Current strategies in the railway passenger business in Britain: A critical appraisal

starrymarkb · 24 Feb 2014

yorksrob said:
If these stations are used so rarely, perhaps turning them into request stops might be a better idea than a beggar thy neighbour approach to those users (seems to work on the Cumbrian Coast, which is as important a regional route in terms of linking population centres as North Devon).

All but Crediton and Eggesford already are request. I guess the main complaints are the train slowing to ~10mph to be able to stop if someone is on the platform.

Maybe it might be worth developing a train (Sprinter II) with Tram levels of braking to raise the approach speed to these stations (and others on similar lines) when the current Sprinters are retired in the 2020s.

RailUK Forums

yorksrob · 24 Feb 2014

starrymarkb said:
All but Crediton and Eggesford already are request. I guess the main complaints are the train slowing to ~10mph to be able to stop if someone is on the platform.

Maybe it might be worth developing a train (Sprinter II) with Tram levels of braking to raise the approach speed to these stations (and others on similar lines) when the current Sprinters are retired in the 2020s.

Certainly, if there were a technical fix, that would be preferable to closures. From my own personal perceptions, it seems a lot more frustrating to be on a train that stops everywhere in the back of beyond, rather than one that merely slows down.

Muzer · 24 Feb 2014

I've always wondered if it's possible to install "call" buttons on platforms. These call buttons would automatically send messages to the trains (perhaps via the signalbox? Or maybe directly) some regular interval (eg every 1 or 10 seconds) when they're NOT pressed (so if the system fails, the trains will always slow down to stop and you won't get annoyed passengers). Then when they are pressed, they stop sending the messages, and the system in the train notices this and flags it up to the driver. The driver can then acknowledge the request, which will reset the system (ie it would send a message to the call button which would start sending "not stopping" messages again), and then knows to slow down at the next station. Where stations have one platform, you would have one button for up trains and one for down trains.

Obviously it means you have to arrive at the station and press the button in good time, and you'd need enough education to let the users know that they need to press the button. But it'd mean that trains could go full speed through request stops so when people aren't using them, they'd have no effect at all on timing.

LateThanNever · 24 Feb 2014

IanXC said:
So the argument is that by closing stations the overall journey time is reduced, and reduction of 1 unit required to operate the service?

Having travelled on this line I think its highly likely that some relatively minor infrastructure changes would have the same impact. Improvements to manual signalling (which presumably is coming one day anyway, and also has cost reductions), and a review of speeds (such as whether SP differentials could be implemented), could bring all of the upside benefits without cutting services to local stations.

As an aside regarding little used rural stations, there are plenty of settlements which are well located from a road and rail point of view, but local authorities seem averse to developing these settlements, in favour of others which are poorly connected, and/or require investment to link to transport networks. I've never understood why this happens!

The Barnstaple line people though are saying they could save a trainset and provide quicker service by skipping stations and provide a regular 'connected' subsidised bus service to the missed stations and nearby villages all for less than the subsidy is now. If they can do that then the infrastructure shouldn't need any more spent on it until the track has to be canted for 125!
That last is very, very true! And even when they aren't away from current infrastructure they're happily building - including social housing - without even a bus service long before they've managed to build the railway station (we are happily assured that Cranbrook, near Exeter has been inserted into the timetable though - it's just there's no station to stop at!).
It must be said that most of the small Barnstaple line stations are currently difficult to access on foot and downright dangerous on a rainy night and there is no public transport to speak of. So if you are going by car I suspect most would go all the way by car!

As for request buttons it seems [sbt post21]Italy has it for buses
" At least one part of Italy has a system of 'Remote Request Stops'. Busses have a core route plus a number of remote stops. Passengers signal the bus, I believe by inserting their pre-paid ticket or pass in a device at the stop, and the bus diverts from its core route to pick you up. Similarly you let the driver know if you want to alight at one of these stops. Things are arranged that whilst it is possible for an excessive number of calls at remote stops to disrupt the service timing this is rare. It allows a service to be provided to stops where the passenger numbers are to low to justify an 'always passes' service and service to run, on average, faster as they don't have to do so many 'round the houses' sections of the route "

I expect there's an absolutely insurmountable obstacle to its compatibility with UK trains tho'.....

