Why is the UK completely incapable of treating public transport as a whole?

[A0wen]

Easily cyclable I do it every week! Albeit the hills out at a bit, err, steep.

Maybe once a week for "pleasure" - not so great 5 days a week whatever the weather for a teenager to get to school though....... People get surprised when you tell them there are 1 in 10 hills in Hertfordshire.....

Knowing the area, presumably you'll recall the time the pub at Gustardwood - The Cross Keys - was had its letters reshuffled by some joker into a new name ?

 

[Dr Day]

Hidden away on various SW bus threads on this forum is discussion regarding Transport for Cornwall's One Public Transport initiative. There are various elements to this, including more integrated timetables (ie integrated transport), bus routes specified by the authority and a pilot of significantly reduced bus fares. There is some integrated ticketing and integrated fares (not quite the same things). It would have made an interesting non-PTE case study but alas Covid 19 has intervened.

My take is the main problem, regardless of ownership, is bus and rail companies simply operating as separate businesses focused on their own narrow revenue and operating cost bases rather than a wider social, economic or environmental objective. Straying into Speculative ideas, but if we gave say Transport for the Isle of Wight as a new single entity, all the rail infrastructure, all the rolling stock, all the buses, all the subsidy currently given to Network Rail, rail and local bus companies to operate/maintain infrastructure and provide services, powers to set fares as they liked and employ staff on new contracts and said start again to come up with a better use of the funding and assets it would be interesting to see what mix of rail and bus they came back with! Wales and Scotland are certainly moving in that general direction looking for greater control across all modes, but no-one dares propose any reduction in rail services.

 

[RT4038]

Yes. And part of the answer to 'why' is the Thatcherite deregulation of bus services. Here in Merseyside the PTE (is it still called that?) attempts to provide timetable information and integrated ticketing ... slowly, incredibly slowly, moving towards an Oyster-style system. But although there are some region-wide, all modes tickets, the individual bus companies and even the local-authority controlled Merseyrail persist with their own company-only tickets. The occasional user of public transport is likely to be so confused, and probably fleeced, that they are not likely to return in a hurry. As for timetables, there is a vast difference between the profitable routes with a frequent and sometimes 24-hr service, and the subsidised ones where you are lucky to find any bus at all after about 19.00.

But prior to de-regulation, when most bus and all train services were state (local or national) owned, there was precious little integration of fares and virtually none of timetables, so I think the answer to 'why' must lie essentially elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But prior to de-regulation, when most bus and all train services were state (local or national) owned, there was precious little integration of fares and virtually none of timetables, so I think the answer to 'why' must lie essentially elsewhere.

It has long been an attitude problem. As I mentioned above, even when they had the same overall owner (British Transport Commission) they weren't integrated!

 

[RT4038]

Hidden away on various SW bus threads on this forum is discussion regarding Transport for Cornwall's One Public Transport initiative. There are various elements to this, including more integrated timetables (ie integrated transport), bus routes specified by the authority and a pilot of significantly reduced bus fares. There is some integrated ticketing and integrated fares (not quite the same things). It would have made an interesting non-PTE case study but alas Covid 19 has intervened.

My take is the main problem, regardless of ownership, is bus and rail companies simply operating as separate businesses focused on their own narrow revenue and operating cost bases rather than a wider social, economic or environmental objective. Straying into Speculative ideas, but if we gave say Transport for the Isle of Wight as a new single entity, all the rail infrastructure, all the rolling stock, all the buses, all the subsidy currently given to Network Rail, rail and local bus companies to operate/maintain infrastructure and provide services, powers to set fares as they liked and employ staff on new contracts and said start again to come up with a better use of the funding and assets it would be interesting to see what mix of rail and bus they came back with! Wales and Scotland are certainly moving in that general direction looking for greater control across all modes, but no-one dares propose any reduction in rail services.

Yes, but this case study would need to be done in some years time, to see if the initial vision translates into a sustainable on-going provision. I think
they will really battle with not being in full control of all the buses and any of the trains (esp. main line ones)

Straying into the 'How do you change things' away from 'Why is it like this now', I think it essential that funding and control of bus and rail is not in separate silos, so buses are not expected to be (nearly) self supporting. [Integration may well be to the advantage of public transport as a whole, but probably not to buses alone]. However, your example of the Isle of Wight very neatly highlights the problem of starting from 'where we are now'. If what you suggest was done, it would not take a genius to work out that the rail subsidy was fifty (or whatever it is!) times that of the entire bus subsidy for the island, and that this subsidy would buy a much improved bus service to everyone rather than trains to only a proportion. This of course would set all sorts of hares running, and the whole integration thing would be quietly forgotten.

