Boris Bus in Leeds

[Crossforth]

Hey guys

Was with work and we drive past the First Bus garage in Hunslet and driving round the yard was what looked like a green Boris bus (no idea what they're actually called). Anybody got anymore info on this?

Cheers

 

[northwichcat]

It's a First Bus demonstration vehicle that they claim would be a better investment that Trolley buses: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ernative-to-leeds-trolleybus-scheme-1-6430110

 

[Deerfold]

It'll be running up and down on the 1 route for a few months.

 

[Busaholic]

It's a First Bus demonstration vehicle that they claim would be a better investment that Trolley buses: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ernative-to-leeds-trolleybus-scheme-1-6430110

First have a dubious track record on this - remember the Streetcar that was going to do in place of a tram? Of course, if and when the trolleybus system is built, First would not in all conscience bid to operate it, haha.

 

[Deerfold]

First have a dubious track record on this - remember the Streetcar that was going to do in place of a tram? Of course, if and when the trolleybus system is built, First would not in all conscience bid to operate it, haha.

They run that between Leeds and Bradford on route 72.

 

[plarailfan]

I found this photo on Flickr, shame about the green livery ! https://www.flickr.com/photos/86576420@N07/14716150302/in/contacts/

 

[Deerfold]

Or with the lights on...

http://travelwestyorks.proboards.com/attachment/download/252

 

[starrymarkb]

Is it just me who is uncomfortable with this? Surely improved public transport infrastructure (ie the Trolleybus) should be welcomed! But then the powers that be think public transport should compete with itself rather then the private car.

 

[northwichcat]

If they wanted it to stand out they should have put it in a Yorkshire Rider livery given First Manchester have painted some buses in historic liveries.

 

[Deerfold]

Is it just me who is uncomfortable with this? Surely improved public transport infrastructure (ie the Trolleybus) should be welcomed! But then the powers that be think public transport should compete with itself rather then the private car.

Indeed. Many people are unhappy it's not a tram but ignore the fact that central government withdrew support/funding for a tram so WYMetro are going for what they can.

The route is one of First's most profitable in the area so they're trying to do it down - by suggesting they could be paid to have better buses and conductors instead...

 

[Busaholic]

Is it just me who is uncomfortable with this? Surely improved public transport infrastructure (ie the Trolleybus) should be welcomed! But then the powers that be think public transport should compete with itself rather then the private car.

No, it's not just you. Many trolleybus systems survive throughout the world, and in many places thrive. As we seem to find it so difficult and expensive in this country to operate trams except on old railway infrastructure, the trolleybus option should be explored more, particularly with some battery operation 'off wire'. Good luck to Leeds, they'll need it with all the naysayers.

 

[edwin_m]

No, it's not just you. Many trolleybus systems survive throughout the world, and in many places thrive. As we seem to find it so difficult and expensive in this country to operate trams except on old railway infrastructure, the trolleybus option should be explored more, particularly with some battery operation 'off wire'. Good luck to Leeds, they'll need it with all the naysayers.

Trolleybus is a niche application and probably most of the places where it is the best solution already have it. At high passenger loadings where dedicated roadspace is needed, trolleybuses are at a disadvantage to trams because they are smaller and use more power, so the capital costs are similar but the operating costs are greater. At lower loadings the trolleybus offers a reduction in local emissions compared to motor buses, but advancing motor bus technology (and perhaps in the future battery buses) will erode this advantage. So in practice the trolleybus is only the right choice on routes with particular pollution issues where the passenger flows aren't enough to justify a metro or tram, or with very steep gradients. I don't know enough about Leeds to have a view on whether it's the right option there.

The main reason we don't operate many on-street trams is our deregulated bus system outside London. An on-street tram isn't much faster than a bus on the same street so bus operators can cherry-pick passengers and reduce the usefulness of the tram. This is what happened to Supertram in Sheffield, the most street-based of our modern tram networks, and to some extent to the Eccles Metrolink route. They have since been rescued, in Sheffield by writing off the investment and giving it to a local bus operator, and in Eccles by the development of Salford Quays which provides more passengers along the tram route. Hence in the UK a tramway needs to have significant lengths of fast off-street running to compete with buses. A secondary reason for running trams on disused railways is that we have many more of them than in countries where the rail networks were centrally planned in the first place, and didn't suffer from Beeching-type closures.

Interesting to note that the French, who have been a good deal more proactive in introducing tramways than we have, virtually never put one in a shared traffic lane. A big proportion of the tram routes in Paris are former railways.

 

[jopsuk]

The main reason First are opposed to the trolley scheme is that it would potentially loosen their grip on Leeds...

