Nothing by Halves

If you’re in Las Vegas today at 1000 Pacific Daylight Time (1800 BST), be sure to get to the Fremont Street Experience, First Stage Street, where the Southern Nevada Regional Transport Commission will officially launch its premier ACE Gold Line service.

We reported yesterday that New York had received the final delivery of the single biggest order for hybrid buses, ever (to date). It’s comforting to know, in the land of the automobile, that there’s concern over emissions. New York is by no means alone in transforming its bus fleet by ordering hybrids, now seen as almost the norm.

There are plenty in England who equate bus travel with some sort of inadequacy. Operators are attempting to shift that perception by distigmatisation. How much more difficult it must be in the States where to travel by “public transportation” equates to total failure. When the Star-spangled Banner talks of the Land of the Free, it might just be referring to the freedom of movement by automobile, long held as an inalienable right.

Things are changing. City region after city region is now belatedly investing in its bus service. El Paso, Texas, this week considers bus rapid transit, an investment of some £330mil.

And so to Nevada. On Monday, the RTC in Las Vegas began its new ACE Gold and ACExpress “rapid transit lines”, aimed at reducing congestion in “downtown” Las Vegas and the resort strip, with dedicated bus lanes that allow buses to move faster, with fewer stops than other routes. Both ACE Gold Line and ACExpress C-Line feature “sleek, train-like hybrid vehicles”—none other than US-specified Wrightbus Streetcars, of which there will be 50 in service at an estimated cost of £55mil.

This is a culmination of a four-year investment programme in premiere routes that include Enviro500s on The Deuce. The Streetcars’ hybrid units—what else?—are by ISE Corp, the same people believed to be providing hydrogen-fuelled buses to London’s small progressive fleet. The total cost of ACE? $160mil.

In the exception that proves the rule, the Sacramento Regional Transport Board voted on Monday to reduce pubic transportation budgets by 22 per cent. 28 of 91 routes will be withdrawn. Nothing will move after 2100. About 100 drivers an 100 other staff can expect to be on furlough, in an effort to save $11mil.

All that Glisters is not Green

Last week, the DfT announced a £10mil extension to its £30mil green bus fund, which already aims to deliver 350 low carbon buses throughout the kingdom. It’s a competitive fund, so operators and local transport authorities will need to vie for it. It forms part of the government’s commitment to low carbon technologies to improve urban air quality.

Aside from some less than conclusive experiments elsewhere, London’s been the only city to date to afford significant low carbon investment. London aims to see all new buses entering service from 2012 as hybrids. TfL intends to introduce 300 hybrids next year. To date, there are 56.

New York pioneered hybrid bus technology and the city transit authority now runs almost 1,700 of them, including the latest of these typically American Daimler Buses North America Orion VIIs. Indeed, Daimlers make up more than the backbone of the NYCTA feet (photo: Daimler)

It was a bit of a shock to find that New York City Transit Authority announced this month that it had completed delivery of the world’s largest order for hybrid buses—1,350 in all, bringing the total number of hybrids there to some 1,700. Far from Britain’s manufacturers leading the world, NYCTA had exceeded TfL’s 2011 target in 2005.

Meanwhile, in spite of TfL’s proactivity as regards low carbon buses, the London freesheet the Evening Standard last week castigated TfL for sending its I think five new hydrogen powered buses thousands of miles from Wrightbus in Ballymena, Northern Ireland to San Diego, to receive their engines/drive lines. The paper questioned the environmental credentials of the buses, adding that transporting them thousands of miles without actually carrying a passenger makes little sense.

There may be serious questions about hydrogen, not least the energy needed to manufacture the fuel. But till we actually try them, we’re never going to be able to develop them further or gain experience as to whether they have future potential. We need to experience them first and this is going to come at a cost. In any case, surface transport by water is the most fuel-efficient method of transporting freight.

What both the points about hybrid and hydrogen technology demonstrate is that we really need UK or even European based centres of low carbon excellence. We desperately need to catch up the rest of the world. Forget the US, China, for example, is on the cusp of major hybrid advances. It's welcome, therefore, that TfL and the DfT between them aim to drive change within the manufacturing industry, encouraging suppliers to break new ground and operators to run them.

7+1 Modern Classics

Exactly thirty years ago, Gavin Booth included 16 buses spanning the years 1903-1973 in his “The Classic Buses” book. He started with the Milnes-Daimler and concluded with the Leyland National. Since 1980, proportionately there’s room for seven more groundbreaking ovr popular buses. What would Booth choose now? Let’s help him.

1. Leyland & Volvo Olympian (1980-2000)

They built over 10,000 Olympians, popular by any measure (though there really was little credible competition). Indeed, it sold as many as the Atlantean and VR combined. Very early Brislington-built Ollies were licensed as Bristols, as a successor to the VR and were popular among those who looked for a VR replacement. Its real antecedent was the problematic, London-focused Leyland B15 Titan, the Olympian capitalising on a post-Leyland National distrust of integrals. Groundbreaking? No. Uncomplicated workhorse? Yes.

2. Ford Transit (from 1985 as urban minibus)

Admittedly, not everyone’s idea of an urban bus, but no one can deny it was anything other than groundbreaking. The parcel van conversions penetrated areas other buses couldn’t reach and boosted frequencies to unheard of levels. Sceptical industry leaders soon became convinced. You can forgive its ride quality, noise and lack of space once you realise in its wake it brought a marketing revolution of 25 per cent passenger growth, or more.

3. Dennis Dart (1990-2006)

The rise of the midibus—particularly the Dart—was a post-1987 phenomenon. They took over where the Gen 1 Transit and its ilk left off. The Dart actually did more for the British bus industry than conventional singe decks such as the RE and National, becoming a reasonably priced, reliable midi-standard. Post-1995, the Dart enabled the mass conversion of routes to SLF operation, with its associated ridership increases.

4. Wrightbus Pathfinder (1993-1995)

Literally groundbreaking, from 1993. Built on another Dennis chassis, the Lance SLF, plus the Scania N113CRL, this was Britain’s first homegrown low floor bus body. Many went London’s way but some in the Provinces weren’t at all sceptical. The body design was decidedly un-boxlike (compared to the ubiquitous Plaxton Pointer Dart of the time) and, indeed, the frontal design was to last to 2007 on successor models such as the Cadet, Commander, Liberator, Fusion and even the interestingly named Renown. We might also mention the DAF DB250LF/Optare Spectra, the first SLF double deck (and not the Volvo B7TL as we first mentioned).

5. Optare Solo (1998 to date)

Ubiquity on wheels. This integral turned the minibus market on its head. From the front and passenger service door, it looked like a large bus. Inside, it felt like a large bus. Access was impeccable, with the lowest height in the industry.

6. Wrightbus “Nokia” (1999 to date)

Phew, what a scorcher! Wrightbus has various names for its modern single deck products. They masquerade under Eclipse, Solar, Meridian and Pulsar, each on Volvo, Scania, MAN and VDL low floor chassis. The hallmark of all is the deep-scooped, semi-circular, arced windscreen bottom edge that looked like a Nokia mobile phone of its time. It marks Wrightbus out for stylish design and one that’s less fussy and less gimmicky than its competitors. And this from a manufacturer having started life with a boxy, block-like product, the Handybus. From ugly duckling to graceful swan, no doubt. And well built, too.

7. Caetano Levante (2006 to date)

This is a striking though slightly inelegant product that from 2006 is something of a National Express standard. What marks it out as groundbreaking is the so-called “magic floor” lift, tucked away out of site at the front entrance. Others have followed but, before Levante, accessible coaches had clumsy cassettes or bodged side conversions. Mind you, you do need a deal of pavement space to operate the left mechanism.

7+1 Mercedes Citaro O350G Bendy Bus (2002-RIP)

More controversial than FTR, and certainly not London Mayor Johnson’s cup of tea, the London articulated Citaro has a knack of clearing loads faster than a Routemaster and offering considerable easy access, too. It’s rare indeed to find a bus that’s actually influenced an election and we have the Citaro to thank for bringing the bus to the fore everywhere in England, regardless of whether people lived in or visited London. Whenever the bendy turns up elsewhere, they’re always likened to Mayor Johnson’s cast-offs.