See

 

[A0wen]

But prior to de-regulation, when most bus and all train services were state (local or national) owned, there was precious little integration of fares and virtually none of timetables, so I think the answer to 'why' must lie essentially elsewhere.

I think some of it is the different forms are serving different needs.

So if you took for example a bus route linking two towns that also had a rail link - you'd probably timetable the buses around other factors - school start / close times, office hours etc.

The problem with trains is a bit different - you can't have a train leaving every station at 5.15pm to catch all the people leaving work at 5pm - so the focus is on the major traffic points.

With buses you have far more running around - more flexibility around timing, easier to flex or change routes in response to demand - and increasing the number of buses is easily done - you can't suddenly run two trains in one path.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe once a week for "pleasure" - not so great 5 days a week whatever the weather for a teenager to get to school though....... People get surprised when you tell them there are 1 in 10 hills in Hertfordshire.....

Knowing the area, presumably you'll recall the time the pub at Gustardwood - The Cross Keys - was had its letters reshuffled by some joker into a new name ?

There’s plenty steeper than 1:10 around that neck of the woods, and I’m slow up them all...

I didn’t know about the pub sign reshuffle. Odd pub. Not sure how it keeps going, particularly with no reasonable public transport nearby (he says, desperately trying to keep on topic).

 

[AndyW33]

Preston bus station is an odd one in that it's not only at the opposite end of the town but also in a no more convenient place for the town centre than the railway station is (so not like Taunton, as mentioned above) - most people just use the on-street stops. While I accept the present bus station is listed (which of course doesn't require it to actually be used as a bus station, just not be knocked down), it would make more sense to move it to the railway station end as at least it'd serve some purpose then, there's plenty of parking land it could be built on, with the quantity of parking retained by conversion to multi-storey.

Lancaster is another interesting one, it has a nice fancy new bus station...which is also nowhere near where anyone wants to go, what I think most people consider the "bus station" is the set of stops down the side of Primark - indeed for a long time I thought it was too! (That set of stops, going more on topic, is reasonably convenient for the railway station). To be fair the old one (now converted into an ugly block of flats) wasn't in a useful place either.

TBH, given the vintage of the Fishergate Centre I'm really rather surprised that didn't incorporate one.

What is really necessary to consider with both Preston and Lancaster is whether land was available at the right time in the right place when bus stations were being considered.
1960s Preston had several small bus stations, none big enough for the traffic using them, and particularly prone to traffic congestion which meant routes were constantly running late. The bulk of bus passengers used Preston Corporation Transport, which used no bus station, preferring on-street stops. The new bus station was close to the largest of the existing bus stations, Tithebarn Street, and the coach station. It was considered a step forward in transport integration as it enabled passengers to connect between bus services previously scattered round the town centre, and express coaches, and was less prone to traffic congestion as being next to the brand new inner ring road (which even today isn't in fact a complete circle). It really couldn't have been built on the site of the East Lancs platforms and Butler Street Goods at Preston Railway Station as British Railways were still using them when the new bus station opened in 1969, and even more crucially at the time construction of the bus station started in the late 1960s, no matter how sensible that seems now.
The bus station today is way too big, but it certainly wasn't when it opened (I've seen nearly all the bays occupied on both sides of the building) and I doubt that the 80 bays plus layover parking would have physically fitted onto the site at the railway station.

In Lancaster, todays swish new bus station is on almost the same site as the previous 1930s bus station, which of course had been handy for Lancaster's other major railway station, Green Ayre - with two railway stations, one was always going to lose out in the bus connectivity stakes. Lancaster Castle won the right to survive as the railway station, but the bus station was never likely to be relocated.

 

[Llandudno]

The London public transport network is one of the best examples of ticketing and route integration in this country, although I would suggest that there is virtually no integration of timetables, and National Rail services are less integrated than those controlled by TfL. Northern Ireland is fairly good too, but actual timetable integration between bus and rail is a bit patchy (and bus/bus is not always brilliant either!)

