First South West (Kernow & Buses of Somerset)

[TheGrandWazoo]

Agreed. And the situation is even worse where GSW provides early and late journeys on otherwise FK routes.

Very true, and that is wholly within the gift of Cornwall Council to sort out.

Throughout this, I have maintained that GSW/PCB/GCB have, of course, made mistakes. However, they (willingly) accepted a real hospital pass from the council in terms of timescales, in order to obtain vehicles and drivers. The council need to own the mess they've made and the fundamental issue of having two unconnected networks, and that's aside from the criminal waste of money in supporting dead duck services when there are much better ways in which to effect patronage growth and modal shift.

 

[richw]

However, they (willingly) accepted a real hospital pass from the council in terms of timescales, in order to obtain drivers

The council incorrectly told them (and other bidders) all First kernow drivers would be available for TUPE. Go Ahead failed at due diligence to realise this was incorrect.

 

[Goldfish62]

The council incorrectly told them (and other bidders) all First kernow drivers would be available for TUPE. Go Ahead failed at due diligence to realise this was incorrect.

A basic lack of understanding of TUPE regulations by both the council and GSW. Not surprised at the council, but I am at GSW. They could have sought advice from their London colleagues, who have considerable experience in such matters.

 

[Cesarcollie]

A basic lack of understanding of TUPE regulations by both the council and GSW. Not surprised at the council, but I am at GSW. They could have sought advice from their London colleagues, who have considerable experience in such matters.

You can never predict TUPE. Whilst it is a legal obligation upon employers, the individuals concerned are free to stay put/ move to the new contractor/leave the industry completely etc etc. And they can make that decision the day before they were due to transfer if they so wish! So making any assumptions on staff numbers is virtually impossible!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You can never predict TUPE. Whilst it is a legal obligation upon employers, the individuals concerned are free to stay put/ move to the new contractor/leave the industry completely etc etc. And they can make that decision the day before they were due to transfer if they so wish! So making any assumptions on staff numbers is virtually impossible!

That's correct. I don't believe for a second that Go Ahead nor CC weren't fully aware of the intricacies of TUPE legislation.

The fact is that CC would have said that there may be drivers who were potentially in scope (especially somewhere like Bodmin). That is correct. There is no obligation on drivers to transfer, especially if there is the opportunity to stay (which turned out to be the case).

What assumptions were made in Nov/Dec or whenever the bid was made (e.g. number of transferrees, recruitment of new drivers) is something that only PCB will know. Go Ahead may have expected some drivers to be freed up and the potential to transfer. Conversely, they will also have known that can change depending on what plans FK would then enact. Remember, that they would be making assumptions when submitting their bid.... that's not a failure of due diligence.

 

[Goldfish62]

You can never predict TUPE. Whilst it is a legal obligation upon employers, the individuals concerned are free to stay put/ move to the new contractor/leave the industry completely etc etc. And they can make that decision the day before they were due to transfer if they so wish! So making any assumptions on staff numbers is virtually impossible!

And none of that happens unless the current employer decides to invoke TUPE. Employees can't TUPE themselves without the employer granting it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And none of that happens unless the current employer decides to invoke TUPE. Employees can't TUPE themselves without the employer granting it.

We know that CC has not covered themselves in glory but do we believe that they weren't aware of TUPE either. They have experience in awarding contracts and know the rules on TUPE. Look at it another way....

Did FK state that people were in scope as they were predominantly employed on those services? Don't know if they did but suggest it's doubtful that they said TUPE would apply. In any case, it's generally more an issue for a tenderer if TUPE is cited as a) you may have a different operating solution so don't need them or b) you could have people transferring on legacy contracts at a higher cost so would expect PCB would've been aware of this.

