Should buses be used to replace rail journeys on certain flows?

[GrimsbyPacer]

I love trains, but the bus from Barton to Grimsby trumps the train every time, longer journey, but cheaper, more frequent, and a lot more reliable.

 

[Robertj21a]

We need to copy Switzerland (and others). Buses and trains properly co-ordinated, passengers delighted with the whole system. Drop all the competition issues and accept that a properly organised transport system is a good investment - for everybody.

 

[yorksrob]

Easily fixed




Easily fixed.



Easily fixed




Easily fixed.

I must admit, I'd never realised it was within your power to repeal bus deregulation !

 

[Ianno87]

I must admit, I'd never realised it was within your power to repeal bus deregulation !

Don't need to, surely?

You just tender a route and specify suitable requirements for it.

Costs money, of course, but can be done if the will is there.

 

[yorksrob]

Don't need to, surely?

You just tender a route and specify suitable requirements for it.

Costs money, of course, but can be done if the will is there.

That's like everything that gets poo-pooh'd on here.

If the money and political will is there......

 

[lachlan]

Bikes on buses can work, but the bike-friendly coaches around Aberdeen have accessibility problems due to their stairs.

 

[Deerfold]

Don't need to, surely?

You just tender a route and specify suitable requirements for it.

Costs money, of course, but can be done if the will is there.

And what happens if another company registers a similar route but doesn't take rail tickets?

 

[Starmill]

That's like everything that gets poo-pooh'd on here.

If the money and political will is there......

I think the point being made is that the funding is already there - it's the rail subsidy which could be reallocated to rail-integrated bus services instead, which would both produce greater transport output.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the point being made is that the funding is already there - it's the rail subsidy which could be reallocated to rail-integrated bus services instead, which would both produce greater transport output.

I'm not convinced of how easy it is to get a deregulated bus company to adhere to a railway timetable or engage in joint ticketing in the de-regulated system. Certainly outside of the PTE areas doesn't suggest that this is very easy at present.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not convinced of how easy it is to get a deregulated bus company to adhere to a railway timetable or engage in joint ticketing in the de-regulated system. Certainly outside of the PTE areas doesn't suggest that this is very easy at present.

Because bus companies will generally do whatever is most efficient (i.e. fewest number of vehicles and drivers to meet demand).

If you want to, say, timetable specific connections between a bus and a train, that will generally require the bus route to be less efficiently operated (i.e. more vehicles required as the layover time at the station is less efficient), and thus cost more.

Local authorities could tender connectional requirements if they wanted to.... but reality is that they don't have the budget to cover the inevitable increase in tender cost this woudl require. But if the rail subsidy budget were re-directed....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not convinced of how easy it is to get a deregulated bus company to adhere to a railway timetable or engage in joint ticketing in the de-regulated system. Certainly outside of the PTE areas doesn't suggest that this is very easy at present.

If you tender a service and they bid for it and win they will operate it as per the tender.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2021 ==

If you want to, say, timetable specific connections between a bus and a train, that will generally require the bus route to be less efficiently operated (i.e. more vehicles required as the layover time at the station is less efficient), and thus cost more.

It's not just that. It's also disadvantageous for bus companies to connect well with the railway as it often loses them business. This is why regulation is the only way to really make this sort of network work properly. With the relative lack of true commercial operation, this is something Wales could have a go at - indeed, classically, some Conwy Valley journeys have been a tendered bus service with full interavailability.

 

[Starmill]

It's also disadvantageous for bus companies to connect well with the railway as it often loses them business.

Indeed. It's often rather better for the bus company to inhibit connections e.g. Thurso - Scrabster. The bus clearly deliberately doesn't connect with the afternoon train into Thurso because the bus company want people to use their service from Inverness. Not catch the train from Inverness to Thurso and then a bus only from Thurso to Scrabster.

 

[johncrossley]

There is a thread about a short train line in Switzerland planned to be replaced by a battery bus (not a trolleybus as mentioned in the original post)

CH: Le Locle–Les Brenets line permanent closure date?

I understand the short 4 km Le Locle to Les Brenets line is to permanently close and replaced by an electric trolleybus. I'd like to ride this before it closes, but I'm reading different closure dates ranging from March 2022 to December 2024. Can anyone point me to an official (or reliable)...

www.railforums.co.uk

This isn't so controversial because the replacement bus service would be high quality. You need to have comparable standards to a modern train. You wouldn't have a new train with hopper windows, for example.

 

[yorksrob]

Because bus companies will generally do whatever is most efficient (i.e. fewest number of vehicles and drivers to meet demand).

If you want to, say, timetable specific connections between a bus and a train, that will generally require the bus route to be less efficiently operated (i.e. more vehicles required as the layover time at the station is less efficient), and thus cost more.

Local authorities could tender connectional requirements if they wanted to.... but reality is that they don't have the budget to cover the inevitable increase in tender cost this woudl require. But if the rail subsidy budget were re-directed....

Yes, so you have a contractural arrangement between the rail provider - possibly a specifier of the rail provider and the specifier of the bus service and the bus company.

That sounds like an awful lot of interfaces to me. Far better to have the railway company running an integrated rail network as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, so you have a contractural arrangement between the rail provider - possibly a specifier of the rail provider and the specifier of the bus service and the bus company.

That sounds like an awful lot of interfaces to me. Far better to have the railway company running an integrated rail network as far as I'm concerned.

