Talk:Articulated bus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject buses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bus transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject buses to do list
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance within the buses WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Trailers and hitches

I've replaced the following description of an articulated bus thus:

Articulated buses consist of a standard length bus fitted with a tow hitch and a trailer. The trailer part is connected to the front part with a rubber accordion section.

with the text from the Bus article. Actually I reverted the same text as above out of the Bus article some while ago, but missed its inclusion here; below is my comment at that time.

With the exception of the accordian bit, the above sounds more like a description of a bus+trailer combination, as widely used in Germany in the 1950s and, I believe, still used in some eastern european countries. It may be that some apparantly articulated buses are configured this way, but it certainly isn't the normal form. The most common form of modern articulated bus (eg. the MercedesBenz Citaros used in London) actually has the engine in the rear section, which can hardly therefore be described as a trailer. And obviously such a configuration requires something other than a tow-hitch. -- Chris j wood 20:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No more pictures

Enough is enough. I know that everyone is proud of their hometown articulated buses, but unless there is something peculiar or interesting about the bus you took a photo of, don't add it.
perhaps a List of pictures of articulated buses is wanted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanthehat (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London controversy

Perhpas some note about the BIG controversy caused in london by the replacement of the routemaster with these? Has been a recurring focus of many Evening Standard articles, and much public outcry. Despite the fact that, you know, the old routemasters were killing people :D

I agree that some note on the controversy is necessary. Maybe something like:

Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party candidate for Mayor of London has made a pledge thathis first act as mayor of London, if elected, will be to scrap bendy buses and replace them with a modern-day Routemaster with an open rear platform and a conductor. The incumbent, Ken Livingstone, described Mr Johnson's accusations that the articulated buses represent an extraordinary danger to cyclists as 'wicked fibs'. Buffalo Bill 17:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I've never heard of artics causing problems in any other city; in fact, the majority of people I talk to either in my city or on the internet say they love them, either because they look neat or because there's more seats. The ones running here in Halifax caused a lot of curiosity in the media when they were first introduced fifteen years ago, but not nearly so much controversy. Now, no one even bats an eye about them here; they're accepted and thought of as normal, not only in Halifax, but in cities all over the world.
The point I'm trying to get to here, is that this so-called "London Controversy" has taken over quite a bit of this article of late. Perhaps this needs to be split into a seperate article, because what Londoners are experiencing seems to be rather unique. Perhaps it's simply a matter of adjustment becuase the citizens aren't used to them. For example, I can't understand how double-deckers make any logical sense in terms of boarding, disembarking, security on the upper deck etc. Regards, Green451 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the bendy buses aren't necessarily more or less dangerous than other buses. But they have become a political issue here. I have a blog, and I get a lot of hits from google searches 'bendy bus cyclist', 'bendy bus danger cyclist' etc. As has been noted, there is NO evidence that bendy buses cause more collisions than standard buses in London. But there are many media reports alleging exactly that. It is notable, and I agree that it is worth splitting the topic. I am not sure how to do it so... Buffalo Bill 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
this has been done -
See also: London articulated bus controversy - inserted

[edit] Articulated hybrid buses

I do not plan to add this to the article, but does anyone know of more articulated hybrid buses? The only ones I know of are the New Flyer DE60LF (including BRT version) and the NABI 60-BRT Hybrid. I think Orion may add one in the future, but does not currently manufacture articluated buses. With European manufacturers, hybrids are less popular and I do not know of any. Andros 1337 16:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean "hybrid"?

are any of these any use?
Scania Omni bus range
Cardiff, Scania
Cardiff, OmniCity
X66 route from Gateshead Metro Interchange to the Metrocentre
West Midlands Buses Current TWM fleet 6001-9959
Articulated buses in the United Kingdom
Transport in Manchester#Buses
bendybus.com
Alanthehat (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About London

Should the section under advantages and disadvantages about the London situation be moved to its own section or under the London transportation articles? It seems to shrink the context into a rather focused area, e.g. applying to one city. Just a thought. 24.197.165.120 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that this article is too much written from the perspective of Londoners, especially the overuse of "bendy" bus term throughout the article Acnetj 20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said the term is only used in London? Nil Einne 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The term certainly isn't widely used in North America; as a result, I've changed most of the article's mentions of "bendy buses" to the more location-neutral "articulated buses". Not to mention that the article used three different names for them in places...I do agree that the article seems a bit London-centric; artics have been in North America and Continental Europe for decades now (they're in my hometown, Halifax), and just because Londoners aren't used to them, doesn't mean every third paragraph has to be from a London P.O.V., which was and still is the case, although I've tried to group some of it together. Green451 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bi-articulated buses -- Curitiba vs. Bordeaux

