Dublin Bus - can anyone be happy with the price and service?

Aard · 04-01-2015 11:10PM

Good to know. Unfortunately we have a legacy of closely-spaced bus stops that will take a long time to change.

AlekSmart · 05-01-2015 12:55AM

lucernarian wrote: »

Will they retroactively apply the newer assumed passenger weight mentioned above to the other classes of bus in the fleet?

No,as those vehicles were constructed to the Construction & Use Standards then in force,thus the capacities remain as these weights are what they were designed to bear.

Given that one of Aleksmart's main points was the reduction in capacity owing to an NTA specification, I still regard quoting seat numbers as being misleading. Even if there is uncertainty over standee capacity, wouldnt removing seats in general lead to MORE space for standees?? Its been my experience from using the different DART and Commuter Irish Rail stock over the years.

Nothing misleading about it at all.

The regulations accurately refer to passengers over and above the seated capacity as "additional".

This means that actual capacity refers to seated load,with additional passengers only carried during Peak-Traffic hours or to prevent undue hardship being imposed on intending passengers.

I don't mean to be a contrary grouch about it but I still don't see this talk of "seat reductions" as being anything but a red herring.

It's not about any percieved grouchiness at all,the "talk of seat reductions" is factual and reflects the actual reduction in available capacity,eg: from 72 to 64/67 x by the number of vehicles concerned.

If there is more space for standees on busy routes like the 4 than there is on the GTs, surely it would be a good idea to use them?

It should equally be borne in mind that the Disabled/Buggy Space on more recent Bus types is not,of itself,intended to provide or maximize "additional" capacity.

True "Standee" Bus operation is a significantly different area,and requires a different set of operational guidelines,not to mention legislation to facilitate it. (Which may be more suitable as stand-alone thread ?)

(This is assuming that total capacity as legally defined and self-insured by CIE is bigger than at least some of the previous classes)

AlekSmart · 05-01-2015 12:58AM

Aard wrote: »

Good to know. Unfortunately we have a legacy of closely-spaced bus stops that will take a long time to change.

Always worth seeing how "The Germans" approach these things.....;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpUt7n1los

Tchuss ....:D

foggy_lad · 05-01-2015 01:13AM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Always worth seeing how "The Germans" approach Used to approach these things many many years ago.....;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpUt7n1los

Tchuss ....:D

Fixed your post

lucernarian · 05-01-2015 04:27PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Nothing misleading about it at all.

The regulations accurately refer to passengers over and above the seated capacity as "additional".

According to that original legislation it seems to mention a maximum standing capacity of up to 8 pax on the lower deck which presumably must have been modified since. So I am not sure how seriously I should take that source. But for argument's sake let's at least assume that it's ok to carry standing passengers if all seats are filled (meaning they would miss the bus if they weren't allowed to stand)

It's not about any percieved grouchiness at all,the "talk of seat reductions" is factual and reflects the actual reduction in available capacity,eg: from 72 to 64/67 x by the number of vehicles concerned.

I don't really understand why you talked about seated capacity when you made a point that was very much about capacity on routes and the NTA's recognition that it was a problem on a number of routes. I'm saying that the number of seats is not relevant when they're replaced by room for standing passengers - whether as an inadvertent bonus of extra buggy and wheelchair space or in the case of the removal of 2 seats for a second door.

27 standees is what the new buses can carry (only when passengers suffer "undue hardship" i.e. they would have missed the bus otherwise, versus 14/15 for some other types, I don't know what loss of capacity has been experienced by the introduction of the SG class. A reduction in seating cannot be described as a reduction in capacity unless extra standees cannot make up the difference. You have not demonstrated that in this instance.

So, if you can't demonstrate any reduction in *capacity* as opposed to *seating* then I can't accept any aspect of your point as being either true or relevant. Hence why I called it a red herring. I have posted the difference in capacities and with my sources, the SG class carries more total passengers than most other 2-axle classes in the company when it needs to, i.e. when passengers would otherwise be left behind or during peak-time etc. Simply describing some of those as additional or during peak-time doesn't change the max total allowed on board the bus.

