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

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

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.

Or it could mean that the 1963 acted quoted by Alek is the actual law currently and that 8 passengers standing is the limit irrespective of any given capacity for different buses.

I have had a quick look and I can't see any update to the 1963 act there maybe the power for a minister to designate use which differs from the 63 act,hard to see.

LXFlyer

cdebru wrote: »

Or it could mean that the 1963 acted quoted by Alek is the actual law currently and that 8 passengers standing is the limit irrespective of any given capacity for different buses.

I have had a quick look and I can't see any update to the 1963 act their maybe the power for a minister to designate use which differs from the 63 act,hard to see.

I think this is the point - and on that basis there is no doubt that the newer low floor double deck dual door buses do represent a reduction in capacity.

lucernarian

lxflyer wrote: »

I think this is the point - and on that basis there is no doubt that the newer low floor double deck dual door buses do represent a reduction in capacity.

It would indeed. I'm still presuming that something has superceded it since but it suggests there has been a lot of law-breaking going on in CIE over the years! How many people could stand on the articulated buses? (AWs I think they were)

LXFlyer

lucernarian wrote: »

It would indeed. I'm still presuming that something has superceded it since but it suggests there has been a lot of law-breaking going on in CIE over the years! How many people could stand on the articulated buses? (AWs I think they were)

The figure of 8 standees only applies to double deck buses.

lucernarian

lxflyer wrote: »

The figure of 8 standees only applies to double deck buses.

Ah yes, my bad. On phone currently, can you tell me the situation in the act for single deck buses? IIRC it was more lenient.

foggy_lad

lucernarian wrote: »

Ah yes, my bad. On phone currently, can you tell me the situation in the act for single deck buses? IIRC it was more lenient.

I had always thought that the rated capacity was the limit for double deck buses but that bus coaches had a limit of 8 standees up until the law changed to ban standees on any vehicle travelling at over 65kph. AFAIK any vehicle that allows standees must be limited to 65kph and all other coaches/buses limited to 100kph

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

It would indeed. I'm still presuming that something has superceded it since but it suggests there has been a lot of law-breaking going on in CIE over the years! How many people could stand on the articulated buses? (AWs I think they were)

121.—The Minister may by regulations prescribe the method of calculating for the
purposes of this Act the passenger accommodation of mechanically propelled vehicles
or of any class of such vehicles, and may in such regulations distinguish between
seating passenger accommodation and standing passenger accommodation.

That's the 2014 road traffic act.


So to summarize what Alek is saying is that the SG is a much lighter bus and that the method of calculating standing capacity is based on the maximum load distributed through the axles so if the bus weighs less then it can in theory carry more, it is apparently done on a calculation of an average person being 65kilos so they take the weight of the bus and the weight of the seated passengers away from the maximum weight and divide that figure by 65 to give you the standing capacity.
So in the SG case the standing capacity rose to 27 not based on the extra volume but based on the lighter bus carrying the same weight.
And in Aleks experience of driving SGs he doesn't think you can squeeze in 27 people, but that roughly the standing capacity is about the same as a GT or an AX etc so the reality is a reduction in capacity even if on paper the bus can carry more people.

lucernarian

Oh that's already my comprehension of what Alek said. I just don't accept the leap of logic that arrives at such a conclusion.

"Roughly" ain't enough in my book. If an SG has more floor area than a GT or VG especially, how can it be described as having lower capacity? This is the point ive been making consistently, a removal of seats between buses of comparable chassis and bodywork does not nessarily translate into a loss of capacity.

Trond

Anyone else get the 140?

You see people regularly sitting half way up the stairs and easily 10-15 standing downstairs. Absolute head melter of a scenario trying to get off the bus when someone wont even move off the stairs.

AlekSmart

lucernarian wrote: »

Ah yes, my bad. On phone currently, can you tell me the situation in the act for single deck buses? IIRC it was more lenient.

The additional capacity for single deck vehicles is assesed in the same manner.

(c) the additional number of passengers carried in a single deck omnibus by virtue of this sub-article shall not exceed in number 8, or one-quarter of the passenger accommodation of such omnibus, whichever is the lesser.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

Oh that's already my comprehension of what Alek said. I just don't accept the leap of logic that arrives at such a conclusion.

"Roughly" ain't enough in my book. If an SG has more floor area than a GT or VG especially, how can it be described as having lower capacity? This is the point ive been making consistently, a removal of seats between buses of comparable chassis and bodywork does not nessarily translate into a loss of capacity.