Booth’s buses at 1980: Milnes-Daimler double deck; LGOC B-type; Leyland Lion; Leyland Titan TD1; AEC Regal; Daimler CO; AEC Regent RT; Guy Arab; Bedford OB; Bristol Lodekka; Leyland Titan TD; underfloor-engined buses (here Booth cheats a little in naming several); AEC Routemaster; Leyland Atlantean; Bristol RE; Leyland National

Dilly Dally

One of the complaints that surface from time to time is the length of time a driver spends in his cab at a terminus, without letting passengers board. We’ve had a spate of such complaints this unusually cold winter.

It’s one of the problems associated with driver only buses that simply didn’t exist when there were conductors. For obvious revenue and control reasons, the driver has to do his stuff before letting passengers on and he cannot let passengers pass till he’s ready.

We’ve all seen the problem. Driver opens and closes doors, places bag on dash, climbs in cab, adjusts seat, reads running board, deals with ticket machine, float and destination display. Meanwhile, the queue immediately bunches in anticipation, passengers rising from seating and the picking up of luggage and shopping. Passengers begin to think “Driver, can you go any *slower*?”. All this is exacerbated when the driver arrives three minutes after the bus should’ve departed, messes around for another two and takes three minutes to load passengers…

It would be a rare company indeed that insists upon a driver taking as long as possible in performing his sign on duties, deliberately trying to brass off his customers. And most passengers are reasonable about it, but not all.

Occasionally, disgruntled passengers feel moved enough to complain not to the company but the local transport authority. An interesting email exchange that came my way between a passenger and public servant expressed incredulity at the public body’s reply that it had no control over operators and couldn’t somehow force them to ensure drivers let passengers on immediately.

I don’t at all condone drivers who dilly-dally but neither would I even think of reporting Boots the Chemist to the planning committee of economic development department just because they tend to be two or three minutes late each morning in sending up the shutters and unlocking their doors. I might instead try an independent chemist.

Ah, there isn’t one...

Tardis?

In twenty years, with the clarity of hindsight, what will transport historians be saying about the current period? Will they conclude that the end of the first decade of the 21st century was a standoff between what passengers want from their public asset bus service against what bus operators are prepared to give them?

In particular, in the face of threats of quality contracts in South Yorkshire, in order to be let alone, have both First and Stagecoach this week merely offered mere palliative tidbits to the people of South Yorkshire—promises of peak & rides, buses that can use the tram track, pledges on services & fares as part of a voluntary partnership? What will actual and prospective passengers make of these gifts? Would they expect them of bus operators in any case? Are promises of a new future too little, too late? Will they be angry they don’t already get them?

Will they accuse Brian Souter of acting with arrogance when he asserts that he will go “absolutely head to head” with years-worth of robust legal challenges, should a quality contract be in the air? And will Stagecoach’s record of investment & passenger growth in Sheffield associated with its tram operation be enough to persuade subjects that the current regulatory environment is enough to protect passenger interest?

Have the operators missed the mood of South Yorkshire, as the clamour continues for more political control over frequencies, fares and reliability?

Is that threat so worrying operators that Stagecoach can offer sums stretching into eight figures towards the development for a ring of park & rides? Is all this mere window dressing, a sham even, to protect Stagecoach’s position?

And When Souter tells groups in favour of re-regulation to “get back in their Tardis”, will such a stance endear Stagecoach to the masses? Or is this a bit of a public relations disaster?

Or are there enough people without rose-tinted glasses who have a clear view of the costs of South Yorkshire’s previously profligate policy in the 1970s and 1980s to be concerned enough to get back aboard and jump straight back to 2010?

Omnibuses meets Gavin Booth

We continue our popular interviews with bus industry greats. Here, former Scottish Bus Group marketing manager, prolific author and Bus Users UK chairman Gavin Booth shares his thoughts on BUUK, Passenger Focus, writing and enthusiasms. Get in touch if you want to meet over a coffee to share some views...

OB: How disappointed was BUUK at not being made the passengers’ statutory representative? What role do you have in England, now? What are your strengths & weaknesses?

GB: If I am being honest, we were briefly disappointed when Passenger Focus was appointed, but quickly realised that we were simply not geared up to handle the type of high-level research that Passenger Focus specialises in, and that our strengths are that we can relate to the bus passenger at bus stop level. We have a continuing role in England, working with Passenger Focus, and as far as weaknesses are concerned, I would suggest that we are under-resourced and can’t provide the level of coverage throughout England that we would wish.

OB: How do you foresee your relationship with Passenger Focus developing and what can you offer that PF cannot?

GB: We have had an excellent relationship with Passenger Focus that predates their appointment and we meet regularly and recognise that we can both bring something to the table. We expect to be working closely with them and I sit on the Passenger Focus Bus Stakeholder Board.

OB: How successful do you think BUUK has been and do you see PF being more so?

GB: I like to think that Bus Users UK has given bus passengers a voice they never had and that we have raised awareness of the needs of bus passengers. In spite of there being more bus passengers (5 billion of them each year) than any other form of public transport, there is still a tendency to believe that rail and air passengers are more important, perhaps because they can often appear to be more articulate than bus users. I expect Passenger Focus to build on this success.

OB: Can Passenger Focus really have any influence?

GB: I genuinely believe so. The existence of a statutory body representing bus passengers should mean that buses move further up the political agenda, which would be a good thing, and Passenger Focus can produce well-researched data to pinpoint the concerns bus users have, which is something that hasn’t been readily available before.

OB: You are funded by the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly, on a more formal footing there. What have you achieved in that region when compared to England?

GB: We receive some funding from the Scottish Government, and the Welsh Assembly Government has been providing sufficient funds to allow us to employ a small staff and a team of local contacts throughout Wales, and this has proved very effective in reaching bus passengers and helping to improve the services they use.

OB: For some in the industry, BUUK has either an ‘anorak’ image or is viewed as made up of amateurish ‘do-gooders’. How can you dispel such views?

GB: An organisation like Bus Users UK will inevitably attract people who have a deeper interest in public transport, and if they are seen as ‘anoraks’ or ‘do-gooders’, then so be it. In fact they are people who are passionately interested in improving and retaining bus services and without them we would miss out on much excellent local knowledge and a load of well-directed enthusiasm.

OB: One operator that takes BUUK very seriously is Southern Vectis. You currently do interesting work with Southern Vectis. Is this something that’s likely to grow and, if so, what can you offer that a conventional consultancy cannot?

GB: We have carried out quality audit work for a range of bus operators—often the ones that are already very good, which tells you something. It is an aspect of the service we provide and I believe that our knowledge of and enthusiasm for buses and bus services allows us to look for and see things that other organisations might miss. It is always rewarding to discover that our criticisms and comments have been taken on board by bus operators and acted on.

OB: What has been BUUK’s greatest achievement?

GB: I would suggest it is that we have given bus users a voice they never had before and have nagged bus operators so much about customer care that this has moved up the agenda and is recognised as an essential part of staff training.

OB: You’ve written a good few books on buses and bus services. Which is your favourite and if you could recommend only one, in print or not, what would that be?

GB: I suppose my first ‘proper’ book, ‘Bus Stop’, published more than 40 years ago, would be my favourite, not just because it was the first but because it was very different from previous bus books and it is the one book many people mention when I meet them. I was trying to convince readers that an interest in buses was not only a perfectly normal thing, but that it could be fun too, and not just dry history.

OB: Which book has been your most successful, in terms of sales? And, least successful?

GB: Publishers don’t always give you sales figures, but I would guess ‘The British Motor Bus’, which attempted to tell the story of the vehicles from the earliest experiments over a century ago. By the same token, I don’t know which book has been least successful—but I have my suspicions!

OB: Knowing that the market’s limited, what motivates you to write on buses?

GB: They say you should always write about what you know about, and I know about buses. Or at least I should, as I have been in and around the bus industry since I first started as a management trainee back in 1961. I feel it is important to share what I have learned with others, in the hope that they will be encouraged to dig a bit deeper and maybe write books of their own. Digital publishing means that it is easier and more cost-effective to publish books on any subjects these days, and I know there are many enthusiasts out there who have gathered a huge amount of knowledge that is in danger of dying with them.

