What makes a good bus?

[MotCO]

On another thread there is a discussion on whether or not the Streetlite is a good bus. This got me thinking about what do passengers want in a good bus. What will make them get out of their cars and travel by bus? Wifi and recharging points may be good, but are they the most important attractions?

Can I put forward two suggestions? Firstly, well-spaced seats. I am taller than average and find most seats just don't have enough legroom. I know that builders and operators are trying to put in as many seats as possible, but I would prefer fewer seats which can all be occupied; some require you to be a contortionist. These would also make it easier to get in and out of seats, and help those with shopping, luggage or small children.

Secondly, a bus which does not vibrate and rattle so much. I don't want to be in a vehicle which will make my fillings fall out. Electric buses are obviously an improvement, but why can't diesel engines provide a smoother experience when stationary and stuck in traffic. Diesel cars do not vibrate - why should buses?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fundamentally the issue is because the priority of bus companies is to minimise fuel consumption at almost any cost to passengers.

That means that the following things, which would enhance the experience of passengers to an acceptable level, are generally off the menu;
- More legroom
- Better seats
- Double glazing (reducing the damp, musty smell and water drips)
- Forced-air ventilation or full air conditioning (also reducing the above)
- Fewer rattles (due to a more solid chassis and body)
etc.

These features are normally found on buses in mainland Europe where operators are far less penny-pinching.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Fundamentally the issue is because the priority of bus companies is to minimise fuel consumption at almost any cost to passengers.

That means that the following things, which would enhance the experience of passengers to an acceptable level, are generally off the menu;
- More legroom
- Better seats
- Double glazing (reducing the damp, musty smell and water drips)
- Forced-air ventilation or full air conditioning (also reducing the above)
- Fewer rattles (due to a more solid chassis and body)
etc.

These features are normally found on buses in mainland Europe where operators are far less penny-pinching.

No - the issue is to minimise fuel consumption to reduce the cost to passengers. Not helped by cuts to BSOG etc. There is a different model in much of mainland Europe where the costs are underwritten by the tendering authority (and are only partially offset by the farebox) rather than the operator bearing the cost, as in the UK.

Also, must also be pointed out that there are major variations throughout mainland Europe in terms of comfort. I was on a Citaro a fortnight ago with urban 90 seats, threadbare fabric, battered internal fittings, vandalism.... it wasn't in the UK. Better seats are actually pretty rare in Europe IME, and as for the damp, musty smell, much of that is actually from ingress from road spray or passengers walking in water. For every Berlin or Utrecht, there's a Porto or a Valencia

 

[Bletchleyite]

as for the damp, musty smell, much of that is actually from ingress from road spray or passengers walking in water

Why is it, then, that London double-deckers, which are all required to be fitted with forced-air ventilation (extraction), do not suffer the musty smell?

 

[radamfi]

Better seats are actually pretty rare in Europe IME

Hard seats are fine as long as the chassis gives a good ride. You might have seen my recent thread about the "Irizar ie tram" electric bus. I visited Amiens specifically to ride on this bus and use the BRT system. These buses have plastic seats without any fabric but since the ride was smooth it was a very enjoyable bus to ride on. Tram seats also tend to have minimal or no cushioning, but again, it isn't an issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No - the issue is to minimise fuel consumption to reduce the cost to passengers

But in doing so they make the travel experience poor. Even on networks where money is spent on making it better, these basic features are missed. Consider the Lake District 555 - no fun on a wet winter's day when you can't see out of the window for condensation.

What you are saying is like landlords justifying not having double glazing on houses/flats they rent out - other than in London where there is a bizarre attachment to rotting, poorly-maintained and freezing cold single-glazed sash windows, nobody would ever choose one when the others have proper double glazing which does not suffer the issue.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But in doing so they make the travel experience poor. Even on networks where money is spent on making it better, these basic features are missed. Consider the Lake District 555 - no fun on a wet winter's day when you can't see out of the window for condensation.

What you are saying is like landlords justifying not having double glazing on houses/flats they rent out - other than in London where there is a bizarre attachment to rotting, poorly-maintained and freezing cold single-glazed sash windows, nobody would ever choose one when the others have proper double glazing which does not suffer the issue.

That's a false equivalence. In the housing market, you will have minimum features that have to be provided (legal minimums, reasonable expectations). Double glazing in a rental property is a standard expectation like seats on a bus whereas gas safety checks are the same as a bus having an MOT. The parallel is perhaps the difference between a furnished vs an unfurnished rental.

Added value is all very good but only what the market will bear (i.e. what people are prepared to pay extra for). For instance... You have 2+1 seating to improve seat widths and space. It essentially reduces your revenue capability by 25%. So how do you then cover the same cost with 25% lower revenue? Put the price up? Will people pay 25% more?

These are the factors that exercise operators. Put it another way... why wouldn't they be doing it all the time if it was a sure fire way of making money?

 

[Busaholic]

Such a deceptively simple question, but without simple answers. To be trite, a good bus is one that arrives on time, is going where you want to go with plenty of available seating, is very reasonably priced (even free) and whose driver greets you like a long-lost friend. Well, I suppose I've had a handful of such journeys over the years (even more if I count my dreams!) but, let's be honest, if it was a fruit machine you'd be lucky to get more than two in a line most times. I'm ignoring type of bus, because preferences are so subjective there, and in any case none of my top five preferences would be illegal nowadays. I do have to say though that as one ages the draw of free bus travel palls against the reality of poor, uncomfortable seating and the increased need to change buses in order to complete the journey you desire, sometimes with a lot of extra walking thrown in. One example for me - if I have an appointment at my local large hospital, 20 odd miles away, I used to have a bus I could catch from the bottom of my town to near the hospital entrance: now it'll drop me a 5 to 10 minute walk away, crossing a dual carriageway in one direction and a busy road without designated crossing place in the other, that's to add to the 10 to 15 minute walk to the bus station at my home end, so, while I can still drive, I'll take my car thank you.

 

[scosutsut]

Good bus from a passengers perspective:
* Clean (and dry!)
* Comfortable temperature
* Plenty of seats but with good legroom
* Comfortable & Quiet

Good bus from an operators perspective:
* Cheap to buy
* Low maintenance, light on fuel
* Reliable
* High capacity

You can see how the 'wants' don't line up and we end up so often with single glazed Streetlites, rather than double glazed, air conditioned, coach seated heavyweights.

 

[Robertj21a]

Suspension. The solid suspension needed for a bus doesn't help retain passengers when so many of our roads are now in such poor condition (particularly nearer the kerb, where buses need to go).
Is air suspension too expensive (why?) or too problemmatic ?

 

[Ken H]

if bus operators are so fussy about fuel consumption, why dont they instruct drivers to turn off the engine while sat in bus stations?

 

[cnjb8]

For me it's a regular bus that goes where I want, gets me there quickly, perfect amount of comfy seats and NOT BEING EXPENSIVE.
Being in Nottingham TrentBarton are rising prices like there's no tomorrow, but other then that, they are good example.
Comments about companies wanting lightweight buses sometimes are not bad for the passenger, NCTs Solo SR and Trent Versas, Solos and Enviro MMCs are great.
I agree operators compromise on legroom, the back seats on CT4Ns Tempos are awfully tight but with nice comfy leather seats.

 

[richw]

Is air suspension too expensive (why?) or too problemmatic ?

Most buses have air suspension. I had an airbag go on one corner suspension and ended up with a Trident leaning like the tower of Pisa! Obviously it went VOR!

We’ve got air con on our MMCs and friends who drive for the other big operators had a hint of jealousy through summer!

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can see how the 'wants' don't line up and we end up so often with single glazed Streetlites, rather than double glazed, air conditioned, coach seated heavyweights.

First specced bonded double glazing on a batch of Manchester Wrights in the 1990s, and the environment was far nicer as a result. Less cold in winter, no steaming up, far less damp and far fewer rattles due to the more rigid structure it brought. I suspect fewer broken windows, too - double glazing is rather strong.

Adds to the weight of course, but the benefits are significant.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Why is it, then, that London double-deckers, which are all required to be fitted with forced-air ventilation (extraction), do not suffer the musty smell?

Because the ventilation tackles the symptom not the cause. The Alexander R type bodies c.1990 were famously afflicted by this mustiness (not before and not subsequently) and it was because of the nature of water ingress. It's also why vehicles need to be refloored.

if bus operators are so fussy about fuel consumption, why dont they instruct drivers to turn off the engine while sat in bus stations?

They usually do and it's why products like Greenroad are used by operators to improve driving standards including idling.

First specced bonded double glazing on a batch of Manchester Wrights in the 1990s, and the environment was far nicer as a result. Less cold in winter, no steaming up, far less damp and far fewer rattles due to the more rigid structure it brought. I suspect fewer broken windows, too - double glazing is rather strong.

Adds to the weight of course, but the benefits are significant.

First Greater Manchester - not exactly an exemplar of successful operation.

