If the UK cant afford new medium/long distance rail(whether light,heavy or tram) routes, how can coaches journey time be speeded up?

[AHBD]

We don't have to keep them at 62mph of course. We could immediately get rid of the speed limiter requirement for a start now that we're in the EU, and they could do 70 on the motorway within existing law. And then we could consider full speed limit reform (removal on motorways / trunk roads, possibly lowering in town). There was a coach (Midland Red) that used to do 100mph on the M1 before speed limits were brought in (I think 100 was more of a publicity stunt thing but it certainly was going well above 62/70 as standard).

Why would you get rid of a limiter rather than change its limit to 72? I think 70mph for coaches on motorways is the maximum that could be hoped (would passengers be happy at higher speeds anyway?)

Only issue is that the 70mph limit applies only to coaches which are less than 12 metres. That doesn't cover many coaches on the express coach network.

Could that be changed? Is there a sound mechanical reason for it and if so could that not be addressed electronically or mechanically, so that the law csn be updated.

Out of town stops are controversial. Greyhound buses used to stop at random petrol stations and that wouldnt work in the UK

But Mr Monbiots article inspired by economist Alan Storkey's idea was based on the stops at motorway junctions being serviced by local public transport so not like Greyhound in that respect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But Mr Monbiots article inspired by economist Alan Storkey's idea was based on the stops at motorway junctions being serviced by local public transport so not like Greyhound in that respect.

There are some Coachways (most notably Milton Keynes and High Wycombe) but the problem with the concept is that the local element of the journey adds on a lot of time. You could take substantial time off London coaches by having them terminate on the fringes, but most people still seem to prefer Victoria.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Why would you get rid of a limiter rather than change its limit to 72? I think 70mph for coaches on motorways is the maximum that could be hoped (would passengers be happy at higher speeds anyway?)

I'm not sure why you'd set it to 72mph - 62mph is actually 100kph, which is the EU standard for such things. You'd either do 70mph, or one of the EU speed limits - probably 130kph, equating to 81mph.

 

[AHBD]

I'm not sure why you'd set it to 72mph - 62mph is actually 100kph, which is the EU standard for such things. You'd either do 70mph, or one of the EU speed limits - probably 130kph, equating to 81mph.

I presumed the extra 2mph was just a margin above 70 rather than an artifact of kph to mph conversion.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I presumed the extra 2mph was just a margin above 70 rather than an artifact of kph to mph conversion.

It cuts both ways - HGVs have to be limited to 90kph in the EU, approximately 56mph, and AFAIK the UK retains that requirement. But the UK speed limit for HGVs on motorways is 60mph. There are some limited circumstances where an HGV can run faster than its limiter allows without breaking any laws.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It cuts both ways - HGVs have to be limited to 90kph in the EU, approximately 56mph, and AFAIK the UK retains that requirement. But the UK speed limit for HGVs on motorways is 60mph. There are some limited circumstances where an HGV can run faster than its limiter allows without breaking any laws.

Not that limited - it happens often downhill on motorways because the limiters don't generally control braking, just acceleration.

 

[Egg Centric]

Why would you get rid of a limiter rather than change its limit to 72? I think 70mph for coaches on motorways is the maximum that could be hoped (would passengers be happy at higher speeds anyway?)

I don't see any reason passengers would be unhappy at any realistic speed so long as it was "the norm" (i.e. they would be worried if a coach did 110mph *now* cause it would suggest something is going very wrong, but there's nothing intrinsically scary or hard to do comfy suspension/noise sheilding/etc for about 110mph)

It should be noted however that for these higher (or no) speed limits to have much use then we need much wider motorways, at least in much of the country, otherwise everything just ends up at about 50-60mph anyway for the most throughput.

 

[AHBD]

I don't see any reason passengers would be unhappy at any realistic speed so long as it was "the norm"

I would be wary of much above 70, and I suspect others would too, 70mph seems fast enough for a road vehicle driven by a human in amongst other humans driven vehicles (trains are an entirely different kettle of (safer) fish). Even a rise to 80mph for cars and smaller/lighter vehicles was rejected partly due to worries about increased crashes I think. 80 in a coach would be a bit worrying and above 80 would make me very nervous...

