TfL have released a press release confirming that Route 24 (Hampstead Heath – Pimlico) will be the first London bus route to be fully served by the New Bus for London. Although actual timings are yet to be clarified, it is intended that the route be fully converted by the end of summer 2013.
It will not be the first time that a hybrid has graced the route, as the 24 was used to trial Enviro 400H hybrids back in 2008. The route has also had an on-again-off-again relationship with Routemasters, to which the NBfL is claimed to be a spiritual heir. These featured intermittently on the route until one person operation (OPO) was finally introduced in 1986. The announcement also comes shortly after the route switched operators, with Metroline having recently won the contract back from Go Ahead (who originally replaced Metroline as route operator back in 2007).
So far, the NBfL has been confined solely to limited service on route 38 and a brief day in service on route 23A (the “Imber Bus”). Fulfilling the entire service pattern of the 24 will thus arguably mark the first true test of the bus, something that both its supporters and opponents will now doubt watch with great interest.
Edited to add:
Leon Daniels has just given a bit more background on how the services will be staffed on his personal blog. The key information:
As currently on route 38, buses will run in crew operation mode during the day and with only the driver in the evenings. The existing prototype vehicles will continue to operate on route 38.
Metroline actually took over the service in late 2012 with a fleet of new Euro V standard Volvo diesels and the first 5 Volvo B5L hybrids for the Metroline fleet. It will be something of a record to see brand new buses displaced within 6 months by another fleet of brand new buses. This is even faster than the recent move of Volvo hybrids to replace newish diesels on the 73 and soon on the 29.
I stand corrected – my mistake. I’d got it in my head that they only took it on in January this year, for some reason. I should have double checked.
And yes. We’re replacing hybrids with hybrids.
“Hmmmm” is all I think it’s safe for me to say about that.
There must be something about Route 24 – I can remember it being the route of choice when LT introduced the ‘experimental’ XA type Leyland Atlantean front entrance double-deckers in 1965. Makes me feel old!
I can just about remember it having green buses on it back in the 80s!
Typical – you wait ages for a new London Reconnections article and then two come at once!
According to the oracle on these matters http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/routes/024.html Route 24 first saw Routemasters when it converted from RTWs at the end of 1963, and had them until 1986 except for seven months in 1965/66 (XA Atlanteans) and three and a half years in the late ’70s (DM class). The “Green” buses which worked from 1988 onwards wereoperated by Grey Green (later part of the Cowie group – now Arriva) and were in fact predominantly grey (with a bit of orange as well as green).
Whether the choice of such an obvoiusly private-enterprise operator for a route passing through Parliament Square was a policitcal statement, who can say? The fact that it was also the route used by the (old-Labour) former Leader of the Opposition to commute to Parliament would have just rubbed it in.
The 24 has not only had the daliance with Atlanteans in the 60s but the prototype Leyland Titan ran on the route in late 70s / early 80s. It then went crew again with RMLs after Fleetlines ran on it. Then it went OPO and as already mentioned was the first “high profile” non red liveried tendered route in Central London. It then see-sawed between Metroline and London General each time it was tendered. Strange to think it will be going “crew” again in 2013 (daytimes only, it’ll be driver operated in the evening according to the Leon Daniels blog).
The “Green” buses which worked from 1988 onwards wereoperated by Grey Green (later part of the Cowie group – now Arriva) and were in fact predominantly grey (with a bit of orange as well as green).
Of little interest to anyone, but my two cents – I have a fond memory of walking along the north side of Green Park as a child with my parents admiring the artists and their works. One of them had a painting of Parliament Square with a bright red bus and said I could have the painting if I could point out what was wrong with it. I looked at it for a while, but to no avail – it turns out it was a 24 that the artist had painted red rather than its real colours of grey/green as he thought it looked better!
Where will the displaced hybrids be going to?
Quite frankly, the more hybrid buses we can get as soon as possible, the better (replacement costs allowing, of course).
Which reminds me of another ancient thread.
How long to a decent hybrid London Taxi, given that they can be made car-size & bus-size?
Apropos of nothing much. I had my first ride on a hybrid bus recently (no 42 in Manchester). I didn’t realise it when I got on, and went into grumpy mode when the engine cut out at the next bus stop. I thought the driver was stopping for a smoke! Then it lurched off silently and I thought it was running away out of control. They should put us passengers on a training course.
1. Please, please, not “trialled”. Delete “all” and you get the real word, “tried”. You’ll be going on about London’s railroads next.
2. Hybrid and electric vehicles are a silent menace to us dozy pedestrians. They should be required to make a noise when under electric power. I suggest the whine of an electric motor combined with the rattle of empty glass bottles in metal crates.
3. muthecow – IIRC, the Grey Green Scanias from the 24 were all repainted red for rail replacement work during a prolonged closure of the Bakerloo Line.
Anon @ 11.46
So, you are not in favour of trolleybuses then?
They used to be almost totally silent – even the big 6-wheel London ones – all you could hear was the tyre noise!
And, of course, they carried more people than an RM, grump …..
MORE!
NOW!
I do remember the Grey Green operation. They had some double decks converted from single decks on this route. These could be easily spotted as the rear wheels were at the back with no overhang – in those days double decks were not legally allowed to be as long as singles. Was a pleasing livery, albeit in the wrong setting.
This takes me back a bit. If my memory serves me right the RM vs XA trial started with the Routemasters at Chalk Farm (CF) and the Atlanteans at Tottenham (AR). I was delegated to oversee the engineering side of things. The Atlanteans were a load of trouble. Leyland came out with their line “no-one else has this trouble” (I found they used this with all their customers which is why they lost out on the world markets). Eventually they sent down an engineer and I took him out on a service run from Tottenham. After a while he said “I have never seen traffic conditions like this” and Leyland lent us a fitter to help out! Happy days. That was why the Routemaster was worth £10,000 against the £7,500 of a provincial bus. I hope the NBFL is as successful.
BTW I cannot agree with Anon@11.46 about trolleybuses. If you are going to cross a road then look as well as listen. I don’t think the RML carried less that a Trolleybus but it was allowed only two axles. Lousy acceleration though!
Most London Trolleybuses seated seventy – the SA types (orders intended for South Africa but diverted because of the lack of shipping during the war) took 72.
Did the Grey-Green re-bodied coaches work on the 24? i recall them usually working the 188, although I understand they were first used on the 141.
There’s an unusually long gap between the stop just before Victoria station, and the next stop in Pimlico. It’ll be interesting to see how they manage the safety aspect of passengers jumping off between these stops, especially tourists who weren’t aware they’ve missed the station and don’t want to be carried away into Pimlico.
It will be very useful for the locals though, the kind of situation where the platform comes into its own. Granted, not everyone is fit enough to use the platform in this way I admit, but I for one am happy.
Now if they could just build in some windows for some proper fresh air that would be grand.
Side-point: I wonder if the useful hop-on hop-off aspect of the bus might impact on casual Barclays Bike use in the central areas?
I well remember the first day of the XAs on 24. I was a student in London at that time and decided to go into town for the day to see how things were going. The most amusing aspect was the confusion on the faces of would-be passengers who went towards the back to get on! I also seem to recollect seeing one broken down at the Pimlico terminus.
There is an excellent picture of LT1 alongside Sir Peter Hendy’s own RM1005 at Imber on the 23A last year on Leon Daniel’s blog: http://leondaniels.blogspot.co.uk/.
On trolleybuses (and off-topic but picking up previous posts). I remember as a young bus spotter you could always tell if one was coming, even if you couldn’t see it, by putting your ear against the traction standard. The swish of the skates over the wires was amplified.
Most has a seating capacity of 70 but classes B1 – B3 only seated 60 (if I remember correctly, stated to be for use on Anerley and Highgate Hills but also used elsewhere). Interestingly, my 1958 ABC of LT Vehicles says class D2 seated 69 but this could well be wrong as it also says bodywork was by Leyland but in fact the order was reassigned to MCW due to delivery delays.
Valentine refers to ‘the useful hop-on hop-off aspect….’. Whenever, I attempt to ‘hop-off’ – I use the 38 from Victoria to Piccadilly, and back, daily – I get told to stand inside the bus and not on the platform by the off duty driver. Obviously, you’re only meant to ‘hop-on’. Recently, with the cold weather, every NBFL going up/down Piccadilly had the rear platform door shut. The bendy-buses were retired owing to fare dodging, but there wouldn’t have been any fare dodging had they had a two-man crew. Money down the drain.
I have been looking at the specs for the Borismaster and the other hybrids in London. Different operators may specify slightly different fixtures and fittings but broadly:
The ADL Enviro 40H is 10.2 m long, seats 61 and weighs 11900 kg. The Volvo B5LH /Wright Gemini 2 is 10.5 m long, seats 60 and weighs 11911 kg. The NB4L is 11.3 m long, seats 62 and weighs 12650 kg. The NB4L can also accommodate 15 standing. I’m not sure about the others but I suspect they can take more standing, as they weigh less to start with.
So we have a bus that is bigger, weighs more, costs more to operate and probably has less overall capacity. It is known that NB4L has been put on a crash diet but also that the others are being redesigned as part of the Euro 6 programme so NB4L is likely to remain the one that is bigger, weighs more, costs more to operate etc.
What a pity you can’t even trust Boris not to keep his election promises.
@bobanobjob
“The bendy-buses were retired owing to fare dodging” — That wasn’t the reason, that was just one of the excuses used. The actual reason was pure irrational prejudice on the part of B. Johnson, one of a number of absurd bees in his bonnet.