Well would you accept this an AV or AX can hold up to 91 people including 15 standing passengers an SG can hold 81 or 83 passengers 81 with a wheelchair and 83 without that is 16 to 19 standing passengers, you seem to have been under the impression that an SG holds 27, it doesn't unless the one I just stepped off is an aberration its plate states 81 or 83. So over the AVs that are being withdrawn there is a capacity reduction of 8 to 10 passengers per bus. What Alek said is correct even if you can fit 19 standing passengers it is still a lower capacity than an AV or AX.

PS a VG can apparently carry 88 or 87 passengers so a reduction on that bus as well of between 4 and 7 passengers per bus

lucernarian

cdebru wrote: »

Well would you accept this an AV or AX can hold up to 91 people including 15 standing passengers an SG can hold 81 or 83 passengers 81 with a wheelchair and 83 without that is 16 to 19 standing passengers, you seem to have been under the impression that an SG holds 27, it doesn't unless the one I just stepped off is an aberration its plate states 81 or 83. So over the AVs that are being withdrawn there is a capacity reduction of 8 to 10 passengers per bus. What Alek said is correct even if you can fit 19 standing passengers it is still a lower capacity than an AV or AX.

PS a VG can apparently carry 88 or 87 passengers so a reduction on that bus as well of between 4 and 7 passengers per bus

I saw it with my own eyes, it stated 27 passengers, perhaps 28 without a wheelchair but I'm not sure. I already posted that I checked an SG bus during this discussion and I cited this number originally from http://www.dublinbus.cc/ so perhaps you can show a photograph or an alternative source backing up your claim, like I have done?

Also, what matters is how many more people can stand on an SG than previous buses (like the VG and GT) compared to how many seats have been removed. I don't believe that only 4 more people can stand in an AX compared to an SG, it's unbelievable from even a casual comparison. In the case of crowding on the 4, it seems unfair to blame the SGs if they in fact carry more people than the GTs.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

I saw it with my own eyes, it stated 27 passengers, perhaps 28 without a wheelchair but I'm not sure. I already posted that I checked an SG bus during this discussion and I cited this number originally from http://www.dublinbus.cc/ so perhaps you can show a photograph or an alternative source backing up your claim, like I have done?

Also, what matters is how many more people can stand on an SG than previous buses (like the VG and GT) compared to how many seats have been removed. I don't believe that only 4 more people can stand in an AX compared to an SG, it's unbelievable from even a casual comparison. In the case of crowding on the 4, it seems unfair to blame the SGs if they in fact carry more people than the GTs.

The only buses DB operates that have standing capacity for 27 people are the first batch of VTs that is VT 1 to 20, SGs have the exact same capacity as GTs. VTs are triaxle buses are longer and have a higher capacity

lucernarian

cdebru wrote: »

The only buses DB operates that have standing capacity for 27 people are the first batch of VTs that is VT 1 to 20, SGs have the exact same capacity as GTs. VTs are triaxle buses are longer and have a higher capacity

I don't know how to explain this contradiction. I will check again later and post photographs to show this. For what it's worth, I checked a 4 on O'Connell St going northbound on Monday evening. Also, where did dublinbuses.cc get their figures from?

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

I don't know how to explain this contradiction. I will check again later and post photographs to show this. For what it's worth, I checked a 4 on O'Connell St going northbound on Monday evening. Also, where did dublinbuses.cc get their figures from?

No problem the only explanation I can see is that somehow DB have some SGs going around with the wrong capacity plate on them or there are two distinctly different class of SGs which no one else knew about or you made a mistake, I wouldn't be so unkind as to say you were being deliberately misleading, but you might consider an auld apology to Alek in order. He wasn't misleading anyone or using red herrings there is a big capacity difference between the SG/GT buses and the buses they are replacing of between 8 and 10 passengers per bus, if you take that over the 240 odd buses that's a peak service capacity reduction of up to 2400 passenger places each journey these buses make.
Given the NTA instruction that these buses were to be used on specific routes, then the reduction in capacity has also been concentrated on these routes, if you take a route with a 10 minute peak service that is up to 60 passengers an hour less that can be carried, that's basically a full bus load.
So what Alek was saying is completely true these 20 buses are only really bringing the capacity back up to where it was.

How you and Dublinbus.cc both have 27 as the figure for standees I have no idea, maybe they made a mistake who knows. But if you can find the SG with the 27 standees plate on it, that would be very interesting.

lucernarian

As I said I will look again. It was a Harristown SG.

But the above still doesn't address what I am saying. Please read what i have been writing again. If there is more space for standees on an SG than a GT or VG, then replacing GTs on a route with SGs does not necessarily mean that there is a loss of total capacity and to say otherwise is I have to say misleading. An apology would not be in order as far as I'm concerned. Unless...

What I am much more interested in is the legal position of there being a max 8 standees. It looks like that is the current legal position and that would completely knock my point on its head and Aleksmart would be 100% right. Any double decker can hold 8 pax and a new bus that has more space for standees at the expense of seats would need good reasons to justify.

devnull

Generally people in Ireland and the UK seem to absolutely hate standing on buses. Many would even consider a bus to be "full and overcrowded" if there were no seats left even if nobody is standing.

Of all the other European countries I have been to, nobody is really bothered to the extent that people are in the UK and Ireland and people are standing much tighter together than they are on a Dublin Bus even with a full number of standees.

So lucernarian you will never win your argument because the simple fact is people do not like standing here so are never going to accept losing seats and extra standing room, even if the capacity is the same overall.

Aard

On a bus trip of under 15 minutes I'd prefer to stand than sit more times than not. I can't be the only one.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

As I said I will look again. It was a Harristown SG.

But the above still doesn't address what I am saying. Please read what i have been writing again. If there is more space for standees on an SG than a GT or VG, then replacing GTs on a route with SGs does not necessarily mean that there is a loss of total capacity and to say otherwise is I have to say misleading. An apology would not be in order as far as I'm concerned. Unless...

What I am much more interested in is the legal position of there being a max 8 standees. It looks like that is the current legal position and that would completely knock my point on its head and Aleksmart would be 100% right. Any double decker can hold 8 pax and a new bus that has more space for standees at the expense of seats would need good reasons to justify.

Read again an SG has the exact same space for seats and standing as a GT, and a VG can carry more passengers than both of them, what is clear is that you have no idea what you are talking about, SGs are not replacing either GTs or VGs they are replacing the AVs which have a capacity of 91.
There is a loss of capacity in the region of 10% in the 240 odd buses replaced so far.

Now quit clutching at straws regarding the 8 standing, as I posted yesterday the 2014 road traffic act gives the Minister the power to draw up any regulations he likes in regards to calculation of bus occupancy for both seats and standing.

lucernarian

cdebru wrote: »

Read again an SG has the exact same space for seats and standing as a GT, and a VG can carry more passengers than both of them, what is clear is that you have no idea what you are talking about, SGs are not replacing either GTs or VGs they are replacing the AVs which have a capacity of 91.
There is a loss of capacity in the region of 10% in the 240 odd buses replaced so far.

Now quit clutching at straws regarding the 8 standing, as I posted yesterday the 2014 road traffic act gives the Minister the power to draw up any regulations he likes in regards to calculation of bus occupancy for both seats and standing.

I have read what you say but you still aren't appreciating that this discussion on the loss of capacity was brought up A) in the context of the new SG bus and where they are currently operating (seemingly for the most part on routes previousy operated by GTs. From looking up online and in all good faith, I checked boards and http://www.dublinbus.cc/sgs.html to confirm the different numbers. Dublin Bus are getting rid of AVs and they are buying new SGs. But so far they have replaced GTs in day to day operations on routes like the 4 and 140. That's not a defense of the SG design but based on the homework I did (and I maintain I checked an SG, taking photos of customer ankles as they are boarding a bus in the rain is not a good idea) I saw an increase on the GT and VG capacity with these new buses.

I took Alexsmart's post here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93747812&postcount=361) to mean that the 8 limit is what's in force and I reserved judgement on that until I send a couple of emails. There's no straw clutching going on. I didn't properly read your post outlining section 121 until now as I was mainly responding to Alexsmart at the time. That's my bad. You should also bring that up with the relevant poster as it was not my assertion in the first place...

Although I am in the bizarre position of having double-checked something only to see photographic proof to the contrary, I'm sure you can make a point with more civility than "you have no clue about what you are talking about". It's only an internet forum and I'm just some words on a screen to anyone here. No one has explained to me yet how having fewer seats on an SG does not lead to more floor space and standing pax than on a GT or especially VG. The 8 pax limit seems to be irrelevant after all. And I cannot accept that people will choose missing their bus rather than being able to stand. Or even that they are ditching the bus in the long-term because of that factor to any significant extent. Public transport in this country can't really afford the luxury of eliminating any and all standing and with issues like the cost of tickets, the time it takes and the reliability of service all kinda scoring pretty highly with any Dublin Bus users I know. I explained way back that there were routes where standing would be more appropriate than others.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

I have read what you say but you still aren't appreciating that this discussion on the loss of capacity was brought up A) in the context of the new SG bus and where they are currently operating (seemingly for the most part on routes previousy operated by GTs. From looking up online and in all good faith, I checked boards and http://www.dublinbus.cc/sgs.html to confirm the different numbers. Dublin Bus are getting rid of AVs and they are buying new SGs. But so far they have replaced GTs in day to day operations on routes like the 4 and 140. That's not a defense of the SG design but based on the homework I did (and I maintain I checked an SG, taking photos of customer ankles as they are boarding a bus in the rain is not a good idea) I saw an increase on the GT and VG capacity with these new buses.

I took Alexsmart's post here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93747812&postcount=361) to mean that the 8 limit is what's in force and I reserved judgement on that until I send a couple of emails. There's no straw clutching going on. I didn't properly read your post outlining section 121 until now as I was mainly responding to Alexsmart at the time. That's my bad. You should also bring that up with the relevant poster as it was not my assertion in the first place...

Although I am in the bizarre position of having double-checked something only to see photographic proof to the contrary, I'm sure you can make a point with more civility than "you have no clue about what you are talking about". It's only an internet forum and I'm just some words on a screen to anyone here. No one has explained to me yet how having fewer seats on an SG does not lead to more floor space and standing pax than on a GT or especially VG. The 8 pax limit seems to be irrelevant after all. And I cannot accept that people will choose missing their bus rather than being able to stand. Or even that they are ditching the bus in the long-term because of that factor to any significant extent. Public transport in this country can't really afford the luxury of eliminating any and all standing and with issues like the cost of tickets, the time it takes and the reliability of service all kinda scoring pretty highly with any Dublin Bus users I know. I explained way back that there were routes where standing would be more appropriate than others.

OK hopefully last time

SG and GT = same
Same number of seats same number of standees, no difference.

SG and AV or AX or VG or EV has less seats, mainly to facilitate center doors, that is how it less seats but not more standing space because that space where the seats would be is now the door well and you can't have people standing in the door well so there is no gain standing wise from removing those seats. The benefit should be quicker loading unloading but unfortunately the NTA have failed to address the issue as to why center doors aren't used rather preferring the if you build it they will come model.

So in summary we have the worst of both worlds buses with less capacity that dont benefit from the center doors its a lose lose unless the NTA get off their asses and address the stops issue

AlekSmart

cdebru wrote: »

How you and Dublinbus.cc both have 27 as the figure for standees I have no idea, maybe they made a mistake who knows. But if you can find the SG with the 27 standees plate on it, that would be very interesting.

The conflict is easily explained,and there is no mistake regarding the "Plated Capacities"...ie:up to 30 on the SG.

It does involve having a rather technical appreciation of what these figures represent.

It is the WEIGHT capacity,sometimes called Rated Axle Capacity of the Volvo axles/underframe.

Given the vehicle in question is a BUS,this is expressed as Passengers.

The Wrights Gemini3 bodied SG,to NTA specification is 650Kg Lighter than the Wrights Gemini 2 bodied GT.
This 650Kg saving,thus represents a notional extra capacity of 10 Passengers (@ 65Kg per passenger ).

It is an entirely theoretical figure and has no correlation whatever with floor-space.

cdebru

AlekSmart wrote: »

The conflict is easily explained,and there is no mistake regarding the "Plated Capacities"...ie:up to 30 on the SG.

It does involve having a rather technical appreciation of what these figures represent.

It is the WEIGHT capacity,sometimes called Rated Axle Capacity of the Volvo axles/underframe.

Given the vehicle in question is a BUS,this is expressed as Passengers.

The Wrights Gemini3 bodied SG,to NTA specification is 650Kg Lighter than the Wrights Gemini 2 bodied GT.
This 650Kg saving,thus represents a notional extra capacity of 10 Passengers (@ 65Kg per passenger ).

It is an entirely theoretical figure and has no correlation whatever with floor-space.

I posted a picture of the plate earlier it says 16 or 19 standing, and 64 or 67 seated, unless there is another plate somewhere on the bus that says 27 I haven't seen it, and would seem odd and confusing to post two conflicting passenger capacities.

dfx-

SG64 was on the 83 tonight advertising 27 standing passengers on the board inside the front door. Of course there's absolutely no hope of getting 27 on board, but still. The GTs advertise 16/19.

It's a bit like lifts saying that a maximum load of 10 persons in a lift that is full with four. I would expect the NTA to take this 'ambitious' figure into account when purchasing a bus, but maybe they think it says 27 on paper so that's fine, go ahead with it.

cdebru

dfx- wrote: »

SG64 was on the 83 tonight advertising 27 standing passengers on the board inside the front door. Of course there's absolutely no hope of getting 27 on board, but still. The GTs advertise 16/19.

It's a bit like lifts saying that a maximum load of 10 persons in a lift that is full with four. I would expect the NTA to take this 'ambitious' figure into account when purchasing a bus, but maybe they think it says 27 on paper so that's fine, go ahead with it.

