Yesterday, there was a highly interesting string of comments about Plymouth City Bus’ and Wilts & Dorset’s interior designs for their new Volvo B7RLE/Wrightbus Eclipse 2s. As is standard practice, W&D retained the popular 2+1 layout and City Bus adopted it.
I say “popular” because the 2+1 arrangement is well-liked, at least throughout the east Dorset conurbation. Ray Stenning actually hit the nail on the head when he outlined three prime reasons for adopting 2+1, which were:
- Better accommodation for anything on wheels—buggies and trollies in particular
- A better standing environment, whenever standing is required
- A feeling of spaciousness within.
London: do 29-seat midibuses such as these really need central exits?
Operators still try to cram on as many seats as possible on their buses. Look at some of the oddly perched seats you see these days. This is particularly true on single decks. Who’s to blame them? Today, a 12m buses actually has a lower capacity than a 9m bus of old (and here I’m comparing City Bus’ new B7RLEs with its modest number of secondhand Bristol LHs of 30 years ago). While there are sound operating reasons for stuffing in seats, elsewhere there are equally valid marketing reasons to take a few out.
There are now examples of buses with greater seat pitches (fewer rows of seats) or just fewer seats, including Go Ahead’s recent intakes. Arriva has recently introduced a small number of generous, *66* seat double decks. Though unable to speak for City Bus, W&D’s service levels are such that standing should be minimised, though bunching at such high frequencies does cause standing issues. But passengers can make their choice: Yellow Buses offers an equally inviting ambiance in its double & single deck fleet across the main cross-conurbation services, including leather and Café Nerro-style interiors.
There have always been compromises between length and capacity. Going back to Plymouth, like many urban areas of the late 1960s and 1970s, Plymouth City Transport operated a large fleet of 11m Leyland Nationals seating not the customary 52 but 46, owing to dual door bodywork. And Hants & Dorset ran a batch of 11m Bristol REs with dual doors (its Nationals were invariably single door examples). As a commenter alluded yesterday, the substitution of one of these dual- for a single-door vehicle would throw passengers into confusion.
Dual door buses were really nothing but a prolonged experiment, a kind of a fad. Their use stemmed largely from union agreements that were linked to the conversion of fleets to one man (person) operation. In many urban situations, it was difficult to clinch OM(P)O agreements without centre exits. Never mind that the dual door single decks had far fewer seats than the deckers for which they substituted. Passengers could always stand (but they tended to melt away and this was a failure of weak management). Once these union agreements started to crumble or were proven unnecessary, operators switched back to a preferred single door layout. Except, of course, in London, where even the smallest midibus comes with a double dose of doors. This is another area where London is perceived to be different even though it really isn’t.
These days, dual door buses come with what in the mid-1970s was an unforeseen handicap: they require extra-long high kerbing at stops.
44 comments:
On the subject of Wilts & Dorset dual door vehicles they even ran dual door Bristol LHs!
The capacity vs size problem is real problem as low floor buses have spread out into rural areas. A 12m full width low floor has a capacity of about 43, and every one of those seats is probably needed on peak school/college/commuter trips, yet a 12m bus is seen as "huge" by other motorists who encounter it on the lanes all day. So much more practical the 9.5m 40 seater step Dart.
Yes, I know there is a need for accessible vehicles, I ran one of the pioneer low floor routes, but the industry is in an uneasy "fix" where pleasing some has upset others.
Twas ever thus....
If dual doors were such a passing fad why does the rest of the world have multiple doors on its urban buses? Weren't the real reasons for going to single door because of claims for accidents and the increased maintenance costs of multiple doors?
Remember that London joined the single door fad a couple of decades ago. I personally drove such buses and in an urban environment with intensive boarding and alighting it slowed down journeys.
So I say a resounding yes to dual doors in a busy urban environment. Struggling down to the front from the back of a packed 12m single deck to alight is just ridiculous.
By the way, your photo is of a 10.2m bus. Hardly small. The smallest London buses, 8.9m are specified as single door. It's the next size up, 9.4m, where it's debatable whether the extra door is needed.
Steve said...
