Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
 29/10/2018 - Avocet line AGM
30/10/2018 - Minehaed Rail Link Group
31/10/2018 - CCIF Applications close
06/11/2018 - Talk Oxford / 800 intro
10/11/2018 - RailFuture National Conference
13/11/2018 - PEW, Wolmar, to edge of world
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
October 23, 2018, 09:55:42 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[97] Where have I been this month
[58] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[56] Bath - clean air and congestion
[41] Four track for Filton Bank - ongoing discussion
[34] Hotels and B&Bs near railway stations
[27] 2018 cancellation and amendment log
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Nippy Bus (Somerset) folds?  (Read 6517 times)
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3402


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2017, 12:38:08 pm »

In principle, if you specify what you need exactly, and reject any bids that don't comply, you could reasonably take the lowest price bid and ignore any extras that were offered in it. Life isn't often like that, but it can come close, and of course comparing two numbers is relatively easy. However, I would hope that local authorities, who do a lot of contracting, can cope with assessing a range of other factors.

What is genuinely difficult is judging the credibility of a bidder, and justifying not believing their offer. I suppose that in theory it's their own loss if they get it wrong, and that should hold for big bidders. However, the existence of limited liability means it's not just their loss in the case of a small company'. And it's not unheard of for the boss of a small company to take a desperate lunge at landing a job as the last chance of avoiding failure.
Logged
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3094

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2017, 04:26:21 pm »

For the financial repute element of holding an o licence for buses the operator is supposed to have an amount per vehicle in reserve funds. 4000 or 5000 I believe it is per vehicle. A council should be able to assume this is the case.
Logged
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 16069


Question everything.


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2017, 05:28:52 pm »

The requirement of a bond from the operator could be written into the tender contract.

Won't prevent insolvency on the part of the operator, but could shield the LA from having to dip into their emergency contingency funding to organise short notice cover. 
Logged

Former FGW/GWR regular passenger. No more. Despicable company.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9701


View Profile Email
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2017, 06:11:26 pm »

Presumably in that case, operators go bust sooner, if they can't fall back on their bond?

By the time the council use this bond for relief buses, you're presumably at the same date as if the operator had spent their bond before going bust?
Logged
bignosemac
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 16069


Question everything.


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2017, 07:06:43 pm »

Huh? I'm suggesting the contractor has to give the LA a bond. It won't be the contractors to use to stave off insolvency. These could be bonds similar to those required by the ATOL scheme.

The bond is there to protect the public purse from further unreclaimable expense.
Logged

Former FGW/GWR regular passenger. No more. Despicable company.
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3094

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2017, 07:47:29 pm »

the NippyBus N9 between Martock and Yeovil replaced First S&A (as then was) Service 52 over that route so it seems that things will go back to how they were but will incorporate the route of Service N8.

SWC had the 667 previously before loosing it to NippyBus on tender.

As for the 669 Frome Minibuses had it previously but haven't operated it since 12th June 2016 after which NippyBus took it over under tender from SCC.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9701


View Profile Email
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2017, 08:56:15 am »

Huh? I'm suggesting the contractor has to give the LA a bond. It won't be the contractors to use to stave off insolvency. These could be bonds similar to those required by the ATOL scheme.

And I'm not querying that either.
Where do they get the funding from gfor this bond? Yup, their cash reserves, which are then depleted by the amount of the bond, and thus they have less cash to run their buses. Thus they go bust sooner.

The bond then covers replacement buses, and would probably expire (used p) by the time the company would have gone bust if there was no bond & they spent the same cash keeping their operation going that much longer. Swings & roundabouts.




Edit note: Quote marks fixed, purely in the interests of clarity. CfN.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 11:48:09 pm by Chris from Nailsea » Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1554


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2017, 09:27:21 am »

And if the operators were making a profit it wouldn't matter. That they don't is a symptom of wider problems in transport, public and private.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9701


View Profile Email
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2017, 09:29:53 am »

yup - we should pay more council tax so that these companies can make a profit.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2990


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2017, 09:31:30 am »

Huh? I'm suggesting the contractor has to give the LA a bond. It won't be the contractors to use to stave off insolvency. These could be bonds similar to those required by the ATOL scheme.

And I'm not querying that either.
Where do they get the funding from gfor this bond? Yup, their cash reserves, which are then depleted by the amount of the bond, and thus they have less cash to run their buses. Thus they go bust sooner.

The bond then covers replacement buses, and would probably expire (used p) by the time the company would have gone bust if there was no bond & they spent the same cash keeping their operation going that much longer. Swings & roundabouts.

The company might not need to put down the capital. Bonds can be bought a bit like an insurance policy. That would mean some companies would have to pay higher premiums than others - and some companies would be considered uninsurable. That would obviously then be factored into the tender, but then the tenders would all be on the basis of equal risk to the local authority and to the travelling public.  

I hope I corrected the quotes in my quote correctly




Edit note: Yes, you did. I've now corrected the quote marks in the previous post, too, in the interests of clarity. CfN.  Wink
« Last Edit: November 02, 2017, 11:52:18 pm by Chris from Nailsea » Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2990


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2017, 09:33:46 am »

yup - we should pay more council tax so that these companies can make a profit.

The problem seems to be that they do not make a profit at all - that is why so many of them are going bust!  And leaving the local authority to pick up the bill. 
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9701


View Profile Email
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2017, 10:19:55 am »

hence my suggestion. the taxpayer shoulders the council's expenditure, whether through the initial contract or after they go bust.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22161



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2017, 10:44:00 am »

From the Daily Mail - their angle:

Quote
Drivers hit out at 'disgusting' bus company boss 'who spent all his time in Thailand' after he sacked entire staff by telling them: 'I can't work with you a moment longer'
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Member of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and some more things besides
chrisr_75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1019


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2017, 11:08:52 am »

Remarkably restrained and un-Daily Mail like comments section on that article so far!  Huh
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1554


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2017, 03:27:26 pm »

yup - we should pay more council tax so that these companies can make a profit.
That might help Nippy Bus and other local bus operators, but what about ToCs? And although airlines don't get subsidies (at least in the conventional sense), the overall airline industry rarely if ever makes a profit.
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants