Lothian Buses and ECB Discussion

[A330Alex]

The business case for Trams to Newhaven planned for the 22 to be cut back to Leith St.

As for combining LB/ET, frankly something like that was always going to happen. It doesn't make sense for each part of an 'integrated' transport system to be off doing their own things. Case in point being capping not working on the trams and Amex not working on the buses. Richard Hall clearly didn't like this, perhaps to a petty extent of removing the TfE logos from Lothian branding.

At the end of the day people need to accept the fact that the tram is successful and shift to looking at helping them work together.

 

[Cesarcollie]

The business case for Trams to Newhaven planned for the 22 to be cut back to Leith St.

As for combining LB/ET, frankly something like that was always going to happen. It doesn't make sense for each part of an 'integrated' transport system to be off doing their own things. Case in point being capping not working on the trams and Amex not working on the buses. Richard Hall clearly didn't like this, perhaps to a petty extent of removing the TfE logos from Lothian branding.

At the end of the day people need to accept the fact that the tram is successful and shift to looking at helping them work together.

So are you going to force a traveller arriving at the Airport and headed for the City (say) to use the tram, and endure a longer and less comfortable journey, by withdrawing the parallel bus service?

 

[SpeedbirdA350]

So are you going to force a traveller arriving at the Airport and headed for the City (say) to use the tram, and endure a longer and less comfortable journey, by withdrawing the parallel bus service?

They can't remove any of the bus services from the Airport. 100 goes via Corstorphine (tram does not), 200 via Queensferry Rd, 300 via Fountainbridge and 400 via Wester Hails, so there is no way any of those can be axed. They could re-route but I find it hard to believe they would re-route the 100.

 

[Bus9120UK]

I’m sure if you swapped one end of the 22 with something else (the original 25 Restalrig swap plan probably isn’t substantial enough) then it’s fine. 22 should really be Gyle to City then head East or South rather than down Leith Walk to Restalrig. Possibly send it to the Jewel and send the 4 to Ocean Terminal? I know that doesn’t work (I’m just kind of making this up on the spot) but you get the idea.

What would happen to the 2 then?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

What would happen to the 2 then?

You could probably leave it the way it is. The 2 and 22 don’t share much route together so it’d be fine (Broomhouse to Westfield being the only continuous section). As I say was just a random idea, I’m sure there’s plenty of better ones out there. But I can’t see how the 22 could simply just run to Restalrig - it’s still too similar to the tram. Terminating at Leith St seems a bit silly in my view, you’d be better keeping it as a cross city route just make it go somewhere else.

Remember 34 and 35 share a large chunk of route together and both have the same two termini.

 

[CN04NRJ]

So are you going to force a traveller arriving at the Airport and headed for the City (say) to use the tram, and endure a longer and less comfortable journey, by withdrawing the parallel bus service?

Isn't the 100 a contracted service by the airport anyway? I would doubt that the council would have much influence over the airport's owners in persuading them not to run an airport bus service.

 

[VioletEclipse]

Saw Gemini 706 (SN55 BKE) heading east along Regent Road yesterday with a VOR sticker in the front window and no adverts - heading to Seafield maybe?

 

[ScotRail158725]

Saw Gemini 706 (SN55 BKE) heading east along Regent Road yesterday with a VOR sticker in the front window and no adverts - heading to Seafield maybe?

went to marine with a bunch of other Longstone B7s, Longstone is opening up so the B7s are heading to Marine which is still closed

 

[Jordan Adam]

Isn't the 100 a contracted service by the airport anyway? I would doubt that the council would have much influence over the airport's owners in persuading them not to run an airport bus service.

Exactly. If the council wanted to end the 100 the Airport would probably just offer the contract to another operator.

 

[Jordan Adam]

At the end of the day people need to accept the fact that the tram is successful and shift to looking at helping them work together.

Depends how you measure success. Some would argue that the tram system was a unnecessary vanity project using money that could've been better spent on bus priority measures which would cost less but as such they'd have plenty of money left over to spend elsewhere in the city meaning that the improvements could be more widespread. No one is saying the tram system doesn't work or that it's loss making, but when you consider the expenditure and disruption it caused it does make you consider if there was a better option that the council could've went for and i personally believe there was.

 

[oldman]

The extension to Leith will make a difference, with far more people living within reach of a tram stop than now. People from say Gorgie to Leith may change to the tram at Haymarket rather than going all the way through on the bus. At the moment it's not much use for moving people within the city because of where the stops are.

