Should buses be used to replace rail journeys on certain flows?

[mike57]

Significant subsidy will still be needed for transport, particularly in more rural areas, but I'm of the view if it could be re-distributed between rail and other public transport modes with a long term commitment it could do more to address climate change and other objectives. Rail is well suited for certain trips, but not others.

The problem is, and this has been discussed before on other threads is that whilst rail isnt the answer to everything the tendancy is in rural areas to suggest replacing rail with bus services because those are really there are only two options, rail or bus. Bus services have a lot of disadvantages over rail, longer journey times, less suitable if you are carrying luggage (and forget traveling with a bike), often don't connect with onward rail services, and no through ticketing, so you have a decreasing usage because people have a car and that becomes the best option. With the exception of longer journey times the issues could be addressed but rarely are.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bus services have a lot of disadvantages over rail

longer journey times

Often, but not always.

less suitable if you are carrying luggage

That’s debateable.

and forget traveling with a bike

Agreed - but a very small proportion of the market.

often don't connect with onward rail services

Easily fixed

and no through ticketing

Easily fixed.


Bus services also have a lot of advantages over rail for flows such as this - they can be routed much more finely to meet generators of passenger demand, they are (very roughly) between 20-40% of the cost of rail to operate and maintain for a similar level of capacity (including vehicles but excluding infrastructure), have near zero capital cost to implement, and can be implemented in weeks rather than the best part of a decade.

In this case, for the cost of the next stage of development (see the Hythe / Waterside Line development cost for comparison) you could buy a 7 day a week early till late hourly express bus / coach service between Skipton and Colne stations, for a decade. And make it free to use for rail passengers.

 

[BayPaul]

(and forget traveling with a bike)

Agreed - but a very small proportion of the market.

Even bikes on busses aren't impossible with a little work. I believe Truronian used to have bike racks on the front on their busses, and its common in the USA.

 

[Llandudno]

Often, but not always.




That’s debateable.




Agreed - but a very small proportion of the market.




Easily fixed




Easily fixed.


Bus services also have a lot of advantages over rail for flows such as this - they can be routed much more finely to meet generators of passenger demand, they are (very roughly) between 20-40% of the cost of rail to operate and maintain for a similar level of capacity (including vehicles but excluding infrastructure), have near zero capital cost to implement, and can be implemented in weeks rather than the best part of a decade.

In this case, for the cost of the next stage of development (see the Hythe / Waterside Line development cost for comparison) you could buy a 7 day a week early till late hourly express bus / coach service between Skipton and Colne stations, for a decade. And make it free to use for rail passengers.

Correct, but we all know what happens with unprofitable bus services, Council’s looking to save a few quid, simply withdraw subsidy at the drop of a hat and the bus service is lost. Much more difficult to withdraw rail services…

 

[Killingworth]

Bus services also have a lot of advantages over rail for flows such as this - they can be routed much more finely to meet generators of passenger demand, they are (very roughly) between 20-40% of the cost of rail to operate and maintain for a similar level of capacity (including vehicles but excluding infrastructure), have near zero capital cost to implement, and can be implemented in weeks rather than the best part of a decade.

In this case, for the cost of the next stage of development (see the Hythe / Waterside Line development cost for comparison) you could buy a 7 day a week early till late hourly express bus / coach service between Skipton and Colne stations, for a decade. And make it free to use for rail passengers.

Last week I happened to pass Pegswood station in Northumberland and stopped to have a look. It has a service into Newcastle taking 25 minutes - twice a day and only one service back running up to Chathill. There is no car park at the station and very limited on street parking available nearby. Pre-Covid it's no surprise to find annual passenger numbers around 2,000.

Arriva's X18 bus runs to Newcastle via Morpeth hourly and takes 45 minutes, starting early and finishing late in the day. It runs up to Alnwick and Berwick, serving many other places along the way. Pegswood has a population of just over 3,000, many living in fairly modern homes with car parking spaces, all built on the north-west side of the railway. We passed two bus stops in the village with about 8-10 people waiting at each.

