Is there a debate about dual door buses outside the UK?

[johncrossley]

Although it does start at a bus station, it's not of a saw tooth design.

I presume you are talking about Piccadilly, but that is basically just a big bus stop. The nearest thing to a bus station is at Stockport Mersey Square

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

There are railings that currently prevent dual door use, but I would suspect the cost to put in another hole in the railings wouldn't be too prohibitive.

 

[DanielB]

There are railings that currently prevent dual door use, but I would suspect the cost to put in another hole in the railings wouldn't be too prohibitive.

Or just remove the railings altoghether... They really don't have any purpose in the way they're placed there, as they don't prevent anyone from crossing the street (then you just use the opening meant for alighting the bus).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I presume you are talking about Piccadilly, but that is basically just a big bus stop. The nearest thing to a bus station is at Stockport Mersey Square

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

There are railings that currently prevent dual door use, but I would suspect the cost to put in another hole in the railings wouldn't be too prohibitive.

The 192 starts at an on street bus stop on the way up to the railway station. Piccadilly Gardens is German style, a big island where buses stop side on with nothing in the way of dual door operation.

 

[RT4038]

Exaggerating is an art too... Just an example: this is a regularly used stop only served by dual door buses. Never heard anyone complain about it and it hasn't resulted in any accident.

The phrase 'The Dutch don't complain about it, so it must be ok for the British' doesn't sound like it will gain much support here. The Dutch retailer C & A Modes made a similar assumption around the turn of this century with disastrous results.

I can only assume that few passengers alight at that stop, as the grass verge is in pristine condition, or the weather conditions in the Netherlands are not the same as in the UK, where any serious footfall it would soon become muddy.

This is why I disagree with the poster above who says it's all or nothing - it isn't - an appropriate vehicle should be used for the route. For a rural villages-to-market-town-bus-station service, it's something like a single door Solo.

A bit out of context - all the bus stops on a particular route served by dual door buses need to be suitable and safe. Preferably all the buses in a particular urban area should be dual door for familiarity of passengers and staff. (They dont have to be, but if you want acceptance and maximum advantage). Rural buses (of any size) rarely need or should be. However, there is much more overlap between the two types of service than there was 40 years ago.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bit out of context - all the bus stops on a particular route served by dual door buses need to be suitable and safe.

Not correct. It is possible, with on-board announcements, not to use the rear door at selected stops where it isn't feasible or cost-effective to make them safe, e.g. sawtooth bus stations.

The key is that you do spend the money to ensure that at any stop where there is typically both boarding and alighting, the dual doors can be used, because that's where the benefit is gained (there isn't any benefit at any stop where in any given direction you only get boarding OR alighting, not both). But in reality most stops are a pole by the side of the road so it can be used anyway.

Yes, you'd have to drive the route and do a risk assessment of each stop but that's not hard, particularly given that most bus stops are just a pole by the side of the road.

And no you don't need all routes to have dual door. People have eyes and can see if there's a second door or not, and can read a sign saying EXIT. And if the odd person doesn't, they get off at the front, the world has not ended.

Perfection is the enemy of the good. It's a bit like saying contactless tap-in tap-out has no value because some people prefer cash. It does, because most people now pay card (or pass), which mean the small number of remaining people who do pay cash don't have a significant impact on things (which has long been the German and Dutch approach, in the latter case pre-OV Chipkaart - mostly off-bus ticketing, but one or two cash payers make little difference).

 

[Doppelganger]

I haven't read all the comments (sorry), but this is such a nonsense debate.

I live in a European country and all buses have more than 1 set or doors.

Noone is falling out into mud or other such rubbish, and the concept that one set of doors are sufficient would be laughed at. In reality, it doesn't really work in the UK either. Why do London buses have 2 sets of doors, if it doesn't speed up ingress/egress?

The sooner the UK adopts multi door buses across the whole country the better. Boarding/alighting will be vastly sped up and as a consequence bus services will be faster.