True "Standee" Bus operation is a significantly different area,and requires a different set of operational guidelines,not to mention legislation to facilitate it. (Which may be more suitable as stand-alone thread ?)

I fundamentally disagree. I fail to see how it's a significantly different area given that the legislation (which seems to have been updated since 1963 also) mentions "undue hardship" which can easily be construed as any passenger who would otherwise miss their bus due to seats being full. As people tend to sit in seats before standing on a bus, isn't that basically what happens in normal operations?

Which leads me to what I think about Dublin Bus' latest efforts at fleet modernisation. If the buses are cheaper to run and can allow for greater variations in the sorts of passenger being carried (more buggies OR standing passengers) and have faster boarding times then I am happier with the service than would have been the case.

end of the road · 05-01-2015 04:39PM

lucernarian wrote: »

According to that original legislation it seems to mention a maximum standing capacity of up to 8 pax on the lower deck which presumably must have been modified since. So I am not sure how seriously I should take that source. But for argument's sake let's at least assume that it's ok to carry standing passengers if all seats are filled (meaning they would miss the bus if they weren't allowed to stand)

I don't really understand why you talked about seated capacity when you made a point that was very much about capacity on routes and the NTA's recognition that it was a problem on a number of routes. I'm saying that the number of seats is not relevant when they're replaced by room for standing passengers - whether as an inadvertent bonus of extra buggy and wheelchair space or in the case of the removal of 2 seats for a second door.

27 standees is what the new buses can carry (only when passengers suffer "undue hardship" i.e. they would have missed the bus otherwise, versus 14/15 for some other types, I don't know what loss of capacity has been experienced by the introduction of the SG class. A reduction in seating cannot be described as a reduction in capacity unless extra standees cannot make up the difference. You have not demonstrated that in this instance.

So, if you can't demonstrate any reduction in *capacity* as opposed to *seating* then I can't accept any aspect of your point as being either true or relevant. Hence why I called it a red herring. I have posted the difference in capacities and with my sources, the SG class carries more total passengers than most other 2-axle classes in the company when it needs to, i.e. when passengers would otherwise be left behind or during peak-time etc. Simply describing some of those as additional or during peak-time doesn't change the max total allowed on board the bus.

I fundamentally disagree. I fail to see how it's a significantly different area given that the legislation (which seems to have been updated since 1963 also) mentions "undue hardship" which can easily be construed as any passenger who would otherwise miss their bus due to seats being full. As people tend to sit in seats before standing on a bus, isn't that basically what happens in normal operations?

Which leads me to what I think about Dublin Bus' latest efforts at fleet modernisation. If the buses are cheaper to run and can allow for greater variations in the sorts of passenger being carried (more buggies OR standing passengers) and have faster boarding times then I am happier with the service than would have been the case.

but if they cary less passengers over all, being cheeper to run and less dwell times along with being able to cary various types of passengers will be only a half solution compared to busses capible of carying larger amounts of passengers which are needed on the high capacity routes.

lucernarian · 05-01-2015 06:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

but if they cary less passengers over all, being cheeper to run and less dwell times along with being able to cary various types of passengers will be only a half solution compared to busses capible of carying larger amounts of passengers which are needed on the high capacity routes.

Where has anyone shown that they actually carry less passengers? That's my point, talking about *seats* is not the same as total capacity.

Total capacity of a VG is 88 according to the plate on the bus. Total capacity of a GT is 83 according to the plate on the bus (though given there's fewer seats on the bottom deck, there should be more space but this is due to the calculations for total max gross weight of the vehicle). Total capacity of a SG is 91 to 94 depending on one's view of how the foldable seats are counted.

By my calculator, that tells me the SG carries more. Now I'm fine with people saying that the max capacities written on the plate is just wrong or that number can't fit etc. but there should be some concrete proof of this or at least a real and direct comparison of how many people actually can be carried whilst standing on the bottom deck. I certainly don't accept that removing seats from a lower deck means a reduction in capacity. If people are able to stand where those seats once were then that would make the issue moot...