"If dual doors were such a passing fad why does the rest of the world have multiple doors on its urban buses?"
In Germany, at least, there is generally no full depth emergency door on the offside, so the second nearside door 'doubles up' as an emergency exit.
Indeed, accidents and incidents were a factor in changing operators' minds about dual door layouts. There were all sorts of claims, some spurious, some genuine. How does London cope?
"If dual doors were such a passing fad why does the rest of the world have multiple doors on its urban buses?"
One answer to this is that continental buses offer more standing capacity and passengers are more inclined to do so. We've all been on European urban buses where people will stand in preference to sitting (strange as this may seem to English eyes). There's less of a requirement, therefore, to fill the bus with seats.
"By the way, your photo is of a 10.2m bus. Hardly small."
It's the only appropriate photo I had! And that bus still seats only 29.
And remember H&D's dual door VAMs?
Looking at yesterday’s photograph of the Plymouth Citybus interior I was wondering if the intrusion of the double seats onto the maroon gangway flooring was deliberate? It might be just me but I would have thought it would have been more aesthetically pleasing (and visually clearer for passengers) if it had been laid in between of the seating. Otherwise they do look very good indeed.
Busing, you definitely mark yourself out as a provincial in this post (with all due respect). If you've ever lived or worked in London, you'll know that dual doors are vital. The amount of times I've had to practically punch, kick and stamp my way to the exit on single-deck buses due to the sheer volume of standees. Bendy-buses was this nightmare made flesh.
Standing ought to be made illegal on safety grounds (enforcing it would be another matter...)
Busing said...
"And remember H&D's dual door VAMs?"
There was also a W&D MW coach-to-bus conversion that had dual doors, at around the same period (late 1960s).
With the 11m RELLs, the bus seated versions were dual doored, while the dual purpose seated examples were single door. The latter were generally used on longer routes (e.g. Southampton-Bournemouth); but after a couple of years, they were replaced with newer examples so that the older DPs were used on the same work as the bus-seated vehicles - thereby confusing the passengers.
Re RC169@08:16
Same in the UK under ECWTA - look at recent buses in London - no emergency exit, except for single door buses.
Smashable glass window panel takes the place of an emergency exit in this case - surprisingly progressive, even if it's a chav's dream to be supplied with free hammers to take away.
"It's the only appropriate photo I had! And that bus still seats only 29."
But also holds 28 standing.
Another post mentioned that passengers on the Continent are far more likely to want to stand. This is also the case in London, where short journeys are commonplace. Standing on a bus crammed with seats is downright unpleasant, whereas stabnding on one with plenty of floor space and grab rails is bearable. On urban buses there's definitely a balance to be had between seats and standing space, whereas outside urban sreas I feel the balance should be towards maximising seating.
"Dual door buses were really nothing but a prolonged experiment, a kind of a fad."
Nonsense. They are, like regulated or state operation, the norm. The UK is the exception, as ever.
Neil
Sorry Busing but London *is* different and as much as I would prefer single-door buses for the extra seats, the dual doors are vital. The issue is that boarding and alighting (especially alighting) is far more volumeous (new word?!) throughout the route in London whereas in Plymouth and other provincial places most people tend to travel into the city centre and the volume alighting happens just at a small number of stops, not the case in London at all.
Given the huge volumes carried on many London bus routes I think dual doors do make sense. They also provide an alternative route to get "tractor style" buggies into the wheelchair / buggy bay when it is not possible to get them down the aisle. I also think a centre door and ramp works well for wheelchair access but that may simply be my familiarity with London practice rather than knowing how well manual ramps / front loading works elsewhere in the UK.
Some of my local TfL midibus routes load very heavily and dual doors are a help in maintaining passenger flow. There is obviously some loss of seating capacity but I think there is a reasonable balance. Dual doors also give drivers a way of restricting boarding while allowing people to alight from heavily loaded buses. This may not be the most customer friendly option if you want to board but it allows people time to "move down the bus".
