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

[Oscar]

This is a very provocative report by an industry expert which should stimulate some interesting discussion.

http://passengertransportnetworks.co.uk/IRS paper_FINAL.pdf

Preamble
Public discussion of the railway passenger business
in Britain has in recent years been singularly
superficial. The Department for Transport [DfT] co
nfidently contends that franchising is the only
possible model. The Association of Train Operating
Companies [ATOC] has convinced itself that
its members’ success is entirely attributable to th
e marvels of private enterprise. The Office of
Rail Regulation [ORR] rests secure in its belief in
the virtues of the regulatory process. And
buccaneers at the helm of owning groups lecture us
about how grateful we should be for the
investment and skills they have brought to a moribu
nd industry

. Of course there is some truth in
all this, but the future of the railway is too impo
rtant to be left to the
parti pris
of these players.
Meanwhile most of the population treats the railway
with indifference

, an increasing number use
its services but grumble away and debate is polaris
ed around fares or HS2 or the legacy of Dr.
Beeching. We could and should do better. This pap
er is a contribution to that process.
It does not discuss in any detail the controversy a
bout franchises – the process-cost, their length,
specification, incentives, risk-transfer and so on

– or the relationship between Network Rail and
its Regulator or the lowering but seemingly unmentionable
matter of Network Rail’s unsustainable
mountain of debt, but focusses on associated aspect
s of contemporary railway affairs, many of
which receive less attention than they merit.

The railway in denial
The concept of our railway being in denial may seem
odd. After all, traffic is buoyant, big projects
are under way, franchising has been enthusiastically
relaunched, commercial and technical
initiatives abound. I do not wish to denigrate eve
rything that is happening, for there is more that
is positive and exciting than at any time in my 55-
year association with the industry, but I do think
some big questions should be asked.
We should be clear about the context. Although the
re are recent signs of a levelling-off, the
quantity of passenger-kilometres travelled has near
ly doubled from its broadly stable level between
the early 1970s and the mid-1990s (though in some d
etails the data is arguable

and the National
Travel Survey puts the growth at only 70%). Train-
kilometres run have increased commensurately
(though that itself is significant). Rolling stock
and stations have been improved and speeds and
frequencies enhanced (though not consistently), and
attention to customers is better than it was
(though with notorious exceptions

). Yet all is not well, and my suggestion of denia
l rests on a
conviction that many of the reasons for this are la
rgely suppressed, consciously or otherwise. Let
me put a series of propositions.
Proposition 1
That governance of the railway is now dominated by
a politically entrenched ideology
.
This is a mere segment of the political and economi
c malaise afflicting the capitalist world, namely
deep and patent structural weaknesses, if not failu
res, in the system accompanied by extreme
difficulty in identifying alternative paths, let al
one mobilising effectively to implement them. But
if
we focus for now on the railway we see
-
the glib assumption that only entrepreneurial manag
ement and competition can deliver what
‘customers’ want, in wilful forgetfulness about wha
t state ownership at its best did once
deliver

and without evaluation of the societal implication
s of unquestioning consumerism

;
-
the reluctance of the governing and industry establishments to admit failure or contemplate
other options, as for example the fact that the lat
est approach to franchising is at least the
fourth attempt to get it to function properly since
the Railways Act 1993
-
, or perpetuating
the system (as recommended by the Brown Review), in
defiance of the well-argued case for
examining the merits of concessions; and
-
the imposition of the separation of infrastructure
from operations

, despite copious evidence
of its inappropriateness in a technically-integrate
d system
.
There are challenges to this powerful hegemony. In
its Fourth Railway Package

the Commission
of the European Union, exasperated by the uneven application and interpretation of earlier
packages, is attempting to enforce the track / whee
l separation and to promote ever-greater
competition, but a Franco-German railway alliance (
abetted by the Swiss) is fighting back in
defence of unified institutions, albeit with intern
al separation of management and a modicum of
competition. And interestingly, in Britain, howeve
r strongly ATOC may believe its member-TOCs
to be loved by their customers

, whenever the public is asked its opinion in polls
or bloggers have
cause to discuss the state of the railway there is
a convincing majority in favour of reunification
and some form of communal ownership

.
It should also be noted that, although the Labour P
arty failed to resolve the inherent tensions
during its period in office from 1997 to 2010 and i
s only hesitantly grasping the need for reform

,
others on the left are doing some thinking about ho
w a publicly-owned railway with community-
oriented objectives might be defined and created

.
One way in which the fundamental issues at stake ab
out the purpose of the railway can be
evaluated is by means of a diagram that expresses the
continuum between subsidised public utility 3
and treating travel as a marketable commodity on the
vertical axis and the continuum between
connected network and individual lines on the horizontal
axis, and then attributes coordinates to
countries and companies. The top-right corner locates
the ‘supermarket railway’ represented by
Virgin and the bottom-left Switzerland as the epitome
of communal values. We need a national
conversation about where we want Britain and its railway to sit in this space 16. It will be especially
interesting to see whether the Government agrees to
further devolution of responsibility for
franchising and if so whether it allows other bodies
the freedom to modify the model by varying
the current coordinates

...

