This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Bus was copied or moved into List of buses with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
I can see no excuse for "busses" but it scores 430,000 google hits (i.e. mostly this type of bus) so obviously a lot of people use it. Shantavira18:19, 17 April 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I found an American Merriam-Webster dictionary that recommends it as an alternative spelling, mostly to prevent people from pronouncing it as SAMPAbjuz".Ez.-FZ13:44, 3 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Why this obsession with how it is spelt in the US (wherever that is!). How it is spelt in the majority of the big wide world is more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.228.61 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been under the impression that busses is British and buses in the American derivative. Could be wrong, don't know how to verify (incidentally, I was looking at Wikipedia to see if anyone here had verified... so thanks, big help team. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.41.148.220 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gas - gases, walrus - walruses, atlas - atlases, their is no excuse to claim that busses is the plural of bus; busses is the plural of buss - ie a sloppy kiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.220.119 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several lithographs by Honore Daumier that are in the public domain that would help make points now in "History" subsection. Wetman21:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I read an interesting newspaper article about buses recently:
"the [US] National Transportation Safety Board decided ... not to recommend seat belts in school buses.
The board also recommended that buses be equipped with data recorders starting Jan. 1, 2003. ...
School bus design is closely regulated ... Motor coaches -- the type of bus used by Greyhound -- have no occupant protection standards.
Regardless, school buses and motor coaches are considered the safest forms of transportation on the road. On average, nine people are killed each year in school buses, and four die in motor coaches. Roughly 42 000 are killed annually in car and truck accidents."
-- Glen Johnson, Associated Press, 1999 Sept. 22
EditHint: Mention some of these facts in the article.
I've reverted the changes by 213.51.209.230, which describe 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 rubberaccordion section.
With the exception of the accordian bit, this 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 wood23:41, 20 September 2004 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like speculation. Sources? (The assumptions that homelessness is caused by urban housing shortages, that such shortages exist, and that many homeless people ride buses all need substantiation.)
=== Homelessness and buses in the U.S. ===
Because of a variety of factors, housing shortages have become a chronic problem in most large American cities since the 1970s. The result has been an epidemic of homelessness. With no place to go, the homeless often end up riding around aimlessly on public buses, which offer advantages like temperature control, security, and comfort.
Unfortunately, the presence of homeless people strongly reduces the attractiveness of bus transit to other riders, due to factors like odor, hygiene, panhandling, crowding, etc.
I don't see why that passage should have been taken out. Have you ever actually commuted regularly on a typical big city bus? I use buses four days of the week and I've seen everything, including homeless people urinating in the bus.
It looks like the passage has some relevance, but its needs quite a bit of POV cleanup. First off, I can see no reason to limit discussion to the U.S. or to homeless passengers. The real issue is that people don't like sharing space with strangers - in particular strangers who are different from themselves. Then it can be seen as a more general issue contrasting public transport vs private transport such as the car. In fact, come to think of it, the whole issue is probably much better addressed on the public transport page where there is already some comment. -- Solipsist11:18, 10 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I've seen plenty of bizarre things on public transport, but I'm hesitent to extrapolate a trend from any of them. I agree with Solipsist (oh, the irony) that the treatment in public transport is better. jdb ❋21:14, 10 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I concede that public transport is probably the best point to address the issue in detail (and it should addressed in detail). I'll have to think about it and do a little research before I go and elaborate on it in that article, though. As written, public transport only addresses the issue of homeless people sleeping on public transport rather than the odor, hygiene, public health, or security issues, which I would argue are major disincentives for people to ride public transit---have you had the pleasure of sitting next to a fragrant homeless person lately? I also concede that Solipsist is probably right to generalize the issue to the broader problem of how many people don't like sharing personal space with strangers.
However, several experimental uses of double decker buses have not proved them to be practical in U.S. operations other than for sightseeing groups.
I'm curious as to why DD buses haven't caught on in the U.S. except as sightseeing buses -- esp. on heavily-trafficked routes. Can anyone expand upon this? 140.247.60.20605:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but my best guess is that most American cities tend to have much longer and wider streets than in Europe, so if a bus line becomes really popular, then the local transit agency will simply add more buses or switch to extra-long articulated buses.
Also, Americans simply don't ride buses as much as in other countries because we have cheap gas (we don't tax it as much) and most of our cities are not laid out well for efficient bus use.
As for inner-city neighborhoods where buses are more popular, a major problem is that many such cities, like Los Angeles, are nearly bankrupt and cannot afford to put their electrical and phone wires underground. The result is that their skies are cluttered with old lines which are just barely high enough for trucks and ordinary buses to pass underneath. A double-decker bus plowing through those lines would create an enormous mess and cause massive service outages.
Finally, I think another reason is that our courts are very plaintiff-friendly. Our public transit agencies get sued every day by people who are run over by bus drivers, people who trip and fall on the bus, people who trip and fall getting on or off the bus, people who are robbed on the bus, people who are arrested by the police because they refuse to pay the bus driver, etc. Adding double-decker buses would result in having to defend against lawsuits from people who fell down the stairs because the driver braked suddenly. However, sightseeing companies are probably able to use such buses because they are not public agencies, have more control over who can board, and can simply jack up prices to cover the cost of their liability insurance. --Coolcaesar17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a bus operator, I would say: the height of the signs and such is the main cause. A regular single-decker coach is about 11 ft and 6 inches tall. Most bridges and overpasses are right about 13 feet and some inches. That leaves practically NO ROOM for a second deck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschang77 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DD buses can be down to 4 m high, that is 13 ft 2 in. But then tall people can't stand upright on the lowest deck. --BIL (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be categorization by size, by use, and by propulsion/energy type.
Buses are generally diesel, but there are CNG and electric buses available. Hybrid diesel/electric buses may be avialable soon.
Bus sizes can vary from minibus (about 14 to 20 people) to mid-sized bus (26-35) to maxi-bus (up to 42-seats) baby coach (32-40) to coach (42-49) to XL coach (55 to 61) passengers. Double-deckers and/or articulated buses are counted in a different category.
microbus -- basically a converted van with extra high-ceilings, there offer walk-in high-back chair seating.
minibus -- generally converted from heavy-duty van or truck platforms, they offer greater carrying capacity than full-size vans at the cost of wider width. They can be ordered in a variety of seating configurations, but usually seat about 18-24 plus some luggage space. Available with perimeter seating (all seats with back against the walls) or forward-facing seating (normal).
mid-sized bus -- built on mid-sized truck platforms, these buses offer greater carrying capacity (often up to 35-seats and some luggage space). They could be front or rear-engined.
maxi-bus -- built on large truck platforms, these buses offer up to 42 seats without the investment of a full-sized coach. Sometimes these are known as mid-sized buses. Usually front-engined.
baby-coach -- built on shortened version of a standard coach, these have only 2 axles instead of the three on a standard coach, with reduced seating capacity, but retains the underneath luggage space. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.
coach -- standard coach in the US is 40 foot long and seats 42-50 people, with underneath luggage space, and has three axles: front, drive, and tag. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.
XL coach -- 45 foot version of standard coach, these represent the longest length coach allowed on highways without special permits. The extra length allows installation of extra seats, resulting in up to 62 seats. Not permitted on all roads. Check your state highway restrictions. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.
Buses are generally divided into three use types: tour/intercity bus, transit bus, and school bus.
Tour/intercity buses have luggage space placed under the main cabin. They can achieve high speeds and are more comfortable on the highways with air-suspensions over long distances.
Transit buses are designed for intracity use with lots of starts and stops. Their top speed is lower, and latest models have lower floors and multiple entry-ways, and NO luggage space. They often have a combination of perimeter and forward-facing seating to maximize the amount of standing space available.
"There should be categorization by size, by use, and by propulsion/energy type."
I agree. And they should mention typical numbers of passengers, total, standing and nr of seats, weights of the bus without passengers and weight of a full bus, typical consumption and emissions, operating costs, ... . Thx for all the info below. I think it can be taken up in the portal page. Below an assist. Please help bringing it to the next level --SvenAERTS (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue how to fix this, but all the "edit" buttons in the article are in one line, like {edit} {edit} {edit} and looks kinda bad. -- Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.75.31 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is extremely biased towards the US - in fact, less than a passing mention is made of buses in other countries through the whole article. --Stevefarrell13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. In the U.S., the mentality is "I need my personal car, you should ride a bus". Why not tell us more about buses elsewhere? Vaoverland22:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added some info about various types of bus service such as local, intercity/interstate, shuttle, school, tour and charter. The wording of my additions could possibly use some improvements but i feel it's a decent start at least. I do think their should be a separate section on the specific types bus vehicles such as transit, coach, shuttle, mini-busses, double-decker, etc.. Also we should provide more info on the types of fuels/power sources currently used in busses including diesel /bio-diesel, electric, bio-fuels (ethanol, etc), hydrogen, etc. Also the types of amenities available fancier coach style busses (such as those used by touring musicians). These include lavatories, satellite TV, sleeping facilities, and other RV-like amenities. --Cab8811:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since "bus" is abbreviated from the Latin "omnibus", surely the plural should be "bi", abbreviated from the Latin "omnibi"...58.136.112.903:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice (presumable ironic) point but not really correct since "omnibus" is not a Latin nominative singular noun like "populus" (where plural is indeed populi) but rather ablative case (formed by appending -ibus). 203.255.186.13403:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 1895 bus is cool historically, but maybe the article would be better served by a more contemporary photo, which is more representative of bus service today. Twinxort18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say the title of the historic depiction of the interior of an early 19th century omnibus is not by David Scott, and it is not early 19th century, it is late 19th century. The picture is by George William Joy, was created in 1895 (hence late 19th century), and entitled "The Bayswater Omnibus". More information about George William Joy is at George W. Joy. The link to the gallery where it is held [1]
is correct, and leads to the Museum of London. I have corrected 'early' to 'late'. However, the attribution of the picture needs to be changed. I am happy for others to change it based on the information I have provided here, as I am not that confident to do it correctly. Jyoti Woodhouse (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone deleted the gallery so i put it back. It's nice and could help to diminish that non-international point of view feeling of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.98.17.25 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I took it out the first time, and have removed it again. The reason I took it out is because the gallery is somewhat unsightly, and because the whole thing is now duplicated on Commons and linked on the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the section below from the article page to here because it largely overlaps with 'Types of bus service' and is completely unsourced. -- Donald Albury12:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Buses comes in many shapes and sizes, each optimized for its own specific niche. They are usually diesel-powered, though more recently fuel cell, CNG, and hybrid power sources are becoming available. In general, there are three types of buses: transit buses, school buses, and touring coaches. Transit buses are designed for frequent stops, low overall speed, urban operation, and few amenities. Most city transit buses are of the transit type. Transit buses tend to have low floors, no luggage space, lots of standing room, and two or more doors, often double-width doors. Transit buses can be single deck or double deck, anywhere from a mini shuttle of 10 people (basically a large van) all the way to 120-seat double-deckers or 140-seat articulated "trailer" coaches. School buses are also designed for frequent stops, low overall speed, and urban operation. It has virtually NO amenities, except those mandated by law, such as rear escape door. The seats are also tighter and only central corridor is available, no standing. As a result, school buses often seat 60-80 children in a 40-ft long coach. School buses can vary from small 10-passenger wheel-chair lift minibuses all the way to 40-ft long school buses capable of fitting in 70+ children. Touring coaches, finally, are designed for long distance runs with luxury. They are designed for highway cruising and often come with reclining seats, footrests, video systems, PA systems, private AC outlet, and so on, as well as a lot of luggage space under the main cabin. US DOT limits maximum length of a single vehicle to 45 ft long, and 102 inches wide, and that is the dimension of most touring coaches. Touring coaches in US vary from 12-pax minicoaches to 24-seater minibuses to mid-size buses (28-42 pax) to 30-ft long baby coaches, 40-ft long coaches, and 45-ft long maxi-coaches.
