Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

General Transport Discussion not specific to one state
Post Reply
Tim Williams
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Adelaide

Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Tim Williams »

Full low floor buses are mechanically more complicated then the commonly used (in Australia, at least) low entrance buses - they are also more expensive to purchase and maintain, with some of their expensive parts quite close to the ground. Full low floor buses would not be able to operate in some town-urban areas due to the road profile/topography. As a simple example when I had Murtons, we had a lot of trouble keeping some parts of our buses away from the roads in Broken Hill - in fact the 4 underneath skids at the front and rear of each of the two BCI's on the Town Services were virtually worn down to nothing after 3 years in service. And I believe our drivers did their best by slowing right down and raising the suspension in the more "extreme" areas.

So, as we know, most urban buses here are low entrance only (excluding double deckers which are full low floor), but does this matter? - I don't think so as people with disabilities make up less than 20% of the total population and there is sufficient area without any steps for their use at the front end of buses. There may need to be greater effort made to encourage standing passengers to move more towards the rear, rather than the current tendency to congregate around the front flat area.

The point (which I have made previously) is that full low floor buses tend to have lower seating capacities and the seats towards the rear are of necessity on plinths, some of which are very high and do present a tripping hazard to the elderly and infirmed - whereas the current low entrance buses are far more passenger friendly and just require passengers to negotiate a few steps towards the rear.
User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9717
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by tonyp »

Very good move Tim, creating a separate topic! The argument on that Sydney thread was not actually about low floor vs part low floor, but about having stairs in doorways. Just about everybody must be aware of the issue with the Bustech single-deckers by now and the mystery of why that design was thought of in the first place, let alone agencies and operators choosing to buy it. It's not the only offender though. I am quite mystified why anybody thought of the Combo artic design with its mostly high floor. That one is really puzzling, considering that if an operator wants an underfloor engine, there's still scope for it at the back, to the rear of the last door, as is the case on most artics in Australia which are mostly low floor.

I recall seeing a comment by Admet when it decided to introduce all-door loading warning people to be careful of the stairs at the other doors and, since then Admet has shown itself to be clearly aware of the issue by requiring Bustech to modify its design to eliminate the stairs at the centre door. All of the larger Australian cities demonstrate similar awareness, as it is only in Sydney that there are such large numbers of buses with stairs at the centre door (about 720 of them I estimate). That's huge - you can't get much more unaware than that.

As for fully low floor, it is creeping into Australia and already has some official backing in Victoria (and in Brisbane with the new double artics). Elsewhere, it is gradually moving beyond Europe into countries like Japan. The studies and arguments for it have taken place years ago now and it's really a long-settled issue. Not only is it friendlier to passengers and reduces the risk of injury, it also has efficiency benefits in moving and distributing passengers through and around the vehicle (I use the term vehicle because we're also talking about trams, trains and ferries). In buses in Australia, it is well-demonstrated by the way standee crowds tend to stall at the aisle stairs and won't fill the bus down to the back, thus preventing other people boarding. So a floor with steps is a definite productivity - as well as safety - impediment. If there a large number of mobility-impaired passengers aboard, it inhibits them likewise from moving down the back, thus the bus becomes overfull at the front.

I think what's happened in Australia is that the DDA sets only minimum standards and the public transport industry has had no motivation to think of related issues beyond that, except in pockets like PTV and BCC where somebody has clearly considered wider issues of design. It suggests that the Australian commuter bus sector is more reactive than proactive. Does the comment made by the late Geoff Johnson (editor of Truck and Bus Transportation) that the bus industry is run by mechanics rather than passenger transport people still apply do you think?
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
Mr OC Benz
Moderator
Posts: 5742
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:18 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Anything German
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Mr OC Benz »

