Bendy buses? Good, bad or abomination?

Stephen15

Another thing about the FTR is weren't BE planning similar for some of the regional cities.

bk

What they are doing in Belfast with BRT is basically Luas, but with a bus.

The bus stops look almost exactly like Luas stops, off bus ticket vending machines like Luas, with separate smart card validators, like Luas.

Driver is fully cut off from the passengers, like Luas (I'd assume their are emergency buttons/intercoms), see the following:

http://www.exquicity.be/en/

I'd assume it will have more ticket inspectors like Luas.

I know it is a bus, but in terms of how they are operated, probably better to think of them like a Luas in terms of operations.

- Dedicated stops just for them.
- All doors open at all stops
- Enter/exit through any door
- Tickets bought/validated off the BRT
- No interaction with the driver
- Ticket inspectors

Basically just like Luas.

devnull

bk wrote: »

What they are doing in Belfast with BRT is basically Luas, but with a bus.

The bus stops look almost exactly like Luas stops, off bus ticket vending machines like Luas, with separate smart card validators, like Luas.

Driver is fully cut off from the passengers, like Luas (I'd assume their are emergency buttons/intercoms), see the following:

http://www.exquicity.be/en/

I'd assume it will have more ticket inspectors like Luas.

I know it is a bus, but in terms of how they are operated, probably better to think of them like a Luas in terms of operations.

- Dedicated stops just for them.
- All doors open at all stops
- Enter/exit through any door
- Tickets bought/validated off the BRT
- No interaction with the driver
- Ticket inspectors

Basically just like Luas.

The FTR was sold exactly like a tram on rubber like the Glider is and had dedicated infrastructure, multi door boarding and exit, no driver interaction, dedicated stops and even dedicated lanes and road infrastructure in Swansea just for them and an extra staff member on each vehicle.

Sure the Glider will not have the same fare system problems that the FTR did, but the vehicle is essentially a Vanhool version of the same thing in many respects, with a better ticketing system which if reliable, will certainly sort out one of the big issues with the FTR, if such ticketing system is reliable and properly policed.

However the costs of running these is going to be far more than a Mercedes Citaro if Translink didn't agree a maintenance contract with it, with far more expensive parts that will not be so easy to get hold of and virtually zero resale market.

I've also read that the spec of these vehicles means that they are only going to be capable of 40mph as well, although it's not clear if that is a design limit or one that is being placed because of standing passengers.

It has a better chance of succeeding than the FTR, but it's nowhere near a foregone conclusion.

dfx-

I use the three bendibuses still left in service in Coventry. They are a bit scruffy and have a pointless barrier at the back door. I'd prefer a VT which can carry the same amount of people.

Thankfully though, Coventry's fleet is hugely mixed between Enviro400 MMCs, old Dennis Tridents and the odd single decker, all single doors. The bendibuses are all on route 4 and labelled as such. But you're a likely to get a single door bus old or new instead.

All their newer buses are single doors, so despite the existence of rare enough (these days) bendibuses, they are happy to go on with single doors. There isn't the torturous debate that exists in Dublin about how many doors, bus stop redesign and how the bus should be best utilised.

There's no need for dual doors, Dublin are over paying for what they're getting.

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

I use the three bendibuses still left in service in Coventry. They are a bit scruffy and have a pointless barrier at the back door. I'd prefer a VT which can carry the same amount of people.

I wouldn't because the dwell time on buses with one door and driver interaction is chronic and this is something that is very much specific to the UK and Ireland and this problem tends not to exist in other countries in Mainland Europe, I do not know why we are so behind the curve ball but we are.

Both in the UK and Ireland in big cities dwell time at stops is massive, especially through the city center and other busy areas. I used to ride the 4/7 from the city center to Ballsbridge and literally half the journey time was dwell time without fail. A multiple door bus with no driver interaction can load the same number of people in 5-10 seconds that the current setup will take a few minutes for.

All their newer buses are single doors, so despite the existence of rare enough (these days) bendibuses, they are happy to go on with single doors. There isn't the torturous debate that exists in Dublin about how many doors, bus stop redesign and how the bus should be best utilised.

I wouldn't look to the UK outside London for an efficient way of running a bus service, because honestly whilst the UK does some things right, there are a lot better examples to be found in mainland Europe

There's no need for dual doors, Dublin are over paying for what they're getting.

What we're paying for right now is for a dual door system which is still being operated on infrastructure and a fare and ticketing system that does not make the benefit of it - this is similar to the problem with the articulated vehicles in the UK in the past. They've put vehicles on the routes but see nowhere near the benefits of them because the operating environment is such that it does not allow them to see such benefits.

A system that reduces dwell time would allow buses to complete their journey faster, meaning less buses would be needed to operate the timetable and also attract new passengers which would allow more funding to be freed up to beef up services elsewhere that really need the buses rather than spending chronic amounts of time at bus stops.

