Dublin Bus - can anyone be happy with the price and service?

poggyone

lucernarian wrote: »

Buy more triaxles basically! The spec of bus in Hong Kong (their Alexander Enviro 500s anyway) would be great for Dublin Bus on most core routes.

The triaxles when driven in dubln EAT the rear tyres.
The triaxles you see abroad are not making sharp turns on narrow streets,ie Suffok St. They are run on straight motorways.
DB try only run triaxles M-F, they take them out of service Sat-Sun so they can get a extra week use of the rear tyres. I know a few run Sat-Sun but only at peak times.

poggyone

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The nonsense that was the bendi-buses using only the front doors must never happen again (and I remain unconvinced about this "safety" excuse being used to justify it when buses all over the world can operate multi-door vehicles in towns and cities that are a hell of a lot busier or cluttered than Dublin!)

Remember a year ago a man was pushed under a rear wheel of a bus on dawson st?
If you knew how DB treated the driver of the bus you would not open the middle doors unless the bus was parallel and close to the kerb and 100% safe to do so. (Driver was 100% innocent of wrong doing)
Anything that goes wrong with the use of the centre door and the driver will be blamed.
This is a undeniable fact.
You want the doors to be used all the time, get someone in power to take responsibility, NTA,DB the drivers dont care, until such time middle doors will be used infrequently only when bus is parallel and close to the kerb.

poggyone

hmmm wrote: »

I'd love to see more inspectors - stop people eating on buses, clamp down on people not paying.

Suppose to be more checks in the coming months, honestly it wont make any difference.
Inspectors have no real power, what is need is transport police.
The lowlife go to court with dozens of fines and are either let of scot free or only fined once for multiple offences.

VG31

I've noticed there are never any tri-axles on the 145 in the morning (southbound at least anyway). The buses are always very full in the city centre, they should send the tri-axles out earlier.

poggyone wrote: »

Remember a year ago a man was pushed under a rear wheel of a bus on dawson st?
If you knew how DB treated the driver of the bus you would not open the middle doors unless the bus was parallel and close to the kerb and 100% safe to do so. (Driver was 100% innocent of wrong doing)
Anything that goes wrong with the use of the centre door and the driver will be blamed.
This is a undeniable fact.
You want the doors to be used all the time, get someone in power to take responsibility, NTA,DB the drivers dont care, until such time middle doors will be used infrequently only when bus is parallel and close to the kerb.

So if something goes wrong when the front doors are used is it the same? Why are the middle doors different?

hmmm wrote: »

I'd love to see more inspectors - stop people eating on buses, clamp down on people not paying.

Is there any rule saying people can't eat on the bus? I see this all the time.

foggy_lad

cdebru wrote: »

Whether you are convinced or not is largely irrelevant, there is a Labour court ruling the reasons behind that ruling have never been addressed.
But to demonstrate the point here is the TFL guidance on bus stop design

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/accessibile-bus-stop-design-guidance.pdf


Now head out into Dublin and see how many stops you can find that meet those guidelines.

Other than that I agree completely different buses are needed, I never understood the reason for getting rid of the single deckers and it seems an awful waste to have double deckers driving around carrying a handful of people even at peak times.

Fixed the link

poggyone

VG31 wrote: »

So if something goes wrong when the front doors are used is it the same? Why are the middle doors different?

Drivers usually have the front door up to kerb before opening, if accident happen at front when bus not near kerb the driver is screwed, it is much harder in dublin to get middle door near to kerb. Therefore driver is taking a gamble every time they open middle door when not close to kerb.
Why would you take the risk?

VG31

poggyone wrote: »

Drivers usually have the front door up to kerb before opening, if accident happen at front when bus not near kerb the driver is screwed, it is much harder in dublin to get middle door near to kerb. Therefore driver is taking a gamble every time they open middle door when not close to kerb.
Why would you take the risk?

Fair enough, some bus stops need to be fixed. But there are some drivers who will not open the middle doors even if they are close to the kerb. Most stops there is no problem getting near the kerb.

poggyone

VG31 wrote: »

Most stops there is no problem getting near the kerb.

In theory, then allow for illegally parked vehicles , too many buses using the same stops, suffolk,D'Olier st, and before you know it most stops are now no longer accessible.

VG31

I use Suffolk Street and D'Olier street occasionally, there are lots of buses but on Suffolk Street in particular there are no problems getting near the kerb, the only problem is that buses often pull in too far back from the bus stop. It is more likely to be an issue in residential areas where parked cars may partially block the bus from pulling in.
If I take the stops on my morning commute into consideration, out of the 17 stops only at 3 stops is getting close to the kerb is sometimes an issue and two of them people don't usually get off at. The rest of the stops there would very rarely be an issue with getting close to the kerb.

Do you use the middle doors at all?
You must accept the there are some drivers who will not use the centre doors even if they are perfectly stopped at the bus stop.

foggy_lad

VG31 wrote: »

I use Suffolk Street and D'Olier street occasionally, there are lots of buses but on Suffolk Street in particular there are no problems getting near the kerb, the only problem is that buses often pull in too far back from the bus stop. It is more likely to be an issue in residential areas where parked cars may partially block the bus from pulling in.
If I take the stops on my morning commute into consideration, out of the 17 stops only at 3 stops is getting close to the kerb is sometimes an issue and two of them people don't usually get off at. The rest of the stops there would very rarely be an issue with getting close to the kerb.

Do you use the middle doors at all?
You must accept the there are some drivers who will not use the centre doors even if they are perfectly stopped at the bus stop.

Often buses on Suffolk St will stop several yards before even the first stop on the street to offload passengers when there is a Q of buses ahead, then passengers for that bus trot down to their bus and the driver will allow them to board miles away from the stop! This bus is then blocking access for the other first stop on the street and creates even worse confusion and bedlam at peak hours. Yet day after day Dublin bus and the NTA let this illegal bus stop behaviour continue without placing an inspector onwhat is probably the most dangerous street in Dublin for bus passengers!

