|
Post by VPL630 on Feb 16, 2014 11:21:54 GMT
Not only is it as waste of money, there is no need for it, we have perfectly good buses such as the E400/Gemini
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 16, 2014 11:45:41 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 suspect very few, if any new examples will end up abroad, for reasons that have already been stated by snoggle and others. I think it's unfortunate that so many of the LTs will end up without platform attendants 24/7, and that will rather add to the 'waste of money' thoughts. I don't think it's a complete waste of money by any means, and its design influence is already being felt elsewhere (look at the shallow windows of Go-Ahead's V6 for an example), but it's looking increasingly like the bus will be a white elephant outside of London. Which is not necessarily a dreadful thing : you could state the same case for the Leyland Titan...
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Feb 16, 2014 14:26:52 GMT
I think all thought of TfL having vehicle specifications goes out the window when it comes to the NBfL!
Lets face it, Getting rid of the rear door is never going to happen mainly for political reasons - Boris would look a total fool if that happened as some of his main reasoning for the bus has been the rear platform.
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Feb 16, 2014 14:28:24 GMT
I think it'll have a market albeit a small one for novelty routes in tourist destinations.
But I still don't understand why people are so angry about the slight additional cost of buying a vehicle that sets TfL apart. If I saw people getting as annoyed about other governmental wastes of money (like HS2 and the West Coast First Group Bid and the faffing around over the Desiro contract for Thameslink) I'd understand. Those mess ups cost hundreds of millions. The NBfL is small fry.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 16, 2014 18:26:15 GMT
I think it'll have a market albeit a small one for novelty routes in tourist destinations. But I still don't understand why people are so angry about the slight additional cost of buying a vehicle that sets TfL apart. If I saw people getting as annoyed about other governmental wastes of money (like HS2 and the West Coast First Group Bid and the faffing around over the Desiro contract for Thameslink) I'd understand. Those mess ups cost hundreds of millions. The NBfL is small fry. Is it small fry when your local route suffers from overcrowding and the money that could of solved it is being used for vehicles are that not really needed? Is it small fry when your local route suffers from unreliability and the money that could of solved it is being used for vehicles that then need some of the routes they are used on to be altered? I'd be extremely surprised if there is any market at all outside London - at least with the Titan, there was a successful secondhand market unlike with this bus - I can't see any provincial operator taking any of them.
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Feb 16, 2014 19:29:51 GMT
Is it small fry when your local route suffers from overcrowding and the money that could of solved it is being used for vehicles are that not really needed? Is it small fry when your local route suffers from unreliability and the money that could of solved it is being used for vehicles that then need some of the routes they are used on to be altered? I'd be extremely surprised if there is any market at all outside London - at least with the Titan, there was a successful secondhand market unlike with this bus - I can't see any provincial operator taking any of them. I agree 100%, the NB4L is a white elephant, as once they turn 10 years old, they'll need to be sold off. The Titan at least was conventional bus, as was the DMS (which also sold in large numbers in the secondhand market both at home and abroad) where as the NB4L is not conventional, with its incredibly complex power system, air conditioning its three doors and two staircases. The cost and effort of modification of it to a 'conventional' standard is far greater than that of buying new buses. In addition to the cost, they are very unreliable, I went on LT128 yesterday, a bus which was used for a total of three days in service, yet it had to 'reset' itself for a few minutes, mid route at Hyde Park Corner due to to an electrical 'infidelity'. Now two minutes may not sound much but in a worst case scenario, if every bus had to do this once every day, mid route then they would spend 50 minutes extra stopping time. I don't know exactly how unreliable the Merlins/Swifts and DMSs were in the late 1960s/early 1970s but I am starting to get a sense of how it would've been like during that time. As for the compromises being made for the project, with London Underground wanting to close ticket offices and cutting bus services elsewhere even though they are already short of funds, and/or are woefully unreliable (often get caught on 111s to Kingston then suddenly change to go to Hampton Wick). If there was no NB4L, then fares would be lower and the service would be better. Granted, this bus may look and 'feel' nice, but your average commuter won't care whether or not its a shabby ten year old B7TL or if its a shiny new LT, they just want to get from A to B. HVs/VWHs/WHVs/ADHs/VWHs/ADHs/ ADHs/ 12xxxs etc.* are cheaper and more reliable. *Yes, I've deliberately put types more than once, as this is the order the LTs were deployed (38/24/11/9/390/148/10/8)In my view: Is the LT a nice bus? It is Is the LT really necessary as a new bus? No it isn'tRant over.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Feb 16, 2014 19:52:18 GMT
