Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Only yesterday my father and sister had to get the train from Canterbury to Ashford at short notice (buses were all cancelled). They were complaining that it cost over twenty pounds for the both of them, whereas it would have only been three pounds on the bus. This is for a journey that's reasonably practical by both.
Presumably one person travels free on buses, as otherwise the cost would be £6, not £3? Although if the fare was 3p it is not much use if the service doesn't run - as in this case!
And is it really a fair comparison anyway? Today, there are two trains per hour between Canterbury and Ashford, taking 15 or 22 minutes, depending on stops. There is one bus per hour, taking 52 minutes. The higher quality rail service has to be paid for, and people can choose which mode they use (except when the buses are all cancelled.....)
Buses have tons of capacity. The £3 fare especially annoyed a lot of regular bus travellers as it actually increased their price.
Back in the days when you had to pay cash (or worse "exact fare only"), with buses hiding their fares as state secrets, buses were just not usable. A flat fare at least solves that hurdle. Now its just the lack of comfort and service.
But trains are still rammed, at least in my experience. People are using the train for long distance 70% more than they were 20 years ago, and capacity hasn't increased that much. Local journeys outside London are up nearly 70%.
This is despite fare increases above inflation.
Lowering prices will struggle to get more people on the trains, people will simply be rationed in another way - by not travelling because the train is too crowded - and total revenue will go down (thus subsidies will have increase or spending cuts will have to be made)
I'm all for reducing fares, but that has to be accomplished by increasing capacity.
I think that those longer distance journeys will still largely be the preserve of the advance purchase traveller. More affordable fares will give some the opportunity to trade up for more flexibility, or enable some more to make a short notice trip when urgent, but I don't think that you'll suddenly get lots more people deciding to pay an open fare.
There may be more opportunity to upsell first class though.
It's those medium distance journeys where advance purchase isn't suitable that the greater difference will be made, and there is often more capacity at different times and more opportunity for people to travel a bit later.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Presumably one person travels free on buses, as otherwise the cost would be £6, not £3? Although if the fare was 3p it is not much use if the service doesn't run - as in this case!
And is it really a fair comparison anyway? Today, there are two trains per hour between Canterbury and Ashford, taking 15 or 22 minutes, depending on stops. There is one bus per hour, taking 52 minutes. The higher quality rail service has to be paid for, and people can choose which mode they use (except when the buses are all cancelled.....)
My father has a free bus pass. This is a political implementation in addition to the £3 bus fare.
Whilst I acknowledge that rail is a better quality product on the route and don't mind there being a premium, 20+ pounds compared to 3 seems like too much of a distortion for a relatively local journey.
Either way, I don't think having extreme price interventions on bus while having highly commercialised price extraction on rail, is a good way to organise public transport.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They don't know they're born. Where I live (no cap here) Arriva will sting you for £4.20 for a 2.7 mile single. Yes, they do cap a day's travel at £6.50 so you can get a lot of value if you are making multiple journeys but if you're just doing the one it is shockingly poor.
The convention amongst most on this forum seems to be that the railway is useless for most peoples journeys so everyone will still use the car, whilst at the same time having lower fares will crowd out the trains.
Well, there's been a dose of reality injected in this thread, certainly. There are two hard realities here. One, is that our network is not set up to serve most people's needs. That is not that unusual; rail takes up a tiny minority of journeys, because it is not suitable for most people's journeys. It cannot be, by design. And going carless entirely is a pipe dream for most people. Rail has its uses but we have to be quite clear - rail can't be for everyone and rail has to serve society by simply being better first; there are a large number of people who simply would not travel on a train even if it was free.
The lower fares will attract people and there may be some crowding as a result but nothing apocalyptic.
This has been the reported case in Austria and Germany for example - you're the international traveller, I'd have thought you'd have more knowledge of this.
What is happening is that journeys are being moved around due to the degradation of the peak, and there is some peak crowding that wasn't there before. Arguably this is a poorer use of capacity (Austria has *vastly* more rail capacity and redundancy than we do!). Notably, OBB is one of the best operators in Europe with service quality far beyond what can be offered in Britain, and even before the Klimaticket was instituted, every Austrian took more rail journeys per year than every Brit did. That is also a function of Austria's geography.
