Lothian Group discussion (Lothian City, Lothian Country Bus and East Coast Buses)

[SoloSR334022]

My thoughts are still a group wide change on 14th September. Looking doubtful to be much earlier than that.

Could we expect an announcement for early-mid August?

 

[Bus9120UK]

Could we expect an announcement for early-mid August?

I'm leaning closer towards a September 7th date, with that being the date the university Welcome Week starts. This has been the case for previous years.
Last year's change (September 8th) was announced on August 9th, so a reasonable expectation would be a month in advance. I suppose it depends on the scale of the change.

 

[stevenedin]

843 seems to be at Longstone now and 844 and 850 haven’t been used for a few days. Pending withdrawal?

 

[Bus9120UK]

843 seems to be at Longstone now and 844 and 850 haven’t been used for a few days. Pending withdrawal?

843 is due an MOT just now. 844/50 may be similar. If suggestions about 842 moving back West are true then I doubt any of these are finished.

 

[ScotRail158725]

843 is due an MOT just now. 844/50 may be similar. If suggestions about 842 moving back West are true then I doubt any of these are finished.

Have there not been a few moves west? 451/461 to name two.

On another note about the Lothian Country fleet ive noticed 1034 almost always on the evening peak 43-X40 board and if not its the x27/28 peak runs, why is this vehicle never allocated to a full day running board? its been on peak runs only for well over a few months now

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Have there not been a few moves west? 451/461 to name two.

On another note about the Lothian Country fleet ive noticed 1034 almost always on the evening peak 43-X40 board and if not its the x27/28 peak runs, why is this vehicle never allocated to a full day running board? its been on peak runs only for well over a few months now

LC have gained 4 vehicles on net for now as none of 843, 844, 850 or 936 were removed but all of 441-463 are in use now.

Probably a similar reason as to why 511 was restricted to school runs for a while. Can only assume it’s a maintenance requirement.

 

[Andyh82]

In regards to the services that Lothian use single decks, which are because of a low bridge, and which are just due to low passenger volumes?

 

[stevenedin]

In regards to the services that Lothian use single decks, which are because of a low bridge, and which are just due to low passenger volumes?

The X7, 30, 38, 46, 48, 107 & 120 are all single decker due to low bridges.

I think that the 1, 2, X5, 12, 20, 32, 36, 121 & 123 are due to low passengers I think but could be wrong.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

The X7, 30, 38, 46, 48, 107 & 120 are all single decker due to low bridges.

I think that the 1, 2, X5, 12, 20, 36, 121 & 123 are due to low passengers I think but could be wrong.

The 121 also has a low bridge.

I would say most of the single deck routes are so because of lack of usage in any case but the 30 is probably the only obvious exception to that, the low bridge being the issue. The 1 not far behind either but it has no restrictions. The rest cope fine as single decks irrespective of bridges.

 

[Bus9120UK]

The X7, 30, 38, 46, 48, 107 & 120 are all single decker due to low bridges.

I think that the 1, 2, X5, 12, 20, 36, 121 & 123 are due to low passengers I think but could be wrong.

Putting the low bridge aside, I think that the 46/8 were purposefully developed as single decker routes to use 176-190 coming in from Lothian Country and move double deckers elsewhere onto routes which need them more. They are quite busy.

The 1 theoretically could work on a reduced frequency with deckers but the current set up works quite well and has helped allow Lothian to maximise the available single deck resources, while again keeping double deckers on other routes which need them more. It's one of the only routes to have a better frequency now than it did pre-covid. The route has taken on some capacity as a result of changes to the 22 and the 2 also having a poorer frequency compared to pre-covid. Same goes for the 34.

 

[DunsBus]

The 121 also has a low bridge.

I would say most of the single deck routes are so because of lack of usage in any case but the 30 is probably the only obvious exception to that, the low bridge being the issue. The 1 not far behind either but it has no restrictions. The rest cope fine as single decks irrespective of bridges.

38 as well (low bridge at Balgreen) and 46/48 (same low bridge as the 30, at Newcraighall).

 

[Resuwen]

Good to see a few of the electric repowered tour buses in service.

I wonder if the ”ageless” Northen Irish plates might be transferred to these as and when 841-50 leave the company

 

[TheEastCoaster]

The X7, 30, 38, 46, 48, 107 & 120 are all single decker due to low bridges.

I think that the 1, 2, X5, 12, 20, 36, 121 & 123 are due to low passengers I think but could be wrong.

The 120 avoids the low bridge in East Linton, unless it's another low bridge somewhere else on route I'm unaware of.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

38 as well (low bridge at Balgreen) and 46/48 (same low bridge as the 30, at Newcraighall).

I think you’ve completely misinterpreted what I’ve said. I’m well aware of these low bridges. I was simply saying that the only route that’s busy enough but is actually restricted is the 30. The others irrespective of bridges are not busy enough, except the 1 which could be busy enough which way you look at it.

 

[Lothiangem22]

Low bridges aren’t the only problem…

Low hanging tree branches have also restricted some routes - 32 on Riccarton at west gate, 36 on Glenlockhart Road, 20 on Kingsknowe Road North at junction Lanark Road. Whilst deckers “have” operated in particular the 20 and 36, the risk with upper deck windows being damaged puts restrictions on these routes.

There are several roads throughout the network which are restricted due to other factors.

 

[trinitybladee]

The 120 avoids the low bridge in East Linton, unless it's another low bridge somewhere else on route I'm unaware of.

I’m sure there’s a railway bridge in dunbar it goes under

 

[buslad1988]

Putting the low bridge aside, I think that the 46/8 were purposefully developed as single decker routes to use 176-190 coming in from Lothian Country and move double deckers elsewhere onto routes which need them more. They are quite busy.

The 48 was originally introduced to curtail the 33 for reliability - and it’s also allowed that subsequently to extend to Millerhill.

The 46 was introduced later on to combat reliability and anti-social behaviour on the 49 - and with it now terminating at the Royal Infirmary; it’s a prime candidate to be extended for future developments.

The 46/48 corridor has really taken off, helped by the fact that it took on the 30’s route within Musselburgh. It’s also proved to be a very popular link between Midlothian and Fort Kinnaird. Unfortunately though, it very much has not solved the anti-social behaviour issues - both routes are common for trouble.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Low bridges aren’t the only problem…

Low hanging tree branches have also restricted some routes - 32 on Riccarton at west gate, 36 on Glenlockhart Road, 20 on Kingsknowe Road North at junction Lanark Road. Whilst deckers “have” operated in particular the 20 and 36, the risk with upper deck windows being damaged puts restrictions on these routes.

There are several roads throughout the network which are restricted due to other factors.

A shame as the trees never used to be a problem. Not withstanding what you’ve said. There are also plenty of other places that you could argue where there are issues, but neglect from the person(s) responsible for the tree means it has grown beyond what it should. It just so happens in these places it doesn’t place a restriction on it.

There is a tree at a bus stop close to my nearest stop, the council were responsible for this one. This tree was so overgrown that it was blocking the pavement at the stop too. Took them 3 months to attend it and when they did, they just ‘trimmed it’ within an hour when it’s height was clearly beyond the safe height - ie if it toppled it would destroy a buildings roof or land on top of a bus/car.

 

[Bus9120UK]

The 48 was originally introduced to curtail the 33 for reliability - and it’s also allowed that subsequently to extend to Millerhill.

The 46 was introduced later on to combat reliability and anti-social behaviour on the 49 - and with it now terminating at the Royal Infirmary; it’s a prime candidate to be extended for future developments.

The 46/48 corridor has really taken off, helped by the fact that it took on the 30’s route within Musselburgh. It’s also proved to be a very popular link between Midlothian and Fort Kinnaird. Unfortunately though, it very much has not solved the anti-social behaviour issues - both routes are common for trouble.

I'm sure these are true additional reasons and justifications, but there is never going to be only one. When I said 46/8, I was referring to the May 2023 change when the 48 was revised with its extension to Musselburgh and the 46 introduced with both having a shared section providing an every 15 minute frequency. It to me is quite a blatant fact that they decided to put 176-190 back on the road making money instead of having them idling in a yard at Newbridge, and this was the solution which made that happen.

At the time, there was also other movements of vehicles. City overall gained 22 from Lothian Country, 15 singles and 7 doubles, but then lost 12 doubles to East Coast buses. A loss of five double deckers. This allowed 841-850 to be 'withdrawn' - obviously we know that they returned a few months later. Just now, Lothian are almost at capacity vehicle numbers wise even with all the BZL deliveries, which showed that bringing back 176-190 was much needed.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I'm sure these are true additional reasons and justifications, but there is never going to be only one. When I said 46/8, I was referring to the May 2023 change when the 48 was revised with its extension to Musselburgh and the 46 introduced with both having a shared section providing an every 15 minute frequency. It to me is quite a blatant fact that they decided to put 176-190 back on the road making money instead of having them idling in a yard at Newbridge, and this was the solution which made that happen.

I think another additional reason was to increase the single deck count at Marine again which at that point was virtually 0 - a problem for the single deck rota. I think the 42 was the only one from Marine actually to run with singles at that time.

 

[NorthEastern]

A shame as the trees never used to be a problem. Not withstanding what you’ve said. There are also plenty of other places that you could argue where there are issues, but neglect from the person(s) responsible for the tree means it has grown beyond what it should. It just so happens in these places it doesn’t place a restriction on it.

