NBfL route 137

[Busaholic]

All I can say is that my pass can't be 'read' as it is not chip-enabled or whatever. New passes are only issued every five years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When I say can't be read, I mean by machine, obviously. The driver can read it to his heart's content.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, it's official. I can't do links, but Mayor Watch are saying TfL's board are next week being asked to authorise the purchase of a further 200 of the beasts on top of the 600 already ordered, with 'improved ventilation' and ALL FUTURE NBfLS WILL BE OPO, the additional crewing costs, met by TfL, being the primary reason. They then go on to admit that 'some' may see this as a negation of the original purpose of the whole damned entreprise (I've paraphrased here).

So the Mayor is losing his power and probably losing interest in London (outside the LB of Hillingdon, obviously). Wonder if this contract is signed it can be cancelled at a later date.

 

[Deerfold]

I thought the Oyster readers didn't recognise the national pass ?

Not originally, but they should read ITSO fine now.

Otherwise Southern's Key wouldn't work either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All I can say is that my pass can't be 'read' as it is not chip-enabled or whatever. New passes are only issued every five years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When I say can't be read, I mean by machine, obviously. The driver can read it to his heart's content.
.

That's odd. All ENCTS pases should be ITSO compliant at least.

 

[Antman]

All I can say is that my pass can't be 'read' as it is not chip-enabled or whatever. New passes are only issued every five years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When I say can't be read, I mean by machine, obviously. The driver can read it to his heart's content.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, it's official. I can't do links, but Mayor Watch are saying TfL's board are next week being asked to authorise the purchase of a further 200 of the beasts on top of the 600 already ordered, with 'improved ventilation' and ALL FUTURE NBfLS WILL BE OPO, the additional crewing costs, met by TfL, being the primary reason. They then go on to admit that 'some' may see this as a negation of the original purpose of the whole damned entreprise (I've paraphrased here).

So the Mayor is losing his power and probably losing interest in London (outside the LB of Hillingdon, obviously). Wonder if this contract is signed it can be cancelled at a later date.

Well yes the whole point of these buses is the open platform and conductor, without those features what is the point?

 

[mirodo]

The NBfL has now started to appear on route 137, although the old buses still remain alongside them for now. I haven't caught an NBfL yet, although the ones which I've seen in operation all seem to be running with the back door closed and no obvious sign of a conductor/assistant on board.

 

[Antman]

The NBfL has now started to appear on route 137, although the old buses still remain alongside them for now. I haven't caught an NBfL yet, although the ones which I've seen in operation all seem to be running with the back door closed and no obvious sign of a conductor/assistant on board.

Yes there aren't going to be conductors on the 137 so no open platform which defeats the whole point of the bus

 

[mirodo]

Yes there aren't going to be conductors on the 137 so no open platform which defeats the whole point of the bus

The first post in this thread suggests that conductors *would* be present. Is this incorrect?

 

[Antman]

The first post in this thread suggests that conductors *would* be present. Is this incorrect?

It was originally stated that it would be with conductors. It seems this batch were originally intended for the 159 with conductors but it was decided to delay that as the 159 is being retendered.

 

[Busaholic]

Yes there aren't going to be conductors on the 137 so no open platform which defeats the whole point of the bus

It is now TfL policy that no further route conversions to the NBfL will feature conductors and, therefore, running with back door open. The Mayor has been remarkably silent on this volte-face. I think we can at least say now that this bus is not 'a new Routemaster', never has been and certainly never will be.

 

[Deerfold]

It is now TfL policy that no further route conversions to the NBfL will feature conductors and, therefore, running with back door open. The Mayor has been remarkably silent on this volte-face. I think we can at least say now that this bus is not 'a new Routemaster', never has been and certainly never will be.

That's not their stated policy unless it's changed in the last couple of days. The official lounge is that it'll be decided on a route by route basis.

 

[Busaholic]

That's not their stated policy unless it's changed in the last couple of days. The official lounge is that it'll be decided on a route by route basis.

I refer you to paragraph 4.7 of the TfL document about the latest order for 200 Borismasters :- 'THE ROUTES TO BE SERVED BY THESE BUSES WILL BE ENTIRELY ONE PERSON OPERATED' which decision was due to be ratified by the Assembly members towards the end of last month and. as I've not read anything to the contrary, presumably happened, so not much about 'route by route basis' there. The cost of the conductors is enormous and far outweighs any minimal benefits of the open rear door.

I have heard that originally the buses for the 137 were destined for another Brixton route, the 159, famous for being the last true Routemaster route almost exactly nine years ago, and WOULD have had conductors for at least daytimes weekdays but when the powers-that-be surreptitiously changed their plans it would have been seen as a huge own goal by the intellectual colossus known as Boris.

 

[Antman]

It is quite ridiculous for TfL to order another 200 if they are not going to have conductors, goodness only knows how much revenue will be lost through fare evasion.

 

[Busaholic]

It is quite ridiculous for TfL to order another 200 if they are not going to have conductors, goodness only knows how much revenue will be lost through fare evasion.

About the same as with the bendies - no, hang on, there weren't anything like 700 bendies so it will be massively more. And what was given as the main reason for getting rid of the bendies?!

 

[radamfi]

TfL has for many years had the aim of trying to boost capacity. The best way is to build new Underground lines. The second best way is to replace bus routes with tram lines. Those options cost £billions and take decades. The cheap and short term way is to boost bus capacity. Bus capacity is maximised by multi-door free boarding. The original plan of course with was bendy buses but that is no longer an option for political reasons. However the NBfL plan enables TfL to carry on with free boarding whilst meeting the Mayor's election pledges at the same time.

Of course there is an increase in fare evasion (which should be mitigated partly by increased inspections) but even with fare evasion you have still increased capacity at relatively low cost compared to new tram and Underground lines. You wouldn't seriously run a tram service without free boarding so I don't see why a high capacity bus service should be any different.

 

[Antman]

TfL has for many years had the aim of trying to boost capacity. The best way is to build new Underground lines. The second best way is to replace bus routes with tram lines. Those options cost £billions and take decades. The cheap and short term way is to boost bus capacity. Bus capacity is maximised by multi-door free boarding. The original plan of course with was bendy buses but that is no longer an option for political reasons. However the NBfL plan enables TfL to carry on with free boarding whilst meeting the Mayor's election pledges at the same time.

Of course there is an increase in fare evasion (which should be mitigated partly by increased inspections) but even with fare evasion you have still increased capacity at relatively low cost compared to new tram and Underground lines. You wouldn't seriously run a tram service without free boarding so I don't see why a high capacity bus service should be any different.

There are trams in some countries where you board at the front and the driver checks you have validity to travel although I accept it isn't ideal.

The NBFL in OPO mode is just like a double deck version of the bendybus and you can't have any revenue checks if the bus in packed, it makes far more sense from the driver to check passengers validity to travel before they go anywhere and despite what TfL might claim the bendybuses were no quicker than conventional buses, the long parallel section of the 36 and 436 proved that.

 

[radamfi]

If it is just as quick to check tickets when boarding then no transport authority would do open boarding, as there would be no time benefit as compensation for the loss of revenue. But it is usual in big cities (outside of the UK/Ireland) for buses/trams to operate in open boarding mode so there must be a point in it.

 

[Antman]

If it is just as quick to check tickets when boarding then no transport authority would do open boarding, as there would be no time benefit as compensation for the loss of revenue. But it is usual in big cities (outside of the UK/Ireland) for buses/trams to operate in open boarding mode so there must be a point in it.

I'm not aware of any UK bus operators outside of London that have open boarding, probably because the benefit of any time saving is vastly outweighed by the loss of revenue.

 

[radamfi]

I'm not aware of any UK bus operators outside of London that have open boarding, probably because the benefit of any time saving is vastly outweighed by the loss of revenue.

That's the UK for you though. Profit and revenue is everything to them whereas big city operators outside the UK care about capacity and journey times. A bus service in the UK outside London won't save much money by free boarding unless it reduces PVR. Buses in the UK outside London waste so much time issuing tickets anyway.

 

[Antman]

That's the UK for you though. Profit and revenue is everything to them whereas big city operators outside the UK care about capacity and journey times. A bus service in the UK outside London won't save much money by free boarding unless it reduces PVR. Buses in the UK outside London waste so much time issuing tickets anyway.

Yes a lot of time is wasted taking cash and issuing tickets outside of London but more and more operators are encouraging the use of pre paid tickets.

With most passengers in London having oyster cards now I don't think open boarding is going to make any real difference and from my observations very few people use the rear door on a NBFL in OPO mode, many probably don't even realise it's there.

 

[Busaholic]

Yes a lot of time is wasted taking cash and issuing tickets outside of London but more and more operators are encouraging the use of pre paid tickets.

With most passengers in London having oyster cards now I don't think open boarding is going to make any real difference and from my observations very few people use the rear door on a NBFL in OPO mode, many probably don't even realise it's there.

If NBfL is going to only be opo in future, and given that paying cash is no longer an option, why not simplify matters for the driver and go back to the bendy system = he/she just drives the bus and opens/closes the doors as appropriate i.e. doesn't concern him/herself with fares? I suspect this is what will happen anyway and historians may come to know it as Hendy's revenge.

 

[radamfi]

With most passengers in London having oyster cards now I don't think open boarding is going to make any real difference and from my observations very few people use the rear door on a NBFL in OPO mode, many probably don't even realise it's there.

TfL is still pretty strict in only allowing open boarding on particularly busy routes e.g. NBfL routes plus 507/521. The London policy is now quite similar to Dutch policy. The Dutch generally stopped open boarding about 20 years ago, but journey times didn't suffer too much as they had an efficient strip ticket system meaning that few tickets were sold from the driver, and now obviously they have smartcards nationwide. However, open boarding is maintained for the busiest routes operated by bendy buses and trams, although you have to touch in on entry.

 

[Antman]

TfL is still pretty strict in only allowing open boarding on particularly busy routes e.g. NBfL routes plus 507/521. The London policy is now quite similar to Dutch policy. The Dutch generally stopped open boarding about 20 years ago, but journey times didn't suffer too much as they had an efficient strip ticket system meaning that few tickets were sold from the driver, and now obviously they have smartcards nationwide. However, open boarding is maintained for the busiest routes operated by bendy buses and trams, although you have to touch in on entry.

I suspect that there is large scale fare evasion on Tramlink although realistically there is very little that can be done about it.

 

[Deerfold]

TfL has for many years had the aim of trying to boost capacity. The best way is to build new Underground lines. The second best way is to replace bus routes with tram lines. Those options cost £billions and take decades. The cheap and short term way is to boost bus capacity. Bus capacity is maximised by multi-door free boarding. The original plan of course with was bendy buses but that is no longer an option for political reasons. However the NBfL plan enables TfL to carry on with free boarding whilst meeting the Mayor's election pledges at the same time.

Of course there is an increase in fare evasion (which should be mitigated partly by increased inspections) but even with fare evasion you have still increased capacity at relatively low cost compared to new tram and Underground lines. You wouldn't seriously run a tram service without free boarding so I don't see why a high capacity bus service should be any different.

I don't understand this. The NBfL has a lower capacity than other standard double deckers. Most of the routes they're being introduced on are not getting frequency increases. Where is this extra capacity coming from?

 

[radamfi]

I don't understand this. The NBfL has a lower capacity than other standard double deckers. Most of the routes they're being introduced on are not getting frequency increases. Where is this extra capacity coming from?

Naturally, we all know about the inability of the vehicle to carry a large weight because it was only built with 2 axles. Nevertheless, there was a manifesto pledge to have these buses. So TfL have had to make the best of it. So whilst the capacity is constrained by weight, capacity is increased through (at least theoretically) faster boarding.

 

[Deerfold]

Naturally, we all know about the inability of the vehicle to carry a large weight because it was only built with 2 axles. Nevertheless, there was a manifesto pledge to have these buses. So TfL have had to make the best of it. So whilst the capacity is constrained by weight, capacity is increased through (at least theoretically) faster boarding.

The buses carry fewer passengers. There are not more buses, nor have the timetables been speeded up. How is capacity increased?

 

[radamfi]

The buses carry fewer passengers. There are not more buses, nor have the timetables been speeded up. How is capacity increased?

The capacity IS lower than before conversion. But we can't help that because those buses had to be bought for political reasons. The point is that the capacity would be even lower without open boarding.

 

[Deerfold]

TfL has for many years had the aim of trying to boost capacity. The best way is to build new Underground lines. The second best way is to replace bus routes with tram lines. Those options cost £billions and take decades. The cheap and short term way is to boost bus capacity. Bus capacity is maximised by multi-door free boarding.

Of course there is an increase in fare evasion (which should be mitigated partly by increased inspections) but even with fare evasion you have still increased capacity at relatively low cost compared to new tram and Underground lines. You wouldn't seriously run a tram service without free boarding so I don't see why a high capacity bus service should be any different.

The capacity IS lower than before conversion. But we can't help that because those buses had to be bought for political reasons. The point is that the capacity would be even lower without open boarding.

You see why I was confused?

 

[Antman]

I don't understand this. The NBfL has a lower capacity than other standard double deckers. Most of the routes they're being introduced on are not getting frequency increases. Where is this extra capacity coming from?

However with no conductor to keep any sort of order and passengers piling on through three doors the official capacity is irrelevent

 

[Deerfold]

However with no conductor to keep any sort of order and passengers piling on through three doors the official capacity is irrelevent

The driver is still legally responsible for the bus.

Besides it's not just the official capacity that's lower - have you tried standing between the seats on the lower deck of the NBfL? I did last night and there's not a lot of room.

 

[Antman]

The driver is still legally responsible for the bus.

Besides it's not just the official capacity that's lower - have you tried standing between the seats on the lower deck of the NBfL? I did last night and there's not a lot of room.

Well it's a bit like the buggy argument, how is a driver supposed to enforce it? At least with a single point of entry they have some chance. The bendybuses were the same, I think they had a theoretical capacity of 150 although I doubt if that was achievable. Yes there's not much room between the seats on the NBFL and I expect if they are jam packed then a lot of people will have to get off at busy stops to allow others off and then get back on again as happened with the bendybuses.

 

[Robertj21a]

We're now in the silly situation where a number of people who thought that the bendy bus was the worst possible solution for London are beginning to say that the 'Borismaster' is proving to be even worse !