In Germany, the Deutschlandticket is quite different; it's valid only on local and regional services. Even then, there is scant evidence to show significant modal shift but the number of journeys taken has increased about 6% (which is good, but studies don't agree on why!).
Regardless, neither of these policies feature even in the Green Party of England and Wales' manifesto. That's because we absolutely don't have the capacity on many routes - and because what our railways need actually, is electrification, investment, expansion of reach, integration, and better reliability and redundancy. All of which means a *lot* of money. It's politically impossible to implement lower fares and I have outlined why this is a non-starter for anyone who actually cares about lowering carbon emissions or increasing social participation. If you want to improve our railways, start here. Then we can talk about lower fares.
You need to sell the idea to the populace of paying more tax to have better public services.
Indeed - there is a psychological impact on communities relating to the existence of fixed infrastructure. Beeching's cuts affected Britain in a deep way, but principally aesthetically and psychologically. Probably a topic for a longer paper!
...no they aren't? A lot of them are a rip off. If you want to have an 18p per mile cap this would make the maximum fare on the Blackpool South to Preston branch £3.60. In reality that's the cap, and you wouldn't dare price a tertiary service like this at that level - it would probably be more like £2omething.
The fare is currently £8.90. You accept upthread and your premise is that there won't be crowding, yet, on this totally random example, your passenger contribution to the fare is *at least* more than halved. That's a lot more subsidy and that's before you even get to actually improving that line - which is a sad joke of a service; slower than driving, unelectrified, more expensive than the bus. You aren't going to get these fare caps. Nobody serious talks about them and nobody in any appreciable position in the industry of whichever political stripe believes any form of mileage based pricing is viable.
Mileage based pricing is always the first aim of any layperson looking to simplify the fare structure or make it more reasonable (plot twist: it actually massively complicates it, and eradicates one of the railway's better offerings - taking a slower, longer and less desirable route for a cheaper price). They have been debunked on the forum so often it feels tiresome to do it again.
Your argument stems from personal preference - you don't own a car, you take a lot of trains because you like them, you'd like them to be cheaper. And you base everything off this. The reality is, rail enthusiasts in Britain aren't good lobbyists. There are loads and loads of things we need to do to improve our railways, but vastly increasing the subsidy while at the same time admitting it won't hugely increase the number of people travelling is political bromide. It's just train people talking to other train people about how they'd like to go bashing for less money. It's unserious when you actually look at the problems we have and the priorities of most voters.
Yes, I would like trains to be cheaper. But first they have to be a lot better. The industry and the political class is right to be focusing on the latter.
I think the reality is that if some secondary routes were replaced with buses and the staff and trains redistributed to busier ones that would actually increase the scope for cheaper tickets as you'd overall be moving far more people with the same resources. Unfortunately this never features in conversation about efficiency - it's always someone else's responsibility to be more efficient (the staff, the senior managers, the banks who own the trains etc) and not the general public. This discussion is a hiding to nothing though.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Nothing that the current government is committing to is going to be noticeable in terms of dealing with the basic principles of this.
Just take a look at the thread about the last-minute platform changes at Leyland. An ordinary member of the public would say it's inexcusable for a single person to have been left behind because of something within the (extremely costly, publicly funded) railway's control. However as far as senior management are concerned that's simply not on their radar and never will be. It belongs in the "too difficult" box.
Absolutely. Which is why arguing for even more subsidy to try to plug an admittedly inefficient railway isn't a great idea. We do need a complete political vibe shift first.
You've misrepresented this a tad I think. £92.50 single in First between Heathrow Airport and Manchester via London is one of the cheapest fares going for that...
Even if they only bought First for London to Manchester and used standard class contactless to and from Heathrow Airport, £92.50 single in First is still a competitive price.
My apologies. This was a peak train out of Euston, and they had anytime tickets, so assumed they had bought Euston - Manchester and had separately paid for the Heathrow - Euston leg.