. It will be especially
interesting to see whether the Government agrees to
further devolution of responsibility for
franchising and if so whether it allows other bodie
s the freedom to modify the model by varying
the current coordinates
17
.
Proposition 2
That the institutional structure of the industry pr
edicates relationships whose
consequences may be perverse or even malign
. There are several.
...
Proposition 3
That the franchising system has locked us into a se
t of assumptions and policies with
no real debate about their wisdom or desirability
. This has many facets.
...
Proposition 4
That the prevailing structure is inimical to free-thinking about development of the
railway
...
Proposition 5
That the railway is not being managed as well as its cheerleaders would have us
believe.
It is not my intention to indulge in an indiscriminate whinge about the state of the railway or how
much better things once were, and I am often appalled by the biassed or ignorant presentation of
railway stories in the news media. Equally however I am irritated by the stream of upbeat press
releases from DfT, NR and the TOCs that are uncritically reported and too often do not reflect
the real experience of travellers by rail. Here are
some examples.
...
Proposition 6
That the approach to planning has significant weaknesses
that expose the railway to great risk. I have left this to last both because it feeds into any discussion of HS2 and because it
encapsulates concerns arising from the other propositions.
...
Conclusion
This is a weighty critique. I do not wish to sugge
st that all is woe, for there is much to value in t
he
modern railway in Britain – new rolling stock, bett
er timetables, rebuilt or refurbished stations and
of course the growth in travel by train. However,
if I have focussed on a number of matters that I
believe to be problematic either already or in futu
re, it is because I am worried by the tendency of
the corporate interests to discourage debate by put
ting out a relentless flow of propaganda to the
effect that everything is absolutely fine. It is n
ot, and it is essential to open up the debate. Aft
er
all, the railway is not and should not be a private
fiefdom. It is our railway, the people’s railway.
So what might the agenda be ? Here are my prioriti
es
70
:
-
create a tangibly-integrated national network, firs
t for the railway and then for public
transport as a whole;
-
establish as a fundamental principle and presentati
onal tool the concept of regular-interval,
inter-connecting services running at the frequency
appropriate for each route;
-
aim primarily to increase rail’s (and public transp
ort’s) share of the travel market rather than
to stimulate new trips that would not otherwise be
made;
-
concentrate on what rail does best, replace margina
l stations and lines with properly-linked
buses and fill gaps in the rail network with associated coach services;

enhance the poorer services toward the standard of
the best before spending massive sums
on the already good;
-
reorient Network Rail’s projects toward the deliver
y of the integrated timetable by means of
selective enhancements such as doubling single-lead
junctions and raising speed limits but
also by better coordinating schemes with operators’
rolling-stock plans; and
-
set up a Public Transport Agency to plan, manage an
d champion the system in the public
interest, including the timetabling function, and to administer its delivery through term concessions to a mix of public and private companies and not-for-profit cooperatives.
This list obviously begs many questions, including
that of finance, but is intended to emphasise the
need for a broader, more honest, more-evidenced-bas
ed, more realistic discussion than we are
having at present. And you will notice that I do not mention renationalisation: I am not wholly
opposed, but I think we can achieve our goals in different, more twenty-first century ways.

 

[Yew]

Methinks the report doth show merit. Howbeit the use of esoteric and forms of locution within the elucidation does make the process of deciphering the meaning marginally onerous. I am of the conjecture that, through the implementation of perspicuous linguistic techniques, the hypotheses of the author may be more universally comprehensible..

However I do admit that within a long report, it is very eassy to keep using the same phrases over and over. I think I may have to start using more synonyms in my doctoral thesis

 

[iguana]

Very interesting reading - thanks for posting this!

Tyler's central point: that the "railways are in denial" is an excellent starting-point for all kinds of discussion: including his own discussion, but also allowing all kinds of other points to be provoked.

That's why I enjoyed reading his analysis: whatever the merit of his individual later points (which I might come to and discuss on re-reading), he sweeps away the gormless All's Well In The Best Of All Possible Worlds marketing-speak we get from DAfT, NR and the TOCs. Of course all these organisations have to trumpet their achievements, and within the terms of the current system some of those achievements might be worth trumpeting. But they systematically disallow discussion in other terms.

This has struck me for some time now. I've given up ever mentioning anything I'm unhappy about to any frontline railway staff, even in a casual "what d'you think about this?" way rather than as a complaint - because it's blindingly obvious that they're working within a system that has gone completely bonkers, and which they can do nothing to change (and little to mitigate, though the more cheerful ones do what they can) because it's micromanaged from above to an insane extent.

(I wonder whether the bad behaviour some staff have to deal with isn't contributed to by the silencing of the passenger? I'm always darkly amused by the Scotrail posters promising prosecutions for abusing staff, which I gaze at with my fingers in my ears while the infernal voice shouts out her mantra of nonsense at me at ear-splitting volume, punctuated by a BING BONG loud enough to make you jump out of your skin. Make trains a more pleasant place to be, and perhaps people will behave more pleasantly - apart from the minority of complete idiots).

Even if you try to understand why something is the way it is, you can't get anywhere. Perhaps it's a term of the franchise - which you had no say in. Perhaps it's a requirement by the Department, or the ORR. Perhaps the rolling-stock was imposed by the Department, and the TOC would very much like to improve it, but can't. There's no-one, anywhere, saying The Buck Stops Here - which would allow people to address their views to somewhere in the hope of changing things.

The passenger has no influence on the way things are run. It's all tied up in insanely-lengthy contracts drawn up in offices miles away (and then probably locked down in a "commercial-in-confidence" or Chatham House safe).

Once you step onto the British railway system, you just put up with it (with all its idiocies) and shut up. Your job as a passenger is to be one drop of water in the incomprehensible flow of money to and from the TOCs, government, NR and the ROSCOs. That's the rules. Don't gum up the works (and thus the financial models used to bid for franchises/set ticket prices) by expecting that you might actually ENJOY travelling.

It's galling to then be told by all the organisations concerned how wonderful things are.

Of course there are things I like about rail travel in Britain. Every day I step on to one of Scotrail's new Siemens trains (Desiros?) to go back home from work, and I'm amazed at the spaciousness, the generous seat pitch, the quiet, the relative unobtrusiveness of the damned PIS announcements.

But this is completely random. (Perhaps someone in Holyrood or Scotrail's headquarters managed to sway a decision the right way, on one occasion?) And perhaps it's only good in a relative sense, reminding me of the way train travel could be and used to be. Because on the way to work I step on to an XC train timetabled to travel 8 times as far as the Desiro - and I don't even want to go into the main seating area, with its hideously cramped little plastic seats; even for 15 minutes, I prefer to stand in the corridor.

Now I'm sure someone could pop up and tell me all about how wonderful and necessary Voyagers (for instance) are - perhaps in technical acceleration or weight terms. But that's arguing after the fact. Sure, now that Voyagers have been around, you can point to various ways in which they're better than what was there before, or relate a story about the decisions that led to them.

But no-one can explain why such a passenger-comfort monstrosity as a Voyager was ever let loose on the rails, rather than something much better. Because that would mean looking at what's wrong with the way things are, rather than trying to make the best of an extremely flawed system.