 

[DanielB]

I can only assume that few passengers alight at that stop, as the grass verge is in pristine condition, or the weather conditions in the Netherlands are not the same as in the UK, where any serious footfall it would soon become muddy.

Earlier in the discussion actually rural stops where mentioned which only had pavement at the position of one door. This is exactly such a stop in the Netherlands, but here a bus driver would just stop with the rear doors next to the pavement when someone wants to alight.
And as visible on the streetview link the respective stop has a pretty new shelter, meaning it is used often enough as in the recent shelter replacement program lots of shelters where removed from hardly used stops.

 

[Deerfold]

I haven't read all the comments (sorry)

Perhaps you should, before repeating previous arguments?

 

[Doppelganger]

Perhaps you should, before repeating previous arguments?

But these are my views, and so saying the same as someone else clearly supports the position doesn't it?

 

[Deerfold]

But these are my views, and so saying the same as someone else clearly supports the position doesn't it?

It's just polite to read a thread that's not that long before adding a comment that repeats some views without noting the arguments that have already been made on the other side.

 

[Doppelganger]

It's just polite to read a thread that's not that long before adding a comment that repeats some views without noting the arguments that have already been made on the other side.

Still doesn't invalidate what I wrote though.

 

[rf_ioliver]

I haven't read all the comments (sorry), but this is such a nonsense debate.

I live in a European country and all buses have more than 1 set or doors.

Noone is falling out into mud or other such rubbish, and the concept that one set of doors are sufficient would be laughed at. In reality, it doesn't really work in the UK either. Why do London buses have 2 sets of doors, if it doesn't speed up ingress/egress?

The sooner the UK adopts multi door buses across the whole country the better. Boarding/alighting will be vastly sped up and as a consequence bus services will be faster.

Just thinking that here in Finland I can't remember seeing a single door bus - maybe some express busses, but their usage is slightly different from the city usages. I think in all cases, you alight at the front (showing your ticket) and exit at any of the rear doors (exiting at the front would be severe faux pas - except for people with prams or pushchairs; at least in Helsinki you can use any door.

For that matter I don't recall a bus-stop where falling into the mud is possible anywhere in the country - I think all have proper shelters and are build so a stopping bus doesn't block traffic.

The only time I have seen a debate here was when a news reporter did an April Fool's Day bit about the EU standardising bus lengths....

 

[JonasB]

I have to agree that it is a very interesting thread. That there actually is a debate about it is in itself a bit surprising to be honest. And it feels very much like a mix of conservatism and NIH-syndrome.

Regarding double deckers, there has been a debate about them and they are used in many parts of Europe.

 

[johncrossley]

Here is an example of an inter-urban route using single door, so not even in a big city, with a substantial delay due to single door use, and the timetable even allows for extra time because of the lengthy boarding/alighting process.

I've been on a few buses outside London in the last few weeks and it doesn't seem to be helping journey times. For example, I went on the 705 from Bedford to Cambridge. I was wondering why there is a 5 minute wait in St Neots. I originally assumed it was for recovery time but it actually took more than that long to board everyone! Firstly it took ages for everyone to alight as not everyone could easily walk and there were pushchairs. Even though the tickets were all £2 it took ages to board everyone. It was only about 15 people.

 

[LYuen]

And presumably works best in a country where you can trust most people not to just get off without paying.

It avoids all trouble of trying to describe where you want a ticket to, but does mean that like in a taxi you don't necessarily know what the fare will be until you get off.

The boarding ticket has a number that tell you which stop you get onboard, then there's a TV screen showing the fare table if you get off now.
Found a photo I took to illustrate this - and the automatic fare collection machine is amazing


For the second point, it will be awkward and difficult to get off from the entry door - the driver won't open the rear door if there is no one getting on, and it is very visible if someone is moving against the flow.

 

[John-H]

I once witnessed the transition from a one door bus service to a three door service.

I was in Capetown, South Africa in 2009, and the local service on our street, running every 15 minutes, was covered by older coach type busses which had one narrow front door, a curved staircase and a high, narrow isle between the fairly large seats. You told the operator your destination and he quoted a fare which seemed to change randomly depending on the place and time.