But is the peak anytime Heathrow - Manchester via Euston ticket really only a third of the price of an anytime Euston - Manchester? I can’t beleive that.
My apologies. This was a peak train out of Euston, and they had anytime tickets, so assumed they had bought Euston - Manchester and had separately paid for the Heathrow - Euston leg.
But is the peak anytime Heathrow - Manchester via Euston ticket really only a third of the price of an anytime Euston - Manchester? I can’t beleive that.
Would seem reasonable they they'd paid contactless / Oyster from Heathrow. Obviously whether this was HeX / Elizabeth line or Piccadilly (doubtful) alters the cost implications.
Well, there's been a dose of reality injected in this thread, certainly. There are two hard realities here. One, is that our network is not set up to serve most people's needs. That is not that unusual; rail takes up a tiny minority of journeys, because it is not suitable for most people's journeys. It cannot be, by design. And going carless entirely is a pipe dream for most people. Rail has its uses but we have to be quite clear - rail can't be for everyone and rail has to serve society by simply being better first; there are a large number of people who simply would not travel on a train even if it was free.
Here you're talking about subscription passes like the Klimaticket and the Deutschlandticket, not "lower fares", or "price caps".
Actually, in Austria, the conclusion is that "overall, we find no evidence of sustained passenger growth effects of the KlimaTicket".
What is happening is that journeys are being moved around due to the degradation of the peak, and there is some peak crowding that wasn't there before. Arguably this is a poorer use of capacity (Austria has *vastly* more rail capacity and redundancy than we do!). Notably, OBB is one of the best operators in Europe with service quality far beyond what can be offered in Britain, and even before the Klimaticket was instituted, every Austrian took more rail journeys per year than every Brit did. That is also a function of Austria's geography.
In Germany, the Deutschlandticket is quite different; it's valid only on local and regional services. Even then, there is scant evidence to show significant modal shift but the number of journeys taken has increased about 6% (which is good, but studies don't agree on why!).
In reality, a subscription pass will facilitate more affordable travel, that's the point of it. It effectively caps the price for those who subscribe to it, so it's a different way of doing this. For what it's worth, I would be equally happy for them to try one of these options (or indeed a National Railcard, which is effectively a watered down version).
So Austria's hasn't increased travel while Germany's has - by a managable 6%. And from what I here, Germany's system is a bit ropey quality wise at the moment.
I don't know why the country "going carless" keeps being grought up on this thread - everyone knows that some people will always choose/need the car - this is as true in Austria and Germany, but in no way negates the need for public transport.
Regardless, neither of these policies feature even in the Green Party of England and Wales' manifesto. That's because we absolutely don't have the capacity on many routes - and because what our railways need actually, is electrification, investment, expansion of reach, integration, and better reliability and redundancy. All of which means a *lot* of money. It's politically impossible to implement lower fares and I have outlined why this is a non-starter for anyone who actually cares about lowering carbon emissions or increasing social participation. If you want to improve our railways, start here. Then we can talk about lower fares.
You need to sell the idea to the populace of paying more tax to have better public services.
We've all been arguing for more electrification and greater capacity until the cows come home. Why were HST's got rid of, before even replacement capacity provided ? Why are we still running around five carriage trains up the ECML ? Why is Cross Country still running four carriage units ? Why no rolling electrification ?
This is a mess that's been created by the Establishment, not us. That aside, where capacity is increased, as with TPE for example, or as on some routes on Northern, quality does go up and people are inclined to use the train more.
One thing is for certain - you'll never get the man on the Clapham omnibus to agree to greater subsidy for rail if he feels priced off of it.
People still support the £3 bus fare because they can use it and it makes their lives easier and more affordable - not because of the marvellous quality of bus services (I've certainly not noticed quality improving in recent years)
Indeed - there is a psychological impact on communities relating to the existence of fixed infrastructure. Beeching's cuts affected Britain in a deep way, but principally aesthetically and psychologically. Probably a topic for a longer paper!
