Sadiq Kahn cancels NB4L/New Routemaster contract with Wrightbus

[fowler9]

What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.

 

[Robertj21a]

Now, now.... let's not treat statistics selectively. Channel 4 fact checked the Boris claims (remember - the Standard was the most vociferous pro-Boris organ) and they reveal it's much more nuanced

The actual number of incidents is small in all cases, but there's still a pretty big difference between the two types of bus: pedestrians and cyclists are both more than twice as likely to get into trouble on a bendy bus route.

But this doesn't necessarily prove that the bendy bus is to blame. What about other factors, such as the roads the buses are using? Is it possible there are just more accidents on certain routes, regardless of the type of bus in operation?

Figures released in January to the London Assembly paint a more moderate picture than the overall totals to which Boris refers. This breakdown compared collisions on all 12 bendy bus routes to collisions on 15 selected non-bendy routes.

These selected routes tended to cover busy inner-city areas rather than the quieter suburbs. The number 41, for example, which goes from London Bridge, through Holborn, to Wood Green, or the number 8, which goes from Bow in the East End, along Oxford Street to Victoria.

It's not necessarily a scientific study, but it would seem to be a more accurate representation of the kind of routes bendy buses serve.

According to this breakdown, bendy bus routes threw up 5.6 collisions with pedestrians in 2006/07; non-bendy bus routes 5.17.

Collisions with cyclists were 2.62 on bendy buses; but 2.78 on non-bendy routes.

Damning evidence that bendy buses are, well, not much different from other buses?

"The incidents that take place are both random, to do with the road networks themselves, and to do with weather conditions," David Brown, TFL's head of surface transport, said when presenting the figures to the Assembly. "They are not related to the type of vehicle that is operated on those roads."

Overall, there were more bendy bus collisions - which could be to do with anything from a pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle to a lamppost, building, street sign or tree.

There were 153 per million miles, compared with 117 for non-bendy buses. But cyclists and people made up a small proportion of these. Luckily, it's far more likely to be an inanimate object that gets over friendly with the bus.

How do bendy buses score in contrast to accidents involving the old Routemaster?

Changes in routes mean that data isn't directly comparable, but according to other figures TFL gave FactCheck, between January 1994 and September 2007 there were 0.05 fatalities per million km operated by bendy buses and 0.08 fatalities per million km operated by Routemasters.

So, taken in isolation, Boris is right but when you put the figures in context, bendis were comparable in terms of accident rates with other vehicles.

As for the redeployment question.... at least some bendis were reused by provincial operators. Who knows the likely redeployment of NB4Ls in the provinces if any withdrawals were made?

Some ex-London bendy buses are still in use with provincial operators.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.

The wheelbase was, I believe, shorter than a 12m rigid.

 

[jon0844]

What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.

Bendy buses did go over the kerbs, and swing over onto pavements - but I'm willing to say that they were just used on the wrong routes.

The fact street furniture had to be moved in places, and that they caused chaos on some junctions (even if driver error) and problems at bus stops when there were 2 or 3 buses and a driver at the back wouldn't drive on, so you had to go after it (great for wheelchair/buggy users and the elderly etc, not).

Whatever the stats, I am sure buses clipping kerbs and potentially swiping at people walking along the road wasn't a good thing.

Plus the fare evasion issue, which I'm not even sure a conductor could actually do much about. Did they have powers to issue penalty fares?

 

[fredk]

What was it about the Bendys that made them apparently more prone to accidents? I really can't understand how they could be more dangerous. They are long but they bend so they wheelbase can't have been significantly longer.

The length of them and the fact they are articulated on the awkward and sometimes windy streets of London. Bendy buses work well on wide streets in cities built on a grid system, but in London they are a recipe for disaster.

 

[Deerfold]

And unlike the other "London rejected classes" they haven't exactly been snapped up by other UK operators either...

I've used bendy buses without incident in Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Manchester, Brighton, off the top of my head.

There wasn't a market for hundreds suddenly coming on the market over a very short time period.

There aren't many LHD models being offered at the moment or I suspect there would be more about.

To be fair the borismaster was meant to have an on board conductor to watch people board so this would have put people off fare dodging. However a conductor on bendy buses would probably have solved the fare dodging issue.

None of the Borisbuses had conductors - it didn't take long for people to realise that the staff on a Borisbus did not check tickets at all.

Plus the fare evasion issue, which I'm not even sure a conductor could actually do much about. Did they have powers to issue penalty fares?