If you want to see "hell on earth" on a single doored TfL route then try the 192 from Tottenham Hale to Enfield. Arriva use 8.9m Enviro 200s plus some older Dart / Mini Pointers. Not only does it serve a busy corridor but it also serves an IKEA superstore. Overloaded is not the word - every day of the week. Unfortunately larger buses are not practical due to clearance issues on the route and there doesn't seem to be any money for an increased frequency.
"So much more practical the 9.5m 40 seater step Dart."
Too narrow and no legroom. Poor. Not going to attract anyone out of a premium car, or indeed a budget one.
"Busing, you definitely mark yourself out as a provincial in this post (with all due respect). If you've ever lived or worked in London, you'll know that dual doors are vital. The amount of times I've had to practically punch, kick and stamp my way to the exit on single-deck buses due to the sheer volume of standees. Bendy-buses was this nightmare made flesh."
Until the last sentence I agreed - bendy buses of course had three sets of doors in London.
One very good layout I've seen is the one that was used on the Runcorn busway, with a front entrance and *rear* exit. With mid and sideways engine mounting possible these days, and electric transmission being more feasible, this seems a good choice - but is very rare. That way "moving along the bus" never gets you stuck.
"Standing ought to be made illegal on safety grounds (enforcing it would be another matter...)"
It would destroy the economics of bus operation completely, which would mean more people driving cars, which is less safe for everyone. And frankly, for low-speed city bus services, it's safe enough.
"Another post mentioned that passengers on the Continent are far more likely to want to stand. This is also the case in London, where short journeys are commonplace."
True. In London my default choice, unless the space is required for its intended use, for a short journey is to stand in the wheelchair area. For a longer journey I go upstairs. I can't remember the last time I *sat* downstairs.
That's probably why modern double-deckers are a good choice for London - a flat-floor area of seating upstairs for longer trips, standing downstairs for shorter ones, and a few seats downstairs for those who cannot get upstairs easily. And two sets of doors, so you don't have to fight your way off as you do on single-door equivalents elsewhere.
And, for routes like London ones where you get a lot of joining *and* alighting at the same stops (cross-city services are the same, but not so much suburb to town centre bus station services more common in the provinces) you halve your dwell time, as people board and alight at the same time.
"On urban buses there's definitely a balance to be had between seats and standing space, whereas outside urban sreas I feel the balance should be towards maximising seating."
True. For inter-urban, I still think accessible coaches a la X5, or some sort of "premium" decker a la Stagecoach Gold, are best.
Neil
It's somewhat amusing that a small operator uses a dual door on a small town route.
At stops you often see riders (usually concessions) who have sat to the rear, trek to the front, probably to have a natter with the driver.
My experience in London is that the midibuses need the central exit far more than the deckers do, and the deckers really need it. Seeing Enviro 200s on routes such as Camden-London Zoo-Baker Street makes the central door vital for the crowds, otherwise there'd be no chance of ever getting off the bus.
As for inter-urban services, actually I'd tend to argue that you need fewer seats with a better pitch, pretty much as Transdev Blazefield specified with their Wright Gemini IIs on their flagship 36 and X43 routes.
Neil said: "That's probably why modern double-deckers are a good choice for London - a flat-floor area of seating upstairs for longer trips, standing downstairs for shorter ones, and a few seats downstairs for those who cannot get upstairs easily. And two sets of doors, so you don't have to fight your way off as you do on single-door equivalents elsewhere."
Yes - better still, a slightly longer than normal decker, say 11m, add a rear door and a second staircase at the back, with the engine under the rear stairs and you have a very good solution to London's needs.
Or one of those..um...bendy-buses,with no stairs at all ?
Think there are some cheap ones available...
I was reminded of Harry Blundred's preference for dual-door Iveco minibuses after reading this article. Was a dual-door really required on a bread van? Must have been horrible riding one of those on a busy route in Torquay - lack of seats and lack of standing room!
Neil said...
"One very good layout I've seen is the one that was used on the Runcorn busway, with a front entrance and *rear* exit."
These were never actually built, but they would have used the Bristol VRL chassis with a longitudinal engine. However, about ten years earlier a number of Bristol LS single deckers were built with dual doors, the second being at the rear. All were rebuilt to single door, but one of the prototypes has been preserved with the rear door re-instated.