Tim Williams wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:41 pm Full low floor buses are mechanically more complicated then the commonly used (in Australia, at least) low entrance buses - they are also more expensive to purchase and maintain, with some of their expensive parts quite close to the ground. Full low floor buses would not be able to operate in some town-urban areas due to the road profile/topography. As a simple example when I had Murtons, we had a lot of trouble keeping some parts of our buses away from the roads in Broken Hill - in fact the 4 underneath skids at the front and rear of each of the two BCI's on the Town Services were virtually worn down to nothing after 3 years in service. And I believe our drivers did their best by slowing right down and raising the suspension in the more "extreme" areas.
I don't think there's a one size fits all approach and certainly full low floor buses, while they are obviously desirable for the reasons that tonyp has mentioned (increased accessibility, reduced risk of injury, increased overall capacity etc), they are suited to some applications (e.g. high volume short distance) more than others (outer suburban, rural). Your example in Broken Hill does not necessarily mean that full low floor buses would not be fit for purpose in that area... the design specifications of buses (low floor or low entry) can wildly vary by manufacturer. There's plenty of locations in Europe (particularly Eastern Europe) where road conditions are far worse than anything that would be experienced in Australia and yet many low floor buses seem perfectly capable of handling the task (and for the record I've also witnessed others which are not!).
Tim Williams wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:41 pmSo, as we know, most urban buses here are low entrance only (excluding double deckers which are full low floor), but does this matter? - I don't think so...
As far as meeting minimum DDA compliance, it does not matter as long as it is compliant but are we seeking to meet just the bare minimum or is there a higher standard that can be met which balances cost with attracting patronage and providing a level of comfort and quality that meets customer expectations. Obviously this is where transport authorities need to take the lead as there is little incentive for bus operators (those who have that level of autonomy to lease/purchase own fleets etc) to exceed expectations when standards are set so low by transport authorities. Unfortunately the level of incompetence that most public transport authorities exhibit around the country and the people in charge of making decisions (who often lack any expertise or understanding of the fundamental principles of providing public transport) does not fill me with much hope that this will change in the short term.
Tim Williams wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:41 pm ...as people with disabilities make up less than 20% of the total population and there is sufficient area without any steps for their use at the front end of buses. There may need to be greater effort made to encourage standing passengers to move more towards the rear, rather than the current tendency to congregate around the front flat area.
People with disabilities may make up less than 20% of the total population but in many cases, they make up far more than 20% of patronage on bus services, obviously depending on the type of service and demographics of the area. Sure, in many situations we are talking small numbers (i.e. 20% of 5 people on a bus is obviously not much) particularly outside of the bigger cities but in those capital cities where off-peak travel incentives are provided, their proportion of total patronage during these times can be significant. I have personally witnessed multiple occasions of fully seated buses carrying predominantly seniors/pensioners and people with reduced mobility in high density areas, where poor bus design has resulted in these passengers having great difficulty with getting on, finding a seat, and getting off again. Compounded across the trip and throughout multiple trips across the day, this results in increased unreliability and delays, which are by no means the passengers fault but certainly makes you wonder if there is a better solution - of course there is a better solution but as I've mentioned above, who is in charge of making decisions that would ever know or care about these issues? I see there is a real disconnect between those in charge of planning and execution of bus services and their understanding vs what actually happens in reality.
Tim Williams wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:41 pmThe point (which I have made previously) is that full low floor buses tend to have lower seating capacities and the seats towards the rear are of necessity on plinths, some of which are very high and do present a tripping hazard to the elderly and infirmed - whereas the current low entrance buses are far more passenger friendly and just require passengers to negotiate a few steps towards the rear.
Lower seating capacities isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on the application and as mentioned above, each manufacturer does things differently and there are indeed some out there who could provide similar seating capacities to that of a low entry bus. Likewise with seats on plinths, there are some which are very high but again this varies by manufacturer. The same is true for low entry buses. Some manufacturers make these relatively passenger friendly by having gentle and slight increases in height between steps while others are significantly more difficult to traverse.

In any case, there appears to be increasing realisation that full low floor buses are beneficial for public transport operations. This is becoming more evident with electric buses which are gaining traction and will only be a matter of time before they become more widespread across Australia. Electric buses have the added benefit of being able to accommodate full low floor layouts more easily compared to their diesel counterparts. Although some manufacturers (in Australia at least) have decided to continue the low entry format on their electric bus products (even those where there is actually no technical reason to do so), there are plenty of newcomers to the market which, if they are successful, will deliver a far more desirable product from a customer's point of view, most of which are offering full low floor layouts (Volvo's 7900E, Bustech's ZDi, Denning's Element?, Zemtec, Ebusco to name some). The Brisbane Metro project will feature full low floor buses and the business case being developed for an electric bus network on the Gold Coast is expected to feature full low floor layouts on those buses.
User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9717
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by tonyp »

Excellent points Mr OCB. I'd add that seating capacity is in fact typically much the same in both types of bus. It's just that one bus has a high aisle, the other a low aisle. I suspect the perception that low floor buses have less seats derives from seeing them in Europe where they often have three doors in a rigid and four or five in an artic. It's the number of doors that create less seating, not the height of the aisle.

