So, if the bus is keeping to time you're not losing anything...? If they weren't enforcing this you'd just end up sitting at timing points waiting for the timetable which I'd argue is more infuriating for passengers as you're "doing nothing."
-
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!
Things which cause bus boarding/alighting to be slower now than 40 years ago.
- Thread starter philthetube
- Start date
So, if the bus is keeping to time you're not losing anything...? If they weren't enforcing this you'd just end up sitting at timing points waiting for the timetable which I'd argue is more infuriating for passengers as you're "doing nothing."
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I wish they would drop tap off and just have tap on like in London with a permanently capped fare. I just ask for regular tickets (where available now) as the tap off is a total faff and often doesn't work.
If cheap capped fares for longer services is a problem then have a different capped fare for X labelled services and make sure they are actually express services.
If cheap capped fares for longer services is a problem then have a different capped fare for X labelled services and make sure they are actually express services.
There is no difference in human behaviour - and London suffers from huge amounts of ticket evasion - but clearly balance that with the need for moving HUGE amounts of people quickly. Therefore the balance swings to dual door and they have to cope with the fact that there is fare evasion.
As you say, they also employ ticket inspectors who will catch (a few) of the people but this costs money.
You could argue that this might also work in cities like Manchester or Birmingham in the centres, but the likelihood in most towns and cities around the country, the extra cost to have dual door (fare evasion + employing ticket inspectors) is likely to make operators not want to use them.
Would be nice if they could retime the journey once they can guarantee all the busses are going to be electric. 70-75 mins from my house to Coventry or Leicester - would be nicer if it was an hour. Might save a bus over the course of a day.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What that of course means is that the timetable is now too slack and should be improved in line with the capability of the new buses.
I assume over time they will, but I'd imagine that there will always be some slack in the 148's timetable as there are a number of hot spots traffic wise that the route hits so you don't want to bring it down too much.
Gloster
Veteran Member
So do many of the drivers here, but plenty of those boarding (of all ages) are so wrapped up in themselves or their ‘phones that the driver could set off a klaxon and they wouldn’t notice. It is only when their passage is physically obstructed by a descending passenger that they wake up. For good measure you have a few who object to the driver asking or warning them to wait for descending passengers and who hold everything up by having a go at the driver for doing that.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Nice on a modern low floor bus, but it's actually another way things have slowed down. On old high floor buses there was a central pole in the doorway. That pole separated boarding and alighting flows even on a single door bus, so you would board and start paying your fare immediately the bus stopped as people were alighting, rather than having to wait a few seconds for people to alight in the middle of the door aperture. Seconds count.
That pole also stopped those in wheelchairs from being able to board. I'd much rather allow those with disabilities to have the freedom to travel even if it causes a few seconds delay.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'd rather dual door, as it solves both problems. You could create a hybrid situation, though, in that you could make it so the pole could be removed for a wheelchair user to board. That would have the benefit of forcing the folding of prams.
Let me guess, you have an issue with people not folding prams?
For someone who doesn't seem to want to use their local bus service you appear to want to dictate how everyone else uses it!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, there is a long standing issue with prams being placed in wheelchair areas and their owners refusing to fold them when a wheelchair user wishes to board. See also luggage and bicycles in wheelchair spaces on trains.
This is a simple issue to fix, disabled user takes priority. Driver tells pram or luggage person to move/fold down pram.
However, if there is no disabled user on board as a Dad of three if I had to get a sleeping child out of the pram every time I boarded the bus then you can guarantee that I'd have just took my car instead.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And when they refuse? Drivers won't risk assault.
It is an actual problem, not one I'm inventing.
I see no problem with fully occupied, modern cars, particularly EVs. They are both environmentally and road space efficient. If you're a Dad of three and travelling with your three children, I see no reason you should not drive if you are able to.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Ok - let's look at @Bletchleyite and @johncrossley's assertions that improvements can only be achieved if bus companies do everything in their control and can therefore tackle the wider issues from a position of strength/moral high ground.
Operators take a clear view on dwell times. They don't want them to be elongated because it quite simply reduces the efficiency of their staff and their vehicles. They take a balanced view...
So in terms of dual door and I don't know why we keep having to explain this again...
The fact is that operators make calculations based on costs vs. benefits. Councils make decisions based on politics and a diverse range of views. Not all of those are consistent with faster public transport.
Operators take a clear view on dwell times. They don't want them to be elongated because it quite simply reduces the efficiency of their staff and their vehicles. They take a balanced view...
So in terms of dual door and I don't know why we keep having to explain this again...