Obviously, in this instance, PCB would have been welcoming drivers, not least for the work that was transferring but also for the additional requirements that also needed to be catered for. So in this instance would PCB have had a reasonable expectation that they could recruit drivers in certain places where tenders were a greater proportion of the work and so drivers could be surplus? Well possibly but this probably where the issue is... Don't know if FK were running at a deficit with drivers but clearly, the management of AC have engendered a sense of loyalty, they elected to register a number of services commercially and they had a plan for other expansions so they could retain their drivers.

So whilst it wasn't unreasonable to think that some drivers could be available in places like Summercourt and Bodmin, how many GCB had bargained on..... well, you'd need to ask them. Clearly, they were trying to attract FK drivers (not surprisingly given timelines) by offering protected service etc. I don't think it was TUPE that caught them out but more underestimating what FK would do AND the loyalty of their staff.

 

[richw]

the loyalty of their staff.

This is probably the biggest bit. The remaining FK drivers have a lot of loyalty to the company. We have pretty decent T&Cs too, along with a good rapport between drivers and managementZ
The loyalty was shown to be even stronger when TFC offered a higher hourly rate (although FK drivers had a 3 year pay deal so knew when we were guaranteed to reach the same rate) and a £500 signing on bonus. The TFC carrot simply wasn’t attractive enough to entice.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This is probably the biggest bit. The remaining FK drivers have a lot of loyalty to the company. We have pretty decent T&Cs too, along with a good rapport between drivers and managementZ
The loyalty was shown to be even stronger when TFC offered a higher hourly rate (although FK drivers had a 3 year pay deal so knew when we were guaranteed to reach the same rate) and a £500 signing on bonus. The TFC carrot simply wasn’t attractive enough to entice.

Indeed - we don't know how many PCB had hoped to recruit but from what has been said, there's a good canteen culture that comes from the FK management team, and through selective registrations and new ventures, they were able to guarantee drivers' jobs working with their colleagues etc. Not a surprise then that if they didn't need to move and little incentive to move, all but 1 or 2 elected to stay.

So GCB, who already knew they had to recruit drivers for increased activities anyway, then realised they need to find more. How much it's cost them.... we might have known but Covid will now obscure that in the results though it undoubtedly gave some breathing space operationally.

However, we should all be dismayed by the cack-handed way in which the council has acted, even if you don't live there (but especially if you do) as this is supposed to be the flagship scheme; investment to improve bus services being frittered away will make it all the harder for people to argue the case for funds in future. Still, the good people of Altarnun get a bus service....whether they need it or not!

 

[Whiteway215]

Indeed - we don't know how many PCB had hoped to recruit but from what has been said, there's a good canteen culture that comes from the FK management team, and through selective registrations and new ventures, they were able to guarantee drivers' jobs working with their colleagues etc. Not a surprise then that if they didn't need to move and little incentive to move, all but 1 or 2 elected to stay.

So GCB, who already knew they had to recruit drivers for increased activities anyway, then realised they need to find more. How much it's cost them.... we might have known but Covid will now obscure that in the results though it undoubtedly gave some breathing space operationally.

However, we should all be dismayed by the cack-handed way in which the council has acted, even if you don't live there (but especially if you do) as this is supposed to be the flagship scheme; investment to improve bus services being frittered away will make it all the harder for people to argue the case for funds in future. Still, the good people of Altarnun get a bus service....whether they need it or not!

It would be interesting to know how many passengers have ever travelled on the Bodmin Moor mystery tour 176

 

[TechDan2002]

It would be interesting to know how many passengers have ever travelled on the Bodmin Moor mystery tour 176

Not very many I’d imagine. I’ve ridden the 89 a number of times both ways and often have found myself the only passenger!

 

[richw]

It would be interesting to know how many passengers have ever travelled on the Bodmin Moor mystery tour 176

Apparently a couple of regulars from Jamaica inn area, and an enthusiast from the launceston area uses it regularly. Very few normal passengers for full route,

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Apparently a couple of regulars from Jamaica inn area, and an enthusiast from the launceston area uses it regularly. Very few normal passengers for full route,

Wonder what the cost per passenger is?

