|
Post by Volvo on Feb 17, 2014 0:30:33 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. sounds sh88 ! , at snowman, the last time I remember the B5LH being the most reliable hybrid with 97%
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 17, 2014 0:48:16 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. To be fair, First Group are shoddy outside London for maintenance in many places. Your 2nd paragraph at the end just beggars belief - how can something seem a good use of money when you are never going to have one serve your area. It's of little benefit to us Londoners and it's no benefit to anyone outside of London so that is hardly a good use of money. As for artistic design, it's extremely debatable that the NBfL meets this. The newest Underground trains meet that criteria far more than the NBfL and they have a brilliant feature - the ability to walk through the entire train which in itself enhances capacity and which is something the NBfL lacks - it doesn't even meet the required minimum capacity figure for London buses.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Feb 17, 2014 7:31:28 GMT
I know we've swayed a bit off topic, but you'll note the suggestion about countdowns was picked up straight away by Andrew Adonis this morning. He is "immersing" himself in London buses for the week as part of his brief as Shadow Infrastructure Minister and attempted to board a bus at a stop with six routes but no countdown. Worth following his twitter account this week.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 17, 2014 10:18:17 GMT
I know we've swayed a bit off topic, but you'll note the suggestion about countdowns was picked up straight away by Andrew Adonis this morning. He is "immersing" himself in London buses for the week as part of his brief as Shadow Infrastructure Minister and attempted to board a bus at a stop with six routes but no countdown. Worth following his twitter account this week. So I see. I get the distinct impression from his tweets that Lord Adonis hasn't been on a bus in years. He also seems to focussing far too much on how many vehicles he is seeing as if this is somehow "wrong". He risks creating the impression that lots of empty buses are lying around London doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Feb 17, 2014 18:45:50 GMT
I know we've swayed a bit off topic, but you'll note the suggestion about countdowns was picked up straight away by Andrew Adonis this morning. He is "immersing" himself in London buses for the week as part of his brief as Shadow Infrastructure Minister and attempted to board a bus at a stop with six routes but no countdown. Worth following his twitter account this week. So I see. I get the distinct impression from his tweets that Lord Adonis hasn't been on a bus in years. He also seems to focussing far too much on how many vehicles he is seeing as if this is somehow "wrong". He risks creating the impression that lots of empty buses are lying around London doing nothing. In my view, he has always been rather dramatic and the master of the grand gesture. He likes to analyse scenarios in a very poetic fashion and has an eye for the grand scheme to rectify perceived ills. Very Victorian...
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Feb 21, 2014 8:35:43 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. To be fair, First Group are shoddy outside London for maintenance in many places. Your 2nd paragraph at the end just beggars belief - how can something seem a good use of money when you are never going to have one serve your area. It's of little benefit to us Londoners and it's no benefit to anyone outside of London so that is hardly a good use of money. As for artistic design, it's extremely debatable that the NBfL meets this. The newest Underground trains meet that criteria far more than the NBfL and they have a brilliant feature - the ability to walk through the entire train which in itself enhances capacity and which is something the NBfL lacks - it doesn't even meet the required minimum capacity figure for London buses. So you're suggesting that every penny of tax you pay should go into services and benefits that directly effect or benefit you? I have no interest in the Olympics and couldn't care whether we hosted them. I contributed to them financially, we all did, but what did I get out of them? Nothing. That doesn't mean it was a bad idea and I certainly didn't take to Olympics Forums to moan about the event being a waste of money. For a site that is for enthusiasts of the London Bus Scene, I find it incredible that so many people object to something that looks and is individual. I've never heard of bus fans giving a hoot about the cost of a bus before the LT came along, so I can only assume that politics are getting in the way of a hobby here. If I was a bus spotter I'd be delighted that I had something other than generic mass-produced boxes to look out for. " I remember a bus fair in London back in the mid 80's. I was looking for a present for a mate who was a huge fan of London Buses. "What's he into?" asked the bloke at the stall. "Titans, Metrobuses" I said. "Poor boy, I think medications probably the best thing for him" he responded. Nowadays some enthusiasts seem to embrace the bland.