The Passenger (or Customer) Assistants on bendy buses did not check tickets or check that people had touched in (if any did they were acting outside of their job description).

As such, they would not issue penalty fares.

 

[fredk]

I've used bendy buses without incident in Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York, Manchester, Brighton, off the top of my head.

There wasn't a market for hundreds suddenly coming on the market over a very short time period.

There aren't many LHD models being offered at the moment or I suspect there would be more about.




None of the Borisbuses had conductors - it didn't take long for people to realise that the staff on a Borisbus did not check tickets at all.




The Passenger (or Customer) Assistants on bendy buses did not check tickets or check that people had touched in (if any did they were acting outside of their job description).

As such, they would not issue penalty fares.

I believe the passenger service assistant on the New Routemaster would put people off using the rear door to fare dodge. They did used to watch people as they entered so would see if you had touched in or not. If you didn't I doubt they would ignore it.

I don't remember bendy buses ever having Assistants/conductors, but I did state that I think if they had been implemented then the fare dodging would be reduced.

 

[Deerfold]

I believe the passenger service assistant on the New Routemaster would put people off using the rear door to fare dodge. They did used to watch people as they entered so would see if you had touched in or not. If you didn't I doubt they would ignore it.

I don't remember bendy buses ever having Assistants/conductors, but I did state that I think if they had been implemented then the fare dodging would be reduced.

I regularly caught Borisbuses without any visible indication that I had a ticket. I was never asked by the staff to show it or tap in. They certainly weren't checking people boarding at the middle door.

 

[mbonwick]

Long standing contracting policy of Tfl, buses over 5 years not to be submitted for use on new tender apart from some heritage services. Leads to the average of London bus fleet being 6 (up on pre NB4L days) compared with around 8 excluding London and operators having to cascade buses too old for London to the regions reducing demand for new.

Completely wrong.

Maximum age that TfL specify is two contract cycles, so anything up to 14 years old (two rounds of a 5 year term with 2 year extension).

Of course there is a bit of leeway in that, and also a loophole if vehicles are replaced midway through a contract.

 

[Busaholic]

I believe the passenger service assistant on the New Routemaster would put people off using the rear door to fare dodge. They did used to watch people as they entered so would see if you had touched in or not. If you didn't I doubt they would ignore it.

.

I used to board at the rear door and never touch in! Before outrage is expressed I had a ENCTS pass which is not 'read' by the machines TfL provide, and I had it on good authority that, despite any notices displayed on the bus, I need not be discriminated against by having to present it to the driver for checking i.e. the same situation pertains as when the 'bendies' were operating, and still does on the 507 and 521. By 'good authority' I mean at the highest level.

 

[plcd1]

A few comments on the general theme.

1. It is clear that buses can run for up to two full 5+2 year contract terms giving a maximum London service life of 14 years. My local route will most likely have the oldest buses in London (barring the Heritage RMs) on it by the time it is retendered in 2019.

2. The new Mayoral regime said very early on that NB4Ls would not be withdrawn from service. They are expected to remain in service up to a 14 year life.

3. I expect to see some level of cascade of NB4Ls out of Central London to some outer area routes when they're about 7 years old. They'd get a refurb at this point. This depends on whether TfL have found a viable clean technology that can run in Zone 1 and be shown to be better than a euro6 hybrid. So electric or hydrogen double deckers but at what cost and who buys them?

4. It is looking more and more likely that the upcoming Central London route restructuring could release large numbers of NB4Ls (15 off route 73 for example). This means that the conversion programme doesn't end when 1,000 new buses have turned up later this year.

5. At a recent local "open day" event a "senior TfL person" said TfL were still looking at the options for electric / virtual electric recharging. This is seen as the main weakness for zero emission vehicles. TfL are also considering how fuel cell and hybrid technologies could work side by side as well as rapid recharging - hence the upcoming "pantograph roof recharging" trial of Volvo technology. They wouldn't reveal the route but I suspect it will be the restructured 139 which will run Waterloo - Golders Green (TfL property at each end).

6. There is not money in the budget to lay off vast numbers of NB4Ls. The subsidy is going to increase to over £600m year and even that is dependent on huge patronage gains. The whole basis of this looks dodgy to me and recent responses from TfL people to the Assembly T'port Cttee don't fill me with much confidence. The annual kilometrage is also capped for 5 years so it's "rob Peter to pay Paul" time again in terms of service expansion.

