Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Outside London, somewhere between having exit-only flaps on the back doors and drivers refusing to open them at all.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
More Borismaster Discussion
- Thread starter Robertj21a
- Start date
- Status
Outside London, somewhere between having exit-only flaps on the back doors and drivers refusing to open them at all.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Passengers board only through the front door so no fare evasion.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
First West Yorkshire's bendies (the ill-fated Wright StreetCar) have a conductor on board.
Other bendies have boarding by the front door only.
Antman said:
I take it you don't regularly use the 521 then.
The PVR of the 507 went from 12 to 18, just to maintain the same capacity.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
It's not about appeasing enthusiasts but about simple economics in that a route like the 38 had 42 vehicles as a PVR and now it's 59. How much has that cost TfL? How much did they have to write off with the redundant bendis? How much is the extra cost of the Borismaster operation over even a standard hybrid decker? However, value for money wasn't a commitment for Boris!
More pertinently, the fact that no one is buying Borismasters is more reflective of the effectiveness and value for money of that product??
The fact that they're no longer building bendies in LHD is reflective of the lack of critical mass which is what London gives.
Articulated buses seem to work well enough in Cardiff.
Single decker buses take up more road space than double deckers to carry the same number of passengers, so bendy buses are not suitable for any route where road space is at a premium at any point along the route.
Bendy buses take longer to clear junctions, so are not suitable for routes that pass through busy junctions.
Bendy buses take up more space at stops, so are not suitable for any route that shares any stops with a lot of other route, or has any stops close to junctions.
Bendy buses, with mostly standing passengers, are not suitable for carrying passengers for long distances.
Which routes dos this leave, where bendy buses are suitable and their sole advantage of faster boarding is actually relevant?
An increase in frequency on the 507 is a bad thing then? I do use the 521 and off peak buses carry little more than fresh air.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just as few operators were interested in the redundant bendys even though they were going for a song?
Passengers on long routes like the 38 expect a seat!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed but they don't have open boarding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some perspective at last, and of course there is the extra garage space bendy buses require!
Agreed, Cardiff's bendybuses do not have open boarding. What about London's New Routemasters?
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,382
the problem with Bendybuses was well shown around 20 years ago when Stagecoach got their first three. They brought them to Lancaster for University "intro week" - the busiest week of the year, when bus schedules go to hell and anything that appears at the bus station from anywhere gets sent to the Uni ASAP. That week the whole of Lancaster becomes gridlocked......
Anyway, they brought them along to help out with the students and do a few photos on the Saturday. They were all gone by the Sunday.......allegedly at police request. They'd caused chaos in the already overstretched city centre and the final straw came when multiple bollards were demolished on George St (right by the police station). There were rumours that a number of police vehicles were hit as well.
Bendybuses, narrow streets and tight corners (and street furniture and parked cars) simply do not mix.
Anyway, they brought them along to help out with the students and do a few photos on the Saturday. They were all gone by the Sunday.......allegedly at police request. They'd caused chaos in the already overstretched city centre and the final straw came when multiple bollards were demolished on George St (right by the police station). There were rumours that a number of police vehicles were hit as well.
Bendybuses, narrow streets and tight corners (and street furniture and parked cars) simply do not mix.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 8,245
Surely as a passenger I WANT more frequent buses.
After all, as a rail use I know I'd prefer a 4 car train every 20 minutes to an 6 car every 30 minutes
Teflon Lettuce
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 1,750
IIRC a clause in the NB4L contract stated that the intellectual property of the design was TfL's and also that TfL were to receive the first 1000 vehicles... after which property rights reverted to the builder..
As TfL have only just announced orders reaching the magic 1000 then it is unsurprising that none have been sold elsewhere... coupled with this, as was with low floor SDs, the "provences" have lagged behind in the whole hybrid drive/ electric bus bandwagon until very recently..
As has been seen the NB4L really was a gamechanger in the looks department... else why all the "me too" products appearing recently....
