Coastliner 700 route set to be split

[adtrainz]

With Stagecoach proclaiming `You had your say! ...and we listened`...

Coastliner 700 gets a large number of route and timetable alterations from the 4th of May.

• Southsea removed entirely- the route will now start from the Hard Interchange in Portsmouth
• 3 buses now required to get from Portsmouth to Brighton
• Portsmouth to Flansham Park (Yapton (just west of Bognor)) 3 bph
• Chichester to Littlehampton 3bph
• thus making Chichester to Bognor 6bph
• Littlehampton to Brighton 6bph
• Arundel to Brighton 3bph
• Most interchanges will now be around 10 minutes off-peak
• No guaranteed connections
• More double deckers

Adding 20 minutes onto the end-to-end journey (more if delays occur), but passenger numbers for the whole journey must be very low.

Chichester to Bognor 6bph will please many- this section is well used.

Anyone wanting to make the over-4-hour full journey should do so very soon...

http://www.stagecoachbus.com/Coastliner 700 changes.aspx

 

[MCR247]

I've never used this route and I have no local knowledge so could anyone tell what the point is in having the same route number for what in reality is 3 different and separate routes? I can understand branding them all 'Coastliner,' but surely it would make more sense to have, for example, a 700 701 and a 702?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Bognor Regis is a good example of a median point in this new structuring.

 

[BestWestern]

I've never used this route and I have no local knowledge so could anyone tell what the point is in having the same route number for what in reality is 3 different and separate routes? I can understand branding them all 'Coastliner,' but surely it would make more sense to have, for example, a 700 701 and a 702?

The initial splintering of the service began a few years back when the EU, with it's usual hallmark of tedius stupidity, introduced rules effectively banning routes over a certain length being operated on 'domestic' terms, instead classifying them as long distance and requiring tachographs and the associated logistics and procedure. This required operators to split such routes into several portions in order to get around the tach regs, with the result that you could retain the vehicle and route number throughout but with the operation being technically a different service for each portion (with suitably confusing timetables). The 700 for a time therefore ran with destinations such as 'Chichester for Brighton' and so on. Thankfully this daftness has ceased, and the route is again run as a through service, with just the drivers changing over at certain locations.

Further complexity arrived with the introduction of the shorter Brighton - Arundel runs, also operated as 700 (but with single deckers). This is presumably to try and give a unified 'brand', but as you rightly say is clearly confusing for passengers, and the required brand identity is surely delivered simply by use of the 'Coastliner' moniker. Also confusing is the Flansham Park destination, already displayed on certain departures from Portsmouth which gradually cover less of the route as they get later in the evening, which means absolutely nothing to many passengers; put simply, "where on earth is that?" comes to mind.

The 700 is a good route and a stalwart of the south coast operation, but has changed significantly over the years to absorb an increasing amount of local bus work en route. Presumably these new changes will aim to continue the popularity of the service whilst also being beneficial to the operator.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would it be right to say that the TransPeak service, formerly from Nottingham (now Derby) to Manchester, would be a similar example of a long-ish route being similarly affected by such EU regulations ?

 

[MCR247]

Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me

It does sound like the route has had a complex history! I've never seen the point in those EU rules, all they ever did was make it more difficult for passengers!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it be right to say that the TransPeak service, formerly from Nottingham (now Derby) to Manchester, would be a similar example of a long-ish route being similarly affected by such EU regulations ?

Yes, High Peak had to split the service into TP1, TP2 etc

 

[Be3G]

Another example would be North Norfolk's Coasthopper, which now has to run as three separate legs.

 

[Statto]

X53 Poole-Exeter perfect example of the ruling[think it's routes over 31 miles 50k] that the timetable has to be split into sections, First's own X53 timetable makes it look you have to change, doesn't state whether it's a through service. http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/tim...61&operator=7&op_id=7&from_timetable1=1&day=1

 

[DunsBus]

I can give a few examples from my locale: the 51/52 (Jedburgh/Kelso - Lauder - Edinburgh) and 60 (Galashiels - Duns - Berwick), run by Perryman's and the 62 (Melrose - Galashiels - Peebles - Edinburgh), run by First, are all registered as two separate sections but run as through services, the 'split points' being Lauder, Duns and Peebles respectively. The 62 is due to change on April 21, being renumbered to X62 and the section between Galashiels and Melrose withdrawn; however the split registration remains.

Perhaps somewhat oddly, the First X95 (Edinburgh - Galashiels - Hawick - Carlisle) despite its 95-mile length is run on the one riegstration although drivers don't do the full route, changing over at Galashiels.

 

[DaveHarries]

A pity to split up the 700 Coastliner but I think it silly not to have guaranteed connections.

