| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
Mayoral press release:
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press...80%99s-new-bus or via http://tinyurl.com/395bm2k New Bus for London page on the GLA/Mayoral website (including a video presentation): http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport/new-bus-london TfL project page: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15493.aspx BBC News online story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8685486.stm Evening Standard story: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23834671-.do Evening Standard comment - Ross Lydall's blog post: http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/05...dows-open.html or via http://tinyurl.com/2v8uwxy I'm a bit of a sceptic with regards to this whole endeavour (and very much a sceptic with regards to the withdrawal of the supposedly evil bendy buses - but I'll put that aside for now) - but I won't pretend that I find the proposed (or rather, apparently finalised) design unattractive - to my eyes at least, it does look good. I suppose the project does kind of appeal to the 'schoolboy fantasist' element that lurks within... I dare say that thought might explain a significant part of the broader allure of this whole venture, one which was after all instigated by the grown-up schoolboy that is Mayor Bozza. The talking heads in the TfL video do all seem quite enthused by it, though I must say they do perhaps betray a little uncertainty over whether it's all really going to, y'know, actually happen - but maybe that's just me projecting my thoughts onto their utterances. (And if it is going to actually happen, then it might as well be done properly, workably and professionally I suppose.) All that said, this is the only bus 'thing' that Boris seems to take any interest in - one can't help but feel his mindset just regards buses (well, the Routemaster and this new BorisBus) as little more than moving ornaments to be admired from afar, rather than as a vital mode of transport that needs to be treated as a cohesive network, cared for and maintained. If the BorisBus project means other bus services get cut back and fares go up, then the "stunning red emblem[s] of 21st century London" (BoJo's words) will take on something of a different hue. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
"Mizter T" wrote in message
All that said, this is the only bus 'thing' that Boris seems to take any interest in - one can't help but feel his mindset just regards buses (well, the Routemaster and this new BorisBus) as little more than moving ornaments to be admired from afar, rather than as a vital mode of transport that needs to be treated as a cohesive network, cared for and maintained. If the BorisBus project means other bus services get cut back and fares go up, then the "stunning red emblem[s] of 21st century London" (BoJo's words) will take on something of a different hue. Boris is a cyclist, so I doubt that he regards buses as little more than "moving ornaments to be admired from afar". Probably more like "hulking great lethal monsters to avoid". |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
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 |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
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. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
"Tom Barry" wrote in message ... 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 Are we sure it's 87 seats? Or is it 87 capacity (x seats and y standing)? |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On May 17, 2:38*pm, MIG wrote: 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. 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. The "wasted road space" of which you speak being space used for passengers actually on the bus - the long single deck and multiple doors meaning loading and unloading happens quicker thus dwell times are reduced, making journeys speedier and resulting in fewer actual vehicles being required. (I think it was Tom Barry - well it must have been - who attempted to work out the total road space that would be used by the double-deckers that replaced the bendies on route 38 - IIRC his calculation was that they would actually occupy *more* 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. *[...] (Leaving aside road space issues...) I don't think you can conclude that at all, certainly not yet at least. There is absolutely no clarity on how these new Borismaster buses would/will operate in practice - to what extent will they be be manned with a conductor (daytime only? peak hours only? not on Sundays? central London only?), bearing in mind that one of the fundamental design requirements was for the new bus to be able to operate with just one person mode (i.e. just the driver). When they are in OPO (one person operation) mode, the back door seems as though it'll be locked out of use - i.e. it won't open at all, pax will have to use other doors. It's entirely unclear as to whether pax will be able to board and leave by either of the other two doors (i.e. the front and middle ones) ala a bendy bus (or the 507 and 521 'Red Arrow' new non-bendy single deckers). It could well be that the bus then operates akin to a conventional OPO double-decker, with boarding pax filing past the driver whilst presenting their tickets/ smartcards and leaving via the middle door - there's nothing in any of the blurb to say that it would operate in 'board/alight any door' mode (also bear in mind that one of the common criticisms of the bendies is that the 'honesty box' fares collection system is open to abuse - I think Boris & co have voiced this, although perhaps not as prominently