Recently, Andy Lord did mention something about London's tendering system not being ideal, and a potential shift to Manchester style model.
I've suspected this and came to the conclusion some form of area-wide tendering was better, but was slightly hesitant on Manchester's model being replicated as a copy-paste. I'm aware area-wide contracts exist in, say the Netherlands, nothing seems to have collapsed, therefore might be better.
Alas, I will explore, together with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick refresh of tendering system:
London - you bid for a bus route (or multiple, in a joint bid). You must already have a garage.
Manchester - you bid for the entire bus garage and all the work it already has. You're coming in clean.
Drawbacks of both, oversimplified:
The drawback of London is the 600+ contracts to award, even if spaced for 5 years that's still 120 a year. This was meant to have more competition, but as smaller operators were bought and consolidated, few large operators remain, thus monopolies are most prominent now.
The drawback of Manchester's model is, for now, some routes aren't operated from an ideal depot. The simplicity of keeping things status-quo can be sorted later on, scaling back inefficiencies from the commercially operated model now that Manchester is one homogenous system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's start with specification first.
Manchester one colour across all buses/trams - yellow. This is a change from many commercial operators with different liveries.
London - initially any livery goes, after political issues with people fearing the London red bus vanishing - with route 24 operated by Grey Green, passing parliament, showing off it's grey-green livery, Capital Citybus being mostly yellow and operating routes 1 91 259 in Central London. Suburban areas have already lost red in this privatisation era.
the 80% red rule on buses was enforced in Central London from 1996 then London-wide from 2002,
then 2005 buses had to be red from the skirt-line upwards (no Arriva cowhorn as a result, Metroline made their skirt shallower in 2004 in anticipation),
then 2011 all buses fully red with a Buses roundel [hey, remember this from London Transport days?]
as of 2024 spec, operators have different interpretations of the spec inside the bus.
(e.g, some have rear destination, most don't. Some have terrible wheelchair iBus displays, some don't, this is just the tip of the iceberg)
Manchester - one passenger moquette
London - many, though TfL have one, adopted by HCT Group; Sullivans; and now Stagecoach
Manchester - two wheelchair bays if bus is large enough
London - one wheelchair bay (extended in 2018 to placate complaints from buggy & wheelchair users)
Manchester - all depots owned by TfGM
London - newer depots owned by TfL, older privatisation depots owned by operators with some exceptions
Manchester - around 10 depots
London - over 80! (includes outstations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The many differences in London's specification, both in the early days - and even nowadays, is quite stark compared to Manchester.
Manchester - one homogenous body.
London - very slowly creeping towards a unified body
I've seen this firsthand in Oslo whereby all regional buses (green) look the same to the passenger, unless you pay attention to the operator logo which is placed at the rear of the bus. Likewise with city buses (red).
Manchester is the same story pretty much, indistinguishable to passengers. Bee buses are the same yellow bee bus (unless you're an enthusiast who knows where to look).
To say route-based contract tendering is efficient is not true but not false, but more inefficient than an alternative.
Managing 500+ contracts compared to about 10-30, one is reasonable whilst the other is a mountain of work.
Some route withdrawals as of late conveniently also thinned out contracts. The past decade or so TfL did accumulate difficulty in getting tender awards on-time, it's been better in recent years but the story is still so-and-so.
Notice in some awards and tender programmes, the following
299/389/399
406/418
U1/U2 (pending consultation results)
There has been a concerted effort where possible to also combined routes into one contract where it makes sense.
For the TfL person who may have read my post on multiple routes - one contract I wave at you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area based tranche of routes like in the early tendering process, having an entire area of bus routes up for tender at once.
For example, routes 50 119 130 166 194 250 255 466 and more in 1998 in relation to Croydon before Tramlink, and in 2003
or in 2000: routes 2 315 322
I wish I could add more examples but these older examples require older publications which I don't have.
Singular route contracts that coincide together, making it easy to do an area-wide restructure, such as rerouting 130 away from West Croydon to Norwood Junction following Tramlink having poached it the past 3 years.