LXFlyer · 05-01-2015 07:26PM

lucernarian wrote: »

Where has anyone shown that they actually carry less passengers? That's my point, talking about *seats* is not the same as total capacity.

Total capacity of a VG is 88 according to the plate on the bus. Total capacity of a GT is 83 according to the plate on the bus (though given there's fewer seats on the bottom deck, there should be more space but this is due to the calculations for total max gross weight of the vehicle). Total capacity of a SG is 91 to 94 depending on one's view of how the foldable seats are counted.

By my calculator, that tells me the SG carries more. Now I'm fine with people saying that the max capacities written on the plate is just wrong or that number can't fit etc. but there should be some concrete proof of this or at least a real and direct comparison of how many people actually can be carried whilst standing on the bottom deck. I certainly don't accept that removing seats from a lower deck means a reduction in capacity. If people are able to stand where those seats once were then that would make the issue moot...

Realistically there are not any more standees on the SG than any other type of bus as people don't necessarily scrunch up into the relevant areas. Also you will frequently have people with buggies on board so the total standee number will fall.

You certainly will never see 27 standees - whatever the plate may say. That figure is almost reminiscent of the plate on the old KC single deck which originally stated 50 standees - physically impossible. A driver on the old 47 route managed 44 standees one night, but people were squashed up to the doors. It would be the same with 27 standees on an SG.

On average you'll get about 10-12 standees and no more.

It's pointless going on about what the plate says. Reality tends to be rather different, and the main fact is that every new double deck has 8 less seats than before.

foggy_lad · 05-01-2015 07:36PM

Dublin Bus really needs to go back to basics where the bye-laws are concerned.

years ago you were not allowed stand unless all seats in both lower and upper saloon were full, Unless of course you were unable to climb the stairs.

When standing you had to move down the back of the bus to allow others to board and failing to move back down the bus usually resulted in shouts from the driver that the bus was going nowhere till passengers complied with his directions. you also had to make room to allow passengers exit by the centre doors unless the doorwell was full of folded buggies and shopping.

but then years ago there were inspectors at the busy city centre stops who would travel around the city hopping between buses making sure all seats were filled and shouting at numpties passengers who clamped onto the handrail just behind the driver. Passengers knew they would be put off a bus if they did not do as they were told by drivers or inspectors but they no longer have any fear of this for some reason!

poggyone · 05-01-2015 08:54PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Dublin Bus really needs to go back to basics where the bye-laws are concerned.

years ago you were not allowed stand unless all seats in both lower and upper saloon were full, Unless of course you were unable to climb the stairs.

When standing you had to move down the back of the bus to allow others to board and failing to move back down the bus usually resulted in shouts from the driver that the bus was going nowhere till passengers complied with his directions. you also had to make room to allow passengers exit by the centre doors unless the doorwell was full of folded buggies and shopping.

but then years ago there were inspectors at the busy city centre stops who would travel around the city hopping between buses making sure all seats were filled and shouting at numpties passengers who clamped onto the handrail just behind the driver. Passengers knew they would be put off a bus if they did not do as they were told by drivers or inspectors but they no longer have any fear of this for some reason!

In DB passengers became customers, and the customer is alway right.
After a few letters of complaint sent in about a driver, the driver says to themselves “Fuc* this, i don’t need the grief, let them stand wherever they want.” Thats why you see buses go by stops full down stairs but with empty seats upstairs.
Drivers with a bit of sense won’t get involved, not worth it, and before you start blaming the driver ask yourself would you, knowing it will only cause problems for you?

jaymcg91 · 05-01-2015 09:38PM

The amount of money they charge, you're damn right I'm a customer. If any kind of inspector shouted at me I'd be sending complaints just to about everybody and anybody I could think of

!

end of the road · 05-01-2015 10:31PM

jaymcg91 wrote: »

The amount of money they charge, you're damn right I'm a customer. If any kind of inspector shouted at me I'd be sending complaints just to about everybody and anybody I could think of !

good for you, hopefully you would be told where to go. if an inspector or driver shouts to you to move down the bus, you do it. you don't question it, you do it

The Black Oil · 05-01-2015 11:36PM

I mostly lurk on this forum and it's got a good mix of topics, more than I've time to read, tbh. I read a chunk of this thread last night and have forgotten some of the points I can relate to, but here goes.

