Bendy Buses in the UK

[Deerfold]

Why is open boarding what they are best at? The artics that operate elsewhere in the UK don't have open boarding because obviously it would result in a considerable loss of revenue.

The ftrs on route 72 "Hyperlink" between Bradford and Leeds have open boarding - and a proper conductor (or "host") to buy your ticket off.

 

[baz52]

Birmingham had some not sure if still do , but I think that some like say the old 721 green line route from romford to central london would work its mainly main road and straight , those type of routes would work and need less normal buses I think, also they used to be a big green line garage at romford not sure if still there but was on the main road so building like that would be ideal.

 

[Antman]

The ftrs on route 72 "Hyperlink" between Bradford and Leeds have open boarding - and a proper conductor (or "host") to buy your ticket off.

But it's not quite open boarding as there is somebody checking and selling tickets

 

[Robertj21a]

Why is open boarding what they are best at? The artics that operate elsewhere in the UK don't have open boarding because obviously it would result in a considerable loss of revenue.

I think tube feeder routes like the W7 would possibly be suited to artic operation subject obviously to clearances etc.

Very few buses finish their working lives in London. With few opportunities to sell artics they would have to remain in London until they were fit for the scrapyard. Whether any other operator would be interested in buying LT's in years to come remains to be seen.

I really don't see what this fascination is with artics quite honestly, mainland Europe where double deckers are rare is a totally different ball game.

To be honest I would have thought it was rather obvious why 'open boarding is what they are best at' - you have at least 3 doors that can all be opened to allow vast numbers of passengers on/off. If you're in TfL-land, where Oyster predominates, you can sweep up numerous people in no time at all and whisk them off to the tube/railway stations. I'm struggling to see why you can't understand that.

My comments specified London so I'm not sure why you start referring to artics operating elsewhere in the UK.

The Boris double-deckers have been bought by TfL rather than the operators as they recognised that they are unlikely to be attractive for any work outside London. Any artics could be bought by TfL in exactly the same way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What has been rare, and continues to be, is the provincial practice of buses arriving at the terminus on one service, then swapping onto a completely different route, returning and then swapping back to the original route (or then moving to a 3rd service before finally joining the 1st route again), with this happening to every bus throughout all or most of the day.

That's quite possibly because the high frequencies operated on many London routes mean you can choose fairly granularly your preferred length of timetabled layover when planning services, and because London's severe traffic means that things often end up well out of course so a simpler operation works better (not to mention separate route tendering).

In the provinces, if you end up with a route with 61 minutes of running time and an hourly service, you'd get a lot of waste if you *didn't* interwork.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Boris double-deckers have been bought by TfL rather than the operators as they recognised that they are unlikely to be attractive for any work outside London.

Not just that, but also because they're meant to be distinctly "London", I'd say - if they end up elsewhere they water that down somewhat.

 

[Antman]

To be honest I would have thought it was rather obvious why 'open boarding is what they are best at' - you have at least 3 doors that can all be opened to allow vast numbers of passengers on/off. If you're in TfL-land, where Oyster predominates, you can sweep up numerous people in no time at all and whisk them off to the tube/railway stations. I'm struggling to see why you can't understand that.

My comments specified London so I'm not sure why you start referring to artics operating elsewhere in the UK.

The Boris double-deckers have been bought by TfL rather than the operators as they recognised that they are unlikely to be attractive for any work outside London. Any artics could be bought by TfL in exactly the same way.

And it's equally obvious you'll lose a lot of revenue through fare evasion although you seem happy to ignore that. My point was that no other UK operator has open boarding with no ticket checks so why should London?

Artics could be bought by TfL but what would be the reason for doing so? I can't see any cost effective argument for artics.

 

[Robertj21a]

And it's equally obvious you'll lose a lot of revenue through fare evasion although you seem happy to ignore that. My point was that no other UK operator has open boarding with no ticket checks so why should London?

Artics could be bought by TfL but what would be the reason for doing so? I can't see any cost effective argument for artics.

You won't lose a lot of revenue through fare evasion if you adopt robust revenue checking policies - London failed to do so. No other UK operator has the volume of passenger flows that London has, and no other UK operator has Oyster.

