Why do we have to pay the rail fare for a bus substitution?

[nanstallon]

We pay sky high rail fares generally in the expectation that trains are quicker and more comfortable than buses, but the cost of travelling on a rail replacement bus is the same as a functioning train service, as both require a valid rail ticket. So, if you are travelling from Liverpool to London (for example) and get tipped out of your train onto a bus for part of your journey, and then back onto another train, you may find your journey is another hour or more longer plus the hassle, but you pay the same as if you had a train all the way through. Hardly fair.

 

[Buzby]

Anytime this has happened to me (a) I was told in advance, and (b) Delay Repay kicked in and I got a refund. Surely that’s fair?

 

[nanstallon]

Anytime this has happened to me (a) I was told in advance, and (b) Delay Repay kicked in and I got a refund. Surely that’s fair?

Even if the revised schedule with bus replacement was kept to?

 

[jon0844]

If it's planned engineering work then the journey time will be as per the revised schedule, including buses. You are free to not travel and pay for a bus or coach that might be cheaper than the train that isn't a train.

If a bus is brought in for disruption then you'll be entitled to delay repay, or perhaps a full refund to abandon your journey, or be allowed to travel the next day etc.

 

[Buzby]

Even if the revised schedule with bus replacement was kept to?

Never been on a service that did - the piece in the i paper talks of high prices for travelling by bus then quotes the full standard rail fare. The bulk of travellers will be on Advances so those fares plummet somewhat too - it must be a slow news day!

 

[paulprentice]

We pay sky high rail fares generally in the expectation that trains are quicker and more comfortable than buses, but the cost of travelling on a rail replacement bus is the same as a functioning train service, as both require a valid rail ticket. So, if you are travelling from Liverpool to London (for example) and get tipped out of your train onto a bus for part of your journey, and then back onto another train, you may find your journey is another hour or more longer plus the hassle, but you pay the same as if you had a train all the way through. Hardly fair.

It is entirely fair. Under the National Rail Conditions of Travel your train ticket gets you from point A to point B. The need to undertake necessary and safety-critical engineering works on the railway, for example, the renewal or maintenance of track and signalling, means that sometimes your journey will need to take longer. The rail ticket is just that for the majority of the time, but needs to cover all eventualities. Of course, in an ideal world a train can take a diversionary route that avoids the need for replacement road transport, but that's not always possible.

 

[Porty]

We pay sky high rail fares generally in the expectation that trains are quicker and more comfortable than buses, but the cost of travelling on a rail replacement bus is the same as a functioning train service, as both require a valid rail ticket. So, if you are travelling from Liverpool to London (for example) and get tipped out of your train onto a bus for part of your journey, and then back onto another train, you may find your journey is another hour or more longer plus the hassle, but you pay the same as if you had a train all the way through. Hardly fair.

It's the same in other countries when there's engineering works so why is this a peculiarly British problem?

 

[NSE]

I’ve only ever used a handful of replacement buses as I’ve either avoided using the train that day or used the chance to create an excuse to tick off new stations/routes that do have trains running, but those I have been on have never ever checked my ticket. I’ve done a GWR one from Redhill to Reigate, a (what was) NXEA from Dullingham to Cambridge and a few London ones and never once had my ticket checked.

Not at all saying that’s how it works everywhere, but I’ve always wondered.

 

[geoffk]

RRBs are not always planned though. I was in West Wales some years ago and a delay on the single line/late running meant that a Pembroke Dock train was terminated at Tenby to start its return journey on time - a fair solution as those travelling towards Pembroke fitted on to a minibus. In this case, anyone travelling with a bike would have had problems.

 

[weastebusdepot]

I tend to think along the lines of, if someone doesn't think they should pay for a ticket for a replacement bus then that is their prerogative. However if the bus doesn't turn up or doesn't have enough spare seats to accommodate them, then they aren't the railway's customer. So however much they complain, there won't be an extra bus put on for them and they will be getting zero help with any alternative travel arrangements.

 

[centraltrains]

I always think on similar lines for when disruption happens on local WMR services. Often is ticket acceptance on NXWM buses with additional rail replacement buses from boundary stations in the NXWM area, within the NXWM area it would've been cheaper to just get the bus in the first places. Will be interesting to see what happens once franchising is bought in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's often worse - a lot of TOCs don't release Advances on RRBs so you end up paying not only the same but more!