It should be noted however that for these higher (or no) speed limits to have much use then we need much wider motorways, at least in much of the country, otherwise everything just ends up at about 50-60mph anyway for the most throughput.

IF they were successful in reducing car journeys, then the congestion might reduce enough to avoid that...

 

[PTR 444]

There are some Coachways (most notably Milton Keynes and High Wycombe) but the problem with the concept is that the local element of the journey adds on a lot of time. You could take substantial time off London coaches by having them terminate on the fringes, but most people still seem to prefer Victoria.

If you provided stops next to tube and rail stations on the fringes of London, I’m sure quite a few passengers would alight the coach early since tube/rail is usually the faster option there. I’ve sometimes alighted National Express coaches at Earls Court even if my final destination is closer to Victoria for that exact reason.

 

[Egg Centric]

I would be wary of much above 70, and I suspect others would too, 70mph seems fast enough for a road vehicle driven by a human in amongst other humans driven vehicles (trains are an entirely different kettle of (safer) fish). Even a rise to 80mph for cars and smaller/lighter vehicles was rejected partly due to worries about increased crashes I think. 80 in a coach would be a bit worrying and above 80 would make me very nervous...

IF they were successful in reducing car journeys, then the congestion might reduce enough to avoid that...

There are plenty of places in the world where you can go in a coach at >70mph on far worse standard roads that UK mortorways. I promise you you wouldn't be worried after getting used to it. But they wouldn't reduce car journies that much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you provided stops next to tube and rail stations on the fringes of London, I’m sure quite a few passengers would alight the coach early since tube/rail is usually the faster option there. I’ve sometimes alighted National Express coaches at Earls Court even if my final destination is closer to Victoria for that exact reason.

A lot of NatEx coaches from the north do stop at Golders Green, but my observation from the past (not used one for a while!) was that hardly anyone did and most carried on to Victoria.

 

[PTR 444]

A lot of NatEx coaches from the north do stop at Golders Green, but my observation from the past (not used one for a while!) was that hardly anyone did and most carried on to Victoria.

I wonder how many more passengers would switch if Golders Green was promoted by National Express as an interchange, particularly if their final destination is on the Northern Line.

 

[Grimsby town]

There are some Coachways (most notably Milton Keynes and High Wycombe) but the problem with the concept is that the local element of the journey adds on a lot of time. You could take substantial time off London coaches by having them terminate on the fringes, but most people still seem to prefer Victoria.

Exactly. If running coaches every few minutes to the edge of urban areas can be done with little subsidy then why aren't coach companies doing it. The examples you give are mainly served by by coaches to Central London, Oxford, or London Airports. All areas that cost a lot to drive into or park at. The Bedford to Oxford coach will likely be decimated by EWR in due course.

Most motorway junctions are never going to have great onward connections into cities without subsidising bus routes. They don't have the dense development or the multiple attractions that city centres have to attract enough trips. The exceptions are shopping centres and airports. I don't believe that running coaches every few minutes is feasible without automaton. The staff costs would be a massive barrier.

I think there is an argument to subsidise coaches but it's going to be in places where rail isn't an alternative. If coach was a viable alternative to rail for most journeys then there would be a lot more coach journeys than there is currently. Its already cheaper than rail but it can't compete on speed and realistically never will between major cities.

 

[AHBD]

Exactly. If running coaches every few minutes to the edge of urban areas can be done with little subsidy then why aren't coach companies doing it....

Because it would need a controlling mind to setup the required public transport links into the urban centre and to make it a logical nationwide network of regular shuttles?

Also, if the direction of train travel is towards passengers as sardines with one cabinsize bag, then the slowness or of the coach could be preferable or acceptable especially if a shuttle style service meant one could hop off, wonder about then get the next legs shuttle.

 

[HSTEd]

Well there is a big gap between "little" subsidy and "no" subsidy.

Even if subsidising a huge coach network consumed a couple billion pounds every year it would likely still be a cheaper way of providing non car travel than the railway is these days.

