Distribution of high-capcity buses in NSW

[tonyp]

I've been doing a run through the fleet lists to discover the numbers and location of high-capacity buses, mainly in Sydney. I don't know if there are any outside Sydney in NSW apart from Nowra Coaches' five 3-door artics and any other school buses, but I'd be interested in any information. A high-capacity bus I would define as being able to carry at least 100 passengers, so these would be artics or double-deckers and the artics have either three or 1.5 doors (any with two double-leaf doors?) and the double deckers two doors.

As far as I can see - and I would be grateful for corrections or additional information - these are what is around:

State Transit:
165 artics, with 1.5 door models located at depots on the north side of the harbour, but with a small number at Port Botany and other south-side depots. 3-door models south of the harbour. Of the 165, 77 are 1.5 door and 88 3-door.

38 double-deckers at Mona Vale.

TSA:
68 3-door artics in region 6 depots.

6 double deckers (region 3?).

Forest:
16 1.5 door artics.

2 double deckers.

Hillsbus:
5 1.5 door artics.

21 double deckers.

Transdev
6 double deckers.

Busways
1 double decker.

Nowra Coaches
5 3 door artics.

Sid Fogg
7 2 door artics.

Totals:
266 artics
74 double deckers
Total 340 high capacity route buses in NSW.

Information from another post below inserted here:
Although this is a NSW survey, I did write down a count of artics in other states, though I may have missed some (corrections appreciated). Tim Williams has already done a count on deckers in the General transport section. My summary of artics is: WA 103, Victoria 19, SA 176, ACT 42, Queensland 40 and Tasmania 15, basically all in capital cities. Checking country areas is a big task, for probably little result.
Out of approx. 700 artics and 124 double decker route buses in Australia = approx. 800+ high-capacity route buses nationally.

[Tim Williams]

An interesting list - so it seems that Sydney has 249 artics (if I have added up correctly) and Adelaide, I think, has 145 artics. None of the Adelaide ones are full low floor - what about Sydney??
I wonder what will happen in Sydney with high capacity buses and what will replace the 14.5metre buses??

Singapore has only 40 full low floor artics (MAN/Gemilangs) and their high floor Mercs will be retired soon. I will try and post on Singapore this week.

[tonyp]

Hi Tim! I drew on your useful double deck summary in your other thread to check figures, for which thanks. I did a quick run around the other capital cities out of interest but didn't write the figures down. Yes, Adelaide has the second-largest artic fleet, followed by Perth which has about 100 iirc. Then Brisbane, Canberra and Melbourne have some more modest numbers. Without checking outside capital cities, it seems that the artic fleet is something north of 600 around Australia.

All of Sydney's artic fleet is low-floor to after the last door in the trailer, one is fully low floor and one is a "combo" like Adelaide - low entry only at the very front then high-floor. TfNSW does seem to be pushing ahead with its notion of changing to deckers because, in the announcement about the new fully-artic 333 service on the Bondi corridor, they actually said that the only reason they didn't choose deckers was the presence of overhead cables along the route. This would be the busiest bus corridor in Australia (replacing a tram service, which was a mistake) and requires a very intensive level of service, By choosing 3-door artics, they are able to go down to 3 minute headways or over 2,000 people per hour per direction, compared to the minimum workable 5-minute headways on the northern beaches B Line, or 1,200 people per hour. It seems to me that the issue goes a little beyond overhead obstructions!

I didn't check the 14.5s because their capacity is below 100, there aren't so many and they seem to be phasing them out(?), but maybe the figures are worth a check.

In terms of high-capacity, Sydney seems to be slowly following the Perth approach and going for rails on corridors where it's starting to get beyond buses. Either new metro rail lines or returning to the trams that they shouldn't have got rid of in the first place. High-capacity buses of either type will be the intermediate step and, when the rail/tram lines are eventually built, those buses will no doubt cascade to the next-busiest corridors. All part of the build-up to a city of 8 million (perish the thought from my personal point-of-view!).

[In Transit]

Tonyp, it's no accident that the 3 door artics have been retained on the 333, given the patronage, frequent turnover, short individual trip duration and high frequency of the route.

I would suggest that DD's are capable of better than 5 minute headways though - with proper loading and bus stop arrangements. Very high frequency is bound to result in some bunching on any bus corridor without exclusive or significant priority, regardless of bus type, although I agree artics are often more suited to such situations.

