NBfL route 137

[Busaholic]

The London Omnibus Traction Society is reporting that the 137 from Brixton garage will receive LTs in November WITH CUSTOMER ASSISTANTS. This will be the third LT route in South London, but the first with 'conductors'.

 

[Antman]

The London Omnibus Traction Society is reporting that the 137 from Brixton garage will receive LTs in November WITH CUSTOMER ASSISTANTS. This will be the third LT route in South London, but the first with 'conductors'.

Yes and rumour is that the 159 will follow at some point?

Running these buses without 'conductors' (and therefore without open platforms) really defeats the whole purpose of the bus:cry:

 

[WatcherZero]

Savage mauling of the NbFL in the papers today, their actual in service mpg has turned out to be the same as normal hybrid buses 6.3 and 6.5mpg on the two routes (and half the testing centre claim of around 12mpg) despite the much higher unit price. Customers also finding them inferior in passenger conditions to normal buses with the suggestion they are too hot.

 

[Nym]

Savage mauling of the NbFL in the papers today, their actual in service mpg has turned out to be the same as normal hybrid buses 6.3 and 6.5mpg on the two routes (and half the testing centre claim of around 12mpg) despite the much higher unit price. Customers also finding them inferior in passenger conditions to normal buses with the suggestion they are too hot.

Not to mention limited headroom and small windows on the upper deck thanks to the stylish roof. And the appalling legroom in the facing seats over the axle, its impossoble to fit four normal sized people in there without standing on eachothera feet.
Oh and of course the build quality of the plastic paneling that is already fatiguing at the mounting points and the paint on the handrails (that are still metal in spite of feedback years ago from disability campaigners) that seems to rub off after around 6-12 months in service. Making it look like parts where either cheaped out on or specified by someome who had no idea what they're looking at.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes and rumour is that the 159 will follow at some point?

Running these buses without 'conductors' (and therefore without open platforms) really defeats the whole purpose of the bus:cry:

The third door and extra staircase does improve boarding and deboarding time a bit, and the expense of the extra cost and length

 

[Busaholic]

The third door and extra staircase does improve boarding and deboarding time a bit, and the expense of the extra cost and length

Other than the staircase, just what the bendybuses, so derided by Boris Johnson, M.P.,P.M. (designate, self-appointed) achieved and at much less cost per bus.

 

[Antman]

Other than the staircase, just what the bendybuses, so derided by Boris Johnson, M.P.,P.M. (designate, self-appointed) achieved and at much less cost per bus.

But with more seats, taking up less garage space and with a helpful conductor, well at least on some routes

 

[LexyBoy]

More seats than a bendy (but fewer than a normal double decker), but much less total capacity. When bus subsidies are being cut hard by Boris, employing an extra person (to tell you when you can get off?) is a poor use of funds IMO.

 

[radamfi]

Not only has London suffered as a result of Boris' crusade against the bendy bus, but also the rest of the UK and Ireland, as Mercedes-Benz stopped making a RHD articulated version of the Citaro.

 

[Antman]

More seats than a bendy (but fewer than a normal double decker), but much less total capacity. When bus subsidies are being cut hard by Boris, employing an extra person (to tell you when you can get off?) is a poor use of funds IMO.

But not if you are elderley or disabled and need a bit of assistance getting on and off, they're also useful for giving tourists travel information
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not only has London suffered as a result of Boris' crusade against the bendy bus, but also the rest of the UK and Ireland, as Mercedes-Benz stopped making a RHD articulated version of the Citaro.

But surely that's because nobody wants them? Not even the ex London ones which were available at bargain basement prices. I think most UK operators have a 'crusade against the bendy bus', more trouble than they're worth.

 

[Busaholic]

But with more seats, taking up less garage space and with a helpful conductor, well at least on some routes

If you need 25% more double deckers on a route than with bendybuses (the average on conversion, or a few weeks later after the incapacity problems surface) then the garage space is equalised. The majority of passengers outside peak and school hours wish to get a seat downstairs anyway, and those on the NB4L are ludicrous, designed by someone who obviously has no intention of ever travelling on one himself. The bendybus was excellent in so many ways, but there were one or two routes IMO which shouldn't have been converted and these led to the clamour for their removal from some.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But with more seats, taking up less garage space and with a helpful conductor, well at least on some routes

If you need 25% more double deckers on a route than with bendybuses (the average on conversion, or a few weeks later after the incapacity problems surface) then the garage space is equalised. The majority of passengers outside peak and school hours wish to get a seat downstairs anyway, and those on the NB4L are ludicrous, designed by someone who obviously has no intention of ever travelling on one himself. The bendybus was excellent in so many ways, but there were one or two routes IMO which shouldn't have been converted and these led to the clamour for their removal from some people.

 

[Robertj21a]

Nice to see a sensible post about the artics. Boris was totally stupid to get rid of them (as usual without bothering with the facts). I agree that a couple of routes might not have been the most suitable, but most were fine.

 

[Antman]

If you need 25% more double deckers on a route than with bendybuses (the average on conversion, or a few weeks later after the incapacity problems surface) then the garage space is equalised. The majority of passengers outside peak and school hours wish to get a seat downstairs anyway, and those on the NB4L are ludicrous, designed by someone who obviously has no intention of ever travelling on one himself. The bendybus was excellent in so many ways, but there were one or two routes IMO which shouldn't have been converted and these led to the clamour for their removal from some.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you need 25% more double deckers on a route than with bendybuses (the average on conversion, or a few weeks later after the incapacity problems surface) then the garage space is equalised. The majority of passengers outside peak and school hours wish to get a seat downstairs anyway, and those on the NB4L are ludicrous, designed by someone who obviously has no intention of ever travelling on one himself. The bendybus was excellent in so many ways, but there were one or two routes IMO which shouldn't have been converted and these led to the clamour for their removal from some people.

Excellent? They were the worst buses ever to grace the streets of London, passengers may accept crush loading on the tube but not on buses. The congestion they caused in the West End was ridiculous and they were often subjected to long winded diversions in the event of demo's because they couldn't get round the roads that other buses could. The most telling factor is that once they were withdrawn they stood gathering dust because no other operators wanted them even at a knock down price. Good riddance to them as far as I'm concerned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nice to see a sensible post about the artics. Boris was totally stupid to get rid of them (as usual without bothering with the facts). I agree that a couple of routes might not have been the most suitable, but most were fine.

So what 'facts' did Boris miss?

 

[90sWereBetter]

Can we all just get along and agree that all bendybuses and the NBfL are bloody terrible buses?

But yeah, bendybuses were suitable for the Red Arrow routes...and not a lot else imo.

 

[Robertj21a]

Excellent? They were the worst buses ever to grace the streets of London, passengers may accept crush loading on the tube but not on buses. The congestion they caused in the West End was ridiculous and they were often subjected to long winded diversions in the event of demo's because they couldn't get round the roads that other buses could. The most telling factor is that once they were withdrawn they stood gathering dust because no other operators wanted them even at a knock down price. Good riddance to them as far as I'm concerned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So what 'facts' did Boris miss?

You really don't know the facts that Boris missed ? - most people do, I'm surprised if you don't.

- supremely efficient people mover (in absence of trams)
- supremely efficient costs vs income (one staff member)
- worldwide leader (Mercedes Citaro)
- does NOT kill cyclists (Boris 'fact')

 

[Antman]

You really don't know the facts that Boris missed ? - most people do, I'm surprised if you don't.

- supremely efficient people mover (in absence of trams)
- supremely efficient costs vs income (one staff member)
- worldwide leader (Mercedes Citaro)
- does NOT kill cyclists (Boris 'fact')

And to hell with passenger comfort and safety. I use the 25 from time to time and it is so much more pleasant now, the service is more reliable too.

 

[Busaholic]

Can we all just get along and agree that all bendybuses and the NBfL are bloody terrible buses?

But yeah, bendybuses were suitable for the Red Arrow routes...and not a lot else imo.

So why were bendybuses removed first from the Red Arrow routes, well in advance of the contract end? Pure political opportunism, with the 521 terminating a short distance from Boris's eyrie at City Hall, that's why, and showing Peter Hendy et al who was now in charge. I wasn't an unalloyed fan of the bendybus, but it could soak up large numbers at places like Waterloo, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, Marble Arch etc and be speedily on its way. The big mistake imo was the 73 and the PR guff about replacing the RMs thereon with barely half the number of bendybuses being 'an improvement from every angle'.

 

[radamfi]

The best bus route in Europe is arguably the 300 between Haarlem and Amsterdam Zuidoost. This 40 km route has its own lane or own road for almost the entire route. Some of the route goes on the motorway, but it is allowed on the hard shoulder during traffic jams. For most of the route, a special road was built for it, incorporating many expensive bridges and tunnels. It gets priority at nearly all junctions, and there are level crossing barriers at most intersecting roads and cycle paths.

So, given this spectacular investment, you would expect them to choose the best possible vehicle. Double deckers are not common outside the UK and former colonies, but if a double decker was appropriate, they could surely have used them. I think the tunnels are high enough, and if they aren't, they could have built them high enough to fit double deckers in. Needless to say, they use artics.

Another question is why don't we have double decker trams, if indeed double deckers should be preferred to artics if we have a choice? Blackpool obviously has old double decker trams but when the network was modernised recently, they still chose articulated trams.

Double deckers make more sense for trains, because the increased dwell times are not so important as stops are less frequent than for local buses, and dwell times can be reduced by having very big doors. That is why double decker trains are common in many European countries.

 

[Antman]

So why were bendybuses removed first from the Red Arrow routes, well in advance of the contract end? Pure political opportunism, with the 521 terminating a short distance from Boris's eyrie at City Hall, that's why, and showing Peter Hendy et al who was now in charge. I wasn't an unalloyed fan of the bendybus, but it could soak up large numbers at places like Waterloo, Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, Marble Arch etc and be speedily on its way. The big mistake imo was the 73 and the PR guff about replacing the RMs thereon with barely half the number of bendybuses being 'an improvement from every angle'.

They were removed because that is what Boris promised to do in his election manifesto, the bendybuses are just not suitable for Central London. If there was any role for them in London it would be on more suburban routes, the 108 which is restricted to single deckers by the Blackwall Tunnel for example.

 

[radamfi]

And to hell with passenger comfort and safety. I use the 25 from time to time and it is so much more pleasant now, the service is more reliable too.

Many of the routes converted from bendy bus were flooded with buses so that there wouldn't be embarrassing reports of overcrowding. The routes replaced by bendies were generally reduced in frequency. The 25 had extra bendies put on the route as the frequency was cut too much to start with. If the bendies ran every 3-4 minutes like the 25 does now, it would have been far less overcrowded.

The implementation of bendy buses could have been much better if dedicated road space was allocated to them with decent bus priority. That would have been a near tram like experience, like on the Amsterdam route 300 above. Of course, many of the routes that bendies ran on would be tram routes in other countries. Once bus routes exceed a certain level of demand, tram conversion makes sense. Given the severe pollution problem in central London, mass tram conversion is long overdue.

 

[Antman]

Many of the routes converted from bendy bus were flooded with buses so that there wouldn't be embarrassing reports of overcrowding. The routes replaced by bendies were generally reduced in frequency. The 25 had extra bendies put on the route as the frequency was cut too much to start with. If the bendies ran every 3-4 minutes like the 25 does now, it would have been far less overcrowded.

The implementation of bendy buses could have been much better if dedicated road space was allocated to them with decent bus priority. That would have been a near tram like experience, like on the Amsterdam route 300 above. Of course, many of the routes that bendies ran on would be tram routes in other countries. Once bus routes exceed a certain level of demand, tram conversion makes sense. Given the severe pollution problem in central London, mass tram conversion is long overdue.

Loadings dropped off on many routes because free travel was no longer possible.

I agree about tram conversion but the bendybus was in effect a poor mans tram service.

 

[Mikey C]

Bendy buses are in no way a tram substitute, and central London has narrow streets, there's no space for any more bus lanes. The sheer number of routes operating means that some stops can have over 10 routes stopping there, bendies arriving at the same time caused chaos.
Trams in central London would be nice, but the cost of converting every central London route (as there are no parallel routes for buses to run down) would be astronomic.

 

[Busaholic]

I once lived in Amsterdam for a few months where I got my first taste of modern trams and although I liked them I did see the downsides like road works closing whole routes and the inevitable accidents making things grind to a halt for some time. This was exacerbated through the lack of any metro and buses only operating on 'country' routes that didn't penetrate the centre. Luckily for me, being used to London all my life, Amsterdam was a tiny city in comparison and one either walked or biked it.
I'm afraid to say that large-scale tram operation will never come to central London for these reasons:-
1) Our mediaeval road system
2) The attitude of British motorists to bus or tram priority
3) The constraints put upon the construction of tram lines regarding diversion of pipes, cables, etc and also the excessive safety regime akin to a heavy rail system foisted on tram schemes in this country as compared to the rest of Europe or,indeed, almost anywhere else in the world.

Manchester Metrolink and London's DLR were fortunate to get started on (largely) old railway lines but Croydon Tramlink's construction in the centre of Croydon was a huge pain for locals, particularly traders, for far longer than planned and the Edinburgh experience is one that will be quoted to promoters of any new schemes that come along.
As for TfL at one stage aspiring to Oxford Street, I can only believe the scheme was the brainchild of someone who hated trams or who had never studied them in any depth.

