Wings Clipped

Both Scotland and Wales were left reeling recently when their respective devolved governments announced a reduction in Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) of around 20%, effective from April. This means a further reduction of one quarter of the fuel duty rebate bus and coach operators running local services receive. Scottish and Welsh operators were given just two months to prepare themselves for cuts in revenue; English operators were given a little longer.

It was during October 2010 and as a result of the Coalition Government's Comprehensive Spending Review that English bus operators were told that they would see a 20% reduction of BSOG from April 2012. Currently, operators receive a 80% rebate on their fuel duty (Ken Clarke reduced it from 100% when he was chancellor in the 1990s).

There had been fears that BSOG would be cut altogether, but this wasn't so. English operators were quoted in the trade magazines at the time saying that at least they were given sufficient warning to prepare for the loss of revenue. A number suggested that fare paying passengers were likely to be stung by fare increases of 10%.

In the Grimsby Evening Telegraph last week, local bus operator Stagecoach Grimsby-Cleethorpes released details of the bus services it plans to either reduce or withdraw completely, as a result of the reduction in BSOG. Read the full story here.

Service 12 (New Waltham-Cleethorpes-Grimsby-Bradley Park) is in line for the chop. (Click to enlarge)

A large percentage of routes are potentially affected. But what of the lengthy preparations that operators in England were given? The list of potential cancellations/withdrawals reads as if the company were located in Aberystwyth or Kingussie!

One of the problems that Stagecoach Grimsby-Cleethorpes has is its zonal fare structure. Effectively, the operator charges just two cash fares for single journeys in urban Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Waltham and Laceby (and as far west as Healing on routes to Immingham). Sure, zonal fares are incredibly simplistic for both passengers and drivers alike and offer some great savings for longer urban journeys, but when fares increases occur, every single passenger in every corner of your urban operation is affected to the same tune.

This is simply unfair. Why, for example, should someone living in Waltham (the Bradley Road terminus is 6 miles from Grimsby town centre) see their fare increase to the same tune as someone who just wants to travel to the local hospital (2 miles)? There haven't been any recent fare rises in Grimsby, but they'll be coming soon. Surely someone who lives a whopping 4 miles further down a route should pay more to travel on the same bus? This makes eminent sense.

In line for the chop (it's already been cancelled with VOSA) is Service 12, which is particularly loss-making. I believe the town's zonal fares structure is, in part, responsible for this. In other towns and cities, devoid of zones, an operator could increase the fares on this route by a higher percentage, ensuring the reasoning behind the excessive hike is made known via the local media. Community spirit is then put to the test and there could be a turnaround of fortunes for the service. As it is, forming part of the Grimsby/Cleethorpes urban operation, Service 12 falls foul of the far-too-rigid zonal fares structure and so passengers here pay the same amount as they do on the very profitable routes, say LoZone 13/14.

Service 12, as can be seen, covers a sizeable amount of Cleethorpes not served by any other service. (Click to enlarge)

Also mentioned in the article, specifically in the response by Stagecoach, is that concessionary bus pass reimbursement is not what it needs to be to make services commercially viable. These much-vaunted reimbursement rates are calculated on each route's average fare. The higher the fare, the more reimbursement received. So, by charging the same for someone travelling either 2 or 6 miles on the same bus, potential revenue is being lost, surely? Again, if the passenger travelling three times further paid a little more, the average fare would increase and so would the reimbursement payment for the free bus passes.

This could be remedied with the introduction of a third zone, the Outer Outer Zone. However, but then the elephant in the room needs to be acknowledged: Raising a £1.25 fare to, say, £1.50 is a whopping 20% increase, and with that kind of rise people will start turning away from the bus altogether. You're then in a Catch 22: increase the new zonal fare by too much and you'll turn people away; don't increase it enough and it will make little difference to the average fare for that route and so effectively be a wasted exercise as the reimbursement rate increase will be negligible.

Simply, once a zonal fares structure is introduced, it is a nightmare to remove - I'd go so far as to say commercial suicide. I don't envy any operator who has introduced one - usually during the Times of Plenty. They're offer a kind of perverse fairness, when in reality the underlying issues they possess contribute significantly to the response an operator can make to a particular loss-making route.

There is of course one other thing the operator could do, but I've hesitated to mention it as many seen it as a dirty word: cross-subsidy. Take some of the profit made from Services 9, 13, 14 and 45 and use what would be a tiny percentage to ensure the long-term operation of Service 12. North of the Humber, independent operator EYMS does it regularly and operates in precisely the same commercial, deregulated environment as Stagecoach.

Getting Tough!

