Website | Forum | Gallery | Fleet Wiki
ACT Bus Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by King of Buses on Today at 07:25:19 PM »

AFAIK, the 62/962 are a low floor required run. This is due to the ACT Government  wheelchair repair & mobility hire place at the old Village Creek Primary School.

But it does help out a certain passenger on the run as well.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I’m fairly sure it isn’t. Certain trips may or may not “require” accessible buses though, which is the case with a number of specific trips across the network, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
2
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by Bus 400 on Today at 05:55:02 PM »



The 11 and 81 I believe are the only routes which are "required" to always be operated by low floors.

AFAIK, the 62/962 are a low floor required run. This is due to the ACT Government  wheelchair repair & mobility hire place at the old Village Creek Primary School.

But it does help out a certain passenger on the run as well.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

3
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by Northside on Today at 04:19:20 PM »
It was announced in 2005 that all 300 series routes would be fully low floor, wheelchair accessible and have bike racks available at all times, at the time, the only buses meeting the task were 20 Irisbus Agoralines and 50 Scania L94UBs; 14 years later, despite the delivery of hundreds of extra suitable buses, they have given up on trying to achieve this goal.

I'm not sure how they thought they were going to achieve this. Back then, artic buses were prevented from having bike racks installed due to legislation. This has changed recently, but I haven't seen any progress on rolling out bike racks on the artics. So until recently that aim was impossible without removing artics off this route (a dumb idea).
4
General Discussion / Re: MyWay - general/operational discussion
« Last post by Barry Drive on Today at 02:21:00 PM »
We have news of an AVM being operational today.

No official announcement.
5
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by Busfanatic101 on Today at 11:52:25 AM »
It was announced in 2005 that all 300 series routes would be fully low floor, wheelchair accessible and have bike racks available at all times, at the time, the only buses meeting the task were 20 Irisbus Agoralines and 50 Scania L94UBs; 14 years later, despite the delivery of hundreds of extra suitable buses, they have given up on trying to achieve this goal.
Of all the routes, the 300 series would be least impacted by not being 100% low floor/ bike rack during peak as the next service is right behind. Such a commitment is counterintuitive unless the whole fleet meet those criteria. Having to wait an extra hour for a suburban service is much worse.
6
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by Toyota Camry on Today at 10:24:54 AM »
It was announced in 2005 that all 300 series routes would be fully low floor, wheelchair accessible and have bike racks available at all times, at the time, the only buses meeting the task were 20 Irisbus Agoralines and 50 Scania L94UBs; 14 years later, despite the delivery of hundreds of extra suitable buses, they have given up on trying to achieve this goal.
7
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by King of Buses on Yesterday at 09:43:02 PM »
53 and 953 is a high importance route in the network; along with the 3, 11 & 200, it is one of the only bus services that is guaranteed to be operated by low floor, air conditioned buses at all times. It is not believed that an Irisbus Agoraline, Renault PR100.2 or Renault PR100.3 has ever operated on this route; it will be interesting to see if the replacement service maintains this priority in the new network, as is combining with parts of nearby routes that offen suffer older vehicles.

High importance? Umm... I'm fairly sure the 53 only has a full low floor allocation because it was introduced at a time when 40 new buses were added to the fleet. The 953 would be because it is a weekend route and they only run low floors on weekends (except in emergencies, as seen last August). I have seen a PR100.2 run 53s on at least one occasion, and I've seen an Irisbus on both 53s and 953s before, too.

I'd very much doubt the new network equivalent of the 53 would be solely low floor operated (depends what HASTUS spits out, I guess - but I'd very much doubt it's a requirement to run only low floors on such a service). I can see them trying to keep Renaults off Rapids in the new network (in terms of scheduling), but unsure how that will go (even if they achieve 100% low floor allocations on Rapids, I'm sure a Renault will appear somewhere it probably shouldn't sometime - it always happens). The R3 (because it services the Airport) might be more realistic of a goal for 100% low floor allocations though.

And FYI, the 200 itself (not including the 25# peak routes) is not fully low floor operated. I know of at least one trip that is allocated a PR100.2/PR100.3.

The 11 and 81 I believe are the only routes which are "required" to always be operated by low floors.
8
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by Sylvan Loves Buses on Yesterday at 07:27:05 PM »
It is not believed that an Irisbus Agoraline, Renault PR100.2 or Renault PR100.3 has ever operated on this route...

The 3 and 200's certainly have over the years.
9
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by Toyota Camry on Yesterday at 06:34:35 PM »
53 and 953 is a high importance route in the network; along with the 3, 11 & 200, it is one of the only bus services that is guaranteed to be operated by low floor, air conditioned buses at all times. It is not believed that an Irisbus Agoraline, Renault PR100.2 or Renault PR100.3 has ever operated on this route; it will be interesting to see if the replacement service maintains this priority in the new network, as is combining with parts of nearby routes that offen suffer older vehicles.
10
The Playground / Re: Unusual bus allocations
« Last post by Busnerd on Yesterday at 05:15:07 PM »
But does having a high capacity vehicle on a run instantly mean that run warrants it? Or is it that the driver does a 200 before and a 200 after and a 953 in between (As an example) I highly doubt the 953, or even it's weekday counterpart would warrant an articulated vehicle, hence the need for better rostering on weekends, allowing 200 and/or 300 only shifts where those are the only runs the driver does so the capacity is allocated to the busiest routes and not ending up on meandering suburban loops that carry 12 people.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10