High fuel prices - reduce coach speeds

[notadriver]

Should the maximum speed of coaches be reduced from 100 kph (62 mph) to 80 kph (50 mph) due to high fuel prices to reduce costs ?

 

[ld0595]

No. Not unless you want to make coach travel less attractive by extending journey times.

Leave it to the coach operators to decide if the savings are worth it.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Should the maximum speed of coaches be reduced from 100 kph (62 mph) to 80 kph (50 mph) due to high fuel prices to reduce costs ?

Surely the savings from reducing the amount of fuel used would be outweighed by the increase in costs because drivers would be working longer? There might also be an effect on revenue if the increased journey times reduce the attractiveness of coach travel to passengers.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

Maybe increase the maximum so that they can travel at the same speed as cars. In this era of very high fuel prices an increase in speed might encourage modal shift from car drivers who find the coach doesn't take that much longer but is perhaps cheaper than running the car.

 

[carlberry]

Should the maximum speed of coaches be reduced from 100 kph (62 mph) to 80 kph (50 mph) due to high fuel prices to reduce costs ?

The maximum speed is 70mph (or 60mph if over 12m long) in the UK and was only set to that as a result of a fuel shortage, not dependent on fuel price. https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

 

[hexagon789]

The maximum speed is 70mph (or 60mph if over 12m long) in the UK and was only set to that as a result of a fuel shortage, not dependent on fuel price. https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

I thought the 70mph limit was imposed on safety grounds after being continually extended under Wilson's government of the latter-1960s pending a report on whether a maximum limit reduced road casualties which eventually concluded it did.

During the 1973 oil crisis the 70 limit was temporarily lowered to 50 to save fuel.

 

[carlberry]

I thought the 70mph limit was imposed on safety grounds after being continually extended under Wilson's government of the latter-1960s pending a report on whether a maximum limit reduced road casualties which eventually concluded it did.

During the 1973 oil crisis the 70 limit was temporarily lowered to 50 to save fuel.

You are right of course; I'm sure I read somewhere that the 70 was introduced because of the Suez crises but clearly I've confused it with the 1973 reduction!

 

[GusB]

While the legal speed limit for coaches on motorways is 70mph*, the de-facto speed limit is 62mph (100km/h) because that's the value that coaches are limited to anyway. Lowering the legal limit to 50mph would mean coaches being forced to travel slower than most lorries, and it would make coach journeys that used motorways painfully slow.

The introduction of the 62mph limit took much of the fun out of coach travel for me, although to be fair the most exhilarating journeys were those where the legal limit wasn't 70mph anyway (and where it was some speed limiters were er.. broken!)

* The 70mph limit only applies to vehicles not exceeding 12m, so the lower motorway limit of 60mph would apply to many coaches these days anyway.

 

[carlberry]

While the legal speed limit for coaches on motorways is 70mph*, the de-facto speed limit is 62mph (100km/h) because that's the value that coaches are limited to anyway.

* The 70mph limit only applies to vehicles not exceeding 12m, so the lower motorway limit of 60mph would apply to many coaches these days anyway.

If built after 1974 (I'm not suggesting pushing those built before 1974 to 70, just that the law that controls the speed limit is separate from the law about speed limiters). And the government isnt going to start changing either without the supply of fuel is endangered again).

 

[Jordan Adam]

While the legal speed limit for coaches on motorways is 70mph*, the de-facto speed limit is 62mph (100km/h) because that's the value that coaches are limited to anyway. Lowering the legal limit to 50mph would mean coaches being forced to travel slower than most lorries, and it would make coach journeys that used motorways painfully slow.

The introduction of the 62mph limit took much of the fun out of coach travel for me, although to be fair the most exhilarating journeys were those where the legal limit wasn't 70mph anyway (and where it was some speed limiters were er.. broken!)

* The 70mph limit only applies to vehicles not exceeding 12m, so the lower motorway limit of 60mph would apply to many coaches these days anyway.

I've never really understood the logic to this. I can see a case for having a different speed limit based on vehicle height, but length makes little sense, especially when you consider a tri-axle coach at speed is more stable than a dual-axle. In reality even to this day you'll find many buses and coaches which either don't have limiters or have limiters set above 62MPH.

I'd be more in favour of increasing the speed limit on Motorways to 80mph for cars and 70mph for all buses/coaches. The main argument against it seems to be emissions, however with more people switching to EVs it is an argument that's quickly becoming obsolete.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I've never really understood the logic to this. I can see a case for having a different speed limit based on vehicle height, but length makes little sense, especially when you consider a tri-axle coach at speed is more stable than a dual-axle. In reality even to this day you'll find many buses and coaches which either don't have limiters or have limiters set above 62MPH.

I'd be more in favour of increasing the speed limit on Motorways to 80mph for cars and 70mph for all buses/coaches. The main argument against it seems to be emissions, however with more people switching to EVs it is an argument that's quickly becoming obsolete.

The energy for electric vehicles is not available for other purposes, energy could be scarce soon, and more expensive, (I hope) so people at last try to use less. Raising maximum speed limits would cost more lives. They should be lowered. And enforced.

