Faresaver

[whole diary]

[froome]

My partner and I traveled from Bath to Frome and back by bus yesterday (and incidentally made use of the late evening service from Frome run by First which i understand, sadly, is likely to come to an end very soon).

I have a bus pass but may partner hasn't yet reached the age to get one, and ended up buying two single tickets as the journey out and back was on buses run by different companies.

Somewhat ironically, given their name, the Faresaver fare is £1 more than the First fare for running exactly the same route!

[trainer]

Somewhat ironically, given their name, the Faresaver fare is £1 more than the First fare for running exactly the same route!

Might the First service be a subsidised one under contract to the Local Authority?

[froome]

Somewhat ironically, given their name, the Faresaver fare is £1 more than the First fare for running exactly the same route!

Might the First service be a subsidised one under contract to the Local Authority?

Yes it is, by B&NES (Somerset CC withdrew subsidies some time ago and Frome town council have recently voted not to renew their 'one off' subsidy). Faresaver only run daytime services so I assume none of these are subsidised (nor the First services in the daytime). However, I wasn't aware that a subsidy would affect the fare.

[trainer]

However, I wasn't aware that a subsidy would affect the fare.

I only know it can because some years ago a bus driver friend told me that our Sunday bus services which were provided under contract were cheaper than those provided commercially the rest of the week.

[LiskeardRich]

However, I wasn't aware that a subsidy would affect the fare.

I only know it can because some years ago a bus driver friend told me that our Sunday bus services which were provided under contract were cheaper than those provided commercially the rest of the week.

Shouldn’t be the case. A subsidy should be plugging the gap to make it worthwhile for the operator. If they are able to offer cheaper fares, then the subsidy is too high which in this day is against the rules. Unless the LA have set the fares on the subsidised services.

[grahame]

Bath to Frome bus services are provided by two commercial services during Monday to Friday daytime (Faresaver and First).  Saturday daytime services are provided by First bus on a commercial basis, and First provide a Sunday daytime service too; I'm unsure whether that's commercial or not.  Monday to Saturday evening services are provided by First, with three services in each direction; these have been supported in recent years by BaNES council.   There are no Sunday evening services.

Daytime Monday to Friday, it's up to both operators to set their own fares and fare systems, and own timetables, so that they compete - the "mantra" being that free market competition improves service and drives down fares and so is a good thing.  And, yes, that means that for certain journeys either one or the other may be more expensive; cross ticket acceptance is far from guaranteed in such a system - indeed the presence of such a system could point to an agreement between the bus companies which suggested a cartel - i.e. a setup between them to make it hard for additional companies to start a competitive service, and easy for the current operators to push prices higher.

Until a couple of years back, both Faresaver and First called their route the "267", and both ran their buses during Monday to Friday at approximately hourly intervals, with vehicles leaving Frome and Bath at pretty much the same time - the time when the longer-standing operator always used to run his services and where the market was well developed.  Since that point, the Faresaver bus has been rebranded to "x67" and the First bus timetable has shifted around the clock to that buses along the route are now more evenly spread during the day; both improvements. 

A high proportion of passengers travel on ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) passes, so making journeys paid for by the taxpayer rather than directly by themselves.  Such passengers can board any bus after 09:30 (Monday to Friday) and make journeys in one direction with Faresaver and in the other direction with First - effectively giving them a frequency of twice an hour.  Remaining passengers must either buy 2 singles (tends to be considerably more expensive than alternatives that will take them both ways) or wait for the returning bus of the same company they made their initial journey with.  Any unfortunates who plan their day and buy a return then have to rush back early taking the opposite company's bus end up paying for three legs not two.  All of which goes to make the pricing element of competition a much blunter tool than perhaps the original legislators anticipated it would be.

The name "Faresaver" originated from the loyalty scheme the company ran - pay for 10 journeys and get the 11th free, thus saving your fare.  Rather like you can get with coffees at some outlets.  I'm not sure if that scheme is still running, but the name sticks, and Faresaver have done very well in north and west Wiltshire, and Frome (which from an economic area viewpoint really should [logically] be in Wiltshire rather than Somerset) with services into BaNES too. It's notable that other bus operators such as APL and Bodmans have ceased trading, and the Faresaver has gone from strength to strength. Or at least so it appears;  Faresaver isn't a company that's required to register and file accounts - they're a private / family operator - so I / we have no indication in reality of how profitable or otherwise the operation actually is; they have gained the benefits of size which should be helping them keep unit costs down, but whether that helps them just keep their head above water, or gives them a high rate of return on their investment, I cannot tell you.  I do know that they're pretty hard-nosed commercially; most of the time that interest coincides with the interest of their passengers and it's good for both parties, but it does lead to some interesting issues around the edges of what's commercially profitable and a tendency to "pull" borderline services.  It has also lead to a tendency to adjust timetables to ensure vehicles at the right place for the magic 09:30 watershed, and to timetable vehicles onto routes where there's competition to call at bus stops when there's likely to be a lot of people waiting - i.e. just before someone else's bus comes along.  We have seen a lessening of this latter tendency in recent times; to some extent that's the company organisation maturing, and it's also in their long term commercial interest to expand the market by making a more even spread, so better overall frequency, along a flow where ENCTS cards are in strong use - growing the pensioner market for themselves (and their competitor).