At places like Suffolk St buses should not be allowed open doors unless at their designated stop or unless there is an inspector present to oversee the boarding and alighting of passengers.


For most stops on city streets the bus stops should be placed alongside the traffic/bus lane sticking out from the main footpath if required so then the bus just pulls up alongside and does not need to manoeuvre into a tight bus stop bay that may be partially blocked by cars or just poorly designed like the one at the DCC library in Rathmines, opposite the Travelodge/aldi. This stop cost thousands to place there but most buses stop in the bus lane just past the bus stop! It is easier for Deriver and also for passengers.

AlekSmart

foggy_lad wrote: »

At places like Suffolk St buses should not be allowed open doors unless at their designated stop or unless there is an inspector present to oversee the boarding and alighting of passengers.


For most stops on city streets the bus stops should be placed alongside the traffic/bus lane sticking out from the main footpath if required so then the bus just pulls up alongside and does not need to manoeuvre into a tight bus stop bay that may be partially blocked by cars or just poorly designed like the one at the DCC library in Rathmines, opposite the Travelodge/aldi. This stop cost thousands to place there but most buses stop in the bus lane just past the bus stop! It is easier for Deriver and also for passengers.

Excellent concept indeed.....diluted a tad by the actual number of Bus Routes allocated to each specific Bus Stop.

The other unspoken of issue here is the presence of ranked-up Taxi's now regularly seen along the street.
This makes any attempt to safely access Bus Stops largely impossible.

No amount of polite requesting will get these people to move,as the Gardai appear to have reached some form of "agreement" with them on the issue which they then take as carte blance to act the eejit 24/7.

One answer...the old reliable...Pedestrian Barriers along the kerb edge...with openings only at the Bus Stop.

However,my discussions with DCC Traffic Engineers has revealed a their absolute resistance to ANY form of physical barrier in such cases.

It would appear that DCC has a significantly greater appetite for risk (Or placing the Public at risk) than the other players in this production.

As it currently stands,the "Problem" (Officially Non-Existent) will disappear from the 18th Jan,when the Bus Routes are removed to facilitate BXD works.

Whether this will see the Taxi fraternity make a wild-eyed dash for Lincoln Place to set up their crazy stall is another matter entirely...;)

The Rathmines issue is far simpler,springing from the reliance of the Local Authorities upon manufacturers theoritical data on Bus Manouvering space,which is then superimposed upon the actual on-street area...resulting in largely unusable Bus Stop arrangements,particularly when Disabled Access is required.

The Roads Design Engineer thinks laterally it appears,so as long as the required kerb space can accomodate the required length of Bus,the issue of how that Bus actually gets to position at the Stop is somebody else's problem.

Rathmines Road is an absolute classic,but again,it is a Problem which OFFICIALLY does not exist,because Busdrivers concerns are regarded as nit-picking and trouble-making...the answer I have heard given on more than one occasion...."WTF do yiz want...a fcekkin Runway ?"......to which my reply was...."Yes-A runway,with clear approach and departure slope is EXACTLY what we want...Great Idea !".

The act of pulling a full-size Bus into and out of that Stop is where the vast majority of the DANGER lies,and it is DANGER which has been deliberately engineered into the location largely as a result of professional laziness....

Needless to say,my glide-slope analogy was swiftly pooh-pooh'd and the Engineering Luminary moved swiftly on to greater things...such as Arran Quay....!

Put very simply a 10Mtr+ Vehicle requiring regular access to a Kerbside Location MUST be facilitated to approach that Stop in a controlled and safe manner.
Rathmines offered the long,straight stretch of Road which could have facilitated this,but the Local Authority plumped instead for the tightly boxed-in approach,always guaranteed to result in a typically Irish Engineered Mess of a solution.

How does all of that sound then......?

lucernarian

poggyone wrote: »

The triaxles when driven in dubln EAT the rear tyres.
The triaxles you see abroad are not making sharp turns on narrow streets,ie Suffok St. They are run on straight motorways.
DB try only run triaxles M-F, they take them out of service Sat-Sun so they can get a extra week use of the rear tyres. I know a few run Sat-Sun but only at peak times.

Have you ever been to Hong Kong?! That's a mad statement to make. They deliberately run on alignments that are on wider and straight enough roads in Kowloon especially but as terminals can't all be in the same place, the final 3 stops at either end would include some very sharp turns. I didn't take many buses in HK whenever I visit but that was my experience anyway. And route 6/A to Aberdeen on the island is an exceptionally twisty road but the triaxles are used mainly with a sprinkling of EV-like buses.

AlekSmart wrote:

One answer...the old reliable...Pedestrian Barriers along the kerb edge...with openings only at the Bus Stop.[\quote]
Those types of barriers are often lethal to cyclists and tbh I'm glad they are waking up to that. I know they have been implicated in a number of accidents in London where they are used more often.

LXFlyer

poggyone wrote: »

The triaxles when driven in dubln EAT the rear tyres.
The triaxles you see abroad are not making sharp turns on narrow streets,ie Suffok St. They are run on straight motorways.
DB try only run triaxles M-F, they take them out of service Sat-Sun so they can get a extra week use of the rear tyres. I know a few run Sat-Sun but only at peak times.

While that applies to the Donnybrook VTs, I'm not sure that it applies to the Phibsboro batch.


I'm pretty sure it is down to the particular settings that DB chose on the initial batch of vehicles.

LXFlyer

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Rathmines issue is far simpler,springing from the reliance of the Local Authorities upon manufacturers theoritical data on Bus Manouvering space,which is then superimposed upon the actual on-street area...resulting in largely unusable Bus Stop arrangements,particularly when Disabled Access is required.

The Roads Design Engineer thinks laterally it appears,so as long as the required kerb space can accomodate the required length of Bus,the issue of how that Bus actually gets to position at the Stop is somebody else's problem.

Rathmines Road is an absolute classic,but again,it is a Problem which OFFICIALLY does not exist,because Busdrivers concerns are regarded as nit-picking and trouble-making...the answer I have heard given on more than one occasion...."WTF do yiz want...a fcekkin Runway ?"......to which my reply was...."Yes-A runway,with clear approach and departure slope is EXACTLY what we want...Great Idea !".