OB: The future of books remains uncertain. At some point, they’ll go the same way as CDs. How do you think this will change transport publishing and will there be the same sort of future in it?

GB: I believe that there will be a continuing demand for books, but I recognise that transport publishing, and in particular bus publishing, is catering for an increasingly limited market, but fortunately the economics of book production mean that quantities can be reduced and books can still be profitable.

The big problem is getting these books in front of potential readers, and the big High Street bookshops are increasingly reluctant to stock transport books, so publishers are relying on their own outlets, museums, model shops, rallies and of course increasingly the internet. If mainstream book publishing moves towards electronic books, then I rather think transport publishers will follow suit.

OB: Many of your books are aimed squarely at the enthusiast market. That market is quite mature (in economic and age terms!). Will there be the same appeal in, say, 20 years' time and how can we all foster younger enthusiasts?

GB: Certainly the generation of enthusiasts that grew up in the 1950s and 1960s—what you might call the ‘Buses Illustrated generation’, is growing older and from my knowledge of various organisations ranging from The Omnibus Society to local interest and museum groups, they are all searching for the answer to the big question—how can we encourage younger enthusiasts.

I know there are plenty out there, but their contact is often only through the internet, which is very different to my younger days when there was an opportunity to meet fellow enthusiasts face-to-face and learn from them. When I started taking an interest in buses in the 1950s I genuinely thought I was the only person with this interest and it was only through chance meetings with other enthusiasts, the discovery of ‘Buses Illustrated’ and a friend pointing me towards the Omnibus Society that I realised I was not alone!

I hope there will still be bus enthusiasts in 20 years’ time; it’s a harmless hobby that has attracted many people into the bus industry, and I can testify to a much greater knowledge of UK geography than I might otherwise have gained, as a result of teenage (and later) gricing trips.

Helping Them Help Us

14 additional days beyond the current 56 to tell local transport authorities of our intentions to register, cancel or vary a service? Before the registration even gets to the traffic commissioner?

That’s one of the questions in the DfT’s “Improving Bus Passenger Services through the Regulatory Framework” consultation (which includes anti-social behaviour, buggy space, etc).

It may concern some operators, but an extra 14 days won’t bother us, as the professional relationship we seek to foster means, generally, LTAs (councils, PTEs) get our information before the 56-day statutory minimum in any case. And, for those who operate in Scotland, the 14 additional days already applies.

LTAs have already been successful in extending the original 42-day notice period to 56, claiming that there was insufficient time for them. Why would authorities & executives want more?

To be fair, the proposed timescale at 70 days is still rather tight for LTAs (though the DfT needs to balance flexibility for operators with common sense for LTAs). Whereas the industry usually plans about 30 weeks in advance of a change, the current eight for LTAs doesn’t always allow a LTA to seek replacements (if necessary). If the timescale of looking for gaps, constructing a replacement and then seeking political support isn’t smooth, publicity suffers.

Where the extra time would particularly benefit the industry is threefold:

1. It is to the industry’s advantage to have a little more time in which to plan any services bought back by the LTA. Here, an extra two weeks would help. This helps in sourcing or changing resources and we need time, perhaps, to negotiate with unions.


2. Any changes need to be built into our own publicity. Late changes mean gaps or anodyne comments about information not available by press date or services subject to change or call the LTA for details.


3. Just occasionally, we drop a clangour. We then have to go cap in hand to the traffic commissioner via VOSA to rectify it. Cue snivelling letter, written on bended knee without a guarantee of success.

And who tends to pick up these little accidents? The LTA… Given ’em an extra fortnight to help them and help us.

Edinburgh to Cardiff

The Yellow School Bus Commission was in Edinburgh, Scotland yesterday, hawking its wares to the devolved government. You never know, unlike the DfT, the Scottish exec might bite on this. Care of Aberdeen’s university, the report’s been refreshed and stresses two points that they say haven’t yet been fully drawn out:

• Dedicated school buses would generate 1,200 driving jobs (presumably part time, schooldays only) plus 300 in management, manufacturing and as fitters.


• A rollout would remove 10 million what it calls unnecessary private journeys to and from home and school each year.

The YSB models its recommendations on the US system. Life Stateside, of course, is rather different than over here. In the States generally:

• Each school district or county has just one franchisee, from taxis, minibuses to single deck buses. In the UK, we’re fragmented. This leads to variable standards in the UK but ensures local competition rather than a “win all, lose all” situation.


• The USA can manage up to three trips per bus per peak period. In the UK, it’s almost invariably one only. This means early starts, but often US schools share the burden by rotating unpopular early bell times.

From yesterday’s release from the University of Aberdeen website. We trust this won’t be a model for Scotland: no driver uniform, no high backed seats or seat belts... and left hand drive

The YSB estimates that a dedicated UK wide fleet of vehicles will cost £154mil. That’s quite some cash. There are a number of ways to reduce this:

• Redraft policy so that there are fewer trips or perhaps even by forcing those over 16 to pay (as does happen in places). Politicians are unlike to warm to this.


• Advertise on the side of school buses. Several American states now allow it and others are considering it.


• Change school hours to get more work per bus.

Up till the early 1990s, it was the LEA and not individual governors who had responsibility for school opening & closing times. If only control was wrested from schools, we could see a real reduction in vehicles operated. Governors have the responsibility for their opening hours and change isn’t gonna happen.

But hang on. Wales already has powers to redraft opening times if that’s to the greater benefit of congestion and the environment. I have no idea whether any Welsh authority has used these new powers but here we have the key to unlocking the conundrum. This simple (simple?) move would have more of an affect on peak bus operation, cost and congestion than all the measures within the commission’s report put together. Perhaps it’s to Cardiff rather than Edinburgh the YSB should be going.

Underwired

What’s the difference between a trolleybus and a brassiere? Nothing. Both are underwired, both are supportive infrastructure, both are practical & fashionable at the same time and the effect of both can be quite electrifying. And both come in pairs, if like in Leeds the trolley is articulated.

Is it me or do I sense that planners dislike the humble bus and will only ever allow the bus to make a major contribution to congestion unless it’s disguised as something else.

Build a guided busway or provide other dedicated track (e.g. Swansea FTR) and you have a “scheme” that planners can get behind. Don't call it a bus but disguise it as something more up market. Such grand designs then have potential, they’re perceived differently and above all can attract the middle classes. Unlike the bus.

And so it is with the now fashionable Leeds trolleybus (itself given a rather nice scheme-like name, New Generation Transport). Basically, the tram failed and the bus wasn’t seen as quite good enough. Enter the trolleybus. Trolleybuses lend themselves a sense of permanence (no sudden overnight route changes). They’re different. Indeed, they are to commuting what yellow buses are to schools. In West Yorkshire, you’ll soon see both. Are yellow buses just another disguise? Paint a brand new school bus yellow and you suddenly have a product the CBI can get behind. Yet, any other school bus can bring similar benefits if managed correctly.

Having got that off my chest (ahem, back to bras?), I applaud Metro, the West Yorkshire PTE, for the success in gaining trolley funding. It will come as no surprise to readers that I am fond of them. Clean (at least at the point of delivery), quiet, smooth (assuming the roads are in good order) and swift, very swift. There’s a lot to commend them. Coupled with improvements in traffic signal technology to form “virtual” bus lanes plus actual segregation, Leeds has a product that’s likely to reduce highway capacity on the one hand but, through modal shift, improve highway capacity on the other.

Bravo to Leeds. Even if the trolleys will be articulated. Now, what about the rest of England? Forget the catenary, just let’s have some free roadspace so that the humble bus can become destigmatised and play a real role...

MPTE Insight

Omnibuses NC* reports...

Merseytravel, the combined Merseyside integrated transport authority and passenger transport executive came out very well in the OFT report on the bus industry. Competition for tenders on Merseyside seems alive and well—better, perhaps, than at other PTEs. This, no doubt, reflects MPTE’s deliberate policy that ensures revenue accrues to itself and not the operator. Suppliers who know their costs and profit margins have no fear of revenue fluctuations and can price confidently. MPTE has a significant number of revenue protection officers and software systems to ensure it bags all its cash—and that operators aren’t caught with their fingers in the cash dispenser.

