The benefits of other countries Railways...

[radamfi]

Even if you accept that connections between UK trains are acceptable, what about connections between trains and other modes of public transport? Now that would definitely show the UK as being very poor by comparison!

 

[Greenback]

Even if you accept that connections between UK trains are acceptable, what about connections between trains and other modes of public transport? Now that would definitely show the UK as being very poor by comparison!

Yes, that is where the UK is particularly dismal. There is hardly any co-ordination of timetable sbetween buses, coaches and trains, at least outside PTE areas.

 

[142094]

Yes, that is where the UK is particularly dismal. There is hardly any co-ordination of timetable sbetween buses, coaches and trains, at least outside PTE areas.

Tyne and Wear had a good idea about integration when the Metro first came in, until deregulation that is. The Metro was designed to operate along the core route, and buses would be diverted away from Metro routes in order to feed in to Metro stations. That is why many of the big Metro/bus interchanges were built at Regent Centre, Four Lane Ends and Heworth. Plus integrated ticketing made this a lot easier.

 

[Drsatan]

Compared to the rest of Europe, where most bus services usually start outside a station, usually there's no indication when you alight from a train in the UK if there are any local bus services. Although having said that Centro has now placed a map of Birmingham city centre outside BNS with bus stops marked and a list of services serving them. Ultimately, the real problem is that local bus services, in many cases, finish running too early in the day and are too infrequent to be of any use.

 

[Greenback]

Tyne and Wear had a good idea about integration when the Metro first came in, until deregulation that is. The Metro was designed to operate along the core route, and buses would be diverted away from Metro routes in order to feed in to Metro stations. That is why many of the big Metro/bus interchanges were built at Regent Centre, Four Lane Ends and Heworth. Plus integrated ticketing made this a lot easier.

Properly planned integrated services between Metro and bus were sacrificed on the altar of competition!

 

[185]

Number 27. In 99.7% of countries in the world, FirstGroup do not operate any trains.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Bus services in Germany, outside conurbations, are rubbish. They may depart from railway stations, but they often don't run in the evening, on Saturday or Sunday

 

[WestCoast]

Bus services in Germany, outside conurbations, are rubbish. They may depart from railway stations, but they often don't run in the evening, on Saturday or Sunday

They aren't too bad in NRW, but rural buses are better in the Netherlands IME.

There's a lot of on-demand "taxibus" style services in one particular area I can think of, which is quite a good idea.

 

[Clip]

Secondary question:

Why don't all involved in the UK rail industry "Go compare other railways" in the first place.
What's stopping them, is it red tape or just a lack of money?

I know Chiltern Railways have from time to time sent people over to Japan to look at their regional railways and vice versa - so it does happen..

 

[Zoe]

the entire UK rail system suffers badly due to Marsham street micro managing everything.

No it doesn't, they don't control Northern Ireland. I know I have said this before but many people say "entire UK" and forget about Northern Ireland.

But seriously the DafT should "let go" of it. If a TOC wants to invest... let them do it. Who benefits from it... indeed the fare and tax payer, and wasn't that what a franchised rail system was all about?

It wasn't exactly a resounding success back in the days of OPRAF when the TOCs had more freedom. If some of the TOCs/Railtrack hasn't made a mess of things then maybe the SRA and DfT wouldn't have wanted to dictate everything.

 

[Deerfold]

Compared to the rest of Europe, where most bus services usually start outside a station, usually there's no indication when you alight from a train in the UK if there are any local bus services. Although having said that Centro has now placed a map of Birmingham city centre outside BNS with bus stops marked and a list of services serving them. Ultimately, the real problem is that local bus services, in many cases, finish running too early in the day and are too infrequent to be of any use.

What a strange place for Centro to place a map - what do the residents of Barnes make of it?

BHM seems a much more logical place for them to put it.

 

[Zoe]

in many cases, finish running too early in the day and are too infrequent to be of any use.

Most buses in Britain though are run as profit making businesses on a fully commercial basis. You can't expect them to run buses that are not profitable to run.

