Could nationwide TOC road services work?

[Philip]

What do people think about the idea of coach/bus services becoming part of the regular timetable across the country, and replacing train services on certain routes?

It would be a similar arrangement to rail replacement transport in that the bus would only stop at the rail stations in the normal calling pattern. However, in this scenario, the buses would be operated by the appropriate TOC for the route (and included in the standard timetable) and driven/guarded by the traincrew of the depot which would normally sign the eponymous rail route; so basically the train service in all but the vehicle and mode of transport.

The 'road service' wouldn't replace long distance and express services for obvious reasons. However, it could operate in lieuw of a much more expensive rail service on suburban and inter-urban routes where the time penalty in switching to the road wouldn't be substantial - this would allow the railway in question to be mothballed, saving maintenance costs. Also it could restore services along former lines which have been closed, without the cost of rebuilding the railway. Current stations on the affected lines would remain open as places to buy tickets and wait, with new parking facilities where necessary. The 'road service' would be added to the rosters of drivers and guards, with the necessary training provided.

Couple of examples which could work well:

Manchester Victoria to Wigan Wallgate via Atherton

Crewe to Telford Central via Nantwich, Audlem, Market Drayton, Newport and Wellington (instead of reopening the railway)

 

[30907]

Properly co-ordinated bus routes linked to rail, yes (staffed by bus drivers, please!), but there are hardly any existing rail services where a replacement bus would be competitive on journey time (I very much doubt the Atherton route is one).

 

[Tayway]

I'd be in favour of the system in Northern Ireland and Switzerland where trains, buses and coaches all have a co-ordinated timetable and inter-available fares. If a separate express/connecting bus brand can be established then that would be even better (a bit like TrawsCymru).

However, I don't think there would be many (if any) situations where mothballing a rail line and running a permanent rail replacement would be preferable – many branch lines were given this treatment post-Beeching, and the remaining custom quickly moved away from public transport altogether in many cases.

What would work better would be buses supplementing rural train lines, giving intermediate villages a frequency boost without the expenditure of running more trains, and connecting larger settlements to the rail network which could act as a test run for demand before committing to building a new rail connection.

A good example of the former would be the Far North Line, where combining the train with the X99 coach could give a broadly two-hourly service from Inverness to Wick and Thurso. All tickets would be valid on both modes, and any villages not served by the train (Dornoch, Lybster and so on) can become official destinations on the rail ticketing system.

 

[zwk500]

There is definitely scope for greater integration between bus and train. Whether getting TOCs to manage it is the best method, I'm far from convinced. However this is an area where the much-vaunted 'guiding mind' and structure of GBR needs to be known in more detail to work out how best to implement it.

In the meantime, simply making it easier to get a plusbus ticket (are they available as e-tickets yet?) would be a massive help, so that people can use the bus to travel to the station in the first place!

 

[WAB]

Many bus links are in the fares system, but you can't get tickets for most of them online or plan journeys because their timetables are not loaded into the national timetable. Where they do exist, journey planners often have difficulty displaying the bus legs properly.

This idea could have some value, but would maybe need to incorporate quality local services (e.g., Ripon to Harrogate using the 36, or Malton to Whitby using the Coastliner). You would also need to incorporate GPS tracking data to allow integration with existing PIS systems and allow delays to be verified for delay repay purposes.

 

[skyhigh]

However, in this scenario, the buses would be operated by the appropriate TOC for the route (and included in the standard timetable) and driven/guarded by the traincrew of the depot which would normally sign the eponymous rail route

Right, so you'd make the buses completely uneconomic by paying the drivers a railway salary.

As ever, your basic idea (bus times/fares/operation integrated with rail) is a good one but you ruin it with silly suggestions such as getting train crew to drive the buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, there absolutely should be "Bahnbusse", i.e. specific bus services integrated in the railway ticketing, reservation and fares system. Wales would be an ideal first place to do this given the sparse rail network; it's quite surprising that wasn't the route taken for Trawscymru. It would also work fairly well in Scotland if certain Citylink and Stagecoach Express services were to be integrated instead of competing.

Other obvious locations are Windermere-Ambleside and Penrith-Keswick. These are already *fairly* well integrated in that the bus stop is right outside the station, but a lot of people will just put "Ambleside" or "Keswick" in a journey planner and decide to drive when they see it not come up as possible.

One could also argue that integrating Scottish Citylink bookings into the railway reservations system would bring benefit, as while they do in places compete with the railway they also complement it.

Who actually operates them is really immaterial.