starrymarkb · 24 Feb 2014

Cranbrook has had a bus since May last year (No 4 -every 30 mins) - I understand it'll gain a Sunday Service from this May with service being ramped up further as the town develops

Argosy · 26 Feb 2014

Oscar said:
I agree that there is a problem of culture and it will be difficult to change. Perhaps we could replicate what has been done well in the German-speaking world and create regional transport authorities with similar powers to TfL. These authorities would be responsible for planning over larger areas than local authorities and should be led by industry professionals. We should study bus provision in other countries and consider what has and what has not been done well and develop a new planning process. Legislation and guidelines (such as those regarding punctuality) should be revised. Bus services could be specified locally but would fit into a national timetable plan. The routes and timetables should be rooted in demographic studies and re-considered by professionals.

You mentioned culture and then bring the Germans into it! The German approach is institutionally hierarchical as is the Japanese. We don’t tend to do things like that anymore over here and when we did we have now moved on.

Your proposal allows for no innovation and virtual ‘state control’ and I would argue that the current system is no better than its predecessor. The only difference is pre 1986 it was larger bus companies that controlled a network, with where appropriate, subsidy by local authorities, now it's local authorities who control the network with the occasional route operated commercially thrown in!

If, and it is a big if, you decide that all public transport is to be state procured (a la rail franchising), which of course will need major legislative changes, you could then try and build a network in the manner as you describe but operators must have the freedom to add to it with subsidised services. There is good evidence that at tender time the la’s/rtp’s just issue the same old every time and thus the network stagnates. Operators should have an input into this process, but they don’t get the opportunity.

Oscar · 26 Feb 2014

A more top-down approach doesn't necessarily mean operators don't get a say. It may not be desirable and may not be appropriate in some sectors, but it seems to lead to an increasing bus patronage (such as in the German-speaking world which you criticise and in London). Most bus companies now are still large, but their operations are spread over a number of disparate areas. A regional public transport authority would allow for more innovation in rural bus service provision, as there would be a body responsible for long-term strategic planning, whereas bus companies are currently only concerned with a small selection of routes, for rural contracted services usually for a short period of time. Local authorities simply re-tender the routes they have always tendered. Tyler makes the same point about the rail network in his report. I don't suggest a model similar to rail franchising for the rural bus network - we already have a system where local authorities set minimum service levels and the operators decide times and fares, I suggest a system where timetabling, pricing and planning are the task of a regional organisation within a national framework. Such an organisation could represent operators, government and passengers. There should be opportunities for innovation through such a body.

Argosy · 27 Feb 2014

Oscar said:
A more top-down approach doesn't necessarily mean operators don't get a say. It may not be desirable and may not be appropriate in some sectors, but it seems to lead to an increasing bus patronage (such as in the German-speaking world which you criticise and in London). Most bus companies now are still large, but their operations are spread over a number of disparate areas. A regional public transport authority would allow for more innovation in rural bus service provision, as there would be a body responsible for long-term strategic planning, whereas bus companies are currently only concerned with a small selection of routes, for rural contracted services usually for a short period of time. Local authorities simply re-tender the routes they have always tendered. Tyler makes the same point about the rail network in his report. I don't suggest a model similar to rail franchising for the rural bus network - we already have a system where local authorities set minimum service levels and the operators decide times and fares, I suggest a system where timetabling, pricing and planning are the task of a regional organisation within a national framework. Such an organisation could represent operators, government and passengers. There should be opportunities for innovation through such a body.

I wasn't criticising the Germans, I was making an observation that their culture is intrinsically bureaucratic, whilst ours isn't (though Cameron is doing his best).

In Scotland we already have RTP's and frankly the quality is no different than in England. You are being incredibly optimistic and forgetting completely the politics of it all. LA's/RTP's are power mad. We will just end up with another monstrosity. They can't actually act as co-ordinating authorities now even though that is what they are meant to do because in part they are inept, in part they don't have the money and in part there is not the legislation so to do.

You are giving an awful lot of credence to LA's which they simply don't deserve. Indeed I think outside of major metropolitan areas your system would be unworkeable because having had experience of 7 LA's/RTP's none of them were particularly clever at co-ordinating.

