New shorter NB4L unveiled

[plcd1]

http://www.londonbusclub.com/news/exclusive-new-shorter-routemaster

Yesterday, our columnist ( TfL Managing Director of Surface Transport) Leon Daniels visited Wrightbus at Ballymena to view LT806. This is actually the prototype for a shorter version of Wright's NRM. It has had a whole bay of seats taken out reducing it's length to around 10.1 metres. Incredibly, due to the weight saving from less glass and metal being used, this shorter model will be able to carry 87 people, more than the existing type!

Photo on the url link.

 

[neilm831]

Marvellous news..

 

[pompeyfan]

Plated capacities and capacities in real life are 2 completely different things! Guess what number management use when allocating buses!?

 

[Robertj21a]

That increase in passenger capacity may actually be possible, however strange it appears. As far as I know, the total passenger capacity is derived by simply deducting the net weight from the maximum gross weight permitted. The difference is then divided by the nominally agreed weight per passenger (isn't it something like 68 kgs at present ??) - that would enable more standing passengers to be carried.

 

[Hophead]

I seem to remember 87 being the intended capacity of the original batch

 

[the101]

That increase in passenger capacity may actually be possible, however strange it appears. As far as I know, the total passenger capacity is derived by simply deducting the net weight from the maximum gross weight permitted. The difference is then divided by the nominally agreed weight per passenger (isn't it something like 68 kgs at present ??) - that would enable more standing passengers to be carried.

I don't think the shorter New RM being developed is anything to do with capacity, because by this time next year it looks like the GVW for two-axle PCVs will have been raised to 19,500kg. If the existing New RMs have a design GVW of that figure (and there is no reason I can see for them not to have), it will be a relatively easy task to up-rate them and one which will be possible with the minimum of modification to the bus. If it can be done, the additional weight will almost entirely be used for passengers. It would seem that the development is more for the sake of manoeuvrability.

It is absurd however that TfL's stated minimum passenger capacity for a double-decker conveniently doesn't apply to the New RM despite ADL, Volvo, Wrightbus for its StreetDeck and Optare (whenever it makes a MetroDecker that works) having to comply with it if they are to tender. A bit like the Euro 6 Ultra-LEZ will (again conveniently) not apply to those New RMs with are Euro 5 models. I'm sure Leon is eminently capable of spinning both points, though.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I don't think the shorter New RM being developed is anything to do with capacity, because by this time next year it looks like the GVW for two-axle PCVs will have been raised to 19,500kg. If the existing New RMs have a design GVW of that figure (and there is no reason I can see for them not to have), it will be a relatively easy task to up-rate them and one which will be possible with the minimum of modification to the bus. If it can be done, the additional weight will almost entirely be used for passengers. It would seem that the development is more for the sake of manoeuvrability.

Or used for increasing the number of passengers that the plate says it is permissible to carry - shouldn't make any difference to the number of people actually on such a bus

 

[Busaholic]

If this news item had been released on 1st April then I'd have thought 'good photoshop, just about plausible as a story' then dismissed it on the grounds (a) that Wrightbus wouldn't be so deluded as to think even this tweaked version would be of interest to any UK bus operator other than TfL and (b) now TfL have got even less money to play with, that they had better and more important things to spend that money on. Headways are being reduced on routes all over London, some on a supposedly temporary basis. The 23 is about to get its fourth cut over the last three years, for instance. A few extra evening or Sunday buses are glossing over the general deterioration in service, caused in part by the ineffectiveness of the congestion charge when it is not allied to other measures,and its removal from the Kensington borough altogether.

 

[Dent]

That increase in passenger capacity may actually be possible, however strange it appears. As far as I know, the total passenger capacity is derived by simply deducting the net weight from the maximum gross weight permitted. The difference is then divided by the nominally agreed weight per passenger (isn't it something like 68 kgs at present ??) - that would enable more standing passengers to be carried.

Carrying passengers doesn't just require carrying the weight, it also requires physical space for the passengers to occupy. The physical space is already the limiting factor in most cases, and making the whole bus shorter will reduce this further, so a lower capacity.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Now that's a good bit of TfL spin: we're taking seats out to make it carry more people.

Yeah, right.

I expect the real reason is manoeuvrability. The current NBfL is too long for some routes- the C2 comes to mind- so it needs to be shorter to be more useful.

 

[Robertj21a]

Carrying passengers doesn't just require carrying the weight, it also requires physical space for the passengers to occupy. The physical space is already the limiting factor in most cases, and making the whole bus shorter will reduce this further, so a lower capacity.

Yes, quite agree, but that doesn't stop them showing the higher 'theoretical' capacity and, presumably, thereby achieving a target set by TfL.

 

[neilm831]

I expect to see these routes converted now

1/2/3/4/14/17/19/21/22/23/26/27/29/30/35/36/40/43/45/53/59/65/68/74/76/77/82/87/94/133/134/139/176/185/188/189/205/211/344/c2/

 

[Antman]

I expect to see these routes converted now

1/2/3/4/14/17/19/21/22/23/26/27/29/30/35/36/40/43/45/53/59/65/68/74/76/77/82/87/94/133/134/139/176/185/188/189/205/211/344/c2/

You're probably right about many of these but other buses have already been ordered for the 35 and 40.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now that's a good bit of TfL spin: we're taking seats out to make it carry more people.

Yeah, right.

I expect the real reason is manoeuvrability. The current NBfL is too long for some routes- the C2 comes to mind- so it needs to be shorter to be more useful.

The bus is shorter, it will obviously have fewer seats
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If this news item had been released on 1st April then I'd have thought 'good photoshop, just about plausible as a story' then dismissed it on the grounds (a) that Wrightbus wouldn't be so deluded as to think even this tweaked version would be of interest to any UK bus operator other than TfL and (b) now TfL have got even less money to play with, that they had better and more important things to spend that money on. Headways are being reduced on routes all over London, some on a supposedly temporary basis. The 23 is about to get its fourth cut over the last three years, for instance. A few extra evening or Sunday buses are glossing over the general deterioration in service, caused in part by the ineffectiveness of the congestion charge when it is not allied to other measures,and its removal from the Kensington borough altogether.

Why are Wrightbus deluded? They are building what TfL have ordered, whether any other operators are interested in the bus is neither here nor there

 

[neilm831]

You're probably right about many of these but other buses have already been ordered for the 35 and 40.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some routes I have missed out which I think have potential for new buses but have recently receieved new vehicles allocated...6/7/25/98/ for example.

Routes 168/91/ allegedly getting them so left them out too,I do think having spent so much money with Wrights the more ordered the better the deal.

I make no secret that its our best bus since RM & RT in 50s/60s/70s

 

[Antman]

Some routes I have missed out which I think have potential for new buses but have recently receieved new vehicles allocated...6/7/25/98/ for example.

Routes 168/91/ allegedly getting them so left them out too,I do think having spent so much money with Wrights the more ordered the better the deal.

I make no secret that its our best bus since RM & RT in 50s/60s/70s

Yes I agree that they are excellent buses, drivers love them, but I just question the way they are being used, the whole point of them was an open platform and conductor. If they are going to be used as OPO buses all the time they should be two door like other OPO buses.

 

[neilm831]

http://www.londonbusclub.com/news/routemaster-running-day-weds-9th-december

Wednesday 9 December 2015 marks 10 years of a fully accessible bus network in London.
It is also 10 years since Routemaster buses ceased operating on route 159, the last front-line service by London’s world famous bus.
In addition, Metroline will be running RML903 on route 139, the replacement route for the northern section of the old 159.


Route 159
To mark the anniversary, the London Bus Museum is organising a free heritage operation on route 159 on 9 December. The service will feature one of London’s first accessible double-deckers, Stagecoach TA1, now looked after by the London Bus Museum. It will also feature a fleet of Routemasters and RT family buses, provided by a range of operators, recalling the mix on the ‘last Routemaster days’. Unfortunately, RM & RT buses running on this service are not wheelchair accessible.
The service will run alongside the current TfL service, .....

I think one of these should be permanent on all london routes, I'm sure a wheel chair user wont mind

 

[the101]

http://www.londonbusclub.com/news/routemaster-running-day-weds-9th-december



I think one of these should be permanent on all london routes, I'm sure a wheel chair user wont mind

What for? Nobody cares. It's like saying that a B-type should also be run on every route in London.

 

[neilm831]

What for? Nobody cares. It's like saying that a B-type should also be run on every route in London.

