BUSRAGE Discussions Topic: Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses

BUSRAGE Discussions Topic: Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses http://busrage.com/forum/ BUSRAGE Discussions Topic: Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses en Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:31:05 +0000 Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2382 Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:32:22 +0000 Anonymous 2382@http://busrage.com/forum/ Sorry red, didn't mean to ignore the question. Unfortunately I have no input over allocation of buses to routes at DB, just an interested observer! SoS [posted by: Steve O'Shea] Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2379 Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:38:02 +0000 Anonymous 2379@http://busrage.com/forum/ Steve if you can drag yourself away from arguing with Al,would you mind responding to my reply Re:Ballyfermot. [posted by: Red] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2378 Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:20:34 +0000 Al 2378@http://busrage.com/forum/ To get away from your twists and turns - you cannot substantiate your claim that the lowfloor buses have less seats than the buses they are replacing I am not twisting and turning. I acknowledged that they have more seats, for which the centre door was sacrificed. They would be sixty-eight seaters if they had centre doors. The mention of the 78-seater single-door Atlantean was meant to illustrate that even the high-floor buses, minus the centre door, also have "more seating". Sorry if I was not clear, but my non-refutation of the facts you presented should have been taken as acknowledgement, for if I had not read them, then my replies to this post would not have continued. So why, Al, do you have such negativity towards vehicles which make the process of boarding easier for people who are elderly, disabled, carrying children, or bulky shopping? They're going to ride like heck in the future (unless my precognisance fails me—certainly other low-floor jobs I have used in the past had inferior ride quality), they aren't really encouraging increase of bus useage (otherwise we would be seeing an increase in frequency on all timetables), not all corridors can handle them adequately (resulting in some previously-mentioned re-routes), and, to be honest with you, DB using the "Transport for All" slogan one-dimensionally, meaning all conditions, not as many corridors as can be served. If those are not enough, then let them be relegated to "pet peeves" and leave it at that. You're unhappy in the modern world, and you just need a big (((((hug))))) Heh heh ;) Appreciate the gesture, but we need to save the hugs for those suffering from road rage, agree...? Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2377 Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:48:45 +0000 Anonymous 2377@http://busrage.com/forum/ "And oh yeah, the first Atlanteans were 78-seaters... " But the lowfloor buses are not replacing the first Atlanteans. They were all gone (the 78 seat ones) by 1984, (the 74 seat dual-door ones lasted into the 90s). The 76-seat lowfloor double-deckers are displacing 74-seat Olympians, which in turn are replacing single-decks. To get away from your twists and turns - you cannot substantiate your claim that the lowfloor buses have less seats than the buses they are replacing, not matter how much you try to twist and turn. So why, Al, do you have such negativity towards vehicles which make the process of boarding easier for people who are elderly, disabled, carrying children, or bulky shopping? And don't give me the "these people used the buses before they were lowfloor and they managed". Sure they managed, doesn't mean we shouldn't make it easier for them now we have the technology. Persoally, I think you just feel needled by change. You're unhappy in the modern worl, and you just need a big (((((hug))))) SoS [posted by: Steve O'Shea] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2369 Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:29:57 +0000 Al 2369@http://busrage.com/forum/ And oh yeah, the first Atlanteans were 78-seaters... <center><img src="http://www.skylineaviation.co.uk/buses/Image22.jpg" alt="Wonder how many seats this would have in a low-floor version. This route goes all the way to Limekiln Farms now, unbelievable..."></center> Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2365 Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:14:42 +0000 Al 2365@http://busrage.com/forum/ AV (lowfloor Volvo B7TL): 76 Yes, at the cost of the centre door. How come CIE/DB never learned to use it, even since the introduction of the second batch of Atlanteans? We've gone back to the days of the first batch of Atlanteans. How does this affect dwell times at bus stops? As for an tUasal Keegan's comments, that's just a very bad excuse in order to disimprove public transport. The continued validity of the maxim "Frequency Sells" is the utter proof of its fallacy. Damien on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2364 Wed, 09 Jun 2004 05:01:52 +0000 Damien 2364@http://busrage.com/forum/ but have the virtues thereof really attracted people out of their cars? Owen Keegan (DCC Dir of Traffic) said that some people will never use public transport even if they were collected at their front door and dropped at their office desk. It's a mindset for some people. Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2363 Wed, 09 Jun 2004 03:50:09 +0000 Anonymous 2363@http://busrage.com/forum/ Seating Capacity: KD-class Bombardier: 72 RH/RA/RV Olympian: 74 AV (lowfloor Volvo B7TL): 76 SoS [posted by: Steve O'Shea] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2362 Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:56:09 +0000 Al 2362@http://busrage.com/forum/ The ride quality on the AV and WV is certainly as good (if not better) as that of the Olympian or Bombardier fleets. OK, OK, I grant that they are relatively new...but give them a while until their suspensions wear out. If they still ride better, then I'll happily stand corrected. Nonetheless, the point about reduced seating still stands. I note the continued point about mothers with small children, people with a lot of shopping bags, and the elderly...but have the virtues thereof really attracted people out of their cars? Since I don't see an increase in bus service in the timetables, then I have to say not. And, frankly, the same groups of people aforementioned have gotten on and off the buses before low-floors were even dreamt of. What's different about people today? Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2361 Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:41:10 +0000 Anonymous 2361@http://busrage.com/forum/ I have to totally disagree with you Al regarding the ride quality on the low floor buses in Dublin (I assume you are writing about your NY experiences). The ride quality on the AV and WV is certainly as good (if not better) as that of the Olympian or Bombardier fleets. I should know...I travel on them every day to and from work. In fact I have to say that you are the first person that I have come across who has made any argument against low-floor buses - most Irish people have welcomed them with open arms - especially the elderly, mothers travelling with children, and those of us with large shopping bags! But of course if you know better perhaps you would like to stand at bus stops where such people are boarding on your next visit to our shores and explain the benefits of returning to non-low floor buses to them!!! Seriously I honestly can't agree with your comments...low floor buses are definitely the way forward and a vast improvement on the older designs. [posted by: Donnybrook Observer] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2354 Mon, 07 Jun 2004 01:32:52 +0000 Al 2354@http://busrage.com/forum/ Now it's the turn of <a href="http://www.dublinbus.ie/news_centre/timetable_and_route_news.asp?action=view&news_id=331" target="_new">routes 45, 46A and 84</a>. Opinions (mine that is) shall be withheld since they are hard for some people to swallow...have a nice day, or lá mhaith libh ;-D Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2345 Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:51:33 +0000 Anonymous 2345@http://busrage.com/forum/ Forgot to mention about the peak extra's.you will regularly find driver's kicking their heals in Conyngham road at peak times waiting for a bus and never will they be given an AV to take on those routes,even if nothing else is available.I myself have often sat around waiting on a heap of crap while 2 or 3 Av's lie idle in the yard. [posted by: Red] Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2344 Thu, 03 Jun 2004 11:47:55 +0000 Anonymous 2344@http://busrage.com/forum/ No speed bump's,just chicane's easily passable by low floor buses. As regard's vandalism,it's not a valid point.The 51B suffers just as much with this problem and Ringsend have been sending AV's into far less hospitable places than Ballyfermot for a long time now so what's the problem.Why should the majority be punished because of the action's of a few. Also you will find that although there is no physical restriction on AV's going on these route's(ie restricted DMD's) it is not a practice that is encouraged,more the complete oposite.I drive there and woe betide anyone who take's an AV out on the 76/78/79's.I agree with this attitude as regard's the 03 AV's but the 00's should be shared around.They appear with gay abandon on every other route,just not those ones. [posted by: Red] Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2341 Thu, 03 Jun 2004 03:45:53 +0000 Anonymous 2341@http://busrage.com/forum/ The 44B timetable has always (or at least back to the 1960s) been specially designed so that two buses do not meet coming against each other on the section from Lambs Cross onwards. This continued to be the case even during the MV days. As regards Ballyfermot, the problem is the "good" people themselves. The policy at Conyngham Road is that newer double-deckers shall not be used on Ballyfermot routes (other than as peak extras) due to the high level of antisocial behaviour and vandalism on these services. There is no physical restriction on lowfloor buses - for a period in 2001/2 AVs were used as "euro" extras on the 78A, though these are now RVs for operational reasons (a move to put the AVs onto all-day duties, to "sweat the assets" ) SoS [posted by: Steve O'Shea] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2338 Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:23:56 +0000 Al 2338@http://busrage.com/forum/ Doesn't Ballyfermot Road have all of those speed-bumps...? That's what I remember from my last sojourn back home. Speed-bumps and low-floor buses don't mix. :- Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2337 Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:28:27 +0000 Anonymous 2337@http://busrage.com/forum/ If it really is TRANSPORT FOR ALL,then why are the good people of Ballyfermot continually overlooked when it comes to getting low flor buses.With it's extremely high number of elderly people, and numerous infirm people I believe it should have absolute priority in the next upgrading of route's. [posted by: Red] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2336 