Yesterday, Go Ahead announced that its new Plymouth City Bus managing director would be none other than the commercial director of Stagecoach South West, Richard Stevens. That’s not just an interesting appointment but a good one. Quite a catch, in fact. Stevens has worked well at Stagecoach, culminating with the pending take-over of First’s North Devon operations from nothing, back in 2006.
Furthermore, Stevens has worked as a manager and then director at First Devon & Cornwall, so not only will he know the Plymouth area, he will know how the opposition ticks. Not that the opponents are quite the same as they were during his stint, lasting till 2004. For one thing, First Devon & Cornwall actually posted modest profits back then. With the recent award of Cornish tenders, though, First nevertheless seems to be on a bit of a fight back.
The vacancy was created by the departure of Andrew Wickham back to Go South Coast as MD there. Till the end of the month, Wickham’s still holding down both jobs. He completes his short Plymouth tenure with the introduction this month of ten brand new Volvo/Wrightbus B7RLEs plus, beforehand, a rebranding, staffing changes and important service changes. And expect more Volvos in the future. The Wrightbus Eclipse 2s are a first for Plymouth and they look fine with their deep red fronts, a little stately, somewhat redolent of the Cheltenham District maroon of old, perhaps. Rather like at Wilts & Dorset, Citaros might have been the better option for City Bus had Mercedes only been able to customise the inside to Go Ahead’s satisfaction. And Citaros come with a fuel consumption penalty, of course.
Plymouth City Bus has adopted the W&D 2+1 seating arrangement for its 10 new Volvos and, like W&D’s similar new arrivals, the single seats are now over on the off-side. Though W&D continues to prefer fabric over leather, City Bus has gone for a rich red rawhide
At one stage, there was a plan to appoint a Plymouth general manager to report to Wickham at Towngate House, Poole. But, there’s more to do at Plymouth. And certainly plenty in the in-tray at Towngate House for Wickham to concentrate on, enough to keep him rather busy...
27 comments:
The inside looks good, but where are the seats!? It looks an awful long way to you find somewhere to sit, especially if you are elderly and a bit unsteady. And we all know that drivers accelerate away and screech to a halt leaving people vulnerable to falls, don't we? What someone needs to do is square the circle of wheeled accessibility vs ease of access to seating.
If you shoot your own legs off you can get a free wheelchair on the social.
Trentbarton does the same draft thing with there layout,
That looks seriously classy. Nice. Better also than the 2+1 Citaro option, which has high dividers which makes the 2 side feel cramped, and the 1 side is shoved against the wall. Wright appear not to have made either mistake.
What I'd like to see next, though, is a true 2+1 throughout (4 on the back row) with railway-width seats. Hard to do with the rear wheels, though, I guess.
"What someone needs to do is square the circle of wheeled accessibility vs ease of access to seating."
IMO, a centre door does this nicely. You have seats forward of it (e.g. the ones right at the front on Citaros) and the wheelchair space further back.
Neil
On the subject of centre doors, where have they all gone? Back in the 1960s/70s they were the norm for urban operators. In Europe three or four doors are common.
I suppose one argument is that (UK)passengers like seats, but on a typical urban route how long is the average journey time? Also, with centre doors would journey times actually decrease and thus standing would be acceptable.
Better to stand on the vehicle whilst actually going somewhere than waiting longer at the stop for a slower service?
IMO, it seems to be a concern that people will fare-dodge by boarding at the rear. But my experience is that this almost never happens in London; there almost seems to be an invisible force field there.
I can understand why provincial operators would specify new buses without centre doors- they reduce capacity- but what I don't understand is why they spend time, effort and money taking the centre doors out of ex-London buses.
Anyway.
I have to say I don't like the 2+1 layout on any bus. It reduces seating capacity on busy buses and doesn't really seem to give you a great deal more room. I'd rather sit by myself on a 2+2 seat on a quiet bus than have to stand because the seating is 2+1.
I'm not a fan of 2+1 seating. What's "worse", having to sit next to someone on a bus, or having to stand up for 30+ minutes on a bus?
I'd far rather sit next to someone (or have someone sit next to me) than have to stand up for ages because someone decided that British humans don't like other British humans so much that they won't get near them.
The fact is, on all these routes with 2+1 seating, the vehicles are used on journeys where people are forced to stand because there aren't enough seats.
And of course, on journeys where capacity is adequate and there are enough seats, there is no need for 2+1 seating in the first place as with 2+2 seating there would just be spare seats so people still wouldn't be sitting next to each other there.
