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.

When I first read the BBC story (above) I scoffed somewhat, not least
because Boris Johnson (the Tory candidate in the forthcoming Mayoral
elections in May) declared it was "the shape of the future" - so my
instant prejudice was to be highly sceptical! However, the full
article has now been put up on the Autocar website, and it's less
ridiculous than I first though - you can read it for yourself he

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/229691/


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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The BBC story has the Mayor's spokesman saying of Boris Johnson:
"Now he has unveiled his bus scheme it would mean single bus fares
going up from 90p to £1.50 and a weekly bus pass from £13 to £22."

I guess these are costing estimates produced by the Mayor as opposed
to Boris, but they do perhaps assist one in focusing on the crucial
issue of cost when it comes to proposals to reintroduce conductors, or
indeed proposals to design and build new buses...

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.

Correct, TFL actually means "Transport ForLorn" or "Totally F****
London".

On 19 Dec, 17:50, Mizter T wrote:
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.

Won't happen. Even if the disabilty taliban can be mollified the
powers that be are still scared stiff of the health and safety issues
of having an open exit at the back. Its all swings and roundabouts but
we'll have to wait for the current spineless emasculated pillocks who
seem to run the country to retire before something like the
routemaster can come back. Some bullets in the back of the heads of
some ambulance chasing lawyers would help too.

B2003

In uk.transport.london message a51f1adf-bd97-416f-8533-e9ffdd05b8bf@d21
g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:50:22, Mizter T
posted:

Autocar magazine (somewhat bizarrely) asked
...

Was it not Autocar that did road-tests on outré vehicles for the
Christmas number? I recall reading, some while ago, a test of a (1 HP)
brewer's dray. As I recall, they said that it was reluctant to start on
cold mornings, but never completely refused; and that the exhaust
emissions in the first mile were terrible.

It would be nice to read it again; is it on the Web?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
For more on our news hierarchy news:uk.*, see newsgroups news:uk.answers and
news:uk.net.news.*, and URL:http://www.usenet.org.uk/.

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!

Paul Corfield wrote:

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.

Amen to that!

mf

Mizter T wrote:

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).

It's quite possible that opinions vary given the actual bendy bus people are
likely to use. The number 25 serves QMUL (and also my home) and I'm hard
pressed to think of *anyone* with a good word to say about bendy buses in
general.

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.

That's a good point but I think too many people overlook the level of
faredodging on the bendy buses - how much would ticket insepctions claw
back? I don't doubt that it probably wouldn't reach the cost, but passengers
also find the bendies in particular to be scarey to travel on (again this
may be a 25 specific problem) and having a member of staff on board who
isn't locked away in a booth at the front would reassure many.

Paul Corfield wrote:

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.

Well there's the cost issue that's true, but the basic problem is the
Routemaster has several features that a) are not duplicated on the
replacement buses, particularly the ability to jump off between stops, open
platform that prevents it from getting too hot inside and onboard staff who
gave reassurance; and b) have been incorporated into road and bus stop
planning - e.g. the Liverpool Street to Tottenham bendy that takes forever
because of the over frequent bus stops that were placed for Routemasters or
the narrows built into roads that bendies have problems navigating.

What could address some of these problems would be more flexibility on the
part of drivers and/or the training - e.g. allowing passengers to be able to
escape the buses when on a scorching day they're stuck in traffic only 200
metres from the bus stop. It's these kind of things that make people want
the Routemaster back. Yes there's nostalgia for the bus but if the modern
buses were doing as good a job at meeting passenger requirements then demand
for the return would be less.

Another one that springs to mind are pushchairs. On modern buses owners of
toddler tractors seem to assume they have a God Given Right to the limited
open space and that anyone in that space for whatever reason can be simply
shoved aside (more than once I've had my shopping almost rammed) and battles
ensue when there isn't enough space to go round. I can't recall the battles
occurring on the Routemaster because it was clear they had to be folded.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

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).

It's quite possible that opinions vary given the actual bendy bus people
are likely to use. The number 25 serves QMUL (and also my home) and I'm
hard pressed to think of *anyone* with a good word to say about bendy
buses in general.

A quick online quiz of my friends (not all native english speakers, i
should mention) yielded the following comments:

"they are rubbish, I hate them. i prefer the one with the double floor"

"dodge fare heaven...!!! Route 29 Rules..!!!!"

"I like them. But maybe only cos I get to go on them but rarely, so
they're still a novelty. I like that you can get on at any door you like."

"1. Bendy buses are relatively low in the no. of passengers to road space
usage ratio. -- waste space

2. It is more difficult for a bendy bus to go round corners. -- waste
time

They are not helping with the congestion. Double deckers are much more
efficient."

"i hate them"

"meep"

I'll let you know if anything more sensical comes in.

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.

That's a good point but I think too many people overlook the level of
faredodging on the bendy buses - how much would ticket insepctions claw
back? I don't doubt that it probably wouldn't reach the cost, but
passengers also find the bendies in particular to be scarey to travel on
(again this may be a 25 specific problem) and having a member of staff
on board who isn't locked away in a booth at the front would reassure
many.

I've often heard it suggested that these problems are linked: the
dodgeability of fares means they attract people we might charitably
describe as 'low-life scum', who then make travel a bit frightening for
everyone else.

tom

--
File under 'directionless space novelty ultimately ruined by poor
self-editing'

For the operator, the advantages of an RM a
- light weight
- conductor can deter vandalism

Passenger advantages are
- hop on, hop off
- generally a better view out
- more seats

On weight, low-floor double-deckers weigh as much as 1.5 RMs. Bendies
weigh more than two.

A light wheelchair-accessible bus would be an environmental winner,
reducing fuel and road maintenance costs.

The cost of a conductor could be covered by reduced fuel and
maintenance costs - including reduced vandalism repair on the bus.

Also the presence of a conductor would have some effect in encouraging
fare-paying passengers late at night.

So it's entirely possible that a bus with a conductor could be more
economical to run overall - especially if fuel costs go up a lot.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.