More Borismaster Discussion

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think the numbers are 1bn bus journeys in Paris versus 2.4bn in London. Rome is far smaller than London, and most Italian cities seem to have straight, wide roads (where buses go down) and narrow streets (where they don't)

Maybe the question could be turned around, why don't European cities use double deckers? Maybe they have too many low bridges?

Perhaps the question is why you keep moving the goalposts? First of all, it was comparable European cities, then ones of the same size, and now it's about number of passenger journeys.

However, to echo one of the above posters....have you actually visited these places?

Firstly, most Italian cities DON'T have straight wide roads. They weren't heavily bombed in the war so haven't been heavily rebuilt and don't have massive wide boulevards. Even a cursory glance at Google Maps tells you places like Rome and Milan don't have that type of central road network but an archaic one. If you travel to Paris, you will see bendi's cheerfully making their way through busy streets.

Most European cities have fewer low bridges and overhead obstructions. They still need to get commercial vehicles into the centre so that's not a consideration.

Lastly, the difference in passenger ridership between Paris and London is probably an argument for higher capacity vehicles not smaller ones.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, bridges tend to be lower.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The national limit is lower (hence why endless Lodekkas and VRs are lowered to comply with C&U regs) but IME, the number of overhead obstructions is considerably fewer in the major European cities.

The reason why deckers tend to appear in Asian cities such as Hong Kong or Singapore is more to do with historical reasons. Senior managers in those businesses tended to hail from the colonial mother country and so deckers were more prevalent. Indeed, there has been a long history of vehicles being exported from the UK for service there throughout the 1950s up until the 1980s

 

[ag51ruk]

Hong Kong and Singapore to mention two. Most cities in mainland China have been heavily rebuilt with long straight roads, most unlike those of London

While Singapore does have a lot of double-deck buses (a colonial legacy, like Hong Kong), there are also a large number of articulated buses operated by SMRT (over 300).

Artics are also used widely across North America and Australia

 

[Robertj21a]

I think the numbers are 1bn bus journeys in Paris versus 2.4bn in London. Rome is far smaller than London, and most Italian cities seem to have straight, wide roads (where buses go down) and narrow streets (where they don't)

Maybe the question could be turned around, why don't European cities use double deckers? Maybe they have too many low bridges?

Can you just answer a simple question please - which foreign cities have you visited ? I ask simply because your comments seem to be at odds with the facts (and to those of us who have been abroad rather a lot)

 

[plcd1]

I think the numbers are 1bn bus journeys in Paris versus 2.4bn in London. Rome is far smaller than London, and most Italian cities seem to have straight, wide roads (where buses go down) and narrow streets (where they don't)

Maybe the question could be turned around, why don't European cities use double deckers? Maybe they have too many low bridges?

You need to be extremely careful in making comparisons. Paris is rather small if you just mean the districts that form the City rather than the wider Paris region. RATP do not operate many buses beyond the core city area. They tend to be run under contract to the local region although may be funded by STIF who co-ordinate and fund transport services and investment in the Ile de France region. Bus usage, from my limited experience of staying in the NW of the IDF region, is much lower and frequency and network density are nothing like London.

Within Paris you also need to consider the far greater density of the Metro which covers a lot of links that buses in London might well cover. Furthermore STIF and RATP have increased the number of tram services hugely in recent years which have led to bus route restructuring / replacement. You exclude trams for the Paris numbers then you are not remotely comparing like with like. What is worth saying is that STIF and RATP looked at what London did post 2000 and have spent a lot of money in adding bus routes, generally simplifying bus fares, timetables and making services far more attractive. Paris will never, ever match London for bus usage for a wide variety of reasons.

Please take a look at STIF Annual Report from 2012. It's in English and shows the daily patronage for buses in the wider IDF area and the split of bus routes run by RATP and by other companies under contract. You can also be thoroughly depressed by the level of investment and improvement.

2014 Annual Report - French The numbers for buses in the 2014 report show a strong increase in bus usage.

I've only been to Rome once but my first bus (to the hotel) was a bendy bus and it had to slog through narrow, twisty roads. Buses in Rome are ridiculously well used because of the massive problems in building Metro lines because of the history buried under foot! I don't think there is any attempt to enforce fare payment because you're lucky if you can get on some buses never mind validate a ticket. There are all shapes and sizes of single deck buses in Rome. The only double decks I saw were on sightseeing work but that was a fair number of years ago.

IMO there was little wrong with using bendy buses in London. If I was "Head of Buses" in London I'd bring them back tomorrow. As ever the issue is picking the right routes and London will always have a varied bus fleet because the route structure is varied and subject to all sorts of constraints. Bendy buses were very good at dealing with routes with high volumes of short hop travel and large numbers of boarders and alighters. I can also think of some busy suburban routes in London which would do better with bendy buses because of the higher number of accessible seats on one deck. Where it gets difficult in London is that we have some tremendously busy but long routes which carry both high volumes of short hop journeys but also a lot of medium / long distance trips where people value a seat. This is why double decks remain popular on a lot of corridors.