That's not to say mid-contract changes couldn't be done. Far from it. Requires negotiation and compensation if the contract abruptly ended short of it's agreed end-date, if work was reduced, whilst increase in work would need to be accounted for - the extra buses in schedules would have to be sourced.
- In the case of 136's extension from Peckham to Elephant & Castle - new diesel Enviro400s just a few years from contract ending.
- In the case of 2005 with least reliable bus service (322) being restructured with a frequency decrease, the 3 received a frequency decrease to source buses for 196's extension. I got both of my routes with frequency decreases, how dare they!
We've ended up with some routes having 2-year extensions to some not having them, so they're spread out making network changes less-ideal
We've then had to make fixed 7-year contracts as well as fixed 5-year contracts. Now there's also short term contracts lining up dates in 2027 to ease with electrification.
This will muddy up routes even further, making timely network restructures more negotiation negotiation 'how do we fit this into the contract terms without requiring compensation', as opposed to "here's the contract, let's negotiate"
To say route-based contract tendering is efficient is not true but not false, but more inefficient than an alternative.
We've gone from having Boxing Day-only contracts, Night routes being separate contracts, School routes always separate contracts
to a system where all night routes with daily parallels on the same contract (e.g 137/N137)
where some school routes are on the same contract as their equivalent day route (e.g 160/660)
where some low-used routes are on the same contract as a busier route (e.g 299 with 389/399)
I should remind you routes 439/S2 were put into the tender programme twice, delayed announcement each time until it was flat out "tender award to-be-announced"
Definitely not by sheer coincidence, those routes would end up starting the next day after 455's contract ended in March 2024. The Croydon/Sutton consultation having been done 3 years prior.
This saga also saw the first instance of an electric-contract bus route, 312, revert to diesels. This is due to difficulty of the electric Optare Metrocities (at 10.6m length or so) navigating the turning circle at Old Lodge Lane, the new terminus of 312.
It's all well and dandy when there is competition.
When there isn't competition you get scenarios like route 14 where it's mainly been one-bid, therefore Go-Ahead deciding the prices ultimately and winning in Gold. Sometimes this bit back with routes 63 and 242 for Go-Ahead and Arriva respectively, sometimes someone is capable of bucking the trend.
As of 2024, routes 5 15 115 had only one bid. These were Stagecoach golden routes for crying out loud!
Another example, most of the Orpington R-routes tend to stay together. Stagecoach can't/don't find it reasonable to obtain all of them, whilst Orpington (MB) depot already have them, so is effectively an easy retain of work. No competition.
Garage terminator routes;
a sticky subject that also pretty much guarantees retains too. I should say pretty much, as the examples where garage terminator routes have been lost, were lost to an operator using a garage mid-route. Routes 422 and 468 lost to a garage mid-route at Plumstead (PD) and Camberwell (Q) respectively, from their Bexleyheath (BX) and South Croydon (TC) termini.
Within TfL's recent bus changes, there have been loss of some garage terminating routes. 16 and 316 at Cricklewood (W). The 16 (Victoria-Cricklewood) was withdrawn, with 332 (Brent Park-Paddington) renumbered to 16 (Brent Park-Paddington).
The 316 has long been promised an extension to new development Brent Cross West once roads have been made ready, as of December 2023 that has happened.
Aforementioned 312 was removed from it's South Croydon (TC) terminus, to Old Lodge Lane.
Theoretically if all garages were owned by TfL as a result of this, you could have garage terminating routes without any worry.
Bexleyheath has a shortage of stand space, which could've been alleviated by having some routes extended into the garage whenever a garage terminator was lost. Instead with this TfGM-inspired model - TfL would own the depot, owns the routes, therefore has the final say and can do this with no issue.
You won't have scenarios like with Brixton (BN) booting out 45 from their stand (with a new stand made on Clapham Park);
or Catford (TL) booting out 171 from it's 25-year grandfather rights as Catford (TL) required electrification. This means 171 does a 2 mile round-trip from it's last stop to it's first stop.
