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

[TT-ONR-NRN]

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

It’s not in New South Wales. When a bus replaces a Sydney Trains service, to make up for the slower and much less pleasant journey, they let you travel without touching the Opal.

 

[Russel]

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.

You're missing the point and looking at this from the railways point of view, not the passengers. Disruption or engineering, passengers are getting an inferior service to what they are paying for.

Yes, I'm aware that when you buy a ticket it's to be transported from A to B, in reality, normal passengers buy a train ticket because they wish to travel by train to their destination, not by bus or coach, if someone wanted to travel by coach, they would book with National Express or Flix Bus and pay much less...

 

[soil]

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

Thanks to railcards, train fares in London are very often cheaper than buses. No idea elsewhere.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Yes, I'm aware that when you buy a ticket it's to be transported from A to B, in reality, normal passengers buy a train ticket because they wish to travel by train to their destination, not by bus or coach, if someone wanted to travel by coach, they would book with National Express or Flix Bus and pay much less...

That really depends on where you are travelling to and from. Fair enough if you have lots of coach services to choose from, most places have few or none - the options are train or multiple local buses, it's not really a comparable situation.

 

[Topological]

You're missing the point and looking at this from the railways point of view, not the passengers. Disruption or engineering, passengers are getting an inferior service to what they are paying for.

Yes, I'm aware that when you buy a ticket it's to be transported from A to B, in reality, normal passengers buy a train ticket because they wish to travel by train to their destination, not by bus or coach, if someone wanted to travel by coach, they would book with National Express or Flix Bus and pay much less...

I wrote a longer post on the overall perspective.

Like many others, I am not happy when there is a replacement bus. However, I am happier to be getting back to where I need to be than I would be if I were stranded. If I am still back within the time that I had been told would be the time then I quickly forget about the annoyance of the bus versus the train.

The only exception to this is where the bus has no toilet and the planned train would. This happened getting back to Manchester from Derby after a play-off semi-final on a Thursday night. Thankfully the bus did stop mid-route for those of us who had calculated our celebrations based on there being a 185 operating the service.

If people are letting the mode annoy them after the journey is completed within time then there is little can be done.

 

[G_for_Gnome]

There is often a point made “I’ve paid for a train ticket, yet I’m on a bus…how is that fair?” In fact, this point was recently made in a stand up comedy routine I watched.

I have seen in the past passengers travelling for free on rail replacement buses because the TOC doesn’t prioritise revenue protection on buses. All that did was irritate the season ticket holders who pay the same amount every week / month / year, and were getting a journey that was slower and less frequent than normal - this was a bus operation that was all day every day for over a week.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

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

Usual RRB round here: a minibus hired from a firm in Wolverhampton where the driver has never driven in the Cotswolds before and is entirely reliant on Google Maps on his phone

Usual service bus round here: ADL Enviro400 MMC driven by someone who drives the route every day

I’ll go for the service bus any time.

 

[jfowkes]

You're missing the point and looking at this from the railways point of view, not the passengers. Disruption or engineering, passengers are getting an inferior service to what they are paying for.

Yes, I'm aware that when you buy a ticket it's to be transported from A to B, in reality, normal passengers buy a train ticket because they wish to travel by train to their destination, not by bus or coach, if someone wanted to travel by coach, they would book with National Express or Flix Bus and pay much less...

But in cases of engineering works, it's known in advance that they'll be getting a bus, not a train. If a passenger still chooses to buy that ticket, surely that's on them?

There will be some people who have no choice, but most people who really don't want to get the RRB will just drive instead or take some other alternative transport.

If people really didn't like RRBs and voted with their wallets, maybe there would be an incentive for the railway to reduce prices for RRB journey portions...

 

[Discuss223]

I once bought a ticket for a service from the ticket office, only to be told it's a rail replacement bus after purchasing! The irony is, I could have travelled on a bus to my destination free of charge with my English National Concessionary Travel Scheme travelcard. I paid because I wanted the convenience of a train that has a toilet should I need it and to avoid the nauseating feeling of travelling by road on winding roads and also to enjoy some beers. People will quote me saying that the ticket is a contract to take me to a destination and as long as the operator fulfils that then they have done no wrong, but I felt short-changed going to a railway ticket office and purchasing a railway ticket only to be told my transport will be a bus! I'm not going off topic here, it's a valid comparison but it's similar to paying to stay in a Hilton Hotel only to be told after booking that you will be staying in a Travelodge! There was no signage at the ticket office or the approach to it advising that it would be a bus service. To answer the OP's question, fares are calculated in advance and it would not be possible to alter the ticketing system every time a replacement bus service is used. They could possibly adjust Advance TOC specific tickets if they are aware of the disruption ahead of time but I don't believe they have the technology to fluctuate the fares based on disruption. Station facilities also must be paid for, such as toilets, customer service staff and of course ticket office staff.