So why doesn't through ticketing happen 'outside the big cities' ?
1. Putting your bus service into the rail journey planning system is a straightjacket - can only change once every six months (on set dates) and a long lead time for data entry. These dates may (will?) not correspond with the dates that the local bus network is revised (beginning of new school year etc), which would mean multiple schedules/rotas etc. Bus company planning horizons are just not the length of those in rail, and the financial imperatives to operate profitably in a completely different league. It is true that some bus links have been(are in) in the rail system, but many have fallen out and I would suggest that falling foul of these data requirements is one of the reasons.
2. The ticket/fare setting system of Rail is completely different to the bus industry, and through fares immediately brings this into conflict and compromises are required. Note that these compromises will always be at the bus company's expense. Fares schemes / offers (railcards/priv tickets etc) that are appropriate to Rail may not be appropriate to the bus company. The bus company is going to have to employ a fairly specialist person to negotiate this minefield. Will the extra revenue really justify this? Currently bus companies feel that they are at the poor end of the revenue share out from through tickets.
3. Delay repay. Bus companies certainly do not want to be liable for delays of connecting buses to rail services, and the whole 'industry' surrounding this is an expense that no bus company wants to be footing.

I am not sure that any through ticketing system is 'essentially no outlay' unless there is 'essentially no revenue'. Quite what you mean by a 'decent timetable' [if the current one is not decent then here is outlay in making it decent] and the administration of data to the rail timetable system and fares database is no small job. This may be petty cash in the rail industry, but this just highlights the huge gulf between the rail and bus financials !

I think you have accurately summed up why there is little or no bus/train network or ticketing coordination in the UK

But, this computer (or government/civil servant) says no attitude means that it is unlikely to change anytime soon!

But perhaps concentrating on a few easy wins would be a start like Penrith - Keswick etc

 

[Taunton]

As the rail industry, only a component of public transport as a whole, is unable to run as a cohesive single entity, what chance an all-embracing approach?

We have single operator ticket offerings specifically devised to stiff the other associated operators along the same route. We have connecting trains sent off empty without regard that the one they are meant to connect out of is just rolling in a bit late across the platform. We have HS2 deciding to build its stations in the middle of nowhere, unconnected to existing rail hubs. Goodness.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If what you suggest was done, it would not take a genius to work out that the rail subsidy was fifty (or whatever it is!) times that of the entire bus subsidy for the island, and that this subsidy would buy a much improved bus service to everyone rather than trains to only a proportion. This of course would set all sorts of hares running, and the whole integration thing would be quietly forgotten.

There is that. But even with the railway, its costs would be reduced by a move to bring it into a single fare system (might as well be that of Vectis) and by coordinating it with the buses rather than them running in parallel to it leaching revenue. Oh, and ENCTS passes being valid on it if they aren't already.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding Preston, it's less about when it was built in the 1960s than what has happened since. There have been proposals to build a bus station adjoining the Fishergate Centre (I believe their surface car park was considered, with that being replaced with a multi-storey) over the years and to replace the existing one, keeping the car park and using the downstairs bit for something else e.g. community use. These have however repeatedly come to nothing.

I suppose you could alternatively argue that Preston doesn't really need a bus station and could instead do MK style[1] cross-city operation, with everything starting and terminating in outer suburbs (or further away) and running along Fishergate, serving maybe 3 sets of stops. While that's now been made one-way (something I don't agree with, though I would agree with banning cars from it) that is still I believe how most people actually use the service, they don't walk down to the bus station. If I was designing a Preston tram service (no, not the silly Trampower garden shed job, a proper one) it would definitely be based on a Fishergate core.

[1] You could argue that the stops outside the railway station with fully covered shelters (a bit 1980s-GMPTE-like) are a bus station, but they're designed for through use rather than terminating, and very little does terminate there - and even one of the few routes that per the timetable does (the 4) mostly changes the number to 14 and carries straight on, for some reason someone somewhere no doubt found made sense.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think it's a fundemental flaw of the ideology in this country. Public transport needs to be run as a public service for the benefit of society, without profitablility mattering in the slightest. In fact, in an ideal world it would be free, payed for by public money for the benefit of the public. But we have become to bogged-down with trying to squeeze profit out of something which inherently isn't really possible to do well and still make a significant profit from.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

In fact, in an ideal world it would be free, payed for by public money for the benefit of the public.

There is no such thing as public money, just taxpayer money. So in your ideal world those who choose to ride around all day because they happen to like trains, for example, would be financed by most who might only use transport rarely. Your ideal world and the real world, I am afraid to say, will never meet.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes. And part of the answer to 'why' is the Thatcherite deregulation of bus services. Here in Merseyside the PTE (is it still called that?) attempts to provide timetable information and integrated ticketing ... slowly, incredibly slowly, moving towards an Oyster-style system. But although there are some region-wide, all modes tickets, the individual bus companies and even the local-authority controlled Merseyrail persist with their own company-only tickets. The occasional user of public transport is likely to be so confused, and probably fleeced, that they are not likely to return in a hurry. As for timetables, there is a vast difference between the profitable routes with a frequent and sometimes 24-hr service, and the subsidised ones where you are lucky to find any bus at all after about 19.00.

