Lothian Group discussion (Lothian City, Lothian Country Bus and East Coast Buses)

[Bus9120UK]

945 is apparently at Central according to the tracker, does this mean it's at Ferrymill because trackers track either Queensferry or Central if it goes out of the operating zone?

It just finished a school run. Don't trust the tracker, it's quite unreliable at times.

 

[Jordan Adam]

That's not a chance I'd like to take if I was driving a 'decker under a low bridge.

While it's ultimately the driver's responsibility to check if the vehicle they're driving will actually fit, the company should not be putting anyone in the position where they actually have to make that call on a regular scheduled route. Having vehicles with differing heights within the same fleet introduces an element of doubt and if a vehicle happens to be swapped for the wrong one for whatever reason and the driver fails to notice, the consequences could be catastrophic.

14ft 6 is the height limit. The highest deckers in the Lothian fleet are 14ft 5 thus they should all fit under, if not then it shouldn't say 14ft 6.

 

[Bus9120UK]

14ft 6 is the height limit. The highest deckers in the Lothian fleet are 14ft 5 thus they should all fit under, if not then it shouldn't say 14ft 6.

Gemini 3s are 14ft 6.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

14ft 6 is the height limit. The highest deckers in the Lothian fleet are 14ft 5 thus they should all fit under, if not then it shouldn't say 14ft 6.

It’s common knowledge in parts of the rail industry that these signs are deliberately cautious. Network Rail do this to prevent close calls, which most of the time makes little or no difference. It also covers their liability far better in a legal capacity too.

Lothian (or any local bus company) would likely have no issue running any bus that way, but obviously would only be covered by those that are within the sign’s limits, even if they are not entirely accurate. Whilst it would probably be fine to run any local bus, I don’t think people would take too kindly to finding out that a bus was running under the bridge whilst over the sign’s limits.

 

[computerSaysNo]

If the bridge is marked as 14"6' and the bus is marked as 14"6' then there is no problem. The sign on the bridge is the maximum safe clearance and the sign on the vehicle is the normal* maximum height. So as long as the height displayed on the vehicle is less than or equal to the height displayed on the bridge, the vehicle will fit. If the height displayed on the vehicle is greater than the height displayed on the bridge, by any amount, then legally the vehicle cannot go under the bridge. I don't see how this is controversial.
*The only exception to this that I can think of is if the vehicle Ferry Lift is in operation. I'm not sure what this does to the height (eg whether you can just add x inches onto the height displayed on the vehicle or whether the displayed height becomes invalid entirely) but I'd assume that a vehicle with a ferry lift that won't disengage wouldn't be roadworthy anyway and so shouldn't be out.

My message above was supposed to have the following messages quoted but I forgot at the time and don't seem to be able to add quotes when editing.

The bridge is 14”6 so theoretically only the Gemini 2s and Enviro MMCs could fit under, and i’d say its probably not worth the risk…

They could buy some low-roofed buses (Or second-hand from Arriva?) for the service? This

Is it worth buying low height buses for a new route that has not been trialled before, without a clue if it'll be succesful or not?

If the bridge is marked as 14"6 (in reality it'll be a few inches more) then all the deckers in the current Lothian fleet will fit under.

That's not a chance I'd like to take if I was driving a 'decker under a low bridge.

While it's ultimately the driver's responsibility to check if the vehicle they're driving will actually fit, the company should not be putting anyone in the position where they actually have to make that call on a regular scheduled route. Having vehicles with differing heights within the same fleet introduces an element of doubt and if a vehicle happens to be swapped for the wrong one for whatever reason and the driver fails to notice, the consequences could be catastrophic.

14ft 6 is the height limit. The highest deckers in the Lothian fleet are 14ft 5 thus they should all fit under, if not then it shouldn't say 14ft 6.

Gemini 3s are 14ft 6.

 

[scotrail158713]

I definitely think LCB require assistance from the parent company until recruitment has been sorted

If Lothian themselves are also short of drivers, which I reckon they probably are, then what assistance can they really provide?

 

[Jordan Adam]

Gemini 3s are 14ft 6.

They're 14ft 5 (4395mm to be exact), it's just the norm for the cab sign to be rounded up hence as 4395mm is just slightly over 14ft 5 the cab sign says 14ft 6. Even then as @computerSaysNo notes they're still within the height "limit" for the bridge so there's no reason they wouldn't fit under unless it's marked incorrectly.

It’s common knowledge in parts of the rail industry that these signs are deliberately cautious. Network Rail do this to prevent close calls, which most of the time makes little or no difference. It also covers their liability far better in a legal capacity too.

I'm pretty certain it's standard practice for the height to be rounded down. Stoneywood Railway Bridge in Aberdeen is a good example, the height limit is also 14ft 6 and while it does look tight there's quite a gap between the bus and the bridge itself.