We did have RailLinks way back when, but this was before online purchase was really a thing, and they weren't properly integrated as through fares, rather they had to be sold as an add-on like PlusBus. One key requirement is that if such a bus is late you must have the same protection on your Advance as if a train was late. Most notably the VT99 Luton Airport to Milton Keynes Central had a SPORTIS ticket machine on the bus rather than a bus ticket machine. (This route still sort of exists as the extended route MK1 but not as a rail link specifically; it's actually far more used for warehouse worker commuting between the warehouses around M1 J13 and Luton).

Most notably they weren't able to be integrated in the middle of a journey. So you couldn't buy a through fare of say Wolverton to Flitwick and just use the X5 in the middle. Most will likely be "virtual branch lines" anyway so this wouldn't matter, but something like Blaenau Ffestiniog to Porthmadog would most often come up in the middle of a journey, not one end.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2023 ==

Right, so you'd make the buses completely uneconomic by paying the drivers a railway salary.

As ever, your basic idea (bus times/fares/operation integrated with rail) is a good one but you ruin it with silly suggestions such as getting train crew to drive the buses.

It really does make no difference whatsoever who operates the buses. For this the most economic option should be chosen.

 

[Bartsimho]

For an idea of a connecting Bus service to supplement the train services a New Mills to Derby Bus could very much work as the line was cut. Running as an express bus in some places but as local in others.

New Mills, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Dove Holes, Buxton (loop around the town), Taddington, Ashford in the Water, Bakewell, Rowsley, Darley Dale, Matlock, Matlock Bath, Cromford (connecting with the town and the station), Wirksworth, Idridgehay, Belper, Duffield, Darley Abbey, Little Chester, Derby Station, Derby Bus Station.

Timed to connect for the services at Buxton and Matlock which as they are both end of the line it has a better ability to do even with traffic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think fundamentally it's something that's very difficult to do in a deregulated environment, because the bus company will want paying a full profitable fare, whereas what you want to be the case is to recognise that that £350 Manchester-London Anytime Return was sold *specifically because* there was a decent bus service to Manchester to connect onto Avanti.

That's why I suggest Wales and rural Scotland as good locations for it - commercial bus services there are a rarity as they're just not economic - so if everything is tendered it's de-facto fully regulated anyway.

Ambleside/Keswick might be an exception as you probably could get away with just sticking the full bus fare on top, as with these being shorter journeys it isn't that expensive, and tourists won't be conscious of every penny in the same way as daily passengers (hence why Southern Vectis get away with such high fares outside of the £2 scheme).

Actually, talking of the Isle of Wight, that's an example of where it'd make sense to reverse it and put Island Line into the bus fare system, with through fares to/from the Island done by way of PlusBus or similar.

 

[Philip]

Right, so you'd make the buses completely uneconomic by paying the drivers a railway salary.

As ever, your basic idea (bus times/fares/operation integrated with rail) is a good one but you ruin it with silly suggestions such as getting train crew to drive the buses.

If the bus is in lieuw of a former railway service and operated by the TOC then it wouldn't make any difference to the economics as the driver would just be working the roster they'd normally work to, except that some turns would be bus work in place of former train work.

Getting non-railway staff to drive and operate the buses could be seen as removing work from the traincrew if it's in place of former train services, this wouldn't go down well.

 

[zwk500]

Timed to connect for the services at Buxton and Matlock which as they are both end of the line it has a better ability to do even with traffic.

To achieve this you either need to be fantastically lucky or agree to monumental layovers. In 99% of cases the connecting bus will be forced to pick one end to connect at. I'd personally time train around connections at Buxton, people are more likely to want to travel from Derbyshire to Manchester than the Greater Manchester area to Derby.

 

[Bartsimho]

To achieve this you either need to be fantastically lucky or agree to monumental layovers. In 99% of cases the connecting bus will be forced to pick one end to connect at. I'd personally time train around connections at Buxton, people are more likely to want to travel from Derbyshire to Manchester than the Greater Manchester area to Derby.

It was more that they time with the trains leaving in the Morning and with the trains arriving in the Evening.

So it's convenient to reach the station in the Morning and convenient to leaving the station in the evenings.

 

[zwk500]

It was more that they time with the trains leaving in the Morning and with the trains arriving in the Evening.

So it's convenient to reach the station in the Morning and convenient to leaving the station in the evenings.

But you can still only connect with one station at a time, if you're running it as an integrated setup. Or you accept the driver will be sitting around doing nothing for a significant amount of the time that you're paying them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you can still only connect with one station at a time, if you're running it as an integrated setup. Or you accept the driver will be sitting around doing nothing for a significant amount of the time that you're paying them.

Or you, God forbid, actually plan rail and road timetables together so they do connect!

The growth that a proper policy of operating road and rail as one could bring is potentially massive, but the UK just isn't interested for some reason I've never understood. It CAN be done. Some countries do it!

 

[zwk500]

Or you, God forbid, actually plan rail and road timetables together so they do connect!

This is simply not viable in the locations mentioned - there is far more important traffic in Manchester and Derby that is driving the timetables on the respective branches. If we had european levels of capacity utilisation, then maybe we might have the slack in our system to time a bus as a middle leg, but for the actual traffic available, the bus should be seen as feeders/extensions not bridges.
Anybody travelling from Manchester to Derby will be much quicker on the Hope Valley than the bus anyway.

The growth that a proper policy of operating road and rail as one could bring is potentially massive, but the UK just isn't interested for some reason I've never understood. It CAN be done. Some countries do it!

Oh it absolutely can be done to integrate both - the UK does it in certain things. But then having a large 'guiding mind' and proper long-term public strategy is an ideal that keeps getting killed by governments who don't like the idea of helping the next lot out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the bus should be seen as feeders/extensions not bridges.

There are cases where it should be a bridge too. One of the failures of RailLinks was that it didn't allow easy ticketing of that option. For instance, if going from Wolverton to Kettering, you'll be quicker off using the X5 for the middle bit than the Marston Vale.

In Wales and Scotland, the case for "virtual train"/"permanent RRB" "bridges" is even greater.

 

[zwk500]

There are cases where it should be a bridge too. One of the failures of RailLinks was that it didn't allow easy ticketing of that option. For instance, if going from Wolverton to Kettering, you'll be quicker off using the X5 for the middle bit than the Marston Vale.

Wolverton to Kettering would be one hell of an edge case (an edge case I came close to making, tbf. I drove instead). And you'd do it via Northampton and getting a bus from there straight to Kettering than buggering about with the MML, as evidenced by the fact that the people I knew who commuted Kettering-MK (a handful) did so via Northampton. But if going from Central MK, then you start on the X5 and it's an extension from Bedford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wolverton to Kettering would be one hell of an edge case (an edge case I came close to making, tbf. I drove instead). And you'd do it via Northampton and getting a bus from there straight to Kettering than buggering about with the MML, as evidenced by the fact that the people I knew who commuted Kettering-MK (a handful) did so via Northampton. But if going from Central MK, then you start on the X5 and it's an extension from Bedford.

'Twas just a random example. You'll find better ones in Wales, e.g. anything from the Conwy Valley or the western side of the North Wales Coast to/from somewhere on the Cambrian.

It is true that the majority of cases will involve a "virtual branch line" as a feeder, but not all will. But if these buses are properly in the railway fares and timetables systems, then you can use them how you wish.

 

[Bartsimho]

There are cases where it should be a bridge too. One of the failures of RailLinks was that it didn't allow easy ticketing of that option. For instance, if going from Wolverton to Kettering, you'll be quicker off using the X5 for the middle bit than the Marston Vale.

In Wales and Scotland, the case for "virtual train"/"permanent RRB" "bridges" is even greater.

For Wales I could see Porthmadog to Bangor and Porthmadog to Blaenau Ffestiniog, Aberystwyth to Carmarthen and Aberystwyth to somewhere on the Heart of Wales line.

For Scotland Fort William to Aviemore, Crainlarich to Perth

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Couple of examples which could work well:

Manchester Victoria to Wigan Wallgate via Atherton

I would certainly not be happy with this, rail replacements take double (sometimes triple or more due to traffic) time to get around on almost the entirety of the line.
The line can also be decently busy at peak times and providing 4 busses when there was a perfectly fine railway is the opposite of progress.

 

[zwk500]

It is true that the majority of cases will involve a "virtual branch line" as a feeder, but not all will. But if these buses are properly in the railway fares and timetables systems, then you can use them how you wish.

Yes but my point was you time them as extensions, and anybody wishing to use them as a through service has to accept the longer layover at one point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would certainly not be happy with this, rail replacements take double (sometimes triple or more due to traffic) time to get around on almost the entirety of the line.
The line can also be decently busy at peak times and providing 4 busses when there was a perfectly fine railway is the opposite of progress.

No urban lines should be mothballed or closed. Atherton is a ridiculous example, that should be 4 to 6tph of EMUs in the style of Merseyrail, with "long distance" stuff (i.e. the two Southports) going via Bolton.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Wales would be an ideal first place to do this given the sparse rail network; it's quite surprising that wasn't the route taken for Trawscymru.

