Lothian Buses and ECB Discussion

Jordan Adam · 20 Aug 2019

SpeedbirdA350 said:
They should have had a rubber mat down, so this would not happen but recovery vehicles would not like that I guess lol.

Wooden blocks may have done the trick.

The issue with Tri-axles that have a fixed tag on the rear is that as soon as you start turning on grass you dig a massive hole, even if the ground is relatively dry.

RailUK Forums

Tom B · 20 Aug 2019

For a while it seemed to be the done thing.to cascade ex airlinks to the 35. This happened with a bunch of V/W reg Tridents, then the 53 plate Tridents, then the Scanias followed. They also seemed to make regular appearances on rush 25/22s at the time.

Darklord8899 · 20 Aug 2019

....l was glad to see the back of the Scanias, never found them particularly comfortable...

SpeedbirdA350 · 20 Aug 2019

Tom B said:
For a while it seemed to be the done thing.to cascade ex airlinks to the 35. This happened with a bunch of V/W reg Tridents, then the 53 plate Tridents, then the Scanias followed. They also seemed to make regular appearances on rush 25/22s at the time.

Yes, this was becuase the 35 was the second bus at the time to go to the airport (for the much lower fare too), and usually the buses were 3 years old at time of leaving Airlink and going to 35.
Personally, I liked the Scania and 35, high back seats were nice, not as comfortable but given most journeys were not super long, it was okay.

Darklord8899 · 20 Aug 2019

SpeedbirdA350 said:
Yes, this was becuase the 35 was the second bus at the time to go to the airport (for the much lower fare too), and usually the buses were 3 years old at time of leaving Airlink and going to 35.
Personally, I liked the Scania and 35, high back seats were nice, not as comfortable but given most journeys were not super long, it was okay.

I found the leg room particularly bad on the Scanias, though there are some buses now which have equally as bad leg room :'(

(i was one of the ex-London buses on a 14 the other day, thankfully I was only going Surgeon's Hall to Commy Pool, wouldn't have liked to be on it for anytime longer)

Tom B · 20 Aug 2019

SpeedbirdA350 said:
Yes, this was becuase the 35 was the second bus at the time to go to the airport (for the much lower fare too), and usually the buses were 3 years old at time of leaving Airlink and going to 35.
Personally, I liked the Scania and 35, high back seats were nice, not as comfortable but given most journeys were not super long, it was okay.

I thought them a little claustrophobic - ok on long express routes but they didn't seem to cope well with busy city routes.

ScotRail158725 · 20 Aug 2019

Anyone know where the sold B7s have went? 709/720 have went to Dews, cambridge shire with 3 others, 728, 730 & 745 are at another company unsure what one though, and 715, 716, 742, 749 & 772 have also left the company but im not sure where to. Any help would be great

scotrail158713 · 20 Aug 2019

Darklord8899 said:
I found the leg room particularly bad on the Scanias, though there are some buses now which have equally as bad leg room (i was one of the ex-London buses on a 14 the other day, thankfully I was only going Surgeon's Hall to Commy Pool, wouldn't have liked to be on it for anytime longer)

I find the legroom on most of the new buses isn’t enough and that two people can’t comfortably sit side by side on most pairs of seats. It seems like the older the bus the bigger the legroom. Although I suppose for seats to have more legroom the number of seats reduces, and 96 seat buses don’t have the same marketing appeal as 100 seat buses.

ScotRail158725 · 20 Aug 2019

scotrail158713 said:
I find the legroom on most of the new buses isn’t enough and that two people can’t comfortably sit side by side on most pairs of seats. It seems like the older the bus the bigger the legroom. Although I suppose for seats to have more legroom the number of seats reduces, and 96 seat buses don’t have the same marketing appeal as 100 seat buses.