 

[paulprentice]

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".

It is fair because your journey is timed appropriately for those occasions when the rail infrastructure is unavailable, because the industry has made efforts to tell you about it through its many customer information channels and/or media outlets, especially for the bigger blockades. It also fair because it’s the way things are done in many other countries too - and we don’t have an alternative fares structure to just drop into place whenever there is planned disruption (let alone unplanned)
There’s also the added impact of rail replacement services suppressing demand anyway when works are underway and people quite reasonably make other arrangements or travel at different times.

I’m not an apologist for the status quo though because there’s so much more the rail industry and other transport modes can do to work together to minimise the disruption. Plus, fares reform needs to happen which is the source of so much frustration.

 

[43066]

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.

Not sure how “fairness” comes into it? The contract you’ve signed up for doesn’t guarantee railway services in every eventuality. You also have recourse to delay repay if you’re delayed on your journey. Surely it isn’t hard to understand why lines sometimes need to be closed to perform maintenance etc.

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

It seems a little hypersensitive to view it as “insulting”. As a (very) longstanding London season ticket holder, it happens from time to time, and you have the option to use the RRB or not (I generally don’t, personally).

Generally quite a bit of notice of closures is given so, if anyone fails to check in advance, and ends up buying a train ticket for a bus service, isn’t that down to them?

 

[paulprentice]

There is often a point made “I’ve paid for a train ticket, yet I’m on a bus…how is that fair?” In fact, this point was recently made in a stand up comedy routine I watched.

I have seen in the past passengers travelling for free on rail replacement buses because the TOC doesn’t prioritise revenue protection on buses. All that did was irritate the season ticket holders who pay the same amount every week / month / year, and were getting a journey that was slower and less frequent than normal - this was a bus operation that was all day every day for over a week.

Very good point - never once seen revenue protection on a replacement bus, on any TOC.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I think a lot of people are overthinking this, yes a RRB is definitely not what the passenger wants but engineering works have to take place and therefore no other option. To administer reductions in fares and the allow for the missed revenue will just add costs and therefore increase ticket prices across the bored so the passenger won't gain or less improvement work will take place as there is no endless budget.

I'm more for making cancellations prohibitively expensive as a priority - refocus on the industry on preventing that

 

[43066]

I'm more for making cancellations prohibitively expensive as a priority - refocus on the industry on preventing that

As with so many of these issues, it’s the taxpayer that will cover it, though.

So who is really being punished?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2024 ==

I think a lot of people are overthinking this, yes a RRB is definitely not what the passenger wants but engineering works have to take place and therefore no other option. To administer reductions in fares and the allow for the missed revenue will just add costs and therefore increase ticket prices across the bored so the passenger won't gain or less improvement work will take place as there is no endless budget.

Agreed.

 

[The exile]

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?

In both cases you have the option of cancelling your order / contract. If you have booked an advance (or indeed any ticket?) prior to the Rail Replacement being announced, then delay repay will probably kick in - otherwise you were aware of the situation at the time of booking (or could have been - in these case as in all other purchases, caveat emptor applies)/ In any case, I can't imagine that, other than for very local journeys (say up to 10 miles), there are that many routes where a single service bus route parallels rail routes without a major time penalty due to the frequent stops, so only where there is a nose-to-tail traffic jam from one end of the route to the other is there not going to be some kind of time penalty.

 

[Class 170101]

If people really didn't like RRBs and voted with their wallets, maybe there would be an incentive for the railway to reduce prices for RRB journey portions...

Good luck getting NR to reduce the engineering works or pay more compensation to cover the reduction in fares.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Thanks to railcards, train fares in London are very often cheaper than buses. No idea elsewhere.

Really?
A bus journey in London costs £1.75 - any distance, change as often as you need to within an hour).
A single train fare within one zone is £2.60 (£1.70 with a railcard). But very few journeys outside Zone 1 (where fares are higher) are entirely within one zone.

 

[Taunton]

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!

I have been on many a replacement bus over the years, and never when on an Advance.

 

[43066]

Really?
A bus journey in London costs £1.75 - any distance, change as often as you need to within an hour).
A single train fare within one zone is £2.60 (£1.70 with a railcard). But very few journeys outside Zone 1 (where fares are higher) are entirely within one zone.

Agreed. I can’t see that with railcards. Maybe when you’ve reached a daily cap and each extra journey is “free”…

 

[The Planner]

Good luck getting NR to reduce the engineering works or pay more compensation to cover the reduction in fares.

Compensation levels are agreed by the whole industry, not NR.

 

[BazingaTribe]

You're missing the point and looking at this from the railways point of view, not the passengers. Disruption or engineering, passengers are getting an inferior service to what they are paying for.

