Great British Railways: Should it actually be "Transport for Great Britain"?

[Bletchleyite]

No, not the name in and of itself.

Harking back a bit to the BTC, I suppose, here, and for the "PTE" areas it wouldn't really apply.

But bus and rail is woefully integrated outside of urban areas in England, even worse than it is in urban areas (and that is bad, hence the likes of Greater Manchester pushing for better).

So should the new organisation actually carry a level of responsibility for both rail and non-urban bus, so that the bus network can more effectively complement the railway network, to fill the many inconvenient gaps and create a genuine network with a single ticketing system and a single, uniform timetable?

 

[Domh245]

Yes, but why limit yourself to non-urban buses (which will always be a bit rubbish) - a fully integrated transport network is the way to go to increase usage, indeed the "ROI" from integrating urban buses with the network is probably better than non-urban

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but why limit yourself to non-urban buses (which will always be a bit rubbish) - a fully integrated transport network is the way to go to increase usage, indeed the "ROI" from integrating urban buses with the network is probably better than non-urban

The thing about urban buses is that urban integrated transport is better planned locally for local needs, so I would see this as being a better fit for regional buses plugging gaps (think Penrith-Keswick, the MK-Luton 99, the X5 pre EWR etc) than urban local buses which are mostly about local travel and should be integrated in a local plan.

Yes, GBR will be responsible for urban rail, but I'd hope more of the planning for exclusively urban services was done more locally - see Merseyrail or LO for a (mostly) successful example.

Though I suppose you could follow Switzerland in having a (near, it isn't *quite*) fully national fares system.

 

[JonathanH]

So should the new organisation actually carry a level of responsibility for both rail and non-urban bus, so that the bus network can more effectively complement the railway network, to fill the many inconvenient gaps and create a genuine network with a single ticketing system and a single, uniform timetable?

As we have discussed before, the need for a single ticketing system has diminished with the introduction of contactless purchase of tickets on buses which avoids the need for cash.

Your own post about train fares suggests paying walk up fares on trains to connect with long distance train fares - again made easier with contactless / PAYG options.

As for timetabling, the connection with the railway isn't the only consideration for the bus service provider, particularly in places where there are frequent bus and train services. My guess is that connections are already better where there is an obvious bus and rail connection needed.

If this is just about reducing bus fares for railway passengers, who is paying for it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As we have discussed before, the need for a single ticketing system has diminished with the introduction of contactless purchase of tickets on buses which avoids the need for cash.

Your own post about train fares suggests paying walk up fares on trains to connect with long distance train fares - again made easier with contactless / PAYG options.

As for timetabling, the connection with the railway isn't the only consideration for the bus service provider, particularly in places where there are frequent bus and train services. My guess is that connections are already better where there is an obvious bus and rail connection needed.

If this is just about reducing bus fares for railway passengers, who is paying for it?

It's about considering the whole thing as one network, and enabling journeys away from the railway as an extension of it, including where the bus journey is in the middle. Ticketing is slightly secondary.

As I've said on the Manchester threads, bus companies will not always do this because it doesn't work for them economically - if they connect well with the railway they get less money than if they duplicate it. So they have a strong financial motivation not to integrate.

With rural bus services basically in tatters, now seems a great time to rebuild them together.

 

[JonathanH]

It's about considering the whole thing as one network, and enabling journeys away from the railway as an extension of it, including where the bus journey is in the middle. Ticketing is slightly secondary.

I can't imagine that many bus journeys are made in the middle of two train journeys.

As I've said on the Manchester threads, bus companies will not always do this because it doesn't work for them economically - if they connect well with the railway they get less money than if they duplicate it. So they have a strong financial motivation not to integrate.

Are you suggesting that the bus company takes the uneconomic path or the rail company? Who pays?

With rural bus services basically in tatters, now seems a great time to rebuild them together.

When some of the historic bus route threads talk about bus routes of the 1980s and compare them to now, it is intriguing which have continued and which haven't. I doubt that connections to the railway have been the thing which had made or broken these. Definitely a nice to have but the reality is that it isn't high on the agenda for resource-led timetabling.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't imagine that many bus journeys are made in the middle of two train journeys.

There are cases where it'd be useful, though I'd admit that East West Rail makes it less so.

Are you suggesting that the bus company takes the uneconomic path or the rail company? Who pays?

