The Mon-Sat daytime service is run commercially by Velvet, so either they have agreed to hand the route to Xelabus or Xelabus have decided to attack. If the latter is true, then the highlighted wording on their website is rather ungentlemanly.
The section of the A between Hedge End and Southampton is not affected at the moment. Indeed it should see more passengers after the changes to First 8/8A from June.
Velvet have not yet confirmed whether or not they will continue to operate the Eastleigh-Hedge End section of the A.
The saga of the 67 route between Winchester and Petersfield is being covered over on our sister blog, British Bus Bugle.
For those thinking we are attacking Velvet - lets put it right AGAIN!.
ReplyDeleteVelvet have decided to not only withdraw from the Route 67 but the A service from Eastleigh to Hedge End as well as the Barton Peveril College contracts. All staff are aware at both companies.
Velvet will continue to operate a Hedge End to Southampton service and we are working together for through tickets at Hedge End between Velvet and Xelabus.
The Route 67 is in our eyes far from ideal but as Stagecoach had registered a commercial operation from West Meon to Winchester, HCC had no choice but to still provide a limited timetable for those that travel between both Petersfield and Winchester. There are many inefficiencies but this has been allowed for in the tender.
Xelabus will honour all return tickets issued by Stagecoach and Brijan but Stagecoach will NOT honour Xelabus so passengers who want to make the 20 mile journey not only have to change buses on schooldays but also have to pay TWO fares. Believe you me we do not see this as an attracting custom and not good for existing passengers!
Your readers may also be interested to know Xelabus are looking to make use of the redundant Travel Shop at Eastleigh Bus Station and be a one stop location for all operators publicity including not only bus but rail and ferries.
PHILIP BLAIR
Managing Director
Xelabus Limited
Oh dear this chap does seem to have a lack of faith in his own confidence having to defend himself on a public blog indicates there is more than meets the eye here
ReplyDeleteSouth West Trains must be loving the farce that these two outfits seem to attract.I thought operators were not supposed to collude on things,but obviously the splitting of the A is not a random event is it?
ReplyDeleteThe poor old bus users must all be saving up for a car,or buying rail season tickets as we speak.Any shreds of sympathy for Velvet must now have all gone.
I think Anon 11:18 is being rather harsh. We don't yet know the full story behind the situation so to suggest that Xelabus is on the defensive by merely stating their position is unjustified in my view. I for one am grateful for Philip Blair's contributions to this forum.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget we haven't yet heard what Velvet have to say.
Anon at 12:26: I think the splitting of the 67 (Winchester-Petersfield: technically outside of our coverage area, but discussed in the comments to previous posts) is more difficult for passengers than the potential splitting of the A. I doubt many people use the A to travel between destinations either side of Hedge End as in almost all cases an alternative, more direct, route exists.
Totaly agree with all you state-I notice on Velvet facebook where someone on last Friday asked about the A, and to most questions on this site would recieve a prompt reply,so far no comment has been made back to the person-PAC
DeleteRumour around Ringwood and Southampton to be reconnected again? Xelabus?
ReplyDeleteSee article on page 10 of today's Route One magazine. www.route-one.net
ReplyDeleteIn essence Velvet are to shrink and concentrate with the College services transferring to Xelabus, following a difficult winter.
The full A route is very difficult on timekeeping; One of the reasons SBL abandoned the old 27(?) route.
ReplyDeleteThis will leave Velvet as a Southampton based operator rather than an Eastleigh based one. Change of depot perhaps? Wonder if Xela will also take over the evening X7/E8 tender as well??
I also agree it is good that the two Phils post on here. I too value what they have to say; I may not agree with everything but they are a valued input and please Mr Blair do not be put off from posting. It is great that you do,
Splitting the 67 is a classic Stagecoach trick to ensure only they get the tender, as is refusing other operators' tickets. One might feel as the established network provider in the area, they'd have got the tender.
ReplyDeleteNow the other bidders might have also seen Stagecoach going for the section they know will make them a decent return, and act accordingly, or the council, acting accordingly as they'd have been sent the service registrations?
Still, give it 8 weeks and Stagecoach could be operating the whole service. For all their ills, they've at least got some ability to stick with a service and develop it.
