On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:50:22 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

I found this story earlier on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7149722.stm


Autocar magazine (somewhat bizarrely) asked bus design company Capoco
Design (which designed the the Dennis Dart and Trident amongst others)
to come up with a concept design for a new Routemaster-type bus. It's
hardly a spectacularly original idea, but it's interesting
nonetheless.

I reckon they just went at looked at old designs that attempted to
update the Routemaster and added a twist of current design "flair" to
make it look suitable for current tastes. It doesn't look a million
miles away from one design I glanced at today when I was leafing through
the updated Routemaster book by Ken Blacker.

The article's author is lacking in having a proper historical
perspective when she considers the rear open platform of the old
Routemaster bus, would appear to be making it up when she claims that
TfL is "know as Transport for Lefties by weary London commuters" (I've
never heard anyone say that before - maybe I don't go to the right
dinner parties, thankfully!), and is guilty of subscribing to the
orthodox media opinion when she claims that London's "bendy-
busses" (sic) are "loathed and problematic" - the opinion of Londoners
on these buses is by no-means universally hostile as is often
portrayed in the press (though I certainly know a few non-transport
enthusiast normal people who detest them, but many more who find them
quite acceptable).

More utter claptrap from clueless people.

I have never heard the term "transport for lefties" but perhaps that's
because I'm not a paid up member of the Tory Party or part of Boris's
campaign team.

Contrary to the Mayor's comments in the BBC story, the article does
seem to suggest that accessibility issues have been taken into
account, with a low floor and space for wheelchairs and pushchairs.

Well possibly. I have to say that it's difficult to tell from the design
drawings quite how it would work. The wheelchair space appears to be
right at the front behind the driver thus creating a gap between the
seats and driver's area. I wonder how the ramp would be operated given
that the conductor may be upstairs or preoccupied with people boarding
at the rear. If the ramp has to be controlled by the driver then I
wonder why we need a crew bus given that cash payment on bus is now down
to about 3% of all transactions and likely to fall further.

I'm also all for serious consideration of alternative, less polluting
fuel sources instead of diesel. It might all sound like pie in the sky
talk now, but I think things will have to change sooner or later.

TfL are already gently pushing the market to develop a range of possible
designs for hybrids etc. However it's not the first transport
organisation to do this as many continental operations are years ahead
of us in using alternative fuels.

Of course whether any such bus is really a viable proposition is
questionable - the Autocar article claims it "might be viable with a
500 per year production run over nine years", but I suspect that's a
very optimistic estimate.

The real test is whether any mainstream manufacturer would develop this
bus design independently because they felt it was a commercial
proposition. The answer to that is almost certainly no so what Boris and
Autocar are really saying is "would Londoners fund a bus design that is
not commercially viable?" Given everything else we are asked to fund I
don't see this as a priority. Would Boris really wish to be associated
with a massive subsidy scheme to buy vehicles and fund conductors that
aren't really needed when I expect his general political line will be
that Ken is an outrageous spendthrift and not to be trusted with any
money at all. That certainly seems to be the line being promulgated by
the Evening Standard over the "advisors and fraud" story line from Mr
Gilligan. Boris is in danger of trying to face both ways at once over
the financial prudence issue if he isn't careful.

And of course there is the fact that these would be two-man buses,
requiring a conductor. As great as conductors may be, that is a very
significant expense - London's bus network is already subsidised, so
unless the subsidy is increased there would have to be cut backs
elsewhere. If the network was less frequent, less comprehensive or
more expensive to the passenger in terms of fares, then ridership
would be likely fall.

And for me that's the issue. I like Routemasters but their time is
gone. I cannot see for a moment how hundreds of millions could be spent
on reviving an old bus design. The TfL budget is going to be under
severe pressure on all sorts of fronts given the massive schemes that
are being taken forward. If we have money for the bus network then
please spend it on improving existing service levels or adding new
useful services that provide new journey opportunities or open up areas
to bus services for the first time.

However I'm not completely convinced whether it was the best move for
the Mayor's spokesman to totally completely rubbish the idea, even
though it would fit in with Ken's game plan to paint Boris as a
clueless incompetent. Perhaps 'Bozzer' has been wiley to attach
himself to the idea of re-introducing the Routemaster - even if all he
says is that he'll look into the idea, it associates him with the
popular Routemaster in the minds of the public. Whether the Honourable
Member for Henley actually has any real, substantive handle on
London's immensely complex transport issues is perhaps another matter.

The real problem with this ludicrous policy stance over the Routemaster
from both Ken and Boris is that it is a silly diversion away from the
real issues. If the extent of the political debate about London's
transport network is going to be "Son of Routemaster - good or bad?"
then we might as well shut up shop. There are literally hundreds of
more important transport issues that deserve discussion and debate so
the voters can understand what the candidates stand for.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!