I'm off to southern England next weekend. Both my partner and I would prefer to travel by train. But we're flying - for less money. The "travelling by train" that we both prefer no longer exists; it melts away as if illusory in the face of the thought of spending any time at all on a Pendo or Voyager, being barked at by announcements.

But it's not an illusion. It could be a reality, if anyone in the industry who actually cared about the passenger's experience was allowed to have a significant say in decisions.

 

[FenMan]

Phew!

Where's a sub-editor when you need one?

 

[WatcherZero]

I dont know, hes arguing a bleak interpretation as a form of critique as he readily admits but his conclusions seem rather contradictory. He suggests that the explosion of new passengers is over and that future growth wont be like today, but then he argues against creating new journey opportunities even suggesting Beeching closures of lines to be replaced with buses, yet he also argues that rail should be trying to take more passengers from bus in its existing markets (i.e. try to cram more people onto already busy urban services and not attempt to attract people onto quieter rural services). He argues against rail freight, suggesting green localism and return of domestic manaufacturing is a fad.

The whole thing comes across as someone who has a personal stake in the bus industry and wishes it wasnt declining.

Another article by him is here:
http://www.yorkmix.com/opinion/york-hs2-railway-colossal-error/

Where he argues that there is no need for HS2 because the trunk lines are empty and nowhere near capacity and its not green enough.

And here:
http://www.passengertransportnetworks.co.uk/reports/

Where he praises the Swiss network as integrated but then suggests its connectiveness is attracting too many users and that is a bad thing.

I dont know how old he is but looking at several articles by him it definetley fits into the Wolmar/old BR camp of nationalisation good, playing with train sets good, would be even better without the passengers getting in the way.

 

[LateThanNever]

Looks like very interesting reading. Some of the complete inanities of the current system are outlined in the go-op's November newsletter where the chief executive says - with remarkable restraint "The present system: claims to promote competition and public service; but raises arbitrary barriers to those wishing to serve the public, rather than merely harvest unjustifiable profits.
We must expose the shortcomings of this system, but also make it work for the travelling public."
http://www.go-op.coop/workspace/uploads/files/go-op_newsletter7.pdf

 

[Carlisle]

Maybe that side note on many complaints/suggestion forms is appropriate "To assist us in dealing promptly with your query please keep your letters short and to the point ":roll:

 

[Oscar]

I dont know, hes arguing a bleak interpretation as a form of critique as he readily admits but his conclusions seem rather contradictory. He suggests that the explosion of new passengers is over and that future growth wont be like today, but then he argues against creating new journey opportunities even suggesting Beeching closures of lines to be replaced with buses, yet he also argues that rail should be trying to take more passengers from bus in its existing markets (i.e. try to cram more people onto already busy urban services and not attempt to attract people onto quieter rural services). He argues against rail freight, suggesting green localism and return of domestic manaufacturing is a fad.

The whole thing comes across as someone who has a personal stake in the bus industry and wishes it wasnt declining.

Another article by him is here:
http://www.yorkmix.com/opinion/york-hs2-railway-colossal-error/

Where he argues that there is no need for HS2 because the trunk lines are empty and nowhere near capacity and its not green enough.

And here:
http://www.passengertransportnetworks.co.uk/reports/

Where he praises the Swiss network as integrated but then suggests its connectiveness is attracting too many users and that is a bad thing.

I dont know how old he is but looking at several articles by him it definetley fits into the Wolmar/old BR camp of nationalisation good, playing with train sets good, would be even better without the passengers getting in the way.

I don't really understand how the conclusions are contradictory - though they are obviously controversial. He argues that passenger growth will slow down but that isn't necessary a bad thing - he doesn't see this as an end in itself. Rather he wants journeys which are going to be made anyway to be made in the more sustainable way possible. Rail already has a high modal share for journeys to and from London, for other journeys there is significant room for improvement, and this is particularly feasible for journeys within or between urban areas. Tyler argues that we should improve the competitiveness of the railway by creating an attractive integrated service principally linking these areas - where most people live. There are a number of lines which are very peripheral. Running a train in rural areas has higher financial and environmental costs than running a bus, so we can justify running it much less frequently. I think that frequent well-integrated bus services would be much more attractive than infrequent rail services. Currently bus and local rail subsidies are managed completely separately and the differences between the way the industries and structured affects the attractiveness of each mode. There currently isn't a perceived choice between a (new) railway and better bus services, but perhaps there should be. Rail is much more justifiable as a mode in urban areas due to its higher capacity. In a more sustainable and highly localised economy, it is likely that we would not have to transfer so many goods over such long distances - the journeys for which rail freight is appropriate.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well if you lived near a rural area you would know that while train services have been increasing and subsidy falling bus subsidy on the other hand has been going up and huge numbers of services have been culled. Bus passengers have declined massivley outside London and its a long term and still ongoing trend. Even in London its peaked.

He makes an argument that things were better in the good old days of BR when it was more joined up and more integrated. In his argument that areas are poorly linked in the opposite direction to their centre of gravity and so should have buses instead he gives the example of Bury.... a line which carries 8m people per year and which was closed by BR between 1972 and 1980! Also Sutton Coldfields lack of links to the North East other than via changing in Birmingham, again a line closed in the beeching cuts by NR as its usage declined from deindustrialisation of the Black Country, it never had services beyond the Midlands.

Another example he gives is comparing and applauding Switzerland with large number of Parliamentary services run for social good 'In Switzerland a combination of statutory rights and requirements, a stronger public purpose in the planning of service' while in the same paragraph criticising NR for leaving decisions to the operators and lacking overarching direction. Cites the Barnstaple line for having several stations serving small or remote communties which should be cut on economic grounds. He says these communities should be cut lose from the network to speed up express services on the line and supports the community groups plan. Their plan is to cut the number of stations on the line from 11 to 5, that would cut out approx 55,000 passengers per year or 10% of the lines usership in order to reduce the journey time from 65 minutes to 55-60 minutes.

Its not just these examples, all the way through his arguments are extremely contradictory and boil down to state planning good, private industry planning bad, private industry cuts bad, national cuts good, integrated national ticketing good because it makes journey planning easier, integrated national ticketing bad because you cant take advantage of split fares and toc specific fares.

