There's definitely something fishy about the whole "Roastmaster" nonsense.
No less than five prototype vehicles ran for thousands of miles in service before full production commenced, so you would assume that if there really was a basic design flaw which meant an underpowered air recirculation system couldn't prevent a stifling build up of hot air upstairs, it would have been noticed.
Or amusingly, perhaps designers/engineers advising delaying the project until a fix could be designed, were indeed overuled. Not by Boris directly, but from the indirect pressure that would come from Boris having to delay their entry into service, inviting mockery and derision from the learned Opposition politicians.
The fitting of opening windows was clearly not the right solution, especially not for a bus that was specifically designed for mid-life upgrades as and when technology allowed. But one does suspect it was the cheapest and quickest, the one most likely to just shut people up and yet again, invite the least mockery of Boris.
Of course, if you did want to fit air-con on them now, you also have to remove (or seal) these fancy new high tech window openings. A bulk order of superglue, perhaps?
Something London's endless parade of brand new buses used for only 5 or 7 years and then tossed to some far flung outpost, usually after an expensive de-Londonification process, don't really need to be designed for. Even though taking out the middle door mid-life is surely one of the stupidest things you'd ever want to do to a vehicle where a lot of structural integrity comes from the body.
Sadly even ten years ago, when it was finally announced windows would be retrofitted, our journalists were too lazy or biased to apply any critical thought and investigate such things for the public interest, and instead just happily parroted Tweets from randoms, or worse, the self serving words of clueless politicians.
It's actually beyond stupid that in the 21st century, our only options seem to be running a bus like it's the 1920s or the 2070s. The reality is it is neither, and so even on an electric bus charged with 100% renewables, air-con comes with a price. A heavier and more complex vehicle. Tyre wear alone will have a huge financial and environmental impact.
As with the double door problem, London can have whatever nice things it wants. They just have to pay for it. In full. Manufacturers won't add it for free. Engineers won't work extra hours for free. Depots won't magically build their own air con fluid handling systems. Second hand users won't remove it for free.
What Londoners can't have it seems, is a bus designed for London, intended to be used for its whole life in London. How ironic to think then, that is probably the most cost efficient way to ensure London can have a bus fleet with air conditioning as standard, but in a way that reduces the extra costs (financial and environmental, upfront and whole life) to an absolute minimum, and in recognition of the fact London will still be a temperate city, climate change or no climate change.
No less than five prototype vehicles ran for thousands of miles in service before full production commenced, so you would assume that if there really was a basic design flaw which meant an underpowered air recirculation system couldn't prevent a stifling build up of hot air upstairs, it would have been noticed.
Or amusingly, perhaps designers/engineers advising delaying the project until a fix could be designed, were indeed overuled. Not by Boris directly, but from the indirect pressure that would come from Boris having to delay their entry into service, inviting mockery and derision from the learned Opposition politicians.
The fitting of opening windows was clearly not the right solution, especially not for a bus that was specifically designed for mid-life upgrades as and when technology allowed. But one does suspect it was the cheapest and quickest, the one most likely to just shut people up and yet again, invite the least mockery of Boris.
Of course, if you did want to fit air-con on them now, you also have to remove (or seal) these fancy new high tech window openings. A bulk order of superglue, perhaps?
Something London's endless parade of brand new buses used for only 5 or 7 years and then tossed to some far flung outpost, usually after an expensive de-Londonification process, don't really need to be designed for. Even though taking out the middle door mid-life is surely one of the stupidest things you'd ever want to do to a vehicle where a lot of structural integrity comes from the body.
Sadly even ten years ago, when it was finally announced windows would be retrofitted, our journalists were too lazy or biased to apply any critical thought and investigate such things for the public interest, and instead just happily parroted Tweets from randoms, or worse, the self serving words of clueless politicians.
It's actually beyond stupid that in the 21st century, our only options seem to be running a bus like it's the 1920s or the 2070s. The reality is it is neither, and so even on an electric bus charged with 100% renewables, air-con comes with a price. A heavier and more complex vehicle. Tyre wear alone will have a huge financial and environmental impact.
As with the double door problem, London can have whatever nice things it wants. They just have to pay for it. In full. Manufacturers won't add it for free. Engineers won't work extra hours for free. Depots won't magically build their own air con fluid handling systems. Second hand users won't remove it for free.
What Londoners can't have it seems, is a bus designed for London, intended to be used for its whole life in London. How ironic to think then, that is probably the most cost efficient way to ensure London can have a bus fleet with air conditioning as standard, but in a way that reduces the extra costs (financial and environmental, upfront and whole life) to an absolute minimum, and in recognition of the fact London will still be a temperate city, climate change or no climate change.
