Tim Williams wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:10 am
DD's would have worked well on the O-Bahn services (few stops and express running, with high passenger loads) but the bridges and tunnel were not built for DD's.
Evidently not, according to this video (and commentary) that shows the extraordinary dwell times on the O Bahn even with Combos (starts 3 min into the video).
I know from using the B Line double deckers in Sydney that dwell times are even worse than this. The painful process of filtering people to and from the top deck worsens the already constricted door situation. The only answer is proper low floor buses with plenty of doors and all-door loading.
Tim Williams wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:10 am
DD's would have worked well on the O-Bahn services (few stops and express running, with high passenger loads) but the bridges and tunnel were not built for DD's.
Evidently not, according to this video (and commentary) that shows the extraordinary dwell times on the O Bahn even with Combos (starts 3 min into the video).
I know from using the B Line double deckers in Sydney that dwell times are even worse than this. The painful process of filtering people to and from the top deck worsens the already constricted door situation. The only answer is proper low floor buses with plenty of doors and all-door loading.
PD2/20 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:44 am
The O-Bahn video is from 2014 and thus predates the introduction of all-door loading on the O-Bahn.
Yes I know. The point was to show what it might be like with double deckers which are very slow loading and unloading.
It would be interesting to see a video from the same position today since all-door boarding. The door stairs on the combos would not help the process. I think Admet knows this issue, as they made Precision change the standard Bustech design (which has stairs at the centre door), although they still have interior stairs. This is why I think that if Admet is still thinking straight when it orders more artics, it won't order more combos. High-floor urban buses and stepped doorways are dead in the water as a concept.
I notice in my international bus news today that city of Prague, which is the same population as Adelaide, now has a complete fleet of fully (100%) low-floor buses, about 45% of them artics. They move 360 million passengers a year with 1,200 buses, compared to 50 million (?) in Adelaide with 1,000 (?) buses. That's productivity! Helping them to move along quickly is all-door loading with fully low floors and five doors on artics and three on rigids. I'm sure that Admet is well aware of all these issues and methods of addressing them as they've started moving on some of those directions.
385BUZ wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 6:37 pm
I love how this topic has literally turned into Bovways and myself arguing weather the Endeavour is based off a CB80 or a mix of a CB80 and Pheonix low floor. I forget what this thread was originally about!!
tonyp wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:32 am
This is why I think that if Admet is still thinking straight when it orders more artics, it won't order more combos. High-floor urban buses and stepped doorways are dead in the water as a concept.
I see the big dilemma in Adelaide as wanting to minimize standees on the O-bahn, thus ordering Combo artics with say a half dozen extra seats, compared to what is suitable for the non-track services, combined with wanting a standard fleet across all contractors/depots.
I'd add that the combo artics probably work better for 'my' Outer South express services to the CBD in the peaks, but less so on all-stops services during the day. I would definitely expect a customer preference for more seats over flat floors when the express component itself is around 45 minutes, and total journey times nearing an hour.
A double decker would be a better option for capacity, but they come with their own challenges and loading speed issues. Not to mention one wouldn't make it very far up the O-bahn before it became more suited for City Sightseeing!
Well it is International Day of People with Disability today and mobility impairment extends to a lot more needs than some token gesture to just wheelchairs down the front. Nearly 20% of the population have some form of mobility issue, besides which being stairless is a general benefit to movement and distribution of people through and in and out of the bus, hence productivity. Compromises often have to be made in transport design but I think being stepless has a very high priority over and above any other factor.
How many extra seats do you get in a three door combo compared to a three door low floor and is every single seat typically full and how many standees? (Incidentally low-floors benefit standees too.)
tonyp wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 1:24 pm
Well it is International Day of People with Disability today and mobility impairment extends to a lot more needs than some token gesture to just wheelchairs down the front. Nearly 20% of the population have some form of mobility issue, besides which being stairless is a general benefit to movement and distribution of people through and in and out of the bus, hence productivity. Compromises often have to be made in transport design but I think being stepless has a very high priority over and above any other factor.
How many extra seats do you get in a three door combo compared to a three door low floor and is every single seat typically full and how many standees? (Incidentally low-floors benefit standees too.)
Stepless always results in less seats though. I experienced a mobility issue for a while due to side effects of medication, which left me on PT as I was unable to drive and I was much happier to have a seat, and able to negotiate steps when the bus was stopped, but was unable to stand up on a moving vehicle, so perhaps don't tar all mobility impairments with the same brush... I'm sure many elderly / unfirm on their feet would have similar views.