 

[Oscar]

I'm aware of the increasing numbers of rail passengers and train services and opposite trends in the bus industry. However, consider the different ways buses and trains are run in Britain. Information about bus services is poorer than for rail and bus timetables can change at short notice. There is no information about single or return fares and they are generally operator specific. There are many more issues of this kind. The passenger rail experience is far superior. But to a large extent, this is a problem which the running of buses in Britain rather than the mode in general. Buses are also generally not timed to connect with trains.

The sentence with the Bury / Sutton Coldfield endnote is: "And
it is plain that access-geography and hence market
penetration is an unregarded issue crying out
for research." In the next sentence he mentions: "question the suitability of
the network for its optimal future role". So he is suggesting that we explore ways of improving connectivity between these places and other centres, by rail or otherwise, rather than suggesting that we close these lines. It seems clear to me, and has been discussed a number of times on this forum, that the shape of the network is not necessary optimal and some lines should close and others should re-open. This is essentially the point Tyler is making here.

I think the point about Switzerland is linked to this - in that country there is a stronger plan for how to develop shape and scope of the network to meet the needs of the country.

He also says that improvements and investments have taken place during privatisation and does suggest a concession model, rather than re-nationalisation.

I don't think that losing a railway station should in any way be considered "being cut loose from the network". Buses could connect with trains and maintain and (through their lower cost) improve the network - this is the way such decisions are taken in Switzerland, the country Tyler mentions. The North Devon Public Transport Users have suggested creating a bus interchange point at Crediton. This would improve connectivity not only for the communities which would lose their railway station but would gain a more frequent bus service at a lower cost (as one unit would not be required), but also for Barnstaple passengers, who would have a faster journey to Exeter. I lived for a few months in a town in Germany where a bus service every 15 minutes had recently replaced by an hourly rail service and people were not happy about this. We need to consider which mode is more appropriate for serving rural communities.

 

[flixtonman]

Please upload this post again, in proper form: many of us wanting to contribute to the arguments addressed in it [and they need addressing, because a number of them are very controversial] have given up.

 

[Oscar]

What do you mean by "proper form"? Do you want me to upload the whole 19-page document as a quote?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Of course there are things I like about rail travel in Britain. Every day I step on to one of Scotrail's new Siemens trains (Desiros?) to go back home from work, and I'm amazed at the spaciousness, the generous seat pitch, the quiet, the relative unobtrusiveness of the damned PIS announcements.

But this is completely random. (Perhaps someone in Holyrood or Scotrail's headquarters managed to sway a decision the right way, on one occasion?) And perhaps it's only good in a relative sense, reminding me of the way train travel could be and used to be. Because on the way to work I step on to an XC train timetabled to travel 8 times as far as the Desiro - and I don't even want to go into the main seating area, with its hideously cramped little plastic seats; even for 15 minutes, I prefer to stand in the corridor.

The ScotRail franchise is the largest single contract controlled by the devolved Scottish Parliament/Government and getting it right is extremely important for them. Being able to manage such a massively complicated part of the British establishment as the rail network, especially since it is most likely the most diverse franchise network in the country, massively helps the credibility of the devolved institutions and making it better then down south helps prove the further devolution in the UK (e.g. Rail North) will be beneficial. The franchise deals/dealt with everything from intercity services from Aberdeen/Inverness to the central belt; to the high frequency electric services across Glasgow and spreading eastwards across the central belt; to the extremely regional services from Mallaig or Kyle and then to the sleeper franchise from London. The current ITT is extremely bold, demanding free WiFi and power sockets on effectively all services while setting very high standards for new or refurbished trains.

 

[Carlisle]

Is this article not simply substantiating previous claims from some other experts stating whilst many improvements have indeed occurred through franchising ,all too often in reality we have ended up with rather expensive , over regulated largely pretend capitalism that does not appear to be very viable in the long term in many cases without continuing large subsidy to one party or another ,therefore it's worth considering other options .

 

[Argosy]

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?

 

[Oscar]

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?

Would passengers in rural areas prefer a bus which comes past their door every 15 minutes or an hourly train stopping some distance away? What would be the impact of better timetable or fare integration with rail and with other buses? What would be the impact of paying much more attention to punctuality? This often seems a fairly minor concern for drivers in Britain. What would be the impact of spending similar sums on rural buses as are currently spent on the rural railway? This attitude to rural trains and buses seems to be a very British perception - why do operators and passengers not necessarily see it the same way in many other European countries? Why are there no studies being done?

Alternatively, how much money could be saved by running light rather than heavy railways in rural areas?

Buses which replaced rail after the Beeching cuts replicated the route of the railway and so failed to make use of the flexibility of the mode. The context was also one of rapidly declining public transport patronage.

Of course there is truth in some of what you are saying, but I think we should investigate alternatives.

 

[iguana]

The current [Scotrail] ITT is extremely bold, demanding free WiFi and power sockets on effectively all services while setting very high standards for new or refurbished trains.

Yes, it was reading that ITT elsewhere on the forum that sparked some thought. Because it made my eyes pop out my head. Someone in the industry not only cares about the passenger environment and experience, but is (perhaps) even able to do something about it!

This is such a contrast to most of my experience travelling by train, where my impression is that passenger comfort is a lost cause everyone's given up on - just too difficult to even consider in the tangle of demands and regulations from here there and everywhere.

Interesting observations from you about the political background - I think you're right there.

 

[starrymarkb]

I think something that needs to be lost is the idea that public transport should compete with other modes of public transport when it should be competing with the car.

Also in other countries the public transport system is seen as an asset, where as here government sees it as a cost and for the market to provide.

I think what needs to happen is a move to Gross Tendering, with fares set so that a regional journey would cost the same whichever mode or company is used.

Look at what Europe and elsewhere do well, but also look at what they don't do well. It's all well saying Germany/Switzerland do x well, but they might do y badly. I was recently reading about a French bus network just outside Lyon that looked fairly swish until you found that it only ran up to the Department boundary, you would have to change bus to continue into the City Centre (where as in the UK the same bus would run through - I'm not sure if the ticket systems were compatible either)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, it was reading that ITT elsewhere on the forum that sparked some thought. Because it made my eyes pop out my head. Someone in the industry not only cares about the passenger environment and experience, but is (perhaps) even able to do something about it!