Next station north up the ECML is Widdrington Station, the parish name is Widdrington Station and Stobswood and had 2,767 residents in 2011. There has been a lot of modern building, mostly to the south of the station, all houses with car parking space. There may be station car parking for 5 or 6 cars, if they park tightly (only one when we stopped). Pre-Covid passenger numbers were nearer 4,000 pa.

It's on the same routes for trains and buses. It seems that TPE may soon provide a few extra stops which will give opportunities to go north to Reston(!) and Edinburgh and to Newcastle in under 30 minutes.

Trading off frequency, proximity of route, speed, possible interchanges, alternative transport and price it's not surprising that most rural journeys are not made by train, nor are they likely to be.

Railways score for longer distance travel, or intensively patronised, frequent urban traffic flows.

My grandfather was a commercial traveller based in Newcastle. Starting before WW1 he'd put his bike on a train and cycle out to pit villages in both Northumberland and Durham. Very soon after the the war his employers issued him a car, very basic, no side windows, but he was able to achieve so many more sales from a much greater area. The boom years for rural railways were already over 100 years ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

Correct, but we all know what happens with unprofitable bus services, Council’s looking to save a few quid, simply withdraw subsidy at the drop of a hat and the bus service is lost. Much more difficult to withdraw rail services…

Easily fixed. Contract them as part of the rail service, but as a bus.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Even bikes on busses aren't impossible with a little work. I believe Truronian used to have bike racks on the front on their busses, and its common in the USA.

DfT won't allow racks on the front of a bus in the UK.

 

[Killingworth]

DfT won't allow racks on the front of a bus in the UK.

Hope Valley Explorer route was launched this year with space for bikes on the back. Haven't heard how that went.

 

[mike57]

In order for buses to work I think you have to address @Bald Rick 'Easily fixed' issues I raised. Through ticketing and connections is a must, I agree not difficult to acheive, other countries manage it, but until we do we will not get the best out of either rail or bus services. Part of those issues also need to deal with things like 'Last train back to local railhead delayed, last bus has left without connecting rail passengers' Currently if you try to mix modes on a journey you potentially have extra problems, can you chance an advance rail fare where first leg is a bus which may get held up. Through ticketing must include access to things like advance fares. I agree sorting these issues out might make more sense than spending huge sums on reopening a strech of railway, but until they are (properly) sorted people will not consider alternatives.

 

[BayPaul]

In order for buses to work I think you have to address @Bald Rick 'Easily fixed' issues I raised. Through ticketing and connections is a must, I agree not difficult to acheive, other countries manage it, but until we do we will not get the best out of either rail or bus services. Part of those issues also need to deal with things like 'Last train back to local railhead delayed, last bus has left without connecting rail passengers' Currently if you try to mix modes on a journey you potentially have extra problems, can you chance an advance rail fare where first leg is a bus which may get held up. Through ticketing must include access to things like advance fares. I agree sorting these issues out might make more sense than spending huge sums on reopening a strech of railway, but until they are (properly) sorted people will not consider alternatives.

I agree. Like so many issues that are brought up on here, if the UK had a properly integrated public transport system, the issues would go away.
I really wish that rather than GBR, the new organisation that we were working towards was something more like TfGB

 

[mike57]

I agree. Like so many issues that are brought up on here, if the UK had a properly integrated public transport system, the issues would go away.
I really wish that rather than GBR, the new organisation that we were working towards was something more like TfGB

My thoughts are based on a rural/small town perspective, we are getting closer in places like London

 

[BayPaul]

My thoughts are based on a rural/small town perspective, we are getting closer in places like London

I agree. But I think a nationwide (including rural/small town) system is what is needed. It could be run like TfL, with independent operators actually running the busses, but with timetables and ticketing managed by TfGB, in consultation with local authorities, and so with the through ticketing and coordination between buses and rail that the country really needs. As a small benefit, it would mean that many rural rail schemes like those proposed by this initiative could be introduced faster, cheaper and more efficiently using buses rather than rebuilding old alignments

 

[pdeaves]

I agree. But I think a nationwide (including rural/small town) system is what is needed. It could be run like TfL, with independent operators actually running the busses, but with timetables and ticketing managed by TfGB, in consultation with local authorities, and so with the through ticketing and coordination between buses and rail that the country really needs. As a small benefit, it would mean that many rural rail schemes like those proposed by this initiative could be introduced faster, cheaper and more efficiently using buses rather than rebuilding old alignments

But... but... where's the competition? Until the powers that be consider transport as a whole as a service (competing with the private car, if you must), we will never get coordination at this level. We all know it would be worthwhile, but government is obsessed with everyone competing with everyone else when there is really no need.