Plus of course it should be noted that the need for low floor is no less in the country as the passenger profile is often dominated by the elderly, mobility impaired and parents with prams. I have often referred to journeys on the NSW south coast where the wheelchair and pram spaces are filled by those devices and their owners, leaving only two or three seats on the low floor for numerous others who are unable to climb the steep stairs. In terms of low-entry buses I find that it's mainly Volgren who have some design skill to mitigate these issues in minimising stair rises and maximising seating on the low floor, depending on the chassis.

Still no substitute for a fully low floor bus though and I think a trend in that direction has started in Australia. Unfortunately NSW is in the rearguard rather than the vanguard on these issues.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
Merc1107
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:38 pm
Favourite Vehicle: High Floor Buses
Location: Perth

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Merc1107 »

Tim Williams wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 2:41 pm Full low floor buses would not be able to operate in some town-urban areas due to the road profile/topography. As a simple example when I had Murtons, we had a lot of trouble keeping some parts of our buses away from the roads in Broken Hill - in fact the 4 underneath skids at the front and rear of each of the two BCI's on the Town Services were virtually worn down to nothing after 3 years in service. And I believe our drivers did their best by slowing right down and raising the suspension in the more "extreme" areas.
Perth's O405NHs have (or had) lower-profile tyres than the newer buses in the fleet (excepting the three prototype articulated units). Bottoming out is or was a relatively common occurrence in those; and was even worse when the units were new, I'm told. Note these buses were just low-entry, steps are still present to access the rear portion of the bus.
tonyp wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:06 pm I am quite mystified why anybody thought of the Combo artic design with its mostly high floor. That one is really puzzling, considering that if an operator wants an underfloor engine, there's still scope for it at the back, to the rear of the last door, as is the case on most artics in Australia which are mostly low floor.
Owing to the greater high-floor area in these buses, this allows greater seating capacity that would otherwise have been lost at the centre axle wheel-arches and around the steps in the back. This design seems appropriate for longer-distance routes where capacity might be an issue.
Mr OC Benz wrote: Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:19 pm Compounded across the trip and throughout multiple trips across the day, this results in increased unreliability and delays, which are by no means the passengers fault but certainly makes you wonder if there is a better solution - of course there is a better solution but as I've mentioned above, who is in charge of making decisions that would ever know or care about these issues? I see there is a real disconnect between those in charge of planning and execution of bus services and their understanding vs what actually happens in reality.
Another big question is, are the persons most affected by low-entry vehicles making their frustration with the buses known? Or are Government agencies trying to get in touch with relevant groups in the community to find out their opinion on public transport accessibility?
User avatar
1whoknows
Posts: 3675
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by 1whoknows »

I'd suggest the acid test for any low floor chassis is to be driven around West Wyalong for a few hours - that town has the most evil spoon drains in existence. If it works there it will work anywhere.
"Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out"
David Horowitz.
User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9717
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by tonyp »

Merc1107 wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 12:06 am Another big question is, are the persons most affected by low-entry vehicles making their frustration with the buses known? Or are Government agencies trying to get in touch with relevant groups in the community to find out their opinion on public transport accessibility?
I would say most definitely agencies are not surveying opinion on bus design and I suspect affected people would not make their discontent known, simply because in Australia they would think that's the way buses are and there's nothing that can be done about it. The only recent public reaction that I've come across is when Transport Canberra went to rear door loading as a result of the virus and comments started appearing in TC's social media complaining about the steps at the rear doors on some of the fleet.