[BroadGauge]

As far as I can see - and I would be grateful for corrections or additional information - these are what is around:

Hillsbus also have five Volvo B10MA/Custom Coaches artics, which are high floors but date from as recently as 2002. I'm unsure which trips they operate each day (presumably just in the peaks), but at least in the past they used to be regulars on the M2 Express services.

Here is a picture of one: https://www.busaustralia.com/gallery/di ... m=49&pos=4

[Frosty]

I didn't check the 14.5s because their capacity is below 100, there aren't so many and they seem to be phasing them out(?), but maybe the figures are worth a check.

In terms of high-capacity, Sydney seems to be slowly following the Perth approach and going for rails on corridors where it's starting to get beyond buses. Either new metro rail lines or returning to the trams that they shouldn't have got rid of in the first place. High-capacity buses of either type will be the intermediate step and, when the rail/tram lines are eventually built, those buses will no doubt cascade to the next-busiest corridors. All part of the build-up to a city of 8 million (perish the thought from my personal point-of-view!).

Hillsbus has 85 Scania 14.5m buses all low floor. STA has 32 of high floor Scania L113TRB 14.5m buses & 1 newer Scania K310UB 14.5m low floor similar Hillsbus. Finally 10 Scania L113TRBs at Transit Systems.

High capacity I know around Green Square/Zetland area it is starting to go beyond buses where on some routes have frequencies of 2-3mins during peak hour i.e. 343 though interestingly no high capacity buses are used only 12.5m buses probably due to infrastructure restrictions.

Very high frequency is bound to result in some bunching on any bus corridor without exclusive or significant priority, regardless of bus type, although I agree artics are often more suited to such situations.

I've noticed this problem recently in around Zetland/Waterloo & Rosebery bus bunching has become more apparent with additional services having to be added as often as new apartments are built. Worse part there is no bus priority and many single lane roads.

[tonyp]

Hillsbus also have five Volvo B10MA/Custom Coaches artics, which are high floors but date from as recently as 2002. I'm unsure which trips they operate each day (presumably just in the peaks), but at least in the past they used to be regulars on the M2 Express services.

Here is a picture of one: https://www.busaustralia.com/gallery/di ... m=49&pos=4

Thanks. I'm editing my list above as corrections come in.

[tonyp]

What's the total capacity of the 14.5 metre buses?

In relation to closer headways In Transit, all types are constrained by TfNSW's over-zealous rules and restrictions. Artics by not allowing all-door boarding, deckers by not allowing standing upstairs while moving and stopping boarding while disembarking is in progress, so there is no discrimination against any one type. TfNSW's over-restrictive attitude towards stop design are also what prevents a tram being reinstated to Bondi Beach (and heavy rail fails the cost-benefit test). TfNSW has a unique talent among Australian transport agencies for putting forward ideas and thèn stuffing their prospects of fully succeeding, so we have to work around that as usual! My observation on the B Line is that they've been given almost all the advantages possible, including bus lanes and specially-designed stops, yet they still bunch because of the dwell time. I'd concede 4 minute headways might be possible (1,500 pph) but still short of what artics can achieve - and by the same token you could push artics to 2 minute headways if all-door loading. On the northern beaches of course the trade-off is seating capacity, which is quite appropriate, being the opposite type of service to the Bondi one.

It needs to be borne in mind when optimising bus capacity that even 2,000 pph is well short of the something up to 7,000 an hour that the trams were able to achieve on this corridor. CSELR has a design capacity of over 13,000 per hour (which will be used on the events sector) and over 6,700 on the standard 4 minute headway. (Never mind metro at over 40,000 per hour!) in this light, high-capacity bus services need to be pushing 2,000 pph on such corridors at the very minimum. If it was at all possible to feed such buses along a corridor at 2 minute headways, you could get over 3,000 pph which is starting to look respectable - but then of course without bus lanes and full traffic-light priority you'd be ending up looking at the famous conga line. At that point it doesn't really work!

[boronia]

TfNSW does seem to be pushing ahead with its notion of changing to deckers because, in the announcement about the new fully-artic 333 service on the Bondi corridor, they actually said that the only reason they didn't choose deckers was the presence of overhead cables along the route. .

I find it hard to believe that "overhead wires" along this route would be an impediment to operating DD buses. Any clearances under 5m have to have warning signs. There are some up already for the tram wires on Alison Rd, (4.6m IIRC, still clearance for a bus).

[Frosty]

TfNSW does seem to be pushing ahead with its notion of changing to deckers because, in the announcement about the new fully-artic 333 service on the Bondi corridor, they actually said that the only reason they didn't choose deckers was the presence of overhead cables along the route. .