Bus services on Merseyside are nevertheless under scrutiny as, like any public sector organisation, it battles with budgets. Expect Job Link services to suffer most. Job Link started about seven years ago, on a demand responsive and fixed basis, aimed at getting people into employment. It was social inclusion engineering, par excellence. The problems with those sorts of projects always seems to be that once a passenger has been in a job long enough to afford a car he’ll, well, buy one. Job Link’ll have done its bit as he says “tara Wack” (with Scouse accent) to those long, awkward Job Link journeys. The entire DRT element’s already gone.

Budget pressures will also see a fundamental MPTE internal restructure, with 25 jobs going, though MPTE is at pains to point out that there will be no compulsory redundancies. MPTE is about to leave is old haunt of 24 Hatton Garden for new officers at Mann Island, not far from a former famous bus terminus and where, in a bygone age, coaches would cater for liner traffic. Cynics believe that there simply isn’t quite enough room at Mann Island for all the staff. As for Hatton Garden, it’s the old tram HQ and the committee rooms within are said to be much as they were at the building’s foundation.

The union claims that between 80-100 jobs will vanish. The union figure is based on a requested 10 per cent saving throughout the organisation. I’m no mathematician but if 100 is 10 per cent, then the number of staff working at MPTE is 1,000. Does this seem a lot? Well, over half of them work in the two Mersey tunnels. There, it’s a 24/7/365 operation, including the non-Crown tunnels police, independent of the Merseyside force, who enforce the bylaws and town unsuspecting motorists who have the misfortune to break down—for a fat fee.

There was a recent time—this century—when the PTE existed on just two directors. That’s the minimum required under the Transport Act 1968. That’s changed now, and there are five. Still a lot slimmer than neighbour GMPTE. No doubt it was one of the MPTE five who commented in the local newspaper about the restructure and redundancies, “We have been working in partnership to integrate all aspects our operations into one organisation to reduce duplication and increase efficiencies.” That’s an odd statement from an organisation that in 1986 fully integrated the former PTA (now ITA) with its PTE…

* Omnibuses NC = Northern Correspondent. We use NC, as Merseytravel’s chief executive and director general was once a director at Northern Counties

Bus Speeds

Year in, year out, bus speeds deteriorate. Not by much, perhaps just by ½ mph per annum. But the cumulative affect is significant.

That’s why it was disappointing to see nothing on this within the DfT’s recent proposals for improving the bus journey experience. Plenty on driver & passenger conduct, anti-social behaviour including alcohol plus a raft of measures about de minimis rules, consulting on maximum fares, increasing the period local transport authorities get registration information ahead of the 56 day period, etc. The one thing that was missing that would improve the passenger experience more than anything else was measures to improve punctuality and bus speeds.

It’s not just general traffic volume that’s responsible. Inconsiderate parking also has an effect. A new scourge is the random parking we now tend to see next to banks & building society cash points. Banks are in sensitive town centre locations, often at cross roads, always in busy areas at a town or suburb’s very heart. Invariably, the double yellow lines outside are there for a purpose. What gives the motorist the right to abuse these traffic makings, just to use an automatic telling machine? It might seem like a quick transaction to the motorist but this could lose the bus up to two minutes’ time. Selfish motorists simply abandon their cars without realising the disruption caused to larger, longer vehicles. But the issue isn’t simply *one* motorist, it’s the constant stream pulling up to draw out.

The traffic commissioners take a view that dealing with punctuality falls squarely on operators. True enough but the cumulative effect of thoughtless parking and all other general traffic means that at some point, network managers need to redraft timetables. At some stage, they will reach the point where either an extra bus & associated drivers are required or they must trim frequency to ensure the service operates within the resources available to it. Both solutions are imperfect from a passenger and a revenue perspective.

The first adds cost that is rarely clawed back through the farebox, though longer term improvements in punctuality might achieve this. The second contains costs within existing resource but results in fewer passengers who see a drop in frequency.

A Rare Stagecoach Flop

In responding to yesterday’s post on the next likely innovation that might capture a larger future market share, no one mentioned the personal mobility experiment at least planned for Cardiff, Wales. There was talk of the next best thing, though—taxis or some sort of demand responsive transport, using smaller vehicles. The next big thing?

At one level, taxis as buses make sense. Flexible, fast, personalised transport. There’s already a few experiments in this direction, principally in rural areas but also in the city of Plymouth. Taxifast in Plymouth started as a supplementary service and has now also evolved into straight bus replacements.

And there are plenty of minibus DRT operations, especially in rural areas. And, here, taxi- and minibus-based DRT melds nicely with another suggestion yesterday—technology (in this case, routing software).

Aside from capacity, DRT has two major disadvantages. First, it’s expensive. Secondly, and this is linked to the first, taxi firms have yet to understand the concept of marginal costs. They price the off-peak the same as peak journeys. It may be that a taxi-based system will have a different concept of peak to a bus and this, for a taxi, may be based around the school rather than traditional peak. Even so, the taxi industry needs to make the basic economic link between peak and off-peak costs.

Taxis as DRT bus services will have the major benefit of improving passenger perceptions of an otherwise fragmented industry, even potentially in sorting out the complex regulatory regime that throws up more varieties of local conditions than Heinz.

Before we all get carried away about flexible taxis, let’s remember one of the largest and most ambitious pilots of all: Stagecoach’s Fife yellow taxibuses. It’s very much unlike Stagecoach to back a loser—but lose it did. The cynic in my always wondered whether it was set up to fail, to prove that a *commercially* driven DRT operation could never make money. That way, no one need even consider DRT as the next leap forward to threaten the supremacy of the fixed urban bus service.

i Additional information by Plymothian Transit

Time to Move On

We’re now increasingly hearing of bus companies declaring that they’ve converted to 100 per cent super low floor, accessible operation. There was one named in last week’s trade press, for example. If not always quite the whole fleet then often everything on front line bus duties, save perhaps for coaches or school buses. This in spite of the doom of the pending 2016/7 deadlines that some will hit and others won’t.

The SLF has been a useful and initially unexpected tool in bringing ridership growth. If nothing else, it’s been instrumental in generating sufficient income in markets usually devoid of growth to maintain services at least as they are. Usually, the SLF has contributed much more than that.

Now, SLFs are becoming commonplace, even taken for granted. The resultant step change (excuse the pun) in patronage associated with SLFs was useful but it’s now maturing. The industry needs to move to a new level. The obvious question is, after mass SLF adoption, what will the operator do to raise its profile and attract & retain even more new customers in the same way as we saw with the SLF. What will cause the next 'step' change? That’s a tricky question. We can’t rely on sticks that will beat motorists towards our services. They’ve been long promised but never delivered. Nor yet on freeing roadspace.

The answer may be attention to service delivery, customer focus, marketing and bus interiors including what was once viewed as a gimmick, wi-fi. Hybrids may, for example, offer environmental credentials, a smoother ride and reduced interior noise. FTR and BRT have limited applications. SQBPs and quality contracts will make services more desirable but their application may be limited.

None of these is universal and as marketable as the SLF or, indeed, the predecessor Gen 1 type minibus that gave the industry another significant fillip. There appears nothing of any technological significance that can generate sufficient interest to move the industry on, in the same way as the SLF.

Unless you know different...

About Time we Mentioned the “T” Word

T is for Train.

It isn’t going to provoke the same sort of reaction that followed Kraft’s (deceitful?) take-over of Cadbury and I don’t really wish to mention it save that I feel I ought. But this week it’s come to light that Deutsche Bahn (German railways) has made an unsolicited offer for bus (and train) operator Arriva, smelling blood barely a day after Arriva failed to agree a French SNCF/Keolis deal.

It probably won’t be long before one of our best-known bus brands finds its way into European hands. Should this trouble us unduly? Arriva is already very distant from its Cowie, Grey Green and British Bus heritage, in any case. If we can entrust our royal train to DB via its EWS subsidiary, maybe we can learn to live with it operating a significant slice of our bus industry, too.