as other criticisms). Also, it's unclear how the new Borismaster buses would/will operate when in conductor/"uniformed presence" mode, i.e. two person operation mode. It's unclear if the front two doors are to open at bus stops as well as the back platform remaining open - one could perhaps argue that rear open platform should be the only regular entrance/exit when operating 'Routemaster mode' (except for those in wheelchairs, and perhaps prams and buggies... and those with luggage or bags of shopping? those with more limited mobility?). If however one or both of the other doors are to be used, then the whole rear open platform concept starts to look like a right gimmick - some of the benefits attributed to the Routemasters of old, i.e. that the open platform provided flexibility at bus stops with people able to hop-on and off at will without the driver having to deal with operating the doors (dealing with the pax being the conductors job), these benefits would be negated if the driver of the new Borismaster *did* have to deal with the doors too. So, having mulled it over for a little while, my scepticism levels are rising again. The raison d'etre of the NB4L / BorisBus / Borismaster (call it what you will) is the open platform at the rear of the bus - but if that real platform is only going to see limited use, then it rather calls the whole thing into question. Furthermore, and crucially. a two person operated bus - i.e. plus a conductor/"uniformed presence" - adds dramatically to the running costs. I've never got very excited over the concept of re-introducing conductors - sure, they might be a kind of 'nice to have', but most pax these days already have a ticket of some sort before boarding a bus, which rather removes the raison d'etre for conductors. Plus, I think it's far nicer to have a frequent, reliable and comprehensive bus network than a patchy and infrequent network, albeit one with a few buses that have conductors on-board. And if you don't have conductors on-board then you don't have open platforms either, because a solo driver sure as hell can't be expected to monitor an open platform. None of the thoughts above are remotely original - indeed I suspect the simple equation is much the same as that which was laid down by TfL bods before ex-Mayor Ken, who decided that a comprehensive bus network rather than a gimmicky one was the way forwards. Also, and I think it was Paul C who made this point, *if* the new buses are a big success with the public, then that might create a real problem for the future - what with demands coming in from all quarters of London that people want the new Borismaster buses on their local bus routes, or indeed want conductors to stay on board for longer (outside of busy times, or outside the centre of London, or whatever). The cost of buying these buses will be greater, and crucially the cost of operating them will be greater, and the big piggy bank is not only empty, it's full of anti-matter, and that situation isn't about to change any time soon. Did I say I was a bit sceptical about it all?! |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
You're not getting 87 seats:
CAPACITY Total Capacity: 87 Lower Deck: 22 seats (That total includes 4 priority seats and 6 preferential seats for passengers with restricted mobility) 25 standing. Wheelchair Bays: 1 Upped Deck: 40 seats DIMENSIONS Length: 11.2m Width: 2.55m Height: 4.4m |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
Garius wrote on 17 May 2010 17:58:16 ...
You're not getting 87 seats: CAPACITY Total Capacity: 87 Lower Deck: 22 seats (That total includes 4 priority seats and 6 preferential seats for passengers with restricted mobility) 25 standing. Wheelchair Bays: 1 Upped Deck: 40 seats DIMENSIONS Length: 11.2m Width: 2.55m Height: 4.4m From a quick measurement of a still from one of the videos, it looks to me as if the wheelbase will be around 6.25m. So it will have a longer body and a longer wheelbase than current London double-deckers, which won't do much for its manoeuvrability in London's streets. Can someone remind me in what way this design is particularly suitable for London? Also, why is this to be *exclusive* to London? From today's publicity (saying other cities will be "envious" etc.), it sounds as if TfL are going to licence the design for London only. If it's such a good design, why not let WrightBus sell it elsewhere, which would help to bring down the production costs? -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On May 17, 5:58*pm, Garius wrote: You're not getting 87 seats: CAPACITY Total Capacity: 87 Lower Deck: 22 seats (That total includes 4 priority seats and 6 preferential seats for passengers with restricted mobility) 25 standing. Wheelchair Bays: 1 Upped Deck: 40 seats DIMENSIONS Length: 11.2m Width: 2.55m Height: 4.4m So a total of 62 seats. Remarkably duff question from me - how many seats has a bendy bus got, is it 49? And what is the notional standing capacity? I should know the answers to both, but alas I must admit I don't off-hand, and my Google-fu is rather letting me down at the moment (not least because the web is full of rather more heat than light when it comes to bendy buses!). |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
I like it (it's a lot better than the previous Routemaster pastiche
designs). Oddly, it looks like the front of an early Leyland Atlantean, (such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EDW68D.jpg), combined with the back of a Routemaster... |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
Graham Harrison wrote:
It's not a Routemaster. Tom Are we sure it's 87 seats? Or is it 87 capacity (x seats and y standing)? As Garius points out, it's 87 *capacity* which explains a lot - the actual seating is less than the original Routemaster let alone a modern double decker or even a bendy, which has twice as many seats downstairs. In point of fact it's got fewer seats downstairs than a modern midi-bus, the local ones of which tend to have about 25. Tom |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On 17 May, 17:23, Mizter T wrote:
On May 17, 2:38*pm, MIG wrote: 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. 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. The "wasted road space" of which you speak being space used for passengers actually on the bus - the long single deck and multiple doors meaning loading and unloading happens quicker thus dwell times are reduced, making journeys speedier and resulting in fewer actual vehicles being required. (I think it was Tom Barry - well it must have been - who attempted to work out the total road space that would be used by the double-deckers that replaced the bendies on route 38 - IIRC his calculation was that they would actually occupy *more* road space.) But the total area taken up by lots of small vehicles doesn't cause anything like the havoc caused by one very long one. If it did, you'd have one bus a mile long causing less problems than 176 double deckers. The issues around blocking crossings and not being able to move across box junctions etc etc are because all the length is in a single vehicle. 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. *[...] (Leaving aside road space issues...) much cut Not wanting to make all this exceptionally large, I accept all your scepticism that I'm not forwarding on, and you couldn't be much more sceptical than I already was; just that I melted slightly to see that it isn't the Routemaster pastiche. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
In message , Paul Corfield
writes The 12m Tri-axle version of the above bus for Hong Kong can readily carry 80 seated and 46 standees! These are dual doored vehicles and the seat pitch is a tad less generous than the UK given the slightly smaller proportions of the HK Chinese. Hey, leave The Boy out of this;) -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On 17 May, 22:30, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:19:42 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote: On 17 May, 17:23, Mizter T wrote: (I think it was Tom Barry - well it must have been - who attempted to work out the total road space that would be used by the double-deckers that replaced the bendies on route 38 - IIRC his calculation was that they would actually occupy *more* road space.) But the total area taken up by lots of small vehicles doesn't cause anything like the havoc caused by one very long one. *If it did, you'd have one bus a mile long causing less problems than 176 double deckers. So speaks the voice of someone who hasn't encountered a swarm of public light buses in Hong Kong blocking the highway. *There are other places that have similar schemes with "free enterprise" midibuses or shared taxis. *Chile and Moscow spring to mind as does somewhere in Asia. Unless that's the only alternative to bendy buses in London I don't see the relevance. I am not actually claiming that three double deckers are going to be replaced by single deckers a mile long, but it's just as unlikely. I was assuming some kind of equivalence in capacity, not one bendy replaced by a whole swarm. The issues around blocking crossings and not being able to move across box junctions etc etc are because all the length is in a single vehicle. We've done this to death but inconsiderate drivers of vehicles of any length can block box junctions if they see fit - double deck buses included. We certainly have, and considerate drivers are more likely to make a mistake if their vehicle is very long, and also have to hold back when smaller vehicles could have gone ahead. (They are mostly rescued by bus lanes, but not everywhere.) |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:12:43 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote: 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. I think it is to a Routemaster what a new Mini is to an old one. It could never have been as small as a real Routemaster, as it couldn't have been made accessible enough. And while Routemasters are quite fun, there is a bit of a lack of legroom for us taller passengers. I think it's in essence a vertical-engined (I assume) Wright hybrid decker with a bodykit. This will probably help to make it not too expensive, which means it might actually happen. Put differently, I was a cynic, but now I've seen it I like it, even if it does run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed. Though if it does do that they'll need some means of making that visible - will it perhaps be shown on the blind? Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:30:59 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote: So speaks the voice of someone who hasn't encountered a swarm of public light buses in Hong Kong blocking the highway. There are other places that have similar schemes with "free enterprise" midibuses or shared taxis. Chile and Moscow spring to mind as does somewhere in Asia. They were banned some time ago in Kuala Lumpur because they did clog the place up. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
Mizter T wrote:
(I think it was Tom Barry - well it must have been - who attempted to work out the total road space that would be used by the double-deckers that replaced the bendies on route 38 - IIRC his calculation was that they would actually occupy *more* road space.) Using the then-current DD lengths it was less on the 38 but a lot more on the 507/521 with their 12m single deckers, so the net change of the first debendifications was zero (well, 9m). Generally replacement with normal DDs reduces the length, though. Ahem: 38 bendy - 18*47 = 846m 38 DD - 10.4*72 = 748.8m 38 BM - 11.2*72 = 806.4m So you save a bit of space, just under four bus lengths. Subsequent conversions are at lower replacement rates, which increases the reduction at the expense of capacity. Obviously amount of road taken up isn't the be all and end all - the 521 bunches badly whenever I've seen it post-conversion; my personal record is four in a row. In any case anyone in the industry will tell you it's not buses that hold up traffic but junctions. Tom |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
On Tue, 18 May 2010 00:02:05 +0200, Neil Williams
wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:12:43 +0100, Tom Barry wrote: It's not a Routemaster. I think it is to a Routemaster what a new Mini is to an old one. It could never have been as small as a real Routemaster, as it couldn't have been made accessible enough. And while Routemasters are quite fun, there is a bit of a lack of legroom for us taller passengers. I think it's in essence a vertical-engined (I assume) Wright hybrid decker with a bodykit. This will probably help to make it not too expensive, which means it might actually happen. Put differently, I was a cynic, but now I've seen it I like it, even if it does run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed. Though if it does do that they'll need some means of making that visible - will it perhaps be shown on the blind? It is a strange combination of about 85% modern bus with the remaining 15% at the back being a grafted-on Routemaster-style platform and stairs. If it did run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed, what would be the point of it? |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Mon, 17 May 2010 23:56:03 +0100
Tom Barry wrote: Obviously amount of road taken up isn't the be all and end all - the 521 bunches badly whenever I've seen it post-conversion; my personal record is four in a row. In any case anyone in the industry will tell you it's not buses that hold up traffic but junctions. They may be what people with a vested interest will say but anyone who drives in londons knows that if theres slow moving traffic theres either a bus or a pensioner at the head of it. Usually the former. And the best bit is when bus drivers can't be arsed to pull into bus stops even where they're clear and just stop in the middle of the road causing a jam. And thats before you get onto the topic of the underpowered heaps not being able to maintain the speed limit going up certain hills such as hampstead, highgate and mill hill. B2003 |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
|
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
|
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On May 18, 8:58*am, Bruce wrote: On Tue, 18 May 2010 00:02:05 +0200, Neil Williams wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:12:43 +0100, Tom Barry wrote: It's not a Routemaster. I think it is to a Routemaster what a new Mini is to an old one. *It could never have been as small as a real Routemaster, as it couldn't have been made accessible enough. *And while Routemasters are quite fun, there is a bit of a lack of legroom for us taller passengers. I think it's in essence a vertical-engined (I assume) Wright hybrid decker with a bodykit. *This will probably help to make it not too expensive, which means it might actually happen. Put differently, I was a cynic, but now I've seen it I like it, even if it does run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed. *Though if it does do that they'll need some means of making that visible - will it perhaps be shown on the blind? It is a strange combination of about 85% modern bus with the remaining 15% at the back being a grafted-on Routemaster-style platform and stairs. If it did run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed, what would be the point of it? Well, quite. There's very little clarity about how often it'll run with a conductor, how it'll work both with and without a conductor, and how London can justify the extra expense of conductors particularly given the ticketing situation nowadays (i.e. the majority of people have a prepaid ticket of some sort). Or if they're not to be a conductor but a "uniformed presence" just what form that presence will take. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:52:05 +0100
Bruce wrote: And thats before you get onto the topic of the underpowered heaps not being able to maintain the speed limit going up certain hills such as hampstead, highgate and mill hill. The speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. Drive a Rover or a Volvo by any chance do you? If the speed limit is 30 it would help the traffic flow if a bus could maintain 30, not struggle to manage 20. B2003 |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:57:40 +0100
Paul Terry wrote: anyone who drives in londons knows that if theres slow moving traffic theres either a bus or a pensioner at the head of it. In my experience, there's much more likely to be traffic lights or road works at the head of the queue. Two of the worst junctions in these parts are not even served by buses. Buses make junctions even worse by either not being able to accelerate quick enough to allow many vehicles behind to get through. On the idiotically short green sequences in a lot of london it makes a difference. B2003 |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
wrote in message