Bus drivers love day shifts and aren't keen (for the most part) on lots of Sundays or evenings; they'll ask for higher pay rates for those times, and may well (if they have family) put quality of life ahead of income if they can - and they can with Faresaver who only operate a few routes - at lower frequency - on Saturdays and to my knowledge none in the evening or on Sundays.  So this has helped Faresaver have a much stronger staffing pool, and lower cost base, than other operators in the area.   It also means that where a service needs to run into the evening, it's going to be another operator, who's going to require a subsidy.  That's been the case with the evening 267 between Bath and Frome.   Catch the 23:10 from Bath on a Friday or Saturday night and you'll be asking "why on earth has this been subsidised" ... the answer comes in the much, much lower loading factors earlier in the evening in both directions on the route, and lower loadings earlier in the week too. 

I am aware of some of the stuff that's going on with regard to evening 267 support at the moment - not sure how much is in the public domain.  One of the questions that I've been asked is "taking Bath to Frome bus services as a whole, with a 6.5 day service at current frequencies, would the overall service be profitable or loss making?"   And the answer is "don't know"; is any profit taken out by daytime commercial operators more than the subsidy put in to the evening?  No way to even guess when the data required to answer is "commercial in confidence" and in one case not even included in any filed accounts.  In any case, the bus market doesn't work like that - commercial operators pick and choose where they want to operate and make money, leaving councils to pick up the pieces where no-one chooses to operate, and having to pay for those extras at what they cost, rather than having them be part of an overall basket where profits are evened out.  It makes one very suspicious of profit levels at the more hard to analyse operators - be they private operators who don't publish accounts, or megacompanies when the individual routes and branches get swallowed up (and become invisible) in a corporate return.

ok - going off topic somewhat there, but 267 / x67 is an interesting study. Answering another question

Typically, fares on supported evening services are the same as the commercial fare on the same service during the day, but the is scope within the support agreement for the supporter to impose a change of rules for the evening, and potentially for the operator to offer an "evening out" special too.  I have no data for BaNES and the 267 (not my county, but I suspect BusQueen could tell us) but I do know about x72 / 272 from Bath to Melksham.   On this service, the First bus (actually a modified route called 271 in the evening) is obliged under its contract to accept the return half of Faresaver tickets on supported services. Good for the (paying) customer - perhaps not so good for First, but I expect they have priced this into what they charge Wiltshire Council. It does mean (when you think about it) that Faresaver are paid for a whole return journey, but are only providing a single and banking the rest of the income - hopefully, they're using that extra income to keep fares down during the day.

"Council agreements for supported service cannot compete with commercial operators" though at times it's hard to know where one product starts and another ends, so you may feel there is overlap.  You do end up with some curiosities - you can travel between Melksham and Devizes with no fewer than four public transport road operators.   Faresaver run a Monday to Saturday daytime service commercially.   National Express run a daily commercial service. First run a partly supported service on Monday to Saturday evenings.  Go Ahead run a supported service on Sundays.     First's first two evening buses from Melksham are commercial, so don't accept Faresaver tickets (and I have know passenger who have innocently tried to feel very humiliated), but the latter two are supported, so will accept Faresaver tickets because Wiltshire Council have told the to.  And the supported sunday bus has a specified fare of just £1 single even though you'll pay at least 4 times that for a single on any other day of the week.

Buses?  Much simpler that trains?  I think not!

 

[froome]

That's very helpful Graham and tends to confirm my thoughts on the extraordinary complexity that exists in what should be the simple action of buying a ticket to make a bus journey.

I remember well when both bus companies ran a 267 service at the same time. Where we get on the bus (along Wells Road) Faresaver usually got there first and you got on and bought a ticket, only then to be told that all the return journeys in the evening were run by First so another ticket would need to be bought.

It is precisely this kind of action and the complexity around it which tends to put those who aren't committed to using public transport off from using it.

[Bus Queen]

Hi Froome I am one of the campaigners who have been fighting to keep the evening 267 going. I can confirm that the evening service will continue  to operate up until April 2018.  Favbug are working hard to try & drive usage numbers up on the evening 267 & other bus services. One of the ways that we have done this is to produce bespoke timetables by areas which are easier to read. We produced bespoke timetables for Rode, Hinton Charterhouse & Norton St Philip last year which were delivered to every household.  The usage for the evening 267 is on an upward trend. Our group will be producing bespoke bus timetables again this year & will be including Beckington & Frome. All of the bespoke timetables will be delivered to every household for each area.


                                        FARESAVER                                       FIRST BUS      
1 day ticket Adult         mTicket £7 on bus £7.50                  mTicket £6  Paper ticket £6.50
Weekly ticket Adult       mTicket £22 on bus £23                   mTicket £22  paper ticket  £23.80
Monthly ticket Adult      mTicket £80 on bus £85.00               mTicket £80 paper ticket £86.40


It is clear to see that Fareasaver are slightly more expensive on price for their 1 day tickets. Fareasvers prices are the same as First on mTicket price.  First bus are slightly pricier on their weekly & monthly paper tickets. I don't think to many commuters would mind paying an extra 80p a week or £1.40 a month to have the option to have a few drinks with colleagues after work.

[Bus Queen]

After B&NES reduced their funding for the 267 First will no longer accept Faresaver tickets on this service.

[froome]

However, I wasn't aware that a subsidy would affect the fare.

I only know it can because some years ago a bus driver friend told me that our Sunday bus services which were provided under contract were cheaper than those provided commercially the rest of the week.

Shouldn’t be the case. A subsidy should be plugging the gap to make it worthwhile for the operator. If they are able to offer cheaper fares, then the subsidy is too high which in this day is against the rules. Unless the LA have set the fares on the subsidised services.

Despite Graham's lengthy explanation, I agree with what richwarwicker says and still don't understand how a subsidy can be used for reducing fares.