|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 20, 2014 8:38:44 GMT
Route 8 is apparently going to be driver only once converted to nb4l, from what I read somewhere. If that is true then in all honesty purchase conventional buses. The hype the mayor maid about introducing a hop on hop off bus are starting to sound like propoganda. Nice as the buses are if they're not going to be crew operated then they shouldn't be used ! Fare evasion also springs to mind which is why I thought that was one of the reasons the bendy buses were withdrawn? As per my previous post, it has obviously been realised that TfL cannot afford all these conductors, but is still committed to taking 600 new routemasters. The huge waste of money on this political statement is becoming more and more obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Jan 20, 2014 13:28:00 GMT
Route 8 is apparently going to be driver only once converted to nb4l, from what I read somewhere. If that is true then in all honesty purchase conventional buses. The hype the mayor maid about introducing a hop on hop off bus are starting to sound like propoganda. Nice as the buses are if they're not going to be crew operated then they shouldn't be used ! Fare evasion also springs to mind which is why I thought that was one of the reasons the bendy buses were withdrawn? As per my previous post, it has obviously been realised that TfL cannot afford all these conductors, but is still committed to taking 600 new routemasters. The huge waste of money on this political statement is becoming more and more obvious. Really makes me wonder if ANYof the forthcoming conversions will have a conductor. If routes like the 148, 8 and 9 at weekends have been deemed to not need a conductor, then why should any other route? Give the conductors a proper job to do(ie collecting fares) I am sure that they will pay for themselves then as a lot of revenue must be lost at the moment. Also, get the driver to pull up with the rear of the bus at the stop and reduce the dwell time while all the fuss of opening 3 sets of doors is removed. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 20, 2014 14:43:49 GMT
The problem with that last part is that some bus stop bays are designed so that the front of the bus reaches the bus stop and cannot physically go any further due to parked vehicles.
I agree with what you say about having proper conductors on the bus, it would also certainly make the LTs much more worthwhile. Conductors should have been on the bendy buses during their era.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 20, 2014 14:58:22 GMT
I think it was someone on London Reconnections who opened my eyes to what we really have with the NB4L. Thinking of it in simple terms as a bus with an open platform is missing the point. Yes, it can be operated like that, but what we actually have is a bus with three entrance/exits and two staircases for speedy boarding/alighting when operated in OPO mode - that's the real benefit over a conventional hybrid. TfL has been quite crafty in getting a bus that meets its original aims for artics but also ticks the Borisian nostalgia box for 'hop-on hop-off' when necessary. And it's been done in such a way that if a future Mayor wanted to abolish customer assistants, they could do so without requiring a massive redesign or scrapping the fleet.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 20, 2014 14:59:27 GMT
Route 8 is apparently going to be driver only once converted to nb4l, from what I read somewhere. If that is true then in all honesty purchase conventional buses. The hype the mayor maid about introducing a hop on hop off bus are starting to sound like propoganda. Nice as the buses are if they're not going to be crew operated then they shouldn't be used ! Fare evasion also springs to mind which is why I thought that was one of the reasons the bendy buses were withdrawn? As per my previous post, it has obviously been realised that TfL cannot afford all these conductors, but is still committed to taking 600 new routemasters. The huge waste of money on this political statement is becoming more and more obvious. Isn't there any way that further orders can be stopped? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 20, 2014 15:20:53 GMT
As per my previous post, it has obviously been realised that TfL cannot afford all these conductors, but is still committed to taking 600 new routemasters. The huge waste of money on this political statement is becoming more and more obvious. Isn't there any way that further orders can be stopped? I think I've mentioned this before but the NB4L contract is on the TfL website. Obviously there are some bits which are blanked out (redacted) for commercial reasons. There are provisions in the contract that allow TfL to reduce the number of buses on order but they have to give Wrightbus many months advance notice. I assume this is to ensure Wrightbus do not commit to sub contracts with their suppliers for components etc and then find they have no use for them because TfL have changed the contract. I haven't gone back and checked but from memory I think there is a cut off point at 400 buses meaning the total batch could be reduced by 200 buses. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 20, 2014 15:37:44 GMT