 

[BayPaul]

But... but... where's the competition? Until the powers that be consider transport as a whole as a service (competing with the private car, if you must), we will never get coordination at this level. We all know it would be worthwhile, but government is obsessed with everyone competing with everyone else when there is really no need.

There definitely does seem to be an idealogical issue here, but I'm not sure that's it. After all, there is apparently no concern with First operating most of the bus and train services in Cornwall, for example. The competition between operators would come at the tendering stage, and I think the government understands that - they were happy with it under the previous rail franchise model, and presumably that's also how it would work in the new concession model as well.

 

[mike57]

I agree. But I think a nationwide (including rural/small town) system is what is needed. It could be run like TfL, with independent operators actually running the busses, but with timetables and ticketing managed by TfGB, in consultation with local authorities, and so with the through ticketing and coordination between buses and rail that the country really needs. As a small benefit, it would mean that many rural rail schemes like those proposed by this initiative could be introduced faster, cheaper and more efficiently using buses rather than rebuilding old alignments

Really if you take this to the obvious conclusion local authorities would no longer subsidise routes, the whole thing would need to be set centrally in order to work, would you then allow 'open access' operators, as they would cherry pick the best (most profitable) routes. By all means sub contract the actual running of the buses, you would put out a tender to run Route X, but then what about fares, does the operator keep (all or some) of them. If they just run the service but dont keep the fares then there is no incentive to be diligent about collecting fares. Trying to nationalise the whole lot would probably be a step to far. Perhaps rather than trying to fix the whole system in one go there could be changes to integrate buses and train in an area, more of a little steps solution.

Not insurmountable problems but would take care and a good dose of common sense to arrive at workable and effective solutions and it may be that solutions would need adapting to meet local conditions, and the one thing that seems to haunt politicians of all parties is a lack of common sense. We have all seen it, politician says "we will do this" and everyone can see the glaring loop hole/pitfall, but the political types just charge on regardless.

 

[jayah]

Often, but not always.




That’s debateable.




Agreed - but a very small proportion of the market.




Easily fixed




Easily fixed.


Bus services also have a lot of advantages over rail for flows such as this - they can be routed much more finely to meet generators of passenger demand, they are (very roughly) between 20-40% of the cost of rail to operate and maintain for a similar level of capacity (including vehicles but excluding infrastructure), have near zero capital cost to implement, and can be implemented in weeks rather than the best part of a decade.

In this case, for the cost of the next stage of development (see the Hythe / Waterside Line development cost for comparison) you could buy a 7 day a week early till late hourly express bus / coach service between Skipton and Colne stations, for a decade. And make it free to use for rail passengers.

I was looking at bus subsidies in Devon. Many of the routes are fully subsidised but the sums are minuscule for example the Totnes Kingsbridge route which is roughly hourly needs about £90k a year.

The relative costs are a lot less than 20-40%.

Unfortunately most of the routes have been overtuned to the interests of noisy stakeholders and have no relevance to anyone as a car alternative. You can expect to spend 25% of your time on a bus heading away from wherever you are going.

 

[Bald Rick]

Many of the routes are fully subsidised but the sums are minuscule for example the Totnes Kingsbridge route which is roughly hourly needs about £90k a year.

The relative costs are a lot less than 20-40%.

The £90k subsidy is net of fares collected. The actual costs of operation do not allow for that.

Bus costs are typically in the region of £2-£2.50 per bus km all in, with costs in cities towards the higher end of this range.

 

[Mikey C]

The other advantage buses have, is that many rural stations are poorly located due to geography. The railway line might be faster, but if the station is a 15 minute walk away from where people want to go and up a hill, that's the time saving gone.

