Double Decker buses operating in Adelaide

[Hawkeye]

As the majority of you would be aware, there are currently 2 double deckers in service across the Adelaide Metro network. The first of the 2 being 1790 (Bustech CDi - Cummins ISL) which is operated by Torrens Transit and runs the J1X (Jet Express) service to and from Adelaide Airport. The 2nd double decker is 3401 (Scania K320UD Gemilang) which commenced service early 2015, operated by SouthLink which runs the express T840 route to and from Mt Barker.

So far, both of these services have been successful and also have quite the popularity! Good decision of the selected routes to run them on, one an airport service and the other a Mt Barker run which is a common tourist destination.

What's next for Adelaide Metro? Will they see these trial double deckers as a success and perhaps purchase more to permanently be in our fleet? Or, will they deem the trials unsuccessful and decide not to operate them any further?

Now to put the unsuccessful side of things aside, I'll put my ideas out there if more deckers were to be brought into service. How about an express service down south, inspired by the current T721 route? Express service from Noarlunga Centre, right into the CBD via the newly redeveloped Southern Expressway? In this case, I think having a 6am-6pm service would be necessary if a decker were to be put on the (new) T722X route. The new T722X route would follow the current path of the T721, yet running express to Old Reynella Interchange (being the first stop after departing King William Street). Keeping that in mind, I believe an hourly service throughout the day would suit the service quite well. Obviously the double decker not servicing all of these services, but a vast majority would be covered by it. The hourly service would run in both directions, so that the double decker can make a return trip back down south and complete it's route at Noarlunga Centre. What are your thoughts on that service, would you recommend any changes? Give your thoughts and opinions and perhaps suggest a new route for the upcoming future, operated by a decker

[Diesel_MAN]

Having a bus service that runs express to the city from Old Reynella Interchange every hour from 6am to 6pm is certainly an interesting idea. It could result in the cancellation of some non-express services if it becomes popular, though. The change I would make is to have it run express after Grote Street as with the T721X, or at the very least after Stop W Grote Street, instead of after Stop D2 King William Street.

Would there be enough of a demand for such a service to be introduced? Second question: is a double decker bus suited to all parts of your proposed T722X route?

[Hawkeye]

Having a bus service that runs express to the city from Old Reynella Interchange every hour from 6am to 6pm is certainly an interesting idea. It could result in the cancellation of some non-express services if it becomes popular, though. The change I would make is to have it run express after Grote Street as with the T721X, or at the very least after Stop W Grote Street, instead of after Stop D2 King William Street.

Would there be enough of a demand for such a service to be introduced? Second question: is a double decker bus suited to all parts of your proposed T722X route?

Yeah, I was tossing up between Grote and King William Streets...

As for passenger demand, I do believe there would be enough people that would use the service. A lot of buses are used throughout the day, to and from Noarlunga so the usage of the service shouldn't be too much of a problem. The height clearances on the Southern Expressway would be fine, along with most other parts of the route. After rethinking, instead of terminating at the Noarlunga Centre Interchange, perhaps terminate at Colonnades instead? I only say this due to the overhead walkways between platforms etc at Noarlunga Centre as I'm not too sure if they're high enough for a double decker to fit. As for trees, I don't recall any that would cause a problem right at this second no

[Diesel_MAN]

I was wondering about Noarlunga Interchange too. I couldn't remember exactly what kind of height clearance it has, but if a double decker bus is unable to make it to the interchange, terminating at Colonnades would be better. Unfortunately, that would mean that it wouldn't be able to connect with the train. I don't know if that would be an issue or not though.

[Hawkeye]

Yeah, connecting with the train I would imagine is a thing that they would want. Here is a drawing of some possible stops that could be put down, to cater for the decker stopping at Noarlunga Interchange.



Green is representing the terminating stop for the outbound service, while orange is showing the start of the inbound city route. Note the footpath leading down to the train platform

[Lt. Commander Data]

Not a bad idea, but why T722X? The T721X is already a stupid ""number"", and your T722X doesn't follow the 722 route much. T726 would probably be a better number. Could even be extended to Seaford or Aldinga, those areas are growing quite a bit. Although, then the route would definitely take more than an hour, if it doesn't already, so would need more than one bus. Maybe a Volgren Optimus decker could be used for this service, so then all trial routes have different deckers, making the trial more valid.