 

[Russel]

It is entirely fair. Under the National Rail Conditions of Travel your train ticket gets you from point A to point B. The need to undertake necessary and safety-critical engineering works on the railway, for example, the renewal or maintenance of track and signalling, means that sometimes your journey will need to take longer. The rail ticket is just that for the majority of the time, but needs to cover all eventualities. Of course, in an ideal world a train can take a diversionary route that avoids the need for replacement road transport, but that's not always possible.

Although what you're saying is correct on paper, in reality, passengers, including myself don't see it that way...

If my journey from A to B is £10 by train but £2 by local bus, you have to see how it could be a little insulting to be charged train fair to sit on a rail replacement bus

 

[AlterEgo]

It is entirely fair. Under the National Rail Conditions of Travel your train ticket gets you from point A to point B. The need to undertake necessary and safety-critical engineering works on the railway, for example, the renewal or maintenance of track and signalling, means that sometimes your journey will need to take longer. The rail ticket is just that for the majority of the time, but needs to cover all eventualities. Of course, in an ideal world a train can take a diversionary route that avoids the need for replacement road transport, but that's not always possible.

Your assertion that it is fair is really backed up only by the justification that the passenger contract is just like that, and then more of "well it's like that and that's the way it is" without any explanation of how, exactly it is fair to the paying passenger.

The passenger pays the same - and often in fact more money - during bustitutions (as advance availability is either non existent or lower) for a markedly poorer service. One of the justifications for doing renewal or improvement works is that it leads to a better, faster, more comfortable, or more reliable service for which the railway can increase its value proposition and charge higher fares to realise that value. It therefore doesn't really stack up to suggest passengers should have to pay the same or higher fares for what everyone would call a poorer product.

So no, it is not "fair".

 

[JonathanH]

If my journey from A to B is £10 by train but £2 by local bus, you have to see how it could be a little insulting to be charged train fair to sit on a rail replacement bus

Wouldn't a passenger just take the local bus in that circumstance?

 

[Russel]

Wouldn't a passenger just take the local bus in that circumstance?

Passenger doesn't know there is a local bus?

It was a hypothetical example, but you already knew that...

 

[Topological]

Fairness is an interesting concept.

Consider a passenger willing to pay £Y to get from A to D via B and C. We can assume that they are willing to pay £X for a bus and that £X<£Y (We assume this because if £X>£Y then they will use the bus and are not relevant to a rail discussion). These willingness to pay values reflect convenience, preference for mode, time etc.

Now assume that there are normal service buses running each leg. The fare cap is still £2 (but you can substitute £3 if it helps). The total fare for the journey is £6 by bus. This also gives us that £X>6, as otherwise there is no way for the person to get from A to D.

Being the UK let us assume that the rail fare is £20. The person is willing to travel by rail. We have £Y > 20.

Now assume that the rail service is given a replacement. The passenger does not like the replacement as much and so reduces £Y to £Z accordingly. If £Z > £20 then they still consider to use the train. If the new lower willingness to pay is below £20 then they switch to the service bus.

The actual comparison here is between the two surpluses. For using the train with bus that is £Z - £20 and for the service bus it is still £X - £6. In theory whichever is the higher will be the option chosen.

Without the bus the comparison is £Y-£20 and £X-£6. Since £Y>£Z there has been a loss of surplus for the passenger taking the rail option of £Y-£Z. If they switch to the service bus then the surplus loss is smaller.

Now consider the position of the government who aim to maximise surplus. Let us ignore the rail and service bus profits for this, though actually welfare maximisation does include the surplus of the railway and service bus operator. IF the aggregate of the surplus of those using the railway and the service bus is no lower then there is no reason to question the continued use of £20 as the rail fare.

Assuming that the total surplus of passengers is lower following the introduction of the rail replacement bus then there are two considerations. 1) Does the extra surplus generated from reducing the fare offset the reduction in profit providing the rail service at the lower price? 2) Will providing the rail service at the lower price impact the provider of the service bus? These considerations are relevant because fairness considers all agents equally (including the service providers).

It is these questions that keep the provision where it is (i.e. replacement buses at standard fares).

In essence the bus causes more people to lose a small amount of their surplus. That creates complaints. The complaints create a many v few argument and may prompt government action.

The rail situation becomes more complicated because reducing the "profit" of the rail operator means taxpayer money and that means a 1:1 offset against the lost surplus of the rail passengers. In essence you get a bigger many of non-passengers.

So to summarise, the whole thing probably is fair.

The final question is whether the train companies inform of the bus replacement on the journey. Since they usually do (and pay delay repay when they don't) it allows an informed choice for the passenger to select the preferred option that day.

