....and it's Wrightbus. Three doors, two staircases, wtf?

http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx

Announcing it two days before Christmas while everyone's looking the
other way does suggest it's not to be looked at too closely. There
isn't even a sketch yet, let alone any costings.

Tom

"Tom Barry" wrote in message

...and it's Wrightbus. Three doors, two staircases, wtf?

http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx

Announcing it two days before Christmas while everyone's looking the
other way does suggest it's not to be looked at too closely. There
isn't even a sketch yet, let alone any costings.

I note that it says, "The preferred manufacturer was chosen on
Wednesday 23 December 2009, there will then be a 10 day standstill
period. (This is a mandatory period required by the public procurement
regulations between announcing the winner of a contract and the signing
of the contract.)".

Does this mean 10 working days, or 10 elapsed days? If the latter, one
assumes that the xmas/new year holiday period was deliberately chosen to
wrongfoot anyone who might be thinking of objecting.

On 23/12/2009 12:30, Tom Barry wrote:
...and it's Wrightbus. Three doors, two staircases, wtf?

http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx


"Capacity for at least 87 passengers"

Including standing? Seems a bit low.
Bendy buses have a capacity of 49 sitting, 149 total.

--
Paul

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:46:25 +0000
Paul wrote:
Bendy buses have a capacity of 49 sitting, 149 total.

Thats irrelevant. Cyclists don't like them so they have to go.

Quite how Boris is going to persuade the bed wetters in the HSE that an
open platform is a good idea is anyones guess. Routemasters have grandfather
rights. These won't.

B2003

In message , d writes

Quite how Boris is going to persuade the bed wetters in the HSE that an
open platform is a good idea is anyones guess.

Ah, but the "open platform" has a closing door. What's the betting that
it can only remain open when a conductor (or PCSO) is supervising its
use?
--
Paul Terry

Paul wrote:
On 23/12/2009 12:30, Tom Barry wrote:
...and it's Wrightbus. Three doors, two staircases, wtf?

http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx


"Capacity for at least 87 passengers"

Including standing? Seems a bit low.
Bendy buses have a capacity of 49 sitting, 149 total.


TfL work on a DD capacity of 85, against 120 for bendies - 87 is
therefore unsurprising as a target unless they want difficulties
operating the contraption alongside normal buses. I can't see them
fitting 87 people, two staircases, two doors and a platform with a bloke
on or a cover over it in the 10-11m normal double deckers take up, let
alone the old RMs which were much smaller.

Tom

On 23 Dec, 13:46, Paul wrote:
On 23/12/2009 12:30, Tom Barry wrote:

...and it's Wrightbus. *Three doors, two staircases, wtf?

http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx

"Capacity for at least 87 passengers"

Including standing? *Seems a bit low.
Bendy buses have a capacity of 49 sitting, 149 total.


Capacities for well-designed vehicles are based on things like the
number of seats.

Capacities for badly-designed vehicles are based on dividing the total
volume by the average volume of a person, assuming that all the bodies
can be slotted in upside down or chopped into bits or impaled on
obstructions as necessary.

That's why so many bad designs get approved on the grounds of
"capacity".

It's bollox.

MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 13:46, Paul wrote:
On 23/12/2009 12:30, Tom Barry wrote:

...and it's Wrightbus. Three doors, two staircases, wtf?
http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx
"Capacity for at least 87 passengers"

Including standing? Seems a bit low.
Bendy buses have a capacity of 49 sitting, 149 total.


Capacities for well-designed vehicles are based on things like the
number of seats.

Capacities for badly-designed vehicles are based on dividing the total
volume by the average volume of a person, assuming that all the bodies
can be slotted in upside down or chopped into bits or impaled on
obstructions as necessary.

That's why so many bad designs get approved on the grounds of
"capacity".

It's bollox.

You want a seat for everyone. I want people to be able to afford to get
to work.

Since these are mutually exclusive in a London context, shall we agree
to differ?

There is no such things as 'well-designed' - either it's well designed
for the job it's expected to do, or it isn't. The problem with Boris's
bus is that it's well designed for the twin roles of getting him elected
and burnishing his CV as a Man Who Gets Things Done. The concept of
'moving people about' appears to have fallen by the wayside at some
point, as has any mention of who pays for this thing.

Tom

On 23 Dec, 23:36, Tom Barry wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 13:46, Paul wrote:
On 23/12/2009 12:30, Tom Barry wrote:

...and it's Wrightbus. *Three doors, two staircases, wtf?
http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx
"Capacity for at least 87 passengers"

Including standing? *Seems a bit low.
Bendy buses have a capacity of 49 sitting, 149 total.

Capacities for well-designed vehicles are based on things like the
number of seats.

Capacities for badly-designed vehicles are based on dividing the total
volume by the average volume of a person, assuming that all the bodies
can be slotted in upside down or chopped into bits or impaled on
obstructions as necessary.

That's why so many bad designs get approved on the grounds of
"capacity".

It's bollox.

You want a seat for everyone. *I want people to be able to afford to get
to work.

Since these are mutually exclusive in a London context, shall we agree
to differ?

Not necessarily, I just object to false claims of standing capacity,
particularly in vehicles that are spectacularly badly designed for it,
whatever their internal volume.


There is no such things as 'well-designed' - either it's well designed
for the job it's expected to do, or it isn't. *The problem with Boris's
bus is that it's well designed for the twin roles of getting him elected
and burnishing his CV as a Man Who Gets Things Done. *The concept of
'moving people about' appears to have fallen by the wayside at some
point, as has any mention of who pays for this thing.

Something is badly-designed if it isn't fit for the purpose for which
it's designed (many modern trains, eg 376 emus, are designed for
standing, but actually don't allow for much standing because of the
layout, lack of holds etc). I think that both Routemasters and Bendys
are not suitable buses for current-day London.

On 24 Dec, 17:40, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:35:35 -0800 (PST), MIG

wrote:
I think that both Routemasters and Bendys
are not suitable buses for current-day London.

So is there any bus currently in service in London that is suitable?

If not, is there a bus anywhere that would meet your requirements?

Dunno, but we need to be clearer on the requirements than the Boris
project seems to have been. (It seems to have been on the lines of
"anything you like as long as it has a front end that was already
retro in the 1950s".)

Off the top of me head I'd say it would be nice to include

* Don't require excessive road space and block crossings and
junctions.
* Don't require everyone to squeeze through a narrow space to get in.
* Build in some kind of circulation if possible, so that entry and
exit don't block each other.
* Bring back conductors to help people in all sorts of ways and allow
tickets to be sold on the bus all day and night. (The extra revenue
would surely pay for them.)

The bendys have at least got as away from the main curse of OPO buses,
which was filing through a narrow space by the driver while the bus
stood at the stop.