Comment by bell-cot
4 days ago
Call me a fossil, but double-decker busses just seem so much cooler. Without all the added engineering complexity, costs, and footprint.
4 days ago
Call me a fossil, but double-decker busses just seem so much cooler. Without all the added engineering complexity, costs, and footprint.
Boarding times though? I agree of course about the cool factor and I was sure to ride one when visiting London, but afaik the slower (dis)embarking times are why double-decked trains are primarily used on intercity trains and not on commuter/local trains or light rail (metro etc.). Typical busses stopping every two minutes are probably similar
Edit: wait, I know one in Germany as well. It's expensive but between Frankfurt airport and another major city, there is a rail line but somehow the bus is significantly faster and they're using double deckers. The front row at the top was, n=3, always free for me (all four seats) so you get a quite unique experience, at least so far as my bus experiences in mainland western Europe go :)
> Boarding times though?
Often true. OTOH, the reduced footprint (vs. either 1 articulated or 2 normal busses) can speeds things up, especially on cramped and congested city streets. And if you're getting near gridlock-level congestion, the length of the articulated busses can be like dumping gravel into your system's gearbox.
True. While I love our articulated buses in Kraków, if one of these stops mid-turn on an intersection, it blocks 3 out of 4 movement directions.
These issues are solved with dedicated bus lanes, which are desirable even for double deckers.
> Boarding times though?
cant they just put another entry door?
You can, but it's easier to evade fares. The driver can enforce fares better at the door near them.
My local transit agency just stopped allowing rear door boarding, and that was one of the main reasons: https://waypointblog.com/capmetro-is-ending-rear-door-boardi...
5 replies →
The original designs had boarding at the back. Don't even have to stop people can just leap on.
You have different footprint issues. And a lot of cities seem to have been doing ok with the engineering bit for what, 60 years now?
Double-deckers are cool, I’ll grant you that. And a very nice way to visit a city. But they are far, far less efficient in terms of capacity.
How about articulated double-decker buses? The one does not need to exclude the other after all. It'd need a large harmonica to deal with hills and bumps or it could have separated top floors with sloping roofs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplan_Jumbocruiser
> need a large harmonica to deal
I'd guess you mean "large accordion". Either way, the size & complexity of that joint section may be why the idea never went anywhere.
How about double-articulated double-deckers?
Now I want an articulated double decker trolley bus with an articulated double decker trailer.