For the train aficionados among us, DB subsidiary DB Regio partners with Renaissance Trains to operate the Wrexham, Shropshire & Marylebone Railway, an open access operator ploughing an indirect route through Shrewsbury and the midlands to London. Arriva subsidiary Arriva Trains Wales recently applied to operate direct Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury-London trains, a move vigorously opposed by WSMR. WSMR felt that ATW’s tactics were underhanded and spiteful, in revenge for WSMR daring to run over ATW’s patch. Arriva took the view that Aberystwyth-Shrewsbury-Birmingham was a busy and growing all year market that would benefit from a London extension. The ORR found in favour of WSMR.

Now, having spent time, effort & money on this exercise, it might just be that both operators find themselves newly bosom pals under the same umbrella…

WSMR achieved the highest overall customer satisfaction in the country, ever, at 98 per cent. They could teach a bus company a thing or two, no doubt. And it leaves ATW with some catching up to do.

Fanciful stuff but suppose Arriva passes to DB. Does this mean in a roundabout way, Arriva goes back to government ownership, albeit not the English government? But only till the German government sells DB, as is on the cards. With the ructions in Germany at the thought of the sale, it's surprising DB can concentrate on acquisitions on such a scale as Europe-wide Arriva.

Preston Bus—the dream

You have to give them 10/10 for pluck. We’re referring to some 200 former Preston Bus staff who once again dream of owning their futures by buying their company—this time, from Stagecoach.

Do they know that things have changed since they last wrote their cheques in favour of the council, 17 years ago? These days, there are a number of hurdles to overcome.

• Raising finance is something of an issue, whether or not there’s a dominant operator lurking in the background. Since other larger agglomerates can afford much more, where does that leave a management offer? Unless it’s tied with a large group offer. If so, why wouldn’t one of the other Big Five simply buy outright?


• The future’s big, not small. Smaller operators carry disproportionately high overheads that cannot easily be trimmed. A buy back means re-establishing those admin functions taken out by Stagecoach. In other words, dis-economies of scale.


• Passengers who newly enjoy network benefits and stability will be concerned that they can no longer purchase one ticket for one network. Far from bringing passenger choice, two operators on different routes may result in a fragmented market that’s perpetually changing.


• Whoever owns the new organisation knows it will remain vulnerable to competition. This, after all, is what the Competition Commission ruling is designed to foster. It’s therefore hardly a rock solid investment without the likes of a SQBP.


• There’s no longer any room in Preston for optimistic frequencies or commercial evening services as was previously the case. Any cuts to daytime services will, however, see public support for Preston Bus wane.


• Preston Bus may have been relatively popular but its exact fare and no return ticket policies were seen as antiquated and passenger unfocused.


• Small operators can exist on lower margins. This, however, gives them less scope in the event of passenger revenues not matching expectations.


• Investment in new kit was always a challenge at Preston Bus. At the time of take over, it had taken Preston Bus 14 years to shake off its Lynx & Atlantean heritage perception. Smaller operators cannot negotiate the type of deals available to their larger brethren.

All this is assuming Preston Bus is actually for sale. Though there’s talk in Preston of some sort of deal to hive off and merge routes, Stagecoach is also understood to have appealed against the Competition Commission’s November 2009 sale ruling. Stagecoach is also understandably tight-lipped about the level of interest from elsewhere. What sort of interest is there? Is there any?

Strongly in favour of a local deal is that it would pose less of a nightmare for Stagecoach compared to an incomer from within Stagecoach’s national competitors.

Preston Bus was sold to its employees in 1993 and, following a bitter bus war that saw the traffic commissioner intervene, sold for £6.4mil to Stagecoach in January 2009. In November 2009, the Competition Commission ruled that the purchase was anti-competitive and that Stagecoach should sell its Preston Bus operations.

Congestion: it’s a drag

The principles sound fine. But I’m not sure I wholly agree with all the Confederation of British Industry’s conclusions in yesterday’s “Tackling Congestion, Driving Growth”. Here are four reflections.

• The CBI’s saying that the net benefits of bus priority are “unlikely to deliver a radical shift needed from road to rail, bus or tram”. Give me unfettered access to the highway and I’ll show you what the industry can achieve in terms of modal shift, ridership increase and the impact it can make on congestion. There are examples. Freeing roadspace for the bus would do more for the fares reductions beloved of the competition authorities than any measure the Competition Commission inquiry is likely to recommend. Indeed, talk of congestion dragging the economy down emphasises why the CC should consider the private car as the major competitor to the bus industry.


• The CBI report is too car focused. It wishes to see road investment in and between congested areas. There is nevertheless a strong emphasis on the merits of road pricing. Interesting that the CBI recognises this should only take place when and until there are parallel improvements to public transport, the very modes almost writes off as “unlikely to deliver”.


• Where I would agree with the report is in its appeal for flexible working—at least, to a point. Inevitably, this still panders to the car lobby but it would spread peak loads and free roadspace for the bus. I’m a little reticent to support home working, though, as this will reduce my regular, five-day-a-week travellers. But we know all this is going to come, and it hardly fits under the term “radical” as the CBI suggests.


• The word “bus” appears just 10 times in the report, thrice with the adjective “yellow” ahead of it. The CBI recommends a nationwide roll out of yellow buses as a means of curbing congestion. Whatever happened to the yellow bus? Twice the DfT has had an opportunity to take this mantle on board, following an internal review and then the work of the Yellow School Bus Commission. Twice the DfT appears to have concluded the benefit:cost ratio is poor. Even First Group no longer has a First Student UK organisation, ceding responsibility to local garages for the perpetuation of existing schemes. First Student hasn’t taken off quite like First hoped. I certainly couldn’t find a link to First Student off First’s website.

Of Bus, Buggy & Wheelchair

“Because the route is so popular, we're increasing [the 68/9] to every 7 or 8 minutes so you can just turn up and go!”

So says Nottingham City Transport in a spun press release that hides reality—retaliation against a competitor, Your Bus.

It’s taken NCT the best part of nine months to do this. In these Competition Commission investigatory times, lest NCT is accused of perdition, it’s keeping fares the same. By way of further market differentiation, it’s taken the interesting step of refurbishing some Scanias for the 68/9 to provide up to three buggy spaces in two bays.

From today, NCT ups its 68/69 City-Bullwell-Hempshill Vale-Snape Roads to every 7½ minutes from every 10. This is against Your Bus’ 10-minute 81, twixt Nottingham, Bulwell & Hempshill Vale. 68/9 requires PVR+3

Will the provision of more buggy space be something of a new trend? Perhaps this will be one outcome of last week’s DfT consultation on passengers on buses. While the media focused on anti-social behaviour, buried within was a section on the use of designated wheelchair spaces. They should be kept free for legitimate users—disabled people. Operators may in the future even face fines if they don’t enforce this principle. These 265 words managed to brass off half the population and a strong target market for the bus industry, to boot—women with buggies.

It’s not the sort of problem the industry envisaged when it realised that super low floor buses were more likely to attract parents with buggies than disabled people in wheelchairs. SLFs have contributed to ridership growth, as parents have seen the advantage of loading their buggy without having to take their child out and collapse it (the buggy, not the child). Many operators advertise services as buggy- rather than wheelchair-friendly.

We’ve been here before, of course, particularly in Edinburgh, Scotland. Lothian Buses came under some criticism in July 2008 for its strict no-pram policy. It said it needed to keep space available for wheelchairs. There followed a mothers’ backlash. There was sympathy from chair users to the mothers’ plight. Lothian Buses couldn’t win. But, as we suggested at the time, they eventually compromised. Buggies could occupy a chair space till needed by a wheelchair passenger. This entails folding the buggy at need. All well and good a man saying so but it still isn’t easy if you have shopping, buggy and baby.

And now, this has reached a national audience. Mothers see no reason why there shouldn’t be wheelchair space, so long as there’s a space for buggies, too. As well as NCT on the 68/9, others are adopting such a stance. For example, Lothian Buses itself, on service 22, has an experiment in carrying both chairs and buggies. First’s FTRs have built in extra capacity. Transdev Yellow Buses’ Versas and Tempos effectively have double the space. Here, several problems emerge:

• The above examples are on frequent urban services. What about less frequent, inter-urban or rural services where seating capacity may be at a premium, especially for children at peak times?


• Even on urban buses losing forward facing seats to accommodate extra buggies is hardly ideal when you can only get up to 44 seats on a 12m single deck in the first place.