Currently route 33, operated by RATP, utilises Abellio's Fulwell (TF) depot to stand. A depot owned by TfL.
Bucking the trend isn't possible when entire areas are monopolised, in West you have Metroline dominating.
Go-Ahead monopolising South West in areas of Sutton once RATP have novated 413/463/S1 to Go-Ahead, with S3 lost on tender to Abellio - the sole route that isn't be Go-Ahead in Sutton, pretty much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, drivers.
Driver shortages...
The whole bus industry has shortage of staff, however.
Sullivan Buses has a chronic driver shortage which leads to the woeful performance graphs seen on routes 298 and W9, with other poor performers in their repertoire.
Larger operators have some issues with drivers too, leading to mileage losses on some routes.
In some cases, excess of drivers within companies. Holloway (HT) had two routes withdrawn (168 and 271) whilst losing 91 to Go-Ahead. To some surprise geographically but not operationally, the 306 was moved to Holloway (HT).
Just before the 76 transfer from Go-Ahead to Arriva, there were notices in Thornton Heath (TH) and Norwood (N) among other garages - for drivers to transfer to the 76. Garages in South London having spare drivers since the loss of routes 133 157 333 450.
Another award, Go-Ahead won 208/227 though very few Stagecoach drivers TUPE'd over, so the 51 moved from Orpington (MB) to Bexleyheath (BX).
Balance, hard to achieve
The K3 when won back by RATP would've been better geographically back at Tolworth (TV), perhaps it was unions that convinced the route to simply move next door, from Twickenham (TF) to Fulwell (FW), thus driver arrangements are the same.
A delicate balancing act was 142 and 226 changeovers, the 226 having it's date extended to coincide with 142.
Metroline won 142, but lost 226
RATP won 226, but lost 142.
Therefore, the following garage transfers happened:
142 lost from Edgware (BT), starting anew at Edgware (EW)
32 from Edgware (EW) to Cricklewood (W)
316 from Cricklewood (W) to Willesden Junction (WJ)
226 lost from Willesden Junction (WJ), starting anew at Edgware (BT)
End of the day, 316 has a less desirable depot of operation
End of the day, driver work balanced achieved, 10/10
By having the same umbrella, drivers could be balanced London-wide as opposed to within the same company - consequently flung off very far (at least compensated pay-wise).
A consequence, or rather benefit of this, is having drivers work at the depot closer to them, for better or for worse. Environment happier with less fuel emissions, traffic happier with less cars traversing main roads, shorter commute time for the drivers themselves.
Driver reliefs at other operator garages could be cheaper. Currently Go-Ahead utilise Stagecoach's Catford (TL) on route 171, likewise Abellio utilise Arriva's Norwood (N) for routes 68 and 315 for meal reliefs.
There is inconsistency in pay across companies, sometimes even depots within the same company (Northumberland Park, former First depot, in Go-Ahead pays less than other London General depots. Similarly outside London depots tend to pay less than inside London depot counterparts.)
Driver strikes as a result of pay have been common post-Covid, with Arriva and Abellio/TUK being the worst offenders with multiple strikes. Even at Westbourn Park (X) there's been some planned, thankfully called off last minute for the strike intended in December 2023.
Being under the same umbrella like with Manchester, everyone should have the same pay in the same tiers, so no divided-conquer strikes jeopardising the average passenger's ability to travel.
TUPE has come about to resolve the issue of drivers losing work/being made redundant, by moving with their bus route if they drove it enough basically (oversimplification).
Manchester's style has also seen drivers cooperate between Stagecoach and Go-Ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, it's ideal that most routes are placed in their ideal depots. For example, 266 would score historical brownie points at Cricklewood (W) but has been won from a garage in Harlesden twice in a row.
This is not to say the current tendering system doesn't work. It worked in peace time, hiding it's flaws. We've experienced external global events which saw inflation increase, more than anyone predicted. Thus for the first time, contracts being surrendered. TfL don't help themselves by being stingy of cost-negotiation post-inflation, so operators just hand the contracts back and bid according to the new prices in the newer environment.
