“We all agree that if we are to maintain the high ground over the car, these ageing, dirty buses have to go, and they have to go quickly”Easier said than done, of course.
Of late, the revised and refurbished Coach & Bus Week’s Open Platform has been somewhat stimulating. You don’t have to agree to enjoy. The current issue has a feature by a policy & research advisor at The P.T.E.G. (as it used to be called and is unfashionably known). She wants us to banish dirty old buses. She implies that the PTEs are leading the way.
Is this so? Maybe. But operators are actually doing more, on their own. Other than in the last couple of years, operators have been investing consistently in new stock that can hardly be classed as “dirty”. And, among others, Stagecoach continues to. We’re talking Euro III, IV and V with accoutrements such as soot traps. Operators take very seriously their environmental responsibilities and are only constrained by technology & costs.
The writer cites Merseytravel’s long-term relationship with electric traction and Nexus’s Quaylink, both of which ultimately failed to get beyond demonstration routes. Newcastle’s Quaylink lasted but five years. This was no reflection on the PTEs in question. It was that the technology wasn’t right. Merseytravel persists. It’s got staying power.The current future in greener public transport rests more with hybrids. Of all the PTEs, GMPTE has taken most advantage of what’s on offer at the government. But, ultimately, it’s the DfT that is promulgating, supporting and financing such technology. That it’s now available to smaller operators, too, shows the pivotal rule the government is playing. It’s not just about PTEs.
Finally, the $64,000 question is, what’s wrong with old buses anyway? I don’t mean battered, smoke belching, life-expired wrecks that give the industry a bad name. The public perception seems to be that buses beyond five years old are past it. Not so. Buses typically have a 15-year write down period. The average age of our national fleet is a little over eight/nine years (and declining slightly, owing to fewer orders), which suggests that there are much older vehicles around. It’s part of the economics of bus operation that these vehicles live out their natural life. There should be no shame in operating this age of vehicle, alongside properly planned investment, provided they are well maintained and roadworthy. PTEs will know that the economics of bus operation rests upon such a healthily mixed fleet.
21 comments:
Many passengers aren't bothered by the age of a bus, but they are bothered by how comfortable the seats are!
The older buses tend to be more comfortable - so why can't operators do a bit more to improve seat standards? Presumably, most won't bother and just take whatever is readily available - particularly if greater weight is a consequence.
It all gets a bit silly really when older buses are constantly imagined to be knackered, badly maintained dirty things. Older buses are far better on fuel, and as anonymous says they are more comfortable. If they're properly maintained what's the problem with using 30 year old vehicles? True, they can be more polluting, but I'm informed that a properly maintained Gardner can beat a new Euro4 engine in a MOT emissions test......
Meanwhile, National Express continues to operate modern Scania coaches with poor fuel economy that chuck black smoke out everywhere, and in the worst cases of cleanliness I've come across, have mould growing on the air con vents inside the coach along with filthy seats.
Blaming problems on smaller operators operating older buses is the "easy" option.
Most passengers would rather have an old bus driven well, than a flash new one driven badly
@ Wolf 0847
Blaming problems on smaller operators operating older buses is the "easy" option.
Nothing changed there then! It was ever so throughout my operating days . . .
IMX the biggest issue with older buses is that few operators worry enough about the interiors. Okay buses get an external repaint every few years but they're lucky if they get an internal refurbishment at all. Stagecoach seem to recognise this but other major operators do not and appear to give bus interiors little thought and even though there might be a nice shiny coat of paint on the outside, interiors often leave a lot to be desired. As has already been mentioned, modern seats are less comfortable that traditional ones but also what many operators fail to recognise is that if passengers are sitting on a bus for say half an hour, they will naturally spend some of that time looking at the interior of the bus that surround them - dirty, faded, threadbare seats, a mix of moquette patterns, dirty and dusty window rubbers, grubby ceiling panels, etched windows.... these all give the wrong impression. Don't they?
Indeed. The railway operate a lot of rolling stock 20-30 years old, and so long as it's looked after it's fine. Same to some extent with buses and coaches, other than the issue of low-floor - though now there *are* older low-floor buses, they should continue to be used.
As with the trains, though, they do need to be refurbished in and out to bring them up to modern standards e.g. seating, legroom, ventilation etc. The Marshall Routemasters are a fine example of this kind of job, seats aside.
...similarly, MK Metro in Julian Peddle days operated quite a lot of older, high-floor midibuses, mainly various types of Dennis Dart. These were nicely refurbished and so were fine for the passenger.
It depends on what you mean by old buses, really.