Isn't there any way that further orders can be stopped? I think I've mentioned this before but the NB4L contract is on the TfL website. Obviously there are some bits which are blanked out (redacted) for commercial reasons. There are provisions in the contract that allow TfL to reduce the number of buses on order but they have to give Wrightbus many months advance notice. I assume this is to ensure Wrightbus do not commit to sub contracts with their suppliers for components etc and then find they have no use for them because TfL have changed the contract. I haven't gone back and checked but from memory I think there is a cut off point at 400 buses meaning the total batch could be reduced by 200 buses. So in theory it could be possible to order only 400 LTs and divert the rest of the funds to equipped those 400 buses with full time 'conductor ' crew operation? |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 20, 2014 16:00:38 GMT
I think it was someone on London Reconnections who opened my eyes to what we really have with the NB4L. Thinking of it in simple terms as a bus with an open platform is missing the point. Yes, it can be operated like that, but what we actually have is a bus with three entrance/exits and two staircases for speedy boarding/alighting when operated in OPO mode - that's the real benefit over a conventional hybrid. TfL has been quite crafty in getting a bus that meets its original aims for artics but also ticks the Borisian nostalgia box for 'hop-on hop-off' when necessary. And it's been done in such a way that if a future Mayor wanted to abolish customer assistants, they could do so without requiring a massive redesign or scrapping the fleet. You wouldn't have had to pay anywhere near the development costs for that... ever been to Berlin? The MAN double decks there have 2 staircases and three doors. Re-engineer them to right hand drive and shorten them a bit and you have the answer without a new bus being developed. Or just re-design an Enviro 400 or Volvo/Wright (my preference of the two!) to accommodate those features. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 20, 2014 17:00:00 GMT
So in theory it could be possible to order only 400 LTs and divert the rest of the funds to equipped those 400 buses with full time 'conductor ' crew operation? Doubtful in theory because TfL have used capital funding to buy the buses and have set a capital budget. In any normal year there is about £25m of capital investment for the bus network. The next couple of years has the number between £90m and £100m and that's all to do with the NB4L. The budget falls back to £25m sfter 2016. You can't just shove capital monies across to revenue budgets which is what would fund the conductors. The TfL Finance people are extremely reluctant to allow people to "fudge" their budgets once they've been set. You have to stand by your agreed budgets and be accountable for any variances (good or bad). *If* the number of NB4Ls were to be reduced then I rather expect any budget underspend would have to be relinquished to "the centre" where the Finance people would decide what to do with it. There's no guarantee that the money would remain in Surface Transport. TfL may have made some sort of small adjustment to their contract budgets to allow for the limited numbers of conductors that are in use on the NB4Ls. Alternatively they may well have "traded" reduced fuel costs or some other aspect of contract costs when they negotiate the contract variations to convert a route to NB4L operation. I doubt we'll ever find out the basis of the commercial agreements for dual manning of the NB4Ls. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 20, 2014 17:21:35 GMT
Does anyone know why there is a Diesel bus on the 11  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 20, 2014 17:23:43 GMT
I think it was someone on London Reconnections who opened my eyes to what we really have with the NB4L. Thinking of it in simple terms as a bus with an open platform is missing the point. Yes, it can be operated like that, but what we actually have is a bus with three entrance/exits and two staircases for speedy boarding/alighting when operated in OPO mode - that's the real benefit over a conventional hybrid. TfL has been quite crafty in getting a bus that meets its original aims for artics but also ticks the Borisian nostalgia box for 'hop-on hop-off' when necessary. And it's been done in such a way that if a future Mayor wanted to abolish customer assistants, they could do so without requiring a massive redesign or scrapping the fleet. I wonder who might have said that?   