If legislation was enacted that meant public transport was no longer a commercial activity, and the Oscar world of local government officers procurring everything prevailed, then in theory that is a basis for moving forward but I can assure you from being both sides of the fence LA's are generally hopeless and I would wager with you we would be no better off.

Just accept that in the UK there is not and never will be the culture to deliver a comprensive public transport system that is co-ordinated. People are either power crazy or money mad and the collective social responsibility is not in our psyche. If you want that, live in Switzerland.

I agree with your sentiment but having invented more innovative bus type solutions than most I can assure you local govt just kills it.

Oscar · 27 Feb 2014

What do you propose as an alternative? You say you do not consider the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway as rural, so I assume we are discussing public transport linking (small) villages to towns. It is simply unfeasible to serve all villages by rail.

yorksrob · 27 Feb 2014

Oscar said:
What do you propose as an alternative? You say you do not consider the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway as rural, so I assume we are discussing public transport linking (small) villages to towns. It is simply unfeasible to serve all villages by rail.

I have to say, I can't think of any serious rail reopening proposal aimed at linking small villages to towns. They're all either completing missing links between towns or linking towns not on the network to other towns.

GodAtum · 27 Feb 2014

Sammy the seal said:
The bus is the mode of last resort, especially in rural areas.

It may be cheaper but only rail will get people out of cars. It is also subject to the same constraints as other vehicles unless costly infrastructure is put in, comfort factors are poor largely owing to the inept way they are driven and often numbers are higher than might otherwise be expected because of the free bus pass!

We tried bustitution in the 1960's. It was a failure. Anyone advocating it is deluding themselves. The rural bus will be dead in 25 years and then what?

As some who doesnt drive I rely on rural bus services for work.

Zoe · 27 Feb 2014

Sammy the seal said:
pre 1986 it was larger bus companies that controlled a network, with where appropriate, subsidy by local authorities, now it's local authorities who control the network with the occasional route operated commercially thrown in!

I don't know of any local authorities which have control over their bus networks. As far as I know the current situation outside London allows anyone to run a bus and the local authority has no control over this except for tendering routes which it consideres socially acceptable and the market does not provide.

Oscar · 27 Feb 2014

yorksrob said:
I have to say, I can't think of any serious rail reopening proposal aimed at linking small villages to towns. They're all either completing missing links between towns or linking towns not on the network to other towns.

Yes, I was originally thinking of secondary rail routes, but Sammy the seal said that Cambridge to St. Ives wasn't rural enough for this discussion. My point is that whether or not we re-open railways, and whether or not we close some marginal routes, the attractiveness of bus services and their integration with rail remain concerns.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Zoe said:
I don't know of any local authorities which have control over their bus networks. As far as I know the current situation outside London allows anyone to run a bus and the local authority has no control over this except for tendering routes which it consideres socially acceptable and the market does not provide.

He is referring here to the rural tendered services which the market does not provide.

Argosy · 28 Feb 2014

Oscar said:
What do you propose as an alternative? You say you do not consider the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway as rural, so I assume we are discussing public transport linking (small) villages to towns. It is simply unfeasible to serve all villages by rail.

I never said it was!!

St Ives and certainly Luton - Dunstable could/should have been rail schemes. Certainly the latter as it is prime commuting teritory for London.

The examples I have given and to which I have personal experience of is testament to the hopeless capability of LA's to adequately co-ordinate services as you describe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Zoe said:
I don't know of any local authorities which have control over their bus networks. As far as I know the current situation outside London allows anyone to run a bus and the local authority has no control over this except for tendering routes which it consideres socially acceptable and the market does not provide.

May I suggest you delve a little deeper then. All LA's that I know of, and have worked for in their PT department's, consider the tendered bus network 'their own'.

As the decline in rural commercial bus services continue this puts pressure on the budgets of LA PT departments. Invariably routes get cut. Their prime objective is not bus/rail co-ordination. I can quote from examples in SE England (4 authorities) and 4 in Scotland which take this view.

They are all very precious about 'their' network. Sometimes their 'network' is just a Sunday one (as was/is? largely the case in Essex for example). Meeting trains does not enter their mindset.

Unless there is some super PT authority which operates the tenders for all the tocs and all the LA's this will never happen. There are funding issues, competition issues, legislative issues et al and so it goes on.