People will generally be OK with first generation low-floor buses, like the Optare Excel or Wright Pathfinder. They have everything you need from a more modern bus- you can get a pram or wheelchair on and you can get a seat. New seat covers and away you go.
But people generally won't be OK with high-step buses, no matter how old they are.
Stagecoach in Newcastle have a fair few R-reg ALX300s still running; new seat covers and they're as popular as when they were new. They also have a good selection of R-reg Plaxton Paladins which are the same age, and they're universally hated because of the high steps to get on the bus, as well as the lovely backfiring Volvo engine.
I agree that some of the seats remind meof the old wartime utility seats.time to rethink on seats no matter how old or young the vehicle.
As a regular bus passenger for the last 59 years I would say that the three things that annoy me are excessive engine noise, shuddering vibrations when a vehicle is stationary, and yes poor seats and poor leg room. Seat designers should try sitting on an old RF Green Line coach to find out what a seat should really feel like!
It is a shame that no-one here mentioned that QuayLink is still running, albeit (on retendering) with Go North East's Optare Versa. The Designline hybrids are still around, mostly on the Stagecoach 18.
I would add one more thing to anon 1925's list - the size of window openings and the resulting draughts.
(What was the deal with Quaylink? I can see the buses look like something out of the Jetsons, but were they technically different from normal buses?)
I have no objection to buses being kept in full-time service up to the age of about 15 (and longer if they're in good nick), as long as they are running appropriate routes. That means cascading them down from the main long-distance interurban services and running them on rural routes, less well-used interurban routes, town and city routes. People are less likely to object to an old bus if they're only going a few miles in a 30mph area than if they're thundering down the open road for an hour or two.
This is something that Transdev are very good at (eg buses cascaded from Coastliner, The Shuttle, Witch Way etc at about 6 years old), and something that Arriva North East have generally been very bad at. Until last year, they were still running 15+ year old Optares and Scanias on long-haul routes like Middlesbrough to Whitby and Middlesbrough to Newcastle. I'm not saying the buses were ready to be got rid of, but they should have been moved to lower profile routes - in another division if necessary.
But why so many operators insist on using cheap and decidedly average seats on buses that are running prime long-distance routes is beyond me. The most comfortable buses I've travelled in over the last 10 years are: Arriva Yorkshire's Volvo B10BLE Wright Renowns (W-reg on the 415), EYMS's Volvo B10M-55s Alexander PS (M-reg on the X46) and Harrogate Coach Travel's Leyland Lynxes (G-reg on the 415). All had really good seats, and even when they were getting on a bit were still much nicer to ride in than most brand new buses.
RE stevie d comment.he is right.why do the big groups not think customer satisfaction? the smaller operators seem to care more probably because they dont have (the shareholder ???)to worry about.I cant even get a comfortable seat on national express.sorry did i swear ?Peter is absolutely right.the small operators are still regarded as pirates.its a heredity thing going back to frank pick and lord ashfield.they tarred the feathers and the small operators have never recovered. read the histories.the big companies will do anything to keep the small boys off the commercial viable routes even though they can offer a better service and in many cases old fashioned coach seating.I DESPAIR THAT THE PUBLIC CONTINUE TO TOLERATE THE DEGREE OF DISCOMFORT THE MODERN DAY PASSENGER HAS TO PUT UP WITH.Am i alone?
Anonymous at 2357
If modern vehicles were so uncomfortable, wouldn't trade force manufacturers to produce better?
For what it's worth, modern vehicles tend to provide better leg room than before, making all bar the smallest midgets happier.
Stevie D said...
(What was the deal with Quaylink? I can see the buses look like something out of the Jetsons, but were they technically different from normal buses?)
They're hybrids, yes.
http://www.batterydemon.co.uk/063%20Quaylink%20bus.pdf
Stevie D said...
"That means cascading them down from the main long-distance interurban services and running them on rural routes, less well-used interurban routes, town and city routes."
That's fine if the fleet is standardised, but not if there are several different types of bus for specific routes, with small groups of each type in the fleet. In the 1940s and early '50s Southampton built up a fleet of 175 Guy Arabs, all 56 seaters, which made up the bulk of the fleet; and in the '70s they built up a similarly sized fleet of Atlanteans with 76 seats. If you have a universal bus that can go anywhere, then the "cascade" policy can be applied without difficulty. However, one size rarely 'fits all', and many fleets have a mix of types, some of which will have been obtained for specific routes, and an operator may have no option but for those buses to spend the whole of their working lives on that route - particularly so in the case of smaller operators.
Additionally, the types of vehicles that are suitable for long distance interurban routes are often not suitable for other types of service - again, reducing the scope for cascading.
