|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 7, 2024 18:37:47 GMT
Looks like TfL are baring it's teeth, according to some European outlets    AliExpress and Temu?? Like the school bus service to Dame Alice Owens School last term, they may not work  |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 8, 2024 9:00:58 GMT
Apologies for the late commentary, have been busy working in Brighton the past few days and couldn't comment on events unfolding Friday evening. The canary has stopped singing in the coalmine. There are no independent bus companies running routes in London. People have mentioned Uno but that's a big stretch to say it's independent considering they're being funded by a university! That's like a cafe owner saying he's independent, but his dad Gordon Ramsay helps him out. Not wishing to repeat anything from the last 16 pages of this thread, so here goes. A small business owner will very much be counting the pennies, and missing £330,000 in your budget is significant when TfL have billions in the budget and in reserves. Why should Dean Sullivan transfer money from his successful side of the business to essentially waste when costs are increasing & TfL are very reluctant to remedy the issue? I have been vocal about the low balling during the tendering process, maybe it's had its part in this issue. But businesses are to be run with going concern; trade today with the expectation of trading tomorrow. The fact that TfL has taken months to pay money Sullivan's are owed, in installments no less, in addition to giving little flexibility for their increased costs like other operators means it's was a deliberate push by TfL. I can't remember the company running emergency timetables to mitigate delays, so don't know if Sullivan's requested but TfL rejected. No offence to the big boys, but the smaller operators tend to do business with more care and a personal feel. HCT, TT and now Sullivan's will be taking away that customer service interface that was once award winning. Yes service quality may have plundered, but you made the best with what you have. Sullivan's didn't have. Such a shame someone so passionate about the bus industry is leaving London operations. I wish the best of luck to all the staff involved. We still don't know why TfL were witholding money - could it be to do with the astoundingly poor performance? We haven't and may never hear TfL's side of things. But what would've been your solution? More cash despite ongoing poor performance? As for the personal feel, the TfL interiors, the history posters in the alcove and the friendly regular drivers were nice and really endeared me to Sullivan's, but that all fell away during Covid. And furthermore, those are a lot further up the hierarchy of needs than the bus turn up, which it frequently didn't. There is an enthusiast keeness to have lots of small businesses involved with providing bus services, but do we actually want them? Many people up and down the country have suffered when small operators have gone rogue, or done a flounce like Mr Sullivan. I think some of the downfall of the services was down to some agency drivers used who were fired from other companies. Some doing various things to not complete full mileage, and deviating off route etc was common sadly, whilst there were some excellent drivers. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 8, 2024 11:48:32 GMT
TfL are trying their utmost to make pax forget last Friday's events and lure them back to the route. A little bit racy for youngsters  and they must have spent £££s for Mariah Carey to help sell the route again  |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 8, 2024 13:12:01 GMT
TfL are trying their utmost to make pax forget last Friday's events and lure them back to the route. A little bit racy for youngsters and they must have spent £££s for Mariah Carey to help sell the route again “The only thing missing is its blinds” 😂😂😂 Please never stop making these! |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Aug 8, 2024 13:26:51 GMT
We still don't know why TfL were witholding money - could it be to do with the astoundingly poor performance? We haven't and may never hear TfL's side of things. But what would've been your solution? More cash despite ongoing poor performance? As for the personal feel, the TfL interiors, the history posters in the alcove and the friendly regular drivers were nice and really endeared me to Sullivan's, but that all fell away during Covid. And furthermore, those are a lot further up the hierarchy of needs than the bus turn up, which it frequently didn't. There is an enthusiast keeness to have lots of small businesses involved with providing bus services, but do we actually want them? Many people up and down the country have suffered when small operators have gone rogue, or done a flounce like Mr Sullivan. Looks like TfL are baring it's teeth, according to some European outlets  (or rather broken blinds!), etc...!  |
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Aug 8, 2024 22:51:18 GMT
TfL are trying their utmost to make pax forget last Friday's events and lure them back to the route. A little bit racy for youngsters and they must have spent £££s for Mariah Carey to help sell the route again One thing that I didn't have on my London Bus Forum August 2024 'Bingo Card' was a ServerKing 'poster' using the cover photo of Mariah Carey's 1997 album 'Butterfly' to sell the merits of an Arriva operated 217. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Aug 9, 2024 8:06:09 GMT
Another insight from TfL regarding the withdrawal of Sullivan Buses:
'We have been in discussions with Sullivan Buses for some time. Initially this was to try to resolve long-running performance issues that had led to their routes being among the worst-performing on the whole network. These performance issues were having a significant impact on Londoners, with some routes regularly not seeing any buses for hours at a time, and even buses on some school routes regularly failing to turn up. Since April 2024, Sullivan Buses has only operated 82% of its scheduled mileage, compared to a network average of 97%.
