Article: First new London bus driven off the production line

[ozbob]

From MayorWatch click here!


http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/new_london_bus.jpg

First new London bus driven off the production line
November 4, 2011 By Martin Hoscik

Boris Johnson has driven the first of London's new buses off of the production line, ahead of eight prototypes entering testing early next year.

In his 2008 election manifesto the Mayor promised to introduce a new bus designed for the capital's streets.

The final look of the bus was unveiled last May after a public competition to come up with the design.

Visiting the Wrightbus factory in Ballymena, the Mayor said the new bus "is an improvement on standard double decks in every respect and has been designed with this city and its wonderful population in mind.

"It showcases the very best of British manufacturing and design and simply oozes with quality."

City Hall says an engineering test bus has exceeded expectations of fuel economy and environmental emissions performance.

Last month the London Assembly was told the buses would not go into full production until at least Summer 2012.

Leon Daniels, Transport for London's MD of surface transport, told the Assembly Transport Committee that the prototypes would have to undergo "thousands" of miles of testing before an order for a full fleet could be placed.

The Mayor has faced criticisms from London Assembly Members over the £11.37m cost of the buses at a time when he has introduced a series of fares increases.

Val Shawcross, Labour's transport spokesperson and Ken Livingstone's 2012 running mate, says "Londoners will face even higher fares to pay for them" and branded the new bus "a vanity scheme we just can't afford."

[O_128]

11 million pounds (rougly 18million aus) to design an entirely new bus is pretty good. Mercedes spent 4 billion euros designing the C class and holden 1 billion on the current commodore.

[Golliwog]

Can't say I'm a big fan of the double deckers. They tend to increase the dwells a bunch while you wait for people to get down from up top. I think I can see what looks like a 3rd door at the very back of the bus so they may be trying to fix that. Don't know why they don't just go with banana buses.

[BrizCommuter]

Don't know why they don't just go with banana buses.

They did.
They caught fire.
They increased fare evasion.
They were unpopular with other motorists.
They were (re-)replaced with double deckers.

[Gazza]

They caught fire.

Is that an inherent property of artics?

[#Metro]

The london double deckers are iconic... stuck with them I suppose.

[SurfRail]

They caught fire.

Is that an inherent property of artics?

No, it's an inherent property of certain Mercedes chassis, including the London Citaro Gs - which ended up being nicknamed "chariots of fire" for that reason.

One issue with artics is that depot capacity can be at something of a premium in old world cities.

[Golliwog]

I was aware of the fire issue, but not the fare evasion one. Though wouldn't having the 3rd door right at the very back of the new DD bus produce a similar issue (unless they have a conductor as well?)

[O_128]

Can't say I'm a big fan of the double deckers. They tend to increase the dwells a bunch while you wait for people to get down from up top. I think I can see what looks like a 3rd door at the very back of the bus so they may be trying to fix that. Don't know why they don't just go with banana buses.

They are bringing back the old platform to just jump off.

The differences with london buses to brisbane is

1. buses stop all stations whether or not someone gets on or off.
2. PIDs make sure you know where your stop is to start with rather than being expected to know
3. The bendy buses in london had a hard time navigating the older roads.
4. dwell not as bad as its a flat fare.

[Golliwog]

Dwell has very little to do with getting off though (even in Brisbane), even if you are touching off. It's mostly getting people buying tickets on, and people off, which in my experience, tended to take longer with the DD buses due to the upper deck.

[SurfRail]

Dwell has very little to do with getting off though (even in Brisbane), even if you are touching off. It's mostly getting people buying tickets on, and people off, which in my experience, tended to take longer with the DD buses due to the upper deck.

As I understand it virtually all bus fares in London are pre-paid, something helped by an enormous number of ticket machines on the streets.

[dwb]

One issue with artics is that depot capacity can be at something of a premium in old world cities.

As opposed to new world cities like brisbane?
rofl

[dwb]

As I understand it virtually all bus fares in London are pre-paid, something helped by an enormous number of ticket machines on the streets.

Ummmm and probably more predominantly Oyster card.

[dwb]

Don't know why they don't just go with banana buses.

They did.
They caught fire.
They increased fare evasion.
They were unpopular with other motorists.
They were (re-)replaced with double deckers.

And a bunch of other reasons including that cyclists and pedestrians hated the artics (and i believe rightfully so after a number of deaths)...

[dwb]

[somebody]

One issue with artics is that depot capacity can be at something of a premium in old world cities.

As opposed to new world cities like brisbane?
rofl

There's plenty of room for operationally well located depots in Brisbane.  It's just politics which prevents it.  Willawong (operating 196s!) & Sherwood?  I mean, really!

As well, closing the Bracken Ridge depot was a failure IMO.  Wasn't a BUZ 330 being thought about yet?

[dwb]

One issue with artics is that depot capacity can be at something of a premium in old world cities.

As opposed to new world cities like brisbane?
rofl

There's plenty of room for operationally well located depots in Brisbane.  It's just politics which prevents it.  Willawong (operating 196s!) & Sherwood?  I mean, really!

