Transdev Blazefield

[Goldfish62]

It'd be strange if TfGM weren't monitoring the situation. They don't come across as an organisation that tolerates non compliant operation of their contracted services. It'll be costing Transdev in penalties for not operating properly.

I can assure everyone that they are very much monitoring the situation!!!

 

[markymark2000]

It'd be strange if TfGM weren't monitoring the situation. They don't come across as an organisation that tolerates non compliant operation of their contracted services. It'll be costing Transdev in penalties for not operating properly.

This is TFGM you're on about. I'm sure their staff are on commission if they give out fines (truthfully, don't think they are but they do give out fines like there is no tomorrow)

 

[Goldfish62]

This is TFGM you're on about. I'm sure their staff are on commission if they give out fines (truthfully, don't think they are but they do give out fines like there is no tomorrow)

They're not on commission!

 

[markymark2000]

They're not on commission!

The way they give out fines, it's easy to see how i'd come to that conclusion. They'd have you for anything.

 

[Leeds1970]

I assume Zap does well with ENCTS pass holders. I travel pre-0930, and the 0740, 0820 and 0855 off Leeds were / are never that busy. Probably average between the 10 and 20 mark per journey. Quite a lot of that seems to be students travelling from Leeds to York College.

ENCS on Zap is pretty hit and miss depending on the weather ( but averages the same as as what you have observed), however for the amount of money paid by City of York or Metro per ENCS pass use is quite low and probably wouldn't cover the costs of operation.

 

[Ashly_Jethro]

ENCS on Zap is pretty hit and miss depending on the weather ( but averages the same as as what you have observed), however for the amount of money paid by City of York or Metro per ENCS pass use is quite low and probably wouldn't cover the costs of operation.

ENCS passes are stupid and have seen many busy services axed as a result. If I remember correctly, the York express route was one of them. Always busy but as the majority were pass holders, it couldn’t sustain itself.

 

[RustySpoons]

ENCS passes are stupid and have seen many busy services axed as a result. If I remember correctly, the York express route was one of them. Always busy but as the majority were pass holders, it couldn’t sustain itself.

That's my go to example in discussions about ENCTS and it not paying operators fairly. Quite often running with full loads but still not bringing in anywhere near enough money to make it justifiable. Even Connexions had a go at it, and even with their lower overheads still couldn't make it pay.

I've said for years now that if operators were paid fairly for ENCTS use (as in they received the fare that a pass user would have paid) there'd be a lot more commercial services running now, and operators would be a lot more likely to experiment with new routes. As it is at the moment it's just not worth it.

Looking back at timetables from before the ENCTS pass was introduced makes for some depressing reading compared to what we have now. Lots of rural services connecting communities and a decent evening service in most places. Burnley & Pendle used to have buses running local services every 30 minutes until nearly midnight - Rosegrove still got a bus every 15 minutes). Mainline used to run every 15 minutes.

It isn't the fault of the bus companies or the people who use the passes they're entitled to, blame lies entirely on the government that introduced the scheme to win votes and didn't think the scheme through. It'd be political suicide for any government to withdraw the scheme now, or even suggest introducing a small fee for the pass. The latter I believe would go a long way towards self funding the scheme. Anyway, getting massively off topic here and I've deleted a lot already...!

But it is quite sad to think of what could have been if operators were fairly reimbursed!

 

[SCH117X]

IMO ENCTS passes shoud be valid for specific essential journeys for a holder and maybe a slightly reduced fare elsewhere. Fares would be cheaper as single fares would not be hiked up as much to gain a few more pennies from NYCC etc.

 

[markymark2000]

IMO ENCTS passes shoud be valid for specific essential journeys for a holder and maybe a slightly reduced fare elsewhere. Fares would be cheaper as single fares would not be hiked up as much to gain a few more pennies from NYCC etc.

With the exception of Amazon/Logic, there is nothing on CityZap that isn't covered directly by Coastliner. There must be an easy way to remove pass acceptance from these buses as registered commuter coaches don't accept these and nor does National Express (even when their services were registered as local journeys). Yet in other areas, even coaches come under local buses. It's very strange and really something needs doing and it's ENCTS which is killing off buses.

