Should DB look at refurbing old buses?

Sam Russell

Is there any reason why old buses cannot be re-engined with more eco-friendly engines with lower emissions? Possibly even battery/electric motors?

Qrt

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is there any reason why old buses cannot be re-engined with more eco-friendly engines with lower emissions? Possibly even battery/electric motors?

It sounds horrifically expensive, especially considering buses don’t have a great lifespan.

Sam Russell

Qrt wrote: »

It sounds horrifically expensive, especially considering buses don’t have a great lifespan.

Why would that be? Buses are expensive, but engines are a small part of it. The old Routemaster buses are still on the road in London and they are over 50 yers old. Many are in daily use as tourist buses.

After all, a bus is a bus, and can be refurbished for a lot less than buying a new one.

Dats me

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why would that be? Buses are expensive, but engines are a small part of it. The old Routemaster buses are still on the road in London and they are over 50 yers old. Many are in daily use as tourist buses.

After all, a bus is a bus, and can be refurbished for a lot less than buying a new one.

How much do busses cost?

Stephen15

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why would that be? Buses are expensive, but engines are a small part of it. The old Routemaster buses are still on the road in London and they are over 50 yers old. Many are in daily use as tourist buses.

After all, a bus is a bus, and can be refurbished for a lot less than buying a new one.

What would be the point cheaper and easier just to replace them. The routemasters in London are only being kept as a novelty for tourists and work a much easier life than an in service bus. They are now only running them at weekends in London aswell. It's like saying a car can can keep going for 50 years as there's vintage and classic cars on the road. Also passengers by and large prefer modern buses anyway unless of course your an enthusiast.

Qrt

Stephen15 wrote: »

What would be the point cheaper and easier just to replace them. The routemasters in London are only being kept as a novelty for tourists and work a much easier life than an in service bus. They are now only running them at weekends in London aswell. It's like saying a car can can keep going for 50 years as there's vintage and classic cars on the road. Also passengers by and large prefer modern buses anyway unless of course your an enthusiast.

Exactly, I always hear of people singing their praises for the AV/AX/ALX buses (yous know the ones I mean) but I absolutely detest them and would be livid if they decided to retrofit them.

bk

Dats me wrote: »

How much do busses cost?

About 400k each.

Sam Russell

Stephen15 wrote: »

What would be the point cheaper and easier just to replace them. The routemasters in London are only being kept as a novelty for tourists and work a much easier life than an in service bus. They are now only running them at weekends in London aswell. It's like saying a car can can keep going for 50 years as there's vintage and classic cars on the road. Also passengers by and large prefer modern buses anyway unless of course your an enthusiast.

Cars are built as single use vehicles. They are not built to allow any upgrading - in fact quite the reverse, they are disposable. Commercial vehicles are made to be repaired easily, with everything easy to get at. Lorry bodies were frequently changed onto a new chassis.

Routemasters were in full use for forty years and it was only with the demise of London Transport and their workshops that caused their demise, plus the move to larger capacities. The Routemaster was built by London Transport, and refurbished by them as required, as was its predecessor, the RT.

It must be straightforward to change the chassis on a bus, which would include the drive chain.

bk

Given how heavily buses are used, the massive amount of KM's they drive, they are usually absolutely wrecked after 12 years. Both body and chasis. Their is very little point spending lots of money retrofitting a bus that is also falling apart.

Separately is is now policy to keep the bus fleet relatively young, reliable and well maintained.

We use to keep buses running for up to 20 years. But that lead to lots of buses breaking down on the street. That give buses and public transport a bad image. People saw buses as dirty, old and unreliable. That in turn pushed a lot of people away from buses and into cars instead. That was very self defeating.

The NTA/DB have worked very hard over the last 15 years in modernising the fleet and keeping it young and well maintained and as a result have gone a long way to fixing many of those old ideas people had about buses. They are now bright, modern, clean and most importantly reliable.

We definitely don't want to be regressing on that.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Given how heavily buses are used, the massive amount of KM's they drive, they are usually absolutely wrecked after 12 years. Both body and chasis. Their is very little point spending lots of money retrofitting a bus that is also falling apart.

Separately is is now policy to keep the bus fleet relatively young, reliable and well maintained.

We use to keep buses running for up to 20 years. But that lead to lots of buses breaking down on the street. That give buses and public transport a bad image. People saw buses as dirty, old and unreliable. That in turn pushed a lot of people away from buses and into cars instead. That was very self defeating.