 

[Antman]

You won't lose a lot of revenue through fare evasion if you adopt robust revenue checking policies - London failed to do so. No other UK operator has the volume of passenger flows that London has, and no other UK operator has Oyster.

And obviously revenue inspectors cost money and you can't check tickets on a bus that is chocca anyway. Artics have been tried in London and for various reasons they weren't a success and few people seem to be sorry to see them go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And obviously revenue inspectors cost money and you can't check tickets on a bus that is chocca anyway. Artics have been tried in London and for various reasons they weren't a success and few people seem to be sorry to see them go.

Even though operationally the Boris buses (when running without a conductor, as most of them do) have an identical system of open boarding.

I'm personally of the view that London has it right and others wrong, though. When I observe how quickly boarding takes place with Oyster in London (even on traditional "on at the front, off at the back" routes) it makes me wonder just how much money provincial operators throw away in increased PVR by carrying out a cash transaction with each passenger and making boarding passengers wait for alighting ones.

 

[radamfi]

Is open boarding acceptable on articulated trams? You could make it compulsory to make people show tickets to the driver on trams. Indeed, they do that in Amsterdam, although you have two doors to choose from as you can also enter by the door near the seated conductor. Trams in the UK are intended as a serious form of transport for middle class people so we don't allow them to be delayed by fare collection.

The Dutch are almost as paranoid about revenue protection as the British (one thing about the Netherlands I'm not impressed with!) but at least they minimise the impact by almost everyone using smartcards. Most buses in the Netherlands don't have open boarding but they do allow it on certain bendy bus routes.

I would like to see the route from Utrecht university to the city centre, run by three part bendy buses, run the British way using double deckers and everyone having to file past the driver at uni kicking out time!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would like to see the route from Utrecht university to the city centre, run by three part bendy buses, run the British way using double deckers and everyone having to file past the driver at uni kicking out time!

Try Oxford Road in Manchester. It's an utter joke; often even walking is quicker, and cycling always is.

 

[Antman]

Even though operationally the Boris buses (when running without a conductor, as most of them do) have an identical system of open boarding.

I'm personally of the view that London has it right and others wrong, though. When I observe how quickly boarding takes place with Oyster in London (even on traditional "on at the front, off at the back" routes) it makes me wonder just how much money provincial operators throw away in increased PVR by carrying out a cash transaction with each passenger and making boarding passengers wait for alighting ones.

I agree the LT is just as prone to fare evasion.

It could be argued that because of the quick loading using oyster that there is no need for change.

Many operators outside of London are encouraging the use of prepay tickets. As for double door buses you have to weigh up the advantages against the reduced lower deck seating capacity. Perhaps surprisingly route 3 from Oxford Circus to Crystal Palace operated perfectly well for years with single door buses.

 

[Robertj21a]

And obviously revenue inspectors cost money and you can't check tickets on a bus that is chocca anyway. Artics have been tried in London and for various reasons they weren't a success and few people seem to be sorry to see them go.

I can't see much point in explaining issues just for you to disagree with everything. It's probably best if we just leave it as having differing views.

 

[Liam]

The only operator with artics in the Greater Glasgow area these days is McGill's, who have ex-London Citaros. They can mainly be found on their 38 (Glasgow City Centre - Spateston/Kilbarchan via Paisley & Johnstone) and peak-hour runs of the X23 (Glasgow - Erskine Express).

Before McGill's, the biggest 'artic' operator in the city was First Glasgow. They had Wright-bodied Volvo B7Ls & B10LAs.
The B7Ls lasted until late 2011/early 2012 (they were falling apart by the end), but the last 4 B10LAs (which were much better machines) managed to linger on until the SimpliCITY network was introduced at the end of May 2013. The ones in the best shape were sent up to Aberdeen to see out their final days, whilst the ones that were in rubbish mechanical/external condition were sent to the scrappers. When the end of the First Glasgow artics came, the 9 (Drumchapel Station - Linwood) was their last major stronghold.

Stagecoach Fife had bendy coaches in the late 90's for use on the Glasgow expresses. They were based at Dunfermline and Aberhill, so most often seen on the X27 to Anstruther/Crail. They were too big and heavy to go over the Bawbee Bridge and up the coast so you were chucked off at Aberhill onto a normal coach.