This is such a contrast to most of my experience travelling by train, where my impression is that passenger comfort is a lost cause everyone's given up on - just too difficult to even consider in the tangle of demands and regulations from here there and everywhere.

Interesting observations from you about the political background - I think you're right there.

South of the Border the DfT is requiring the densest possible configurations. For Example FGW have not been able to refit their high density 150/1s with the longer distance 150/2 interior (2+2 with tables) because removing seats would upset the DfT's requirement for the cascaded units to provide the maximum additional seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A final thought. It does seem that a lot of people will dismiss public transport improvements if they don't favour a particular mode regardless of whether it is the best for that role. Look at the Cambridge Busway - ignoring the horrendous project management* it seems to be providing a good service. Not perfect (needs to run later on Sundays) but I'd say it's done a good job of attracting custom. I'm assuming the rail alternative would have been an hourly sprinter. Would it have been as successful? I guess we won't know.

*Which would have probably affected a rail based solution as well given it seemed to be geological issues that caused a fair amount of the problems.

 

[Argosy]

Would passengers in rural areas prefer a bus which comes past their door every 15 minutes or an hourly train stopping some distance away? What would be the impact of better timetable or fare integration with rail and with other buses? What would be the impact of paying much more attention to punctuality? This often seems a fairly minor concern for drivers in Britain. What would be the impact of spending similar sums on rural buses as are currently spent on the rural railway? This attitude to rural trains and buses seems to be a very British perception - why do operators and passengers not necessarily see it the same way in many other European countries? Why are there no studies being done?

Alternatively, how much money could be saved by running light rather than heavy railways in rural areas?

Buses which replaced rail after the Beeching cuts replicated the route of the railway and so failed to make use of the flexibility of the mode. The context was also one of rapidly declining public transport patronage.

Of course there is truth in some of what you are saying, but I think we should investigate alternatives.

If you really think that a rural bus service is going to be provided every 15 minutes then I am sorry it is pointless debating this issue.

Whilst it may not always be the case currently rural buses are funded as follows.

1. Operators provide them commercially. Virtually non-existent. Cross subsidy is out. In the past sometimes very marginal services e.g. one or two per week, yes per week might be provided off the back of a school contract but otherwise this cross subsidy went out 30 years ago.
2. LA’s RTP’s provide them under contract. This is the most common method but LA funding is on a downward curve and operator subsidy prices are going up, so that one is only going in one direction.
3. Operators provide them off the back of school contracts as in 1 or off season ticket purchases. I suggest except in a competitive turf war situations where operator a is trying to keep operator b out this no longer happens. Indeed the market has quietened down meaning there is no financial/strategic need to do this anymore.
4. They are provided by CT schemes, in some form or another.

I have personal experiences as a former and current operator of doing all of these in two separate countries and both pre and post bus deregulation. The 15-minute rural bus service is a figment of your mind. It just doesn’t happen!

Secondly it is an interesting trait that for reasons I have not seen rationally explained people have an aversion to buses but a love affair with rail type vehicles such as trains and trams. Perhaps it is the aspiration factor. You graduate from a bus to a car. Trains/trams are seen as being a little less classless. A highflying city gent is quite happy to get a train/tram/tube. Not so sure that the 19B calling at the ‘Low Green’ ex Council estate has the same attraction.

The attractiveness of the rural bus as you describe it is it is free – to the thousands of pensioners on bus passes! To the average Jo they are usually expensive in fares, unreliable, difficult to get information have a haphazard cowboy type information access system. Ever tried ringing Stagecoach for info on a Saturday afternoon? Ever tried getting bus fare information? Why do you think people would want to transfer from a system that gives them accurate timely info, with accessible info nearly 24/7, with some semblance of a mechanism for poor performance with one that gives none of these benefits?

Finally most of the time the bus uses the same road as your car. Why change to it? Your car is warm, personalised, already paid for (as you have it anyway). It is just the fuel cost and parking and maybe traffic congestion are the issue? Instead you could walk out for a bus that you don’t know if it is coming, run by an operator you can’t contact except between 9 and 4.30 but not on a Saturday and certainly not on a Sunday or Bank Holiday, that you maybe cannot get on if it is busy, has a fixed number of standees, that you have no knowledge if it is early or late or will even turn up except you may be lucky in that at the bus stop there may be Real Time Info (but in a rural area?) and is a lot slower.

Sorry to be blunt. Get real. I have seen it done it both as a passenger and an operator and after 30 years of de-regulation if they have not got it right now, they never will. You are obviously advocating this from a desk driver perspective. The reality is very different.

I will give you one fact. When ferry passengers to/from Stranraer were going by rail there were around 60,000 of them. Now they are being bused this has dropped to just over half that figure and this on a coach (not a bus) that is point to point, is modern and exclusive for their use. People in the main don’t like buses, end of. So yes this 15-minute bus service may be cheaper, but you’ll probably halve the market and increase carbon emissions as a consequence.

You say buses, which replaced rail after the Beeching cuts replicated the route of the railway and so failed to make use of the flexibility of the mode. The context was also one of rapidly declining public transport patronage.

You are quite, quite wrong. Public transport patronage in rural areas is declining and will continue to do so. It is also getting very expensive to provide. There are many examples of bus services adopting this flexibility you describe. But the factors I mention above still apply. Also in the main you have bus routes being designed by desktop bureaucrats to some policy who are totally clueless as to what people actually want. Politics enters the equation and I have come across an authority reluctant to see stations re-opened “because it might upset our tendered bus network!”

In many instances these authorities fail to ensure proper information is put up at bus stops or even, wait for it, ensure that the operator is operating the timetable displayed and printed by them! You couldn’t make it up. And you suggest we should universally adopt this system because it is cheaper?

 

[Oscar]

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.

 

[sbt]

'I think that we need drastic change in how bus services are run'

Certainly there is innovative thinking that could be done. For example, here are two, related, ideas, one from a Journal of the Operational Research Society paper of many years ago and one from my own mind. I'm not saying that they would work in the UK but they are examples of the sort of thinking I think could be beneficial.

Idea 1: 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.

