Coach transport in the United Kingdom

Long-distance horse-drawn stagecoach services were effectively replaced by the arrival of the railways in the 1830s and 1840s,[2] but stagecoaches and charabancs were still used for short journeys and excursions until the early years of the 20th century.[3]

The first motor coaches were acquired by operators of those horse-drawn vehicles: for example, W. C. Standerwick of Blackpool acquired their first motor charabanc in 1911[4] and Royal Blue of Bournemouth acquired their first motor charabanc in 1913.[5] Motor coaches were initially used only for excursions.[6] In 1919 Royal Blue took advantage of a rail strike to run a coach service from Bournemouth to London. The service was so successful that it expanded rapidly.[7] In 1920 the Minister of Transport Eric Campbell Geddes was quoted in Punch magazine as saying, "I think it would be a calamity if we did anything to prevent the economic use of charabancs"[8] and expressed concern in parliament at the problems caused to small charabanc and omnibus operators.[9]

The first scheduled motorcoach service to carry passengers from both ends and to and from intermediate points was the Greyhound Motors service between London and Bristol, started on 11 February 1925.[10]

The coach industry expanded rapidly in the 1920s, a period of intense competition. Several bus companies, including Midland Red, Crosville and Red & White, started coach services. By 1930, no fewer than 18 companies were running coaches between Oxford and London.[11] For example, the original Royal Blue service from Bournemouth to London grew from twice a week during 1920 to twice daily during 1921.[7]

The Road Traffic Act 1930 introduced a national system of regulation of passenger road transport and authorised local authorities to operate transport services.[12] It also imposed a speed limit of 30 mph for coaches[13] whilst removing any speed limit for private cars.[14] The act caused considerable disruption and it received criticism - In 1931 the commissioner refused to sanction coaches operating into central London. Frank Pick, managing director of Underground Electric Railways Company of London commented on this at the time saying The Road Traffic Act of 1930 was passed to restore order and prevent abuse on the roads. No one envisaged its use to deprive the public of reasonable service. It outruns its object. Control is one thing; prohibition is another.[12]

Following the 1930 Act coach operators bought, or reached agreement with competitors to share services and pool revenues. Many of the independent companies were bought by the two major bus groups, the Tilling Group and British Electric Traction. In 1932, a group of coach operators opened Victoria Coach Station in London, which became the London terminus for most coach services. In 1934, six coach operators (Black & White, Bristol Greyhound, Midland Red, Red & White, and Royal Blue & United Counties) formed the Associated Motorways consortium, to provide a nationwide network of coach services that centred on Cheltenham Coach Station.

Coach operators were required to suspend services from 1942 (during World War II) to conserve fuel. Services recommenced again in 1946.

After the Transport Act 1947 the Labour government acquired the Tilling Group and Red & White bus companies, and Scottish Motor Traction, so that a large part of the coaching industry fell under state control. The 1950s and early 1960s were prosperous times for the industry, before foreign holidays became commonplace and car ownership spread. The Beeching cuts of the rail network in the early 1960s generated more traffic for coach operators. The speed limit for buses and coaches on 'open roads' was increased from 30 mph to 40 mph in 1961.[15]

In 1951, Northern Roadways were given permission to operate overnight services from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow.[16][17] Despite objections from British Railways and Scottish Omnibuses, services commenced in May 1952.[18][19][20][21]

In March 1960, Midland Red became the first operator to operate a motorway service when it commenced a three times daily service from Birmingham to London.[22]

The Transport Act 1968 nationalised remaining privately owned bus and coach services. It created five PTEs Passenger transport executives and the National Bus Company (from January 1969) which merged the state-owned Transport Holdings with the private British Electric Traction, at which point most of the industry became state-owned.[23] Only a few independents, such as Yelloway and some smaller operators, remained.

