Some Dublin Bus News

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 10:27am

thomasj wrote: »

That's a fair point, but do people really want to wait until this happens before they start taking action, because once it happens it will be difficult to reinstate the old position.

I think that people when complaining to Dublin bus by email need to start including NTA on the emails it makes logical sense plus it seems (although not certain) that Dublin bus are the ones who are making the point in favour of the VTs.

Petiole should be emailing nta and Dublin bus, highlighting their concerns and providing real-life examples as to why the VTs should be kept on the route and why SGs are unsuitable to be running solely on the route. That should be done sooner rather than later. No point in bolting the gate after the horse has long done a letter.

If local TDs need to be pushed on this, don't forget the transport ministers constituency would cover phoenix park-phibsboro area of the route. You could also Maybe test ms Creighton and her new party. She should be representing parts of the southside leg of the route.

Well that is why I am asking what the source is for this.

I've lost count of the number of times where information has been posted here about planned changes on Dublin Bus over the years which has only been half the information, and people have jumped to the wrong conclusions, there's been a huge kerfuffle, and then when the changes actually took place, there wasn't an issue.

(edit: I'm not questioning the OP's bona fides, but as I say these things have had a habit of being drip fed and the whole picture not being clear).

I'm not sure that complaining about something that we have no official confirmation of and no indication of proposed service levels, and which is founded on a post on an internet message board is any use - this could still only be in the embryonic stages of planning.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

joegriffinjnr · 01-06-2015 11:08am

lxflyer wrote: »

Can I ask what the source of all of this is?

Theres a notice about the 27B up in Harristown regarding a terminus change.

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 11:15am

joegriffinjnr wrote: »

Theres a notice about the 27B up in Harristown regarding a terminus change.

Thanks for that. I'm assuming this was a union notice?

And what is the source for the information about all the other changes re the 4, 7, 46a and vehicle swaps if you don't mind me asking?

joegriffinjnr · 01-06-2015 11:46am

There was a memo about the 4 at Harristown. A notice about the 7 and Rock Rd changes in Donnybrook.

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 11:50am

Thanks for that - were these union notices or Dublin Bus notices?

I would still suggest that this is at the early planning stage by the sounds of things.

In terms of plans, they can (and from my experience usually do) change quite a few times before they finally take place at Dublin Bus.

I don't think anyone can draw conclusions about capacity drops etc. - we will have to wait and see how this develops.

monument · 01-06-2015 12:29pm

dfx- wrote: »

Dual doors are a waste of time as long as it takes so long to board.

Dual doors -- when used right -- reduce boarding time because they speed up people exiting.

VG31 · 01-06-2015 12:51pm

Double decker buses in Berlin have three doors and two stairs, one for going up and one for coming down. The back door is directly opposite the back stairs so people coming down the stairs are directly opposite the door.

I think buses here should have passenger opened exit doors like they do in parts of Germany. The driver presses a door release button and s/he opens the front doors and exiting passengers press a button beside the exit doors to open them. The exit doors then close automatically.
This means the driver only has to take responsibility for the front doors.

dfx- · 01-06-2015 1:51pm

monument wrote: »

Dual doors -- when used right -- reduce boarding time because they speed up people exiting.

not when it takes 5 minutes to board because everyone has to interact with the driver. For dual doors to work there has to be flat fare, cashless boarding. So you can enter by both sets of doors.

Until then it is a waste of time and capacity. As it is in Dublin now, it is a waste. I'm sure people standing outside the UCD flyover would be delighted to hear that the full bus that just went past has extra doors and so did the one before that.

frankyboy1986 · 01-06-2015 2:00pm

joegriffinjnr wrote: »

VT 1-20 92 seated / 27 standees Total 119
VT 21-70 92 seated / 32 standees Total 124

Not sure about The SG,s.

just out of curiosity whats the difference between vt 1-20 and vt 21-70 that gives 21-70 a slightly higher capacity?

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 2:08pm

dfx- wrote: »

not when it takes 5 minutes to board because everyone has to interact with the driver. For dual doors to work there has to be flat fare, cashless boarding. So you can enter by both sets of doors.

Until then it is a waste of time and capacity. As it is in Dublin now, it is a waste. I'm sure people standing outside the UCD flyover would be delighted to hear that the full bus that just went past has extra doors and so did the one before that.

I'd point out though that you're making a whole load of assumptions though that you really can't right now because there is nowhere near enough information to do that - if frequency is increased then the capacity issue disappears.