Dave

 

[telstarbox]

Is Brighton and Hove's 29 another 'split' service? Each run from Tunbridge Wells < > Brighton is in reality done as a single journey, but it's shown as a split service with 'guaranteed connection' (i.e. the same bus) at Uckfield:

http://bh.buscms.com/brightonbuses/uploadedfiles/tt28-150913.pdf

The overall journey is just over 50km.

 

[Robertj21a]

Loads of licences have been split over recent years, many of the longer Stagecoach routes are good examples.

There's not much need for 'guaranteed' connections on the 700 when much of it runs every 10 mins anyway. The key problem causing the changes now are related to the difficulty in keeping anywhere close to the timetable over such a long (4+ hour) journey through congested areas. Guaranteeing connections is of little use if the bus is 30 mins late, but runs every 10 mins anyway.

Robert

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Loads of licences have been split over recent years, many of the longer Stagecoach routes are good examples.

There's not much need for 'guaranteed' connections on the 700 when much of it runs every 10 mins anyway. The key problem causing the changes now are related to the difficulty in keeping anywhere close to the timetable over such a long (4+ hour) journey through congested areas. Guaranteeing connections is of little use if the bus is 30 mins late, but runs every 10 mins anyway.

Robert

Good points there.

However, the main point is that the 700 (whilst the successor to the iconic Southdown 31 service) is really a number of local services that are linked to form one long route that gets no end to end traffic (except the odd mad gricer).

As Robert says, the guaranteed connection isn't so much of an issue when frequencies are as they are. Also, I would suspect that traffic along that route (esp in summer) is having major reliability issues so that you have a drivers are stood waiting for their vehicles (e.g. a Chichester driver going to Worthing and then having to wait for the vehicle as it's stuck in traffic from Brighton to Shoreham, for example)

 

[34D]

Another example would be North Norfolk's Coasthopper, which now has to run as three separate legs.

No! They don't _have_ to, it's just that the operator doesn't want to give drivers proper breaks or fit digital tachographs.

Also I suspect ENCTS reimbursement comes into play here. For example, local to me the Harrogate to York route is within 30 miles but is split at Wetherby for ENCTS reasons.

Do note that on these split services, passengers with smartcards will need to come up to the front each time to touch in again.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No! They don't have to, it's just that the operator doesn't want to give drivers proper breaks or fit digital tachographs.

Now that Norfolk Green are part of the Stagecoach group, would your comment above on the "Coasthopper" service be based upon the operators before or after the recent change of ownership ?

 

[radamfi]

The British bus industry, regardless of ownership, is focussed very much on cutting cost to the absolute minimum, so inevitably they found loopholes around the legislation to save money. In some other EU countries there is more of an emphasis on quality, for example buying higher specification vehicles, having sophisticated cockpit gadgetry, universal tracking, having lengthy layovers to improve connections etc. So digital tachographs were already in place before the regulations came into force.

 

[starrymarkb]

It's been that way since before the sale to Stagecoach. (Have Stagecoach been in charge long enough to make changes? my understanding was the sale has only just been cleared)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The British bus industry, regardless of ownership, is focussed very much on cutting cost to the absolute minimum, so inevitably they found loopholes around the legislation to save money. In some other EU countries there is more of an emphasis on quality, for example buying higher specification vehicles, having sophisticated cockpit gadgetry, universal tracking, having lengthy layovers to improve connections etc. So digital tachographs were already in place before the regulations came into force.

Sorry but you're mistaken on one really important aspect.

The fact is that the regulations were brought in for coach travel. For the most part, in continental Europe, it didn't actually affect things greater as local bus services tend not to be more than 50km as population density and the rail network tend to favour car or rail. The arguments on the UK's transport planning, development guidelines, rail network and the Beeching Axe are too complex to list!!

The long stage carriage service is/was more prevalent in the UK and the regs were a case of "unintended consequences" - they were never designed to sweep up local bus services. Of the major groups, Stagecoach were the only ones who really pursued the "guaranteed connection" and through running. Other services were either converted to EU and tachos or, more often, were simply truncated (e.g. Bath to Salisbury) and made into two separate services.

One particular example, which really highlights the problem was the 70 Darlington to Ripon service. That was a service that (when the regs came in) was a marginal (part tendered, part commercial), two vehicle service with a pair of United/Arriva Metroriders. A round trip was 4 hours.

Now does anyone really think that four hours trundling through North Yorkshire is as stressful as 4 hours of motorway driving? Also, and I'm guessing you don't work in the bus industry, but managing both UK domestic alongside EU drivers hours is really difficult. You can, of course, run everything on EU hours but the costs are prohibitive (in terms of training, technology and the inherent reduction in productivity).