You wonder with that money what could actually have been achieved rather than these flights of fancy. You can have stuff like that and the St Austell to Tregony service yet not have an evening service over the Tinner route to St Ives.

However, more fundamentally, providing a public transport info/maps that show all journeys irrespective of operator, and the ability to accept return tickets/passes on services where PCB operates the tendered element, would be at least sensible steps to an integrated provision.

 

[83G/84D]

Volvo B7TL 32525 (YJ54 XUR) has been repainted green, this was one of the two "Zest 503" branded examples.

 

[Lizard1324]

Does anyone know if First Kernow are due any 53 plate Geminis from Bath as they have been moved out due to the low emissions zone?

It was stated that some might be turned into open top buses for other First routes. (not sure how true).

But they might be a bit old for Cornwall, but there was word of Buses of Somerset getting Geminis and these would be a good fit.

 

[richw]

Wonder what the cost per passenger is?

From a freedom of information request made,

LNS005. Launceston - Bodmin. Annual £142,701. Fully subsidised Monday to Saturday service

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/668151/response/1593593/attach/5/PR%20and%20Local%20Bus%20Contracts%20300620.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

 

[RELL6L]

It would be interesting to know how many passengers have ever travelled on the Bodmin Moor mystery tour 176

I have! In July - 06.50 Launceston to Bodmin, lovely sunny morning across the moors! No other passengers.

 

[richw]

I have! In July - 06.50 Launceston to Bodmin, lovely sunny morning across the moors! No other passengers.

Your subsidy [£142701/(52x6)]/12

[Annual subsidy/(days operated per year)]/daily journeys

£38.11 subsidy per journey.

 

[iantherev]

Anyone know are first kernow due any 53 plate geminis from Bath as they have been moved out due to the low emissions zone.

It was stated that some might be turned into open top buses for other First routes. (not sure how true).

But they might be a bit old for Cornwall, but there was word of buses of somerset getting Geminis and these would be a good fit.

Why would Buses of Somerset want Volvos that are the same age or at best 2 years older than the vehicles they are replacing? In any case, First Hampshire & Dorset have the four for open top conversion.

 

[RELL6L]

Your subsidy [£142701/(52x6)]/12

[Annual subsidy/(days operated per year)]/daily journeys

£38.11 subsidy per journey.

Ha! I feel duly honoured to be the recipient of so much of Cornwall Council's money, as I recall doing at the time!

 

[richw]

Ha! I feel duly honoured to be the recipient of so much of Cornwall Council's money, as I recall doing at the time!

That’s one of the lower cost fresh air services looking at the what do they know freedom of information!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Anyone know are first kernow due any 53 plate geminis from Bath as they have been moved out due to the low emissions zone.

It was stated that some might be turned into open top buses for other First routes. (not sure how true).

But they might be a bit old for Cornwall, but there was word of buses of somerset getting Geminis and these would be a good fit.

The Bath 53 plate Geminis are heading to First Wessex for O/T conversion. However, whilst it's been mentioned that more Geminis are due, they aren't going for any that age IIRC. As @iantherev says, there's not much point sending 53 plates to replace a mix of 52 and 53 plate Tridents in Somerset.

There are some newer B7TLs in Bath and Bristol (ranging from 54 to 07 plates) and it might be that they are destined to head to FSW, but they could as easily head elsewhere (e.g. Essex) and that others could appear from somewhere like West Yorkshire. It's boring, I know, but just wait and see what happens.

our subsidy [£142701/(52x6)]/12

[Annual subsidy/(days operated per year)]/daily journeys

£38.11 subsidy per journey.

That’s one of the lower cost fresh air services looking at the what do they know freedom of information!

It would've been cheaper to send @RELL6L by stretch limo!!

