On 17 May, 14:12, Tom Barry wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
to my eyes at least, it does look good

Not to mine - the front is a hideous, bulbous eyed mess and looks like
it's got a black eye, while the back sacrifices the rear window for a
stylistic swoosh. *The sides are OK in a 'just like any modern long
distance coach' way, but who judges a bus by its sides?

What's more important is how big the thing is, looks huge to me. *It
would have to be to fit in 87 seats, three doors and two staircases, mind..

It's not a Routemaster.

Tom

Good. A Routemaster was already retro in the 1950s. The bendys have
weaned us off filing through a narrow gap past the driver, at the cost
of a ludicrous amount of wasted road space.

So, does it allow plenty of access points, upper deck rather than
excessive road space and general accessibility?

Chances are it does, in which case I might take back some of my
criticisms of the project. Though I can't see why such a fanfare and
competion and all the other palaver were ever necessary in designing a
suitable bus for London.