I've always wondered why bendy's have never been used on Edinburgh-Dunfermline services, mobbed at peak times and deckers are a no-no with the Forth Road Bridge.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Not just that, but also because they're meant to be distinctly "London", I'd say - if they end up elsewhere they water that down somewhat.

Apart from the fact that they did send three on sales missions though it was also argued that it was to showcase UK tech skills on a wider basis.

 

[Goldfish62]

And obviously revenue inspectors cost money and you can't check tickets on a bus that is chocca anyway. Artics have been tried in London and for various reasons they weren't a success and few people seem to be sorry to see them go.

I'd be interested to know why you think they weren't a success. The only reason they've gone is down to Mayoral policy, with every stated reason given by him being shown to be either factually incorrect or contradictory.

If it wasn't for BoJo TfL would still be operating artics as they rather liked them.

 

[Antman]

I'd be interested to know why you think they weren't a success. The only reason they've gone is down to Mayoral policy, with every stated reason given by him being shown to be either factually incorrect or contradictory.

If it wasn't for BoJo TfL would still be operating artics as they rather liked them.

Well obviously it's subjective but it seems to me the only people who liked them were a few enthusiasts for their novelty value and the freeloaders who could get a free ride.

Nobody else seems to be complaining about their withdrawl and few other operators wanted them even though they were available at a knock down price, hardly a ringing endorsement for them and wasn't Boris simply acting on public opinion?

 

[MCR247]

Nobody else seems to be complaining about their withdrawl and few other operators wanted them even though they were available at a knock down price, hardly a ringing endorsement for them and wasn't Boris simply acting on public opinion?

I don't see how that affects whether they were or weren't successful in London?

 

[Antman]

I don't see how that affects whether they were or weren't successful in London?

Obviously it doesn't but it is hardly a ringing endorsement for artics is it? Many of the operators in the UK who did use them are replacing them with conventional buses.

More trouble than they're worth perhaps?

 

[Deerfold]

Well obviously it's subjective but it seems to me the only people who liked them were a few enthusiasts for their novelty value and the freeloaders who could get a free ride.

Nobody else seems to be complaining about their withdrawl and few other operators wanted them even though they were available at a knock down price, hardly a ringing endorsement for them and wasn't Boris simply acting on public opinion?

On the day of their withdrawal on the 507 and 521 routes the Evening Standard ran an article with complaints from a number of regular passengers about the problems encountered with the new buses as compared with the bendies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Obviously it doesn't but it is hardly a ringing endorsement for artics is it? Many of the operators in the UK who did use them are replacing them with conventional buses.

More trouble than they're worth perhaps?

The odds on an operator suddenly needing buses on a route that's busy enough to require bendies is unlikely. Replacement buses would be planned years in advance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the day of their withdrawal on the 507 and 521 routes the Evening Standard ran an article with complaints from a number of regular passengers about the problems encountered with the new buses as compared with the bendies.

Particularly given that all they were replaced with was....rigid, shorter Citaros with exactly the same open boarding policy.

 

[MCR247]

Obviously it doesn't but it is hardly a ringing endorsement for artics is it? Many of the operators in the UK who did use them are replacing them with conventional buses.

More trouble than they're worth perhaps?

London bus operations are unlike anything else in this country. It wouldn't be too surprising that an ideal solution for London wouldn't be ideal for anywhere else in the country. I'm not, however, saying that this ideal solution is bendy buses, I just don't believe that this is a valid reason against this

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well obviously it's subjective but it seems to me the only people who liked them were a few enthusiasts for their novelty value and the freeloaders who could get a free ride.

Like all buses, they had their pros and they had their cons. I don't think the "freeloading" was ever the issue Boris tried to pretend it was, otherwise you wouldn't have the same boarding policies on the NBfL (bear in mind most of them don't have a "conductor" on board at all) and on the "Red Arrows" fixed Citaros.

Nobody else seems to be complaining about their withdrawl and few other operators wanted them even though they were available at a knock down price, hardly a ringing endorsement for them and wasn't Boris simply acting on public opinion?