The act of pulling a full-size Bus into and out of that Stop is where the vast majority of the DANGER lies,and it is DANGER which has been deliberately engineered into the location largely as a result of professional laziness....

Needless to say,my glide-slope analogy was swiftly pooh-pooh'd and the Engineering Luminary moved swiftly on to greater things...such as Arran Quay....!

Put very simply a 10Mtr+ Vehicle requiring regular access to a Kerbside Location MUST be facilitated to approach that Stop in a controlled and safe manner.
Rathmines offered the long,straight stretch of Road which could have facilitated this,but the Local Authority plumped instead for the tightly boxed-in approach,always guaranteed to result in a typically Irish Engineered Mess of a solution.

How does all of that sound then......?

The Rathmines stop is an absolute disgrace.

How any road engineer could ever think that it was a suitable design for a bus stop is beyond me.

It is impossible for a bus to align up with the kerb correctly due to the bus bay being too short for any bus to pull in properly, and then pull out. It also takes no account of the fact that the stop is served by 8 bus routes, and that an indented bay is completely inappropriate in that location. This sort of thing is basic.

Any bus cage markings, or indeed bus bays have to allow sufficient space for buses to:
- Pull in
- Straighten up
- Stop
- Pull out

I would venture to suggest that a significant number of stops in Dublin fail this basic test.

I find it difficult to understand how this sort of nonsense is ever allowed to happen. Yet thousands of EURO were spent on something that cannot be used properly.

TfL have excellent design guidance on this:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/accessibile-bus-stop-design-guidance.pdf

cdebru

lxflyer wrote: »

The Rathmines stop is an absolute disgrace.

How any road engineer could ever think that it was a suitable design for a bus stop is beyond me.

It is impossible for a bus to align up with the kerb correctly due to the bus bay being too short for any bus to pull in properly, and then pull out. It also takes no account of the fact that the stop is served by 8 bus routes, and that an indented bay is completely inappropriate in that location. This sort of thing is basic.

Any bus cage markings, or indeed bus bays have to allow sufficient space for buses to:
- Pull in
- Straighten up
- Stop
- Pull out

I would venture to suggest that a significant number of stops in Dublin fail this basic test.

I find it difficult to understand how this sort of nonsense is ever allowed to happen. Yet thousands of EURO were spent on something that cannot be used properly.

TfL have excellent design guidance on this:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/accessibile-bus-stop-design-guidance.pdf

I just had a look at Google street view to make sure I was talking about the right stop, and just to demonstrate the problems lo and behold there is a taxi parked up in the stop, and a 128 loading out in the bus lane.

It is a classic example of why we can't use center doors in one picture, poorly designed stop which can't be used but even if it was correct there is a taxi parked at the entrance to the stop.

RFOLEY1990

I live in East Wall and the bus service is fantastic.

Very friendly drivers also.

People saying why thank a driver for 'doing their job' . Have you ever heard of common courteousy? Would you not thank someone in McDonald's for handing you your food?

Muahahaha

poggyone wrote: »

Drivers usually have the front door up to kerb before opening, if accident happen at front when bus not near kerb the driver is screwed, it is much harder in dublin to get middle door near to kerb. Therefore driver is taking a gamble every time they open middle door when not close to kerb.
Why would you take the risk?

Anytime I'm in London its always the middle doors that you get off. They seem to manage it ok. And dwell times are much shorter as a result and you don't have to wait for all disembarking passengers to get off before those getting on can do so.

Mint Sauce

steddyeddy wrote: »

I live in near Donnybrook and I go into Dublin (around 15 mins by bus) once a week. I'm sometimes waiting up to half an hour for a bus that charges me 2.80 for the pleasure of a 15 minute journey. Now I know people will say Leap card is cheaper blah blah but still the fact remains is that Dublin Bus offers and appalling service. I live on the main road into the country's capital and it's a struggle getting in and out of town for a return journey costing me over 5 euro!!

We also subsidise Dublin bus in taxes. We're paying too much for a rubbish service.


Edit: I also forgot some of the rudest bus drivers going who act like they're doing you a favour instead of providing a service.

Wouldn't be too bad if it was 2.80 regardless of the lenght of the journey, be that one stop, or the entire lenght of the route.

I dont use DB thst often, but nearly anytime i have the driver has seemed to expected me to know what fare stage my stop is in, and what the fare should be. A flat fare would end all of that.

rannerap

I live in lusk and We have one bus. It's not nearly as frequent as it needs to be and it takes the guts of two hours to get to town. It's ridiculous

cdebru

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anytime I'm in London its always the middle doors that you get off. They seem to manage it ok. And dwell times are much shorter as a result and you don't have to wait for all disembarking passengers to get off before those getting on can do so.

TFL have guidelines for bus stop design which means they don't just stick a pole in the ground and hope for the best, and have you ever seen taxis make a defacto rank at a bus stop in London ?

Muahahaha

cdebru wrote: »

TFL have guidelines for bus stop design which means they don't just stick a pole in the ground and hope for the best, and have you ever seen taxis make a defacto rank at a bus stop in London ?

Don't Dublin Bus also have guidelines for bus stop design? Or at least the pavements seems to be designed for their buses near me. It doesn't explain why the middle doors aren't being used. If its safe to get off onto the pavement at the front door then what is unsafe about the middle one ? I'm just curious as they seem to manage it fine in London, and most other major European capitals from what I can recall too. Are things more dangerous in Dublin for some reason? I can think of plenty of eastern European capitals whose streets are made of cobblestone and yet passengers don't seem to have problems using the middle doors, its the done thing if anything

LXFlyer

Muahahaha wrote: »

Don't Dublin Bus also have guidelines for bus stop design? Or at least the pavements seems to be designed for their buses near me. It doesn't explain why the middle doors aren't being used. If its safe to get off onto the pavement at the front door then what is unsafe about the middle one ? I'm just curious as they seem to manage it fine in London, and most other major European capitals from what I can recall too. Are things more dangerous in Dublin for some reason? I can think of plenty of eastern European capitals whose streets are made of cobblestone and yet passengers don't seem to have problems using the middle doors, its the done thing if anything

All of that is down to Dublin City Council and the other local authorities and as far as I know they don't have any such manual - that much is fairly obvious from looking around the city.