In general, I feel the service I use is above average with room for improvement. Sometimes it's not clear why some DB decisions are made the way they are. It might be communication (web), clarity of the information and so on. Or for example, why the older vehicles are used for probably the busiest morning services (e.g. first 33X of the day) given the demand on capacity. I presume this is simply due to availability. Tbf, they are now running two of these side-by-side as a trial. Early last year some changes were made with the 33X. It was a bit of a mess, bus often full, driving past. This went on for a while (see the thread in DCN). I complained to DB and my TDs and the NTA. Drivers and pax seemed unhappy. Some responses were generic, others were not. I do not mind standing on the bus - I simply wanted it to turn up and to get on it. Again tbf, things did eventually settle down. In that sense I do think they listen and want to hear feedback.

The fleet has improved. I agree with the poster who mentioned a preference for coach type seats over benches. I've used a Leap Card for a while now, I can't recall the last time I used cash. Fares have come down...I think into the city used to be 3.50 for me and it's now 2.60. Other than that, I use a rambler (when I'm using 4 buses a day). Negative attitudes from drivers - I can't recall the last time I've seen this. The last time I saw an dodgy behaviour on the bus was last summer, it took about 15-20 minutes for AGS to arrive - not a DB issue. I mostly commute during rush hour, but I was off that day and the row kicked off at about 4:30.

On the more negative end, I think there was some talk here about the fare calculator on the website. I've mixed feelings in that I've never really had any issues getting info, though perhaps it could be simplified for intuitiveness. As I said earlier, I've not noticed an issue with the attitudes of drivers. Language barriers might be more of a potential issue, imo. When I use 4 buses a day the return leg can be a stab in the dark, particularly if there's a driver change in Donnybrook (I loathe this) that takes too long. In general, if I've not reached Dawson St by 5:45 ish I don't have much chance of catching my next bus. If I'm completely stuck, sometimes I have other work supervision/meetings after 5, I get the train as a last resort, but if that fails, I'm screwed and will be late. Since I don't deal strictly in the positive, sometimes it does feel like drudgery and so frustrating to simply get from A-B, across the city.

During the water protests a while back, there were some diversions going on and the website said my route was now departing from Mountjoy Square at 4:15. I, like many, was aiming for the 6pm departure. The website did not indicate whether departures after 4:15 would continue from Mountjoy Square or what was happening. Hence why many of us were standing around like ejects at 6:15 wondering what was up. I know the disruption is not DB's fault, but it was a little detail like this that was lacking on the site.

Sarannewrap wrote: »

I live in lusk and We have one bus. It's not nearly as frequent as it needs to be and it takes the guts of two hours to get to town. It's ridiculous

Agree somewhat. I don't understand the lack of a real time info sign in the village heading to Skerries. I emailed DB on this before. The reply was generic. Maybe the logic is that Lusk doesn't one on that side of the road since most of the pax load will have emptied by the time it gets to Lusk. I dunno. Surely, though, it would be useful to have one if you're Skerries bound as not everyone has a smartphone and ETAs are useful regardless of direction. Also, now and then I wish the 33 would just ignore Swords altogether, or at least the bit from Coláiste Choilm to the stop across from Fingal Co. Co. After Drumcondra and Santry, this often feels like a bottleneck.

If someone were to ask me if DB as an overall service is reliable I'd hesitate a little. Reliable in that it turns up 98% of the time, but reliable in quality? That's more debatable. I've used DB for a good few years through school, college and work. The improvements have come, but to borrow from a 2007 election slogan, there is more to do.