[Hawkeye]

Not a bad idea, but why T722X? The T721X is already a stupid ""number"", and your T722X doesn't follow the 722 route much. T726 would probably be a better number. Could even be extended to Seaford or Aldinga, those areas are growing quite a bit. Although, then the route would definitely take more than an hour, if it doesn't already, so would need more than one bus. Maybe a Volgren Optimus decker could be used for this service, so then all trial routes have different deckers, making the trial more valid.

You make a good point about the route T722X, the T721X is bad enough as it is with it's 5 digits

Alright, how about my proposed new route be renumbered to the T726? Along with that, the T721X service could be renumbered to the T727 to get rid of any remaining 5 digit routes. I don't see much point in my proposed service to be extended on down to the Seaford area. Right now, I do believe the T722 service is quite enough for this growing area. Maybe in a couple years time, we might see something extended even further south. The idea of having a different decker on each trial route would be cool, would have something different to look at each time. It would indeed be much more fascinating instead of seeing or riding on virtually the same bus, just on a different route

[Skexis]

How about an express service down south, inspired by the current T721 route? Express service from Noarlunga Centre, right into the CBD via the newly redeveloped Southern Expressway? In this case, I think having a 6am-6pm service would be necessary if a decker were to be put on the (new) T722X route. The new T722X route would follow the current path of the T721, yet running express to Old Reynella Interchange (being the first stop after departing King William Street). Keeping that in mind, I believe an hourly service throughout the day would suit the service quite well. Obviously the double decker not servicing all of these services, but a vast majority would be covered by it. The hourly service would run in both directions, so that the double decker can make a return trip back down south and complete it's route at Noarlunga Centre. What are your thoughts on that service, would you recommend any changes? Give your thoughts and opinions and perhaps suggest a new route for the upcoming future, operated by a decker

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever for such a service to be introduced. The N5 was popular during the rail sub days purely because it was the fastest option for everyone. The train is fast enough and there's no point in introducing a competing service. Most trains would beat an N5 anyway and the only people that would use it are those too fat or lazy to walk from Vic Square to the train station.

Now as to the rest of the posts, we certainly do not need a T722X as there are too many route variations for the 722 as it is. Personally I feel the T722 should be renumbered T748 and run from the city to Stop 88 in Grand Boulevard, Seaford having followed the existing T722 route from the city to Seaford Station and then the 747 round to Stop 88. This would stop the confusion that currently exists between the 722F, 722X and T722, all of which go their separate ways after Stop 40 going out of town. In fact the 722 is a bit of a clusterfuck all round.

There is no need for an hourly express bus from Reynella to the city as there is insufficient passenger demand outside of peak hours. The 721F and 722F services provide more than adequate cover.

The T721X is a service that could easily be scrapped as well as they are wasted buses given the frequency of the 721X and T721 services already in place. I've been on many T721X services leaving the CBD that have less than a dozen passengers and if we're honest why does Stop 48 get the special treatment? It could stop at Reynella however that mean it was conflicting with the existing T721 and 721X services. It's a lame duck and should be quietly killed off. The T721 and 721X services are also a good reason why not to have Reynella as a stop for Hawkeye's ill considered T722X

One very good reason not to have a double deck bus going anywhere near Noarlunga is that it wouldn't fit under Beach Rd if the driver made an error and tried to access Beach Rd eastbound from Burgess Drive. It's the only place down south that has a bridge that low but it's still a major hazard and at some point someone would hit it.

In closing I don't see any reason to introduce a DD on any route heading out of town to the south.

[Lt. Commander Data]

Personally I feel the T722 should be renumbered T748 and run from the city to Stop 88 in Grand Boulevard, Seaford having followed the existing T722 route from the city to Seaford Station and then the 747 round to Stop 88.

I believe that was called a T726 around 10 years ago.

[Skexis]

Don't know about the T726. Before my time. The T748 was a short service that ran from Noarlunga to, I think, Stop 91 on Grand Boulevard. Bit of a peculiar place to end a service but there you go.

[Lt. Commander Data]

I still think your proposed T748 should go further south than Seaford. Although there is the 750X I guess.

[Hawkeye]

In regards to the T748... As I'm aware it recently got scrapped from being a service, how many people were averaging on board each run? I'm guessing not too much, if they had to scrap the service

[Diesel_MAN]

I agree that the T721X doesn't really need to exist given its low patronage. It's a nice service, being express to Stop 48 and all, but it should probably terminate somewhere other than Noarlunga Interchange (or Colonnades Interchange for that matter). That is, if there is a way of altering the southern-most part of the route to result in increased patronage. Perhaps the proposed T722X/T726 should also terminate somewhere else? I can't think of where though.