Good bus from a passengers perspective:
* Clean (and dry!)
* Comfortable temperature
* Plenty of seats but with good legroom
* Comfortable & Quiet

Good bus from an operators perspective:
* Cheap to buy
* Low maintenance, light on fuel
* Reliable
* High capacity

You can see how the 'wants' don't line up and we end up so often with single glazed Streetlites, rather than double glazed, air conditioned, coach seated heavyweights.

In past surveys, it's been more a consideration about reliability and security rather than comfort and price, for passengers

 

[PeterC]

A good bus and a good bus service are two different things.

For a good bus I want a comfortable seat with legroom and a ride that doesn't leave me faintly travel sick when I get off. USB charging is desirable but not essential for me unless they change ENCTS to make me use an app!

 

[Geordie driver]

if bus operators are so fussy about fuel consumption, why dont they instruct drivers to turn off the engine while sat in bus stations?

As said, they do, but most buses will have no heating without the engine running and there is always the chance it won't restart.in the winter you need the interior lights on and this will soon flatten the batteries.

They would sometimes give us a bus and tell us not to switch it off as the batteries were poor, so you would take it to some out of the way place and the bus would " stall"! Not that I ever did that.

 

[A0wen]

A good bus and a good bus service are two different things.

For a good bus I want a comfortable seat with legroom and a ride that doesn't leave me faintly travel sick when I get off. USB charging is desirable but not essential for me unless they change ENCTS to make me use an app!

Seat comfort and ride quality are completely subjective though.

If you look at cars for example, some people swear by Citroen's for their ultra smooth ride which make others feel sick. Same goes for buses. I'd say most modern buses ride far better than the Leyland Nationals or Bristol LH / REs which turned up in service in the 1980s.

There are other factors - wheelbase for example. Short wheelbase vehicles tend to 'bob' much more than longer wheelbase vehicles.

 

[radamfi]

I'd say most modern buses ride far better than the Leyland Nationals or Bristol LH / REs which turned up in service in the 1980s.

But you also had Olympians and Mk2 Metrobuses (used widely on limited stop buses around Manchester) which offered a better ride than any of the usual ADL stuff British passengers have to ride on today. Look at the comparison between the UK and the Netherlands in the 80s and today. A typical Dutch bus in the 80s was a Den Oudsten which had very comfortable seats but had no air-con or double-glazing. So a typical British bus was probably on a par in those days. But double-glazing has been standard in the Netherlands since the 90s and air-con has become standard in the last few years. In addition, a large proportion of new buses are now electric. In Britain, ADL ride quality is worse than an Olympian, and still won't have double-glazing or air-con. Vibration from a Streetlite when stationary is horrible. Electric roll out is considerably behind the Netherlands too.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But you also had Olympians and Mk2 Metrobuses (used widely on limited stop buses around Manchester) which offered a better ride than any of the usual ADL stuff British passengers have to ride on today. Look at the comparison between the UK and the Netherlands in the 80s and today. A typical Dutch bus in the 80s was a Den Oudsten which had very comfortable seats but had no air-con or double-glazing. So a typical British bus was probably on a par in those days. But double-glazing has been standard in the Netherlands since the 90s and air-con has become standard in the last few years. In addition, a large proportion of new buses are now electric. In Britain, ADL ride quality is worse than an Olympian, and still won't have double-glazing or air-con. Vibration from a Streetlite when stationary is horrible. Electric roll out is considerably behind the Netherlands too.

The historical piece is true and you had very tidy Dominators in the peoples republic of South Yorkshire. The differential between the Netherlands and UK was smaller.

Of course, the UK decided that it would then pursue a capitalist policy of deregulation and denationalisation across industries and across the country. That led to deregulation in the bus industry with the government withdrawing much of the funding that was available at that time. In the PTE areas, that included rates support. Across the UK, there was the new bus grant where 50% of the cost of a new vehicle was paid by the government.

Fast forward 30 years and yes, that differential has grown. Note that as a country, we have voted in parties who have continued the policy to not invest in buses. There is this view that franchising and the like will somehow transform things. The reality is that it unless it is built into franchise/tender specs, then the lowest bidder will win. If it is part of the spec then, quite simply, the costs will be reflected in the tender submissions. Now, is that latter way how it is done in the Netherlands?

PS - pointing to the Netherlands is all very good but even in Europe, there are wide variations in quality.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And for a bit of an example - sorry uploaded the same photo twice. Note the faded and threadbare seat cushions, the opulent urban 90 seats, total lack of marketing or information. You can't see the damaged fittings though.