To sum it up, There's three stages with 2+1 seating:
1) Everyone has a seat. No need for 2+1 seating, as with 2+2 seating everyone would still have a seat anyway, and the same number of people would still be sitting down without someone next to them.
2) All the 2+1 seats are full, and people have to stand. Stupid as with 2+2 seating, people wouldn't have to stand.
3) Very, very full bus, where even with 2+2 seating people would have to stand. But 2+1 still has a disadvantage here, as with more people stood up rather than sat down, it all gets terribly crowded and people just cram into the low floor section. Then the driver just starts missing out stops as the bus is too full, when actually there is more room.
So, I see them as pointless. I don't see the logic when you take the blinkers off and consider aspects other than pleasing people who are allergic to strangers.
Not sure what planet you're on Neil, if you can find a commercial bus route where they can afford to run more buses with less seats I'll eat my hat. Car drivers catch buses because they offer an effective alternative to driving, those who do use buses accept that they're never going to have a car/rail seat in a bus. While it may be an attractive aspect, no one will catch a bus purely because the entire vehicle has 2+1 seating throughout with rail width seats.
Centre doors require automatic wheelchair ramps, or the driver to get out of the cab and battle their way to the centre door to do a manual ramp. Provincial operators aren't going to want the expense of an automatic wheelchair ramp. Outside London, poor quality bus stops are common, and it is extremely difficult to line a centre exit up to a kerb in many places.
Of course, a centre door really isn't improving accessibility - as it obviously reduces the downstairs seating capacity! So centre doors to improve accessibility is not the solution.
True, more seats are available towards the front, but overall, there's less seats. What's worse, an elderly person having to walk a bit further to a seat, or 1) not having a seat at all; 2) having to walk even further past the centre doors to the back to get a seat; 3) struggling up the stairs on a double decker.
In my experience, boarding through the centre doors in London is rife.
"Not sure what planet you're on Neil, if you can find a commercial bus route where they can afford to run more buses with less seats I'll eat my hat. Car drivers catch buses because they offer an effective alternative to driving, those who do use buses accept that they're never going to have a car/rail seat in a bus."
Car drivers are more likely to take a bus if the comfort level is there. Why, otherwise, wouldn't you just use buses rather than coaches for things like the UCOC X5? Why is Stagecoach Gold proving such a success?
And people indeed do not like sitting next to people they don't know.
"Not sure what planet you're on Neil, if you can find a commercial bus route where they can afford to run more buses with less seats I'll eat my hat."
All the ones that already have 2+1 seating, presumably. Not many, but they are there.
"In my experience, boarding through the centre doors in London is rife."
Not in mine at all - it almost seems like a force field. Where I do see it is on crowded buses where you can cram one more on through the rear doors - and in that case, why not?
Neil
2+1 is particularly appreciated by the old dears with shopping trolleys. It means that instead of clogging up the wheelchair/buggy space, they can park it alongside their seat in the wider-than-normal gangway, without inconveniencing other passengers.
For your information the 2+1 seating arrangement with the single seats on the offside and the use and size of spacers on the single seats (and doubles) was designed by me working very closely with the seat manufacturer (Esteban) and Wright. Thought it worthwhile to put the record straight. We designers to have a very useful role to play (despite the sniping at our profession so often made on this blog!)
I'm not going to attempt to counter all the criticisms of 2+1 seating that have been brought up here, but it is a hard commercial and marketing decision, and there are many advantages, including those mentioned by the anonymous in the previous comment.
Only 3 seats are lost, compared with 2+2 throughout and there is much better feeling of spaciousness and customer choice. Also at busy times, buggies and shopping trollies are better accommodated and there is more room to stand comfortably and to get off the bus without squeezing past people awkwardly.
Seats should be comfortable, not just a figure on a specification sheet.
One could perhaps ask whether the 2+1 seating is provided to give passengers more 'comfort', or is it used to increase overall capacity - more standing space will increase the total number of passengers that can be carried - although more of them will have to stand. In other words, actually less passenger comfort - as other commenters have said. On the other hand, I can understand anon@18:13's point about older passengers and their shopping trolleys - perhaps a solution would be a couple of rows of 2+2 seating but with the inside (aisle) seats with 'tip up' cushions. Might work if the elderly people with shopping trolleys travel out of the peak times.
I agree with anon@14:13 regarding centre doors. They were generally only a passing fad in the 1960s and early '70s - and most of the PTE operators reverted to single doors when specifying their standard double deckers in the early- and mid- '70s.