I wouldn't agree with your assessment on dwell times though. Even with the current fare system, dwell times would reduce with dual door operation.

It can take an age for people to disembark from a VT due to the narrow entrance/exit area.

dfx- · 01-06-2015 2:32pm

lxflyer wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with your assessment on dwell times though. Even with the current fare system, dwell times would reduce with dual door operation.

It can take an age for people to disembark from a VT due to the narrow entrance/exit area.

It can take a few seconds to alight. It can take 5 minutes to board a VT on Aston Quay or O Connell St or D'Olier St or Nassau St or UCD through sheer numbers wanting to board. Same for the 16 or 9 or 13 and especially 66s with its dual doors and wider entrances. You're shaving off 10 seconds off 5 minutes boarding, it's insignificant.

lxflyer wrote: »

I'd point out though that you're making a whole load of assumptions though that you really can't right now because there is nowhere near enough information to do that - if frequency is increased then the capacity issue disappears.

There is already a capacity issue on the N11 at rush hour, even the 118 is stuffed. There would need to be an extra four SGs an hour to accommodate the drop from six VTs. An SG every six minutes just to keep the current capacity. At that frequency, they will start to bunch up.

That's just to keep the current capacity.

the groutch · 01-06-2015 2:55pm

monument wrote: »

Dual doors -- when used right -- reduce boarding time because they speed up people exiting.

kind of a moot point unless they can get legislation in place to force drivers to open the middle doors every time, something which is unlikely because of some stupid H&S ruling 20 years ago.

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 2:57pm

dfx- wrote: »

It can take a few seconds to alight. It can take 5 minutes to board a VT on Aston Quay or O Connell St or D'Olier St or Nassau St or UCD through sheer numbers wanting to board. Same for the 16 or 9 or 13 and especially 66s with its dual doors and wider entrances. You're shaving off 10 seconds off 5 minutes boarding, it's insignificant.

There is already a capacity issue on the N11 at rush hour, even the 118 is stuffed. There would need to be an extra four SGs an hour to accommodate the drop from six VTs. An SG every six minutes just to keep the current capacity. At that frequency, they will start to bunch up.

That's just to keep the current capacity.

It takes more than seconds - stand on Dawson Street and watch how long it takes for people to disembark the single door VTs - it's longer than you seem to think.

Frankly I really think you're coming The 118 was always busy as far as Fosters Avenue, just like the 116 due to the schools.

I would certainly think that you would need a 6 minute frequency in the morning peak and I see no reason why that might not happen.

Perhaps that could be augmented with morning extra works.

I think you really are being unduly negative here.

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 2:59pm

the groutch wrote: »

kind of a moot point unless they can get legislation in place to force drivers to open the middle doors every time, something which is unlikely because of some stupid H&S ruling 20 years ago.

Or perhaps they could set about actually addressing the appalling lack of proper and consistent design standards for bus stops?

markpb · 01-06-2015 3:06pm

dfx- wrote: »

An SG every six minutes just to keep the current capacity. At that frequency, they will start to bunch up..

Bunching could be reduced by making buses stop for shorter times at bus stops, for example by providing a second door to allow people to slight faster.

thomasj · 01-06-2015 3:24pm

I wonder are they preparing for the sale of their older tri-axle buses , the ones that were introduced in 2005?

Peregrine · 01-06-2015 3:25pm

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=83432&B=&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

Does anyone know what happened to that?

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 3:35pm

I don't think any contract has been awarded yet for 2016.

Best in mind that DB will invite tenders for different bus types but not necessarily end up ordering them all - they often will seek effectively speculative quotes for different bus types.

thomasj · 01-06-2015 3:43pm

lxflyer wrote: »

I don't think any contract has been awarded yet for 2016.

Best in mind that DB will invite tenders for different bus types but not necessarily end up ordering them all - they often will seek effectively speculative quotes for different bus types.

Is db still involved in this process? I thought NTA took over ownership of new vehicles purchased?

LXFlyer · 01-06-2015 4:00pm

thomasj wrote: »

Is db still involved in this process? I thought NTA took over ownership of new vehicles purchased?

Very much so - the NTA would specify the broad requirements but DB would deal with the detailed spec and procurement.

I somehow doubt that the NTA has an engineering department?

punisher5112 · 01-06-2015 7:37pm

thomasj wrote: »

I wonder are they preparing for the sale of their older tri-axle buses , the ones that were introduced in 2005?

No chance they still have a good few years of service left in them.

They still have AV's 2000 in year and are holding on to them even longer as they need more buses as it's getting much busier out there.