I respectfully disagree. The "types of service" section is more important, but it properly says little about types of hardware. The bus type section should be restored, perhaps pruned to a bullet list, with a link for each physical type that has its own article, and a short definition for any type that does not. -- Jim.henderson18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably me who did the original change, and looks like I did it *again*. :-) While I agree that "types of service" is important, there is NO discussion at all on the types of hardware, as Jim pointed out. We'll probably have to separate into two sections, "Bus Service Markets" and "Bus Size Subtypes". --Kschang7707:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mini and midi are good additions, though their paragraphs are perhaps a bit long and their details might profitably be relegated to linked articles. Some of the motor coach additions definitely ought to be in the linked article instead. And "dualies" are used without being defined. I do not propose to define them here, but in that case this isn't where to use them, either. When a subject is big, then one article shouldn't try to cover it all. Buses are not as big as Medicine or India, but their article should only attempt to present and outline the topic, with links to the specifics. Balance and selectiveness are major parts of an editor's job. Completeness is not what it's about.
We only have two photos of artics on there, so I don't know if that's "far too many", but I do think your photo idea is a good, solid one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there was three before.. the one on the top right, the one described "bendybus" and a poor quality photo of several in a line in a US city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backifran (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two bendys are perhaps slightly too many; one double decker is exactly right and so is one shot of several parked intercity coaches. One midi is also the right number. I see no exterior of the most common modern "standard" size bus, however, like the M1 I rode two hours ago up Madison Avenue in New York. Jim.henderson18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like that image?, I wouldn't insert that one but that bus seats 49 plus 12 or so standing.. it's a Leyland Lynx. Although a more modern one would perhaps be appropriate, as I went on that very bus two days ago and the driver claimed it was a 'sack of shit'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backifran (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think its a bad idea to be able to edit a page like this 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. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltyBoatr (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I can't add this useful link because it's against the conflict of interest provisions. However I respectfully request that it be considered to add to this page, as it is the main portal to the Australian Bus Industry: www.ozebus.com.au
The site contains useful content, resources, ppt presentations, links, forums, and academic papers. For more info, please contact admin@bic.asn.au Ozebus (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Ozebus[reply]
Incidentally, French Wikipedia has an article stub for "Stanislas Baudry", but said stub lacks any sources or citations. While I can translate it, an independent source would be preferable. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added a reference to an early experiment with public transport (web page also cited) dated 1662. The web-page in question is cited in the French Wikipedia article for "omnibus", which is separate from the French Wikipedia article for "autobus" or bus. Should the same separation be done to the English articles? Dmacgr 22 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In some countries, there are vehicles which are half bus and half truck. How are they called? Are there special names for them, like e.g. the Norwegian word "Kombibuss"? (Not the original names are important for me, but the English translations.) Please answer here, or on de:Diskussion:Skvader_(Nutzfahrzeug). --85.22.7.146 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I have heard of Kombibuss, I think in Bill Bryson's "Neither Here Nor There" when he travelled to Uppsala on a bus that was basically a freight vehicle with some seats attached :). But we don't have them here so I am not sure I am qualified to add it. I would just add it as Kombibuss.