Are LTs really unreliable?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 16, 2014 19:53:50 GMT
I think it'll have a market albeit a small one for novelty routes in tourist destinations. But I still don't understand why people are so angry about the slight additional cost of buying a vehicle that sets TfL apart. If I saw people getting as annoyed about other governmental wastes of money (like HS2 and the West Coast First Group Bid and the faffing around over the Desiro contract for Thameslink) I'd understand. Those mess ups cost hundreds of millions. The NBfL is small fry. The issue, though, is that the NB4L is *not* small fry. The WCML franchise was a mess but entirely and utterly of the government's own making because of a macho Secretary of State (Philip Hammond) not giving a d*mn about the expertise he allowed to walk out the door. This is what happens when clueless people who think they know everything are put in charge of departments charged with delivering huge contracts and investments and who cannot understand that you need *people* to deliver them. He's the same idiot who has landed us with an utterly incoherent Defence strategy and tens of thousands of military redundancies and yet we still have deplorable procurement practice. Back to the Bendy Bus removal / NB4L creation issue. I've deliberately brought both together as they are the only bits of overt bus policy Boris has ever implemented. We can safely ignore "orbital express bus routes" from his 2008 manifesto as he didn't introduce any. Value of premature disposal of bendy buses - £100m equivalent capital cost (new vehicle value). I don't know how they were depreciated or what loss the lessors have borne. We do know it is substantial given the low sale values being offered by the likes of Lombard. Cost of brand new double decker buses - £112m capital cost (I accept that the cost here is either in lease charges or over the vehicle life and TfL will only pay a part) Extra contract costs post conversion - £270k per annum, £1.35m over 5 years. Cost of inventing the NB4L - circa £11m Cost of buying the NB4L - £200m+ Cost of extra staff on the NB4Ls - unknown but probably a couple of million a year already. Fraud risk from open boarding - unknown Risk held by TfL around design issues with the NB4L - unknown. Now obviously some of the above numbers are a guesstimate but they are not insignificant numbers in the context of other pressures on the TfL budget overall and on the bus contract budget in particular. There are also some factors which are unknown with the NB4L but could land Londoners with costs in the future. Those costs would not apply with conventional buses. We do not know for certain what effect stiffing the leasing companies over the bendy buses has had on the London bus market but it cannot be a zero effect. The risk of being dumped with vehicles with no useful life must have affected leasing charges and will *definitely* have an impact in the future if another Mayor changes policy again and wants to buy buses that might suit London but with little potential use elsewhere. Who would fund a fleet of tri-axle double deckers? It has certainly ensured that TfL had to buy the NB4Ls. For me there is one clear question - bus patronage is growing, some routes are stuffed full all the time and people can't get around in adequate comfort and at predictable journey times. Do we really need to spend well over £200m on a bespoke design that offers no great gain for passengers or would we all be better off if that money was spent on adding capacity where needed, improving reliability and adding new services to fill in the gaps in the network? I am *completely* convinced that service improvement is what we need. I suspect people would be delighted with Boris if that was his policy. Goodness even a dreadful cynic like me is more than happy to give him plaudits for forcing TfL to give us access to the Live Bus Departures info. That is a genuine improvement that people like. Even if he didn't spend all the £200m on bus routes he could throw a few million at extra Countdown signs at bus stops and a lot of people would be grateful for that too. None of this is complicated stuff but why the Mayor cannot see it I do not know.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Feb 16, 2014 20:00:19 GMT
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? is this 2 door thing still 11.2m if so without the extra door I am guessing at around 12, 000kgs
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Feb 16, 2014 20:00:55 GMT