 

[Deepgreen]

Given that bus substitutes are very often significantly slower than the rail journeys they replace, doesn't 'Delay Repay' very often kick in anyway?

 

[JonathanH]

Passenger doesn't know there is a local bus?

It was a hypothetical example, but you already knew that...

I think my view is that there is usually a reason to take the replacement bus rather than a local bus in most circumstances.

 

[Buzby]

Given that bus substitutes are very often significantly slower than the rail journeys they replace, doesn't 'Delay Repay' very often kick in anyway?

As noted in #5 Every time I step on a RRB I always get refunded - even if/when they amend the timings.

 

[Waterlemon]

RRBs are not always planned though. I was in West Wales some years ago and a delay on the single line/late running meant that a Pembroke Dock train was terminated at Tenby to start its return journey on time - a fair solution as those travelling towards Pembroke fitted on to a minibus. In this case, anyone travelling with a bike would have had problems.

Twice I have hopped on the bike to avoid a RRB. Much more enjoyable.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I’ve only ever used a handful of replacement buses as I’ve either avoided using the train that day or used the chance to create an excuse to tick of new stations/routes that do have trains running, but those I have been on have never ever checked my ticket. I’ve done a GWR one from Redhill to Reigate, a (what was) NXEA from Dullingham to Cambridge and a few London ones and never once had my ticket checked.

Not at all saying that’s how it works everywhere, but I’ve always wondered.

That's only relevant if the entire jpurney is by RRB. If you've paid for a journey from (say) Londin to Glasgow and have to use an RRB between Lancaster and Carlisle, it's irrelevant that they don't check your ticket on the RRB - you've paid for all three legs.

 

[Russel]

I think my view is that there is usually a reason to take the replacement bus rather than a local bus in most circumstances.

Such as?

If I was to travel between Lichfield City and Birmingham New Street, the buses would follow similar routes, sitting in the same traffic, the biggest difference would be the price.

 

[Topological]

Such as?

Journey time?

It would be strange to have a service bus from station to station with no intermediate stops. In many cases the difference will be quite stark even if they use the exact same roads to get between the stations.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Although what you're saying is correct on paper, in reality, passengers, including myself don't see it that way...

If my journey from A to B is £10 by train but £2 by local bus, you have to see how it could be a little insulting to be charged train fair to sit on a rail replacement bus

But a rail replacement bus will almost always be faster than a local bus.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Given that bus substitutes are very often significantly slower than the rail journeys they replace, doesn't 'Delay Repay' very often kick in anyway?

It's valid against the published bus timetable.

Thameslink seem to time their buses to the time displayed in Google Maps for a car travelling between the individual stations, with no allowance for a bus being slower, having to do an 82 point turn in the car park, or indeed picking up passengers. So, I always claim Delay Repay during Bustitutions.

 

[alxndr]

As noted in #5 Every time I step on a RRB I always get refunded - even if/when they amend the timings.

My experience differs, but I suspect it depends a lot on if it’s planned vs due to an incident and the proportion of the journey involving buses.

The majority of the RRBs I’ve been on have involved cross-London journeys, which have such excessive interchange time allotted that they’ve never accrued delay repay.

I personally hate using buses, but will use RRBs and pay more to do so. They remove most of the things I find stressful about using busses. The ticketing is clear (and is integrated with the train legs), you know where it will stop, and everyone is as confused as each other.

 

[Russel]

But a rail replacement bus will almost always be faster than a local bus.

Yes, but it's still a bus that is slower than the train it's replacing despite being charged train fare prices.

If you walk into a restaurant and pay for a pizza but get handed a plate of chips because the oven is being repaired, you wouldn't call this fair, would you?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

But a rail replacement bus will almost always be faster than a local bus.

But there are also plenty of situations where that's not the case, where the RRB has to take massive diversions to go to stations.
In my case it's usually quicker and cheaper to get a public bus than an RRB.

 

[Topological]

Yes, but it's still a bus that is slower than the train it's replacing despite being charged train fare prices.

If you walk into a restaurant and pay for a pizza but get handed a plate of chips because the oven is being repaired, you wouldn't call this fair, would you?

Depends if the menu said no Pizza and instead only had chips?

So really this means a replacement bus when the service is supposed to be a train (i.e. disruption) rather than engineering.

As mentioned many times, delay repay covers the times when the bus gets you to the destination in a time that is much slower than the train.

In the case where the train gets you to the destination within 15 minutes of the advertised train time then it is just like the pizza lacking your favourite topping but the price being the same.