I was on SG 10 yesterday its board said 16/19 exactly the same as a GT as per picture, so Dublin Bus have the exact same bus with two different standing capacities. So which is the legal standing capacity of an SG or does it depend on the plate even on identical buses? So is the ministerial regulation under the 2014 road traffic act purely based on weight? This just got even more ridiculous are the NTA trying to hide the capacity reduction by allowing a completely notional loading capacity? Did the regulations change during the delivery of the SGs so early ones have a lower limit ?

dfx-

Might DB own a few of the Harristown batch - they did plan on buying some as far as I know - and that's the discrepancy?

cdebru

dfx- wrote: »

Might DB own a few of the Harristown batch - they did plan on buying some as far as I know - and that's the discrepancy?

The ones they were buying were for airlinks and wedding buses as far as I know, but even at that how can the same bus have two different legal capacities ?

LXFlyer

Having been on a Harristown SG this morning, SG64, I can confirm that the plate does incredibly say 27 standees.

Whatever the plate may say, that sort of number, or 21 on an EV (as I noted later on) is frankly pie in the sky. It is based on people being scrunched up together and not leaving space for people to board or make their egress from the bus.

A realistic number of standees on any of the double deck models is in the region of 10-12.
It is pointless arguing otherwise - you need to look at it practically. On buses where there are centre doors, the number of seats is less when compared with an AV/AX. That area is not suitable for standees - it is needed for people to exit the bus. So arguing that the space can be used is just not realistic. There is also an additional buggy space and more often than not that is used too, so standee space really isn't any more than it is at present.

lucernarian

Then one could argue that the gangway leading to the first door is also unsuited to standing within as people use that to exit too. If you are going to be fair about it then you would accept that the middle door area can and is used for standees every day.

Anyway, I have a photo of SG60 working the 83 yesterday with the 27 standees plate. Will post when not on mobile. I don't know why anyone would imply i made the whole thing up or that I'm talking out of my behind. Why would I even try to? I won't be so unkind as to suggest that cdebru doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about as this is an unusual contradiction of who saw what.

And the plate number wasnt even that relevant after all if I go back to the main point. 27 might not fit but I'm pretty sure more than 12 can! how can greater standing space for passengers automatically translate into less capacity? I've seen anything from 8 to 19 in this thread for total standees. Now that the one official measure of this has been discredited, anyone who wants to show a loss of capacity should use some hard methodology to show this. Its been claimed that the NTA allowed 20 AVs back into service because of xyz% fewer seats on an SG. I just don't see any proof of this when its a flawed way to measure capacity. What I do see is a recovery in passenger numbers...

Would having 2 simultaneous buggy users be encountered by GT and SG drivers on like the majority of journeys driven?

LXFlyer

lucernarian wrote: »

Then one could argue that the gangway leading to the first door is also unsuited to standing within as people use that to exit too. If you are going to be fair about it then you would accept that the middle door area can and is used for standees every day.

Anyway, I have a photo of SG60 working the 83 yesterday with the 27 standees plate. Will post when not on mobile. I don't know why anyone would imply i made the whole thing up or that I'm talking out of my behind. Why would I even try to? I won't be so unkind as to suggest that cdebru doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about as this is an unusual contradiction of who saw what.

And the plate number wasnt even that relevant after all if I go back to the main point. 27 might not fit but I'm pretty sure more than 12 can! how can greater standing space for passengers automatically translate into less capacity? I've seen anything from 8 to 19 in this thread for total standees. Now that the one official measure of this has been discredited, anyone who wants to show a loss of capacity should use some hard methodology to show this. Its been claimed that the NTA allowed 20 AVs back into service because of xyz% fewer seats on an SG. I just don't see any proof of this when its a flawed way to measure capacity. What I do see is a recovery in passenger numbers...

Would having 2 simultaneous buggy users be encountered by GT and SG drivers on like the majority of journeys driven?

No the centre door area should always be kept clear so that people can exit, if the both doors are being used at every stop. There is a difference between standing in the door area and in the passageways within the bus.

With respect I've only quoted one number of standees throughout this thread and that's 10-12 because frankly that is practical. Theorising about higher numbers really is just that, theorising. I'm looking at it purely from a practical perspective of observing daily operations and human behaviour - people just do not scrunch up any more than is absolutely necessary and as I said people still have to get on and off the bus.

And on it is on THAT basis that I am saying that the dual door buses represent a drop in capacity over single door buses.

The 20 AVs are back in service because extra buses are needed to deliver a more reliable service on certain routes where running time is insufficient, or where additional capacity is required due to increased passenger numbers.

cdebru

lucernarian wrote: »

Then one could argue that the gangway leading to the first door is also unsuited to standing within as people use that to exit too. If you are going to be fair about it then you would accept that the middle door area can and is used for standees every day.