Comparing seating capacities is always hard due to different specifications, but I'd say the difference would be 4 to 8 seats (2 to 4 benches), or 6 seats if you wanted an average.
In all the bus designs I've looked at over the years, given all parameters being the same in the comparison, a bus with a stepless gangway has the same number of seats as one with steps. It's the number and width of doors that has an effect on seating capacity.
Edit: I'm trying to establish whether the new Volgren Optimus artics in Canberra are low entry (low floor to after the rear door) or high floor Combo chassis. If low floor, they would provide a pretty good comparison and seem to have similar seating capacity with two doors.
We can make comparisons between the earlier CR228L body built on the Scania L94UA chassis.
Take Adelaide's 3331, for example, which is a Combo artic (not sure if the back door is narrow). The fleetlists quote its seating capacity as AB71FR, which is close to, if not greater than the seating capacity of many high floor artics of yesteryear.
In comparison, its CNG counterpart in Perth (3000, low entry of the usual variety) is quoted as AB62FRW and is licensed for 120 passengers. A further example is 122 in Darwin with Territory Transit, which is quoted as AB59DW; the difference arising from seating configuration in the wheelchair bay, which on 3000 is inward facing/'subway style' whereas 122 has seats facing forward and rear around the bay.
So while the combo design has drawbacks in terms of dwell time and ease of movement for mobility-impaired passengers, it is very clear they offer benefits when large numbers of passengers are travelling a greater distance.
I wrote a long reply re. Prague vs. Adelaide and failed to post it correctly - so I will put down a bit of it again, very frustrating!
Prague is a city of 1.3m occupying an area of 496 Sq/kms. Adelaide with the same population occupies an area of 3,259 sq/kms. However the overall metro area of Prague has a population of 2.7m and occupies an area of 2,700 sq/kms. Comparing the two cities is unfortunately pointless:
1. Significantly lower population density in Adelaide, with quite a proportion of longer trips here requiring a predominately seated load.
2. High car ownership in Adelaide with relatively reasonably manageable traffic density.
3. Lots a straight and relatively wide roads, making driving comparatively easy.
4. Compared to Melbourne and Sydney, parking in the centre of Adelaide is plentiful and not overly expensive.
So, the challenge in Adelaide is getting people out of their cars and onto public transport (the use of public transport in Adelaide is lower than all other capitals, I think). Cars users will not be tempted out of their cars by the prospect of a 30-40 minute, or more, standing journey on a packed bus in what is termed "cattle truck" conditions.
Multi-doors, overall flat floors and short dwell times would be well down the list of requirements for potential new public transport users - whereas a good regular reliable convenient service on a bus or train where a seat is almost guaranteed plus, of course, with good air conditioning would be features up the top of the list.
Europe and I would imagine, especially Eastern Europe are used to high standee buses, trams and trains - the cities often have high population densities and limited road capacity, particularly in the inner city areas and proliferation of cars, as a means of work travel, would have to be well down the list, compared to Australia. Whilst I have not been to Prague, I can imagine that public transport users have little or no alternative and therefore they will obviously accept and travel on whatever is provided. As said, there is more scope for private car travel, hence the need to make the journeys comfortable = seats!!
Public transport users here and in the UK, for that matter, have a different mindset and about bus travel in particular, where seats are expected for most travel - The London Underground would be the major exception, with little alternative available, apart from building more lines, which happens occasionally. They obviously are not so concerned about additional dwell times (actual or perceived), rather that they would prefer to gaze down from the comfort of their (maybe leather) seat on the top deck of a double decker.
The "must have a seat" mindset even extends to small country towns here. One year in Broken school student patronage on a couple of school services increased, requiring a reasonable standing load on two buses, all within the maximum allowed by the RTA and TfNSW, as shown on the rears of the buses. After a few students complained to their parents, the local police stopped the particular buses for headcounts, which were fine, but those few parents remained unhappy - a mindset, requiring every passenger to be seated and all these journeys were fairly short (less than half an hour) and around the town of Broken Hill at slow speeds, so there was no high speed running on country roads, where standing passengers can become a safety issue.
The artics (MB Citaros) in London failed for several reasons, including passengers hating the crush loading at certain times of the day - as I have said they expected seats, as they are expected here.