Find any industry where you can reduce productivity and flexibility by 10 to 15% and see how they can absorb it? Instead, what would've happened with the Ripon to Darlington service. The options are:

• Split it into two separate services in Northallerton and operate through as 70 and 72 and retain it or
• Put it on EU rules but the additional cost would've pushed it from part commercial to requiring a fully tendered solution

Given the pressure on tendered services now, would that latter option even get through?

 

[radamfi]

Sorry but you're mistaken on one really important aspect.

The fact is that the regulations were brought in for coach travel. For the most part, in continental Europe, it didn't actually affect things greater as local bus services tend not to be more than 50km as population density and the rail network tend to favour car or rail. The arguments on the UK's transport planning, development guidelines, rail network and the Beeching Axe are too complex to list!!

The long stage carriage service is/was more prevalent in the UK and the regs were a case of "unintended consequences" - they were never designed to sweep up local bus services.

It is probably fair to say that other EU countries were not as affected by the change as they did not have so many bus routes over 50 km. This is mainly because the bus network is more integrated with rail so long journeys are usually made by changing between bus and rail, using rail for the majority of the journey. Many (if not most?) long bus routes in the UK compete with railway lines.

However they do exist. For example, there is a fairly comprehensive network of longer distance bus services in the north-east of the Netherlands as the rail network is fairly sparse in that area, and also in the Zeeland province south-west of Rotterdam. It is a myth that only the UK has had its rail network severely truncated. For example, the Netherlands had their own 'Beeching' before the UK, meaning that the rail network is actually not very dense considering it is the most densely populated country in Europe (apart from microstates). They have made up for it slightly with busways. Belgium has more stations than the Netherlands despite being much smaller.

Given the pressure on tendered services now, would that latter option even get through?

Obviously, as is usually the case, it all comes down to money. Obviously with a properly funded bus network, you don't need to make such awkward decisions. The UK can do it properly when we want to. In the last 10 to 20 years, the UK has been investing in railway infrastructure in a big way. Station refurbishment in particular is often gold-plated and probably rivalling the best in Europe.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is probably fair to say that other EU countries were not as affected by the change as they did not have so many bus routes over 50 km. This is mainly because the bus network is more integrated with rail so long journeys are usually made by changing between bus and rail, using rail for the majority of the journey. Many (if not most?) long bus routes in the UK compete with railway lines.

However they do exist. For example, there is a fairly comprehensive network of longer distance bus services in the north-east of the Netherlands as the rail network is fairly sparse in that area, and also in the Zeeland province south-west of Rotterdam. It is a myth that only the UK has had its rail network severely truncated. For example, the Netherlands had their own 'Beeching' before the UK, meaning that the rail network is actually not very dense considering it is the most densely populated country in Europe (apart from microstates). They have made up for it slightly with busways. Belgium has more stations than the Netherlands despite being much smaller.



Obviously, as is usually the case, it all comes down to money. Obviously with a properly funded bus network, you don't need to make such awkward decisions. The UK can do it properly when we want to. In the last 10 to 20 years, the UK has been investing in railway infrastructure in a big way. Station refurbishment in particular is often gold-plated and probably rivalling the best in Europe.

Of course, it always comes down to money, and sadly in this country, we are now again in the cycle of low tax, low spend (as has happened in the past). We also have a record for not wishing to be taxed even if it means for capital investment - remember the 1992 election and Labour's tax bombshell. Even when they got in after 1997, much of the spending was hidden by putting it via PPP schemes so it didn't "hit the books" so politically expedient if not financially wise!

Other harsh realities are that transport rates lower (and is less emotive) than health or education spending. Even within the transport world, buses just don't have that strength of emotion. Close the S&C and people could see the removal of tracks, station closures etc - withdraw a bus route and that visual impact just doesn't play the same way (and politicians know it).

Also, even when we had a fully nationalised rail network, and a regulated bus environment with the majority of vehicles in public ownership, integration was very poor and that was despite a lot of subsidy to the bus industry.

 

[Statto]

Large areas like North Wales, Cumbria, South West, suffer from this ruling as Cities Towns & Villages can be some distances away.

One route Arriva Wales 5 Caernarfon-Llandudno is unfortunate one, Westbound route is ok but the Eastbound route falls victim because of the double run though Dwygyfylchi back to the A55, so the Eastbound route is split in Bangor although same bus & driver[barring a driver change] go throughout the route.

 

[34D]

Now that Norfolk Green are part of the Stagecoach group, would your comment above on the "Coasthopper" service be based upon the operators before or after the recent change of ownership ?

Both. As someone who drives buses occasionally, I have a personal view that 4.5 hours driving is a good limit, and not 5.5 hours.