The page lists Curitiba as the first city to use bi-articulated buses (in 1992), but this webpage lists the French city of Bordeaux as using them as early as 1989. The Port of Authority 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I have not the exact date (mid 1980's) I remember that Paris RATP introduced the Heuliez GX187 on several routes such as n°27 and survey/poll was made on board to test accaptability of these new vehicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.67.75.201 (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted some changes by an anon [1] At first I thought they were vandalism as said anon add some strange symbol to the beginning and appeared to be changing figures back and forth. However on reading the article more carefully, it's possible these changes were not vandalism but I still feel reverting them was the best. While some bi-articulated buses can carry 270, others only 180 as the article it self says. 200 as an average seems fine. Similarly 25m as a nice round rough figure seems fine. As for the air conditioning and name well I can't find any references either way for the ac bit but there is some info suggesting "metrô sobre pneus" as nickname but none supporting Minhocão which appears to be the nickname for an elevated highway in Sao Paulo Nil Einne

[edit] Split

I've tagged the Advantages/Disadvantages section for a split. I believe that the majority of the controversy in London (not the entire section) should be split off into a separate article, because it appears that there's a lot more detail that could be told, and there's already too much detail on this page about it. Just an idea. Green451 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a load of rubbish

I am a GB based bus company manager and I think the article is a little misleading in several respects. 1. Double deckers have sufficiently low centre of gravty (the upper decks are mostly GRP and aluminium) and I think the inexperienced reader may view this commentary as suggeting deckers are inherently unstable!

Lower roadwheel pressure (quote) What is that all about? Does he/she mean axle loading- in which case work out the mathematics of a 8000kg bus with passengers (5200kg) on 2 axles compared to a loaded artic in the region of 20000kg. Artics have a higher UW and therefore are less efficient off peak.

As for the disability friendliness- has no one noticed that new deckers are wheel chair friendly as well? in *MY* experience (and I can not claim to have worked with all types of buses) the artics normally only have one wheel chair access point. I don't understand the signiicance of 'not limited to only downstairs'- there is usually a large wheelchair/buggy pen on them and of course they will be down stairs...

Sorry, me again... Where does the author get the fact that the passenger suffers noise and vibration when the engine is mounted in the master unit, not the trailer? It is true this design is outdated and will naturally have older engines, but do those with aft engine configurations not also have noise and vibrations?

Also, since when are artics faster than deckers? I had a Leyland Limpalong up to nearly 70mph

  • Another thought... As for artic/bendies being ilegal in Britain, I think that is wrong (not 100% sure, so will check up (long time since I did my CPC!)). IIRC they were only allowed to be driven by those with 'trailer entitlement'- but as long as both sections were connected and could be supervised by driver/conductor they were OK. Later on it was decreed that as long as it was a permenant connection (reall semi-permenant of course) then the law was judged to allow the driver to not need a D+E cat licence, regardless of whether the powerplant was in the front or back section.

88.109.186.97 (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Busman07

[edit] Double Deckers / Stagecoach M77 Incident

Unable to find any reference in BBC news archives, stagecoach website, "scottish stagecoach" is not actually a company, clarification needed as to which member of the stagecoach group of companies should be identified here! I've cleaned up grammatical and spelling errors, but the M77 incident really needs a verifiable source or the comment should be removed! 82.18.102.171 (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, sources added for this 82.18.102.171 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Stagecoach bendies were NOT deckers. Go back and have a look at the pictures.. They are Volvo B10 with Jonkheere bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.75.25 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

This article needs an expanded history section. Tmangray (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

The section comparing puller vs. pusher articulated buses needs to be completely rewritten. Pusher type articulated buses are not an outdated design, as that is the standard design used by New Flyer and NABI. The section is totally biased towards puller-type articulated buses. ANDROS1337 19:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that those two companies have pusher type buses as standard doesnt mean that they are not an outdated design, a UK train company using coal powered express trains would be considered to have outdated rolling stock but it would still be using them as standard. Standard use and aged technology are not equivalent. Have a go at rewriting it. Xeolyte (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)