The intro says "generally 8 to 200 passengers". I accept that "generally" implies that sometimes they are outside this range, no doubt there is some Guinness World Record of 450 people squeezing onto a Routemaster or something, but isn't 200 a bit high? I'd say 80-- that is the most I have seen in the UK. Perhaps 100 as a margin. Again, the "generally" does not exclude it being outside these limits. I don't think bendy buses etc tend to have more capacity because of statutory limites etc, though no doubt this varies from place to place. But surely 200 is a bit on the steep side. SimonTrew (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW my reason for asking is there have been two edits to this number today, to 250 then 300, which I have reverted. (Half expecting 350 later.) But going back quite a way through the history I can't find a number other than 200 for upper limit, so not sure if it has been changed without discussion before. SimonTrew (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't see the reference, brlliant. Yeah, I still would maybe disagree they are "generally" that size, it's a bit like saying people are "generally" 2'6" to 8'11.1", but at least there's a ref now and we can discuss within that, great. SimonTrew (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have too many pictures on this article, as the right side of the screen is almost solidly pictures. It's crowded right now, you see. I plan on cleaning this up over the weekend to make it appear less crowded and a little more elegant. This will involve removing all the images, and then placing images again from a clean-sheet. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are way to many pics in this article. I was going to move the horsedrawn one so its looks better with the history section but theres just no room to move it! Does it really need a zillion pictures of different colors? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsum Miner (talk • contribs) 13:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added a load of additional content removed from the bus manufacturing article which I think should focus more on the manufacturers and less of the vehicles. It has also added a load of additional images. Feel free to work with the new content and we may need to consider a split if the article is now getting too long. PeterEastern (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your logic at all. You are suggesting the article now needs splitting, yet that is precisely because you've just totally unbalanced it with this import of content from 'bus manufacturing'. We now have just one single paragraph on types, alongside pages of content about independent front suspensions, body and chassis considerations and engine positioning etc etc. If you thought that this article was light on this info, you should have summarised it here, and kept the detail at bus manufacturing. If you think 'bus manufacturing' should only be about companies, which I can's see the logic of, then judging by what you have imported here, what you probably should of done is move what you took out of that article and put into another child article, such as bus design, and summarised that here. Infact, the Bus manufacturing article now looks completly pointless, it has no real focus at all. Why should the info about identification or rebuilds even be in there now? I am also generally concerned that in these big rewrites, you seem to lose little details, such as now there is no mention of designs needing to meet a tilt test, which seemed to dissappear in this edit. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that they also just undid a lot of work I did in clearing out a lot of images. I'm inclined to revert it all, honestly, for the reasons you mentioned, since this seems an ill-conceived shuffle of content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I have been working across a lot of articles recently and possibly was too quick here. If my edits are considered to be counter-productive I will not be offended by a revert while we discuss and explore any possible changes; indeed it may be more appropriate for me to do the revert myself to make it clear that there are no hard feelings. I would suggest however that we take the opportunity to review the roles of the two articles briefly and do a clean-up at the same time? My motivation was the get all the content about the vehicles themselves into one place and about the manufacturing of buses in another, together with design issues if relevant to manufacturing. I feel that the bus manufacturing is currently pretty weak because most of the previous content related to the design of vehicles rather than manufacturing. I recently did significant work on the Yellow Coach Manufacturing Company and there is a lot more to add about the way these companies and manufacturing techniques evolved over time. PeterEastern (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a proposed list of buses with photographs for addition to the article. Please see discussion in the next section about whether this should be in this article or a split one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterEastern (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[[File:PlaxtonPrimo1.jpg|thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Plaxton Primo bus in White. This bus is shorter than the Plaxton Centro]]]
[[[File:Lancashire United Optare Versa unfinished livery.jpg|thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Optare bus in unfinished livery. There are new Optare buses to this day.]]]
[[[File:Countryliner PP2 MX56 NLZ.JPG|thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Plaxton Primo bus. This bus is quite new. It is shorter than the Plaxton Centro or some Dennis Darts]]]
It has been proposed that the new 'list of buses' section be split out into a new article. This section is to discuss the merits of creating such an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterEastern (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The initial request was placed on a individual contributors talk to which the contributor responded: I think you should bring this up on the appropriate talk page, and get consensus there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)--85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that a list of buses does not belong in this article, but that it could make a good separate article if people which to develop it - I support the split as long as there are people who which to develop it and stop it becoming a huge photo-library. PeterEastern (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be general agreement that a list of buses would not be appropriate in a general article about 'buses'. See elsewhere on this talk page for other discussions on the matter mainly in response to questions from your IP address. I would again encourage you to set up a proper user profile if you which to engage in discussion on what should and should not be in an article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think a separate article List of buses would expand to include details, and would serve visitors. The existence of such a list here at Bus has been challenged. The more editors try to expand the list, the more likely it will be challenged here and removed. Breaking away seems natural. I suggest we start it. I suspect it will expand nicely and quickly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:buses is for different bus formats (double decker, low floor etc) rather than for individual makes and models. Possibly makes and models should be in a category? Personally I don't mind much where it goes or what form it takes, but I don't want a huge list of buses in this article and the article is much cleaner without it. PeterEastern (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This edit has reverted a number of recent changes and additions to the article without apparent justification. Could the editor please register with a user name and talk about their motivation for the edit here. If the intention was just to add back the list of buses (which I suggest needs to be in a separate article) and that the other changes a mistake then I suggest that someone needs to repair the article - which I am happy to do. PeterEastern (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the talk page associated with the IP address used for these edit more thoroughly and teh damage done by the edits I have now reverted the changes from the article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that 85.12.88.17 has again added the list of buses section to this article and made other changes without any discussion as has been requested here and also on his talk page. The disputed changes have again been reverted pending discussion. I also note that no-one has offered to support the development of the suggested separate article as requested above which suggests that the logical outcome will be to leave the content out of Wikipedia entirely. PeterEastern (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added this in since on-stop battery recharging seems to become more and more popular; btw I wonder whether witricity (no-battery) powered buses exist; ie via electromagnetic induction lines in the road itself.