Anyway, I have a photo of SG60 working the 83 yesterday with the 27 standees plate. Will post when not on mobile. I don't know why anyone would imply i made the whole thing up or that I'm talking out of my behind. Why would I even try to? I won't be so unkind as to suggest that cdebru doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about as this is an unusual contradiction of who saw what.

And the plate number wasnt even that relevant after all if I go back to the main point. 27 might not fit but I'm pretty sure more than 12 can! how can greater standing space for passengers automatically translate into less capacity? I've seen anything from 8 to 19 in this thread for total standees. Now that the one official measure of this has been discredited, anyone who wants to show a loss of capacity should use some hard methodology to show this. Its been claimed that the NTA allowed 20 AVs back into service because of xyz% fewer seats on an SG. I just don't see any proof of this when its a flawed way to measure capacity. What I do see is a recovery in passenger numbers...

Would having 2 simultaneous buggy users be encountered by GT and SG drivers on like the majority of journeys driven?

And I have a pic posted here of SG10 with a plate that states 16/19 standees, in order for there not to be less capacity on an SG it would need to be able to carry 27 standing which even you accept they "might" not be able to do.
So how many standing passengers do you think could fit on an SG?

BTW don't come with the whole wounded bit you are the one that came on accusing Alek of being dishonest and throwing out red herrings, what he said is true the SG and the GT can carry less people than an AV unless you actually believe that an SG can carry 27 standing passengers.

VG31

I know that people should not stand in the centre door area but people do anyway and as few drivers use them it doesn't matter.

AlekSmart

lucernarian wrote: »

.
Would having 2 simultaneous buggy users be encountered by GT and SG drivers on like the majority of journeys driven?

Having two buggies on an SG or GT20+ would be quite normal on most journey's.

It is,unsurprisingly route dependent,but multiple buggys are now the norm,with perhaps some consideration now required to further regulation in this regard.

Social changes now also result in occupied buggies regularly appearing on peak time services also,as parents take the infants to childcare/relatives during their own working day.

It has to be appreciated however,that the presence of an occupied buggy or wheelchair,will automatically result in an even further reduction in capacity,as the additional passenger load has to be viewed in a different perspective to allow for manouvereing of the wheeled devices.

poggyone

This topic has descended into a bus spotters argument about the differences between buses.
i drive the buses and unless i looked at the id plate i could not tell you the difference between a AV,AX,EV and the double doored GT and SG.
What has it got to do with being happy with the service or price?

lucernarian

Perceived capacity reductions in tandem with the further introduction of a new model with double doors and so on. And what the NTA and Dublin Bus are doing about the problems or not.

Dyr

poggyone wrote: »

This topic has descended into a bus spotters argument about the differences between buses.
i drive the buses and unless i looked at the id plate i could not tell you the difference between a AV,AX,EV and the double doored GT and SG.
What has it got to do with being happy with the service or price?

I once suggested that there should be a transport anoraks forum but sadly the obvious benefits were ignored

Trond

poggyone wrote: »

This topic has descended into a bus spotters argument about the differences between buses.
i drive the buses and unless i looked at the id plate i could not tell you the difference between a AV,AX,EV and the double doored GT and SG.
What has it got to do with being happy with the service or price?

Turn off your bleedin radio will ya :pac:

lucernarian

Bambi wrote: »

I once suggested that there should be a transport anoraks forum but sadly the obvious benefits were ignored

Here, no one put a gun to your head to read those posts!

bk

I apologise for digging up an old thread, but reading threw it, many posts here clearly show me that many people here on this thread have never used buses in other countries in Europe and have no idea what a fast, efficient bus service looks like. Sorry that I didn't multiquote the points, but here are the general points.

That Europe wide multi-door operations are only used with good bus stop infrastructure specifically designed for it!!

This one had me really choking! The person who said this really needs to travel around Europe on public transport.

It is absolutely normal for multidoor buses to be used with zero infrastructure. For instance as I posted over on another thread today, using a 4 door bendi bus between Krakow city and airport. Outside the city there are no bus stops, not even bus stop poles!! The bus simply stops at the edge of each road intersection. Only the front door would be aligned with the curb. The other three doors would also open and people would simply step into the middle of the street/intersection and walk to the footpath!

I've seen this on my travels all throughout Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic and yes even Germany.

In rural areas it is a case there isn't even a footpath. The multi-door bus simply stops on a dirt road and leaves people off into a ditch! Not unusual at all.

That DB drivers can't use the rare doors on health and safety grounds and always carefully and safely use the front doors.