As to quite why they want overweight, oversized beasts with capacity issues (due to weight), that aren't as efficient as claimed and have poor cooling, really not quite sure there. Haven't figured out the connection to the Boris/Thomas Heatherwick/etc coterie.

 

[starrymarkb]

If first did succeed in getting Yorkshire Masters - I do wonder how long it would be before they lost interest in such a venture. Where first have tried innovating they never really followed it through (ie FTR, Greyhound, Overground etc) - I know the new MD is trying to change things but old habits will take a while to die out.

I also suspect that TfL have agreed to lease this one to First Leeds because they would like sales outside London to help justify the Borismaster's expensive development.

 

[Andyh82]

I wonder what the people of Leeds will think.

Who's paying for the conductors?
Why are there no opening windows?
Why are the windows so small?
Why are the seats old fashioned bench style rather than the modern ones in First's latest conventional buses?

Will be many of the questions asked Etc etc

 

[Busaholic]

Trolleybus is a niche application and probably most of the places where it is the best solution already have it. At high passenger loadings where dedicated roadspace is needed, trolleybuses are at a disadvantage to trams because they are smaller and use more power, so the capital costs are similar but the operating costs are greater. At lower loadings the trolleybus offers a reduction in local emissions compared to motor buses, but advancing motor bus technology (and perhaps in the future battery buses) will erode this advantage. So in practice the trolleybus is only the right choice on routes with particular pollution issues where the passenger flows aren't enough to justify a metro or tram, or with very steep gradients. I don't know enough about Leeds to have a view on whether it's the right option there.

The main reason we don't operate many on-street trams is our deregulated bus system outside London. An on-street tram isn't much faster than a bus on the same street so bus operators can cherry-pick passengers and reduce the usefulness of the tram. This is what happened to Supertram in Sheffield, the most street-based of our modern tram networks, and to some extent to the Eccles Metrolink route. They have since been rescued, in Sheffield by writing off the investment and giving it to a local bus operator, and in Eccles by the development of Salford Quays which provides more passengers along the tram route. Hence in the UK a tramway needs to have significant lengths of fast off-street running to compete with buses. A secondary reason for running trams on disused railways is that we have many more of them than in countries where the rail networks were centrally planned in the first place, and didn't suffer from Beeching-type closures.

Interesting to note that the French, who have been a good deal more proactive in introducing tramways than we have, virtually never put one in a shared traffic lane. A big proportion of the tram routes in Paris are former railways.

I'm afraid the Edinburgh experience has probably done for any new tram routes, let alone networks, in any town or city that does not yet have them e.g. Glasgow, Liverpool or Bristol. I have a little experience of the latter city, having lived there for a few years and I'm sure there are corridors there that could be put to good use. However. the abolition of Avon County Council some years ago leading to Bristol City Council having to liaise with South Glos Council seems to have led to paralysis, much like the traffic in the city at peak hours. Add to this the railway type regulation applied to trams in this country and the much more haphazard way that utilities are buried underground, apparently, and the starting costs are way too hot to handle for most politicians. Then when a scheme is proposed, as in Leeds with the trolleybus, a dominant private bus operator fearing the loss of significant revenue tries to muddy the waters, as you so rightly say. NBFL? No bloody ....... likely.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm afraid the Edinburgh experience has probably done for any new tram routes, let alone networks, in any town or city that does not yet have them e.g. Glasgow, Liverpool or Bristol. I have a little experience of the latter city, having lived there for a few years and I'm sure there are corridors there that could be put to good use. However. the abolition of Avon County Council some years ago leading to Bristol City Council having to liaise with South Glos Council seems to have led to paralysis, much like the traffic in the city at peak hours. Add to this the railway type regulation applied to trams in this country and the much more haphazard way that utilities are buried underground, apparently, and the starting costs are way too hot to handle for most politicians. Then when a scheme is proposed, as in Leeds with the trolleybus, a dominant private bus operator fearing the loss of significant revenue tries to muddy the waters, as you so rightly say. NBFL? No bloody ....... likely.

I agree with you the Edinburgh experience is a major downer on the prospects of trams elsewhere, largely eclipsing the good work done in Manchester for example where they have got at least four times as much tramway for twice the money.

I was involved in a small way with one of the abortive tram schemes in Bristol. The only routes northwards out of the city centre that are even vaguely feasible were the disused railways, either the old Midland line (cue howls of protest from cyclists) or the former four-track corridor to Abbey Wood (now to be reinstated by Network Rail). Disagreements between Bristol and South Gloucestershire, in particular about whether the route would serve Cribbs Causeway, were a significant factor in this scheme collapsing.