AlekSmart · 06-01-2015 12:08AM

lucernarian wrote: »

According to that original legislation it seems to mention a maximum standing capacity of up to 8 pax on the lower deck which presumably must have been modified since. So I am not sure how seriously I should take that source. But for argument's sake let's at least assume that it's ok to carry standing passengers if all seats are filled (meaning they would miss the bus if they weren't allowed to stand)

I don't really understand why you talked about seated capacity when you made a point that was very much about capacity on routes and the NTA's recognition that it was a problem on a number of routes. I'm saying that the number of seats is not relevant when they're replaced by room for standing passengers - whether as an inadvertent bonus of extra buggy and wheelchair space or in the case of the removal of 2 seats for a second door.

27 standees is what the new buses can carry (only when passengers suffer "undue hardship" i.e. they would have missed the bus otherwise, versus 14/15 for some other types, I don't know what loss of capacity has been experienced by the introduction of the SG class. A reduction in seating cannot be described as a reduction in capacity unless extra standees cannot make up the difference. You have not demonstrated that in this instance.

So, if you can't demonstrate any reduction in *capacity* as opposed to *seating* then I can't accept any aspect of your point as being either true or relevant. Hence why I called it a red herring. I have posted the difference in capacities and with my sources, the SG class carries more total passengers than most other 2-axle classes in the company when it needs to, i.e. when passengers would otherwise be left behind or during peak-time etc. Simply describing some of those as additional or during peak-time doesn't change the max total allowed on board the bus.

I fundamentally disagree. I fail to see how it's a significantly different area given that the legislation (which seems to have been updated since 1963 also) mentions "undue hardship" which can easily be construed as any passenger who would otherwise miss their bus due to seats being full. As people tend to sit in seats before standing on a bus, isn't that basically what happens in normal operations?

Which leads me to what I think about Dublin Bus' latest efforts at fleet modernisation. If the buses are cheaper to run and can allow for greater variations in the sorts of passenger being carried (more buggies OR standing passengers) and have faster boarding times then I am happier with the service than would have been the case.

The capacities quoted are current. (2014)

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_1961_0024.PDF

Road Traffic (Passenger Accommodation of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles) Regulations, 1962 (S.I. 143/62).

lucernarian · 06-01-2015 12:17AM

lxflyer wrote: »

Realistically there are not any more standees on the SG than any other type of bus as people don't necessarily scrunch up into the relevant areas. Also you will frequently have people with buggies on board so the total standee number will fall.

You certainly will never see 27 standees - whatever the plate may say. That figure is almost reminiscent of the plate on the old KC single deck which originally stated 50 standees - physically impossible. A driver on the old 47 route managed 44 standees one night, but people were squashed up to the doors. It would be the same with 27 standees on an SG.

On average you'll get about 10-12 standees and no more.

It's pointless going on about what the plate says. Reality tends to be rather different, and the main fact is that every new double deck has 8 less seats than before.

I can imagine 44 standees were a squeeze :eek:

But it's equally pointless to go on about "reality" when there are nothing but anecdotes and "averages" to go by. I cannot believe any situation would exist where a bus similar to the original wright Geminis (the VGs) but comes with a double door and less downstairs (and more foldable seating) seating somehow translates into a "loss of capacity".

Unless you or anybody else can translate the reality of fewer seats on the newest buses into it actually making a blind bit of difference to total capacity or people standing out in the rain for want of a seat space to stand on the bus then I will maintain that capacity is gradually increasing now that:

Some AVs are being brought back into service,

And having more buses which don't suffer from the Irish/non-london UK peculiarities about having a single operational door on a double decker.

AlekSmart · 06-01-2015 07:20PM

lucernarian wrote: »

.

But it's equally pointless to go on about "reality" when there are nothing but anecdotes and "averages" to go by. I cannot believe any situation would exist where a bus similar to the original wright Geminis (the VGs) but comes with a double door and less downstairs (and more foldable seating) seating somehow translates into a "loss of capacity".

