Community railway plan for Bridport and West Bay

[21C101]

Inter urban bus services linking significant towns like Dorchester - Bridport - Axminster need to be regulated and operated by train operating companies, which would be come Public Transport Operating Companies as part and parcel of the franchise (in this case SWR), centrally funded, minimum service with common branding, through fares and advertising on all rail network publicity, co-ordinated timetables and integrated with station CIS systems so that whether you get a bus or train is incidental.

Furthermore at places like Taunton and Axminster the buses should depart from bay platforms within the main station with level cross platform, access in exactly the same seamless way it was done in the 1990s at Heathrow Junction.

I can dream

 

[A0wen]

That rather depends on the purpose. If it's to get cars off the road, it's actually better to run a bus at a loss than force people to use cars (and buy cars if they don't have them, which will then lead to the cars getting used at other times in preference to buses).

Yes, it would be pointless if the bus was always empty, but I rather doubt if that would be the case.

You could equally make the point about trains - many late weekday ones won't be paying the costs of running them, but usable public transport is generally seen as a societal good.

I think, outside of a few major cities, you're wrong with your doubts about the bus being 'always empty' - I'll offer you a different example. I live in Northampton where *most* of the town services are operated by Stagecoach and run up to 11pm at night and with reasonable frequencies on a Sunday (i.e. a minimum of hourly) - yet those buses are often lightly used. Penny numbers of people on a 70 seat double decker isn't uncommon. And this is a town about 230k people - whereas Axminster + Bridport + Dorchester is barely 40,000. If a large town like Northampton can't sensibly fill buses of an evening or weekend then what makes you think places with a combined population which is 1/4 of that somehow will ?

People who have moved to Bridport in the last 40 years (so pretty much everyone) will have done so knowing there is no rail link and the buses would always have been more patchy of an evening / Sunday. It's almost certain they will have a car for that very reason.

 

[DB]

I think, outside of a few major cities, you're wrong with your doubts about the bus being 'always empty' - I'll offer you a different example. I live in Northampton where *most* of the town services are operated by Stagecoach and run up to 11pm at night and with reasonable frequencies on a Sunday (i.e. a minimum of hourly) - yet those buses are often lightly used. Penny numbers of people on a 70 seat double decker isn't uncommon. And this is a town about 230k people - whereas Axminster + Bridport + Dorchester is barely 40,000. If a large town like Northampton can't sensibly fill buses of an evening or weekend then what makes you think places with a combined population which is 1/4 of that somehow will ?

People who have moved to Bridport in the last 40 years (so pretty much everyone) will have done so knowing there is no rail link and the buses would always have been more patchy of an evening / Sunday. It's almost certain they will have a car for that very reason.

It takes time to get modal shift - putting a bus on won't suddenly cause people to leave their cars in droves. If the government actually wants to reduce emissions significantly, it has to be putting money into public transport - there really is no other option. The costs of owning and running a car are likely to rise, which would also encourage more people onto public transport.

You could make the same negative comments about trains, but as I've already pointed out they are seen as a societal good. If transport is available up until fairly late, people will use it. If it stops at 6 or 7, and they can't be sure they will be back by then, they will drive, and in many cases just not bother with public transport most of the time anyway. Running the later trains/buses with few passengers is the balance required in order to have them running fairly full at other times.

 

[A0wen]

It takes time to get modal shift - putting a bus on won't suddenly cause people to leave their cars in droves. If the government actually wants to reduce emissions significantly, it has to be putting money into public transport - there really is no other option. The costs of owning and running a car are likely to rise, which would also encourage more people onto public transport.

You could make the same negative comments about trains, but as I've already pointed out they are seen as a societal good. If transport is available up until fairly late, people will use it. If it stops at 6 or 7, and they can't be sure they will be back by then, they will drive, and in many cases just not bother with public transport most of the time anyway. Running the later trains/buses with few passengers is the balance required in order to have them running fairly full at other times.