When it became evident that the performance issues could not be satisfactorily addressed, we began discussions early in 2024 about activating break clauses in the operator’s contracts in a controlled manner so that they could be retendered to an operator that could meet our performance requirements. These discussions were ongoing, but we received a call from Sullivan Buses at around 4pm on Friday 2 August informing us that it would no longer be providing its TfL-contracted services from the end of service that day, leaving the customers who rely on these services at risk of significant inconvenience.
We then worked at pace to secure new temporary operators for the eight affected routes, along with the planned rail replacement services Sullivan Buses were due to provide. With the support of other bus operators, we were able to provide services on five of the affected routes on Saturday 3 August, and on all eight of the affected routes by Monday 5 August. All rail replacement services have also been secured through other operators.
As of Monday 5 August, the normal timetabled service has been operating on four of the affected routes, with a reduced service on four further routes. We are working with our bus operators to try to restore the full timetabled service on all affected routes as soon as we can and will keep our stakeholders and customers updated. We will be securing the long-term operation of the affected services (including schools services) in the coming weeks. This will either be by advancing the start dates of new contracts already awarded to other operators, or by re-tendering the services.'
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 9, 2024 8:31:17 GMT
Another insight from TfL regarding the withdrawal of Sullivan Buses: 'We have been in discussions with Sullivan Buses for some time. Initially this was to try to resolve long-running performance issues that had led to their routes being among the worst-performing on the whole network. These performance issues were having a significant impact on Londoners, with some routes regularly not seeing any buses for hours at a time, and even buses on some school routes regularly failing to turn up. Since April 2024, Sullivan Buses has only operated 82% of its scheduled mileage, compared to a network average of 97%. When it became evident that the performance issues could not be satisfactorily addressed, we began discussions early in 2024 about activating break clauses in the operator’s contracts in a controlled manner so that they could be retendered to an operator that could meet our performance requirements. These discussions were ongoing, but we received a call from Sullivan Buses at around 4pm on Friday 2 August informing us that it would no longer be providing its TfL-contracted services from the end of service that day, leaving the customers who rely on these services at risk of significant inconvenience. We then worked at pace to secure new temporary operators for the eight affected routes, along with the planned rail replacement services Sullivan Buses were due to provide. With the support of other bus operators, we were able to provide services on five of the affected routes on Saturday 3 August, and on all eight of the affected routes by Monday 5 August. All rail replacement services have also been secured through other operators. As of Monday 5 August, the normal timetabled service has been operating on four of the affected routes, with a reduced service on four further routes. We are working with our bus operators to try to restore the full timetabled service on all affected routes as soon as we can and will keep our stakeholders and customers updated. We will be securing the long-term operation of the affected services (including schools services) in the coming weeks. This will either be by advancing the start dates of new contracts already awarded to other operators, or by re-tendering the services.' TalkSPORT had their own theory...  but I think it's the usual Silly Season stuff like bogus transfer news before the new season gets underway  |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Aug 9, 2024 8:52:44 GMT
Another insight from TfL regarding the withdrawal of Sullivan Buses: 'We have been in discussions with Sullivan Buses for some time. Initially this was to try to resolve long-running performance issues that had led to their routes being among the worst-performing on the whole network. These performance issues were having a significant impact on Londoners, with some routes regularly not seeing any buses for hours at a time, and even buses on some school routes regularly failing to turn up. Since April 2024, Sullivan Buses has only operated 82% of its scheduled mileage, compared to a network average of 97%. When it became evident that the performance issues could not be satisfactorily addressed, we began discussions early in 2024 about activating break clauses in the operator’s contracts in a