So when you have a system that's reactive, not proactive, nothing will be done. The initiative has to come from the agencies who should be staying abreast of the current state of the art and best practice in transport technology. They should be doing this, not just out of concern for their customers, but for the operational and productivity benefits. Fortunately there are signs, in Victoria in particular, that some are starting to become aware of such issues.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
Tim Williams
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Tim Williams »

This is a great discussion - exactly what I had hoped for!!
I haven't much time this morning, so I will be brief - the 3 points that worry me about full low floors are:
1. Additional cost and maintenance.
2. Route suitability.
3. The necessity of high plinths (on which seats are mounted) towards the rear.

Point 2 has been discussed, so far, but 1 and particularly 3 have not.
Thanks to all!!
User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9717
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by tonyp »

Tim Williams wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:51 am This is a great discussion - exactly what I had hoped for!!
I haven't much time this morning, so I will be brief - the 3 points that worry me about full low floors are:
1. Additional cost and maintenance.
2. Route suitability.
3. The necessity of high plinths (on which seats are mounted) towards the rear.

Point 2 has been discussed, so far, but 1 and particularly 3 have not.
Thanks to all!!
As an older and rather infirm person, I can say that these seats on plinths are a blessing because you simply plant your bum on the edge of the seat and swing into it without having to bend down. When leaving the seat, likewise you don't have to put weight on your knees to stand up. You leave the seat directly to a standing position.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
Merc1107
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:38 pm
Favourite Vehicle: High Floor Buses
Location: Perth

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Merc1107 »

Tim Williams wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:51 am 1. Additional cost and maintenance.
Do they actually cost more for the manufacturer to produce, or are low-floors still seen as the 'premium' city bus offering?

Along these lines, how many bus types are in Australia that were bodied as low-entry when the final product was intended to be low-floor? For example, isn't the MAN NG313 articulated bus found in both Brisbane and Perth meant to be low floor, as opposed to low entry?
tonyp wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:06 am The only recent public reaction that I've come across is when Transport Canberra went to rear door loading as a result of the virus and comments started appearing in TC's social media complaining about the steps at the rear doors on some of the fleet.
Good. There need to be more instances where passengers of these conservatively-designed buses make their dissatisfaction known - even people without mobility issues who find the lack of luggage space on buses irritating. Two or three prams, and suddenly all the old dears have no room for their shopping, and the person with a Guide Dog now has nowhere to sit.
User avatar
eddy
Posts: 2550
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:18 am
Contact:

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by eddy »

As Mr OC Benz says there are horses for courses and if you are talking about high capacity low floor articulated vehicles in appropriate areas then you could not go past the trailerbus at only 10% the cost of light rail.
Parrahub, an extra option in the public transport menu https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ ... rahub-2016
Tim Williams
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Tim Williams »

I am particularly interested in tonyp's comments regarding getting on and off seats if you are infirm-ed and not having to use your knees - I have never thought about that and yet I am older with knees that are not 100%

When I was younger and was looking after Briscoes on the operations, maintenance and finance sides (what a mixture - but it was fun!), after much discussion I persuaded the Board to invest in new Volvo B58's/ZF auto's with Volgren bus bodies for the Adelaide - Mt Barker services - to date, hand me down coaches, normally old Dennings were used, great coaches but useless in that application (high floors, sunken isles and low capacity), not to mention high fuel use from the 6-71's and 8-71's combined with the difficulty of demanding constant mesh g/boxes in urban and hilly work.

The B58's were great, reliable and popular, they seated 53 in an 11.3 metre bus (same as the full length Leyland National). But, no thought then was given to wheelchair and passengers with other disabilities - I can now see how wrong we all were in those days, but also the equipment was not available.

So that brings to the current position and this is from Singapore, but it similarly applies here, UK, Europe and other places. I have photos of their MAN/Gemilang full low floor artics of which there are only 40 and it is doubtful that any further artics will be purchased and the MB Citaro (type 1 or phase 1 whatever it is called) of which there are 1,155 in total - they are one of my favourite buses. The artics seat 54 and stand 76 and the Citaro seats 37 and stand 51 - low seated number for a 12 metre bus but being a low floor, having space for wheelchairs and having 2 doors (all necessary features) reduces seating capacity.