Unless you or anybody else can translate the reality of fewer seats on the newest buses into it actually making a blind bit of difference to total capacity or people standing out in the rain for want of a seat space to stand on the bus then I will maintain that capacity is gradually increasing now that:

Some AVs are being brought back into service

And having more buses which don't suffer from the Irish/non-london UK peculiarities about having a single operational door on a double decker.

The issue appears to becoming some form of endless-loop,but I can't imagine anybody on here wanting to engage in fruitless appempts to alter perceptions to little avail ?

All I can do is add my own anecdotes and averages,which come from daily operational experience,whereby GT/SG class buses are filling up significantly earlier than the previous AX types.

During Morning peak,from observation,this is resulting in intending passengers,who previously were able to board,now having to use the preceeding stop,or walking instead some 500 mtrs further down to a main road with additional routes serving it.

One of the "unforseen" (by some) issues surrounding the Dual Door vehicles is the continual use of the Centre Doorwell to stand in,which totally negates any and all benefits of the type,as passengers who DO attempt to utilize them cannot force their way through.
(This,I would add,is in spite of REPEATED requests to keep the centre-doorwell clear)

During evening-peak,a somewhat different dynamic takes place,to the same end,but with Buggies,Wheelchairs,Shopping Trolleys and large amounts of baggage assuming a greater significance.

This often results in conflict between the wheeled devices and those wishing/insisting on standing.

The evening peak passenger also displays a far more marked reluctance to move along to the rear of the bus,even though they will be actually CLOSER to the exit door by doing so.

In short, the added,and often ill-tempered posturing,which surrounds any attempt to establish a pattern or flow to operation invariably results in longer dwell times than I would experience operating a single door vehicle,as there is substantially more to double-door operation than merely pressing another button.

I've no issue with these observations being regarded as "Pointless" however,that does not prevent them from being a daily reality for many.

lucernarian · 07-01-2015 03:21PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

The issue appears to becoming some form of endless-loop,but I can't imagine anybody on here wanting to engage in fruitless appempts to alter perceptions to little avail ?

All I can do is add my own anecdotes and averages,which come from daily operational experience,whereby GT/SG class buses are filling up significantly earlier than the previous AX types.

During Morning peak,from observation,this is resulting in intending passengers,who previously were able to board,now having to use the preceeding stop,or walking instead some 500 mtrs further down to a main road with additional routes serving it.

The remainder of the post was about double-doors and the point I'm still making concerns capacity. Double-doors and loss of seats are two different aspects of the "Dublin Bus" problem and I will limit myself to the original seating claim.

I found that reply to be far more reasonable and fair, in that you are sharing an opinion, one which I and many others here value for all sorts of reasons, not least of which being an employee of the driver grade.

But I started out with claims that the new buses were resulting in a lack of capacity on key routes and then more extravagant claims that it was a loss of seating that was behind it and that the NTA recognised this and allowed the release of 20 AVs specifically as a result of this hypothetical loss of capacity claim.

I still can't see how the physical removal of seats in exchange for floor space from a given bus with given chassis and bodywork could lead to a reduction in capacity. As the GT and SG buses have very similar internal volume and floor area, an SG with fewer seats and more foldable ones carries more passengers assuming all seats are filled already and passengers would otherwise be left behind. Otherwise, someone had better tell Irish Rail to put the seats back into those refurbished Darts! I saw your comments as opinion being bandied around as fact. Other people in the forum have made similar claims and reductions of capacity of 2% etc are completely ad-hoc and arbitrary if the only reason to say it is that a newer bus model has fewer seats installed than previous models. Nor has it been shown that a bus is unable to carry lots of standing passengers assuming it is operating during crowded conditions. And we all know that packed buses are a common sight. So if there is more space on the newer bus for passengers to stand then the previous model of double-decker, then...

AlekSmart · 07-01-2015 08:25PM

lucernarian wrote: »

.