First Aberdeen 39723 SV22VXK (29th June 2022)

First Aberdeen Wright Streetdeck Hydroliner 39723 passed under Stoneywood Railway Bridge on Stoneywood Road while operating a Blue Line 17 from Dyce to Faulds Gate. Photo Date: 29th June 2022

flic.kr

 

[WibbleWobble]

If the bridge is marked as 14"6' and the bus is marked as 14"6' then there is no problem. The sign on the bridge is the maximum safe clearance and the sign on the vehicle is the normal* maximum height. So as long as the height displayed on the vehicle is less than or equal to the height displayed on the bridge, the vehicle will fit. If the height displayed on the vehicle is greater than the height displayed on the bridge, by any amount, then legally the vehicle cannot go under the bridge. I don't see how this is controversial.

Having looked for this bridge on Google Street View, I can see that the height limit is on a circular sign, not a triangular warning sign. Therefore it will be illegal for any vehicle for over 14" 6' to enter that stretch of road, let alone pass under the bridge.

I'd want a bit of leeway, in case the height is suddenly lowered - that has happened with bridges such as the one on the A3090 in Romsey, Hampshire.

I'm pretty certain it's standard practice for the height to be rounded down. Stoneywood Railway Bridge in Aberdeen is a good example, the height limit is also 14ft 6 and while it does look tight there's quite a gap between the bus and the bridge itself.

Height (and width / length) restictions are meant to be rounded down to the 3 inch increment below at x feet and 0, 3, 6 or 9 inches. Although there are many cases where a restriction doesn't follow these rules! Thankfully I know a Traffic Engineer so was able to double check.

 

[scosutsut]

Speaking with passengers in Haddington this morning, sounds like full and standing X7s are regularly leaving people behind trying to get to work in the peaks. They are currently half hourly and timed just after the alternative, slower X6 so it is a big problem for those left kerbside.

I hope at the next service change they can improve the frequency or reintroduce the short workings from Haddington to better meet demand, but I appreciate drivers, not vehicles will be the likely blocker.

In the short term, re-timing the X6 and X7 to maintain an evenly spaced service would seem a logical option.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Speaking with passengers in Haddington this morning, sounds like full and standing X7s are regularly leaving people behind trying to get to work in the peaks. They are currently half hourly and timed just after the alternative, slower X6 so it is a big problem for those left kerbside.

I hope at the next service change they can improve the frequency or reintroduce the short workings from Haddington to better meet demand, but I appreciate drivers, not vehicles will be the likely blocker.

In the short term, re-timing the X6 and X7 to maintain an evenly spaced service would seem a logical option.

The best option would be to reduce the X6 in favour of more X7’s. Most passengers from Haddington avoid the X6 due to it being slower and it is only really used as a local bus between Haddington and Macmerry/Tranent most of the time.

The best solution would be to reduce the X6 to hourly off peak, and have the X7 run every 20 minutes, or alternatively have short working double deckers. Say half hourly Edinburgh to Haddington, then hourly to Dunbar. This would require the 106 to be extended to Dunbar all of the time as well though. I don’t think resources would allow for any additional journeys without compromising something else at the minute.

 

[stevenedin]

The best option would be to reduce the X6 in favour of more X7’s. Most passengers from Haddington avoid the X6 due to it being slower and it is only really used as a local bus between Haddington and Macmerry/Tranent most of the time.

The best solution would be to reduce the X6 to hourly off peak, and have the X7 run every 20 minutes, or alternatively have short working double deckers. Say half hourly Edinburgh to Haddington, then hourly to Dunbar. This would require the 106 to be extended to Dunbar all of the time as well though. I don’t think resources would allow for any additional journeys without compromising something else at the minute.

Unless they increase the frequency for the X7 to cover for the loss of the X6 and just have the X6 run between Edinburgh and Macmerry possibly turn at Merryfield Avenue if it’s not too tight.

 

[scosutsut]

The best option would be to reduce the X6 in favour of more X7’s. Most passengers from Haddington avoid the X6 due to it being slower and it is only really used as a local bus between Haddington and Macmerry/Tranent most of the time.

The best solution would be to reduce the X6 to hourly off peak, and have the X7 run every 20 minutes, or alternatively have short working double deckers. Say half hourly Edinburgh to Haddington, then hourly to Dunbar. This would require the 106 to be extended to Dunbar all of the time as well though. I don’t think resources would allow for any additional journeys without compromising something else at the minute.

Unless they increase the frequency for the X7 to cover for the loss of the X6 and just have the X6 run between Edinburgh and Macmerry possibly turn at Merryfield Avenue if it’s not too tight.

I think the problem is overall capacity and the bottleneck at the moment is drivers - so any solution that we can think of will as the saying goes rob Peter to pay Paul.