How many does the 89 carry, I wonder, for its £500k per annum

 

[Whiteway215]

Anyone know are first kernow due any 53 plate geminis from Bath as they have been moved out due to the low emissions zone.

It was stated that some might be turned into open top buses for other First routes. (not sure how true).

But they might be a bit old for Cornwall, but there was word of buses of somerset getting Geminis and these would be a good fit.

There are no more 53 plate Geminis in Bath now, the last of these have gone to First Hampshire & Dorset.
The only buses left which don’t comply with the Bath LEZ are 32543/4/5 (although even some of these may have left) and withdrawn / delicensed 32360.
Others on this forum may have more up to date information about these four.

Edit Withdrawn 32291 may also still be parked up at Bath but again I have no up to date info.

 

[Marcus Fryer]

We know that CC has not covered themselves in glory but do we believe that they weren't aware of TUPE either. They have experience in awarding contracts and know the rules on TUPE. Look at it another way....

Did FK state that people were in scope as they were predominantly employed on those services? Don't know if they did but suggest it's doubtful that they said TUPE would apply. In any case, it's generally more an issue for a tenderer if TUPE is cited as a) you may have a different operating solution so don't need them or b) you could have people transferring on legacy contracts at a higher cost so would expect PCB would've been aware of this.

Obviously, in this instance, PCB would have been welcoming drivers, not least for the work that was transferring but also for the additional requirements that also needed to be catered for. So in this instance would PCB have had a reasonable expectation that they could recruit drivers in certain places where tenders were a greater proportion of the work and so drivers could be surplus? Well possibly but this probably where the issue is... Don't know if FK were running at a deficit with drivers but clearly, the management of AC have engendered a sense of loyalty, they elected to register a number of services commercially and they had a plan for other expansions so they could retain their drivers.

So whilst it wasn't unreasonable to think that some drivers could be available in places like Summercourt and Bodmin, how many GCB had bargained on..... well, you'd need to ask them. Clearly, they were trying to attract FK drivers (not surprisingly given timelines) by offering protected service etc. I don't think it was TUPE that caught them out but more underestimating what FK would do AND the loyalty of their staff.

Surprised GusB hasn’t come down on you with so many TLAs!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Surprised GusB hasn’t come down on you with so many TLAs!

Apart from mixing/using GCB and PCB rather than Plymouth Citybus, the others are pretty well accepted! I guess AC might be niche but when talking about AC and the management team, you’d hope people weren’t thinking....so that’s where Alan Curbishley went!!

 

[RELL6L]

It would've been cheaper to send @RELL6L by stretch limo!!

I don't go on bus trips to go in a stretch limo!

 

[M803UYA]

We know that CC has not covered themselves in glory but do we believe that they weren't aware of TUPE either. They have experience in awarding contracts and know the rules on TUPE. Look at it another way....

Did FK state that people were in scope as they were predominantly employed on those services? Don't know if they did but suggest it's doubtful that they said TUPE would apply. In any case, it's generally more an issue for a tenderer if TUPE is cited as a) you may have a different operating solution so don't need them or b) you could have people transferring on legacy contracts at a higher cost so would expect PCB would've been aware of this.

Obviously, in this instance, PCB would have been welcoming drivers, not least for the work that was transferring but also for the additional requirements that also needed to be catered for. So in this instance would PCB have had a reasonable expectation that they could recruit drivers in certain places where tenders were a greater proportion of the work and so drivers could be surplus? Well possibly but this probably where the issue is... Don't know if FK were running at a deficit with drivers but clearly, the management of AC have engendered a sense of loyalty, they elected to register a number of services commercially and they had a plan for other expansions so they could retain their drivers.

So whilst it wasn't unreasonable to think that some drivers could be available in places like Summercourt and Bodmin, how many GCB had bargained on..... well, you'd need to ask them. Clearly, they were trying to attract FK drivers (not surprisingly given timelines) by offering protected service etc. I don't think it was TUPE that caught them out but more underestimating what FK would do AND the loyalty of their staff.

