15/04/2016, 16:02
15/04/2016, 19:23
(15/04/2016 16:02)T42 PVM Wrote: [ -> ]Routemaster still got then Nantwich Tenders but i cant see how a Daily PVR of 1 will keep the company going
Could be that the tender has been handed backed and is in the process of being re-awarded possibly on an emergency basis.
But it's not unheard of for a smaller operator to dramatically scale back and just retain one/several smaller contracts. Unlike commercial work contracts are guarenteed income which if they have been hit hard is just what they need to stay afloat.
In my neck of the woods Checkmate travel survive on just a couple of small contracts it can and does work.
15/04/2016, 20:34
I do wonder if the competition on the C84 has caused more damage to Routemaster than first thought.
15/04/2016, 20:46
(15/04/2016 20:34)St Helens Rider Wrote: [ -> ]I do wonder if the competition on the C84 has caused more damage to Routemaster than first thought.
Thats what am blaming it on as they was doing ok on there until GHA came along, within a couple of weeks Routemaster Buses pulled their C84 off, Apparently as they was in danger of going under
15/04/2016, 20:51
It is common for VOSA to reduce/cancel licences (and fine) operators that fail to run a service before it is officially de-registered, regardless of the routes financial liability.
15/04/2016, 23:14
I'm loathed to say that we carnt always point the finger of blaim at GHA. Any company big or small has to be of good financial standing and as it's already been said, when you take on a commercial service, even on an exsisting corridor like the 84 it comes with risks and after initial outlays it can be months before a service starts making a good return, given the fact that just a couple of months in, Routemasters have seemingly crumbled, it dosen't say much for their financial standing, and let's be honest it's already been mentioned that they did carry passegers and wernt just running empty every trip.
16/04/2016, 09:23
(15/04/2016 20:51)Raawwwrrr! Wrote: [ -> ]It is common for VOSA to reduce/cancel licences (and fine) operators that fail to run a service before it is officially de-registered, regardless of the routes financial liability.
Usually that takes a while to do and if usually it'll appear on VOSA as 'revoked' opposed to 'cancellation accepted.'
16/04/2016, 09:49
Are they paying for the Geminis and Commanders on finance? That must be quite a big expense for them.
16/04/2016, 09:52
(15/04/2016 23:14)Mayneway Wrote: [ -> ]I'm loathed to say that we carnt always point the finger of blaim at GHA. Any company big or small has to be of good financial standing and as it's already been said, when you take on a commercial service, even on an exsisting corridor like the 84 it comes with risks and after initial outlays it can be months before a service starts making a good return, given the fact that just a couple of months in, Routemasters have seemingly crumbled, it dosen't say much for their financial standing, and let's be honest it's already been mentioned that they did carry passegers and wernt just running empty every trip.
Routemaster did once say they didn't know how they would be able to afford newer accessible double deckers: http://routemasterlocalbuses.co.uk/route...-magazine/
It's seems acquiring those newer deckers and then GHA taking their C84 passengers combined has led to their downfall.
16/04/2016, 09:56
(15/04/2016 20:51)Raawwwrrr! Wrote: [ -> ]It is common for VOSA to reduce/cancel licences (and fine) operators that fail to run a service before it is officially de-registered, regardless of the routes financial liability.
No, it isn't 'common'. In fact it simply cannot happen. DVSA (the successor to VOSA) has no say whatsoever in licence revocation, vehicle authorisation or the issue of fines for failure to run services. That's the job of the Traffic Commissioner and her deputies.