Your Edinburgh departures from Haddington in the morning peak are:

0725 X6
0727 X7
0752 X7
0800 X6

If the 0800 X6 left Haddington 15 minutes earlier, it would be a viable option for 9am-start for commuters to Edinburgh City Centre whereas it's a bit tight as it stands.

I met rejected 0727 X7 customers, who had let the 0725 X6 go by, now left hoping to get on the 0752 X7 as the 0800 X6 wouldn't be quick enough for them.

Borders could nip in and steal some customers if there was enough slack in the 253 timetable to allow the peak 0749 253 journey to run on through town to the West End, as it has spare capacity and that's where a lot of these commuters were aiming for.

There is currently 27 minutes between arrival and departure at the bus station currently but assume some of that is to allow for driver break, so possibly not viable!

 

[alexf380]

One of the big things that puts people off the 253 is that it doesn't serve Princes Street, going along London Road and Piccardy Place to the Bus Station instead. If it could be re-routed to serve at least the Waverley steps and then turn up St Andrew Sq and into the Bus Station that way, then I'm sure some of the non-Ridacard passengers would make the switch. The X7 could definitely sustain a 20 minute frequency M-F daytime if not for the driver shortage. Rather more perplexingly, it's still only hourly on Sundays.

In the short term, re-timing the X6 and X7 to maintain an evenly spaced service would seem a logical option.

Yes, I would agree with this. At least to re-time the 07:25 departure to a couple of minutes later.

On the topic of re-timing, it wouldn't be such a bad thing if all X7s from Dunbar to Edinburgh were pushed 5 minutes earlier so to provide more of a reliable connection into the 106 in Haddington. Currently there you only get 4 minutes and all it takes is one slow tractor holding up the bus or one missed traffic light and the connection is busted.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Or how about this? The 113 becomes the x13 and operates via the A1 as far as Tranent before returning to current route. The X6 is routed away from macmerry and tranent and operates via the A1. In the city centre, 1 bus per hour of each service terminates at Waterloo place or Waverley steps and restarts from that point. The other service per hour runs limited stop to the western or Edinburgh college. Residents affected by the loss of a fast bus to Edinburgh could be given the opportunity to change at no additional expense and timetables would be coordinated. Musselburgh residents could be compensated for the loss of their ever so slightly faster bus to town by a couple of service 44 running as x44 between musselburgh high Street and Princess Street using the current 113 stopping pattern and route

 

[Avenger20]

Or how about this? The 113 becomes the x13 and operates via the A1 as far as Tranent before returning to current route. The X6 is routed away from macmerry and tranent and operates via the A1. In the city centre, 1 bus per hour of each service terminates at Waterloo place or Waverley steps and restarts from that point. The other service per hour runs limited stop to the western or Edinburgh college. Residents affected by the loss of a fast bus to Edinburgh could be given the opportunity to change at no additional expense and timetables would be coordinated. Musselburgh residents could be compensated for the loss of their ever so slightly faster bus to town by a couple of service 44 running as x44 between musselburgh high Street and Princess Street using the current 113 stopping pattern and route

That sounds far too complicated to work sadly. The set up of the current services isn't the problem, the problem is lack of driver resources to introduce additional proven services where they're needed.

Your plan also doesn't replace the quick link that is lost from Wallyford into the City which given the expanding size of the area needs to be bolstered, not cut back.

Best case scenario at the minute appears to be additional short runs from Haddington using double deckers, or using double deck throughout starting from Dunbar High Street and avoiding East Linton.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

That sounds far too complicated to work sadly. The set up of the current services isn't the problem, the problem is lack of driver resources to introduce additional proven services where they're needed.

Your plan also doesn't replace the quick link that is lost from Wallyford into the City which given the expanding size of the area needs to be bolstered, not cut back.

Best case scenario at the minute appears to be additional short runs from Haddington using double deckers, or using double deck throughout starting from Dunbar High Street and avoiding East Linton.

I agree. For services to be improved in the short term something would be need to be cut (either temporarily or permanently) as the resources just aren’t there. My suggestion with the X6 I think could work as it shouldn’t impact as many users, so long as other services were adjusted accordingly.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I I disagree that it's complicated but admit to my mistake with wallyford. Perhaps at least one of the proposed routes could serve it before continuing to tranent in the case of the ex 13 or going back onto the A1 in the case of the ex 7. What is the usage of East Linton presently and what is likely to be when the train comes? Could borders be incentivised to to run the occasional extra bus or is just this just not going to happen with their driver situation?

 

[stevenedin]

Even extra peak X7s from Haddington would work using double deckers

 

[computerSaysNo]

The only acceptable solution I can think of would be to soft-split the X7 at Haddington and do vehicle swaps there in the peaks to give deckers from Haddington to Edinburgh.
Running deckers throughout would require a route change which isn't really acceptable.
Hard splitting the route at Haddington isn't particularly acceptable.
Running additional X7s isn't possible.

