|
Post by DE20106 on Aug 9, 2024 12:32:55 GMT
How do we know TfL didn’t try that though? Mr Sullivan mentioned on his group he was discouraged from bidding so either he is lying or TfL are. Oh yeah definitely, and TfL’s statement corroborates with that I’m more referring to the earlier points when Sullivan’s services started markedly declining. But then got so fed up with their lack of improvement and abysmal performance that they broke the contracts and said don’t bother bidding again
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 9, 2024 12:38:38 GMT
But will TfL want to encourage them? I'm sure after this they'd probably not touch an independent with a barge pole. If you want to encourage the economy to grow, which is what Labours fiscal plans are totally reliant on, you will be reliant on SMEs to do it. Stifle the SMEs and Labour's recovery plans get shot out the window. Public bodies, especially ones run by those who share the same allegiance as the government should be doing all they can to stimulate growth by working with SMEs, not attempting to put them out of business. It is as though some within the party want Labour to fail. "Stifling" one small operator and preventing/discouraging them from bidding for TfL services is not going to crash Labours economic plans. There are hundreds of thousands of SMEs up and down the country, and you cant basing the potential success of a fiscal plan based on the actions of one small bus operator in Hertfordshire. The fact is this: a contractor was significantly failing in delivering what they had signed up to do. This hasn't just come out of the blue. There may well have been works going on behind the scenes between Sullivans and TfL, and we'll probably never know the full details of exactly what may (or may not) have gone on between TfL and the operator. Yes, there are some fantastic SMEs in the London area, who could probably start running some school contracts and some of the smaller routes. However, as a contractor, you sign up to do a job. The client (TfL) are well within their rights to take action if that contractor is not fulfilling its obligations.
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Aug 9, 2024 12:57:04 GMT
But will TfL want to encourage them? I'm sure after this they'd probably not touch an independent with a barge pole. It would all boil down to how that independent operated. Look at Uno, they were given the 383 (yes, they are a Uni and they had run bus services outside London too) but they looked after the service, even adding a TfL approved branding scheme in conjunction with Barnet Council. The presentation of the buses, even the oldest 07 plate still in TfL service, is impeccable. So when things unravelled for Sullivan, TfL weren't silly and gave them all the work. They gave them another route, and are allowing things to gradually improve. They will do well with the 298. I think Sullivans bit off more than they can chew with 12 routes, shiny new buses with private plates... but as time went on (since 2017) there were problems. Other SME's in the past did OK, perhaps a contract term before selling up, like ECT (Ealing Community Transport) who had the 195, Armchair who had the 65, E2, E8, 260 back in the day before Metroline bought them, so I don't think TfL have any aversion to small businesses. Though like a small child who's eaten a meal that made them gag or retch, they may be scared to try an independent again for a little while I think TfL are looking to reduce the amount of operators in general (though they know this is not possible), and yes, they had a pipe dream of running the buses themselves, but that will never happen. Right now, they just need reliable buses to tempt more people from their cars and deliver cleaner air (hence the push to hybrids and electrics). Satire and humour aside, Sullivan's brought this on themselves, but it was the magnitude of the flounce that stunned people I don’t think TfL do want to reduce the amount of operators in the London market, it’s probably in their interest to have the opposite. Less operators = less competition = more complacent/higher prices. Look at the competition in 2017/18, routes getting four or five bids, with bargain basement prices left right and centre. This wasn’t good for operators, but TfL were loving it, and it played into their laps perfectly. Now we’re at the opposite end of the spectrum where operators will probably be able to second guess pretty well if they’ll be the sole bidder or not, and price accordingly knowing TfL have no other option. We don’t know (and probably won’t ever fully know) the ins and outs of the whole Sullivan’s vs TfL saga, I’m of the opinion it’s neither fully one way or the other. But the fact is Mr Sullivan towards the end came across as a very bolshy, arrogant, ‘it’s everyone else’s fault but mine’ type of person. I’m not casting aspersions saying that’s how he is, but he certainly came across like that. It doesn’t matter what the wrongs are, it’s certainly not good practice to end a working relationship in such a volcanic manor. Yet at the same time he loved to remind us Sullivan’s was proudly an SME. As a society we like small, independent businesses because we’re helping local honest people to make a living, with a family like ethos. Towards the end, the business showed its practices to be anything but that. Hanging drivers out to dry, sticking up a notice on the depot door saying we’re closed now, and sending out drivers an abrupt text message saying ‘we don’t work for London buses anymore, don’t come to work tomorrow’. There is no way that behaviour like that won’t draw attention from a lot of people about how they operated as a company, and will come to the conclusion that they behaved unacceptably. I’m not pointing fingers, I’m just saying it’s obvious how people will read it that way
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Aug 9, 2024 13:09:58 GMT
What I've got from reading that was Sullivans were doing so bad we gave them a contract to operate rail replacements even though we knew they couldn't operate the contracted bus routes 🤔 , whole thing stinks IMO of Incompetence from Tfl .