Wed, 02 Jun 2004 12:56:25 +0000 Al 2336@http://busrage.com/forum/ Why is a route which gets a bus which is easier for people to board a "victim"? Quite simply, the factors against a low-floor bus, namely inferior ride quality, less passenger seating space than a bus with comparable dimensions (which of course excludes the MA through MV classes of smaller seating area what with their smaller dimensions and seating capacity), but in particular when it comes to driving on the roads between Sandyford Village and the Ballybrack Loop, it's the safety issue on those narrow roads. As narrow as the WV-class is, two of them cannot pass each other on those roads like the MA/ME/MV-class without the passenger-side tyres hitting the ditch or footpath, plus even with the smaller turning radius than a Leyland Leopard, you aren't going to be able to avoid going up on the kerb at the crossroads in Glencullen or the crossroads in Sandyford where Kilgobbin Road meets Leopardstown Road and Hillcrest Road (and even if by some miracle the wheels don't hit, the front and back ends of the bus are going to over-hang onto the footpaths). For those that are in shape and welcome a low-floor bus, then no offence, but you're not in as good of shape as you think you are. I'm quite a bit out-of-shape myself, but I can still carry two 20-kg suitcases up the steps of a high-floor bus and subsequently bring them up the steps to the upper deck of a double-decker—even when tired (and were that allowed). Perhaps I should move this to the route 172 thread, but I am still miffed about them moving it off Oxmantown Road due to the low-floor buses not being "speed-bump friendly". Give me a break already. "Transport for all" and that suddenly entails taking it off a certain corridor because of adding the low-floor buses? Gimme a break, that's not transport for all in the literal sense. Might as well get rid of the speed bumps, because they certainly are no impediment to people wanting to drive at any speed they want down those streets. Then you can put the buses back on Bóthar na Lochlannach (or was that "Baile Oxman"? remember the old route 72 destination signs) and really engage in providing "Transport for All" (and boy, does that slogan sound Communist)... Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2333 Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:08:09 +0000 Anonymous 2333@http://busrage.com/forum/ You're wilfully misunderstanding me Al. Really, you *should* be a politician. I never said there was one single class of buses on the route from the 1950s to 2000, I said that: "the current buses are smaller than those which operated the route from the 1950s through to 2000! " That does not imply that the same buses or class operated the route for that time, just that the currently used buses are saller than the buses (whatever type) used during that period. From the 50s onwards the 44B had P-class, then the Us until the early 70s when the Cs took over. The KCs replaced these in 1984, and remained on the route until November 2000 when the minibuses took over. The arrival of the minibuses (MLs and an ME before the MVs moved to Donnybrook) caused serious problems. The 44B regularly carried full loads on the KCs into town, especially in the mornings, and there was no way that the minibuses were going to be able to cope. The company put the route out for tender to private operators on 13th November 2000 (along with a number of other routes) but due to management inertia and union opposition, nothing was progressed with (despite being advertised for tender again a year later). With 3 KCs having to be kept in service in Donnybrook after the rest had been withdrawn, matters came to a head, and a crazy scheme was implemented - the route was shortened into the bizarre dogs-breakfast of a timetable that it is today, in order to make it less attractive to potential users, in order that the minibuses could cope. The arrival of the WVs in Donnybrook at the end of December last year was a very welcome step - and this only happened permanently after one had been loaned to the depot and trialled on the 44B for several weeks. But, as these buses are smaller than those which operated the route until 2000, there was, of course, no problem found. Goin back to my original point, which you so adeptly sidestepped: Why is a route which gets a bus which is easier for people to board a "victim"? I'm a fit mid-30s person, but when I have a briefcase in one hand and a bag of shopping in the other, *I* thank my lucky stars that I'm not having to doorway steps! SoS [posted by: Steve O'Shea] Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2332 Wed, 02 Jun 2004 03:44:57 +0000 Anonymous 2332@http://busrage.com/forum/ WV class - low floor Volvo B6BLE midi. [posted by: Barry M.] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2331 Tue, 01 Jun 2004 22:56:32 +0000 Al 2331@http://busrage.com/forum/ the current buses are smaller than those which operated the route from the 1950s through to 2000 What class of bus are you speaking of there? There was no single class that operated the 44B from 1950 to 2000. The C-class did it up until the KC-class took over in the 1980s...from there, what was it, a mix between the MV and AD-classes? Out of any class, the MV still has the narrowest coach body width and the tightest turning radius. Not only that, the National Roads Authority doesn't apply too much thought (or capital expenditure) to the roads that the 44B uses south of Sandyford Village, so low-floor vehicles may end up with a good few boulders stuck in their floors. Incidentally, just what class of bus is running on the 44B presently? I can't find a reference to