In addition to iBus 2 there's been some contracts about contract management being changed, though I admit completely that I just read surface level, and did not (could not) be bothered to read into detail. Instead more interested in numbers and math.
Perhaps a coincidence as to the thinning of bus contracts in the form of bus withdrawals.
Still.
Some things can be improved, and some things would've damn saved money instead of cutting PVRs of busy routes
A new benefit of the TfGM model is the sheer scale of the tranches, including many many routes, lots of drivers and buses, obviously operated from large garages, as these are large franchises - at once.
What am I getting at?
Our commercial routes that enter London.
3(Go-Coach) 84B 409 420 477 581/583(Carousel)
By having this scale, we could subsidise them and make use of them.
---------------
477 almost faced withdrawal, though is a shadow of it's former self. Links Orpington with Dartford, though it used to go Bluewater.
420/820 definitely a lucrative route for Go-Ahead. It is faster than the S1 between Banstead and Sutton.
Adult single fare (contactless or cash) is £1.70, cheaper than TfL £1.75.
For children they'll have to pay up, 85p. For our children, Zip Oyster means it's free.
Might be worth keeping 420 commercial you could argue.
I argue we definitely homogenise London, therefore has to include 420. A bit like the old days, red London buses that stay inside London; green for buses in the countryside surrounding London whether they enter London or not.
The fares for 84B are expensive at £3 adults and £2 for under-19s, if you're going a few stops the fares are cheaper (all in all, the 84B fares aren't apart of the UK government £2 single fare). Oh and if you're bringing your dog, please buy a Dog Rover ticket worth £1 (look up 84B fares if you think I'm joking).
As a single route, TfL did rule out the section from Potters Bar to Barnet is not value for money to operate, based off the Metroline era route's patronage (mostly observation data, as opposed to data from fares)
Whilst it is conservative
That thought process did lead to the cutting of bus services, then people opting to get cars. Wait a second this just happened. The many months everyone lost an 84.
Now there's 84B it's mostly elderly and school people that use it.
The 405 too could've died if it wasn't in the 2000s era, TfL saved it along with 351 (now 498, a the number 351 was in use).
The 405 too was low patronage.
Joining TfL's ecosystem and fares system, it gained patronage.
With busy buses, it required a frequency increase, those single deckers.
Even busier, converted to double deck.
Would you believe the 405 evolved into an every 15 double deck service... from every 30 single decks?!
The 84 could have been the same, albeit if 405'ified. The 405 serves a huge town centre at Croydon. The 84 would need to serve a hub of some kind... perhaps North Finchley?
It's, by TfL's admission, a hub.
Also links with two Superloop routes and orbital route 112.
Route 3 under GoCoach, once numbered 431, was the result of Arriva scaling back their 402 from Bromley North. The 402 historically is a route no different to 401 and 403 - all London Country routes in the past. Though it didn't end up in a London depot unlike the others. Imagine the blasphemy of a red bus all the way in Tunbridge Wells a mere 29 miles away.
Obviously it'd have been scaled back like the 401 and 403 were scaled back.
In a way it's amazing 402 survived the Low Emission Zone era where commercial operators scaled back as they couldn't afford to invest in newer buses, meanwhile 402 received newer Optare Versas which complied with this.
In the end patronage became low enough to not justify the 402 in London, along with what I assume are costs associated with being in London - the 358 being parallel at about £1.50 back then. The 402 would be hopeless to not offer fares similar to the 358 which is supported by a huge entity. The 402 supported by a large commercial operator, absolutely - one whom seeks profit, full stop.
But hey ho, this 3 provides an important service linking communities in between Sevenoaks and Green Street Green, and even links with Princess Royal Hospital! The 402 used to do that too...
Worth having a better frequency, it'd also help such a route under the London banner as a support to the busy 358, especially on it's lone section (as far as TfL services concerned) between Locksbottom and Green Street Green.
