Reminiscing about Western Greyhound

[M803UYA]

What a sorry story, but it does largely clarify in a completely unbiased way how Western Greyhound went from being a well-regarded bus operator to a basket case in quite a short period of time, and the reasons why that happened. It is obvious the original arson attack proved the catalyst, which may have been the intention of the arsonist(s), but we may never know in the absence of any criminal charges. It is noticeable too that, despite what was being discussed in some social media at the time, the Traffic Commissioners were happy with W.G.'s efforts to keep the show on the road in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Maybe the arsonist(s) or their backers (if any) weren't so happy, if their intention was to immediately cause the business to fold.

It doesn't quite mention that the traffic commissioners were 'happy' - it makes reference to the 2014 non compliant operation of services, citing driver and vehicle availability issues. Operators are required to have sufficient levels of both to operate registered local bus services, it's never been optional. If you don't have sufficient resources to operate your services you reduce back to a level which you can properly resource.

You can expect action from the traffic commissioners if you don't compliantly operate your services and it's clear from that decision Western Greyhound was on the radar. There were also prohibitions issued prior to the sale, so the management of the time would have had questions to answer regardless as to why they couldn't run their bus service network and ensure vehicles were maintained in a roadworthy condition. Answers to questions which would have been put at public inquiry, just that those attending would be different people.

Much of the sorry saga has been covered elsewhere on the forum, suffice to say, the passage of time hasn't altered what was said back then and no one comes out of it smelling of roses. The decline of the company was well in motion prior to the 2013 fire - certainly it hastened the demise.

As I've mentioned previously, Western Greyhound decided that low floor vehicles weren't something they needed to invest in, and post 2005, they didn't buy any for 3 years, preferring instead to stock up on Mercedes Varios which they'd built the business on. The only problem there came to when the owners wanted to retire, and purchasers made offers which reflected the need to replace 40 buses within an 18 month to 2 year timeframe. Offers which the company rejected as undervalued.

Someone like Stagecoach wouldn't have had an issue replacing 40 buses, as they have reserve fleet and can divert new deliveries. A smaller group would have to go shopping for suitable vehicles, which comes at a cost.

Contrast Western Greyhound's fleet with that of Norfolk Green - both similar sized operations, but within 5 years of starting operations Norfolk Green had their first Optare Solo buses delivered new - so over a 12 year timeframe the fleet was made almost 100% low floor. Western Greyhound got their first low floor vehicles in the 10th year of operating. A properly planned programme of new bus deliveries by Western Greyhound would have meant a business they could have sold for a decent price. There's only one person responsible for that decision, and it's the founder of the business.

 

[MotCO]

Contrast Western Greyhound's fleet with that of Norfolk Green - both similar sized operations, but within 5 years of starting operations Norfolk Green had their first Optare Solo buses delivered new - so over a 12 year timeframe the fleet was made almost 100% low floor. Western Greyhound got their first low floor vehicles in the 10th year of operating. A properly planned programme of new bus deliveries by Western Greyhound would have meant a business they could have sold for a decent price. There's only one person responsible for that decision, and it's the founder of the business.

But that assumes that Norfolk Green and Western Greyhound were operating at similar levels of profitability; maybe there were not sufficient profits to invest in new floor buses which cost a lot more than the rugged Mercedes.

It also assumes that the owners of Western Greyhound were not taking out excessive remuneration at the expense of new buses, which ultimately backfired since they could not sell the business at a decent price.

 

[M803UYA]

But that assumes that Norfolk Green and Western Greyhound were operating at similar levels of profitability; maybe there were not sufficient profits to invest in new floor buses which cost a lot more than the rugged Mercedes.

It also assumes that the owners of Western Greyhound were not taking out excessive remuneration at the expense of new buses, which ultimately backfired since they could not sell the business at a decent price.

There were. It is also possible to depress the profit margin by buying in new vehicles. It's simply the choice of vehicle and a business decision taken not to invest.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But that assumes that Norfolk Green and Western Greyhound were operating at similar levels of profitability; maybe there were not sufficient profits to invest in new floor buses which cost a lot more than the rugged Mercedes.

It also assumes that the owners of Western Greyhound were not taking out excessive remuneration at the expense of new buses, which ultimately backfired since they could not sell the business at a decent price.

It's fair to say that there were many similarities between the two firms and some differences as well. Whilst Norfolk isn't great bus territory, it's perhaps a little better than Cornwall.

However, from my personal perspective, it felt that Norfolk Green took a more measured in expansion and fleet replacement. WG expanded seemingly wherever the opportunity lay, perhaps feeling that it was the right thing to do as who knows when the chance may come again, and when that came, it meant purchases of Varios new and mainly secondhand. However, whilst it seemed that that growth was prioritised in 2004-2009, it was also the period when they also were winning their awards. It did feel at the time that they were storing up issues for the future though

Sorry to repeat myself but the clues were there some time before the fires that ultimately devastated the business. Whilst it had been award winning, that era had died out in the late 2000s. I experienced WG in 2012 (just before the Lizard tenders were lost) and again in 2013 shortly before the fires, and it was evident that standards had slipped appreciably. Vehicles were filthy, inside and out, and the standard of driving was concerning; I travelled from Looe to Liskeard on a Vario that was patched up with gaffer tape in several places.