I have added a bit more about horse-buses and was surprised to find that there apparently isn't an article in Wikipedia on horse-buses. Personally I think there should be one for this important early form of bus as there are articles about virtually every other form of bus. I would also recommend including a single image of a horsebus as the first photo in the history section of this article. Personally I like this photo of a double-decker horse and motorbus in Paris in 1907-191 is good, or possibly the Stockholm photo which has just been deleted from this article. PeterEastern (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it needs to be changed to "only running triple decker bus" for added clarity. Including fictional/movie prop busses does not seem appropriate in this context. 21 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.209.195 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three buses that were in Australia. I have decided to put them in the collections because i did not want the pictures to go to waste so I decided to post them.
What on Earth is the 'Modification as railway vehicles' about? It looks like it was cut and paste from government regulations from some unidentified country. Why can't German buses be modified as railway vehicles? I'm all for deleting the entire section - or at least reducing it down to a single paragraph giving the general concept and links to some examples such as the Galloping Goose (railcar). Stepho talk08:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just read the article and was scratching my head on how you would modify a bus to be a rail vehicle. If such a thing exists it would be fascinating to see some photos. Nevertheless, unless this portion is updated it should be deleted until their is more info on the topic of busses as rail vehicles. User:Franzeva — Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the first half of the 20th century, small railway lines would sometimes take a bus or truck, replace the road wheels with train wheels and lock the steering solid. Cheap and easy. Railbus covers this type (although the term also overlaps the self propelled railcar). The most well known example of a railbus is the Galloping Goose (railcar). Stepho talk22:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading articles on older half-cab double-decker buses like the Leyland Titan (front-engined double-decker). I was interested in when and why half-cabs came about and when and why they then disappeared. But this article has no mention of them at all. Does anybody have an information about them? Thanks. Stepho talk14:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus against merger. feminist (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose. I don't see much reason to merge in the coach article but not the other Bus#Types or Transit bus and if we merge all of them it would be far too long. There's overlap, of course, but the coach article has more in it than I think would make sense here. I don't feel very strongly about it either way but would prefer not to see a merge. Mortee (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I do agree that Coach (bus) is in need of sources (through the article), it is an article about a fairly distinct type of bus. To merge this and a number of other similar bus articles in here would make the main bus article extremely long. What really needs to happen the most is some improvement on the coach bus article. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per SteveCof00. While I would agree that coaches are not distinct from ordinary buses, apart from being designed for longer journeys, Merging all the articles into one would produce a reader's nightmare. – PhilipTerryGraham(talk·contribs·count)13:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' per above - Merging everything to one article is IMHO disruptive, Whilst sources are an issue we should find sources not just merge everything. –Davey2010Talk13:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to add in the "Tourism" paragraph, a sentence regarding where you can buy bus tickets to visit Europe (i.e. companies' websites and multi-company sites). Here it is
"You can buy your tickets to visit the UK by bus on the companies’ websites but also on “multi-company” websites." Marquenm (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we add one company then we are unfairly biasing readers away from other companies, therefore we would have to add all companies. And then do the same for all countries. That's a lot of work when the reader can simply type it into a web search engine. Stepho talk23:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have overlooked at a lot of the bus images and was wondering because there are unnecessary low quality images, would u like them to be replaced with higher quality images? – I can also scope through any good quality images on Commons to replace the low quality ones.