The NTA/DB have worked very hard over the last 15 years in modernising the fleet and keeping it young and well maintained and as a result have gone a long way to fixing many of those old ideas people had about buses. They are now bright, modern, clean and most importantly reliable.

We definitely don't want to be regressing on that.

Well, if the bus is cleaned properly, then it will not be dirty. If it is retrofitted properly, then it will not be unreliable. If the body is rebuilt as much as needed, it will not be knackered. They redid the 81000 Dart carriages to give the a new lease of life that appears to be successful, so why not buses?

We see in other countries in Europe who still use trams that are ancient but still fully serviceable, so why not buses?

Now I do take your point about shiny new buses being more acceptable to the public. We do not manufacture buses, but we could refurbish them.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, if the bus is cleaned properly, then it will not be dirty. If it is retrofitted properly, then it will not be unreliable. If the body is rebuilt as much as needed, it will not be knackered.

Internal retrofit+bodywork + new engine = more than the cost of a new bus. Probably a sad symptom of the western world's throw away society, but there you go.

Sam Russell wrote: »

They redid the 81000 Dart carriages to give the a new lease of life that appears to be successful, so why not buses?

We see in other countries in Europe who still use trams that are ancient but still fully serviceable, so why not buses?

Now I do take your point about shiny new buses being more acceptable to the public. We do not manufacture buses, but we could refurbish them.

Electric rail vehicles have a lot less wear on them than diesel road vehicles. A lot less moving parts for example.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Internal retrofit+bodywork + new engine = more than the cost of a new bus. Probably a sad symptom of the western world's throw away society, but there you go.



Electric rail vehicles have a lot less wear on them than diesel road vehicles. A lot less moving parts for example.

You are possibly right, but it is indeed a sad reflection that rebuild is more expensive than new build. Better to spend €350,000 on a shiny new bus and sell the old one for €15,000. Personally, I cannot see how that is good economics. It is not as if it would be a one-off refurb, as the DB fleet is made up of a few models that are all basically the same (or identical).

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are possibly right, but it is indeed a sad reflection that rebuild is more expensive than new build. Better to spend €350,000 on a shiny new bus and sell the old one for €15,000. Personally, I cannot see how that is good economics. It is not as if it would be a one-off refurb, as the DB fleet is made up of a few models that are all basically the same (or identical).

Maintenance costs go through the roof the older they get and no matter how much preventative maintenance and retrofitting you do, break downs become more common the older they get.

I'm not sure why you'd want this. I don't think there is any issue with getting the government to buy new buses if needed. The issue as I see it are:

1) Getting enough drivers for the buses we already have.

2) Not having enough road space and bus stop space to fit lots of extra buses.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Maintenance costs go through the roof the older they get and no matter how much preventative maintenance and retrofitting you do, break downs become more common the older they get.

I'm not sure why you'd want this. I don't think there is any issue with getting the government to buy new buses if needed. The issue as I see it are:

1) Getting enough drivers for the buses we already have.

2) Not having enough road space and bus stop space to fit lots of extra buses.

I am thinking that the retrofit would put electric motors and batteries in.

If the refurb is done correctly, the bus will be as new - all wear parts replaced.

Anyway, I think this topic is done, I accept that new will win out.

spacetweek

You don’t hear about people refurbing cars either - same reason.

In any case all buses must be replaced by electric models in the next 5-10 years so refurbs of fuel ones isn’t possible.

Sam Russell

spacetweek wrote: »

You don’t hear about people refurbing cars either - same reason.

In any case all bus must be replaced by electric models in the next 5-10 years so refurbs of fuel ones isn’t possible.

Cars are not designed for refurbs, deliberately so. Also, they are cheaper, and the design is changed to frequently, plus the variety is too high, and are not in singular ownership.

The drive chain is part of the chassis, and the whole chassis could be changed as a single unit.

This is not likely to happen not because it is not feasible or economic, but because it is not popular.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

This is not likely to happen not because it is not feasible or economic, but because it is not popular.

It definitely isn't economic.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am thinking that the retrofit would put electric motors and batteries in.

If the refurb is done correctly, the bus will be as new - all wear parts replaced.

Batteries are very expensive. Putting lots of expensive batteries in a bus that is already wrecked and probably doesn't have much life wouldn't make sense.