...no they aren't? A lot of them are a rip off. If you want to have an 18p per mile cap this would make the maximum fare on the Blackpool South to Preston branch £3.60. In reality that's the cap, and you wouldn't dare price a tertiary service like this at that level - it would probably be more like £2omething.
The fare is currently £8.90. You accept upthread and your premise is that there won't be crowding, yet, on this totally random example, your passenger contribution to the fare is *at least* more than halved. That's a lot more subsidy and that's before you even get to actually improving that line - which is a sad joke of a service; slower than driving, unelectrified, more expensive than the bus. You aren't going to get these fare caps. Nobody serious talks about them and nobody in any appreciable position in the industry of whichever political stripe believes any form of mileage based pricing is viable.
Mileage based pricing is always the first aim of any layperson looking to simplify the fare structure or make it more reasonable (plot twist: it actually massively complicates it, and eradicates one of the railway's better offerings - taking a slower, longer and less desirable route for a cheaper price). They have been debunked on the forum so often it feels tiresome to do it again.
I can think of lots of rural fares that are good value. Most of GWR in Devon and Cornwall, for example. The South Coast, even Northern on the S&C and little north western aren't too bad, given the length.
Your argument of the Blackpool North line, I wouldn't even count as a rural route. £9 for a short inter-urban hop does seem quite pricey. That said, my 18-20p permile suggestion is a bit of a finger in the air, I'm open to discussion on it.
However, a cap per mile isn't a return to pure milage based pricing - it would still enable the operator to have lower fares where commercially desireable. Advanced Purchase would still be a thing.
Your argument stems from personal preference - you don't own a car, you take a lot of trains because you like them, you'd like them to be cheaper. And you base everything off this. The reality is, rail enthusiasts in Britain aren't good lobbyists. There are loads and loads of things we need to do to improve our railways, but vastly increasing the subsidy while at the same time admitting it won't hugely increase the number of people travelling is political bromide. It's just train people talking to other train people about how they'd like to go bashing for less money. It's unserious when you actually look at the problems we have and the priorities of most voters.
Yes, I would like trains to be cheaper. But first they have to be a lot better. The industry and the political class is right to be focusing on the latter.
No, my decision not to drive is as much based around practicality as yours is to drive everywhere. I have one income and couldn't afford to run a car at the same time as paying a mortgage. The train is far more convenient for getting to the office, and I presume you wouldn't want me driving around on a weekend after I've had a few pints, so I'd effectively be paying this huge additional expense for the Sunday shop.
I use the train for day to day life (along with the bus to a lesser extent) so I'm keenly aware that high rail fares matter a lot to people who rely on the train.
By all means, tackle the capacity and the rest of it, but don't kid yourself that it's an alternative to an affordable public transport system.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think the reality is that if some secondary routes were replaced with buses and the staff and trains redistributed to busier ones that would actually increase the scope for cheaper tickets as you'd overall be moving far more people with the same resources. Unfortunately this never features in conversation about efficiency - it's always someone else's responsibility to be more efficient (the staff, the senior managers, the banks who own the trains etc) and not the general public. This discussion is a hiding to nothing though.
The railway is there to move people and things around. Of course the railway's users are going to want to see efficiencies in management, structure and finance, rather than cutting the moving people and things bit.
The railway is there for the general public, not the staff/senior managers/banks etc.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Absolutely. Which is why arguing for even more subsidy to try to plug an admittedly inefficient railway isn't a great idea. We do need a complete political vibe shift first.
It depends what we mean by an "inefficient" railway. Some ideas around efficiency are understandably toxic and aren't wanted by rail users (such as bustitution, mentioned upthread).
It depends what we mean by an "inefficient" railway. Some ideas around efficiency are understandably toxic and aren't wanted by rail users (such as bustitution, mentioned upthread).
Buses are efficient though. You just personally don't want to use one, and label them "toxic" for your own gain. Even if it has the same capacity and journey time, at higher frequency lower cost.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Of course the railway's users are going to want to see efficiencies in management, structure and finance, rather than cutting the moving people and things bit.
Buses are efficient though. You just personally don't want to use one, and label them "toxic" for your own gain. Even if it has the same capacity and journey time, at higher frequency lower cost.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's always someone else's responsibility to give things up, and not yours eh?