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Aug 9, 2024 13:31:13 GMT
Updated route status on 9th of August are as follows:
Route 298:
A special service will operate until further notice.
Monday to Saturday departures from Potters Bar Station will be at 0600 0630 0700 0730 0800 0825 0845 0925 0945 1025 1105 1125 1145 1205 1245 1305 1325 1345 1405 1445 1505 1545 1605 1625 1705 1725 1825 1925 2050 2150 and 2250.
From Arnos Grove Station at 0630 0700 0730 0800 0845 0905 0925 1005 1025 1105 1145 1205 1225 1245 1325 1345 1405 1425 1445 1525 1545 1625 1645 1705 1745 1805 1920 2020 2120 2220 2320.
Sunday departures from Potters Bar Station at 0750 0850 0920 0950 1100 1120 1230 1400 1500 1530 1630 1700 1750.
Sunday departures from Arnos Grove at 0820 0920 1020 1030 1150 1320 1450 1550 1620 1720 1750 1850
Route W9:
Route W9 is operating between Chase Farm Hospital and Southgate Station at a reduced frequency of every 30 minutes, instead of every 15 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes, due to a bus operator ceasing operations in London. Buses remain operating every 30 minutes in the evenings and on Sundays. We are working to improve the service levels as soon as possible.
Rest of the routes are continuing operating temporary arrangements as mentioned previously.
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Aug 9, 2024 13:33:14 GMT
It would all boil down to how that independent operated. Look at Uno, they were given the 383 (yes, they are a Uni and they had run bus services outside London too) but they looked after the service, even adding a TfL approved branding scheme in conjunction with Barnet Council. The presentation of the buses, even the oldest 07 plate still in TfL service, is impeccable. So when things unravelled for Sullivan, TfL weren't silly and gave them all the work. They gave them another route, and are allowing things to gradually improve. They will do well with the 298. I think Sullivans bit off more than they can chew with 12 routes, shiny new buses with private plates... but as time went on (since 2017) there were problems. Other SME's in the past did OK, perhaps a contract term before selling up, like ECT (Ealing Community Transport) who had the 195, Armchair who had the 65, E2, E8, 260 back in the day before Metroline bought them, so I don't think TfL have any aversion to small businesses. Though like a small child who's eaten a meal that made them gag or retch, they may be scared to try an independent again for a little while I think TfL are looking to reduce the amount of operators in general (though they know this is not possible), and yes, they had a pipe dream of running the buses themselves, but that will never happen. Right now, they just need reliable buses to tempt more people from their cars and deliver cleaner air (hence the push to hybrids and electrics). Satire and humour aside, Sullivan's brought this on themselves, but it was the magnitude of the flounce that stunned people I don’t think TfL do want to reduce the amount of operators in the London market, it’s probably in their interest to have the opposite. Less operators = less competition = more complacent/higher prices. Look at the competition in 2017/18, routes getting four or five bids, with bargain basement prices left right and centre. This wasn’t good for operators, but TfL were loving it, and it played into their laps perfectly. Now we’re at the opposite end of the spectrum where operators will probably be able to second guess pretty well if they’ll be the sole bidder or not, and price accordingly knowing TfL have no other option. We don’t know (and probably won’t ever fully know) the ins and outs of the whole Sullivan’s vs TfL saga, I’m of the opinion it’s neither fully one way or the other. But the fact is Mr Sullivan towards the end came across as a very bolshy, arrogant, ‘it’s everyone else’s fault but mine’ type of person. I’m not casting aspersions saying that’s how he is, but he certainly came across like that. It doesn’t matter what the wrongs are, it’s certainly not good practice to end a working relationship in such a volcanic manor. Yet at the same time he loved to remind us Sullivan’s was proudly an SME. As a society we like small, independent businesses because we’re helping local honest people to make a living, with a family like ethos. Towards the end, the business showed its practices to be anything but that. Hanging drivers out to dry, sticking up a notice on the depot door saying we’re closed now, and sending out drivers an abrupt text message saying ‘we don’t work for London buses anymore, don’t come to work tomorrow’. There is no way that behaviour like that won’t draw attention from a lot of people about how they operated as a company, and will come to the conclusion that they behaved unacceptably. I’m not pointing fingers, I’m just saying it’s obvious how people will read it that way Let's face it contracting is already very flawed or the model isn't as great as it once was , there are now only 6 major companies many of them have a monopoly in certain areas so can put a bid in at a astronomical price as they know no one else will bid and also competitors garages may be full so won't bother bidding , you also have an increasing number of companies handing back contracts early as the cost to operate is just consistently increasing . Did anything like this happen during the 2008 recession ? I know a few independent operators went under in the Early 2000s but handing back contracts ? One bidder on routes ? Also paints a worrying picture of the UK wide bus network when this £2 freeze runs out later this year as no doubt there will be vast cuts all around the country as funding will be gone .