Whats a B type? Im also sure someone else would like my suggestion so saying nobody cares is some statement to make without concrete evidence.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The bus is shorter, it will obviously have fewer seats

Indeed it will, which is why the TfL spin about it "carrying more people" is so pathetic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Can't help but wonder how much of the motivation is also the competition from the E400H City...

http://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/enviro400h-city/

 

[the101]

Whats a B type? Im also sure someone else would like my suggestion so saying nobody cares is some statement to make without concrete evidence.

A B-type is a very old London bus with an exposed staircase and driver and solid tyres.

I will clarify my other statement: nobody would care enough for it to become an important matter. Money is better spent on things other that resuscitating old Routemasters to satisfy enthusiasts' whims.

 

[neilm831]

Well I lived in west london a lot of my life and I currently reside in Eastbourne.

London is a special place,it should not have the same buses as the ones that go past my flat[99 to Hastings]

London deserves a bus that looks quality and this is first bus to get anywhere near the old rms and RTS

 

[507021]

A B-type is a very old London bus with an exposed staircase and driver and solid tyres.

I will clarify my other statement: nobody would care enough for it to become an important matter. Money is better spent on things other that resuscitating old Routemasters to satisfy enthusiasts' whims.

Agreed, I spoke to the CEO of an independent bus company a few years ago about their fleet, asking what vehicles they were going to be buying next. I told him that I liked an outgoing vehicle type, and he replied that while the likes of Olympians, Atlanteans, Routemasters et cetera are great buses, but they are all obsolete for today's stagecarriage services.

Don't get me wrong, I think the old Routemasters are great, but they've had their day in public service. Running days like those are fine, because that'll only be a few days a year at most and they're primarily for the benefit of enthusiasts. As the101 said, the money would be better spent on other things that will benefit all bus users, and not just enthusiasts.

 

[Antman]

Agreed, I spoke to the CEO of an independent bus company a few years ago about their fleet, asking what vehicles they were going to be buying next. I told him that I liked an outgoing vehicle type, and he replied that while the likes of Olympians, Atlanteans, Routemasters et cetera are great buses, but they are all obsolete for today's stagecarriage services.

Don't get me wrong, I think the old Routemasters are great, but they've had their day in public service. Running days like those are fine, because that'll only be a few days a year at most and they're primarily for the benefit of enthusiasts. As the101 said, the money would be better spent on other things that will benefit all bus users, and not just enthusiasts.

I think the RM's on the 15H aren't exactly going to break the bank

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the RM's on the 15H aren't exactly going to break the bank

They still cost a million quid a year to run.

 

[507021]

I think the RM's on the 15H aren't exactly going to break the bank

It wasn't the 15H I was referring to, I was referring to neilm831 saying there should be an old Routemaster on every bus route in London. It would cost a lot of money as the101 has said to restore more Routemasters to service, when it would make more sense to spend that money on something more beneficial to all bus users.

 

[MotCO]

Would the shorter NB4L be better with only one staircase and without the rear door. This would increase the seating capacity, although I am not sure how the rear could be remodeled, whilst retaining a distinctive rear end. Also, are there not mechanical bits under the rear staircase which would have to be relocated? With the reduced length, it may make it more suitable for the suburbs as well.

 

[Nym]

You could do that and then you'd have an, errrmmmm, Enviro 400?

 

[neilm831]

cANT BELIEVE THE FUSS THE COST OF THE BUS MAKES

The money was available to ease congestion..3 entrances..three exits,more ability to scan contactless and oyster without looking at the driver and the bus leaves the bus stop much quicker and looks better too.

MONEY WELL SPENT

 

[Robertj21a]

cANT BELIEVE THE FUSS THE COST OF THE BUS MAKES

The money was available to ease congestion..3 entrances..three exits,more ability to scan contactless and oyster without looking at the driver and the bus leaves the bus stop much quicker and looks better too.

MONEY WELL SPENT

And much more suitable for anyone who doesn't want to pay. Perhaps they should bring back the artics.......

 

[Antman]

And much more suitable for anyone who doesn't want to pay. Perhaps they should bring back the artics.......

Exactly, that's why 3 door open boarding buses of any description are unsuitable for London
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would the shorter NB4L be better with only one staircase and without the rear door. This would increase the seating capacity, although I am not sure how the rear could be remodeled, whilst retaining a distinctive rear end. Also, are there not mechanical bits under the rear staircase which would have to be relocated? With the reduced length, it may make it more suitable for the suburbs as well.

It would indeed, very few people use the rear door and staircase in OPO mode anyway