 

[Deerfold]

It does help if we all use the same abbreviations, and makes sense to use the ones National Rail uses.

 

[radamfi]

If British policy makers and transport professionals had even basic knowledge of what goes on in Switzerland etc., would they even have considered bus deregulation and lack of integration between buses and trains, between buses and other buses and between trains and other trains?

 

[Greenback]

If British policy makers and transport professionals had even basic knowledge of what goes on in Switzerland etc., would they even have considered bus deregulation and lack of integration between buses and trains, between buses and other buses and between trains and other trains?

Undoubtedly, as the policy makers largely ignored the transport professionals and went ahead with bus deregulation because of the prevailing ideology that public transport was for losers and failures, had only a little benefit to society (if the existence of such a thing wa seven acknowledged), and that provision of such should be entirely left to market forces.

 

[radamfi]

But if they looked to Switzerland etc. then the policy makers would know that PT is not just for 'losers and failures'.

 

[Zoe]

Undoubtedly, as the policy makers largely ignored the transport professionals and went ahead with bus deregulation because of the prevailing ideology that public transport was for losers and failures, had only a little benefit to society (if the existence of such a thing wa seven acknowledged), and that provision of such should be entirely left to market forces.

The following is not my opinion but when talking about leaving it to market forces the response I often get is "I don't use the bus, why should I have to pay towards the cost of it?" Basically if there are enough passengers for the bus to make a profit then it should run but if not then it shouldn't.

 

[radamfi]

The number of buses running on Monday to Saturday daytime in Britain, even outside London, is pretty high. I'm sure I have read that Britain has more buses than any other country in Europe. I don't know whether that was in total or per capita. But more buses doesn't mean better service. Bus mileage increased markedly in the early years of deregulation yet patronage fell significantly, especially in the biggest urban areas. The problem is that so many buses carry too few people. Major bus corridors in Britain are served every few minutes whereas a comparable service in another European country might run every 15 minutes but carry more people because of better punctuality, lower fares, better vehicle quality and better integration. Buses are more likely to be used as feeders to the rail network in much of Europe which also would explain for fewer buses in existence outside Britain.

 

[Greenback]

But if they looked to Switzerland etc. then the policy makers would know that PT is not just for 'losers and failures'.

The 1980's were all about the liberalisation of markets, privatisation, shares, and private pensions. The importance of the individual was paramount and notions of community or togetherness were very secondary.

The policy makers in those days, rightly or wrongly, were not interested in looking at anything that might undermine their pre conceived notions.

One of the main problems in the UK is that we gave the world railways, and we can't forget that. Nor can some people forget that it was private enterprise that built the railways, even though they do forget that the railway age produced a lot of completely uneconomic lines as a result of competition and the lack of any cnetral planning.

The following is not my opinion but when talking about leaving it to market forces the response I often get is "I don't use the bus, why should I have to pay towards the cost of it?" Basically if there are enough passengers for the bus to make a profit then it should run but if not then it shouldn't.

That attitude is still around today!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The number of buses running on Monday to Saturday daytime in Britain, even outside London, is pretty high. I'm sure I have read that Britain has more buses than any other country in Europe. I don't know whether that was in total or per capita. But more buses doesn't mean better service. Bus mileage increased markedly in the early years of deregulation yet patronage fell significantly, especially in the biggest urban areas. The problem is that so many buses carry too few people. Major bus corridors in Britain are served every few minutes whereas a comparable service in another European country might run every 15 minutes but carry more people because of better punctuality, lower fares, better vehicle quality and better integration. Buses are more likely to be used as feeders to the rail network in much of Europe which also would explain for fewer buses in existence outside Britain.

I have no reason to doubt those figures, in fact it seems right that the number of buses running around the UK may well be higher due to the fact that the buses are smaller, more frequent and run in competition with railway lines rather than complementary to them.

Do they figures include trams, trolley buses and other non bus types of transport? If not, then there may lie another reason for the apparent high number of bus services!

