Lothian Buses and ECB Discussion

Siemens Trains · 12 Aug 2019

SpeedbirdA350 said:
Is there any reason they can't put the 100 Airlink service at St Andrew Sq now? I'm talking about the section closest to Princes St. Currently, there is a loading bay, disabled parking and a large taxi rank, often with cars anyway but if they put in a bus stop there, then its a couple of minutes walk from Princes St so it's not that far from where it terminates at the moment? Just thinking that they often have to move the 100 when PS closes anyway and it's often to St Andrew Sq although at the other side of the square.

Come to think about it, could they make more use of North and South St Andrew Street's vast desolate spaces and put some bus services or a terminus on them? I know they're used by trams every few minutes, but these appear such a dreadful waste given how congested the nearby streets and junctions can be.
Apologies if I've overlooked anything obvious.

RailUK Forums

90019 · 12 Aug 2019

A330Alex said:
I saw an XLB heading up The Mound on a 27 yesterday. That was in one of the few dry spells however!

I was driving an XLB on the 27 yesterday in the rain, and there are no traction issues going up the Mound.

The only issue I have with them in the wet is that the ABS is a bit oversensitive, and the brakes lack the feel to counter it effectively.

Driver362 · 12 Aug 2019

DunsBus said:
588 Atlanteans in all - 225 PDRs and 363 AN68s.

PDR1/1, Alexander A H43/31F: 801-825, 851-899 (ESF801C, EWS802-825D, JSC851-899E). New 1965-67.
PDR2/1, Alexander J H47/35F: 900 (JSC900E). New 1967.
PDR1A/1, Alexander J H45/30D: 301-350, 351-400, 251-300 (PSC301-350G, SSF351-400H, WFS251-300K). New 1969-72.

AN68/1R, Alexander AL H45/30D: 1-50, 901-950, 401-464 (BFS1-50L, OFS901-918M, OSF919-950M, GFS401-450N, JSG451-464N). New 1972-75.
AN68A1R, Alexander AL H45/30D: 465-620 (MSF465-500P, SSG501-560R, YSF561-575S, JSX576-598T, OSC601-620V). New 1976-79.
AN68C/1R, Alexander AL H45/30D: 621-659 (GSC621-659X). New 1981.
AN68C/1R, Alexander AL H45/31F: 660-665 (GSC660-665X). New 1981.

802-825 had short bay windows, all others were panoramics.
465-665 were fully-auto, G2 on 465-598 and 601-620, LVA45 on 621-665. All others were semi-auto. 901/2/42/6-9 were converted from semi- to fully-auto by ECT when new, on withdrawal their gear control systems were fitted to 448-454.
561-575 were originally to have been registered SSG561-575R.
660-665 were to coach spec (albeit with bus seats), hence the single door.
900 was the sole 33ft Atlantean to be purchased by Edinburgh. All others were 30ft long.

Great Post thanks. love these kind of posts

Gingerbus1991 · 13 Aug 2019

Too make this easier, an active Rear Axle would very much decreased the turning circle of these monster buses.

cnjb8 · 13 Aug 2019

SpeedbirdA350 said:
Nope. I honestly can't see the LEZ making as much money as the council think. I think also that the council think this will stop some cars driving in but it won't. LEZ says petrol cars have to be Euro 4 or above ie 2005 I think and to be honest, I have not seen that many cars older than this on the road, let alone in the city centre. Diesel I think is 2014 but I can't see it making a reduction in cars (big enough to notice is what I mean) nor collecting a huge sum.

The council could do so much more if it wanted to though, like I said above, it could change the rules on Princes St from Buses, taxi, cyclists and trams to Local buses, cyclists and trams. Putting all non local buses and taxis up towards George St/Queen St. It could make radical changes by making some key roads bus/taxi/cycle only ie look at Shandwick Place. It was usually a busy road, and now it's not. Can you imagine what they COULD acheve if they planned it properly? Ie if they decided to put a Bus/Taxi/Cycle only route on foot of Lothian Road? It would force all cars via West App Road and if they done the same with the Mound and Hanover St. As that juncion in particular, you often see vehicles blocking Princes St junction due to too many trying to get through. Leith Street/North Bridge could be another. Not easy but if done right, it would make more of a dent than any LEZ would for cars in the city centre.

I already said above that some bus routes could be moved on to George St ie 11, 16, 44 (ie those heading towards Leith Walk/London Road) but one thing is for sure, if the council don't do something soon, it's only going to get worse.

Interesting. Thank you

90019 · 13 Aug 2019

CraigonGLESGA said:
Too make this easier, an active Rear Axle would very much decreased the turning circle of these monster buses.

And increased the tail swing, which is already significant without the steering tag.

I wasn't sure when they first turned up, but having spent plenty of time driving the things, I don't particularly want a steering tag on them - despite what people think, they really don't need it.

buslad1988 · 13 Aug 2019

Just passed Seafield works and seen all the old Airlink streetdecks have had advert frames fitted and now branded for Skylink.

Makes sense and saves repainting them all!

Jordan Adam · 13 Aug 2019

buslad1988 said:
Just passed Seafield works and seen all the old Airlink streetdecks have had advert frames fitted and now branded for Skylink.