Organisationally it does make sense to bring trams and buses together. There will be cross-subsidy, but that is normal in integrated transport, and with the tram being used more within Edinburgh that is less of an issue. I worry about passengers subdising cycle provision.

The big problem is with the network. Bus professionals know that the present sort of network with most buses crossing the centre is the best way of doing it but this collides with the cycle lobby's demand to de-bus the city centre. So the council wants to bring in consultants who will not argue with the de-bussing policy as Lothian have done.

The buses are stuck between the cycle lobby who are a vocal minority and the car lobby who are quieter but speak for a large part of the population, and all the talk about bus priority is just talk. I noticed the other day a long tailback from the Comiston-Greenbank junction towards Morningside, in spite of lockdown. This is the result of closing Braids Road to please the cyclists, but the result will be another delay to buses to Oxgangs and Fairmilehead.

 

[scotrail158713]

Depends how you measure success. Some would argue that the tram system was a unnecessary vanity project using money that could've been better spent on bus priority measures which would cost less but as such they'd have plenty of money left over to spend elsewhere in the city meaning that the improvements could be more widespread. No one is saying the tram system doesn't work or that it's loss making, but when you consider the expenditure and disruption it caused it does make you consider if there was a better option that the council could've went for and i personally believe there was.

And at the end of the day the most hardcore anti-tram people could argue they’re unnecessary either way. Low passenger numbers means they weren’t needed, however more passengers means they’ve been taken away from a perfectly adequate bus service.

The extension to Leith will make a difference, with far more people living within reach of a tram stop than now. People from say Gorgie to Leith may change to the tram at Haymarket rather than going all the way through on the bus. At the moment it's not much use for moving people within the city because of where the stops are.

I’d agree - the service as it is provides a fairly limited function. However by extending to Leith it provides a potentially very useful service for some.

 

[scotrail158713]

There would obviously be people with buggies, trolleys and luggage not very happy about it.

Having seen many an X7 Dunbar-bound at peak times anyone with buggies, luggage etc would be very lucky to get on. I’d say extra seats would be a priority for these services, so moving the coaches over to ECB seems like a reasonable idea.
And for buggy/trolley/luggage passengers, if it’s easier there’s also the option of Borders Buses 253 service - I don’t think it’s running just now but in “normal” times it’s an option.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

So a lot of vehicle transfers have begun ahead of next Sunday. This is what appears to be happening so far and vehicles that I haven’t moved I’ve tried to work out (not every vehicle in every batch has moved so far):

11-25 at Longstone VOR atmo
26-50 are probably likely to end up at Longstone with 1-10 available for Central to use if needbe.
201-215 at Central
301-389, 391-400 at Central (shunters have been returning 09 plates to Central over the last few days)
401-430 likely to return to Longstone during next week
431-437 either Central based for Airlink or Longstone based for Skylink (most likely the latter).
441-470, 579-590 at Livi
471-495 at Central
496-510 some at Longstone and Central for Airlink or Skylinks
551-570 likely to return to Lonsgtone during next week
951-960 some showing at Longstone
1051-1062 at Central
1063-1125 at Central

Central seems to have enough although Longstone is miles away. Possible other vehicles I’m not sure of their whereabouts that could be used at Longstone include 1000-1002, 1005-1012, 1014-1027, 1050 and 1141-1153 (in other words the ex London B9TL’s), the latter have been quoted as being Longstone already. 08 plates 907-925 and 926-927 are likely the next choice if needbe after that. Longstone will gain 37 buses (441-465, 579-590) and Central 5 (466-470) when the LC fleet return to service with bandit screens fitted.

ECB are likely to have most of the remaining unused fleet back out as well.

List won’t be bang on but gives you an idea of how things are looking.

