Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 15:00:10 GMT
I read in a magazine (It was a special from Buses magazine called 'The London Bus') that a 2 door version of the NB4L in the pipeline. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, but I thought I'd have a doodle to see what it could look like. I think it would look pretty good, and seems totally possible, what are your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Feb 12, 2014 15:10:42 GMT
I read in a magazine (It was a special from Buses magazine called 'The London Bus') that a 2 door version of the NB4L in the pipeline. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, but I thought I'd have a doodle to see what it could look like. I think it would look pretty good, and seems totally possible, what are your thoughts? Wright's answer to the Volvo V3?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 15:25:24 GMT
Thats what I thought! Thinking about it, the principal is exactly the same!
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Feb 12, 2014 15:31:31 GMT
Thats what I thought! Thinking about it, the principal is exactly the same! And for our younger viewers here's what we're on about Picture courtesy of 'Ian's Bus Stop' web page
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Feb 12, 2014 17:08:23 GMT
I thought the reason for the 3 doors was because of 2 staircases and the ramp?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 12, 2014 18:16:01 GMT
I read in a magazine (It was a special from Buses magazine called 'The London Bus') that a 2 door version of the NB4L in the pipeline. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, but I thought I'd have a doodle to see what it could look like. I think it would look pretty good, and seems totally possible, what are your thoughts? My basic comment is that I don't think a two door NB4L would have a rear door. The fundamental problem with your sketched design is wheelchair access. I doubt a wheelchair could board via the front door and definitely could not via the rear door - too narrow between the rear wheelarch seats. I therefore feel that if a 2 door NB4L were to be produced it would have a single staircase and 2 doors in the conventional front and middle positions. Something would have to be done about the engine compartment and rear lower deck seating arrangement. I see that First Leeds have put forward a counter proposal to the Leeds Trolleybus scheme and are proposing the use of NB4Ls on services in Leeds.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 12, 2014 18:34:28 GMT
I read in a magazine (It was a special from Buses magazine called 'The London Bus') that a 2 door version of the NB4L in the pipeline. Whether or not this is true, I don't know, but I thought I'd have a doodle to see what it could look like. I think it would look pretty good, and seems totally possible, what are your thoughts? My basic comment is that I don't think a two door NB4L would have a rear door. The fundamental problem with your sketched design is wheelchair access. I doubt a wheelchair could board via the front door and definitely could not via the rear door - too narrow between the rear wheelarch seats. I therefore feel that if a 2 door NB4L were to be produced it would have a single staircase and 2 doors in the conventional front and middle positions. Something would have to be done about the engine compartment and rear lower deck seating arrangement. I see that First Leeds have put forward a counter proposal to the Leeds Trolleybus scheme and are proposing the use of NB4Ls on services in Leeds. In a sense, a two door NBfL would be even more of a waste of money than the standard version.
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Feb 12, 2014 22:33:04 GMT
2 door version is from what I've heard from various sources will be one without the middle door and wheelchair access at the front. So I imagine that the interior seating layout will be changed around to be how it is outside London so where the seats are at the front between the front and middle on the 3 door version will be the wheelchair area on the 2 door. [Edit;] Something like this I'd of thought;
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Feb 13, 2014 1:00:20 GMT
Like vjaska said a further waste of money
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Feb 15, 2014 17:53:46 GMT
I don't understand the "waste of money" comments. No-one has said here that it's definitely a TfL project and even if it is I'm more than happy that they're looking at a version they can more easily market to other operators throughout the world.