I still can't see how the physical removal of seats in exchange for floor space from a given bus with given chassis and bodywork could lead to a reduction in capacity. As the GT and SG buses have very similar internal volume and floor area, an SG with fewer seats and more foldable ones carries more passengers assuming all seats are filled already and passengers would otherwise be left behind. Otherwise, someone had better tell Irish Rail to put the seats back into those refurbished Darts! I saw your comments as opinion being bandied around as fact. Other people in the forum have made similar claims and reductions of capacity of 2% etc are completely ad-hoc and arbitrary if the only reason to say it is that a newer bus model has fewer seats installed than previous models. Nor has it been shown that a bus is unable to carry lots of standing passengers assuming it is operating during crowded conditions. And we all know that packed buses are a common sight. So if there is more space on the newer bus for passengers to stand then the previous model of double-decker, then...

Interesting to learn today of a colleague driving a GT, being stopped at Parkgate St,by a Traffic Corps Garda,who advised the Busdriver that in his (The Garda's) opinion the Bus was overloaded and would not be permitted to continue unless some of the "additional" passengers were accomodated on another vehicle.

Luckily,some of those standing passengers were close to their destination and volunteered to leave.

It appears there were 11 :eek: such standing passengers and one buggy.

This is of course anecodtal,but if true,it represents a first from my perspective....:)

VG31 · 07-01-2015 09:06PM

I have seen in the past dangerously overloaded buses. I have seen occasionally seen buses full from the windscreen to the back but nothing like this incident:

This stands out in particular, the bus (a GT) was completely full with standing passengers downstairs and upstairs! And they were school kids aged around 10-11. That was very dangerous in my opinon and it was also very difficult for people to get down the stairs.
There were standing for at least 30 mins and were still there after I got off. The driver did not ask them to move downstairs.

lucernarian · 08-01-2015 12:18AM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting to learn today of a colleague driving a GT, being stopped at Parkgate St,by a Traffic Corps Garda,who advised the Busdriver that in his (The Garda's) opinion the Bus was overloaded and would not be permitted to continue unless some of the "additional" passengers were accomodated on another vehicle.

Luckily,some of those standing passengers were close to their destination and volunteered to leave.

It appears there were 11 :eek: such standing passengers and one buggy.

This is of course anecodtal,but if true,it represents a first from my perspective....:)

It would be a first for me too! Though I'd say the gardaí are known for making their own judgement on law enforcement. If the posts I've seen on this forum from some cyclists are true, the gardaí are well able to direct cyclists to marked cycle lanes even though there is no legal obligation any more for cyclists to use them. I wonder if such an incident would have happened if it involved an SG... :pac:

But I wonder what that story changes about the perceived loss of capacity thanks to the new SG or double doors or whatever is behind the vanishing seats on double deckers. Maybe stories like the above just mean that more people are using the bus? The easiest answer doesn't have to be the incorrect answer.

cdebru · 08-01-2015 09:30AM

lucernarian wrote: »

It would be a first for me too! Though I'd say the gardaí are known for making their own judgement on law enforcement. If the posts I've seen on this forum from some cyclists are true, the gardaí are well able to direct cyclists to marked cycle lanes even though there is no legal obligation any more for cyclists to use them. I wonder if such an incident would have happened if it involved an SG... :pac:

But I wonder what that story changes about the perceived loss of capacity thanks to the new SG or double doors or whatever is behind the vanishing seats on double deckers. Maybe stories like the above just mean that more people are using the bus? The easiest answer doesn't have to be the incorrect answer.

Or it could mean that the 1963 acted quoted by Alek is the actual law currently and that 8 passengers standing is the limit irrespective of any given capacity for different buses.

I have had a quick look and I can't see any update to the 1963 act there maybe the power for a minister to designate use which differs from the 63 act,hard to see.

LXFlyer · 08-01-2015 10:29AM

cdebru wrote: »

Or it could mean that the 1963 acted quoted by Alek is the actual law currently and that 8 passengers standing is the limit irrespective of any given capacity for different buses.

