|
Post by rif153 on Apr 22, 2019 8:38:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 22, 2019 12:08:08 GMT
Yawn - we've got a year of this political point scoring to endure. Ms Pigeon whingeing again but offering no funded proposals of her own other than "oh look, at that other country". A country that plans and funds its buses on a completely and utterly different basis to here and which is content to throw fleets of buses on the scrap heap every 7-8 years because of their approach to bus contracting by province. God knows how they can afford that scale of waste.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 22, 2019 12:49:02 GMT
Yawn - we've got a year of this political point scoring to endure. Ms Pigeon whingeing again but offering no funded proposals of her own other than "oh look, at that other country". A country that plans and funds its buses on a completely and utterly different basis to here and which is content to throw fleets of buses on the scrap heap every 7-8 years because of their approach to bus contracting by province. God knows how they can afford that scale of waste. I agree. I would love to see Carolie Pidgeon in charge, she as you quite rightly say has offered no soloution of her own. As a Lib Dem, I guess she feels free to speak her mind and make these pathetic unhelpful comments. Let's be realistic, we're never going to get a Lib Dem Mayor of London so Pidgeon's job is just to scrunitise the mayor in her irritating manor
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Apr 27, 2019 19:59:07 GMT
Yawn - we've got a year of this political point scoring to endure. Ms Pigeon whingeing again but offering no funded proposals of her own other than "oh look, at that other country". A country that plans and funds its buses on a completely and utterly different basis to here and which is content to throw fleets of buses on the scrap heap every 7-8 years because of their approach to bus contracting by province. God knows how they can afford that scale of waste. Pigeons aren't the cleanest or most efficient of creatures... *gets coat*
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 27, 2019 21:28:31 GMT
Yawn - we've got a year of this political point scoring to endure. Ms Pigeon whingeing again but offering no funded proposals of her own other than "oh look, at that other country". A country that plans and funds its buses on a completely and utterly different basis to here and which is content to throw fleets of buses on the scrap heap every 7-8 years because of their approach to bus contracting by province. God knows how they can afford that scale of waste. Pigeons aren't the cleanest or most efficient of creatures... *gets coat* For those of a certain age pigeons= Mouldy Old Dough.
|
|
|
Post by Pilot on Apr 28, 2019 12:36:51 GMT
Yeah one man army can fix all problems in 1 day, I am not sure if politics allowed in this forum, but while Boris is a clown to me, I felt like he did better job than Khan.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 28, 2019 13:19:20 GMT
Yet again, the myth that buses are "dirty". Emissions-wise, they are not.
If Sadiq Khan were to replace 90% of London's bus fleet at a stroke he would be d*mned for that too.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 28, 2019 22:06:11 GMT
This is politics for you I am afraid. Emissions can always be described as dirty, and a Euro 6 bus is not exactly 100% clean, but it is nothing like as bad as it is made out either. Electric buses are not entirely perfect either, as there are issues with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of the batteries, and that assumes that fully green electricity is used to charge the batteries. Perception and reality do not always match.
Indeed there would be a cost if 90% of London buses were converted to electric, and the Mayor would be d*mned for that. What do I do think is important is that the limited budget for electric buses is accurately targeted and there I do think there is a problem. For example neither the 43 or 134 are 'stand out' candidate routes for double deck electric buses as far as I can see. It seems a bit odd to go on about pollution in Oxford Street as being a huge issue and then not converting any of the buses that go down Oxford Street to electric. Maybe the 94 will be converted to electric, and then the Oxford Street benefit would be negated by cutting it back to Marble Arch or maybe the 139 will be converted to electric, but these are 'maybes' not definite. For me I don't know which corridors / routes would have the most benefit pollution wise to have electric buses, but that is where I would want to see them.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Apr 28, 2019 22:15:33 GMT
This is politics for you I am afraid. Emissions can always be described as dirty, and a Euro 6 bus is not exactly 100% clean, but it is nothing like as bad as it is made out either. Electric buses are not entirely perfect either, as there are issues with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of the batteries, and that assumes that fully green electricity is used to charge the batteries. Perception and reality do not always match. Indeed there would be a cost if 90% of London buses were converted to electric, and the Mayor would be d*mned for that. What do I do think is important is that the limited budget for electric buses is accurately targeted and there I do think there is a problem. For example neither the 43 or 134 are 'stand out' candidate routes for double deck electric buses as far as I can see. It seems a bit odd to go on about pollution in Oxford Street as being a huge issue and then not converting any of the buses that go down Oxford Street to electric. Maybe the 94 will be converted to electric, and then the Oxford Street benefit would be negated by cutting it back to Marble Arch or maybe the 139 will be converted to electric, but these are 'maybes' not definite. For me I don't know which corridors / routes would have the most benefit pollution wise to have electric buses, but that is where I would want to see them. In my opinion 134 is pointless as it is being removed from the ULEZ. The buses should be sent to a route passing through polution hotspots. As you said, it is important to accurately target electric buses