I have to simultaneously agree and disagree.

For a lot of the routes I'm in complete agreement but my local one, the T7 would be silly in that regard as it directly rivals travelling via Severn Tunnel Junction and both can be valid depending on the journey.

The other question would be pricing. Aberystwyth to Cardiff is much cheaper on the bus and time competitive, which pricing model would be used? There'd be uproar if it was the rail pricing or if it was cut back with a modal change.

The above said, the T7 should be Newport Bus branded as they operate it, have their name on the vehicles, and there is no TrawsCymru branding on the buses, but that's a separate discussion.

 

[SargeNpton]

The T1 bus from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth via Lampeter and Aberaeron is perhaps to only current example of what the OP is suggesting. The bus is, for ticketing and journey planning purposes, treated as an extension of the rail network.

 

[stuu]

When I catch a train, the station lists the departures of the bus to Minehead on the departure board, the bus stops just outside the station and there is through-ticketing available and it is included in the National Rail journey planner.

I know that it is a result of the history and the relative lateness of the closure of the railway, but if it can done well here why isn't it done everywhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The T1 bus from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth via Lampeter and Aberaeron is perhaps to only current example of what the OP is suggesting. The bus is, for ticketing and journey planning purposes, treated as an extension of the rail network.

So it is! More please. I wonder why that Traws service is like that but they never managed to e.g. put the X19 into the railway timetable and ticketing system while that existed, as a roughly hourly service on the Conwy Valley (even if more than half of it is buses) would surely be hugely more attractive than one every three hours.

Is this one perhaps an experiment with a view to later expansion?

 

[randyrippley]

We've been here before in the 1960s when nearly all the closed routes were replaced by bus services, few of which lasted more than a couple of years.
All this idea does is repeat the same mistake. History is there to be learnt from, not ignored.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We've been here before in the 1960s when nearly all the closed routes were replaced by bus services, few of which lasted more than a couple of years.
All this idea does is repeat the same mistake. History is there to be learnt from, not ignored.

Closing routes to replace with these is mostly a bad idea.

But adding them to the railway to plug obvious gaps seems a quite different proposition.

 

[randyrippley]

Closing routes to replace with these is mostly a bad idea.

But adding them to the railway to plug obvious gaps seems a quite different proposition.

Then the first step should be to integrate existing road and rail services into one homogenous network before adding new routes.
Lancashire County Council had the right idea in the late 70s/early 80s but bus deregulation killed it off. Total interchangeability and through ticketing of all bus and rail services within the county. You could for instance travel from Morecambe to Clitheroe or Burnley on any combination of bus or train on one ticket.
The system was there, it worked. Unfortunately it's been conveniently forgotten about by our faux-competition-loving politicians

 

[RT4038]

We've been here before in the 1960s when nearly all the closed routes were replaced by bus services, few of which lasted more than a couple of years.
All this idea does is repeat the same mistake. History is there to be learnt from, not ignored.

In the 1960s the replacement bus services were not given any special legal status, or any protection from change. It was always intended that the replacement services would be assimilated into the local bus network (or disappear if they were not effectively commercial). Of course many of the closed lines/stations were so poorly used that even if all of the users (a tall ask, as a proportion would be railway employees who had no reason to travel anymore, and some people would have made alternative travel arrangements ) had transferred to the bus it would still have been an economic basket case. The railways and Government just wanted rid of the financial liabilities.

The mistake was probably not having closed the lines to passengers far earlier!

The early rail replacement services survived quite a time (the railways paying a subsidy for at least three years after closure). This financial help was abolished by the 1968 Transport Act, neatly co-inciding with most bus companies sinking into losses overall and less able or unable to cross subsidise such hopeless routes which likely provided little local transport function above the general bus network anyway. Of course there was outlying cases, but most of those would have been subsidised by Local Authorities ( if they wished) from the early 70s. Towards the end of the Beeching closure era the Government owned bus companies were increasingly reluctant to take on the rail replacement services (Somerset & Dorset line, for instance) mainly because of their likely poor financial performance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2023 ==

In answer to the original OP, yes they could work. However, for them to work, funding has to be in place (which it is currently unlikely that Government wish to take on funding, or the responsibility, for more services) and consideration has to be given as to how these services are going to mesh with and/or affect the current bus service provision. Nothing comes free, nor without responsibility. Some other countries do it, always in a completely different funding/control system than ours, and there would be lots of obstacles for us on the way from one to another. Nothing insurmountable, but not simple and not currently priority for any politician or political party.