I have had a quick look and I can't see any update to the 1963 act their maybe the power for a minister to designate use which differs from the 63 act,hard to see.

I think this is the point - and on that basis there is no doubt that the newer low floor double deck dual door buses do represent a reduction in capacity.

lucernarian · 08-01-2015 11:01AM

lxflyer wrote: »

I think this is the point - and on that basis there is no doubt that the newer low floor double deck dual door buses do represent a reduction in capacity.

It would indeed. I'm still presuming that something has superceded it since but it suggests there has been a lot of law-breaking going on in CIE over the years! How many people could stand on the articulated buses? (AWs I think they were)

LXFlyer · 08-01-2015 11:04AM

lucernarian wrote: »

It would indeed. I'm still presuming that something has superceded it since but it suggests there has been a lot of law-breaking going on in CIE over the years! How many people could stand on the articulated buses? (AWs I think they were)

The figure of 8 standees only applies to double deck buses.

lucernarian · 08-01-2015 12:42PM

lxflyer wrote: »

The figure of 8 standees only applies to double deck buses.

Ah yes, my bad. On phone currently, can you tell me the situation in the act for single deck buses? IIRC it was more lenient.

foggy_lad · 08-01-2015 01:09PM

lucernarian wrote: »

Ah yes, my bad. On phone currently, can you tell me the situation in the act for single deck buses? IIRC it was more lenient.

I had always thought that the rated capacity was the limit for double deck buses but that bus coaches had a limit of 8 standees up until the law changed to ban standees on any vehicle travelling at over 65kph. AFAIK any vehicle that allows standees must be limited to 65kph and all other coaches/buses limited to 100kph

cdebru · 08-01-2015 02:03PM

lucernarian wrote: »

It would indeed. I'm still presuming that something has superceded it since but it suggests there has been a lot of law-breaking going on in CIE over the years! How many people could stand on the articulated buses? (AWs I think they were)

121.—The Minister may by regulations prescribe the method of calculating for the
purposes of this Act the passenger accommodation of mechanically propelled vehicles
or of any class of such vehicles, and may in such regulations distinguish between
seating passenger accommodation and standing passenger accommodation.

That's the 2014 road traffic act.

So to summarize what Alek is saying is that the SG is a much lighter bus and that the method of calculating standing capacity is based on the maximum load distributed through the axles so if the bus weighs less then it can in theory carry more, it is apparently done on a calculation of an average person being 65kilos so they take the weight of the bus and the weight of the seated passengers away from the maximum weight and divide that figure by 65 to give you the standing capacity.
So in the SG case the standing capacity rose to 27 not based on the extra volume but based on the lighter bus carrying the same weight.
And in Aleks experience of driving SGs he doesn't think you can squeeze in 27 people, but that roughly the standing capacity is about the same as a GT or an AX etc so the reality is a reduction in capacity even if on paper the bus can carry more people.

lucernarian · 08-01-2015 02:35PM

Oh that's already my comprehension of what Alek said. I just don't accept the leap of logic that arrives at such a conclusion.

"Roughly" ain't enough in my book. If an SG has more floor area than a GT or VG especially, how can it be described as having lower capacity? This is the point ive been making consistently, a removal of seats between buses of comparable chassis and bodywork does not nessarily translate into a loss of capacity.

Trond · 08-01-2015 04:40PM

Anyone else get the 140?

You see people regularly sitting half way up the stairs and easily 10-15 standing downstairs. Absolute head melter of a scenario trying to get off the bus when someone wont even move off the stairs.

AlekSmart · 08-01-2015 07:01PM

lucernarian wrote: »

Ah yes, my bad. On phone currently, can you tell me the situation in the act for single deck buses? IIRC it was more lenient.

The additional capacity for single deck vehicles is assesed in the same manner.

(c) the additional number of passengers carried in a single deck omnibus by virtue of this sub-article shall not exceed in number 8, or one-quarter of the passenger accommodation of such omnibus, whichever is the lesser.

Dublin Bus - can anyone be happy with the price and service?

Comments