In 1972, the National Bus Company formed the brand 'National Travel' (soon to be re-branded as National Express) to run long-distance coach services. Most of the coach operations of NBC's subsidiaries in England and Wales were franchised to National Express - the individual bus companies mostly continued to own the coaches, but were required to adopt the National Express brand white livery. In Scotland, and between England and Scotland, coach services continued to be operated by subsidiaries of the state-owned Scottish Bus Group.

A National Express coach

A Megabus double-decker

A Greyhound coach

Express coach services were deregulated by the Transport Act 1980 under the Thatcher government five years before the deregulation of local bus services by the Transport Act 1985. This led to a flurry of new coach operators. The largest of these was British Coachways, a consortium of established independents formed in 1980 to compete against National Express on six routes. It was disbanded in 1982. Other operators survived longer, but could not shake the dominance of National Express.[24] An exception was the Oxford to London coach route, where Stagecoach Oxfordshire and the Oxford Bus Company continue to compete fiercely. (In October 2019 the Oxford Bus Company announced that it was ceasing operation of the X90 Oxford - London service after 4 January 2020.. The company cited substantial falls in ridership occasioned by enhanced competition from the railways, with a new frequent service to London Marylebone, and ever-increasing road congestion especially in London. Usage had fallen by 35% between 2015 and 2019, the decline appeared to be continuing thus rendering the service unviable). https://x90.oxfordbus.co.uk/withdrawal/

National Express was sold to its management in 1988, and floated on the London Stock Exchange in 1992. In 1985, Scottish Citylink was formed to run coach services to and within Scotland - as a franchise operation, like National Express. It too was sold to its management in 1990, but in 1993 it was sold to National Express. In 1997, the Competition Commission ordered National Express to sell Scottish Citylink, following the award of the ScotRail franchise to National Express.[25] In 1998 Scottish Citylink was sold to ComfortDelGro.

The first Coachway interchange (Milton Keynes Coachway) was opened in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Coachways are coach interchanges built close to motorway/trunk road junctions that link to local transport, as distinct from interchanges in the middle of towns.

Speed limiters were introduced in coaches in 1988. These were initially set at 70 mph, but reduced to 65 mph in 1994.[26] In 1993 ten people died in a coach crash on the M2 motorway, provoking calls to make it compulsory to wear a seat belt.[27] (In 2006 a regulation was passed to require all passengers over the age of 3 years to wear a seat belt if one is available. Previous legislation had required the provision of seat belts in all new coaches.)[28]

In 2003, Stagecoach started its Megabus operation in England and Scotland. This brought back national competition, and fares started to fall.[29]

In Scotland, competition between Megabus and Scottish Citylink drove Stagecoach to a joint venture with ComfortDelGro in 2005 to operate both companies' coach services. The Competition Commission ruled in 2006 that the joint venture reduced competition,[30] and in February 2008 Stagecoach announced the sale of some services, operating under the Saltire Cross brand, to Park's Motor Group.[31]