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 9, 2024 13:33:18 GMT
What I've got from reading that was Sullivans were doing so bad we gave them a contract to operate rail replacements even though we knew they couldn't operate the contracted bus routes 🤔 , whole thing stinks IMO of Incompetence from Tfl . On paper, they would have been perfect to run the Rail replacements considering they had a fairly large school bus fleet that wasn't being used. It may have also been that they were the only operator to bid for the work
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 9, 2024 13:50:26 GMT
What I've got from reading that was Sullivans were doing so bad we gave them a contract to operate rail replacements even though we knew they couldn't operate the contracted bus routes 🤔 , whole thing stinks IMO of Incompetence from Tfl . On paper, they would have been perfect to run the Rail replacements considering they had a fairly large school bus fleet that wasn't being used. It may have also been that they were the only operator to bid for the work I have to say though, it's rather odd to award a failing operator a railway replacement contract even if they were the only bidder left or were perfect on paper. Reward for failure isn't a good look in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 9, 2024 14:04:42 GMT
On paper, they would have been perfect to run the Rail replacements considering they had a fairly large school bus fleet that wasn't being used. It may have also been that they were the only operator to bid for the work I have to say though, it's rather odd to award a failing operator a railway replacement contract even if they were the only bidder left or were perfect on paper. Reward for failure isn't a good look in my eyes. This happens a lot, sometimes no other operator wants the hassle to set up with the ROSCO (rolling stock company) to finance the trains you will run, deal with staff TUPE, Network Rail and issues with track faults... and a lot think Great British Railway will come in and change everything very shortly. I guess in the case of Avanti, they have bought all those new Hitachi trains and a lot of it boils down to the ageing Victorian network and bottle necks. I don't know how Sullivan were for Rail Replacement, but it seemed there was lots of film work requiring buses (Netflix) so money was still coming in (even if funnelled to their Herts operation) It seems the school bus services were failing to turn up like Spurs in Cup games I wonder how long it will take for iBus to start working again on all these routes that Arriva and others are now running? It will cost a bit for TfL if the ETM's are off and everyone is being waved on for free
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Aug 9, 2024 14:20:21 GMT
What I've got from reading that was Sullivans were doing so bad we gave them a contract to operate rail replacements even though we knew they couldn't operate the contracted bus routes 🤔 , whole thing stinks IMO of Incompetence from Tfl . On paper, they would have been perfect to run the Rail replacements considering they had a fairly large school bus fleet that wasn't being used. It may have also been that they were the only operator to bid for the work Surely though if the company were struggling to provide a service or any service at all on some routes , you wouldn't turn around and offer them more work when you know they can't even manage the work they already have ? Unless the person dishing out the contracts or team is incompetent ? All very strange .
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 9, 2024 15:19:56 GMT
On paper, they would have been perfect to run the Rail replacements considering they had a fairly large school bus fleet that wasn't being used. It may have also been that they were the only operator to bid for the work Surely though if the company were struggling to provide a service or any service at all on some routes , you wouldn't turn around and offer them more work when you know they can't even manage the work they already have ? Unless the person dishing out the contracts or team is incompetent ? All very strange . We'll never know the full story with these Tabloids revelling in the chaos and continuing to post trash like this. Shameful
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 9, 2024 15:27:16 GMT
So far I have no said much on this one, but here are some overall thoughts.