In Greater Manchester, used to be endlessly frustrating with individual bus operators pushing their individual tickets rather than the multi-operator tickets, often for a tiny discount to the passenger (who were often unaware of the significant extra flexibility they could have for little extra cost - often moaning when they 'tried it on' and were refused).

As the rail industry, only a component of public transport as a whole, is unable to run as a cohesive single entity, what chance an all-embracing approach?

We have single operator ticket offerings specifically devised to stiff the other associated operators along the same route. We have connecting trains sent off empty without regard that the one they are meant to connect out of is just rolling in a bit late across the platform. We have HS2 deciding to build its stations in the middle of nowhere, unconnected to existing rail hubs. Goodness.

...which ones? Old Oak Common links to a GWML station, Birmingham Interchange has a people mover to Birmingham International, and East Midlands has a new CRN station. Don't see why they need to be 'existing' when the whole point is to expand capacity.

 

[Deepgreen]

Some industries can make privatisation (or similar) work, but others will never do so because of a lack of genuine profit and genuine competition. Public transport is one such sector. The social service aspects of it (e.g. timetable integration, connectivity, ticketing) are necessarily pushed down the list of priorities to attract bidders for a what is a very fragile 'business case'. Political dogma will twist things to maintain the status quo.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

...which ones? Old Oak Common links to a GWML station, Birmingham Interchange has a people mover to Birmingham International, and East Midlands has a new CRN station. Don't see why they need to be 'existing' when the whole point is to expand capacity.

I think you're correct to some extent, but there are still issues about integration at those places. OOC for example will have the Central line running very close by, but with no connectivity, while the Overground will have new stations constructed - IIRC, 300m and 600m away instead of at OOC. While there will be a people mover connecting Birmingham Interchange to International, that's still likely to be less attractive to people than a direct interchange. And at Manchester Airport we have an HS2 station being proposed on the opposite side of the airport from the existing station.

I appreciate in all cases there are reasons to do with cost etc. why better interchange isn't being built, but even so, it still seems to some extent like a reminder that public transport isn't being integrated as much as it ideally could be.

 

[MarkyT]

Great points - I think that a site full of train enthusiasts often over-inflates how important trains are - you could run a local bus network so that everything served the local train station and all buses were co-ordinated with train arrivals/departures, but that's real "tail wagging the dog" stuff. Plus there's the issue that our railways were built haphazardly by Victorian entrepreneurs, so often located far from the main shopping area that bus passengers are bothered about (compared to countries that planned their railways properly and ensured that they had better stations in the centres of towns). In a lot of places, the geography makes serving the train station a bit unattractive for bus services. Can't change that now, of course, but it may explain why it's not easy/desirable for local bus networks to be predominantly built around the whims of a train timetable.

A rational design can ensure good connections for most routes to a major rail interchange AND a town centre, even when they're a fair distance apart, and wherever the bays for layover are located. Most urban bus routes are frequent enough that timetable coordination isn't really an issue, so it's only the longer distance ones where some thought needs to be given to connectional timing, which can't be too tight clearly for reliability. I think there should be some obligation to consider this in service planning, with an acceptance that in some cases it may be impossible, especially at certain times of day when school journeys are dominant and detailed timings and routing may be varied accordingly.
Another technique that is useful is to situate the bus station on the rail station side of the town centre where they're a fair distance apart, with an excelllent pedestrian route between them, and the town centre. A distance of up to a half a km or more is not a big problem as long as the pedestrian link is wide, well lt, percieved as safe, possibly covered for at least part of the way and involves few if any major road crossings. This is basic 'space syntax', which can make even fairly long distances seem quite short.

 

[A0wen]

Some industries can make privatisation (or similar) work, but others will never do so because of a lack of genuine profit and genuine competition. Public transport is one such sector. The social service aspects of it (e.g. timetable integration, connectivity, ticketing) are necessarily pushed down the list of priorities to attract bidders for a what is a very fragile 'business case'. Political dogma will twist things to maintain the status quo.

But that's not really true though is it ? Looking at rail - the ticketing is integrated. Yes you have operator specific tickets, but under BR you had 'non Inter City' tickets, so no change there. On the timetabling, it's a much bigger picture. Running a train a couple of minutes later to guarantee a connection in one place might have massive consequences further down the line. It comes down to balancing differing priorities.