 

[Mikey C]

Can you just answer a simple question please - which foreign cities have you visited ? I ask simply because your comments seem to be at odds with the facts (and to those of us who have been abroad rather a lot)

I'm well travelled thank you, and have been to all the Cities mentioned several times. In terms of Italian cities Milan, Rome, Verona, Mestre, Florence, Trieste spring to mind plus several smaller towns.

I remember well that while the centres often have very narrow streets, there are also a lot of wide and straight "boulevards". Maybe my memories aren't completely accurate, but they're not completely wrong either
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While Singapore does have a lot of double-deck buses (a colonial legacy, like Hong Kong), there are also a large number of articulated buses operated by SMRT (over 300).

Artics are also used widely across North America and Australia

There are far more double deckers in Singapore than bendies, and as they were first bought in the 70s, they're not a colonial legacy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

IMO there was little wrong with using bendy buses in London. If I was "Head of Buses" in London I'd bring them back tomorrow. As ever the issue is picking the right routes and London will always have a varied bus fleet because the route structure is varied and subject to all sorts of constraints. Bendy buses were very good at dealing with routes with high volumes of short hop travel and large numbers of boarders and alighters. I can also think of some busy suburban routes in London which would do better with bendy buses because of the higher number of accessible seats on one deck. Where it gets difficult in London is that we have some tremendously busy but long routes which carry both high volumes of short hop journeys but also a lot of medium / long distance trips where people value a seat. This is why double decks remain popular on a lot of corridors.

From a passenger point of view, I had no problems with bendies on routes like the red arrow routes, but there are very few such routes in London. It's not as if lots of bus users only use buses to get to the rail/tube station, with the lower cost of bus travel, taking the bus all the way is an attractive option.

 

[Deerfold]

From a passenger point of view, I had no problems with bendies on routes like the red arrow routes, but there are very few such routes in London. It's not as if lots of bus users only use buses to get to the rail/tube station, with the lower cost of bus travel, taking the bus all the way is an attractive option.

I know lots of people who only use buses if there is no handy tube station. If you ever get a bus from South of Brixton look at just how much it empties when it reaches the bottom end of the local tube network!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know lots of people who only use buses if there is no handy tube station. If you ever get a bus from South of Brixton look at just how much it empties when it reaches the bottom end of the local tube network!

This is precisely what buses are good at - feeders to a properly capacious rapid transport rail system. Look at how Germany uses them. Hamburg's city centre, for example, is only penetrated by about 10 bus routes, and it's a massive city.

Can't work in London as the Tube is overcrowded, but people on here will be well aware of my dislike of the way London's fare system discourages connectional multimodal journeys of precisely the kind a good city transport network (designed as a whole, not a collection of routes) should deliver.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm well travelled thank you, and have been to all the Cities mentioned several times. In terms of Italian cities Milan, Rome, Verona, Mestre, Florence, Trieste spring to mind plus several smaller towns.

I remember well that while the centres often have very narrow streets, there are also a lot of wide and straight "boulevards". Maybe my memories aren't completely accurate, but they're not completely wrong either

There are far more double deckers in Singapore than bendies, and as they were first bought in the 70s, they're not a colonial legacy.

Having visited both Florence and Verona in October, I can say that there are some boulevards (in the latter) but also a lot of fairly tight urban spots. Nothing markedly different to London or any other European city that wasn't massively reconstructed.

The "colonial" aspect of Singapore and Hong Kong is more to do with thinking.... It was often a place where UK bus managers ended up! Also, HK had deckers with 3+2 seating so they were already high capacity - I don't see that coming any time soon in London.

 

[Antman]

I really couldn't agree less with that. The artics were the most efficient people-movers that London has had and the rest of the world seems to agree. It was particularly unfortunate that Boris killed them off, largely based on his own ignorance and bias.

Artics have their place, low bridge suburban routes, but not in Central London. The chaos these things caused in the west end was something else! The ignorance was putting them on routes like the 73 in the first place!


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes. A white elephant is a white elephant, regardless of which rosette it wears.

How is it a white elephant?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The "colonial" aspect of Singapore and Hong Kong is more to do with thinking.... It was often a place where UK bus managers ended up! Also, HK had deckers with 3+2 seating so they were already high capacity - I don't see that coming any time soon in London.

You do get 3+2 schoolkid coaches (as a substitute for the old "3 kids in 2 seats" thing), but Singaporeans are typically smaller and skinnier than Europeans so it wouldn't really work for adults.

Indeed, I personally think it should be illegal to carry adults in those seats on coaches, as they are too narrow for the seat belt to be fitted correctly. Such "schoolkid buses" should have some 2+2 seating at the front for teachers etc.

They certainly have no place on service buses!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You do get 3+2 schoolkid coaches (as a substitute for the old "3 kids in 2 seats" thing), but Singaporeans are typically smaller and skinnier than Europeans so it wouldn't really work for adults.