I'm suggesting you attract more passengers by building a wider network using inter-urban buses for what they are good at - filling gaps in the railway

When some of the historic bus route threads talk about bus routes of the 1980s and compare them to now, it is intriguing which have continued and which haven't. I doubt that connections to the railway have been the thing which had made or broken these. Definitely a nice to have but the reality is that it isn't high on the agenda for resource-led timetabling.

I propose a passenger-oriented Takt, not "resource-led timetabling" i.e. operating what it's convenient to operate.

 

[Irascible]

Might well just call it "The Train", "The Bus". We already take "the train". Call your regional stuff "The Train to the West" or whatever.

 

[SargeNpton]

Perhaps it should be called the British Transport Commission?

British Transport Commission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RT4038]

There are cases where it'd be useful, though I'd admit that East West Rail makes it less so.



I'm suggesting you attract more passengers by building a wider network using inter-urban buses for what they are good at - filling gaps in the railway



I propose a passenger-oriented Takt, not "resource-led timetabling" i.e. operating what it's convenient to operate.

But as you well know, local bus services (which outside of urban areas includes many a inter-urban route) does not revolve around rail passengers and rail connections. It is schoolchildren, local workers and shoppers, and the buses have to run at times convenient for them. If they can connect with some trains, all the better but it is not their main trade.

However, not having 'resource-led timetabling' is going to cost money, in extra buses and staff. As with integrated fares, where is this money going to come from? It is unlikely to be generated by sufficient extra custom, at least in the short term.

 

[Halifaxlad]

This has got me thinking that maybe they're should be an organisation called 'Transport for Great Britain' with Transport for Wales and Transport Scotland (renamed Transport for Scotland) being sub groups. I would also create one for Northern Ireland and England.

Transport for Great Britain would simply be about overseeing coordination and integration between the various bodies.

 

[YorksLad12]

No, not the name in and of itself.

Harking back a bit to the BTC, I suppose, here, and for the "PTE" areas it wouldn't really apply.

But bus and rail is woefully integrated outside of urban areas in England, even worse than it is in urban areas (and that is bad, hence the likes of Greater Manchester pushing for better).

So should the new organisation actually carry a level of responsibility for both rail and non-urban bus, so that the bus network can more effectively complement the railway network, to fill the many inconvenient gaps and create a genuine network with a single ticketing system and a single, uniform timetable?

Yes. Both in the scope and in the name, a fully integrated transport body so that, as an example, there are connections between trains and last-mile modes (buses, usually, but also things such as bike racks).

It will never happen.

 

[DJ_K666]

I'd say no. All this 'Transport For' nonsense is just a tagline or a gimmick. In reality they replaces London Transport with a body that does pretty much the same thing, so no real reason to change it in my book. Just something cooked up by some pretentious desk jockey who just changed the order and put 'for' in the middle. And probably got paid way too much money for it.

If anything I'd say it only goes half way and ought to just do it properly and be called 'British Rail'

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say no. All this 'Transport For' nonsense is just a tagline or a gimmick. In reality they replaces London Transport with a body that does pretty much the same thing, so no real reason to change it in my book. Just something cooked up by some pretentious desk jockey who just changed the order and put 'for' in the middle. And probably got paid way too much money for it.

If anything I'd say it only goes half way and ought to just do it properly and be called 'British Rail'

Misses my point slightly, though, the idea being that it would be a national integrated transport authority, not a rail authority.

Public transport is stronger against the real foe (the car) together.

 

[DJ_K666]

Misses my point slightly, though, the idea being that it would be a national integrated transport authority, not a rail authority.

Public transport is stronger against the real foe (the car) together.

That's true, although LT was not just the tube but buses and, before 1952, trams too. And I suppose passenger boats too.

British Rail ran ships and operated hotels too, before the Milk snatcher came along.

 

[NorthOxonian]

The problem is that, in many cases, bus and train services can appear to overlap to a great extent, when in reality they serve very different markets.

Take Oxford - Reading, for example. There are around three trains per hour which connect them (in normal times four), as well as two buses per hour. You might assume that having both regular trains and regular buses is pointless competition, but you can't really scrap either - the trains give fast journeys whilst the buses serve smaller towns off the rail line such as Wallingford or Woodcote.

An integrated fare system would either result in a massive increase in bus fares or a massive decrease in train fares on that corridor, but there are also cases where you'd see the opposite effect. Also, I'm originally from Gateshead, and most people there in their forties or older still have memories of when the local PTE attempted "integration" here. Journeys that previously could be done direct all of a sudden required a change, and sometimes two changes. Any hypothetical system would need to be carefully designed, so as not to complicate huge numbers of existing journeys.