Sorry - but people need to get a realistic view about this "modal shift" thing - it makes sense in densely populated areas, London, West Mids, Greater Manchester - where people are living closely packed, where you have high traffic flows to / from key destinations.

Pretending for a minute you're going to achieve "modal shift" from Wibble on the Weir to Puddletown (or in this case the likes of Bridport to Dorchester) combined populations of less than 40,000 with far more varied travelling demands is, frankly, for the birds. And if your argument is about emissions, then electric cars will see to that in the next 20 years.

The problem is too many are promoting "modal shift" because they dislike individuals being able to transport themselves on demand and are using various fig leaves - usually pollution and congestion - to justify this.

And running empty buses and trains does *far more* environmental damage than if the penny numbers using those services were driving themselves in a modern, well maintained car.

The problem for many of these evening / weekend services was poor patronage - that hasn't changed. Therefore running poorly patronised services won't magically make people want to use them. And if you run poorly patronised services, it costs money (yes I know you're going to peddle the "societal good" line at this juncture) but that diverts money away from other services which need it more or would offer more benefit - you can only spend it once. This was the problem the rail network had pre-Beeching - the loss making / high cost operations were adversely affecting the more profitable elements - and the options were either allow that ridiculous spiral of costs to continue to the point where the rail network was hoovering up increasing sums of money year in year which was unsustainable, or tough decisions were made to bring costs under control.

 

[DB]

Pretending for a minute you're going to achieve "modal shift" from Wibble on the Weir to Puddletown (or in this case the likes of Bridport to Dorchester) combined populations of less than 40,000 with far more varied travelling demands is, frankly, for the birds. And if your argument is about emissions, then electric cars will see to that in the next 20 years.

Electric cars do not remove emissions - there are still a lot involved in their manufacture, use and disposal, and the electricty to power them still has to be generated. The number of cars needs to reduce, not just the way they are powered.

People with your attitude are why no targets will ever be met unless governments take a more realistic approach - just replacing the petrol and diesel cars with electric ones won't do it. With higher use of public transport, populations of 40,000 along a fairly linear routeare certainly viable for buses.

The problem is too many are promoting "modal shift" because they dislike individuals being able to transport themselves on demand and are using various fig leaves - usually pollution and congestion - to justify this.

Ah, the usual selfish attitude. Let me guess - you are a car driver and dont use buses much? Your accusations are to be honest rather ridiculous.

And running empty buses and trains does *far more* environmental damage than if the penny numbers using those services were driving themselves in a modern, well maintained car.

Clearly nonsense when you take into account that even quiet trains and buses will in most cases be carrying a few people, and those people will likely have done the other half of their journey at a more busy time, when the economy of public transport is much higher.

The problem for many of these evening / weekend services was poor patronage - that hasn't changed. Therefore running poorly patronised services won't magically make people want to use them.

True, and the government needs to do more to discourage car use other than where it's really needed - and the first step is to provide the public transport as if it's not there then the car is the only option.

And if you run poorly patronised services, it costs money (yes I know you're going to peddle the "societal good" line at this juncture) but that diverts money away from other services which need it more or would offer more benefit - you can only spend it once.

See above - measures need to be taken to shift more people to public transport. Other countries do it - there's no reason we can't if there is a will to do so.

This was the problem the rail network had pre-Beeching - the loss making / high cost operations were adversely affecting the more profitable elements - and the options were either allow that ridiculous spiral of costs to continue to the point where the rail network was hoovering up increasing sums of money year in year which was unsustainable, or tough decisions were made to bring costs under control.

Circumstances are very different now - people travel a lot more generally, and buses do not have the high overhead costs of railways.

 

[A0wen]

Electric cars do not remove emissions - there are still a lot involved in their manufacture, use and disposal, and the electricty to power them still has to be generated. The number of cars needs to reduce, not just the way they are powered.

