Dual Door Buses

[radamfi]

How ridiculous - why not just, er, not open the rear door?

My guess is that they don't trust the bus driver to remember not to open the rear door. To prevent being sued when granny steps off the middle door to be knocked over by another bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My guess is that they don't trust the bus driver to remember not to open the rear door. To prevent being sued when granny steps off the middle door to be knocked over by another bus.

Time for bus ASDO?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Milton Keynes would benefit from it because almost all the routes are "cross city". Bedford wouldn't, as everything comes in from a suburb and terminates at the bus station, pretty much.

Probably less of an issue in MK but probably less justifiable. However, in larger busier cities, it would certainly be beneficial.

A cautionary point is that the continent isn't perfect; seen some very small vehicles with about 18 seats and two doors!!

How ridiculous - why not just, er, not open the rear door?

Probably if someone steps off into the path of a bus swinging into the adjacent stand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A cautionary point is that the continent isn't perfect; seen some very small vehicles with about 18 seats and two doors!!

Certainly in the case of Germany I believe this is law - all PCVs must have at least two doors plus I think a roof hatch in case it falls on the "wrong" side. I agree it creates some very odd looking vehicles!

 

[jammy36]

I think we are getting a bit fixated on bus stations in arguing against dual door. Bus stations are mostly used to terminate routes, and as such people are either getting off or on, not both at the same time. Thus, there is no problem with this being done through the front door.

Except, where then do you put the wheelchair ramp? If unloading through the front doors happens at bus stations, then the wheelchair ramp must go there. This in turn fixes where the wheelchair space goes (and also separate buggy space as is now often the case) - i.e. towards the front of the bus. If you then add in a second door you'd end up in the ridiculous situation of having a low floor bus with basically no fixed seating in the low floor area (unless you have extra long wheelbase buses). By the time Dorris has trundled the length of the bus to find her seat any speed advantage of the second doors will be wiped out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except, where then do you put the wheelchair ramp? If unloading through the front doors happens at bus stations, then the wheelchair ramp must go there. This in turn fixes where the wheelchair space goes (and also separate buggy space as is now often the case) - i.e. towards the front of the bus. If you then add in a second door you'd end up in the ridiculous situation of having a low floor bus with basically no fixed seating in the low floor area (unless you have extra long wheelbase buses). By the time Dorris has trundled the length of the bus to find her seat any speed advantage of the second doors will be wiped out.

The wheelchair area does not have to be opposite the rear door, and it makes no difference where you put it as to how many seats it takes up. Adding a rear door takes 4-6 seats (depending on the width of said door), regardless of the layout.

Indeed, if you go dual door but with the ramp at the front, the rear door can be a bit narrower, so you only lose 4 rather than 6 seats.

 

[upasalmon]

In reply to Gareth 2017 post, Merseyside PTE stopped buying dual door buses from 1972 onwards (the only exceptions being the last nine AEC Swifts in 1975, and Southport Atlanteans and Leyland Nationals).

But Liverpool City Transport went to the (with hindsight pointless) expense of rebuilding Leyland Atlanteans L749 of 1965, and L830-879 of 1967 to dual door. One or two of the earlier KD reg batch were also rebuilt (L570 ?). After one or two mishaps Merseyside PTE patented doors which when closed a strip of rubber would allow a trapped passenger to pull him/herself out. Atlanteans 1111-1235 and Bristol VRTs 2026-49/51-85 were dual doorway, but afterwards all MPTE buses were single doorway. In 1978 a number of the surviving Leyland Panthers were rebuilt to single door for use on a revised network in Kirkby, but the revisions didn't happen until 1980 by which time a large batch of single door Leyland National 2s were allocated to the new network and the money on their conversion wasted .

 

[AB93]

How ridiculous - why not just, er, not open the rear door?

Indeed - as is done in plenty of cases elsewhere - including on the TfL network no less at Kingston Cromwell Road bus station.

