STA Observations 2021-2022

[J_Busworth]

K280UB CB80s ex R and Euro 5 B12BLE CB60s ex W to T

In exchange, a large number of artics are moving from T to R.

[J_Busworth]

A number of B10s have been withdrawn ex W. They have been replaced by B8s ex P, 2953-2960 (Volgren) and 3068-3071 (Bustech)

[Alric]

B8 2952 also now at W. Sighted today in Oxford St on a 352 to Marrickville Metro, complete with W Run Plate. Good to see both 3070 and 3071 earlier today on 324's in Kings Cross. Makes a change from the usual 324/5 fare of B12's on these routes.

[Transport Buff]

Saw 3030 ST yesterday (14/12/21), on a 374, which is also Randwick's Christmas bus.
Also, STA buses don't seem be showing on Anytrip's Christmas bus filter, afaik.

[moa999]

Also, STA buses don't seem be showing on Anytrip's Christmas bus filter, afaik.

Much like their Electric bus filter which hasn't worked for months, suspect someone has to manually upload the fleet numbers.

[tonyp]

Will these be the last government-operated buses ever delivered in NSW I wonder?


(Courtesy Custom Denning)

[Noel]

A number of B10s have been withdrawn ex W. They have been replaced by B8s ex P, 2953-2960 (Volgren) and 3068-3071 (Bustech)

There are now only 10 B10s left at Waverley. They are 3854, 3909, 3911, 3913, 3915, 3917, 3921, 3923, 3925 and 3931.

With the imminent arrival of (3121) - the first Custom-Denning Element - the remaining B10s do not have much time left sadly.

[busbum]

Is there a problem loading the STA changes on to fleet lists? Not a criticism

[tonyp]

Re the new electric Elements referred to above, looking back through the long history of the DRTT/DGT/PTC/UTA/STA, I hadn't realised how close to the beginnings of the agency that electric buses figured.

As most would know, the DRTT bus operations started off with many second-hand ex private buses and it was not until a year into operations, in December 1933 that DRTT placed in service its first new bus bodies, a Leyland double decker and Thornycroft single decker with Syd Wood bodies built on second-hand chassis acquired from private operators.

However, simultaneously, the first electric buses, Trolleybus Nos. 1 and 2 (2 as a chassis and subsequently local-bodied), had arrived in late 1933 and No. 1 entered service only a month later in January 1934 as a completely new bus, body and chassis, DRTT's first completely new bus. As far as I can determine, DRTT's first completely new diesel buses (new body and new chassis) didn't enter service until following months in 1934. DRTT/DGT continued running electric transit until 1959 for trolleybuses and 1961 for trams, before becoming all-diesel. I think it's rather fitting that new electric buses will usher its successor out. Innovative at the beginning, innovative at the end and a bit of a lapse in between!

[Linto63]

Sydney was hardly innovative in introducing trolleybuses, they had been around since the 1910s. They were an attempt to do trams on the cheap, but their lack of flexibility compared with their diesel counterparts, brought about their demise. They disappeared from the streets of Sydney several years before the last trams ran. Likewise State Transit is very much a Johnny-come-lately to the electric party.

[tonyp]

Sydney was hardly innovative in introducing trolleybuses, they had been around since the 1910s. They were an attempt to do trams on the cheap, but their lack of flexibility compared with their diesel counterparts, brought about their demise. They disappeared from the streets of Sydney several years before the last trams ran. Likewise State Transit is very much a Johnny-come-lately to the electric party.

The point is that the first and last completely new government buses in NSW were and are electric buses. Of course it was innovative in NSW, in parallel with simultaneous developments in Adelaide and Perth. In NSW they were considered a potential replacement for peripheral tram routes with lower patronage. They were considered worthy enough to run for another 26 years, till two years before the trams finished. Being fixed to wires back then wasn't an issue because they were replacements for tram routes, to perform a similar higher-capacity function. One reason that diesel buses ended up being the only form of street public transport was that they'd lost interest in providing for public transport capacity and growth by the 1950s, fatalistically leaving the street transport task to private cars and the much-heralded motorways.