controlled manner so that they could be retendered to an operator that could meet our performance requirements. These discussions were ongoing, but we received a call from Sullivan Buses at around 4pm on Friday 2 August informing us that it would no longer be providing its TfL-contracted services from the end of service that day, leaving the customers who rely on these services at risk of significant inconvenience. We then worked at pace to secure new temporary operators for the eight affected routes, along with the planned rail replacement services Sullivan Buses were due to provide. With the support of other bus operators, we were able to provide services on five of the affected routes on Saturday 3 August, and on all eight of the affected routes by Monday 5 August. All rail replacement services have also been secured through other operators. As of Monday 5 August, the normal timetabled service has been operating on four of the affected routes, with a reduced service on four further routes. We are working with our bus operators to try to restore the full timetabled service on all affected routes as soon as we can and will keep our stakeholders and customers updated. We will be securing the long-term operation of the affected services (including schools services) in the coming weeks. This will either be by advancing the start dates of new contracts already awarded to other operators, or by re-tendering the services.' So the biggest issue is lack of vehicles (a sizeable portion of the fleet is VOR) and a lack of drivers, particularly for the W9 I do wonder at what point TfL say "no sorry, that's enough- we're terminating your contracts for failure to deliver" I keep coming back to your post here, but judging by that statement from TfL you were inadvertently absolutely bang on the money! 😂 It was happening right there and then |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 9, 2024 9:24:26 GMT
Another insight from TfL regarding the withdrawal of Sullivan Buses: 'We have been in discussions with Sullivan Buses for some time. Initially this was to try to resolve long-running performance issues that had led to their routes being among the worst-performing on the whole network. These performance issues were having a significant impact on Londoners, with some routes regularly not seeing any buses for hours at a time, and even buses on some school routes regularly failing to turn up. Since April 2024, Sullivan Buses has only operated 82% of its scheduled mileage, compared to a network average of 97%. When it became evident that the performance issues could not be satisfactorily addressed, we began discussions early in 2024 about activating break clauses in the operator’s contracts in a controlled manner so that they could be retendered to an operator that could meet our performance requirements. These discussions were ongoing, but we received a call from Sullivan Buses at around 4pm on Friday 2 August informing us that it would no longer be providing its TfL-contracted services from the end of service that day, leaving the customers who rely on these services at risk of significant inconvenience. We then worked at pace to secure new temporary operators for the eight affected routes, along with the planned rail replacement services Sullivan Buses were due to provide. With the support of other bus operators, we were able to provide services on five of the affected routes on Saturday 3 August, and on all eight of the affected routes by Monday 5 August. All rail replacement services have also been secured through other operators. As of Monday 5 August, the normal timetabled service has been operating on four of the affected routes, with a reduced service on four further routes. We are working with our bus operators to try to restore the full timetabled service on all affected routes as soon as we can and will keep our stakeholders and customers updated. We will be securing the long-term operation of the affected services (including schools services) in the coming weeks. This will either be by advancing the start dates of new contracts already awarded to other operators, or by re-tendering the services.' I do wonder at what point TfL say "no sorry, that's enough- we're terminating your contracts for failure to deliver" I keep coming back to your post here, but judging by that statement from TfL you were inadvertently absolutely bang on the money! 😂 It was happening right there and then If only I was able to predict tonight's Euromillions numbers... In all seriousness though, the TfL statement is really interesting- it's absolutely clear that performance on Sullivans TfL network was absolutely appalling. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Aug 9, 2024 9:30:07 GMT