To give an example - you get on a train a place 'B' to travel to place 'D' - you're going to be hacked off if your train is delayed 5 or 10 minutes to wait for the two or three passengers who have come from place 'A' but their train is late arriving - and what if at place 'D' you have an onward connection - does your onward train have to wait, inconveniencing those passengers at place 'D' ? And if you keep holding trains and delaying people's journeys, people will quite rightly say - the train's always late, I won't bother using it because I can't rely on it.

You can't have it all ways.

 

[MarkyT]

The London public transport network is one of the best examples of ticketing and route integration in this country, although I would suggest that there is virtually no integration of timetables, and National Rail services are less integrated than those controlled by TfL. Northern Ireland is fairly good too, but actual timetable integration between bus and rail is a bit patchy (and bus/bus is not always brilliant either!)

Once you reach turn up and go frequencies, timetable integration is rarely necessary as the wait will never be more than the interval. There's scope for more of it at more distant suburban stations though, with 30 minute or less frequent intervals.

 

[GoneSouth]

Previous attempts at wider bus/rail integration have all failed, even when they were all under government control.
The regime (DfT. regulators, franchising, PTEs, transport focus etc) just don't seem to cooperate.
Bus feeders were all the rage when franchising started (eg the routes sponsored by Virgin Trains), but seem to have faded away.

You do see attempts to coordinate routes and timetables (eg the Mold/Wrexham bus routes from Chester start at the railway station rather than the spanking new bus station which is 10 minutes walk away on Gorse Stacks, but most other destinations require a walk).
Another case is Liverpool South Parkway where the PTE investment did develop an efficient interchange and seems to be a success.

Occasionally there are area passes which cover both forms of transport, but there's often a catch - no railcard discounts.
And there's Plus-Bus which works on some tram systems but not on others (think Metrolink!).

The CMA also doesn't like too much integration, as it is seen as anti-competitive.

I don’t mind anti competitive as left to the market the system becomes uncompetitive all by itself. To beHonest I couldn’t be bothered looking up half a dozen different providers offering the same service anyway, it just seems stupidly wasteful and inefficient.

Try choosing a provider if you want to make a journey between 2 cities 100 miles apart, you can’t. Similarly try choosing a provider on a suburban or country bus route, again you can’t (mostly). Let’s just give up on the idea of competition as it’s never worked in the public transport industry anyway.

PTE areas like west Yorkshire have attempted integrated ticketing like day rovers, but as soon as you give private operators freedom to set fares on both bus and rail, their soleReason for existence is to protect their own revenue and the system breaks down.

I tried Plusbus once, a combined rail and bus ticket Was more expensive than buying a rail ticket and then paying the driver on the bus separately which is just bonkers!

 

[py_megapixel]

In Greater Manchester, used to be endlessly frustrating with individual bus operators pushing their individual tickets rather than the multi-operator tickets, often for a tiny discount to the passenger (who were often unaware of the significant extra flexibility they could have for little extra cost - often moaning when they 'tried it on' and were refused)

Used to? To this day operators plaster their windows with adverts for their own fares and just a tiny System One stickers and the System One tickets still have massive FIRST or STAGECOACH logos on them implying that they are only valid for that operator's bus.

 

[Bald Rick]

To give an example - you get on a train a place 'B' to travel to place 'D' - you're going to be hacked off if your train is delayed 5 or 10 minutes to wait for the two or three passengers who have come from place 'A' but their train is late arriving - and what if at place 'D' you have an onward connection - does your onward train have to wait, inconveniencing those passengers at place 'D' ? And if you keep holding trains and delaying people's journeys, people will quite rightly say - the train's always late, I won't bother using it because I can't rely on it.

You can't have it all ways.

Exactly. I have had various amusing / frustrating conversations over the years with ‘someone close to me’ who has moaned that connections at Preston to/from the Blackpool South Line aren’t any good for wherever she happens to want to go, but seem to be much better for lots of other places she doesn’t want to go to.