People with your attitude are why no targets will ever be met unless governments take a more realistic approach - just replacing the petrol and diesel cars with electric ones won't do it. With higher use of public transport, populations of 40,000 along a fairly linear routeare certainly viable for buses.



Ah, the usual selfish attitude. Let me guess - you are a car driver and dont use buses much? Your accusations are to be honest rather ridiculous.



Clearly nonsense when you take into account that even quiet trains and buses will in most cases be carrying a few people, and those people will likely have done the other half of their journey at a more busy time, when the economy of public transport is much higher.



True, and the government needs to do more to discourage car use other than where it's really needed - and the first step is to provide the public transport as if it's not there then the car is the only option.



See above - measures need to be taken to shift more people to public transport. Other countries do it - there's no reason we can't if there is a will to do so.



Circumstances are very different now - people travel a lot more generally, and buses do not have the high overhead costs of railways.

1 - The same could be said for the construction of a train, bus, plane or boat. Again, you've let your mask slip, because you want *fewer* cars - so you want to restrict how people travel I don't.

2 - Yes, but have used trains and buses *where it makes sense* - and that doesn't mean my 30 mile each way commute which would virtually double in duration if done by public transport.

3 - Not at all - the bus industry is quoting about 140g / km CO2 for their vehicles - a small family car is far less than that. The average passenger count on a bus is 10 - so the quiet times will be far less.

4 - Why should the government "discourage" car use ? Apart from the fact you don't like cars ?

5 - No, many other countries *don't* do it. Take a look at rural France as an example. I'll pick an area of Brittany I know a little - Concarneau (on the coast 20k ish), Rosporden small town 10k, about 15kms (so about 10 miles) apart, not dissimilar to Bridport & Dorchester. The Sunday bus service ? 4 buses leaving Rosporden at 12.40pm, 3.50pm, 6.55pm and 7.45pm. Weekdays ? 3 or 4 more, but in the mornings which doesn't happen on Sunday. That is not untypical of much of rural France, Spain or Italy.

6 - Circumstances are not "very different" now - the lightly used services at the margins of the day are still lightly used. Yes the last train out of most London termini are usually busy - but they always were, because people would spend an evening in London and get the late train. But even looking at Northampton, when the last trains heading north arrive there are rarely more than 5 people waiting to get on them.

 

[DB]

Clearly you are very anti public transport so it's fairly pointless continuing this debate, but just to take one point:

4 - Why should the government "discourage" car use ? Apart from the fact you don't like cars ?

Can you genuinely not see why the current level of car use is completley unsustainable in the long term?

And before you accuse me again of being anti-car, I'm not - I just recognise that their use needs to be reduced. I do not own one, but I can and do drive the work pool cars when necessary - but only if public transport is't an option or I need to transport more than I can carry.

 

[A0wen]

Clearly you are very anti public transport so it's fairly pointless continuing this debate, but just to take one point:



Can you genuinely not see why the current level of car use is completley unsustainable in the long term?

And before you accuse me again of being anti-car, I'm not - I just recognise that their use needs to be reduced. I do not own one, but I can and do drive the work pool cars when necessary - but only if public transport is't an option or I need to transport more than I can carry.

Once again you miss the point - specifically where I said about it being appropriate. So it makes sense in London, Manchester, West Mids to try to reduce car use owing to density of population and the fact you have large point to point flows at certain times of the day.

Tell me - is congestion an issue between Bridport and Dorchester after 7pm ? Or on a Sunday outside of the holiday season ? I'm going to bet not. Which is why sinking huge sums of money bolstering the bus service or on some lunatic scheme to build a 'narrow gauge tramway' is madness. That money will be spent and will yield at best a negligible benefit and more likely end up costing far more than it ever returns. And that money could so easily be better used elsewhere.

And I notice you didn't offer up any of these mythical countries which do provide the service you claim is missing from this area.

