STA Observations - January to June 2018

[Swift]

Aussie operators have worshiped the low entry layout for so long because it has a portion of stepless section, while allowing a conventional rear engine mechanical layout without angle drives and more tightly packed mechanics.
Trouble is, the world has advanced further yet we continue to be in denial and insist this is as good as it gets (great movie btw). We need to pull our heads out of our ****holes and phase out this obsolete low entry crap and accept this is no longer the mid 90s and stop being selectively up to date.

[boronia]

These buses obviously meet the minimum DDA standards set by the government, for the least cost.

I would guess that a fully flat-floor chassis would cost more to buy, so until such time there is a mandate for the design, I can't see that its going to happen voluntarily.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Aussie operators have worshiped the low entry layout for so long because it has a portion of stepless section, while allowing a conventional rear engine mechanical layout without angle drives and more tightly packed mechanics.
Trouble is, the world has advanced further yet we continue to be in denial and insist this is as good as it gets (great movie btw). We need to pull our heads out of our ****holes and phase out this obsolete low entry crap and accept this is no longer the mid 90s and stop being selectively up to date.

The only way that will happen is if Transport For NSW takes charge and tell the STA and all contracted private operators "here we have a list of fully low floor buses bodied in Europe they come as they are built no customisations are aloud so pick the chassis/body combo from the list provided"

[tonyp]

These buses obviously meet the minimum DDA standards set by the government, for the least cost.

I would guess that a fully flat-floor chassis would cost more to buy, so until such time there is a mandate for the design, I can't see that its going to happen voluntarily.

I don't believe there is much price difference between a low entry and a low floor chassis but I will make some enquiries. The thing is that (apart from the ACT's Agoras) it's the private sector that's tried low-floors in significant numbers and they would be more likely to count every penny when making such a choice. Off the top of my head, all in Victoria - Grendas, Skybus and now Latrobe Valley.

The state agencies in general aren't very motivated to place any priority on how to get buses doing their job at the optimum level. I place more credibility in what the private sector does (in as much as it's allowed to by the state).

[tonyp]

The only way that will happen is if Transport For NSW takes charge and tell the STA and all contracted private operators "here we have a list of fully low floor buses bodied in Europe they come as they are built no customisations are aloud so pick the chassis/body combo from the list provided"

I'd say that there are already at least a couple of low floor chassis already on TfNSW's approved list of suppliers and at least one or two local body builders able to body them, so there is probably no institutional obstacle at all, other than any operator's understanding of the issues that highlight the need for fully low floor. Leadership from TfNSW would help - if they understood the issues themselves, which they've shown no sign of so far.

[Daniel]

Even if we put aside the panel of approved suppliers, the bigger question is what NSW metro operator would go out on a limb to take on the extra operating costs of a fully low floor vehicle? Specifically if contract payments are based on a per km basis.

There is greater complexity in a vertical engine arrangement, angle drive and drop centre axles. Greater complexity equals greater time and cost to maintain in the longer term. Also consider a fully low floor vehicle is likely to result in greater glass area which is greater weight and cost, a taller saloon for the full length of the vehicle means a greater ac load and fuel cost? Another door, that adds another maintenance cost. The list goes on.

If fully low floor vehicles are to dominate, TfNSW need to champion the specification. They will need to insist upon it as a minimum standard and come to an appropriate rate for operators to run these vehicles under contact. As far as I am concerned the continual local supplier bashing that goes on here is inappropriate. TfNSW need to mandate best practice and in my opinion the local industry is mature enough here to deliver accordingly.

[tonyp]

I think these claims of higher operating costs need to be quantified through studies. I find it hard to believe that they're a significant factor when there are private operators choosing this type of chassis - and some such as Skybus wouldn't be relying on government payments.

In NSW I agree that TfNSW needs to show a bit more professional leadership. And I'm not one of the ones debunking local suppliers. At least one of them has proved that they're more than fully competent with this type of design. I'd prefer a local rather than Asian sourcing any time. European body builders aren't in the RHD market.

Not sure why you think that a low floor needs a taller saloon. If anything quite the opposite. It's the high-floor gangway that has head-height issues that restrict the standing capacity. And all the seats are the same height in a low-floor bus as in a high floor, so the window-line isn't affected. I learned about most of this in Europe where best practice in citybuses is. The mechanics over there also love the better comfort of working on a vertical engine than an underfloor one. Not that it matters for too many more years as it will be replaced by batteries and the need for high-floor will evaporate.

