|
Post by guybowden on Aug 6, 2014 6:53:38 GMT
No matter how big or small the accidents the LTs have they are always going be in the news/social media. After reading bits of the first book published by capital transport about the LTs it mentioned about the rear roof dome and engine cover were Wrights own composite material. I'm guessing this is carbon fiber of similar grade to that used in Formula 1 as the bonnet cover/boot on that LT doesn't look that damaged/out of shape compared to if it was made out of fiber glass! Nice way for Wrights to have a monopoly over the supply of certain body parts! I wonder if TfL have capped the potential for price increases? I recently saw some photos, on John Lidstone's Flickr stream, of the engine compartment of a NB4L. First time I've seen inside and it's amazing what is stuffed into the corner of those vehicles. I wonder if the special composite material is there to act as additional protection for what is a very vulnerable but expensive bit of the vehicle? Just looked at those pics, and that is one very tightly packed engine bay!! Must be murder for the engineers to work on! I'm guessing Wrights would have a monopoly over the supply of those 'special' parts but depending on the pricing for a mould, the operator's could go to a company and have some made, but I doubt it would be cheaper than buying from Wrights. I know a lot of carbon fiber products are hand made and baked in an oven to make the glue set, but Mcleran have made a machine for their road cars that does the work of the human. IRCC the machine takes 10 hours to make a car 'tub' when a human would take 3 or 4 times that and saves loads of £££s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 7:33:25 GMT
COBO ServerKing It's just simple, enable it to be operated on suburban routes of London like route East London Transit routes. Like what LOTS mentioned earlier on that the two door NRM is on the pipeline. It's not just benefiting the London Bus operators, it will benefit the rest of Britain because the private commercial operators would be interested because the 3 door spec would require a conductor at all times. The Wrightbus Gemini 3 do have elements of the design based from the New Routemaster like narrow top windows and window following the staircase. You'll know, there much more serious things in TFL land that we should be talking about like the Crossrail.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Aug 6, 2014 8:09:15 GMT
COBO ServerKing It's just simple, enable it to be operated on suburban routes of London like route East London Transit routes. Like what LOTS mentioned earlier on that the two door NRM is on the pipeline. It's not just benefiting the London Bus operators, it will benefit the rest of Britain because the private commercial operators would be interested because the 3 door spec would require a conductor at all times. The Wrightbus Gemini 3 do have elements of the design based from the New Routemaster like narrow top windows and window following the staircase. You'll know, there much more serious things in TFL land that we should be talking about like the Crossrail. This is a bus forum. Crossrail is being discussed furiously on a Crossrail forum somewhere. FreeBBC, your defending of the bus is right out of Jose Mourinho tactics at Anfield last season. Ironically, they parked the bus. In terms of the (mainly negative) coverage of the Nb4L is that it is controversial. It is expensive, and the reasons for having them, like the 'hop on, hop off' is not happening because of the OPO on some routes and times. They dont do things that are expectional more outstanding than a normal bus. Those in the know, know that in terms of CostBenefitAnalysis this is as bad as the Emirates Air Line. The only thing I like is that they look amazing, but beyond that its a bus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 8:37:25 GMT
This is a bus forum. Crossrail is being discussed furiously on a Crossrail forum somewhere. FreeBBC, your defending of the bus is right out of Jose Mourinho tactics at Anfield last season. Ironically, they parked the bus. In terms of the (mainly negative) coverage of the Nb4L is that it is controversial. It is expensive, and the reasons for having them, like the 'hop on, hop off' is not happening because of the OPO on some routes and times. They dont do things that are expectional more outstanding than a normal bus. Those in the know, know that in terms of CostBenefitAnalysis this is as bad as the Emirates Air Line. The only thing I like is that they look amazing, but beyond that its a bus. Yes there is a rail sub-forum in this forum where someone can open a thread about it. Why would they think the New Routemaster is expensive. Nothing cheap would last long, its expensive for a reason because of the reliability of the bus. Of course they have their own problems like any other bus type do. In terms of 'jump on jump off' and OPO mode, it's a flexible bus for TFL. It's operated during night and day without a 2nd crew member unlike the original AEC Routemaster. It's not a permanent open platform bus unlike the half cab open platform buses, it can be on whatever mode what TFL decides what to operate which benefit the users of the route. There should be surveys/studies made on the peoples opinions towards the bus type including the way it's operated. I got one question, If anyone finds the archives from the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's of the Newspaper clippings that feature incidents involving with the AEC Routemaster bus, I would certainly be interested to see it. I bet the AEC Routemaster had a lot of bashing from the naysayers back then.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 6, 2014 9:42:22 GMT