Uno also operate in London, in fact, their services used to be the only link from Wembley Park via Queensbury to Edgware (and beyond).
Likewise with 610 used to be out of Enfield, now Cockfosters linking with the Piccadilly Line.
The 614/644 from Queensbury, linking with the Jubilee Line.
Incorporating those will be more difficult, being Uno's money makers, as well as serving inside University grounds.
Within London they also have a similar fare to TfL fares. Finally, the 384 (and slower 107) already provides competition for Barnet-Edgware travel.
We lost a lot of crucial services, Arriva pulled their 310/311 out of Enfield (it was Enfield-Enfield Highway-Watlham Cross-Hertford).
Arriva also pulled their 505 out of Chingford but Trustybus would continue to operate it, then Trustybus also pulled out post-pandemic.
Metroline as we've mentioned have decided to no longer operate the whole 84, Sullivans taking on the 84 but only between St Albans and Potters Bar.
There was a 350, though Hertfordshire stopped funding it. TfL also stopped Travelcards and London bus fares scheme earlier. It serviced Watford Junction to Harrow via Carpenders Park. It's later patronage was 760 per day. Although since then there is the Overground.
-------------
Pretty much: make all buses in London red (except Heathrow, ignore those, ignore Uno routes too)
To copy the homework of a homogenous yellow bee.
You should be a red lion.
Perhaps extreme in this case but it would do free advertisement and goodwill, even when profiting through patronage where applicable.
Assuming those Carousel 581/583 under London, they might just be possible to have interworked with route U9 as all three routes start at Uxbridge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area tranches
where many routes in a geograhical area end up in the same tranche, with the same contract length
e.g 2 315 322 432 in one tranche (Norwood area)
187 220 223 224 226 228 266 487 (Willesden Junction area)
B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 in one tranche (Bexleyheath)
Perhaps even based on the borough itself.
So 32 boroughs.
32 is a small number, though a few boroughs sparsely have fewer than normal, whilst some have an obscenely high number by fact of partially being in Zone 1.
e.g Sutton with 21 routes
80 93 127 151 154 157 164 213 280 293 407 413 470 S1 S2 S3 S4
157 407 disregarded as Croydon would be more appropriate, being mid-point, as well as operated from a depot named after Croydon Beddington. Same thing.
SL7 also serves the borough, though also serves other boroughs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garage based franchising, like with Manchester
e.g Spreadsheet link.
We already have franchised our bus system, in the form of routes.
So adopting a TfGM-style model would require buying depots, like TfGM
Though we have an innate step ahead. We can move routes around to where they're cheaper to operate from in terms of distance (getting drivers to changeover points).
Contract novations
One way we do this through contract novations.
Usually it's agreed between operators (and TfL), for examples Arriva offloaded E10 to RATP.
Another example, RATP offloaded 413/463/S1 to Go-Ahead upon closure of Epsom (EB).
All of the above, contract novations.
Sub-contracts; used to happen too and is another option.
Examples include Arriva subcontracting out routes 315 367 and more.
Last option: RV1
RV1, by proxy of having hydrogens, was removed from the tender programme. Yet it was still contracted. What contract? Not a tender gross contract - these are part of the tender programme.
The RV1 was a negotiated contract, with seemingly no expire date, and no renewal like in tendered routes required.
Last lastly: Letting the contracts expire.
As we have 80+ depots I've grouped as many as possible in to pairs
Pairs of two
Pairs of threes.
If hypothetically also adding commercial routes into TfL sphere then;
Orpington (MB): 431(renumbered from 3), 477
Uxbridge (UX): 581 583
Sutton (A): 420
Croydon (TC): 409
Just examples, the list would still be short as there's few cross-border commercial routes in London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was a fun post to write up, definitely fun mind-numbingly enter depot after depot, then route after route. Sarcasm.
What isn't sarcasm is that I hope you well, stay safe, bless you. Until the next one!
You can tell my time spent was 80% on spreadsheet, 20% typing a coherent post.
No comments:
Post a Comment