Idea 2: ; 'On demand' services. This arises from the observation that, at my last work location, a full 5 person Taxi was cheaper per-person than the, subsidised, bus for the trip to and from the station. It also relates to how early busses cease on many routes. The idea is to contract with Taxi / Hirecar services to provide a scheduled 'phone ahead' service out of core hours. The service would be route based rather than the usual Taxi / Hirecar 'point-to-point' service, which would allow cost savings by sharing the trip over several passengers. The service would run on a 'no passengers, no service' basis and only over those segments of the route that had passengers. This would allow services to be run on routes at times when passenger numbers would not support a normal service. Overall route use would hopefully increase due to the increased flexibility of the service.

There are also other things that could be done in relation to Public Transport. For example, take the point about Taxi vs Bus fares I made above. Over time an informal phone circuit developed by which those working late arranged to share a Taxi. Could Taxi / Hirecar aggregation services be set up to bring the cost of fares per person down into the realm of normal Public Transport? This would, I think, be especially practical where trips had points of concentration, for example to/from a station to meet particular trains. The Aggregation Service could be either private, provided by a Local Authority or similar or something in-between.

Finally, as a non-driver, why don't I use busses? Lack of information to allow me to plan my journey. Lack of information on when or if my bus is going to turn up. Lack of information, in some cases, about where busses actually stop - signage can be obscure or local arrangements may have been made that don't match the signs or other information. The information provided may be plain misleading: the local 'Market Square' stop is 200 yards down the road and out of sight from that point and I have been left stranded due to the timetable at a rural bus stop showing a service that no longer ran. Discomfort is secondary - with the train or a Hirecar I know where I am going from, where I am going to, to a reasonable degree when I am going and what disruptions, if any, are occurring. I am not left standing like a lemon beside a poorly signed bus top wondering when, or if, I am going to get home or to my meeting. And my experience in more rural areas colours my attitude to busses in areas where they are more frequent and convenient - when I am in London I don't even think to use them.

 

[yorksrob]

This part made me chuckle:

Commentary has run the gamut from
informed research and attempts to emphasise the positive achievements of Dr. Beeching to rather
sad ad hominem attacks and romanticism about country branch lines undiluted by realism. Yet
nowhere amidst the campaigns to undo closures (I concede that some have a case for review) has
there been any move by Government or the railway to take a hard look at the existing network
and consider whether it is right for the next fifty years. We hear little about that because no one
seems responsible, and hence we are in danger of allocating resources to reopening campaigns
based more on emotion than on rigorous analysis

Within this very paragraph one can tell that the author is clearly highly biased in favour route closures. Any apologist attempt to justify the actions of the Doctor is "informed research", yet any criticism is "romanticism about country branchlines, undiluted by realism" (when we know from recent events that the Beeching doctrine has had negative consequences far beyond "country branchlines" carrying one man and his dog.

"I concede that some have a case for review" You can just feel the sorrow dripping from those words. Taking a "long hard look at the existing network and considering whether it is appropriate for the next fifty years" is a thinly veiled euphemism for a closure programme.

Because of the tone of this paragraph alone, I have difficulty taking the author seriously.

That said, some other points are worth noting.

• 
  Timetabling is indeed sub optimal in many cases. Connections between services at Carlisle for example, are particularly poor for trying to get back to Leeds from the Cumbrian Coast, for example. More coordination of this (sometimes even within franchises as well as between them) would be welcome.

• I am myself sceptical about the value of franchising, yet the author dismisses open access operators as merely taking up a disproportionate amount of ORR time. Even as a privatisation sceptic, I have to admit that the presence of open access operators on the ECML has been transformative and personally find the presence of this competitive factor very useful.

• I'm always sceptical about the value of actually closing little used stations. A wayside halt on an InterCity mainline without any local services would indeed cause issues, however the majority of these are on fairly slow local routes. For example, it's hard to see how closing the halts on the Whitby Branch, or the request stops on the Cumbrian Coast line would speed up those services that much (if the author deigns to consider those routes worthy enough of being part of his brave new world).

• One concern I do share with the author is that we seem to have a lot riding on the assumption that passenger numbers will rise indefinately. The set of circumstances leading to the rise in passenger use over the past twenty years has been due to many factors which might not be repeated.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cites the Barnstaple line for having several stations serving small or remote communties which should be cut on economic grounds. He says these communities should be cut lose from the network to speed up express services on the line and supports the community groups plan. Their plan is to cut the number of stations on the line from 11 to 5, that would cut out approx 55,000 passengers per year or 10% of the lines usership in order to reduce the journey time from 65 minutes to 55-60 minutes.

An extremely good point. Those 55,000 bums on seats have a political value which helps to protect the future of the route far beyond their revenue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There currently isn't a perceived choice between a (new) railway and better bus services, but perhaps there should be. Rail is much more justifiable as a mode in urban areas due to its higher capacity. In a more sustainable and highly localised economy, it is likely that we would not have to transfer so many goods over such long distances - the journeys for which rail freight is appropriate.

Perhaps if there was a choice of a new railway in the first place. It's usually a case of " we know this line would pay for itself on a day to day basis but we don't want to pay the capital cost of building it"

The current crop of guided busways were in areas where people actively wanted a rail link back, but the bus was forced upon them because it was cheaper.

 

[LateThanNever]

Well if you lived near a rural area you would know that while train services have been increasing and subsidy falling bus subsidy on the other hand has been going up and huge numbers of services have been culled. Bus passengers have declined massivley outside London and its a long term and still ongoing trend. Even in London its peaked.

He makes an argument that things were better in the good old days of BR when it was more joined up and more integrated. In his argument that areas are poorly linked in the opposite direction to their centre of gravity and so should have buses instead he gives the example of Bury.... a line which carries 8m people per year and which was closed by BR between 1972 and 1980! Also Sutton Coldfields lack of links to the North East other than via changing in Birmingham, again a line closed in the beeching cuts by NR as its usage declined from deindustrialisation of the Black Country, it never had services beyond the Midlands.