Why would a operator want a two door New Routemaster? To prevent the inevitable fare dodging when peeps cotton on that the Customer Assistant / Conductor has no powers for Fare Enforcement But when the bus is in OPO mode with the rear platform closed, it is a two-door bus... problem solved. As for the Meme, we are working on one, just as a suitable pic in Jack's library appears, I'll get onto it That defeats the purpose of it being a new Routemaster. The idea is that you can enter through the back like you used to.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Aug 6, 2014 10:28:52 GMT
To prevent the inevitable fare dodging when peeps cotton on that the Customer Assistant / Conductor has no powers for Fare Enforcement But when the bus is in OPO mode with the rear platform closed, it is a two-door bus... problem solved. As for the Meme, we are working on one, just as a suitable pic in Jack's library appears, I'll get onto it That defeats the purpose of it being a new Routemaster. The idea is that you can enter through the back like you used to. The concept isn't new, look up the Volvo V3 that was tried out by LT, IIRC it was used on the 170 out of SW. Check out 'Ian's Bus Stop' for a potted history.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 6, 2014 11:29:43 GMT
That defeats the purpose of it being a new Routemaster. The idea is that you can enter through the back like you used to. The concept isn't new, look up the Volvo V3 that was tried out by LT, IIRC it was used on the 170 out of SW. Check out 'Ian's Bus Stop' for a potted history. It's a far better vehicle than the NBfL - looks good, is comfortable and you won't boil to death lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 11:59:16 GMT
To prevent the inevitable fare dodging when peeps cotton on that the Customer Assistant / Conductor has no powers for Fare Enforcement But when the bus is in OPO mode with the rear platform closed, it is a two-door bus... problem solved. As for the Meme, we are working on one, just as a suitable pic in Jack's library appears, I'll get onto it That defeats the purpose of it being a new Routemaster. The idea is that you can enter through the back like you used to. But I reckon within a year of the new mayor the buses will be operating in a 2 door 1 person operating mode permanently.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Aug 6, 2014 12:48:47 GMT
This is a bus forum. Crossrail is being discussed furiously on a Crossrail forum somewhere. FreeBBC, your defending of the bus is right out of Jose Mourinho tactics at Anfield last season. Ironically, they parked the bus. In terms of the (mainly negative) coverage of the Nb4L is that it is controversial. It is expensive, and the reasons for having them, like the 'hop on, hop off' is not happening because of the OPO on some routes and times. They dont do things that are expectional more outstanding than a normal bus. Those in the know, know that in terms of CostBenefitAnalysis this is as bad as the Emirates Air Line. The only thing I like is that they look amazing, but beyond that its a bus. Yes there is a rail sub-forum in this forum where someone can open a thread about it. Why would they think the New Routemaster is expensive. Nothing cheap would last long, its expensive for a reason because of the reliability of the bus. Of course they have their own problems like any other bus type do. In terms of 'jump on jump off' and OPO mode, it's a flexible bus for TFL. It's operated during night and day without a 2nd crew member unlike the original AEC Routemaster. It's not a permanent open platform bus unlike the half cab open platform buses, it can be on whatever mode what TFL decides what to operate which benefit the users of the route. There should be surveys/studies made on the peoples opinions towards the bus type including the way it's operated. I got one question, If anyone finds the archives from the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's of the Newspaper clippings that feature incidents involving with the AEC Routemaster bus, I would certainly be interested to see it. I bet the AEC Routemaster had a lot of bashing from the naysayers back then.
No doubt there were detractors, but in those days probably I guess only in the trade papers? In Ken Blackers brilliant history of the RM he lists the problems that occurred, the box sections of the front 'wheelbarrow' cracking, lurching of the gearbox, and the infamous occasion at marble Arch when the flywheel caused the whole bus to be destroyed. Anything new/different will have its detractors, and any new technology needs to be tested thoroughly, as the RM was, but still it had problems when it went into service.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 6, 2014 15:57:08 GMT
COBO ServerKing It's just simple, enable it to be operated on suburban routes of London like route East London Transit routes. Like what LOTS mentioned earlier on that the two door NRM is on the pipeline. It's not just benefiting the London Bus operators, it will benefit the rest of Britain because the private commercial operators would be interested because the 3 door spec would require a conductor at all times. The Wrightbus Gemini 3 do have elements of the design based from the New Routemaster like narrow top windows and window following the staircase. You'll know, there much more serious things in TFL land that we should be talking about like the Crossrail. Why would a operator would want a 2 doored NRM when they can go for a Enviro400 or Wright Gemini 3?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 6, 2014 20:19:24 GMT
The concept isn't new, look up the Volvo V3 that was tried out by LT, IIRC it was used on the 170 out of SW. Check out 'Ian's Bus Stop' for a potted history. It's a far better vehicle than the NBfL - looks good, is comfortable and you won't boil to death lol. They needed to give out earplugs to all passengers on Ailsas (have said all there is to say about the LT - you all know what I think now )
|
|