…although Mr B. Johnson wouldn’t have been able to do any of that had he not been elected with a manifesto containing that actual policy. So any irrational prejudice (if that’s what it was) also lies elsewhere.
For the reasons highlighted in JimJordan’s RM/XA post I do think London is more than deserving of having its own bus. Whether NB4L is that bus remains to be seen, but as a regular user of a former bendy route (73) I definitely (and I hope not irrationally) prefer the current double deckers to the Citaros. Pure stats have a part to play, but if the man (or woman) on the Clapham (or Hackney) omn(ew)bus finds a particular vehicle more attractive or comfortable then that should not be overlooked as a factor either.
I am also a regular user of former bendy routes (12 and 453). I see no evidence that people generally prefer the double-deckers that have replaced the bendy buses. Many people clearly dislike them because they for various reasons do not want to, or simply physically cannot, go “upstairs” and yet there is nothing like enough room enough on the lower deck.
See http://peezedtee.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/putting-ill-informed-people-right.html and http://peezedtee.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/bendy-buses-in-london.html
Bendy buses are quasi-trams in that they allow very rapid loading and unloading, and more room for the ubiquitous buggies and pushchairs. The London bus mentality of not trusting everyone (anyone) to have a valid ticket/card is probably the real reason for killing them off. If they designed the routes in much the same way as they would design a tram route (gentle turns, segregated right-of-way as much as possible, priority at lights), I’m sure they would get most of the tram benefits from bendy buses at a much lower price than trams (or NBfLs).
Jeanpierre: “There must be something about Route 24″
It goes past Parliament, right through the centre, and through Camden, Primrose Hill, Hampstead…
Given the NBfL was primarily aimed at getting Boris elected, it’s hardly surprising that they want a successful impression to be projected to residents of the most prosperous/trendy parts of the capital – they want senior media figures, senior politicians and senior civil servants to see this thing regularly and think they’re everywhere now.
It’s all about PR… (or am I being too cynical?)
I think you’re spot on. Boris took the NBL to Bromley High Street to capture the imagination of weekday daytime shoppers there. He knew most would never get the opportunity to regularly ride one. Those same shoppers probably hated the bendy buses too despite rarely getting close to one.
Surely double-deck makes best use of limited and expensive road space in London. Perhaps all vehicles should be double-deck! If ‘bendy buses’ are practical on some routes, they should still be double-deck. Longer distance travellers can climb the stairs to sit in comfort whilst short distance travellers stand below near the doorways, with some seats for the less able.
A double deck bendy bus, now there IS an idea.
As Fandroid states, they were ‘quasi-trams’. I get the impression that Taz never regularly used a bendy-bus. Quick loading/unloading, quick acceleration they were (still should be) the future of bus travel – especially in South London with its straight wide radial roads. Getting home on a late Saturday night was a breeze on a bendy bus.
Sorry Taz but do you frequently travel by bus? Once upon a time folk did go upstairs as a matter-of-course (in the old days to have a ciggy), but nowadays everyone, young or old, hogs downstairs. I’m often finding myself barging past people only to climb the stairs to an almost deserted upper deck. The best is when you get arguments between lazy parents with an uncollapsed baby buggy the size of a Hummer moaning how inconvenienced they are when a wheelchair user wishes to board and use the same space – one benefit of the bendy-bus with its oodles of open space.
Intelligent usage of buses has long disappeared, along with queuing at bus stops and only having to ring the bell for request stops – why does TfL still persist with differentiating between request stops and mandatory stops when not one of its bus drivers understands what the difference is? – Although I well remember, in my youthful past, having to dive in front of a Dulwich/Anerley 12, to get it to stop, as it overtook a Peckham 12 at a bus stop. Another retrograde step is the abolishing of – in central London – having to purchase a single ticket before you got on board. The amount of times, recently since the change, I’ve seen arguments with travellers with a note and drivers saying they don’t have the change, is crazy – and time sapping.
Btw can the ‘dummy’/off-duty driver on the rear platform of a NBFL sell tickets or are they totally useless/a waste of space/a waste of money?
@ Jungle – you are being too cynical. I suggested something similar to you on a discussion group and promptly had my statements completely rejected by a very senior person in TfL. The points made (“for the history books”) were that the 24 was chosen because Metroline had given TfL a good deal for running the 24 with NB4Ls. The 24 was also chosen because there are air pollution benefits to be gained along its corridor and the recently delivered route 24 buses will be cascaded to other Metroline routes where their better environmental performance will also bring benefits. Finally Metroline are performing very well and were very positive about being the first operator of a fully converted NB4L service. In short they’re a good partner for TfL for a high profile initiative.
@ bobanobjob – there is now no difference between red and white bus stop flags. Bus drivers are supposed to stop at any stop where people are waiting regardless of whether it has a red or white flag. This instruction is in the “Big Red Book” given to all drivers. Passengers should always ring the bell to alight from a bus. Red stop flags will be replaced with white flags but only when a red flag requires replacement. There is no “conversion programme” for red stop flags.
