Greater Manchester Tenders

[Mayneway]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(18/01/2022 18:48)iMarkeh Wrote:  I think it's deckers as it has a lot of school kids

Diamond specified they would use new buses.

[Mrboo]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(18/01/2022 03:17)djb Wrote:  If they never really wanted it, surely they wouldn’t have retendered for it (unless the did a high price and were surprised to get it?) They took over maynes in 2008? They can’t have inherited a decade long tender…..

As they then had the route in their duties with drivers used to the route and so it never any harm to put in a tender from that point as the drivers still need work if you lose it. And then they know the costs to bid and we don't know how many others wanted it. think how must hassle it was for DNW to take it over with no local depot so it clear it was no longer wanted as DNW you would think would of had to of put in a bigger bid due to mileage to start of route and for staff cars. but currently there not many wanting tenders as MCT under cut so many so many just dont have the drivers or buses as they moved their drivers on to non tenders work or schools.

[Mrboo]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(18/01/2022 18:48)iMarkeh Wrote:  I think it's deckers as it has a lot of school kids

used to always Decker at school time back in 1995 - 1997 when I used to.

[Mayneway]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(19/01/2022 01:19)Mrboo Wrote:  As they then had the route in their duties with drivers used to the route and so it never any harm to put in a tender from that point as the drivers still need work if you lose it. And then they know the costs to bid and we don't know how many others wanted it. think how must hassle it was for DNW to take it over with no local depot so it clear it was no longer wanted as DNW you would think would of had to of put in a bigger bid due to mileage to start of route and for staff cars. but currently there not many wanting tenders as MCT under cut so many so many just dont have the drivers or buses as they moved their drivers on to non tenders work or schools.

MCT didn’t undercut. They put prices in to operate contracts at a price they could run them at.

I don’t think Stagecoach or Diamond see the 171/172 as a hassle and rumours are rife it’s going back to Stagecoach. Logistically it would have always made more sense to run from Hyde Road.

[knutstransport]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders
MCT advertised themselves as a not-for-profit where any money made from contracted services which would be invested in to community services. I don't know how true that was in reality but if MCT were looking to at least break even when Stagecoach and Arriva were looking to return money to shareholders, it's obvious why MCT won the contracts.

[Mayneway]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(19/01/2022 10:13)knutstransport Wrote:  MCT advertised themselves as a not-for-profit where any money made from contracted services which would be invested in to community services. I don't know how true that was in reality but if MCT were looking to at least break even when Stagecoach and Arriva were looking to return money to shareholders, it's obvious why MCT won the contracts.

Well it’s very true. Look at the HCT group who owned MCT. They do exactly the same in London, Bristol and Yorkshire and it works well.
You can only undercut if you know what your competitors are willing to get paid to run a tender. They put in a price that they believed they could operate the tenders at, and did so very well for many years.

[Metroline1511]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders
Although route 88 starts at Eccles, it goes well south of Diamond's usual territory (now they have lost Altrincham routes). It just leaves routes 171/72, hinted above as being lost, and route 217 a long way from Diamond's usual territory.

The loss of route 288 suggests D&G prefer to focus on Cheshire & Staffordshire tenders rather than GM tenders.

[knutstransport]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(23/01/2022 11:46)Metroline1511 Wrote:  The loss of route 288 suggests D&G prefer to focus on Cheshire & Staffordshire tenders rather than GM tenders.

Little Gem won the 288 contract last year, when the Sunday service got reinstated having been withdrawn due to the COVID pandemic.

D&G have been running a weekday PVR of 8 from Wincham, with the 82 (PVR of 3) being run from Crewe for quite a while now, so there may be issues with them recruiting drivers for North & Mid Cheshire/South Manchester. It was suggested the Wincham outstation was so they could run Northwich services, where there's a lot more bus routes than Knutsford and Wilmslow. However, other than the 89, the Sunday locals and a John Deanes service they haven't been awarded any Northwich contracts. The 48 would have seemed ideal for a small operator - it was Howards first contract - but that's just gone to Stagecoach.

[Y458 KNF]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(23/01/2022 11:46)Metroline1511 Wrote:  Although route 88 starts at Eccles, it goes well south of Diamond's usual territory (now they have lost Altrincham routes). It just leaves routes 171/72, hinted above as being lost, and route 217 a long way from Diamond's usual territory.

The loss of route 288 suggests D&G prefer to focus on Cheshire & Staffordshire tenders rather than GM tenders.

Diamond have the evening 247s the only route of theirs left that goes to Altrincham I think in time Diamond will ditch some of the Eccles routes and transfer those kept to Bolton that have less dead mileage.

[Metroline1511]

RE: Greater Manchester Tenders

(23/01/2022 12:45)knutstransport Wrote:  Little Gem won the 288 contract last year, when the Sunday service got reinstated having been withdrawn due to the COVID pandemic.

D&G have been running a weekday PVR of 8 from Wincham, with the 82 (PVR of 3) being run from Crewe for quite a while now, so there may be issues with them recruiting drivers for North & Mid Cheshire/South Manchester. It was suggested the Wincham outstation was so they could run Northwich services, where there's a lot more bus routes than Knutsford and Wilmslow. However, other than the 89, the Sunday locals and a John Deanes service they haven't been awarded any Northwich contracts. The 48 would have seemed ideal for a small operator - it was Howards first contract - but that's just gone to Stagecoach.

Oh yes, it was because I rode route 288 last January that I forgot the tender had been won from D&G by Little Gem. I haven't even seen a Little gem bus on it having not been in the area at the right time since the change.