The 70-seat single deck school bus is dead. Long live the 70-seater.
The days of the UK derogation that allows the manufacture and use of high capacity 3+2 seated single deck school bus look numbered. And just when some local education authorities are investing in such vehicles (via contractors or their own fleets) as a way of dealing with elderly, unloved double decks.
The only people that seem to like double decks are the older pupils on them, who tend to sit upstairs. Parents mistrust them and schools hate them. All this, owing to the behavioural problems associated with the upper deck rear.
Over short distances, there can be no more efficient means of moving 74 pupils. They are relatively quick to load and unload. They offer generous seat pitches in an uncramped environment. Yet, they remain unpopular (and it isn’t really hard to see why).
The alternatives? More standard single decks or high capacity ones. Both solutions stretch LEA budgets and school bus bays. Now, it seems, the 70-seater high capacity single deck is dead in the water.
All except one. That’s the Fast Europe Scoler. The problem with standard 70 seaters is the ability to evacuate quickly and smoothly. Fast’s is the only one on the market with two service entrances, thereby overcoming the EU’s perceived weakness in clearing 70 seaters quickly.
It’s unsure how many LEAs will be able to afford brand new, as the age of public sector austerity kicks in next month. May be the balance will continue in favour of the double deck. Or may be more manufacturers will design their vehicles with a central passenger exit. One downside is that a mid-placed well with its steep steps from a high floor could be a problem area should students should miss their footing.
Friday, 24 September 2010
70s
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Perhaps this is what the boss of Wrights was talking about when he spoke of outside interest in the Borismaster.
I'm not clear why a 3+2 seated bus with all seats taken is any more dangerous than a 2+2 seated one with a heavy standing load. Seems unduly paranoid (and hypocritical, given that standee buses are the norm in mainland Europe) to me.
Does the extra exit (for evacuation, remember) have to be a proper door? If not, why not just fit a second emergency exit door on the nearside? That do? Again, notably, mainland-EU buses often don't have an offside exit, only roof hatches.
What about deckers? If one catches fire and remains upright, the only sensible evacuation path you've got is down one set of narrow stairs. Is that unsafe?
I think the EU is talking nonsense.
Neil said...
"I think the EU is talking nonsense."
Not for the first time, either!
I fear this is a typical example of the thinking of bureaucrats - if it is not written down in their 'book' then it doesn't exist! As far as I am aware, 3+2 seating is not generally used in mainland European countries, so it will not be known. Anything unknown is to be treated with utmost suspicion!
As an aside, when you register the birth of a baby in Germany, the registrar will check that the name you wish to give your offspring appears in the approved list. If not, you will have to think of a different name. Some people have tried to fight the system, and children have gone unregistered for years while the legal process drags on. OK, nothing to do with buses, but it does illustrate the 'thinking' (or possibly, lack of thought) that characterises some regulatory systems on the other side of the Channel.
Something here doesn't add up:
[70-seat double deckers]
They are relatively quick to load and unload.
[70-seat single deckers]
Fast’s is the only one on the market with two service entrances, thereby overcoming the EU’s perceived weakness in clearing 70 seaters quickly.
Why is a 70-seat double decker (which usually only has one door) quicker to load and unload than a 70-seat single decker? That makes no sense. And just how big a deal is the evacuation time anyway, given that buses have emergency doors? If it's safety in an emergency, I would have thought the stairwell was a much bigger risk and bottleneck.
It’s unsure how many LEAs will be able to afford brand new, as the age of public sector austerity kicks in next month.
Particularly bearing in mind that school buses tend to be older vehicles that aren't needed/wanted on front line passenger services, so then it doesn't matter so much when the little bar stewards trash them...
3 + 2 seating would be acceptable for schools if the vehicles were dedicated to just school work, but let's be honest there are few operators who could afford to do that.
First in particular use 3 + 2 coaches on rail replacement and expect 70 adults and their luggage to be crammed into the one coach.
The seating and leg room on these vehicles is designed for short distance journeys with children.
Having been a victim of one of these buses used on rail replacement I am dead against them being used for anything other than to and from school journeys, but that brings me back to paragraph one. ow many operators can afford to dedicate vehicles to the school run unless they are well worn and elderly.
What about Scania's similar offering to FAST then?
Surely they're fine if they are treated as 2+1 when not on school work?
First's Rail Replacement Co-ordinators are instructed to contact Control to get vehicles with 3+2 seating swapped for 2+2 ones; operators aren't meant to supply them either. In practice of course they do, and the prime concern of staff on the ground is to get passengers (and their luggage) on their way regardless.
Certainly they are unlikely to plan to use 70 seat coaches - typically they assume 49 seated coaches; with the odd double decker (on LEZ London work); but rail passenger volumes being as unpredictable/poorly predicted as they are...
Post a Comment