Why high standing multi door artics will not succeed in Oz

[Linto63]

Deckers and artics have come and gone in a number of jurisdictions. Undoubtedly the rigid is king, and would I imagine has comfortably outsold all the others (deckers, artics, midis, 3-axles etc) put together. Deckers and artics are more niche products that have found homes in certain markets. Much like deckers are the dominant product in large UK cities, Hong Kong and Singapore, I imagine there are some places where artics rule the roost, but in most places it is likely to be the rigid that dominates, certainly the case in this country.

No doubt early deckers were prone to topple over, I have always found those at the Sydney Bus Museum to be a bit of a white knuckle ride. But not really an issue now, most accidents they are involved in now involve in an impromptu open-top conversion when one is decapitated by a bridge.

Both deckers and artics continue to find new markets. Cairo https://www.egyptindependent.com/double ... irst-time/ and Skopjehttp://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/skopje ... ker-busses have both reintroduced deckers within the last decade.

Either way the statement that deckers had failed to take off seriously was clearly flawed. The pitfalls of trying to marshal the facts to conclusions already drawn.

[tonyp]

High capacity, low seating artics have a place, but on shorter intense running, where the population density is high and the road space/traffic density permits them. I will not reiterate the pluses of double deckers, as we have been over this a number of times.

However, what both you gents have been overlooking is that I have been saying all along that double deckers have a specific role. I haven't been denying their legitimacy altogether. What I am concerned about is the occasional brainwave within some transport agencies that deckers have a wider role in the transit scene. Other posters on this thread, as well as me, have comprehensively described why that shouldn't be the case and isn't the case in Australian jurisdictions, except where there are long-distance runs with limited passenger exchange.

And yes, absolutely, the role of artics is on major corridors with high passenger volumes and high turnover. They're basically trams on tyres, offering higher capacity and high efficiency on more major corridors. One again, I've already stated that they're not so good for those long-distance, limited turnover runs with not much passenger exchange where high seating capacity is desirable. I think in reality we're not actually disagreeing about much. We're disagreeing about where the overlap occurs. Clearly I don't agree that double deckers should be providing virtually every service like they do in London. I've grown up living the reality of that in Sydney and they were a disaster compared to the trams they replaced and even compared to the single-decker buses that ran amongst them.

I certainly don't accept the road space/traffic density argument. For one, artics are more maneuverable than you're making them out to be. Secondly, public transport planning shouldn't be going anywhere near the notion of interfering with general traffic being a "problem". If general traffic is an issue, you plan means to reduce it and get it out of the way of the public transport; you don't try to compromise the public transport to help the movement of general traffic. Any additional space you create for general traffic is quickly filled by induced demand. That's a principle that's been understood for many years, just that politicians are usually too conscious of "motorist votes" to act on it.

[tonyp]

Deckers and artics have come and gone in a number of jurisdictions. Undoubtedly the rigid is king, and would I imagine has comfortably outsold all the others (deckers, artics, midis, 3-axles etc) put together. Deckers and artics are more niche products that have found homes in certain markets. Much like deckers are the dominant product in large UK cities, Hong Kong and Singapore, I imagine there are some places where artics rule the roost, but in most places it is likely to be the rigid that dominates, certainly the case in this country.

No doubt early deckers were prone to topple over, I have always found those at the Sydney Bus Museum to be a bit of a white knuckle ride. But not really an issue now, most accidents they are involved in now involve in an impromptu open-top conversion when one is decapitated by a bridge.

Both deckers and artics continue to find new markets. Cairo https://www.egyptindependent.com/double ... irst-time/ and Skopjehttp://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/skopje ... ker-busses have both reintroduced deckers within the last decade.

Either way the statement that deckers had failed to take off seriously was clearly flawed. The pitfalls of trying to marshal the facts to conclusions already drawn.

You're talking about artics like they're a niche like double deckers. There is a bit more than "some" places where artics are significant. In Europe (not sure if this figure includes UK), the last I saw, artics make up over 25% of the European bus fleet and rapidly rising. Look at some of the orders in cities like Prague and Berlin where the majority of recent acquisitions are artics. They're obviously being adopted as the solution to capacity shortage rather than double deckers - and Berlin was the most significant city in continental Europe to use double deckers, so they're already accustomed to them and they've clearly now made a choice between the two types to meet their future needs. In USA, artic numbers are rising.