I will post some photos next which show both outside and inside and I would particularly interested in comments about seats around wheel arches and whether or not the seats there are too high to slide on and off, as tonyp has mentioned.
Tim Williams
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Tim Williams »

P8020699.jpg
P8020699.jpg (77.8 KiB) Viewed 1919 times
P8020698.jpg
P8020698.jpg (81.45 KiB) Viewed 1919 times
P8010430 (2).jpg
P8010430 (2).jpg (99.03 KiB) Viewed 1919 times
P1090849.jpg
P1090849.jpg (73.86 KiB) Viewed 1919 times
P1090848a_edited-1.jpg
P1090848a_edited-1.jpg (85.42 KiB) Viewed 1919 times
The first 3 photos are of one of the forty artics - they are ordered by and entered service with SMRT and are now being repainted into Singapore's Lush Green livery, the other 2 photos are of one of the Citaros - the majority of these buses were ordered by SBS Transit, with a small batch purchased by SMRT and later buses purchased by the LTA itself (after having taken over the latter part of SBS's order).

I think both have very "clean" interiors, even with the need to "box up" fairly large wheel arches - as said previously, I think, I will be very very interested in your opinions.
User avatar
Campbelltown busboy
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:23 pm
Location: Ruse/Campbelltown City NSW

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Campbelltown busboy »

That's all good but Australian bus operators perfer bench style seating over the individual style seating witch looks like the perferred seating arrangement for full low floor buses. Would the Australian bus industry allow individual seating to become widespread
User avatar
Off The Rails
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:47 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Anything with an engine brake
Location: No where near the Gutta

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Off The Rails »

Individual seats like on the Singapore buses were common practice in Perth, from the O405's until we got B7's.

Also, Tim, the name for that style is the Citaro Facelift.
eddy wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 12:35 pm As Mr OC Benz says there are horses for courses and if you are talking about high capacity low floor articulated vehicles in appropriate areas then you could not go past the trailerbus at only 10% the cost of light rail.
eddy... you do realise a trailerbus will not be low floor (like what TonyP wants), right? The section where the trailer will connect to the truck will be raised, requiring stairs, and the axles of the trailer will most likely require a step over them.

Cheers! :wink:
Officially the last person to tag off the 381 - 20/5/16.
Second last person to tag off the last timetabled 16 - 23/08/19.
Last person to tag off a Transdev Joondalup service - 19/1/20.
User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9717
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by tonyp »

From TC social media today, sort of sums it up - low-floor as an afterthought:

Image

Those Singapore buses have fixed armrests which isn't very conducive to entering and leaving the seats. I've seen armrests in some European citybuses but they fold up out of the way. I don't know if the Citaros are the best example of a full low floor at the back, the aisle seems rather narrow, winding and trench-like to me. Here is a Czech SOR NB18 and the aisle is the same width and straight-lined from front to back of the bus, the way it really should be:

Image

At the back the aisle turns left towards the rear-most door.The angled step you see is on this turn and accesses the very back seat row.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
Enviro 500
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:42 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Scania N113CRB
Location: WA 6000
Contact:

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Enviro 500 »

Tim Williams wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 3:18 pm P8020699.jpgP8020698.jpgP8010430 (2).jpgP1090849.jpgP1090848a_edited-1.jpg

The first 3 photos are of one of the forty artics - they are ordered by and entered service with SMRT and are now being repainted into Singapore's Lush Green livery, the other 2 photos are of one of the Citaros - the majority of these buses were ordered by SBS Transit, with a small batch purchased by SMRT and later buses purchased by the LTA itself (after having taken over the latter part of SBS's order).

I think both have very "clean" interiors, even with the need to "box up" fairly large wheel arches - as said previously, I think, I will be very very interested in your opinions.
A quarter of SMRT Buses' A24s were requisitioned by SBS Transit after the latter won the Seletar contract 2 years ago. Those have been repainted to green. A large number of the Citaros procured by SBST were transferred to Swan Transit and Go-Ahead after the two foreign companies bid successfully for the Bulim and Loyang contracts respectively.

Also, did you manage to get any pictures of the €6 A22s and A95s?
Tim Williams
Posts: 1063
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Tim Williams »

tonyp, I naturally see your point regarding the straight flat isle on the Czech bus, but from an appearance aspect I prefer to look of the Citaro, even with vinyl seats - necessary due to Singapore's very high humidity. The slightly rounded edges of the Citaro would probably also cause less injuries with passengers tripping up and falling etc.

