NSW Bus Observations 2022.

[Linto63]

Transit Systems has been allowed by Transport to run a reduced service from next week to deal with ongoing driver shortages in Region 6. These new timetables reflect this reduced level of service.

A revised timetable to take into account ongoing driver shortages will be introduced in region 6 on 19 December.

Transport For NSW should go further and say only buses built 2007 and later are allowed be used in service as then it would be easier for fleet transfer between operators in the occasion of a cntract transfer as all buses will be contracted to Transport For NSW

And what prey tell will operate the services that the pre 2007 fleet does? Procuring a bus fleet isn't that difficult. Busabout, Interline and Transit Systems all managed perfectly well when they took over regions and they had to find a larger percentage of the fleet than will be the case now.

The Europeans manage to meet that age limit. 20 years is too long for a bus.

The Europeans also have to deal with roads gritted with salt which eats chassis, 25-30 years has worked here just fine for decades.

An unintended but very predictable consequence of Constance's knee-jerk ban that wasn't a ban on ordering more diesels for Sydney, instead of a phased approach to electric buses that met the capability of both manufacturers and power supplies to deliver.

Quite, 2 years of less than half the normal delivery rate for new buses is starting to bite.

[Aurora]

I actually think 26 years is in some cases not long enough. I am sick of the idea that everything must be new, any wonder we pay so much in taxes when everything has to be bling, rather than doing the base job intended, and accounting for the LCD impacts of vandalism and evasion which have wider societal consequences.

Transport has spent many hundreds of millions in the past decade procuring new buses, an expenditure that does not appear to tighten any time soon.

[Merc1107]

I actually think 26 years is in some cases not long enough. I am sick of the idea that everything must be new, any wonder we pay so much in taxes when everything has to be bling, rather than doing the base job intended, and accounting for the LCD impacts of vandalism and evasion which have wider societal consequences.

Transport has spent many hundreds of millions in the past decade procuring new buses, an expenditure that does not appear to tighten any time soon.

Agreed. I also question the environmental friendliness of bus fleets designed to be cast away after such a short period of time (particularly CNG buses, for which there is no potential of resale, unlike Europe) - surely it would be better to build the vehicles a bit stronger to begin with, so they can be refurbished and overhauled as necessary?

The electric era offers this opportunity, yet the cynical side of me suspects obsolescence will be incorporated within batteries, or problematic/update prone computer systems that will either be too costly to replace, or ultimately EOL'd by their maker (things like OEM telemetry systems, along with other ridiculous additions like camera-based mirrors and centralisation of all the critical functions of the bus {this certain infernal nuisance is already ubiquitous on most public fleets}) which will sideline a vehicle before its time. .

Old diesels have typically been able to live on with charter operators. Except low-entry buses are ill-suited to this task given their lack of seats and the greater difficulty in adding more of them; so it might be that even diesel low-floors won't have much of a second life outside of use as rail replacement buses.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Old diesels have typically been able to live on with charter operators. Except low-entry buses are ill-suited to this task given their lack of seats and the greater difficulty in adding more of them; so it might be that even diesel low-floors won't have much of a second life outside of use as rail replacement buses.

The low entry bus was brought in to make the limited mobility crowd happy here's a ACA story from the mid 90s on why low entry buses should of been a thing back then
https://youtu.be/TEySVw51c8M

[tonyp]

The low entry bus was brought in to make the limited mobility crowd happy here's a ACA story from the mid 90s on why low entry buses should of been a thing back then
https://youtu.be/TEySVw51c8M

Thanks for finding that video. That was a great outcome at the time, but the move started in Australia with the 1992 DDA, though it was not until regulations came later that design specifics were defined and mandated. But this legal case was significant.

The laughable moment in that video is when he pointed to the examples of over-engineered (implying best-practice) early efforts in English-speaking jurisdictions when, by the end of the 1980s, the Europeans were already producing walk-on low floor bus and trams (via platform or ramp).

On bus life, with the advent of battery-electrics (specifically), that's going to be determined by the life of the battery pack, which is presently estimated about 8 years and I understand that they presently cost about $150,000 to replace. So there'll be one replacement at 8 years, then questions will be asked about whether it's cost-effective to justify another one at 16 years. If the packs eventually manage to last 10 years, there'll definitely be questions at 20 years.

[Bovways]

Of course, if Sydney had made any moves in recent years to reduce the 25 year maximum age target (its a limit, but in practical terms that makes it a target), this wouldn't be such a problem.