And yes, self-evidently single-deck rigids (of whatever length) are the predominant type given the fundamental role of the bus in cities as a short-distance feeder. I would suggest that artics come a significant second, having stormed the market in the last few decades with no sign of orders abating, and double-deckers a very long way behind, their figures being influenced mainly by the UK. A niche in other words and not taking off seriously as a permanent long-term solution (as opposed to in fits and starts) outside UK, Hong Kong and Singapore. I wonder if there are some e.g. UITP figures of international bus type numbers to solidify the broad picture?

I see that the editor of that TAUT article about double-deck trams has clarified that he was thinking of long-distance tram-trains, which has not been a traditional role of trams but is now emerging as an alternative use of some train lines that don't have enough patronage for a full-blown heavy rail service. This could be a legitimate case or not.

[tonyp]

The other thing that I want to caution about is the "if only" syndrome which I'm conscious of because I've fallen into that in the past too. For example, "if only double deckers had the capacity and loading advantages they do in Singapore", "if only we could have 2.55 metre-wide buses", or "if only single-artics could carry 160 passengers and have four or five doors like they do in Europe". While these things are worth campaigning for as long-term goals, I'm now very pragmatic myself and figure that if you want some things achieved sooner rather than later, you have to propose solutions within the real-world Australian framework. So artics are going to be carrying up to 120 passengers with three doors; double deckers - you name the most favourable local regime (but hopefully better than TfNSW's nannying!), etc etc.

I'm very much a horses for courses person rather than one size fits all. When I get bus advocates attacking me for saying "that's a job for a tram" and tram advocates attacking me for saying "a tram is overkill, that's a job for a bus" I know I'm on the right middle ground! I have an aversion to seeing people pushing for one type of vehicle or system to do a job for which it's less suited. I'm particularly over the "buses vs trams" thing that been going on for far too long. It's all about capacity and the maximum efficiency necessary to deliver that capacity, as well as the mode selected being future-proof in terms of long-term city planning and popualtion projections.

And although it might appear that I'm stuck in a rut, in fact what I'm doing is selectively fighting for what needs to be fought for to gain its rightful place in the sun. In Australia, metros need advocacy, trams need advocacy, articulated buses need advocacy. Double-deck buses don't need much advocacy here and single-deck rigid buses definitely don't - although better functionality for them certainly does, for example having low floors rather than just low-entry, having all-door entry (a principle now finally gradually accepted in most states except NSW) and having more doors if the operating environment requires it (the seats vs standing horses-for-courses issue again). What I'm reacting to with double-deckers is signs of attempts to push them into areas of operation for which they're not appropriate - just as I agree that a multi-door artic is not really appropriate for runs such as northern beaches and M2/Hills in Sydney.

[tonyp]

Not wanting to make a third post in succession, but I came across this summary of the use of double deckers around the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-decker_bus

The general drift seems to be that the only jurisdictions in which they're in general use as the mainstay urban transit bus are UK, Ireland and Hong Kong. Otherwise they seem to have been acquired for targetted tasks (which is fine - "long + distance" are recurring words) and there seem to also be a number of systems shown as "had them, but they've disappeared in recent years/decades". The most spectacular fall in a big system that has used them is Berlin where numbers declined from 1,000 to less than 500 in a decade (1990s to 2002) and now there's an order for about 600 artics, so no prizes for guessing which direction continental Europe's major double decker city is heading. Their remaining deckers seem to be an improved design for targetted services.

This from 2013:

https://www.3ibs.eu/uploads/fichiers/pu ... ey-web.pdf

is not completely helpful as it unfortunately groups artics and deckers together but it gives a picture for Europe. I have read elsewhere that the proportion of artics in the continental bus fleet is about 25%, so the percentage of deckers in that group would be pretty tiny, mainly influenced by numbers in UK.

[Linto63]

Is the decker a niche bus and the artic mainstream? We could argue till the cows come home, but without any reliable statistics, it is heresay.

I don't doubt that there probably more artics in service as we speak than deckers. Everybody is more than entitled to their opinion, but the statement was made clear as day that deckers have not taken off outside of the UK, yet the numbers prove this is patently untrue.