7. At the same T'port Cttee Leon Daniels said bendy buses were not coming back. He shared a remark that he had said to Boris, before he left office, that if he won again in 2020 (dear God NO!) he could withdraw bendies a second time. Mr D did say that TfL were looking at vehicle designs for some routes with "capacity challenges". This may mean longer, higher capacity double deckers.

People know my views on NB4Ls. I am due to get two local routes lumbered with the things by this Summer. My abiding fear is that TfL cascade the heaps to the double deck route I use the most. That would stop me travelling entirely by bus for most of my local trips. :-x

 

[Mikey C]

As TfL own the Borismasters, then there might be more scope for some sort of rebuild to newer technology, midlife? 1000 buses would be a decent number of vehicles to spread the development cost over.

Either way, I don't mind them but can't see them operating outside of central London, as the extra length, door and staircase is only justified (if at all) on busy Central London routes.

 

[Deerfold]

Either way, I don't mind them but can't see them operating outside of central London, as the extra length, door and staircase is only justified (if at all) on busy Central London routes.

However, they have lower capacity compared with other similar buses, so would perhaps be better on less busy routes.

 

[the101]

Either way, I don't mind them but can't see them operating outside of central London, as the extra length, door and staircase is only justified (if at all) on busy Central London routes.

But... it was confirmed some time ago by TfL that some will be going onto the EL routes in Barking.

:?

 

[fowler9]

Bendy buses did go over the kerbs, and swing over onto pavements - but I'm willing to say that they were just used on the wrong routes.

The fact street furniture had to be moved in places, and that they caused chaos on some junctions (even if driver error) and problems at bus stops when there were 2 or 3 buses and a driver at the back wouldn't drive on, so you had to go after it (great for wheelchair/buggy users and the elderly etc, not).

Whatever the stats, I am sure buses clipping kerbs and potentially swiping at people walking along the road wasn't a good thing.

Plus the fare evasion issue, which I'm not even sure a conductor could actually do much about. Did they have powers to issue penalty fares?

I get you but when as the chap above said the wheelbase may well have been shorter than a 12m rigid why were they clipping curbs more? Not arguing by the way, just trying to understand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The length of them and the fact they are articulated on the awkward and sometimes windy streets of London. Bendy buses work well on wide streets in cities built on a grid system, but in London they are a recipe for disaster.

I still don't get why the length of them makes them dangerous. Also re the articulation, it is not to far from the centre so surely the rear end pretty much follows the line of the front end unlike an articulated lorry. Again I am just asking out of ignorance to be honest, not saying you are wrong.

 

[carlberry]

I get you but when as the chap above said the wheelbase may well have been shorter than a 12m rigid why were they clipping curbs more? Not arguing by the way, just trying to understand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I still don't get why the length of them makes them dangerous. Also re the articulation, it is not to far from the centre so surely the rear end pretty much follows the line of the front end unlike an articulated lorry. Again I am just asking out of ignorance to be honest, not saying you are wrong.

Basically people didn't like them because they were different! When Boris realised he could get some kudos by whipping up negative PR around them then they didn’t stand a chance. The Borismaster can be more difficult to get round corners (again down to the skill of the driver) and one of the suggestions above is that longer double deckers will be needed on some routes which, again, gives a longer wheelbase to manoeuvre.

 

[fowler9]

Basically people didn't like them because they were different! When Boris realised he could get some kudos by whipping up negative PR around them then they didn’t stand a chance. The Borismaster can be more difficult to get round corners (again down to the skill of the driver) and one of the suggestions above is that longer double deckers will be needed on some routes which, again, gives a longer wheelbase to manoeuvre.

This was my thinking, I am struggling to find figures but just looking at the thing a Borrismaster must have a longer wheelbase than a bendy. If so how were the bendys causing more accidents, clipping more curbs etc.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The length of them and the fact they are articulated on the awkward and sometimes windy streets of London. Bendy buses work well on wide streets in cities built on a grid system, but in London they are a recipe for disaster.

There are many European cities not built on a grid system that employ bendis

 

[jon0844]

I get you but when as the chap above said the wheelbase may well have been shorter than a 12m rigid why were they clipping curbs more? Not arguing by the way, just trying to understand.

I think other things on the road and perhaps even bad positioning by the driver (just like when they often jumped lights and blocked an entire junction given their length) caused the issues in my experience.

