New shorter NB4L unveiled

[Bletchleyite]

They were hugely popular on both routes which used them that never left the central area i.e. the 507 and 521, which inaugurated the concept in London and were seen as a trial before more widespread introduction. The route that did for them in PR terms was the 73, a combination of unsuitability in Oxford Street and the fact that they directly replaced Routemasters with a significantly wider headway. Once Boris got elected they were doomed, however.

I thought they were very suitable for Oxford St. The thing that is the problem with Oxford St was not bendies, but the poorly designed layout of the stops. This made no difference when RMs were being used, as people just got on and off where they felt like - but as soon as doored buses came along it all became quite awkward to use.

Oxford St could be sorted out such that it worked fine with bendies. Another thing that would work well would be the removal of the right of taxis to stop where they felt like - it should be a Red Route clearway with laybys for that purpose and a few taxi ranks for those wishing to board.

 

[neilm831]

The new LT and ST are designed for london..The bendy bus was not fit for London....If they were a new designed routemaster would not have happened. Thankfully Boris made a very good decision to open a design competition to enhance our bus systemm and now London is seeing the benefits.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I thought they were very suitable for Oxford St. The thing that is the problem with Oxford St was not bendies, but the poorly designed layout of the stops. This made no difference when RMs were being used, as people just got on and off where they felt like - but as soon as doored buses came along it all became quite awkward to use.

Oxford St could be sorted out such that it worked fine with bendies. Another thing that would work well would be the removal of the right of taxis to stop where they felt like - it should be a Red Route clearway with laybys for that purpose and a few taxi ranks for those wishing to board.

Exactly. Bendies can be used everywhere else in the world. It was poor execution in terms of bus stop design and revenue protection, allied to the blonde buffoon's political grandstanding that resulted in retrograde steps to London's bus operations.

 

[Antman]

Exactly. Bendies can be used everywhere else in the world. It was poor execution in terms of bus stop design and revenue protection, allied to the blonde buffoon's political grandstanding that resulted in retrograde steps to London's bus operations.

Your anti Boris agenda and childish insults are getting a bit tiresome, they were unsuitable for central London and most people acknowledge that. The 18 wasn't too bad as it only served the edge of the central area and had much of the route to itself so didn't block bus stops delaying other routes

 

[Robertj21a]

Your anti Boris agenda and childish insults are getting a bit tiresome, they were unsuitable for central London and most people acknowledge that. The 18 wasn't too bad as it only served the edge of the central area and had much of the route to itself so didn't block bus stops delaying other routes

Perhaps the 38 and 73 shouldn't have been converted to artics (as many said at the time) but I can't think of many other routes that were unsuitable. What was certainly lacking was some better thinking on revenue controls. It didn't take just Boris to kill them off, some within TfL and some operators are still reluctant to try out anything 'Not Invented Here'.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Your anti Boris agenda and childish insults are getting a bit tiresome, they were unsuitable for central London and most people acknowledge that. The 18 wasn't too bad as it only served the edge of the central area and had much of the route to itself so didn't block bus stops delaying other routes

I see what you did there - almost Oscar Wilde in your approach. Well done

Not withstanding the man himself and the FACT that he made it a pledge to remove artics, it is the truth that such vehicles are used successfully in major cities across the world. London is not unique, no matter who tries to say otherwise.

I'm no fan of Red Ken and his politics but the moves he made in terms of transport policy made sense.

 

[Antman]

I see what you did there - almost Oscar Wilde in your approach. Well done

Not withstanding the man himself and the FACT that he made it a pledge to remove artics, it is the truth that such vehicles are used successfully in major cities across the world. London is not unique, no matter who tries to say otherwise.

I'm no fan of Red Ken and his politics but the moves he made in terms of transport policy made sense.

He pledged to remove them because they were unpopular, obviously!

It's no good keep banging on about other cities around the world, artics are rare in the UK. It seems the only people in favour of them are a few enthusiasts purely for their novelty value rather than any sound economic reason.

 

[Robertj21a]

He pledged to remove them because they were unpopular, obviously!

It's no good keep banging on about other cities around the world, artics are rare in the UK. It seems the only people in favour of them are a few enthusiasts purely for their novelty value rather than any sound economic reason.

No, he removed them because he didn't understand how they were supposed to work, couldn't be bothered to find out why they were so efficient everywhere else, believed in some lies about accidents and deaths - and had a personal preference for cycling !

It's inevitable that artics will be comparatively rare in the UK if the Mayor of London disregards facts and uses his power to outlaw them.

 

[Dent]

No, he removed them because he didn't understand how they were supposed to work, couldn't be bothered to find out why they were so efficient everywhere else, believed in some lies about accidents and deaths - and had a personal preference for cycling !

It's inevitable that artics will be comparatively rare in the UK if the Mayor of London disregards facts and uses his power to outlaw them.

That entire post is is rather biased.

What "lies" are you referring to, and "facts" do you think he disregarded?

 

[Antman]

No, he removed them because he didn't understand how they were supposed to work, couldn't be bothered to find out why they were so efficient everywhere else, believed in some lies about accidents and deaths - and had a personal preference for cycling !

It's inevitable that artics will be comparatively rare in the UK if the Mayor of London disregards facts and uses his power to outlaw them.

Seems to me that you don't understand why they are unpopular and generally impractical? You can't blame the London mayor for the fact that they are rare in the UK. Things like operating costs, extra garage space and a low sell on price (on account nobody else will want them) come into it.

 

[plcd1]

Goodness me it's like stepping out of the Tardis. The same old debate, the same old argument and even the same old sentences and phrases from some people.

 

[Robertj21a]

That entire post is is rather biased.

What "lies" are you referring to, and "facts" do you think he disregarded?

I despair...........

 

[overthewater]

I thought the artics were removed because of the fires. Its well noted even In Glasgow how there can block up junctions, I thought that was the other reason aswell.

I still dislike these brois buses, there white elephant that cost far to much money Lothian were able to get cheap duel door deckers, someone just trouble to make money.

I have to say your right plcd1, people need to stop complaining about other views, yes debate not shot them down.

 

[Antman]

I despair...........

Seems a reasonable enough question to me, if you're going to make sweeping statements................

 

[the101]

I thought the artics were removed because of the fires.

The fires were nothing to do with their removal because EvoBus installed a fix a long time before they came out of London.

Instead, the amount of money which turned out to be wasted on the artics was a direct result of giving politicians control of bus operation. They simply are not equipped to be involved with something they know nothing about, despite what many of them think.

Similar wasting of money would become commonplace were franchising to be adopted, although that said, the tone of a couple of the letters in the current Buses mag suggests that some enthusiasts share a similar inability to think rationally where the cost-effective provision of bus services is concerned.

The Buses Bill should ban contravision, as an example...

 

[90019]

Lothian were able to get cheap duel door deckers, someone just trouble to make money.

Huh? :?

Lothian haven't had any dual door buses for years...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Buses Bill should ban contravision, as an example...

Contravision shows an almighty disregard for the passenger. You can do a perfectly good advertising livery without it. Fortunately it is rare these days.

 

[overthewater]

Huh? :?

Lothian haven't had any dual door buses for years...

There used to.

 

[Dent]

I despair...........

Is declaring that you "despair" really the only response that you can think of to your bias being noticed and you being asked to justify the sweeping statements that you made?

A better response would be to justify your statements, or if this is impossible then admit that you made statements that you shouldn't have because they are unjustifiable.

 

[Robertj21a]

Is declaring that you "despair" really the only response that you can think of to your bias being noticed and you being asked to justify the sweeping statements that you made?

A better response would be to justify your statements, or if this is impossible then admit that you made statements that you shouldn't have because they are unjustifiable.

No, not really. I would have assumed that those posting on here would know something about the basic issues and history involved. It's not for me to explain what has been common knowledge to most London enthusiasts for some years. There are plenty of magazines and books which cover the subject for anybody sufficiently interested.

 

[Antman]

No, not really. I would have assumed that those posting on here would know something about the basic issues and history involved. It's not for me to explain what has been common knowledge to most London enthusiasts for some years. There are plenty of magazines and books which cover the subject for anybody sufficiently interested.

Which in other words means you cannot add any substance to the sweeping statement that you made

 

[90019]

There used to.

The last new dual door bus delivered was in 2001, which I think would have been 627 (SN51AYL).
All new buses delivered after that were single door, with some (if not all) of the older Tridents being converted later on.

 

[the101]

Contravision shows an almighty disregard for the passenger. You can do a perfectly good advertising livery without it. Fortunately it is rare these days.

That's as maybe but I think you are missing my point.

The Buses Bill will define how the industry operates and is funded and regulated into the future. It will not, I am sure, concern itself with bus companies applying contravision to their vehicles. That is hardly something for the DfT to worry about in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you agree.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Which in other words means you cannot add any substance to the sweeping statement that you made

I share Robert's exasperation. It is well known that Boris said about said bendy buses...

"They wipe out cyclists, there are many cyclists killed every year by them."

Now the pinky commie Corbynistas of the Economist did a bit of check

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/10/london-transport

No cyclist has been killed by a bendibus as of 2011. Lots of internet chatter and people who swear blind they've seen it, or were told by the aunt of the ice cream man who comes down the road, or some such tosh. However, TfL say it, as does the London Assembly. Not many cyclists, not any.

It's an untruth, or a lie in other words, and it's been discussed as such many, many times, and the article quoted as well as earlier ones are very much in the public domain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's as maybe but I think you are missing my point.

The Buses Bill will define how the industry operates and is funded and regulated into the future. It will not, I am sure, concern itself with bus companies applying contravision to their vehicles. That is hardly something for the DfT to worry about in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure you agree.

Absolutely on the nail. I've a number of friends who work within bus companies and whilst they've dealt with some decent LA's, they have some absolute horror stories about what's happened when some local bigwig/elected representative starts playing with buses!

In the cosmic scheme of things, Contravision is not a big deal (although I'm not a fan).

 

[Antman]

I share Robert's exasperation. It is well known that Boris said about said bendy buses...

"They wipe out cyclists, there are many cyclists killed every year by them."

Now the pinky commie Corbynistas of the Economist did a bit of check

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/10/london-transport

No cyclist has been killed by a bendibus as of 2011. Lots of internet chatter and people who swear blind they've seen it, or were told by the aunt of the ice cream man who comes down the road, or some such tosh. However, TfL say it, as does the London Assembly. Not many cyclists, not any.

It's an untruth, or a lie in other words, and it's been discussed as such many, many times, and the article quoted as well as earlier ones are very much in the public domain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Absolutely on the nail. I've a number of friends who work within bus companies and whilst they've dealt with some decent LA's, they have some absolute horror stories about what's happened when some local bigwig/elected representative starts playing with buses!

In the cosmic scheme of things, Contravision is not a big deal (although I'm not a fan).

He was just asked to explain a rather sweeping statement that he made.

Whether bendybuses are a danger to cyclists is subjective, there is no definitive answer but surely the fact Boris pledged to get rid of them and was not only elected but subsequently re elected must say something? Most people are either glad to see the back of them or couldn't give two hoots one way or the other. It's just a handful of enthusiasts that want them back for their novelty value without any consideration for the practicalities.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Whether bendybuses are a danger to cyclists is subjective, there is no definitive answer....

In my experience as a bus driver the biggest danger to cyclists are the cyclists themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

He was just asked to explain a rather sweeping statement that he made.

Whether bendybuses are a danger to cyclists is subjective, there is no definitive answer but surely the fact Boris pledged to get rid of them and was not only elected but subsequently re elected must say something? Most people are either glad to see the back of them or couldn't give two hoots one way or the other. It's just a handful of enthusiasts that want them back for their novelty value without any consideration for the practicalities.

Sorry but that's bunkum. He's right - we've been over this so many times and saying "prove it" is pointless. It's been debated here ad nauseum and we are all painfully aware of the issues.

Danger to cyclists is not subjective - there are facts and proven statistics. What Boris said was demonstrably untrue - nothing else. I am a keen cyclist so I have very much a vested interest. Many more cyclists are killed by LGVs; I don't see any campaign to have those leviathans banned from central London (and I don't wish to see it done either). It was absolute populism.

Which brings us onto Boris. He is a very clever politician and Bendi's weren't the only issue on which he initially stood (and you can't draw any conclusions on his re-election - it wasn't an issue then).

As for "handful of enthusiasts that want them back for their novelty value without any consideration for the practicalities", well the same goes for the original Routemaster, and why we're now where we are.

I agree with plcd1 - you could leave this thread and the subject of the NBfL, and come back to it in 3 years, and the same old pony will still be trotted out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In my experience as a bus driver the biggest danger to cyclists are the cyclists themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

Some are, some aren't. Same as car drivers, white van man and even LGV or PCV drivers.

One of my friends used to cycle to work and was wiped out by a person turning right who came out with the usual SMIDSY line. He was lucky to come out with a double fracture of the tibia and a split kneecap.

Not all cyclists court danger...

 

[90019]

In my experience as a bus driver the biggest danger to cyclists are the cyclists themselves!!!!!!!!!!!

This. So much this.


I nearly flattened a cyclist one evening last week when I started turning into a junction because he'd decided to undertake, even though I was indicating left to turn.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some are, some aren't. Same as car drivers, white van man and even LGV or PCV drivers.

One of my friends used to cycle to work and was wiped out by a person turning right who came out with the usual SMIDSY line. He was lucky to come out with a double fracture of the tibia and a split kneecap.

Not all cyclists court danger...

True, but bad drivers are much easier to spot, in my experience.
You can generally have a decent idea what a car driver is about to do, but I find that it's always a gamble with a cyclist because some of them are so unpredictable and will change direction with no warning whatsoever.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This. So much this.


I nearly flattened a cyclist one evening last week when I started turning into a junction because he'd decided to undertake, even though I was indicating left to turn.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


True, but bad drivers are much easier to spot, in my experience.
You can generally have a decent idea what a car driver is about to do, but I find that it's always a gamble with a cyclist because some of them are so unpredictable and will change direction with no warning whatsoever.

I don't disagree that there's bad cyclists and probably they're at their most dangerous in London. However, I often have to drive into Bristol and the standard is generally good!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I don't disagree that there's bad cyclists and probably they're at their most dangerous in London. However, I often have to drive into Bristol and the standard is generally good!

the standard in Wales is generally dreadful... My biggest bugbear is how cyclists think it's ok to ride straight across red lights. I saw one do this once and nearly getting flattened by a bus coming across on the green light... and the cyclist was f'ing away at the poor bus driver for HIS poor observation!!!