I believe it follows an unfortunate fatality at Leeds bus station several years ago, but as with anything, sensible balance is key.
It didn't put them off proposing bendy trolleybuses with dual doors but that would've been under their control...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

Except, where then do you put the wheelchair ramp? If unloading through the front doors happens at bus stations, then the wheelchair ramp must go there. This in turn fixes where the wheelchair space goes (and also separate buggy space as is now often the case) - i.e. towards the front of the bus. If you then add in a second door you'd end up in the ridiculous situation of having a low floor bus with basically no fixed seating in the low floor area (unless you have extra long wheelbase buses). By the time Dorris has trundled the length of the bus to find her seat any speed advantage of the second doors will be wiped out.

Electric wheelchair ramps on the centre door are very much a London thing, everywhere else tends to avoid them like the plague due to their inherent unreliability.
Much less risk of stranding someone at the side of the road with a manual ramp on the front.

Most of the current provincial dual door buses have the wheelchair bay in the usual place at the front, which provides consistency and doesn't seem to cause any issues.
You raise a very good point about a short wheelbase bus ending up losing loads of seats downstairs, and the resulting slow progress of people trying to find an available seat further back, which is definitely a factor against dual doors. Especially on longer services where the passengers' journeys tend to be longer in duration (e.g. not like in London).

That said, London deckers do tend to be short wheelbase, and TfL's insistence on not having any tip up seats means on London buses, you lose all of the seats by the door on the nearside and all of the seats on the offside in the wheelchair bay, which really does lose a lot of seats.
At least with the wheelchair bay at the front (with tip downs, too), the whole offside of the bus can have seats down it (even if an extra buggy space is specified).

 

[jammy36]

The wheelchair area does not have to be opposite the rear door, and it makes no difference where you put it as to how many seats it takes up. Adding a rear door takes 4-6 seats (depending on the width of said door), regardless of the layout.

Indeed, if you go dual door but with the ramp at the front, the rear door can be a bit narrower, so you only lose 4 rather than 6 seats.

No, the wheelchair space doesn't have to go next to the rear doors, but it does have to be fully accessible (including manoeuvring room) from the ramp. It does make a difference where you put it as to the number of seats it takes up. A dual door bus with front wheelchair ramp would result in few or no conventional seats in the low floor part of the bus - see for example Readings dual door Scanias on their purple 17 route, which despite being longer wheelbase vehicles only have four non-tip up seats accessible without climbing up a step or steps.

 

[Deerfold]

If boarding protocols take too long (I'm thinking mostly about ticket issuing) then it can be difficult to get away from the stop if people arrive more quickly than the amount that can be processed by the driver. So you need more buses to carry the same number of people compared to if you had quick boarding.

That doesn't make sense. That's a reason you'd need fewer buses. It's not a reason you'd need a lower frequency.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2020 ==

How ridiculous - why not just, er, not open the rear door?

Then you have passengers not sure which door to use to get off the bus as it varies at different stops.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then you have passengers not sure which door to use to get off the bus as it varies at different stops.

Buses these days should have automated passenger information displays and announcements, and a driver PA. Indeed, I hope PSVAR requires all those things at some point soon. Problem solved.

 

[Hophead]

Buses these days should have automated passenger information displays and announcements, and a driver PA. Indeed, I hope PSVAR requires all those things at some point soon. Problem solved.

That's how it's done in Brighton - there's quite a few stops (in the outer suburbs) where only the front door is available (usually due to a high grass verge with steps down to the stop flag), so the AV system advises passengers that they can only use the front door. Though, to be honest, there's few people wanting to alight a few stops into the journey.

 

[Gareth]

In reply to Gareth 2017 post, Merseyside PTE stopped buying dual door buses from 1972 onwards (the only exceptions being the last nine AEC Swifts in 1975, and Southport Atlanteans and Leyland Nationals).

Thanks for the info, upasalmon.

