2015 fare rises - alternatives ?

[notadriver]

Is a coach service operating along the same route as a commuter train line viable now train fares have risen again ? Kings Ferry and Clarkes operate a few of these - the Oxford tube is very popular. But how about one between Peterborough / Cambridge to London? The fare might be half the peak time rail equivalent.

 

[radamfi]

National Express run a regular service from Cambridge to London, with departures at 0520 and 0550 that are suitable for 9 to 5 commuters. I don't know if they offer season tickets, but they do non-refundable Funfares for £5 single on those journeys. A 7 day season between Cambridge and London Terminals costs £113.40. But not many people are prepared to get up early enough for a coach at 0550.

A more realistic money saving option is from Luton, Stansted or Gatwick airports as there are frequent National Express and easyBus services with fares from £2 single.

Committing to getting up early for a whole year is hard. I know someone who alternated between coach one month and train the next.

 

[Titfield]

There are a number of challenges in running a commuter coach service:

1. the lack of balancing traffic
2. how to gainfully employ the vehicle and driver during the day
3. the window for return journey timings in the late afternoon / evening is much wider than the morning window.

 

[Busaholic]

There are a number of challenges in running a commuter coach service:

1. the lack of balancing traffic
2. how to gainfully employ the vehicle and driver during the day
3. the window for return journey timings in the late afternoon / evening is much wider than the morning window.

Plus, of course, the age-old one of traffic disruption and. if keeping the vehicle in London between peaks, the paucity and cost of suitable parking spaces.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Committing to getting up early for a whole year is hard. I know someone who alternated between coach one month and train the next.

It would ruin my quality of life to the point that it would be non-viable, though of course different people work differently in that regard.

Neil

 

[Hadders]

Aviva's 797 express service operates from Stevenage to London but it is being withdrawn due to falling passenger numbers. Usage is down by around 40% over the last four years while at the same time passenger numbers on the competing train service have continued to rise. This is despite the coach price being significantly cheaper than the train.

I think the problem is that the train service speed, frequency and reliability from Peterborough, Cambridge, Stevenage etc, is far, far superior to anything a coach could hope to provide.

 

[Hophead]

I think the problem is that the train service speed, frequency and reliability from Peterborough, Cambridge, Stevenage etc, is far, far superior to anything a coach could hope to provide.

And, conversely, the coach is able to compete reasonably well on Oxford and Medway to London. This is due, in both cases, to the poor location of the stations relative to large parts of the local population and easy access to the motorway network. Paddington is somewhat remote from most parts of central London, while the coaches from Chatham & Rainham can get into Docklands, which is not so easy by train.

These are specific advantages which may not work so well for your chosen examples (and that's without considering just how long it's going to take a coach to get in from Peterborough).

 

[notadriver]

Is there any reason why the London to Oxford coach route is more successful than London to Cambridge? Both cities are close to motorways.

 

[starrymarkb]

For Oxford the M40 is more direct then the rail route (via Didcot and Reading), so journey times are pretty similar.

Cambridge's rail routes are about the same length as the road route and a Cruiser takes IIRC about 1hr, which a coach can't match.

 

[causton]

Non-stop London to Cambridge trains take 50 minutes on a good day, think they have 1 or 2 stops in the peaks though so yes around an hour. Drops you at Kings Cross from where you can get pretty much anywhere easily! Also there is the route to Liverpool Street which is slower but may be more useful for Docklands and East London.

Fastest service I can see Oxford to Paddington is 57 minutes. Most 1hr, 1hr30 at the most for reasonable through journeys. This is to Paddington, which is good for West London but not really much else without a long/crowded tube journey.

Can see why the coach is more popular from Oxford than Cambridge then!

 

[Hophead]

Well, there's rather more to it than that.....

Oxford's station is situated to the west of the centre, whilst the bulk of the housing is to the east, through which the coach must pass on its way to London. En-route, it also passes one of the Park & Ride sites, which provides a fair chunk of the traffic as well.

I'd also suggest that Oxford has, over the years, had a rather more dynamic bus operation than Cambridge, which has provided a good level of base traffic.

Then there's the quality of the train operations themselves - a 3-car Turbo isn't the most inspiring unit available and doesn't compare well with the regularly updated coaches provided by the Oxford Tube & Espress (if that's what OBC are still calling it). Cambridge has 2 different lines so, if there's a problem with the Kings Cross trains, you can always go to Liverpool Street instead.

