Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 12:40:15 GMT
Who knows a technology may come in where people are identified as not having scanned in and driver notified. This driver can then request they scan in or leave vehicle,initially bus routes will get held up but in time fare dodgers will quit because no way of getting away with it,my feeling is 10 years down the line an even better routemaster can be designed.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 9, 2019 13:23:30 GMT
Well the revenue lost cannot exceed what they were paying conductors otherwise they would have kept them on or brought them back. I just look at the routes without routemasters and think how ordinary. Buses here in Eastbourne on 99 route have high seats usb and wifi but still would prefer them routemasters on my local route. Need something designed as close to an RT as possible in the coming years with all modern cons. I’ve rode the 99 earlier this year and the MMC’s are quite lovely in every department - I’d know I’d happily have them over LT’s as personally, they are far superior vehicles. I don’t understand this need to have a bus that looks like a RM or RT - surely, the best sort of bus is one that is reliable, adequate for the job it’s meant to do and cost effective not whether it’s identical to a bus built 50+ years ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 13:33:32 GMT
I suppose all about opinion but RT's and RMs still having open days and lasted in London 50 years with crew operation. The 99 route are very good vehicles and better than them buses that used to have please pay the driver in yellow on front of the bus after the likes of my local route 140 had at the time when converted to one man operation.
With regards the 99 route though if I go to Dymchurch for the day I have to leave here 6.3pm otherwise I do not get last 99 bus route home from Hastings. That is another subject but very restricted for 2019
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 15:50:26 GMT
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCid1RBP7Es <<You look at this video and realise nothing would pass ulex but them buses were great. Routes 43 and 134 do not even have a new routemaster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 15:57:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 9, 2019 17:54:36 GMT
I suppose all about opinion but RT's and RMs still having open days and lasted in London 50 years with crew operation. The 99 route are very good vehicles and better than them buses that used to have please pay the driver in yellow on front of the bus after the likes of my local route 140 had at the time when converted to one man operation. With regards the 99 route though if I go to Dymchurch for the day I have to leave here 6.3pm otherwise I do not get last 99 bus route home from Hastings. That is another subject but very restricted for 2019 The difference between RM’s & RT’s and LT’s is RM’s & RT’s were built at a time where vehicles were built to last a long time which is why the RM survived for so long and why the RT did as well. LT’s are built during a time where buses are built with different materials which give a far shorter lifespan. I agree with your second point regarding service but that’s another subject entirely lol. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 9, 2019 18:14:00 GMT
I suppose all about opinion but RT's and RMs still having open days and lasted in London 50 years with crew operation. The 99 route are very good vehicles and better than them buses that used to have please pay the driver in yellow on front of the bus after the likes of my local route 140 had at the time when converted to one man operation. With regards the 99 route though if I go to Dymchurch for the day I have to leave here 6.3pm otherwise I do not get last 99 bus route home from Hastings. That is another subject but very restricted for 2019 The difference between RM’s & RT’s and LT’s is RM’s & RT’s were built at a time where vehicles were built to last a long time which is why the RM survived for so long and why the RT did as well. LT’s are built during a time where buses are built with different materials which give a far shorter lifespan. I agree with your second point regarding service but that’s another subject entirely lol. London Transport had a full-time bus overhaul works at Aldenham, built on the site of what was scheduled to become a tube train depot for the extended (from Edgware) Northern Line, plans that were scuppered by the Second World War, so their bus buying from the late 1940s was predicated on the vehicles receiving two full overhauls during their lifetime to enable them to last approximately twenty years. For this purpose the chassis had to be separated from the body, with almost a guarantee that the two would never be reunited, as a 'float' was created for efficiency owing to the differing amount of time chassis and body took to be overhauled. All this ended with the advent of opo 'off the shelf' (with modifications) buses that couldn't receive this treatment, even in the few cases where LT might have liked to extend their lives! |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 10, 2019 9:48:26 GMT
The difference between RM’s & RT’s and LT’s is RM’s & RT’s were built at a time where vehicles were built to last a long time which is why the RM survived for so long and why the RT did as well. LT’s are built during a time where buses are built with different materials which give a far shorter lifespan. I agree with your second point regarding service but that’s another subject entirely lol. London Transport had a full-time bus overhaul works at Aldenham, built on the site of what was scheduled to become a tube train depot for the extended (from Edgware) Northern Line, plans that were scuppered by the Second World War, so their bus buying from the late 1940s was predicated on the vehicles receiving two full overhauls during their lifetime to enable them to last approximately twenty years. For this purpose the chassis had to be separated from the body, with almost a guarantee that the two would never be reunited, as a 'float' was created for efficiency owing to the differing amount of time chassis and body took to be overhauled. All this ended with the advent of opo 'off the shelf' (with modifications) buses that couldn't receive this treatment, even in the few cases where LT might have liked to extend their lives! This. When Routemasters etc were overhauled at Aldenham, what came out was a bus that was effectively ‘as new’. I have little doubt that if Aldenham still existed and LTs could be body lifted in the same way as RMs, you could make them last for over 25 years. But it doesn’t and you can’t, so I can’t see LTs lasting beyond the mid-late 2020s. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 26, 2019 13:51:11 GMT
It will come down to politics and technology. The politics won't be there under the existing Mayor as other have said, they will go either through old age or lack of mid life upgrade. Another Mayor could well be another matter however.
I shall make no forecasts about converting NB4L to full electric operation, as it would make me a hostage to fortune. I don't think the issue is Wrightbus or value for money per se, but rather battery technology. *If* and it is a huge if battery technology improves soon enough, such that in the space of the diesel engine there could be sufficient battery capacity, the idea of converting NB4L to full electric operation becomes feasible. TfL own the buses and the design and would not need Wrightbus to do this. The Siemens ELFA II system as I understand it (which is what NB4L uses) can easily be used as a hybrid or full electric operation. The cost would really be down to the cost of these new batteries, yet to be invented, but being researched. So *if* technology delivers in the next few years this could be possible. Is it likely to happen, no (many of you will be pleased to hear), because even if the technology comes in, our current Mayor is likely to be re-elected and would never sanction such a conversion in my opinion.
|
|
