Well I'm making sure while the active numbers are still above 100 to stay south of Lake Burley Griffin. So the plan I've come up with is just for Southside Renaults. Luckily however a minimum of 3 shifts that come down this way are Belconnen Renault shifts (for which only 2 work with my plan) which is a really great way for me to still ride on the Renaults I would normally miss out on. 935 and 955 were an absolute dream yesterday as I hadn't yet caught them this year. Hopefully the next time or couple times I go out I can knab 934 and 960 as those are the only ones in the current Renault fleet I've yet to ride this year.
After studying the school-interum network I've been able to plan a 9-Renault/day program. Today however had two Renaults pop up on routes I thought were random/unlikely chances of having Renaults. So today I instead caught 10 Renaults .
Lots more buses helping me towards my ultimate goal with todays honourable mentions: 935, 955 and 513 (All Artics 2021).
Last post by Snorzac - November 18, 2021, 07:55:19 AM
So to run with a bike rack the bus must carry a valid permit, this permit sets out restrictions as to where the bus can travel with the bike rack attached. The permit that TC buses carry only allow use within the ACT, hence a bike rack is to be removed if the bus will enter NSW.
And they are equally legal (or otherwise) in NSW as they are in ACT.
I was exaggerating with the above. If they're legal, then why have I always been told they're not? It's quite annoying being told one thing and then another, makes me look dumb when I'm having discussion. Such examples of when I was told that they were not legal are when bus400 was sent to Sydney for the Mardi Gras, or the discussion some time ago about a proposed TC Queanbeyan service.
Last post by triumph - November 17, 2021, 10:55:56 PM
Have never been in favour of bike racks, as presently implemented, on the front of buses. A collision with a pedestrian, cyclist or motor cyclist, all vulnerable road users, would not be pretty. Especially when deployed with bike(s) mounted.
Bonnet (solid, pointed, etc) ornaments, headlight shades, certain bull bar mountings, and the like have long been proscribed in the name of pedestrian safety, yet somehow bicycle pedals, handlebars, sharp mudguards, and the like, not to mention the rack itself, are suddenly safe for pedestrian impact! Illogical.
I have actually seen a pedestrian struck by a bus (low speed) and able to walk away. Had that bus had a bike rack there would certainly have been no walking away.
This is an example of how the bicycle lobby has been over successful in promoting cycling and capturing politicians.
Light rail does it much better with on-board spaces and a rather neat attachment point. On-board buses with present doors is too difficult but what is wrong with attaching bikes at the back with a camera to allow the driver to view? Much safer, including for the cyclist. (Does anyone remember when some bus operators required prams and strollers, obviously unloaded, to be hung on hooks outside at the rear?)
So a lot has changed since the last proper update; -ex BUS 108 had a significant and unpredictable mechanical failure early in 2021 and has not been on the road in quite some time. -ex BUS 114 which was originally intended for parts is now apart of the CTM fleet however due to lack of access during the lockdown period features it is now suffering some mechanical issues as a result of not moving or having the engine started for a long period, this bus has also not yet gone for registration. -ex BUS 100 was acquired for parts, this bus was at the AFP training range and sustained some damage there, the team at CTM is currently in the process of fully parting our the remains of 100, this includes the removal of all exterior panels, interior, electrics, all mechanical components. Once the part our is concluded the remains will be sent to scrap. This bus has sufficient viable parts to get both 108 and 114 on the road and have us a plentiful supply of parts for the future.