Low reimbursement means pass heavy routes are not viable and to get any decent reimbursement, operators have to have sky high fares and essentially lose paying passengers to justify the elderly travelling. Surely someone has to realise at some point that higher pass reimbursement means less tendered services so you just reallocate the money to a different pot.

People in power don't seem to have the braincells though to realise this and operators don't want to 'bite the hand that feeds them' so won't speak up either.

 

[RustySpoons]

With the exception of Amazon/Logic, there is nothing on CityZap that isn't covered directly by Coastliner. There must be an easy way to remove pass acceptance from these buses as registered commuter coaches don't accept these and nor does National Express (even when their services were registered as local journeys). Yet in other areas, even coaches come under local buses. It's very strange and really something needs doing and it's ENCTS which is killing off buses.

Just looking at the timetable for CityZap, looks to be pretty useless for commuters. Although slightly more useful if you're commuting from York to Leeds. No good if you're going the other way.

I believe it'd have to be classed as a coach service if they wanted to do away with ENCTS pass use, but this would mean they'd need to run with tachographs.

Do they still use the sat-navs to pick out the quickest route? Even if they do I don't think it's enough of a gimmick to justify what is essentially a slightly faster service between two places already served by the same company.

 

[Andyh82]

When Cityzap was introduced it replaced additional Coastliner journeys, service 844, which ran in between the coast journeys between Leeds and York (Heworth) only

 

[markymark2000]

I believe it'd have to be classed as a coach service if they wanted to do away with ENCTS pass use, but this would mean they'd need to run with tachographs.

There is more to it than that.
I say this because TrentBartons Red Arrow isn't in the ENCTS scheme (and doesn't run off tacho as it is a registered local bus service) bus East Yorkshires X5 was a coach service and that accepted ENCTS. There are more examples both ways. There has to be more to it than 'coach' or 'bus' service.

 

[Deerfold]

There is more to it than that.
I say this because TrentBartons Red Arrow isn't in the ENCTS scheme (and doesn't run off tacho as it is a registered local bus service) bus East Yorkshires X5 was a coach service and that accepted ENCTS. There are more examples both ways. There has to be more to it than 'coach' or 'bus' service.

That's down to councils choosing to exempt them as special services (Derby stopped paying on the Red Arrow after Nottingham did so they were valid in one direction).

Derby City Council ends red arrow free rides for pass holders

From Monday 7 August, free bus pass holders will have to pay to use the non-stop red arrow coach service from Derby to Nottingham, due to Derby City Council withdrawing the route from those it funds.

www.trentbarton.co.uk

North Yorkshire has done similar with most Dalesbus services, designating them as services mostly for tourist purposes. Many accept ENTCS in counties they travel through on their way to North Yorkshire.
They couldn't possibly help people traveling to spend money in their county.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Just looking at the timetable for CityZap, looks to be pretty useless for commuters. Although slightly more useful if you're commuting from York to Leeds. No good if you're going the other way.

Do they still use the sat-navs to pick out the quickest route? Even if they do I don't think it's enough of a gimmick to justify what is essentially a slightly faster service between two places already served by the same company.

Slightly quicker? - the 840/3 take 1h 08 from Leeds to York as opposed to 45 mins on CityZap. That is quite a difference

As for the market, the bigger commuter market would be towards Leeds. In truth, they are trying to reduce costs to match revenue but it just doesn't look that it's sustainable.

When Cityzap was introduced it replaced additional Coastliner journeys, service 844, which ran in between the coast journeys between Leeds and York (Heworth) only

And those were only introduced following First's incursion against Transdev

That's down to councils choosing to exempt them as special services (Derby stopped paying on the Red Arrow before Nottingham did so they were valid in one direction).
North Yorkshire has done similar with most Dalesbus services, designating them as services mostly for tourist purposes. Many accept ENTCS in counties they travel through on their way to North Yorkshire.
They couldn't possibly help people traveling to spend money in their county.

