NBfL route 137

[Antman]

We're now in the silly situation where a number of people who thought that the bendy bus was the worst possible solution for London are beginning to say that the 'Borismaster' is proving to be even worse !

Personally I don't think there is anything specifically wrong with either type of bus, the problem is the way TFL operate them. The NBFL's on the 24 with an open have been very popular from the outset and bendybuses on a route like the 108, which is restricted to single deckers, would be an improvement provided everybody boarded by the front door so there was little scope for fare evasion.

 

[Deerfold]

... bendybuses on a route like the 108, which is restricted to single deckers, would be an improvement provided everybody boarded by the front door so there was little scope for fare evasion.

So negating one of the big benefits of bendybuses? What do you do when crowds congregate around the front door because they're not going far?

 

[Robertj21a]

So negating one of the big benefits of bendybuses? What do you do when crowds congregate around the front door because they're not going far?

You tell them that the *only* exit will be the *rear* doors.

 

[Antman]

So negating one of the big benefits of bendybuses? What do you do when crowds congregate around the front door because they're not going far?

To clarify I meant everybody boards by the front and the rear door(s) are exit only

 

[Deerfold]

To clarify I meant everybody boards by the front and the rear door(s) are exit only

That's a lot less handy for the mobility impaired. Or those with pushchairs.

 

[Antman]

That's a lot less handy for the mobility impaired. Or those with pushchairs.

Is it? Well that's what happens on the few bendybuses that operate elsewhere in the UK, Brighton Cardiff etc, and on most double deckers in London

 

[Deerfold]

Is it? Well that's what happens on the few bendybuses that operate elsewhere in the UK, Brighton Cardiff etc,

I think that's daft too.

and on most double deckers in London

That has some sense to it - people can be coming down the stairs and out the middle doors as people board at the front.

 

[Antman]

I think that's daft too.



That has some sense to it - people can be coming down the stairs and out the middle doors as people board at the front.

The only alternative is to let people board without any ticket check which inevitably means a loss of revenue

 

[Robertj21a]

I think that's daft too.


.

Brighton artics have only 2 doors - front and rear.

 

[radamfi]

If you want to be serious about improving capacity, then three part bendy buses coupled with comprehensive bus priority and free boarding is the ultimate solution. They have three part artics in Geneva or Utrecht. I've seen university kicking out time in Utrecht and you definitely wouldn't want to wait for everyone to board at the front door, otherwise the next bus would be there by the time everyone had boarded! Although it could be argued that three part artics are a bit of a niche, and indeed Utrecht are now building a tram line to replace that crazy bus route.

If you have to have double deckers, then they should be tri-axle. For example Berlin's double deckers have a capacity of over 120. Two-axle double deckers are not very practical as you can't have double glazing and proper air conditioning. That's why the few countries (other than the UK and Ireland) that use double deckers a lot mostly use tri-axles.

 

[Robertj21a]

If you want to be serious about improving capacity, then three part bendy buses coupled with comprehensive bus priority and free boarding is the ultimate solution. They have three part artics in Geneva or Utrecht. I've seen university kicking out time in Utrecht and you definitely wouldn't want to wait for everyone to board at the front door, otherwise the next bus would be there by the time everyone had boarded! Although it could be argued that three part artics are a bit of a niche, and indeed Utrecht are now building a tram line to replace that crazy bus route.

If you have to have double deckers, then they should be tri-axle. For example Berlin's double deckers have a capacity of over 120. Two-axle double deckers are not very practical as you can't have double glazing and proper air conditioning. That's why the few countries (other than the UK and Ireland) that use double deckers a lot mostly use tri-axles.

Quite agree.

One key issue in the UK is that artics will never re-appear in any numbers until Boris has gone and manufacturers can be persuaded that a right-hand drive artic is worth their bother. Much the same goes for the tri-axle decker where TfL (i.e Boris again) has refused to carry out any recent trials of a tri-axle. The last such trial was so many years ago that most people have forgotten about it.

Boris has a lot to answer for !

 

[Antman]

Quite agree.

One key issue in the UK is that artics will never re-appear in any numbers until Boris has gone and manufacturers can be persuaded that a right-hand drive artic is worth their bother. Much the same goes for the tri-axle decker where TfL (i.e Boris again) has refused to carry out any recent trials of a tri-axle. The last such trial was so many years ago that most people have forgotten about it.