• Where do you stop? Finding a buggy space could still be something of a lottery. One buggy space sometimes isn’t always enough to meet demand. Should there be a mass conversion to reservoir spaces for buggies, requiring even mothers to stand?


• What happens when a buggy user refuses to co-operate? Meeting out a fine seems hardly appropriate. As Nicola Shaw put it on the BBC last week, in these circumstances there’s nothing you can do but keep the service going for the benefit of the majority of those on board.

It seems that with buggies the industry is a victim of its own success. In offering yet more buggy space, will NCT just increase frustrations as more users turn up to find spaces already taken?

The Bottom Line

When asked whether the bus industry had its equivalent of back office boffins in white coats, First Group’s Nicola Shaw answered yes but they would more than likely be wearing jerseys. Does anyone wear jersey pullover these days? It seems industry network managers do.

Nicola Shaw, who shared the studio with executives of Hertz International and Flybe, made this revelation during the half-hour BBC Radio Four programme The Bottom Line, repeated yesterday. Perhaps almost subliminally, listeners may have picked up the impression that the bus industry is staffed by a breed apart.

The two-fold focus of the broadcast was on cuts and on nightmare customers. If listeners felt that they might get a true understanding of either, they were disappointed. All three guests, for example, were keen to ensure they didn’t cheese off anyone who might be listening and who might be offended enough to take their custom elsewhere. Nicola did mention adverts on buses for religion, the consequences of which took up too much management time and now resulted in an advert ban, “for now”.

It was exactly a year ago that First announced a £55mil plus 1,100 job cutting programme to be completed by March 2010, now. Nicola said that First achieved this by reducing the frequency but keeping the connections. To those listening, this sounded a fairly scientific, rational process. Industry watchers might argue that that this was more arbitrary. Given that First is very much an urban operator, it was easy to hack back the frequency. And, of course, there was a pretty standard target across the group, no matter an individual subsidiary’s profitability.

Nicola did mention the great wheelchair versus buggy debate. Neither were problem passengers; rather, it was the situation that could be thought of as problematic. More on this, tomorrow, in a slightly different context.

The programme was a disappointment but then again, with 24 minutes and three executives, four minutes each on First’s cuts and problem customers is nowhere near sufficient. Thanks to the men in jerseys at the BBC, you can nevertheless find out for yourselves, here.

Staged

Here is the Hampshire Chronicle website’s view of the Eastleigh council-brokered deal between Velvet and Bluestar. “A bitter bus war is over with two rival firms joining forces for the benefit of their passengers”.

Aside from the fact that the “bitterness” was reserved for other routes and not Velvet’s A or Bluestar’s 3, just look at the picture of the bus above the caption, “End of bus wars good news for passengers”. Yes, that really is a Stagecoach bus coming to the rescue of the people of Eastleigh. Is it off route or is there something we should all know?

Never let the truth get in the way of a good first paragraph.

“Simon” was the first to spot that yesterday’s Day in the Life was of Alex Hornby, currently operations manager at Bluestar. At 0751, it was 52 minutes after the post went live. As a result, I’m a pint better off: I bet Hornby that there’d be an answer within the hour. With his imminent move north as commercial director of Trent Barton, I probably won’t have time to collect. See the revised post where you will find all names revealed. Thank you to those who commented.

Takeover Times

The takeover pace may have slackened but, for industry watchers, there’s still plenty of interest. We heard officially yesterday, for example, that Go Ahead’s added Norfolk operator Konectbus to its 3,500 vehicle portfolio.

At one level, Konectbus fits well with Go Ahead’ philosophy because it:

• Is well run, meeting targets daily
• Has a contemporary, modern brand and image
• Ensures its buses are well presented
• Uses individual and appealing publicity
• Has an average fleet age of under is 8 years, to reduce to 7 with an imminent new intake
• Is an award winner (and runner up in the most recent Oscars).

Moreover, it’s one of those élite band of operators spawned by professionally trained busmen—in this case from Eastern Counties—who are not only good at what they do, they have the flexibility to mould their operations creatively without the encumbrance of diktats from a large group. As such, Konectbus will need little work from Go Ahead to develop it further—other than in expansion.

And here’s the key for, at another level and without expansion, Konectbus is a poor fit. At 39 vehicles, it’s 0.1 per cent of Go Ahead’s bus business. It’s very isolated from other Go Ahead units (though the long-winded ‘exclusive negotiations’ may yet result in Go Ahead assuming a 49 per cent stake in near-ish Ipswich Buses). Neither is Konectbus an urban operator, as Go Ahead prefers. It does operate some Norwich city services plus two Norwich park & rides, with a third on the way (requiring PVR6, being Enviro400s).

In just a couple of weeks, First hands over its Harford park & ride to Konectbus

First Eastern Counties (and Eastern National) must be looking on slightly nervously at the actual and possible Go Ahead incursions into its patch. Like neighbour Norfolk Green, Konectbus has already managed to carve for itself a good living on the back of those services First doesn’t want. This includes most of the bus services in and around Dereham though, here, First has begun something of a fight back. Many of Konectbus services nevertheless run hourly, on the likes of former Eastern Counties’ 434, 825/7 and 834/5. It’s also developed its market, with new links, faster services and some leather interiors.

A recent visit to Norwich demonstrated that Konectbus did let itself down at the time, over a lack of bus timetables, though.

A Day in the Life

Responding to a survey suggestion from an Omnibuses regular, here’s A Day in the Life of a bus industry figure. We originally asked readers to guess who it might be and it took precisely 52 minutes for someone to suggest Alex Hornby, currently of Bluestar (though not for long). We therefore have revised the post with names added back in.

0730 *ish*—Make a phone call to the three units to see how run-out went, so get a brief rundown on any drivers sick, and any vehicle availability and allocation issues.

0800—Check emails and check Bluestar's Facebook page, over breakfast.

0820—Leave home and head towards Eastliegh, with perhaps a detour via the Southampton city centre or the University just to have a nose or say hello.

0840—Arrive at Bluestar HQ and have my daily chat with with engineering manager Steve Prewett. We have a great team relationship. Steve’s one of the best engineering people per se I have ever worked with. There’s no “engineering v operations” battle at Bluestar, as we chucked that old fashioned nonsense at the door when we both started work here. We decided that we’re in it together to deliver results for the business. He has a great understanding of the product, and sympathy of our ideas.

0900—It’s period review tomorrow so must get my report done. I don’t have a great deal of patience to sit and write reports. I’d rather just get on with something more productive ;-) but it’s got to be done! It’s been another good period, with revenue and profit targets up. No lost mileage again relating to staff issues, breakdown lost mileage coming down all the time, so overall a good performance by everyone. Get into it a bit now that I know I’ve got something positive to write about but have to battle through some of the more dreary aspects of the report first, which results in…

0905—Distractions! Start to get waylaid by checking Bluestar on Facebook again and answering emails. Plus, my door’s stays open so there are a lot of interruptions as drivers, controllers and, well, anybody really, comes and says hello or presents me with a problem! Finally get the reports done before…

1030—I have to run out of the building. It’s time to do battle with the car again, in that I have to drive it. Paul Weller, the AOM of Uni-link, can’t stop winding me up with all the various alarms flashing as we travel to the University of Southampton. We meet with the folks there twice a month. There’s a formal meeting alongside our managing director Alex Carter (good if it’s in the afternoon, because that can culminate in a pint!), but this is a more informal one over coffee at their staff club alongside three university representatives. We review operational performance and brainstorm some ideas. All’s progressing well at Uni-link, so we have a useful discussion on what we do next to develop and grow the product. All positive stuff!

1200—Received a missed call from Best Impressions. Chat through the latest branding for our ex-Southern Vectis Citaros due for Bluestar 9 with Ray Stenning. We’ve progressed to about the fifth version now, which is often a typical outcome of the partnership we have, as we both keep on adding and improving on the original ideas. We have great teamwork with all the guys there, and the latest ideas then get forwarded around the Bluestar team for their views to before we make a final decision. A freshly repainted Citaro is next door at Hants & Dorset Trim, so brief Ray on what we’d like to see doing with the internal aspect, with more Bluestar themes to make the customer feel more in touch with the brand.