I think you are massively underestimating how wrecked 12 year old DB buses are. This isn't like a 12 year old car. They would be worked very hard for 12 years, doing major mileage all day, every day.

Just look at Dublin Coach, they have a lot of 12 year old coaches bursting into flames every other week! And those are actually from really good coach manufacturers, they just have been worked too hard.

I'd suspect you would have to rip apart and replace almost the entire bus to do what your suggesting. It would likely cost as much as a new one, while giving you only a few years usage.

salmocab

I’d imagine that refitting busses to the point of getting two or three times the life span would be like triggers brush.

devnull

bk wrote: »

I think you are massively underestimating how wrecked 12 year old DB buses are. This isn't like a 12 year old car. They would be worked very hard for 12 years, doing major mileage all day, every day.

Just look at Dublin Coach, they have a lot of 12 year old coaches bursting into flames every other week! And those are actually from really good coach manufacturers, they just have been worked too hard.

Dublin Bus vehicles would not be worked so hard as the likes of the ex Aircoach Setra vehicles would have. With Dublin Bus there is peak and off-peak, 5-6 hours a day where buses are not on the road and less vehicles required at weekends, as well as peak and off-peak times which means they wouldn't be operating anything near 24x7x364 as vehicles are for Aircoach.

The thing with Dublin Coach is those 15 year old vehicles have notched up over 3,000,000km on the most intensive schedules anywhere in Ireland. City buses won't rack up anywhere near that, but they would suffer more interior wise through far higher passengers coming and going and the gearboxes and engines would have far more stop and starts than a coach.

Refurbs can work, but they are a niche market, TransDev have done some good ones in the UK but they really are the exception rather than the norm and tend to be those which are 6-7 years old which they want to repurpose, you very rarely see anything 13-14 years old having anything other than light work.

Stephen15

Sam Russell wrote: »

Cars are built as single use vehicles. They are not built to allow any upgrading - in fact quite the reverse, they are disposable. Commercial vehicles are made to be repaired easily, with everything easy to get at. Lorry bodies were frequently changed onto a new chassis.

Routemasters were in full use for forty years and it was only with the demise of London Transport and their workshops that caused their demise, plus the move to larger capacities. The Routemaster was built by London Transport, and refurbished by them as required, as was its predecessor, the RT.

It must be straightforward to change the chassis on a bus, which would include the drive chain.

I was under the impression that the reason the routemasters were kept going for so long in London was purely for sentimentality reasons and not practical reasons. Other cities in the UK and Ireland including Dublin had similar buses that were withdrawn and replaced with closed door buses in the 70s and 80s.

Sam Russell

Stephen15 wrote: »

I was under the impression that the reason the routemasters were kept going for so long in London was purely for sentimentality reasons and not practical reasons. Other cities in the UK and Ireland including Dublin had similar buses that were withdrawn and replaced with closed door buses in the 70s and 80s.

That might be true for the London Transport routes, but over 1,280 are still in use around the world.

In the 80s, the Routemaster was already over 25 years old. First one entered service in 1956, last one in 1968. Over 45% of them are still in existence. It was replaced because it required a conductor which meant that it had a very short dwell times. It also had no passenger doors that allowed passengers on or off when the bus was caught in traffic.

The remaining Routemasters are all over 50 years old. DB are scrapping (well selling off) buses that are 15 years old.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

The remaining Routemasters are all over 50 years old. DB are scrapping (well selling off) buses that are 15 years old.

London Bus (and other cities) have the same policy for all their normal fleet of buses. The Routemasters are kept around just for tourist reasons.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

London Bus (and other cities) have the same policy for all their normal fleet of buses. The Routemasters are kept around just for tourist reasons.

Yes, that is now but was not the policy when LT did their own rebuilding in their Park Royal facility. (I think they changed in the late eighties). Buses were regularly sent for refurb/rebuild every decade.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes, that is now but was not the policy when LT did their own rebuilding in their Park Royal facility. (I think they changed in the late eighties). Buses were regularly sent for refurb/rebuild every decade.

Same in Dublin in the past, they use to get refurbished. And they use to break down regularly and everyone thought buses were old and unreliable and it lead to many people moving to the car instead.

I really have no idea why you'd want to bring back those crappy old days!

Sam Russell

Some sums.

