|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Sept 22, 2020 16:45:47 GMT
I think bendybuses were a disaster in London because of the way TfL deployed them. I think they are best kept out of Central London but there may be some scope for them elsewhere, the 108 for example subject to a clearance test although it seems unlikely as does any likelihood of tri axle double deckers. I don't think an Artic would be able to turn from Bow Road onto Campbell road. I'm a bit surprised even the Citaros manage to do it. I recall an incident occurring to one of the Irizars some time back on that very street - the route would definitely be unsuitable for articulated buses. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 22, 2020 17:33:23 GMT
I don't think an Artic would be able to turn from Bow Road onto Campbell road. I'm a bit surprised even the Citaros manage to do it. I recall an incident occurring to one of the Irizars some time back on that very street - the route would definitely be unsuitable for articulated buses. Artics have an excellent turning circle unlike some rigid single deckers |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Sept 28, 2020 11:00:51 GMT
I think bendybuses were a disaster in London because of the way TfL deployed them. I think they are best kept out of Central London but there may be some scope for them elsewhere, the 108 for example subject to a clearance test although it seems unlikely as does any likelihood of tri axle double deckers. I don't think an Artic would be able to turn from Bow Road onto Campbell road. I'm a bit surprised even the Citaros manage to do it. The wheelbase of the MEC class isn't especially long, they are designed to be manoeuvrable. The Citaro G has very similar cornering abilities. Some other buses of a similar length are stretched versions of midibuses and have a longer wheelbase compared to a Citaro which means they need more space to make turns. An advantage is having a smaller tail, but if drivers are trained on tailswing, a larger one shouldn't be an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 28, 2020 14:37:20 GMT
The bendy buses were just not London buses. Sure it was claimed that they could hold 140 passengers (later reduced to 100) but only 49 seated versus 64 and could never be as efficient with road and garage space as stacking 2 decks of passengers rather then an 18m bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 28, 2020 15:47:45 GMT
The bendy buses were just not London buses. Sure it was claimed that they could hold 140 passengers (later reduced to 100) but only 49 seated versus 64 and could never be as efficient with road and garage space as stacking 2 decks of passengers rather then an 18m bus. I think Bendybuses were excellent buses sure they were long but they were spacious and with a better design could make a good comeback imo. I can see why they could be dangerous but remember that on mostly straight routes they are fine. Like with lots of routes also, not all people go upstairs either due to mobility problems, them being with pushchairs or simply going a short hop. I think these sorts of routes are ones they could've been deployed on with better design |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 28, 2020 16:10:18 GMT
The bendy buses were just not London buses. Sure it was claimed that they could hold 140 passengers (later reduced to 100) but only 49 seated versus 64 and could never be as efficient with road and garage space as stacking 2 decks of passengers rather then an 18m bus. I think Bendybuses were excellent buses sure they were long but they were spacious and with a better design could make a good comeback imo. I can see why they could be dangerous but remember that on mostly straight routes they are fine. Like with lots of routes also, not all people go upstairs either due to mobility problems, them being with pushchairs or simply going a short hop. I think these sorts of routes are ones they could've been deployed on with better design They gave the aura of riding in a cattle truck which many people similarly noted presumably due to them being long single decker vehicles but there is an element of truth in that all the same. The argument about them being dangerous is flawed though and it seems to be an argument more often put forward by members of the cycling community who make the same argument regarding HGV's - if common sense is applied, they are no more dangerous than other vehicles. In London, people use the upper deck on many routes - if that wasn't the case, the policy of converting single decker to double decker routes wouldn't go ahead As I said in a different topic, they have their place on routes like the 507 & 521, throw the W7 in as another good example of short, extremely busy routes with a clear defined purpose but mainly on things like shuttles & limited stopping routes where passengers aren't boarding as often. Having used one on the 521 (never got the chance on the 507 from memory) as well as at Gatwick & at a bus rally event in Guildford, they make a lot of sense on these routes compared to a bog standard route like the ones the majority were allocated to. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 28, 2020 18:12:40 GMT
Whereas the 436 was very much a trunk route carrying people from Lewisham right into the west end in 2003 which made it unsuitable for bendy operation.
|
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Sept 29, 2020 5:19:03 GMT
Re the artics being dangerous.
I cycle sometimes. Under no circumstances would I stop or proceed alongside a bus or lorry making a left turn. A very basic understanding of physics and gambling averse mentality dictate that it is not a good idea to do it, ever.