It's a bit like saying the A380 aeroplane has been a flop because most airlines have not purchased it when it is just a case of it not suiting their business models.

Re the Wikipedia article, said section has no references so as has been discussed before could be complete rubbish. But assuming it is correct, that one city is changing direction so what? Manufacturers are continuing to develop double deck products, so clearly there is still a market.

[Tim Williams]

Tonyp - I also do not think we are poles apart. As a matter of interest, I grew up in a city in the UK where local council paid operator, Birmingham City Transport had an immaculate fleet of over 1,800 buses - all were DD's except for 35SD's which were a novelty to me. That is an aside nothing to do with this discussion, but does help to explain my preference for DD's. we moved from Birmingham to just outside London, where green liveried RT's prevailed, no matter what the route loading's were. There were more single deckers there due to the country roads and their use on Green Line LT coach routes.

I believe traffic management or control is as important, or even more so, than the type of buses/trams operated. I have seen examples in many places which have some form of give way sign on the back of buses, which is totally ignored by a lot of motorists, thus slowing down considerably, bus operations. Singapore restricts private cars (i think there are about 500,000 cars for a population of over 5 million!!) - car purchase prices are enormous there and there is bid system for car licensing - all designed to encourage public transport use. Adelaide has the lowest use of public transport (for the major cities) in this country. I also think that public transport should a have a lot more priority on the roads, more bus priority sequences on traffic lights, more bus lanes and an earnest attempt to police the "give way" sign when pulling out of stops.

I am in Singapore next week and (for a first), I will have a good look at speeds of loading etc. over the 3 types of buses on route service there.

[tonyp]

The stop-watch on the iPhone is very useful for measuring dwell times Tim

[Tim Williams]

Thanks, but I have a Samsung S8+ - I am sure it would have a similar function!!

[burrumbus]

A comparison between Singapore and Sydney would be interesting,especially on the Northern Beaches B Line

[Tim Williams]

The bus operations in Singapore and Sydney are very different for many reasons - topography including a much older road structure in Sydney, waterways throughout Sydney, accommodation styles, history, extensive use of modern bus interchanges in Singapore mostly with rail and large modern shopping centres' adjacent.

This really is a topic on it's own!

Comparing the Sydney B Line service, which at present is a single express service, with Singapore would be pointless - a more worthwhile comparison might Singapore and Hong Kong, but it would require a decent amount of research, if it was to be done in a comprehensive and proper manner!

[tonyp]

Deckers and artics have come and gone in a number of jurisdictions. Undoubtedly the rigid is king, and would I imagine has comfortably outsold all the others (deckers, artics, midis, 3-axles etc) put together. Deckers and artics are more niche products that have found homes in certain markets. Much like deckers are the dominant product in large UK cities, Hong Kong and Singapore, I imagine there are some places where artics rule the roost, but in most places it is likely to be the rigid that dominates, certainly the case in this country.
.......
Either way the statement that deckers had failed to take off seriously was clearly flawed. The pitfalls of trying to marshal the facts to conclusions already drawn.

Unlike deckers, I don't think you'll find many cities at all that have given up artics after making the decision to get them. Have a look at the future purchase trends in that 3ibs document - and that was about 5 years ago, it's well and truly come to pass since then with massive purchases of artics going on in Europe. Berlin is more significant than simply yet another city dropping out. Berlin has been the one European operator outside UK and Ireland that used double deckers as a service mainstay, as opposed to just serving a niche. This was one of the largest double-deck operations outside UK. They've cleary made a decision to go over to "the dark side" (from a double decker fan's perspective), while retaining a reduced number of deckers for service niches.

You're completely missing the point of my statement that double deckers have failed to take off seriously because I mean as the mainstay bus underpinning a city's operation as opposed to a supplementary type to fill a specific service niche. The artic on the other hand has rapidly risen in numbers to become part of the general single-deck mainstay operation (typically dominated by 12, 14.5 and 18 metre/artic buses) of very many cities. Outside UK, Ireland, Hong Kong and perhaps Singapore, the decker has been generally a niche purchase. Some European cities now have as much as 40-50% of their fleets as artics. It's not surprising as they're in reality no more than another single deck bus in one of the range of lengths that such buses are available in. The reason for them is growing populations in their cities and a general significant trend back to public transport following the peaking of the "automobile age" as a result of congestion and other factors. Bus operators now have an urgent need to provide more capacity for growing patronage, while at the same time retaining the efficiency of their operations.