On the NB4L the “conductor” simply manages the rear platform to ensure safety. There are no revenue responsibilities. Drivers on the NB4L are able to sell tickets at all “non cashless zone” stops. In the near future it is expected that TfL will remove the cashless zone in Central London meaning drivers can sell cash fares at all stops in that area. The roadside machines will be removed. There was a consultation on this last year.
bob&ajob @ 22.56
“…South London with its straight wide radial roads. ”
Presumably this is in some alternate Universe to this one?
I still remember trying (repeatedly) to get to/from Banstead from Walthamstow, by car, 1962-3 …….
[ No Victoria Line, remember & the hospital @ Banstead is inconvenient, to say the least from the Epsom Downs service.....]
“….but nowadays everyone, young or old, hogs downstairs”
NO
Not, if you use a bus anywhere between Liverpool Street & Borough, as I do fairly often ….(or anwhere in Zone 1 for that matter)
Anon @ 00.23″…In short they’re a good partner for TfL for a high profile initiative”
Translation: The quiet backhanders were easier to manipulate …
I also note that Boris took the NB4L to where … BROMLEY! … and elsewhere we are discussing that borough’s total failure where real public transport is concerned, were we not?
No, I’m afraid Jungle isn’t cynocal enough, yet.
@Anonymous 12:23.
“On the NB4L the “conductor” simply manages the rear platform to ensure safety. There are no revenue responsibilities”.
I think ‘off-duty driver’ is a better term. When the Johnson Jalopies were first imposed on the 38 I chatted with the ‘extra passenger’ who informed me that he too was a driver and that they changed places at the terminus etc – the only beneficial reason for having a crew of two. Maybe, having seen the cost reality, TfL now allow cheaper unskilled people to ‘ride’ on the rear platform.
Regarding ‘no revenue responsibilities’. You are quite simply wrong. One can only enter via the front or rear doors, NOT via the centre door. The flunky on the rear platform will demand to see your ticket: I first discovered this when I jumped aboard one and headed upstairs (said flunky was standing on the platform chatting with someone from within the lower deck). Once seated I had the useless individual shouting at me from below demanding that I come downstairs and show him my ticket – I was completely unaware that unlike the Routemasters where the conductor did patrol the lower and upper decks, on the Johnson Jalopies the extra passenger was super-glued to the platform.
This begs the question of why, if on the NBFL there has to be someone permanently stuck onto the platform for H&S reasons this doesn’t apply to the still running Routemasters on the ‘heritage’ routes 9 and 15 where the conductor walks around the bus checking tickets? Also, if you are correct that the rear platform operative will not take on ticket selling duties I can’t wait for next summer when innocent foreign tourists with little English reasonably attempt to buy a ticket from him/her (in a tourist’s eyes: ‘what else can he/she be there for?’) and then have to be told that they have to go to the front – heaven help them if they walk through the bus follow his pointed finger and just sit down. Thanks TfL. It might take longer to get to my destination but at least I might have a chuckle.
Regarding signage: If there is no longer any differentiation between what was a mandatory stop and a request stop, why doesn’t TfL simply go around and cover up the redundant signs with sticky plastic film printed with the official signage? TfL can afford to hire BJ’s mate, and political comrade, Andrew Gilligan as cycling czar at the cost of £90k pro rata. According to Wikipedia it cost an additional £12.6M to replace the Citaros. Ripping out all the ticket machines at bus stops is going to cost a sum. How much can it cost to send a team around town, late at night putting stickers over some signage?
Regarding the removal of ticket machines from bus stops: Just because there was a ‘consultation’ doesn’t mean that this isn’t a retrograde step.
Greg Tingey @ 08:04
‘Presumably this is in some alternate Universe to this one?’
Dunno, but compared to the meandering gullies that constitute most of the road network of North London – the Edgware and Kingsland roads being notable exceptions – the roads of South East London (my neck of the woods) seem like veritable Parisian boulevards!
I think the answer concerning use of limited road-space is that the rapid loading/unloading of bendy-buses means that they clogged the road a lot less than double-deckers because they spent less time stationary at stops (for the same number of passengers). I think the idea of eliminating the cashless zone is just plain crazy, together with the NBfL platform rider not selling tickets. Obviously red buses are just regarded as a London icon not a serious transport system, and their sponsors/political masters never intend to travel on them.
What does candidate Wolmar say on this subject?
By the way, the relatively modest-sized German university town of Tubingen has ticket machines on the buses as well as at major stops. Is London too proud to take on this idea?