it online. AlekSmart on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2329 Tue, 01 Jun 2004 20:17:57 +0000 AlekSmart 2329@http://busrage.com/forum/ Ahhh Coachy my Maaaan hows it goin ? You are dead right about this Disability lark but there ye have it. In the UK From 1st Jan 2005 ALL NEW Coaches which are placed into Scheduled Services (Inc Schools and Factory transfers etc) MUST meet the full accessibility requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Effectively this presently means there are NO production vehicles capable of being placed into service from 1st Jan. The sole contender is the new Wrights Hybrid which Translink are presently evaluating. This odd looking beast mates a low-floor front section to a regular high-floor passenger module. Its main feature from a drivers perspective is a seriously long front overhang,but it`s the only kid on the block at the moment. National Express and Stagecoach have been involved with the UK DoT in Trials of Centrally mounted Wheelchair Lifts but the feedback is negative largely due to the fact that there are almost no wheelchair bound passengers presenting themselves for travel ! It appears Natex had two bookings in six months. But the law is here and its now and one way or another it is going to have to be recognized by Johnner. Initially the impact is lessened by the "New" vehicle clause but I understand that ALL such vehicles must comply by 2009.The big operators in GB are presently taking a purchasing holiday and this in itself is causing major shivers in an already jittery bodybuilding sector. Given our somewhat more laid back attitude to these things I would expect to add two years to those dates HOWEVER the various Disabled Lobby Groups are pressing strongly for the Full implimentation of similar (Identical) Leglislation in Ireland and they have the backing of the EU Commissioner on Transport too. Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2327 Tue, 01 Jun 2004 16:31:37 +0000 Anonymous 2327@http://busrage.com/forum/ I wonder if we will ever get "Low Floor Buses". lol Or Bus Eirean and other coach operators? Just an amusing thought:- How come suddenly , elderly and the like require low floor vehicles? How did such folks manage in time gone by? In actual fact, the Coach Touring Industry, i would say has the majority of elderly punters. I don't see any buses out there fitted with "Stanah Stairlifts" so how do the Higher Generation manage to board such means of transport? Block and Tackle? [posted by: Aircoach Man] Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2326 Mon, 31 May 2004 11:40:30 +0000 Anonymous 2326@http://busrage.com/forum/ Why are routes which receives lowfloor buses (which allow not only wheelchair users, but also the elderly, those with shopping, and buggys easier access) referred to by you as "victims" ???? Incidently, the MVs came off the 44B quite some time ago, the current buses are smaller than those which operated the route from the 1950s through to 2000! SoS [posted by: Steve O Shea] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2325 Sun, 30 May 2004 18:57:33 +0000 Al 2325@http://busrage.com/forum/ Newest victims are routes 44B, 90 and 161. In the case of route 90, I suppose it won't matter because when Line A of Luas opens, they will slay that route. Cannot understand why Route 44B, however. Due to the width of the roads going through Barnacullia, Ballyedmonduff and Glencullen proper, I thought that the MV-class would have been retained at least to serve those areas more safely. Even the old C-class Leyland Leopards were too wide for those roads! (the KC-class not even worth a mention). Well, in the effort to provide "Transport for All", DB has made the roads just that little bit more hazardous to negotiate... Anonymous on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2306 Sun, 23 May 2004 05:55:47 +0000 Anonymous 2306@http://busrage.com/forum/ I'm fairly sure that the "26" must be a mistype on the part of Dublin Bus, as none of the changes to vehicle allocations this weekend even remotely impact on Conyngham Road. What is happening is that 20 new AVs are entering service at Phibsboro, replacing most of the remaining MVs (the little minibuses) although they are retaining a handful for the 239, for now. The 746 got its lowfloor buses weeks ago. The 26 is part of the 25/25A/66/67 roster, which is mainly lowfloor anyway, and as I mentioned, no changes this weekewnd. The reason for the 172 rerouting, is that it is now double-deck operated with the withdrawal of most MVs. SoS [posted by: Steve O'Shea] Al on "Another gleeful announcement about low-floor buses" http://busrage.com/forum/topic/2305#post-2305 Sat, 22 May 2004 23:55:47 +0000 Al 2305@http://busrage.com/forum/ Details <a href="http://www.dublinbus.ie/news_centre/timetable_and_route_news.asp?action=view&news_id=324" target="_new">here</a>... You know something...I have ridden on low-floor buses and I have ridden on many normal-height-floor buses. I have to say that the ride quality on the lower deck of a low-floor bus sucks badger-droppings. Now how many wheelchair passengers do they serve with these buses? I suspect that most wheelchair-bound people jump into their converted automobiles and give the low-floor buses the two-finger salute. Amusing to see that one of the routes proudly converted thereof is the 26, the bus to nowhere in particular (i.e. whose route is covered by other routes, such as the 18, 25/66/67 and 78/78A). How about doing something useful with that route like extending it into Liffey Valley Centre and then sending it to Lucan via the new estates in Ballyowen? After all, their current motto is "Transport For All," is it not...