 

[radamfi]

I have no reason to doubt those figures, in fact it seems right that the number of buses running around the UK may well be higher due to the fact that the buses are smaller, more frequent and run in competition with railway lines rather than complementary to them.

Do they figures include trams, trolley buses and other non bus types of transport? If not, then there may lie another reason for the apparent high number of bus services!

I'm pretty sure that what I heard or read was just normal diesel buses. So yes, it is pretty obvious when you think about it that there would be more buses in Britain. Go to a major city centre in mainland Europe such Rotterdam or Zurich and you won't see many buses at all.

 

[Zoe]

Why do many people in Britain though prefer to go by car when actually there are more buses than on mainland Europe?

 

[radamfi]

Why do many people in Britain though prefer to go by car when actually there are more buses than on mainland Europe?

There are comprehensive tram/metro networks in Rotterdam and Zurich, for example, so buses play a relatively minor role in linking outlying areas to areas without rail.

 

[Greenback]

Why do many people in Britain though prefer to go by car when actually there are more buses than on mainland Europe?

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that pretty much everything in Britain has been based upon cars for the last few decades.

Out of town retail and business parks have sprung up that have been either not served by public transport at all, or very poorly served.

Similarly, hospitals and schools have been moved away to greenfield sites with better road connections.

And of course, at the same time, the real cost of using public transport has increased by a larger amount than the real cost of motoring.

 

[b0b]

from my time in the US now;

(a) the seats that have backs that can be flipped so you always face the direction of travel

(b) monthly season tickets are issued for a specific month, and not 2 dates that are a month apart.

This has pros& cons: pros: easy to understand, easy to check tickets as each monthly ticket has a different design. cons: really busy ticket offices right around the start of a month.

 

[Greenback]

monthly season tickets are issued for a specific month, and not 2 dates that are a month apart.

This has pros& cons: pros: easy to understand, easy to check tickets as each monthly ticket has a different design. cons: really busy ticket offices right around the start of a month.

The cons easily outweigh the pros, in my opinion. Particularly as you haven;t mentioned the biggest downside of all, the loss of flexibility for the passenger.

 

[b0b]

The cons easily outweigh the pros, in my opinion. Particularly as you haven;t mentioned the biggest downside of all, the loss of flexibility for the passenger.

I've never found the "valid in the month of" ticket to be inflexible, and they do sell "10 ride" tickets for the price of 8 singles, if you need more flexibility - which are a great deal. T

Though that doesnt work in the UK since you need a guard to physically clip each of the 10 boxes.

 

[Clip]

I've never found the "valid in the month of" ticket to be inflexible, and they do sell "10 ride" tickets for the price of 8 singles, if you need more flexibility - which are a great deal. T

Though that doesnt work in the UK since you need a guard to physically clip each of the 10 boxes.

I think what Greenback is getting at is that for certain months if you stipulate the start/finish date you can actually get more 'working week' days out of it rather then ones that may include 5 weekend months when the ticket may not be used at all thus making it less worthwhile buying.

 

[Zoe]

Maybe in the future with smartcard technology there won't be any need for unlimited travel season tickets though, instead you could be charged for actual journeys made with the possibility of a discount after you have made a certain number of journeys.

 

[b0b]

I think what Greenback is getting at is that for certain months if you stipulate the start/finish date you can actually get more 'working week' days out of it rather then ones that may include 5 weekend months when the ticket may not be used at all thus making it less worthwhile buying.

possibly, but that seems like a corner case. i would imagine for most regular commuters that don't buy the annual ticket, they would find a "valid in the month of" ticket easier than keeping track of the date of the month the ticket expires.

 

[Deerfold]

possibly, but that seems like a corner case. i would imagine for most regular commuters that don't buy the annual ticket, they would find a "valid in the month of" ticket easier than keeping track of the date of the month the ticket expires.

They may find it easier to use but I suspect when they see the queues at the start of the month they may decide it's not worth that ease. Mondays are bad enough at the moment with the few people who buy weeklies. And it's hardly rocket science remembering that the date on your season is the date it expires (I'd think there's more danger of people forgetting with annuals as there's the much longer gap between renewals).