Exactly. I seem to recall Transdev were to amend the Whitby runs (avoid Goathland) so they were no longer local bus services until NYCC coughed up more money?

 

[Stan Drews]

When Cityzap was introduced it replaced additional Coastliner journeys, service 844, which ran in between the coast journeys between Leeds and York (Heworth) only

There was quite a gap between the 844 being discontinued and the start of Cityzap.

When the Zap started, the Coastliner was reduced from a 20 minute Malton-York-Leeds frequency, to every 30 minutes, with Zap largely timed from Leeds and York to provide every 15 min departure times. The total number of buses required (PVR) remained the same.

 

[Delenn]

There was quite a gap between the 844 being discontinued and the start of Cityzap.

When the Zap started, the Coastliner was reduced from a 20 minute Malton-York-Leeds frequency, to every 30 minutes, with Zap largely timed from Leeds and York to provide every 15 min departure times. The total number of buses required (PVR) remained the same.

After the disastrous timetable the 840 had last summer, there is a lot of logic in dropping the Cityzap now it doesn't seem to be financially working and using the vehicles to bolster the Coastliner, allowing the frequency increase to Scarborough they had last year whilst keeping the through services to Thornton and Whitby.

 

[Andyh82]

After the disastrous timetable the 840 had last summer, there is a lot of logic in dropping the Cityzap now it doesn't seem to be financially working and using the vehicles to bolster the Coastliner, allowing the frequency increase to Scarborough they had last year whilst keeping the through services to Thornton and Whitby.

They won’t be running every 30 minutes to Scarborough again. It was a bit excessive and I think they all got carried away with the whole staycation thing and it didn’t really work out. You don’t need such a high frequency on such a long distance service.

 

[Ashly_Jethro]

They won’t be running every 30 minutes to Scarborough again. It was a bit excessive and I think they all got carried away with the whole staycation thing and it didn’t really work out. You don’t need such a high frequency on such a long distance service.

I agree, they were definitely over ambitious there. It wasn’t just vehicle issues that were a problem but an overestimation of how many people were going to use the service. If they did have that frequency, they’d pergola be better having single deck “extra” branded buses but it’s obviously better financial sense to have fewer deckers with a lower frequency than more single decks at a high frequency.

Besides, they wouldn’t be able to get the extra drivers they’d need to run such a timetable. Any new ones will be needed on other routes to get them running back to normal.

It isn't the fault of the bus companies or the people who use the passes they're entitled to, blame lies entirely on the government that introduced the scheme to win votes and didn't think the scheme through. It'd be political suicide for any government to withdraw the scheme now, or even suggest introducing a small fee for the pass. The latter I believe would go a long way towards self funding the scheme.

I don’t see why the industry just doesn’t put their foot down and go on strike against ENCTS

The government won’t have any choice but to bring the scheme under review. It may not see it being dismantled but surely would see a restructure to help sustain the industry rather than dismantle it like it currently is doing.

 

[Goldfish62]

I don’t see why the industry just doesn’t put their foot down and go on strike against ENCTS

What exactly would that entail?

 

[Swimbar]

What exactly would that entail?

Presumably charging all customers the full fare? Given the current cost of living increases ENTCS is a lifeline to many travellers.
Can't see the Government changing the scheme anytime soon.

 

[Man of Kent]

I believe it'd have to be classed as a coach service if they wanted to do away with ENCTS pass use, but this would mean they'd need to run with tachographs.

No. It can be exempted on other grounds, which include a proportion of seats being reservable, and the fare reflecting an element of amenity. In the case of the Red Arrow quoted in post 2353, Derby City Council took the latter rule to determine that the higher fare than on the slower Indigo service was sufficient to exclude Red Arrow.

Fuller details in the ‘Travel concessions (eligible services) (amendment) order 2009’.

