Could GBR own a fleet of buses for rail replacement work?

[YorksLad12]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ses-during-transpennine-route-upgrade.226131/

When there is a large rail upgrade programme being planned years in advance, does it make sense to procure a large fleet of high specification buses specifically for the purpose, which can then run as service buses once the line reopens? Operators like Blackpool Transport could be utilised in such a way, ordering buses only because they were to be leased to rail operators for the first few years.

My thought was that as rail replacement / engineering work is a thing that always happens, that a bespoke, dedicated fleet could be ordered and used for big-ticket work such as TRU, then moved on to the next big project. Yes, I know they will need to be parked up somewhere when not in use, etc. A bit like Metro did in West Yorkshire with the MyBus school buses, but with decent buses instead of the cheap BMC ones they got.

 

[zwk500]

My thought was that as rail replacement / engineering work is a thing that always happens, that a bespoke, dedicated fleet could be ordered and used for big-ticket work such as TRU, then moved on to the next big project. Yes, I know they will need to be parked up somewhere when not in use, etc. A bit like Metro did in West Yorkshire with the MyBus school buses, but with decent buses instead of the cheap BMC ones they got.

What happens if the company that operates or owns the buses doesn't get the rrb contract
for the next big project?
And would these flashy new buses be available for other work when trains are running, or will the costs be solely on the rail replacement jobs?

 

[Watershed]

What happens if the company that operates or owns the buses doesn't get the rrb contract
for the next big project?
And would these flashy new buses be available for other work when trains are running, or will the costs be solely on the rail replacement jobs?

In any sensible world, the buses would be owned (or permanently leased etc.) by GBR and then used across the network, as and when needed.

Yes, it'd be more expensive than the current setup, but it would guarantee the availability of accessible buses for any blockade and would also improve the ability to bustitute at short notice.

 

[Towers]

In any sensible world, the buses would be owned (or permanently leased etc.) by GBR and then used across the network, as and when needed.

Yes, it'd be more expensive than the current setup, but it would guarantee the availability of accessible buses for any blockade and would also improve the ability to bustitute at short notice.

I'm not sure that would really work in practice. Would GBR also emply squadrons of drivers? How would the be moved and accommodated around the network, lots of hotels and vast overnight parking areas?

 

[Watershed]

I'm not sure that would really work in practice. Would GBR also emply squadrons of drivers? How would the be moved and accommodated around the network, lots of hotels and vast overnight parking areas?

Yes, something like that. You probably wouldn't just have buses based in one place, but a few strategic locations around the network. But overnight lodging is already how a lot of bus replacement work is currently resourced.

 

[zwk500]

In any sensible world, the buses would be owned (or permanently leased etc.) by GBR and then used across the network, as and when needed.

Yes, it'd be more expensive than the current setup, but it would guarantee the availability of accessible buses for any blockade and would also improve the ability to bustitute at short notice.

This relies on the very dangerous assumption that GBR (which is being set up by politicians) will be organised sensibly.

 

[Watershed]

This relies on the very dangerous assumption that GBR (which is being set up by politicians) will be organised sensibly.

Unfortunately that's the only constant in all of this!

 

[YorksLad12]

What happens if the company that operates or owns the buses doesn't get the rrb contract
for the next big project?
And would these flashy new buses be available for other work when trains are running, or will the costs be solely on the rail replacement jobs?

In any sensible world, the buses would be owned (or permanently leased etc.) by GBR and then used across the network, as and when needed.

Yes, it'd be more expensive than the current setup, but it would guarantee the availability of accessible buses for any blockade and would also improve the ability to bustitute at short notice.

I was thinking along the lines of what Watershed wrote. A shareable resource, owned by whatever ATOC is called these days, but with the abiity to pull in local contractors when necessary to supplement. They could be used for other events under competitive tender (Leeds Festival springs to mind) but rail replacement takes business priority.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I was thinking along the lines of what Watershed wrote. A shareable resource, owned by whatever ATOC is called these days, but with the abiity to pull in local contractors when necessary to supplement. They could be used for other events under competitive tender (Leeds Festival springs to mind) but rail replacement takes business priority.

So this nationalised (and presumably 'subsidised') bus business would go cap in hand to local contractors one weekend and then undercut them on other tenders during the week, etc.?

I'm not sure that that would go down very well.