 

[dan5324]

The energy for electric vehicles is not available for other purposes, energy could be scarce soon, and more expensive, (I hope) so people at last try to use less. Raising maximum speed limits would cost more lives. They should be lowered. And enforced.

You hope energy will be more expensive? And why should they? Speed isn’t even the major cause in most accidents.

 

[pepperpot80]

I'd be surprised if most coach (and, for that matter, bus & rail) companies weren't hedging their fuel costs, and fully hedged for 2022. It's relatively publicly available information.

National Express, for instance, have already bought all of their fuel required for 2022 and well into 2023 - from various news reports this week relating to the now-failed Stagecoach buyout, National Express are roughly 65% hedged for 2023 at an average price of 34.4 pence per litre of fuel and around 25% hedged for 2024 at 38.5 pence. Likewise, Go-Ahead's recent financial presentations last week make clear that they're also fully hedged for 2022, 77% hedged for 2023, and 39% hedged for 2024, all around 34 pence.

 

[M803UYA]

I'd be surprised if most coach (and, for that matter, bus & rail) companies weren't hedging their fuel costs, and fully hedged for 2022. It's relatively publicly available information.

National Express, for instance, have already bought all of their fuel required for 2022 and well into 2023 - from various news reports this week relating to the now-failed Stagecoach buyout, National Express are roughly 65% hedged for 2023 at an average price of 34.4 pence per litre of fuel and around 25% hedged for 2024 at 38.5 pence. Likewise, Go-Ahead's recent financial presentations last week make clear that they're also fully hedged for 2022, 77% hedged for 2023, and 39% hedged for 2024, all around 34 pence.

I'm not so sure most small to medium coach companies do hedge their fuel costs - many don't have onsite fuel storage facilities so they refuel at a petrol station. They might have fuel cards for their vehicles, but they'll generally pay the at pump price. So they're very vulnerable to spikes in fuel prices as they bear that increase immediately. So I think we'll see the smaller operators throwing back in contract work in response to spikes in fuel costs.

Some operators of tendered contracts work to thin margins, or even at a loss on contracts so logically we might see lots of work thrown back in because of spikes in fuel. When I worked for a Stagecoach subsidiary we found we were picking up tenders around 2010/11 and the driver was spikes in fuel costs which affected the likes of Countryliner who had form for tendering as cheap as possible.

The operator I drive for has a fleet of Ford Transits and we have no onsite fuel storage, so we refuel at a petrol station. It's less common in the bus industry but it does go on with a smaller operator.

When I was wet behind the ears in the industry I learned about costing for tenders and was always told to assume fuel was £1.50 per litre, but that was in 2004. I'm presuming most operators now assume fuel costs to be around £2 when they bid for contract work. As you'd always expect fuel prices to increase and you have to have some room to absorb the costs. I say 'most operators'..... as not everyone has that awareness of costs.

 

[mjc]

I'm not so sure most small to medium coach companies do hedge their fuel costs - many don't have onsite fuel storage facilities so they refuel at a petrol station. They might have fuel cards for their vehicles, but they'll generally pay the at pump price. So they're very vulnerable to spikes in fuel prices.

I doubt that lots of small companies do it, but don’t assume that just because they buy their fuel at the forecourt that it ultimately costs them the pump price. Fuel cards can offer discounts and they can hedge with banks as other financial institutions, effectively a bet: for every penny they pay at the pump above, say, £1.50 the other side pays them a penny, but the same the other way. Might end up a bad deal but at least you have a fixed cost for a given period.

 

[pepperpot80]

Thanks for adding the additional context, yes, I jumped straight to large/corporate-sized businesses rather than SMEs. Fuel cards absolutely provide a reasonable small-scale hedge, but yes, you're right, with a wafer thin (<2% margin) on a contract, anything less that a 3 months fixed price is going to take the knees out from under a contract with the current spike. I saw a pump offering £1.77/l this week, which indicates the scale of the spike.

I didn't want to derail the thread either... but the discussion was accelerating towards speed limits (i.e. legislation), which is a big fairly blunt hammer. I think I just wanted to add some perspective that there are other more appropriate tools to use to mitigate the effects of fuel costs spiking.

 

[M803UYA]

I doubt that lots of small companies do it, but don’t assume that just because they buy their fuel at the forecourt that it ultimately costs them the pump price. Fuel cards can offer discounts and they can hedge with banks as other financial institutions, effectively a bet: for every penny they pay at the pump above, say, £1.50 the other side pays them a penny, but the same the other way. Might end up a bad deal but at least you have a fixed cost for a given period.

Having worked for quite a few small coach companies I can assure you many of them don't have on site fuelling storage, and fewer have fuel cards, like the haulage industry does. I've worked for coach companies who have fuel cards, but the one I presently work at has nothing of the sort. So we pay pump price. Many of the firms doing school work where I live have similar arrangements with refuelling, and so I can see contracts being thrown back if prices continue to rise.