It's one thing having the kerbing in place, but how many bus stop cages (i.e. the markings on the road) are big enough to allow for buses to:
1) Pull in
2) Straighten up
3) Stop
4) Pull out


Many (if not most) of them are purely the length of a bus - they don't allow for the extra space that buses need to do the above manoeuvre safely.

Muahahaha

I'd suggest that the majority of bus stops are ones where there isn't that much pulling in to do, i.e. they're on the side of the road and the bus just stops on its route.

Irrespective of whose fault it is it all comes back on the customer at the end of the day. Longer dwell times mean longer journeys for everyone on board. It seems daft to me that Dublin Bus is investing in buses with middle doors which we know are effective at cutting dwell times but then not using them.

devnull

Dublin Bus isn't investing in middle doors. Buses for the last number of eyars are being bought by the NTA.

end of the road

Muahahaha wrote: »

Anytime I'm in London its always the middle doors that you get off. They seem to manage it ok. And dwell times are much shorter as a result and you don't have to wait for all disembarking passengers to get off before those getting on can do so.

i'd imagine in london the stops are set up for such operation, and you don't have other vehicles being able to park in them

Muahahaha

end of the road wrote: »

i'd imagine in london the stops are set up for such operation, and you don't have other vehicles being able to park in them

It does seem to be part of the problem in Dublin city centre with taxis, deliveries and most other people thinking they can park up in a bus lane or at a stop to drop someone off. If Dublin Bus is to reduce dwell times there really needs to be co-operation from the Gardai to change the culture of blocking buses. Also buses can often find it extremely hard to pull out as no motorist wants to be behind them. Its ridiculous seeing buses trying to pull out from a stop as tons of motorists tailgate each other to prevent it happening.

foggy_lad

lxflyer wrote: »

The Rathmines stop is an absolute disgrace.

How any road engineer could ever think that it was a suitable design for a bus stop is beyond me.

It is impossible for a bus to align up with the kerb correctly due to the bus bay being too short for any bus to pull in properly, and then pull out. It also takes no account of the fact that the stop is served by 8 bus routes, and that an indented bay is completely inappropriate in that location. This sort of thing is basic.

Any bus cage markings, or indeed bus bays have to allow sufficient space for buses to:
- Pull in
- Straighten up
- Stop
- Pull out

I would venture to suggest that a significant number of stops in Dublin fail this basic test.

I find it difficult to understand how this sort of nonsense is ever allowed to happen. Yet thousands of EURO were spent on something that cannot be used properly.

TfL have excellent design guidance on this:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/accessibile-bus-stop-design-guidance.pdf

There are also regularly cars parked blocking that bus bay in Rathmines and bus bays all over the city! Before money was wasted on that bus stop bay there was room for 2-3 buses to pull up at that stop but now only one bus can safely load/unload passengers when it is pulled in beyond the bus stop.

cdebru wrote: »

I just had a look at Google street view to make sure I was talking about the right stop, and just to demonstrate the problems lo and behold there is a taxi parked up in the stop, and a 128 loading out in the bus lane.

It is a classic example of why we can't use center doors in one picture, poorly designed stop which can't be used but even if it was correct there is a taxi parked at the entrance to the stop.

There is usually cars parked out on the bus lane behind that taxi shown in street view

Sarannewrap wrote: »

I live in lusk and We have one bus. It's not nearly as frequent as it needs to be and it takes the guts of two hours to get to town. It's ridiculous

Ye have a train service in Lusk that beats most buses for time into the city centre.

poggyone

One thing to bear in mind regard bus stops, DB have no say in where they are located.
DB request a stop on a stretch of road and the Garda are the ones who then pick the spot.

Aard

How is it that the Gardaí know better than the local authority where a bus stop would best be placed?

KD345

poggyone wrote: »

One thing to bear in mind regard bus stops, DB have no say in where they are located.
DB request a stop on a stretch of road and the Garda are the ones who then pick the spot.

This is no longer the case. In 2003, section 16 of the road traffic act transferred responsibility to the local authority.

Aard

Good to know. Unfortunately we have a legacy of closely-spaced bus stops that will take a long time to change.

AlekSmart

lucernarian wrote: »

Will they retroactively apply the newer assumed passenger weight mentioned above to the other classes of bus in the fleet?

No,as those vehicles were constructed to the Construction & Use Standards then in force,thus the capacities remain as these weights are what they were designed to bear.

Given that one of Aleksmart's main points was the reduction in capacity owing to an NTA specification, I still regard quoting seat numbers as being misleading. Even if there is uncertainty over standee capacity, wouldnt removing seats in general lead to MORE space for standees?? Its been my experience from using the different DART and Commuter Irish Rail stock over the years.

Nothing misleading about it at all.

The regulations accurately refer to passengers over and above the seated capacity as "additional".

This means that actual capacity refers to seated load,with additional passengers only carried during Peak-Traffic hours or to prevent undue hardship being imposed on intending passengers.

I don't mean to be a contrary grouch about it but I still don't see this talk of "seat reductions" as being anything but a red herring.

It's not about any percieved grouchiness at all,the "talk of seat reductions" is factual and reflects the actual reduction in available capacity,eg: from 72 to 64/67 x by the number of vehicles concerned.

If there is more space for standees on busy routes like the 4 than there is on the GTs, surely it would be a good idea to use them?

It should equally be borne in mind that the Disabled/Buggy Space on more recent Bus types is not,of itself,intended to provide or maximize "additional" capacity.

True "Standee" Bus operation is a significantly different area,and requires a different set of operational guidelines,not to mention legislation to facilitate it. (Which may be more suitable as stand-alone thread ?)