Boris has a lot to answer for !

Does he really?

Scania do right hand drive artics, Cardiff Bus have some. Very few other UK operators want them though, even the ex London ones that were available at a knock down price. I think most would agree that artics are unsuitable for Central London and they are certainly no substitute for trams or new tube lines. Artics would be better suited to busy routes outside of the central area that are restricted to single deckers such as the 108.

Do any other UK bus operators have tri axle buses? I'm aware of some in Glasgow but I can't think of any others.

I find it disappointing when people use forums like this to slag off whatever politician(s) they don't like.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you want to be serious about improving capacity, then three part bendy buses coupled with comprehensive bus priority and free boarding is the ultimate solution. They have three part artics in Geneva or Utrecht. I've seen university kicking out time in Utrecht and you definitely wouldn't want to wait for everyone to board at the front door, otherwise the next bus would be there by the time everyone had boarded! Although it could be argued that three part artics are a bit of a niche, and indeed Utrecht are now building a tram line to replace that crazy bus route.

If you have to have double deckers, then they should be tri-axle. For example Berlin's double deckers have a capacity of over 120. Two-axle double deckers are not very practical as you can't have double glazing and proper air conditioning. That's why the few countries (other than the UK and Ireland) that use double deckers a lot mostly use tri-axles.

Artics are ok for university type services indeed Brighton & Hove use their ex London ones on the 25 route to the Uni although everyone passes the driver. Nottingham City Transport did a uni service with artics although I think they have been withdrawn now?

 

[radamfi]

Very few other UK operators want them though, even the ex London ones that were available at a knock down price. I think most would agree that artics are unsuitable for Central London and they are certainly no substitute for trams or new tube lines. Artics would be better suited to busy routes outside of the central area that are restricted to single deckers such as the 108.

Do any other UK bus operators have tri axle buses? I'm aware of some in Glasgow but I can't think of any others.

I wouldn't advocate looking for evidence within the UK. The UK has a very poor record on city transport compared to most mainland European countries. In particular, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands are considered to be among the world leaders in urban pubic transport. Modal share for public transport is much higher in Swiss cities than in British cities so I'd rather look to them for ideas.

If articulated buses are unsuitable for central London, then why would articulated trams be OK? Certainly, London should not be dependent on buses as much as it is. In a big city, buses should really be primarily used to carry people to the nearest tram or metro line and not to be used for long distances into the city centre. Rotterdam and Basel have almost no buses in their city centres.

 

[Antman]

I wouldn't advocate looking for evidence within the UK. The UK has a very poor record on city transport compared to most mainland European countries. In particular, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands are considered to be among the world leaders in urban pubic transport. Modal share for public transport is much higher in Swiss cities than in British cities so I'd rather look to them for ideas.

If articulated buses are unsuitable for central London, then why would articulated trams be OK? Certainly, London should not be dependent on buses as much as it is. In a big city, buses should really be primarily used to carry people to the nearest tram or metro line and not to be used for long distances into the city centre. Rotterdam and Basel have almost no buses in their city centres.

Articulated trams obviously run on rails, the biggest problem with artics in Central London is the way they block bus stops hampering others bus routes, apparently the 24 became much more reliable when artics were removed from the 29 for example.

I think that should be the long term objective in London, very few buses in the central area, trams are far more suitable for city centres.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite agree.

One key issue in the UK is that artics will never re-appear in any numbers until Boris has gone and manufacturers can be persuaded that a right-hand drive artic is worth their bother. Much the same goes for the tri-axle decker where TfL (i.e Boris again) has refused to carry out any recent trials of a tri-axle. The last such trial was so many years ago that most people have forgotten about it.

Boris has a lot to answer for !

Just to add that I think the upcoming 109 contract would be ideal for tri axle double deckers but you can't just blame Boris, I'm not sure he even has any involvement in such decisions.

 

[Robertj21a]

Does he really?

Scania do right hand drive artics, Cardiff Bus have some. Very few other UK operators want them though, even the ex London ones that were available at a knock down price. I think most would agree that artics are unsuitable for Central London and they are certainly no substitute for trams or new tube lines. Artics would be better suited to busy routes outside of the central area that are restricted to single deckers such as the 108.

Do any other UK bus operators have tri axle buses? I'm aware of some in Glasgow but I can't think of any others.