Perhaps it failure was a consequence of overstretching themselves, both commercially and operationally? The what-ifs are always a question but had they not pursued expansions into Penzance or Helston, and focussed on investing in the core area around St Austell, Liskeard, Wadebridge and Newquay, they might have had a more robust business though, as ever, we will never know what would have happened had arsonists not struck.

 

[MotCO]

His appeal to the Upper Tribunal heard 8th April 2016 was dismissed. See Upper Tribunal decision T/2015/78.

Black Velvet Travel Ltd, Western Greyhound Ltd and Michael John Bishop: [2016] UKUT 299 (AAC) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Not quite. Para 23 of [2016] UKUT 299 (AAC) (previously referenced) states:

It seems to us, therefore, that, whilst
Mr Bishop clearly did think the clarification formed a part of the actual decision, it did not. In our
view, though, particularly in light of what we have said about the clarification, the decision does not
appear to completely exclude Mr Bishop from any involvement in the passenger service vehicle
business. He would, however, need to show “clear blue water” (see paragraph 4 of the decision in Ings
referred to above) between his duties and the management of any new operator he may be employed by
or involved with. No doubt, if he does contemplate working in this sort of business in the future he will,
or at any rate should, seek advice.

The 'clarification' refers to an exchange betwen Mr Bishop and the Tribunal as to whether the original decision barred him from any role in transport. The exchange (post Tribunal) implied that it did; the ruling of the Upper Tribunal ([2016] UKUT 299 (AAC)) disagreed with this interpretation and gave its view in the quote above. Thus it seems to me as though Mr Bishop is legally able to enjoy employment in the transport sector subject to the criteria set out above.

 

[Titfield]

Not quite. Para 23 of [2016] UKUT 299 (AAC) (previously referenced) states:


The 'clarification' refers to an exchange betwen Mr Bishop and the Tribunal as to whether the original decision barred him from any role in transport. The exchange (post Tribunal) implied that it did; the ruling of the Upper Tribunal ([2016] UKUT 299 (AAC)) disagreed with this interpretation and gave its view in the quote above. Thus it seems to me as though Mr Bishop is legally able to enjoy employment in the transport sector subject to the criteria set out above.

Well yes because there has to be a clear distinction between "management roles" and "non- management roles" for example being a driver.

I think the area that would near clarification by the TC would be if a supervisory role was offered ie a role where there could be elements of managerial decision making,.

 

[Goldfish62]

You had the halcyon days of WG under Orbell and Howarth, then the troubled yet still professional days with Mark Howarth and the challenges of the two fires though it was becoming increasingly evident that not all was well.

However, the days of Bishop and Smith were typified by the type of moves and acquisitions that were indicative of financial and maintenance failings. I might add that I thought Bishop was disqualified indefinitely from involvement in running bus services but appears to be at Compass Bus?

His appeal to the Upper Tribunal heard 8th April 2016 was dismissed. See Upper Tribunal decision T/2015/78.

Black Velvet Travel Ltd, Western Greyhound Ltd and Michael John Bishop: [2016] UKUT 299 (AAC) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Yes, the decision does state that:

38. By disqualifying Mr Bishop for an indeterminate period it is open to him at any time
to seek the cancellation of the direction at anytime. However he is likely to need to be in a
position to address the matters raised in this case and as appropriate provide assurance as to
the involvement of Mr Smith/ Jones, if any.”

 

[ladyMccormick]

I'm quite willing to believe every word of what you say, but on the subject of unsuitable, overworked or simply knackered buses, First's Cornish operation at the time was hardly in a different league. I remember a local newspaper report of the operation of the one remaining journey on the so-called X18 from Penzance to Truro which had broken down on the Camborne By-Pass. The driver told the passengers that the previous bus allocated had also broken down. While the passengers waited on the doubledecker (an Ailsa?) one of them noted mushrooms sprouting from the bench seat at the lower deck rear, and took photos, which were published in the newspaper.

I would still wonder, though, even if I accept everything above, how the WG management managed to bamboozle all their peers into giving them so many awards, and not just in the one year. How much First contributed, in one way or another, to WG's demise may never be publically known, not least because libel law in this country is very much geared to those with deep pockets. My instinctive feelings about WG all relate to the pre- first depot fire period, by the way: after that, I think they never stood a chance, even if arson had been proven by the conviction of anybody or anybodies.

Speaking of local newspapers, another one in the Helston area published a letter signed by various local, named bus users after First had taken on routes previously operated by WG as a result of the Cornwall Council retendering which had led to WG's initial pre-fire problems. The letter expressed the users' dismay about the deterioration in the bus operation, including unfriendly drivers and a couldn't-care-less attitude. Personally, I've never seen credible evidence of the reasons for the retendering, and doubt I ever shall, but then the lack of public scrutiny of CC's decisions (I include those of their 'commercial' spin-offs) is absolutely depressing, even scandalous, but that is par for the course in the public domain these days of course.

I agree with what you said. I am also a witness to this.

 

[Busaholic]

I agree with what you said. I am also a witness to this.

I always appreciate concurrence with my views, which is quite an unusual occurrence on this forum, but then I don't post in order to curry favour with anyone.

Welcome to the forum, an excellent first post if I may say!