I feel very sad to see Velvet as it is now. Barton Perveril was part of the solid base that provided the means for the company to grow, and they've got rid of that, together with the route that started them off, to xelabus. No doubt there will be some sadness, but it could also allow Velvet to develop stronger services that become viable. They've got a good record of developing things from scratch locally. They've also developed a decent, quality operation, that has a USP of doing things differently, with a loyal following amongst most of their younger customers. I hope it is not the end for them.
I suspect you may be right with this being a "Stagecoach trick", however is it not the responsibility of the council when awarding tenders to ensure that service meets the needs of passengers, and without increasing the need for subsidy by inadvertently creating a service significantly less practical or usable than the one being replaced?
DeleteAm I right in thinking that HCC in theory place a 80% weighting to price and 20% on service quality etc.?
Velvet have now deregistered the A on VOSA and re-registered it as Hedge End-Southampton only. Curiously though the replacement X4 has been registered by both Xelabus and Velvet.
ReplyDeleteI would guess that, ticketing arrangements aside, the new A would still need to have positioning journeys, so they might as well be revenue-earning journeys on the new X4 rather than dead mileage.
ReplyDeleteFor clarification Eastleigh BC and HCC have to go through their procurement processes and as Velvet run the 3 evening journeys on the A and the X7 Thurs, Fri and Saturday evenings plus Sundays and their commercial routes E8 we have not at this point been granted these trips although Phil Stockley has notified the authorities he wishes to give these up. The Velvet X4 journeys are in fact his current subsidised A journeys in the evening and the numbering is similar to the X7 evening journeys but calling the Hedge End evening service X4 to match the daytime operation by us.
ReplyDeleteI notice we still continue to get criticised although we are increasing the frequency on our X7 to 30 mins from hourly during the day and looking to fund a travel shop at Eastleigh Bus Station??
PHILIP BLAIR
Managing Director
Xelabus Limited
As always I welcome the fact that you contrbute to this site.I'm sure it has not gone un noticed that the X7 frequency will be increased. However not necessarily your operation, as others have operated the section between Eastleigh and Fryern Hill over the last number of years,and by now the potential customers over this section, must be sick and tired of the changes to frequency. One minute they have a 30 minute frequency,the next they have an hourly frequency,then back to 30 minutes,then back to hourly,and now 30 minutes is proposed again.If your a worker how can you plan your day out with continual change to frequency.Stability and reliability is what customers want,although no bus operator can do anything about continual roadworks and road closures, when they happen,but customers accept this when it occurs. I'm pleased you wish to reopen the old travel shop in Eastleigh bus station, for information to provide the public for all operators wether bus,ship,ferry,train etc.If this happens it will be excelent for all customers in having everthing in one place,instead of having to troll round numerous sites to find information,so good luck to that one.Not of your doing,because i'm sure you would have not had it the way it's turned out, but the lovely 67 route has now been turned into a total mess,which I and am sure others hope will be somewhat changed later in the year,so it's made convienient to use,instead of the ridiculous change overs on some journeys in the middle of nowhere at West Meon Hut. With the changes about to happen, may I for one wish all good luck to you and Velvet, and see some stability in the new networks, that customer confidence can be restored.. - PAC
DeleteFWIW Phil Blair, there is a lot to like about your operation, and what the image projects. Clean, tidy buses, a traditional livery designed to give an air of stability and longevity. A business model that maximises off peak resource to the max, with stable peak hour contracts.
DeleteWhat I like a lot less is the continual starting and stopping of services, and the instability that projects, which runs against the good image your vehicles and your operation projects. It gives the opposite impression of a stable, established operator which is what your livery and vehicle quality projects. And that is sad. You're not even giving the things you introduce time to bed in and get established. It's disappointing, for there is, as I said at the beginning of my post, a lot to like about your operation and the fleet you operate.
More power to you for becoming in recent times, a stable operation, one that can grow and prosper.
I still feel you've missed a massive opportunity in not taking on what is arguably your biggest rival for the work you do and the services you operate. But you have been clear enough on why you didn't conclude that transaction, perhaps a bigger resourced operator would have done so - running Velvet as a low cost unit pitching for work the big boys don't want, as the smaller operator does have its place in the industry.
The saga of the 67 is being covered over on our national sister blog, British Bus Bugle - http://busbugle.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/change-and-pay-again-at-west-meon-hut.html
ReplyDeleteWell I think it's good that the Phils open up on here as it stops all the conspiracy theories & rumours. The proof is in the pudding as it were. If Xela screw up the Velvet A I'm sure someone else will step in to take it over. Or indeed a big-boy may be thinking of running their own version to quieten the upstart Xela for thinking big. On the other hand Xela may surprise everyone & actually run on time with decent buses. Ticketing isn't such a big thing thesedays. Think Solent Travelcard. However, will Xela be joining PLUSBUS?
