Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Apellation Controlee wrote:
I was interested in the *actual* cost - not some statistic plucked from
the air.

Unless you think the LA pays for every bus ticket individually.

They do in this area - You "buy" a zero-value ticket for each journey
and the pass card is read by a contact sensor on the ticket machine.

Bureaucracy gone mad.

Not really. It's the easiest way to keep the bus company honest and let
the council know just how popular the passes are.

It's no more bureaucratic than insisting that every paying passenger
must have a valid ticket. That's to make sure the drivers and passengers
are honest.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , Apellation
Controlee writes
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:06:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The trouble is it's all too easy to base the cost on the number of
passenger journeys those with passes make.

That "cost" is what the LAs have to pay to the bus companies.

I was interested in the *actual* cost - not some statistic plucked from
the air.

Unless you think the LA pays for every bus ticket individually.

They do in this area - You "buy" a zero-value ticket for each journey
and the pass card is read by a contact sensor on the ticket machine.
So they do here, but they still pay on basis of average adult fare per
journey.
Does the driver actually put in your destination?
--
bert

In message , John Williamson
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Apellation Controlee wrote:
I was interested in the *actual* cost - not some statistic plucked from
the air.

Unless you think the LA pays for every bus ticket individually.

They do in this area - You "buy" a zero-value ticket for each
journey
and the pass card is read by a contact sensor on the ticket machine.
Bureaucracy gone mad.

Not really. It's the easiest way to keep the bus company honest and let
the council know just how popular the passes are.

Quite so. There was quite a lot of fraud under the manual system, In
Manchester area they did charge per actual journey and it was observed
that drivers would issue a ticket to the end of the route rather than
the actual journey.
Also in our area one company's drivers were on occasions observed
printing out several phoney free tickets - and then throwing them in the
bin.
It's no more bureaucratic than insisting that every paying passenger
must have a valid ticket. That's to make sure the drivers and
passengers are honest.


--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , John Williamson
writes
tim..... wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
The added cost to the operator of carrying an extra passenger is
minutely more than twice (One lot for boarding, the other for getting
off) the extra fuel used to accelerate from a standing start to
running speed over and above the fuel used for constant speed
running. assuming only one person boards or alights per stop, unless
the extra passenger use due to the pass triggers a requirement for
an extra or larger vehicle. The labour cost is near to zero, as any
extra time the stop takes is absorbed in the reserve time in the
timetable.

You've omitted a more serious one - the bus is full so a 'paying'
passenger can't board.

No, that's just an inconvenience for the passenger, it's not normally
a cost to either the company or the council. At worst, one full fare
is lost, but if the route is that busy, it's normally a frequent
service, and people will wait, so the company get the fare anyway. No
bus company will ever guarantee that there will always be a space, or
even that the bus will always run. First come, first served. If it
happens regularly, words are normally said, and schedules altered
accordingly.
There is at least one example of a bus company withdrawing a bus route
because an excess of twirlies stopped fare paying passengers get on the
bus

Do tell. I've never heard of it happening.

Neither have I and it seems a most unlikely thing to do.

The "blue bus" Southampton to Portsmouth route.

This was meant to be a "local" service for the communities on route to get
to one town centre or the other. Not a through bus from city to city as it
takes three times longer then the train.

But as soon as all the twirlies started to get on at one city centre to go
to the other one, because it was free, the bus was full on departure and
couldn't provide the service to the communities that it was designed to
serve.

So they withdrew it

tim

tim..... wrote:

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , John Williamson
writes
tim..... wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
The added cost to the operator of carrying an extra passenger is
minutely more than twice (One lot for boarding, the other for
getting off) the extra fuel used to accelerate from a standing
start to running speed over and above the fuel used for constant
speed running. assuming only one person boards or alights per
stop, unless the extra passenger use due to the pass triggers a
requirement for an extra or larger vehicle. The labour cost is
near to zero, as any extra time the stop takes is absorbed in the
reserve time in the timetable.

You've omitted a more serious one - the bus is full so a 'paying'
passenger can't board.

No, that's just an inconvenience for the passenger, it's not
normally a cost to either the company or the council. At worst, one
full fare is lost, but if the route is that busy, it's normally a
frequent service, and people will wait, so the company get the fare
anyway. No bus company will ever guarantee that there will always
be a space, or even that the bus will always run. First come, first
served. If it happens regularly, words are normally said, and
schedules altered accordingly.
There is at least one example of a bus company withdrawing a bus
route because an excess of twirlies stopped fare paying passengers
get on the bus

Do tell. I've never heard of it happening.

Neither have I and it seems a most unlikely thing to do.

The "blue bus" Southampton to Portsmouth route.

This was meant to be a "local" service for the communities on route to
get to one town centre or the other. Not a through bus from city to
city as it takes three times longer then the train.