 

[CN04NRJ]

So a lot of vehicle transfers have begun ahead of next Sunday. This is what appears to be happening so far and vehicles that I haven’t moved I’ve tried to work out (not every vehicle in every batch has moved so far):

11-25 at Longstone VOR atmo
26-50 are probably likely to end up at Longstone with 1-10 available for Central to use if needbe.
201-215 at Central
301-389, 391-400 at Central (shunters have been returning 09 plates to Central over the last few days)
401-430 likely to return to Longstone during next week
431-437 either Central based for Airlink or Longstone based for Skylink (most likely the latter).
441-470, 579-590 at Livi
471-495 at Central
496-510 some at Longstone and Central for Airlink or Skylinks
551-570 likely to return to Lonsgtone during next week
951-960 some showing at Longstone
1051-1062 at Central
1063-1125 at Central

Central seems to have enough although Longstone is miles away. Possible other vehicles I’m not sure of their whereabouts that could be used at Longstone include 1000-1002, 1005-1012, 1014-1027, 1050 and 1141-1153 (in other words the ex London B9TL’s), the latter have been quoted as being Longstone already. 08 plates 907-925 and 926-927 are likely the next choice if needbe after that. Longstone will gain 37 buses (441-465, 579-590) and Central 5 (466-470) when the LC fleet return to service with bandit screens fitted.

ECB are likely to have most of the remaining unused fleet back out as well.

List won’t be bang on but gives you an idea of how things are looking.

Most of the central London B9TLs were out the back of Longstone the last time I went past. Am I correct in thinking most of the 826-925 batch are at Longstone currently?

I'm assuming the 2/36/63 will be decker operated with extra 7900s going to Longstone for the enhanced 30/38? Hopefully some B7RLEs will be kept as spare though most seem to have gone to Newbridge.

 

[ScotRail158725]

Most of the central London B9TLs were out the back of Longstone the last time I went past. Am I correct in thinking most of the 826-925 batch are at Longstone currently?

I'm assuming the 2/36/63 will be decker operated with extra 7900s going to Longstone for the enhanced 30/38? Hopefully some B7RLEs will be kept as spare though most seem to have gone to Newbridge.

the Marine 08 plates (886-904) are still at Marine and the Longstone ones (907-927) were still at Longstone the other day but unsure if thats been changed but most of 826-885 is at Newbridge

 

[CN04NRJ]

the Marine 08 plates (886-904) are still at Marine and the Longstone ones (907-927) were still at Longstone the other day but unsure if thats been changed but most of 826-885 is at Newbridge

Edinburgh Transport Visualiser is showing most of 826-885 at Longstone, some more 09/59 plate B9s have been moved down to Central today from what I've seen. In fact 325 just passed me on its way down.

 

[scosutsut]

Having seen many an X7 Dunbar-bound at peak times anyone with buggies, luggage etc would be very lucky to get on. I’d say extra seats would be a priority for these services, so moving the coaches over to ECB seems like a reasonable idea.
And for buggy/trolley/luggage passengers, if it’s easier there’s also the option of Borders Buses 253 service - I don’t think it’s running just now but in “normal” times it’s an option.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the X7. It would suit the coaches perfectly for the blast up the A1. Pre COVID I though the route needed to be split but if patronage recovers I'd put on some Haddington shorts on the peaks and I think you'd be covered.

The B8RLEs could stay put, oust all the B7RLEs as they don't have ECB moquette and cuts the type from ECB. There would also be sufficient number to replace the B7TLs by my maths although I'm not sure what they are normally allocated to in order to say the cut in capacity would be acceptable in that case.

Arguably with B8RLE/Wright's on things like the 104 and 106 anyone on the X7 route not willing or able to travel on the coaches would have alternative journey options.

Lastly the 253 is back on in some form or another, one passed me much closer than was necessary on Saturday when I was cycling, generating much swearing on my part!

 

[GusB]

Posts 6767 and 6768 have been copied in from the West Lothian Buses thread as this is the more appropriate place to discuss East Coast matters.

 

[alexf380]

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the X7. It would suit the coaches perfectly for the blast up the A1. Pre COVID I though the route needed to be split but if patronage recovers I'd put on some Haddington shorts on the peaks and I think you'd be covered.

The B8RLEs could stay put, oust all the B7RLEs as they don't have ECB moquette and cuts the type from ECB. There would also be sufficient number to replace the B7TLs by my maths although I'm not sure what they are normally allocated to in order to say the cut in capacity would be acceptable in that case.

Arguably with B8RLE/Wright's on things like the 104 and 106 anyone on the X7 route not willing or able to travel on the coaches would have alternative journey options.