Receipts for long-distance coach travel in 1996/1997 were £1.4 billion (2008 prices) rising to nearly £1.8 billion in 2004/2005 (also 2008 prices). Since 2005 statistics are no longer collected for UK non-local bus services. Unlike the UK rail market, which has seen massive growth since 1996, long-distance coach travel has continued to decline (from a low base). Vehicles travelled 1.6 billion km in 1996/1997, falling slightly to 1.5 billion km in 2007/2008.[32] Anon Bus Company has struggled alongside other transport and logistics companies in the complex United Kingdom market heavily affected by the effects of slowing global economics and Covid 19. The problem Anon Bus Company faces is compounded by the stiffness of competitiveness in the UK transport industry where innovation market and leadership strategies are key to success. In 2018, the transport company adopted sustainable transport platforms which resulted in changes in training and maintenance that the company staff seemed to resist. In 2020, the global Covid 19 pandemics caused the UK to adopt restrictive public health measures that affected operations in the country’s transport industry causing a 32% drop in bus and coach operations. Finally, the founding CEO John Tallis is retiring for medical reasons and a leadership gap exists with one of the possible replacements being change-averse. As the global business landscape changes to adapt to innovation, social, economic, and even climatic pressures, the leaders at the helm must be flexible and ably skilled to react favourably for the organization’s sake. Consequently, this report seeks to provide Anon Bus Company with solutions for its leadership crisis using a theoretical analysis based on comparing transformation and transactional leadership models. Subsequently, a PESTLE analysis will determine the company’s business environment before a scenario planning matrix offers potentially viable leadership solutions. Transactional leadership vs Transformational leadership Transactional Leadership The transactional leadership theory and practice traces its roots to Marx Weber in 1947, and Bernard Bass in 1981. Both scholars defined transactional leadership using factors such as control, organization, and short-term plans. In addition, the transactional leadership model relies on the subordinate’s self-interests where their leader uses such interests to motivate them towards predetermined and often short-term goals. Often, the leader relies on rewards to maintain morale and organizational direction towards the objectives, while also using punishments to deter distraction and sabotage. Therefore, the transactional leadership theory involves leaders who use rewards to encourage desirable behaviour and performance while applying punishments to deter distraction, laziness, or rebellion. The rewards and punishments paradigm in transactional leadership relies on several factors to ensure smooth operation and proper interaction between leaders and their subordinates. First, there are contingent rewards, which denote the predetermined goals leaders set and communicate to their subordinates. In addition to the existent goals, the leader facilitates their subordinates’ operations using resources and skills. It is common for such leadership dynamics to employ the SMART model of performance management. Secondly, the transactional leader also manages their subordinates by exception, which involves active and passive monitoring to identify deviation from predetermined performance and objectives for application of corrective input. Some transactional leaders also rely on passive management by exception in the paradigm of rewards and punishments during operations. Herein, the leader engages with subordinates in a reactionary fashion when performance metrics and outcomes have fallen below a certain minimum level. It is common practice to combine such reactionary intervention with punitive

action during transactional leadership dynamics. Finally, the laissez-faire dynamic entails transactional leaders who facilitate their subordinates, provide the objectives desired, and abdicate from further intervention and managerial duties. Some of the advantages of transactional leadership include the clarity of success factors because they are predetermined. Similarly, the job roles and expectations of all subordinates are clear because they are also predetermined. Making changes in transactional leadership is easy because the leader involves subordinates minimally. Majority of the motivation factor relies on subordinate-based interests meaning performance management is easier because it relies on appropriate rewards and punishments. However, the transactional leadership theory suffers from diminished innovation and creativity, lacklustre collaboration and communication, poor teamwork dynamics, an excessive focus on short-term planning, high levels of employee conflict and turnover. Transformational Leadership In 1978, John McGregor Burns introduced the foundations of the transformational leadership theory while working on political leadership and organizational psychology. The basic tenet on which transformational leadership rests in an organizational scenario is influencing employee positively. For leaders to influence their subordinates to push themselves beyond their task definitions and operational limitations, the transformational leader must possess five main traits. These traits within transformational leaders include; charisma, visionary, risk-taking, daring, and thoughtfulness. The model of transformational leadership relies on four core dimensions. First, the transformational leader must possess inspirational motivation which denotes possession and application of a vision, mission, and core values. These three factors enhance the teamwork concept of transformational leadership. Secondly, the leader must possess intellectual stimulation, which entails adopting and encouraging subordinates to embrace innovation and creativity. Both practices enable the organization to benefit from the variety of skills, talents, and ideas all stakeholders possess and optimizes problem-solving. Thirdly, the transformational leader possesses idealized influence, which involves a strong belief in the philosophy of positive influence. Herein, the leader believes and practices positive influence towards his management peers and organizational subordinates towards team goals, organizational success, and market dominance. Finally, the leader possesses individualized consideration to enable them to act as mentors, rewards positive input, and enhance decision- making. Transformational leadership has several advantages such as promoting employee motivation using rewards and freedom of innovation which enhances productivity. The leadership theory also promotes positive organizational cultures based on teamwork and integrity. Transformational leadership enables organizational growth by encouraging employee innovation and creativity, which optimize problem-solving. This leadership theory also creates professional development opportunities for employees. The clear mission and vision within transformational leadership enable effective conflict management. However, transformational leadership suffers several cons such as prioritizing long-term planning, raising the risks for employee burnout, increasing the organization’s communication requirements, and slowing decision-making, and favouring subservient innovative employees.