Merc1107 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:01 pm
So while the combo design has drawbacks in terms of dwell time and ease of movement for mobility-impaired passengers, it is very clear they offer benefits when large numbers of passengers are travelling a greater distance.
The Canberra combos, which have no centre door and a double-leaf rear door (though I can't work out whether the Volgrens are Combos or not), have a seating capacity of 63-65. Those Adelaide artics which have the same two-door configuration, appear to have a range of seating capacities from 59 to 71, with the latter figure apparently a small minority and about 15 years old. Most seem to vary from 59 to the mid 60s. The comparable Sydney northern beaches long-distance low-floor artics have no centre door and a single leaf rear door and have a seating capacity of 64. And the low-floor Perth equivalent is 62 seats with two double-leaf doors. So the general overview of artics with two doors appears to be as I've suggested - that high-floor combos have no particular advantage over their low-floor counterparts (not surprising since the floor area is the same), but somehow they've tweaked a number of early examples to get 69-71 seats aboard, an achievement they probably couldn't replicate in a bus built today. So I'm still not convinced why they have to be high-floor combos (same for Canberra).
Tim Williams wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:17 pm
Public transport users here and in the UK, for that matter, have a different mindset and about bus travel in particular, where seats are expected for most travel - The London Underground would be the major exception, with little alternative available, apart from building more lines, which happens occasionally. They obviously are not so concerned about additional dwell times (actual or perceived), rather that they would prefer to gaze down from the comfort of their (maybe leather) seat on the top deck of a double decker.
The "must have a seat" mindset even extends to small country towns here. One year in Broken school student patronage on a couple of school services increased, requiring a reasonable standing load on two buses, all within the maximum allowed by the RTA and TfNSW, as shown on the rears of the buses. After a few students complained to their parents, the local police stopped the particular buses for headcounts, which were fine, but those few parents remained unhappy - a mindset, requiring every passenger to be seated and all these journeys were fairly short (less than half an hour) and around the town of Broken Hill at slow speeds, so there was no high speed running on country roads, where standing passengers can become a safety issue.
The artics (MB Citaros) in London failed for several reasons, including passengers hating the crush loading at certain times of the day - as I have said they expected seats, as they are expected here.
I know how you feel about losing a draft Tim, my commiserations! I try to keep copying it as I go along. Yes the comparison with Prague is facile. The Prague bus system is also basically a feeder to metro and tram lines and mostly doesn't enter the city centre. The reason it's so popular, despite car ownership in Czech Republic being among the highest in Europe, is severe restrictions on parking (and widespread residents-only parking zones). The road system is quite good but if you drive towards the centre you can't park, so no point doing it at all (much the same in Sydney now). On top of that, the public transport is dense, fast, cheap and with good interchange. It's very attractive to use. The artics over there are well-designed, still managing up to 50 seats even with four or five doors, so seating isn't all that much in short supply. I used to quite regularly get seats and the point of low floor is that it makes a standee's life much more comfortable. There's nothing worse than an unexpected flight of stairs that you can't see under your feet in a crowd.
The Nowra Coaches artics are very busy, every day having up to 100 schoolkids on board, including on the 20 km intertown journey to Bay and Basin. No complaints about seating. Nobody ever rides the full distance standing because people get on and off along the way and I'm sure that happens in Adelaide like on any transport mode in any city.
Interesting reply tonyp, as said I know very little about Prague and that is my ignorance!!
I presume that you live close to Nowra?? I am trying to persuade my wife that a holiday in Sydney in the first half of next year, would be a grand idea.
Should it happen, it would great to meet and discuss our differing points of view on transport. Being an old Pom, shifting me away from a pro-decker stance would be a task in itself.
May be you and I should start discussions by email.
The only artics in route service in Adelaide with two doors are 3331, with 71 seats, and the Busways CB60 L94UAs with 69 seats. The CB60 L94UAs have a twin leaf front door and single leaf centre and rear doors, and 67 seats. The CB60 Evo II K320UAs have 3 full with doors and 59 seats. The K320UA and K360UA CB80 artics have full width front and rear doors, a single leaf centre door, and 65 seats. It seems from the example provided by tonyp, the Combo design in a two door artic gives about five to seven extra seats.
Merc1107 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:01 pm
So while the combo design has drawbacks in terms of dwell time and ease of movement for mobility-impaired passengers, it is very clear they offer benefits when large numbers of passengers are travelling a greater distance.
