred Go Ahead. I wonder what First Group thinks.
What we can now expect is rapid change. Go Ahead senior staff will no doubt be arriving at Milehouse as this post goes live (0659). There will be talk about jobs and security but expect some senior heads to roll, as invariably and regrettably happens during these sorts of events.
The most interesting thing about Go Ahead chief executive’s reassurances to the people of Plymouth was what he had to say about his other bus subsidiaries. All very positive for the future. There was a “but”, though, about companies further east along the south coast.
In the Plymouth Herald, Ludeman admitted that there had been problems with two south coast bus companies, Wilts & Dorset and its effective subsidiary, Bluestar. As if in defence, he did state that these were recent Go Ahead acquisitions (but, for W&D, not *that* recent). On the other hand, Ludeman commented, “Citybus is well above that standard (my italics). Citybus is a well run company.”
And the implications of this statement are what, exactly? As we’ve said here recently, Bluestar is fixed but there’s more work to do at W&D.
Also in the Plymouth press was routeONE deputy editor, who stated, “It sounds as though Plymouth city council has got a good deal. The people of Plymouth have nothing to fear.”
Meanwhile, the Save Plymouth Citybus Campaign concluded with the comment, “Hopefully under Go Ahead ownership, Plymouth Citybus will continue to offer the people of Plymouth the same high level of service as currently enjoyed.” We think that should be the case.
i Watch Plymothian Transit as the Milehouse transition from public to private takes place.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
It’s a Sale
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm surprised no one else has commented on Keith Ludeman's apparently derogatory comments about Wilts & Dorset.
In my opinion, the company as purchased by Go Ahead was exceptionally well run - it made good levels of profit and ran a comprehensive network of services across it's operating territory.
Go Ahead however decided that in order to grow the business, rationalisation and a new concentration on main corridors was required. It may well be true that the old management owners were risk adverse, but they made money and served their old markets well.
Go Ahead effectively created the problems at W&D - and as Busing says can they really still call it a new acquisition after more than 6 years; you couldn't imagine Stagecoach taking that long to remodel an acquired company.
I would also take issue that Blue Star is sorted - it still has a very poor reputation in it's operating area and has recently announced the intention to cut Blue Star 3 from half hourly to hourly for the off-peak period.
Southern Vectis also has pain to bear this month - 8 buses leaving the fleet and two services (the 10 and the 11) withdrawn. Both were new initiatives based on the 2006 generous concessionary reimbursement rate (76% IIRC) on the island; many felt at that time that the money (effectively a windfall, as that level of reimbursement was never going to be sustainable) should have been spent on the core network rather than 'drawing lines on the map'.
In the light of all this, the appointment of GSC Op's Director Andrew Wickham as MD at Plymouth is quite a shock. Cynics may think that it is a sideways move purely to create a vacancy for someone new to become 'Problem Solver' at GSC.
Southern Vectis also has pain to bear this month - 8 buses leaving the fleet and two services (the 10 and the 11) withdrawn. Both were new initiatives based on the 2006 generous concessionary reimbursement rate (76% IIRC) on the island; many felt at that time that the money (effectively a windfall, as that level of reimbursement was never going to be sustainable) should have been spent on the core network rather than 'drawing lines on the map'.
Firstly, the drop in PVR is three, not the eight you suggest. One of those is brought about by the consolidation of route 8, which is probably revenue positive as well as saving a bus - more evolutionary than regressive.
Who are the many then? Your comment about spending the money on the core network instead doesn't make any sense. The core network didn't need anything 'spent' on it over the resources applied. What would the ongoing commercial benefit be anyway (?) especially as SV have growth on the core network still.
The fact is that the routes were profitable and making money while they were run - if the weren't operated the 'windfall' as you call it wouldn't have existed.
Are you really blaming SV for running profitable new routes?
Your comments are ill-informed and unintelligent.
The figure of 8 buses leaving SV comes from Marc Morgan Hughes, Commercial Manager as posted on another forum. I didn't say a PVR cut of 8.
If the 10 and 11 'were profitable and making money while they were run' (which at present they still are) then why withdraw them? I suspect that at current concession reimbursement rates they haven't genuinely made money for some time.
A lot of Southern Vectis' problems are down to the concessionary fares problems, so you can't really blame SV.
Bluestar are working on their public image. Look at their facebook site. Yes, they might want to reduce the frequency of route 3 in the off-peak, but in the current climate, would you want to carry OAPs and fresh air all day? Look how they've turned route 1 around. They've got an award for that.
On the subject of Go-Ahead failures, the one that seems to have been overlooked is what happened in the West Midlands...
The figure of 8 buses leaving SV comes from Marc Morgan Hughes, Commercial Manager as posted on another forum. I didn't say a PVR cut of 8.
It's still misleading isn't it! You can't spell his name either!
If the 10 and 11 'were profitable and making money while they were run' (which at present they still are) then why withdraw them? I suspect that at current concession reimbursement rates they haven't genuinely made money for some time.
Because despite being part way through the concessionary year, IWC have reduced the rate again. They now pay significantly less than a few months ago, and is significantly low enough to 'break' the 10 and 11. In fact as I understand from an INFORMED source, it's such a low reimbursment rate that virtually nothing works any more.
Post a Comment