• Advertisement

Bustech v CB 80

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Sat Apr 28, 2018 4:09 am

Megumi wrote: However, Brisbane Transport seems never buying a bustech.

Funny that eh?
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Stonesourscotty » Mon May 07, 2018 7:12 pm

Brisbane have a Volvo only contract don't they? Maybe the Bustech Volvos arent rated??
Stonesourscotty
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:01 am
Location: Wigan England / Sydenham Sydney
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 11 times
Favourite Vehicle: Custom Bodied Tri Axle Volvo

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Megumi » Mon May 07, 2018 8:49 pm

Stonesourscotty wrote:Brisbane have a Volvo only contract don't they? Maybe the Bustech Volvos arent rated??


I live in Brisbane. The Brisbane Transport which is operated by the City Council has a "fully-Volgren" fleet. Only 20 buses are not built by Volgren. They are MAN CNG articulated buses with Custom Coach bodywork. But Bustech is very common in Queensland since most bus operators have Bustech bus fleets except Brisbane Transport.
Megumi
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:07 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Mon May 07, 2018 9:30 pm

Megumi wrote:
I live in Brisbane. The Brisbane Transport which is operated by the City Council has a "fully-Volgren" fleet. Only 20 buses are not built by Volgren.

Tonyp would be impressed, if not for the skinny centre door. Why do they insist on that?
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby tonyp » Mon May 07, 2018 9:43 pm

Perhaps Brisbane City Council is wise enough to know that if you want a fit-for-purpose citybus design you go for Volgren (plus it's local manufacture too, so nothing lost), but foolish enough not to understand that for a heavy-duty big city operation you must have double-leaf doors, minimum two on a 12 metre rigid and minimum three on an 18 metre artic. These minimum standards are now established in Perth and it seems in Sydney too (although one can never be sure what is actually going on in NSW from day to day).
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 885 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Mon May 07, 2018 9:48 pm

tonyp wrote:Perhaps Brisbane City Council is wise enough to know that if you want a fit-for-purpose citybus design you go for Volgren (plus it's local manufacture too, so nothing lost), but foolish enough not to understand that for a heavy-duty big city operation you must have double-leaf doors, minimum two on a 12 metre rigid and minimum three on an 18 metre artic. These minimum standards are now established in Perth and it seems in Sydney too (although one can never be sure what is actually going on in NSW from day to day).

Sydney's problem is pathetic utilisation of these doors. The private contract areas are the worst by far.
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Megumi » Tue May 08, 2018 2:00 am

tonyp wrote:Perhaps Brisbane City Council is wise enough to know that if you want a fit-for-purpose citybus design you go for Volgren (plus it's local manufacture too, so nothing lost), but foolish enough not to understand that for a heavy-duty big city operation you must have double-leaf doors, minimum two on a 12 metre rigid and minimum three on an 18 metre artic. These minimum standards are now established in Perth and it seems in Sydney too (although one can never be sure what is actually going on in NSW from day to day).


I think the single-leaf central door is enough for Brisbane. By the way, only 12.5m bus of Brisbane Transport is single-leaf central door. They used to have double-leaf door models which was the Merceds-Benz O500LE but all of them were withdrawn by 2013. It was heard that these buses were sold to NSW. I am so missed them......
Megumi
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:07 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby tonyp » Tue May 08, 2018 6:57 am

Megumi wrote:I think the single-leaf central door is enough for Brisbane. By the way, only 12.5m bus of Brisbane Transport is single-leaf central door. They used to have double-leaf door models which was the Merceds-Benz O500LE but all of them were withdrawn by 2013. It was heard that these buses were sold to NSW. I am so missed them......

Yet Perth which has lower bus patronage than Brisbane considers them necessary. Single leaf doors constrict passenger exchange (the time it takes for passengers to flow through the door) plus they are unsuitable for the same reason if there is a decision to introduce all-door loading.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 885 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby PoweredByCNG » Tue May 08, 2018 12:20 pm

Not only that, but the full (as in Perth Volvo full, NOT Perth Merc full) sized rear doors actually make it easy for two people to alight at a time. This allows shorter dwell times at stops and encourages passengers to spread themselves along the bus. Now, all we need is a fleet of full low floor buses to complete the transition.
Proud owner of ex-Transperth 1042, ex-Transperth 1114 and ex-STA Adelaide 1549.
User avatar
PoweredByCNG
 
Posts: 3481
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: WA
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 275 times
Favourite Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz O 405

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Tue May 08, 2018 4:25 pm

Megumi wrote:
tonyp wrote:
I think the single-leaf central door is enough for Brisbane. By the way, only 12.5m bus of Brisbane Transport is single-leaf central door. They used to have double-leaf door models which was the Merceds-Benz O500LE but all of them were withdrawn by 2013. It was heard that these buses were sold to NSW. I am so missed them......

