GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)

[quahogbuscompany]

RE: GHA Group (Bryn Melyn, Vale Travel + Others)
TfGM do not provide any subsidy for the 200 what so ever. The only input from TfGM is the fact that the System One Travelcard is accepted. Unless a fee of £350 is paid to System One Travelcards Ltd, then no recompensation would be forthcoming. The tender is put out by Cheshire East and although the emergency tender is due to expire soon, no operator has been informed who will be taking the contract on. This is also true for the 27, P1 and various Macclesfield services. Operators such as Howards/Springfield are being passed from pillar to post being messed about by Cheshire East who right now don't seem to know their arse from their elbow. I'm sure it would put any new operators coming into the world of tendered local bus services if they knew what a frustrating situation it has become.

(25/09/2016 11:41)Dentonian Wrote:  TFGM don't produce 88, 289 etc Guides because they are ECCC tenders (or part tenders) that don't parallel other Operators' services by much. Also, its impractical because East Cheshire don't have fixed change dates like TFGM, and as we have seen with 289, neither ECCC or the Operator have kept TFGM up to date with late changes. That's why I mentioned the point about Operators having to copy TFGM in on registration/variations that enter Greater Manchester.
Similarly, the 130, because GHA didn't inform TFGM of the various changes to Wilmslow-Macc journeys, we didn't revise the Guides to show these journeys. As such, it worked in GHA's favour as TFGM didn't charge them for publicising changes TFGM weren't aware of!
The 200 is an interesting example, as it is now recognised that TFGM do provide a subsidy. For a long time, I've been told that TFGM have no control over its operation, because TFGM don't subsidise it! Albeit, this was mainly a false argument about accepting System One tickets and TFGM staff passes. The point being ticket validity is purely based on the authority who's area the journey is being made in, not who (if anyone) is subsidising the service.
As regards publicity - again TFGM don't produce the Bus Guide, so don't invoice the Operator. With stops, there are only a small number of stops (as with 289) so any costs incurred would hardly break the bank. Generally, its slightly more complicated with stops, as they might be served by a number of Operators with a mix of tendered and commercial services/journeys. Generally though, apart from maintenence costs spread proportionaly, it would be down o whoever instigated the change - ie. whoever calls the tune, pays the piper). With a TFGM contract, TFGM would pay to update the display. The 200 is virtually unique in having more than one Authority involved in its subsidy/specification. I think East Cheshire (along with possibly, MAplc) contribute the most, with TFGM and the National Trust only contributing a small amount based on the principal of a service running to link both Wilmslow and the RVP with the Airport. Again, the actual detail seems to be down to ECCC, resulting in TFGM not being advised of changes. As such, the Operator (now Springfields) might be invoiced, largely because TFGM didn't know about the early September changes, and therefore had to rip down Displays that had just been put up for other Operators' changes registered properly for 4th September. In saying that, I'm not sure if how many Displays are actually involved, as it would only be Ringway Road that is currently shared with 19, 44 & 369. Ironically, from 31st October, the 200 will actually become the most frequent route on Ringway Road as 19 & 369 are withdrawn (between the Airport & Wythenshawe) apart from a couple of early morning journeys, and subject to TFGMC approval, the 44 will be reduced to five round trips a day.