Makes sense and saves repainting them all!

Hate to be "that person" but they're Gemini 3's rather than Streetdeck's, Streetdeck being an integral product on Wrights own chassis.

Interesting to hear they're not bothering to paint them. Although makes sense given the current paint coat is only about half way through it's life.

buslad1988 · 13 Aug 2019

Jordan Adam said:
Hate to be "that person" but they're Gemini 3's rather than Streetdeck's, Streetdeck being an integral product on Wrights own chassis.

Interesting to hear they're not bothering to paint them. Although makes sense given the current paint coat is only about half way through it's life.

Sorry... too early in the morning for me! Lol. I didn’t think it sounded right when I typed it either.

Grumpyscot · 13 Aug 2019

A330Alex said:
Am I going crazy or are the new double door ex-London's a good bit smaller than the rest of Lothian's Wright fleet? Perhaps I've just got accustomed to the XLB as it felt like a minibus downstairs!

Saw one on the 26 route last night - looked weired!

scosutsut · 13 Aug 2019

Colin M said:
More utter dribble and whinging from the Edinburgh News rag - https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman....jpS_NarhslroNLz-JvkFsTzyHr5jBqdRNxDoOkW-OgKCM

It is utter dribble, and par for the course for the EEN. One just made the turn in front of me in one go this morning. They are just bedding in and drivers will be learning what they can do.

FlybeDash8Q400 · 13 Aug 2019

I’m wondering if 496-510 are all heading to Skylink then? That would allow 577-590 to go to LC and allow 928-936 to return to Longstone for B7 replacements. 584 presumably keeping its wrap. Also am I correct in saying that only 591 and 592 have been painted and not 593 and 594? Wonder why that has happened if it has.

I must admit I was surprised when it was first announced that 496-510 would get split up.

Also is 427 ever going to be upgraded to the spec that 426 and 428-430 have. Or is it Lothian’s idea that it’s a spare Skylink bus if needbe?

scosutsut · 13 Aug 2019

I hope it's not a sign that the former Airlink colour scheme of FOTF will replace the Skylink scheme, as to my mind that would be one of the strongest ones being got rid of at the expense of one of the weakest!

ScotRail158725 · 13 Aug 2019

FlybeDash8Q400 said:
I’m wondering if 496-510 are all heading to Skylink then? That would allow 577-590 to go to LC and allow 928-936 to return to Longstone for B7 replacements. 584 presumably keeping its wrap. Also am I correct in saying that only 591 and 592 have been painted and not 593 and 594? Wonder why that has happened if it has.

I must admit I was surprised when it was first announced that 496-510 would get split up.

Also is 427 ever going to be upgraded to the spec that 426 and 428-430 have. Or is it Lothian’s idea that it’s a spare Skylink bus if needbe?

yeah i think the first bit is whats happening. it was 593 that was painted aswell not 591

as for 427 id guess not

Edirim · 13 Aug 2019

My understanding is 496 - 510 are moving to Skylink in their current livery with decals changed and advert boards applied.

This will allow 577 - 590 to be split between ECB (to replace 20794 - 20800) and LCB.
As 928 - 936 will / are moving to LV to run the 43 which will move to LV operation at the Sept / Oct changes, I'm not entirely sure what the 57-590 batch will be used for but I imagine they might replace the singles of 114 - 120. You certainly won't find 928 - 926 moving back to Lothian.

Personally I will miss the Skylink livery if this is the case as it is far more pleasent than the airlink one.

592 and 592 repainted not 591 or 594.

427 spends most of its time on the 3 anyway with other buses deputising in its place on the skylink routes when they are short so rather surprised its not had the luggage and tables removed...I often let it pass if its on my local route home because sardines is not a fun game to play.

FlybeDash8Q400 · 13 Aug 2019

Thanks all for clearing that up.

928-931 appear to already have moved to LV as it is anyway.

That Blue/Grey livery isn’t bad but equally isn’t great, the Blue/White is my personal favourite so It’ll be a shame if it does go - does that mean 431-437 could be in line for yet another repaint then?

Not sure how the 43 will favour working out of LV, are we gonna see Dechmont extensions like first used to do?

Edirim · 13 Aug 2019

935 had a wee stint at LV so I thought it had moved over as well. Certainly the driver changeovers / shift ends seem to tie up at Queensferry end for now.

I think - happy to be corrected - but might be the case that 431 - 437 would end up replacing the 794 - 800 lot at ECB with the full compliment of 577 - 590 going to LCB.

No point for LCB running extentions to Dechmont etc as it adds nothing and causes more headaches - better they keep it dead running so can use any route and leave early to get over etc. (Just need to look at FiG to understand that depot runs don't work out).

ScotRail158725 · 13 Aug 2019

Edirim said:
My understanding is 496 - 510 are moving to Skylink in their current livery with decals changed and advert boards applied.

This will allow 577 - 590 to be split between ECB (to replace 20794 - 20800) and LCB.
As 928 - 936 will / are moving to LV to run the 43 which will move to LV operation at the Sept / Oct changes, I'm not entirely sure what the 57-590 batch will be used for but I imagine they might replace the singles of 114 - 120. You certainly won't find 928 - 926 moving back to Lothian.