 

[WesternBiker]

The other advantage buses have, is that many rural stations are poorly located due to geography. The railway line might be faster, but if the station is a 15 minute walk away from where people want to go and up a hill, that's the time saving gone.

Spot on. And not just the time saving: who wants to walk along roads which might not have pavements for 15 minutes in potentially inclement weather, with shopping/luggage - when the alternative is more convenient?

 

[RPI]

Generally though, people won't leave their cars at home to go on a bus (with the exception of park and ride schemes), but they will to go on a train.

 

[Bald Rick]

Generally though, people won't leave their cars at home to go on a bus (with the exception of park and ride schemes), but they will to go on a train.

generally, though, that’s rubbish. Lots of people do precisely that!

 

[The Ham]

Spot on. And not just the time saving: who wants to walk along roads which might not have pavements for 15 minutes in potentially inclement weather, with shopping/luggage - when the alternative is more convenient?

By government definition, most people who live in rural areas would probably have roads which have footways. In that includes settlements with up to 10,000 people.

Between my village of 9,000 and the next village South (4,500) we can walk on a footway the whole way (allowing access from the southern village toa railway station). Whilst to the one to the north and the one to the west (both circa 1,000) there aren't paved paths there are routes which don't require walking along the carriageway with cars.

However even if you were to, the distances where there's no footway is fairly limited and the roads tend to not be the busiest roads you could use.

The next station along serves a near by village with a population of circa 5,000. It has footways between the two.

Yes there are rural places like you describe, however they are likely to be those places where the overall population tends towards the lower end of the 0-10,000 population range.

Likewise buses aren't always note convenient than trains. For me I have to walk as far to get to a bus stop at I do to get to the train station, yet the train is cheaper, faster and more frequent. Which means few use the bus where there's a choice, which brings me to this point:

generally, though, that’s rubbish. Lots of people do precisely that!

It very much depends on the length of the journey, few will use a bus for more than an hour. Likewise loads of people do use buses for trips of less than 45 minutes.

The number of trips by bus (4bn) is higher than by rail (2bn), but the distance traveled (35bn km) is significantly less than by rail (64bn km).

 

[Mikey C]

Likewise buses aren't always note convenient than trains. For me I have to walk as far to get to a bus stop at I do to get to the train station, yet the train is cheaper, faster and more frequent. Which means few use the bus where there's a choice, which brings me to this point:

I don't know the exact details about your situation, but the bus could be rerouted to stop much nearer your house, whereas railway station locations are fixed.

 

[jayah]

generally, though, that’s rubbish. Lots of people do precisely that!

Most people won't leave the car at home to go on a train other than commuting to work.

Even fewer people will leave the car at home outside London to use a bus, even commuting to work.

The country is addicted to using cars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2021 ==

The £90k subsidy is net of fares collected. The actual costs of operation do not allow for that.

Bus costs are typically in the region of £2-£2.50 per bus km all in, with costs in cities towards the higher end of this range.

It is a roughly 45 mile round trip, 14 times per weekday, so on the back of a fag packet 350k km operating a year.

If the shortfall is £90k from costs of £700-800k it begs the question why it would be fully subsidised?

But to give some context, pre pandemic rail costs were around £10bn pax revenue and £7bn support for 140 million passenger train km per quarter. Give or take freight and how much support is investment rather than operations £17bn works out to roughly £30 per train km - or the bus is more like 7.5% of the cost of running a train.

Buses are fantastic value for money if you are in the market for supporting public transport.

 

[The Ham]

I don't know the exact details about your situation, but the bus could be rerouted to stop much nearer your house, whereas railway station locations are fixed.

It could do, but to do so would add a mile to the journey and remove its stop by the train station. As such just isn't going to happen.

Anyway, when I had the option to use the bus to get to/from work I didn't, as it was quicker and cheaper to cycle the 3 miles than use the bus. I also wasn't reliant on the hourly bus timetable (~45 minutes early or ~10 minutes late going to work).