There is a tree at a bus stop close to my nearest stop, the council were responsible for this one. This tree was so overgrown that it was blocking the pavement at the stop too. Took them 3 months to attend it and when they did, they just ‘trimmed it’ within an hour when it’s height was clearly beyond the safe height - ie if it toppled it would destroy a buildings roof or land on top of a bus/car.

In ye olde days some buses that were beyond their passenger carrying life were adapted for tree lopping duties, but you never see such vehicles now. I wonder just how much is spent by Lothian on replacing broken or cracked upstairs front screens. Where I live, the Arriva deckers travel pretty fast and often hit the overhanging trees with quite a whack.

 

[InOban]

I’m sure there’s a railway bridge in dunbar it goes under

There's a low bridge between the centre of Dunbar and the Asda next the A1.

 

[DunsBus]

I think you’ve completely misinterpreted what I’ve said. I’m well aware of these low bridges. I was simply saying that the only route that’s busy enough but is actually restricted is the 30. The others irrespective of bridges are not busy enough, except the 1 which could be busy enough which way you look at it.

Ah yes, I see now. Happy to be corrected.

 

[Avenger20]

The 121 also has a low bridge.

I would say most of the single deck routes are so because of lack of usage in any case but the 30 is probably the only obvious exception to that, the low bridge being the issue. The 1 not far behind either but it has no restrictions. The rest cope fine as single decks irrespective of bridges.

There are frequent capacity complaints on both 38 and 48 routes. Sadly bridges are too low on both routes but hypothetically both would do well with doubles.

I remember when I was at Balgreen Primary School seeing a morning double decker run on the 38 which started at Balgreen and ran to RIE. Always appeared to drop one of the J/K reg olympians.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

There are frequent capacity complaints on both 38 and 48 routes. Sadly bridges are too low on both routes but hypothetically both would do well with doubles.

I remember when I was at Balgreen Primary School seeing a morning double decker run on the 38 which started at Balgreen and ran to RIE. Always appeared to drop one of the J/K reg olympians.

There’s a couple of runs on the 38 that can be an issue, particularly when George Watson’s get out in the evenings and it’s mixed with the hospital visiting hour, but generally it’s fine. The section between Balgreen and the Infirmary is much busier than the other half these days though. If it became a continual problem then I would think a simple addition of an extra run would solve it.

The 48 I have rarely seen full to a point where people are left behind. Not to say it’s quiet, because it’s not. However since it was converted back to singles I haven’t seen it suffer from any major issues. Time keeping has been a fairly common problem amongst the 46 and 48 though. The 46 coming in meant the core section kept a similar amount of capacity - singles every 15 minutes versus doubles every 30 minutes. Do I think there’s potential for a combined every 10 minutes (every 20 minutes each)? Yes. However it won’t happen with the current allocation as there’s simply not enough Eclipse2’s to do it. It does seem likely that the Evora’s will probably pick this work up in the years to come when the Eclipse2’s are due for replacement. I can definitely forecast a scenario where that frequency increase then happens due to the increase in suitable vehicles being available. The 12 may benefit from this too. As I say though, probably another few years. It’ll be largely dependent on the situation with EV’s at Longstone and whether or not a breakthrough is made on that.

 

[scosutsut]

I think we were all surprised with the 46/48 introduction that the 30 remained going through Newcraighall to Queen Margaret University (QMU)

They've showed no unwillingness to route vehicles on/off via the new A1 slip (Route 106) so I'd say 30 is a prime candidate to change route and switch to Decker's once stock allows.

Cascade the newest singles (the Evoras) to replace the oldest Eclipse 2s, and reduce the overall footprint of the single decker fleet.

Unless it's viewed as the overall single decker fleet is seen as being "right size" across the various City depots for maintaining single deck rotas?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

I think we were all surprised with the 46/48 introduction that the 30 remained going through Newcraighall to Queen Margaret University (QMU)

They've showed no unwillingness to route vehicles on/off via the new A1 slip (Route 106) so I'd say 30 is a prime candidate to change route and switch to Decker's once stock allows.

Cascade the newest singles (the Evoras) to replace the oldest Eclipse 2s, and reduce the overall footprint of the single decker fleet.

Unless it's viewed as the overall single decker fleet is seen as being "right size" across the various City depots for maintaining single deck rotas?

It depends. There’s been talk for years about simplifying Central’s rotas.

Your theory is a good one. The only realistic way this happens is if the 1 and 2 were moved out of Central to be honest. That is somewhat realistic as Central needs more space for BZL’s. The one flaw of converting the 1 and 30 both to deckers is that it frees up well in excess of 30-35 vehicles. So what do you do with the 1? Keep it at Central as deckers, or move it to Marine with the 7900’s?

