Sydney's demographics are changing

[Linto63]

Aside from high density corridors, most routes are better off handled by rigids. Yes operating costs could be cut by running one artic every 30 minutes vs a rigid every 15, but that do we really want to go down that path?

Conversely increasing frequency services by introducing minibuses mustn't stack up. The high frequency, low capacity model was introduced extensively in the UK and to a lesser extent here in the 80s and 90s, yet in all cases reverted back to full sized buses. Would appear that rigid buses is a happy medium.

[tonyp]

Neither of those scenarios is relevant to Sydney. I'm asking about operating costs of smaller buses.

[burrumbus]

In the UK there are thousands of mini and midi sized buses operating lower patronage route services for operators large and small.
In fact the 2 main trade bus magazines both have sections devoted to small buses such is the demand for buses of that size in the industry.
There were a lot of areas in the UK where low frequency services with full size rigid buses were converted to mini/midi sized buses on higher frequency services.stom
A lot of these were successful and the higher frequencies remained but with larger capacity buses-typically Dennis Dart sized 40 seaters.
In several areas in Australia the same thing happened.The best example would be the Nepean Nipper services in the Penrith and St.Marys areas.Some of the routes generated pax increases to the extent that the Mercedes LO812'S were replaced by 35 seat MAN'S WITH Custom Coaches bodies.
However the big difference between the UK and how it was done in Australia was the lack of separation of adult route service from school specific services.The UK operators tend to permanently allocate bus sizes to bus routes.The Australian industry is seemingly incapable of that with subsequent problems of over and under capacity.It is not hard to allocate the right size buses to the right size services based on demand.
In my opinion around one third of the Sydney route systems should be operated by small buses

[tonyp]

In my opinion around one third of the Sydney route systems should be operated by small buses

And maybe a quarter by artics!

[burrumbus]

Would not be far off there Tony!!! Would allow the demand to be met properly.
I can't think of a lot of routes in the former traditional private areas that would require artics but there are a lot of corridors in the STA and former STA areas that would need them.
333,400,410,343,438,Victoria Rd to name a few that need them operating all day every day .
Not hard to leave them on the same routes,all day .
Just requires changes to long standing and relatively inefficient rostering practices

[tonyp]

Would not be far off there Tony!!! Would allow the demand to be met properly.
I can't think of a lot of routes in the former traditional private areas that would require artics but there are a lot of corridors in the STA and former STA areas that would need them.
333,400,410,343,438,Victoria Rd to name a few that need them operating all day every day .
Not hard to leave them on the same routes,all day .
Just requires changes to long standing and relatively inefficient rostering practices

Broadly corresponding to the former tram corridors plus busy cross-regionals like te 400.

[Campbelltown busboy]

In my opinion around one third of the Sydney route systems should be operated by small buses

And maybe a quarter by artics!

If Transport For NSW read the opal data properly then they would know where to do areas in Sydney where they can do a trial with smaller buses and areas in Sydney where artics can be used with maxim affect

[Frosty]

I would prefer to see particularly on shorter routes high-capacity rigid buses this already exists in Europe and closer to home in RHD market Singapore. A typical 12m bus in Singapore has capacity for 90 passengers typically around 35 seated and around 55 standing surely this can be brought to Sydney. Maybe remove all but a few seats between front door and centre door and make it majority standing area. This would work well on inner-city routes such as the 304,343,309,431,470.

[tonyp]

In Europe this higher capacity (90-100 passengers) is enabled by having three doors, front, centre and rear, thus eliminating any internal "cave" that traps people up the back. I haven't observed Singapore buses operating with this many people on board, but if they only have a front and centre door, their functionality would be very constrained. The big advantage of artics is the amount of internal space and good passenger flows with three doors in use. Having all doors available for boarding and a fully low floor also greatly improve the functionality. Sydney buses will always have limits while these constraints exist.

If you want to experience a rigid with fewer seats and big loads (plus three doors, though all forward of the rear axle) you can do it right here in Sydney on the airport Blue Emu service. Observe how dysfunctional it is with 60 people jammed into the low-floor section because nobody wants to climb the massive stairs to the high floor at the back. Until we can get three-door low-floor rigids with the third door behind the rear axle, artics are a far better solution, not to mention artics having a significantly higher total capacity.

However, if in the meantime we could order buses with a fully low floor and the centre door as far back as possible against the rear axle (thus minimizing the size of the "cave"), we would make enough gains in functionality to fit a few more people on board. Allowing boarding through the centre door would remove the final choke point.

[Campbelltown busboy]

In Europe this higher capacity (90-100 passengers) is enabled by having three doors, front, centre and rear, thus eliminating any internal "cave" that traps people up the back. I haven't observed Singapore buses operating with this many people on board, but if they only have a front and centre door, their functionality would be very constrained. The big advantage of artics is the amount of internal space and good passenger flows with three doors in use. Having all doors available for boarding and a fully low floor also greatly improve the functionality. Sydney buses will always have limits while these constraints exist.

If you want to experience a rigid with fewer seats and big loads (plus three doors, though all forward of the rear axle) you can do it right here in Sydney on the airport Blue Emu service. Observe how dysfunctional it is with 60 people jammed into the low-floor section because nobody wants to climb the massive stairs to the high floor at the back. Until we can get three-door low-floor rigids with the third door behind the rear axle, artics are a far better solution, not to mention artics having a significantly higher total capacity.

However, if in the meantime we could order buses with a fully low floor and the centre door as far back as possible against the rear axle (thus minimizing the size of the "cave"), we would make enough gains in functionality to fit a few more people on board. Allowing boarding through the centre door would remove the final choke point.

This won't happen unless Transport For NSW sets a universal bus spec that all operators including the STA and both transport unions can agree to

[tonyp]

This won't happen unless Transport For NSW sets a universal bus spec that all operators including the STA and both transport unions can agree to

That will never happen till the cows come home, at the present rate, so in the meantime the artic is the defacto, properly-efficient "rigid" bus.

Incidentally, the TWU has never had a history of opposing all-door boarding - they run with it in every other state. In NSW they have to run with what TfNSW allows operators to do.