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Feb 21, 2014 13:15:47 GMT
To be fair, First Group are shoddy outside London for maintenance in many places. Your 2nd paragraph at the end just beggars belief - how can something seem a good use of money when you are never going to have one serve your area. It's of little benefit to us Londoners and it's no benefit to anyone outside of London so that is hardly a good use of money. As for artistic design, it's extremely debatable that the NBfL meets this. The newest Underground trains meet that criteria far more than the NBfL and they have a brilliant feature - the ability to walk through the entire train which in itself enhances capacity and which is something the NBfL lacks - it doesn't even meet the required minimum capacity figure for London buses. So you're suggesting that every penny of tax you pay should go into services and benefits that directly effect or benefit you? I have no interest in the Olympics and couldn't care whether we hosted them. I contributed to them financially, we all did, but what did I get out of them? Nothing. That doesn't mean it was a bad idea and I certainly didn't take to Olympics Forums to moan about the event being a waste of money. For a site that is for enthusiasts of the London Bus Scene, I find it incredible that so many people object to something that looks and is individual. I've never heard of bus fans giving a hoot about the cost of a bus before the LT came along, so I can only assume that politics are getting in the way of a hobby here. If I was a bus spotter I'd be delighted that I had something other than generic mass-produced boxes to look out for. " I remember a bus fair in London back in the mid 80's. I was looking for a present for a mate who was a huge fan of London Buses. "What's he into?" asked the bloke at the stall. "Titans, Metrobuses" I said. "Poor boy, I think medications probably the best thing for him" he responded. Nowadays some enthusiasts seem to embrace the bland. But the thing is that the money used for the NB4L could have been invested on better stuff which would have a better and long-term effect on Londoners. Although I like the look of the NB4L, I still think its a waste of money. IMO, the NB4Ls were just launched as a shock factor to entertain tourists and us Londoners and for us all to like them. There's nothing really special about them other than it has three doors and two staircases. Londoners are not bothered about NB4Ls, they want something beneficial eg. Things to do with better Transport Links, Housing etc. £354,000 is a lot of money and pretty wasteful eg. LT62 which entered service the first day. The second day, it was involved in an accident and has now been withdrawn. That is a waste of money. Also, the fact that 608 of them have been ordered is outrageous and people are basically paying for it via their tax. Not everybody wants to pay for it either, some people don't even use buses!
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Feb 21, 2014 13:54:02 GMT
LT62's misfortune could happen to any vehicle on the road. The loss will be either recoverable under the contract with Wrightbus if it was caused by a defect or under the owner's insurance policy. Unless TfL have decided to lodge a bond with the treasury and self-insured the fleet (though a risk, it is usually benefitial if you have a small loss ratio) then I fail to see how that accident is prime facie evidence that the bus is a waste of money.
Tower Bridge was built for "shock" value at significantly higher cost than a standard bridge. That's what happens in cities that want to attract tourists and it's certainly something that London is good at.
If you want to assess public spending in this country and where our tax pounds go, start on the serious wastes of money and holes in our accounts like corporate tax avoidance (estimated at £95bn per year), The Trident Missile overspend (est at £50bn), Costs to date for dormant PFI projects (estimated at £52bn by Private Eye last year), Cancelled government IT contracts (circa £26bn in the last 10 years) or even the £3m claimed in legal aid by politicians defending actions in the expenses scandal. Let's start a debate elsewhere on this forum about how our money could be better spent. In the meantime, perhaps we could stop using the NBfL as a political point or an example of why this country is going to the dogs.