The early VT 2005 were for a good few years only used Monday to Friday and would be off the road at weekends and also most would be off the road outside of peak hours.

Not so much these days as the routes they are on are so busy and seem to be getting busier all the time.

They eat the tyres off themselves as the rear axles are fixed so that was one of the main reasons they would try and have them off the road to save money also engine was bigger so use more fuel also.

punisher5112 · 01-06-2015 7:41pm

I have found the GT and SG very uncomfortable especially upstairs as it is quite cramped and the way the windows are positioned there is no place to rest up against.

I would not like to be in a GT if it rolled as the windows nearly go to the floor compared with AV,AX and VT.

dfx- · 02-06-2015 12:58am

lxflyer wrote: »

I would certainly think that you would need a 6 minute frequency in the morning peak and I see no reason why that might not happen.

What route, what evidence is there that the NTA takes into account such frequency in the recent changes? The routes that have had dual doors thrust upon them - the 14, 13, 27 have had no major frequency change like would be required on the N11 corridor. They are just operating the same timetable with less capacity buses.

Why would this be different?

punisher5112 · 02-06-2015 1:18am

The GT and SG have very awkward and narrow stairs along with having the exit door back away from the stairs.

Why couldn't the bus design have been like the RV where you came down the stairs and the door was right in front of you.

Wheelchair bay could then have been placed back past the door as to make adequate room for door position.

I know they say some drivers or union officials go and look at new models but I really have to think maybe the last few times they had a few too many sherberts or were sniffing the lighter fluid.

Drivers cabs are tight and claustrophobic also having 2 cctv monitors right in your face and no function for dimming at night apart from if the switch works an option that switches screens off while moving but then the driver has no knowledge of anything going on.

Vt types could be fitted with and extra single style door at stairs and move 1 row of seats to facilitate wheelchair bay.

lucernarian · 02-06-2015 11:57am

dfx- wrote: »

What route, what evidence is there that the NTA takes into account such frequency in the recent changes? The routes that have had dual doors thrust upon them - the 14, 13, 27 have had no major frequency change like would be required on the N11 corridor. They are just operating the same timetable with less capacity buses.

Why would this be different?

As I've brought up before, especially on the likes of the 13 which are sometimes VG-operated, there's no way that the same size chassis with fewer seats and greater floor area in the lower saloon could also have lower total capacity. And the space around the middle door will allow more people to stand without having people's faces wedged unsafely against the middle door either. That doesn't take away from

What is the exact evidence for capacity constraints existing on the 27 for instance? I go to Tallaght regularly and I hadn't heard or seen any issues. I'm not at all thinking there's no evidence but I'd like to know more about any timetable issues they have.

punisher5112 wrote:

Vt types could be fitted with and extra single style door at stairs and move 1 row of seats to facilitate wheelchair bay.

Do you mean adding a second, single-leaf door to the current VTs?

LXFlyer · 02-06-2015 12:20pm

dfx- wrote: »

What route, what evidence is there that the NTA takes into account such frequency in the recent changes? The routes that have had dual doors thrust upon them - the 14, 13, 27 have had no major frequency change like would be required on the N11 corridor. They are just operating the same timetable with less capacity buses.

Why would this be different?

Ah come on - the difference in capacity between an AV/AX and a GT/SG is miniscule when compared with the difference between a VT and a GT/SG. The impact is nowhere near the same. I haven't noticed people being left behind on the 14 anytime lately.

The 27 timetable change recently actually did increase frequency incidentally.

Stevek101 · 02-06-2015 12:43pm

Didn't the 14 change the other week increase the running time and add an extra bus to the schedule?

lucernarian · 02-06-2015 12:58pm

Stevek101 wrote: »

Didn't the 14 change the other week increase the running time and add an extra bus to the schedule?

It did. I didn't hear about changes on the 27 though! Can't believe I didn't notice that:rolleyes:

Stevek101 · 02-06-2015 1:11pm

lucernarian wrote: »

It did. I didn't hear about changes on the 27 though! Can't believe I didn't notice that:rolleyes:

I think it was in January. http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/General-News-Archive/Central-Contol-20/

LXFlyer · 02-06-2015 1:46pm

Stevek101 wrote: »

Didn't the 14 change the other week increase the running time and add an extra bus to the schedule?

Yes - the previous timetable was impossible to deliver at certain times of the day.

The new timetable has increased the running time so that the timetable can actually be delivered and the PVR increased.

Some Dublin Bus News

Comments