As well, closing the Bracken Ridge depot was a failure IMO.  Wasn't a BUZ 330 being thought about yet?

it was a pun actually...

[Golliwog]

What specifically is wrong with Willawong buses running route 196? If they're in the city then it's really not out of the way.

[somebody]

What specifically is wrong with Willawong buses running route 196? If they're in the city then it's really not out of the way.

It's a long way from Willawong to Fairfield and even longer to New Farm.  Dead running is the problem.

[SurfRail]

What specifically is wrong with Willawong buses running route 196? If they're in the city then it's really not out of the way.

The problem is that they aren't running revenue services at the end or start of their shift.  If they were, then the problem would not be as pronounced.

[Golliwog]

Ok, thats what I meant though. If the Willawong bus had just finished a run in the city or at UQ Lakes then dead running wouldn't be so much of an issue. But if they're dead running in from Willawong then thats ridiculous.

[Mr X]

As a user of the 196, I can happily tell you that going back to the days of being done by only Bowen Hills would be BAD. Their buses were so uncomfortable and reliable, it's nice having a new bus for a change that isn't a lemon!  

Are the 199s and 192s done by Willawong as well?

[somebody]

Ok, thats what I meant though. If the Willawong bus had just finished a run in the city or at UQ Lakes then dead running wouldn't be so much of an issue. But if they're dead running in from Willawong then thats ridiculous.

Well how else are they going to get there?  Operate a 100?  Those buses are needed to operate the O/B 100 runs.

[Golliwog]

Uhhh, during the buses shift, it shouldn't matter where they go. All that matters is that by the end of it, they're somewhere near their depot. Sure, it would be a bit much to have it run as a 330 or something like that, but the idea should be to focus on reducing deadrunning rather than "Willawong buses are the only buses that can run route 100."

[somebody]

I don't see any feasible way of having Willawong operate 196s without a heap of dead running.  This is one area that the Sherwood depot will improve on.

[Golliwog]

Once it's run anything into the city, it could easily form a 109 or 192 to UQ Lakes, where there would be minimal dead running to Fairfield to start an inbound 196.

[somebody]

Once it's run anything into the city, it could easily form a 109 or 192 to UQ Lakes, where there would be minimal dead running to Fairfield to start an inbound 196.

Might work.  The first 100 arrival which doesn't need to go on to form an O/B service reaches QSBS @ 7:33am.  First 118 reaches Queen St at 7:18am.  It would struggle to reach Fairfield by 8am, but could possibly form one of the last peak extras.

[SurfRail]

All this is a bit moot.  The scheduling software spits out these runprints, and it can only work with the resources it has.  Optimising these runs will probably come at a cost to somewhere else due to the number of depots on the urban periphery.

As Simon mentioned, Sherwood (and also Eagle Farm when open) should cut down on dead running leaving the outer suburban depots to focus more on outer suburban work.

[Golliwog]

Once it's run anything into the city, it could easily form a 109 or 192 to UQ Lakes, where there would be minimal dead running to Fairfield to start an inbound 196.

Might work.  The first 100 arrival which doesn't need to go on to form an O/B service reaches QSBS @ 7:33am.  First 118 reaches Queen St at 7:18am.  It would struggle to reach Fairfield by 8am, but could possibly form one of the last peak extras.

How do you know which I/B services go on to form an O/B service? Or are you just looking at the timetable?

[somebody]

How do you know which I/B services go on to form an O/B service? Or are you just looking at the timetable?

Just looking at the timetable.  However, it's likely to be accurate enough as if an O/B 100 is formed from a different route then that leaves, in most cases, and I/B run from that route needing to form a 100.

All this is a bit moot.  The scheduling software spits out these runprints, and it can only work with the resources it has.  Optimising these runs will probably come at a cost to somewhere else due to the number of depots on the urban periphery.

As Simon mentioned, Sherwood (and also Eagle Farm when open) should cut down on dead running leaving the outer suburban depots to focus more on outer suburban work.

Both Sherwood and Willawong seem very large for the number of runs which are near them.  If Willawong takes over all of Larapinta's work (130/140/150 presumably), then that will be a lot of dead running.

[Golliwog]

How do you know which I/B services go on to form an O/B service? Or are you just looking at the timetable?

Just looking at the timetable.  However, it's likely to be accurate enough as if an O/B 100 is formed from a different route then that leaves, in most cases, and I/B run from that route needing to form a 100.

Fair enough. What we were given was that for a run slot, the timetabled run time should make up roughly 90% of the time, with the other 10% to allow for late running/repositioning for the next run. It was pointed out that runs over 1 hour long timeliness becomes an issue without bus priority which could be an issue for the 100.

[somebody]

I don't think that 90/10 split is achievable.  Look at the dead running thread.

Are the 199s and 192s done by Willawong as well?

To my knowledge the 199s are still done by Bowen Hills.

[Golliwog]

The 90/10 split was the ideal, but I think also was aimed for where routes start/finish near each other, and not including dead running to/from the depot. The notes also explicitly say that even with highly advanced software, scheduling is an intensely complex task.