ThinLizzy I keep coming back to your post here, but judging by that statement from TfL you were inadvertently absolutely bang on the money! 😂 It was happening right there and then If only I was able to predict tonight's Euromillions numbers... In all seriousness though, the TfL statement is really interesting- it's absolutely clear that performance on Sullivans TfL network was absolutely appalling. Yup and absolutely backs up the rumour that Sullivan’s were ‘recommended’ or ‘urged’ not to bid for the new contracts |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 9, 2024 9:36:25 GMT
ThinLizzy I keep coming back to your post here, but judging by that statement from TfL you were inadvertently absolutely bang on the money! 😂 It was happening right there and then If only I was able to predict tonight's Euromillions numbers... In all seriousness though, the TfL statement is really interesting- it's absolutely clear that performance on Sullivans TfL network was absolutely appalling. It is a downward death spiral. You tell them to improve, but then withhold the very money they need to improve, so can't improve. You then without a greater amount of their money, there is no money to maintain current standards let alone improve. The way TfL engages with SMEs needs a radical review ... You can't treat them in the same way as you do large multinationals. You starve an SME of funds, you get what happens with Sullivan's .... you get stuck in a hole you can't get out of ... This issue is of TfLs own making ... their blinkered one size fits all solution just creates a doom to failure. I thought public bodies were supposed to be supporting SMEs |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Aug 9, 2024 9:39:59 GMT
If only I was able to predict tonight's Euromillions numbers... In all seriousness though, the TfL statement is really interesting- it's absolutely clear that performance on Sullivans TfL network was absolutely appalling. It is a downward death spiral. You tell them to improve, but the withhold the very money they need to improve, so can't improve. You then without a greater amount of their money, there is no money to maintain current standards let alone improve. The way TfL engages with SMEs needs a radical review ... You can't treat them in the same way as you do large multinationals. You starve an SME of funds, you get what happens with Sullivan's .... you get stuck in a hole you can't get out of ... This issue is of TfLs own making ... their blinkered one size fits all solution just creates a doom to failure. But also the argument could be TfL withholding money due to Sullivan’s seemingly uncooperative nature and TfL playing hardball? The phrase ‘no smoke without fire’ is coming to mind here |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 9, 2024 9:46:33 GMT
It is a downward death spiral. You tell them to improve, but the withhold the very money they need to improve, so can't improve. You then without a greater amount of their money, there is no money to maintain current standards let alone improve. The way TfL engages with SMEs needs a radical review ... You can't treat them in the same way as you do large multinationals. You starve an SME of funds, you get what happens with Sullivan's .... you get stuck in a hole you can't get out of ... This issue is of TfLs own making ... their blinkered one size fits all solution just creates a doom to failure. But also the argument could be TfL withholding money due to Sullivan’s seemingly uncooperative nature and TfL playing hardball? The phrase ‘no smoke without fire’ is coming to mind here If they have the funds they need to improve being withheld ... How do you expect them to be cooperative? TfL say do 'this', but then say we are withholding the funds you need to do 'this' with. Shake that magical money tree again? The phrase 'couldn't arrange a p¡ss-up in a brewery' comes to mind |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 9, 2024 9:53:19 GMT
If only I was able to predict tonight's Euromillions numbers... In all seriousness though, the TfL statement is really interesting- it's absolutely clear that performance on Sullivans TfL network was absolutely appalling. It is a downward death spiral. You tell them to improve, but then withhold the very money they need to improve, so can't improve. You then without a greater amount of their money, there is no money to maintain current standards let alone improve. The way TfL engages with SMEs needs a radical review ... You can't treat them in the same way as you do large multinationals. You starve an SME of funds, you get what happens with Sullivan's .... you get stuck in a hole you can't get out of ... This issue is of TfLs own making ... their blinkered one size fits all solution just creates a doom to failure. I thought public bodies were supposed to be supporting SMEs Difference is TfL don't specifically ask SMEs to enter the market. They effectively lay out their terms and if a SME wants to enter on those terms then they can, but nobody is asking them to and if they get into trouble then they shouldn't expect different treatment as nobody told them to enter it in the first place. |
|