- Dual door vehicles cost more to purchase
- Dual door vehicles cost more to operate
- Dual door vehicles have a lower seated capacity which is a challenge in terms of older passengers who make up much of the travelling public
- Dual door vehicles are more prone to fare evasion
- Dual door vehicles are lower seated capacity so when cascaded onto provincial/school services, that makes them less efficient
- Dual door vehicles are not suited to many provincial bus stations and bus stops
- Dual door vehicles DO permit faster boarding/egress but in most places, passenger flows and volumes are insufficient to obtain the savings to offset all the additional costs and operational compromises that they bring
- Anyone would think that passengers are getting on with a jar full of coppers and placing them individually on the drivers cash tray, indulging in an extended conversation about fares and West African politics, or paying with a credit card that requires the use of a 1980s counterfoil
- My experiences (and I do keep tabs on this when I travel) is that the majority of passengers are a) ENCTS pass holders so very quick in that respect (though they may be slower to fish their pass out, physically move on board etc) b) have existing m-tickets and passes that scan
- Cash is relatively small amount and, of course, operators would love to remove it as a payment method because a) reduces risk of fiddling b) reduces risk to staff and c) the physical costs of handling money could be removed. That they haven't is because it is still important to a significant demographic and whilst there are trials, it's small beer.
- TOTO is coming in and operators do want it as again they want the benefits. For Stagecoach, it's been technologically more fraught but it's now fairly common elsewhere. However, it's more challenging for smaller operators for whom the cost of the tech just doesn't make sense - the volumes and benefits don't outweigh the cost.
The fact is that operators make calculations based on costs vs. benefits. Councils make decisions based on politics and a diverse range of views. Not all of those are consistent with faster public transport.
The same as happens when customers refuse to stop smoking/vaping, or refuse to pay, or refuse to stop taking up seats with their bags, they either listen to the driver or they don't. You can't ban all people with prams just because the minority of people are idiots.
I don't drive an EV, I drive a diesel so I would much rather take the bus as it's more environmentally friendly. Also, not everyone has access to a car.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's not, though. Almost all bus companies use Ticketer now including the small ones. Ticketer supports TOTO natively. I don't doubt they charge to enable it, but I would be surprised if it was a massive charge.
There is a cost if you want a separate tap off reader by the door, but I'm fairly sure it can be done just using the ticket machine, and for the foreseeable future you could just do tap on anyway - there may theoretically be a requirement to tap off but in my observation hardly anyone does as the full route fare is capped anyway.
Bedford OB
Member
I'd add a further issue to the dual door debate. When it comes to so called faster boarding and alighting, the reality in my part of London is that a very large number of drivers have now adopted the practice of not opening the front doors for boarding at the major stops until those alighting have cleared the bus through the centre doors, so all pretence of saving time at busy stops by the configuration of the bus is rendered nonsense. This has been encouraged by the fact that plenty of young and perfectly able bodied passengers can't be bothered to go upstairs so everybody blocks back around the base of the stairs, the centre doors, and the area immediately behind the driver. And looking at it cynically, but I fear realistically, the only result will be more poor punctuality, more running time and slower speeds, followed by reduced frequencies because TfL won't put extra buses in, given all the money has been spent (round here wasted, on hopeless vanity projects like empty Superloops).
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Isn't that the point... If you don't have a separate reader, then you're tapping out on the ticket machine and any savings are minimal.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, the savings aren't minimal. And there is no need for tapping out again now the £2 thing is going to be back, nor is there need for anyone to tap out if alighting at the terminus which on a typical small town route towards town they mostly are.
It's better with the reader, but they should start it even without. It needs to be the default.
Without the reader is awful as you have to wait ages for people to get off the bus getting in the way of people getting on the bus... for some reason trentbarton do this in Nottingham and it's always a right faff if there's multiple people getting on and off at the same stop.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Overall it is still faster than a traditional card transaction. It may not be faster than a traditional cash transaction, but cash is largely dead and we are not returning to exact fare cash only however much anyone on here may wish that to happen.
How is it faster than a standard card transaction.
Non-TOTO - "Can I have a single to X please?" "Yes" - tap card - usually takes about 5 seconds max.
TOTO with the same reader, maybe 3 seconds when you get on the bus, 3 seconds as you get off.
It's about the same or high probability of worse as it's two times for the reader to not work properly / customer to get it wrong / not have the card ready etc.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well over 10 in my experience, particularly given how fussy some machines are about when you tap for a traditional transaction, then the time to print and pick up the ticket.
Zero both ways. There is no need to even break stride, you just do it as you pass and listen to the beep. The more people get used to it the less faff there will be, it really is very fast in London. The sort of people who faff and cause delay will do either way, they're the ones who only get their payment method out of their bag when the price is stated - the same people often cause delay in supermarkets and are one reason I prefer the multiple queue approach of self checkouts.
I'm starting to think that you rarely use the bus.
Over ten seconds... only if you give the driver a story about where you're going and then the driver is particularly poor at navigating their ticket machine because either where you've asked for is unusual or they're learning or just don't like technology.
And zero seconds for tap on tap off, I think there's no point continuing this argument.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You'd be correct, due to the poor journey quality it offers round here.