Try suggesting bustitution (whether for one weekend, or permanent) to the passengers and see where it gets you.
One of the main issues with bus transport is how impermanent it is, particularly in the current deregulated climate. Operators cut, alter and divert services on a whim.
Buses are efficient though. You just personally don't want to use one, and label them "toxic" for your own gain. Even if it has the same capacity and journey time, at higher frequency lower cost.
Well yes, I'm quite frugal and have simple tastes, I don't drive a car, I rarely fly on foreign holidays, I avoid putting on the heating for as long as possible, I wear my clothes until they get holes in them.
Try suggesting bustitution (whether for one weekend, or permanent) to the passengers and see where it gets you.
One of the main issues with bus transport is how impermanent it is, particularly in the current deregulated climate. Operators cut, alter and divert services on a whim.
If the bus offers adequate capacity and the same journey time, at far lower cost, then it's obviously the right answer, regardless of the possible hurt feelings of Yorksrob or the train conductors on the line. This isn't something that's up for debate, it's just good policy. There's no realistic chance of any lines closing any time soon though so you've nothing to worry about!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Trouble is that this is the opinion of nearly every single one of your fellow country people who do run motor cars and fly on a foreign holiday regularly.
I'd like everyone in Britain to give up meat and dairy, for example. Do I go around arguing that point with people who use animal products? The careers of the tiny number of people still involved in meat and dairy farming will just have to go. A payout for them to find a new job is an acceptable price to pay for the lowering of carbon emissions this would provide. But how would you feel about me doing this to you? Probably wouldn't change your mind one iota would it? You'd want to continue eating and drinking whatever you do currently wouldn't you, no matter how sensible my arguments about atmospheric carbon might be?
If the bus offers adequate capacity and the same journey time, at far lower cost, then it's obviously the right answer, regardless of the possible hurt feelings of Yorksrob or the train conductors on the line. This isn't something that's up for debate, it's just good policy. There's no realistic chance of any lines closing any time soon though so you've nothing to worry about!
How did it go when bus services were laid on to replace Beeching closures? How long did they last before their traffic ebbed away and they were likewise declared "uneconomic"?
Where I live (trams were replaced by buses in 1956, though it was more the cost of maintaining sea defences that did it, rather than the economics of the trams) we've gone from having two buses an hour when I moved in five years ago, to one bus every two hours and the driver doesn't always remember to turn down our road. Arriva's name is mud now.
Trouble is that this is the opinion of nearly every single one of your fellow country people who do run motor cars and fly on a foreign holiday regularly.
I'd like everyone in Britain to give up meat and dairy, for example. Do I go around arguing that point with people who use animal products? The careers of the tiny number of people still involved in meat and dairy farming will just have to go. A payout for them to find a new job is an acceptable price to pay for the lowering of carbon emissions this would provide. But how would you feel about me doing this to you? Probably wouldn't change your mind one iota would it? You'd want to continue eating and drinking whatever you do currently wouldn't you, no matter how sensible my arguments about atmospheric carbon might be?
Actually, I've already given up most meat (I've not managed with fish yet though) so I'm not closed to suggestion.
But our railway network is already too motheaten. The closures have already gone far too far, so there is no argument that will change my mind on that.
How did it go when bus services were laid on to replace Beeching closures? How long did they last before their traffic ebbed away and they were likewise declared "uneconomic"?
Where I live (trams were replaced by buses in 1956, though it was more the cost of maintaining sea defences that did it, rather than the economics of the trams) we've gone from having two buses an hour when I moved in five years ago, to one bus every two hours and the driver doesn't always remember to turn down our road. Arriva's name is mud now.
These are precisely the reasons why the bus industry needs more subdisy, and that railway industry is a fairly obvious target to provide it. I wouldn't encourage this line of thinking.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Actually, I've already given up most meat (I've not managed with fish yet though) so I'm not closed to suggestion.
But our railway network is already too motheaten. The closures have already gone far too far, so there is no argument that will change my mind on that.