@ bobanojob – we have clearly had different experiences of the NB4L. The bus is open boarding for Oyster users so I am not “clearly wrong”. Please see this official TfL info – http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15493.aspx#page-link-using-the-bus
I have not used the NB4L very much but have never seen the “conductor” enforce revenue issues or shout at anyone in terms of ticketing. I have seen them stop people standing on the rear platform or even waiting to come down the rear staircase. My most recent trip was on a wintry Sunday and there was no one on the rear platform as the bus was working in OPO mode. People boarded and alighting via all doors at stops. Arriva have used spare drivers on the 38 but I do not see that as being a tenable way forward once more vehicles are on the road. We shall see what happens and whether the bus companies advertise for extra crew.
I think Mr Gilligan is a direct City Hall employee and not a TfL one AFAIK. The Mayor is answerable as to whether this turns out to be a “value for money” appointment.
I offered no comment about the value or otherwise of roadside ticket machines. It is my understanding that the necessary software change to drivers ticket machines (to allow them to issue tickets in the cashless area) was made months ago and some roadside machines have already been removed.
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pay-before-you-board
@Anonymous 10:21
Sorry, I should have pointed out, in my experience of being told to come back down to show the flunky my pass, that I always buy a paper ticket travelcard – too many bad experiences of the vagaries in using Oyster (yes it’s quaint but there aren’t any arguments with a permit to travel with a clear expire date on it). Therefore, I jumped aboard and went upstairs. Not hearing the required beep of an Oystercard, I got shouted at (he was downstairs and wasn’t moving from his sentry post and I upstairs) to return to the platform – but I cite this merely as proof that the bus employee riding on the back platform does have ‘revenue responsibilities’, contrary to your post at 12:23.
There has been much comment on the “cashless zone” on buses, but what about this idea for a truly cashless zone across London (it’d certainly solves the fare-dodging problem).
http://www.euronews.com/2013/01/28/xyz-fare-enough-estonians-get-public-transportation-for-free/
I should just admit that I got a bit too excited by this idea and didn’t consider the potential confusion for tourists.
@ bobanobjob – we clearly have different views and experiences of the NB4L. My comments are based on what TfL themselves say. Anyone with an Oyster can board via any door. Paper ticket holders that require a visual check or a chit handed over (yes the old Saver tickets can still be used) must use the front door with the driver doing the check. The conductor you experienced was perhaps being a bit more zealous than normal. I’ve certainly never seen a NB4L conductor go yelling after people boarding via the middle door.
Having used the NB4L on the 38 in the PM peak it is impossible for the conductor to see what is going on at the centre door or even to move down the bus to see. TfL have not designed the bus or its capacity to allow for a roaming conductor to do ticketing duties. The NB4L prototypes currently only have a capacity of 77, 10 less than the TfL standard for double decks. If the NB4L was to work in crew mode as Routemasters did they would need a lower standing capacity to give the conductor a chance to move around the bus. The last thing TfL are going to do is worsen the carrying capacity by restricting standees to something like 8 or 10 people. The production NB4Ls are supposed to be lighter to allow the TfL standard to be achieved. They aren’t going to restrict capacity on those either!
From personal experience, the upstairs seats on double deckers are well used, especially during the rush hour, where funnily enough people actually prefer to sit down for 30 minutes rather than stand downstairs. Indeed, there are often disappointed passengers who climb the stairs, and then have to go down again because there are no seats available. Even on the back seat.
Bendies are in no way compatible to trams. Trams are smooth, especially modern ones, and standing on them is fairly pleasant, whereas standing on a bendy my memory is of being flung around, the lack of seats and the poor view out. A lot of the seats were nausea inducing backwards ones too…
@Anonymous. Thanks for the link to TfL’s NBFL page. You say we have different views…. (perhaps so), what’s worrying is that what TfL states on its NBFL page differs from that of the actions of its functionaries, e.g., ‘Conductors will not collect fares but will supervise the rear platform when they are on board, ensuring passenger safety when hopping on OR OFF….’ even you have admitted, ‘I have seen them stop people standing on the rear platform or even waiting to come down the rear staircase’, which compounds my experiences of going onto the platform before jumping off only to be lectured about how I shouldn’t be standing on the platform – it’s nice to take a few moments to check that the coast is clear before hopping off rather than blindly diving out into the traffic.
Re: the checking of tickets. Yep, you’re correct the webpage apparently instructs that those with non-Oyster seasons, be it weekly, monthly or even Gold Card, should only enter via the front/driver door: ‘Passengers with a pre-paid ticket or Travelcard must use the front door and show these to the driver.’
Ha ha ha! ‘Sorry sir, you might be a holder of a pass, costing over one thousand pounds, that allows you to enter any TfL vehicle for a whole year in zones 1,2 and 3 but because it is printed on card and isn’t made of plastic and a makes an annoying beep you cannot hop on this stationary bus at these traffic lights. Please make your way to the nearest bus stop!’. Which idiot of a pen pusher at a desk in Blackfriars Road made up this stupid rule? I certainly won’t be abiding by it. I don’t pay TfL over a thousand pounds a year to be discriminated against.