I think it'll have a market albeit a small one for novelty routes in tourist destinations. But I still don't understand why people are so angry about the slight additional cost of buying a vehicle that sets TfL apart. If I saw people getting as annoyed about other governmental wastes of money (like HS2 and the West Coast First Group Bid and the faffing around over the Desiro contract for Thameslink) I'd understand. Those mess ups cost hundreds of millions. The NBfL is small fry. The issue, though, is that the NB4L is *not* small fry. The WCML franchise was a mess but entirely and utterly of the government's own making because of a macho Secretary of State (Philip Hammond) not giving a d*mn about the expertise he allowed to walk out the door. This is what happens when clueless people who think they know everything are put in charge of departments charged with delivering huge contracts and investments and who cannot understand that you need *people* to deliver them. He's the same idiot who has landed us with an utterly incoherent Defence strategy and tens of thousands of military redundancies and yet we still have deplorable procurement practice. Back to the Bendy Bus removal / NB4L creation issue. I've deliberately brought both together as they are the only bits of overt bus policy Boris has ever implemented. We can safely ignore "orbital express bus routes" from his 2008 manifesto as he didn't introduce any. Value of premature disposal of bendy buses - £100m equivalent capital cost (new vehicle value). I don't know how they were depreciated or what loss the lessors have borne. We do know it is substantial given the low sale values being offered by the likes of Lombard. Cost of brand new double decker buses - £112m capital cost (I accept that the cost here is either in lease charges or over the vehicle life and TfL will only pay a part) Extra contract costs post conversion - £270k per annum, £1.35m over 5 years. Cost of inventing the NB4L - circa £11m Cost of buying the NB4L - £200m+ Cost of extra staff on the NB4Ls - unknown but probably a couple of million a year already. Fraud risk from open boarding - unknown Risk held by TfL around design issues with the NB4L - unknown. Now obviously some of the above numbers are a guesstimate but they are not insignificant numbers in the context of other pressures on the TfL budget overall and on the bus contract budget in particular. There are also some factors which are unknown with the NB4L but could land Londoners with costs in the future. Those costs would not apply with conventional buses. We do not know for certain what effect stiffing the leasing companies over the bendy buses has had on the London bus market but it cannot be a zero effect. The risk of being dumped with vehicles with no useful life must have affected leasing charges and will *definitely* have an impact in the future if another Mayor changes policy again and wants to buy buses that might suit London but with little potential use elsewhere. Who would fund a fleet of tri-axle double deckers? It has certainly ensured that TfL had to buy the NB4Ls. For me there is one clear question - bus patronage is growing, some routes are stuffed full all the time and people can't get around in adequate comfort and at predictable journey times. Do we really need to spend well over £200m on a bespoke design that offers no great gain for passengers or would we all be better off if that money was spent on adding capacity where needed, improving reliability and adding new services to fill in the gaps in the network? I am *completely* convinced that service improvement is what we need. I suspect people would be delighted with Boris if that was his policy. Goodness even a dreadful cynic like me is more than happy to give him plaudits for forcing TfL to give us access to the Live Bus Departures info. That is a genuine improvement that people like. Even if he didn't spend all the £200m on bus routes he could throw a few million at extra Countdown signs at bus stops and a lot of people would be grateful for that too. None of this is complicated stuff but why the Mayor cannot see it I do not know. Why aren't you in charge?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 16, 2014 20:04:01 GMT
The issue, though, is that the NB4L is *not* small fry. The WCML franchise was a mess but entirely and utterly of the government's own making because of a macho Secretary of State (Philip Hammond) not giving a d*mn about the expertise he allowed to walk out the door. This is what happens when clueless people who think they know everything are put in charge of departments charged with delivering huge contracts and investments and who cannot understand that you need *people* to deliver them. He's the same idiot who has landed us with an utterly incoherent Defence strategy and tens of thousands of military redundancies and yet we still have deplorable procurement practice. Back to the Bendy Bus removal / NB4L creation issue. I've deliberately brought both together as they are the only bits of overt bus policy Boris has ever implemented. We can safely ignore "orbital express bus routes" from his 2008 manifesto as he didn't introduce any. Value of premature disposal of bendy buses - £100m equivalent capital cost (new vehicle value). I don't know how they were depreciated or what loss the lessors have borne. We do know it is substantial given the low sale values being offered by the likes of Lombard. Cost of brand new double decker buses - £112m capital cost (I accept that the cost here is either in lease charges or over the vehicle life and TfL will only pay a part) Extra contract costs post conversion - £270k per annum, £1.35m over 5 years. Cost of inventing the NB4L - circa £11m Cost of buying