[Skexis]

In regards to the T748... As I'm aware it recently got scrapped from being a service, how many people were averaging on board each run? I'm guessing not too much, if they had to scrap the service

Last few times a T748 ran it had only a handful at best and was retired when the train line to Seaford opened. As to Data's suggestion, I reckon King William Road to Dalkeith Rd in Seaford is plenty long enough.

[Bodø Glimt]

The T748 was a short service that ran from Noarlunga to, I think, Stop 91 on Grand Boulevard. Bit of a peculiar place to end a service but there you go.

It went to stop 88B on Dalkeith Road.

[Eagle Eye]

I still think your proposed T748 should go further south than Seaford. Although there is the 750X I guess.

Why would a direct bus service from the city need to go further south than Seaford? Yes it's convenient to be able to catch the one bus over such a great distance but there's no point competing with a train service that can provide fast services to Seaford, with connecting buses to go further south. Yes the Seaford line has some issues but we should be promoting rail then connecting buses to outer destinations.

[Skexis]

The T748 was a short service that ran from Noarlunga to, I think, Stop 91 on Grand Boulevard. Bit of a peculiar place to end a service but there you go.

It went to stop 88B on Dalkeith Road.

Err, no it didn't

[Diesel_MAN]

I just had a look on the archived Adelaide Metro website, and I found a T726 from the City to Stop 91 Grand Boulevard. According to the timetable, it was previously known as the TL8.

I then found a T748 from Noarlunga Centre Interchange to Stop 88B Dalkeith Road. The route is as follows:

From Noarlunga Centre Interchange via David Witton Drive, Colonnades Shopping Centre, Hannah Road, Alexander Kelly Drive, Goldsmith Drive, Beach Road, Southern Expressway, Main South Road, Griffiths Drive, Grand Boulevard, The Parade, Cascade Drive, Griffiths Drive, Grand Boulevard and Dalkeith Road to the terminus stop 88B Dalkeith Road, Seaford Rise.

It was introduced on April 29, 2007. This is the route map (also covers 745 and 747 Circuits): http://web.archive.org/web/200709021318 ... utemap.pdf and this is the timetable: http://web.archive.org/web/200709021317 ... ttable.pdf.
The T726 was removed at the same time as the introduction of the T748.

[Bodø Glimt]

It went to stop 88B on Dalkeith Road.

Err, no it didn't

Only if you short shunted.

[Lt. Commander Data]

I still think your proposed T748 should go further south than Seaford. Although there is the 750X I guess.

Why would a direct bus service from the city need to go further south than Seaford? Yes it's convenient to be able to catch the one bus over such a great distance but there's no point competing with a train service that can provide fast services to Seaford, with connecting buses to go further south. Yes the Seaford line has some issues but we should be promoting rail then connecting buses to outer destinations.

Good point - I always seem to forget about the train (that's what happens when you live in the Hills). Maybe the 750X should be renumbered to the T750, and operate at more times during the day, the 750 takes longer than an 864F! (Or at least it seems to).

[I Follow PAFC]

From https://twitter.com/AdelaideMetroSA/

[TheLondoner]

I'm flying out of Adelaide next month on a trip and plan to catch the J1X to the Airport. Does anyone know, if 1790 operates at set times or is it rostered on different airport runs, so its luck whether you get the DD or not?

[Lt. Commander Data]

I'm flying out of Adelaide next month on a trip and plan to catch the J1X to the Airport. Does anyone know, if 1790 operates at set times or is it rostered on different airport runs, so its luck whether you get the DD or not?

Unfortunately it's pot-luck with the J1X (at least from what I've seen). They (the J1X) go every half an hour, and the minimum bus requirement for the service is 2 (and there is only one 1790). I've seen it operating both shifts (I think), so as I said, it's luck-of-the-draw.

[I Follow PAFC]

How double-decker became our ‘ghost bus’
A DOUBLE DECKER bus ferrying passengers between Adelaide Airport and the city has averaged just five passengers per trip in its first two years, with critics labelling it a “joke” and a waste of money.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... e9ee41bb45

[Diesel_MAN]

How double-decker became our ‘ghost bus’
A DOUBLE DECKER bus ferrying passengers between Adelaide Airport and the city has averaged just five passengers per trip in its first two years, with critics labelling it a “joke” and a waste of money.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... e9ee41bb45

So not much has changed since the last time there was a news article about it then. Most people going to the airport by bus just use the regular half-hourly J1, so this still isn't surprising.