1230—Chat a few ideas through with the commercial manager Matt Callow now that I’m back at my desk. I have a thing about pushing Sunday frequencies at the moment. When will we all learn that Sundays are now nearly Saturdays? A good discussion. To his credit, Matt is good at playing devil’s advocate to ideas, which often produces the best result.

1300—A formal-ish review with the three assistant operations managers, which coincides with lunch. Steve Cuff, my long-suffering AOM at Eastleigh (dubbed my wife at work), makes the soup whilst Rachel (my wife at home) has done four lots of sandwiches which get dished out. The three AOMs, also including John Barrett who is based at Totton, are great, loyal people, and it has been tremendous to watch them develop. It’s also fun to observe (and stir it up!) how protective they are of their brands and their depots, but I love it as I want them taking ownership and pride in what they do. We go through each driver’s attendance cards; gain an update on driver numbers and recruitment; recent customer feedback (we don’t say “complaints” as we do get commendations too!); Cash Shorts; recent RTCs (that’s modern chat for “accidents”) and any other outstanding issues.

1345—Paul Marshall, our roadside publicity man, arrives halfway through the meeting. I give him a plentiful supply of A4 posters to go and post around both the Bluestar and Uni-link networks. These are entirely produced in house, with *inspiration* from Best Impressions!

1430—Time for a Formal Inquiry (Bluestar speak for a “disciplinary interview”) with a driver. Have a quick catch up on various issues with the Union Rep. We have a good local working relationship with the RMT and GMB so we’re able to sort out many issues quickly and informally together.

1530—We’re in the course of redesigning our training centre as a result of us beginning our Welcome to Excellence customer care courses for all front-line staff, so we have a bit of a brainstorming session about the layout, colours, designs etc. Get a design done for a wall-sized mural to make it look professional and a nice place to be. Decide the whole theme should be about serving customers, even though there will inevitably be other aspects to training, such as economic driving, as it keeps staff focused that serving customers well is what it’s all about.

1600—Time to catch up on emails again. A flick through sees one from our service monitor. I’m not happy with punctuality on one of our routes I the morning peak, so ask the relevant manager to check it out. Actually, the customers on this journey haven’t received our “free newspaper” treatment for a while, so sign off a petty cash form to get a load to take along too. It will help interaction and facilitate discussion with the customers to help solve the timekeeping problem. Also received the email I wanted from BAA Southampton Airport – they like the idea of naming the double deckers used on Uni-link U1 serving the Airport after “aviation” themes to launch during the Centenary Year of the Airport. Arrange a meeting in the hope we can flesh out more ideas and strengthen our relationship.

1640—Get a call from Simon Bell at Southampton council. We have a chat through some roadworks coming up and how we can best deal with them, among a few other issues. Stay in the office till about 1730. Have a meeting to go to, but the deal is normally that I stick around throughout the evening peak with a normal finishing time at 1900. A bit different today though, because…

1800—We’re trying to give our night service a push at the moment, so I have a meeting with one of the big bar owners in Southampton, at his bar. Resist temptation and have a coke, though! Managed to get a good deal done. They’ll carry our publicity and we’ll get them a promo done on our web site, among some exclusive deals for our customers on production of a bus ticket. All good stuff.

1900—Meeting’s finished so arrive at the gym to take out any stresses of the day (checking the timings and loadings of Bluestar 1 and Uni-link U6 on the way—can’t resist!)

2030—Open the laptop again when I get in, so Rachel throws tea at me! Remind her we’ll have a fun weekend to look forward to in a few days’ time in Nottingham house hunting. That cheers her up.

Long Live the Republic?

South Yorkshire PTE has submitted information to the Competition Commission enquiry. This initial response gives us a flavour or a glimpse of what local transport authorities are thinking. Or, perhaps it confirms what we already know: the idea of a quality contract for Barnsley or Doncaster was promoted by SYPTE last autumn.

SYPTE argues that there should be competition for the market (franchising), not in the market (on-street). There should be greater regulatory control. It points out that where there’s competition its positive effects are limited and those areas without competition are worse off. Indeed, SYPTE argues that there are no benefits that spread across the entire network and that head on competition on key routes leads to buses chasing passengers. The regime, they say, has failed.

We mustn’t forget that South Yorkshire was one of the prime reasons why the government deregulated bus services in the first place. The authority’s guiding principle, as the former South Yorkshire County Council, was to increase public transport subsidy to phenomenal levels. In the network support era before 1986, it was the only PTE *not* to increase fares to reduce subsidy levels. There were good social reasons for this policy though it went far further than simply pegging fares. It placed South Yorkshire at odds with the government of the day.

The post-1986 PTA sold its operator to its employees in 1993, though I think I’m right in saying, at the time, the PTE retained the freehold to garages. In 1995, one of the groups took a 20 per cent stake, with First taking over completely three years later.

Though this week’s SYPTE arguments in favour of spreading the benefit through franchising may seem compelling, the point about the history lesson above is that the PTA sold its PTE operator and thus abrogated responsibility for direct bus operations, other than for socially necessary services the PTE saw fit to buy to fill socially necessary gaps. By promulgating a regulation and franchising argument, SYPTE seeks to control, without due compensation, an organisation it willingly sold. Referring to moves within West Yorkshire to embark on franchising, TAS called this “larceny” or wrongfully depriving the current owners of their business; an appropriation.

Further, if franchising comes at a cost to the taxpayer (a debatable point, actually), we might even see a return to that epithet given to the high spending pre-1986 former county council of the People’s Republic of South Yorkshire.

High Tech Solution

There are few if any industries that have the benefit of free advertising directly on the highway. And without planning permission, too. I’m taking display cases that give information on our wears—roadside timetables or other information about our services.

It really is quite useful advertising, for the comfort of existing customers and the convenience of new ones. We rarely make best use of such displays (and many, of course, are increasingly outside operators’ direct control). It probably won’t be long before there’s a high-tech solution available. There may already be one but I don’t think so (unless you know differently). What would such a hi-tech display do? It would be:

• Clear and readable in high definition. No more milky plastic with faded, damp or skew-whiff paper within. Instead, it would offer the satin flat screen of a laptop, in fact.


• Self-updating. No more staff with vans ahead of or after a change. No more threaded screws or stubborn bolts. A flick of a switch at HQ and the lot’d be downloaded instantly. All it would need is a mobile phone link (perhaps even just PAYG).


• Able to show information in various formats. Some people prefer full timetable matrices, others a summary of departures. If timetables, some like these vertically, some horizontally. There’s a preference on the part of some for the 24 hour clock; others like AM/PM. There’d be no reason why all these can’t be accommodated and changed at the press of a button.


• Able to show today’s timetable but with the option to select Saturday’s or Sundays.


• Programmable to display any service disruptions, instantly.


• Integrated with real time information, to give one source of up-to-date information.

And the downsides? Vandalism, safe electrical supplies and the weather.

Then again, with mobile phone technology ever improving, will we need roadside timetable information in the future, in any case?

Six Generations: Successors

Bristol L → Bristol MW → Bristol RE → Leyland National → Dennis Dart SPD → Volvo B7RLE

The blog author has memories of single decks from the Bristol L (and possibly even older stock) onwards. And been behind the wheel, too, though not all models as described below. In as few words as possible, Omnibuses considers how a chain of successor vehicles has each moved things forward…

Bristol L/ECW

It’s hard to think of a ride that was firmer or harsher. Sluggish on hills, the L struggled even without its maximum of 30-35 passengers. And, of course, it had no heating, was of traditional half-can design, often loaded at the rear, required a conductor and was built to a passenger-constricting 7’6” design. Not a lot to recommend it but did we complain? Chassis seemed to go on forever.

Bristol MW/ECW

Like its lighter, semi-integral LS predecessor, the MW was a huge leap forward in design. An underfloor engine and slightly higher body allowed forward facing seating throughout the vehicle’s entire length. This increased capacity by 10. By now, the ride had improved immeasurably and was actually superior to the LH direct successor. And the layout enabled direct driver supervision of the front entrance and one man operation. Compare this to the rather awkward OMO conversions on later half-cab Ls.