[Linto63]

London and Singapore have or are in the process of phasing out artics and if what Andrew Constance stated 13 months ago, Sydney (although I doubt it will happen). We can all find examples in the statistics to back up our arguments, but the bottom line is that the statement made that the decker failed to take off outside of Britain was clearly incorrect. You made the statement, you were caught out, deal with it.

The decker is far from finished as a product, it is not likely that one is going to conquer the other anytime in the foreseeable future. It's different strokes for different folks.

[tonyp]

I didn't say its finished as a bus type. It hasn't become a mainstream citybus internationally whereas the artic has in vastly greater numbers of cities. There is nothing to pull back on as a statement.

[Tim Williams]

The information below is from the RMS and reference to it, appeared within the Sydney Discussion. A couple of points that interest me are:- firstly, capacities shown for the buses are both relatively low - if the DD' capacity is based on CDI's ( which is bus type on 611) than they are suggesting 14 to maybe 20 standees only?? Not sure about average seating in SD's in Sydney - 40 to 45 maybe, then again standee numbers are pretty low. Secondly, it is interesting to note how many hazards (tree branches, poles, signs etc.) had to be attended to to make this single route DD safe - i.e. 580, that is a large number for a single route. This does suggest careful consideration needs to be undertaken prior to converting routes to DD's as the cost of safe compliance would be quite substantial.


Double Decker Enhancement to Route 611 - Blacktown to Macquarie Park
High capacity buses are already catering for current and future growth in customer demands across four bus routes, thanks to the Bus Priority Infrastructure Program (BPIP). Roads and Maritime Services, Transport for NSW and relevant local councils worked together to identify and trim the trees at locations along the route prior to beginning to run double deck buses on state and local roads.
Route 611 - Blacktown to Macquarie Park
Targeted minor works and tree trimmings, delivered by BPIP, supported the introduction of double deck buses on routes Blacktown to Macquarie Park (611). This work has provided additional weekly capacity for 6,000 customers on this service without creating additional vehicle movements.
• We have improved passenger capacity with double decker buses which are able to accommodate up to 110 passengers customers per trip - compared to the average of 60 customers on a normal single deck bus. The additional capacity has improved services during peak hours.
• Double deck buses are 12.5 meters in length and require less kerb space than artic buses (18.5 meters) or rigid buses (14.5 metres). Catering to the whole community, double decker buses are wheelchair accessible, allowing easy access to a wider variety of customers.
Please note local councils are responsible for the provision of any shelters, seats, rubbish bins and footpaths.
Project background
The NSW Government has fully funded the Bus Priority Infrastructure Program. The program aims to improve the reliability of bus services on Sydney’s main bus corridors.
The changes were part of the NSW Government’s plan to move people safely, efficiently and reliably around Greater Sydney, as outlined in the Future Transport Strategy 2056. BPIP introduces measures to support reduced travel time for bus services to make them more reliable by prioritising public transport on key corridors. For more information about the plan, please visit Future Transport 2056.
In June 2017, Roads and Maritime, its service provider, DM Roads and bus operator, CDC, completed the assessment of the unique section of the bus route 611 and identified around 580 hazards rated from critical and low risk.
The majority of the critical hazards required tree trimming works and some power pole and traffic sign modifications.
These changes have been developed by Transport for NSW and Roads and Maritime, in consultation with Sydney Buses.
Key outcomes of the proposal
• Making travel times more reliable for customers
• Contributing to the NSW Government’s target of 95 per cent on-time running of bus services.
The approved changes are effective June 2018.

[tonyp]

You need to understand Tim that NSW public buses are heavily constrained by over-cautious rules, partly dictated over the years by what the Sydney government bus drivers' union, RTBU, which seems to carry quite a bit of political influence, promotes. So, for example, an absolutely identical 12 metre bus in Perth may be rated for 82 passengers, but only for 58 in Sydney. They seem to be less restrictive about artics in NSW where capacity is much the same as around Australia (around 110), but I suspect the standee allowance in double deckers is artificially constrained to about 15 like it is the for the single decker 12 metre buses.