The same concept can be found on some versions of the Citaro; and (in earlier times) on some double deckers (e.g. in Bournemouth, including trolleybuses) which had front and rear doors. The passenger flow is no doubt simpler and probably quicker than with a centre door. I suspect that anon@10:09 is correct about the different boarding and alighting patterns - where there is a high turnover of passengers at particular stops, then there is a stronger case for multiple doors.
However, the local municipal operator in my area bought a few 3 -door Citaros a few years ago, with the third door at the rear, but they have subsequently standardised on the two door variety, so I suspect the rear doors are not quite so satisfactory as they might seem in theory to be.
Thank you, Bussing, for recognising one of the reasons for the single seats being on the offside.
I looked at the architecture of the bus and thought about passengers' movement and flow, and the sightlines (taking into account poles, too), and observations of people getting on and off similar buses.
We designers don't just autocratically impose our whims on the travelling public. We think things through and have a reason for everything we do. As a true professional, dedicated to and passionate about improving the product and how it is perceived and sold, it would be dishonest to do it any other way!
Incidentally, single seats on the offside also make - heaven forbid - egress through the emergency exit (in the centre of the bus) easier. I thought about that, too.
"These were never actually built, but they would have used the Bristol VRL chassis with a longitudinal engine."
Ah, OK. I'd only seen it on a leaflet. But VMCV in Vevey, Switzerland have some three-door centre-engine Van Hool buses, and some smaller (Solo size) centre-engine, front and rear (not centre) door vehicles.
The idea of three doors, low floor throughout also seems to find favour with the Dutch, though it does lead to some poor seating layouts.
"I was reminded of Harry Blundred's preference for dual-door Iveco minibuses after reading this article. Was a dual-door really required on a bread van? Must have been horrible riding one of those on a busy route in Torquay - lack of seats and lack of standing room!"
Even as a fan of dual-door, that's silly. A second door on a Solo or smaller (except maybe the longest variant) seems pointless.
That said, the Blankeneser Bergziege minibuses in Hamburg of the late 90s (Beavers or similar, if I recall) had rear doors in a very unusual layout - a low-floor rear section with room for a wheelchair, then a step to the main saloon. But I think in Germany it's a legal requirement for all PCVs, as you even see dual-door on 16 seater minibuses.
As for where it applies in the UK, single door works best for small to medium-sized town "outer suburb to bus station" routes. For routes with long city sections, or for cross-city routes, dual door can halve your dwell times in the central area, particularly if ticketing is mainly off-bus.
Neil
It looks like my comment about dual doors on yesterday's article about the new Plymouth B7RLEs has sparked off a good debate. IMO that the rest of the world specifies a minimum of two doors for urban buses proves the requirement for them. The UK is out of line (as always). I have personally experienced being towards the back of a packed First Bristol Dart SLF on service 8/9 arriving at the Centre. As soon as the doors opened passengers started boarding, paying their fares and entering the saloon before many on board had a chance to alight!
Single door buses have zero passenger flow. Good Passenger flow is vital to minimise bus stop dwell times and reduce running times. Faster running times should equal lower PVR?
Bristol Omnibus ran many of its Bristol city services in the 1960s with dual door REs (the others were crew operated Lodekkas). When the REs were replaced with VRs on wider frequencies (albeit dual door ones) running times increased because passenger flow on a decker is always going to be worse than on a saloon.
How many real passengers were consulted in the design process then ?
"How many real passengers were consulted in the design process then ?"
Don't know about this case, but it does happen. On t'railway, again in the late 90s, I was consulted about the refurbishment of the TransPennine Express Class 158s, and my suggestion of making the interior look a bit classier by removing the grey plastic wall panels and tables and replacing with wood laminate made it into the final design.
It *did* look classy as well!
Neil
Edinburgh kept dual doors standard on full size buses for three decades, mostly deckers but also some late model National 2s and Lynx.
This seemed to work reasonably well on most cross-city services, until the arrival of low-floor Tridents and the fitment of an interlock that held on the parking brake until the centre door had fully shut.