(£2bn is almost quadrouple the total revenue of all National Express coach and bus operations in the UK)

 

[Technologist]

You want this:

If you have a two second headway this shifts 40,000 ppl per lane. This assumes that you don't form virtual trains in which case capacity is higher. UK motorways would allow such a vehicle to go at 155mph.

Speed limit is to cater to poor drivers and inadequate cars. This goes away when the cars are all electric and self driven.

If is also why autonomous vehicles could very rapidly have massive impacts on transport.

It's also probably the reason this has low ground clearance, air suspension and is aerodynamic. Due to square cube law and the fact that frontal area doesn't go up when you add more rows of seats getting a high speed electric vehicle to have InterCity range is not hard.

 

[Indigo Soup]

If is also why autonomous vehicles could very rapidly have massive impacts on transport.

155mph at two second headways is likely to result in massive impacts into the vehicle in front. And certain to result in multiple smaller impacts of passengers into the back of the next seat.

6 second headways would be more in keeping with safe braking rates for road vehicles, including allowance for determining that a stop is required.

 

[markymark2000]

There are some Coachways (most notably Milton Keynes and High Wycombe) but the problem with the concept is that the local element of the journey adds on a lot of time.

Milton Keynes seems to be mostly served because of coach connections and driver swaps rather than because it's a really busy pick up/drop off point with people using the coachway as a coach -> local bus connection or starting/ending their journey there.

High Wycombe only really has Oxford Airline serve it. Poor local bus links here don't help matters though. The 850 and 32/32A stop literally just the other side of the motorway junction roundabout, but they aren't really viable options for connections. If they stopped in the coachway, it wouldn't be so bad (think like Thornhill P&R in Oxford, mix of a good number of local buses and the distance coaches).

I think there is an argument to subsidise coaches but it's going to be in places where rail isn't an alternative. If coach was a viable alternative to rail for most journeys then there would be a lot more coach journeys than there is currently. Its already cheaper than rail but it can't compete on speed and realistically never will between major cities.

Coaches could be a viable alternative for more routes but NX are tightening their belts and seemingly wanting more profit from routes than before and so they aren't as adventurous as they once were. Their marketing efforts of some routes are pitiful as well. If you're not on a core corridor, NatEx don't care anymore sadly. Look at North Wales. Mid Wales is still on the once per day pitiful 409. Cumbria has basically nothing etc etc. High quality, fast links between cities have been cut or slowed down as NatEx is pushing more for airport traffic

This is the old 060 timetable. This specific timetable is from 2016 but the timetable was similar in 2020. A proper COVID casualty. Fast city-city links but also for the stops between the city centre and the motorway, it provided stops which you just couldn't get on the train. Extremely competitive with the train 2h30 coach versus 2h train, plus maybe a better stop if you are travelling to/from Liverpool which could give quite a competitive edge if you include the full journey and not just the coach/train journey. Same journey now is 3 hours end to end because of serving Manchester Airport and North Warrington. Also Manchester-Chadderton stops moved onto 171 which is the slow route via Bradford. NatEx used to be a leader on the Trans Pennine belt but they lost their way, shafted everyone with longer journey times, and then wonder why they can't compete with the train.

 

[Grimsby town]

Because it would need a controlling mind to setup the required public transport links into the urban centre and to make it a logical nationwide network of regular shuttles?

Also, if the direction of train travel is towards passengers as sardines with one cabinsize bag, then the slowness or of the coach could be preferable or acceptable especially if a shuttle style service meant one could hop off, wonder about then get the next legs shuttle.

But private companies can still cooperate if they think there would be a profit involved. Northern Ireland has a publically operated coach system and hasn't developed a similar system. Does anywhere in the world run frequent coaches? Not that I'm aware of because they don't compete well with cars in a road centric society or rail in countries with better PT.

I really don't think rail is less comfortable than coaches and their lack of use shows that the general population agrees with me. Coaches are probably better for luggage but they're far worse for motion sickness for example. You're guaranteed a seat on a coach but if you allow people to hop on off that guarantee goes away. Coach travel is generally far less flexible than rail.