PESTLE Analysis of the UK Bus/Coach Market Factor Environment Opportunities/Threats Political The political environment for bus and coach companies is characterised by uncertainty due to slow infrastructural investment, fast-shifting fuel supplies, and labour laws. The political environment has been affected by Brexit making sourcing for experienced drivers and maintenance crew harder. Brexit makes importation tariffs for the UK affecting maintenance and operations in the industry. There is increased political pressure for ecologically responsible operations.

Brexit has enabled the bus and coach industry in the UK to capitalize on reduced competition from regional rivals. High importation tariffs enable home industries to grow. However, new laws on environmental conservation will raise operation costs. The same high tariffs also affect home industry abilities to source for skilled labour and some rare maintenance parts.

Economic Recent interest rate adjustments by the Bank of England make operations expensive. From 2020, the government reduced corporate tax by 2% improving the business climate for bus and coach operators. Reduced disposable income caused by slow global economy and Covid 19 effects reduced profits margins. Increased reliance on coach and bus platforms due to economic downturns raised revenues. Brexit affected import tariffs leading to hardships in labour sourcing and maintenance parts.

Reduced corporate tax raises revenues for UK companies. Hard global economic situations increased customers due to growth in mass transportation. However, global economic situation has caused a reduction in leisure travel affecting revenues. Higher import tariffs create problems for companies using foreign bus platforms such as Mercedes Benz and Scania.

Social Britain has a fast-aging population that will rely more on coach and bus operations. Lifestyles are shifting more towards mass transport like buses due to environmental concerns. The UK is a small country geographically meaning congestion in cities makes buses and coaches favourable. Since 2020, remote working practices led to less reliance on public transportation reducing operator revenues.

The fast-aging British demographics means more customers for bus and coach companies. Lifestyle changes towards ecological sustainability provide more customers for mass transport operators. However, the shift since 2020 towards remote working has reduced customer numbers. Technological Digital technologies have created New innovations in fuel

ride-hailing services like Uber which compete with coaches and buses. 4 and 5G smartphone connectivity makes coach and bus booking easier and faster. Hybrid and electric buses and coaches have emerged to reduce emissions and carbon footprint of the industry. Some companies are investigating autonomous and semi-autonomous buses and coaches which promise to revolutionize the industry. New engine technologies in diesel fuel and engine designs increases efficiency and reduces noise and air pollution.

and engine design create highly efficient platforms raising revenues. Hybridization and electrification of coaches and buses reduces emissions and energy costs. However, new tech is expensive to implement and maintain. In addition, ride-hailing and sharing digital revolutions such as Uber threaten mass transport.

Legal UK transport rules and laws on coaches and buses differ from many EU countries making regional operations harder, especially after Brexit. Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations limit driver hours, break allocation, and rest scheduling affecting operators. UK laws require all buses and coaches to incorporate disability aids increasing costs. Health and safety laws affect the number of passengers, operator speeds, and even seat configurations making operations bureaucratic. Emission laws and regulations are getting tougher in the UK.

Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations enable bus drivers to operate safely improving public image of buses and coaches. The use of disability accessibility laws on coaches and buses makes them appealing to challenged and disabled customers. However, the new environmental and emissions laws are an operational and industrial threat.