(This is assuming that total capacity as legally defined and self-insured by CIE is bigger than at least some of the previous classes)

AlekSmart

Aard wrote: »

Good to know. Unfortunately we have a legacy of closely-spaced bus stops that will take a long time to change.

Always worth seeing how "The Germans" approach these things.....;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpUt7n1los

Tchuss ....:D

foggy_lad

AlekSmart wrote: »

Always worth seeing how "The Germans" approach Used to approach these things many many years ago.....;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpUt7n1los

Tchuss ....:D

Fixed your post

lucernarian

AlekSmart wrote: »

Nothing misleading about it at all.

The regulations accurately refer to passengers over and above the seated capacity as "additional".

According to that original legislation it seems to mention a maximum standing capacity of up to 8 pax on the lower deck which presumably must have been modified since. So I am not sure how seriously I should take that source. But for argument's sake let's at least assume that it's ok to carry standing passengers if all seats are filled (meaning they would miss the bus if they weren't allowed to stand)

It's not about any percieved grouchiness at all,the "talk of seat reductions" is factual and reflects the actual reduction in available capacity,eg: from 72 to 64/67 x by the number of vehicles concerned.

I don't really understand why you talked about seated capacity when you made a point that was very much about capacity on routes and the NTA's recognition that it was a problem on a number of routes. I'm saying that the number of seats is not relevant when they're replaced by room for standing passengers - whether as an inadvertent bonus of extra buggy and wheelchair space or in the case of the removal of 2 seats for a second door.

27 standees is what the new buses can carry (only when passengers suffer "undue hardship" i.e. they would have missed the bus otherwise, versus 14/15 for some other types, I don't know what loss of capacity has been experienced by the introduction of the SG class. A reduction in seating cannot be described as a reduction in capacity unless extra standees cannot make up the difference. You have not demonstrated that in this instance.

So, if you can't demonstrate any reduction in *capacity* as opposed to *seating* then I can't accept any aspect of your point as being either true or relevant. Hence why I called it a red herring. I have posted the difference in capacities and with my sources, the SG class carries more total passengers than most other 2-axle classes in the company when it needs to, i.e. when passengers would otherwise be left behind or during peak-time etc. Simply describing some of those as additional or during peak-time doesn't change the max total allowed on board the bus.

True "Standee" Bus operation is a significantly different area,and requires a different set of operational guidelines,not to mention legislation to facilitate it. (Which may be more suitable as stand-alone thread ?)

I fundamentally disagree. I fail to see how it's a significantly different area given that the legislation (which seems to have been updated since 1963 also) mentions "undue hardship" which can easily be construed as any passenger who would otherwise miss their bus due to seats being full. As people tend to sit in seats before standing on a bus, isn't that basically what happens in normal operations?

Which leads me to what I think about Dublin Bus' latest efforts at fleet modernisation. If the buses are cheaper to run and can allow for greater variations in the sorts of passenger being carried (more buggies OR standing passengers) and have faster boarding times then I am happier with the service than would have been the case.

end of the road

lucernarian wrote: »

According to that original legislation it seems to mention a maximum standing capacity of up to 8 pax on the lower deck which presumably must have been modified since. So I am not sure how seriously I should take that source. But for argument's sake let's at least assume that it's ok to carry standing passengers if all seats are filled (meaning they would miss the bus if they weren't allowed to stand)

I don't really understand why you talked about seated capacity when you made a point that was very much about capacity on routes and the NTA's recognition that it was a problem on a number of routes. I'm saying that the number of seats is not relevant when they're replaced by room for standing passengers - whether as an inadvertent bonus of extra buggy and wheelchair space or in the case of the removal of 2 seats for a second door.

27 standees is what the new buses can carry (only when passengers suffer "undue hardship" i.e. they would have missed the bus otherwise, versus 14/15 for some other types, I don't know what loss of capacity has been experienced by the introduction of the SG class. A reduction in seating cannot be described as a reduction in capacity unless extra standees cannot make up the difference. You have not demonstrated that in this instance.

So, if you can't demonstrate any reduction in *capacity* as opposed to *seating* then I can't accept any aspect of your point as being either true or relevant. Hence why I called it a red herring. I have posted the difference in capacities and with my sources, the SG class carries more total passengers than most other 2-axle classes in the company when it needs to, i.e. when passengers would otherwise be left behind or during peak-time etc. Simply describing some of those as additional or during peak-time doesn't change the max total allowed on board the bus.

I fundamentally disagree. I fail to see how it's a significantly different area given that the legislation (which seems to have been updated since 1963 also) mentions "undue hardship" which can easily be construed as any passenger who would otherwise miss their bus due to seats being full. As people tend to sit in seats before standing on a bus, isn't that basically what happens in normal operations?

Which leads me to what I think about Dublin Bus' latest efforts at fleet modernisation. If the buses are cheaper to run and can allow for greater variations in the sorts of passenger being carried (more buggies OR standing passengers) and have faster boarding times then I am happier with the service than would have been the case.

but if they cary less passengers over all, being cheeper to run and less dwell times along with being able to cary various types of passengers will be only a half solution compared to busses capible of carying larger amounts of passengers which are needed on the high capacity routes.

lucernarian

end of the road wrote: »

but if they cary less passengers over all, being cheeper to run and less dwell times along with being able to cary various types of passengers will be only a half solution compared to busses capible of carying larger amounts of passengers which are needed on the high capacity routes.

Where has anyone shown that they actually carry less passengers? That's my point, talking about *seats* is not the same as total capacity.

Total capacity of a VG is 88 according to the plate on the bus. Total capacity of a GT is 83 according to the plate on the bus (though given there's fewer seats on the bottom deck, there should be more space but this is due to the calculations for total max gross weight of the vehicle). Total capacity of a SG is 91 to 94 depending on one's view of how the foldable seats are counted.

By my calculator, that tells me the SG carries more. Now I'm fine with people saying that the max capacities written on the plate is just wrong or that number can't fit etc. but there should be some concrete proof of this or at least a real and direct comparison of how many people actually can be carried whilst standing on the bottom deck. I certainly don't accept that removing seats from a lower deck means a reduction in capacity. If people are able to stand where those seats once were then that would make the issue moot...

