|
Post by romfordbuses on Dec 19, 2012 6:27:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Dec 19, 2012 10:06:46 GMT
I think it would work and is needed on a few routes to help with heavy loadings I'd rather see this than the 3 door waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 19, 2012 10:54:17 GMT
Well we already have tri axle deckers working in London so it's not a case of will it work. A route like the 25 would very much benefit from larger vehicles ignoring whether it would fit or not. Having been on an Enviro 500 (mk 1 version for Dublin Bus), I can tell you it's a nice bus and is comfortable. Capital Citybus trialled one in the 90's but TfL haven't so I think now is the time to do so.
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Dec 19, 2012 14:13:01 GMT
Well we already have tri axle deckers working in London *facepalm* Indeed, So it can't be a safety case or anything stopping it. I'd like to know how much a E500 is just to compare to the NBfL, I bet you'd get a lot of change out of the money spent on it. The 25 would be ideal for tri-axle, I genuinely think it's the way forward. And interestingly, In this months Buses magazine there's a interview with ADL CEO Colin Robertson all about the new style E500 and he hints at it being possible to make a double deck version of the Transbus E200 based upon the E350H chassis with front and rear staircases if TfL committed to it. He also says about a new generation E400 appearing next year which will be a complete redesign from the ground up!
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Dec 19, 2012 14:50:34 GMT
ADL arent the best for the steering lock on e400s our 61 batch have a terrible lock but i think the newer ones are much better
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 19, 2012 17:16:20 GMT
Came across this whilst searching for blind photos and thought that it was pretty impressive so decided to share it.Lothian seem to be one for trying new stuff out! Interesting quote on the website "negotiating a full 180-degree turn around the roundabout on Waverley Bridge with over a metre to spare" this is the roundabout; goo.gl/maps/xOqdmWould such a vehicle work in London? That's a Cityflyer spec Enviro 500 for HK Citybus. Cityflyer is the Airport Express service to parts of Kowloon and HK Island. These will replace Duple Metsec bodied Tridents like this. 127_2744 by plcd1, on Flickr The argument I have always heard with buses this big for London service is dwell time. TfL are clearly extremely concerned about dwell times and have spent a fortune on various projects (Oyster, Congestion Charge, roadside machines, open boarding) to get dwell times down. One of the reasons the NB4L has three doors and open boarding is to try to keep dwell times down - I'm convinced of that. That was the major reason for open boarding and three doored bendies on the very busiest routes. More capacity and maintaining journey times. I have travelled extensively in HK on their tri-axles and very nice they are too. They are also needed because of the massive demand for travel - unlike anything here. You get queues of 50-250 people even with buses every 20 seconds on some stops. The big issue in HK is stop dwell time even with their smartcard system. You get queues and queues of buses lining up to get on to stops and once there buses can stand for minutes while people get on and off. The bigger the vehicle the more people can get on and off! Exactly these sorts of comments have cropped up in the Trolley Borismaster mini discussion in another thread. NWFB 5517 Hung Hom by plcd1, on Flickr Doesn't matter with sightseeing buses as they're never completely full, no one is in a hurry and payment is nearly always "off bus" to a pavement conductor. The operators just want as many seats "up top" as they can squeeze on so they maximise the revenue on every bus and who can blame them. Where the tri-axles do well in HK is with the cross harbour express routes which run to outlying areas. They serve a few stops in the centre and run express to the outer estates and then serve all stops there close to where people live. Even on those routes you get people standing right up to the windscreen ;D 105_0519 by plcd1, on Flickr I think tri-axles would work if TfL did an express version of several of its busiest routes because you could control their dwell times and how they interact with other buses. I think having lots and lots of them on intensive routes, while certainly increasing capacity, would slow down buses and create a "red bus barricade" in Oxford Street. I can hear the MD of John Lewis having a heart attack already. ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 20, 2012 3:39:49 GMT
Anyone for a trial on the X68 then ;D
|
|
|
Post by Swadbus on Dec 20, 2012 4:09:21 GMT
Snoggle, great post.
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Dec 20, 2012 5:41:23 GMT
Wow Snoggle, You never fail to impress with your postings!
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 20, 2012 7:50:01 GMT
Great post! TfL are too old fashioned to try it though... But if they did, the trunk routes like the X68, 149, 207, 436 would get my vote... Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Dec 20, 2012 9:49:10 GMT
TfL are too old fashioned to try it though... You say that...But we have had the Hydrogen and from next year full electric buses so TfL are not afraid to try new things. But with the NBfL I doubt we're see tri-axles
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 20, 2012 16:45:08 GMT
Great post! TfL are too old fashioned to try it though... But if they did, the trunk routes like the X68, 149, 207, 436 would get my vote... Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards Thanks to everyone who enjoyed the post. I don't think it is down to being old fashioned. If they were they would have banned the sightseeing firms from using long buses. I really think it is down to "horses for courses" and for now TfL are constrained in how many "experiments" they can do which are outside of formal Mayoral policy. Anything NB4L or "better for the environment" gets a tick. Outside of that there is little scope unless operators came up with something very clever and affordable. There is no incentive for the operators to go one seat beyond what is needed to give the required minimum capacity of 87 people on a bus for a given frequency. Where you might get tri-axles is if TfL allowed operators to give options to meet a total route capacity number - this could then give TfL choices as to whether you got 1. High frequency service but low capacity vehicles 2. High to medium frequency with standard capacity vehicles 3. Medium frequency but with high capacity vehicles like tri-axles To be fair we have seen the first option with the minibus / midibus era back in the 1990s. Most of current practice is the middle option but with some conversions from single to double deck at existing frequencies. Bendy buses were an example of the last option but frequencies were restored after initial cuts. TfL's current approach is to give operators less discretion than in the past so I doubt there will be much innovation. I think this is a bit of a shame as the operators could probably help TfL save more money if a bit more flexibility was allowed. Would passengers really complain if they got a bigger, more comfortable double decker albeit a little less frequent? Having pondered some more I think some routes in the suburbs, clearances allowing, could go over to tri-axles - the 86, 140, 182, 109, 422, 472. Although busy you won't have the same congestion that TfL fears at central London stops. I guess one other factor to consider is whether bus stations, stands, scheduled turns and garages could accommodate bigger buses.