 

[radamfi]

Espress is now simply called the X90. I think a lot of the reason why Oxford has a good coach service comes from the effort Harry Blundred put into the coach service from the mid 80s until Stagecoach takeover. Before the launch of the Oxford Tube, the Oxford Bus Company service was nothing special.

 

[Deerfold]

Aviva's 797 express service operates from Stevenage to London but it is being withdrawn due to falling passenger numbers. Usage is down by around 40% over the last four years while at the same time passenger numbers on the competing train service have continued to rise. This is despite the coach price being significantly cheaper than the train.

I think the problem is that the train service speed, frequency and reliability from Peterborough, Cambridge, Stevenage etc, is far, far superior to anything a coach could hope to provide.

Shame that's being withdrawn. However it's always been a bit of an odd service. It used to continue further North and passed my house, starting in London within 500 yards of my office. I used it once (when there was a Tube strike) as the daily service did not allow enough time in London for a full working day! I had to leave work at 1600 and run to get the bus.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Espress is now simply called the X90. I think a lot of the reason why Oxford has a good coach service comes from the effort Harry Blundred put into the coach service from the mid 80s until Stagecoach takeover. Before the launch of the Oxford Tube, the Oxford Bus Company service was nothing special.

Good example of beneficial competition....

 

[notadriver]

Well, there's rather more to it than that.....







Then there's the quality of the train operations themselves - a 3-car Turbo isn't the most inspiring unit available and doesn't compare well with the regularly updated coaches provided by the Oxford Tube & Espress (if that's what OBC are still calling it). Cambridge has 2 different lines so, if there's a problem with the Kings Cross trains, you can always go to Liverpool Street instead.

Aren't there class 180s allocated to the Paddington to Oxford services ? What's the fastest journey time by coach these days? I know it was 'under 100 minutes' in the old days when coaches didn't stop at Hillingdon and could use lane 3 and do 70 mph+.

 

[Deerfold]

Having travelled on the evening peak NX services from London to Cambridge there seem to be a few regular commuters - but most are to the villages on the way to Cambridge rather than all the way to the centre (not that they stop in the centre - there's a bit of a walk for those with bus connections unless they're getting the X5).

 

[radamfi]

Good example of beneficial competition....

Of course, local buses are completely different to express coaches.

Coach deregulation has been proven to improve services, increase patronage and lower fares, and many countries have followed the UK in liberalising their coach market, unlike local bus deregulation. With a few exceptions, coaches are not exactly an essential public service as there are usually trains as well. My only reservation about coaches is that they might mean more subsidy is required for trains but if you think that a coach generally carries 50 people or less, we are generally only talking about a small number of people lost to trains.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Of course, local buses are completely different to express coaches.

Coach deregulation has been proven to improve services, increase patronage and lower fares, and many countries have followed the UK in liberalising their coach market, unlike local bus deregulation. With a few exceptions, coaches are not exactly an essential public service as there are usually trains as well. My only reservation about coaches is that they might mean more subsidy is required for trains but if you think that a coach generally carries 50 people or less, we are generally only talking about a small number of people lost to trains.

The truth is that the 1980 Transport Act freed up the coach market and the 190 Oxford to London benefitted from that and the improvements to the M40. Even in COMS days, there was an inexorable rise in the number of journeys on the X90/190 with new Leopards and Tigers entering the fleet. This was, naturally, under the stewardship of Harry Blundred. The extension of the M40 to Oxford in the mid 1970s combined with moribund Chiltern train services meant quite an expansion. Not exception by today's standards but at the time, quite an impressive operation.

When in the late 1980s, he decided to launch a competitive attack on his former turf, he simply reused NatEx coaches from the Devon General fleet that as Rapide coaches happened to have toilets. Hence, the virtuous circle began!

Also, in this case, coaches are an essential public service and that is often the case elsewhere particularly in Scotland. Coach and train do cover many of the same routes but then again, it's simply a case of market segmentation with a trade off between cost vs speed/comfort.

 

[radamfi]

Even though coach deregulation is largely a success today, it was rather disappointing that, after the initial flurry of competition in the early days of coach deregulation, National Express had virtually the whole market to themselves for about 20 years until Megabus came along. Until then, fares were not particularly competitive compared to cheap train tickets, particularly after the train companies started offering very cheap Advance fares. If Blundred hadn't been so keen on developing the Oxford to London corridor would someone else had done it instead?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Even though coach deregulation is largely a success today, it was rather disappointing that, after the initial flurry of competition in the early days of coach deregulation, National Express had virtually the whole market to themselves for about 20 years until Megabus came along. Until then, fares were not particularly competitive compared to cheap train tickets, particularly after the train companies started offering very cheap Advance fares. If Blundred hadn't been so keen on developing the Oxford to London corridor would someone else had done it instead?

The question was more how coaches competed against other modes, rather than each other.

There were a number of innovations, not least the increase in Airport based coach services (the 757 being one creation of the 1980 act) with Speedlink Airport Services and also Flightlink. In this respect, the increase in air travel coupled with the lack of direct trains to/from many destinations to many airports meant a straight fight between car and coach.

I would say that National Express were slow to introduce "turn up and travel" concepts on their routes, with the Shuttle services. However, there were fare innovations such as NatEx's Boomerang fares, all designed to mould travel patterns in the same way as Apex Rail fares.

 

[radamfi]

Many years ago, I remember Barry S Doe criticising National Express for their particular lack of innovation in fare structure. He had a point because there was a definite pattern of following what the railway did, for example charging more on Fridays and making singles slightly less than a return.

I was quite excited by the Express Shuttle idea which came along at the same time as Stagecoach Express in the early 90s. Both offered cheap walk on fares on medium distance services, in a similar manner to that always offered in Scotland or Ireland, but Stagecoach Express didn't last long, although some routes staggered on in a more conventional manner, and Express Shuttle became regular National Express routes again.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Many years ago, I remember Barry S Doe criticising National Express for their particular lack of innovation in fare structure. He had a point because there was a definite pattern of following what the railway did, for example charging more on Fridays and making singles slightly less than a return.

I was quite excited by the Express Shuttle idea which came along at the same time as Stagecoach Express in the early 90s. Both offered cheap walk on fares on medium distance services, in a similar manner to that always offered in Scotland or Ireland, but Stagecoach Express didn't last long, although some routes staggered on in a more conventional manner, and Express Shuttle became regular National Express routes again.

Perhaps the fare structure reflected where demand was, and was a means of shaping that demand?

Problem with Express Shuttle was the sheer volatility of loadings and, of course, people can't stand on coaches.

 

[radamfi]

Perhaps the fare structure reflected where demand was, and was a means of shaping that demand?

Problem with Express Shuttle was the sheer volatility of loadings and, of course, people can't stand on coaches.

I could understand that Fridays are busier and higher fares can be justified on a demand management basis, but singles not much less than a return doesn't help that at all.

Charging a high single fare was a commercial decision rather than a demand management decision as the train single fare was so high, the coaches could get away with a similar policy as long as the coach single was a bit less than the train single. When the railway started to price their cheapest fares as singles, that differential was no longer in place. So National Express was forced into offering cheap Funfare singles from £1. That was about the same time as Megabus started, and they priced everything as singles right from the start.

National Express still maintain their traditional fare structure to an extent, especially on routes where there is no Megabus competition, although booking in advance can yield cheaper single fares.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I could understand that Fridays are busier and higher fares can be justified on a demand management basis, but singles not much less than a return doesn't help that at all.

Charging a high single fare was a commercial decision rather than a demand management decision as the train single fare was so high, the coaches could get away with a similar policy as long as the coach single was a bit less than the train single. When the railway started to price their cheapest fares as singles, that differential was no longer in place. So National Express was forced into offering cheap Funfare singles from £1. That was about the same time as Megabus started, and they priced everything as singles right from the start.

National Express still maintain their traditional fare structure to an extent, especially on routes where there is no Megabus competition, although booking in advance can yield cheaper single fares.

Demand management is a commercial decision. They're not separate. And in Boomerang days, lower fares were offered to move demand to Tues to Thurs. Megabus may indeed charge as singles but again there is much variability in fares according to demand.

Essentially, you can slice it any which way but the cost is the cost and revenue must outstrip that.

 

[Deerfold]

Charging a high single fare was a commercial decision rather than a demand management decision as the train single fare was so high, the coaches could get away with a similar policy as long as the coach single was a bit less than the train single. When the railway started to price their cheapest fares as singles, that differential was no longer in place. So National Express was forced into offering cheap Funfare singles from £1. That was about the same time as Megabus started, and they priced everything as singles right from the start.

I'm sure NX didn't offer £1 fares until megabus started but when they did there was no booking fee. I got a good few £2 return journeys (or £3 booking an early and late return) with NX standards.

Megabus also didn't offer guaranteed connections - if you bought 2 tickets for different coaches and they missed, tough. As far as I know they only offer this now where you're changing country.

National Express still maintain their traditional fare structure to an extent, especially on routes where there is no Megabus competition, although booking in advance can yield cheaper single fares.