[boronia]

Is there a problem loading the STA changes on to fleet lists? Not a criticism

It is a voluntary function, no doubt dependent on the people involved having the information and the time to do it.

[Linto63]

They were considered worthy enough to run for another 26 years, till two years before the trams finished.

Once purchased, unless a total flop they were not going to be pensioned off early, but that no further lines beyond the initial two were converted, would indicate they weren't considered a rip-roaring success.

One reason that diesel buses ended up being the only form of street public transport was that they'd lost interest in providing for public transport capacity and growth by the 1950s, fatalistically leaving the street transport task to private cars and the much-heralded motorways.

Was happening the world over, Sydney just came to the same conclusion as everybody else.

[tonyp]

The trolleybus lines, which were built by political direction, eventually closed basically because there was such opposition to them among the motor bus fraternity that dominated street transit public service administration in NSW. Nevertheless the very successful Kogarah system served out its entire normal fleet life, at a lower operating cost and lower failure rate than the diesel fleet. It was just another irrational decision pushed by diesel-heads, same as getting rid of the trams - and trolleybuses were caught up in the same anti-electric fever as the tram system.

No it wasn't the same the world over. Many jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, remained focussed on capacity, which diesel buses didn't have. As a result, many cities gained new commuter rail lines in the postwar era, which addressed the issue of capacity and whether trams were needed or not. Sydney was supposed to have new train lines but didn't get them and just went ahead and closed the high capacity street systems anyway. Those cities that went for buses-only basically gave up on planning for mass movement of people by public transport.

It's a part-fallacy that public transport lost popularity because people got cars and voluntarily started driving. This was only half of the equation. People also left public transport and started driving because of the reduction of public transport capacity resulting from new railway lines not being built and high-capacity street transport (trams) being replaced by low capacity street transport (buses). Population was growing (baby boom and immigration), but public transport capacity relative to it was shrinking. People still wanted to use public transport but couldn't get aboard a ride, so they gave up and started driving. The results were dramatically obvious at the time in inner city streets, coinciding with the progressive closure of each sector of the tram system. Saw it myself.

The great failure of the DGT/PTC/UTA/STA during its lifetime was, first shrinking, then subsequently failing to sufficiently grow street public transport capacity and hence patronage. This is the legacy of the STA, only mitigated towards the end by serious use of articulated buses when the pressures of population growth became too much - but even then they're inconsistent on that. Time's up for STA. Cause of death: incurable myopia.

[Merc1107]

The great failure of the DGT/PTC/UTA/STA during its lifetime was, first shrinking, then subsequently failing to sufficiently grow street public transport capacity and hence patronage. This is the legacy of the STA, only mitigated towards the end by serious use of articulated buses when the pressures of population growth became too much - but even then they're inconsistent on that. Time's up for STA. Cause of death: incurable myopia.

Isn't there also the issues of political ideologies overruling the sorts of logical steps that should've been occurring in this time; were these various agencies deliberately underfunded and unable to adapt properly?

There are a lot of arguments for and against privatisation. Regardless of whether the buses are a completely private concern, operations contracted or the Government running them, their operation needs to be overseen properly. There's a need to manage inefficiencies with any operation and ensure resources are properly directed to where they're needed. In the case of the privates specifically, there's also a need to manage the perceived "race to the bottom" - there's no incentive to be an innovative operator, with good workplace relations when a competitor can undercut you.

What is very much farcical is we concede that our government buses are inefficient, poorly run, and so on, then enlist the services of contractors who are partially or even majority-owned by foreign governments. If foreign governments can run profitable businesses (or at least make them look that way ), why can't we?

[Campbelltown busboy]

Here’s something on the history of the STA
The STA was created by the Bertram Stevens lead United Australia-Country government in 1932
It ends under this current Liberal-National government in 2022

[Linto63]

No it wasn't the same the world over. Many jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, remained focussed on capacity, which diesel buses didn't have.

Sydney was not alone in binning its tram and trolleybus networks. Of the other 10 other cities in Australia that operated tram or trolleybus networks at the end of World War II, nine closed in the 1950/60s. Suggesting it was solely down to an anti-electric traction philosophy by the NSW agency is a fallacy.