Personally I will miss the Skylink livery if this is the case as it is far more pleasent than the airlink one.

592 and 592 repainted not 591 or 594.

427 spends most of its time on the 3 anyway with other buses deputising in its place on the skylink routes when they are short so rather surprised its not had the luggage and tables removed...I often let it pass if its on my local route home because sardines is not a fun game to play.

how do you know these are the changes, would have expected to hear this from omnicity999 if this was the case

Edirim · 13 Aug 2019

I don't...
I'm just going on what I've heard / seen from reliable sources.

Darklord8899 · 13 Aug 2019

......I'd hate to see 5xx FOTF Skylink's go...
I get that they are more suited to move else where, but they are far nicer vehicles internally than 431-437....
And as someone who uses the 300 to/from work, I always like to see the FOTF spec buses.

Darklord8899 · 13 Aug 2019

Edirim said:
427 spends most of its time on the 3 anyway with other buses deputising in its place on the skylink routes when they are short so rather surprised its not had the luggage and tables removed...I often let it pass if its on my local route home because sardines is not a fun game to play.

Aye, if I spot 427 is on the 3 I usually let it go as well, as more often than not it's packed.... I don't really feel the 3 is the best route for 427 to be on.... stick it on the 20 or 63 instead :lol:

A330Alex · 13 Aug 2019

Perhaps I’m being dim but what’s the point of moving the Airlink fleet to Skylink so that Skylink can go to ECB/LCB rather than just sending the Airlink fleet to ECB/LCB?

I’ll miss the hybrids on the 300! They better remove the luggage racks at least...

Darklord8899 · 13 Aug 2019

A330Alex said:
Perhaps I’m being dim but what’s the point of moving the Airlink fleet to Skylink so that Skylink can go to ECB/LCB rather than just sending the Airlink fleet to ECB/LCB?

I’ll miss the hybrids on the 300! They better remove the luggage racks at least...

I suspect money is the reason, could leave the 5xx FOTF spec'ed Skylink interiors as is (only 2 seats less than non Skylink spec'ed B5LH's ) 431-437 and ex airlink will need to have the luggage racks removed and seats put back in before moving them elsewhere..... I wouldn't see them being left like 427....

43106 · 13 Aug 2019

There was a recent sub-thread related to the delivery details of the Atlanteans from 1965 to 1981 (which I concur with). It reminded me that there were 2 buses "missing", namely 599 & 600, which I presume would have been JSX-T's. What actually happened to them? I'm trying to cast my mind back 38-odd years, and I think someone said that these two buses were diverted to South Africa. As compensation, we got what turned out to be 666 and 667. Is this right, or is the German disease kicking in???

DunsBus · 13 Aug 2019

43106 said:
There was a recent sub-thread related to the delivery details of the Atlanteans from 1965 to 1981 (which I concur with). It reminded me that there were 2 buses "missing", namely 599 & 600, which I presume would have been JSX-T's. What actually happened to them? I'm trying to cast my mind back 38-odd years, and I think someone said that these two buses were diverted to South Africa. As compensation, we got what turned out to be 666 and 667. Is this right, or is the German disease kicking in???

Partly right. Olympians 666 and 667 were the replacements for what would have been Titans 599 and 600. As was the case with so many other Titan orders at the time, they were never built. Rather than lose out completely, LRT changed the order to Olympians.

666 and 667 had very early Olympian chassis numbers - ON42 (667) and ON43 (666).

computerSaysNo · 14 Aug 2019

Darklord8899 said:
......I'd hate to see 5xx FOTF Skylink's go...
I get that they are more suited to move else where, but they are far nicer vehicles internally than 431-437....
And as someone who uses the 300 to/from work, I always like to see the FOTF spec buses.

What does FOTF mean?
And what's wrong with 431-437?

OmniCity999 · 14 Aug 2019

GregA said:
What does FOTF mean?
And what's wrong with 431-437?

FOTF stands for Fleet of the Future. I.E the angled livery as apposed to the swoops.

431-437 never received an interior refresh when they left Airlink and some enthusiasts often complain about the interiors.

They are due for an interior refresh soon.

Jordan Adam · 14 Aug 2019

GregA said:
What does FOTF mean?
And what's wrong with 431-437?

"#FOTF" = Fleet Of The Future, basically the official name for the "staircase livery". It's another one of those little marketing gimmicks!

computerSaysNo · 14 Aug 2019

OmniCity999 said:
FOTF stands for Fleet of the Future. I.E the angled livery as apposed to the swoops.

431-437 never received an interior refresh when they left Airlink and some enthusiasts often complain about the interiors.

They are due for an interior refresh soon.

Jordan Adam said:
"#FOTF" = Fleet Of The Future, basically the official name for the "staircase livery". It's another one of those little marketing gimmicks!

Ah okay, thanks to both replies.

TheEastCoaster · 14 Aug 2019

Today is East Coast Buses 3rd birthday!

Lothian Buses and ECB Discussion

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member