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 28, 2019 22:58:37 GMT
This is politics for you I am afraid. Emissions can always be described as dirty, and a Euro 6 bus is not exactly 100% clean, but it is nothing like as bad as it is made out either. Electric buses are not entirely perfect either, as there are issues with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of the batteries, and that assumes that fully green electricity is used to charge the batteries. Perception and reality do not always match. Indeed there would be a cost if 90% of London buses were converted to electric, and the Mayor would be d*mned for that. What do I do think is important is that the limited budget for electric buses is accurately targeted and there I do think there is a problem. For example neither the 43 or 134 are 'stand out' candidate routes for double deck electric buses as far as I can see. It seems a bit odd to go on about pollution in Oxford Street as being a huge issue and then not converting any of the buses that go down Oxford Street to electric. Maybe the 94 will be converted to electric, and then the Oxford Street benefit would be negated by cutting it back to Marble Arch or maybe the 139 will be converted to electric, but these are 'maybes' not definite. For me I don't know which corridors / routes would have the most benefit pollution wise to have electric buses, but that is where I would want to see them. In my opinion 134 is pointless as it is being removed from the ULEZ. The buses should be sent to a route passing through polution hotspots. As you said, it is important to accurately target electric buses Going by that, it would be a Putney or Brixton route that would be ripe for conversion as both have the highest levels of pollution within London IIRC which is why those two green corridors were implemented much earlier than the rest.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 28, 2019 23:10:17 GMT
This is politics for you I am afraid. Emissions can always be described as dirty, and a Euro 6 bus is not exactly 100% clean, but it is nothing like as bad as it is made out either. Electric buses are not entirely perfect either, as there are issues with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of the batteries, and that assumes that fully green electricity is used to charge the batteries. Perception and reality do not always match. Indeed there would be a cost if 90% of London buses were converted to electric, and the Mayor would be d*mned for that. What do I do think is important is that the limited budget for electric buses is accurately targeted and there I do think there is a problem. For example neither the 43 or 134 are 'stand out' candidate routes for double deck electric buses as far as I can see. It seems a bit odd to go on about pollution in Oxford Street as being a huge issue and then not converting any of the buses that go down Oxford Street to electric. Maybe the 94 will be converted to electric, and then the Oxford Street benefit would be negated by cutting it back to Marble Arch or maybe the 139 will be converted to electric, but these are 'maybes' not definite. For me I don't know which corridors / routes would have the most benefit pollution wise to have electric buses, but that is where I would want to see them. In my opinion 134 is pointless as it is being removed from the ULEZ. The buses should be sent to a route passing through polution hotspots. As you said, it is important to accurately target electric buses The 134 does seem a rather strange choice but once the charging equipment is installed at PB it'll be too late to change it. The 98 or 390 might have been better as they serve Oxford Street?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 28, 2019 23:16:08 GMT
This is politics for you I am afraid. Emissions can always be described as dirty, and a Euro 6 bus is not exactly 100% clean, but it is nothing like as bad as it is made out either. Electric buses are not entirely perfect either, as there are issues with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of the batteries, and that assumes that fully green electricity is used to charge the batteries. Perception and reality do not always match. Indeed there would be a cost if 90% of London buses were converted to electric, and the Mayor would be d*mned for that. What do I do think is important is that the limited budget for electric buses is accurately targeted and there I do think there is a problem. For example neither the 43 or 134 are 'stand out' candidate routes for double deck electric buses as far as I can see. It seems a bit odd to go on about pollution in Oxford Street as being a huge issue and then not converting any of the buses that go down Oxford Street to electric. Maybe the 94 will be converted to electric, and then the Oxford Street benefit would be negated by cutting it back to Marble Arch or maybe the 139 will be converted to electric, but these are 'maybes' not definite. For me I don't know which corridors / routes would have the most benefit pollution wise to have electric buses, but that is where I would want to see them. Of course the Mayor will bang on endlessly about Oxford St being dreadful when he was going to be the "saviour" to make it better. Now he's not the silence is deafening. Politics eh? As for the 43 and 134 I agree about them not being "obvious" candidates but politics again. There is merit, politically, in putting such vehicles through strong Labour voting boroughs like Islington and Camden as well as tougher places like Barnet and the City of London to demonstrate that the benefits of the Mayor's policies are not all confined in the centre. It's an attempt to avoid the "polo mint" accusation that was laid at Ken Livingstone's door about him not caring about outer London and only worrying about the "hole" in the middle. Why else have some of the early electric single deckers gone to places like Croydon and Hounslow? I am slightly surprised that TfL haven't specced an electric route for places like Bromley, Kingston and Romford. We may see these at some point but I'd have thought electric buses on the 227 would probably have gone down well. Also something like the 371 in Kingston might have merit. Ditto the H37 for Richmond and Hounslow. I know there are lots of practical issues and there seems to have been a tacit decision by TfL to support a massive influx of euro6 single deckers into the RATP fleet but there are (were?) options to do something different.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 28, 2019 23:22:21 GMT