 

[DB]

Once again you miss the point - specifically where I said about it being appropriate. So it makes sense in London, Manchester, West Mids to try to reduce car use owing to density of population and the fact you have large point to point flows at certain times of the day.

Tell me - is congestion an issue between Bridport and Dorchester after 7pm ? Or on a Sunday outside of the holiday season ? I'm going to bet not. Which is why sinking huge sums of money bolstering the bus service or on some lunatic scheme to build a 'narrow gauge tramway' is madness. That money will be spent and will yield at best a negligible benefit and more likely end up costing far more than it ever returns. And that money could so easily be better used elsewhere.

And I notice you didn't offer up any of these mythical countries which do provide the service you claim is missing from this area.

As regards countries with good public transport - Switzerland, Germany.

Not sure why congestion after 7pm is relevant? Car use needs to be decreased across the board, not just in cities. Whether or not there is congestion outside the rush hour isn't really relevant.

 

[A0wen]

As regards countries with good public transport - Switzerland, Germany.

Not sure why congestion after 7pm is relevant? Car use needs to be decreased across the board, not just in cities. Whether or not there is congestion outside the rush hour isn't really relevant.

Well, that's interesting that you cite Switzerland - because this site: https://studyinginswitzerland.com/swiss-public-transport-system-useful-information-for-trains-travelcards-more/#:~:text=In Switzerland, buses are not,have wi-fi as well. has this to say about Swiss public transport:

"Swiss public transport is efficient, reliable, clean and most importantly safe. However, the quality does come with a price, and the tickets are not low-priced. "

and

"In Switzerland, buses are not commonly used as a means of transport. People usually use buses to reach places that they cannot reach by train."

So is it a case of you have actually used buses in Switzerland to make such claims and can therefore give examples, or is it simply a case that you're parroting examples without knowing the details ?


And the post 7pm thing is relevant, because you're contending that evening and weekend services should be improved, citing your desire to get cars off the road because of the congestion they cause, yet if there's no congestion..........

 

[DB]

Well, that's interesting that you cite Switzerland - because this site: https://studyinginswitzerland.com/swiss-public-transport-system-useful-information-for-trains-travelcards-more/#:~:text=In Switzerland, buses are not,have wi-fi as well. has this to say about Swiss public transport:

"Swiss public transport is efficient, reliable, clean and most importantly safe. However, the quality does come with a price, and the tickets are not low-priced. "

and

"In Switzerland, buses are not commonly used as a means of transport. People usually use buses to reach places that they cannot reach by train."

So is it a case of you have actually used buses in Switzerland to make such claims and can therefore give examples, or is it simply a case that you're parroting examples without knowing the details ?


And the post 7pm thing is relevant, because you're contending that evening and weekend services should be improved, citing your desire to get cars off the road because of the congestion they cause, yet if there's no congestion..........

Public transport has to be viewed as a whole - people using trains in preference to buses where that's an option isn't a problem.

As regards post 7pm, yes it is relevant because people driving cars after 7pm do not exist in isolation - they might well be travelling out at 8am, but have to use a car because there are no buses late enough to get back.

 

[dgl]

Remember the X53 is a tourist route and given all the attractions along the route having a regular bus service that is regular that runs late into the evening is sensible. Plus given the dearth of jobs in the area having the means of travelling is essential, plus a regular link to Axminster helps with connecting trains on the WoE line, which for Bridport residents is the quickest route to London.

 

[Bald Rick]

To bring this back on to topic...

Modal shift is of course important. But to achieve it, there needs to be volume on a point to point basis (ie public transport provision within a mile or so of origin and destination). It is not effective in socio-economic terms, or in emissions terms, to provide a bus or rail service for flows with single digit numbers of passengers per hour. (Particularly if you have to build the railway!)

In terms of Bridport, I don’t know the area, but I’d wager that there are very few flows that would be worthwhile - Dorchester (Hospital, town centre, South station), Weymouth town centre, Exeter City Centre, and possibly Lyme Regis. And that’s where the buses go, Exeter aside. Other than this, the O&D points of journeys will be so spread out as to make bus (and certainly rail) irrelevant.