Gemini 1 & 2s have lots of legroom on one side and a good amount but slightly less on the other, not sure about Gemini 3s or XLBs as i sit up the back and nowhere else so im not sure what its like elsewhere on those

CM · 20 Aug 2019

ScotRail158725 said:
Gemini 1 & 2s have lots of legroom on one side and a good amount but slightly less on the other, not sure about Gemini 3s or XLBs as i sit up the back and nowhere else so im not sure what its like elsewhere on those

It all depends on each operators specification. IIRC First's Olympian/Royales had plenty of legroom as they didn't have as many seats as they could have, especially compared to Lothian's Royales which even as dual door, had far more seats meaning less legroom.

takno · 20 Aug 2019

scotrail158713 said:
I find the legroom on most of the new buses isn’t enough and that two people can’t comfortably sit side by side on most pairs of seats. It seems like the older the bus the bigger the legroom. Although I suppose for seats to have more legroom the number of seats reduces, and 96 seat buses don’t have the same marketing appeal as 100 seat buses.

I think the legroom now on Lothian (and most other operators) is slightly better than it used to, and significantly better than it was in the late 90s. I've never been able to sit comfortably with my legs straight ahead on any service bus.

That said, the new buses would have been far better off with 8 less seats, a bit more legroom and more wheelchair/buggy space, and it was obviously the marketing aspects that caused them to mess it up. Sounds like the later attempts are going to be better

oldman · 20 Aug 2019

I remember the seats on the first Lothian low-floors were so close they actually had to change them - you could see the old screw marks on the floor. Then there was the golden age of wider spacing - 05 to 09 plates - which sadly are now disappearing. Since then it has been downhill all the way.

TheEastCoaster · 21 Aug 2019

Just on the 106 right now and it had me thinking, it was suggested in the past here that the 140 should be extended to Ocean Terminal but honestly maybe the 106 should! have it go the exact route as predicted via Portobello, Seafield and Leith etc, providing East Lothian with a link with Ocean Terminal, and Portobello with a link to Ocean Terminal and Haddington/Dunbar!

And instead extend the 140 to Fort Kinnaird, so that link is not missing! i dunno just a penny for a thought here

sam120 · 21 Aug 2019

TheEastCoaster said:
Just on the 106 right now and it had me thinking, it was suggested in the past here that the 140 should be extended to Ocean Terminal but honestly maybe the 106 should! have it go the exact route as predicted via Portobello, Seafield and Leith etc, providing East Lothian with a link with Ocean Terminal, and Portobello with a link to Ocean Terminal and Haddington/Dunbar!

And instead extend the 140 to Fort Kinnaird, so that link is not missing! i dunno just a penny for a thought here

That would give a link from the rest of midlothian to the fort, and nobody’s losing a link here as the prentice 108 is give or take exactly the same as the 106, would also help prentice as they can run later and more frequently.

scotrail158713 · 21 Aug 2019

TheEastCoaster said:
Just on the 106 right now and it had me thinking, it was suggested in the past here that the 140 should be extended to Ocean Terminal but honestly maybe the 106 should! have it go the exact route as predicted via Portobello, Seafield and Leith etc, providing East Lothian with a link with Ocean Terminal, and Portobello with a link to Ocean Terminal and Haddington/Dunbar!

And instead extend the 140 to Fort Kinnaird, so that link is not missing! i dunno just a penny for a thought here

I was one of the people wanting the 140 extension to OT but your suggestion is a lot better, in my opinion. Doing this would give a lot more of East Lothian a link to OT, and there are still direct links to the Fort. It would also make Prentice Coaches happy as they weren’t happy at all with ECB copying their 108 route - and this revised route would stop that.

TheEastCoaster · 21 Aug 2019

scotrail158713 said:
I was one of the people wanting the 140 extension to OT but your suggestion is a lot better, in my opinion. Doing this would give a lot more of East Lothian a link to OT, and there are still direct links to the Fort. It would also make Prentice Coaches happy as they weren’t happy at all with ECB copying their 108 route - and this revised route would stop that.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that! I doubt it will change but it would definitely be great if that could happen, again linking Leith with Musselburgh and Haddington. I know they already improved the service with later journeys to/from the fort, but at least if the 140 was to come in it would be running later all days of the week, the 106 could work in its current form from Ocean Terminal to Haddington, and plus that way the service can also use double deckers!

