When I got to where they explained the benefits of having the engine at the very back and the instability of having the back part push the front, I tried to guess how they solved it. I guessed a fancy drive shaft with universal joints so the engine in the back half could drive wheels in the front half.
I guessed wrong. I still like my idea, but their solution is simpler and probably more efficient and more durable too.
I like watching the other half of the bus while riding these. It's a cool effect, seeing the whole "room" oscillate through the "doorway", while I feel like I'm standing still.
Edit: The article has a video of this effect near the bottom.
One silver lining to the bus being packed is standing with one foot on either side of the articulation pivot. Feeling your stance change under you while you're standing still is neat.
> “The articulated bus is a common sight everywhere”
Certainly not in London where they were famously banned in 2009.
Now days they’re uncommon throughout the UK, with UK cities having a preference for double-deckers. You do see them in use as shuttles at some UK airports, though.
Why were they banned? They're used in the Netherlands which is rife with small bendy streets so if that was the argument it seems to be somewhat spurious.
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 :)
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.
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.
I guessed wrong. I still like my idea, but their solution is simpler and probably more efficient and more durable too.
Edit: The article has a video of this effect near the bottom.
I find it a bit freaky to be honest but you do get used to it.
Certainly not in London where they were famously banned in 2009.
Now days they’re uncommon throughout the UK, with UK cities having a preference for double-deckers. You do see them in use as shuttles at some UK airports, though.
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 :)
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.
cant they just put another entry door?
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...