|
Post by snoggle on Jan 8, 2016 18:07:52 GMT
Got hold of the Roger Torode "Privatising Londons Buses" book at the LT Museum shop today. Looks very good with lots of info and background. Think I'll have my head stuck in it for a fair few days.
|
|
|
Post by ohdear on Jan 8, 2016 23:24:50 GMT
I will need an explanation of what is "a rather stereotypical Yorkshireman!"
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 8, 2016 23:38:18 GMT
I'm probably gonna get shot down in flames over this (from several quarters at least) but from what I can see one operator would make sense - bringing it all back in house. To me the savings in not having the red tape to do with the tendering process, not having multiple sets of management, having maintenance facilities less duplicated with specialist areas catering for a wider area of specialist need, having scheduling more centralised instead of to and fro debates going on, and - most importantly, costed estimates for routes being to cover operations alone without a bit for the shareholders - must save a fair amount. Add to this more integration for services and initiatives - something which seems to be illegal between the present arrangement with private companies.
A mate of mine (CPC operator holder for a firm in Sussex) and I went through some tenders on the TfL site, despite not knowing the full picture, it seemed the amount quoted for routes could easily pay for vehicles, fuel, insurance, and also allow for vastly improved driver conditions. I know I'm no expert, but a CPC man at least knows a little bit. A well run 'London Transport' seems to me a much better alternative than what we have now.
Apologies if I seem ignorant, and mis-informed, I'll admit I'm not a bus operations expert, but there's lots in the modern game that doesn't seem to add up, and I think a centralised and well run organisation could work better for the public, as passengers, and as tax payers also.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Jan 9, 2016 0:57:25 GMT
IIRC, TFL won't allow any operator to have more than 25%.
Just imagine 1 operator having all london routes- workforce vote to strike= no buses at all in london!
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 9, 2016 1:29:59 GMT
Incidentially, I got the book 'Privatising London's Buses' for Christmas: it's fascinating, lots of interviews with people involved in the process going right back to the setting up of the Districts, and lots of little asides dropped in that I was unaware of. Oooh hadn't seen that book. I know Roger Torode having worked with him on smart ticketing that eventually became Oyster. He is infamous for being in charge of London Forest when it collapsed following the strike at Walthamstow Garage (due to tendering). The pickets famously put up placards saying "on the To-rode to ruin". And a later strike about tendering with lots of Olympians in view. There were a lot of drivers at Leyton garage in 2000 when I joined there wanted his bullocks on a plate. Tendering was stiff, but some of the measures he proposed was way unacceptable.
P.S. the second vid had Metrobuses, not Olympians
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2016 12:17:32 GMT
There were a lot of drivers at Leyton garage in 2000 when I joined there wanted his bullocks on a plate. Tendering was stiff, but some of the measures he proposed was way unacceptable.P.S. the second vid had Metrobuses, not Olympians You are quite right about Metrobuses. I have linked the wrong video. There was another one which showed a long line of new Olympians parked at what looks like New Cross garage all branded for Autocheck. Anyway if someone wants to drool over DMSs watch this one. Or more Metrobuses then watch this one about Norbiton And one featuring Nigel Mansell driving a Metrobus plus a nice clip of the "Inter City 125" bridge at Shepherds Bush (at end of the clip)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 9, 2016 18:09:38 GMT
I'm probably gonna get shot down in flames over this (from several quarters at least) but from what I can see one operator would make sense - bringing it all back in house. To me the savings in not having the red tape to do with the tendering process, not having multiple sets of management, having maintenance facilities less duplicated with specialist areas catering for a wider area of specialist need, having scheduling more centralised instead of to and fro debates going on, and - most importantly, costed estimates for routes being to cover operations alone without a bit for the shareholders - must save a fair amount. Add to this more integration for services and initiatives - something which seems to be illegal between the present arrangement with private companies. A mate of mine (CPC operator holder for a firm in Sussex) and I went through some tenders on the TfL site, despite not knowing the full picture, it seemed the amount quoted for routes could easily pay for vehicles, fuel, insurance, and also allow for vastly improved driver conditions. I know I'm no expert, but a CPC man at least knows a little bit. A well run 'London Transport' seems to me a much better alternative than what we have now. Apologies if I seem ignorant, and mis-informed, I'll admit I'm not a bus operations expert, but there's lots in the modern game that doesn't seem to add up, and I think a centralised and well run organisation could work better for the public, as passengers, and as tax payers also. And yet I am only 35 pages into the "Privatising London Buses" book and can see what an unmitigated disaster LT's bus operation had become by the early 1980s. The book has a range of insights from people at various levels in LT and it's clear that the organisation had become ossified, was reluctant to change, initiative was frowned on, performance was diabolical and engineering was a joke. Now you can dismiss all that and say "I said a well run "London Transport"" and that's where the challenge is. How do you put everything "back together" as one and not recreate a massive bureaucracy that simply doesn't work? People may not like having competing companies nor profit being earned but there is little denying that private businesses are better at chasing money and getting rid of inefficiencies. I worked for London Underground for over 25 years and I know what that was like at times. I know PPP wasn't popular but I have seen how the Infracos did invest, did find much faster and cheaper ways to do things and did fix problems that LU hadn't managed to deal with for decades. There are always choices about industry structures but I would question whether TfL and the bus companies really need to be put through the mill of significant change at this time. For one thing reorganisations cost a lot of money and typically distract people from the day job. Given bus performance has slipped somewhat of late as has patronage I'd argue the day job needs the attention not a resructuring.