As you mention in the rest of your comment, it seems to be older types of bus that have the more comfortable seats - so I wonder whether passengers would prefer one of those for a long interurban journey (regardless of age), or would they choose a newer bus, even if they had to sit in discomfort for an hour or more?
Regarding the better leg room in modern buses, to some extent, this is something that we (i.e people over 6' like me!) can thank the EU for! Possibly, it's the only thing we can thank the EU for! Strangely, some of the buses used on routes in my area, operated by the Deutsche Bahn or its sub-contractors, are coach-type vehicles which seem to have very limited knee-room in about three rows of seats over the wheelarches, so there seems to be some way to go yet before every seat is 'accessible' for tall people. An ECW-bodied Bristol RELH coach, with 47 seats, on the other hand......
@RC169
"That's fine if the fleet is standardised, but not if there are several different types of bus for specific routes, with small groups of each type in the fleet. In the 1940s and early '50s Southampton built up a fleet of 175 Guy Arabs, all 56 seaters, which made up the bulk of the fleet; and in the '70s they built up a similarly sized fleet of Atlanteans with 76 seats. If you have a universal bus that can go anywhere, then the "cascade" policy can be applied without difficulty. However, one size rarely 'fits all', and many fleets have a mix of types, some of which will have been obtained for specific routes, and an operator may have no option but for those buses to spend the whole of their working lives on that route - particularly so in the case of smaller operators.
Additionally, the types of vehicles that are suitable for long distance interurban routes are often not suitable for other types of service - again, reducing the scope for cascading."
I take the point about smaller operators, and I think most people are happy to be more flexible towards small operators who clearly more restrictions around finance, resourcing and capacity. But I'm not thinking of smaller operators, I'm thinking of Arriva, although I'm sure other big operators have the same issues in some places as well.
Even within a grade like 'interurban', there's a sliding scale. At the one end you've got the high profile routes that form an essential part of the transport network along a corridor, running frequent services - at the other end, you've got the routes that yes, sure, they link two or more towns, and some people do travel between them, but not all that many.
I'm thinking there of a couple of routes round here, like Selby—Wakefield and York—Ripon. These both look ostensibly interurban, characterised by linking distant towns, long runs on rural main roads ... but passenger numbers are low. They certainly don't merit new quality buses ... but buying new cheap buses like Solos would be horrible for those passengers who are making longer journeys. The ideal solution is to cascade down high quality buses that are starting to show their age and that you want to take off the premium routes.
Sure, smaller operators won't always have that flexibility, they might not have the right fleet and route mix. But big national operators can move vehicles around between divisions, and should do that to ensure that buses are always on the most appropriate services for them. Sadly, that doesn't always seem to happen.
I understand the thinking, but still believe it is not always practicable, and nor is it reasonable to expect operators to 'cascade' buses in this way - at least, not during their normal life expectancy.
Another business, that buys, for example, a printing machine, will expect it to work at a particular level of output throughout its life. At the end of its life, the business may sell it, and perhaps a new owner will make lighter use of it, as that may be economically viable when using secondhand equipment; but the original owner's operations and finances will almost certainly be based on using it at full capacity throughout its life.
Alternatively, the InterCity 125 train units have now been running for over 30 years, and still on the work that they were built for. The simple fact is that they are not suited to any other form of work. Of course, they need maintenance and occasional refurbishment to ensure that they remain capable of carrying out that work. Similarly, any household that has one car will almost certainly use it in the same way at the end of its life as they did at the beginning.
I suspect that part of the problem for older buses is that they are visibly older; and, of course, the UK registration system makes it particularly obvious how old a vehicle is, unless it has a 'personalised' plate.
@ A Cumbrian:
It is a shame that no-one here mentioned that QuayLink is still running, albeit (on retendering) with Go North East's Optare Versa. The Designline hybrids are still around, mostly on the Stagecoach 18.
Stagecoach have stopped running them on the 18 AFAIK, and that route is now served once more by the knackered old high-floor B10Ms and Darts that Stagecoach really should send to the scrappy.
I used to like the B10Ms at Stagecoach Manchester - the very high floor meant that the interior floor was pretty much flat, which in turn made them able to make the seat layout a bit more sensible. Also they were pretty strong, so few rattles and distortions.
As for interurban routes, coaches would be my preference, so long as they can be made accessible. This is difficult/expensive at the moment, but once Nat Ex start cascading their new accessible coaches (I imagine that'll start within 10 years or so) these would be perfect. Look at the Stagecoach X5 as an example - the use of good quality coaches (even though they used to be ex-NatEx ones) makes an interurban express have that edge of quality that a normal bus will never have.
Post a Comment