I still miss the dual door buses in Hong Kong. It was so much easier to alight in busy times rather than having to squeeze past everyone to get to the front of the bus and those getting on.

This single door thing just seems to be another cranky UK eccentricity, along with ring final circuits, separate hot and cold faucets and, more recently, pedestrian crossing signals mounted on a small box on the nearside of the crossing rather than opposite.

 

[upasalmon]

I forgot to make clear that the ex Southport Atlanteans and Nationals were inherited by Merseyside PTE in April 1974, and that the nine AEC Swifts were ordered by St Helens Corporation but delivered in early 1975 to the PTE.

 

[F262YTJ]

And also Southport Panthers 59-70 and 71-80 were dual door too.
The ex Southport Nationals 1-8 (later 6042-9) were converted to single door between 1980 and 1982.
As an aside some 07 plate ex-London baby E200s have entered service in Southport over the last 6 weeks after also being converted from dual door. Their capacity is very low about 27 even with the added 6 seats or so.

 

[upasalmon]

F262 YTJ- My point referred to Merseyside PTE from 1972 onwards, I wasn't going to list all of the dual door buses in Liverpool and Merseyside but thanks anyway. I suppose it would be safe to say after 1975, but1972 was when the "no more PTE dual doors" came about. The 75 St Helens AEC Swifts were all dual door and remained so until deregulation (a few of the 1975 Swifts
ran briefly on loan to Merseybus into 1987). Only the ten 1973 Southport Atlanteans remained until dereg, all others went in 1985.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2020 ==

CORRECTION - AEC Swifts phased out between 1980 and 1986.

 

[Deerfold]

Buses these days should have automated passenger information displays and announcements, and a driver PA. Indeed, I hope PSVAR requires all those things at some point soon. Problem solved.

That's best practice. Many don't. So another expense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's best practice. Many don't. So another expense.

A very worthwhile expense.

 

[Bungle158]

Reading Corporation Transport ran OMO dual door single deckers from around 1958. They lasted until at least the 1970s. AECs and later, Burlington bodied REs. (As l recall, l am no expert). The early 'Jumbo' double deckers of the 70s were also dual doors, with Videmat ticket machines. I believe that revenue protection issues at least contributed to this dual door approach being phased out in the 80s

 

[Busaholic]

Reading Corporation Transport ran OMO dual door single deckers from around 1958. They lasted until at least the 1970s. AECs and later, Burlington bodied REs. (As l recall, l am no expert). The early 'Jumbo' double deckers of the 70s were also dual doors, with Videmat ticket machines. I believe that revenue protection issues at least contributed to this dual door approach being phased out in the 80s

Burlingham rather than Burlington, and their name was on the bodywork of AEC Reliance standee single deck, dual door, buses ordered by Reading, although by that time Burlingham had been acquired by Duple (Northern) Ltd. I'm not a Bristol expert, but don't recollect hearing of REs bodied by them.

 

[GusB]

Burlingham rather than Burlington, and their name was on the bodywork of AEC Reliance standee single deck, dual door, buses ordered by Reading, although by that time Burlingham had been acquired by Duple (Northern) Ltd. I'm not a Bristol expert, but don't recollect hearing of REs bodied by them.

I've just looked up BuslistsontheWeb, and I certainly can't see any Bristol vehicles being delivered at all to Reading with Burlingham bodywork. They had REs delivered in 1967/68, but the bodywork code listed is either "Stn" or "Sn". The "Stn" is Strachan, but I can't figure out what "Sn" would have been - Saunders, perhaps?

 

[Bungle158]

Burlingham rather than Burlington, and their name was on the bodywork of AEC Reliance standee single deck, dual door, buses ordered by Reading, although by that time Burlingham had been acquired by Duple (Northern) Ltd. I'm not a Bristol expert, but don't recollect hearing of REs bodied by them.

Bristol RE LLs. Please excuse my lack of expertise. l was just a more than interested passenger. I believe it was Pennine bodywork, but Strachan does ring a bell.