Some examples were slower than others and this impacted badly on running times, meaning that on lengthy routes such as 3 and 44 where earlier examples were deployed an increase in the vehicle requirement became necessary.
By 2002 Lothian decided it would persist no longer and future deliveries would all be to the single door layout. The official reason given was insurance claims (drivers accidentally closing the doors on old folk, etc) but there would have been maintenance savings too.
Ironic really that a concept intended to offset the stop dwell time increases associated with one-man operation ended up increasing the time buses spent stationary. Lothian began withdrawing Tridents some time ago now and I believe no remaining examples in service either retain or were built with the dual-door layout.
Are you trying to make the point that I am not a real passenger? Apart from a pushbike, I don't have private transport. I use buses and trains constantly for all my travel needs.
Or are you suggesting that every bus user should be consulted on absolutely everything. You cannot say to someone, "Do you want the single seat on the offside or the nearside?" How can they make a reasoned sensible considered choice?
That sort of decision is made by the sort of research I talked about - studied observation, experience, knowledge and a wonderful tool called intuition, which comes out of that experience and knowledge, and another wonderful tool called flair.
Now, I must get back to work and use that intuition and flair to come up with yet more fabulous designs. I can't spend all day explaining my magic tricks or answering criticisms.
Neil said...
"That said, the Blankeneser Bergziege minibuses in Hamburg of the late 90s (Beavers or similar, if I recall) had rear doors in a very unusual layout - a low-floor rear section with room for a wheelchair, then a step to the main saloon."
This is a method of providing wheelchair access on a vehicle with a conventional van (i.e. high floor) chassis, without having to incorporate a lift. As you say, it seems to be a legal requirement for even small PCVs in Germany to have 2 doors; the only ones I am aware of that do not have a second door are the 8 seaters used on the local community bus service.
"Some examples were slower than others and this impacted badly on running times, meaning that on lengthy routes such as 3 and 44 where earlier examples were deployed an increase in the vehicle requirement became necessary."
London seems to have spent a load of money on this issue, in that almost all newer London buses have pretty fast plug-sliding doors more similar to those used on the railway rather than traditional bus doors which can sometimes be slow and unreliable.
The other way Germany deals with these is by having fewer stops, I suppose.
Neil
Neil said:
A second door on a Solo or smaller (except maybe the longest variant) seems pointless.
I know little of Solo vehicle lengths but, these days, route 309 operates with a fleet of 2-door 9.6m examples. And yes, not only does it also seem pointless to me as well, these buses have presumably next to no resale value.
My experience of using single door buses outside of London, is of the slowness in getting off them, as you fight your way past people trying to get on. With smart cards (like London's Oyster) boarding is very quick, but pointless if nobody can get in!
I can also remember the single door Darts 9.5-10.2m (both low and high floor) and when the bus was busy, sometimes it was impossible to get out from the back, unless you fancied fighting past 50 people.
@ Paul - re TfL route 309. I used it when it went Solo operated but we had a single door Solo rather than a dual door. To say the bus was somewhat overloaded is an understatement. The dwell times were certainly extended while people contorted themselves, to get past all the standees and multiple buggies crushed in to the bus, so they could alight.
Now it might have been "just taken over" blues that you get when routes switch operators that caused a gap in the service but I'd be pretty confident in saying the dual door Solos would have worked better in handling the crush I experienced.
Resale value - well hopefully CT Plus have at least 7 years before they face that question.
Is it not the case that dual doors are needed on many of London’s routes because they have large numbers of people getting both on and off at multiple points along the route in both directions at the same time, even in the suburbs. They are multi-anchored, with the anchors being close to one another.
In the early years of route tendering when single door vehicles found their way onto some of these routes, the result was that frequently the front door area was blocked with standees who feared being trapped away from the exit at their stop, leaving lots of wasted space both up and downstairs, passengers left at stops, unnecessary standing and it was just generally not ideal.
Now the situation has gone a little too far the other way, with dual doors being specified based on vehicle length, rather than the nature of the route.
The problem with specifying by nature of route is that it limits the operator in what routes they can offer the particular buses for for a second contract term should they become displaced from their original route. Also, the nature of routes can change over time.
"My experience of using single door buses outside of London, is of the slowness in getting off them, as you fight your way past people trying to get on. With smart cards (like London's Oyster) boarding is very quick, but pointless if nobody can get in!"
True. And to some extent, the central pole did this on single-door high-floor buses. Remove that, and the flow gets noticeably worse.
Neil
Lack of seats is a real problem on modern buses and is getting far worse. It is very much a disincentive to using buses.
Obstruction of gangways by a multitude of prames is another major prioblem
The logic with prams is difficult to understand. A younng child that occupies a seat gets charged but a pram that occupies the space of 3 seats does not.
The logic with prams is quite simply that if you don't allow them to travel, their owner will go by car instead.
Public transport has to accommodate all of the public.
Neil
I have a young child and wouldn't use the bus anywhere near as much if they didn't take prams. If I use the bus I don't have to fold the pram so the cost and timing inconvenience of using the bus is outweighed by the convenience of a step-on-step-off service.
If Stagecoach didn't let me on their low floor buses with my pram then, quite simply, I'd take my £15 a week elsewhere.
Funnily enough the only people who ever complained to me about the pram were OAPs on their concessionary bus passes, because I made them move their shopping trollies for the pram. Make of that what you will.
I use London buses often in the peak hour and the main reason for the dual doors is most routes are feeders (to tube and trains) so boarding and alighting at intermediate stops is common. Whereas most provincial routes serve somewhere eg city centre shops so simultaneous boarding and alighting is rare.
The biggest problems are always single deckers as most stand in wheelchair area (except when its full, 99 times out of 100 with pushchairs, very rarely with a wheelchair and never further back (which is often a couple of steps up), on deckers the problem is always at the bottom of the stairs where getting to the exit is often blocked by standees, so people disembarking end up trying to exit out the front (And TfL insists on forward straight stairs, I think the last centre staircase buses (stairs near exit) will be withdrawn by end of 2012.
Also look at London buses, the centre door is rarely central, it is often forward of centre point, sometimes just behind front wheels.
Finally just to prove that TfL do occasionally think differently, tomorrow sees new 12m Single door Citaros introduced on route X26 (this is a limited stop route), but the limited stop X68 and 607 got dual doors
"I have a young child and wouldn't use the bus anywhere near as much if they didn't take prams. "
What is wrong with folding a pram. They freqwuently cause serious obstructions and many refuse to fold them for wheelchairs and many are rude when they are told they are causing an obstruction.
Prams should be required to be folded at peak times and a charge should be made for unfolded prams
I can only assume you don't have a young child if you don't understand that. I'll lend you my toddler- who refuses to sit still for more than 12 consecutive seconds- to give you an idea.
In a car folding a pram is OK because you can safely buckle your child into a specially designed seat before you have to fold your pram.
On a bus it's not quite the same. There aren't specially designed child seats, you can't put baby down and buckle them in before you attempt to fold your buggy. You have 20 OAPs and a driver clucking at you for taking too long to fold it whilst holding a wriggling toddler in one hand and a buggy and ten bags of shopping in t'other.
On top of that my local operator, Stagecoach, has put signs up on the most convenient seats- the seats above the front wheels- saying young children are not allowed to sit there because they distract the driver. So I have my buggy, my toddler and my 10 bags of shopping and have to walk all the way down the bus.
It's even worse if you have a newborn because you have to lie them flat- where, pray, do you do that on a bus? On top of the Metro newspaper rack?
I have one of the best models on the market for folding- a Quinny Zapp, two buttons and it's folded- yet it's almost impossible to do it if I'm travelling alone. I only have one pair of hands and one pair of eyes.
Faced with this choice, I'll do what parents of yore did- I'll drive, thanks very much.
I don't quite get the point about the Lothian Tridents and the parking brake/centre door interlock. Tube trains and trams have door interlocks and very short stop dwell times), why should this delay a bus? Are London buses delayed by such devices?
How does the rest of the world cope with multi-doored buses?
Post a Comment