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Sorry but you've got the contract issue the wrong way round. The design IPR sits with Wrightbus and the mechanical elements rest with the suppliers. TfL apparently own the "look and feel" of the design although no one is sure what "look and feel" means because there is a debate as to whether TfL are due any money from the sales of the SRM to London United. The prototype SRM doesn't have an identical interior hence the debate! Once Wrightbus supply 1,000 buses to TfL then TfL gains the right to *license* the design so it can be supplied by other manufacturers. TfL also have the right to a share of the profits from any orders supplied to any other operator. Sales thus far - nil.
The "Me too" products have appeared because TfL and the Mayor "arm twisted" the manufacturers to apply the "look and feel" of the NB4L. I also rather suspect the manufacturers know no more than 1,000 NB4Ls will ever be built so they have to deploy something else. Wrightbus, as ever, have used public funds to pump prime other designs they sell in their own right and to which TfL has no profit share in - e.g. the Streetdeck double deck, the glass sided staircase option in the Gemini range and now the ghastly "SRM" on Volvo chassis.
Linking evading fares and bendy-buses is just a Boris-ism. Having multiple opening doors and fewrevenue protection staff causes fare evasion (on any bus/train/tram), stopping it just requires dealing with one or both of the issues.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When the bendis were replaced each route needed more vehicles so:
More vehicles took up more space
More vehicles needed to get through the same junctions
More vehicles had to get to the same number of stops
Lots of London buses operate with mostly standing passengers because of the reluctance to go upstairs for a short distance.
All of which suggests that none of the bendi routes are suitable for any buses!
That would have been true if they were replaced by a larger number of vehicles of the same length, but that was not the case. They were replaced by shorter vehicles.
Again, each vehicle is shorter, so requires less space to get through a junction, and blocks junctions less.
Not simultaneously. Two vehicles stopping at the same stop at different times only require a stop long enough to accommodate one vehicle, whereas a single vehicle twice as long requires a stop twice as long.
What relevance does some passengers choosing to stand for short journeys have to the issue of bendy buses forcing passengers to stand even for very long journeys?
It doesn't if you think about it rationally.
For all of the reasons I gave, double deckers are more suitable than bendy buses for any route featuring busy roads, busy junctions, busy stops or long journeys.
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,691
So, by your calculations the Red Arrow routes are not suitable for articulated buses ? - strange that they're ideal for that in most other countries.
What "calculations" are you referring to?
I gave a list of conditions for which nendy buses are less suitable than bouble deckers, with reasons. If any of those conditions exist on a particular route then double deckers are more suitable for that route, for the reason(s) given.
Where did this obsession with irrelevant comparissons to other countries come from? What is relevant to any particular route is the conditions that exist on that route, not in some other city or country.
No they are not well suited to the 507 and 521, both routes manage perfectly well without them and the problems these things caused in Central London was something else, often delaying other routes in the process.
I just cannot understand this fixation about articulated buses, there is obviously a reason why they are so few and far between in the UK. More trouble than they are worth perhaps?
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
The comparison is valid in that there appears to be a view that bendies can't work in London. Yet in any comparable city, they can, whether that be the size of the city or the type of road network.
I fully agree that the conditions relevant to any particular route are what is important. However, that wasn't why they were withdrawn. No comments from Boris that they would assess the suitability on routes, look at the practicalities, even make reasonable adjustments in some cases. In a city of 8 million people and 600 square miles, there wasn't one opportunity to redeploy those vehicles? Really? :roll:
No, it was a dogmatic, populist decision not one based in economic or practical assessment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Working on that basis, withdraw all deckers and have a fleet of Solos working in London?
I'm being flippant but on the routes affected, the service headway was pretty healthy with the bendies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Like many off peak buses. What is the relevance of that - surely the peak requirement is what is important!
As for garage space, fair enough. However, do the sums.... how much extra space do you need and the resultant cost vs. the extra costs of increasing the PVR?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Off-peak they're quiet, but the peak is where it is at for these routes.
A higher frequency with small buses doesn't always work in the way one would expect; Virgin XC on the trains and the operators of breadvan buses will tell you that.
The operators owned the bendies, and did redeploy them, with mixed success.
Many routes- in London as well as in the provinces- were not suited to bendies. The issue with the provinces is that most bus stations were built for rigid one-door buses; bendies couldn't use the bus stations (Go-Ahead had enough trouble when they wanted to have two-door rigid buses on some routes in Newcastle).
The operators were stuck with buses they bought for a specific purpose. That's why TfL had to buy the NB4L.
Bendies require more space per bus, that much is true. A bendy Citaro was about 1.5 times the length of a rigid Citaro.
However if your PVR goes from 12 to 18, that means you need 1.5 times as many buses, which means you need 1.5 times the garage space. The net effect is negligible. There is then the cost of additional drivers' wages for the increased PVR.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not clear why that should be trouble - just don't open the rear door at the bus station, the one place where, because the bus will tend to be there longer, dwell time is not significant. Ideally use the PA (what, a PA on buses in the UK? Well, the Germans have had for years...) to explain to the passengers why so they are not stood there prodding the button.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I think the overall length was an issue at some bus stations; certainly can't be used at the Newcastle bus stations.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Ah, I see, they were longer, not just trading seats for doors. Fair enough.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The wheelchair ramp was at the middle door IIRC, way beyond where the kerb was, as well as the length issue.
My point was more about the bendies- you can't really use them in drive-in/reverse-out bus stations.
Whatever you feel about Boris Johnson, there were solid, rational reasons that bendy buses were unpopular, and replacing them with double deckers was the best thing to do.
It is quite simple. An articulated bus costs a lot to buy and a lot to run (in the latter case thanks to its increased weight), and more than a double-decker does on both counts. As a result, they are only worthwhile where the additional capacity they deliver over a DD is made use of - and there aren't too many areas in the UK where that is the case. Operators who 'only' need to shift up to around 90 people at a time are going to stick with double-deckers.
As for the 'expert' opinion that no manufacturer will build a right-hand drive artic... wrong, as much of the opinion dressed as fact on here usually is. EvoBus (the importer of Mercedes-Benz buses and coaches) confirmed some time ago that it will offer the Citaro artic in the UK at Euro 6, although airports are expected to account for most/all of those that may be purchased.
The other thing that may come into it is concern over the ability of some drivers to handle a bendy bus. Given that there are quite a lot of drivers at my local dominant operator who make very hard work of handling an Optare Solo competently, and even when they do often remain vastly over-cautious, I doubt some of them would be capable of driving an artic.
Last edited:
...and that I wouldn't necessarily disagree with completely BUT surely you do so when the vehicles come to the end of their economic life and you certainly don't do so with an over-priced vanty project!
It is no harder to fare-dodge on a "Boris roaster" (lovely upstairs again as the temperatures climb - useless heaps of rubbish!) with it's three doors than it was on a bendy with it's...errr...three doors...
Spot on - add the waste of money by the blond buffoon on a cable car no-one in London actually uses too and suddenly you are talking serious money...
Try looking at the costs associated with the 507 and 521 routes now and previously...
No one is saying that TfL should have to operate anything BUT the decision should be taken on considered rational grounds not on the basis of a buffoon's personal prejudices...still he's gone, thank the Lord!
Stop letting the facts get in the way of the buffoon fan-club's prejudices....
Last edited:
The relevance is that you don't need an 18m bendybuses getting in the way when it's carrying little more than fresh air.
As for garage space, well obviously double deckers use it efficiently whilst the space above single deckers is wasted.
The whole concept of artics in London was about cramming more passengers into fewer buses with fewer seats, hardly any wonder the idea didn't go down too well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So there is no case for bringing back articulated buses in London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here, here!
Like I said previously, nobody seems upset by the withdrawl of them apart from a few enthusiasts!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
To be fair to the cable car it probably made sense for the Olympics, but could probably be taken down and flogged off now without annoying anyone.
Let's see what Sadiq does as I assume he's pretty much certain to have won?
- Status