There's no argument that will change my mind that eating fish or using milk products isn't ethical or sustainable either. And yet I am capable of accepting that barely anyone but me holds that view, and they will never be persuaded.
There's no argument that will change my mind that eating fish or using milk products isn't ethical or sustainable either. And yet I am capable of accepting that barely anyone but me holds that view, and they will never be persuaded.
These are precisely the reasons why the bus industry needs more subdisy, and that railway industry is a fairly obvious target to provide it. I wouldn't encourage this line of thinking.
Regulation would help more. But you don't answer the point about the Beeching closures. Why don't the services set up post-Beeching still exist? After all, in the era of steam engines and full staffing of nearly every station the operating costs of those buses must have been dramatically cheaper.
The other big flaw with buses of course is that they get stuck in traffic. I was in Malta last week. You'd think that a small island that is basically a city state would be very walkable and have great public transport. Er - no. Cars everywhere, pavements narrow in many places, congestion dreadful. No shade either when you're waiting at a bus stop for the bus stuck in traffic around the corner. A bus journey which should have taken an hour took twice that. Unfortunately all rail-based transport closed between the wars. Light rail would work wonders for the place.
My apologies. This was a peak train out of Euston, and they had anytime tickets, so assumed they had bought Euston - Manchester and had separately paid for the Heathrow - Euston leg.
But is the peak anytime Heathrow - Manchester via Euston ticket really only a third of the price of an anytime Euston - Manchester? I can’t beleive that.
No. It's @Starmill who got it wrong and I think thought they were returns.
What this says to me is that Manchester to London Anytime fares (both classes) are roughly twice what they should be. Halving them would, per mile, bring them in line with London to Edinburgh.
LNER is often justifiably accused of being expensive, but their very long distance Anytimes are far better value than the WCML.
They were "returning" so who knows It's usually slightly cheaper to book through to Heathrow Airport than to pay as you go on Heathrow Express. Of course that assumes people aren't under the impression it's mandatory to split, which they very frequently are.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But you don't answer the point about the Beeching closures. Why don't the services set up post-Beeching still exist? After all, in the era of steam engines and full staffing of nearly every station the operating costs of those buses must have been dramatically cheaper.
Because the mass adoption of the motor car made them more expensive to operate and vastly less appealing, relatively speaking, in an era of new roads and cheap oil. Nowadays we have little cheap oil and far more nimbies preventing new roads, and cars have long since reached saturation. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything though, local buses and local trains both require subsidising. Local metros and trams should be used where scale allows, and local buses where it doesn't. Everywhere but the smallest hamlets should be covered with something, but the choice of which mode it is doesn't matter anything like as much as actually running it. The current policy of heavily subsidising the railway no matter what happens while running a bus network on a shoestring and all but refusing to consider anything in between outside of one or two large cities isn't working well for anybody it appears, except maybe the railway's private interest groups mentioned above like ROSCOs.
Because bus services are (in almost all circumstances) poor substitutes for cars. People only use them when they've got no choice (I speak from experience). It's generally quicker to cycle. Buses have little chance of achieving modal shift, unlike rail. This will remain the case no matter how much extra funding you put into them.
The current policy of heavily subsidising the railway no matter what happens while running a bus network on a shoestring and all but refusing to consider anything in between outside of one or two large cities isn't working well for anybody it appears, except maybe the railway's private interest groups mentioned above like ROSCOs.
Alternatively, perhaps with one part of the population paying £3 for some fairly long trips and another paying £0, passengers aren't paying enough for a good bus service.
Alternatively, perhaps with one part of the population paying £3 for some fairly long trips and another paying £0, passengers aren't paying enough for a good bus service.
The fare cap was a good post COVID measure to get passengers back but personally I would rather see the money put into expanding the network back to what it was than just giving people cheaper fares who are travelling longer distances (who typically aren't the poorest anyway).
The fare cap was a good post COVID measure to get passengers back but personally I would rather see the money put into expanding the network back to what it was than just giving people cheaper fares who are travelling longer distances (who typically aren't the poorest anyway).