However, not everybody sees the world the same way. Some people don't understand physics, thus putting themselves in serious danger by choosing cycling as a mode of transport. Some people are aware, but take a gamble and willingly put themselves in high risk situations, with the expectation that the motorist will see them and give way. Safety training should be compulsory and aim to educate people on how to cycle safely, but it is seen as a barrier that will discourage people from taking it up.
There is responsibility on both sides to prevent accidents. There is an argument that artics have a design flaw if they have blind spots that present a large risk to cyclists who aren't aware of the dangers of riding in blind spots. Altering vehicle design to eliminate blind spots as much as possible and training motorists to be conscious of cyclists should also be compulsory.
Other cities in the world with artics either have the room to install proper cycle networks, or don't encourage cycling on the main roads.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 29, 2020 5:47:05 GMT
Re the artics being dangerous. I cycle sometimes. Under no circumstances would I stop or proceed alongside a bus or lorry making a left turn. A very basic understanding of physics and gambling averse mentality dictate that it is not a good idea to do it, ever. However, not everybody sees the world the same way. Some people don't understand physics, thus putting themselves in serious danger by choosing cycling as a mode of transport. Some people are aware, but take a gamble and willingly put themselves in high risk situations, with the expectation that the motorist will see them and give way. Safety training should be compulsory and aim to educate people on how to cycle safely, but it is seen as a barrier that will discourage people from taking it up. There is responsibility on both sides to prevent accidents. There is an argument that artics have a design flaw if they have blind spots that present a large risk to cyclists who aren't aware of the dangers of riding in blind spots. Altering vehicle design to eliminate blind spots as much as possible and training motorists to be conscious of cyclists should also be compulsory. Other cities in the world with artics either have the room to install proper cycle networks, or don't encourage cycling on the main roads. Likewise I do some cycling and would never go up the nearside of a vehicle turning left, this does of course rely on the driver using indicators, and I think it is significant that many serious cyclist accidents involve vehicles associated with the construction industry where driving standards are not always the best, bus drivers by comparison are generally very cyclist aware. It's good that serious cycling accidents in London are much rarer nowadays. I never really went along with the claim that bendybuses were a danger to cyclists although I don't think they're best suited to Central London for a number of reasons not least of all bus stop blocking, there is possibility a case for bendybuses outside Central London but it seems unlikely that they will ever return. |
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Sept 29, 2020 18:30:25 GMT
I don't think an Artic would be able to turn from Bow Road onto Campbell road. I'm a bit surprised even the Citaros manage to do it. The wheelbase of the MEC class isn't especially long, they are designed to be manoeuvrable. The Citaro G has very similar cornering abilities. Some other buses of a similar length are stretched versions of midibuses and have a longer wheelbase compared to a Citaro which means they need more space to make turns. An advantage is having a smaller tail, but if drivers are trained on tailswing, a larger one shouldn't be an issue. A quote from Merc was a Citaro G will go anywhere a citaro will go with the right driver |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Sept 29, 2020 18:31:53 GMT
A quote from Merc was a Citaro G will go anywhere a citaro will go with the right driver I wouldn't mind trying one out! |
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Sept 30, 2020 7:10:17 GMT
A quote from Merc was a Citaro G will go anywhere a citaro will go with the right driver I wouldn't mind trying one out! The Citaro G has a shorter wheelbase in the front section, if I remember rightly a factory Citaro G can do a u turn in 23M of space and a factory Citaro can do it in 22M, I say factory because as drivers will know as soon as the engineers get there hands of them they’ll usually turn more one way than the other haha. |
|
abz91
Conductor
Posts: 128
|
Post by abz91 on Sept 30, 2020 7:12:52 GMT
Tri-Axles Routes should be tested on 34 29 25 86 149 5 207 18 109 243 123 607. They busy routes
|
|
|
|
Post by hangerlane on Sept 30, 2020 8:28:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Sept 30, 2020 9:39:35 GMT
Tri-Axles Routes should be tested on 34 29 25 86 149 5 207 18 109 243 123 607. They busy routes The problem that you get with Tri axles is that the dwell times at stops increase quite a bit, we have 98 seaters at Ensignbus and loading and unloading takes a while, yes they only have 1 door but even with a second door it would still take a while, Bendy buses solved this problem as 3 doors are quicker and no stairs to come down, they are ideal for routes where people are doing short journeys hence why they are used on Uni/airport routes |
|