Another example he gives is comparing and applauding Switzerland with large number of Parliamentary services run for social good 'In Switzerland a combination of statutory rights and requirements, a stronger public purpose in the planning of service' while in the same paragraph criticising NR for leaving decisions to the operators and lacking overarching direction. Cites the Barnstaple line for having several stations serving small or remote communties which should be cut on economic grounds. He says these communities should be cut lose from the network to speed up express services on the line and supports the community groups plan. Their plan is to cut the number of stations on the line from 11 to 5, that would cut out approx 55,000 passengers per year or 10% of the lines usership in order to reduce the journey time from 65 minutes to 55-60 minutes.

Its not just these examples, all the way through his arguments are extremely contradictory and boil down to state planning good, private industry planning bad, private industry cuts bad, national cuts good, integrated national ticketing good because it makes journey planning easier, integrated national ticketing bad because you cant take advantage of split fares and toc specific fares.

Personally I feel he has a lot of interesting things to point out.
The fact that ticketing and journey information is inaccurate.
The scandal of the creaming off of taxpayers' rail subsidy to private shareholders (See licence to print money http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...chard-branson-virgin-rail-profits?INTCMP=SRCH and many of which are foreign owned nationalised railways. All when the UK is cutting spending! At least more of it could be kept at home by running concessions not franchises.
And apparently no HS rail system in the world has been designed for as many trains per hour as HS2!
He is also critical of the bus system in Britain which as sbt points out above is riddled with unreliability and lack of information. But he does seem to have a touching faith that these organisational matters can be remedied so that buses can provide some alternatives. Too many waits in the pouring rain for a bus that never comes leads me to be somewhat sceptical...
Turning to the Barnstaple line he is also on weaker ground. Omitting numerous stops and loosing large numbers of passengers to save just 5 minutes or so is not a great idea. Whereas I'd have thought automatic barriers at Eggesford level crossing would do that and be of benefit to all passengers!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

'I think that we need drastic change in how bus services are run'

Certainly there is innovative thinking that could be done. For example, here are two, related, ideas, one from a Journal of the Operational Research Society paper of many years ago and one from my own mind. I'm not saying that they would work in the UK but they are examples of the sort of thinking I think could be beneficial.

Idea 1: 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.

Idea 2: ; 'On demand' services. This arises from the observation that, at my last work location, a full 5 person Taxi was cheaper per-person than the, subsidised, bus for the trip to and from the station. It also relates to how early busses cease on many routes. The idea is to contract with Taxi / Hirecar services to provide a scheduled 'phone ahead' service out of core hours. The service would be route based rather than the usual Taxi / Hirecar 'point-to-point' service, which would allow cost savings by sharing the trip over several passengers. The service would run on a 'no passengers, no service' basis and only over those segments of the route that had passengers. This would allow services to be run on routes at times when passenger numbers would not support a normal service. Overall route use would hopefully increase due to the increased flexibility of the service.

Excellent ideas by the way - but wouldn't the UK be saying the technology was unaffordable!?

 

[Oscar]

Turning to the Barnstaple line he is also on weaker ground. Omitting numerous stops and loosing large numbers of passengers to save just 5 minutes or so is not a great idea. Whereas I'd have thought automatic barriers at Eggesford level crossing would do that and be of benefit to all passengers!

Closing these stations would mean that one train fewer would be required to maintain the service for most of the day. The cost savings could pay for substantial improvements to bus services in the area.
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Facts and Figures - Costs of Running Trains
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Proposal for Radical Change (bottom left)

 

[MarkyT]

An extremely good point. Those 55,000 bums on seats have a political value which helps to protect the future of the route far beyond their revenue.

A fairly small rise in total travellers at the more important branch stations could dwarf such figures and that would also send a much stronger political message, and an economic one.

Perhaps under your scenario in order to further secure the survival of such branches we need to open an additional 11 request halts each picking up perhaps an additional 3 passengers a day, and extending the journey time by another half hour.

Like many remaining successful branch lines the Barnstaple line is not some bucolic idyll, rather it's an important modern regional express link across the county, as would be any notional Exeter-Plymouth reinstatement via Okehampton (primarily) and whilst some intermediate rural stops can be justified, such services cannot stop at every road crossing halt, many of which are not actually nearby any human settlement, without losing the attractiveness of speed or it's impression. It is much better for many more people to find a way to re-organise remaining rural bus or dial-a-ride services, whether subsidised or not, to connect with rail at a more limited number of rail-heads that can also be equipped with good safe car parking, thereby exploiting the strengths of each mode whilst cementing their future viability.

To improve intermodal transfer at Barnstaple and develop the pedestrian connection between rail and town I sketched an idea here:

http://www.townend.me/files/barnstaple.pdf

 

[yorksrob]

A fairly small rise in total travellers at the more important branch stations could dwarf such figures and that would also send a much stronger political message, and an economic one.

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).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Closing these stations would mean that one train fewer would be required to maintain the service for most of the day. The cost savings could pay for substantial improvements to bus services in the area.
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Facts and Figures - Costs of Running Trains
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Proposal for Radical Change (bottom left)

This rather raises questions as to whether it is appropriate to have a similar level of track access charge for lightly used lines with minimal infrastructure as main lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is an interesting point:

It has progressively become the norm in tendering to seek to maximise the premium from
franchises that can be expected to generate a surplus, mostly the long-distance inter-city routes, in
order to provide funds within the railway budget to support the losses of other franchises. This
may be politically the most realistic approach, and may even have some economic justification, but
it has never, to my knowledge, been formally tested and debated. That should be remedied, since
by definition the practice means that market-share is not being optimised on inter-city services
and that one set of travellers is supporting another whose social need for a railway service might
reasonably be expected to be paid for out of tax funds

this is an argument that always perplexes me.

The fact is, an InterCity rail traveller is far more likely to make use of a subsidised local service to connect than the general taxpayer. This is because there is a significant proportion of the public who never use the train. It must surely be less regressive for the railway users to subsidise other parts of the railway as much as possible as opposed to the general taxpayer, including the proportion who don't use the train at all. Ultimately depending more on subsidy will only lead to cuts (which the author seems to want).

It is interesting that the author correctly points out that the split in ownership between wheel and rail is a relatively modern artificial construct which adds costs. However, the split between main line and local line is also a relatively modern and artificial construct (which the author alludes to in terms of the fragmented railway) yet for some reason, he doesn't seem to recognise the need for main lines to subsidise local ones.

 

[Argosy]

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.