 

[A0wen]

But you also had Olympians and Mk2 Metrobuses (used widely on limited stop buses around Manchester) which offered a better ride than any of the usual ADL stuff British passengers have to ride on today. Look at the comparison between the UK and the Netherlands in the 80s and today. A typical Dutch bus in the 80s was a Den Oudsten which had very comfortable seats but had no air-con or double-glazing. So a typical British bus was probably on a par in those days. But double-glazing has been standard in the Netherlands since the 90s and air-con has become standard in the last few years. In addition, a large proportion of new buses are now electric. In Britain, ADL ride quality is worse than an Olympian, and still won't have double-glazing or air-con. Vibration from a Streetlite when stationary is horrible. Electric roll out is considerably behind the Netherlands too.

Electric roll out needs to be looked at in the context of the country - the Netherlands is 41,500 sq km in area with a population of 17m. England alone is 130,000 sq km with a population of 55 m. The NL is relatively small, population is focussed on key urban areas whereas in England it's a much bigger country with more rural areas. You also have to put in place key infrastructure for such things to work .

Amsterdam covers 219 sq km with a population of 866,000 - that's comparable to Merseyside. The scale of what would be needed for such things in the UK's 3 key cities is about 5 times bigger than it is for Amsterdam.

 

[radamfi]

Electric roll out needs to be looked at in the context of the country - the Netherlands is 41,500 sq km in area with a population of 17m. England alone is 130,000 sq km with a population of 55 m. The NL is relatively small, population is focussed on key urban areas whereas in England it's a much bigger country with more rural areas. You also have to put in place key infrastructure for such things to work .

Amsterdam covers 219 sq km with a population of 866,000 - that's comparable to Merseyside. The scale of what would be needed for such things in the UK's 3 key cities is about 5 times bigger than it is for Amsterdam.

Buses are far more focussed on urban areas in the UK than in the Netherlands. The three main cities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Haag, have significant tram networks, meaning a reduced dependency on buses, especially in the city centres. Whereas British cities have a massive dependency on buses due to limited urban rail networks and a lack of integration. Most of the electric buses currently in operation are not in the main cities and are mostly in smaller cities, suburban and rural areas. For example Eindhoven, Groningen, Limburg and suburban areas and small towns around Schiphol airport. Only a few electric buses reach the centre of Amsterdam, one of which is a 20km + interurban route to Edam, running at 80 km/h in the countryside for most of its route.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Buses are far more focussed on urban areas in the UK than in the Netherlands. The three main cities, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Haag, have significant tram networks, meaning a reduced dependency on buses, especially in the city centres. Whereas British cities have a massive dependency on buses due to limited urban rail networks and a lack of integration. Most of the electric buses currently in operation are not in the main cities and are mostly in smaller cities, suburban and rural areas. For example Eindhoven, Groningen, Limburg and suburban areas and small towns around Schiphol airport. Only a few electric buses reach the centre of Amsterdam, one of which is a 20km + interurban route to Edam, running at 80 km/h in the countryside for most of its route.

That's as maybe. Still doesn't get around the fact that the vehicles and infrastructure costs are significant. Not a problem if the local authority is underwriting the cost and it's recovered via a management fee.

Bit different if you have to recover it via the farebox which is the way in the UK.

Either way, it's still a significant cost in whatever way the general public pay for it.

 

[radamfi]

The reality is that it unless it is built into franchise/tender specs, then the lowest bidder will win. If it is part of the spec then, quite simply, the costs will be reflected in the tender submissions. Now, is that latter way how it is done in the Netherlands?

I'm not familiar with the tendering process, but from what I understand there was more freedom for the operator in the early days of tendering, so for example you would end up with Arriva running Dennis Darts in some places as they were cheap due to their British connection. Franchise periods are about 10 years so there must be a significant room for input from the provinces mid-franchise. Speedy roll out of electric buses has been mandated by central government.

 

[jonty14]

Suspension. The solid suspension needed for a bus doesn't help retain passengers when so many of our roads are now in such poor condition (particularly nearer the kerb, where buses need to go).
Is air suspension too expensive (why?) or too problemmatic ?

Good point. The UK has the worst roads in Europe. No wonder buses rattle. I was in the UK for the last 2 weeks and I thought my car would shake to bits.

 

[py_megapixel]

Less claustrophic design. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I personally detest high-backed seats on buses, because they limit the view out of the window to what you are directly parallel with, leading to more travel sickness on longer journeys. I also have long legs, so having more space between the seats helps too. (I don't mind the high backs on trains, because the train moves smoothly and in one direction).