Us British used to do this you know. Invest heavily in quality design and manufacture and make the money back from exports. The other aspect for me is that the Routemaster wasn't ahead of its time or practical but it was one of many ingredients that made London unique. That uniqueness is what brings tourists and business into the UK and adds to our reputation as innovators.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 15, 2014 19:51:59 GMT
I don't understand the "waste of money" comments. No-one has said here that it's definitely a TfL project and even if it is I'm more than happy that they're looking at a version they can more easily market to other operators throughout the world. Us British used to do this you know. Invest heavily in quality design and manufacture and make the money back from exports. The other aspect for me is that the Routemaster wasn't ahead of its time or practical but it was one of many ingredients that made London unique. That uniqueness is what brings tourists and business into the UK and adds to our reputation as innovators. If you read 'snoggles' post again and see what a 2 door NBfL actually entails, then there's is extremely little cost reduction and benefit over a standard 2 door bus which do their role well. Why pay more for something when we already have the cheaper model (the standard buses in this case) that does the job just as well, probably even better if I may say so. The current NBfL has already proven to be a waste of money - it will not solve overcrowded routes or much needed extensions and then we come to the conductors - now shown that's it's too expensive to put them on all NBfL routes and instead most will likely end up as OPO meaning you might as well have ordered standard buses in the first place. I also struggle to see this perception that tourists and business comes to London solely for one bus. That's the same view that people gave for the livery to become 100%. It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that they come for a particular colour or vehicle - tourists come for more than one symbol of a city whilst business is attracted by big returns of cash. This last part is not to all but to the people who suggest this - I await to be called a Borismaster/Tory/Boris Johnson basher as I have before by one particular member. Us 'NBfL bashers' are entitled to our opinions just as much as 'NBfL lovers' are entitled to air their opinions regardless of who is right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 15, 2014 20:40:35 GMT
I don't understand the "waste of money" comments. No-one has said here that it's definitely a TfL project and even if it is I'm more than happy that they're looking at a version they can more easily market to other operators throughout the world. Us British used to do this you know. Invest heavily in quality design and manufacture and make the money back from exports. The other aspect for me is that the Routemaster wasn't ahead of its time or practical but it was one of many ingredients that made London unique. That uniqueness is what brings tourists and business into the UK and adds to our reputation as innovators. I entirely agree that the British used to manufacture things and export them. Ironically the bus manufacturing sector is an excellent example of this with Wrights and Alexander Dennis winning huge orders in the Far East with a lot of product development going in to retain business. The Enviro 500 has been developed into a "new generation" product for Hong Kong plus weight reduction has allowed two axles buses to be run in Hong Kong thus reducing purchase and running costs. AD have sold lots of buses in the States and Canada which was hard won business. This is all pretty impressive given the difficulty of winning business in North America. The point with the NB4L is that there is nothing in its current design that works for the main export markets. KMB said there was no point in buying it for Hong Kong because it so heavy that it cannot take full air conditioning which is essential for that market. Ditto for Singapore where LT3 currently is. I cannot see a three door, dual staircase bus with a capacity of around 85 people selling anywhere other than London. As I have said before there *might* be a market for a dual door, single staircase, tri-axle NB4L *if* it could have full air con. The concept of a quiet, hybrid high capacity double decker could well sell in the Far East where they have huge pollution problems. I rather suspect that the Chinese will beat the UK to achieving such a vehicle and then we'll have lost the Far East market. You only need to see the way the Chinese have gone for the "all electric" single deck market to see what might transpire. I'd love to be proved wrong but Wrights or Alexander Dennis have to move very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Feb 15, 2014 20:41:26 GMT
I don't understand the "waste of money" comments. No-one has said here that it's definitely a TfL project and even if it is I'm more than happy that they're looking at a version they can more easily market to other operators throughout the world. Us British used to do this you know. Invest heavily in quality design and manufacture and make the money back from exports. The other aspect for me is that the Routemaster wasn't ahead of its time or practical but it was one of many ingredients that made London unique. That uniqueness is what brings tourists and business into the UK and adds to our reputation as innovators. If you read 'snoggles' post again and see what a 2 door NBfL actually entails, then there's is extremely little cost reduction and benefit over a standard 2 door bus which do their role well. Why pay more for something when we already have the cheaper model (the standard buses in this case) that does the job just as well, probably even better if I may say so. The current NBfL has already proven to be a waste of money - it will not solve overcrowded routes or much needed extensions and then we come to the conductors - now shown that's it's too expensive to put them on all NBfL routes and instead most will likely end up as OPO meaning you might as well have ordered standard buses in the first place. I also struggle to see this perception that tourists and business comes to London solely for one bus. That's the same view that people gave for the livery to become 100%. It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that they come for a particular colour or vehicle - tourists come for more than one symbol of a city whilst business is attracted by big returns of cash. This last part is not to all but to the people who suggest this - I await to be called a Borismaster/Tory/Boris Johnson basher as I have before by one particular member. Us 'NBfL bashers' are entitled to our opinions just as much as 'NBfL lovers' are entitled to air their opinions regardless of who is right or wrong. Vjaska, I am as against the NBfL programme as you are. However some of these comments do seem to make sense to me. Tourists do not come to London for one single thing, but a collection of factors that contribute towards its unique image and identity - each factor plays its part and contributes to the bigger picture so its something that should be considered. Secondly, I would reserve judgement until we know whether this is more of a commercial project rather than a TfL project (though my suspicion is neither...). One question. With the weight of a staircase and door removed, wouldn't capacity & the fuel efficiency of a two-door version be pretty d*mn good?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 15, 2014 21:14:10 GMT
If you read 'snoggles' post again and see what a 2 door NBfL actually entails, then there's is extremely little cost reduction and benefit over a standard 2 door bus which do their role well. Why pay more for something when we already have the cheaper model (the standard buses in this case) that does the job just as well, probably even better if I may say so. The current NBfL has already proven to be a waste of money - it will not solve overcrowded routes or much needed extensions and then we come to the conductors - now shown that's it's too expensive to put them on all NBfL routes and instead most will likely end up as OPO meaning you might as well have ordered standard buses in the first place. I also struggle to see this perception that tourists and business comes to London solely for one bus. That's the same view that people gave for the livery to become 100%. It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that they come for a particular colour or vehicle - tourists come for more than one symbol of a city whilst business is attracted by big returns of cash. This last part is not to all but to the people who suggest this - I await to be called a Borismaster/Tory/Boris Johnson basher as I have before by one particular member. Us 'NBfL bashers' are entitled to our opinions just as much as 'NBfL lovers' are entitled to air their opinions regardless of who is right or wrong. Vjaska, I am as against the NBfL programme as you are. However some of these comments do seem to make sense to me. Tourists do not come to London for one single thing, but a collection of factors that contribute towards its unique image and identity - each factor plays its part and contributes to the bigger picture so its something that should be considered. Secondly, I would reserve judgement until we know whether this is more of a commercial project rather than a TfL project (though my suspicion is neither...). One question. With the weight of a staircase and door removed, wouldn't capacity & the fuel efficiency of a two-door version be pretty d*mn good? The first point you made is the same point I made in my post - there are many landmarks, symbols & historical places in London that tourists flock to. Your second point is true - we don't know whether this will happen or not but I'd thought I'd address it anyway in case it is lol. Can anyone calculate a rough working of what a 2 door NBfL's weight would be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 1:27:39 GMT
I thought the 2 doored NBFL would have no rear door and rear staircase, just a normal front door and middle door like any ordinary conventional bus. I prefer it because it makes it more conventional and enables it on routes in the Outer London areas with the normal boarding. I agree what snoggle said. But the 2 doored NBFL with doors at both ends would go against TFL's requirements like; wheelchair bay behind the staircase and directly to the middle doors. I think TFL started the Alternative Vehicle Evaluation program to modify the NBFL design around. The 2 doored NBFL with doors at both ends and 2 staircases do remind me of the Volvo Alisa V3 and the Walsall Corporation (XDH 56G) bus. The single decker variant reminds me of the TransBus Enviro200 which had been tested in the mid 2000's also have the two doors on both ends of the bus. @minijay I like your art work, well done.
|
|