• services on which the majority of seats can be reserved in advance of travel (such as coaches)
• services that are intended to run for a period of less than 6 consecutive weeks
• services operated primarily for the purposes of tourism or because of the historical interest of the vehicle
• bus substitution (rail replacement) services
• services where the fare charged by the operator has a special amenity element

I don’t see why the industry just doesn’t put their foot down and go on strike against ENCTS

Because it provides getting on for a third of revenue across the industry - generally less in urban areas and more in rural ones.

 

[markymark2000]

As I say, the issue with protesting against it is 'biting the hand that feeds'. If something brings in, to quote Man of Kent 'a third of revenue', you don't want to risk losing it. It's the one thing that everyone knows needs sorting but no one will say it for fear of it being taken away.

• services where the fare charged by the operator has a special amenity element

Surely Cityzap could do something here to scrap pass acceptance. Or would that lose them most of their current passengers?

 

[Deerfold]

As I say, the issue with protesting against it is 'biting the hand that feeds'. If something brings in, to quote Man of Kent 'a third of revenue', you don't want to risk losing it. It's the one thing that everyone knows needs sorting but no one will say it for fear of it being taken away.


Surely Cityzap could do something here to scrap pass acceptance. Or would that lose them most of their current passengers?

The choice is to be made by the local authorities, not the operator.

And if CityZap stops taking ENTCS passes, it's not guaranteed the traffic will transfer to Coastliner - if people want a day out and can't get somewhere in an hour, they may change their choice of destination.

 

[markymark2000]

The choice is to be made by the local authorities, not the operator.

And if CityZap stops taking ENTCS passes, it's not guaranteed the traffic will transfer to Coastliner - if people want a day out and can't get somewhere in an hour, they may change their choice of destination.

Surely there must be something the operator can do?


You are right though, there is no guarantee traffic will transfer or people will pay extra. Hence why I was saying would that lose them most of their current passengers and thus make the route not viable at all.

 

[Deerfold]

Surely there must be something the operator can do?

The operator could require pre-booking or start offering food and drink on board or include something else non-travel related in the cost of a ticket and point this out to local authorities. But these would reduce the usefulness of the service to others or increase costs/prices.

 

[markymark2000]

The operator could require pre-booking or start offering food and drink on board or include something else non-travel related in the cost of a ticket and point this out to local authorities. But these would reduce the usefulness of the service to others or increase costs/prices.

You can get dirt cheap stuff that they could give out. 'Free rubber if you use CityZap' haha. Water is quite cheap too. That could work but it is a calculated risk. You don't want to ruin a big chunk of existing revenue but if the reimbursement is poor (as it likely will be), you won't lose much. I think you'd need like 1 in 9 conc pass holders to pay up and suddenly, you're in the green. Or even, do a cheaper Conc pass ticket (which is what most routes that don't accept ENCTS do) at say £5 return. £2.50 each way, likely a lot more than you'd get for a conc pass.

 

[Deerfold]

You can get dirt cheap stuff that they could give out. 'Free rubber if you use CityZap' haha. Water is quite cheap too. That could work but it is a calculated risk. You don't want to ruin a big chunk of existing revenue but if the reimbursement is poor (as it likely will be), you won't lose much. I think you'd need like 1 in 9 conc pass holders to pay up and suddenly, you're in the green. Or even, do a cheaper Conc pass ticket (which is what most routes that don't accept ENCTS do) at say £5 return. £2.50 each way, likely a lot more than you'd get for a conc pass.

If the stuff you got was dirt cheap, it's unlikely it'd sway the authority...

 

[Ashly_Jethro]

What exactly would that entail?

Just not accepting the passes until things get resolved

Because it provides getting on for a third of revenue across the industry - generally less in urban areas and more in rural ones.

But that revenue would be much more if the scheme was made more fair to the operators. It’s essentially crippling a lot of the industry especially in rural areas. Lots of lost services, where do we draw the line?

 

[RustySpoons]

Just not accepting the passes until things get resolved

I dare say the local authorities would actually prefer that as it'll be less for them to pay out.

 

[Deerfold]

Just not accepting the passes until things get resolved

It'd be resolved by the operator being taken to court or the Traffic Commissioner.