Bull****, I see the front doors being used dangerously on a daily basis. The 16 bus stop on Westmoreland St is a perfect example. Often the stop is wrongly blocked by taxis, so the bus just stops a lane away from the curb and people enter and exit by stepping into the lane way.

I see this happening all over the city center daily. Sometimes it is because another DB bus is already stopped at the stop, so the driver behind won't bother to pull in and instead will open the front doors one lane away from the curb and behind the other bus and have people disembark onto the lane.

And I'm not saying they are wrong to do this. It is the reality of running a busy, congested city bus service. But don't make out DB are angels and always concerned about health and safety. It seems to me they only blame h&s when it suits them and they are simply too lazy to use the rear doors.

Interestingly, in Poland, the doors mostly seem to be actually operated by the passengers. The passenger presses a button on either the inside or outside of the door and it opens. Pretty much the same to how the Luas/Dart works. I assume these buttons only work when the bus is stopped and the driver has pressed a button to allow them to be used.

Perhaps this is the solution to the health and safety issue. It takes responsibility away from the driver and places it on the passengers who have decided to use it.

People shouldn't be standing in the rear doorways!!! (And thus can't be counted towards standing capacity)

Again this has no basis in reality of what happens throughout Europe! Again taking my Krakow example, I watched as at least 4 or 5 people stood in each of the rear 3 doorways (obviously not the front one). When people wanted to get off, people in the doorway would simply step off to leave them out and then step back into the bus. Simple easy peasy.

Again I've seen this all throughout Europe.

We even see this every day at peak times on the Luas and DART. So I'm not sure why it is such a surprise to people!

Sure people might not be use to it on Dublin Bus. But if DB start to use multi-doors constantly, I'm sure people will quickly adapt to it, just like people in London and the rest of Europe and even Irish people on the DART and Luas.

So the double door buses, clearly have more standing room then their previous, single door equivalents and thus much the same capacity.

dublindiehard

Have you ever traveled with PKP (Train Company) in Poland?

Doors opening when not at stations is not unheard of, infact it happened to me this weekend!

The doors lit up and I pressed the button to open since it was dark and only saw track, and realised that for some reason the doors had been released outside a station.

bk

dublindiehard wrote: »

Have you ever traveled with PKP (Train Company) in Poland?

Doors opening when not at stations is not unheard of, infact it happened to me this weekend!

The doors lit up and I pressed the button to open since it was dark and only saw track, and realised that for some reason the doors had been released outside a station.

If they operate the DART like service between Gdansk - Sopot - Gydnia (TriCity), then yes, many times.

Yes, Polands train service does seem to need modernisation. It seems to be much more rickety then their bus services. They have done a fantastic job updating and upgrading the actual train stations, but the trains themselves seem ancient and journey times long. Certainly not up to German standards.

Having said that the TriCity DART like service runs all night and carrys a crazy number of people, even at 5am!

dublindiehard

I'm not talking about the local trains, PKP is more intecity and long distance, I will say more aobut them in the other thread later.

I find generally the local operators in general do a good job, despite the fact some of them have obstacles put in their place and also track access charges which are too high for the quality of the infrastructure involved.

It is believed to be in part why Przewozy Regionalne, PKP's only true intercity rail competitor, has cut back drastically it's services recently is because of the high track access charges which are also set by PKP who they also compete with via their InterRegio and the dearly departed RegioExspress Brand

But Krakow Glowny was a product of the short lived Dworzec Polski. That company did an amazing job. It's a shame they were forced into liquidation since they achieved more in their limited time span of being in charge of stations than had been achieved in the years before and the years since.

devnull

WARTA was a fine train with on board movie services shame it was reaped of life.

Dworzec Polski was intergrated back into Pkp when they went bust who finished the subway passages in krakow station . The platforms themselves were done before they went bust

eejoynt

zombie thread on dublin bus turns into debate on PKP....yawn

dublindiehard

There are some things in PKP which are very relevant to CIE as a whole, when I get chance I will post what they are.

cdebru

dublindiehard wrote: »

There are some things in PKP which are very relevant to CIE as a whole, when I get chance I will post what they are.

Can't wait.

spurious

It's always an adventure on PKP.

cdebru

bk wrote: »

I apologise for digging up an old thread, but reading threw it, many posts here clearly show me that many people here on this thread have never used buses in other countries in Europe and have no idea what a fast, efficient bus service looks like. Sorry that I didn't multiquote the points, but here are the general points.



This one had me really choking! The person who said this really needs to travel around Europe on public transport.