If you still advertised the X7 right through but planned to run it as singles Dunbar to Hadd and then transfer the driver and all passengers onto a waiting decker at Hadd for the run to Edinburgh...
You'd only need one additional member of staff to supervise the waiting vehicles at Haddington, and they likely wouldn't even need to be a driver so you could implement that pretty quickly.
Passengers wouldn't like the idea of changing at Haddington but if it was a guaranteed connection with the new bus ready and waiting I think passengers would be a lot more amenable?
With this though you'd be reducing the singles requirement and increasing the decker requirement... I'm not sure if the 139/140/141 could cope with singles to release deckers? Yes they could bring in deckers from elsewhere but then the B8RLEs are going to be sitting unused.

 

[stevenedin]

The other option is to run the X7 direct along the A1 past Haddington and serve Wallyford on the way past instead and the X6 runs direct to The Jewel after Haddington.

 

[DunsBus]

I I disagree that it's complicated but admit to my mistake with wallyford. Perhaps at least one of the proposed routes could serve it before continuing to tranent in the case of the ex 13 or going back onto the A1 in the case of the ex 7. What is the usage of East Linton presently and what is likely to be when the train comes? Could borders be incentivised to to run the occasional extra bus or is just this just not going to happen with their driver situation?

Borders Buses are still struggling for drivers so any increase in their levels of service is still some way off yet - if indeed it ever happens. I'm of the impression that their current timetables are now permanent.

 

[Devon Sunset]

Can they not just source some low height reasonably new deckers that fit under the bridge at East Linton? I know it sounds simple so it probably won’t be but then no need for route or service changes and no extra drivers required.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Can they not just source some low height reasonably new deckers that fit under the bridge at East Linton? I know it sounds simple so it probably won’t be but then no need for route or service changes and no extra drivers required.

That would solve part of the problem, but there’s an even lower bridge in Dunbar, so further changes would be required to the network.

 

[scosutsut]

That would solve part of the problem, but there’s an even lower bridge in Dunbar, so further changes would be required to the network.

Yeah you just aren't taking deckers past Haddington nor do you need to from a load factor as far as I know.

So it's a case of:

* X7 peak frequency improvement (pre-covid it was 3 an hour not 2)
* part route X7s with deckers on the peaks
* splitting the X7 into two routes (Haddington and Dunbar via East Linton)
* changing the X6 to be, err an X, not a pretend one like it is at the moment
* Re-timing the X6 (least impactful option but easiest to execute?)

Most of which involve a combination of more drivers, more vehicles, dead mileage or lost coverage on existing routes. No silver bullet unfortunately.

I hope they sort it out, as Haddington has grown significantly as a town and it's easily the biggest town in EC territory without a viable rail link for commuters.

 

[JurassicMan]

I waited for almost an hour on a LCB bus today on the 27/28. I'm guessing cancellations are not posted by this operator?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Yeah you just aren't taking deckers past Haddington nor do you need to from a load factor as far as I know.

So it's a case of:

* X7 peak frequency improvement (pre-covid it was 3 an hour not 2)
* part route X7s with deckers on the peaks
* splitting the X7 into two routes (Haddington and Dunbar via East Linton)
* changing the X6 to be, err an X, not a pretend one like it is at the moment
* Re-timing the X6 (least impactful option but easiest to execute?)

Most of which involve a combination of more drivers, more vehicles, dead mileage or lost coverage on existing routes. No silver bullet unfortunately.

I hope they sort it out, as Haddington has grown significantly as a town and it's easily the biggest town in EC territory without a viable rail link for commuters.

I think the opening of East Linton station will make this situation much easier to solve. But it’s not going to be until around 18 months to 2 years before that’s ready.

Whatever people come up with, it’s either not enough, or cuts something else. It’s a no win at the minute unfortunately.

 

[gavin1985]

I waited for almost an hour on a LCB bus today on the 27/28. I'm guessing cancellations are not posted by this operator?

No they don't they blame the app for not being able to post cancellations either.

Had this a few times with the X18 at Newbridge heading to Edinburgh. When its the only Lothian branded bus in the area its really frustrating (keeping it as PG as possible).

Wish that they would just update the timetables to say hourly at least until they can get driver numbers back up.

 

[Lothian Buses]

181 is at Longstone? why is it at Longstone?

 

[ScotRail158725]

181 is at longstone? why is it at Longstone?

Lothian Country still go to Longstone now and again for maintenance, MOTs etc…

 

[Lothian Buses]

Lothian Country still go to Longstone now and again for maintenance, MOTs etc…

Oh ok, about Longstone their B5LHs are not tracking.
(Image shows screenshot from business.org)