What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any discussion
of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx

Recliner wrote:
What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any discussion
of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx



I read it at the time, but haven't bothered to cover it yet for some
reason, sheer laziness mainly. Did anyone else notice that the 507 and
521 haven't lost the bendy buses yet? Contract was up at the end of
May, but there's been a delay for some reason.

Anyway, Borisbuses. They're rather coy in not saying that probably
three of the applicants are *foreign*, assuming the three main UK
suppliers are involved, although there could be some wildcards in there.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris (the
real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the bus is
lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate for running
the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has rather too many
noughts at the end). So, a collapsible door - if memory serves doors
are amongst the usual troublesome components on new transport vehicles
these days, and I'm not sure making them collapsible will necessarily help.

Finally, there's no suggestion of the bus having to be a hybrid or
electrically powered vehicle, opening the way to a pure diesel or gas
vehicle, provided it's less polluting than some notional 'conventional
bus', of what Euro emissions standard isn't stated.

Tom

On 11 June, 21:26, Tom Barry wrote:
Recliner wrote:
What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any discussion
of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx

I read it at the time, but haven't bothered to cover it yet for some
reason, sheer laziness mainly. *Did anyone else notice that the 507 and
521 haven't lost the bendy buses yet? *Contract was up at the end of
May, but there's been a delay for some reason.

Anyway, Borisbuses. *They're rather coy in not saying that probably
three of the applicants are *foreign*, assuming the three main UK
suppliers are involved, although there could be some wildcards in there.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. *Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris (the
real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the bus is
lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate for running
the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has rather too many
noughts at the end). *So, a collapsible door - if memory serves doors
are amongst the usual troublesome components on new transport vehicles
these days, and I'm not sure making them collapsible will necessarily help.

Finally, there's no suggestion of the bus having to be a hybrid or
electrically powered vehicle, opening the way to a pure diesel or gas
vehicle, provided it's less polluting than some notional 'conventional
bus', of what Euro emissions standard isn't stated.

Tom

How will they make the upper deck DDA-compliant?

"Darth Sunil" wrote in message

On 11 June, 21:26, Tom Barry wrote:
Recliner wrote:
What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any
discussion of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx

I read it at the time, but haven't bothered to cover it yet for some
reason, sheer laziness mainly. Did anyone else notice that the 507
and 521 haven't lost the bendy buses yet? Contract was up at the end
of
May, but there's been a delay for some reason.

Anyway, Borisbuses. They're rather coy in not saying that probably
three of the applicants are *foreign*, assuming the three main UK
suppliers are involved, although there could be some wildcards in
there.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris
(the real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the
bus is lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate
for running the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has
rather too many noughts at the end). So, a collapsible door - if
memory serves doors
are amongst the usual troublesome components on new transport
vehicles these days, and I'm not sure making them collapsible will
necessarily help.

Finally, there's no suggestion of the bus having to be a hybrid or
electrically powered vehicle, opening the way to a pure diesel or gas
vehicle, provided it's less polluting than some notional
'conventional bus', of what Euro emissions standard isn't stated.

Tom

How will they make the upper deck DDA-compliant?

Why would they need to?

On 13 June, 11:44, "Recliner" wrote:
"Darth Sunil" wrote in message





On 11 June, 21:26, Tom Barry wrote:
Recliner wrote:
What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any
discussion of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx

I read it at the time, but haven't bothered to cover it yet for some
reason, sheer laziness mainly. Did anyone else notice that the 507
and 521 haven't lost the bendy buses yet? Contract was up at the end
of
May, but there's been a delay for some reason.

Anyway, Borisbuses. They're rather coy in not saying that probably
three of the applicants are *foreign*, assuming the three main UK
suppliers are involved, although there could be some wildcards in
there.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris
(the real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the
bus is lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate
for running the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has
rather too many noughts at the end). So, a collapsible door - if
memory serves doors
are amongst the usual troublesome components on new transport
vehicles these days, and I'm not sure making them collapsible will
necessarily help.