the NB4L - £200m+ Cost of extra staff on the NB4Ls - unknown but probably a couple of million a year already. Fraud risk from open boarding - unknown Risk held by TfL around design issues with the NB4L - unknown. Now obviously some of the above numbers are a guesstimate but they are not insignificant numbers in the context of other pressures on the TfL budget overall and on the bus contract budget in particular. There are also some factors which are unknown with the NB4L but could land Londoners with costs in the future. Those costs would not apply with conventional buses. We do not know for certain what effect stiffing the leasing companies over the bendy buses has had on the London bus market but it cannot be a zero effect. The risk of being dumped with vehicles with no useful life must have affected leasing charges and will *definitely* have an impact in the future if another Mayor changes policy again and wants to buy buses that might suit London but with little potential use elsewhere. Who would fund a fleet of tri-axle double deckers? It has certainly ensured that TfL had to buy the NB4Ls. For me there is one clear question - bus patronage is growing, some routes are stuffed full all the time and people can't get around in adequate comfort and at predictable journey times. Do we really need to spend well over £200m on a bespoke design that offers no great gain for passengers or would we all be better off if that money was spent on adding capacity where needed, improving reliability and adding new services to fill in the gaps in the network? I am *completely* convinced that service improvement is what we need. I suspect people would be delighted with Boris if that was his policy. Goodness even a dreadful cynic like me is more than happy to give him plaudits for forcing TfL to give us access to the Live Bus Departures info. That is a genuine improvement that people like. Even if he didn't spend all the £200m on bus routes he could throw a few million at extra Countdown signs at bus stops and a lot of people would be grateful for that too. None of this is complicated stuff but why the Mayor cannot see it I do not know. Why aren't you in charge? I'd certainly vote for him if he was, any chance you can run in the next mayoral election?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 16, 2014 20:10:46 GMT
Are LTs really unreliable? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that they do break down a lot when new. Every batch has seemingly had issues and more so than *seems* to be the case with new conventional buses. Of course people tend to comment more about NB4Ls conking out than other buses so you have to be careful about the bias in how this stuff is reported. I am sure London Sovereign and Arriva LS have had some of their Volvo hybrids conk out and we know the BYD electrics are a bit flaky despite their light use. I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for TfL to upload the Q3 performance data on the website. This would allow us to see what happened to route 24's performance post NB4L conversion. I'm expecting it to drop like a stone and then show some recovery. You should also be able to see what happened with route 11. I can't decide if TfL are delaying deliberately or if it is linked to the launch of the new TfL website.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 16, 2014 20:21:45 GMT
Apparently, none of the 9's NBfL's stay on the road for more than a week at a time - if true, then it doesn't bode well for it in terms of reliability.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 16, 2014 20:36:21 GMT
The issue, though, is that the NB4L is *not* small fry. The WCML franchise was a mess but entirely and utterly of the government's own making because of a macho Secretary of State (Philip Hammond) not giving a d*mn about the expertise he allowed to walk out the door. This is what happens when clueless people who think they know everything are put in charge of departments charged with delivering huge contracts and investments and who cannot understand that you need *people* to deliver them. He's the same idiot who has landed us with an utterly incoherent Defence strategy and tens of thousands of military redundancies and yet we still have deplorable procurement practice. Back to the Bendy Bus removal / NB4L creation issue. I've deliberately brought both together as they are the only bits of overt bus policy Boris has ever implemented. We can safely ignore "orbital express bus routes" from his 2008 manifesto as he didn't introduce any. Value of premature disposal of bendy buses - £100m equivalent capital cost (new vehicle value). I don't know how they were depreciated or what loss the lessors have borne. We do know it is substantial given the low sale values being offered by the likes of Lombard. Cost of brand new double decker buses - £112m capital cost (I accept that the cost here is either in lease charges or over the vehicle life and TfL will only pay a part) Extra contract costs post conversion - £270k per annum, £1.35m over 5 years. Cost of inventing the NB4L - circa £11m Cost of buying the NB4L - £200m+ Cost of extra staff on the NB4Ls - unknown but probably a couple of million a year already. Fraud risk from open boarding - unknown Risk held by TfL around design issues with the NB4L - unknown. Now