[Swift]

The criticism is not their know how and engineering skills, or quality, it's the persistent attitude that a dated specification is still foisted upon us, when a far more advanced and worthwhile one exists.
I was looking at a Bustech VST the other night and frankly it struck me as pathetic seeing the back half with people sitting almost as high as a tourist coach.
If we don't want to have to keep resorting to obscenely expensive light rail for attractive public transport instead of very flexible buses, they need to catch up fast in efficient emenity.

[gld59]

Also consider a fully low floor vehicle is likely to result in greater glass area which is greater weight and cost, a taller saloon for the full length of the vehicle means a greater ac load and fuel cost?

Only if they leave the seats up at the same height, and if existing floor and seats are both currently at headroom limits. If they can drop all those seats, they can drop the roofline by at least as much.

gld

[Linto63]

Am I correct in thinking there are a 3 options?

1) Low entry, i.e the the status quo, low floor to beyond the rear door and then an elevated section to allow all the mechanicals to be slung underneath.

2) Low floor, i.e low floor throughout, but with raised seats beyond the rear door to allow the mechanicals to be accommodated, albeit in a more confined space than above.

3) Low floor throughout with all mechanicals accommodated beyond the passenger saloon.

Not sure if option 3 actually exists or is even possible, presuming there needs to be a distance between the engine and fuel tank, but if it does, it would result in a smaller saloon assuming chassis are already bodied to the maximum length either as prescribed by their manufacturers or the relevant authority.

Option 2 while perhaps making it easier for passengers to shuffle down, is possibly offset by an inability / reluctance by some to climb up to the seats.

Daniel is right, if an operator is being paid to operate the service with a Toyota, they're not going to turn up with a Rolls-Royce just to be nice fellas, ultimately they are in the business of making a quid, not philanthrophy.

Apologies if this has been discussed in the back doors thread, but can't really be bothered threading through 57 pages of bitching about TfNSW.

[tonyp]

I think there are more than 57 pages bitching about TfNSW on this forum - quite rightly so! I get pretty sick of chronic underperformance in our bus industry, particularly STA. TfNSW and STA, the major players and supposedly role-model leaders, just don't seem to see the issues with steps, both aisle and door, and the effects of steps on passenger capacity, internal flow, passenger exchange and safety. Maybe not big issues in a quiet operation but significant issues in a major one.

Blend (2) and (3). The vertical engine is basically under the rear row of seats with the drive shaft going to the rear axle under the seats on one side. The seats are much the same height as in a low-entry bus, with a sideways step-up to get into them from the low aidle. Since they're about bum height, it's quite easy to get into them. It's not unlike the difference between getting into a sedan vs getting into an SUV. You get a bit of a taste of it on the lower deck of the MAN B line deckers.

There's no internal passenger space lost. The earliest low-floor player from about 25 years ago, Renault/Iveco lost the rear row of seats to the engine but designs have become more refined since then. Just bide our time watching the various private operators around the country gradually picking up on low-floors. The real industry leaders and innovators are found among them more than government.

[PoweredByCNG]

There are several different configurations of low floor bus. Different manufacturers offer different packaging variations with the only restriction being forced upon them by external contractors (e.g. manufacturers of the axles).

The most common configuration consists of a longitudinal engine (north-south) mounted in the rear of the bus, sitting flush against the left side. The engine and gearbox are mounted 'in-line' and there is an angle drive needed between the gearbox and the differential. The differential is offset to the left of the portal drive axle. If the engine lies on its side (i.e. horizontal cylinder orientation), it is possible for passengers to be accommodated on top of the engine compartment without compromise.

Alternatively, a vertical engine can be mounted transversely (east-west) across the rear of the bus. This configuration requires two angle drives as the gearbox is mounted perpendicular to the engine flush against the left side of the bus with a second angle drive needed between the gearbox and differential. Perhaps the most well-known producer of this configuration is Iveco Bus with their Agora/Citelis/Crealis/Urbanway and Heuliez Bus lines.

[Swift]

Remember STA ordered a pair of genuine low floor Orana Mercedes 0405s with offset engine. Also BT ordered Volvos with similar engine placement, since withdrawn.
Maybe these particular buses put the frighteners on these respective operators.