A number of my friends despise everything the privatised bus industry stands for. As if that isn't bad enough, one found out that Stagecoach chief executive Sir Brian Souter had followed some of his literary works and even attended a speech he gave a number of years ago. To say my friend was horrified is an understatement. I'd initially missed the piece he forwarded me today. The email ended with a number of smiley faces and exclamation marks:

First Group's UK bus division has been having a rum old time of it lately. There have been numerous occasions when a depot has been summonsed before the local traffic commissioner over poor performance. The centralised structure was often seen as the problem, with reports claiming those at the top in their Aberdeen HQ had a say in fare increases in Barnstaple, for example. Last year's appointment of Giles Fearnley as the UK Bus managing director was seen as a step in the right direction. Fearnley was the man who split up West Yorkshire Road Car into four operating units at deregulation, so he is clearly someone keen on local identity.

Referred to as the 'Barbie' livery, First has used this scheme since 1998.

With an updated livery recently unveiled and local identities in the pipeline, things could be on the up for First. Sadly not. Well not yet anyway. There have been two public inquiries held into the company's operation recently. Scottish TC Joan Aitken issued the company with a written warning over maintenance issues at the company's East Scotland operation (which was even more embarrassing as this is where the transport giant is based) and most recently was North West TC Beverley Bell's inquiry into poor operational performance in Manchester.

During early 2011, VOSA officials recorded 26% of the company's bus services operating outside the permitted 'window of tolerance' (up to 1 minute early and up to 5 minutes late). First blamed the current economic environment and traffic delays. This did not wash with Mrs Bell.

My friend at this point underlined Mrs Bell's response (an entire paragraph) in red ink: "I don't think I would be saying it's difficult economic times if I made a profit of £14 million." She was speaking to the company's strategic development director, who she felt was in the wrong industry: "You are wasted in the bus industry. You should have gone into politics, but I don't do politics, I do evidence." The point was made to Mrs Bell that consistently unreliable services would not survive, to which she replied: “They damn well won’t survive because I will take them off you.”

To make the vein in Mrs Bell's forehead stand out even more, the company's service delivery director admitted that while £30 million is being invested in new buses nationally, he "hadn't got round to" addressing the punctuality issues concerning one particular bus service in the city. More triple red underlining then followed: "So when I go out and get a bus in the freezing fog, on my way to a doctor's appointment, it is in the knowledge that FirstGroup with £14m profits hasn't got round to it."

These are some of the strongest words I've heard a traffic commissioner use in many, many years. Bell is known as one of the more 'direct' TCs, but even by her standards, quite a sizeable strip has been ripped off the country's second largest bus operator.

The updated 'Barbie' livery, seen in Leeds, which was the location for the unveiling. Photo: Mark Smith

And that was it. My friend now refers to the North West TC as 'Sister Bell'. He isn't concerned about the ramifications that could follow. For example, Mrs Bell made it as clear as possible that she would be prepared to take commercially operated bus services from First Manchester. Whichever way you view this, the passenger will continue to lose out in the short term. Will the TC award the journeys to another operator to run commercially? Will they go completely? Uncertainty is never good for passengers and drivers alike.

But whatever you may think of First, they won't want another dressing down on this scale when the inquiry recommences in March. They've been given time to "get their act together" and report back to Mrs Bell. And report back they will. I can't see the company guaranteeing to maintain current service levels, though by hook or crook, passengers living in northern Manchester should see an eventual improvement by the summer.

Why train drivers get bad press

A good friend of mine drives trains for a living, here in the UK. Understandably, he and his colleagues become a little perplexed when members of the public automatically criticise train drivers. Some colleagues of his believe this is jealousy - they can earn £60k a year with overtime, while others assume the travelling public somehow believes their train driver is personally responsible for their ever-rising fares or that he/she has deliberately caused their delay.

Occasionally, however, a story comes along that demonstrates a circumstance where train drivers don't help their image. The first story was featured on Channel 4's Confessions from the Underground, which (as I tweeted) was an hour-long show earlier this week based on petulance. Drivers, station managers and ticket barrier staff effectively moaning about aspects of their job that you'd expect when driving or dispatching trains and manning ticket barriers. The programme's producers managed to give the impression that their anonymous 'deep throats' were somehow implying safety is being compromised.

People who regularly use the Underground know all too well the problems the system faces. Again via twitter, there were 115,000 more people using the Tube each and every day last year compared with 2010, so capacity problems clearly exist. But these same people watching the programme won't fall for the views shown by London Underground staff. They just won't.