LXFlyer

lucernarian wrote: »

Where has anyone shown that they actually carry less passengers? That's my point, talking about *seats* is not the same as total capacity.

Total capacity of a VG is 88 according to the plate on the bus. Total capacity of a GT is 83 according to the plate on the bus (though given there's fewer seats on the bottom deck, there should be more space but this is due to the calculations for total max gross weight of the vehicle). Total capacity of a SG is 91 to 94 depending on one's view of how the foldable seats are counted.

By my calculator, that tells me the SG carries more. Now I'm fine with people saying that the max capacities written on the plate is just wrong or that number can't fit etc. but there should be some concrete proof of this or at least a real and direct comparison of how many people actually can be carried whilst standing on the bottom deck. I certainly don't accept that removing seats from a lower deck means a reduction in capacity. If people are able to stand where those seats once were then that would make the issue moot...

Realistically there are not any more standees on the SG than any other type of bus as people don't necessarily scrunch up into the relevant areas. Also you will frequently have people with buggies on board so the total standee number will fall.

You certainly will never see 27 standees - whatever the plate may say. That figure is almost reminiscent of the plate on the old KC single deck which originally stated 50 standees - physically impossible. A driver on the old 47 route managed 44 standees one night, but people were squashed up to the doors. It would be the same with 27 standees on an SG.

On average you'll get about 10-12 standees and no more.

It's pointless going on about what the plate says. Reality tends to be rather different, and the main fact is that every new double deck has 8 less seats than before.

foggy_lad

Dublin Bus really needs to go back to basics where the bye-laws are concerned.

years ago you were not allowed stand unless all seats in both lower and upper saloon were full, Unless of course you were unable to climb the stairs.

When standing you had to move down the back of the bus to allow others to board and failing to move back down the bus usually resulted in shouts from the driver that the bus was going nowhere till passengers complied with his directions. you also had to make room to allow passengers exit by the centre doors unless the doorwell was full of folded buggies and shopping.

but then years ago there were inspectors at the busy city centre stops who would travel around the city hopping between buses making sure all seats were filled and shouting at numpties passengers who clamped onto the handrail just behind the driver. Passengers knew they would be put off a bus if they did not do as they were told by drivers or inspectors but they no longer have any fear of this for some reason!

poggyone

foggy_lad wrote: »

Dublin Bus really needs to go back to basics where the bye-laws are concerned.

years ago you were not allowed stand unless all seats in both lower and upper saloon were full, Unless of course you were unable to climb the stairs.

When standing you had to move down the back of the bus to allow others to board and failing to move back down the bus usually resulted in shouts from the driver that the bus was going nowhere till passengers complied with his directions. you also had to make room to allow passengers exit by the centre doors unless the doorwell was full of folded buggies and shopping.

but then years ago there were inspectors at the busy city centre stops who would travel around the city hopping between buses making sure all seats were filled and shouting at numpties passengers who clamped onto the handrail just behind the driver. Passengers knew they would be put off a bus if they did not do as they were told by drivers or inspectors but they no longer have any fear of this for some reason!

In DB passengers became customers, and the customer is alway right.
After a few letters of complaint sent in about a driver, the driver says to themselves “Fuc* this, i don’t need the grief, let them stand wherever they want.” Thats why you see buses go by stops full down stairs but with empty seats upstairs.
Drivers with a bit of sense won’t get involved, not worth it, and before you start blaming the driver ask yourself would you, knowing it will only cause problems for you?

jaymcg91

The amount of money they charge, you're damn right I'm a customer. If any kind of inspector shouted at me I'd be sending complaints just to about everybody and anybody I could think of !

end of the road

jaymcg91 wrote: »

The amount of money they charge, you're damn right I'm a customer. If any kind of inspector shouted at me I'd be sending complaints just to about everybody and anybody I could think of !

good for you, hopefully you would be told where to go. if an inspector or driver shouts to you to move down the bus, you do it. you don't question it, you do it

The Black Oil

I mostly lurk on this forum and it's got a good mix of topics, more than I've time to read, tbh. I read a chunk of this thread last night and have forgotten some of the points I can relate to, but here goes.

In general, I feel the service I use is above average with room for improvement. Sometimes it's not clear why some DB decisions are made the way they are. It might be communication (web), clarity of the information and so on. Or for example, why the older vehicles are used for probably the busiest morning services (e.g. first 33X of the day) given the demand on capacity. I presume this is simply due to availability. Tbf, they are now running two of these side-by-side as a trial. Early last year some changes were made with the 33X. It was a bit of a mess, bus often full, driving past. This went on for a while (see the thread in DCN). I complained to DB and my TDs and the NTA. Drivers and pax seemed unhappy. Some responses were generic, others were not. I do not mind standing on the bus - I simply wanted it to turn up and to get on it. Again tbf, things did eventually settle down. In that sense I do think they listen and want to hear feedback.

The fleet has improved. I agree with the poster who mentioned a preference for coach type seats over benches. I've used a Leap Card for a while now, I can't recall the last time I used cash. Fares have come down...I think into the city used to be 3.50 for me and it's now 2.60. Other than that, I use a rambler (when I'm using 4 buses a day). Negative attitudes from drivers - I can't recall the last time I've seen this. The last time I saw an dodgy behaviour on the bus was last summer, it took about 15-20 minutes for AGS to arrive - not a DB issue. I mostly commute during rush hour, but I was off that day and the row kicked off at about 4:30.

On the more negative end, I think there was some talk here about the fare calculator on the website. I've mixed feelings in that I've never really had any issues getting info, though perhaps it could be simplified for intuitiveness. As I said earlier, I've not noticed an issue with the attitudes of drivers. Language barriers might be more of a potential issue, imo. When I use 4 buses a day the return leg can be a stab in the dark, particularly if there's a driver change in Donnybrook (I loathe this) that takes too long. In general, if I've not reached Dawson St by 5:45 ish I don't have much chance of catching my next bus. If I'm completely stuck, sometimes I have other work supervision/meetings after 5, I get the train as a last resort, but if that fails, I'm screwed and will be late. Since I don't deal strictly in the positive, sometimes it does feel like drudgery and so frustrating to simply get from A-B, across the city.