If the Tyler report is Jonathon Tyler from York. I know of him. A pleasant guy but a theorist. In the end other factors come into play preventing what to many makes sense.

Unless we have the National Public Transport Authority it simply won't happen. And then who will fund it and the services they contract? It would need to be an aggregate of the Dft rail directorate, all the LA's PT departments, all the PTE Depts, Transport Scotland's rail directorate and all the funding they get pumped into rail and bus services.

Not even China does it this way and I have experience of that nation too. The department would be mega.

I agree with others on the technical solution but getting there given our culture (which is not centralist) I just can't see how you can deliver it. Somewhere there is a boundary and how do you deal with that if area A is in a different area than B and funded by a separate authority?

Zoe · 28 Feb 2014

Sammy the seal said:
May I suggest you delve a little deeper then. All LA's that I know of, and have worked for in their PT department's, consider the tendered bus network 'their own'.

Sorry, it seems I misread your original post and thought you were referring to all bus routes in the local authority area rather than just the tendered routes. The situation some have suggested would give the local authority full control so that they could prevent commercial operaters running services in their area and tender all routes.

Oscar · 28 Feb 2014

Sammy the seal said:
I agree with others on the technical solution but getting there given our culture (which is not centralist) I just can't see how you can deliver it.

What do you suggest as an alternative? Rail re-openings only serve a limited number of people and there will inevitably be a need for transport to the railway. Some form of well-patronised buses/shared road transport is clearly much more sustainable than using private cars.

Argosy · 1 Mar 2014

Zoe said:
Sorry, it seems I misread your original post and thought you were referring to all bus routes in the local authority area rather than just the tendered routes. The situation some have suggested would give the local authority full control so that they could prevent commercial operaters running services in their area and tender all routes.

That's fine. It is an interesting debate.

I presume this would be on a cost plus basis? I think what irks with me is that my experience of LA PT's is that they are rather staid. The general culture of rural bus operators and their LA's is highly conservative and also low quality.

I remember when I ran local services we would send someone out in a car to ensure that on the odd time the bus didn't run people weren't stranded. It is called customer care. Never heard anyone else do that. Bus services are a product. Too many operators treat it as commercial cleaning!

The idea of having no commercial services is interesting but the real issue is the way bus and rail privatisation happened.

With the bus industry operators registered which services they would run commerciaslly and the LA's were then left to pick up what was left and then decided what bits would be tendered. With the rail industry it was the converse. The Dft decided what was to be provided and anyone who wanted to run commercially had to apply to do so separately (Hull Trains, Shrewsbury & Wrexham).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oscar said:
What do you suggest as an alternative? Rail re-openings only serve a limited number of people and there will inevitably be a need for transport to the railway. Some form of well-patronised buses/shared road transport is clearly much more sustainable than using private cars.

I think all the evidence suggests that use of cars is here to stay. It is what fuels them that is changing.

Do you know what happened to the traffic reduction bill and following policies? When I was at Essex that had just come in. I presumed they had given up with it. Like drug use, instead of persisting with stopping it, society now seems conditioned to accepting it, by cracking down (no pun intended) on the 'harder' drugs and dealers.

In urban areas yes I can see an effort to use buses more (but doesn't stop the co-ordination issues though). In rural areas its cars rule I'd say. Trying to stop it is like pushing water uphill.

yorksrob · 1 Mar 2014

Sammy the seal said:
With the bus industry operators registered which services they would run commerciaslly and the LA's were then left to pick up what was left and then decided what bits would be tendered. With the rail industry it was the converse. The Dft decided what was to be provided and anyone who wanted to run commercially had to apply to do so separately (Hull Trains, Shrewsbury & Wrexham).

Personally, I've no doubt that the relative success of the railway, as opposed to bus services since privatisation/deregulation has had a lot to do with the fact that the railway has remained regulated to a large extent.