In business the higher the risk, the greater are the expected rewards. Running bus services for TfL is considered low risk with a commensurately low reward. Operators do not even have to worry how many passengers use their services, the passenger number risk is held by TfL, all Operators have to do is put out a set number of buses each day and run them to the agreed performance levels. Contracts are for a reasonably long time giving Operators certainty. For a long time everyone was pretty happy until the apple cart has been upset in recent years. Cost pressures from TfL have made TfL look for cheaper tenders, and then there is the cost of living crisis which has resulted in large cost increases for all Operators.
Everything goes by what is the contract - something none of us see. Reading between the lines the contract price does increase over the life of the contract, on what basis I am unsure and certainly from what has been seen in recent times it hasn't matched the increase in costs Operators have faced. That is why several Operators have taken advantage of break clauses to get out of what have become loss making contracts. Operators can make extra money or be penalised according to performance. Clearly the contracts were never written for a world with recent inflation and cost increases.
Bringing this to Sullivan the cost increases seem to be unsustainable for them. A larger business can choose to subsidise services for a period with expectation that things will improve in future. Smaller business are less able to do this and it all comes back to where I started with risk and reward. If you are going to have the possibility of sustaining losses for a long period then you'll mitigate it in the price of the contract and look for a larger reward. I don't think any Operator has done this as no one could foresee the cost increases that were coming. Sullivan did try and cut costs and that may, we don't know, have impacted route performance. Post Covid traffic levels are up and that has made it tougher to meet the performance objectives for sure. What we don't know is to what extent post Covid traffic is the determining factor in the route performance reduction. Was TfL / Sullivans willing to put in a revised timetable, who was to pay for any extra resources, TfL, Sullivans? If Sullivans were making an unsustainable loss they may not have the funds to provide extra resources to bring performance back up. We simply don't know all the details. What was clear was that the routes did not meet the agreed performance levels and TfL seemed to be imposing penalties as per the contract. Penalties though are never going to work in a case like this as it seems Sullivans simply didn't have the resources to bring performance back, or if they did were not prepared to do so as their losses would be too huge. In terms of money owed by TfL to Sullivans, the contract should specify when TfL pay Sullivans. Did the contract say payments would be at once, or spread out? Again we don't know.
Clearly the route performance was unacceptable to TfL (and no doubt the passengers) and previous meetings between TfL and Sullivans got nowhere. I suspect Sullivans wanted more money and TfL did not offer that. What is not clear is whether TfL chose not to offer any help, or could not not offer any help as it would be outside the contract and have implications on other bus services. They may not have been able to offer to help to just one Operator.
TfL seemed to want Sullivans to terminate their TfL operations if they were not going to improve performance, but from Sullivans perspective they were getting insufficient funding to do so given their increased costs. I have no idea what the contract says about this situation. It seems the discussion on 2 August was, shall we say lively, resulting in an immediate pull out and termination by Sullivans, I would argue a disorderly termination as no service was in place for the next day. It was a great shame TfL and Sullivans could not have agreed a termination date in say two weeks or a month away for the sake of passengers and staff.
I have a lot of time for both TfL and Sullivans and can see their respective points of view. There is a lot we don't know. The current model doesn't deal with these unexpected cost increases for all Operators, especially small ones. TfL should look at this so they can welcome smaller Operators and not have a situation arise like this again while being fair to all the Operators. Learning for the future all round.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 9, 2024 18:05:18 GMT
How do we know TfL didn’t try that though? Mr Sullivan mentioned on his group he was discouraged from bidding so either he is lying or TfL are. If TFL did discourage them from bidding, I expect this would have been either due to the poor performance on their routes, or their unwillingness to electrify. Even if Sullivan hadn't ceased their TFL operations, they would have eventually come to a point where their existing diesel allocations were no longer compliant for new contracts.