I'd love to see the coaches on the X7, think they'd suit really well.
As far as my observations have shown, the B8RLEs are too long for the 139. Having been around Woodburn I could understand that, so you'd need to retain a couple of B7s to work that. The 104+106+139+140+X5 would need around 14 or 15 vehicles so if you brought the 62 plate b7s up to a similar spec and use them as a common-ish pool then you're laughing! That would also let you lose the B7 double deckers as the 104 PVR plus the long awaited return of 20942 would render them superfluous.

 

[Edirim]

Also, agree on X7 for the coaches.
139 has had a B8RLE on it, was way back in 2018 though.

You'd need 19 for the routes you mentioned Alex.
104 needs 6 (1 of which interworks with schools PM)
106 needs 2 (1 of which interworks with X7 AM)
139 needs 2
140 needs 5
X5 needs 6 (2 of which interwork with schools AM/PM, another which interworks with a 124 and another X7).

For completeness, from my observations the rest are:
113 - 8 (one of which interworks with Schools PM)
124/X24 - 8
X7 - 8 (one of which interworks with 113 and a Schools PM)
+ 2 additional Schools AM

Envisage they'd keep 10101/2 for the 139.
10195-9 upgraded to similar spec as 10051-65 would be interesting!
Certainly, I always enjoyed getting an evening/Sunday 140 over the daytime equivalent simply for the high back seating and comfort of the B8RLEs.

 

[alexf380]

Jeez, I thought the X5 just needed 3! Clearly a little off...
If they were serious about getting rid of the ex-Arriva b7s they could give some sort of hybrid Optare Solo thing?

 

[OmniCity999]

Jeez, I thought the X5 just needed 3! Clearly a little off...
If they were serious about getting rid of the ex-Arriva b7s they could give some sort of hybrid Optare Solo thing?

More likely to be one of the existing Volvo hybrid single deckers if the company is so dead set on staying with Volvo.

 

[Bus9120UK]

All of 301 - 330 (except 323) now in service.

 

[route101]

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the X7. It would suit the coaches perfectly for the blast up the A1. Pre COVID I though the route needed to be split but if patronage recovers I'd put on some Haddington shorts on the peaks and I think you'd be covered.

The B8RLEs could stay put, oust all the B7RLEs as they don't have ECB moquette and cuts the type from ECB. There would also be sufficient number to replace the B7TLs by my maths although I'm not sure what they are normally allocated to in order to say the cut in capacity would be acceptable in that case.

Arguably with B8RLE/Wright's on things like the 104 and 106 anyone on the X7 route not willing or able to travel on the coaches would have alternative journey options.

Lastly the 253 is back on in some form or another, one passed me much closer than was necessary on Saturday when I was cycling, generating much swearing on my part!

Was on a 106 yesterday from Dunbar to Edinburgh, was quite busy . No seats marked out of use on lothian services to compared to first

 

[CN04NRJ]

Most of the 551-570 batch are back at Longstone, not sure if anything went back the other way though.

Most of the 1000-1027 batch are at Longstone still. My guess would be they're staying there for now with most of the B5s away at LCB with more of them recently gone to LV as well, also with the full 44, 4 and 21 running out of Longstone too. Just checked and it looks like a few of the dual door Marine depot ones are at Longstone too now.

 

[Graeme Duncan]

Are 331-350 still in Marine .

 

[Bus9120UK]

Are 331-350 still in Marine .

Yes, except 337, which appears to be in Central.

 

[scosutsut]

Was on a 106 yesterday from Dunbar to Edinburgh, was quite busy . No seats marked out of use on lothian services to compared to first

Lothian said on their website they had seat coverings on order, no sign of them yet. I was beside a 26 at some lights yesterday about midday and everyone appeared to be sitting window seat, alone, but every row I could see on the bottom deck was filled.

 

[buslad1988]

Lothian said on their website they had seat coverings on order, no sign of them yet. I was beside a 26 at some lights yesterday about midday and everyone appeared to be sitting window seat, alone, but every row I could see on the bottom deck was filled.

Yes but that’s the passengers own fault. It’s their choice to sit there. They shouldn’t need anything covered over the seat to remind them... they’d probably take no notice even if there was.

For almost four months we’ve been bombarded with messages from the government on tv, radio, newspapers, billboards etc. so no one can say they haven’t heard the message. If they still choose to sit that close together then that’s their prerogative.

Not sure what the obsession is over taping off seats. Yes First decided to do that but it doesn’t mean all other companies have too. The argument now is that with more and more services returning to near normal levels there’s less likelihood seats will need to be covered over anyway.