David - having a mix of vehicles with single and dual doors confuses the passengers as to the purpose of the second doorway, so I think it is sensible to remove them from ex-London vehicles being moved to the provinces. The vehicles are probably being generally overhauled as well, so the cost is probably not that great proportionally.
Ray Stenning's comment is very sensible and brings us back to a real world - rather than being armchair critics !
With regard to ex-London buses losing their dual door, it's often down to lack of Union agreement to their use, particularly as few areas could justify them. In other cases they lose the second door so as to get more seats in for school bus use.
Lothian has that on some of there buses IE missing 3 seats BUT there is no spacing between the other row. it seems a bit pointless.
Why would Trent do it to old dart I never know..
I also dont see the point when you still have the tilt up seats, which are not even leather is seems
I think the new Plymouth buses look very, very smart. It would be really nice to see that sort of effort put into buses in London but we don't have the scope to do that in a contracted environment. It is this sort of attention to detail to make a bus an attractive option that I'd like to see tried in London. I don't count the NB4L as trying to do the same thing.
Not sure about the 2+1 seating - I've only seen it in use on More services in Bournemouth and I didn't get to sample the individual seats. Trolley toting grannies beat me to them! Also the More vehicles I used loaded very heavily so the journey wasn't as comfortable as it might have been.
Oh and I really do not see people boarding via centre doors in London other than on the NB4L. The only exceptions might be if 250 people are trying to board an already full bus because a tube line has no service; tourists doing what they do bus wise at home but in London or very rarely on Rail Replacement buses where there is no revenue check but a need to get people on the bus fast. Clearly in the latter case drivers don't give a damn because road side staff supervise the boarding.
I travelled on a First Gemini earlier in the week and wondered where the seats were. It had reduced seating in the low floor section.
This made me question my previous support for 2+1. I was not impressed by it on a decker. It looks fine and dandy on some of the shots, but it looks different once there are passengers on the bus. I think its main benefit is at quiet times and when there are a number of pushchairs on the bus.
Bus Passengers in London Keep going up even with out the 2+1 seats, yet in many other place its stagnating....
"Bus Passengers in London Keep going up even with out the 2+1 seats, yet in many other place its stagnating...."
Don't think you can say that 'more' services are anything like stagnating!!
"Bus Passengers in London Keep going up even with out the 2+1 seats"
That's because driving in London is rubbish. It's the same reason as people kept travelling by train even in very dark days of rail commuting, and keep paying high fares. The alternative is simply poor.
I'd think that even if London used converted Beavers with no seats at all the passengers would still travel.
In the provinces, this isn't as true, so bus operators have to try harder.
Neil
"I think the new Plymouth buses look very, very smart. It would be really nice to see that sort of effort put into buses in London but we don't have the scope to do that in a contracted environment. It is this sort of attention to detail to make a bus an attractive option that I'd like to see tried in London. I don't count the NB4L as trying to do the same thing."
I do. The interior is very true to the original and looks similarly stylish, IMO.
Indeed, the Plymouth red has a lovely traditional look to it.
But equally, for me, the "cafe culture" fake-laminate works quite well as well. The point is to make it look comfortable as well as be comfortable. A far cry from black mottled lino, grey plastic and purple-pink-puke moquette.
Neil
I'll be honest, I'd not considered the old dears with their hateful shopping trollies. I suppose it's an important consideration in places like Bournemouth ;o)
Trolley cases are as bad. Particularly people who are obviously fit enough to carry their laptop in a laptop bag but insist on getting in the way by dragging it along the floor 3 feet behind them.
But we all have our foibles, and public transport has to try to accommodate them without them causing trouble to others.
Neil
""Not sure what planet you're on Neil, if you can find a commercial bus route where they can afford to run more buses with less seats I'll eat my hat.""
All the ones that already have 2+1 seating, presumably. Not many, but they are there."
If we go back to what you originally said, you wanted to have 2+1 seating throughout.
Now, obviously, three seats isn't the end of the world, but removing a line of seats from front to back is about 10+ seats. That's ridiculous, Mini Pointer Dart with just 20 seats anyone? You'll have standees every journey.
Volvo B7RLE with 30 seats? That's not going to go down well on the average urban service B7RLEs get used on.
""Bus Passengers in London Keep going up even with out the 2+1 seats"
That's because driving in London is rubbish. It's the same reason as people kept travelling by train even in very dark days of rail commuting, and keep paying high fares. The alternative is simply poor."
True, driving in London is rubbish, but you discredit London's achievements. People using buses there is nothing down to London having the best bus system in the county then, with frequent services, simple Oyster fares, good coverage etc.