Maybe it’s my fault but you’ve misunderstood my experience: I jumped on the back platform and sped upstairs to take my seat – unaware that the guy standing on the platform did nothing else but stand on the platform – this was my first occasion of ‘hopping on’ the back platform. He didn’t come ‘yelling’ after me because he would’t leave his spot. He had to shout otherwise I wouldn’t have heard him – I was upstairs and he was stuck to his spot downstairs. The irony is that he told me to come downstairs onto the platform to show him my ticket (the bus was moving and the back door open) – this contrasts with my other experiences of being told to get off the platform and get back inside the bus whilst the bus has been moving – something you’ve witnessed yourself. This is simply kafkaesque.
My initial point was that the Citaros were made redundant (at considerable cost) partly owing to the campaign against them because of fare dodging, yet had they had a costly two-man crew as the NBFL does – one of whom seems virtually redundant this wouldn’t have been an argument. (re: ‘redundant’, see my comparison with the still running RMs on routes 9 and 15 – if the conductor can walk around the bus checking tickets on a route 9 or 15 Routemaster and leave the platform unsupervised why is it deemed necessary that the NBFL have, what is nothing more than, a Health and Safety officer permanently and immovably stationed on its rear platform?
Boris Johnson is currently proposing cuts to the London fire service, his political allies in national government are enforcing swinging cuts to services (rightfully or wrongfully is immaterial) across the nation, fares are raised yet again when many people have foregone a rise in salary for several years yet aforementioned mayor is able to find the necessary money to staff his vanity project. It is simply immoral. (Apologies to the blogmeisters for the political rant – I tried to keep it non-partisan).
Thanks for the chat anyway.
I agree that the NBfL is an expensive vanity project, but I have to admit that it is a prestige vehicle and on my travels on route 38 I’ve heard a lot of spontaneous positive feedback from passengers. Also, I think the concept of a three-door, two-staircase double decker was worth trying out to speed dwell times.
Has TfL done any scientific measurement or modelling of the NBfL’s dwell time at stops compared with standard buses? (I’ve read how Blackpool Transport carried out timed experiments with dozens of students boarding/alighting trams and buses with different door layouts under test conditions around 1980.) Perhaps the cynic would say there’s no need for such a test with the NBfL as it’s a politically driven project rather than a serious solution to speeding up services.
I would also add that achieving a three-door, two-staircase, hybrid, low-floor double decker with roughly the same seating capacity as a standard vehicle is quite a technical achievement, even allowing for the increased length and weight. Low-floor double-deck design has come a long way since the first DLAs that had only four seats in the low-floor section and steps halfway along the gangway.
Re bus stops: I am astonished to hear that the distinction between compulsory and request stops has been abolished. How can such a major change be brought in without telling the public? Learning that you need to signal a bus to stop at a request stop but not a compulsory one was one of the most basic rules I picked up when I started using buses as a child, and is deeply ingrained in me.
In recent months I have several times nearly missed a bus because the driver was not planning to stop at a compulsory stop, and had to flag it down at the last minute. About a week ago, I actually missed a bus at Tooting Station because the driver sailed past when I’d expected it to stop. I can understand the desire to simplify stopping procedures, but surely somebody should have told the millions of people brought up with the old rules.
@Sunny Jim. Hi Sunny Jim. You said you wanted a low-deck, three-doored, two-staircase, double decked hybrid? – Watch these beauties from Berlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5b6A_pl6w
The Neoman A39/Man’s Lion City DD makes the NBFL look like a horse and cart (except the NBFL little cart needs two horses to make it go!)
- seats: 83 + 1 (upper deck 55, lower deck 28 + 1)
- standees: 45
- length: 13700mm
- height: 4060mm
- wide: 2550mm
- gross vehicle weight: 26000 kg (to 28000 kg possible)
- PS / KW : 310 / 228
- cylinder capacity: 11967 ccm
- maximum speed: 80 km/h
Yes, they are quite impressive!
bobanobjob
I welcome your rant (I would, wouldn’t I?)
Agreed, but Boris was voted in, because he wasn’t Ken, because Ken had lost the plot badly.
He was also blackmailing his “own” party, who were none too enthusiastic.
I for one, hope Wolmayor gets nominated – that’s the diffcult bit – getting the nomination….
If he does, then I think the actual election is a dead cert .
Back to the plot.
Yes the NB4L is a vanity project & it has many faults, but … we NEED a New Bus for London, just not this one!
Previous discussions & many book etc references show that a more (first-cost) expensive “proper” London bus is actually worth it in the long run …
As shown by the RT & RM models
Sunny Jim
Yes – I didn’t know about the change in stop-rules, either.
Ridiculous.
bobanajob again …
Trouble with those Berlin beuties is the weight, surely?
Otherwise, can we just have some, converted to RHD off-the shelf?
Save a lot of effort, wouldn’t it?
