New shorter NB4L unveiled

[AB93]

Thames Transit in Oxford had 2 door minibuses in the early 90s which looked quite smart IMO.

When comparing places, the most important metric is the modal share for public transport. In particular, are car users using the services? In general, the UK cities outside London have lower public transport patronage compared to cities in northern and central Europe.

Regarding fare dodging in London, I could refer you to the Christmas Day thread, where we see that only about a fifth of London public transport commuters use only one bus each way, and only about a third of London public transport commuters who use at least one bus use only one bus each way. So unless all your trips are on open boarding buses, you will need to pay on every other bus/Tube/train anyway, meaning you would save very little or nothing at all by fare dodging on open boarding buses.

But you only need to try it on twice, and be lucky twice, and you've made a return trip without paying anything.

Given the number of London bus drivers who pay no attention to boarding passengers and/or who give free rides at the slightest hint of a problem, I'm sure it's easily possible to get a free ride. Especially if you turn up with an empty/broken Oyster and plead ignorance, for example.

It's not uncommon to see people rejected from the first bus simply alight and have a go on the next one instead.

 

[radamfi]

But you only need to try it on twice, and be lucky twice, and you've made a return trip without paying anything.

Given the number of London bus drivers who pay no attention to boarding passengers and/or who give free rides at the slightest hint of a problem, I'm sure it's easily possible to get a free ride. Especially if you turn up with an empty/broken Oyster and plead ignorance, for example.

It's not uncommon to see people rejected from the first bus simply alight and have a go on the next one instead.

That's why revenue protection is carried out on all kinds of buses, not just ones with open boarding. However, as I indicated earlier, the fact that a lot of bus passengers also need to use the Tube/train, where fare dodging is harder to do, means that there is often little to be gained from fare dodging.

 

[AB93]

That's why revenue protection is carried out on all kinds of buses, not just ones with open boarding. However, as I indicated earlier, the fact that a lot of bus passengers also need to use the Tube/train, where fare dodging is harder to do, means that there is often little to be gained from fare dodging.

Presumably TfL don't have journey data for fare evaders though - why change onto a tube when you can use the bus for free?

 

[radamfi]

why change onto a tube when you can use the bus for free?

Buses go everywhere Tubes go, so why use Tubes now?

I'm not sure if that was a serious question, but I'm guessing you are suggesting that some people are so desperate to save money they will fare dodge on the bus rather than take the Tube. I'm sure there are a few people like that, but probably not that many.

 

[neilm831]

well looks like there will be 1200 shorter routemasters on top of the 808 already ordered..great news with ltz2001 coming to london next week but not licenced until jan 1st 2016

London will really benefit especially traffic

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Thames Transit in Oxford had 2 door minibuses in the early 90s which looked quite smart IMO.

When comparing places, the most important metric is the modal share for public transport. In particular, are car users using the services? In general, the UK cities outside London have lower public transport patronage compared to cities in northern and central Europe.

Regarding fare dodging in London, I could refer you to the Christmas Day thread, where we see that only about a fifth of London public transport commuters use only one bus each way, and only about a third of London public transport commuters who use at least one bus use only one bus each way. So unless all your trips are on open boarding buses, you will need to pay on every other bus/Tube/train anyway, meaning you would save very little or nothing at all by fare dodging on open boarding buses.

I'm neither pro nor anti multi-door vehicles. They have their pros and cons and the political meddling that surrounded the removal of the artics may well be repeated again. The whole issue of artics and their threats to society were wholly overblown by a politically savvy, straw haired philanderer and self publicist.

Regarding fare evasion, the Xmas day thread may well indicate the modal split but two things spring to mind. Firstly, 20% of the traffic is bus only - still a significant proportion. Secondly, by its nature, info on fare evasion instances is difficult to verify.

As always, it becomes the equation of the cost of enforcement vs. the revenue lost.