Back in the day, RCT were regarded as quite an innovative outfit, if l remember correctly.

 

[upasalmon]

Strachan's it must be as Burlingham were bought by Duple in the early 1960s and Saunders ceased by about 1955.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2020 ==

Sn stands for SEDDON.

 

[Busaholic]

Strachan's it must be as Burlingham were bought by Duple in the early 1960s and Saunders ceased by about 1955.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Oct 2020 ==

Sn stands for SEDDON.

And Pennine was the name of one style of their bodywork.. Burlingham were originally coach body builders, and very stylish they were, perhaps emulating the Hove firm of Harrington in that respect. I suspect Burlington was a Freudian slip incorporating those two master coachbuilders! I believe my first ever trolleybus ride in the early 1950s may have been on a Bournemouth Corporation Burlingham trolleybus with rear, open entrance but exit by door at the front, all of which excited a bus-mad little boy!

 

[upasalmon]

I forgot to mention Seddon bodywork went under the Pennine name. Seddon was involved in the conversion of 55 Liverpool Leyland Atlantans mostly of 1967 vintage to dual doorway in 1969. These conversions proved a waste of money when Merseyside PTE went "single door" from 1972.

 

[AY1975]

Plenty of dual doors in the late 60s/ early 70s even in relatively small towns.

For example:

Most Crewe local services were converted to dual-door in 1971/72
The M22 Conwy - Colwyn Bay was converted at a similar time
In the mid-80s there were even dual-door minibuses in Devon!

The advantage was seen to be better passenger flow - passengers could board at the front without having to wait for passengers to alight.

BUT

The disadvantages were:

Lower capacity (on the Bristol REs you lost 5 seats, on the Leyland National 4 seats)
Safety - door distant from the driver made supervision more difficult
Fare evasion - potentially, though it doesn't seem to have been much of a problem back then
Structural - on some types there was a weakness in the body structure

Yes, and even on some rural routes in the 1970s and early '80s. For example before deregulation Trent (now TrentBarton) had some dual door REs and Leyland Nationals. Dual door buses on lightly loaded rural services would seem pretty pointless really, but I guess they would use whatever vehicles happened to be available as long as they were cleared for that route. Drivers didn't always use the middle doors, though. Sometimes they would even rope them off.

 

[baza585]

Hants and Dorset had a number of dual door Bristol LHs. Used mainly on rural routes, the rear doors rarely got used.

As for Harry Blundreds dual door minibuses, they were a real waste of space, in every sense.

 

[PeterC]

Where I live in Bucks Red Rose have blocked in the doors on their ex London Darts but one ran for a while with 2 doors. Even when the driver opened the middle doors the regulars all still walked to the front to alight.

At most country stops the middle door wasn't much use anyway as there was often insufficent room around the stops to use both doors.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

I'm not sure where you get the notion that dual door leads to significant revenue loss. In all my years' involvement in London's bus operation this has never been a feature. Maybe you're confusing it with open boarding, which does incur revenue loss.

Reasons why operators don't like dual operation even on routes where it may be beneficial include that the vehicles are more expensive, the additional weight results in a lower passenger capacity, the wheelchair ramp needs to be in the centre door and thus automated, and the limited scope for cascading or selling without conversion to single door. Safety as a stated reason for mass conversion to single door buses in the 70s really doesn't feature these days with sensitive door edges and CCTV monitoring.

Wheelchair doesn't necessarily have to be in the centre doors. Brighton & Hove's dual door Streetdecks have the wheelchair ramp at the front door and are manually operated.

 

[Goldfish62]

Wheelchair doesn't necessarily have to be in the centre doors. Brighton & Hove's dual door Streetdecks have the wheelchair ramp at the front door and are manually operated.

Yes, but not ideal because of the restricted width between the nearside wheelarch and staircase, plus the added dwell time for ramp deployment and manoeuvring of the wheelchair.