I wouldn't expect many people to complain about their withdrawal though. A bus is a bus is a bus. So long as it turns up and gets them to work they don't care much beyond that, at least in the London market. Commuters on the "Red Arrows" did complain, as the fixed Citaros basically have no seats at all (the whole of the front half of the bus is standing only), so everyone got to stand.

As for provincial operators not using them, that isn't really a surprise, for two reasons.

Firstly they wouldn't be suitable for a lot of routes because the infrastructure (mainly the bus stations) wasn't designed for them. And that's not a failing of the artics, either; Go North East had huge problems when they tried ex-London dual-door fixed deckers on the 21 in Newcastle because the middle door, where the wheelchair ramp was, was beyond the platform of the bus station.

And secondly, companies plan their acquisitions and cascades years in advance, so the busiest and most profitable routes (the ones where artics would work) would already have had new buses on them. Of course bus companies aren't going to want to train drivers on a small sub-fleet of buses when they already have perfectly good buses in their fleet.

Artics, like the NBfL, are good in intensive urban operations. They're not so good in other settings. And the bus companies getting their fingers burned with the artics getting binned due to political not commercial pressure is precisely why TfL had to buy the NBfL outright and lease them to the bus companies.

 

[Antman]

Like all buses, they had their pros and they had their cons. I don't think the "freeloading" was ever the issue Boris tried to pretend it was, otherwise you wouldn't have the same boarding policies on the NBfL (bear in mind most of them don't have a "conductor" on board at all) and on the "Red Arrows" fixed Citaros.



I wouldn't expect many people to complain about their withdrawal though. A bus is a bus is a bus. So long as it turns up and gets them to work they don't care much beyond that, at least in the London market. Commuters on the "Red Arrows" did complain, as the fixed Citaros basically have no seats at all (the whole of the front half of the bus is standing only), so everyone got to stand.

As for provincial operators not using them, that isn't really a surprise, for two reasons.

Firstly they wouldn't be suitable for a lot of routes because the infrastructure (mainly the bus stations) wasn't designed for them. And that's not a failing of the artics, either; Go North East had huge problems when they tried ex-London dual-door fixed deckers on the 21 in Newcastle because the middle door, where the wheelchair ramp was, was beyond the platform of the bus station.

And secondly, companies plan their acquisitions and cascades years in advance, so the busiest and most profitable routes (the ones where artics would work) would already have had new buses on them. Of course bus companies aren't going to want to train drivers on a small sub-fleet of buses when they already have perfectly good buses in their fleet.

Artics, like the NBfL, are good in intensive urban operations. They're not so good in other settings. And the bus companies getting their fingers burned with the artics getting binned due to political not commercial pressure is precisely why TfL had to buy the NBfL outright and lease them to the bus companies.

TfL had to buy the NBfL because of the tendering system, if an operator loses the route then what do they do with the buses?

The reasons you quote for provincial operators not wanting artics applies equally in London, plus the fact they were unpopular with passengers. Artic conversions were about cramming more passengers into fewer buses with fewer seats

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

TfL had to buy the NBfL because of the tendering system, if an operator loses the route then what do they do with the buses?

The reasons you quote for provincial operators not wanting artics applies equally in London, plus the fact they were unpopular with passengers. Artic conversions were about cramming more passengers into fewer buses with fewer seats

That's the point.

With any form of conventional vehicle, the operator has had more latitude with redeployment options on cessation of tender. Some operators bought and therefore have cascaded to the provinces (though with some challenges on de-Londonising them) whilst others merely leased them.

NBfL is a specialist vehicle for London (solving a problem that never existed!). Operators made it clear that they wouldn't buy them and the lease costs would be exorbitant as lessors would seek to indemnify themselves against fleet may not be redeployed. Hence, TfL have purchased the vehicles instead; if they felt that artics were an option, they could do the same.

Various firms have bought artics and used them provincially. Modern depots can generally accommodate them - take somewhere like Greater Manchester where most depots are either relatively modern (Bury, Stockport) or virtually new (Bolton, Ashton, Sharston). The issue is more of wider infrastructure as Arctic Troll mentions and correctly mentions that similar challenges exist with cascading dual doors from London.

The main issue for provincial use is the fuel consumption. However, the cost benefit analysis for them does stack up in certain instances (e.g. Bristol P&R, Bath Uni, Brighton, etc)

 

[Antman]

That's the point.