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Dec 20, 2012 16:55:34 GMT
Another good posting!
The 86 whilst it would be a good route for tri-axles as it's mainly it has a problem of would the longer buses fit into North Street garage? I think that might be one of the factors against a lot of routes getting them.
I'd be interested to see if TfL has done any reports/research into tri-axles and whether it was considered during the NBfL planning, Might be worth a FOI request?
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 20, 2012 17:33:03 GMT
Great post! TfL are too old fashioned to try it though... But if they did, the trunk routes like the X68, 149, 207, 436 would get my vote... Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards Thanks to everyone who enjoyed the post. I don't think it is down to being old fashioned. If they were they would have banned the sightseeing firms from using long buses. I really think it is down to "horses for courses" and for now TfL are constrained in how many "experiments" they can do which are outside of formal Mayoral policy. Anything NB4L or "better for the environment" gets a tick. Outside of that there is little scope unless operators came up with something very clever and affordable. There is no incentive for the operators to go one seat beyond what is needed to give the required minimum capacity of 87 people on a bus for a given frequency. Where you might get tri-axles is if TfL allowed operators to give options to meet a total route capacity number - this could then give TfL choices as to whether you got 1. High frequency service but low capacity vehicles 2. High to medium frequency with standard capacity vehicles 3. Medium frequency but with high capacity vehicles like tri-axles To be fair we have seen the first option with the minibus / midibus era back in the 1990s. Most of current practice is the middle option but with some conversions from single to double deck at existing frequencies. Bendy buses were an example of the last option but frequencies were restored after initial cuts. TfL's current approach is to give operators less discretion than in the past so I doubt there will be much innovation. I think this is a bit of a shame as the operators could probably help TfL save more money if a bit more flexibility was allowed. Would passengers really complain if they got a bigger, more comfortable double decker albeit a little less frequent? Having pondered some more I think some routes in the suburbs, clearances allowing, could go over to tri-axles - the 86, 140, 182, 109, 422, 472. Although busy you won't have the same congestion that TfL fears at central London stops. I guess one other factor to consider is whether bus stations, stands, scheduled turns and garages could accommodate bigger buses. I guess the 192 is out then ;D The LED blind is cool... a lot of the Hong Kong operators actually use the Johnston font, so I dont know why that couldn't find its way onto our buses.... most of our Tubes, DLR and Rail have LED, so why not the buses? They will be clear to read and cheaper to maintain I guess in many ways TfL isn't too old fashioned.. but the varying quality and presentation of our current blinds is poor IMHO
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 20, 2012 18:39:54 GMT
I guess the 192 is out then ;D The LED blind is cool... a lot of the Hong Kong operators actually use the Johnston font, so I dont know why that couldn't find its way onto our buses.... most of our Tubes, DLR and Rail have LED, so why not the buses? They will be clear to read and cheaper to maintain I guess in many ways TfL isn't too old fashioned.. but the varying quality and presentation of our current blinds is poor IMHO The 192 is difficult to fix but it is a complete nightmare. I don't see it as much as I used to but have seen it on a few Sundays recently and the loadings out of T Hale are insane. I don't imagine it is any better at peak times either. TfL should seriously consider adding at least another 1 bph on Sundays plus some supplementary peak departures. The better solution is to but another route on the busiest section - I've previously suggested diverting the 349. I am loathe to get into the electronic blinds debate . HK's displays are pretty decent but they aren't perfect. Even there, with their high maintenance standards, they do fail or get dirty. Conventional blinds also get torn and ripped. The one thing the HK operators are good at is immediately having a route board to stick in the windscreen so they have a back up system. I think the difference in London is no obvious requirement to keep blind boxes very clean and to ensure they are always properly illuminated. I know some blind box designs are very cramped and not easy to service and smart blinds are full of electronics but pressure on suppliers might get "easier to maintain" designs over time. It does all depend on how "tough" TfL want to get on standards for clean, well lit blinds. The other issue is that buses get route bound so the same destinations get shown all the time causing them to fade. Surely it's not beyond the wit of operators to smarten them up or else, on short blind sets, to "double up" the popular destinations so there is a "clean" spare available?
|
|