But we know London roads are never going to be perfect. Dodgy parking by a taxi or van making a delivery can result in a bus causing problems even if it isn't actually the fault of the bus. Still no consolation when it hits a kerb or even swings over a pavement (of which normal buses can and do too).

 

[Robertj21a]

I get you but when as the chap above said the wheelbase may well have been shorter than a 12m rigid why were they clipping curbs more? Not arguing by the way, just trying to understand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I still don't get why the length of them makes them dangerous. Also re the articulation, it is not to far from the centre so surely the rear end pretty much follows the line of the front end unlike an articulated lorry. Again I am just asking out of ignorance to be honest, not saying you are wrong.

Can you just remind me where the 'clipping kerbs' comment has come from ? - it's not something I recall.

 

[WatcherZero]

This was my thinking, I am struggling to find figures but just looking at the thing a Borrismaster must have a longer wheelbase than a bendy. If so how were the bendys causing more accidents, clipping more curbs etc.

Because the rear section tended to understeer in corners, swinging out further than the front section before correcting. People were often caught unawares by this not expecting to be caught when they had made sure to be clear of the first section. You see the same thing with cars towing caravans. The rear section of an articulated vehicle is also much more vulnerable to wind pushing it out during the corner creating lateral movement (road slip) against the drivers steering of the front section.

 

[Robertj21a]

Because the rear section tended to understeer in corners, swinging out further than the front section before correcting. People were often caught unawares by this not expecting to be caught when they had made sure to be clear of the first section. You see the same thing with cars towing caravans. The rear section of an articulated vehicle is also much more vulnerable to wind pushing it out during the corner creating lateral movement (road slip) against the drivers steering of the front section.

I'd be surprised if wind pushed the rear section of a bendy bus out given that it's only a short length - and has a weighty engine in it too.

 

[fredk]

As someone who cycles in London I am very happy to see the end of bendy buses. It doesn't matter how long a rigid bus is, it's very easy to see how it will manoeuvre. With a bendy bus you have to consider where the rear section is. Now this is fine on a straight section of road - but interacting with these buses as a vulnerable road user is harder and therefore more dangerous, in the same way interacting with an articulated lorry is.

 

[the101]

Because the rear section tended to understeer in corners, swinging out further than the front section before correcting. People were often caught unawares by this not expecting to be caught when they had made sure to be clear of the first section. You see the same thing with cars towing caravans. The rear section of an articulated vehicle is also much more vulnerable to wind pushing it out during the corner creating lateral movement (road slip) against the drivers steering of the front section.

hock: hock: hock:

I can hardly believe what I am reading, even by the usual opinion-presented-as-fact standards on here.

The cut in (not 'oversteer') of the rear section of a bendy bus is little more than that experienced by axke 2, as is obvious from looking at the positions of axles 2 and 3 relevant to the pivot point.

As for the kind of winds experienced in London being strong enough to push sideways a heavy piece of bus that has four sturdy tyres on the tarmac, the mind boggles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With a bendy bus you have to consider where the rear section is. Now this is fine on a straight section of road - but interacting with these buses as a vulnerable road user is harder and therefore more dangerous, in the same way interacting with an articulated lorry is.

I would respectfully suggest that the rear section is going to follow the front piece, given that they are connected together?

 

[daikilo]

:
I would respectfully suggest that the rear section is going to follow the front piece, given that they are connected together?

Well, yes, but the actual track of the rear wheels will depend upon the relative position of the pivot point to the axles 2 and 3; it is usually about 1/3 : 2/3. This means that in say a left turn the rear wheels will track closer to the pavement which can be an issue with a cycle lane. Conversely, in such a turn the outer rear-overhang may well also track closer to the pavement reducing the risk of contact with traffic bollards or oncoming vehicles. Its rather like towing a caravan except that the engine is at the back of the caravan and pushing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but it's reasonably predictable. As a cyclist the only issue I had was that they were longer and therefore you were alongside one[1] (and so at risk) for longer. Their movement is no more or less predictable than a rigid vehicle (15m rigids in London anyone? )

[1] My preferred approach when driving or riding any vehicle is to avoid being fully alongside, and therefore in the blind spot of, any large vehicle of any kind. Not always possible, but harder with a longer vehicle.

 

[daikilo]

Neil, there are a fair number of 14.7/15m tri-axle coaches in London ... and the rotation point is the second axle (the third axle steers in the opposite direction to the front axle) meaning the effective overhang is impressive.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I haven't been on here for a while so this post comes late in the argument... to get back to the original subject of the thread...