As John McEnroe used to say....
It's not enough. It's backward for a city that looks forward otherwise. The powers that be didn't think it was enough when they unveiled the Leyland Panther in 1967. Why is it enough for Brisbane now? What a put down.
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby burrumbus » Tue May 08, 2018 4:30 pm

Swift wrote:
tonyp wrote:Perhaps Brisbane City Council is wise enough to know that if you want a fit-for-purpose citybus design you go for Volgren (plus it's local manufacture too, so nothing lost), but foolish enough not to understand that for a heavy-duty big city operation you must have double-leaf doors, minimum two on a 12 metre rigid and minimum three on an 18 metre artic. These minimum standards are now established in Perth and it seems in Sydney too (although one can never be sure what is actually going on in NSW from day to day).

Sydney's problem is pathetic utilisation of these doors. The private contract areas are the worst by far.

But the private contract areas in Sydney generally do not have the intensive patronage that STA and soon to be TSA have.
Speccing 2 door buses on the metro contracts in now mandatory from our friends at TFNSW.
burrumbus
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:12 pm
Has thanked: 963 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Tue May 08, 2018 6:55 pm

burrumbus wrote:Speccing 2 door buses on the metro contracts in now mandatory from our friends at TFNSW.

1.5 doors, you mean. A Clayton's two door. Better than the alternative if our fiends didn't step in.
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby burrumbus » Tue May 08, 2018 9:06 pm

Was that fiends or friends swift ???
I think a horses for courses bus allocation works best.That is speccing the buses for the characteristics of the routes operated.On intensive ,high patronage high turnover routes 3 door artics.
On long ,high patronage low turnover routes double deckers.
On reasonable patronage routes 49 seaters with wide double doors.
On low patronage routes midi size buses like Optare Solos and Hino Ponchos with single wide doors.
The Australian bus industry generally has never done that,with standard 40-50 seaters being the norm.
burrumbus
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:12 pm
Has thanked: 963 times
Been thanked: 394 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Tue May 08, 2018 9:12 pm

burrumbus wrote:Was that fiends or friends swift ???
I think a horses for courses bus allocation works best.That is speccing the buses for the characteristics of the routes operated.On intensive ,high patronage high turnover routes 3 door artics.
On long ,high patronage low turnover routes double deckers.
On reasonable patronage routes 49 seaters with wide double doors.
On low patronage routes midi size buses like Optare Solos and Hino Ponchos with single wide doors.
The Australian bus industry generally has never done that,with standard 40-50 seaters being the norm.

No typo.
Where do 1.5 door and single door buses play their role, planet Mars? If you are going to have a second doorway, do it properly. Stop wimping out with timid ideas like that.
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby tonyp » Tue May 08, 2018 9:42 pm

Australian operators seem to prefer one size fits all type of standard buses, so that their deployment can be flexible. So they're overkill for some services and completely inadequate for others. If this is not going to change, then the only solution at the high patronage end of the spectrum is to start reinstating all those tram systems that should never have been closed.

Of all the local systems though, Sydney is big enough to support task-scaled fleets, but they seem perpetually unresponsive to rising to the occasion. Inevitable then that a government comes along and starts building tramways again. The Australian bus industry is its own worst enemy.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 885 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby moa999 » Mon May 14, 2018 12:59 pm

The Arctics on Mxx and double-decker (B-Line and NorthEast) are pretty task specific.

Personally think we need to go hardcore into electrics.
Current tech should have the range to be used for morning peak and evening peak with depot charging in between.

As battery and rapid charging improve, they can cascade to main fleet.
moa999
 
Posts: 1933
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 279 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby tonyp » Mon May 14, 2018 1:55 pm

moa999 wrote:The Arctics on Mxx and double-decker (B-Line and NorthEast) are pretty task specific.

Personally think we need to go hardcore into electrics.
Current tech should have the range to be used for morning peak and evening peak with depot charging in between.

As battery and rapid charging improve, they can cascade to main fleet.

The technology is still in mid-development for buses. I think it's worth waiting to see how it pans out for permanent, proven and economical solutions. Trialling some individual buses is not a bad idea though, to get some familiarity and idea of capabilities etc.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 885 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Mon May 14, 2018 3:12 pm

Ryde depot managed to do it in the mid 1990s thanks to a little start up from New Zealand that made it possible.
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby tonyp » Tue May 15, 2018 11:59 am

moa999 wrote:The Arctics on Mxx and double-decker (B-Line and NorthEast) are pretty task specific.

That's true, but there are never enough artics and application of them is not the best - too many stories of artics running around empty on some routes and other routes being run by rigids and overwhelmed with the demand.

I note that BVG in Berlin has placed a big order for buses and most of them are artics (600 out of 950!):

https://www.busnews.com.au/industry-new ... -to-berlin

This seems to be a trend in European cities as demand seriously ramps up. Prague is another ordering big on artics where they are now over 40% of the fleet. I note that Berlin has a fleet of 1,400 buses to move 440 million ppa (cf. Prague a similar proportion at 1,300 buses to move over 320 million ppa), compared to some 2,000 STA buses moving less than 200 million a year. I think the size of the catchment for each operator would be similar. There's a definite productivity issue in Sydney - and I'd say a great shortage of artics.

I think the relevance to topic is that buses like the Bustech and CB80 become less relevant to Sydney as time moves on and Volgren artics much more important.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 885 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Tue May 15, 2018 8:28 pm

Which is why the Northern Beaches need to relinquish their remaining artics effective immediately and stop acting like the youngest sibling of Sydney regions.
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Frosty » Tue May 15, 2018 9:43 pm

There is a shortage of artics in Sydney but I think some of it can be overcome if we can get fully low low floor 12.5m buses. If you can 80-90 passengers on 12.5m bus you wouldn't need artics on certain routes . From personal observation along Botany Rd standard buses are often very full from Rosebery until Green Square occasionally a bendy shows up overcrowding is non existent but then the bendy capacity isn't maximised this where 80-90 12.5m capacity bus could work on these shorter trips of between 10-20 mins.

I'm wondering could a 3 door 14.5m bus work as some sort middle ground compromise to 12.5m bus and the bendy.
Frosty
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Tue May 15, 2018 9:55 pm

Frosty wrote:
I'm wondering could a 3 door 14.5m bus work as some sort middle ground compromise to 12.5m bus and the bendy.

As Anne Hegerty from The Chase would say when asked if she is ready for the final chase, oh yes!!
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby tonyp » Wed May 16, 2018 7:07 am

Frosty wrote:There is a shortage of artics in Sydney but I think some of it can be overcome if we can get fully low low floor 12.5m buses. If you can 80-90 passengers on 12.5m bus you wouldn't need artics on certain routes . From personal observation along Botany Rd standard buses are often very full from Rosebery until Green Square occasionally a bendy shows up overcrowding is non existent but then the bendy capacity isn't maximised this where 80-90 12.5m capacity bus could work on these shorter trips of between 10-20 mins.

I'm wondering could a 3 door 14.5m bus work as some sort middle ground compromise to 12.5m bus and the bendy.

Apart from considerations of regulations like axle load, I think we have to accept that buses in Australia are going to have lower capacity because of the door issue, particularly lacking that extra door behind the rear axle. Basically, with the present typical dead-end "cave" up the back of the bus, there's a practical limit to how many people you can load on a bus and still have them "flow" within reasonable stop dwell times. Sure you can fit 100 people on a 12 metre bus (typical European capacity) but, whereas they can flow on and off quite easily in Europe, in the typical Australian two-door bus they are stuck like pigs in a poke and to exchange passengers would produce yawning dwell times.

Even an additional door in the centre of the bus doesn't completely resolve this, if you've experienced the three-door Carbridge buses at Sydney Airport (Optare and BYD). The only part of the bus that works efficiently is the first two-thirds of it. The mob up behind the rear axle is still trapped up there, made worse in the Carbridge case by a high floor with daunting steps at the back, which means nobody wants to go and stand up there - which limits the capacity. So in Australia, the practical maximum capacity of a 12 metre rigid for commuter service with turnover en route is about 80 (or 58 according to the RTBU in NSW!), while a 150 passenger, 4 or 5 door European single-artic runs best at a maximum of about 110-120 with 3 doors in Australia. A further constraint in Australia of loading only through the front door solidifies the limitation. I think a 14.5 metre would have the same limitation, even with three doors if one of those doors is not behind the rear axle. You might push the capacity up to 90.

The advantage of artics here (excluding those weird "combos") is that they have that marvellous stretch of low, stepless floor from the front all the way to the third door (and right to the back is it's a Scania N or MAN) which creates a really significant, fully-accessible space for comfortable standing and moving around. There really should be many many more of them in Australia and if the various jurisdictions can get those other doors open for entry, that would clinch the deal. Save the 12 metre buses for the shorter feeder services and constrain the deckers to those long-distance, low-turnover runs.