 

[stuu]

Furthermore at places like Taunton and Axminster the buses should depart from bay platforms within the main station with level cross platform, access in exactly the same seamless way it was done in the 1990s at Heathrow Junction.

Taunton station is being improved right now so that the bus interchange will be where the east end bay platform used to be.

Looking at the Bridport area, it has it's own travel to work area which means employment is effectively self-contained. Much as I would like to see a modern narrow gauge railway there, the sensible answer is a decent bus service with through ticketing. Minehead has that now so it's not impossible

 

[21C101]

Taunton station is being improved right now so that the bus interchange will be where the east end bay platform used to be.

Looking at the Bridport area, it has it's own travel to work area which means employment is effectively self-contained. Much as I would like to see a modern narrow gauge railway there, the sensible answer is a decent bus service with through ticketing. Minehead has that now so it's not impossible

Lets hope the buses like the 30 to Chard and Axminster and 99 to Chard get extended to the station instead of the current 20 minute walk to the bus station.

Had the Castlemans Corkscrew line been extended to Axminster and Exeter instead of via Salisbury I'm sure Bridport would still have a station.

The place to build a community (in reality a heritage railway) round that way would be Axminster to Lyme Regis. Most of the route intact and would suit narrow gauge.

 

[stuu]

Lets hope the buses like the 30 to Chard and Axminster and 99 to Chard get extended to the station instead of the current 20 minute walk to the bus station.

Partly solved by the fact First closed the bus station last year, so the walk is marginally shorter

 

[dgl]

Admitedly when the 99 (now 99/96) did Yeovil to Taunton hourly it was actually quite useful and Train wise if going to London you could just get the train at Crewkerne rather than having to walk to the station from Taunton bus station, used it a couple of times going Crewkerne to Taunton changing for Wellington, too bad the subsidy was reduced and it's been split/reduced.
It also caused me to have one of my few interesting bus journeys after going round a bend on the road that leads from the Eagle Tavern and meeting a car that had obviously taken the bend too fast and was stuck, had to get a couple of passengers to help him reverse and we took a different route.

 

[DorkingMain]

Reading back over this thread, a few interesting points:

• Modal shift at any cost is obviously not a reasonable aim, though linking major population centres is definitely a reasonable way to achieve this.
• Bus services in this country are atrocious and there is no real reason they should be, aside a general attitude in the UK that the two methods of transport are "Car or bus"
• People's worries about "buses running along half empty" are definitely a contributing factor to the above; supply will always need to be greater than demand or the service is useless. Nobody wants to stand around waiting for huge amounts of time for buses, and frequencies need to be fairly attractive for them to be worth ditching your car for.
• I wouldn't call Maiden Newton a "major population centre" by any definition, and reasonably Dorchester / Weymouth / Axminster / Crewkerne are the nearest objectives, each with a reasonable rail provision. I feel like this whole idea is diverting attention away from those useful objectives.
• Better integration between buses and rail would be the natural way to achieve this - a bus that turns up and meets the train, with a through ticket available on the bus. As buses and trains aren't run in any sort of relation to each other, I've often taken the (hourly) bus to a station only to find the next train is then another 40 mins away. Those sorts of gaps quickly make through journeys untenable.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reading back over this thread, a few interesting points:

• Modal shift at any cost is obviously not a reasonable aim, though linking major population centres is definitely a reasonable way to achieve this.
• Bus services in this country are atrocious and there is no real reason they should be, aside a general attitude in the UK that the two methods of transport are "Car or bus"
• People's worries about "buses running along half empty" are definitely a contributing factor to the above; supply will always need to be greater than demand or the service is useless. Nobody wants to stand around waiting for huge amounts of time for buses, and frequencies need to be fairly attractive for them to be worth ditching your car for.
• I wouldn't call Maiden Newton a "major population centre" by any definition, and reasonably Dorchester / Weymouth / Axminster / Crewkerne are the nearest objectives, each with a reasonable rail provision. I feel like this whole idea is diverting attention away from those useful objectives.
• Better integration between buses and rail would be the natural way to achieve this - a bus that turns up and meets the train, with a through ticket available on the bus. As buses and trains aren't run in any sort of relation to each other, I've often taken the (hourly) bus to a station only to find the next train is then another 40 mins away. Those sorts of gaps quickly make through journeys untenable.