 

[Robertj21a]

London should have started to implement trams very many years ago, pre-artic buses. The Croydon network is very good and **if the will was there** there's really no good reason why it couldn't now be expanded to use the major roads out of central Croydon.

The artic could have only ever been a halfway solution to the London issues as a full tramway network has been overdue for too long. Amusing that people are still moaning about overcrowded buses when they got rid of their most efficient people-mover. Like it or not, the long term solution will have to be trams

 

[Antman]

London should have started to implement trams very many years ago, pre-artic buses. The Croydon network is very good and **if the will was there** there's really no good reason why it couldn't now be expanded to use the major roads out of central Croydon.

The artic could have only ever been a halfway solution to the London issues as a full tramway network has been overdue for too long. Amusing that people are still moaning about overcrowded buses when they got rid of their most efficient people-mover. Like it or not, the long term solution will have to be trams

I think the Croydon network just fell into place really, there was the under used West Croydon to Wimbledon and Addiscombe to Elmers End lines, the remains of the branch to Sanderstead that closed in 1983 and a long held intention of something better for New Addington and a fairly easy route through the town centre.

Of course the Uxbridge Road tramway never happened, I didn't really see it being viable on its own but if it had been the start of a London wide tram network it would have been.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But with more seats, taking up less garage space and with a helpful conductor, well at least on some routes

More seats, yes, but less usable room. People won't go upstairs if they're going a few stops. I've lost count of the number of "full" buses sailing past me at Essex Road and Angel with 20 seats free upstairs. You didn't get that on a bendy.

A bus sailing past when it's only 70% full is far more frustrating than the lack of seats on a bendy ever was.

The 521 one now is a joke. It has the same rules as it did with bendy Citaros- board at any door, plenty of standing room, few seats- but using fixed Citaros has cut capacity right down.

 

[Busaholic]

More seats, yes, but less usable room. People won't go upstairs if they're going a few stops. I've lost count of the number of "full" buses sailing past me at Essex Road and Angel with 20 seats free upstairs. You didn't get that on a bendy.

A bus sailing past when it's only 70% full is far more frustrating than the lack of seats on a bendy ever was.

The 521 one now is a joke. It has the same rules as it did with bendy Citaros- board at any door, plenty of standing room, few seats- but using fixed Citaros has cut capacity right down.

The 507 and 521 are an indictment of Boris dogma. The whole Red Arrow concept was ahead of its time by London standards, with flat fares and reliable services unimpeded by suburban traffic disruption. As with the bendybus, one or two of the routes should have been chosen more carefully but what really killed the concept was lack of central London garage space and lack of cheap(ish) central London housing for the key workers to operate it. Those problems are further away than ever from being solved.

 

[radamfi]

As I pointed out on a different thread, a lot of the central London bus traffic travels long distances from zones 2/3 because people want to save money by taking a direct bus rather than using the Tube for most of the distance. A proper integrated fare system which enable people to change between bus/rail/Tube at no extra cost would wipe out a lot of central London bus congestion. The argument against that would be that there isn't the spare capacity, so I would wait until the completion of Thameslink and Crossrail before doing anything. I would also advocate the construction of Crossrail 2 and Cross River Tram as a matter of urgency.

Once all our serious rail improvements has been done, and many people had switched away from buses, or from buses/Tube to cycling (as hopefully the improved cycle superhighways will encourage a lot of passengers away from crowded routes) once the fares had been changed, you would then think about rationalising the buses in central London. Putting in Red Arrow type routes would become logical. Bus routes that continue to be crowded would then be prioritised for tram conversion.

 

[90019]

- worldwide leader (Mercedes Citaro)

I can't agree with this point.
Mercedes aren't the premium brand people like to think they are, and they haven't been since the massive cost cutting across all sectors in the early 90s. At best, they're mid-range and you can get better quality from other manufacturers.

 

[radamfi]

I can't agree with this point.
Mercedes aren't the premium brand people like to think they are, and they haven't been since the massive cost cutting across all sectors in the early 90s. At best, they're mid-range and you can get better quality from other manufacturers.

It depends what type of vehicle you are talking about. The vans and taxis are nothing special, but their buses are still the premium choice. The countries that can afford the best still buy Mercedes Evobus products in large quantities. I travelled on the new Capacities in Groningen earlier this year and they are a joy to ride on.