I find it disappointing when people use forums like this to slag off whatever politician(s) they don't like.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Artics are ok for university type services indeed Brighton & Hove use their ex London ones on the 25 route to the Uni although everyone passes the driver. Nottingham City Transport did a uni service with artics although I think they have been withdrawn now?

Scania do not do artics suitable for the UK - they *did* artics. The Nottingham artics are now withdrawn.

I certainly would not agree that artics aren't suitable for central London. Some routes are not suitable but that's all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that should be the long term objective in London, very few buses in the central area, trams are far more suitable for city centres.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


...Agreed...


Just to add that I think the upcoming 109 contract would be ideal for tri axle double deckers but you can't just blame Boris, I'm not sure he even has any involvement in such decisions.

I'm assured that Boris has been involved with the idea of tri-axle deckers and doesn't like it. Why is the 109 particularly suitable ? (not disagreeing, just interested)

 

[Busaholic]

Scania do not do artics suitable for the UK - they *did* artics. The Nottingham artics are now withdrawn.

I certainly would not agree that artics aren't suitable for central London. Some routes are not suitable but that's all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



I'm assured that Boris has been involved with the idea of tri-axle deckers and doesn't like it. Why is the 109 particularly suitable ? (not disagreeing, just interested)

I'm not taking sides in this squabble, just to suggest reasons why the 109 might be suitable. High frequency throughout the day, allocated to a garage that could probably take tri-axles without too much difficulty and, most important of all, a straight-line route along one main road, basically. I would also suggest that Boris would have been asked his opinion at a very early stage, as a politician whose every decision will be scrutinised ad infinitum both sides of the General Election. Maybe associations with Hong Kong may not be political flavour of the month,though.

 

[Antman]

Scania do not do artics suitable for the UK - they *did* artics. The Nottingham artics are now withdrawn.

I certainly would not agree that artics aren't suitable for central London. Some routes are not suitable but that's all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



I'm assured that Boris has been involved with the idea of tri-axle deckers and doesn't like it. Why is the 109 particularly suitable ? (not disagreeing, just interested)

Busaholic summed up the reasoning, it's a very busy route from end to end.

I think Peter Hendy & Co make the day to day decisions, there have been no tri axles on TfL routes for years, long before Boris came into office.

 

[radamfi]

I suspect Boris might fear that he would be accused of bringing back long buses despite waging a war against them in the past. Bendy buses may even be better around corners than tri-axles. After all, the whole point of the bend is specifically to get them around corners. I can't prove it, but I felt that that when artics were running in London they were run very cautiously compared to places (i.e almost every major city in Europe outside the UK) where they have been standard for decades.

 

[Robertj21a]

Busaholic summed up the reasoning, it's a very busy route from end to end.

I think Peter Hendy & Co make the day to day decisions, there have been no tri axles on TfL routes for years, long before Boris came into office.

There have *never* been any tri-axles on TfL routes (other than for demo/test purposes). Peter Hendy + Leon Daniels certainly cover all day to day issues but a policy change like this required Boris's approval.

Tri-axles do, of course, cover large parts of London every day, on the sightseeing routes.

 

[Busaholic]

Leon Daniels was in charge of Capital Citybus for many years, which ran tri-axles in Hong Kong. Do a bit of googling and see his praise for tri-axles over bi-axles on long, busy routes, also the fact that they did away with conductors (often two) at the same time! He also mentioned the time he drove one in service and was favourably impressed with its speed: it doesn't need three guesses where any momentum for tri-axles is coming from.

 

[Antman]

There have *never* been any tri-axles on TfL routes (other than for demo/test purposes). Peter Hendy + Leon Daniels certainly cover all day to day issues but a policy change like this required Boris's approval.

Tri-axles do, of course, cover large parts of London every day, on the sightseeing routes.

I can recall a few demo models and as you say they run on sightseeing services and the Oxford Tube, don't some of them have rear steering axles?

With the current tendering system an operator could lose a route five years later and be left with tri axle buses that they have no further use for so presumably TFL would have to purchase them like the NBFL's?

 

[Busaholic]

I can recall a few demo models and as you say they run on sightseeing services and the Oxford Tube, don't some of them have rear steering axles?

With the current tendering system an operator could lose a route five years later and be left with tri axle buses that they have no further use for so presumably TFL would have to purchase them like the NBFL's?

Stagecoach the only current London operator likely to have further use after London service.