[tonyp]

It's worth bearing in mind that tram design went through a period of enormous difficulties between the 1980s and 2000s to produce a highly functional outcome for modern operational efficiency and accessibility expectations. Inevitably there were engineering compromises involved but the industry has generally come out the other end successfully, optimised the maintenance side and is now on course. The European bus industry did the same a few years behind. The end objective was an efficient public transport vehicle designed and built to modern standards, while still keeping whole-of-life costs under control. These standards in buses are now rippling overseas to RHD countries like SIngapore and Japan. It's not too hard for Australia to follow, especially when it can build such buses for Japan and Malaysia which I think is an amazing achievement. Selling more overseas than locally says something about the local operators and agencies.

[moa999]

I think we're more likely to get a decent design with an electric bus as less 'engine' parts.

Albeit some of the extended range citybus designed use a raised rear to fit more batteries.

[tonyp]

Now that Australia's favourite, Volvo, is belatedly entering the local low-floor market, here's a LHD preview of what's in store in its 7900 hybrid:





This gives some idea of one of the variants of arranging the mechanicals.

[Jurassic_Joke]

Leichardt 0405NH running on M30 today which is new and quite exciting - Mosman is quite foreign to this bus type as far as I’m aware

While we might raise some concerns about capacity, at least through the R6 franchising, seeing some interesting variety now on the Metrobuses

[Ray]

Wot, an STA observation in this thread?? How dare you

[Swift]

Leichardt 0405NH running on M30 today which is new and quite exciting - Mosman is quite foreign to this bus type as far as I’m aware

That would be a cool sight to see. You don't expect such a sight or sound around snootyville. They won't know what hit them.

[swtt]

X25 services in both directions observed today are carrying fresh air every 10 min.

In the meantime, 533 in the PM peak can be very packed, both in and out of Olympic Park.

Is the X25 some sort of Commonwealth Bank sponsored service, give how frequently it runs?

Sent from my Huawei Mate 9 using Tapatalk

[neilrex]

As a passenger who tends to make quite long trips by bus ( except when going to the airport ), and also tends to avoid travelling at peak hour, I notice that most of the other passengers sit up the back of the bus.

I prefer not to sit at the front, unless the seat right next to the driver is available, because I don't like riding in the bus where the window-sills are about the level of my ears.

I am unconvinced about the enthusiasm of passengers for entirely low-floor buses, where you can't see out of the windows, and even if you can see out of the windows, you are lower than the surrounding vehicles.

On Sydney buses, it is often difficult to figure out where to get off, and not being able to see any of the surroundings amplifys that difficulty.

[PoweredByCNG]

I am unconvinced about the enthusiasm of passengers for entirely low-floor buses, where you can't see out of the windows, and even if you can see out of the windows, you are lower than the surrounding vehicles.

That is up to the bodybuilder or the manufacturer of the integral product. Having travelled on low floor buses in the past, I can confidently say that there need not be a problem with poor passenger visibility.

[tonyp]

I am unconvinced about the enthusiasm of passengers for entirely low-floor buses, where you can't see out of the windows, and even if you can see out of the windows, you are lower than the surrounding vehicles.

On Sydney buses, it is often difficult to figure out where to get off, and not being able to see any of the surroundings amplifys that difficulty.

The seats in the rear are always higher because of the wheel arches and mechanicals, regardless of whether low floor or high floor gangway, so there's the same mix of seating heights to suit every taste as in the low-entry bus. This basic point is missed by some.

[boronia]

As a passenger who tends to make quite long trips by bus ( except when going to the airport ), and also tends to avoid travelling at peak hour, I notice that most of the other passengers sit up the back of the bus.

I prefer not to sit at the front, unless the seat right next to the driver is available, because I don't like riding in the bus where the window-sills are about the level of my ears.

I am unconvinced about the enthusiasm of passengers for entirely low-floor buses, where you can't see out of the windows, and even if you can see out of the windows, you are lower than the surrounding vehicles.

On Sydney buses, it is often difficult to figure out where to get off, and not being able to see any of the surroundings amplifys that difficulty.

The advertsisng and tinting plastered over windows can be more of a problem for seeing out than the window height

[boeing]

The advertsisng and tinting plastered over windows can be more of a problem for seeing out than the window height

Or, on a night like tonight in Sydney, fogged up windows. Even for the driver!
Whoever thought, with the amazing engineering in modern buses, that you wouldn't be able to see through the windscreen, front doors, or drivers windows.