Experience when it comes to tendering for contracts taught me to be pessimistic in my assumptions and to price accordingly. Therefore, mileage and operating hours would be rounded up, not down and some buffers put in place. That might mean losing the tender, but better to lose the tender than gain the work at a loss. Unless you make the strategic decision that the work would be a loss leader and it not be the sole source of income for that vehicle in the day.

It is a surprise Plymouth Citybus (or PCB using the short version...)didn't use the knowledge of their fellow group members in London, perhaps they did do. But you surely would make an assumption that not every driver, or perhaps any driver with the current operator would TUPE across, and you should have a mitigation in place to meet that. Given the rate at which PCB changes it's Plymouth services that points to poor commercial awareness and planning. This being an operator who registered a wholescale network change then 8 days later lodged registration forms with the TC to alter every single one of those services. And they do this time and time again.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Experience when it comes to tendering for contracts taught me to be pessimistic in my assumptions and to price accordingly. Therefore, mileage and operating hours would be rounded up, not down and some buffers put in place. That might mean losing the tender, but better to lose the tender than gain the work at a loss. Unless you make the strategic decision that the work would be a loss leader and it not be the sole source of income for that vehicle in the day.

It is a surprise Plymouth Citybus (or PCB using the short version...)didn't use the knowledge of their fellow group members in London, perhaps they did do. But you surely would make an assumption that not every driver, or perhaps any driver with the current operator would TUPE across, and you should have a mitigation in place to meet that. Given the rate at which PCB changes it's Plymouth services that points to poor commercial awareness and planning. This being an operator who registered a wholescale network change then 8 days later lodged registration forms with the TC to alter every single one of those services. And they do this time and time again.

Those are fair comments and it does seem they do fiddle with their network in Plymouth. As for how competitively they priced their bid, I think it was said that Go-Ahead wasn't the cheapest tenderer and won on the strength of their technical bid. Now that might have reflected depot overheads that First Kernow wouldn't have to bear so much or it could be to reflect recruitment; we just don't know. Similarly, they were clearly hoping to attract some FK staff across; how many that may have been, again, we don't know. However, it isn't the most unreasonable assumption to make, especially in places like Bodmin and Summercourt/Newquay where quite a lump of tendered work was lost.

 

[M803UYA]

Those are fair comments and it does seem they do fiddle with their network in Plymouth. As for how competitively they priced their bid, I think it was said that Go-Ahead wasn't the cheapest tenderer and won on the strength of their technical bid. Now that might have reflected depot overheads that First Kernow wouldn't have to bear so much or it could be to reflect recruitment; we just don't know. Similarly, they were clearly hoping to attract some FK staff across; how many that may have been, again, we don't know. However, it isn't the most unreasonable assumption to make, especially in places like Bodmin and Summercourt/Newquay where quite a lump of tendered work was lost.

Could it be possible First Kernow were more pessimistic in their assumptions when submitting their bid? The management team have experience of major tendered network change and how to implement it. There was a lot of teething troubles learned the hard way as well. They did have the benefit of a strong commercial network to fall back on.

 

[Goldfish62]

Those are fair comments and it does seem they do fiddle with their network in Plymouth. As for how competitively they priced their bid, I think it was said that Go-Ahead wasn't the cheapest tenderer and won on the strength of their technical bid. Now that might have reflected depot overheads that First Kernow wouldn't have to bear so much or it could be to reflect recruitment; we just don't know. Similarly, they were clearly hoping to attract some FK staff across; how many that may have been, again, we don't know. However, it isn't the most unreasonable assumption to make, especially in places like Bodmin and Summercourt/Newquay where quite a lump of tendered work was lost.

This thing about GoAhead not having the cheapest price keeps coming up. The fact is that each route was tendered individually and GoAhead happened to price an option for everything. There is no suggestion that First or anyone did likewise.