The MAN/Gemilang artic is a strange beast, in its layout towards the rear. The deep curving and relatively narrow trench would not be conducive to standing passengers - I actually went on a long run on one of these artics from Changi Airport in the South East of the island to Woodlands in the north and there were numerous heavy loadings and unloadings on route, but standing that trench area was either light or avoided.

Gemilang produce that style, known as "Lions City" under licence from MAN, so I am a little surprised at the layout in the trailer section - whether it has anything to do with the change over from left to right hand drive, I am not sure. But as the order was for 40 buses only, perhaps a lot of time could not be spent on product development, including layout refinement.

I can imagine the little fixed arm rests being an LTA requirement where the seats are fairly high off the ground (both the MAN's and Citaro's have them.)
In use they do not seem to create any problems, except for sliding on and off as has been mentioned.

I am not a great one for taking interior photos, but I will have a look which may take a little time as I have traveled to Singapore many times (since just after independence) and taken numerous photos.
User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9717
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by tonyp »

This is from a few years ago and only covers some of the available models but has some good interior photos. Some manufacturers do it better than others. You could be right about variations in the changeover to RHD as the power train usually isn't switched over, so the doors and driver end up on what is the offside on the parent model..

https://www.busandcoachbuyer.com/bus-euro-test-2014/
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
Enviro 500
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:42 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Scania N113CRB
Location: WA 6000
Contact:

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by Enviro 500 »

Tim Williams wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:50 pm tonyp, I naturally see your point regarding the straight flat isle on the Czech bus, but from an appearance aspect I prefer to look of the Citaro, even with vinyl seats - necessary due to Singapore's very high humidity. The slightly rounded edges of the Citaro would probably also cause less injuries with passengers tripping up and falling etc.

The MAN/Gemilang artic is a strange beast, in its layout towards the rear. The deep curving and relatively narrow trench would not be conducive to standing passengers - I actually went on a long run on one of these artics from Changi Airport in the South East of the island to Woodlands in the north and there were numerous heavy loadings and unloadings on route, but standing that trench area was either light or avoided.

Gemilang produce that style, known as "Lions City" under licence from MAN, so I am a little surprised at the layout in the trailer section - whether it has anything to do with the change over from left to right hand drive, I am not sure. But as the order was for 40 buses only, perhaps a lot of time could not be spent on product development, including layout refinement.

I can imagine the little fixed arm rests being an LTA requirement where the seats are fairly high off the ground (both the MAN's and Citaro's have them.)
In use they do not seem to create any problems, except for sliding on and off as has been mentioned.

I am not a great one for taking interior photos, but I will have a look which may take a little time as I have traveled to Singapore many times (since just after independence) and taken numerous photos.
Heh, you took Route 858. Part of it runs express on three major freeways. Main areas with high loading and unloading are Seletar Camp and Yishun New Town.
User avatar
eddy
Posts: 2550
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:18 am
Contact:

Re: Full Low Floor vs. Low entrance buses

Post by eddy »

Off The Rails wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:37 pm Individual seats like on the Singapore buses were common practice in Perth, from the O405's until we got B7's.

Also, Tim, the name for that style is the Citaro Facelift.
eddy wrote: Wed Aug 26, 2020 12:35 pm As Mr OC Benz says there are horses for courses and if you are talking about high capacity low floor articulated vehicles in appropriate areas then you could not go past the trailerbus at only 10% the cost of light rail.
eddy... you do realise a trailerbus will not be low floor (like what TonyP wants), right? The section where the trailer will connect to the truck will be raised, requiring stairs, and the axles of the trailer will most likely require a step over them.

Cheers! :wink:
With the legal requirement from kingpin to end of trailer 12.3m less 1.3m for the safety stairs there would only be 11m of flat floor at 400mm high which is what many buses are.

However it could have big reliable batteries plus 150 passengers and still be road friendly.
Parrahub, an extra option in the public transport menu https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ ... rahub-2016
Post Reply

Return to “General Transport Discussion”