I find it hard to believe that "overhead wires" along this route would be an impediment to operating DD buses. Any clearances under 5m have to have warning signs. There are some up already for the tram wires on Alison Rd, (4.6m IIRC, still clearance for a bus).

Could be the issue with kerbside since Oxford St has very narrow bus lanes i.e. power-poles, shop awnings, trees & signs.

I know the Scania L113TRB 14.5m buses have a total capacity of 91 people. Interesting that replacements at P Volvo B8RLEs have a capacity of 80.

I find interesting in the Eastern Suburbs @ Port Botany having 3 door artics vs 1.5 door artics on my local 309 route I prefer the 1.5 door artics mainly due to having more seats and it doesn't get to busy the 14.5m bus would be better in terms of numbers of passengers

[boronia]

I find these 1.5s are very annoying after years of riding on 3s. That middle door is really handy for making a quick exit from a crowded bus.

[Stu]

Tonyp, it's no accident that the 3 door artics have been retained on the 333, given the patronage, frequent turnover, short individual trip duration and high frequency of the route.

I would suggest that DD's are capable of better than 5 minute headways though - with proper loading and bus stop arrangements. Very high frequency is bound to result in some bunching on any bus corridor without exclusive or significant priority, regardless of bus type, although I agree artics are often more suited to such situations.

STA manage the B1 and metrobus services (370 & 333 soon) with a headway management system. The region 6 contract requires headway management to be implemented, the proposed DD from Homebush to City via Parramatta Rd will definitely operate as a headway sevice and most probably the metrobuses and 461. Most of the other region contracts that are due for tender or renewal will also have a headway management clause included as well.

[tonyp]

"Headway management" in principle is simply running to timetable! So what techniques and parameters are used to maintain headway management in a mixed traffic environment?

[Frosty]

STA manage the B1 and metrobus services (370 & 333 soon) with a headway management system. The region 6 contract requires headway management to be implemented, the proposed DD from Homebush to City via Parramatta Rd will definitely operate as a headway sevice and most probably the metrobuses and 461. Most of the other region contracts that are due for tender or renewal will also have a headway management clause included as well.

Is the 370 headway management from 23 September timetable according to announcements 15 mins off-peak & 10 mins peak. I'm assuming the 370 will then move to an exclusive roster. Though one problem I think is where do buses along the 370 wait if they are ahead of time most stops aren't in bus lanes or bus bays.

[iamthouth]

Busways still has their one double decker Bustech.

Noting your 100 capacity definition, interestingly the Hillsbus 14.5s used to allow 45 standees, for a total of 56+45=101, but it was reduced to 30 standees some years ago. It was possible to fit 101 on a Saturday night with a bus full of teenagers and uni students, but 30 is closer to normal full standing load.

[Stu]

STA manage the B1 and metrobus services (370 & 333 soon) with a headway management system. The region 6 contract requires headway management to be implemented, the proposed DD from Homebush to City via Parramatta Rd will definitely operate as a headway sevice and most probably the metrobuses and 461. Most of the other region contracts that are due for tender or renewal will also have a headway management clause included as well.

Is the 370 headway management from 23 September timetable according to announcements 15 mins off-peak & 10 mins peak. I'm assuming the 370 will then move to an exclusive roster. Though one problem I think is where do buses along the 370 wait if they are ahead of time most stops aren't in bus lanes or bus bays.

Yes, headway for 370. I'm not sure of the 370 will be have an exclusive roster created, a standard roster can be maintained as the workload (number of trips) can be modified to ensure the driver sings off for a meal break or end of shift. Headway management for route 370 is the only way that the service may have any chance at improving, the potential infrastructure improvements along the route are limited and both traffic and residential dwellings are ever increasing.

[tonyp]

I guess I'm regarding 14.5s as medium capacity. At 90 they're not much more than a 12 metre rigid's normal rating of about 80 (OK I know TfNSW downrates those to about 60), but artics and deckers are typically actually over 100. I guess I'm still chewing over 14.5s, I'm not dogmatic about them. Do they have a long-term existence in NSW or are new orders fading out?

[In Transit]

The 370 won’t be running under headway management as part of the next timetable.

[Linto63]

"Headway management" in principle is simply running to timetable!

No, headway management involves trying to maintain more consistent gaps between services and reduce bunching (the buses always come in 3s scenario), so that even if services are running late, at least they are consistently so, with the aim of reducing longer than usual waiting times for passengers.