ReplyDeleteCould Xela just not register their own journeys on the Stagecoach commercial bit of the 67 & then passengers can have the choice of going all the way on a Xelabus? Would be in the Passengers interest. Stagecoach clearly "gambled" that they would get the 67 tender & lost.
ReplyDeleteIt does look like Stagecoach are playing games with this service. There is no logic to running a commercial service that goes Winchester to West Meon Hut (or rather a layby that currently isn't a bus stop and in the middle of no where). Stagecoach messed up the 67 service back in 2011 when they changed the route of service 64 and withdrew from the Itchen valley, forcing HCC to redirect the 67 through the Itchen valley with an increase in total journey time. Stagecoach said they couldn't operate the old 64 journey commercially.
ReplyDeleteNow apparently they can operate a commercial journey on the route! It's a complete mess and only the passengers are going to lose out to Stagecoach's games - not only a change of buses in the middle of the journey, a possible increase in fares, no through ticketing and yet another increase in journey time. Just 3 years ago it was possible to travel from Petersfield to Winchester in something like 55 minutes, which is long enough when compared to road, in 2011 it increased to around 75 minutes and now it will be more than 80 minutes...
It seems with all the large group operators that they run a commercial service when it suits them. As someone has pointed out in the instance of service 67, a few years ago it was not commercial to operate between Winchester and New Alresford via Itchen Abbas on the old 64 and that's why the council had to propose a tender to reroute the 67 between Winchester and New Alresford,to accomodate that the route via Itchen Abbas was no longer viable commercially,but suddenly, it on some journeys seems to be commercially viable again by Stagecoach. Service 67 is not the only example where with large group operators suddenly find sections of route to be commercially viable again,as we have now with timetable changes in June 2014 in Southampton,where First on Sundays withdrew at the last change the Sunday daytime service on 12 between Lordshill and Aldermoor, and the evening service on 12 between Townhill Park and Bitterne which they at the time stated wern't commercially viable,only to at the June 2014 change to reinstate them. It's obvious to me that some planners at these various large operators are incompedent at deciding what is commercial and what is not,because unless there is an extreme change within months of making a commercial decision as to people travelling habbits they are just playing games PAC
DeleteIt is unfortunate for passengers that the 67 will by run by two operators, but entirely understandable that Stagecoach chose to register part of the route commercially.
ReplyDeletePrior to October 2011 the residents of Alresford had 3 buses an hour on different routes to Winchester, leaving the village at 08, 23 and 30 minutes past the hour - not ideal. Stagecoach made the decision at that time that they wished to improve the Alton to Winchester service to half hourly and better serve the residential areas of Alresford with the 64.
This left HCC with the option of serving the Itchen Valley with a separate service or incorporating it into the 67, which they did. 67 in the 1990s was only 5-6 through journeys a day, but was increased to hourly with rural bus grant funding. That money has now dried up so the service has reverted back to the sort of frequency one would expect on a rural service, with journeys provided for school and colleges plus shopping journeys between the peaks.
Stagecoach have obviously decided that the service they have registered meets most demand from the villages into Winchester and is more sustainable than the hourly service through the Itchen Valley which they previously operated commercially up until 2011. HCC could have negotiated with Stagecoach to extend some or all of their commercially registered journeys to/from Petersfield using 'de minimus' payments, but they chose not to. The result is the current offering. Concessionary passholders will not suffer apart from having to change buses part way through their journey - the entire journey will still be free for them. Those that will suffer will be fare paying passengers needing to cross West Meon on Schooldays, who will need to pay twice, but is that Stagecoach's fault? Why would they accept another operators through tickets on a commercial service?
Although the new situation is far from ideal, actually very few passengers travel across West Meon Hut - the natural flows have always been from West and East Meon towards Petersfield and from Bramdean and Cheriton towards Winchester.
I'm sorry but it is simply not understandable or reasonable for Stagecoach to operate commercially to West Meon Hut - there is absolutely nothing there. Winchester to Alresford via the Itchen Valley I could understand (though not only on schooldays), but running to West Meon Hut is simply a bare-faced attempt to hold the council to ransom in it's awarding of the rest of the tender. The OFT did refer to exactly this practice in it's bus industry investigation - Salami Slicing was the term it coined, which I think is quite a descriptive way of putting it.
DeleteThe fundamental problem with the current regulations is this - it cannot be right that an operator's tactical antics in the middle of nowhere can make a council legally unable to secure a direct link between a pair of significant towns. If the democratically elected council decides that Winchester and Petersfield need linking, and no commercial service is linking them, then it should be able to secure that link, period. Claiming that HCC could have negotiated with Stagecoach under de-minimis rules is not an answer, as that obviously puts Stagecoach in a monopoly position and gives them enormous power in those negotiations - it would also encourage more of this sort of tactical behavior in future.
Holding local councils, or perhaps passengers to ransom seems to be one of their favourite things to do ATM: http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/indepth/silverhill/11153794.New_clash_over_Silver_Hill_scheme_in_Winchester/?ref=arc
DeleteNot to mention that due to throwing their toys out the pram at the city council there very nearly wasn't any buses (the subsidised 64 & BS1 excepted) on Easter Monday in the city at all.
It seems rather unethical to me to start pushing passengers around a political chessboard ready to be sacrificed like pawns in order to dictate and control local transport policy.
Whilst unethical, all big operators have form for this practice. It's also known as 'gaming'. Some will argue that it reduces cost to the council, and it might well do, but it also allows the operator to ensure only they get the tender. Stagecoach, in this instance will have historic revenue and patronage data for the service and will be able to make various assumptions on the service.
DeleteAs Velvet have been subject to a recent takeover attempt Stagecoach will no doubt assume they are now a threat to their operations, and with the handing back of the tender, this means that a competitor may come into their area, firstly on a tender, then find other services that are commercial.
It's worth considering the context of the registration. First have operated tenders around Winchester, Wheelers is expanding and Go Ahead have aggressively tendered, and won established operations in Stagecoach's traditional area, all of which has no doubt been considered by Stagecoach before the registering of the 67 they view as viable. HCC can tender the rest, and it either goes to another operator, then that's HCCs problem.
It is what happens when operators get monopolies, they seek to protect them. Why should it be a surprise?
Well, you could easily argue, why isn't Xelabus running commercial journeys in competition with Stagecoach over the commercial section? That way passengers could travel all the way on one fare & no change of bus & Xela could poach passengers from Stagecoach. Stop picking on Stagecoach. They made a commercial business decision that West Meon Hut was as far as they'd go without any extra money from HCC. Let them keep to that. HCC decided that in the best interests of passengers they'd not "de-minimus" Stagecoach. HCC could have done that & tendered the Sat service as a stand alone service. If Stagecoach do not want to accept Xela tickets it's up to them. If say Tesco didn't want to accept Sainsbury's money-off coupons no one would bat an eye lid. Remember this is what de-regulation is all about! If Xela & S'coach could reach an agreement re fares then it's a different matter. Xela HAVE to take S'coach tickets as part of the tender contract, not thru the goodness of their own heart.
ReplyDeleteI expect the reason that Xelabus aren't running competing journeys is because most small operators know that attempting to do so against Stagecoach is likely to be suicidal.
DeleteIf Tesco and Sainsburys don't accept each others money off vouchers no one bats an eyelid because they are completely separate stores and you complete your whole transaction for each purchase in either one or the other. You don't end up in a situation where both stores demand payment for the same item!
An alien looking down from outer space (or even a European looking across from the continent) would be utterly baffled that we consider this mess to be the best possible way to organise a transport network.
I agree the transport network is pants, but both bus companies are not demanding payment for the same item. The whole "transaction" (Winchester to Petersfield regular buses) no longer exists after Velvet finish their contract. S'coach now have their route 67 & Xela their route 67. Technically two separate routes. S'coach have no wish to go any further = commercial decision. HCC decided that they wanted to 're-instate' the route & Xela won the tender process & as part of that contract HCC put in that Xela have to take S'coach tickets. Xela knew that when they bid. If Xela are not going to run any further than their contract states that's fair enough as they are being paid money to run their journeys. If Joe Public can't complete his "transaction" in one journey or one shop as it were, the blame lays with bus deregulation process. Or in other words the Govt & MP's & then the people who put them there in the first place!