But as soon as all the twirlies started to get on at one city centre to
go to the other one, because it was free, the bus was full on departure
and couldn't provide the service to the communities that it was designed
to serve.

So they withdrew it

If that had been the company I work for, we'd have put an extra bus on;
probably as a limited stop duplicate from Southampton to Portsmouth,
with a couple of stops in between. I suspect politics or sour grapes.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
But as soon as all the twirlies started to get on at one city centre
to go to the other one, because it was free, the bus was full on
departure and couldn't provide the service to the communities that it
was designed to serve.

So they withdrew it

If that had been the company I work for, we'd have put an extra bus on;
probably as a limited stop duplicate from Southampton to Portsmouth,
with a couple of stops in between. I suspect politics or sour grapes.

Quite. 'Why should we improve services if they're being used by those who
don't pay'

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:44:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
But as soon as all the twirlies started to get on at one city centre
to go to the other one, because it was free, the bus was full on
departure and couldn't provide the service to the communities that it
was designed to serve.

So they withdrew it

If that had been the company I work for, we'd have put an extra bus on;
probably as a limited stop duplicate from Southampton to Portsmouth,
with a couple of stops in between. I suspect politics or sour grapes.

Quite. 'Why should we improve services if they're being used by those who
don't pay'

While customers with old fogey's bus pass cards don't pay personally,
their journeys are paid for. It should be all the same to the bus
operator.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:16:52 +0000, bert ] wrote:

In message , Apellation
Controlee writes
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:06:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The trouble is it's all too easy to base the cost on the number of
passenger journeys those with passes make.

That "cost" is what the LAs have to pay to the bus companies.

I was interested in the *actual* cost - not some statistic plucked from
the air.

Unless you think the LA pays for every bus ticket individually.

They do in this area - You "buy" a zero-value ticket for each journey
and the pass card is read by a contact sensor on the ticket machine.
So they do here, but they still pay on basis of average adult fare per
journey.
Does the driver actually put in your destination?

Yes, the ticket is issued for the destination you ask for and the
value on the ticket shows as zero.

Apellation Controlee wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:44:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
But as soon as all the twirlies started to get on at one city centre
to go to the other one, because it was free, the bus was full on
departure and couldn't provide the service to the communities that it
was designed to serve.

So they withdrew it

If that had been the company I work for, we'd have put an extra bus on;
probably as a limited stop duplicate from Southampton to Portsmouth,
with a couple of stops in between. I suspect politics or sour grapes.
Quite. 'Why should we improve services if they're being used by those who
don't pay'

While customers with old fogey's bus pass cards don't pay personally,
their journeys are paid for. It should be all the same to the bus
operator.

Almost, although the payment per passholder is less than the payment for
a normal adult fare. It's not too far off what a season ticket holder
would pay, which is why we would put on the extra bus. The local
taxpayers, on the other hand, would see the pensioners getting a free
ride at their expense. Then they have a word with their councillor, who
would have words.... And so on.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Apellation Controlee wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:16:52 +0000, bert ] wrote:

In message , Apellation
Controlee writes
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:06:57 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
The trouble is it's all too easy to base the cost on the number of
passenger journeys those with passes make.
That "cost" is what the LAs have to pay to the bus companies.
I was interested in the *actual* cost - not some statistic plucked from
the air.

Unless you think the LA pays for every bus ticket individually.
They do in this area - You "buy" a zero-value ticket for each journey
and the pass card is read by a contact sensor on the ticket machine.
So they do here, but they still pay on basis of average adult fare per
journey.
Does the driver actually put in your destination?

Yes, the ticket is issued for the destination you ask for and the
value on the ticket shows as zero.

That's not what happens here. Then again, there are only three fares
here. £1.40 for a short hop of less than a mile. £2.00 for anything else
inside the urban area, and £3.50 if you so much as see a field. London's
even simpler, of course, it's a fixed cost per bus ride.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:06:45 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

Apellation Controlee wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:44:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
But as soon as all the twirlies started to get on at one city centre
to go to the other one, because it was free, the bus was full on
departure and couldn't provide the service to the communities that it
was designed to serve.

So they withdrew it

If that had been the company I work for, we'd have put an extra bus on;
probably as a limited stop duplicate from Southampton to Portsmouth,
with a couple of stops in between. I suspect politics or sour grapes.
Quite. 'Why should we improve services if they're being used by those who
don't pay'

While customers with old fogey's bus pass cards don't pay personally,
their journeys are paid for. It should be all the same to the bus
operator.

Almost, although the payment per passholder is less than the payment for
a normal adult fare. It's not too far off what a season ticket holder
would pay, which is why we would put on the extra bus. The local
taxpayers, on the other hand, would see the pensioners getting a free
ride at their expense. Then they have a word with their councillor, who
would have words.... And so on.

So, back to Daily Mail territory.