On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:05:40 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote:

Stagecoach did an attack on LRT - Lothian Regional Transport, the
Edinburgh publicly-owned bus company. They ran competing services just before
the LRT bus, all sorts of piracy, to try to break and take over LRT. But they
failed. LRT was too big and strong. Stagecoach's attack on Darlington
transport succeeded, they beat it and took it over.

I think this is a somewhat simplistic analysis of both case histories
that you quote. First made a number of tactical errors in Edinburgh as
they alienated their own customer base by cutting routes and services to
provide vehicles for the competitive attack - IMO that is stupid. LRT
were able to defend themselves but it still cost them money and damaged
their network.

I'll confess to not being 100% up on the history of the Darlington
episode but I understand that Stagecoach had failed to secure the
purchase of Darlington Transport. This "loss" was deemed strategic
enough for Stagecoach to take pre-emptive action to prevent, IIRC,
United (now Arriva) from purchasing the Darlington business. Now, of
course, that would have given United a monopoly in the town whereas now
there is some theoretical competition between the two big groups.

For me the most shameful aspect was the use of Busways - a once proud
and excellent company - as the attack mechanism by Stagecoach to wreck
another decent, if a bit ragged around the edges, operation in the shape
of Darlington Transport. The North East's bus services have never been
the same since the worst excesses of deregulation were let rip.

Does the regulatory framework allow such piratical attacks on TfL's
bus network?

It was First Bus who were mad enough to contemplate taking on LRT in
Edinburgh whose MD, IIRC, is a former Stagecoach man. Not exactly who
you want as an adversary.

In London it is impossible for there to be competition in the same way
simply because there is no deregulation within Greater London. TfL
control the issuing of licences or more strictly London Service Permits
and London Local Service Agreements which allow for non TfL services to
operate within the TfL area. These mechanisms replace the old concept
of "Section 3/2" services which was the part of the old LRT Act that
permitted "commercial" services within London - typically routes that
run from a bordering county into the TfL area.

The new controls are part of the legal framework that establishes the
London Mayoralty, Greater London Authority and more specifically TfL as
an agency of the Mayor that fulfills his polices in respect of services
that he is responsible for - such as transport.

The nearest that anyone has got to a competitive London network was
Docklands Minibus under dear old Harry Blundred who launched a small
East London network with his familiar Ford Transits. LRT were forced by
Nicholas Ridley to grant a licence after initially refusing one. The
Docklands Minibus network foundered because LRT refused to allow entry
into the Travelcard scheme as this was within their discretion. As
travel is so centred on the Travelcard scheme in London and because cash
fares were higher than the normal London ones the minibuses never gained
sufficient patronage. In the end the routes were withdrawn, Docklands
Minibus won some tendered route contracts and then later sold out to
Stagecoach. There is still a remnant of the operation which concentrates
on private hire / contract business - again based near Silvertown.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article , Paul Corfield
wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:05:40 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote:

Stagecoach did an attack on LRT - Lothian Regional Transport, the
Edinburgh publicly-owned bus company. They ran competing services just
before the LRT bus, all sorts of piracy, to try to break and take over
LRT. But they failed. LRT was too big and strong. Stagecoach's attack on
Darlington transport succeeded, they beat it and took it over.
[snip]

Does the regulatory framework allow such piratical attacks on TfL's bus
network?
[snip]

In London it is impossible for there to be competition in the same way
simply because there is no deregulation within Greater London. TfL
control the issuing of licences or more strictly London Service Permits
and London Local Service Agreements which allow for non TfL services to
operate within the TfL area. These mechanisms replace the old concept
of "Section 3/2" services which was the part of the old LRT Act that
permitted "commercial" services within London - typically routes that
run from a bordering county into the TfL area.

The new controls are part of the legal framework that establishes the
London Mayoralty, Greater London Authority and more specifically TfL as
an agency of the Mayor that fulfills his polices in respect of services
that he is responsible for - such as transport.

The nearest that anyone has got to a competitive London network was
Docklands Minibus under dear old Harry Blundred who launched a small
East London network with his familiar Ford Transits. LRT were forced by
Nicholas Ridley to grant a licence after initially refusing one. The
Docklands Minibus network foundered because LRT refused to allow entry
into the Travelcard scheme as this was within their discretion. As
travel is so centred on the Travelcard scheme in London and because cash
fares were higher than the normal London ones the minibuses never gained
sufficient patronage. In the end the routes were withdrawn, Docklands
Minibus won some tendered route contracts and then later sold out to
Stagecoach. There is still a remnant of the operation which concentrates
on private hire / contract business - again based near Silvertown.


This is the answer to the question I was interested in. London's
transport is protected, in the interests of London and the London public.
Other towns exist as profit opportunities for anybody, so PTEs cannot
coordinate transport. Part of the phenomenon that the garden is more
carefully dug in London.

Michael Bell
--