On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:52:05 +0100 Bruce wrote: And thats before you get onto the topic of the underpowered heaps not being able to maintain the speed limit going up certain hills such as hampstead, highgate and mill hill. The speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. Drive a Rover or a Volvo by any chance do you? He's already told us (in other threads) that he drives an S Class Merc. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:11 +0100
"Recliner" wrote: The speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. Drive a Rover or a Volvo by any chance do you? He's already told us (in other threads) that he drives an S Class Merc. Why arn't I convinced.... B2003 |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On 18 May, 10:11, Mizter T wrote:
On May 18, 8:58*am, Bruce wrote: On Tue, 18 May 2010 00:02:05 +0200, Neil Williams wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:12:43 +0100, Tom Barry wrote: It's not a Routemaster. I think it is to a Routemaster what a new Mini is to an old one. *It could never have been as small as a real Routemaster, as it couldn't have been made accessible enough. *And while Routemasters are quite fun, there is a bit of a lack of legroom for us taller passengers. I think it's in essence a vertical-engined (I assume) Wright hybrid decker with a bodykit. *This will probably help to make it not too expensive, which means it might actually happen. Put differently, I was a cynic, but now I've seen it I like it, even if it does run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed. *Though if it does do that they'll need some means of making that visible - will it perhaps be shown on the blind? It is a strange combination of about 85% modern bus with the remaining 15% at the back being a grafted-on Routemaster-style platform and stairs. If it did run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed, what would be the point of it? Well, quite. There's very little clarity about how often it'll run with a conductor, how it'll work both with and without a conductor, and how London can justify the extra expense of conductors particularly given the ticketing situation nowadays (i.e. the majority of people have a prepaid ticket of some sort). Or if they're not to be a conductor but a "uniformed presence" just what form that presence will take. Although just because we don't happen to know the plan, that doesn't mean that there isn't one or that it can't be sensible (or, I hope, that it depends on Boris's personal involvement). I could think of something off the top of my head which would involve a "uniformed presence" in the sections of routes and at times of day which exactly match when fast loading of crowds at bus stops is required. At the country end late in the evening, it won't matter. I expect it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone at TfL can think of these things too, and there could be a glimmer hope that someone has seized an opportunity from the Boris-related crisis. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:23:30AM -0700, Mizter T wrote:
(I think it was Tom Barry - well it must have been - who attempted to work out the total road space that would be used by the double-deckers that replaced the bendies on route 38 - IIRC his calculation was that they would actually occupy *more* road space.) Total road space doesn't matter as much as the space taken up by an individual bus. It's the latter that determines how much the other traffic is held up as they block junctions etc. This is obvious if you consider an artic versus a handful of cars, or a car vs a handful of motorbikes. If however one or both of the other doors are to be used, then the whole rear open platform concept starts to look like a right gimmick - some of the benefits attributed to the Routemasters of old, i.e. that the open platform provided flexibility at bus stops ... No, it provided flexibiilty when *not* at bus stops. It was common for people to get on and off when the bus was stopped at traffic lights, for example. This was Not Allowed, of course, and there was even a little sticker near the entrance to tell you that, but in practice it's how a lot of people got on and off, staff never stopped us from doing it, and it went a long way to mitigate the problem of having everyone funnel through a single entrance. I've never got very excited over the concept of re-introducing conductors - sure, they might be a kind of 'nice to have', but most pax these days already have a ticket of some sort before boarding a bus, which rather removes the raison d'etre for conductors. They're useful for helping passengers by telling them where to get off, helping the infirm on and off, and so on. Supposedly, having uniformed staff makes some people feel safer too. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist I'm in retox |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:02:05AM +0200, Neil Williams wrote:
I think it is to a Routemaster what a new Mini is to an old one. It could never have been as small as a real Routemaster, as it couldn't have been made accessible enough. And while Routemasters are quite fun, there is a bit of a lack of legroom for us taller passengers. I'm 6'3" and never noticed this supposed lack of legroom on Routemasters. I notice it all the time on modern buses though - I suppose the difference is that the RM's seat backs had a bit of give in them instead of being made of hard plastic shells, and so I could sit without crushing my kneecaps. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist Godliness is next to Englishness |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On 18 May, 11:32, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:23:30AM -0700, Mizter T wrote: (I think it was Tom Barry - well it must have been - who attempted to work out the total road space that would be used by the double-deckers that replaced the bendies on route 38 - IIRC his calculation was that they would actually occupy *more* road space.) Total road space doesn't matter as much as the space taken up by an individual bus. *It's the latter that determines how much the other traffic is held up as they block junctions etc. This is obvious if you consider an artic versus a handful of cars, or a car vs a handful of motorbikes. If however one or both of the other doors are to be used, then the whole rear open platform concept starts to look like a right gimmick - some of the benefits attributed to the Routemasters of old, i.e. that the open platform provided flexibility at bus stops ... No, it provided flexibiilty when *not* at bus stops. *It was common for people to get on and off when the bus was stopped at traffic lights, for example. This was Not Allowed, of course, and there was even a little sticker near the entrance to tell you that, but in practice it's how a lot of people got on and off, staff never stopped us from doing it, and it went a long way to mitigate the problem of having everyone funnel through a single entrance. * * *I've never got very excited over the concept of re-introducing conductors - sure, they might be a kind of 'nice to have', but most pax these days already have a ticket of some sort before boarding a bus, which rather removes the raison d'etre for conductors. They're useful for helping passengers by telling them where to get off, helping the infirm on and off, and so on. Supposedly, having uniformed staff makes some people feel safer too. And I had in mind things like selling tickets or Oyster cards to confused visitors and those who supposedly travel for free at the moment. The security guard aspect was less in my mind than the helpfulness possibilities. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / newRoutemaster) unveiled
On 18/05/2010 08:58, Bruce wrote:
It is a strange combination of about 85% modern bus with the remaining 15% at the back being a grafted-on Routemaster-style platform and stairs. If it did run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed, what would be the point of it? Maybe the conductors will only be used on the Oxford Street section, getting off at Marble Arch and manning the next bus back... |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new Routemaster) unveiled
On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:12:33 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote: On 18/05/2010 08:58, Bruce wrote: It is a strange combination of about 85% modern bus with the remaining 15% at the back being a grafted-on Routemaster-style platform and stairs. If it did run around 90% of the time driver-only with the platform closed, what would be the point of it? Maybe the conductors will only be used on the Oxford Street section, getting off at Marble Arch and manning the next bus back... That actually sounds quite sensible. If that was the case, I'm not sure I have total confidence that the system for closing off the platform would be reliable enough to be opened and closed quite so frequently. |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote: wrote in message On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:52:05 +0100 Bruce wrote: And thats before you get onto the topic of the underpowered heaps not being able to maintain the speed limit going up certain hills such as hampstead, highgate and mill hill. The speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. Drive a Rover or a Volvo by any chance do you? He's already told us (in other threads) that he drives an S Class Merc. Not any more. :-( Now it's an E Class. :-) I got fed up trying to find parking spaces that were big enough! |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
|
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Tue, 18 May 2010 13:44:27 +0100
Bruce wrote: You might be more content about the situation if you regard the roads as being there primarily for commercial vehicles and public transport, Except they're not. Everyone who uses the roads (apart from lycra louts) pays road tax. Ergo we all have equal rights on them. And last time I looked an HGV or bus wouldn't fit down the road outside my house anyway , so where does that leave your argument? B2003 |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
|
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:07:59 +0100
Bruce wrote: We all have a responsibility to share them equably with other road users, as in "live and let live". Life is not all about your rights, it is also about your responsibility towards others. I'm not sure what that liberal brainfart has to do with buses causing traffic jams because they're too slow. B2003 |
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
|
Final design for the "New Bus for London" (aka BorisBus / new
On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:26:37 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote: In article , d wrote: Except they're not. Everyone who uses the roads (apart from lycra louts) pays road tax. Cyclists pay the same VED (not road tax) as all other band A vehicles. What do you think an "Âexcise duty" is? Its a tax. Band A vehicles still have to have a valid a tax disc. Do bicycles? No. Ergo we all have equal rights on them. Paying VED is not the source of your rights to use the road. Correct, vehicles also have to be insuranced and have a valid MOT. Do bicycles? No. And last time I looked an HGV or bus wouldn't fit down the road outside my house anyway , so where does that leave your argument? Same place as yours, yours. I'm sure that gibberish would mean something to your mother. B2003 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk