Dublin Bus selling some of its VTs

Well on another forum, some are saying that the older VT's are experiencing reliability issues. Which being 14 years old now wouldn't be surprising, despite less miles on the clock.

But I was thinking about why it might actually be logical why operators don't want them and why even London Bus don't use tri-axles (beyond the above mentioned trial).

Someone above mentioned you would need 3 regular double deckers to replace 2 tri-axles, which is true. But I've been thinking that might actually be preferable to operators!

Think about it, the tri-axles are much more expensive to buy then regular double deckers, they would be the most expensive bus in your fleet, yet they are also your least used bus, you only use them on-peak, because off-peak their capacity isn't needed and they guzzle fuel.

So from an operators perspective, they are a bit of a waste, expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, expensive to fuel, but not used much!

I haven't seen prices on new tri-axles (there are very few, which is telling), but I suspect you could actually buy 3 SG buses for the price of 2 modern tri-axles. So there is no real money saving there, and 3 SG's would offer greater flexibility.

Yes, you would have the cost of an extra driver, but that would be offset by lower fuel and maintenance costs of a SG or similar.

But also 3 SG's would also have more capacity then 2 VT's (255 people for 3 SG's, versus 238 for 2 VT's conservatively speaking) so extra passengers would go towards paying for an extra driver. And you have the advantage of greater frequency on the route.

Of course I get why drivers like the VT's why it seems better that it can take more people. But sometimes if you step back and look at it from an operators perspective, you might see reasons why higher capacity vehicle isn't the better option.

Look at BE and Aircoach, BE use double decker coaches on some routes, then look at Aircoach, all single decker coaches, when they are busy, they just send a second single decker, so obviously it isn't a straight forward decision.

punisher5112 wrote: »

124 is the number a vt can carry.... I've had many more on then that over the years.

119 for the 2005 VT's that they are currently getting rid off. The 2007 VT's are 124

The SG's can take a lot more then their plate too, the capacity number on the plate isn't really reality as most know and changes over the years (I think different years SG's have had different numbers despite not otherwise changing!).

punisher5112 wrote: »

Price tag on an SG is around €350k

I know and a modern triaxle would cost a lot more. Specially the one being trialled in London, since it is based on a coach body, a hybrid and has a 40kwh battery. Also the fact that so few triaxles are built nowadays, it would be pretty much custom build.

Yes choosing the type and size of vehicle is not easy and you have to balance cost with demand and many other issues.

You can certainly go too far in the other direction too. Cork City in the past was a terrible example of this. The single deckers were completely unsuitable. But then you have to remember that the real problem in Cork was the combination of small vehicles and poor frequency. It was infuriating in Cork seeing a full bus drive by you, because you knew the next bus will be 30 or 40 minutes on many routes!

That is less of an issue in Dublin on routes with high frequency. At my local route, buses often pass by full, but it doesn't bother me much, as I know there will be another one by in 2 or 3 minutes.

Remember the capacity of a route is frequency x capacity of each vehicle. As long as they are replacing the VT's with more buses/frequency, it shouldn't make much if any difference.

Hell massive Chinese cities get by with just single decker buses, the difference is they just have massive numbers of these buses.

Stephen15 wrote: »

It wouldn't surprise me if it's something from Wrightbus similar to the SGs with hybrid transmission. I heard they were meant to trial some this year but I've yet to hear any news on that since.

There has also been a lot of rumours that we might get biogas buses instead of hybrids!

Seems strange though, it is pretty unusual for us to do something so radically different from the UK.

punisher5112 wrote: »

They had a gas bus back in 97 it never worked and had to be filled at the docks.

Ay, I'm quite dubious when I first heard it.

Though other cities have been successfully using them for years, hundreds running around various Swedish, Norwegian, etc. cities. So it does work, if you have the supporting infrastructure.

But as you say, I'd wonder about how and who is going to pay for depots to be upgraded for it and how neighbours would react.

And while it has decent CO performance, PM and Nox are questionable versus modern Diesels.

I would have thought that just following Londons example and going Hybrid would be the easiest approach all round.

Stephen15 wrote: »

The hybrid VG didn't work out either was very unreliable and ended up going up in flames when it was sold on over in the UK.

Yes, though hybrid tech has certainly come along since then, 3,000 of them running around London, so pretty mature now.

Gas is pretty mature too, with lots running around certain operators for years. Though it would certainly face much steeper infrastructure challenges then hybrid to introduce here.

It will be very interesting to see what we will end up with, certainly interesting times ahead.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

As long as the driver can override and/or controls the closure (like with the LUAS).. otherwise you'll have buses on certain routes delayed frequently because some scobe was messing or causing trouble (as we saw with the case of a DART recently)

Yes, of course with the driver having ability to close the doors, etc.

But you can't build a public transport system around the lowest common denominator, you need to build it for the benefit of the majority.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You'd also need to sort out the liability issues or you'll end up with more cases like that girl during the week getting a massive payout for her own reckless/stupid actions on the LUAS.

Unfortunately, the reality of the legal system is there is nothing you can do to completely remove liability. In civil court, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, someone can sue you because they don't like the colour of your eyes! That doesn't mean a judge won't laugh it out of court, but there is nothing you can do to completely protect yourself from going to court.

What you can do, is put in place steps that make it less likely that a person who sues you will win. For instance, making the passengers open the rear door themselves would be an example of this, it takes it out of the hands of the driver and puts greater responsibility on the passenger.

Big bright signs on the door saying "caution when leaving, look both ways, mind your step", etc. help too.

Of course cameras which would capture what is happening both inside and out, help too.

The reality is there is no 100% guarantees when it comes to the law, as we can see from that ridiculous Luas case where the drivers are doing everything reasonably that could be expected of them.

However if something ever did happen, it is much more likely that someone would sue Dublin Bus, then the individual driver, as you see from the Luas case. More potential money to be one from DB then some hardworking driver. Then it is down the DB's excellent legal team and the cameras.

Thing is, from a legal perspective, there isn't any difference between the front door and the rear door. A driver can equally be sued if someone fell out the front door as the rear.

BTW I'm actually sort of surprised that the rear door is operated by the driver, it would seem to me to actually put more risk on the driver. What if someone is leaning against the rear door when it is opened and falls out, can the driver see this on a camera inside or are they just blindly opening the doors?

Passenger operated rear doors would actually reduce this risk to the drivers.