I've got no problem with people not liking them asthetically or from a bus user point of view, that's opinion and we're all entitled to it but it feels like a few too many have fallen for the anti-NBfL spin in the press and having on to it being the very reason for failings elsewhere in the capital.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 14:02:13 GMT
But the thing is that the money used for the NB4L could have been invested on better stuff which would have a better and long-term effect on Londoners. Although I like the look of the NB4L, I still think its a waste of money. IMO, the NB4Ls were just launched as a shock factor to entertain tourists and us Londoners and for us all to like them. There's nothing really special about them other than it has three doors and two staircases. Londoners are not bothered about NB4Ls, they want something beneficial eg. Things to do with better Transport Links, Housing etc. £354,000 is a lot of money and pretty wasteful eg. LT62 which entered service the first day. The second day, it was involved in an accident and has now been withdrawn. That is a waste of money. Also, the fact that 608 of them have been ordered is outrageous and people are basically paying for it via their tax. Not everybody wants to pay for it either, some people don't even use buses! I asked TFL why they ordered the NBFL's but not the operators themselves, this is their answer But left, right or center the tax money is still being paid for new buses from Green Fund to contracts for the private operators. TFL have done it in a different way where the buses are only allocated to the routes. But the private operators can simply order the new buses themselves and then allocate them to the routes where the old buses operate and sell the old buses to a dealer to sell them on to operators around Britain. But another benefit for commuters is fast boarding so they don't have to wait so long for the queue to get onto the front door to tap in, so they can use the other doors as its an open boarding with honour system. Plus on certain routes they can use the open platform because of the 2nd crew member is present at the rear of the bus. So I don't see any large outrage over the tax money wasted on New Routemasters, If I seen any, there would have been Facebook page and various campaign groups over it. Most of the critics come from the Assembly Members themselves. All politicians screw up people and waste money on stuff which does not interest people. But recently I seen people moaning that they can't hop on and off between stops because the back door is closed between stops and no conductor is there on the route 148. But TFL promotes it as a three doored bus. But the cuts are affecting the TFL system and TFL needs to get rid of the old and bring in with the new to invest on. But overall there are positive comments towards the bus including people worldwide as three LT's are on world tour. Even the First Group gains interest with the bus because they have alternative solution for the trolleybus system in Leeds. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Feb 21, 2014 14:29:18 GMT
But the thing is that the money used for the NB4L could have been invested on better stuff which would have a better and long-term effect on Londoners. Although I like the look of the NB4L, I still think its a waste of money. IMO, the NB4Ls were just launched as a shock factor to entertain tourists and us Londoners and for us all to like them. There's nothing really special about them other than it has three doors and two staircases. Londoners are not bothered about NB4Ls, they want something beneficial eg. Things to do with better Transport Links, Housing etc. £354,000 is a lot of money and pretty wasteful eg. LT62 which entered service the first day. The second day, it was involved in an accident and has now been withdrawn. That is a waste of money. Also, the fact that 608 of them have been ordered is outrageous and people are basically paying for it via their tax. Not everybody wants to pay for it either, some people don't even use buses! I asked TFL why they ordered the NBFL's but not the operators themselves, this is their answer But left, right or center the tax money is still being paid for new buses from Green Fund to contracts for the private operators. TFL have done it in a different way where the buses are only allocated to the routes. But the private operators can simply order the new buses themselves and then allocate them to the routes where the old buses operate and sell the old buses to a dealer to sell them on to operators around Britain. But another benefit for commuters is fast boarding so they don't have to wait so long for the queue to get onto the front door to tap in, so they can use the other doors as its an open boarding with honour system. Plus on certain routes they can use the open platform because of the 2nd crew member is present at the rear of the bus. So I don't see any large outrage over the tax money wasted on New Routemasters, If I seen any, there would have been Facebook page and various campaign groups over it. Most of the critics come from the Assembly Members themselves. All politicians screw up people and waste money on stuff which does not interest people. But recently I seen people moaning that they can't hop on and off between stops because the back door is closed between stops and no conductor is there on the route 148. But TFL promotes it as a three doored bus. But the cuts are affecting the TFL system and TFL needs to get rid of the old and bring in with the new to invest on. But overall there are positive comments towards the bus including people worldwide as three LT's are on world tour. Even the First Group gains interest with the bus because they have alternative solution for the trolleybus system in Leeds. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And where did I say everyone isn't entitled to their opinion? As most of the routes being converted to NB4L with OPO, this would increase the risk of Fare Evasion so TFL could lose money on that part. I do agree that new stuff should be bought and the old sent out but its much better if the money is spent on more beneficial buses which there would be good capacity rather than this. The old routemasters which were used in the last decade were much better compared to this one which has been made.