It is absolutely normal for multidoor buses to be used with zero infrastructure. For instance as I posted over on another thread today, using a 4 door bendi bus between Krakow city and airport. Outside the city there are no bus stops, not even bus stop poles!! The bus simply stops at the edge of each road intersection. Only the front door would be aligned with the curb. The other three doors would also open and people would simply step into the middle of the street/intersection and walk to the footpath!

I've seen this on my travels all throughout Poland, Lithuania, Czech Republic and yes even Germany.

In rural areas it is a case there isn't even a footpath. The multi-door bus simply stops on a dirt road and leaves people off into a ditch! Not unusual at all.



Bull****, I see the front doors being used dangerously on a daily basis. The 16 bus stop on Westmoreland St is a perfect example. Often the stop is wrongly blocked by taxis, so the bus just stops a lane away from the curb and people enter and exit by stepping into the lane way.

I see this happening all over the city center daily. Sometimes it is because another DB bus is already stopped at the stop, so the driver behind won't bother to pull in and instead will open the front doors one lane away from the curb and behind the other bus and have people disembark onto the lane.

And I'm not saying they are wrong to do this. It is the reality of running a busy, congested city bus service. But don't make out DB are angels and always concerned about health and safety. It seems to me they only blame h&s when it suits them and they are simply too lazy to use the rear doors.

Interestingly, in Poland, the doors mostly seem to be actually operated by the passengers. The passenger presses a button on either the inside or outside of the door and it opens. Pretty much the same to how the Luas/Dart works. I assume these buttons only work when the bus is stopped and the driver has pressed a button to allow them to be used.

Perhaps this is the solution to the health and safety issue. It takes responsibility away from the driver and places it on the passengers who have decided to use it.



Again this has no basis in reality of what happens throughout Europe! Again taking my Krakow example, I watched as at least 4 or 5 people stood in each of the rear 3 doorways (obviously not the front one). When people wanted to get off, people in the doorway would simply step off to leave them out and then step back into the bus. Simple easy peasy.

Again I've seen this all throughout Europe.

We even see this every day at peak times on the Luas and DART. So I'm not sure why it is such a surprise to people!

Sure people might not be use to it on Dublin Bus. But if DB start to use multi-doors constantly, I'm sure people will quickly adapt to it, just like people in London and the rest of Europe and even Irish people on the DART and Luas.

So the double door buses, clearly have more standing room then their previous, single door equivalents and thus much the same capacity.

Fascinating and all as the novel you wrote is my answer is so what ?

Do the poles and wherever else you have been have the same compensation culture as Ireland ? In your vast traveled have you heard if one of these bus companies paying out €9million plus to someone you ran out in front of a bus ?

The correct procedure when bus stop is blocked is to stop at the stop out the vehicles blocking the stop, the front doors are only used because the driver has no control over the people exiting though the center doors .

So do you want DB to operate to the lowest standards you can find ? I would say if you give each bus driver indemnity that he/she won't be held in anyway responsible for anyone being injured whilst boarding or alighting then no problem they will open any door anywhere you want but until then comparisons with your travels through the former soviet bloc or anywhere else are kind of useless.

bk

cdebru wrote: »

So do you want DB to operate to the lowest standards you can find ?

Lowest standard! My point is Dublin Bus is the lowest standard.

It is one of the worst run city bus services in any capital in Europe. Even the poles blow it out of the water. That is how bad Dublin Bus it and that is my point.

We pay far too much for the crap service DB delivers.

cdebru wrote: »

I would say if you give each bus driver indemnity that he/she won't be held in anyway responsible for anyone being injured whilst boarding or alighting then no problem they will open any door anywhere you want but until then comparisons with your travels through the former soviet bloc or anywhere else are kind of useless.

Unfortunately it is simply impossible to indemnify someone in this way. Even if you do indemnify them, then there is nothing at all stopping someone suing a driver. It just simply is the way the law works. That is when their is so much confusion about the rear door issue. A driver can be sued for any reason, for improperly using the front door, for saying the wrong thing to a passenger, any reason at all and there is nothing DB can do to indemnify them. There is no particular greater danger to using the rear door, it is just drivers not understanding how the law works.

And as I mentioned, you could move to the Polish, Dart, Luas model where the passengers open the rear doors when the bus stops. That would greatly reduce the drivers exposure.

But really there is no extra risk in using rear doors.

dublinstevie

bk wrote:

We pay far too much for the crap service DB delivers.

bk wrote:

Lowest standard! My point is Dublin Bus is the lowest standard.

bk wrote:

It is one of the worst run city bus services in any capital in Europe. Even the poles blow it out of the water. That is how bad Dublin Bus it and that is my point.

WHY USE IT THEN IF IT THAT BAD, FANNY PAD