Well there is a big gap between "little" subsidy and "no" subsidy.

Even if subsidising a huge coach network consumed a couple billion pounds every year it would likely still be a cheaper way of providing non car travel than the railway is these days.

(£2bn is almost quadrouple the total revenue of all National Express coach and bus operations in the UK)

But the point isn't to replace rail so that subsidy is on top of the rail subsidy. It'd also need all of the additional infrastructure building to provide good interchange points between services. If the discussion is replacing lightly used and slow branch lines with coaches or complimenting rural rail services with coach services, I might agree. On city to city journeys rail is far better than coach and therefore coach is not a viable alternative for the vast majority of people.

Well there is a big gap between "little" subsidy and "no" subsidy.

Even if subsidising a huge coach network consumed a couple billion pounds every year it would likely still be a cheaper way of providing non car travel than the railway is these days.

(£2bn is almost quadrouple the total revenue of all National Express coach and bus operations in the UK)

But the point isn't to replace rail so that subsidy is on top of the rail subsidy. It'd also need all of the additional infrastructure building to provide good interchange points between services. If the discussion is replacing lightly used and slow branch lines with coaches or complimenting rural rail services with coach services, I might agree. On city to city journeys rail is far better than coach and therefore coach is not a viable alternative for the vast majority of people.

 

[Technologist]

155mph at two second headways is likely to result in massive impacts into the vehicle in front. And certain to result in multiple smaller impacts of passengers into the back of the next seat.

6 second headways would be more in keeping with safe braking rates for road vehicles, including allowance for determining that a stop is required.

Two points:

1: I don't think any rules developed from rail signals or human driven cars are likely to be applicable here. In a world where we're are looking at high speed autonomous driving on motorways we would be looking at all vehicles operating at the same speed and with the same reaction to incidents.

So long as all vehicles can decelerate at the same rate and decisions are being made by a computer headways can be very short. More conceptually similar to motorsport than rail

2: In practice vehicles will likely platoon so 10 vehicles have a 0.05 sec gap between them with a 10 second gap between platoons.

 

[Indigo Soup]

You did see the bit about operating speed increases due to autonomous driving technology.

Yes. The safe braking rate for road vehicles has nothing to do with who or what is driving, and everything to do with not pulverising the occupants.

Stopping from 155mph in two seconds requires a deceleration of approximately 3.5g. That's not acceptable, even with an imaginary computer driving.

 

[SynthD]

Some of that hope comes from people like Musk who are anti-rail. At best, it’s unproven and decades away.

The idea of finding the right city-edge sites is tricky. The four airports of Southampton, Heathrow, Birmingham and Manchester are all motorway adjacent, with car parks and train stations.

 

[JonathanH]

You could take substantial time off London coaches by having them terminate on the fringes, but most people still seem to prefer Victoria.

They prefer Victoria because a) it gives them more time to board / leave the coach and b) it avoids having to pay an extra fare for the onward journey.

If you provided stops next to tube and rail stations on the fringes of London, I’m sure quite a few passengers would alight the coach early since tube/rail is usually the faster option there. I’ve sometimes alighted National Express coaches at Earls Court even if my final destination is closer to Victoria for that exact reason.

It generally only works if passengers are headed for somewhere that is on the right side of London.

 

[AHBD]

But private companies can still cooperate if they think there would be a profit involved. Northern Ireland has a publically operated coach system and hasn't developed a similar system.

Northern Ireland is small and I dont think its motorways are enough to be called a network, coaches just go point to point: the suggestion needs somewhere bigger, with a motorway network..

But the point isn't to replace rail so that subsidy is on top of the rail subsidy. It'd also need all of the additional infrastructure building to provide good interchange points between services. If the discussion is replacing lightly used and slow branch lines with coaches or complimenting rural rail services with coach services, I might agree.

But if rail network has reached capacity and expansion tail is unaffordable ....

 

[Grimsby town]

Northern Ireland is small and I dont think its motorways are enough to be called a network, coaches just go point to point: the suggestion needs somewhere bigger, with a motorway network..