After a couple of weeks we saw some brand new transit busses, with lower floors, three wide doors, fewer seat, and wide circulating areas. The drivers weren't sure what to do with them, and usually reverted to the old practice of only opening the front door. Even at that, they spent noticeably less time at stops.

Parts of the route were also covered by "taxis" : vans that would run a block or two ahead of the bus and drivers would yell at anyone waiting at the stop. They seemed pretty sketchy and disorganized, but some were quite crowded.

John

 

[geoffk]

I'm a bit late to this debate, having been complaining (to myself) about time spent at bus stops here in Exeter. I always assumed that the demise of dual-door buses outside London was due to safety considerations. When Bristol took up one-man (sic) operation of city services in the 70s, it built up a large fleet of dual-door Bristol REs. The other cities/towns served by Bristol Omnibus (Bath, Gloucester and Cheltenham) followed suit, although the early deliveries were of single-door buses which were later converted to dual-door, presumably following the experience of Bristol. Inter-urban and rural services continued with single-door buses, probably because of lack of infrastructure at many bus stops, making alighting from the centre door potentially hazardous. When I moved from Bristol Omnibus to Yorkshire Traction in 1973, I found they had only a handful of dual-door buses and, from memory, they didn't run in Barnsley, where rapid boarding and alighting would have been most useful.

 

[Deerfold]

I'm a bit late to this debate, having been complaining (to myself) about time spent at bus stops here in Exeter. I always assumed that the demise of dual-door buses outside London was due to safety considerations. When Bristol took up one-man (sic) operation of city services in the 70s, it built up a large fleet of dual-door Bristol REs. The other cities/towns served by Bristol Omnibus (Bath, Gloucester and Cheltenham) followed suit, although the early deliveries were of single-door buses which were later converted to dual-door, presumably following the experience of Bristol. Inter-urban and rural services continued with single-door buses, probably because of lack of infrastructure at many bus stops, making alighting from the centre door potentially hazardous. When I moved from Bristol Omnibus to Yorkshire Traction in 1973, I found they had only a handful of dual-door buses and, from memory, they didn't run in Barnsley, where rapid boarding and alighting would have been most useful.

Having recently visited Oslo, I don't think any buses had fewer than 3 doors and were not both articulated and electric. There may be some minor routes far away from the centre that are smaller.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Most cities in Europe seem to have 2 or 3 doors, sometimes with front and rear doors as single leaf.

It seems to be a crazy UK idea to fit most buses with stairs located where need to walk from bottom stair, down part of the aisle of bus to reach the door.

Two door buses only help where there is a flow along the bus, not where people are passing both ways (eg if separate flows including up and down stairs).

Dual doors are pointless on services serving one traffic objective eg a station, town centre, school or stadium etc. Because tend not to have passengers getting both on and off at intermediate stops as one end of their journey is same place as everyone else.

Hence the value of the "New Routemasters" with two sets of stairs (and 3 doors).

 

[Snow1964]

Hence the value of the "New Routemasters" with two sets of stairs (and 3 doors).

Presumably you mean low value, apparently close to zero on secondhand market.

But the big problem is the 2 staircases take up lot of downstairs floor space and TfL (and seen similar quoted by other Operators) 30% of passengers can't (due to mobility) or won't go upstairs. I have also seen (but can't find link at moment) that about 1 in 8 passengers (around 12%) won't even use seats with one step.

Bit of a problem if bus is full of oldies who wont go upstairs.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Presumably you mean low value, apparently close to zero on secondhand market.

But the big problem is the 2 staircases take up lot of downstairs floor space and TfL (and seen similar quoted by other Operators) 30% of passengers can't (due to mobility) or won't go upstairs. I have also seen (but can't find link at moment) that about 1 in 8 passengers (around 12%) won't even use seats with one step.

Bit of a problem if bus is full of oldies who wont go upstairs.