DeleteOf course this whole situation could have been avoided had Velvet not pulled out of their obligation to run the route for the duration of the tender.Surely there should be some form of penalty clause,or compensation owed to HCC when a contract is handed back before the end? Imagine if HCC cut the tender short from their side,one can imagine the cries of woe about lost income etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat bus custom there was between Petersfield and Winchester must have been seriously eroded by this saga.Tenders hardly encourage patronage growth either,as there is nothing in it for the operators to try and grow usage...empty buses pay as much as full ones on a tendered route.Oddly,one would imagine small independents would be more savvy,as once the county support gets cut,they simply lose work.
It's not correct to say "Empty buses pay as much as full ones on a tendered route" because any fares taken = profit for the operator. Yes the operator could be running empty all day & they'll keep the tender money, but any money taken on the route is profit!
DeleteI've deliberately kept out of the discussion about what the future 67 should look like, but Anon at 16:18 highlights some misconceptions that I would like to address...
ReplyDelete"Of course this whole situation could have been avoided had Velvet not pulled out of their obligation to run the route for the duration of the tender."
What obligation?
"Imagine if HCC cut the tender short from their side,one can imagine the cries of woe about lost income etc. "
There is nothing unusual about exactly that. In fact they have just announced a review of all their subsidised services, widely reported on this blog and others. It is highly likely that some contracts will be curtailed or modified as a result of this.
"Surely there should be some form of penalty clause,or compensation owed to HCC when a contract is handed back before the end?"
If HCC want contracts with such clauses in, they can have them. But obviously the effect would be higher tender prices because operators would want to take a more cautious view of likely revenue.
"Tenders hardly encourage patronage growth either,as there is nothing in it for the operators to try and grow usage...empty buses pay as much as full ones on a tendered route."
That's not true at all. In almost all of HCC's public transport contracts, the operator keeps the revenue. That makes it very much in the operator's interests to achieve patronage growth.
Just to explain a bit further, all HCC contracts are written to give either side the opportunity to terminate the contract without penalty at two months' notice. This is probably the least onerous contracting regime I have worked with. The downside is that it can lead to instability, the upside is that it gives both sides more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.
When Hampshire issue a tender, there is usually no revenue information at all, and very little (if any) patronage information. That's not a criticism at all - they have finite officer resources available - but it means that if you're not the incumbent operator, you have to take a wild guess at what the revenue is likely to be. Inevitably one's guess will not always be correct!
In another tendering regime with which I am familiar, the tenders contain highly detailed revenue information and if it proves to be incorrect, the operator can go back and ask for the tender price to be reviewed. But the quid pro quo is that it is virtually impossible for operators to terminate such contracts early.
In this case, Hampshire choose to apply contracts that are much less onerous, give flexibility to both sides to get out early, and operators take account of this in their pricing. Hampshire have chosen to have it that way, both sides know the rules before they start, and it therefore seems unfair to criticise any operator or the council themselves if they play by those rules!
May I say a big thank you to Exelabus who are showing the complete service timetable for service 67 on their website, and the timeline site.So far as I post only the Winchester to West Meon Hut section is shown on timeline for Stagecoach South, and nothing on their own website for the service.Although it's up to them,that being Stagecoach, what they show. Exelabus have on this site been critisied in the past over certain issues,but we can see on this ocassion the operator who is interested in the people living in the area affected, and the one who is not.Full marks to Exelabus and shame on Stagecoach South. Good luck to Exelabus in the new venture. PAC
ReplyDeleteJust to let you know Anon at 15:44, not complaining just making you aware, it is Xelabus not Exela bus, Xela is an anagram of Alex.
DeleteMay be interested to know that a new Discovery ticket will be introduced on buses across West Sussex, East Sussex, Surrey, Brighton & Hove and East Hampshire from Monday 19th May which will in effect replace the Explorer ticket across these areas. Stagecoach South and Xelabus are part of the Discovery scheme, so this £8.50 ticket for an adult may be useful for journeys on the 67 using both operators.
ReplyDeleteMore info at www.metrobus.co.uk/discovery
Indeed it will be very usefull-Also the Solent Rover at £8 between Winchester and Petersfield would act as a day return and the £30 ticket as a weekly for cummuters if there are any.Let's just hope where there is a change of vehicle, too many problems are not had.
DeleteSolent Travelcard is only valid for local journeys within Winchester on the 67, not for through journeys to Petersfield.
DeleteSounds good! The fare problem solved!
Delete