 

[NorthOxonian]

A rational design can ensure good connections for most routes to a major rail interchange AND a town centre, even when they're a fair distance apart, and wherever the bays for layover are located. Most urban bus routes are frequent enough that timetable coordination isn't really an issue, so it's only the longer distance ones where some thought needs to be given to connectional timing, which can't be too tight clearly for reliability. I think there should be some obligation to consider this in service planning, with an acceptance that in some cases it may be impossible, especially at certain times of day when school journeys are dominant and detailed timings and routing may be varied accordingly.
Another technique that is useful is to situate the bus station on the rail station side of the town centre where they're a fair distance apart, with an excelllent pedestrian route between them, and the town centre. A distance of up to a half a km or more is not a big problem as long as the pedestrian link is wide, well lt, percieved as safe, possibly covered for at least part of the way and involves few if any major road crossings. This is basic 'space syntax', which can make even fairly long distances seem quite short.

That latter technique sounds like what Swindon are (or at least were) planning. The current pedestrian route is a little grim but the plan is to improve the walking route, which goes from the railway station to the town centre via the bus station (served mainly by Stagecoach routes heading out of town) and Fleming Way (there are many on-street stops here served by town buses).

 

[py_megapixel]

There is no such thing as public money, just taxpayer money.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that; surely once money is obtained through taxation it can be considered public money?

So in your ideal world those who choose to ride around all day because they happen to like trains, for example, would be financed by most who might only use transport rarely. Your ideal world and the real world, I am afraid to say, will never meet.

That's the same as complaining that people who like playing sports have their sporting injuries financed by members of the population who don't play sports (through the NHS). Which is clearly a daft complaint.

It is ridiculous to expect every single pound of your tax money to result in a direct return to you personally; rather it should be spent on improving society as a whole.

 

[squizzler]

I have no idea of how you worked out your "theft" of time theory

Actually this theory - a facet of so-called called time pollution - was coined by an academic known as John Whitelegg to challenge traditional thinking that increased velocity (not only of motoring, but also for high speed rail and air travel) is inherently desirable for its own sake. You will recently have seen it being used (badly) in the hands of the Stop HS2 lobby, but that shouldn't count against the validity of it.

Think of a street running through a neighbourhood where a resident one side of the street has to walk across to a shop the other side. Now imagine the street is speeded up so motorists save time but the local resident must now detour through an underpass to visit the same shop. The resident's time is - in a sense - taken from them and given to the motorist. And that in a nutshell is time theft.

 

[RT4038]

I tried Plusbus once, a combined rail and bus ticket Was more expensive than buying a rail ticket and then paying the driver on the bus separately which is just bonkers!

As Plusbus is a one day area wide travel at will ticket, the only way that it will never be more expensive than every train plus paying the driver separately is if the price is set to the cheapest bus ticket available from the railway station. From the financial point of view of the bus operator, that would be bonkers!
Perhaps you could come up with some better system?

 

[RT4038]

In Greater Manchester, used to be endlessly frustrating with individual bus operators pushing their individual tickets rather than the multi-operator tickets, often for a tiny discount to the passenger (who were often unaware of the significant extra flexibility they could have for little extra cost - often moaning when they 'tried it on' and were refused).

Endlessly frustrating for whom? If the passenger wants the multi operator ticket then just ask for it. Seems quite simple to me.

 

[RT4038]

Used to? To this day operators plaster their windows with adverts for their own fares and just a tiny System One stickers and the System One tickets still have massive FIRST or STAGECOACH logos on them implying that they are only valid for that operator's bus.

Not sure what this has to do with the OP's question?

 

[BayPaul]

I think that the biggest issues are ticketing and journey information. It is almost certainly impossible to properly coordinate timetables between bus and rail - for every bus departure you move so it matches a rail arrival, it will break a connection elsewhere, or make for an unattractive timing at another major point.
On the other hand, there are minimal disadvantages to having proper through-ticketing arrangements, that work in both directions, to allow a single ticket for a journey. In particular, something that means that if your bus to the station is delayed and you miss the train, you can take the next one without any penalty (possibly not with delay-repay compensation), and also that the Ts & Cs are similar. I think this would still be very valuable even if there was no discount on buying the two tickets separately.
Equally, having a single national journey planner database that can allow any public transport journey to be planned as easily as a simple rail journey would make it very much easier to integrate everything together.

Its interesting that there is often talk of closing bus services that run in parrallel with rail services on threads like this. In many cases, the opposite would probably be more sensible, provided that the bus service was protected so that it could not be cancelled or severely cut in the future. Places like the Isle of Wight, Far North Line, Conwy, Looe etc could all have better journey times, better access to town centres and far cheaper operations if run as a bus rather than a train. The inevitable shouts down that this comment will get is probably a good answer to the question the OP first posted - there are lots of rail enthusiasts and bus enthusiasts, but perhaps less public transport enthusiasts!