I'm not against it per se, infact subsidising bus fares makes a certain amount of political sense, however I draw the line at proposing to fund it by cannibalising the railway network.
There comes a point where shoe-string fares = shoe-string service.
Because bus services are (in almost all circumstances) poor substitutes for cars. People only use them when they've got no choice (I speak from experience). It's generally quicker to cycle. Buses have little chance of achieving modal shift, unlike rail. This will remain the case no matter how much extra funding you put into them.
The fare cap was a good post COVID measure to get passengers back but personally I would rather see the money put into expanding the network back to what it was than just giving people cheaper fares who are travelling longer distances (who typically aren't the poorest anyway).
Regulation would help more. But you don't answer the point about the Beeching closures. Why don't the services set up post-Beeching still exist? After all, in the era of steam engines and full staffing of nearly every station the operating costs of those buses must have been dramatically cheaper.
They went (or were asssimilated into the surrounding bus network that already existed) because after 3 years they had to pay their way, a state of affairs that the local passenger trains have not achieved in a hundred years or more. Many of the lines that closed were not carrying sufficient passengers paying fares to pay for a one man operated bus, let alone full staffing and steam engines! If Government had wished to retain these services they could have paid ongoing subsidies, but there was never any intention of so doing.
Quite apart from the point that @Starmill makes that these closures took place when car ownership was massively increasing and bus services in general had a catastrophic loss of traffic (pretty much entirely due to the convenience and status symbol of private transport, in spite of the relative unreliability of motor vehicles in those days).
Other than the Metrobus in Bristol (which only opened after I left, indeed the additional congestion caused by the prolonged construction work influenced my decision to move), pretty much every bus service I've experienced in the UK and abroad has been tediously slow. The only place I've found them to work has been in remote areas where they get a reasonably clear run between villages. As soon as there's a town involved everything grinds to a halt.
Other than the Metrobus in Bristol (which only opened after I left, indeed the additional congestion caused by the prolonged construction work influenced my decision to move), pretty much every bus service I've experienced in the UK and abroad has been tediously slow. The only place I've found them to work has been in remote areas where they get a reasonably clear run between villages. As soon as there's a town involved everything grinds to a halt.
Presumably one person travels free on buses, as otherwise the cost would be £6, not £3? Although if the fare was 3p it is not much use if the service doesn't run - as in this case!
When I first moved here it was 5 buses a day to near to the station. Useless on the return, but a taxi home was cheaper than a few days in the car park.
Its unusual compared to most villages - we have a bus. It doesn't go anywhere useful. They changed the bus service a couple of years ago, so now it doesn't go to the station. It doesn't go to the drama club on a wednesday evening (well it would get me there if I leave 3 hours early, but wouldn't get me back), it doesn't go to school, it doesn't go to the station, it doesn't go to scouts. This is in a village with 5,000 people, a few miles from a town with 12,000 people. These aren't tiny hamlets.
But it is "covered with something". That something is useless. You need either a good service to where people need otherwise people will simply drive. Paying for the staffing of a bus, let alone the capital cost, just doesn't work untill you reach a certain capacity. Trains are even worse, the drivers are on twice the salary at least, they require other staff to make the service work, and the vehicles are far more expensive.
Maybe automated minibuses or just simply taxis in the future will work for public transport, but until then private transport is the default and public is for those who are forced.
Bus speeds are useless too, even without traffic, as they don't go direct. It used to take 55 minutes to get to the station (rather than 30 to drive), because of the diversions through villages and towns. Instead I now drive to another (better connected) station in 35 minutes. Doesn't matter if its 0300 or 0830 the journey takes about the same amount of time - traffic doesn't matter, it's the non-direct routing.
Now to be fair compared to the last bus I got which took 30 minutes to travel less than 2 miles (in London) this is lightning fast, but the reality of buses are not for sensible travel, they are a distress purchase when you have no other option.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
omething.
It's usually slightly cheaper to book through to Heathrow Airport than to pay as you go on Heathrow Express. Of course that assumes people aren't under the impression it's mandatory to split, which they very frequently are.