Maybe you have not seen the Metrolink trams recently, but on those that I have seen carrying the current livery (without carrying full body adverts), silver grey (not yellow) is the larger colour in the livery.
Which MP do you think has been involved with this?
I don't know, may'be write to them and ask them?
One argument put forward by London operators was that city investors would see their names on the buses. Doesn't really apply in Wigan and Bolton...
Corporate vanity.
Essentially. Personally I don't see an issue as long as it's an agreed size, colour and location. But then I also don't see an issue with no logo being allowed.
Indeed - note all the recently revised Go-Ahead company logos incorporating the Go-Ahead name much more prominently.
Can't see it ever resolving, to be honest. It's been like that for months. Indeed I'm surprised the remaining independents (who must now realise that there's next to no chance of them ever getting anything other than the odd school contract) don't just throw in the towel and call it a day. Even the option of selling out to Stagecoach / Go Ahead / Rotala probably isn't feasible due to TfGM procuring the buses and depots to be used in Franchising.
Life for tendered operations outside of the franchising for now continues to be pretty grim, Stotts appear very short at the moment although it does look (despite what has been stated on the TfGM website) more services have been able to run than what has been advertised.
Example with the 159:
Stotts by no means the only ones still affected I suspect but I haven't seen Vision on this page for a while now.
I've often wondered if smaller operators like Stotts and Belle Vue etc wouldn't be better clubbing together for a bid and run it jointly... unless that's not allowed? Might mean some upheaval but possibly better than the alternative?
Almost all businesses have pride in their brands which often have cost them a significant amount to build. If they aren't allowed to display their logos then if a Stagecoach, First or Go Ahead bus doesn't turn up regularly they won't be blamed by the customers and as you say, customers couldn't care less who is running the service and it probably will be Burnham who gets the blame.
If bus operators are given a free hand - as they were in 1986, we can see why franchising has had to be introduced.
Do I sense that you assume franchising will follow in all large conurbations, because I cannot see why. If bus operations are seen to be under local council control, let them use council tax monies to fund such aspirations without any aid from central Government.
Local councils have started calling for the ability to franchise.
Central government does not fund concessionary passes.
Well said...a good correction.
They get paid to run the services. Same as operators do in London. It's a management contract. Manage some services and get paid to do so. pretty simple operating model really. Happens in a lot of industries.
Indeed. It's the way the railways are contracted and is the typical model for large scale bus "franchises" abroad.
The main quality criteria are in respect of service reliability, ie mileage operated against schedule and % operated on time. Deductions from the contract price for at-fault lost mileage and % on time departures below the target set by TfGM and a bonus for exceeding the on-time target.
That's good to hear. I always thought nine months mobilisation was too much of a rush. Hopefully lots of lessons there for Tranche 2.