 

[gordonthemoron]

fortunately manchester is pressing ahead with the second city crossing and Kimberley wants an extension of NET. WRT Leeds, the #1 route through Headingley is awful and any bus which reduces capacity is a very bad idea

 

[northwichcat]

If first did succeed in getting Yorkshire Masters - I do wonder how long it would be before they lost interest in such a venture. Where first have tried innovating they never really followed it through (ie FTR, Greyhound, Overground etc) - I know the new MD is trying to change things but old habits will take a while to die out.

What exactly was Overground supposed to be? I remember them putting Overground on the front of some their timetables but I don't know what it was supposed to be.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What exactly was Overground supposed to be? I remember them putting Overground on the front of some their timetables but I don't know what it was supposed to be.

A brand that was used to promote colour coded urban bus networks.

 

[starrymarkb]

What exactly was Overground supposed to be? I remember them putting Overground on the front of some their timetables but I don't know what it was supposed to be.

The idea was a network of high frequency colour coded routes with clear maps etc. Unfortunately they didn't really stick with it or market it properly. It was a sensible idea as Nottingham City Transport and Reading Buses (among others) have made a success of the idea.

 

[Deerfold]

The idea was a network of high frequency colour coded routes with clear maps etc. Unfortunately they didn't really stick with it or market it properly. It was a sensible idea as Nottingham City Transport and Reading Buses (among others) have made a success of the idea.

And where they did carry on with it some of the routes were every 20 minutes which is a bit below turn-up-and-go levels (the 508 Red line Halifax-Leeds was reduced back to every 30 minutes but retained its red timetables for a while - though it seems to have gone now http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/cal...journey_planning/maps/Halifax_Network_Map.pdf ).

They also had silly things where routes such as Halifax - Leeds and Bradford - Leeds would be allocated a colour on the Halifax/Bradford map but not only did not appear on the Leeds map but a different route with the same colour did.

On the Huddersfield Map the X6 and 363 interwork and are each every 20 minutes, but the 363 gets a colour and the X6 does not.

http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/cal...ney_planning/maps/Huddersfld_M-S_Ntwk_Map.pdf

 

[Tetchytyke]

And where they did carry on with it some of the routes were every 20 minutes which is a bit below turn-up-and-go levels

That's always been the problem with First. They have some genuinely innovative ideas- and when Overground first came out in the late 90s it was innovative- but they never stick with them or apply them properly.

They've tried to use the colour-coding for many routes in Calderdale which simply don't merit it. The 548/549 is the perfect example- the evening service is diabolical.

 

[Busaholic]

I agree with you the Edinburgh experience is a major downer on the prospects of trams elsewhere, largely eclipsing the good work done in Manchester for example where they have got at least four times as much tramway for twice the money.

I was involved in a small way with one of the abortive tram schemes in Bristol. The only routes northwards out of the city centre that are even vaguely feasible were the disused railways, either the old Midland line (cue howls of protest from cyclists) or the former four-track corridor to Abbey Wood (now to be reinstated by Network Rail). Disagreements between Bristol and South Gloucestershire, in particular about whether the route would serve Cribbs Causeway, were a significant factor in this scheme collapsing.

Yes, the cycling lobby were at their most militant in Bristol. I had some sympathy with them, but when people brook no compromise it evaporates quickly. I always thought the docks redevelopment was a chance missed- a (primarily) tourist line could have got things going, or as I believe they call them in the U.S.A. 'starter lines': I suppose the reality now of the only hope of improvement in Bristol lies in railway electrification and the chance of developing a few new stations on existing lines and providing some sort of 'metro' service, but with FGW in place no such impetus would be coming from them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder what the people of Leeds will think.

Who's paying for the conductors?
Why are there no opening windows?
Why are the windows so small?
Why are the seats old fashioned bench style rather than the modern ones in First's latest conventional buses?

Will be many of the questions asked Etc etc

Looks like the conductor part is already on the way out in London on new route conversions- possibly too many were dying with the boredom of having no real role.

 

[Bayum]

Or with the lights on...

http://travelwestyorks.proboards.com/attachment/download/252

Does anyone have any pictures of the buses?
The site linked above refuses to let me load the picture.

 

[freetoview33]

No all bristol get is a glorified bus network, which will cost the earth and bring very little improvement! http://www.travelwest.info/sites/default/files/documents/MetroBus Network Map_with key 2.pdf

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, the cycling lobby were at their most militant in Bristol. I had some sympathy with them, but when people brook no compromise it evaporates quickly. I always thought the docks redevelopment was a chance missed- a (primarily) tourist line could have got things going, or as I believe they call them in the U.S.A. 'starter lines': I suppose the reality now of the only hope of improvement in Bristol lies in railway electrification and the chance of developing a few new stations on existing lines and providing some sort of 'metro' service, but with FGW in place no such impetus would be coming from them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Looks like the conductor part is already on the way out in London on new route conversions- possibly too many were dying with the boredom of having no real role.

Having lived in Bristol and also been a cyclist, motorist and bus user, I've been interested in how the proposals shape up.

As regards the use of the old Midland line into the city, well that's well established as a cycle route since the 1970s and is used by a lot of people; there are many who commute to/from Bath! The idea that this could be lost was always going to provoke a reaction! The main problem is the car with a lack of enforcement in bad parking on main routes as well as a medieval road network!

The issue with Cribbs, and you may need to correct me, was that Bristol City Council didn't want to support anything that might abstract trade from the city centre? I also worry with anything the council are involved with. The enforced use of knackered bendy buses on P&R work as a ground laying exercise is one thing. However, having also received specific funding as the UKs cycling city, that's been conspicuous in how poor the execution has been. Hence the idea of any rapid transit line in Bristol could make Edinburgh look like a good job.

I agree that the best you're likely to get is some refreshed suburban rail links!

 

[northwichcat]

And where they did carry on with it some of the routes were every 20 minutes which is a bit below turn-up-and-go levels (the 508 Red line Halifax-Leeds was reduced back to every 30 minutes but retained its red timetables for a while - though it seems to have gone now http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/cal...journey_planning/maps/Halifax_Network_Map.pdf ).

They also had silly things where routes such as Halifax - Leeds and Bradford - Leeds would be allocated a colour on the Halifax/Bradford map but not only did not appear on the Leeds map but a different route with the same colour did.

On the Huddersfield Map the X6 and 363 interwork and are each every 20 minutes, but the 363 gets a colour and the X6 does not.

http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/cal...ney_planning/maps/Huddersfld_M-S_Ntwk_Map.pdf

First Group also had timetables which said things like:

08:30, 08:40, 08:50 and then at frequent intervals until 15:30, 15:40, 15:50 etc. which journey planners showed as every 10 minutes but in reality it meant something like 09:00, 09:20, 09:30, 09:50, 10:00 etc.

 

[Busaholic]

Having lived in Bristol and also been a cyclist, motorist and bus user, I've been interested in how the proposals shape up.

As regards the use of the old Midland line into the city, well that's well established as a cycle route since the 1970s and is used by a lot of people; there are many who commute to/from Bath! The idea that this could be lost was always going to provoke a reaction! The main problem is the car with a lack of enforcement in bad parking on main routes as well as a medieval road network!

The issue with Cribbs, and you may need to correct me, was that Bristol City Council didn't want to support anything that might abstract trade from the city centre? I also worry with anything the council are involved with. The enforced use of knackered bendy buses on P&R work as a ground laying exercise is one thing. However, having also received specific funding as the UKs cycling city, that's been conspicuous in how poor the execution has been. Hence the idea of any rapid transit line in Bristol could make Edinburgh look like a good job.

I agree that the best you're likely to get is some refreshed suburban rail links!

Now Bristol has a Mayor with a capital M expect no advancement with trams, let alone trolleybuses. London's Tramlink has not developed one iota since its introduction in 2000, and the only places where progress has been made has been, like Nottingham and Manchester, where no Mayor is in place. Boris Johnson has made manifesto 'commitments' at the last TWO elections for Mayor to extend Tramlink to Crystal Palace, which could be achieved with relatively little upheaval, but nothing is any nearer happening. East London Transit was going to be trams, now just ordinary bus and would, in my opinion, have been an excellent place to try a trolleybus route, with virgin roads for the most part: I'd really only see a place for trolleybuse and trams in London well outside the central area.

Leeds I hardly know, but did have in-laws living near Roundhay Park for a few years and saw where the trams of a previous generation had terminated.

 

[Deerfold]

London's Tramlink has not developed one iota since its introduction in 2000

There's been no huge leaps but there's been significant increases in frequency.

When it started the routes were:

T1 - 5tph day 2tph eves/Sun Elmers End - Wimbledon
T2 - 5tph day 2tph eves/Sun Beckenham Junction - Croydon
T3 - 8.5tph day 4tph eves/Sun New Addington - Croydon
and now they're

T1 - 4tph day 4tph eves/Sun Elmers End - Croydon
T2 - 6tph day 4tph eves/Sun Beckenham Junction - Croydon
T3 - 8tph day 4tph eves/Sun New Addington - Wimbledon
T4 - 4tph day 0tph eves/Sun Elmers End to Therapia Lane

So capacity has increased by:

Elmers End to Croydon 60% day, 100% eves/Sun
Wimbledon to Croydon 60% day, 100% eves/Sun
(Therapia Lane to Croydon section 140% day)
Beckenham Junction to Croydon 20% day, 100% eves/Sun
And less impressive:
New Addington to Croydon -6% day, 0% eves/Sun.