The 25 year maximum age only applies to legacy, operator-owned vehicles. Any government-funded vehicles, i.e. purchases from around 2007 onwards, have a maximum age of 20 years applied.

[Fleet Lists]

That will put more pressure on the introduction of new buses (all electric by then) from 2027 when both the 2002 buses still in service as well as the newer 2007 buses will need to be replaced, for a period of five years until the 2006 buses have been replaced.

[Linto63]

Obviously the 26 year maximum and 12 year average age limits are out the window with multiple operators now having buses that exceed the former and inevitably will be in breach of the latter.

[In Transit]

Of course, if Sydney had made any moves in recent years to reduce the 25 year maximum age target (its a limit, but in practical terms that makes it a target), this wouldn't be such a problem.

The 25 year maximum age only applies to legacy, operator-owned vehicles. Any government-funded vehicles, i.e. purchases from around 2007 onwards, have a maximum age of 20 years applied.

Interesting - when did that change and which regions does it apply to? The redacted version of the Region 6 contact (online) for example, still shows the maximum age as being 25 years, with no reference to any variation for buses purchased after 2007 - nor does the pro forma version of the SMBSC contracts online. The latest contracts for regions 7, 8 and 9 aren't publicly available though.

[Swift]

First time I've heard of this 20 year limit. Is It a recent thing that only applies to buses purchased at the same time. When will the first buses be withdrawn at 20, 2042?

[Fleet Lists]

It is explained above that only buses from 2007 will be subject to the 20 year limit hence first such withdrawals in 2027.


I also had not heard of this before.

[Stonesourscotty]

Noticed quite a few of the busways electrics are still without branding even though there in service for a few months. 5010 is definitely unbranded as is 5011 from memory 5010 is currently on the hospital routes either 775 or 776

[ScaniaGrenda]

So I've read here in the past couple of days that the DDA legislation for buses will kick in from the end of this month and I'm of the understanding that this is a change that needs to happen, however I have a query I'd like to put forward and that is the question of what happens regarding situations where revenue drivers are in shortage and say a School Bus Driver whose driving a high-floor is requested to do the service run, are we just going to cancel another service & strand people because the only bus that previously could cover the route wouldn't legally now meet the DDA requirements?

Just point blank having high-floors on revenue service middle of the day is a bit how you going (despite how much we may love them for their variety) however I'm all for the exception of still having one run if there's no other available low entry bus that can cover the run and the high-floor is what prevents more services being cancelled.

I also raise this because a certain local operator was putting high-floors on service runs to prevent them from being cancelled because of various reasons you can likely guess, these would be picked up by school bus drivers after they'd concluded their school specials. I suppose the alternative is to switch to a low entry bus as well but there wouldn't always be time for that either.

[Aurora]

A very valid point, but I think the planning will eventually be that all buses would be expected to be compliant so passengers may have to bear the brunt with more cancellations courtesy of the compliance requirements until operators replace their school bus services with compliant vehicles.

Particularly with the shortages we are experiencing, the impact should be more pronounced initially if it is indeed a straight cutover on 31 Dec.

[Swift]

It is explained above that only buses from 2007 will be subject to the 20 year limit hence first such withdrawals in 2027.


I also had not heard of this before.

We'll have an absurd situation where newer buses will have to go first. NSW bureaucrats make me cry sometimes.

[ScaniaGrenda]

A very valid point, but I think the planning will eventually be that all buses would be expected to be compliant so passengers may have to bear the brunt with more cancellations courtesy of the compliance requirements

That may work if you have a service coming every 15-20 minutes, half hour or hourly? Not going to work, there are routes in Newcastle, Central Coast, Maitland etc that would operate on 30+ minute - 1hr frequencies, some running every hour or two hours, not sure passengers should be left waiting when they've got places to be because a now complaint accessible bus can't be sourced, again I'd rather a bus than no bus and I'm sure you'd think the same.

Otherwise valid points you've raised and I agree, Hillsbus, Hunter Valley Buses etc have plenty of low entry buses some of which are on school specials, these drivers could easily continue onto service runs after concluding school specials but my concern is in the case of where there isn't a low entry accessible (DDA) complaint bus available (maybe let's say the low entry drivers have worked their max driving hours tho the one High-floor school bus driver has still got plenty of legal driving hours left) but the High-floor is all that's available and could cover it.

[Fleet Lists]

[
Interesting - when did that change and which regions does it apply to? The redacted version of the Region 6 contact (online) for example, still shows the maximum age as being 25 years, with no reference to any variation for buses purchased after 2007 - nor does the pro forma version of the SMBSC contracts online. The latest contracts for regions 7, 8 and 9 aren't publicly available though.