Well said.

There is an issue with connections, as it is a logistical challenge for all buses to connect with all trains at an hone station (even those with an hourly service). Taking this as an example, a bus timed to connect with services at Dorchester South would be quite easy, but the same bus would not be able to connect well at Axminster.

However I do agree that in general bus / rail connections to rural towns could be better.

 

[A0wen]

Reading back over this thread, a few interesting points:

• Modal shift at any cost is obviously not a reasonable aim, though linking major population centres is definitely a reasonable way to achieve this.
• Bus services in this country are atrocious and there is no real reason they should be, aside a general attitude in the UK that the two methods of transport are "Car or bus"
• People's worries about "buses running along half empty" are definitely a contributing factor to the above; supply will always need to be greater than demand or the service is useless. Nobody wants to stand around waiting for huge amounts of time for buses, and frequencies need to be fairly attractive for them to be worth ditching your car for.
• I wouldn't call Maiden Newton a "major population centre" by any definition, and reasonably Dorchester / Weymouth / Axminster / Crewkerne are the nearest objectives, each with a reasonable rail provision. I feel like this whole idea is diverting attention away from those useful objectives.
• Better integration between buses and rail would be the natural way to achieve this - a bus that turns up and meets the train, with a through ticket available on the bus. As buses and trains aren't run in any sort of relation to each other, I've often taken the (hourly) bus to a station only to find the next train is then another 40 mins away. Those sorts of gaps quickly make through journeys untenable.

On point 1 - define 'major' population centres. I'm not sure places of 10k or less can be considered 'major'.
On point 2 - not true - it's mixed. In most cities and even large towns the services are pretty good and quite comprehensive. Even corridors linking 'large' towns are generally fairly good - want an example ? the corridor between Stevenage and Luton for example sees a half hourly service 12 hours a day. The corridor through Herts between Stevenage, Hatfield and St Albans again is 2 buses an hour between Stevenage & Welwyn GC (parallel to the railway) and then 4 buses an hour between WGC and St Albans.

In rural areas the picture is more patchy, but that was always the case with far fewer services, alot of 'specific day' only market day services.

On point 3 - that's a basic economic point - running largely empty vehicles (either bus or train) is a waste of resources and is a drain on finances. Demand Responsive Transport, in more rural areas makes far more sense. OK it loses the 'turn up and go' convenience, but the locals (who will be the prime users) will plan around it.

On point 4 - There is an hourly service between Axminster & Bridport taking about 45 mins (X51/X53) with it splitting so Dorchester and Weymouth are every 2 hours. Crewkerne makes less sense. If you're heading east, then surely travelling from Weymouth or Dorchester is more likely, given the train also takes in places like Bournemouth and Southampton en route, so are more likely to be destinations. Heading west (Exeter) then via Axminster will be quicker.

The problem with 'through' tickets is they can work quite well one way i.e. towards Bridport which could be added as a rail destination, but the other way (which is what residents would benefit from) doesn't work as well - so you get on the bus and say you want a return from Bridport to [pick a National Rail sation] - which means somehow the bus company has to know all the possible destinations, advise on the most appropriate fares etc etc. Question is Bridport more of a destination or a departure point ? My hunch is the latter.