Time's up for STA. Cause of death: incurable myopia.

Cause of death: idealogical government decision to outsource.

What is very much farcical is we concede that our government buses are inefficient, poorly run, and so on, then enlist the services of contractors who are partially or even majority-owned by foreign governments. If foreign governments can run profitable businesses (or at least make them look that way), why can't we?

Assuming that they are profitable, plenty have taken a bath on their overseas investments.

[boronia]

No it wasn't the same the world over. Many jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, remained focussed on capacity, which diesel buses didn't have.

Sydney was not alone in binning its tram and trolleybus networks. Of the other 10 other cities in Australia that operated tram or trolleybus networks at the end of World War II, nine closed in the 1950/60s. Suggesting it was solely down to an anti-electric traction thing by the NSW agency is a fallacy.

The UK wasn't one of those European jurisdictions, and Australia probably just fell into line with "mother country" practices. The marketing people from AEC, Leyland, etc took advantage of it.

[tonyp]

The UK wasn't one of those European jurisdictions, and Australia probably just fell into line with "mother country" practices. The marketing people from AEC, Leyland, etc took advantage of it.

The tram and train people were very resistant to "mother country practice", looking more towards USA and elsewhere over the years. The private bus people were much the same (about 90% of the buses acquired from privates when DRTT was set up were American). It's the government bus people from the 1930s onwards who went British, aided by growing trade preferentialism, British bus manufacturer sales drives and a lot of UK immigrants joining the ranks, and that's where the rot began.

They saw the answer to capacity as simply building up the fleet by buying more and more buses (there were no high capacity buses in those days), until they ended up choking on their own congestion - not to mention the great rise in operating costs. But when you're taxpayer-funded, getting best bang for bucks isn't a serious issue. You still get paid regardless. It's one reason my dad left the DGT for the private sector - all the dead wood entrenched up the top, for whom you had to wait until they died or retired before you could get promotion on merit. I think the tramways and railways were a little better than that.

[boronia]

The poms were way behind in terms of bus development. Their pre-1930s buses were little more than heavy truck chassis; the yanks developed much more suitable products. The SBM's 1929 White has air brakes, the poms hadn't even come to terms with hydraulic brakes at that stage. Private operators trying to lure business from the trams would surely have gone after the better passenger experience, even it they cost more.

The development of the Regents/Titans/etc in the early 1930s would certainly have changed the landscape.

[tonyp]

Here’s something on the history of the STA
The STA was created by the Bertram Stevens lead United Australia-Country government in 1932
It ends under this current Liberal-National government in 2022

Created as DRTT, subsequently DGT, PTC, UTA and STA. Ninety years is a long time. As we move towards the end and the inevitable nostalgia though, it's important to keep this in mind:

https://web-archive.cloud.audit.nsw.gov ... dings.html

The NSW Auditor is an independent entity and there are no politics involved here.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Here’s something on the history of the STA
The STA was created by the Bertram Stevens lead United Australia-Country government in 1932
It ends under this current Liberal-National government in 2022

Created as DRTT, subsequently DGT, PTC, UTA and STA. Ninety years is a long time. As we move towards the end and the inevitable nostalgia though, it's important to keep this in mind:

https://web-archive.cloud.audit.nsw.gov ... dings.html

The NSW Auditor is an independent entity and there are no politics involved here.

The creation of the DRTT would of been a direct result from the introduction of the transport minister

[tonyp]

The creation of the DRTT would of been a direct result from the introduction of the transport minister

Of course, and the end is also a political decision but based on an independent assessment.

[Campbelltown busboy]

How did they get away with setting up something like the DRTT while at the same time using the financial crisis we now know as the Great Depression as a excuse to cut funding for the Bradfield railway network build

[tonyp]

How did they get away with setting up something like the DRTT while at the same time using the financial crisis we now know as the Great Depression as a excuse to cut funding for the Bradfield railway network build

Buses and trams (don't forget 250 new trams during the 1930s) were cheaper of course, but there was a lot of work on the railway network (see Robert Henderson's book on the electrification) and by the end of the 1930s two significant lines had been opened to Cronulla and East Hills.