One would expect that it would apply to all regions.
However the region 6 contract started in 2018 and will finish in 2026 so it would be included in the next contract which would come into force before 2027 if everything goes to plan but would probably run late like most contracts do and would then come into force from whatever date the new contract starts.
And it would be included in the other new contracts which have been finalised or are in the process of being prepared.

I think the proforma SBMC contracts are well and truely out of date.

[Campbelltown busboy]

There are some regions where they will have the buses for the upcoming DDA bus mandate. Regions 2,3,8 and 9 are 100% accessible with regions 5-7 and 15 being about 0.1 to 0.5% off being 100% accessible

[Aurora]

A very valid point, but I think the planning will eventually be that all buses would be expected to be compliant so passengers may have to bear the brunt with more cancellations courtesy of the compliance requirements

That may work if you have a service coming every 15-20 minutes, half hour or hourly? Not going to work, there are routes in Newcastle, Central Coast, Maitland etc that would operate on 30+ minute - 1hr frequencies, some running every hour or two hours, not sure passengers should be left waiting when they've got places to be because a now complaint accessible bus can't be sourced, again I'd rather a bus than no bus and I'm sure you'd think the same.

Whilst I would think the same, I think the disability/inclusion groups would cry murder if they still saw a high floor regardless of the background of the story, and the current government appears to be attentive to that, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised with a blanket no, just cancel the service.

[Fleet Lists]

Let us hope that some common sense will apply.

I do expect an announcement that this milestone has been achieved. This should be accompanied with an explanation that agreement had been reached that under some circumstances a high floor bus may still be used where an accessible bus is not available due to unforeseen circumstances.

Let us not go Woke and cancel a service because an accessible bus is not available especially if it is known that a wheel chair bus has not been needed for some period of time on that service..

[stupid_girl]

That will put more pressure on the introduction of new buses (all electric by then) from 2027 when both the 2002 buses still in service as well as the newer 2007 buses will need to be replaced, for a period of five years until the 2006 buses have been replaced.

TfNSW is well aware of a demand cliff.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system ... rategy.pdf

The first challenge is that the supply of ZEBs will need to ramp-up rapidly – both domestically
and overseas – which may put strain on local manufacturers. Manufacturers will need as much
visibility as possible (from TfNSW and operators) on the pipeline and timing of orders for each
fleet type.

The second challenge is that Australian manufacturers may face a local “demand cliff” at the
end of the transition (by 2030) as demand drops to only “growth” requirements (e.g. around
50 buses per annum state-wide to accommodate growth in public transport). As the entire
NSW fleet will have turned over in around 10 years, rather than over the full asset life of a typical
bus which is up to 25 years, this cycle of “rapid ramp-up” and “demand cliff” is set to repeat
itself as the first generation of ZEBs reach end-of-life. As a result, local manufacturers may need
to look beyond NSW to other markets including interstate and overseas, diversify manufacturing
and product range to include other vehicle types or face periods of ramping-up and ramping-down
production, with likely reduced demand for around 10 to 15 years between
replacement cycles.

[Linto63]

Assuming this 20 year limit on post 2007 buses exist, and it does appear to be an if, then it would more likely be a phased introduction with the limit being being reduced gradually rather than just a big bang. Would require the number of new buses purchased each year to double from its long range average of 200 per annum. Given that for the past couple of years less than half of that have been purchased due to the electric bus mandate, would need a few years of 500+.

[Fleet Lists]

Also quoting from that

The first two years of the transition (2021–22
calendar years) will focus on short term replacement
opportunities, aimed at meeting natural replacement
needs while building industry readiness for an increased
take up of vehicles from 2023.

The supply of new buses during the years 2021-22 has not even met natural replacement needs as well as meeting the need for extra wheelchair buses which is also being discussed in this thread.

[stupid_girl]

Assuming this 20 year limit on post 2007 buses exist, and it does appear to be an if, then it would more likely be a phased introduction with the limit being being reduced gradually rather than just a big bang. Would require the number of new buses purchased each year to double from its long range average of 200 per annum. Given that for the past couple of years less than half of that have been purchased due to the electric bus mandate, would need a few years of 500+.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system ... rategy.pdf
The graph on page 23 suggests 1000+ deliveries per year from 2024 to 2030.

[Merc1107]

That's a ridiculous strategy; it will only inflate the cost of production given the supply chain isn't used to such volume. Then a great big crash (how many local body builders will survive such a boom and bust?), loss of employment, only for the drama to repeat whenever the electrics are due replacement!