You wouldn't have had to pay anywhere near the development costs for that... ever been to Berlin? The MAN double decks there have 2 staircases and three doors. Re-engineer them to right hand drive and shorten them a bit and you have the answer without a new bus being developed. Or just re-design an Enviro 400 or Volvo/Wright (my preference of the two!) to accommodate those features. I take your point about the Berlin deckers but I thought BVG had had some serious issues with them in recent years. ISTR they had to take large numbers of them off the road for repairs. There is also some doubt about whether BVG will order more double deckers or concentrate on single decks including artics. The number of double decks in Berlin has reduced considerably in recent years. I also doubt whether Wrights or AD would make the R&D investment to build a three door, dual staircase bus without some external funding or a guaranteed volume order. In that respect it would be no different from the NB4L. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Jan 20, 2014 17:25:36 GMT
Does anyone know why there is a Diesel bus on the 11 Probably covering for a faulty NB4L. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2014 17:39:03 GMT
My idea is, why can't operators use their profits to fund the conductors. There are big operators like Stagecoach, Arriva and Go Ahead that makes profits can be used to fund the conductors themselves for the London routes? But it's only a small fraction and make a new budget for the conductors. But they still make millions in profits. There are commercial services around Britain that have conductors, one example is the FTR, they have conductors on there. If they can manage to have conductors around Britain, why not London? First group is using their profits to fund the conductors for the FTR. But it's simple, TFL can negociate to the operators to give a fraction in tendering to pay for the conductors then the operator can use the profits to fund the rest. But it's not all that hard to be honest. If the operator says no to conductors, that's fine. I don't care if I work as a conductor for minimum wage but as long they are earning something and as long they can get there and back. I also remember there were original plans to have PCSO's as conductors on NBFL's? Why have that been thrown out of the window? But I know the Oyster system makes the boarding fast which causes the conductors to be obsolete on OPO buses, but the conductors are just platform attendants, plus they reduce the stress off the driver so the conductor can deal with passengers like travel information and directions. It's more ideal to keep them in Central London for tourist reasons whilst the outer London areas can stay OPO. I am also aware that there are job losses in London Underground in which they are doing revenue strike by keeping the barriers open, refusing to check tickets and temporarily closing the ticket booths which causes some fare evasion. Plus also people would not touch out as the barriers stay open which causes them to pay the maximum fare. Agree or disagree with me on this, If it wasn't for all the political waste in the UK government, then things would be very different... |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 20, 2014 17:48:20 GMT
Does anyone know why there is a Diesel bus on the 11 Basically for the same reason a diesel bus would often appear on the 3, to keep the service operational despite any unroadworthy hybrids. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 20, 2014 19:31:40 GMT
My idea is, why can't operators use their profits to fund the conductors. There are big operators like Stagecoach, Arriva and Go Ahead that makes profits can be used to fund the conductors themselves for the London routes? But it's only a small fraction and make a new budget for the conductors. But they still make millions in profits. There are commercial services around Britain that have conductors, one example is the FTR, they have conductors on there. If they can manage to have conductors around Britain, why not London? First group is using their profits to fund the conductors for the FTR. But it's simple, TFL can negociate to the operators to give a fraction in tendering to pay for the conductors then the operator can use the profits to fund the rest. But it's not all that hard to be honest. If the operator says no to conductors, that's fine. I don't care if I work as a conductor for minimum wage but as long they are earning something and as long they can get there and back. I also remember there were original plans to have PCSO's as conductors on NBFL's? Have that been thrown out of the window? But I know the Oyster system makes the boarding fast which causes the conductors to be obsolete on OPO buses, but the conductors are just platform attendants, plus they reduce the stress off the driver so the conductor can deal with passengers like travel information and directions. It's more ideal to keep them in Central London for tourist reasons whilst the outer London areas can stay OPO. I am also aware that there are job losses in London Underground in which they are doing revenue strike by keeping the barriers open, refusing to check tickets and temporarily closing the