New bus €400,000. So 100 buses cost €40 million. If a bus refurb costs half that figure, then that would save €20 million. A lot of work can be done for €200,000 on an old, but serviceable bus. New engine, gear box, back axle. Replace all wear items with new. Tighten all wobbly bits. etc etc. Replace the upholstery. The basic body would need a bit of tidying, but they are usually sound.

Now if that work was carried out in Ireland instead of importing, that would be a substantial saving, and would create about 250 jobs for mechanics and other trades. It would have to be done for real, not a mickey mouse attempt at a Arthur Daly lock-up back street garage type job.

It would be worth investigating.

L1011

I would suggest it has been investigated and dismissed as inefficient already, by many operators.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

I would suggest it has been investigated and dismissed as inefficient already, by many operators.

Currently, every major business goes for outsourcing. No better way to outsource than to go and buy new.

However, it could be a standalone business. There used to be a very good business refurbing aero engines in Saggart. Not sure what happened to it.

L1011

Who do you expect to provide engines and transmissions for an old vehicle, including updating all certification to prove it meets updated Euro requirements

Do you expect the manufacturer to continue providing parts, support, manufacturers liability etc for an old vehicle which you have extensively modified?

The buses DB are currently removing from service use a bodytype last built in 2006 on a chassis last built in 2006. Alexander Dennis and Volvo will be winding down support and parts stock for them at this stage



Lufthansa Technik did overhauls - not refurbishment, completely different concept - to published manufacturer specs using original parts. They left as it was cheaper to do it elsewhere, not because of any change to the industry.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

Refurbs can work, but they are a niche market, TransDev have done some good ones in the UK but they really are the exception rather than the norm and tend to be those which are 6-7 years old which they want to repurpose, you very rarely see anything 13-14 years old having anything other than light work.

I thought the GTs that transferred from DB to GAI got a fairly significant overhaul hence why they were out of service for so long.

Stephen15

Sam Russell wrote: »

Some sums.

New bus €400,000. So 100 buses cost €40 million. If a bus refurb costs half that figure, then that would save €20 million. A lot of work can be done for €200,000 on an old, but serviceable bus. New engine, gear box, back axle. Replace all wear items with new. Tighten all wobbly bits. etc etc. Replace the upholstery. The basic body would need a bit of tidying, but they are usually sound.

Now if that work was carried out in Ireland instead of importing, that would be a substantial saving, and would create about 250 jobs for mechanics and other trades. It would have to be done for real, not a mickey mouse attempt at a Arthur Daly lock-up back street garage type job.

It would be worth investigating.

But there wouldn't be a warranty for said bus unless any such manufacturer provides. Also the older buses that DB are of a lower spec than newer ones lack of separate wheelchair and pram space, lack of centre doors etc.

Also would an overhaul last as long as a new brand new bus? There are no such companies that do such overhauls based in Ireland at the the moment and you also have to take into account that overhaul would mean a bus is off service for a couple of months at a time when being overhauled without a replacement bus.

Sam Russell

Stephen15 wrote: »

But there wouldn't be a warranty for said bus unless any such manufacturer provides. Also the older buses that DB are of a lower spec than newer ones lack of separate wheelchair and pram space, lack of centre doors etc.

Well, the refurb would carry a warranty from the company that did the refurb. There is no reason why the refurb could not refit 2nd doors, or places for wheelchairs. What I envisage is not a repaint job with a bit of service. I would see a new chassis with new engine and drive chain. Most of the old bus is fine, and replacing the wear parts would not cost more than 50% of the new bus, but would render the result equivalent to a new bus. Most of a bus does not wear out, particularly the main body. The windows, for example, would not need to be replaced no matter how many passengers have stared through them.

Also would an overhaul last as long as a new brand new bus? There are no such companies that do such overhauls based in Ireland at the the moment and you also have to take into account that overhaul would mean a bus is off service for a couple of months at a time when being overhauled without a replacement bus.

It would in essence be a new bus. It is already done with trains, as the 81000 Dart trains were redone a few years ago, and the Enterprise Carriages are being redone.

The bus would be off the road for a while, but not as long as the ones that get scrapped.

devnull

L1011 wrote: »

Who do you expect to provide engines and transmissions for an old vehicle, including updating all certification to prove it meets updated Euro requirements

Do you expect the manufacturer to continue providing parts, support, manufacturers liability etc for an old vehicle which you have extensively modified?

