More Borismaster Discussion

[Dent]

...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!

As I recall they were replaced at the end of the contracts, and it is common for tenders to specify new vehicles anyway.

The NBfL and bendy buses are separate issues.

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...

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....

You seem to be leaving the subject of buses and making an ad hominem attack on Boris Johnson.

the decision should be taken on considered rational grounds

As already mentioned, there were many rational grounds for getting rid of bendy buses.

 

[AB93]

As I recall they were replaced at the end of the contracts, and it is common for tenders to specify new vehicles anyway.

No they weren't. Some were, plenty weren't - so TfL had to pay out to the operators for breaking the contract terms. :roll::roll::roll:

 

[Busaholic]

Anyone with some common sense would realise, as most other countries have, that busy routes benefit from articulated buses !. Perhaps the new Mayor could be prompted to arrange for their re-introduction to suitable routes.

As the Red Arrow routes, for which everyone (bar one megalomaniac) agreed the bendies were ideally suited, is set to get electric buses, then the route which was the last to retain the bendies, the 207, could be reconverted. It could then be extended to its long-time Uxbridge terminus and the local MP invited to an appropriate ceremony at the local bus station: somehow, I think he might find he has a prior engagement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No they weren't. Some were, plenty weren't - so TfL had to pay out to the operators for breaking the contract terms. :roll::roll::roll:

In almost every case the contracts had to be 'renegotiated' at TfL's expense.

 

[Antman]

As the Red Arrow routes, for which everyone (bar one megalomaniac) agreed the bendies were ideally suited, is set to get electric buses, then the route which was the last to retain the bendies, the 207, could be reconverted. It could then be extended to its long-time Uxbridge terminus and the local MP invited to an appropriate ceremony at the local bus station: somehow, I think he might find he has a prior engagement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


In almost every case the contracts had to be 'renegotiated' at TfL's expense.

So shall we just overlook the problems artics on 'Red Arrow routes' (and they're not actually called that anymore) caused for other routes, ie bus stop blocking?

And why would the 207 need to be extended back to Uxbridge when the 427 already does the job? I think the local MP might also be aware that Uxbridge bus station is unsuitable for artics? Clearly you've overlooked that minor detail!

You just seem obsessed with the idea that artics have to be bought back without providing any rationale as to why. That said I do accept that there are a few routes that might benefit from artics, the 108 for example although whether it would be cost effective or not is another matter.

 

[Robertj21a]

We'll never get everybody to agree about articulated buses as there's too many stuck firmly in one camp or the other (regardless of facts). In any event, it's a useful topic for discussion on this forum and it remains to be seen if the new Mayor takes much interest in buses or stands back a bit further than Boris did.

Hopefully, most people can agree that there is a role for articulated buses, in certain circumstances, and on certain routes !

 

[Busaholic]

So shall we just overlook the problems artics on 'Red Arrow routes' (and they're not actually called that anymore) caused for other routes, ie bus stop blocking?

One bus back in Red Arrow livery, and one bus stop bears the logo too - like vinyl records, they could be on their way back!
Glad you took the bait on the Uxbridge bit - actually, what I'd do is convert the 607 to artic and watch the journey times come down. Those Merc engines are quite powerful when they're allowed to be.
Please do not forget that it was not the professionals in TfL who sought to rid the capital of the bendies, it was one individual with too much power backed up by a phalanx of toadies.

 

[jon0844]

We'll never get everybody to agree about articulated buses as there's too many stuck firmly in one camp or the other (regardless of facts).

How about the right bus for the job?

I had many genuine concerns about bendy buses, but never said they aren't suitable anywhere. Indeed, they work very well in many towns and cities all over the world - including Hatfield.

But I didn't think they worked that well in London, especially when mounting the pavement (or at best, swinging around and part of the bus enters the pavement area even if the wheels don't). Most of these problems were down to other road users, but still.. not on.

From an accessibility point of view they were a pain, as you might have to walk a very long way to get on a bus stopped behind another bus or two. Maybe drivers shouldn't stop so far back, but they did.

 

[Busaholic]

If you are talking about the SRM then no, it does not have 17 seats downstairs, and even if it did it would not be 'a scandal'.

No, it's the all-electric BYD double decker going into service (all three of them) on Metroline route 98 that have just 17 seats downstairs. Cannot see China cracking the UK bus market if that's the best they can do. Perhaps Stannah should be contracted to provide some stairlifts on them.

 

[Antman]

One bus back in Red Arrow livery, and one bus stop bears the logo too - like vinyl records, they could be on their way back!
Glad you took the bait on the Uxbridge bit - actually, what I'd do is convert the 607 to artic and watch the journey times come down. Those Merc engines are quite powerful when they're allowed to be.
Please do not forget that it was not the professionals in TfL who sought to rid the capital of the bendies, it was one individual with too much power backed up by a phalanx of toadies.

The 607 is fine as it is with double deckers and I said previously Uxbridge bus station is unsuitable for artics anyway!

You're so obsessed about Boris Johnson that you can't see the wood for the trees.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We'll never get everybody to agree about articulated buses as there's too many stuck firmly in one camp or the other (regardless of facts). In any event, it's a useful topic for discussion on this forum and it remains to be seen if the new Mayor takes much interest in buses or stands back a bit further than Boris did.

Hopefully, most people can agree that there is a role for articulated buses, in certain circumstances, and on certain routes !

I agree that artics could have a limited role to play, the 108,170 and 227 for example which are all restricted to single deckers anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking at the title of the thread, will the word "Sadiqmaster" soon be making its debut?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Looking at the title of the thread, will the word "Sadiqmaster" soon be making its debut?

I doubt it, given that he didn't introduce the things. All he's done is inherit them.

 

[the101]

No, it's the all-electric BYD double decker going into service (all three of them) on Metroline route 98 that have just 17 seats downstairs. Cannot see China cracking the UK bus market if that's the best they can do. Perhaps Stannah should be contracted to provide some stairlifts on them.

You said:

The latest Wrightbus creation will, in London mode, provide a whole SEVENTEEN seats downstairs. That is not only pathetic, but a scandal!

 

[Busaholic]

The 607 is fine as it is with double deckers and I said previously Uxbridge bus station is unsuitable for artics anyway!

You're so obsessed about Boris Johnson that you can't see the wood for the trees.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I agree that artics could have a limited role to play, the 108,170 and 227 for example which are all restricted to single deckers anyway.

The 227 is a wonderful route that has won 'best London bus route' voted for by the public at least three times. It had lovely Merc buses that were long enough to have plenty of seats, and, as such, I'd NOT want to see bendies on this, or the 358 for that matter. I've never 'officially' driven a bus, but I did drive a RF fully blinded for the 227 once (without passengers, of course).

 

[jon0844]

How do you vote for best bus route? How many people have used enough to have a proper opinion?

When I ran an annual awards, we had a best network category - voted for by users. But of course, most users don't have a SIM card for every network so how do they know they are on the best network (or worst?). It's like trainline.com users not knowing about alternatives!

We got around it by having people give a score for their network, and weighting the results where someone was on more than one, to try and get a more accurate result.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

What were these "solid rational reasons"? Most of the reasons The Buffoon gave were either inaccurate (their safety record was no different to TfL buses' generally) or merely subjective opinion. The main "rational" reason that most people on here have come up with is "I don't like bendies very much".

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's not try and pretend it is objective.

As I recall they were replaced at the end of the contracts, and it is common for tenders to specify new vehicles anyway.

Some were, most were not. That's why the bus operators refused to buy the NB4L, because they got stung by TfL on the bendies.

As for garage space, well obviously double deckers use it efficiently whilst the space above single deckers is wasted.

Huh? As we discussed before, the PVR went up by 1.5 on most routes where the bendies were replaced. That means 1.5 times as many buses, i.e. the same floorspace. One bendy takes up more room than one double decker, but when you need three double deckers for every two bendies suddenly that "garage space saving" isn't actually there anymore.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What were these "solid rational reasons"? Most of the reasons The Buffoon gave were either inaccurate (their safety record was no different to TfL buses' generally) or merely subjective opinion. The main "rational" reason that most people on here have come up with is "I don't like bendies very much".

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's not try and pretend it is objective.



Some were, most were not. That's why the bus operators refused to buy the NB4L, because they got stung by TfL on the bendies.



Huh? As we discussed before, the PVR went up by 1.5 on most routes where the bendies were replaced. That means 1.5 times as many buses, i.e. the same floorspace. One bendy takes up more room than one double decker, but when you need three double deckers for every two bendies suddenly that "garage space saving" isn't actually there anymore.

To be fair David, the line about deckers being more space efficient because they used the full height of the depot was when I knew Antman had "jumped the shark"

Not withstanding the obvious issue that the square footage is what is important (rent and rates aren't done on cubic footage), the space variance for a route like the 38 is:

Bendi - 42*18*2.55 = 1928m2
NBfL - 59*11.23*2.55= 1689m2

239m2 * £200/m2 = £48k

So you save a minimal sum on space but you will have to employ another how many drivers?

As has been said by others, bendies aren't suitable for every London route. They're not even suitable for most London routes.

However, to say that they're not suitable for ANY London route is difficult to believe and that's with full acknowledgement of their downsides (e.g. higher fuel costs, higher maintenance costs).

 

[jon0844]

Given the changes in road layouts for some routes that serve Oxford Street, you could potentially re-introduce some bendies there - as they probably work quite well on mostly straight roads, and where people are hopping on and off at frequent intervals (sometimes just one stop, as anyone with a Travelcard/season has nothing to lose bar some exercise!).

I also think they work better when there aren't going to be lots of different route numbers serving the same bus stop - for the reason mentioned before about buses stopping too far away and drivers making people run back to get on, or risk missing the bus when it pulls out and overtakes the others.

I would have hoped drivers wouldn't stop short of stops to let people board and alight, but they did - and regularly.

 

[Dent]

What were these "solid rational reasons"?

See Post 156.

As we discussed before, the PVR went up by 1.5 on most routes where the bendies were replaced. That means 1.5 times as many buses, i.e. the same floorspace. One bendy takes up more room than one double decker, but when you need three double deckers for every two bendies suddenly that "garage space saving" isn't actually there anymore.

The increase of 1.5 times mentioned in this thread is actually for a route where bendy buses were replaced by other single deckers, so not relevant to routes where they were replaced by double deckers.

 

[Antman]

What were these "solid rational reasons"? Most of the reasons The Buffoon gave were either inaccurate (their safety record was no different to TfL buses' generally) or merely subjective opinion. The main "rational" reason that most people on here have come up with is "I don't like bendies very much".

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's not try and pretend it is objective.



Some were, most were not. That's why the bus operators refused to buy the NB4L, because they got stung by TfL on the bendies.



Huh? As we discussed before, the PVR went up by 1.5 on most routes where the bendies were replaced. That means 1.5 times as many buses, i.e. the same floorspace. One bendy takes up more room than one double decker, but when you need three double deckers for every two bendies suddenly that "garage space saving" isn't actually there anymore.

Your reference to Boris Johnson as the buffoon is rather childish to say the least and it shows your real motive is just to try and discredit him at every opportunity rather than post anything constructive:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Given the changes in road layouts for some routes that serve Oxford Street, you could potentially re-introduce some bendies there - as they probably work quite well on mostly straight roads, and where people are hopping on and off at frequent intervals (sometimes just one stop, as anyone with a Travelcard/season has nothing to lose bar some exercise!).

I also think they work better when there aren't going to be lots of different route numbers serving the same bus stop - for the reason mentioned before about buses stopping too far away and drivers making people run back to get on, or risk missing the bus when it pulls out and overtakes the others.

I would have hoped drivers wouldn't stop short of stops to let people board and alight, but they did - and regularly.

The drivers are rather caught between a rock and a hard place in that situation though, I don't know who came up with the ridiculous idea of lumping numerous routes all on one stop.

I actually thought the 18 was one of the better choices for artics as for much of the route it's on its own and bus stop space generally isn't a problem.

 

[Tetchytyke]

See Post 156

So subjective opinion then

The increase of 1.5 times mentioned in this thread is actually for a route where bendy buses were replaced by other single deckers, so not relevant to routes where they were replaced by double deckers.

The 38's PVR went from 47 bendybuses to 68 conventional deckers (it should have been 72, but they changed the timetable- cutting half the buses short at Clapton Pond- to save four buses). That's an increase of 44%, or almost 1.5 times as many buses as before; if the PVR had gone to 72 that would have been a 54% increase. For the same overall capacity.

 

[Dent]

So subjective opinion then

What in Post 156 is "subjective opinion"? That post comprises entirely of facts, backed up by rational reasons.

Objective facts do not magically become "subjective opinion" just because they challenge your personal prejudice!

 

[Tetchytyke]

What in Post 156 is "subjective opinion"?

All of it. It is simply your opinion that bendies are not suitable for "busy junctions", roads where "road space is at a premium", or bus stops served by many different routes. carlberry used the exact same "facts" to show why bendies are perfect for London.

The morning frequency was doubled when the 38 was converted to rigids. Does an 11m bus every two minutes congest things more than an 18m bus every four minutes? I'd say it probably does.

the space variance for a route like the 38 is:

Bendi - 42*18*2.55 = 1928m2
NBfL - 59*11.23*2.55= 1689m2

239m2 * £200/m2 = £48k

So you save a minimal sum on space but you will have to employ another how many drivers?

The 38 had 68 deckers when it was first converted to rigids, which is 1947m2.

There's an argument that 68 deckers was overkill, but replacing the bendies on the 38 actually increased the space needed.

 

[Dent]

All of it. It is simply your opinion that bendies are not suitable for "busy junctions", roads where "road space is at a premium", or bus stops served by many different routes. carlberry used the exact same "facts" to show why bendies are perfect for London because of the increased congestion caused by another 21 buses on a route to maintain capacity.

Actually the correct answer is none of it.

Bendy buses taking up more road space than double deckers to carry the same number of passengers is not an opinion, it is a fact

Longer vehicles taking longer to clear junctions is again a fact.

Longer vehicles taking up more space at stops is again a fact.

Bendy buses carrying mostly standing passengers is also a fact.

carlberry used the exact same "facts" to show why bendies are perfect for London because of the increased congestion caused by another 21 buses on a route to maintain capacity.

As I already pointed out, carlberry's analysis was fatally flawed because it neglected to take into account that the double deckers that replaced the bendy buses were shorter than the bendy buses.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The morning frequency was doubled when the 38 was converted to rigids. Does an 11m bus every two minutes congest things more than an 18m bus every four minutes? I'd say it probably does.

There's an argument that 68 deckers was overkill, but replacing the bendies on the 38 actually increased the space needed.

The capacity was also increased. Comparing the space used by different types of buses to provide different capacities is not a fair comparison between bus types.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Bendy buses taking up more road space than double deckers to carry the same number of passengers is not an opinion, it is a fact

The rated capacity of a Citaro bendybus was 149 passengers.

The rated capacity of a Borismaster is 87 passengers.

To carry the same number of people as a Citaro bendy you'll need 1.7 Borismasters.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't know who came up with the ridiculous idea of lumping numerous routes all on one stop.

I don't see what is ridiculous about that if they are initially going in the same direction.
I've waited in places where 3 routes which share the next couple of miles of route call at different stops and had to run from one stop to another to catch one.

 

[Busaholic]

The 18,38,73,507 and 521 routes have all been cited on here by some, even the detractors, as the most successful bendybus routes. What did all these routes have in common? The answer may not be immediately obvious, but I think it is relevant. They each terminated at a bus station, and, in the case of the 507 and 521, two, if you stretch a point and count Waterloo, which I would. I still think the original Red Arrow concept, of which the 507 and 521 were the last examples, could have worked if (a) garage space had been found reasonably close to central London and (b) TfL and its predecessor had concentrated their minds on providing proper termini on the axis from Marble Arch to Holborn Circus, including Oxford Circus, Centre Point and Kingsway area, plus two or three other places.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This debate over the number of double deckers versus the number of bendy buses - nobody seems to have pointed out the obvious:

In railway terms for clarity, when it comes to clearing junctions and when at stops, a bendy bus spends longer in section than a double decker.

Hence there may be rather more double deckers, but they don't cause so much traffic chaos.






( Talking of bendy buses, for some time now there have been a few in London livery dumped in a gated field between Chippenham and Bath, on the west side of the line. )

 

[Antman]

I don't see what is ridiculous about that if they are initially going in the same direction.
I've waited in places where 3 routes which share the next couple of miles of route call at different stops and had to run from one stop to another to catch one.

If you've got a stop served by up to a dozen high frequency routes then inevitably numerous buses are going to arrive at the same time and chaos ensues, far better to have two stops accommodating six routes each.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This debate over the number of double deckers versus the number of bendy buses - nobody seems to have pointed out the obvious:

In railway terms for clarity, when it comes to clearing junctions and when at stops, a bendy bus spends longer in section than a double decker.

Hence there may be rather more double deckers, but they don't cause so much traffic chaos.






( Talking of bendy buses, for some time now there have been a few in London livery dumped in a gated field between Chippenham and Bath, on the west side of the line. )

There are ex London bendys dumped at various locations because nobody else wants them!

 

[Wolfie]

What in Post 156 is "subjective opinion"? That post comprises entirely of facts, backed up by rational reasons.

Objective facts do not magically become "subjective opinion" just because they challenge your personal prejudice!

As someone with a masters degree in an analytical subject I must take serious issue with this post.

Facts are something which are backed by evidence - where is the evidence for the "facts" that you cite? Without that, even if they superficially appear reasonable (and "rational reasons" do not constitute evidence), they are nothing more than your personal opinion. So in reality your "objective facts" are actually your "subjective opinion" unless of course you have the hard evidence to prove them....

I don't know who came up with the ridiculous idea of lumping numerous routes all on one stop.

There is absolutely nothing ridiculous about having a number of bus routes share a stop. Not only does it facilitate changing buses, which is beneficial to people with disabilities, the elderly, mothers with pushchairs etc and quite common in an area such as London using Travelcards, but it also means that roads like Oxford Street are not just wall to wall bus stops, one after then other.

 

[Dent]

The rated capacity of a Citaro bendybus was 149 passengers.

The rated capacity of a Borismaster is 87 passengers.

To carry the same number of people as a Citaro bendy you'll need 1.7 Borismasters.

Are these "rated capacities" an accurate measure of the number of people a bus can actually carry?