Oscar · 1 Mar 2014

Sammy the seal said:
Do you know what happened to the traffic reduction bill and following policies? When I was at Essex that had just come in. I presumed they had given up with it. Like drug use, instead of persisting with stopping it, society now seems conditioned to accepting it, by cracking down (no pun intended) on the 'harder' drugs and dealers.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00420.pdf

The traffic reduction bill was watered down before coming into force, and the new coalition government has not amended it:

House of Commons Library - Roads: traffic reduction said:
Major changes were made to the Bill in Committee.12 Most fundamentally, the wording of the Bill changed; instead of being a Bill:
…to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met.
It became a Bill: “…to require local authorities to prepare reports relating to the levels of road traffic in their areas”.
...
Views of the Coalition Government, 2010-
In March 2010 the Transport Committee published a report on the performance of the Department for Transport. Again it criticised the way that the Department measured its progress against its Departmental Strategic Objectives (to which the PSAs contribute). In particular, it stated that:
We are not convinced ... that progress against important and complex objectives can be adequately assessed on the basis of a handful of indicators. We note above the limited measurement of support for economic growth [to which the congestion reduction targets relate].38
The Department for Transport’s response to the Committee’s report was published in October 2010, under the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government. In response to the Committee’s concerns about the reporting structure it said:
We continually strive to improve our reporting system, which will be modified to reflect the new Government's priorities following the Comprehensive Spending Review. We 36 Transport Committee, Department for Transport Annual Report 2007 (seventh report of session 2007-08), HC 313, 13 June 2008 [emphasis in original]
37 DfT, Autumn Performance Report 2009, Cm 7737, December 2009, p26
38 Transport Committee, The performance of the Department for Transport (fourth report of session 2009-10), HC 76, 4 March 2010, para 45 10
11
will carefully consider the committee's recommendation and specific comments as part of this work.39
The government does not appear to have made any further statement as yet about its approach to traffic reduction and reporting.

Sammy the seal said:
I think all the evidence suggests that use of cars is here to stay. It is what fuels them that is changing.

In urban areas yes I can see an effort to use buses more (but doesn't stop the co-ordination issues though). In rural areas its cars rule I'd say. Trying to stop it is like pushing water uphill.

I agree with you that this is what is likely to happen given the current culture and politics.

Opinions on whether the switch to electric vehicles is likely to happen fast enough and whether we are likely to produce enough renewable energy fast enough to help us avoid catastrophe, and whether we should produce much more energy to allow people to run their own cars rather than use buses or whether we should take a more authoritarian approach depend on your perspective and political philosophy.

starrymarkb · 1 Mar 2014

Uh Oh - Don't mention artificially restricting cars around here. Some believe all cars should be replaced with a national fleet of autonomous electric vehicles like the ULTra pods at Heathrow.

The bus industry does have a lot do to in order to entice passengers back. Simpler ticketing with transfers/mulitoperators permitted would be a good start. Fares publicised before you travel. Customer Service available at evenings & weekends (rather then 10am to 3pm). Things like that would help inspire confidence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

yorksrob said:
Personally, I've no doubt that the relative success of the railway, as opposed to bus services since privatisation/deregulation has had a lot to do with the fact that the railway has remained regulated to a large extent.

I agree with that. The bus system is also uncoordinated meaning journeys involving more then one bus and especially multiple operators are difficult and potentially expensive (ie needing two £5 day tickets for a relatively short trip)

The powers that be seem to think it's better to have a cowboy operator run bangers 5 mins ahead of another existing route then to have a network where a journey from one district to another involving a change of bus doesn't require 2 tickets and a long wait at a desolate bus shelter.

Oscar · 1 Mar 2014

starrymarkb said:
The bus industry does have a lot do to in order to entice passengers back. Simpler ticketing with transfers/mulitoperators permitted would be a good start. Fares publicised before you travel. Customer Service available at evenings & weekends (rather then 10am to 3pm). Things like that would help inspire confidence.

Yes, I think there's a lot which could be done.

LateThanNever · 3 Mar 2014

Sammy the seal said:
With the bus industry operators registered which services they would run commerciaslly and the LA's were then left to pick up what was left and then decided what bits would be tendered. With the rail industry it was the converse. The Dft decided what was to be provided and anyone who wanted to run commercially had to apply to do so separately (Hull Trains, Shrewsbury & Wrexham).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What a very good point!