On the other hand, a more trimmed down version of integration, where services like the X5 or 99 are integrated into journey planners, and through fares are created for large towns off the rail network, would be much more straightforward. We already have PlusBus and the ability to get itineraries which include some coach and ferry links, and a fair level of integration could be achieved just by expanding that (and more importantly, publicising it).

 

[LUYMun]

This has got me thinking that maybe they're should be an organisation called 'Transport for Great Britain' with Transport for Wales and Transport Scotland (renamed Transport for Scotland) being sub groups. I would also create one for Northern Ireland and England.

One argument is that railways in Northern Ireland have completely seperate operations from the rest of the United Kingdom, hence 'Great British Railways'.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Simply: yes.

But not in what it's called; that doesn't really matter. What it does is material.

We can only hope to begin any process of modal shift away from private car use when we accept that "Public Transport" is (or ought to be) a single product whose competition is private car use, and manage it all accordingly. Clearly any title that exclusively refers to rail would be inappropriate, but otherwise, it could be called pretty much anything generic.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I really would say no, I don’t like these Transport for X names. Firstly it seems like a London branding that has spread out of control, and it doesn’t sound right anyway. Transport for Wales sounds awful, but Welsh Railways is a much nicer name.

I say leave the Transport for x brandings purely for cities.

 

[RT4038]

Misses my point slightly, though, the idea being that it would be a national integrated transport authority, not a rail authority.

Public transport is stronger against the real foe (the car) together.

Until we get trains and buses (and any other public transport) funded from the same pot, and provision on the same legal footing, it is going to be very difficult to achieve meaningful integration.

 

[43096]

One argument is that railways in Northern Ireland have completely seperate operations from the rest of the United Kingdom, hence 'Great British Railways'.

"Great Britain Railways" sounds better than the use of British for some reason to me. I'd prefer GB Rail if we have to have Great Britain in there and can't use British Rail, though I suspect John Smith probably wouldn't be too happy about that - wonder if that's what stopped it?

 

[NoRoute]

Misses my point slightly, though, the idea being that it would be a national integrated transport authority, not a rail authority.

Public transport is stronger against the real foe (the car) together.

So where would this national transport authority be based and how would it understand and know the needs of passengers in towns and villages across the country? I'm rather sceptical about a big, centralised transport organisation because it is likely to be very remote from the people it exists to serve and is unlikely to have much understanding or appreciation of their needs.

Generally the big cities are well served with rail connections and buses not only because of the density and viability of services, but also because they have mayors and strong local government to champion their needs, and they are big enough that national organisations like DfT and Network Rail pay attention to them, but get outside the big cities to the towns or the villages and they get little attention at all. If I look around the Midlands there's a lot of towns where the rail and bus connections are pretty poor, the local councils do what they can but they don't get much investment or focus from DfT, Network Rail and when they do it seems disconnected from the concerns of local people, rather its to fulfill some national policy objectives. I don't see centralisation into a new national authority changing any of that, it might make it worse.

I think a better approach are regional transport authorities, preferably elected so they are accountable to the voters.

 

[mmh]

I really would say no, I don’t like these Transport for X names. Firstly it seems like a London branding that has spread out of control, and it doesn’t sound right anyway. Transport for Wales sounds awful, but Welsh Railways is a much nicer name.

I say leave the Transport for x brandings purely for cities.

I'm not a huge fan of "Transport for..." either, but there are additional organisational and language factors in branding in Wales. Transport for Wales isn't just a TOC, it's a quango with some responsibilities for bus services and implementing wider public transport policy. Language is a major factor in choosing a name - unfortunately "Welsh Railways" just wouldn't work very well in Welsh, the language doesn't have the same ambiguity that English does over what "English" means, and "... (of) Wales" is the correct way of translating "Welsh" in that context in, err, Welsh. It's a fairly common thing for companies (supermarkets in particular!) to get wrong when translating.

Rheilffyrdd Cymraeg = Railways Welsh (the language), wrong!
Rheilffyrdd Cymreig = Railways Welsh (identity), better, but still dodgy and wrong!
Rheilffyrdd o Gymru / Rheilffyrdd Cymru = Railways (of) Wales, correct!

You also need a logo that works in either language, and if you want it to be a letter you're effectively forcing the word order of your English name to have the noun first. "Transport Wales" would have worked, but I'm not sure that doesn't sound a bit clunky, although there are plenty of examples of similar names in use.