Now you highlighted that the 18 Eclipse2’s at Marine would go, and that’s realistic. What I’m not so sure is can you find a way to backfill the other spare vehicles? You have my suggestion for Marine with the Evora’s. The 2 would need to move to Longstone or Marine as well. I’d suggest Longstone. You’d need a healthy amount of frequency increases out of Longstone.

 

[scosutsut]

It depends. There’s been talk for years about simplifying Central’s rotas.

Your theory is a good one. The only realistic way this happens is if the 1 and 2 were moved out of Central to be honest. That is somewhat realistic as Central needs more space for BZL’s. The one flaw of converting the 1 and 30 both to deckers is that it frees up well in excess of 30-35 vehicles. So what do you do with the 1? Keep it at Central as deckers, or move it to Marine with the 7900’s?

Now you highlighted that the 18 Eclipse2’s at Marine would go, and that’s realistic. What I’m not so sure is can you find a way to backfill the other spare vehicles? You have my suggestion for Marine with the Evora’s. The 2 would need to move to Longstone or Marine as well. I’d suggest Longstone. You’d need a healthy amount of frequency increases out of Longstone.

Two ideas, neither claiming to be bulletproof though.

You've got 3 Eclipse 2s at ECB and 15 Eclipse 3s.

Replace those entirely with Evoras giving the X5 and X7 the peak time seats they often need without having to tinker frequencies.

You also get Musselburgh depot a big step closer to the age profile they want to tide it over until electricification although as I've said before that might be up in the air now they have Dunbar. Personally I'd electrify them both, and use Mussey as a outstation of Dunbar and use it for topping vehicles off throughout the day and rotating stock about, but I'm taking myself off my own topic now

If you've got enough, give them another 3 Evora and sell the ex Eves E200 MMCs but that might not be practical and I don't think frankly necessary.

Send the Eclipse 3s to LCB for deployment as part of a wider reorganisation of routes and frequencies there. I don't know how realistic that is as I'm not close enough to the territory but there is a lot of appetite on here at least for change and I recall a few suggestions that certain routes are overkill with deckers, or could be more frequent but with singles.

Alternative 2 - and there will definitely be a cheer in the crowd for this one, Evoras displace:

Marine Eclipse 2 (E2)
ECB E2
7900H 1-10

Total 31

The latter two batches don't reach 15 years old until 2028 though so would premature but I think the group has too many singles and needs to let some go whilst bringing in more deckers for conversion of routes like the 1 and 30 you mentioned.

I think it's a folly to think the 7900Hs will have much appeal in the second hand market in the way E2s would though. So use the 7900Hs to replace the driver trainer fleet and do what you will with spares.

E2s with Euro 6 upgrades will be infinitely sellable, you'd have close to 30 by my maths to sell once you factor in the ex trainers.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Two ideas, neither claiming to be bulletproof though.

You've got 3 Eclipse 2s at ECB and 15 Eclipse 3s.

Replace those entirely with Evoras giving the X5 and X7 the peak time seats they often need without having to tinker frequencies.

You also get Musselburgh depot a big step closer to the age profile they want to tide it over until electricification although as I've said before that might be up in the air now they have Dunbar. Personally I'd electrify them both, and use Mussey as a outstation of Dunbar and use it for topping vehicles off throughout the day and rotating stock about, but I'm taking myself off my own topic now

If you've got enough, give them another 3 Evora and sell the ex Eves E200 MMCs but that might not be practical and I don't think frankly necessary.

Send the Eclipse 3s to LCB for deployment as part of a wider reorganisation of routes and frequencies there. I don't know how realistic that is as I'm not close enough to the territory but there is a lot of appetite on here at least for change and I recall a few suggestions that certain routes are overkill with deckers, or could be more frequent but with singles.

Alternative 2 - and there will definitely be a cheer in the crowd for this one, Evoras displace:

Marine Eclipse 2 (E2)
ECB E2
7900H 1-10

Total 31

The latter two batches don't reach 15 years old until 2028 though so would premature but I think the group has too many singles and needs to let some go whilst bringing in more deckers for conversion of routes like the 1 and 30 you mentioned.

I think it's a folly to think the 7900Hs will have much appeal in the second hand market in the way E2s would though. So use the 7900Hs to replace the driver trainer fleet and do what you will with spares.

E2s with Euro 6 upgrades will be infinitely sellable, you'd have close to 30 by my maths to sell once you factor in the ex trainers.

Personally I would suggest it’s easier to refit the Eclipse3’s with a more suitable interior. If that’s done then ECB should be fine. I would like to see the X7 moved fully to Dunbar myself.

The entire fleet of 7900’s is currently undergoing a repaint programme which would suggest it is unlikely any of them depart anytime soon.

 

[stevenedin]

843, 844 & 850 withdrawn on bustimes now