New Bus for London

[ModernRailways]

And it's interesting no operator outside London has shown an interest in it.

The bus has been made for London, I'm not surprised. Most other cities don't require the same type of bus.

 

[BestWestern]

What is mayoral spin?

Shall we have a bet on how many windows get etched?

The only 'spin' I can detect is coming from your direction.

This is just getting silly now isn't it?! Boris has gone and blown a huge about of money on expensive new motors, when he didn't really need to. That's the long and short of it, and the reason that's a bit of an issue is because there's a recession going on, people are being kicked out of their jobs, and here we are spending £100k or so extra per bus on 600 buses, for a public transport system which survives on enormous subsidy. It just doesn't give the overall impression that the Mayor is switched on to where the priorities are in our society. However much one finds the new bus agreeable, in the grand scheme of things there are numerous other places that money could have gone, and I imagine very few would think differently in the current climate.

We could argue about the bus itself, or the politics behind it, for another few days or even weeks I'm sure. But it's probably best if we just agree to disagree! Needless to say, when in the capital I shall be making no particular efforts to ride on one, but if those who do find them pleasant, then that's all very well and good

 

[90019]

Personally given a choice I much prefer the new Boris Bus to the old double deckers on Route 24 and will specifically wait for it if I can see one coming behind a standard double decker. The ride is much smoother and quieter,

New bus in 'Smoother and quieter than old bus' shocker!

 

[transmanche]

New bus in 'Smoother and quieter than old bus' shocker!

Metroline used some '62' registered buses on route 24, before the Boris Buses came into service.

 

[90019]

Metroline used some '62' registered buses on route 24, before the Boris Buses came into service.

If it's the Volvos, then the bodywork is also by Wrightbus. I'm sure the new buses will be rattling soon enough.
Mind you, Wright's stuff is nowehere near as bad as some Dennises are for that, particularly the older ones. Some of them literally start to disintegrate around you as you drive down the road.


London's deckers are fairly short though, are they short wheelbase?
Our Volvo single decks are SWB, and the ride can be quite bad on them.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

Wrights build quality since around 2006 has been poor. the only exception in my eyes is the commander which has a decent build quality but doesn't seat enough

 

[transmanche]

If it's the Volvos, then the bodywork is also by Wrightbus. I'm sure the new buses will be rattling soon enough.

Are Wrights considered to be the 'Bombardier of the bus world'?

 

[Deerfold]

The bus has been made for London, I'm not surprised. Most other cities don't require the same type of bus.

I've never understood why London is supposed to have wildly different requirements for a bus than other cities.

Yes it needs more of them as bus ridership levels are very high but what else is different about London?

And how has it managed using the same buses as everyone else since the RM?

 

[90019]

Are Wrights considered to be the 'Bombardier of the bus world'?

I don't find them to be too bad, certainly the Wrightbus bodied buses I drive are much better put together than the Dennis ones.
It probably helps that the chassis of the Wrights are Volvos, and are damn good buses (particularly the 07 and 57 plate B7RLEs).

 

[transmanche]

And how has it managed using the same buses as everyone else since the RM?

I think the popular perception is that off-the-shelf buses didn't seem to stand up well to life in London - certainly LT's experience with Merlins and Fleetlines was not particularly successful.

Other than the Metrobus[*], there hasn't been a bus since the RM which really stood the test of time in London.

In terms of specific requirements for London, well chief amongst them is faster boarding/alighting - various things have been tried over the years (AFC turnstiles, marshals at stops to board passengers via the centre doors, roadside ticket machine and of course Oyster. With the bendybuses came three sets of doors and free-boarding. So with the return of double-deckers, three sets of doors and twin staircases are the new 'unique' requirement - along with lower emissions than offered by 'standard' hybrids.


* And perhaps the Titan too, but I lived in 'Metrobus territory'

 

[ModernRailways]

I think the popular perception is that off-the-shelf buses didn't seem to stand up well to life in London - certainly LT's experience with Merlins and Fleetlines was not particularly successful.

Other than the Metrobus[*], there hasn't been a bus since the RM which really stood the test of time in London.

In terms of specific requirements for London, well chief amongst them is faster boarding/alighting - various things have been tried over the years (AFC turnstiles, marshals at stops to board passengers via the centre doors, roadside ticket machine and of course Oyster. With the bendybuses came three sets of doors and free-boarding. So with the return of double-deckers, three sets of doors and twin staircases are the new 'unique' requirement - along with lower emissions than offered by 'standard' hybrids.