I hadn't realised that your point was about new/re-opened railways. I thought you were arguing about existing railways.

It may well be that with the continual decline in rural bus services the TfL model may well be revisited.

I don't consider the Cambridgeshire Guided Bus Way rural either. In essence it is inter - urban insomuch it was linking an important small town - St Ives - with Cambridge. A rural bus service is serving villages to a town IMO, not town to town that happens to pass through a rural area. It was as you know doubt recall a poorly optioneered rail re-opening project, the other being Luton - Dunstable.

I would also object to the TfL approach as you pre-suppose the LA's know better. Indeed they are terribly poor at this usually employing desk jockey bus operators who are particularly clueless at what the public really want.

Many services in rural areas are built around school contracts, hence this silly nonsense of schooldays only etc. Yep really useful that, 'sorry we can't go to blah blah by bus because it is a school holiday that day!' Then there is the nonsense of 353 permutations of timetable when bus services cross LA boundaries (try looking on the Traveline website). I recall 25 years or so ago almost running out of symbols to describe when certain buses ran in our published timetables. "Mr McDonald you have two minutes on your specialist subject of understanding rural bus timetables on non schooldays...."

I think the way ahead is the flexibility of CT operation, but being really radical. The concept of the combi-bus, part bus part van. How many dot com people now want to charge you extra because oh sorry you don't live in Wimbledon and there is a surcharge for that postcode. Lets put these parcels on the bus. By integrating with rail services, particulaly those operating class 156's with the luggage bay, this would be possible.

I would like to see proper bus rail integration in rural areas. When I worked in Essex I had tremendous debates about trying to get buses to meet trains on Sundays! Hell's teeth this was a day they needed passengers and the stock in phrase response was "oh we can't do that because the majority of bus passengers are not making a rail journey." Sorry, but the majority of bus passengers aren't gricers either who just want to cop the network with nothing better to do on a Sunday in mid June.

I have the same argument now with SPT and SWestrans over integration with a bus rail journey ironically to villages who lost rail services under Beeching through which the current train service still runs. And then they produce this guff in their policy documents about integration. Yes right. I don't think they'd know integration if it hit them.

Another LA won't get their tendered bus services to travel the 200m to a railway station 6 times per day yes 6 times per day instead wanting Network Rail to move the rail station (at about a cost of £5m) so that integration can be made.

A former Minister thought that bow locks too. But they are still persisting.. Indeed the politics of tendered bus services is arguably what undermines it all. Why let common sense get in the way of something blindingly obvious when you can let theory rule. Never mind the practicality, does it work in theory?

The other argument to which British politicians are particularly sensitive is competition and indeed the LA prescriptive route also prevents any kind of initiative which I would be dead against. Not many operators show it mind, but a Stalinist top down approach is unhelpful.

In essence LA's frankly are inept at their job. They hardly ever review their network except to 'cut services' and are obsessed by it, like a sort of feifdom. I have six examples and experience of that so I know it is true. I suspect it is because most LA PT officers are wedded to their cars and get so wrapped up in policy the tenders are just 'same old'; so they 'stagnate'.

To sum up, it is really about culture and I don't see how your suggestion would change that really.

 

[Oscar]

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.

 

[LateThanNever]

I think the way ahead is the flexibility of CT operation, but being really radical. The concept of the combi-bus, part bus part van. How many dot com people now want to charge you extra because oh sorry you don't live in Wimbledon and there is a surcharge for that postcode. Lets put these parcels on the bus. By integrating with rail services, particulaly those operating class 156's with the luggage bay, this would be possible.

Back to red star parcels! I never understood why that was wound up. And of course City Link was born out of it.
But having some experience of regular daily use of these operators you will find that there are few premium areas left anywhere south of the Highlands and the use of subcontractors 'man and van' has forced down prices considerably. I fear there is little scope for next day services to be run in conjunction with some other purpose as the sender will sometimes need before 9am or so called 'swap out' services. For non premium "3 day" services there may be more scope, tho' the problem there is there is less money in it. But there might be a possibility of starting at the bottom and with steady proven reliability progress could be made to the more remunerative consignments . Mind you I suppose a radical combi bus operator could become a subcontractor - but not a job for the fainthearted!

I also fear that the TfL model will not be revisited anytime soon as it costs such a lot. The TfL system was supposed to become the same as everywhere else but remember writing to DoT to ask when it was going to change to be told that London had completely different requirements from everywhere else! Effectively they couldn't countenance the political turmoil that would result. It's disadvantage is that it is top down but at least it is large enough for a strategy to be in place.

Closing these stations would mean that one train fewer would be required to maintain the service for most of the day. The cost savings could pay for substantial improvements to bus services in the area.
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Facts and Figures - Costs of Running Trains
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Proposal for Radical Change (bottom left)

Very impressive - I'm converted! Now all that is required is for the buses to be 'co-ordinated'!

This rather raises questions as to whether it is appropriate to have a similar level of track access charge for lightly used lines with minimal infrastructure as main lines.
This is an interesting point:

this is an argument that always perplexes me.

The fact is, an InterCity rail traveller is far more likely to make use of a subsidised local service to connect than the general taxpayer. This is because there is a significant proportion of the public who never use the train. It must surely be less regressive for the railway users to subsidise other parts of the railway as much as possible as opposed to the general taxpayer, including the proportion who don't use the train at all. Ultimately depending more on subsidy will only lead to cuts (which the author seems to want).

It is interesting that the author correctly points out that the split in ownership between wheel and rail is a relatively modern artificial construct which adds costs. However, the split between main line and local line is also a relatively modern and artificial construct (which the author alludes to in terms of the fragmented railway) yet for some reason, he doesn't seem to recognise the need for main lines to subsidise local ones.

Track access charges are smoke and mirrors as far as I can see - but you are right once people are on the train they like to stay on it (just see the 'popularity' of rail replacement buses) and ,as you say, they are the people who should more fairly contribute to a subsidy if needed.

 

[IanXC]

Closing these stations would mean that one train fewer would be required to maintain the service for most of the day. The cost savings could pay for substantial improvements to bus services in the area.
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Facts and Figures - Costs of Running Trains
http://www.ndptu.org.uk/ - Proposal for Radical Change (bottom left)

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!