ticket booths which causes some fare evasion. Plus also people would not touch out as the barriers stay open which causes them to pay the maximum fare. Agree or disagree with me on this, If it wasn't for all the political waste in the UK government, then things would be very different... I'm going to be a bit harsh here but you don't really understand how things work. Yes operators running services for TfL can make a profit but that is their right under the contracts they agree to run for TfL. They have no discretion about vehicle types or service levels or staffing levels. TfL set those. The operator's job is to run the service well and to avoid making mistakes (too few staff, no cover staff for illness, buses breaking down) that would result in their contract payments being lower because the service was badly run. Operators in London are not going to do things voluntarily because they have no mechanism to earn lots of extra money. The extent of "upside" for delivering high levels of performance is less now than it was in the early days of Quality Incentive contracts. TfL have tightened up the contract performance levels and reduced the amount of "excess" resource that is paid for in the contract price thus making it harder for operators to earn vast profits. You only need to look at their profit margins to see that they've fallen in recent years. The only area where operators will invest independently is to reduce their cost base / improve reliability so they need fewer spare buses. This was evident from what was said on the Merton Garage tour that I went on. Go Ahead's investment was all about their bottom line - less down time in the garage, fewer accidents through better driver training meaning less repair cost / less time in investigations / better insurance costs, better control of spare parts, engineers being able to repair buses faster and engineering work done at fewer places. Lower costs and greater efficiency mean bigger profits. The only reason FTRs have conductors is because the original concept was hopelessly flawed. First tried to rely on a fancy off bus payment system which never worked properly. Being a bit big headed I could have told them it would not work if I'd been asked to review their system. It bought buses whereby the driver cannot sell tickets. Other than withdrawing the vehicles the only option it had left was to employ conductors. I am not aware of any other operation outside London that still retains conductors. Stagecoach used to have a route in Scotland which had conductors because the faster run time allowed them to save a bus compared to running in OPO but I think even that's changed now. FTR is a mess and has been from day one. First had to abandon it in York and fudged a West Yorkshire service to re-use the buses from York. Swansea's route has been kept going but largely because an awful lot of money was spent on priority and I suspect First have a legal obligation to the council to run FTRs. First ordered no more FTRs because they'd cost far too much to run in a commercial environment which shows that conductor costs are not incidental to the issue of costs and profit margins for deregulated routes. Has any other operator bought anything like them for deregulated service? Err no. A few companies use artics in a more conventional format because their capacity is needed to sensibly meet the demand on the route - West Midlands route 67 plus 1 route in Coventry, Route X66 in Gateshead, route 25 in Brighton and McGills run some in Glasgow. Employing PCSOs on the NB4L was a non starter. They are not there to work on public transport guarding an open door. The public expect PCSOs to undertake police work or something akin to that. Can you imagine the furore if there was an incident that a PCSO could help with but they were stuck on the back of a bus and unable / unwilling to assist? The media would have a field day. The reverse is also true - imagine a PCSO leaping off a NB4L to help with an incident and the bus being unable to depart from the next stop as there'd be no one to give the "go" signal? Bonkers in both cases. The LU ticket office dispute is more complicated than you paint it. It is no surprise that the RMT and TSSA are taking / proposing to take industrial action including not co-operating with revenue duties. What do you expect them to do? Sit back and allow 900+ job losses? The argument is about the advance of technology vs pressure to get LU's operating costs down. There are heroic assumptions about reductions in operating costs in the latest business plan and these 900+ jobs are the first of what I predict will be several more tranches of job losses at stations and in a load of head office roles. The same will undoubtedly come to bear in other parts of TfL. You have to accept there will always be inefficiencies in all spheres of activity - the private sector can be as inefficient as the public sector (need I mention RBS Bank or G4S?) and there is waste and extravagance in both sectors. There is no simple solution to fixing all this. |
|