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Feb 21, 2014 15:44:48 GMT
The old Routemasters aren't better in terms of swallowing-up passengers at stops (one staircase/one entrance) or indeed for passenger comfort (open entrance no matter what the weather) and certainly not for passengers with disabilities. The old Routemaster is better in terms of asthetic design and for simplicity in terms of maintenance. But that's about it.
FreeBBC makes a really good point that, even without a "conductor" the NBfL is better than standard London buses because boarding times are significantly reduced thanks to the three doors. Of course you lose seats due to the 2nd staircase but overall it should reduce dwell times at stops. I'm sure most passengers would rather get to where they are going on time and stand, than have to wait longer for a bus with a few extra seats.
3 doors may increase fare evasion but with cameras trained on the Oyster pads TfL have the tools to do something about this if they wish.
Mentioning the price of £354,000 is somewhat misleading. I understand that the average cost of a high spec double decker (bonded windows, power blinds, full CCTV - therefore compariable with the LT albeit with one less door) is £330,000. The oft-mentioned alternative to LTs, a tri-axle ADL E400, is (again according to an insurance industry source) around the £350,000 mark.
So bearing in mind that every LT is basically a new bus on the network that would have been purchased in one form or another the "waste" is essentially no more than £24,000 - £30,000 per bus. But, as the press knows, that more truthful amount is less eyecatching, doesn't make for a good story and doesn't provoke as much anger.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 21, 2014 19:21:58 GMT
The old Routemasters aren't better in terms of swallowing-up passengers at stops (one staircase/one entrance) or indeed for passenger comfort (open entrance no matter what the weather) and certainly not for passengers with disabilities. The old Routemaster is better in terms of asthetic design and for simplicity in terms of maintenance. But that's about it. FreeBBC makes a really good point that, even without a "conductor" the NBfL is better than standard London buses because boarding times are significantly reduced thanks to the three doors. Of course you lose seats due to the 2nd staircase but overall it should reduce dwell times at stops. I'm sure most passengers would rather get to where they are going on time and stand, than have to wait longer for a bus with a few extra seats. 3 doors may increase fare evasion but with cameras trained on the Oyster pads TfL have the tools to do something about this if they wish. Mentioning the price of £354,000 is somewhat misleading. I understand that the average cost of a high spec double decker (bonded windows, power blinds, full CCTV - therefore compariable with the LT albeit with one less door) is £330,000. The oft-mentioned alternative to LTs, a tri-axle ADL E400, is (again according to an insurance industry source) around the £350,000 mark. So bearing in mind that every LT is basically a new bus on the network that would have been purchased in one form or another the "waste" is essentially no more than £24,000 - £30,000 per bus. But, as the press knows, that more truthful amount is less eyecatching, doesn't make for a good story and doesn't provoke as much anger. Goodness me what an interesting set of views. Old Routemasters not very good in terms of dwell times. I remember debates elsewhere where people argued that nothing could beat a Routemaster for its dwell times! The Nb4L better than conventional buses for dwell times. Let's be honest here - that is simply an unscientific opinion. Has anyone seen any official data? Have TfL even evaluated the dwell time performance? I remember debates elsewhere were people argued that the bendy buses had worse dwell times, for similar loadings, than Routemasters *and* OPO doored double deckers. We're now supposed to accept NB4Ls are better with no evidence whatsoever? Please note I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you - merely pointing about there is an opinion at every point on the spectrum of debate but a palpable lack of evidence to *prove* how each type of vehicle actually performs under comparable circumstances. The price is not misleading. It is one of the few things in the public domain which tells us something about the cost of running the NB4L. We have no idea yet what the staff costs are, what the maintenance costs are, how reliable the vehicles are, what the repair costs for accidental damage are, what spare parts cost, what the