To a point, it would be a good idea to update the images on the page with higher-quality images. However, the historical images used at the beginning of the article, by their nature, are largely irreplaceable, so it is best to keep those as-is (unless there are free-use images that can be used in the same context). --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the history section, it makes claims such as "the steam omnibus was less likely to overturn than horse-drawn coaches", and other claims, without giving any explanation of why that should be. It seems entirely POV explaining why steam omnibuses were a worderful thing that were crushed by a non-progressive government, etc, etc. I could easily believe that a steam omnibus is less likely to turn over than a coach, if I were told that it's because the weight of the boiler was mounted down low; otherwise the wheels are the same size, it is just as tall and it seems to suggest that it travels a lot faster, therefore it ought to turn over more easily. More importantly, if that was written objectively, the writer would be forced to add that the steam omnibus is also perhaps 100 times more likely to suddenly explode than the average coach, is far more expensive to build, sets things on fire with the sparks from its stack (this was a huge problem with rail locomotives, so don't try to tell me it wasn't an issue with road ones as well!). It is certainly possible that a steam omnibus could travel faster than a horse-coach, but seeing as how the main limitation on the speed of horse-coaches was the appallingly rutted, muddy, rocky, rough roads they traveled on, I don't see how a steam coach could do much better without causing severe discomfort and/or injury to the occupants. There is a real reason why trains ran on rails, and why this was the dominant form of transport for a hundred years. The roads were pitiful, rails are smooth. Even when the ICE came into use, most early transport didn't exceed 15mph at best, until they spent some money to improve the roads. Considering this, and the fact that even if you used steam to propel a vehicle, in that era you were still riding on wooden wheels, and using blocks of wood and hand-levers pressed against the wheel treads to slow down or stop (or dragging heavy chains, or "drags" behind you when going down long grades, like coaches did), I doubt the claim that the 5/10mph speed limit was an unreasonable unkindness by a hostile government, it was probably an honest attempt to set reasonable limits. I doubt very many people ever tried to drive a steam omnibus faster than 10mph, and it wasn't safe to travel faster than 5mph through the average town, due to livestock, people in the road, bad brakes, etc. Horse-carriages were required to walk through populated areas, an no-one suggests that this is because the government was hostile to coaches. They certainly didn't hinder railroad building very much (intentionally), so I highly doubt this implied claim that a hostile government sabotaged the steam coach, and that they'd have had highways full of them bombing along at 50mph by 1870, if only the government had been a little nicer. The whole concept had serious problems, and died a natural death. Railroads simply were much more logical and reasonable than steam road transport back then, as hard as it is for modern road-obessed minds to think of it.
You seem to have about 10 points, all lumped together. Could you choose one for the current discussion? The others can be dealt with, one at a time, after that. Stepho talk07:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please exchange "his" for "Baudry's" in the sentence "His transport scheme was a huge success", since otherwise it seems as if the pronoun refers to Omnès, which makes no sense in the wider context of the paragraph. It is really confusing to read, but I can't amend it myself since it is semi-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.221.132 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Various sources give bus seating codes. For example [this page] shows codes such as 'H29/23D' and 'B55F'. It would be useful to explain these somewhere in Wikipedia. After some searching I found [this forum] - see 17 Feb 2015 CatfordCat's post. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 13:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add one of these new photos of mine to replace the existing New Routemaster photo from 2015. All these buses had also since been modified with openable windows ever since that 2015 photo was taken.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Also see the policy on external links. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Done Everything seems okay Run n Fly (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urtne. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Urtne until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Done The edit request was completed. Thank you for your contribution!
_Arriva_London_New_Routemaster_(19522859218).jpg){kind=link}
._Bus_facing_left_1._Spielvogel.JPG){kind=link}