Ps I thought the dual door Ivecos of Transit Holdings were a bit overkill. How many doors do you need on a 23 seat bus!

 

[Antman]

Presumably TfL don't have journey data for fare evaders though - why change onto a tube when you can use the bus for free?

Exactly, despite what TfL might claim they can only guess at the levels of fare evasion on open boarding buses. It was noticeable that loadings on the 25 reduced when open boarding artics were replaced by conventional double deckers, presumably many users went back to using the train or tube when they could no longer travel for free on the 25? The 25 was also plagued with anti social behavior problems which no longer happen since many of those causing the problems can no longer get on free.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As always, it becomes the equation of the cost of enforcement vs. the revenue lost.

Pretty much this.

Anecdotally, fare evasion is often where someone is travelling a few stops. If they were forced to pay, they may well walk instead, so the gain in revenue is negligible. In the central zone you'll see fare evasion for this reason, people hopping two stops down Oxford Street, but as a percentage of total travel it will remain quite small.

The idea that bus loads of people are skimming for free is laughable, especially when you get out into the suburbs. To get into the centre and back out you don't need to "get lucky" twice, you need to "get lucky" four, five or six times. It isn't worth it, not when a daily bus pass is capped at three single bus journeys and certainly not when you consider the time penalty of taking the bus compared to the tube.

Buses will appear quieter now they are double deckers, for the simple fact there are more seats and (significantly) fewer standing spaces. It's all about perception. Sometimes this is a good thing, and sometimes it isn't; not being able to get on a decker with 20 seats vacant upstairs because of standees downstairs going three stops is extremely frustrating.

As for anti-social behaviour, I'd say this is due to other changes TfL have made (including revoking free travel for children who are caught), rather than the change in bus type. If anything, you can get away with far more on the back upstairs seats of a decker if you really wanted to.

 

[Wolfie]

If this news item had been released on 1st April then I'd have thought 'good photoshop, just about plausible as a story' then dismissed it on the grounds (a) that Wrightbus wouldn't be so deluded as to think even this tweaked version would be of interest to any UK bus operator other than TfL and (b) now TfL have got even less money to play with, that they had better and more important things to spend that money on. Headways are being reduced on routes all over London, some on a supposedly temporary basis. The 23 is about to get its fourth cut over the last three years, for instance. A few extra evening or Sunday buses are glossing over the general deterioration in service, caused in part by the ineffectiveness of the congestion charge when it is not allied to other measures,and its removal from the Kensington borough altogether.

I abslutely agree and sincerely hope that purchases of Boris' vaniety project cease the moment he ceases to be mayor. 2016 and the elections can't come soon enough...

I make no secret that its our best bus since RM & RT in 50s/60s/70s

That is your view, which you are perfectly entitled to and not a fact as you seem to almost be asserting. Others, including me, beg to differ.

Well I lived in west london a lot of my life and I currently reside in Eastbourne.

London is a special place,it should not have the same buses as the ones that go past my flat[99 to Hastings]

London deserves a bus that looks quality and this is first bus to get anywhere near the old rms and RTS

Wonderful. So someone who doesn't have to use the damn things on a daily basis, or indeed pay the significant cost premium associated with them, is all too keen to impose them on those who do have to.

cANT BELIEVE THE FUSS THE COST OF THE BUS MAKES

The money was available to ease congestion..3 entrances..three exits,more ability to scan contactless and oyster without looking at the driver and the bus leaves the bus stop much quicker and looks better too.

MONEY WELL SPENT

....and the bendies Boris got rid had all of those.... the looks issue is subjective and I personally think that they look like a pee-poor pistache of the original RM.

Easy to say "MONEY WELL SPENT" when you aren't paying!

ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY more like!

Marvellous news..

I completely and utterly disagree. More overpriced, inefficient, relatively highly polluting, junk on London's roads just to satisfy one buffon's ego.....

I expect to see these routes converted now

1/2/3/4/14/17/19/21/22/23/26/27/29/30/35/36/40/43/45/53/59/65/68/74/76/77/82/87/94/133/134/139/176/185/188/189/205/211/344/c2/

Again I sincerely hope that you are wrong. I use some of those routes daily and really don't want those piles of junk anywhere near any routes I use.

I just question the way they are being used, the whole point of them was an open platform and conductor. If they are going to be used as OPO buses all the time they should be two door like other OPO buses.

Hurrah.... an outbreak of common sense from someone who does generally seem to appreciate these vehicles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am amused that my liking of the routemaster is boring,im also confident some posters here post in the tangytango bus forum where i see so much bleating about cost of the bus and how its awful blah blah blah...So I make no apologies for bigging up the vehicle!

In my view it is an insult to the original Routemaster which was a classic design to soil it's name by linking these grotesque pistaches to it! You may like them, others don't. Opinions are like bum holes....

If your posting isn't going to rise above the level of "I like these cos they are great and I want to big them up" methinks that you will be posting in the main to yourself before too long as everyone will just hit the ignore button.....

 

[Antman]

Pretty much this.

Anecdotally, fare evasion is often where someone is travelling a few stops. If they were forced to pay, they may well walk instead, so the gain in revenue is negligible. In the central zone you'll see fare evasion for this reason, people hopping two stops down Oxford Street, but as a percentage of total travel it will remain quite small.

The idea that bus loads of people are skimming for free is laughable, especially when you get out into the suburbs. To get into the centre and back out you don't need to "get lucky" twice, you need to "get lucky" four, five or six times. It isn't worth it, not when a daily bus pass is capped at three single bus journeys and certainly not when you consider the time penalty of taking the bus compared to the tube.

Buses will appear quieter now they are double deckers, for the simple fact there are more seats and (significantly) fewer standing spaces. It's all about perception. Sometimes this is a good thing, and sometimes it isn't; not being able to get on a decker with 20 seats vacant upstairs because of standees downstairs going three stops is extremely frustrating.

As for anti-social behaviour, I'd say this is due to other changes TfL have made (including revoking free travel for children who are caught), rather than the change in bus type. If anything, you can get away with far more on the back upstairs seats of a decker if you really wanted to.

Some rather sweeping statements to say the least!

I doubt if anybody gets on a bus in Oxford Street to go two stops, it's normally quicker to walk.

Why is the idea of loads of people skimming for free laughable? Do you have any evidence to back that up? The fact is nobody can possibly know how many people travelled for free.

As for getting lucky, you could literally spend all day riding up and down a bendybus route and not be asked for a ticket indeed rough sleepers using route 25 (and no doubt others too) as a mobile doss house was a common problem.

And if you seriously think letting all and sundry on without any ticket checks isn't going to lead to an increase in anti social behavior then..........................!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if you seriously think letting all and sundry on without any ticket checks isn't going to lead to an increase in anti social behavior then..........................!!

Who said "no ticket checks"? The open boarding model requires enough random ticket checks to act as a heavy disincentive. Most of the tram systems seem to use that model - though Edinburgh has a strange hybrid that has conductors who don't sell tickets (other than PFs).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why is the idea of loads of people skimming for free laughable? Do you have any evidence to back that up?

I refer you to the answer to Caroline Pidgeon's answer on page seven.

Unless you're trying to claim TfL are liars?

rough sleepers using route 25 (and no doubt others too) as a mobile doss house was a common problem.

Evidence?

 

[Antman]

Who said "no ticket checks"? The open boarding model requires enough random ticket checks to act as a heavy disincentive. Most of the tram systems seem to use that model - though Edinburgh has a strange hybrid that has conductors who don't sell tickets (other than PFs).

There were very few ticket checks on London bendybuses because (surprise surprise!) ticket inspectors cost money and that is why open boarding is simply not practical or cost effective.

 

[Antman]

I refer you to the answer to Caroline Pidgeon's answer on page seven.

Unless you're trying to claim TfL are liars?



Evidence?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And?

You don't live in London so you don't pay for them. People who live in London pay for them.

If you love the NB4L so much you should marry it, etc etc

I know somebody who works for Stagecoach, the police were regularly called out to incidents on the 25 and no doubt other open boarding artic routes too.

Oh and just because somebody doesn't live in London doesn't mean they are not paying towards public transport costs

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

In other words you're just upset because he doesn't agree with you?

No! I don't mind people not agreeing with me.... Having a reasoned debate with evidence to back it up is fine. A concept you struggle with??

Especially as you rely on "a mate who worked for Stagecoach" as evidence whilst ignoring the minutes that Arctic Troll was referring to??

 

[Antman]

Interesting that Brighton & Hove have now decided to order dual-door double deckers for the busy route 1.

Are you sure about this? I have been told they are considering dual doored buses but nothing has been decided yet.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I know somebody who works for Stagecoach, the police were regularly called out to incidents on the 25 and no doubt other open boarding artic routes too.

Route 25 is a known problem route for ASB, and has been for many years. This is due to where it operates, not the type of bus that operates on it. Problems with ASB on the route extended long after the bendybuses were replaced with double deckers; indeed, fear of ASB actually worsened when the deckers came in (for the obvious reasons that the back of the upper deck is a known place for ASB offenders to congregate).

TfL and the Met have recently won a gold award for the work they've done on reducing ASB on route 25.

I'd say that has had the biggest impact on ASB, not allegorical tales of hundreds of hobos riding around for free (especially as most ASB referred to theft...)

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/27859

Oh and just because somebody doesn't live in London doesn't mean they are not paying towards public transport costs

A majority of TfL funding come from the GLA (i.e. London taxation) and from fare-paying passengers. Someone who lives in Eastbourne doesn't really pay London taxes and will have a negligible impact on fares compared to someone who commutes every day on TfL services.

 

[Robertj21a]

Are you sure about this? I have been told they are considering dual doored buses but nothing has been decided yet.

Yes, quite sure.

 

[Hophead]

Yes, quite sure.

And, note, ordered specifically to speed up one of the busiest cross-town routes. Not the first time there's been dual-door buses in the fleet, though - they had 2-door VRs back in NBC/Southdown days.

 

[neilm831]

I think you've been snorting too many NB4L exhaust fumes

Well I'll have 2000 buses to get my fix soon

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And, note, ordered specifically to speed up one of the busiest cross-town routes. Not the first time there's been dual-door buses in the fleet, though - they had 2-door VRs back in NBC/Southdown days.

They also had dual door Leyland Nationals - I think one is preserved and is a regular on the rally circuit?

Go Ahead have specified dual door vehicles in Southampton curiously though not in Oxford (though they have in the past)

 

[Bletchleyite]

They also had dual door Leyland Nationals - I think one is preserved and is a regular on the rally circuit?

Go Ahead have specified dual door vehicles in Southampton curiously though not in Oxford (though they have in the past)

To some extent it depends on the route - for a traditional "start in the suburbs, run to the bus station picking up along the way, then tip out at the bus station, then do it again backwards" provincial route there is almost nothing to be gained from dual door because at any given stop people are normally only boarding *or* alighting. But for a cross-city route or one with multiple traffic draws (e.g. city to out of town shopping centre via a load of housing estates) it can save significant time.

FWIW, because of the town's distributed nature, almost all of MK's routes are like the latter - so Arriva should perhaps consider trialling dual-door, at least on the busier routes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

To some extent it depends on the route - for a traditional "start in the suburbs, run to the bus station picking up along the way, then tip out at the bus station, then do it again backwards" provincial route there is almost nothing to be gained from dual door because at any given stop people are normally only boarding *or* alighting. But for a cross-city route or one with multiple traffic draws (e.g. city to out of town shopping centre via a load of housing estates) it can save significant time.

That's why I said curiously. Oxford Bus does have those busy cross city routes and was one of the very few (only?) NBC operations to have dual door Olympians

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's why I said curiously. Oxford Bus does have those busy cross city routes and was one of the very few (only?) NBC operations to have dual door Olympians

Good point. Also, the home of dual door in the UK, London, has almost no routes that penetrate central London that *aren't* cross city or multi-destination, at least to some extent.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Good point. Also, the home of dual door in the UK, London, has almost no routes that penetrate central London that *aren't* cross city or multi-destination, at least to some extent.

Whereas Manchester and Birmingham have relatively few cross city routes. Different strokes......

 

[Busaholic]

Good point. Also, the home of dual door in the UK, London, has almost no routes that penetrate central London that *aren't* cross city or multi-destination, at least to some extent.

I can't agree with you there, Neil. The number of bus routes that penetrate central London and go out the other side are these days thin on the ground. The 21 and 88 can just about be included since their relatively recent slight northward extensions, the 36 remains, the 168 now and a case could just about be made for the 205, assuming the pretence is made that some of them ever reach Paddington The recent colossal mistakes of trying to re-engineer Aldgate and the Elephant as though we were back in the horse bus era will only in the end mean shorter and shorter routes. After Crossrail, expect significant cuts in the 25 and the possibility it might get no further east than Stratford. I hope it doesn't happen, because travel costs would increase significantly for those using that bus route for medium/long distance (in London terms) travel.

A topic for another thread, perhaps, but is there any city in the world with such disparity between bus and metro/train fares as London? When I first went to Paris in 1975, you needed one carnet for a metro ride of any distance, but for most bus routes you needed to proffer two carnets!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't agree with you there, Neil. The number of bus routes that penetrate central London and go out the other side are these days thin on the ground.

Note "multi destination" as well. My point was that few London bus routes just load up towards a terminus and empty out away from it. Boarding and alighting occurs at most stops within central London, hence a real benefit from dual door.

 

[Antman]

Note "multi destination" as well. My point was that few London bus routes just load up towards a terminus and empty out away from it. Boarding and alighting occurs at most stops within central London, hence a real benefit from dual door.

Not really, maybe on a route like the 88 but on most routes that terminate in the central area its either one or the other.

 

[radamfi]

The main difference between London and most of provincial Britain, is that passengers change onto other bus routes or onto the Tube or rail services part way through the route, meaning that the middle door gets a good workout. Obviously the same applies in much of northern/central Europe with passengers getting on and off throughout the route, because there are often a lot of interchange opportunities.

A topic for another thread, perhaps, but is there any city in the world with such disparity between bus and metro/train fares as London? When I first went to Paris in 1975, you needed one carnet for a metro ride of any distance, but for most bus routes you needed to proffer two carnets!

London buses can be dearer than the Tube if changes are required. A ride from Upminster to West Croydon changing at Whitechapel from the District Line onto London Overground costs £1.50 off-peak and £2.80 peak.

In many places, the fare is the same whether you make the whole trip by bus, by a combination of bus/tram/metro, or the whole way by metro.

Paris is actually an anomaly. Within Paris the same t+ ticket (or one tenth of a carnet) is valid on metro, tram, bus or RER, and allows changes on the same ticket, but bus/metro interchange requires a separate t+ ticket for bus and metro (although RER/metro and bus/tram interchanges are also free). When you go out of Paris "proper", the t+ ticket continues to be valid for flat fare bus travel including changes, apart from a few special airport routes where you might need multiple tickets, but the RER costs more the further you go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not really, maybe on a route like the 88 but on most routes that terminate in the central area its either one or the other.

I don't agree, simply because there is so much boarding and alighting within central London by people making local journeys. This is a function of central London being so large, unlike most other towns and cities in the UK, where there is an obvious single traffic draw.