Under GBR it would be the same number of interfaces to run a bus as a train.

We just need the primary legislation that facilotates GBR to bring bus provision into the same contracts as rail, and each travel corridor or group of corridors can be managed by a contract holder.

 

[miklcct]

Indeed. It's often rather better for the bus company to inhibit connections e.g. Thurso - Scrabster. The bus clearly deliberately doesn't connect with the afternoon train into Thurso because the bus company want people to use their service from Inverness. Not catch the train from Inverness to Thurso and then a bus only from Thurso to Scrabster.

Bus companies will lose passengers in this way because people will cycle rather than taking a timed bus connection into the train station, as the long distance train journey is always faster than a bus.

 

[Starmill]

Bus companies will lose passengers in this way because people will cycle rather than taking a timed bus connection into the train station, as the long distance train journey is always faster than a bus.

The long distance train journey is not faster than the bus in this case.

 

[carlberry]

Indeed. It's often rather better for the bus company to inhibit connections e.g. Thurso - Scrabster. The bus clearly deliberately doesn't connect with the afternoon train into Thurso because the bus company want people to use their service from Inverness. Not catch the train from Inverness to Thurso and then a bus only from Thurso to Scrabster.

It's more likely that the bus doesnt connect because it has to provide a bus service somewhere (a school for example). The alternate question would be why does the train deliberately not connect with the bus?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's more likely that the bus doesnt connect because it has to provide a bus service somewhere (a school for example). The alternate question would be why does the train deliberately not connect with the bus?

Train timetables are often defined because of impacts elsewhere around the country. As buses are and should be secondary and complementary to trains, and are in any sensible country with a proper integrated transport policy (e.g. Netherlands, Switzerland etc), the bus timetable needs to follow the train timetable.

In rural areas, the thing that should possibly give is actually the times of the school day, as they are the least reliant on "other stuff"!

 

[RT4038]

Indeed. It's often rather better for the bus company to inhibit connections e.g. Thurso - Scrabster. The bus clearly deliberately doesn't connect with the afternoon train into Thurso because the bus company want people to use their service from Inverness. Not catch the train from Inverness to Thurso and then a bus only from Thurso to Scrabster.

In this particular case, I would think that it is not commercially viable to operate a short Thurso-Scrabster bus connecting with trains. No doubt the ferry company, or the railway or the local authority (or a combination of them) could contract the bus company to run one for them? But they don't. The prize for the bus company, as you point out, is the revenue on the long haul journey from Scrabster and Thurso through to Inverness and vice versa.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2021 ==

Train timetables are often defined because of impacts elsewhere around the country. As buses are and should be secondary and complementary to trains, and are in any sensible country with a proper integrated transport policy (e.g. Netherlands, Switzerland etc), the bus timetable needs to follow the train timetable.

In rural areas, the thing that should possibly give is actually the times of the school day, as they are the least reliant on "other stuff"!

As we have discussed many times before, making the buses secondary and complementary to trains does rely on both modes being funded from the same pot, which the UK is still far, far away from achieving (although possibly very slightly nearer with the Enhanced Partnership regime)

 

[Acfb]

The only example of Bus-Rail integration I can think of besides Leuchars-St Andrews is the X95 with the Borders railway and don't believe there's proper through ticketing to Hawick/Selkirk excluding the slightly expensive Borders Explorer ticket. The X95 between Galashiels and Hawick is still going strong with 2 buses per hour while the rest of the X95 has been cut to once every two hours.

 

[carlberry]

Train timetables are often defined because of impacts elsewhere around the country. As buses are and should be secondary and complementary to trains, and are in any sensible country with a proper integrated transport policy (e.g. Netherlands, Switzerland etc), the bus timetable needs to follow the train timetable.

In rural areas, the thing that should possibly give is actually the times of the school day, as they are the least reliant on "other stuff"!

The attitude that buses are secondary to trains, that is very common in the UK, explains a lot about why public transport usage is so low in this country. The idea that everybodies school bus should be dictated by the operational convenience of the local train company also helps put people off public transport if they then have to wait longer for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The attitude that buses are secondary to trains, that is very common in the UK, explains a lot about why public transport usage is so low in this country.

Does it really? Why not go and have a look at how public transport usage is going in countries which have properly integrated public transport systems whereby buses are intended to bring people to trains, such as Germany and the Netherlands, and see why their usage is rather better than ours?

That buses are secondary to trains does not mean buses have to be of poor quality, because they aren't in those countries. Simply that their purpose is to connect the railway to/from places it doesn't directly serve.

 

[Starmill]

Does it really? Why not go and have a look at how public transport usage is going in countries which have properly integrated public transport systems whereby buses are intended to bring people to trains, such as Germany and the Netherlands, and see why their usage is rather better than ours?

That buses are secondary to trains does not mean buses have to be of poor quality, because they aren't in those countries. Simply that their purpose is to connect the railway to/from places it doesn't directly serve.

In the case of integration for Inverness to Stromness/Liskness, it's clear that the bus should indeed be timed so as to fit between trains and ferries. Of course, it doesn't, for the reason identified already. The buses only leave very shortly before the trains arrive.

You could argue that either Tain or Invergordon should be the interchange point however, not Thurso, because buses would achieve better journey times than the train ever could between Tain or Invergordon and Thurso, Scrabster or Wick.