Yes, I'm aware that when you buy a ticket it's to be transported from A to B, in reality, normal passengers buy a train ticket because they wish to travel by train to their destination, not by bus or coach, if someone wanted to travel by coach, they would book with National Express or Flix Bus and pay much less...

The railway's point of view is perfectly reasonable here and contributes to the discussion by way of explaining why these things happen in the first place and how we as passengers can learn to cope with them. (And maximise our own expectations as regards Delay Repay. Personally I wish I'd thought of that on the two occasions it mattered. I did actually end up avoiding the train the following time I made the trip because I saw a local bus running from a closer station that cut off a couple of legs of the journey entirely. Then the train caught fire...but that's another story entirely!)

They're the ones dealing with the infrastructure and logistics of getting you from A to B. They ought to have a say in things too. Given that track maintenance lies with Network Rail and not with the TOCs, I suspect the TOCs don't like having to provide RRBs either and would rather run the train along the whole journey. Unfortunately, needs must as the devil drives -- at some point, logistics and disruption gets in the way and there's a point at which we all have to make our peace with it.

 

[dannypye9999]

Who even pays for a ticket when using the rrb anyway? For the past 20 odd years or so I've been using rrb's I've never been checked for a ticket. Only time was on one 03:xx Blackpool North to Manchester in 2018'ish when the route was closed for electrication works when i got asked to produce a ticket before boarding.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Who even pays for a ticket when using the rrb anyway? For the past 20 odd years or so I've been using rrb's I've never been checked for a ticket. Only time was on one 03:xx Blackpool North to Manchester in 2018'ish when the route was closed for electrication works when i got asked to produce a ticket before boarding.

Not sure fare evasion is the right way to go about it tbh.

I generally pay via phone app before I leave or get to the station and therefore before I know whether it's a train or a bus I'm getting. However, it's very rarely the case I start off my journey on an RRB -- most of the time I travel a few stops and get off to join a service. The time I consciously decided to go for a local bus from a station nearer home, I obviously only paid for the ticket out to the intermediate station, and then actually had flexibility to return from my ultimate destination on a different route on the return journey because I'd only been able to buy a ticket to that intermediate stop.

I hate to sound sanctimonious about it but just because your ticket might not get checked doesn't mean you shouldn't pay at all. Claim delay compensation by all means, but even an RRB isn't free for the railways to provide and shouldn't be treated as such if you want to maintain the moral high ground in any post-travel claim regarding the delays or in trying to argue for a reduced fare.

 

[HandyHat]

On the few occasions where SWR have put on a rail replacement bus within the oyster zones, I simply haven't been able to pay. I'd happily pay if they bothered to put an Oyster reader onto the bus, but I'm certainly not going to pay extra for a paper ticket when there's a worse service.

 

[BazingaTribe]

On the few occasions where SWR have put on a rail replacement bus within the oyster zones, I simply haven't been able to pay. I'd happily pay if they bothered to put an Oyster reader onto the bus, but I'm certainly not going to pay extra for a paper ticket when there's a worse service.

That seems like an exception to the rule, but it's more straightforward when you're dealing with things outside of a contactless zone like I am. It would genuinely never occur to me not to pay to get on any public transport service, and I'd certainly try and find some way of doing so.

 

[edgar13]

Really?
A bus journey in London costs £1.75 - any distance, change as often as you need to within an hour).
A single train fare within one zone is £2.60 (£1.70 with a railcard). But very few journeys outside Zone 1 (where fares are higher) are entirely within one zone.

Depends what "train" really. Under the TfL scale Richmond to Barking Riverside can be as low as £1.25 with a railcard, but would be impossible to reach by bus within an hour.
On the other hand, Woolwich Arsenal to Woolwich Dockyard is £1.90 with a railcard. £1.75 London buses run almost parallel, slightly slower but with higher frequency.

In reality one can't really get on a London bus but insist on paying the oyster train fare by tapping through stations on both ends. They often shut the stations with no way of reaching the oyster readers, and tend to just let you on the bus.

 

[dk1]

When passengers have asked that in the past I just tell them that rail engineering works are very expensive.

 

[Rail Ranger]

On the Metrolink Bury line, replacement buses are considerably slower than the not quite parallel 135 service bus because the Metrolink replacement bus detours off the main road to visit every station.

 

[Gloster]

A lot of rail passengers don’t know how to get a local bus, possibly several, in an area they are not familiar with; even if they do know the area regular rail travellers may know a great deal less about the bus network than their regular train journeys. The railway knows that only a few (of those that must travel) will make alternative arrangements. So they soak those who are stuck on a RRB and if it causes long term damage to the railway’s image and traffic prospects they will factor that into their next contract bid. Except for gross mismanagement at a high level, they can’t lose. The good of the passengers and the country ain’t in their contract.

 

[deltic]

TOCs want as few people as possible to travel when they run RRBs so discounting fares is the last thing they will do.