fuel performance is like and what risks there are on the project risk register and who bears those risks. I would very strongly argue that no one can make a reasonable view *at this time* of the whole life costs of the NB4L. This is true of some other vehicle designs like the BYD electrics but I would say that people must have a reasonable view of the Volvo hybrid double deckers and much of the Alexander Dennis product range. Volvo B7s / Dennis Tridents must be a fully understood vehicle in terms of costs. Therefore to take your point you may wish to dismiss the purchase cost differences in relation to the NB4L but I'd very strongly argue that the real issue is whole life cost plus risk and we simply do not know very much about any of this. I'd also contend that we may never know unless someone is very, very dogged in pursuing TfL for all of the relevant data. I note, for example, that a bash into a bollard by Metroline's LT35 has resulted in it being out of use for roundly 7 months. I know some repairs can take time but that length of time suggests the design is unduly vulnerable to accidental damage. That doesn't bode well for any other NB4Ls that become damaged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 19:41:13 GMT
The old Routemasters aren't better in terms of swallowing-up passengers at stops (one staircase/one entrance) or indeed for passenger comfort (open entrance no matter what the weather) and certainly not for passengers with disabilities. The old Routemaster is better in terms of asthetic design and for simplicity in terms of maintenance. But that's about it. FreeBBC makes a really good point that, even without a "conductor" the NBfL is better than standard London buses because boarding times are significantly reduced thanks to the three doors. Of course you lose seats due to the 2nd staircase but overall it should reduce dwell times at stops. I'm sure most passengers would rather get to where they are going on time and stand, than have to wait longer for a bus with a few extra seats. 3 doors may increase fare evasion but with cameras trained on the Oyster pads TfL have the tools to do something about this if they wish. Mentioning the price of £354,000 is somewhat misleading. I understand that the average cost of a high spec double decker (bonded windows, power blinds, full CCTV - therefore compariable with the LT albeit with one less door) is £330,000. The oft-mentioned alternative to LTs, a tri-axle ADL E400, is (again according to an insurance industry source) around the £350,000 mark. So bearing in mind that every LT is basically a new bus on the network that would have been purchased in one form or another the "waste" is essentially no more than £24,000 - £30,000 per bus. But, as the press knows, that more truthful amount is less eyecatching, doesn't make for a good story and doesn't provoke as much anger. I remember from a YouTube video (early 60's or 70's?) where a Routemaster conductor helped the blind gentleman into the bus. But the boarding times with the RM would be equivalent to today's boarding because of the Oyster card system and the middle exit doors. But since when the conductor trialed on the route 55 a decade ago with the ALX400 Tridents many people would use it as a normal bus beside there are signs next to the blind set telling them not to pay the driver and the conductor is on board. But the Oyster card system made the conductor obsolete. But remember, you save by getting rid of old things but it cost more to bring it back. Well in regards with fare evasion I have noted this a long while ago on another thread. tangytango.proboards.com/post/222535/threadI be very much doubt the open boarding would be much of an issue. But if a two doored NBFL gets released, it would have a massive reduction of weight because of the rear staircase and rear door. But there would be more seating as well. All what the designers need to do is re arrange the chassis, simple. But what else for TFL to buy? I disagree with some projects like the cable car (dangleway as what critics call it), but there are sure lot of major things like the HS2, 3rd runway for Heathrow and the proposed Thames Estuary airport. I have certainly seen lot of political anger over the proposals direct democracy can just solve the problem as it works in Switzerland.
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Feb 21, 2014 22:55:27 GMT
Surely the more doors you have, the shorter the dwell time? Simple physics.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Feb 22, 2014 1:38:59 GMT
Bring back the bendy bus because yes there was fare evasion but it has 3 doors and had a great passenger capacity.
|
|