The problem with the MAN Lion City double decks is that they have had endemic faults causing BVG a huge amount of problems. BVG has faced chronic funding problems in recent years and has problems in its bus maintenance capability. In complete contrast to London, Berlin has now decided to go only for standard buses and has even rationalised its livery to reduce costs. I am not sure if their decision means the end of double deckers for Berlin service but given the lack of alternative models I would not be surprised to see a switch to single deck and articulated vehicles. While I would not be averse to Lion Citys running in London I believe they are now out of production so there is no prospect of them ever running here.
I am slightly loathe to revisit the bendy bus debate because it generates severe reactions from people. I am broadly supportive of them because of the level access, huge capacity and enhanced buggy carrying ability. I can understand why people get wound up by them. What we had in London is an irrational campaign with odious political connotations to discredit a perfectly decent bus design in order to thereby discredit a Mayor. We got the change in Mayor and now we have another bus design which I rather suspect will, alongside the Dangleway and Cycle Hire, be the only vaguely memorable aspects of Mr Johnson’s time as London Mayor.
It is just another variant of strange decisions that have afflicted London’s transport for many decades where we go from one “fad” to another. The NB4L is the latest episode in that long story. Whether London really needs a custom designed bus is open to debate. Most manufacturers already design their vehicles to a London spec because the tendering system & TfL’s standards are the things that drive new bus purchases. The main issue, though, is that London’s spec is “over the top” for all of the big groups and cascaded vehicles have to have doors and equipment ripped out before they can be used! I don’t disagree with the comments about the operating concept for the NB4L or the lack of logic therein. I think we need to remember that TfL had to have the rear platform and then work on from there. This, of course, is the wrong way to design a bus for gruelling London service in the 21st Century but that’s politicians for you.
Only having anon’s advice to go on that the request/compulsory distinction has now disappeared, I did a quick Google to check. Here’s the proof.
As a Londoner why should I care that our buses aren’t ideal for the big groups? They get good money to run buses in London, what they do elsewhere is their problem! It’s not as if London will exclusively buy NBfLs, so there will be other vehicles to cascade.
Surely, having our own transport authority, under the leadership of the Mayor, speccing our vehicles is a good thing, after all isn’t the complaint about the 2009 Victoria Line trains that they are too off the shelf, due to the PPP scheme, with little TfL input. Would we want decisions on buses and trains in London left to the likes of the First Group?
Public transport in London is too important to be left to unelected officials, deciding what’s best for us. Whether right or wrong, the NBfL and removal of the bendies had a democratic mandate, as a key part of the Boris manisfesto (unlike say the cable car).
As for Berlin, I’m sure ADL or Wright will happily sell them some of our double decker buses – ADL sell LHD E500s to the US and Canada after all. Or how about a LHD version of the Borismaster
@ Mikey C – the big groups already decide what buses to buy as they take the risk, under the contract with TfL, for performance, fuel economy etc. These factors, including purchase price / lease cost and residual value, all factor into the contract price that TfL pays out. TfL just says what capacity it wants and what broad bus type – midibus, double deck etc.
TfL deciding to buy a custom bus for London turns the economics of all of this on its head. As things stand we have no idea whatsoever what risks exist with the NB4L design – it may be fantastic value for money and hugely reliable over its life or it may turn out to be hugely expensive, unreliable and plagued with unique faults. We do not know where the financial upside or downside sits – with TfL, with Wrightbus or with the operators?
The problem with TfL buying unique products is that it locks in cost over the typically long life of transport assets and can make upgrades hugely expensive if you are locked into a sole manufacturer. Unique designs may leave transport enthusiasts with a warm glow but they can leave fare and taxpayers with a large bill.
And as for LHD Borismasters for Berlin – been done already
http://www.flickr.com/photos/km_edinburgh/7552187008/in/set-72157627012185966/
And a special version for Megabus
http://www.flickr.com/photos/km_edinburgh/8431529058/in/photostream
Anon @ 19.37
I’m not sure if you posting is some sort of joke, a deliberate deception or out-&-out fraud.
Not amusing, actually.
BOTH of those “pictures” carry the small warning label …
This image is computer generated
& are you Keith McGillivray? If so I claim my £5 …..
The true Berlin buses look significantly lower than the fake Borismeister. Would it clip a few cables and lamp standards?
@ Greg – oh do lighten up. Of course they are fake. I put the smileys at the end of each link for a reason. And I am not the producer of those images so no £5 notes heading your way. I thought people might enjoy seeing them as a bit of amusement. I must remind myself that no humour is allowed.
Just out of interest:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/spirit-of-the-routemaster-lives-on-in-the-heart-of-macedonia-6532938.html
Looks more “provincial” than a proper Routemaster,though….
Sorry – the “smileys” passed me by – or rather I misinterpreted them …
I thought someone was showing that it was perfectly pssible to use a Borismaster, & what was the fuss about – so hence the smileys.