* And perhaps the Titan too, but I lived in 'Metrobus territory'

That was exactly my point. London has specific requirements. Buses that are ran in suburbs aren't really very good when they get into the city and start becoming crowded. European buses also have three doors on their citaros etc. (mostly) which are used in cities. London is just the same and needs three doors or delays happen. It's not often all the buses in Greater London (Zone 1) are bang on time, the peaks are terrible I had to take the bus from Aldgate East to Victoria and the amount of time it took people to get off/on was ridiculous. People getting off were blocking the way for those getting on to move and so it was holding the bus up. Three doors and two staircases means people can get off at both rear doors meaning less crowds at the middle doors which in turn means faster boarding times as people can then move about the bus a little more freely.

 

[Deerfold]

I think the popular perception is that off-the-shelf buses didn't seem to stand up well to life in London - certainly LT's experience with Merlins and Fleetlines was not particularly successful.

Other than the Metrobus[*], there hasn't been a bus since the RM which really stood the test of time in London.

In terms of specific requirements for London, well chief amongst them is faster boarding/alighting - various things have been tried over the years (AFC turnstiles, marshals at stops to board passengers via the centre doors, roadside ticket machine and of course Oyster. With the bendybuses came three sets of doors and free-boarding. So with the return of double-deckers, three sets of doors and twin staircases are the new 'unique' requirement - along with lower emissions than offered by 'standard' hybrids.

How did an RM allow faster boarding? True, it had a conductor but then so did most of the rest of the country at the time they were introduced.

There's quite a few places bought RMs (despite the higher costs of having 2 staff) - there would probably have been more if they'd been sold off when they were a bit younger.

I saw the advantages of the RM as being that they could be bought in huge numbers to save money and then maintained at dedicated facilities that only had to look after one type of bus. With privatisation that's not going to happen with the new buses.

I'd agree that fast boarding is imprtant on London buses. On suitable routes the bendybuses were great for this. I'll have to test out a few Borisbuses as they roll out to see how it's going.

I'm sure other places around the world must like having fast boarding, not just London.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

At least British jobs are being made (NI is part of the UK is it not) with bus manufacturing and bus conducting!

 

[jon0844]

How did an RM allow faster boarding? True, it had a conductor but then so did most of the rest of the country at the time they were introduced.

Having stairs right by a door/exit must be a benefit, as it means you don't need to navigate through a crowd of people/buggies/bags to get upstairs, or down and off.

 

[BestWestern]

I've never understood why London is supposed to have wildly different requirements for a bus than other cities.

Yes it needs more of them as bus ridership levels are very high but what else is different about London?

And how has it managed using the same buses as everyone else since the RM?

This is a fair point. The theory about London 'needing' different buses to everywhere else sort of falls down when you consider that for several decades a large chunk of the fleet was made up of obsolete 1960s vehicles with only a single entrance and no logical 'flow' system regarding the stairs - i.e. unlike rear engined deckers where the the flow is people coming straight down the stairs and out of the centre doors while those boarding are making their way on at the front. Aside from the open platform, which might have allowed some degree of hopping on and off but ultimately is deemed no longer appropriate in our cotton wool-wrapped society, there is little about an RM which makes it any more passenger friendly than anything else, and indeed one or two issues which make it quite the opposite. And yet they carried on, and on and on. Don't get me wrong, I think they're great from an enthusiast point of view, but they're hardly cutting edge. Had Boris not decided to use bendies and Routemasters as the basis for a quirky, attention grabbing election manifesto, London would still be managing quite nicely with perfectly 'normal' - albeit to TfL's rather exacting spec - buses, and this sudden 'need' for something different would never have materialised.

 

[transmanche]

How did an RM allow faster boarding? True, it had a conductor but then so did most of the rest of the country at the time they were introduced.

I was referring to the requirements for the Boris Bus - unless you thought lower emissions was a concern in the 1950s (obviously not, as the RM was to be the replacement for trolleybuses).[/QUOTE]

There's quite a few places bought RMs (despite the higher costs of having 2 staff) - there would probably have been more if they'd been sold off when they were a bit younger.

Only Northern General (and BEA) bought some from new. Quite a few places bought them second-hand, but only as 'vanity projects' and only because of their iconic status. (There were plenty available for sale in the 70s, when Northern, BEA and LCBS were disposing of their fleets - but the only purchaser then was LT.)

I'm sure other places around the world must like having fast boarding, not just London.

Quite possibly, but in the UK (apart from Edinburgh?) operators persist with single-doors. Even cascaded bendybuses are front entrance only.

 

[BestWestern]

Quite possibly, but in the UK (apart from Edinburgh?) operators persist with single-doors. Even cascaded bendybuses are front entrance only.

It is obscure how centre doors seem to be regarded as a massive problem outside of London. There are clearly other places where the flows are just as heavy as some TfL routes, and yet nobody seems willing to embrace the advantages. Indeed, it's incredibly rare the even a bus built with centre doors actually enters service with them in use or even still in place. Once upon a time I believe there were issues with drivers' unions, though it's difficult to see what the problem is with it from that point of view?

Just a provincial mentality perhaps?

 

[starrymarkb]

When I was in Leipzig the buses had train style "Open" buttons on the rear sets of doors. Most city buses in Europe have 3 pairs of doors per side but then the typical journey is a lot shorter then in the UK.

 

[90019]

Quite possibly, but in the UK (apart from Edinburgh?) operators persist with single-doors. Even cascaded bendybuses are front entrance only.

We use single doors in Edinburgh as well. It used to be dual doors, but it's been single door for a few years. There were quite a few Tridents converted to single door, but I can't remember when it was.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is obscure how centre doors seem to be regarded as a massive problem outside of London. There are clearly other places where the flows are just as heavy as some TfL routes, and yet nobody seems willing to embrace the advantages. Indeed, it's incredibly rare the even a bus built with centre doors actually enters service with them in use or even still in place. Once upon a time I believe there were issues with drivers' unions, though it's difficult to see what the problem is with it from that point of view?

Just a provincial mentality perhaps?

From what I've been told, one of the reasons for Lothian switching to single doors was an increasing number of claims from people saying that drivers had shut the centre doors on them. That and the increasing fare evasion from people sneaking on through the centre doors when the driver was busy dealing with people at the front.
The general opinion from the other drivers who've used both single and dual doors seems to be that they're a bit of a nuisance, and it's much better just having one set of doors at the front.

 

[BestWestern]

We use single doors in Edinburgh as well. It used to be dual doors, but it's been single door for a few years. There were quite a few Tridents converted to single door, but I can't remember when it was.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


From what I've been told, one of the reasons for Lothian switching to single doors was an increasing number of claims from people saying that drivers had shut the centre doors on them. That and the increasing fare evasion from people sneaking on through the centre doors when the driver was busy dealing with people at the front.
The general opinion from the other drivers who've used both single and dual doors seems to be that they're a bit of a nuisance, and it's much better just having one set of doors at the front.

I suppose the notable difference in London is that the punters have little interaction with the driver and are unlikely to be handing over any cash, so rear door fare bunking is not an issue.

 

[Antman]

This is just getting silly now isn't it?! Boris has gone and blown a huge about of money on expensive new motors, when he didn't really need to. That's the long and short of it, and the reason that's a bit of an issue is because there's a recession going on, people are being kicked out of their jobs, and here we are spending £100k or so extra per bus on 600 buses, for a public transport system which survives on enormous subsidy. It just doesn't give the overall impression that the Mayor is switched on to where the priorities are in our society. However much one finds the new bus agreeable, in the grand scheme of things there are numerous other places that money could have gone, and I imagine very few would think differently in the current climate.

We could argue about the bus itself, or the politics behind it, for another few days or even weeks I'm sure. But it's probably best if we just agree to disagree! Needless to say, when in the capital I shall be making no particular efforts to ride on one, but if those who do find them pleasant, then that's all very well and good

Well that's just your opinion, not a statement of facts. Of course the new bus is also creating new jobs, is that a bad thing now?

 

[Deerfold]

Well that's just your opinion, not a statement of facts. Of course the new bus is also creating new jobs, is that a bad thing now?

It's not the only bus which would create British jobs.

It's a fact that the Borisbus is substantially more expensive than other hybrids on the market, it's a fact than London buses needs a huge subsidy to provide its present service (and TfL's budget has been cut again in the last Government announcement).

 

[Antman]

How did an RM allow faster boarding? True, it had a conductor but then so did most of the rest of the country at the time they were introduced.

There's quite a few places bought RMs (despite the higher costs of having 2 staff) - there would probably have been more if they'd been sold off when they were a bit younger.

I saw the advantages of the RM as being that they could be bought in huge numbers to save money and then maintained at dedicated facilities that only had to look after one type of bus. With privatisation that's not going to happen with the new buses.

I'd agree that fast boarding is imprtant on London buses. On suitable routes the bendybuses were great for this. I'll have to test out a few Borisbuses as they roll out to see how it's going.

I'm sure other places around the world must like having fast boarding, not just London.

The RM was great for fast boarding, you just get on go upstairs or inside and the conductor comes round to you. Some people might remember the MD class on the 36 group back in the 1970's. they were great buses with a fantastic turn of speed but they still couldn't match the RM for end to end journey times.

There are some myths about the bendybus and fast boarding. At Waterloo station in the morning there were three queues for the 521 and when it turned up everybody boarded the empty bus through three doors, great. However that shouldn't be seen as typical, at many stops there were people trying to get off at the same time and the more packed the bus the longer it took. When RM's were still on the 36 it could be anything up to 10-15 minutes quicker than the bendybus 436 on the common section between Paddington and New Cross, even when the 36 went OPO it was still generally quicker than the bendybus at busy times. The fact that many people preferesd the bendybus for a free ride was also no doubt a contributory factor.

 

[Deerfold]

The RM was great for fast boarding, you just get on go upstairs or inside and the conductor comes round to you.

In common with many other buses of similar age. Nothing particularly special for London there.

 

[transmanche]

it's a fact than London buses needs a huge subsidy to provide its present service (and TfL's budget has been cut again in the last Government announcement).

According to this DfT data set, net government support (excluding concessionary fares and BSOG) in English Metropolitan areas was 12.4p per passenger journey in 2011/2012.[*]

Whereas this evidence from TfL to the House of Commons Transport Committee says that subsidy (excluding concessionary fares and BSOG) in London was 17p per passenger journey in 2011/2012.

Another thing to consider is that TfL regard money paid for ENCTS/Freedom Pass journeys (which is paid for by London councils) as income - hence their exclusion above. Whereas a lot of other concessionary travel (free travel for; under 16s, military veterans, those aged 60 to pension age, staff and families - and reduced-rate travel for; 16-18s, students, apprentices and many benefit claimants) comes from the TfL budget.


* It notes that "funding support is apportioned equally across all passenger journeys made (including fare-paying journeys on commercial services), whether or not the passenger was a direct beneficiary of the support in question."

 

[Deerfold]

According to this DfT data set, net government support (excluding concessionary fares and BSOG) in English Metropolitan areas was 12.4p per passenger journey in 2011/2012.[*]

Whereas this evidence from TfL to the House of Commons Transport Committee says that subsidy (excluding concessionary fares and BSOG) in London was 17p per passenger journey in 2011/2012.

Another thing to consider is that TfL regard money paid for ENCTS/Freedom Pass journeys (which is paid for by London councils) as income - hence their exclusion above. Whereas a lot of other concessionary travel (free travel for; under 16s, military veterans, those aged 60 to pension age, staff and families - and reduced-rate travel for; 16-18s, students, apprentices and many benefit claimants) comes from the TfL budget.


* It notes that "funding support is apportioned equally across all passenger journeys made (including fare-paying journeys on commercial services), whether or not the passenger was a direct beneficiary of the support in question."

So given 40% of bus journeys are in London, 58% of all bus subsidy in the country provides the service in London.

London Buses then spends extra - providing the most comprehensive Countdown system in the UK and arguably the best information at bus stops in the UK.

I'd also be interested in the subsidy per passenger mile. I suspect that is much higher in London with there being so many other alternatives for many longer journeys.

And if we stat having 2 staff on buses again that subsidy figure is going to rocket.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Berlin buses have three doors in the main, however you are supposed to only enter via the front door and show/buy ticket. This is to combat fare evasion

 

[transmanche]

So given 40% of bus journeys are in London, 58% of all bus subsidy in the country provides the service in London.

I'm not sure how you extrapolated that (but I won't dispute it). All I can add is that the equivalent subsidy in non-Metropolitan English areas is 16.6p per passenger journey.

 

[BestWestern]

Well that's just your opinion, not a statement of facts. Of course the new bus is also creating new jobs, is that a bad thing now?

It is entirely factual to say that the Mayor of London/TfL are spending very substantially more than they need to on new buses.

 

[kylemore]

It is obscure how centre doors seem to be regarded as a massive problem outside of London. There are clearly other places where the flows are just as heavy as some TfL routes, and yet nobody seems willing to embrace the advantages. Indeed, it's incredibly rare the even a bus built with centre doors actually enters service with them in use or even still in place. Once upon a time I believe there were issues with drivers' unions, though it's difficult to see what the problem is with it from that point of view?

Just a provincial mentality perhaps?

Well more to do with our privatised bus system where value to shareholders is far more important than utility to the public or country at large - money grubbing - making sure every punter pays their fare more important than speeding up boarding and therefore journey time.