Shows the DaFT logic of the policy!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

starrymarkb said:
The bus industry does have a lot do to in order to entice passengers back. Simpler ticketing with transfers/mulitoperators permitted would be a good start. Fares publicised before you travel. Customer Service available at evenings & weekends (rather then 10am to 3pm). Things like that would help inspire confidence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with that. The bus system is also uncoordinated meaning journeys involving more then one bus and especially multiple operators are difficult and potentially expensive (ie needing two £5 day tickets for a relatively short trip)

The powers that be seem to think it's better to have a cowboy operator run bangers 5 mins ahead of another existing route then to have a network where a journey from one district to another involving a change of bus doesn't require 2 tickets and a long wait at a desolate bus shelter.

Again thoroughly agree with this. Probably the single most effective improvement to the system would be to roll out a national bus 'oyster '- surely cannot be too difficult now that many Over 65 bus passes are electronic. About the only advantage of the Plus Bus ticket is that you can use any operator, though the singular disadvantage was as they weren't available till recently on the internet (and even then not easily in my experience) but you first have to get to a station to buy it!

Oscar · 4 Mar 2014

One consequence of the lack of strategic decision-making seems to me CrossCountry's pricing structure. The DfT has allowed XC to implement a pricing system which penalises those travelling in the morning peak or travelling long distances. An alternative could be to run additional services on some of the most overcrowded sections of XC's routes using rolling stock taken from minor lines, which would temporarily be replaced by buses (possibly involving a cascade). It seems a waste to use 158s on the Kyle of Lochalsh and Far North lines. Another approach might be to encourage passengers travelling shorter distances to use the services of other operators by taking a clean-sheet timetable approach to optimise connections (e.g. York to Sheffield passengers could take EC to Doncaster and TPE from there) and giving an indication of predicted seat occupancy levels on booking sites. The HST leasing arrangement means that XC has an incentive to use the HSTs as little as possible - this should surely be questioned. It seems that there is no space even to debate the feasibility of these options.

starrymarkb · 4 Mar 2014

Good luck getting the 158s off the Scottish Government especially to strengthen services in England.

Oscar · 4 Mar 2014

Yes, I appreciate the political issues in the case of that particular example, but am disappointed that there is such limited debate on operations.

Greybeard33 · 4 Mar 2014

Oscar said:
My argument is that it may in many cases be more appropriate to remedy the problems with bus services rather than build new railway lines. I understand how buses are run in Britain and think that this makes the idea of building new rural railways more attractive than it should be. Remedying problems with bus services may be more appropriate than rebuilding railways. The bus industry could be regulated and organised in a similar way as in London, the government could make £1 bn per year available in subsidy for rural buses (probably comparable to what is spent on rural rail) and timetables and fares could integrated with railways. This would improve public transport in many more areas than rail re-opening schemes would. I am concerned about the fact that we normally have a choice between a rail re-opening and more of the same with regards to bus services. You say that running rural buses at least every 15 minutes is unrealistic - but the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway shows that it can happen. I think that we need drastic change in how bus services are run, and railways will never be able to cover all of the routes currently served by buses.

Might an option be to specify some supplementary bus services as part of the rail franchise agreements? These could serve places not currently on the rail network and/or replace services to lightly used/inconveniently sited intermediate stations. The TOC would tender the services to the commercial bus operators, but ticketing and timetabling would be integrated with the rail network, with connections at the railhead (as currently with bus services that replace temporarily closed rail routes).

Compared with traditional rural bus services, these would be direct and swift, using main road routes with widely-spaced stops, rather than wiggling tortuously through every village and housing estate. All stops would be equipped with shelters and passenger information displays, and the vehicles would be GPS tracked to provide accurate arrival time predictions. Park and ride facilities would be provided along the route.

All the bus interiors would be equipped with route maps, next stop displays and pre-recorded announcements to ensure passengers knew when to get off/change.

Bus priority measures could be implemented on congested parts of the road network, to give a journey time advantage over private car use.

The up-front capital investment required for such a service would be a small fraction of that needed to reopen a disused rail line, and it could enable repressed market demand to be gauged to strengthen the business case for a future rail link.

Oscar · 5 Mar 2014

I think that would be an excellent fix in the current situation.

yorksrob · 5 Mar 2014

Greybeard33 said:
Might an option be to specify some supplementary bus services as part of the rail franchise agreements? These could serve places not currently on the rail network and/or replace services to lightly used/inconveniently sited intermediate stations. The TOC would tender the services to the commercial bus operators, but ticketing and timetabling would be integrated with the rail network, with connections at the railhead (as currently with bus services that replace temporarily closed rail routes).

Compared with traditional rural bus services, these would be direct and swift, using main road routes with widely-spaced stops, rather than wiggling tortuously through every village and housing estate. All stops would be equipped with shelters and passenger information displays, and the vehicles would be GPS tracked to provide accurate arrival time predictions. Park and ride facilities would be provided along the route.

All the bus interiors would be equipped with route maps, next stop displays and pre-recorded announcements to ensure passengers knew when to get off/change.

Bus priority measures could be implemented on congested parts of the road network, to give a journey time advantage over private car use.

The up-front capital investment required for such a service would be a small fraction of that needed to reopen a disused rail line, and it could enable repressed market demand to be gauged to strengthen the business case for a future rail link.

Wouldnt these direct bus services be remarkably similar to the rail replacement bus services that people find so off putting ?

Im put in mind of a town like Tiverton, which supposedly has its own "parkway" station, even though its miles away (certainly nowhere near walking distance). I can't help thinking that all this talk of buses hides the fact that the town would be much better off had it retained a mrail connection to the main line, like Sudbury, for example.

billio · 5 Mar 2014

Greybeard33 said:
Might an option be to specify some supplementary bus services as part of the rail franchise agreements? These could serve places not currently on the rail network and/or replace services to lightly used/inconveniently sited intermediate stations. The TOC would tender the services to the commercial bus operators, but ticketing and timetabling would be integrated with the rail network, with connections at the railhead (as currently with bus services that replace temporarily closed rail routes).

Compared with traditional rural bus services, these would be direct and swift, using main road routes with widely-spaced stops, rather than wiggling tortuously through every village and housing estate. All stops would be equipped with shelters and passenger information displays, and the vehicles would be GPS tracked to provide accurate arrival time predictions. Park and ride facilities would be provided along the route.

All the bus interiors would be equipped with route maps, next stop displays and pre-recorded announcements to ensure passengers knew when to get off/change.

Bus priority measures could be implemented on congested parts of the road network, to give a journey time advantage over private car use.

The up-front capital investment required for such a service would be a small fraction of that needed to reopen a disused rail line, and it could enable repressed market demand to be gauged to strengthen the business case for a future rail link.

There is at least one example of this. East Coast timetables show connections for the Peterborough - Lowestoft bus (X1). I think you can even get through tickets, but not sure as I was using my Pensioners' Pass. The buses are limited stop, very comfortable (for a bus) and even have wifi.

I don't know if this is a lingering vestage of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway.

It's probably a lot quicker and more convenient.

East Coast also promotes the use of the Coastliner bus for York - Whitby journeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Bus-rail journeys can be planned using Transport Direc.

I use this for public transport journeys when planning long-distance walks. A car is useless for this as I end up 100+ miles away from where I started. I am sometimes surprised by how efficient the journeys are and also cheap if booked well in advance.

From time to time you also get some interesting resutls, for example the recommended public transport route from Leeds to Oldham is by bus and coach. That says something about the provision of heavy rail services in the towns of north of Manchester.

Oscar · 5 Mar 2014

There are some bus links for which through tickets are available. However, this integration is very inconsistent and poorly advertised and there is not possibility to walk-up and buy through tickets if starting the journey by bus. Roadside rail ticket machines offering these through tickets could be put in place at some bus stations or conductors could sell tickets from a rail industry machine on board buses. These bus links are simply services bus operators provide commercially, rather than being part of TOC contracts, which means that they often take circuitous routes rather than providing a direct service to principal towns. Most importantly, there is no timetable integration. Subsidising fast direct bus links as part of rail franchise specifications could lead to greater differentiation between medium-distance and local bus services and increase patronage.

It is very commendable that Transport Direct provides timetable information for integrated transport journeys, but how many people think to use it. Would it not be advisable to set up one national website providing this information replacing rail booking engines and the Traveline sites. People who know they want to book a rail journey would also find timetables for bus services in the same place. Passengers see special offers on particular booking sites and advertising for booking sites and become confused about where they should book what. A "one-stop shop" for public transport would improve public perception at the expense of some special offers.

Current strategies in the railway passenger business in Britain: A critical appraisal

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member