I was reacting to people saying there's no point in having more than one door if either people going to or from upstairs have to go along the bus to get to a door anyway. With two staircases there's often a "flow" of people speeding up getting on and off. And as for "value", I mean the value in terms of speed of people getting on and off the bus with 3 doors, and the social value - when the back door was open - of dramatically quicker journeys around the centre. I realise this doesn't show up in a "business case" because bus passengers' time isn't financially valued in the way that some other people's is.

 

[Deerfold]

Presumably you mean low value, apparently close to zero on secondhand market.

But the big problem is the 2 staircases take up lot of downstairs floor space and TfL (and seen similar quoted by other Operators) 30% of passengers can't (due to mobility) or won't go upstairs. I have also seen (but can't find link at moment) that about 1 in 8 passengers (around 12%) won't even use seats with one step.

Bit of a problem if bus is full of oldies who wont go upstairs.

I've always found the New Routemasters very inaccessible, even though I have few problems on other buses. Very few seats on the lower deck don't have a step up and are then narrower than the average seat.

Having recently visited Oslo, I don't think any buses had fewer than 3 doors and were not both articulated and electric. There may be some minor routes far away from the centre that are smaller.

Of course, it helps that you can board and alight at any door.

 

[johncrossley]

Bit of a problem if bus is full of oldies who wont go upstairs.

That's why if you use double deckers on urban routes they have to be long, like in Berlin. I don't think you can have a double-decker without three axles unless you make huge compromises which would be unacceptable in most countries. Artics are good enough in most situations.

 

[Struner]

Very much “international transport”, thank you

 

[Austriantrain]

Presumably you mean low value, apparently close to zero on secondhand market.

But the big problem is the 2 staircases take up lot of downstairs floor space and TfL (and seen similar quoted by other Operators) 30% of passengers can't (due to mobility) or won't go upstairs. I have also seen (but can't find link at moment) that about 1 in 8 passengers (around 12%) won't even use seats with one step.

Bit of a problem if bus is full of oldies who wont go upstairs.

That is not a problem of dual-door buses but of double deck buses, which is why outside of the UK, almost no one uses them any more (coaches excepted).

 

[johncrossley]

That is not a problem of dual-door buses but of double deck buses, which is why outside of the UK, almost no one uses them any more (coaches excepted).

Postbus Switzerland and Transports Publics Lausanne have recently bought Alexander Dennis double deckers, but they use them on out of town routes, not urban routes.

 

[duesselmartin]

Double deckers have the advantage of higher capacity on routes with tight corners.
Whether to use double deckers or bendy buses is really a matter of the situation on the ground.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is not a problem of dual-door buses but of double deck buses, which is why outside of the UK, almost no one uses them any more (coaches excepted).

They have never (or not for a long time) been very heavily used outside of the UK, and I thought the reason normally quoted for that wasn't capacity*, but rather that bridges tend to be lower in other European countries than the UK, so as a result the buses can't be as high, meaning very limited headroom upstairs, which is OK for a coach but not for a city bus where people have to move around a lot.

* Though it is true that the European approach is mostly to cram standees in for a short journey to the station, whereas UK practice is that most places in a city will have a direct service to the centre rather than a rail connection, so typically it is expected that most passengers will be seated at a much lower density, and getting in enough seats for this to be workable as well as having enough wheelchair provision pretty much requires double deck, hence most of London's fleet being so other than very quiet local routes or routes constrained by low bridges.

 

[AdamWW]

They have never (or not for a long time) been very heavily used outside of the UK, and I thought the reason normally quoted for that wasn't capacity*, but rather that bridges tend to be lower in other European countries than the UK, so as a result the buses can't be as high, meaning very limited headroom upstairs, which is OK for a coach but not for a city bus where people have to move around a lot.

Toronto is making increasing use of double decker buses for interurban transport, and the original (Alexander Dennis) buses were rather limited in where they could go because of overbridge heights. They now have lower versions that have a better route availability, so to speak.

It amuses me that while their trains have a much more generous loading gauge than in the UK, our double decker buses don't fit the road "loading gauge" and they need a special design.