Take the example when one station dispatcher was moaning about a guy who had an epileptic fit on a train and how a doctor who had been sought and was attending to the person instructed him not to move the train. Cue a rant about dwell times and the knock-on effect that this will have with other trains for the next hour or so. An anonymous driver complained at having to leave his cab to look down the train before closing the doors and one employee manning ticket barriers said that she felt intimidated when large numbers of people approached the barriers she was manning.

The second story concerns Northern Rail's drivers, their union and health and safety. Overcrowding on the 0742 from Hexham to Newcastle was so bad that the Class 14x 'Pacer' had a second unit attached. However, prior to the journey commencing, the driver needs to walk from one end of the double-train to the other while in sidings (to allow a Glasgow-bound train to pass). Pacers units do not have interlocking corridors, so rather than walk between the join, drivers need to walk along the track and re-board at the other end. Just after 0700 hours, when the procedure takes place, it is dark and drivers union Aslef forbade the practice as it was deemed dangerous through insufficient light.

So dangerous that the second unit was removed just before Christmas and the single unit operated as per usual.

You can imagine the local furore that ensued. Trying to be fair, though, walking along the track is something that passengers are repeatedly told not to do as it is dangerous. Ballast is very uneven and a risk assessment would surely flag up the possibility of twisted ankles or worse, should the driver fall. But then drivers are required to walk along the track when they need to contact a signaller; they're also required to walk along the track when inspecting suspicious objects or to remove minor debris - which can all occur in the dark.

Local MP Guy Opperman soon sussed the public mood and offered to purchase each and every Northern driver a torch, with money from his own pocket. Opperman even raised the issue in Parliament, likening the Pacer with the Leyland National bus, though I'm unsure why as the hazards bus drivers face when leaving their cabs are altogether different. And although the Pacer was loosely based on certain exterior elements of the LN, it is absolutely nothing like a bus.

Aslef both agree in principle to longer trains yet cite H&S issues when this occurs. The local press claimed that this was rubbish and that Northern Rail was dealing with drivers who just wanted an argument, that it was industrial relations not the need for additional lighting that saw the agreement end. Can you believe that Northern managers even offered to walk with the drivers and shine the way with torches?

But, the month-long dispute ended suddenly on 23 January when, I assume, someone put a rocket under both sides, and an 'understanding' was agreed between Aslef and Northern, which permits drivers to walk along the track from end to end, though he/she must do so with all passenger lights on and carry his cab lamp.


Having a reasonable insight into the rail industry, I have tried to be as fair as possible, but there are some occasions when people are plainly wrong. They're wrong. They do not have the support of anyone other than their union.

The role of a train driver is massively overlooked by those they convey, it really is. You can't just walk into the job and be competent within 6 weeks like you can a bus driver or some guards. Training never ends. Route knowledge and emergency procedures are incredibly in-depth and all encompassing. They are paid their generous salaries because they come into their own when things go wrong. But for someone with this level of skill, knowledge and dedication to then go and have a moan at Channel 4 or to refuse to walk along the ballast when it's a bit dark is guaranteed to give their profession a bad name. They may think it somehow enhances how dangerous or difficult their basic conditions are, but it gives the opposite effect.

Luckily those offending drivers are tiny in number, but as we've seen it takes but a handful to sully the good name of an otherwise very professional and respected role.

For the sake of even greater balance, I put the above to a LEYTR subscriber who is a full-time train driver and his response is posted in full below:

On the whole I agree with you. I also appreciate you giving a balanced view. Trying to think about the issues: Re the Northern issue, I might be wrong here but I don't know of many passenger train diagrams where a driver is required to walk along ballast as part of their shift. Of course they may get down to use the signal post telephone or inspect the track but these usually out of course situations. All depots have authorised walking routes nowadays - a precedent has been set it seems.

Concerning the tube driver [having to rarely leave their cab to check down a platform] this is something closer to heart. It would be like a bus driver having to physically leave the bus at every stop to check if it was safe to depart. Driver Only Operated trains are usually CCTV equipped (internal or external) or 'look back'. Getting out of the cab is for emergencies only such as CCTV failure. In such an eventuality a dispatch person should be provided or if it's a faulty train it will soon be taken out of service. Remember the story of the Merseyrsil guard now being done for manslaughter because a drunken teenager fell between the train and platform. If it was found that degraded dispatch was taking place which lead to the accident there would be hell to pay.

In fact this very thing happened to a LOROL train where someone fell underneath it after it departed and the company was subsequently fined despite following all the correct procedures. We train drivers have to be particularly conscious about doing our jobs professionally. A bus driver in Newcastle on £8 an hour doing 50 hours could be excused from occasional bad driving or looking tired or not smiling etc. On the railways, staff - especially drivers - have no such excuse.