Chris Read wrote:
"Paul Corfield" wrote:

It's also evident from an initial "leak" in the Standard about the
London Assembly investigation into closures and rail replacement that
people think rail replacement services are shoddy, poor quality and just
not up to the job.

And the people would be right. TfL take great care to ensure regular bus
services adhere to high standards - and I think they do well in this regard.
Yet rail replacement services often resemble vintage bus rallies, with
enthusiasts travelling from far and wide to come and photograph barely
roadworthy vehicles, driven (often) by surly staff who have no idea where
they are going and rely on passengers for directions.

There are large numbers of people, especially in the suburbs and beyond, who
simply don't like using buses, and will avoid doing so at all costs. When
buses stand in for trains on my branch line in Sussex, a passenger load of
typically 30-40 dwindles to perhaps six to eight on the bus, and even these
are often passengers who didn't realise the bustitution was taking place,
who would no doubt have made other arrangements had they known.

Chris



LU put a lot of effort into rail replacement and in an ideal world every
bus used would be of an equivalent standard to those used on standard
London Buses routes. However, with the sheer number of closures taking
place these days, there simply aren't enough "normal" buses to go round
and so slightly older and / or step entry vehicles have to be used to
make the numbers up. It's not unusual for 150+ replacement buses to be
needed on any given day, and that's without taking into account National
Rail or DLR closurres!

Cheers

Steve M