Bray Head

The problem with introducing bendy buses in Dublin is an organisational one, not an engineering one.

cgcsb

Bambi wrote: »

Even if you disregard the Dublin bus implementation, articulated buses don't add any benefits to the existing fleet and they bring their own set of fairly substantial problems so there's no point to them.

The bouncing wasn't just the middle it was often the entire rear carriage, like there was some kind of suspension engagement system that was turned off.

Well multi door operation and off board ticketing are the benefits.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

All the new double deckers are two door, and most drivers now open the rear doors. The buses with only a front door are from 2004, those from 2012 and later all have rear doors.

You can't rely on the driver to open the back door, you still have to battle your way to the front if you want to be sure not to miss your stop.

cgcsb

Bray Head wrote: »

I had read somewhere that double deckers are more common in former British colonies because rail bridges are generally built with a higher standard clearance.

Is this true?

I doubt that's true. You don't see double deckers in Aus or NZ, USA, Can, India. They do have them in Hong Kong and in South Africa in certain parts whether that's a British or a Dutch colony is a matter of historical debate. Most of the rest of the British colonies are very poor countries with very little formal public transport.

cgcsb

Bambi wrote: »

Buses have reduced speed limits when there are standing passengers..standing=slow

It's not formula 1 like. Speedy in an urban context meaning you can comfortably get from O'Connell Bridge to the M50 in 25 minutes at peak times. It needn't be a 120km/h bullet bus.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

You can't rely on the driver to open the back door, you still have to battle your way to the front if you want to be sure not to miss your stop.

Why would you expect the rear doors to be opened on a bendy bus but not on a double decker? I notice that rear doors are opened much more these days than heretofore.

cgcsb

Let's see how Belfast pans out, there may be lessons to be learned.
Using Belfast as a test case may be taken with a pinch of salt though. Even the oldest parts of Belfast were built only 150 years ago with broad streets in mind. Dublin is much older and retains a lot of it's Viking and Norman era layout in central areas. Much of Belfast was bulldozed in the 1960s to let the road engineers turn very central areas into motorway junctions. Not to mention the frequent bombings that has resulted in much of central Belfast being a surface car park today.

On the plus side for comparative purposes Belfast has a much worse anti-social element. I see the Belfast Bike scheme has seen some bikes cut out of their stations with angle grinders and dumped in the Lagan. I wonder what will become of their ticket machines and fancy new bus stops after dark.

I've been to see the Belfast BRT layout, which is mostly complete at this stage. I have to say I'm not that impressed, the same pinch points. Bus lanes become left turning lanes at very busy junctions. I think they've under designed it somewhat. One thing that I found impressive was that there is already a camera system issuing fines to drivers using the bus lanes. we needed that in Dublin a decade ago.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why would you expect the rear doors to be opened on a bendy bus but not on a double decker? I notice that rear doors are opened much more these days than heretofore.

Well I expect Dublin Bus to be bared from tendering for the operation of swiftway.

ncounties

In relation to the original question posed by this thread, bendy-buses that are supplementary and complimentary to good existing infrastructure are great, e.g. what they do (and I have experienced) in Vienna. You use the citys extensive U-Bahn network, and when you get to a suburban station (which is still underground - MN take heed!) and go up the escalator, there is a bendy-bus waiting for you, or arrives shortly there-after, and does a lap of the outer reaches of the area, therefore promoting modal shift towards public transport as opposed to those individuals ín the outer sphere of influence of the station deciding it´s too difficult to get to their nearest station, and use a car instead for their journey.

In contrast, using bendy-buses as the backbone of your infrastructure is ridiculous. Firstly, the space required on road will be as intrusive as an on-road tram network, secondly they would be just as susceptible to traffic incidents, as they are not totally separated and could lead to the network clogging up in an incident, thirdly, the modal shift from cars to buses is less than that, that would happen if an on road tram system was implemented, as trams have a better public perception, and fourth, although the initial investment would be less than that for a tram network, trams generally last longer than buses. Look at Vienna, Lisbon, Helsinki etc. etc. for examples of this.

Personally, I have always thought the over arching strategy for our public infrastructure should be:
1. Busiest routes/Major nodes in public transport/Most densely frequented areas (intercity railway stations/Dublin airport/central shopping districts/areas of concentrated employment) serviced by: underground rail.
2. Busiest bus routes: converted were/when financially and physically feasible to light rail (over time conversion occurring as and when funds are available.
3. Whilst point 2 is being rolled out, routes not yet serviced by light rail, are served by larger, higher capacity buses (including bendy ones!).
4. Standard buses and increased cycle infrastructure.

In an ideal world (or a forward thinking nation) having point 2 on a route would not prevent point 1 being implemented, nor would point 3 prevent point 2. Unfortunately I feel in Ireland, it would be the opposite.