obviously some of the above numbers are a guesstimate but they are not insignificant numbers in the context of other pressures on the TfL budget overall and on the bus contract budget in particular. There are also some factors which are unknown with the NB4L but could land Londoners with costs in the future. Those costs would not apply with conventional buses. We do not know for certain what effect stiffing the leasing companies over the bendy buses has had on the London bus market but it cannot be a zero effect. The risk of being dumped with vehicles with no useful life must have affected leasing charges and will *definitely* have an impact in the future if another Mayor changes policy again and wants to buy buses that might suit London but with little potential use elsewhere. Who would fund a fleet of tri-axle double deckers? It has certainly ensured that TfL had to buy the NB4Ls. For me there is one clear question - bus patronage is growing, some routes are stuffed full all the time and people can't get around in adequate comfort and at predictable journey times. Do we really need to spend well over £200m on a bespoke design that offers no great gain for passengers or would we all be better off if that money was spent on adding capacity where needed, improving reliability and adding new services to fill in the gaps in the network? I am *completely* convinced that service improvement is what we need. I suspect people would be delighted with Boris if that was his policy. Goodness even a dreadful cynic like me is more than happy to give him plaudits for forcing TfL to give us access to the Live Bus Departures info. That is a genuine improvement that people like. Even if he didn't spend all the £200m on bus routes he could throw a few million at extra Countdown signs at bus stops and a lot of people would be grateful for that too. None of this is complicated stuff but why the Mayor cannot see it I do not know. Why aren't you in charge? [ blush ] The simple answer is that it is easy to come up with ideas and concepts. It is quite another to deliver them as I think Boris is learning. Ken, having been in London government before, understood he needed 8 years to get big rail projects moving but he also knew other things like buses could be done far faster. He also knew that he had to make a difference quickly but had the advantage that the Mayoralty was new when he won so he could, to some extent, mould things how he wished. I am not convinced Boris had an equivalent game plan given how many people he lost in those first six months of his first term. You can't afford to lose 12.5% of your electoral term to intertia. I've worked for TfL and I could "do" the internal politics (you had to as you move up the ranks) but I hated it. The further up you go the worse it gets. If you get to the top there is only way to go - down. There is always someone wanting to stab you in the back to supplant you. I couldn't hack all that. I've been involved in "secret" or controversial things several times and have some limited understanding how government works and I realise I simply couldn't hack it. Far too many compromises and nastiness in order to get things done. I've seen how consultants work with directors and government and all the bias and influence that comes to bear. All that comes with the Mayoralty too and I don't have the patience to deal with it. I think I might struggle to have an environmental policy, a fire policy, a police policy, a housing policy etc. Don't mistake transport knowledge for all round political and policy competence. I'll give Sir Peter Hendy his due - he is quite prepared to say unpalatable things to politicians and not to be pushed around. He says it how he sees it which is a refreshing change from abject sychophancy which is what usually happens when people appear in front of politicians. The politicians, of course, love being crawled to. Sir Peter also understands that the Mayor is ultimately in charge and while I am sure there are "robust" discussions with the Mayor and his advisors he knows that he and TfL are there to deliver what the Mayor wants. If the Mayor had a policy of painting all TfL owned bridges and flyovers bright pink I am sure that Sir Peter would make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Feb 16, 2014 23:58:50 GMT
Teething problems? Sounds a bit like the original Routemaster.
Some of you guys should come and live outside the city for a bit. I got the last bus home a few weeks ago at 23.00, it cost me £3.25 and it was a 21 year old Olympian. I would have nodded off it is wasn't for the banging suspension, smell of diesel and the squeaking brakes. Good old First Group.
I get buses in the city from time to time. Yes they're busy and sometimes delayed but they are regulated to a degree. I find it hilarious when people moan about having to wait for the next bus in 10 minutes, try an hourly service for size. Riding in an NBfL is like stepping up to a Rolls Royce compared with my local buses and don't forget that I pay largely the same taxes as Londoners. Yet, the NBfL still seems like a good use of public money to me. Even though one will never regularly serve a route within 70 miles of where I live.
Plus, and I've said this before, if only the same amount of artistic design had gone into the new Underground trains.
|
|