The buses DB are currently removing from service use a bodytype last built in 2006 on a chassis last built in 2006. Alexander Dennis and Volvo will be winding down support and parts stock for them at this stage

For the last decade or so, it's become increasingly popular for those who purchase or lease vehicles to order them as an overall package that contains Repair & Maintenance contracts with the chassis manufacturer and these contracts tend to be for a fixed period of time and give the operator the best value for money and after-market support at the relevant dealers throughout the country. This doesn't cost peanuts, but it means that you know you are going to get top notch support.

When the vehicles reach a certain age the manufacturers tend not to be so willing to enter such contracts for the vehicles or will do so at a higher price than when they were new. This means that you either have to bring things in-house or pay the higher rates. If you make substantial changes as a third party then it's unlikely that the chassis builder will enter into these kind of contracts at all following the changes.

The thing about older vehicles is that even if you give them a newer and cleaner engine and refurbish them inside, they'll still never be as fuel efficient as a new vehicle. For the last 10 years or so there has been a focus on chassis models that are lighter and also on bodywork that is lighter. The ALX400 and the original Gemini hails back to an era where weight was nowhere near as big a factor in deciding what bus to buy as it is now.

For example, people say that the New Gemini (SG) is nowhere near as well built as the old one (VG). It's true, it isn't, but the B5TL chassis is now considerably lighter than the B7TL as is the body so the fuel savings really do add up in the same way that coach operators have seen big fuel savings by switching from B12B based coaches to B11R.

Stephen15

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the refurb would carry a warranty from the company that did the refurb. There is no reason why the refurb could not refit 2nd doors, or places for wheelchairs. What I envisage is not a repaint job with a bit of service. I would see a new chassis with new engine and drive chain. Most of the old bus is fine, and replacing the wear parts would not cost more than 50% of the new bus, but would render the result equivalent to a new bus. Most of a bus does not wear out, particularly the main body. The windows, for example, would not need to be replaced no matter how many passengers have stared through them.

It would in essence be a new bus. It is already done with trains, as the 81000 Dart trains were redone a few years ago, and the Enterprise Carriages are being redone.

The bus would be off the road for a while, but not as long as the ones that get scrapped.

Well currently there is no such that exists that does returns on buses. Trains are different as they have a longer service generally staying in service for up to 40 years. Buses are essentially disposable commodities just like all motor vehicles if it was economic to do refurbs you'd find trucks, cars and other buses in the private sector all being refurbed on a regular basis but you don't.

devnull

Sam Russell wrote:

I would see a new chassis with new engine and drive chain. Most of the old bus is fine, and replacing the wear parts would not cost more than 50% of the new bus, but would render the result equivalent to a new bus. Most of a bus does not wear out, particularly the main body. The windows, for example, would not need to be replaced no matter how many passengers have stared through them.

You do realise that you can't just rip a bus body off one chassis and put it on to another one? Each bus body has been built for the quirks, layout and design of each chassis and to fit it onto something else, apart from the fact no chassis manufacturer is going to sign that off, would need all sorts of regulatory approval.

A Chassis is very expensive and what you are proposing, when you factor in all the parts, the changes that would need to be made, the regulatory approval, the labour and everything else is added in, it would have no value whatsoever in doing against buying a new vehicle. It's far more complicated and nowhere near as easy as you seem to think. The chassis is the most expensive part of the bus.

It would in essence be a new bus. It is already done with trains, as the 81000 Dart trains were redone a few years ago, and the Enterprise Carriages are being redone.

A bus is not a train and a train is not a bus, comparing the two, to be quite frank is completely ludicrous, especially when electric trains are running along rails, don't go over bumpy roads turning left and right, bumping up and down, have no engines and just have traction motors. They are completely different vehicles and also don't require fuel, so the issue with older vehicles being more fuel hungry doesn't apply to trains like it does to buses so this prolongs their life.

You also need to look at the cost of a train carriage vs a cost of a bus. There's a massive difference.

To answer your question Sam, no.

They’ve done it all before and made the right decision based on all the data at their disposal.

Believe it or not, when you’re in the business of running a fleet, you know what the different options cost.

You on the other hand seem to think it’s a smart decision to refurb, and fair play, except your figures are pure fiction.

I also roll my eyes each time you throw in your oar regarding the cost of a chassis, rear axle and engine, while repeatedly referring to the drive chain. Not to mention the ridiculous comparisons you attempt to make to Routemasters and DART rolling stock.

Sam, move with the times.