Sadiq Khan has NOT cancelled the contract with Wrights for the NBFL... the contract was for TfL to guaruntee to take the first 1000 vehicles which it will still be doing... HOWEVER there was no onus on TfL to take any more.

I'd also like to point out to the NBFL neigh sayers that point to it being a failure because no other operator has taken any.... under the terms of the same contract Wrights were unable to sell any to any other operator until TfL has taken it's 1000th vehicle as TfL has the exclusive rights on the 1st 1000 vehicles.

While I don't know the ins and outs of the reliability problems of the NBFL could it be anything to do with the fact that when it was designed hybrid technology, whilst maybe not in it's infancy, could have been deemed to be in it's toddler-hood? In many ways it was still experimental technology and the newer... more reliable systems... now in production can be seen as being a direct result of the lessons learned from the intensive use in normal service by the NBFL?

 

[carlberry]

I haven't been on here for a while so this post comes late in the argument... to get back to the original subject of the thread...

Sadiq Khan has NOT cancelled the contract with Wrights for the NBFL... the contract was for TfL to guaruntee to take the first 1000 vehicles which it will still be doing... HOWEVER there was no onus on TfL to take any more.

I'd also like to point out to the NBFL neigh sayers that point to it being a failure because no other operator has taken any.... under the terms of the same contract Wrights were unable to sell any to any other operator until TfL has taken it's 1000th vehicle as TfL has the exclusive rights on the 1st 1000 vehicles.

While I don't know the ins and outs of the reliability problems of the NBFL could it be anything to do with the fact that when it was designed hybrid technology, whilst maybe not in it's infancy, could have been deemed to be in it's toddler-hood? In many ways it was still experimental technology and the newer... more reliable systems... now in production can be seen as being a direct result of the lessons learned from the intensive use in normal service by the NBFL?

As I understood it 1000 was the point at which TfL got exclusive rights over the design and until that point Wrights could sell it elsewhere. However why anybody wants to fight over the design of a bus with too many doors and too many staircases is a bit of a mystery to me!
The Boris hybrid design (like the original Routemaster) was overtaken in the time between the prototypes and the production run.

 

[Dent]

I'd also like to point out to the NBFL neigh sayers that point to it being a failure because no other operator has taken any.... under the terms of the same contract Wrights were unable to sell any to any other operator until TfL has taken it's 1000th vehicle as TfL has the exclusive rights on the 1st 1000 vehicles.

Do you know of any operators who have even submitted orders for NBFLs?

I would expect TfL to jump at the chance to sell the exclusive rights that they do not need - and indeed sell the buses that they have ordered and don't need - if anyone was willing to buy them. Do you know of any operators who have made an offer to TfL for the rights or buses?

In many ways it was still experimental technology and the newer... more reliable systems... now in production can be seen as being a direct result of the lessons learned from the intensive use in normal service by the NBFL?

Other hybrid buses were already in intensive use before the NBfL, so no they are not a result of the NBfL.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Do you know of any operators who have even submitted orders for NBFLs?

In all honesty... no... but there has been a recent move towards vehicles that certainly LOOK like NBFL clones

Other hybrid buses were already in intensive use before the NBfL, so no they are not a result of the NBfL.

I would have to disagree with that statement... when NBFL was conceived hybrid buses, in this country at least, were still in the highly experimental phase... yes there were intensive trials but no intensive FLEETWIDE operation.

Indeed, if you accept the widely accepted conception that London is uniquely the most demanding environment for bus operation in this country, if not Europe, then surely the fleetwide introduction of hybrids to London was the ultimate test of the technology?

To say that the NBFL is an unmitigated disaster operationally is a total fallacy.... surely if they WERE that much more unreliable than straight diesels (or come to that alternative hybrid vehicles) then surely TfL as the commissioning client would be pursuing Wrights through the courts for breach of contract or some other reason?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...why anybody wants to fight over the design of a bus with too many doors and too many staircases is a bit of a mystery to me!

I would agree that it has too many doors.... but disagree that it has too many staircases... surely a double deck bus with a door and staircase at each end of the vehicle is the most efficient design for loading and unloading simultaneously which happens in London much more frequently than other towns and cities in this country?

The Boris hybrid design (like the original Routemaster) was overtaken in the time between the prototypes and the production run.

I think that is what I was basically saying, but more succintly! Like the original RM the NBFL was overtaken by developments in design.