Environmental Buses and coaches contribute up to 1.5% of all transport greenhouse emissions in the UK. A pressing need for platforms using less energy and expending less greenhouse emission has led to electric and hybrid innovations. Many companies are increasing recycling of old buses and reducing toxic materials in upholstery and accessories.

Electric and hybrid buses or coaches are an opportunity to make the industry more efficient and profitable. Use of recyclable materials in bis and coach design reduces environmental toll of the industry. However, the new hybrid and electric buses are an industry threat due to high implementation, training, and maintenance costs.

Scenario Planning Matrix

Source (Author created using the Wondershare EDrawMax Application) Leadership approach taken Based on the PESTLE analysis and scenario planning matrix created, Anon Bus Company should consider the transformational leadership style with technological considerations. First, the PESTLE model and matrix stipulate that opportunities exist due to hybrid and electric vehicle technology. Only the transformational leadership style would adopt this radical shift in mass transportation because it considers factors such as innovation, creativity, and efficiency. In addition, the transformational leadership style embraces long-term planning which is what the radical technological innovations in bus and coach design have adopted to cut back on environmental pollution. Therefore, Anon Bus Company must adopt the transformational leadership style because it will enable them implement efficiency and sustainability-based changes in their long-term plans. The PESTLE analysis and scenario planning matrix also consider the weaknesses of change aversion, which causes conflict management and slows down market or industry adaptations necessary to ensure market success. Anon Bus Company would benefit from a transformational leadership style with technological considerations because of the benefits change management introduces to this management approach. Unlike transactional leaders who are not concerned with change due to cost implications, transformational ones embrace change as part of the life cycle of a business organization. Change management attitudes also enable managers to manage conflict, which is a common phenomenon in business organizations. Therefore, the Anon Bus Company would benefit from transformational

leadership because it creates opportunities for flexible yet considerate operations in a complex and dynamic market. Finally, the Anon Bus Company should opt for transformational leadership with technological considerations because of the social factors highlighted in the PESTLE model and scenario planning matrix. The PESTLE model stated that much of the UK society is aging increasing its reliance on mass transportation hence additional customers for the company. Concurrently, the society has adopted ecological conservation mindsets reducing personal vehicles in favour of green buses and coaches. Therefore, the planning matrix’s choice of scenario one which combines green operations with the teamwork dynamics of transformational leadership provide the best option for Anon Bus Company. Teamwork would enable the company optimize customer experience through feedback management using social media, while embracing greener operations by adopting hybrid and electric bus platforms in the future.

From 1 January 2008 express coaches were banned from using the third lane of motorways by Section 4 of The Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004.[33][34] In 2008 National Express announced that passenger numbers had grown by 2% in the previous year.[35]

In 2009 FirstGroup entered the market with Greyhound UK, competing with National Express and Megabus.[36] The Birmingham Coach Station opened after a major rebuild.[37] Reconstruction of the Milton Keynes Coachway started (opening Spring 2010).[38]

In September 2010 FirstGroup announced it would be expanding the Greyhound UK service significantly.[39]

In October 2010, Philip Hammond, the transport minister, announced that the M4 bus lane would be scrapped, saying: "Nothing is more symbolic of Labour's war on the motorist".[40] The Confederation of Passenger Transport said that the decision, which was supported by all the main motoring organisations, had "come out of the blue" and that "high occupancy vehicle lanes for buses and coaches can be key tools in persuading people out of their cars and onto public transport."[41]

The organisers of the 2012 Summer Olympics aimed to get 100% of people to the venues by public transport or other non-car modes (cycling/walking)[42] with around 10 per cent of spectators arriving by bus and coach.[43] In January 2010 the South East England regional transport board criticised the current proposals for not providing plans for a credible long term coach network: "The ODA has been working on an extensive network of coach services... [but] the lack of reference to this work [in the plan] is both intriguing and at the same time concerning."[44]

The last Greyhound service ceased in December 2015.[45][46][47]