Bristol RE/ECW

A change in the law gave a 36-footer with up to 53-seat single deck, with almost the capacity of a Bristol LD double deck. At the time called low floor, the chassis frame reduced step heights considerably. A wider entrance and a brighter, modern interior enhanced its capacious feel. Semi-automatics greatly enhanced the RE’s utility, combining powerfully with appropriate Gardner or Leyland powerplants. Mind you, both were noisy within and without when compared to the MW. And didn’t the bodywork crackle. But it was the least complicated, most economic, best looking and best loved new generation single deck, bar none. And by far the most reliable. Just try changing from crawler to second without that infamous CLUNK. I never could.

Leyland National

In my imagination, I can still smell that “as new” aroma of the vinyl seated, utilitarian Leyland National. Initial products were poor, engineers distrusted the integral design, disliked the uneconomic, clattery 510 engine and the LN was never welcomed in the same way as the RE. Passengers got an uncomplicated interior that introduced a plinthless level floor along two thirds of its 36 feet length, followed by a step. Drivers had the first ergonomically designed cab, switch gear and small diameter power assisted steering wheel. Yet, of all the buses in this chain of successors, here was one that moved things on only marginally. Very popular, though. No that there was ever much choice.

Dennis Dart/Plaxton SPD

The longer version of the ubiquitous mini Pointer Dart, here was a 36 feet long bus that enabled mass conversion to the super low floor bus with all the benefits associated with ridership increase. In Trumpton fashion, it came with all the external elegance of a row of chicken huts, yet it’s still prominent on our streets today. The SPD had a fussy ride and passengers could experience roll. It was a bus prone to rattles, too. If thrown around by the driver, passengers could get, well, thrown around. With the SPD and its generation came the transition to auto boxes. Engine revs seemed disproportionately high compared to road speeds & acceleration though the vehicle was less noisy than any predecessor. The first SLF examples were not wheelchair friendly. And they introduced the concept of damage-resistant heavy plastic moulding at the front and around the cab. Later examples came with contemporary looking though far harsher minimalist plastic seating without the traditional single piece chrome grab of old.

Volvo B7RLE/Wright Eclipse Urban

Here’s a bus with lower engine noise and a gearbox that doesn’t whine but sings tunefully even under urban start-swift-acceleration-stop conditions. Externally, the swooping front and internally the flowing ceiling mark the vehicle out as probably the best design in the world, as does the build quality that cuts rattles right down, except on extremely poor surfaces. Plenty of plastic throughout. Good cab environment with large mirrors helping drivers though sometimes the interlocks hinder. At 40 feet, still only seats up to about 44 though, with about 24 in the low floor front area. Large mirrors aside, can be a pain to manoeuvre in tight urban environments and can carry plenty of scars to prove it.

Points of View

It’s true. This site has a southern bias (but perhaps it’s not quite as great as you think). And what can you do about it? If you live or work elsewhere, if you have a burning regional issue that you’d like airing, why not draft a contribution or two? Details of how are here.

Of all the comments we received during the Omnibuses Survey 2010, the most common was that the blog focused on the south or on Dorset. Some were content with that. Thankfully, most understood why this should be.

We’ve spoken before about perception being different from reality in the bus industry. So, digging a little deeper, there are about 12 per cent more posts mentioning Wilts & Dorset than Transdev/pre-Transdev Yellow Buses. Therefore taking W&D as a Dorset benchmark, in total fewer than 13 per cent of Omnibuses posts refer to W&D and the percentage has been declining year-on-year, to six per cent, in 2009. It was 36 per cent in 2005.

When mentioning either W&D or TYB, we do try to draw out matters that may have a significance beyond the local area. And, of course, we have to admit that we’ve tackled other south central operators from time to time, too. One survey commenter asked for

“More articles north of Watford”

I check out Watford on the map and, crumbs, it *is* a long way north (for us!). I really am conscious of this south-north divide and would therefore again appeal to anyone reading this living in Luton, Aylesbury or points north thereof to get in touch. Of the blog, another wrote,

“Seemingly not really very aware of the day to day situation outside the Dorset area”

I trust this isn’t true and this view wasn’t supported by over 130 survey comments stating how unbiased the site was. That same person suggests the Blog is

“Clearly anti-Stagecoach”

Would others agree with this statement? In my defence, I’d point people here and here. And then there’s a Celtic request,

“I can only recall a few articles about events in Scotland or Wales”

Scotland accounts for 4.7 per cent of all posts, so is under-represented given that the population is 10 per cent of the UK. By the same measure, the Welsh region is over-represented, at 7.1 per cent of posts. By contrast, we have the proportion of posts on Jersey about right, though (not that they’re Celts).

As part of the quantitative questions, we asked whether readers were enthusiasts or professionals (results here). One survey commenter felt that there was

“Still too many enthusiast blog [posts] and stop going on about bl**dy photography restrictions”

It’s interesting that only yesterday I went down to the beach (you may even have seen me) to take some ‘ordinary’ (i.e. non-bus) photos. Present were some workmen who felt I was deliberately taking shoots of them. They weren’t happy. So it’s not just bus drivers…

Getting the balance right between posts that appeal to enthusiasts and professionals isn’t easy. I thought I was walking this particular tightrope but perhaps I’m not. When is a post purely for enthusiasts? More enthusiasts read this blog than professionals (though professionals account for 45 per cent). And there’s clearly a significant number of professionals who are enthusiasts. The aim, though, is to write on topics that reflect the contemporary bus scene, for all audiences.

A couple of commenters felt that the text colours were impractical, especially this green-ish colour. We’ll try to keep that to a minimum in future. Even so, I suspect modern computer screens are OK with it.

Regarding the ability to leave comments on the Blog itself, here’s two conflicting views, one from someone who

“Dislike[s] anonymous posts [comments]”

while a second feels

“It is time consuming (and memory stretching) to log on to make a comment, which is why I (and probably many others) choose the ‘anonymous’ option”

And another which as of today I’ve rectified at least as an experiment. The Blog

“Doesn't show the date of articles clearly at the top of each article. [It] only says the day of the week it was published. Not too useful when it’s eighteen months old!”

Remember, it was always possible to check the date of the post at the foot of it. There were a couple of people who felt that

“Very occasionally the blog veers too much towards going out of its way in its positive representation of operators, particularly the big groups. This generosity isn't ALWAYS warranted”

I must admit I do like to be positive; and that the Blog was

“Too afraid to criticise certain operators, especially one, that are letting the industry down”

On the other hand, there was this comment and plenty of others like it, from someone who felt the Blog had a

“Willingness to criticise”

Most people felt that the comments people make here were valid and added to the debate. Regarding the comments left here by others, three felt that

“the entrenched views of some astound me. It’s like a mantra, very dogmatic”

“Some of the comments it attracts seem to be from loonies”

plus a third who expressed the same view but also clarified that

“Some comments are ill informed, but that is beyond your control and something we have to live with”

Yet, to counter this, another commented

“[There’s] regular updates, good content, intelligent contributions”

Two people wondered whether they were missing any comments that were added to posts well past the date that the original was posted by me. Said one,

“The difficulty with blogs like Omnibuses is that comments are interesting but one doesn't always know they're there when they're added a few days after the original post.”

Another added that it’s

“often a bit hard to see when late comments are added after a few days, and the feature drops down the screen.”

We’re looking at adding a ‘Recent Comments’ area on either the left or right hand side. In the meantime, if you’re about to comment and want to monitor responses from others, you can always leave your email address at the time (I don’t get to see this).

A number expressed a view that they’d like a little less secrecy regarding the owner of this Blog!

“I still don't know who runs it, or why they are so shy!”

yet, when asked what readers particularly liked about the blog, one person replied

“The mystery behind who you are!”

Of these, I prefer the comment about the enigma behind who writes this stuff! Making a request, one commenter asked whether there was

“any chance of a table or overview of live subjects?”

A bit time consuming but it’s a good idea and I’ll look into it. Does anyone know of any software solution that I could deploy? Another felt that

“Your email does not work so [I] cannot submit possible items or topics for you to write / comment about”.

Actually, my email works but you need to remove the obvious spam trap elements.

This is but a flavour of the comments I received. I’ve not been able to mention every one though each is valuable to me. There’s one more post to come on the 2010 survey so please stay tuned...