Easily over 10 seconds from stopping walking to starting again. Even the old "40 please" in Manchester with change in hand probably took two or three. It takes about a second and a half just to say "city centre please", I just timed it. Then the driver says how much it is, then you tap, then it takes a second or so to register, then the ticket prints which takes about a second...it all adds up!
You ever been to London? Queues board without breaking stride. It's the same passing a Tube ticket gate, people don't stop to do that unless they're totally new to it.
I think there's a fair problem here in that a chunk of forum members won't actually remember when conductors were "every day" to really experience what it was like in comparison. Yes, there were Routemasters in London (which I just about remember using... maybe once... in normal service), but that's a small subset of use compared to other cities, or even rural areas. As such, it's hard to make comparisons as to what has actually changed, versus what we perceive has changed, or personal hobbyhorses based on an equally small set of experiences. (Insert my usual statement about my past German town's bus services which connected perfectly well with each other but failed miserably to connect with any rail service, or inter-urban bus, whatsoever, nor was the bus station near the train station, nor was it in either of the next biggest towns North, South or East...)
I don't doubt there are some improvements that could be made, but ultimately, they are likely to cost large amounts for minimal gain, compared to other traffic flow issues. Like the recent changes to road layout on my local bus, which now means buses and other large vehicles can no longer pass each other "mobile" at certain spots. Barely an inch was added to pavement widths, but trees were planted, and at one point, a bus stop box was painted half on a speed hump). We also have 5-way traffic lights for the first three weeks of summer: delays are averaging anywhere between barely any and 9 minutes per trip, with up to 30 minute delays at peaks (for a 25 minute journey). Today, a further set of two-way traffic lights has sprung up a matter of minutes along the route. One of the "local" (i.e. single track ratrun) diversionary routes is due to be closed next week. Lost time through boarding (including from ENCTS passholders not having them ready) is a rounding error compared to those other factors!
I don't doubt there are some improvements that could be made, but ultimately, they are likely to cost large amounts for minimal gain, compared to other traffic flow issues. Like the recent changes to road layout on my local bus, which now means buses and other large vehicles can no longer pass each other "mobile" at certain spots. Barely an inch was added to pavement widths, but trees were planted, and at one point, a bus stop box was painted half on a speed hump). We also have 5-way traffic lights for the first three weeks of summer: delays are averaging anywhere between barely any and 9 minutes per trip, with up to 30 minute delays at peaks (for a 25 minute journey). Today, a further set of two-way traffic lights has sprung up a matter of minutes along the route. One of the "local" (i.e. single track ratrun) diversionary routes is due to be closed next week. Lost time through boarding (including from ENCTS passholders not having them ready) is a rounding error compared to those other factors!
johncrossley
Established Member
I see this as another argument against double deckers. You can't force people to go upstairs. If it gets to the stage where people don't come downstairs until the bus has stopped then it is really game over for double deckers.
The British-style double decker isn't suitable for urban use in the current style of operation. Famously route 18 now leaves people at the stop since it reverted to double decker. Look at where they use double deckers in the Netherlands. Only 2 routes, and both of them are express routes where boarding time is much less of an issue. Although even these have two doors!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
London Routemasters are certainly in the memory of many of us, certainly mine. My memory of them was that they were slightly slower to board/alight than a dual or three door bus with tap on tap off is now. That is because they only had one door, so alighting had to be completed before boarding could start, and the choice of up and downstairs was immediately at boarding rather than being able to get everyone on and then they decide where to sit, plus moving through the bus was awkward due to the low ceilings.
In terms of pure speed the three door bendies were best, same as a tram in effect. But obviously they lost a lot of revenue.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The main reason for the lack of double deckers on the mainland is less what you say and more that standard bridge heights are lower than the UK (basically the same as the reason we don't have double decker trains). Berlin does have them though (and they are a bit lower than UK ones, though some are UK built by Alexander Dennis so look oddly familiar!)
They are also long wheelbase tri-axle vehicles with two staircases, which does improve things a bit in terms of passenger turnover times.
In terms of pure speed the three door bendies were best, same as a tram in effect. But obviously they lost a lot of revenue.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The main reason for the lack of double deckers on the mainland is less what you say and more that standard bridge heights are lower than the UK (basically the same as the reason we don't have double decker trains). Berlin does have them though (and they are a bit lower than UK ones, though some are UK built by Alexander Dennis so look oddly familiar!)
They are also long wheelbase tri-axle vehicles with two staircases, which does improve things a bit in terms of passenger turnover times.
Surely you announce the destination as you approach the driver, as the previous passenger is moving away whilst moving your card towards the reader. By the time it's at the reader the driver has given you the OK and ticket printed.
I'm frequently in London and even at Tube gates you regularly get queues as cards mis-read and this is the same on the bus. Anyway, this is all anecdotal from our own memory and let's be honest the human brain has a poor way of guaging small amounts of time.
Looking online it's estimated from the sources I can see that using a contactless card to board (stating destination) is roughly 4 seconds and just tapping on is 2 seconds. So certainly not 10 or 0!