Finally, there's no suggestion of the bus having to be a hybrid or
electrically powered vehicle, opening the way to a pure diesel or gas
vehicle, provided it's less polluting than some notional
'conventional bus', of what Euro emissions standard isn't stated.

Tom

How will they make the upper deck DDA-compliant?

Why would they need to?

On a bendy, all seats would be accessible to the disabled.

In article
,
(Dr. Sunil) wrote:

On 13 June, 11:44, "Recliner" wrote:
"Darth Sunil" wrote in message


On 11 June, 21:26, Tom Barry wrote:
Recliner wrote:
What with all the Tube strike discussions, I didn't see any
discussion of this press release from a week ago:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/11940.aspx

I read it at the time, but haven't bothered to cover it yet for
some reason, sheer laziness mainly. Did anyone else notice that
the 507 and 521 haven't lost the bendy buses yet? Contract was
up at the end of May, but there's been a delay for some reason.

Anyway, Borisbuses. They're rather coy in not saying that probably
three of the applicants are *foreign*, assuming the three main UK
suppliers are involved, although there could be some wildcards in
there.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris
(the real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the
bus is lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate
for running the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has
rather too many noughts at the end). So, a collapsible door - if
memory serves doors are amongst the usual troublesome components on
new transport vehicles these days, and I'm not sure making them
collapsible will necessarily help.

Finally, there's no suggestion of the bus having to be a hybrid or
electrically powered vehicle, opening the way to a pure diesel or
gas vehicle, provided it's less polluting than some notional
'conventional bus', of what Euro emissions standard isn't stated.

How will they make the upper deck DDA-compliant?

Why would they need to?

On a bendy, all seats would be accessible to the disabled.

Really? I didn't think those at the back were.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:26:42 +0100, Tom Barry wrote:

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night.

This seems a bit silly. There are far fewer buses running at night
than during the day, so if they don't want open platforms at night,
why not just put the Borismasters away at night and only use other
buses? An over-engineered solution to a simple problem.

Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night.

This seems a bit silly. There are far fewer buses running at night
than during the day, so if they don't want open platforms at night,
why not just put the Borismasters away at night and only use other
buses? An over-engineered solution to a simple problem.

Looking at the pics of *proposed* (yes, I have noted that word) designs
there would be no opportunity for the driver to sell/check tickets
anyway as the door seems half way along the bus. Unless this is just the
plan for the routes with ticket machines at stops and presumably they
think it unsafe to have open platforms with no conductor.

Commuter wrote on 14 June 2009 13:16:10 ...
Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night.

This seems a bit silly. There are far fewer buses running at night
than during the day, so if they don't want open platforms at night,
why not just put the Borismasters away at night and only use other
buses? An over-engineered solution to a simple problem.

Looking at the pics of *proposed* (yes, I have noted that word) designs
there would be no opportunity for the driver to sell/check tickets
anyway as the door seems half way along the bus. Unless this is just the
plan for the routes with ticket machines at stops and presumably they
think it unsafe to have open platforms with no conductor.

I don't think the pictured designs are in any sense "proposed". They
were just the two designs that jointly won the competition. I note that
they have slavishly copied the axle positions from the Routemaster
design. With the space needed for wheelchairs/buggies and the rear
platform, the vehicle would obviously be at least as long as current
double-deckers. Hence, with the front wheels right at the front like
the Routemaster, the wheelbase would be too long. It would be less
manoeuvrable than a bendy-bus!

Are the specs that have been issued to the short-listed manufacturers
available online anywhere?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:26:42 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote:


Also that there's now consideration given to covering up the rear
platform at night. Where I come from that's called a 'door', Boris (the
real reason is probably to save staff costs at times when the bus is
lightly loaded - someone's probably drawn up a cost estimate for running
the bus with two crew on 24 hour routes, and it has rather too many
noughts at the end).

As someone from outside London who's knowledge of public transport
there is admittedly limited, can you explain why a borisbus would need
to be double crewed?
--
Cheers

Peter