As I mentioned in a previous post, these unfortunately are the constraints that we have to work with in NSW and it will probably take years to get any of them eased, so it's a bit of a waste of mental effort to go down the "if only" path! Apart from road priority (which the double deck services actually largely have already in Sydney), the biggest boost for the efficiency of any of the bus types would be all-door loading. This would open the way to the deckers being able to load simultaneously with unloading. Dwell time is actually very important. It's what contributes to the low capacity of the B1 of about 1,500 persons per hour per direction, because if the headways are any closer than 4 minutes, they would start to bunch because they can spend so long at individual stops depending on the turnover. There isn't any issue with Sydney artics, despite their front door-only loading (but fast unloading with three doors) running as close as say two-minute headways, which is over 3,000 people per hour (assuming similar road priority).

TfNSW would also no doubt have taken account of this recent tragedy in Auckland to double down on its rule of no movements upstairs while the bus is in motion:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local- ... e-auckland

Yes, there is a lot of prior route preparation needed in Sydney. I agree that it's certainly possible to get more productivity out of deckers in Sydney but there are some obstacles to overcome first - the biggest being TfNSW! The irony with TfNSW over the years is that they often want to introduce some new initiative while simultaneously imposing plenty of obstacles to make sure that it won't work as well as it could.

[Tim Williams]

I have no doubt about influence of that union, I do firmly believe one of reasons the STA in Adelaide was tendered out was to knock out the power and operating constraints their union, known as the Motor Omnibus and Tramways Association. TfNSW are very risk-averse and dealt with them, double decker stairs and standing, in general worried them.

Your link is the first I have heard of the NZ tragedy. The real concern with stairs used to be the UK rear loading deckers - loosing footing down the stairs could and did sometimes mean tumbling downstairs going through 90 degrees and out onto the road and you would be lucky to survive that! The standard Birmingham Corporation had straight staircases and they believed it saved a lot of serious accidents. Those B'ham buses seated either 54 or 55 - loosing 1 or 2 seats. Buses with doors would normally eliminate fatalities, however the staircase design is very important and I think that the NZ ones are spiral?? Personally, I prefer strait staircases, I think that they would be safer, particularly for aged etc.

I think one of the contributing factors in demise of the old London Routemaster was the open platform (+ the staircase with the 90 degree bend) and a couple of accidents involving Americans and the (expected for Americans) legal actions that followed!!

[tonyp]

In building design, a return on the stairs is always preferred because you don't have as far to go in the fall (I have some personal empirical experience as a live test dummy there!). A fall on straight-down stairs ends only one way - all the way to the bottom! Of course there's not really an intermediate landing in a bus so you're likely to continue all the way round the bend anyway.

I find it odd for me to be discussing this as I've been advocating the elimination of any gangway steps (fully low floor) in public transport vehicles for some years, something that has been achieved very well in continental Europe and now catching on elsewhere. Obviously it can't be avoided in a double decker and thus it's important that there's a good standard of comfort and accessibility downstairs. In that regard, I like the Sydney MANs (presumably there are other manufacturers too e.g. Scania?) with their stepless bottom deck gangway. I find it rather baffling that they'll embrace fully low floor for the bottom deck of a decker yet they're slow in Australia to adopt the same for single deck buses.

[Tim Williams]

Brisbane City Council is called for expressions of interest for 60 x 25metre 3 section buses - sounds very exciting and will fit in nicely with their busway operations.

[Linto63]

It hasn't become a mainstream citybus internationally whereas the artic has in vastly greater numbers of cities. There is nothing to pull back on as a statement.

Yet you continue to airbrush over the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore, which must be near the top when it comes to cities with the densest populations, have and continue to operate deckers in large numbers.

I think one of the contributing factors in demise of the old London Routemaster was the open platform (+ the staircase with the 90 degree bend) and a couple of accidents involving Americans and the (expected for Americans) legal actions that followed!!

While officially replaced as part of a project to have all buses wheelchair accessible, TfL acknowledged increasing compensation claims was another. And that was in the era before passengers became even less aware of their surroundings by having their heads buried in their phones.

[tonyp]

I haven't denied the significance of the Hong Kong and Singapore operations. What I am trying to do is provide a worldwide picture and where the numbers stand in relation to that. There are vast numbers of artics around the world, not only in big cities but much smaller ones as well. Heck there's even a small fleet in Nowra, population about 40,000. At the other extreme, the artic fleets of some cities like Vienna, Prague and Warsaw stand at around 40-50% of the total bus fleet. Out of interest, I know that the Hong Kong fleet is almost all double deck but does anyone have the fleet breakdown figures for Singapore?

[Linto63]

I haven't denied the significance of the Hong Kong and Singapore operations.

You did write ''commercial transport vehicles (whether bus or tram) have not taken off seriously around the world outside of their British homeland'', so you either didn't do your homework, or elected to ignore.

Heck there's even a small fleet in Nowra, population about 40,000.

Nowra was the original Australian private bus artic mecca, with North Nowra Bus Lines and Nowra Coaches hoovering up many of the demonstrator and early production examples when they became available in the early 90s. Guess that is why you live there?

Out of interest, I know that the Hong Kong fleet is almost all double deck but does anyone have the fleet breakdown figures for Singapore?

While not the complete picture, SBS Transit's (the largest operator) fleet was 42% decker in 2016 (page 19). https://www.sbstransit.com.sg/download/ ... _05Apr.pdf

[tonyp]

Thanks for the Singapore information, I'll study it.

Nowra Coaches has recently purchased five brand new Volgren/Scania low-floor, three-door artics, their largest single fleet purchase for a while. They didn't go for deckers and if they did I wouldn't ride them on the roads around here! I followed one of the artics over Nowra Hill yesterday and had trouble keeping up with it; it was going like the clappers, including through a roundabout and down the steep, tight S bends on the other side of the hill. A recent attempt to drive a decker like that on a similar (but judging by photos, much better-quality) sort of road in Hong Kong resulted in catastrophe, as you would know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Hong ... s_accident

I've travelled on enough artics around the world in many tight spaces, narrow roads and corners and know that all that nonsense about the supposed physical "limitations" of artics is complete and utter bs, no doubt cooked up as propaganda by the double decker brigade. They're essentially no different in operation from a 12 metre rigid.

Both types have different characteristics for different types of service and aren't mostly a substitute for each other, even though they might have similar capacity (under Australian standards). The artic has less seats but is faster (both in dwell time and moving along). The decker has significantly more seats but is slower on the same counts. The other issue attributable to these characteristics is that you'll need more deckers than artics to provide the same level of service because artics are faster to turn around. So you could use artics on those long-distance expresses - it would be a faster trip but the customers wouldn't be happy at the lack of seats. However you shouldn't use deckers (in the Australian configuration of two doors, front door-only entry and one staircase) on those high-turnover stopping services

[Linto63]

So buses being driven at dangerous speeds is a good thing? A bus being driven dangerously is highly responsible, if the driver gets it wrong could be a horrible ending irrespective of the type of vehicle. Didn't realise that setting lap records was part of the remit, my bad.

Artics are designed so that the rear section follows in the tracks of the lead section, so they should be able to operate on the same routes, as can deckers generally unless there are low hanging structures. As for the speed, difference is marginal, travelled on plenty of deckers that have been just as quick off the line as a rigid.

Apart from those who have been living under a rock, I think everybody on this board is now well aware of the dwell time thing.

[tonyp]

So buses being driven at dangerous speeds is a good thing? A bus being driven dangerously is highly responsible, if the driver gets it wrong could be a horrible ending irrespective of the type of vehicle. Didn't realise that setting lap records was part of the remit, my bad.

Artics are designed so that the rear section follows in the tracks of the lead section, so they should be able to operate on the same routes, as can deckers generally unless there are low hanging structures. As for the speed, difference is marginal, travelled on plenty of deckers that have been just as quick off the line as a rigid.

Apart from those who have been living under a rock, I think everybody on this board is now well aware of the dwell time thing.

I suspect you mean "irresponsible"?

Last night's bus was returning to depot empty. I think these guys would be among Australia's most experienced artic drivers, some of them doing it for 20 years or more. These buses are pushers (rear engine driving rear wheels).

My experience on deckers on two continents over the decades and including the new B Line is that they're always slow to move along. Electric deckers are a lot better though.