These things are definitely open to mis-interpretation!
Anon 7.37pm
Surely the same could be said about the London bendies? The rest of the country isn’t exactly crying out for Citaro artics, as shown by the lack of takers for them. For interest why were all the bendies Citaros, was it TfL that wanted them, rather than Volvos or Scanias, or the big groups?
The NBfL may or not be the right bus for London, but if it successful and a quality product, it should be able to stay in London all its life. yes there’s a risk, but then there’s a risk in buying off the shelf, e.g. the various problem Optare buses, the Volvo B7s with their roaring engines/fans…
I suggested above that Berlin should buy some British buses, and look likes they’ve already gone for the ADL E500…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/km_edinburgh/8039612359/in/set-72157627012185966
TfL did not specify Citaro, it specified artics. The operators made their choices. Separately.
In my days at First we came close to ordering Scania artics for 18 and 207. Indeed I visited the production facility.
Leon
As MD for Stagecoach in London at the time I can confirm that we ordered Citaros for three main reasons . One they were good value for money, two the quality of the build and three (perhaps most importantly for us) they could be delivered on time. Without wishing to open the articulated bus debate I think London lost the best passenger mover it ever had in recent times.
This is in response to Littlejohn at 10.01 28th January 2013 and your off topic comment about seating capacities of trolleybuses.
The D class were numbered from 384 to 553 and were delivered from April 1936 to November 1937. The class was sub divided into D1 384 Leyland body, D2 385 to 483 MCCW body, D3 494 to 553 BRCW body. Trolleybuses 484 to 493 were B1 and B3 classes.
In the late 1930s most D2s and all the D3s were altered from half cab to full cab design: however, weight constraints meant that the D2s had to be down-seated from 70 to 69. These were the only trolleybuses dealt with in this way with the revision being achieved by replacing the rear offside upper deck rear seat by a single one. Two trolleybuses did not need to be rebuilt and seated 70 throughout their lives; 445 had been constructed to a more satisfactory and sturdier design in the first place (and kept its half cab layout until withdrawal) while 483 was delivered with a full-cab layout.
The above paragraph is taken from The Capital Transport book ‘London Trolleybuses a class album’.
I grew up on the 630 trolleybus route (a Hammersmith Depot route which had Ds) and remember travelling on 445 sitting on the seat facing the driver with two of my brothers. It was in the front left hand corner of the vehicle. The vehicle was withdrawn in April 1959 and as I was born less than 3 1/2 years earlier, it is one of my earliest memories. The aforementioned book has a picture of this seat on page 26.
John.
I think the NB4L is great although I thought they might put a grille at the front as a nod to an RM. Given some of the argument about specifying your own buses, what are the costs between N4BL and the FTR?
If the capacity on 3 door buses is a constraint relative to other models, is there no reason why you could not have a tri axle version? Or any other standard DD as used in HK/Singapore?
Route 24 will be fully served with NB4L from June 2013 at 30 vehicles and i know this because i looked at the website and im quite clever with buses and i heard there will actually make a total of 93 from 2013, 200 from 2014 and 250 from 2015 and another route will be converted by august 2013, i hope route 73 will be fully served with NB4L by august but im not sure but they will get rid of bendy buses to NB4L i guess.
Anon 0800 – Where have you been? The last London bendybus ran, on route 207, at the end of 2011.
I’ve been on an NB4L – I’m in no hurry to repeat the experience
@Barry Arnold: I’d doff my hat to you, sir, if I wore one. The Citaros were a good choice.
As a frequent user of the 436 (RIP) bendy service (Lewisham-Paddington / Queen’s Park), I would like to thank you personally for the best bus London has ever seen. I shall miss them.
The old Routemasters, on the other hand, I’d happily set fire to. Godawful things that seemed to go out of their way to provide a truly miserable experience. I’d rather ride one of the Leyland models that replaced many of the RMs in the 1970s, despite their ear-splittingly resonant seating.
Why didn’t they choose the the Number 1 bus route from Centre Point to canada water. Then it would have been said that the New Route Master bus was then the One and Only bus needed for London.
TfL has now released the costs of the NB4L – see http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/27852.aspx. Some of the text is distinctly Orwellian. The headline is ‘New buses deliver multi-million pound saving’ but the average price of a new bus over the life of the contract will be £354,500, or £326,000 at today’s prices. In 2009, Boris said ‘If you look at the current cost of a bus, £250,000, roughly speaking, buys you a new bendy bus. We think that we can get a wonderful new bus for London which will be considerably cleaner, greener, lighter and exactly what this city needs for much less than that’. In October 2012, standard hybrids cost around £300,000 each, so are almost certainly cheaper today than the NB4L. On top of that these figures don’t include the salaries of the second crew member needed when the back door is open, estimated to be around £62,000 per bus per year.
Hands up all those who agree it is good value for money.