|
|
|
Post by intransit on Jan 9, 2016 22:02:29 GMT
I just wondered if this could ever happen or is there something in place to legally prevent a monopoly. I believe seeing/reading/hearing somewhere that there is a 25% of network limit of which go-ahead are very close to. I could well be wrong, so please someone correct me if this isn't the case. I was told the same in training that 25% was the limit and Go-ahead were already on that limit.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 10, 2016 14:09:38 GMT
what an unmitigated disaster LT's bus operation had become by the early 1980s. The book has a range of insights from people at various levels in LT and it's clear that the organisation had become ossified, was reluctant to change, initiative was frowned on, performance was diabolical and engineering was a joke.. Thing is, could this have been the same situation on the buses as it was with Network South East - deliberately run down the service and investment to make people think privatisation would be a really good alternative? The argument for re-nationalising the railways comes up almost constantly, I think there's similar principles in play for buses. However, this book sounds very good, must keep an eye out. The other one that I'd like is the second part of 'London's Night Buses' - part one is certainly worth a butchers.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 10, 2016 14:35:15 GMT
what an unmitigated disaster LT's bus operation had become by the early 1980s. The book has a range of insights from people at various levels in LT and it's clear that the organisation had become ossified, was reluctant to change, initiative was frowned on, performance was diabolical and engineering was a joke.. Thing is, could this have been the same situation on the buses as it was with Network South East - deliberately run down the service and investment to make people think privatisation would be a really good alternative? The argument for re-nationalising the railways comes up almost constantly, I think there's similar principles in play for buses. However, this book sounds very good, must keep an eye out. The other one that I'd like is the second part of 'London's Night Buses' - part one is certainly worth a butchers. The things I quoted were the result of 40 years of LT (mis)management and were before new Board members joined LT who started to slowly challenge the status quo. This all happened a decade before privatisation was even mooted publicly. This was the LT bus network in the late 70s. There was no deliberate running down of anything at the time - the book records instances of routes only having 1 bus running on them instead of a much larger allocation, with perfectly serviceable buses "forgotten about" because the engineers had parked defective buses in front of them, new buses being out of service because they'd been robbed of parts to keep older buses running , of garages simply refusing to change their practices to deal with new bus types like the DMS. The only garage that got DMSs to work was Brixton because they had one exceptional garage engineer who knew what to do and had enough force of character to get his engineers and fitters to do the job properly. I'm sorry but you can throw all your politics in the bin, regardless of your philosophy, when faced with utterly hopeless practices like the above. It's all inexcusable because it comes down to management (from the very top downwards) and workers behaving properly and doing a decent job. It was what they were all being paid for. I won't keep quoting from the book because that's unfair to the author but it is featuring insights from a wide range of people who were there and knew what was going on and what was wrong. I know from experience that it can be extremely difficult to get people to see what's wrong and persuade them to do things more effectively. I also know from experience that I can be the "stick in the mud" who doesn't want to change either so I've seen both sides of the debate. I think the LT Museum shop had Night Buses part 2 on sale at a discounted price when I was in there last week. If you want it it might be worth a look if you want to get hold of it (in the upstairs bit on the bus book stand).
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 10, 2016 15:27:35 GMT
what an unmitigated disaster LT's bus operation had become by the early 1980s. The book has a range of insights from people at various levels in LT and it's clear that the organisation had become ossified, was reluctant to change, initiative was frowned on, performance was diabolical and engineering was a joke.. Thing is, could this have been the same situation on the buses as it was with Network South East - deliberately run down the service and investment to make people think privatisation would be a really good alternative? The argument for re-nationalising the railways comes up almost constantly, I think there's similar principles in play for buses. However, this book sounds very good, must keep an eye out. The other one that I'd like is the second part of 'London's Night Buses' - part one is certainly worth a butchers. I got Night buses part 2 for Christmas despite never reading Part 1 because the 80's to the present is a period I've been interested in for a very long reason - thoroughly excellent read though I've read about halfway so far. Definite recommend.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 10, 2016 15:30:19 GMT
Thing is, could this have been the same situation on the buses as it was with Network South East - deliberately run down the service and investment to make people think privatisation would be a really good alternative? The argument for re-nationalising the railways comes up almost constantly, I think there's similar principles in play for buses. However, this book sounds very good, must keep an eye out. The other one that I'd like is the second part of 'London's Night Buses' - part one is certainly worth a butchers. The things I quoted were the result of 40 years of LT (mis)management and were before new Board members joined LT who started to slowly challenge the status quo. This all happened a decade before privatisation was even mooted publicly. This was the LT bus network in the late 70s. There was no deliberate running down of anything at the time - the book records instances of routes only having 1 bus running on them instead of a much larger allocation, with perfectly serviceable buses "forgotten about" because the engineers had parked defective buses in front of them, new buses being out of service because they'd been robbed of parts to keep older buses running , of garages simply refusing to change their practices to deal with new bus types like the DMS. The only garage that got DMSs to work was Brixton because they had one exceptional garage engineer who knew what to do and had enough force of character to get his engineers and fitters to do the job properly. I'm sorry but you can throw all your politics in the bin, regardless of your philosophy, when faced with utterly hopeless practices like the above. It's all inexcusable because it comes down to management (from the very top downwards) and workers behaving properly and doing a decent job. It was what they were all being paid for. I won't keep quoting from the book because that's unfair to the author but it is featuring insights from a wide range of people who were there and knew what was going on and what was wrong. I know from experience that it can be extremely difficult to get people to see what's wrong and persuade them to do things more effectively. I also know from experience that I can be the "stick in the mud" who doesn't want to change either so I've seen both sides of the debate. I think the LT Museum shop had Night Buses part 2 on sale at a discounted price when I was in there last week. If you want it it might be worth a look if you want to get hold of it (in the upstairs bit on the bus book stand). Much as I would advocate buses reflecting where they operate rather than who they operate for (so not a fan of any corporate livery, be it Stagecoach, First Group on NBC back in the day), there was much wrong with London Transport in the 70s. LT specified all sorts of complicated bits on their DMSs, over and above what went on most Fleetlines, and that exacerbated the problems most garages had with them. Less complicated Fleetlines worked perfectly well for West Midlands PTE, Greater Manchester PTE and others, and once the London-specified bits were removed from some of the DMSs bought by others second hand, they worked well too. The most reliable modern (i.e. post Routemaster) bus LT operated in the 70s was the Leyland National. Which had very little in the way of extra mechanical bits added by LT. Read into that what you will...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 10, 2016 16:52:27 GMT
Much as I would advocate buses reflecting where they operate rather than who they operate for (so not a fan of any corporate livery, be it Stagecoach, First Group on NBC back in the day), there was much wrong with London Transport in the 70s. LT specified all sorts of complicated bits on their DMSs, over and above what went on most Fleetlines, and that exacerbated the problems most garages had with them. Less complicated Fleetlines worked perfectly well for West Midlands PTE, Greater Manchester PTE and others, and once the London-specified bits were removed from some of the DMSs bought by others second hand, they worked well too. The most reliable modern (i.e. post Routemaster) bus LT operated in the 70s was the Leyland National. Which had very little in the way of extra mechanical bits added by LT. Read into that what you will... Yep. That point about overly complex specifications is well made in the book. Interesting that TfL still seems to have "over specification" disease to this day.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 10, 2016 17:45:20 GMT