The Canberra combos, which have no centre door and a double-leaf rear door (though I can't work out whether the Volgrens are Combos or not)
The Canberra Volgren artics are indeed combos, which is great if you are claustrophobic as there is barely any headroom for anyone of average height for 3/4 of its length. I presume this is because the floor to ceiling height in Custom bodied buses is higher than Volgren - this is definitely noticeable between the two combo artic types as a result.
I see we're suddenly on "another thread off topic" but it's still about the bus deliveries, just focused on the artics component of that.
Tim Williams wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:37 pm
May be you and I should start discussions by email.
You're welcome to get in touch Tim. The south coast is the most beautiful part of NSW - unbiased opinion of course!
busrider wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:06 pm
The only artics in route service in Adelaide with two doors are 3331, with 71 seats, and the Busways CB60 L94UAs with 69 seats. The CB60 L94UAs have a twin leaf front door and single leaf centre and rear doors, and 67 seats. The CB60 Evo II K320UAs have 3 full with doors and 59 seats. The K320UA and K360UA CB80 artics have full width front and rear doors, a single leaf centre door, and 65 seats. It seems from the example provided by tonyp, the Combo design in a two door artic gives about five to seven extra seats.
Many thanks for the clarification. I was going cross-eyed poring over fleet lists!
Mr OC Benz wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm
The Canberra Volgren artics are indeed combos, which is great if you are claustrophobic as there is barely any headroom for anyone of average height for 3/4 of its length. I presume this is because the floor to ceiling height in Custom bodied buses is higher than Volgren - this is definitely noticeable between the two combo artic types as a result.
Perhaps it's Volgren's polite way of saying "why did you give us such a stupid chassis to put a body on?" Bus bodies are basically designed for low floors nowadays and it's good to have the centre of gravity down lower. Even Volgren's standard rigid bus is vertically tight up the back on the high floor. By then I have to stoop.
Tim Williams wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:17 pm
I wrote a long reply re. Prague vs. Adelaide and failed to post it correctly - so I will put down a bit of it again, very frustrating!
There is a function which enables you to copy all text before hitting send. So that if there's an error, you don't have to waste 10 minutes retyping.
Tim Williams wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:17 pm
So, the challenge in Adelaide is getting people out of their cars and onto public transport (the use of public transport in Adelaide is lower than all other capitals, I think). Cars users will not be tempted out of their cars by the prospect of a 30-40 minute, or more, standing journey on a packed bus in what is termed "cattle truck" conditions.
Excluding the 'new network' scam, I don't think Adelaide has had running times reviewed that much in recent years. You still see 721s sitting at Old Reynella for up to 10 minutes on occasions, 50% of buses sitting at TTP (stop C Tea Tree Plaza (O'bahn)) for 3 minutes, outbound O'bahn buses dwelling at F2 indefinitely, too much to mention.
With the current health crisis and reduced patronage levels, it is not getting any better. There is a massive imbalance with the timetables. Some city bound Saturday morning services can end up running late due to heavy loadings, only to wind up early on the other side of town. It doesn't help with almost all services having virtually the same running time between 9 and 5PM in both directions.
So there's part of the problem. If somebody's in a car going along a main road and sees a bus idling at a stop from a several hundred metres away, with slow traffic flow which leads to passing it 3 minutes later with it still visible in the rear view mirror in the same spot afterwards, how are they going to be encouraged to catch a bus? Adelaide has a skeleton service on weekends which makes it even less convenient, and that's during the day. 30 minute frequencies along many of the corridors.
Everyone who complained enough for the proposed “New Network” to be canned obviously thinks what we have now is perfect.
The forward thinking “headway management”, many, more frequent corridors, and consistent lower frequent routes should have worked well. But Beryl and Edward were going to have to walk a block further, or god forbid, transfer services, so we are left with what we have now
First person on 822, 865 (2016 re-route).
Last person on 164, 867, 868
The drift of some of the professional commentary I've seen is that these changes should have been introduced gradually and with plenty of consultation, as they did in Perth, rather than as one big revolutionary change that would terrify the natives. Perhaps it's not too late to try again.
They won’t try again in this term of government. Perceived by the Liberals as far too damaging to their chances of re-election. I do agree that doing a few bits initially rather than the whole system would be the way to go. Sell the “headway management” well and have it work well and then good news might spread.