Even if it stopped near my house I'd need to allow up to 5 minutes to get to the stop & at least 5 minutes before the departure time to ensure I didn't miss the bus (not something I'd have done witha more frequent service), with a 5 minute journey time and then a 2 minute walk at the other end it's not much shorter than the ~25 minutes to cycle (including get the bike out/putting it away at home and locking it up at work).

Buses work in given situations (likewise there'll be lots unwilling to cycle the route I used to cycle) however for me for that commuting it wouldn't have done so.

 

[The exile]

I don't know the exact details about your situation, but the bus could be rerouted to stop much nearer your house, whereas railway station locations are fixed.

Which sums up both "sides" of the problem. The fact that buses don't have a "permanent way" means that journeys can easily be altered to include settlements off the main route (good - though at the expense of journey times for others) or to respond to new developments (good). However, it also means that the convenient routing which makes it feasible / desirable for me to travel somewhere by bus gets moved away both from my front door / village and my destination "at the drop of a hat" (bad). Although timetables can change, railway services allow for more long-term planning.

 

[IanXC]

Which sums up both "sides" of the problem. The fact that buses don't have a "permanent way" means that journeys can easily be altered to include settlements off the main route (good - though at the expense of journey times for others) or to respond to new developments (good). However, it also means that the convenient routing which makes it feasible / desirable for me to travel somewhere by bus gets moved away both from my front door / village and my destination "at the drop of a hat" (bad). Although timetables can change, railway services allow for more long-term planning.

And this is where we so often go wrong in this country, new developments in so many cases could be near existing stations, or at least near railway lines, to enable this kind of connectivity, but yet it doesn't happen.

 

[GusB]

Posts 1-27 were originally posted in a thread elsewhere on the forum which was split into several separate discussions, one of which was moved here. The original thread has now been closed, but if anyone wishes to get some background on how we got here, the original thread can be found here:

Restoring your Railways: Winning schemes announced

The only significant paragraph in the Treasury papers about the rail settlement is this one (4.63, p110): BUDGET 2021: Protecting the jobs and livelihoods of the British people (publishing.service.gov.uk) The "SR21 period" will be the 3 years of the spending review, April 2022 - March 2025...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[GusB]

The problem is, and this has been discussed before on other threads is that whilst rail isnt the answer to everything the tendancy is in rural areas to suggest replacing rail with bus services because those are really there are only two options, rail or bus. Bus services have a lot of disadvantages over rail, longer journey times, less suitable if you are carrying luggage (and forget traveling with a bike), often don't connect with onward rail services, and no through ticketing, so you have a decreasing usage because people have a car and that becomes the best option. With the exception of longer journey times the issues could be addressed but rarely are.

To some extent I understand what is being said here, and @Bald Rick has already addressed a few of these points.

If I may address some of the points made here:

• "Longer journey times": If you define this as from railhead-to-railhead, then perhaps bus journeys are slower overall, but you need to factor in how far or how expensive it is for a passenger to travel from their home to wherever they wish to go and vice-versa.
• "Less suitable if you are carrying luggage": I suppose it depends on where in the country you live, but in my part of the world there is more than sufficient space for luggage underfloor on services where you'd expect people to carry luggage.
• Forget traveling with a bike: This has been addressed by some operators, notably Borders Buses which provides storage space for bikes on some of its services.
• No onward connections and no through ticketing: This could easily be addressed were it not for the fact that Bus and Rail are seen as two distinct and separate modes of transport.

One thing that infuriates me is the notion that current bus and coach manufacturers only build what they have in their catalogue, and that it's not possible to deviate from that which is on offer. I think it's safe to say that the days of a single operator placing an order for 100+ vehicles is long gone, but it's also safe to say that the days of a single bus builder expecting a large order to a single specification is also gone. Look at where such "volume builders" have ended up.

 

[WelshBluebird]

My big issue with buses compared to rail services is mainly that bus routes seem to be more at the whim of the operator with buses. That isn't to say rail isn't too (you can see that with SWR dropping their Bristol services for example) but it isnt quite the same (e.g. staying local the bus routes between Bristol, Keynsham and Bath have changed multiple times in recent years, each time the service getting significantly worse).