But if rail network has reached capacity and expansion tail is unaffordable ....

Yes NI has smaller settlements but the road network isn't too bad these days. GBs motorway network certainly has gaps too particularly from east to west. Why do the coaches go point to point in NI? Because the centres have the best onward connections and always will.

I found a blog post from Storkey detailing his proposal at this link:
https://www.alanstorkey.com/category/carstocoaches/

He states that it will cost £10-20 billion in capital costs so not even a cheap proposal. That's before you get into the operational subsidy for both the coach services and connecting bus services. It also requires huge tax increases on cars to encourage people on to coaches. If you're doing that then you have the money to improve intercity rail services instead and provide far better journey times.

 

[Egg Centric]

Stopping from 155mph in two seconds requires a deceleration of approximately 3.5g. That's not acceptable, even with an imaginary computer driving.

While I think this is getting a little bit silly, there's two super duper immediate problems with this:

1. You're assuming the vehicle in front stops instantaneously.
2. Even if it did, then with instantaneous computer reactions 2 second headways gives 4 seconds for decelleration

(Of course there are super immediate problems "the other way" too, just 2 of which are

1. If it were real drivers in 2 seconds there may not be ANY reaction
2. 3.5g decelleration not happening unless we install reverse thrust on cars)

Ultimately if the roads are congested 155mph is going to be unsuitable. Things end up back at 50-60mph. The only solution is more motorays and ignoring people going on about induced demand.

I'm quite happy to drive at 155mph but even the autobahn where legal and other drivers expecting it you usually cannot. In the UK it's rare indeed unless you are reckless or have some reason to do the M74 at 4am in August. You simply cannot do that anywhere near other UK road users.

 

[Indigo Soup]

1. You're assuming the vehicle in front stops instantaneously

That's the safe design practice that underlies both road and rail. Or am I the only one that remembers being trained to drive at a speed where I can stop in the space I know to be safe?

Things end up back at 50-60mph.

Oddly enough, the speed bracket that optimises capacity, given real braking performance.

 

[AHBD]

Yes NI has smaller settlements but the road network isn't too bad these days.

coaches can only do 70 on motorways.

Why do the coaches go point to point in NI?

Northern Ireland towns cities are smaller.
I dont think Northern Ireland is a useful proxy to debunk the idea in England (with a motorway arm or 2 into Scotland or wales): I think you need to use a similar sized country with appropriate similar other properties .

 

[HSTEd]

He states that it will cost £10-20 billion in capital costs so not even a cheap proposal. That's before you get into the operational subsidy for both the coach services and connecting bus services. It also requires huge tax increases on cars to encourage people on to coaches. If you're doing that then you have the money to improve intercity rail services instead and provide far better journey times.

Compared to what infrastructure costs on rail it is a cheap proposal.

£10-20bn (even adjusting for inflation in the last 14 years) doesn't even get you all the way from London to Birmingham on new railway infrastructure.
£10-20bn 15 years ago is ~£15-30bn today, which gets you something on order of ~1.4-2.5 Transpennine route upgrade packages and thats about it.

And we must remember that the operational (non HS2) railway is currently consuming around a billion pounds per month in subsidy.

 

[The exile]

Two points:

1: I don't think any rules developed from rail signals or human driven cars are likely to be applicable here. In a world where we're are looking at high speed autonomous driving on motorways we would be looking at all vehicles operating at the same speed and with the same reaction to incidents.

So long as all vehicles can decelerate at the same rate and decisions are being made by a computer headways can be very short. More conceptually similar to motorsport than rail

2: In practice vehicles will likely platoon so 10 vehicles have a 0.05 sec gap between them with a 10 second gap between platoons.

Any headway that is less than the time it takes to board / alight (+ a bit) will require these vehicles to fan out at every stop (otherwise when one stops they all will). That then requires systems to ensure that their passengers a) can safely access the vehicle without being run into by another (even if it’s not doing 155mph), b) know which vehicle is “theirs” and probably several other things as well. Land take and cost starts to snowball very quickly.