 

[Bald Rick]

The problem with 'through' tickets is they can work quite well one way i.e. towards Bridport which could be added as a rail destination, but the other way (which is what residents would benefit from) doesn't work as well - so you get on the bus and say you want a return from Bridport to [pick a National Rail sation] - which means somehow the bus company has to know all the possible destinations, advise on the most appropriate fares etc etc. Question is Bridport more of a destination or a departure point ? My hunch is the latter.

I agree with the sentiment, but that’s where mobile ticketing comes in. There’s no reason technologically that someone couldn’t buy a (say) Bridport - Basingstoke ticket, have it on their mobile, scan on the bus, scan at the station, done.

 

[Mikey C]

And there is always the option of taxis/minicabs/ubers, so it's not as if people living in small towns with a poor bus service are completely stranded if they don't have a car

 

[A0wen]

I agree with the sentiment, but that’s where mobile ticketing comes in. There’s no reason technologically that someone couldn’t buy a (say) Bridport - Basingstoke ticket, have it on their mobile, scan on the bus, scan at the station, done.

I agree - the problem is the next round of posters who will come along and trot out the line that it means the non-tech savvy (which allegedly are all pensioners and the poor) who don't use Smart Phones are excluded from this - it's not an argument I buy, just for the record, but having sat through various meetings on a whole plethora of subjects I'm forever being told that any form of electronic payment excludes those people and that's why we can't do "just that".

 

[BayPaul]

I agree - the problem is the next round of posters who will come along and trot out the line that it means the non-tech savvy (which allegedly are all pensioners and the poor) who don't use Smart Phones are excluded from this - it's not an argument I buy, just for the record, but having sat through various meetings on a whole plethora of subjects I'm forever being told that any form of electronic payment excludes those people and that's why we can't do "just that".

A simple option to cater for these people would be a say £10 bus + rail fare, bought from the bus driver, which is valid for transport to the station, and can then be used when you buy your train ticket as a voucher towards the cost of that ticket. It could perhaps allow you to buy your onward ticket on the train / at the destination station, to save you needing to go to a ticket office, similar to a permit to travel machine, so allowing quick connections from bus to train.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree - the problem is the next round of posters who will come along and trot out the line that it means the non-tech savvy (which allegedly are all pensioners and the poor) who don't use Smart Phones are excluded from this - it's not an argument I buy, just for the record, but having sat through various meetings on a whole plethora of subjects I'm forever being told that any form of electronic payment excludes those people and that's why we can't do "just that".

If my near 80 year old mother can do it, anyone can. (And she can!)

 

[A0wen]

A simple option to cater for these people would be a say £10 bus + rail fare, bought from the bus driver, which is valid for transport to the station, and can then be used when you buy your train ticket as a voucher towards the cost of that ticket. It could perhaps allow you to buy your onward ticket on the train / at the destination station, to save you needing to go to a ticket office, similar to a permit to travel machine, so allowing quick connections from bus to train.

But doesn't make for integrated ticketing - it's a pretty pointless way to do it.

If my near 80 year old mother can do it, anyone can. (And she can!)

You're pushing at an open door ! I make the same point citing both of my parents, both of whom are in their 70s, but I am routinely shouted down by people who claim 'old people don't do technology' - and unfortunately in these politically correct days, ignoring or lowering the priority of a minority group (in this case those who can't / won't use technology) is a big no-no.....

 

[DorkingMain]

But doesn't make for integrated ticketing - it's a pretty pointless way to do it.


You're pushing at an open door ! I make the same point citing both of my parents, both of whom are in their 70s, but I am routinely shouted down by people who claim 'old people don't do technology' - and unfortunately in these politically correct days, ignoring or lowering the priority of a minority group (in this case those who can't / won't use technology) is a big no-no.....

Experience suggests that it's not "old people don't do technology" but more "some old people refuse to bother with technology and will scream blue murder if you try and make them use it" - and unfortunately, there has been a great deal of pandering to the elderly in the last 30 years because they're a huge (and floating) voter contingent.