As an afterthought, having spent my early bus commuting life on buses where the doors were at the front and at the back, behind the rear axle, I often think that the buses worked better that way than with the back door moved forward to the centre because there wasn't that "cave" at the back that people are now reluctant to enter and get trapped in if there's a crowd. In those old days, the bus filled and emptied from both ends, with a directional split in the crowd flow at the centre - and in a crowd it would fill properly right to the back. After the 1970s unfortunately, both drivers and operators started to spit the dummy at opening the rear door and it all fell apart, so we're stuck with our present poor compromise. Now the manufacturers represented in Australia can't give us a bus with a low-floor, stepless entry after the rear axle, so the show is over and it's back to rolling out the trams for the heavy work.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7447
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 762 times
Been thanked: 885 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Megumi » Thu May 17, 2018 1:08 am

tonyp wrote:
Frosty wrote:There is a shortage of artics in Sydney but I think some of it can be overcome if we can get fully low low floor 12.5m buses. If you can 80-90 passengers on 12.5m bus you wouldn't need artics on certain routes . From personal observation along Botany Rd standard buses are often very full from Rosebery until Green Square occasionally a bendy shows up overcrowding is non existent but then the bendy capacity isn't maximised this where 80-90 12.5m capacity bus could work on these shorter trips of between 10-20 mins.

I'm wondering could a 3 door 14.5m bus work as some sort middle ground compromise to 12.5m bus and the bendy.

Apart from considerations of regulations like axle load, I think we have to accept that buses in Australia are going to have lower capacity because of the door issue, particularly lacking that extra door behind the rear axle. Basically, with the present typical dead-end "cave" up the back of the bus, there's a practical limit to how many people you can load on a bus and still have them "flow" within reasonable stop dwell times. Sure you can fit 100 people on a 12 metre bus (typical European capacity) but, whereas they can flow on and off quite easily in Europe, in the typical Australian two-door bus they are stuck like pigs in a poke and to exchange passengers would produce yawning dwell times.

Even an additional door in the centre of the bus doesn't completely resolve this, if you've experienced the three-door Carbridge buses at Sydney Airport (Optare and BYD). The only part of the bus that works efficiently is the first two-thirds of it. The mob up behind the rear axle is still trapped up there, made worse in the Carbridge case by a high floor with daunting steps at the back, which means nobody wants to go and stand up there - which limits the capacity. So in Australia, the practical maximum capacity of a 12 metre rigid for commuter service with turnover en route is about 80 (or 58 according to the RTBU in NSW!), while a 150 passenger, 4 or 5 door European single-artic runs best at a maximum of about 110-120 with 3 doors in Australia. A further constraint in Australia of loading only through the front door solidifies the limitation. I think a 14.5 metre would have the same limitation, even with three doors if one of those doors is not behind the rear axle. You might push the capacity up to 90.

The advantage of artics here (excluding those weird "combos") is that they have that marvellous stretch of low, stepless floor from the front all the way to the third door (and right to the back is it's a Scania N or MAN) which creates a really significant, fully-accessible space for comfortable standing and moving around. There really should be many many more of them in Australia and if the various jurisdictions can get those other doors open for entry, that would clinch the deal. Save the 12 metre buses for the shorter feeder services and constrain the deckers to those long-distance, low-turnover runs.

As an afterthought, having spent my early bus commuting life on buses where the doors were at the front and at the back, behind the rear axle, I often think that the buses worked better that way than with the back door moved forward to the centre because there wasn't that "cave" at the back that people are now reluctant to enter and get trapped in if there's a crowd. In those old days, the bus filled and emptied from both ends, with a directional split in the crowd flow at the centre - and in a crowd it would fill properly right to the back. After the 1970s unfortunately, both drivers and operators started to spit the dummy at opening the rear door and it all fell apart, so we're stuck with our present poor compromise. Now the manufacturers represented in Australia can't give us a bus with a low-floor, stepless entry after the rear axle, so the show is over and it's back to rolling out the trams for the heavy work.


So, do you think we have any chance to introduce some German buses like Merceds-Benz Citaro to Australia?
Megumi
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:07 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Bustech v CB 80

Postby Swift » Thu May 17, 2018 1:23 am

Width is the stumbling block, all five measly centimetres of it, despite England, with it's narrow road lanes, having no problem with it. Australia is a rule junkie.
Social people are nearly always horrible people. Why would you mix with horrible people?
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: Ettalong- the world capital of 0405s.
Has thanked: 545 times
Been thanked: 425 times
Favourite Vehicle: Porshe 911 Carerra

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Sydney / NSW

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests