Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It is done to maintain the fiction that it a string of separate local bus services (the threshold for which is 50km IIRC) which just so happen to be operated by the same vehicle. This way local buses (which don't have a tachograph) can be used, which is often preferable from the train company's perspective since these are usually fully accessible.
It's this. The rail line is 26.5 miles and dead straight; the road is also pretty straight but the runs into intermediate stations may just push it over the 31-mile (50Km) threshold. Maybe someone at GTR panicked and decided to play safe, after years of running through; or maybe another issue.
Please correct if fundamentally wrong but I believe there also are different less restrictive driving hours and rest rules for local buses against long distance PSV drivers.
Unless operated as 'closed door' I thought now all buses and coaches has to be accessible i.e. PSVAR compliant, a bus with a drop ramp and partial low floor of course is quicker than a wheelchair lift. The downside of a bus aside from comfort is limited luggage pens / racks.
AFAIK GTR now require all RRBs to be PSVAR (disability) compliant.
Without studying the schedules, I would put money on the buses running through. Having them terminating from different directions in a restricted station forecourt would be a nightmare operationally, never mind for the poor passengers. But advertising them as through journeys has always seemed to be a problem for some reason - maybe just taking up too much programming time for a single day's operation
One of the last RRB journeys I did was Ashford<>Hastings for some reason you have to bus swap at rye with bus going nowhere near Winchelsea or Doleham on the west end but yet a convoluted estate circuit to serve Ore.
Is there any particular reason why rail replacement buses Ely<->Kings Lynn are now always run as two separate services, split at Downham Market? See this coming weekend for example. This seems to be a 'new' idea in the last couple of years or so, before that there would be one service running through, as is the norm elsewhere. But now instead of one irritating rail replacement bus, you now get to experience two, with a tedious change inbetween...
Or is this just an timetabling thing for some (incomprehensible) reason and it is actually turns out to be the same bus running both legs, with no need to switch between the two?
GTR’s entire rail replacement portfolio is run under GB domestic rules, which means any route that’s longer than 50km end to end is scheduled and advertised as split into smaller chunks, using the same vehicle and with pauses of at least 5 minutes between trips. This is recognised as a legal practice and is used on various service bus routes in the UK. Nothing more sinister than that.
Greater Anglia do similar. Newbury Park to Southend Victoria for example is split at Wickford but the same bus is used.
Southeastern’s portfolio is more complex. They timetable and advertise routes longer than 50km as through trips. But their rail replacement supplier splits them up to operate under domestic rules and passengers have to change buses mid route. Examples include;
Bromley South to Rochester - advertised as through trips but in reality passengers have to change buses at Meopham
London Bridge to Gravesend - advertised as through trips but in reality passengers have to change buses at Dartford
A driver with a full understanding of the arrangements will be able to communicate this to intending passengers, but it’s not uncommon to see station staff and passengers in dialogue with the bus driver for seemingly only going part of the way, with the driver not being aware the passengers need to get on their bus and change at the last stop to reach their destination.
So there’s pros and cons to using through trips vs split trips in the timetable data.
For emergency rail replacement, no such arrangement is required as this type of work is exempt from driver’s hours rules.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It is done to maintain the fiction that it a string of separate local bus services (the threshold for which is 50km IIRC) which just so happen to be operated by the same vehicle. This way local buses (which don't have a tachograph) can be used, which is often preferable from the train company's perspective since these are usually fully accessible.
It is done to permit use of GB domestic rules - so they’re not restricted to tachographed vehicles and there are more flexible drivers hours limits than the assimilated rules.
Local service spec buses can also carry a lot more people than a coach. Double deckers are needed on quite a few routes and can offer a more efficient solution than having to run trips with doubled or tripled up coaches.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's this. The rail line is 26.5 miles and dead straight; the road is also pretty straight but the runs into intermediate stations may just push it over the 31-mile (50Km) threshold. Maybe someone at GTR panicked and decided to play safe, after years of running through; or maybe another issue.
True. Blame the EU! (gets coat and runs)
AFAIK GTR now require all RRBs to be PSVAR (disability) compliant.
Without studying the schedules, I would put money on the buses running through. Having them terminating from different directions in a restricted station forecourt would be a nightmare operationally, never mind for the poor passengers. But advertising them as through journeys has always seemed to be a problem for some reason - maybe just taking up too much programming time for a single day's operation
I’ve driven the route lots of times, albeit only as emergency cover. Watlington adds a few extra miles with a detour and double run to avoid unsuitable country lanes. This pushes the end to end route over 50km so it has to be split otherwise they’d be bound by the limitations of the assimilated rules.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
One of the last RRB journeys I did was Ashford<>Hastings for some reason you have to bus swap at rye with bus going nowhere near Winchelsea or Doleham on the west end but yet a convoluted estate circuit to serve Ore.
A means to suppress demand, so that a through Kings Lynn->Ely rail replacement bus journey appears not to show on journey planners? The TOC (= GTR?) doesn't need as many RRBs then!
GTR do it for Brighton Mainline closures to "encourage" the use of diverted trains via Littlehampton instead of buses to Brighton despite those otherwise being significantly faster journey times.
If there's a non-stop section of longer than 31 miles, scheduled preplanned work would have to be done under assimilated rules. Tachographs required and stricter drivers hours limits have to be observed than GB domestic rules. The vehicles also need to be PSVAR compliant. I understand LNER and CrossCountry pay rates that are more than attractive enough to get the required vehicles in sufficient volume.
Thanks everyone for the replies and explanations. Makes sense, but I do wonder what, if any, consideration has been made for the lay person that doesn't appreciate any of this. I suspect they're going to look at this and think 'ugh, not only a rail replacement bus, but I have to switch bus halfway?' and probably makes that person less likely to travel than if the bus was advertised as end-to-end.
(As suggested, possibly they're happy with a convenient side-effect of potentially suppressing demand, but given the seemingly neverending number of weekend/Christmas/Easter/bank holiday closures we've had over the last 3+ years at some location or other of the KGX-KLN line, I'd suggest demand is already somewhat suppressed for weekend travel. Certainly I'm totally fed up with the endless closures and am travelling considerably less than before, even on the rare weekend that things are actually open).
It was a requirement introduced, with great fanfare, a few years ago when I was involved. Trouble was it was unenforceable - if a non-compliant vehicle turned up you could not just send it back and cancel the service, whatever the instructions. It was also pretty absurd when most of the stations on a particular line were not fully accessible anyway, so disabled pax were hardly ever seen. I don't know if the rule has been relaxed now or whether it's just ignored still - which doesn't help disabled passengers of course.
Thameslink website gives this, not very definitive, statement: When we provide rail replacement buses or coaches for planned disruption, we use accessible vehicles. In circumstances when this is not possible, our Assisted Travel and customer facing teams will always identify an alternative journey plan to enable disabled customers to complete their journey.
I've never known this, is it a recent development? Seems a bit unnecessary as Winchelsea station is remote and better served by stopping in the village, Doleham best ignored as it only has a couple of trains a day, and Three Oaks is now served by double-running the through service up to the village, close to the station.
I don't know why the service is split at Rye, but it may well be the "discouragement" theory: in this instance there is usually an alternative rail route (via Tonbridge) which is not the case with Ely - Lynn.
It was a requirement introduced, with great fanfare, a few years ago when I was involved. Trouble was it was unenforceable - if a non-compliant vehicle turned up you could not just send it back and cancel the service, whatever the instructions. It was also pretty absurd when most of the stations on a particular line were not fully accessible anyway, so disabled pax were hardly ever seen. I don't know if the rule has been relaxed now or whether it's just ignored still - which doesn't help disabled passengers of course.
Thameslink website gives this, not very definitive, statement: When we provide rail replacement buses or coaches for planned disruption, we use accessible vehicles. In circumstances when this is not possible, our Assisted Travel and customer facing teams will always identify an alternative journey plan to enable disabled customers to complete their journey.
I've never known this, is it a recent development? Seems a bit unnecessary as Winchelsea station is remote and better served by stopping in the village, Doleham best ignored as it only has a couple of trains a day, and Three Oaks is now served by double-running the through service up to the village, close to the station.
I don't know why the service is split at Rye, but it may well be the "discouragement" theory: in this instance there is usually an alternative rail route (via Tonbridge) which is not the case with Ely - Lynn.
The route is longer than 31 miles so preplanned jobs are split at Rye to allow use of GB domestic rules and thus buses that don’t have a tachograph. For emergency jobs (bus covering spot cancellations) there’s no split at Rye because they’re exempt from the regulations.
Think the minibus addition is fairly recent and was used during last year’s blockade.
.....
Southeastern’s portfolio is more complex. They timetable and advertise routes longer than 50km as through trips. But their rail replacement supplier splits them up to operate under domestic rules and passengers have to change buses mid route. Examples include;
Bromley South to Rochester - advertised as through trips but in reality passengers have to change buses at Meopham
London Bridge to Gravesend - advertised as through trips but in reality passengers have to change buses at Dartford
A driver with a full understanding of the arrangements will be able to communicate this to intending passengers, but it’s not uncommon to see station staff and passengers in dialogue with the bus driver for seemingly only going part of the way, with the driver not being aware the passengers need to get on their bus and change at the last stop to reach their destination.
So there’s pros and cons to using through trips vs split trips in the timetable data.
.....
From another thread discussing RRB a while ago the reality can be ' it is either this bus/coach or none '.
Also discussed was the use of vehicles (re)seated to 3+2 for schools work.
Why not keep the same vehicle but swap drivers during a 5 minute wait at Meopham / Dartford?
From another thread discussing RRB a while ago the reality can be ' it is either this bus/coach or none '.
Also discussed was the use of vehicles (re)seated to 3+2 for schools work.
I’m not sure. Some of the night jobs that go deep into Kent are split by Go Ahead but keep the same vehicle but others involve a change of vehicles. The Meopham daytime one might be to do with the efficiency of duties.
I think 3+2 vehicles are universally maligned on rail replacement. Even some the TOCs that don’t tend to use arbitrary qualifiers on age or capacity will ban their use and send them back to the depot if they are seen in service.
The route is longer than 31 miles so preplanned jobs are split at Rye to allow use of GB domestic rules and thus buses that don’t have a tachograph. For emergency jobs (bus covering spot cancellations) there’s no split at Rye because they’re exempt from the regulations.
I realise this but perhaps my question could have been better phrased, "why do the vehicles [at Rye] not run through in practice as they do elsewhere", for which I do not have an answer.
I realise this but perhaps my question could have been better phrased, "why do the vehicles [at Rye] not run through in practice as they do elsewhere", for which I do not have an answer.
I realise this but perhaps my question could have been better phrased, "why do the vehicles [at Rye] not run through in practice as they do elsewhere", for which I do not have an answer.
I have a duty on the upcoming Ashford to Bexhill closure and the bus covers the whole route with a split at Rye, I would have thought buses run through in normal circumstances.
Only thing I can guess is the closure limits may have been extended quite late in the day and it would be easier to split the route than recast all the duties.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