This is politics for you I am afraid. Emissions can always be described as dirty, and a Euro 6 bus is not exactly 100% clean, but it is nothing like as bad as it is made out either. Electric buses are not entirely perfect either, as there are issues with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of the batteries, and that assumes that fully green electricity is used to charge the batteries. Perception and reality do not always match. Indeed there would be a cost if 90% of London buses were converted to electric, and the Mayor would be d*mned for that. What do I do think is important is that the limited budget for electric buses is accurately targeted and there I do think there is a problem. For example neither the 43 or 134 are 'stand out' candidate routes for double deck electric buses as far as I can see. It seems a bit odd to go on about pollution in Oxford Street as being a huge issue and then not converting any of the buses that go down Oxford Street to electric. Maybe the 94 will be converted to electric, and then the Oxford Street benefit would be negated by cutting it back to Marble Arch or maybe the 139 will be converted to electric, but these are 'maybes' not definite. For me I don't know which corridors / routes would have the most benefit pollution wise to have electric buses, but that is where I would want to see them. Of course the Mayor will bang on endlessly about Oxford St being dreadful when he was going to be the "saviour" to make it better. Now he's not the silence is deafening. Politics eh? As for the 43 and 134 I agree about them not being "obvious" candidates but politics again. There is merit, politically, in putting such vehicles through strong Labour voting boroughs like Islington and Camden as well as tougher places like Barnet and the City of London to demonstrate that the benefits of the Mayor's policies are not all confined in the centre. It's an attempt to avoid the "polo mint" accusation that was laid at Ken Livingstone's door about him not caring about outer London and only worrying about the "hole" in the middle. Why else have some of the early electric single deckers gone to places like Croydon and Hounslow? I am slightly surprised that TfL haven't specced an electric route for places like Bromley, Kingston and Romford. We may see these at some point but I'd have thought electric buses on the 227 would probably have gone down well. Also something like the 371 in Kingston might have merit. Ditto the H37 for Richmond and Hounslow. I know there are lots of practical issues and there seems to have been a tacit decision by TfL to support a massive influx of euro6 single deckers into the RATP fleet but there are (were?) options to do something different. Aren't the electric single deckers on the 312 and the H98 the choice of the respective operators rather than a TfL specification?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 28, 2019 23:30:19 GMT
Aren't the electric single deckers on the 312 and the H98 the choice of the respective operators rather than a TfL specification? Don't think so. I thought TfL actually owned all those Optares and electric operation was in the contract specification. I might be wrong though. Bit like the BYD deckers on the 98 - pretty sure that's a TfL imposed requirement and the buses are owned by TfL. It has long been TfL's precedent to own the early batches of new technology vehicles and effectively lease them to the operator. They tend to keep very quiet about this though. Once designs are proven or updated then the purchase risk for later batches passes to the operators.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 29, 2019 5:27:37 GMT
Aren't the electric single deckers on the 312 and the H98 the choice of the respective operators rather than a TfL specification? Don't think so. I thought TfL actually owned all those Optares and electric operation was in the contract specification. I might be wrong though. Bit like the BYD deckers on the 98 - pretty sure that's a TfL imposed requirement and the buses are owned by TfL. It has long been TfL's precedent to own the early batches of new technology vehicles and effectively lease them to the operator. They tend to keep very quiet about this though. Once designs are proven or updated then the purchase risk for later batches passes to the operators. TfL were certainly involved in the 4 electric OCEs. There is some sort of tripartite agreement (involving the bus builder, TfL and Operator) for the early months of the testing in service phase. From memory there was a period where all the DLEs stayed allocated to H98, then a period where 2 were reallocated, but other 2 displaced ones continued as backups. This suggests the Operator doesn’t take a lot of risk during early stages as they were still financing the diesel Buses I don’t know details (they are presumably commercially sensitive) but I assume that as reliability hits certain milestones the allocations between the 3 parties change. Eventually the buses passing to the Operators. Not sure if TfL own these buses, or it is initially the bus builder that then leases them out. Presumably where there is some sort of Green Deal Government subsidy paid to TfL, that part becomes TfL legal interest (although fleet ownership may be split between the 3 parties, and may transfer in stages) I assume the process for the 5 BYD deckers on 98 was similar Slightly different where the route has converted on tender, as TfL have imposed the traction type, and Operator costs this into their bid
|
|