During the water protests a while back, there were some diversions going on and the website said my route was now departing from Mountjoy Square at 4:15. I, like many, was aiming for the 6pm departure. The website did not indicate whether departures after 4:15 would continue from Mountjoy Square or what was happening. Hence why many of us were standing around like ejects at 6:15 wondering what was up. I know the disruption is not DB's fault, but it was a little detail like this that was lacking on the site.

Sarannewrap wrote: »

I live in lusk and We have one bus. It's not nearly as frequent as it needs to be and it takes the guts of two hours to get to town. It's ridiculous

Agree somewhat. I don't understand the lack of a real time info sign in the village heading to Skerries. I emailed DB on this before. The reply was generic. Maybe the logic is that Lusk doesn't one on that side of the road since most of the pax load will have emptied by the time it gets to Lusk. I dunno. Surely, though, it would be useful to have one if you're Skerries bound as not everyone has a smartphone and ETAs are useful regardless of direction. Also, now and then I wish the 33 would just ignore Swords altogether, or at least the bit from Coláiste Choilm to the stop across from Fingal Co. Co. After Drumcondra and Santry, this often feels like a bottleneck.

If someone were to ask me if DB as an overall service is reliable I'd hesitate a little. Reliable in that it turns up 98% of the time, but reliable in quality? That's more debatable. I've used DB for a good few years through school, college and work. The improvements have come, but to borrow from a 2007 election slogan, there is more to do.

AlekSmart

lucernarian wrote: »

According to that original legislation it seems to mention a maximum standing capacity of up to 8 pax on the lower deck which presumably must have been modified since. So I am not sure how seriously I should take that source. But for argument's sake let's at least assume that it's ok to carry standing passengers if all seats are filled (meaning they would miss the bus if they weren't allowed to stand)

I don't really understand why you talked about seated capacity when you made a point that was very much about capacity on routes and the NTA's recognition that it was a problem on a number of routes. I'm saying that the number of seats is not relevant when they're replaced by room for standing passengers - whether as an inadvertent bonus of extra buggy and wheelchair space or in the case of the removal of 2 seats for a second door.

27 standees is what the new buses can carry (only when passengers suffer "undue hardship" i.e. they would have missed the bus otherwise, versus 14/15 for some other types, I don't know what loss of capacity has been experienced by the introduction of the SG class. A reduction in seating cannot be described as a reduction in capacity unless extra standees cannot make up the difference. You have not demonstrated that in this instance.

So, if you can't demonstrate any reduction in *capacity* as opposed to *seating* then I can't accept any aspect of your point as being either true or relevant. Hence why I called it a red herring. I have posted the difference in capacities and with my sources, the SG class carries more total passengers than most other 2-axle classes in the company when it needs to, i.e. when passengers would otherwise be left behind or during peak-time etc. Simply describing some of those as additional or during peak-time doesn't change the max total allowed on board the bus.


I fundamentally disagree. I fail to see how it's a significantly different area given that the legislation (which seems to have been updated since 1963 also) mentions "undue hardship" which can easily be construed as any passenger who would otherwise miss their bus due to seats being full. As people tend to sit in seats before standing on a bus, isn't that basically what happens in normal operations?

Which leads me to what I think about Dublin Bus' latest efforts at fleet modernisation. If the buses are cheaper to run and can allow for greater variations in the sorts of passenger being carried (more buggies OR standing passengers) and have faster boarding times then I am happier with the service than would have been the case.

The capacities quoted are current. (2014)

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_1961_0024.PDF

Road Traffic (Passenger Accommodation of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles) Regulations, 1962 (S.I. 143/62).

lucernarian

lxflyer wrote: »

Realistically there are not any more standees on the SG than any other type of bus as people don't necessarily scrunch up into the relevant areas. Also you will frequently have people with buggies on board so the total standee number will fall.

You certainly will never see 27 standees - whatever the plate may say. That figure is almost reminiscent of the plate on the old KC single deck which originally stated 50 standees - physically impossible. A driver on the old 47 route managed 44 standees one night, but people were squashed up to the doors. It would be the same with 27 standees on an SG.

On average you'll get about 10-12 standees and no more.

It's pointless going on about what the plate says. Reality tends to be rather different, and the main fact is that every new double deck has 8 less seats than before.

I can imagine 44 standees were a squeeze :eek:

But it's equally pointless to go on about "reality" when there are nothing but anecdotes and "averages" to go by. I cannot believe any situation would exist where a bus similar to the original wright Geminis (the VGs) but comes with a double door and less downstairs (and more foldable seating) seating somehow translates into a "loss of capacity".

Unless you or anybody else can translate the reality of fewer seats on the newest buses into it actually making a blind bit of difference to total capacity or people standing out in the rain for want of a seat space to stand on the bus then I will maintain that capacity is gradually increasing now that:

Some AVs are being brought back into service,

And having more buses which don't suffer from the Irish/non-london UK peculiarities about having a single operational door on a double decker.

AlekSmart

lucernarian wrote: »

.

But it's equally pointless to go on about "reality" when there are nothing but anecdotes and "averages" to go by. I cannot believe any situation would exist where a bus similar to the original wright Geminis (the VGs) but comes with a double door and less downstairs (and more foldable seating) seating somehow translates into a "loss of capacity".

Unless you or anybody else can translate the reality of fewer seats on the newest buses into it actually making a blind bit of difference to total capacity or people standing out in the rain for want of a seat space to stand on the bus then I will maintain that capacity is gradually increasing now that:

Some AVs are being brought back into service

And having more buses which don't suffer from the Irish/non-london UK peculiarities about having a single operational door on a double decker.

The issue appears to becoming some form of endless-loop,but I can't imagine anybody on here wanting to engage in fruitless appempts to alter perceptions to little avail ?