|
|
|
Post by lj61nwc on Aug 9, 2024 19:30:23 GMT
Everything goes by what is the contract - something none of us see. Reading between the lines the contract price does increase over the life of the contract, on what basis I am unsure and certainly from what has been seen in recent times it hasn't matched the increase in costs Operators have faced. I think there's a one year inflation lag in the price raises which obviously doesn't favour operators when inflation is rising at the rate it has been over last few years.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 9, 2024 20:01:49 GMT
So far I have no said much on this one, but here are some overall thoughts. In business the higher the risk, the greater are the expected rewards. Running bus services for TfL is considered low risk with a commensurately low reward. Operators do not even have to worry how many passengers use their services, the passenger number risk is held by TfL, all Operators have to do is put out a set number of buses each day and run them to the agreed performance levels. Contracts are for a reasonably long time giving Operators certainty. For a long time everyone was pretty happy until the apple cart has been upset in recent years. Cost pressures from TfL have made TfL look for cheaper tenders, and then there is the cost of living crisis which has resulted in large cost increases for all Operators. Everything goes by what is the contract - something none of us see. Reading between the lines the contract price does increase over the life of the contract, on what basis I am unsure and certainly from what has been seen in recent times it hasn't matched the increase in costs Operators have faced. That is why several Operators have taken advantage of break clauses to get out of what have become loss making contracts. Operators can make extra money or be penalised according to performance. Clearly the contracts were never written for a world with recent inflation and cost increases. Bringing this to Sullivan the cost increases seem to be unsustainable for them. A larger business can choose to subsidise services for a period with expectation that things will improve in future. Smaller business are less able to do this and it all comes back to where I started with risk and reward. If you are going to have the possibility of sustaining losses for a long period then you'll mitigate it in the price of the contract and look for a larger reward. I don't think any Operator has done this as no one could foresee the cost increases that were coming. Sullivan did try and cut costs and that may, we don't know, have impacted route performance. Post Covid traffic levels are up and that has made it tougher to meet the performance objectives for sure. What we don't know is to what extent post Covid traffic is the determining factor in the route performance reduction. Was TfL / Sullivans willing to put in a revised timetable, who was to pay for any extra resources, TfL, Sullivans? If Sullivans were making an unsustainable loss they may not have the funds to provide extra resources to bring performance back up. We simply don't know all the details. What was clear was that the routes did not meet the agreed performance levels and TfL seemed to be imposing penalties as per the contract. Penalties though are never going to work in a case like this as it seems Sullivans simply didn't have the resources to bring performance back, or if they did were not prepared to do so as their losses would be too huge. In terms of money owed by TfL to Sullivans, the contract should specify when TfL pay Sullivans. Did the contract say payments would be at once, or spread out? Again we don't know. Clearly the route performance was unacceptable to TfL (and no doubt the passengers) and previous meetings between TfL and Sullivans got nowhere. I suspect Sullivans wanted more money and TfL did not offer that. What is not clear is whether TfL chose not to offer any help, or could not not offer any help as it would be outside the contract and have implications on other bus services. They may not have been able to offer to help to just one Operator. TfL seemed to want Sullivans to terminate their TfL operations if they were not going to improve performance, but from Sullivans perspective they were getting insufficient funding to do so given their increased costs. I have no idea what the contract says about this situation. It seems the discussion on 2 August was, shall we say lively, resulting in an immediate pull out and termination by Sullivans, I would argue a disorderly termination as no service was in place for the next day. It was a great shame TfL and Sullivans could not have agreed a termination date in say two weeks or a month away for the sake of passengers and staff. I have a lot of time for both TfL and Sullivans and can see their respective points of view. There is a lot we don't know. The current model doesn't deal with these unexpected cost increases for all Operators, especially small ones. TfL should look at this so they can welcome smaller Operators and not have a situation arise like this again while being fair to all the Operators. Learning for the future all round. Very interesting to read your analysis of events. I will counter this though, HCT had a very similar issue where they were heading very fast towards loss making and the point of no return. However instead of letting routes start losing mileage and buses not turning up they very quickly sourced a buyer to take over their TfL routes to ensure that there would be a continuity of service, this was done quickly but also enough notice given to ensure a seamless transition of ownership. Sullivan did neither of these things when it was clear that they were heading south. They let services suffer as a result despite they very clearly were past the point of no return and multiple people had their daily lives disrupted by what effectively became a form of managed decline instead of suitable action being taken in a timely manner. The arguments will probably rage on about who was more at fault here, but for me it's quite cut and dry if TfL set out the terms and Sullivan knew what they would and wouldn't get paid for. A company with the legal team of TfL who probably have a team in court probably everyday somewhere would not do anything that would set them up for a lawsuit and I'm sure should any payments be withheld that the legal teams would have scrutinised the contracts accordingly before holding them back.
|
|