So what techniques and parameters are used to maintain headway management in a mixed traffic environment?

In simple terms, all buses on a route will send information on their location via GPS which control will monitor. Remedies include asking a bus to hold back, stop skipping (turning an all stops into a limited stops or express), or terminating short of the destination and having the bus commence its return journey.

Obviously it needs to be managed properly with both the operations departments and drivers having a thorough understanding of the procedures and a way of communicating this to passengers implemented rather than just dumping them on the street and saying 'you're on your own'.

[Frosty]

I guess I'm regarding 14.5s as medium capacity. At 90 they're not much more than a 12 metre rigid's normal rating of about 80 (OK I know TfNSW downrates those to about 60), but artics and deckers are typically actually over 100. I guess I'm still chewing over 14.5s, I'm not dogmatic about them. Do they have a long-term existence in NSW or are new orders fading out?

Last deliveries of 14.5m buses were in 2009 for CDC Hillsbus. 14.5m buses were probably the only bus suited to M2 express services before Double Deckers came back in favour. As 14.5m bus in CDC spec was 56 seats while 1.5 door bendy buses only have 8 additional seats. There are additional costs of having to service two AC units & a turntable. Of course bendy buses have greater standing capacity.

The only corridors I can think that could use 14.5m buses are Eastern Valley Way services and any bus that goes through Eastgardens. 14.5m Buses would be simply replaced by 12.5m buses and some routes additional frequency.

[gld59]

Do they have a long-term existence in NSW or are new orders fading out?

They're less flexible (so to speak). STA's L113TRBs are at Willoughby and Port Botany, because the Epping Rd and Anzac Pde/Bunnerong Rd corridors have fewer nasty corners. I assume the Transit Systems TRBs at Kingsgrove are only useful for the 400 (that end of the route soon to become 420), as CBD routes from Region 6 have to get in and out of Castlereagh. They all date from 93 or very early 94, so they can't really remain in service much longer anyway, which will leave STA's 2108 (a K310UB) as the only 14.5 based in eastern Sydney.

[tonyp]

They're less flexible (so to speak). STA's L113TRBs are at Willoughby and Port Botany, because the Epping Rd and Anzac Pde/Bunnerong Rd corridors have fewer nasty corners. I assume the Transit Systems TRBs at Kingsgrove are only useful for the 400 (that end of the route soon to become 420), as CBD routes from Region 6 have to get in and out of Castlereagh. They all date from 93 or very early 94, so they can't really remain in service much longer anyway, which will leave STA's 2108 (a K310UB) as the only 14.5 based in eastern Sydney.

It sounds as though they're a developmental dead-end and the other two types (artics and deckers) will be favoured in future.

I've done a bit more digging in Fleetlists (though baulked at checking scores of country operators except the bigger ones) and can't find anything outside Sydney to add to a NSW summary other than Nowra Coaches. There may well be some on school runs somewhere. I guess I should be appreciative that I can sit here and watch a couple of brand new artics go past every day among the sheep and alpacas! Those ones are getting a workout, I see them on charters too, but I wish they were somewhere like on the Gong Shuttle instead.

Although this is a NSW survey, I did write down a count of artics in other states, though I may have missed some (corrections appreciated). Tim has already done a count on deckers in the General transport section. My summary of artics is: WA 103, Victoria 19, SA 176, ACT 42, Queensland 40 and Tasmania 15, basically all in capital cities [edit: figures corrected with further information]. Checking country areas is a big task, for probably little result.

[Bus Suggestions]

Correction: WA 102

[tonyp]

The Australian total of artics adds up to about 690, though it should be borne in mind that the low number in Melbourne reflects the fact that the heavy-lifting part of the street transit task is done by trams (perhaps to a small degree in Adelaide too), otherwise there'd no doubt be more artics.

Back to NSW and TfNSW's apparent current attitude that double deckers are preferred, I wonder are operators still free to choose artics if they prefer or is the use of deckers to be mandated by TfNSW? For example, I presume that this Homebush B Line is having deckers mandated by TfNSW and the operator (will that be TSA or STA?) can't turn around and say we'd prefer artics thanks. In other words, who calls the actual fleet-purchase shots on the type of bus selected for high-capacity corridors - will it be the usual choice from a recommended list or will TfNSW have the say?

[iamthouth]

Regarding the 5 Hillsbus artics, their capacity are 80 seats plus only 12 standees, for at total of 92.