With any form of conventional vehicle, the operator has had more latitude with redeployment options on cessation of tender. Some operators bought and therefore have cascaded to the provinces (though with some challenges on de-Londonising them) whilst others merely leased them.

NBfL is a specialist vehicle for London (solving a problem that never existed!). Operators made it clear that they wouldn't buy them and the lease costs would be exorbitant as lessors would seek to indemnify themselves against fleet may not be redeployed. Hence, TfL have purchased the vehicles instead; if they felt that artics were an option, they could do the same.

Various firms have bought artics and used them provincially. Modern depots can generally accommodate them - take somewhere like Greater Manchester where most depots are either relatively modern (Bury, Stockport) or virtually new (Bolton, Ashton, Sharston). The issue is more of wider infrastructure as Arctic Troll mentions and correctly mentions that similar challenges exist with cascading dual doors from London.

The main issue for provincial use is the fuel consumption. However, the cost benefit analysis for them does stack up in certain instances (e.g. Bristol P&R, Bath Uni, Brighton, etc)

It could just as easily be said that artics were "solving a problem that never existed"!

Operators do what TfL specify and it was TfL who decided they would own the vehicles for obvious reasons.

Brighton & Hove just happened to have a use for redundant artics on their unibus 25 but when they need replacing it will probably be with double deckers.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It could just as easily be said that artics were "solving a problem that never existed"!

Operators do what TfL specify and it was TfL who decided they would own the vehicles for obvious reasons.

Brighton & Hove just happened to have a use for redundant artics on their unibus 25 but when they need replacing it will probably be with double deckers.

Sorry but you're flapping about like a fish on a slab on this one

Operators not TfL choose how they source and finance vehicles. TfL had to buy the NBfLs as it was clear that operators would not buy or lease them - that is a matter of public record

Artics do have a definite role and RedArrow was one such. Granted, the scope for artics is limited but that they exist elsewhere in the UK and abroad shows that. The X66 MetroCentre shuttle was also perfectly suited to the artics. The replacement Streetlites are very much struggling though doubtless Go NE are pleased with the fuel consumption if not the customer complaints We all probably accept that Brighton may well replace them with deckers but you've tacitly admitted that B&H happened to have a use for them.

The fact that the Borismaster in both build and concept is unique to London indicates that it was solving no problem. Completely different

 

[Antman]

Sorry but you're flapping about like a fish on a slab on this one

Operators not TfL choose how they source and finance vehicles. TfL had to buy the NBfLs as it was clear that operators would not buy or lease them - that is a matter of public record

Artics do have a definite role and RedArrow was one such. Granted, the scope for artics is limited but that they exist elsewhere in the UK and abroad shows that. The X66 MetroCentre shuttle was also perfectly suited to the artics. The replacement Streetlites are very much struggling though doubtless Go NE are pleased with the fuel consumption if not the customer complaints We all probably accept that Brighton may well replace them with deckers but you've tacitly admitted that B&H happened to have a use for them.

The fact that the Borismaster in both build and concept is unique to London indicates that it was solving no problem. Completely different

Operators will do whatever TfL want if the money is right but the NBfL is another issue.

Yes from what I've seen of the X66 it seemed well suited to artics but obviously Go NE had their reasons for converting it to Streetlites and I really cannot see B&H ever buying new artics for the 25 when the current ones are due for replacement but we shall see.

 

[Andyh82]

Operators will do whatever TfL want if the money is right but the NBfL is another issue.

Yes from what I've seen of the X66 it seemed well suited to artics but obviously Go NE had their reasons for converting it to Streetlites and I really cannot see B&H ever buying new artics for the 25 when the current ones are due for replacement but we shall see.

I never understood why the 58 Citylink was chosen for the artics that GNE were lumbered with, but as mentioned they didn't last long and are now long gone.

They were suited to the X66 though, heaven knows how the streetlites will cope on the run up to Christmas. Of course they can't use double decks due to a very low bridge on the riverside bus link.

 

[PermitToTravel]

And obviously revenue inspectors cost money and you can't check tickets on a bus that is chocca anyway.

Though TfL do like to check tickets on such buses by having the inspectors stand at the exit door and catching people as they alight