I'm not sure they do at all much now - almost every ticket you'll be offered on their website is only valid on one coach and there's a fee to change.

Of course on major routes (e.g. London - Leeds) National Express are far more frequent than they were in the 80s and 90s - but with less flexibility in tickets.

 

[radamfi]

I'm sure NX didn't offer £1 fares until megabus started but when they did there was no booking fee. I got a good few £2 return journeys (or £3 booking an early and late return) with NX standards.

Megabus also didn't offer guaranteed connections - if you bought 2 tickets for different coaches and they missed, tough. As far as I know they only offer this now where you're changing country.

I think the first £1 Funfare started a short while before the first Megabus service ran, and in any case, Megabus started out with short routes before 'graduating' to long distance routes like London - Manchester - Glasgow using bendy coaches. But it would have been in the knowledge that Megabus was starting soon. Also easyBus were making a lot of fuss in the press about starting a service between London and Birmingham but that didn't actually happen and they ended up running to Milton Keynes instead, partly because the easyCinema was located there.

Megabus have never allowed you to join tickets domestically, but you often had to change coaches on the same ticket. For example, Sheffield was served by a shuttle from the London to Leeds service. I've lost track of where that applies now. Certainly Perth continues to be the hub of the Scottish network where coaches meet for connections.

I'm not sure they do at all much now - almost every ticket you'll be offered on their website is only valid on one coach and there's a fee to change.

Of course on major routes (e.g. London - Leeds) National Express are far more frequent than they were in the 80s and 90s - but with less flexibility in tickets.

On a non-Megabus route, if you book a single each way separately that can still be much more than booking a return in one booking.

For example, travelling from Mablethorpe to London for tomorrow morning I am quoted £25.70 single, but if I book a return using that coach and returning the next day I am quoted £16.80 for each direction. So in effect they are still giving a discount for getting a return (or penalising one-way trips depending how you look at it).

 

[RT4038]

Coach operators have a greater risk in offering 'turn up and go' fares because of the strictly limited capacity of the vehicles. Providing spare vehicles in case too many intending passengers present themselves would require a higher level of fare to pay for it.

 

[Deerfold]

Coach operators have a greater risk in offering 'turn up and go' fares because of the strictly limited capacity of the vehicles. Providing spare vehicles in case too many intending passengers present themselves would require a higher level of fare to pay for it.

National Express has a simple answer to that - if you turn up without a reservation you're not guaranteed to be carried.

I've known trains not be able to carry everyone too - the operator doesn't generally operate an extra train.

 

[RT4038]

National Express has a simple answer to that - if you turn up without a reservation you're not guaranteed to be carried.

I've known trains not be able to carry everyone too - the operator doesn't generally operate an extra train.

But the National Express solution is not very practical, is it? Passengers left behind is not a very pleasant news story for the operator. Compulsory prebooking eliminates all that, plus no costs associated with accounting for drivers takings, and boarding delays reduced by eliminating the retail operation on board. It also allows the operator to smooth out peaks in demand, improve vehicle utilisation and thereby reduce costs.

Not sure what help the train analogy is? Trains are generally more able to cope with demand peaks, due to their crush loading capabilities not enjoyed by most coach types. Why quote an undesirable, fairly rare, train occurrence and imply that because of this it is an acceptable situation for coach travel? What would a passenger gain from this?

 

[radamfi]

But the National Express solution is not very practical, is it? Passengers left behind is not a very pleasant news story for the operator. Compulsory prebooking eliminates all that, plus no costs associated with accounting for drivers takings, and boarding delays reduced by eliminating the retail operation on board. It also allows the operator to smooth out peaks in demand, improve vehicle utilisation and thereby reduce costs.

Not sure what help the train analogy is? Trains are generally more able to cope with demand peaks, due to their crush loading capabilities not enjoyed by most coach types. Why quote an undesirable, fairly rare, train occurrence and imply that because of this it is an acceptable situation for coach travel? What would a passenger gain from this?

In reality almost everybody prebooks on most National Express routes and if you board at a major coach station the driver tells you go to the ticket office and buy the ticket there.

High speed trains in numerous places are compulsory reservation, such as France, Spain and Italy.

Coaches in Ireland and on most Citylink coaches in Scotland are run on a different basis to National Express. Totally full coaches are unusual and it is normal to buy tickets from the driver. Bus Éireann even lay on extra coaches sometimes if the coach is full.

Another peculiar contrast is that National Express don't allow passengers to pick up luggage from under the coach, whereas in Ireland most customers do all their luggage handling with the driver simply opening the luggage door from his seat.