ScotRail158725 · 21 Aug 2019

TheEastCoaster said:
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that! I doubt it will change but it would definitely be great if that could happen, again linking Leith with Musselburgh and Haddington. I know they already improved the service with later journeys to/from the fort, but at least if the 140 was to come in it would be running later all days of the week, the 106 could work in its current form from Ocean Terminal to Haddington, and plus that way the service can also use double deckers!

There really is no need for an OT-East lothian link, what is there at OT that The fort or towns in east lothian doesnt have?

TheEastCoaster · 21 Aug 2019

ScotRail158725 said:
There really is no need for an OT-East lothian link, what is there at OT that The fort or towns in east lothian doesnt have?

Well there’s the royal britannia for one! and the Leith/Newhaven docks, and of course all the folk who work at Ocean Terminal that live out in East Lothian and vice versa! I mean currently there are 4 bus services that run from East Lothian to Fort Kinnaird and not 1 for Ocean Terminal, if anything I do think a link would be beneficial in the long run, if done properly, it’s not impossible

ScotRail158725 · 21 Aug 2019

TheEastCoaster said:
Well there’s the royal britannia for one! and the Leith/Newhaven docks, and of course all the folk who work at Ocean Terminal that live out in East Lothian and vice versa! I mean currently there are 4 bus services that run from East Lothian to Fort Kinnaird and not 1 for Ocean Terminal, if anything I do think a link would be beneficial in the long run, if done properly, it’s not impossible

I really doubt anyone from east lothian would want to see the britania, apart from tourists and children nobody else really goes there, the only benefit would be employees there but thats a small number. On top of that the main arguement against it is the major delays on Seafield road, there would need to be at least 15 minute turn around at the terminus at peak time to allow services to catch up

FlybeDash8Q400 · 21 Aug 2019

TheEastCoaster said:
Well there’s the royal britannia for one! and the Leith/Newhaven docks, and of course all the folk who work at Ocean Terminal that live out in East Lothian and vice versa! I mean currently there are 4 bus services that run from East Lothian to Fort Kinnaird and not 1 for Ocean Terminal, if anything I do think a link would be beneficial in the long run, if done properly, it’s not impossible

It’s failed twice so I highly doubt it would ever return. OT is starting to fall behind in terms of what is offered (shops that is). They’ve tried to embarrassingly rebrand it but that so far I don’t think has even got off the ground. It’s arguably Britannia and the cinema that is what keeps it largely profitable.

Fife, East Lothian and West Lothian have all had buses that ran to OT, the last of these was withdrawn in 2013/14 I think. None of these exist anymore. Why? Because there’s no need to run them, no market is there.

ScotRail158725 · 21 Aug 2019

FlybeDash8Q400 said:
It’s failed twice so I highly doubt it would ever return. OT is starting to fall behind in terms of what is offered (shops that is). They’ve tried to embarrassingly rebrand it but that so far I don’t think has even got off the ground. It’s arguably Britannia and the cinema that is what keeps it largely profitable.

Fife, East Lothian and West Lothian have all had buses that ran to OT, the last of these was withdrawn in 2013/14 I think. None of these exist anymore. Why? Because there’s no need to run them, no market is there.

hence what i was arguing, there is no demand for an EL-OT route which people here think there is

overthewater · 21 Aug 2019

That is a lie there is a market to North Edinburgh, it's just Car market.

DunsBus · 21 Aug 2019

There is no demand for buses on the Seafield Road East corridor. When the 89 ran along there in the early nineties it was carrying fresh air beyond Leith Links and the only reason why it ran that way was because, at the time, the service terminated outside Marine Garage. As OTW says, anyone going along there will use their cars.