Thing is, could this have been the same situation on the buses as it was with Network South East - deliberately run down the service and investment to make people think privatisation would be a really good alternative? The argument for re-nationalising the railways comes up almost constantly, I think there's similar principles in play for buses. However, this book sounds very good, must keep an eye out. The other one that I'd like is the second part of 'London's Night Buses' - part one is certainly worth a butchers. The things I quoted were the result of 40 years of LT (mis)management and were before new Board members joined LT who started to slowly challenge the status quo. This all happened a decade before privatisation was even mooted publicly. This was the LT bus network in the late 70s. There was no deliberate running down of anything at the time - the book records instances of routes only having 1 bus running on them instead of a much larger allocation, with perfectly serviceable buses "forgotten about" because the engineers had parked defective buses in front of them, new buses being out of service because they'd been robbed of parts to keep older buses running , of garages simply refusing to change their practices to deal with new bus types like the DMS. The only garage that got DMSs to work was Brixton because they had one exceptional garage engineer who knew what to do and had enough force of character to get his engineers and fitters to do the job properly. I'm sorry but you can throw all your politics in the bin, regardless of your philosophy, when faced with utterly hopeless practices like the above. It's all inexcusable because it comes down to management (from the very top downwards) and workers behaving properly and doing a decent job. It was what they were all being paid for. I won't keep quoting from the book because that's unfair to the author but it is featuring insights from a wide range of people who were there and knew what was going on and what was wrong. I know from experience that it can be extremely difficult to get people to see what's wrong and persuade them to do things more effectively. I also know from experience that I can be the "stick in the mud" who doesn't want to change either so I've seen both sides of the debate. I think the LT Museum shop had Night Buses part 2 on sale at a discounted price when I was in there last week. If you want it it might be worth a look if you want to get hold of it (in the upstairs bit on the bus book stand). It reminds me of who a few of the operators at the moment over the past few years have run. Then after one or two were loosing routes in swathes. A lot of it is to do with management, but these people would always look at excuses to blame everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 10, 2016 17:47:06 GMT
The things I quoted were the result of 40 years of LT (mis)management and were before new Board members joined LT who started to slowly challenge the status quo. This all happened a decade before privatisation was even mooted publicly. This was the LT bus network in the late 70s. There was no deliberate running down of anything at the time - the book records instances of routes only having 1 bus running on them instead of a much larger allocation, with perfectly serviceable buses "forgotten about" because the engineers had parked defective buses in front of them, new buses being out of service because they'd been robbed of parts to keep older buses running , of garages simply refusing to change their practices to deal with new bus types like the DMS. The only garage that got DMSs to work was Brixton because they had one exceptional garage engineer who knew what to do and had enough force of character to get his engineers and fitters to do the job properly. I'm sorry but you can throw all your politics in the bin, regardless of your philosophy, when faced with utterly hopeless practices like the above. It's all inexcusable because it comes down to management (from the very top downwards) and workers behaving properly and doing a decent job. It was what they were all being paid for. I won't keep quoting from the book because that's unfair to the author but it is featuring insights from a wide range of people who were there and knew what was going on and what was wrong. I know from experience that it can be extremely difficult to get people to see what's wrong and persuade them to do things more effectively. I also know from experience that I can be the "stick in the mud" who doesn't want to change either so I've seen both sides of the debate. I think the LT Museum shop had Night Buses part 2 on sale at a discounted price when I was in there last week. If you want it it might be worth a look if you want to get hold of it (in the upstairs bit on the bus book stand). Much as I would advocate buses reflecting where they operate rather than who they operate for (so not a fan of any corporate livery, be it Stagecoach, First Group on NBC back in the day), there was much wrong with London Transport in the 70s. LT specified all sorts of complicated bits on their DMSs, over and above what went on most Fleetlines, and that exacerbated the problems most garages had with them. Less complicated Fleetlines worked perfectly well for West Midlands PTE, Greater Manchester PTE and others, and once the London-specified bits were removed from some of the DMSs bought by others second hand, they worked well too. The most reliable modern (i.e. post Routemaster) bus LT operated in the 70s was the Leyland National. Which had very little in the way of extra mechanical bits added by LT. Read into that what you will... We still get lost mileage at the moment due to electro/mechanical bits fitted on buses as a result to specification by TfL/London Buses.
|
|