That's what gets people into buses, far more than fancy seating arrangements.
I bet that no one chooses to use bus services on the basis it has 2+1 seating.
Country, not county. Ooops!
"If we go back to what you originally said, you wanted to have 2+1 seating throughout."
Correct, yes. I've always assumed the intrusion of the wheelarches was the reason it hadn't been done.
"Now, obviously, three seats isn't the end of the world, but removing a line of seats from front to back is about 10+ seats. That's ridiculous, Mini Pointer Dart with just 20 seats anyone? You'll have standees every journey."
Then stop using silly little buses, and start using proper-sized ones like the Europeans do.
Certainly, some routes have issues with longer/wider vehicles - why else would anyone tolerate slimline Solos - but on everything that doesn't, just go bigger.
Not free of charge, of course. But then, if it attracts passengers...
"True, driving in London is rubbish, but you discredit London's achievements. People using buses there is nothing down to London having the best bus system in the county then, with frequent services, simple Oyster fares, good coverage etc."
Of course that is relevant, but were driving not so horrid, bus patronage, particularly across social groups, would not be so high, IMO.
FWIW, TfL, while not choosing 2+1, *are* choosing substantial added legroom, particularly upstairs on deckers.
"I bet that no one chooses to use bus services on the basis it has 2+1 seating."
For the same reason no-one at all chooses First Class (2+1 vs 2+2) on the train, presumably? Clearly enough people think it's worth it, or it would be abolished.
Neil
""If we go back to what you originally said, you wanted to have 2+1 seating throughout."
Correct, yes. I've always assumed the intrusion of the wheelarches was the reason it hadn't been done."
Not that it would remove so many seats it would be extremely unpopular, then?
""Now, obviously, three seats isn't the end of the world, but removing a line of seats from front to back is about 10+ seats. That's ridiculous, Mini Pointer Dart with just 20 seats anyone? You'll have standees every journey."
Then stop using silly little buses, and start using proper-sized ones like the Europeans do.
Certainly, some routes have issues with longer/wider vehicles - why else would anyone tolerate slimline Solos - but on everything that doesn't, just go bigger."
Great idea, let's start using thumping great 12m Volvo B7RLEs on everything that can take it, including the marginal routes where using a much more fuel thirsty vehicle for little benefit is a great idea.
You didn't answer all of my points. You say use full sized buses instead of midibuses. Fine, but what is going to be used instead of full sized single deckers on urban routes? Double deckers? Then you'll have loading issues and the service will slow down and become less attractive. And worse if there's trees and low bridges and no one goes upstairs as they feel safer down.
What are you going to use instead of double deckers to keep the same capacity when you rip loads of seats out? More buses for the same number of passengers? A real earner that will be.
The Europeans, as I'm sure you know, like buses with lots of standing room and few seats, so using them as an exmaple doesn't really fit in with your idea of passenger comfort.
""I bet that no one chooses to use bus services on the basis it has 2+1 seating."
For the same reason no-one at all chooses First Class (2+1 vs 2+2) on the train, presumably? Clearly enough people think it's worth it, or it would be abolished."
I rather suspect commuters pay for 1st class because it pretty much guarantees them a seat in the first place, not becuase of 2+1 seating. None of the trains on my services have 2+1 seating in first class anyway, it's all 2+2. People still use it, if 2+1 seating had such an affect then by your logic that people chose to use a service because it's got 2+1 seating then it would alway be empty.
People choose use buses because they're
*Reliable
*Frequent
*Cheap
*Fast - often quicker
*Nice staff
*Offer good service
*Don't have to drive yourself
Yes, 2+1 seating is nice, but realy, it's no where near that list as you think it is.
To be honest, I prefer 2+2 on a bus as I feel more comfortable and safer on it.
First Manchester have 2+1 arrangements on their new B7RLEs which (are meant to) operate on the 582.
I tried a single seat and felt like I was going to fall off it every two minutes, and I'm not particularly fat! Same happened when I sat on a single seat in Standard Class on a Virgin Pendolino.
I'd rather have two seats, even if it means someone sitting next to me. To be honest, I feel more comfortable on the aisle seat of a double seat than a single seat.
As for buggies, I disagree with what Ray Stenning has said. Buggies should be parked in the buggy bay, that's what they are there for. They should not be next to a single seat where their width risks extending into the aisle, limiting accessibility and creating a greater trip risk.
Trent Barton figured this one out with having a second bay for buggies on top of the standard wheelchair bay - same with Lothian's retrofitted ones on some of their Geminis.
Post a Comment