TheEastCoaster · 22 Aug 2019

DunsBus said:
There is no demand for buses on the Seafield Road East corridor. When the 89 ran along there in the early nineties it was carrying fresh air beyond Leith Links and the only reason why it ran that way was because, at the time, the service terminated outside Marine Garage. As OTW says, anyone going along there will use their cars.

Honestly comparing a service that ran almost 30 years ago to now seems abit unfair, especially with growing businesses and housing to take into factor, yes the car
market is strong but obviously not everyone drives.

the problem is there hasn’t been a proper service linking Portobello to Seafield in forever and not via Seafield Road East but Fillyside, the 69 was a strange concept that was never going to work and the 129 in the later years ran too infrequently, I know the 12 ran down there back till 2008? And the 129 withdrew in 2015, so that’s been over 4 years without a proper link which as I stated above if done properly can work!

I still stand by my comment on how a link from Ocean Terminal to East Lothian would work, either the 106 or 140, honestly the one thing I hear from all this is the Seafield aspect with traffic, and I can’t comment or even defend that, it’s traffic, it happens. but it still seems unfair that the residents of Fillyside and Seafield don’t have a proper service linking the two areas, I know the saying use it or lose it does apply, and the 69 was withdrawn because the route planning was just silly, but y’know have an hourly service down that corridor and see if it picks up and if it proves to be popular then demand should pick up.

If Lothian are good for one thing it’s improving on old services and making them
better than you can imagine, I mentioned the 18 as an example, back in 2016 it was an hourly service that finished early providing direct links along the southern corridor, and now in 2019 it’s been extended twice, runs twice an hour, runs as late as midnight, double decker, and runs on weekends! It’s amazing that it’s taken Lothian the course of 3 years to take a service that folk didn’t imagine would do well due to it being withdrawn in the past, and now turned into one of its most popular routes, honestly if Lothian can do that with the 18, what’s to say they can’t make a service for the Seafield area on the same level? but one step st s time.

Sorry got a little carried away but you get the point!

Edirim · 22 Aug 2019

Valid points but I think it would be workable if it extended beyond OT to Granton / Silverknowes perhaps? Would gain trade in town that way and also link Portobello to Wgh / Edinburgh college and stuff with a different possibly faster route than 113 etc... May well be off the mark but often hear folk talking about the original 129 so why not offer something different and a route avoiding town.

scotrail158713 · 22 Aug 2019

overthewater said:
That is a lie there is a market to North Edinburgh, it's just Car market.

Is that not because there are no services without going into central Edinburgh to then go back out again? I know that I personally would use a service as parking at OT is a pain, and many other people would use it too.

EnviroExplorer · 22 Aug 2019

Apologies if already mentioned. Anyone know how long the MCV demo 299 is on loan for? I noticed a photo of it a few days ago and didn’t expect it to still be with Lothian

TheEastCoaster · 22 Aug 2019

Edirim said:
Valid points but I think it would be workable if it extended beyond OT to Granton / Silverknowes perhaps? Would gain trade in town that way and also link Portobello to Wgh / Edinburgh college and stuff with a different possibly faster route than 113 etc... May well be off the mark but often hear folk talking about the original 129 so why not offer something different and a route avoiding town.

That’s also an idea there, even if Ocean Terminal isn’t deemed marketable the likes of Granton or Silverknowes or heck even Cramond certainly are! Rural routes are definitely more popular now than they used to be with the 21/200 and 400.

stantheman · 22 Aug 2019

Going back to the Scanias , did anyone find the tiny stairs dangerous with the tiny handrails ?
Horrid buses , were they built in Poland ?

TheEastCoaster · 22 Aug 2019

TheEastCoaster said:
Completely unrelated but I just went past Willowbrae Gardens on the 113 and the bus stop sign has East Coast Buses, 104, 106 and 113 city bound It’s almost as interesting as the Paisley Drive stop from the city that has N104 on it

Update here’s the bus stop sign! I took a picture of it today! (Photos not uploading don’t know why bare with me)

Lothian Buses and ECB Discussion

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member