All I can do is add my own anecdotes and averages,which come from daily operational experience,whereby GT/SG class buses are filling up significantly earlier than the previous AX types.

During Morning peak,from observation,this is resulting in intending passengers,who previously were able to board,now having to use the preceeding stop,or walking instead some 500 mtrs further down to a main road with additional routes serving it.

One of the "unforseen" (by some) issues surrounding the Dual Door vehicles is the continual use of the Centre Doorwell to stand in,which totally negates any and all benefits of the type,as passengers who DO attempt to utilize them cannot force their way through.
(This,I would add,is in spite of REPEATED requests to keep the centre-doorwell clear)

During evening-peak,a somewhat different dynamic takes place,to the same end,but with Buggies,Wheelchairs,Shopping Trolleys and large amounts of baggage assuming a greater significance.

This often results in conflict between the wheeled devices and those wishing/insisting on standing.

The evening peak passenger also displays a far more marked reluctance to move along to the rear of the bus,even though they will be actually CLOSER to the exit door by doing so.

In short, the added,and often ill-tempered posturing,which surrounds any attempt to establish a pattern or flow to operation invariably results in longer dwell times than I would experience operating a single door vehicle,as there is substantially more to double-door operation than merely pressing another button.

I've no issue with these observations being regarded as "Pointless" however,that does not prevent them from being a daily reality for many.

lucernarian

AlekSmart wrote: »

The issue appears to becoming some form of endless-loop,but I can't imagine anybody on here wanting to engage in fruitless appempts to alter perceptions to little avail ?

All I can do is add my own anecdotes and averages,which come from daily operational experience,whereby GT/SG class buses are filling up significantly earlier than the previous AX types.

During Morning peak,from observation,this is resulting in intending passengers,who previously were able to board,now having to use the preceeding stop,or walking instead some 500 mtrs further down to a main road with additional routes serving it.

The remainder of the post was about double-doors and the point I'm still making concerns capacity. Double-doors and loss of seats are two different aspects of the "Dublin Bus" problem and I will limit myself to the original seating claim.

I found that reply to be far more reasonable and fair, in that you are sharing an opinion, one which I and many others here value for all sorts of reasons, not least of which being an employee of the driver grade.

But I started out with claims that the new buses were resulting in a lack of capacity on key routes and then more extravagant claims that it was a loss of seating that was behind it and that the NTA recognised this and allowed the release of 20 AVs specifically as a result of this hypothetical loss of capacity claim.

I still can't see how the physical removal of seats in exchange for floor space from a given bus with given chassis and bodywork could lead to a reduction in capacity. As the GT and SG buses have very similar internal volume and floor area, an SG with fewer seats and more foldable ones carries more passengers assuming all seats are filled already and passengers would otherwise be left behind. Otherwise, someone had better tell Irish Rail to put the seats back into those refurbished Darts! I saw your comments as opinion being bandied around as fact. Other people in the forum have made similar claims and reductions of capacity of 2% etc are completely ad-hoc and arbitrary if the only reason to say it is that a newer bus model has fewer seats installed than previous models. Nor has it been shown that a bus is unable to carry lots of standing passengers assuming it is operating during crowded conditions. And we all know that packed buses are a common sight. So if there is more space on the newer bus for passengers to stand then the previous model of double-decker, then...

AlekSmart

lucernarian wrote: »

.


I still can't see how the physical removal of seats in exchange for floor space from a given bus with given chassis and bodywork could lead to a reduction in capacity. As the GT and SG buses have very similar internal volume and floor area, an SG with fewer seats and more foldable ones carries more passengers assuming all seats are filled already and passengers would otherwise be left behind. Otherwise, someone had better tell Irish Rail to put the seats back into those refurbished Darts! I saw your comments as opinion being bandied around as fact. Other people in the forum have made similar claims and reductions of capacity of 2% etc are completely ad-hoc and arbitrary if the only reason to say it is that a newer bus model has fewer seats installed than previous models. Nor has it been shown that a bus is unable to carry lots of standing passengers assuming it is operating during crowded conditions. And we all know that packed buses are a common sight. So if there is more space on the newer bus for passengers to stand then the previous model of double-decker, then...

Interesting to learn today of a colleague driving a GT, being stopped at Parkgate St,by a Traffic Corps Garda,who advised the Busdriver that in his (The Garda's) opinion the Bus was overloaded and would not be permitted to continue unless some of the "additional" passengers were accomodated on another vehicle.

Luckily,some of those standing passengers were close to their destination and volunteered to leave.

It appears there were 11 :eek: such standing passengers and one buggy.

This is of course anecodtal,but if true,it represents a first from my perspective....:)

VG31

I have seen in the past dangerously overloaded buses. I have seen occasionally seen buses full from the windscreen to the back but nothing like this incident:

This stands out in particular, the bus (a GT) was completely full with standing passengers downstairs and upstairs! And they were school kids aged around 10-11. That was very dangerous in my opinon and it was also very difficult for people to get down the stairs.
There were standing for at least 30 mins and were still there after I got off. The driver did not ask them to move downstairs.

lucernarian

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting to learn today of a colleague driving a GT, being stopped at Parkgate St,by a Traffic Corps Garda,who advised the Busdriver that in his (The Garda's) opinion the Bus was overloaded and would not be permitted to continue unless some of the "additional" passengers were accomodated on another vehicle.

Luckily,some of those standing passengers were close to their destination and volunteered to leave.

It appears there were 11 :eek: such standing passengers and one buggy.

This is of course anecodtal,but if true,it represents a first from my perspective....:)

It would be a first for me too! Though I'd say the gardaí are known for making their own judgement on law enforcement. If the posts I've seen on this forum from some cyclists are true, the gardaí are well able to direct cyclists to marked cycle lanes even though there is no legal obligation any more for cyclists to use them. I wonder if such an incident would have happened if it involved an SG... :pac:

But I wonder what that story changes about the perceived loss of capacity thanks to the new SG or double doors or whatever is behind the vanishing seats on double deckers. Maybe stories like the above just mean that more people are using the bus? The easiest answer doesn't have to be the incorrect answer.