Indeed, I personally think it should be illegal to carry adults in those seats on coaches, as they are too narrow for the seat belt to be fitted correctly. Such "schoolkid buses" should have some 2+2 seating at the front for teachers etc.

They certainly have no place on service buses!

Yep but it does explain why they have deckers.

To put this bluntly...

London is not a special case. It is no different than most comparable European cities in terms of size and road layout. Everyone else in the world seems to manage with bendis but not London. Not only that but London has to have its own bespoke design, not content with off the shelf designs?

Of course it doesn't. Extensive use of existing designs plus the vast numbers of Olympians and Metrobuses in the past illustrates that.

 

[Goldfish62]

I think that TfL now own the body design with all its design flaws (too hot on upper deck, needs two people to operate etc etc) the technology as such was a early hybrid bus driveline that's now been replaced, or will be replaced, by better designs or newer technology. I suspect that Wrights wont be that worried about losing the rights to it and (as the only people with a production line setup for it) nobody else is going to get a contract to build them even if somebody daft enough to pay for them suddenly arrived.

It doesn't need two people to operate. I can't remember the last time I went on one with a "customer assistant". It's a horrible bus, though, IMO.

 

[Antman]

It doesn't need two people to operate. I can't remember the last time I went on one with a "customer assistant". It's a horrible bus, though, IMO.

Funnily enough people who work with them, fitters and drivers, speak very highly of them

 

[Bletchleyite]

It doesn't need two people to operate. I can't remember the last time I went on one with a "customer assistant". It's a horrible bus, though, IMO.

I personally really like it. They just need to fit opening windows.

 

[Goldfish62]

Funnily enough people who work with them, fitters and drivers, speak very highly of them

The drivers appear to, but not the engineers I know. The language is positively blue when they describe them.

Anyway, as I said, it's my opinion, which I'm entitled to and I reiterate that I think they're horrible.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Borismasters are alright buses, but they don't do anything a conventional hybrid decker doesn't. Which given their cost makes them a white elephant.

 

[Antman]

I personally really like it. They just need to fit opening windows.

Apparently opening windows are to be fitted in the near future. I agree that apart from one or two little gripes they are excellent buses.

 

[Robertj21a]

I personally really like it. They just need to fit opening windows.

Yes, and increase the legroom, change the seats and brighten the interior. Plus, of course, dump those 'conductors'.

 

[Mikey C]

The Borismasters are alright buses, but they don't do anything a conventional hybrid decker doesn't. Which given their cost makes them a white elephant.

Has anyone actually measured the loading time? Having 3 doors and open boarding is something that TfL clearly like on busy central London routes to speed boarding times, and not possible on conventional double deckers.

You can argue whether the Borismaster is a good bus or not. What I can't accept is the idea that any bespoke bus for London is a vast extravagance, when the extra cost of the Borismasters over conventional double deckers is a pittance when compared with the cost of Tube and Rail upgrades. £700m to rebuild Victoria Underground station, for example...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, and increase the legroom, change the seats

The legroom is no better nor worse than most other London buses, and I think they are comfortable enough for a short bus journey, which is what they are for.

and brighten the interior.

This is very much a matter of opinion. I really like the subdued, relaxing interior with rich, deep colours - almost reminiscent of the Pendolino. I know some really don't like it, though. I really *don't* like other modern, overlit buses. The new Alexander Dennis ones with a single row of LEDs on each side are also good, particularly if they are warm white, but I think you may not approve

Plus, of course, dump those 'conductors'.

Now the novelty has worn off I expect that will happen soon enough. Newer ones are AIUI being ordered for OPO only anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has anyone actually measured the loading time? Having 3 doors and open boarding is something that TfL clearly like on busy central London routes to speed boarding times, and not possible on conventional double deckers.

You could presumably buy a RHD version of the Berlin decker, which is LWB with three doors. But indeed it's not a common British feature. I happen to think it's a good one, as it allows people to move down the bus without feeling trapped (and thus being reluctant to move down the bus). Indeed if I was designing a two door bus I might well go front and rear rather than front and centre, on a single decker at least.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As for Asia, only Singapore and Hong Kong use double deckers.

It's more than that. I've been on double decker buses myself in mainland China, although I've no idea how widespread they are there. Certainly, Wikipedia lists a number of countries in Asia that use double deckers.

 

[plcd1]

Also, HK had deckers with 3+2 seating so they were already high capacity - I don't see that coming any time soon in London.

I'm sure you know but I don't think there are any 3+2 seat layout double deckers still in service in Hong Kong. They went a fair while ago as older, non a/c buses were phased out. Of course Hong Kong is now pushing the boundaries of air conditioned double deckers with 12.8m long vehicles in service. These have a massive overall capacity but the point made elsewhere about the thinner profile of people in HK and their difference sense of "personal space" means you get far more standees on buses, trams and trains there than in the UK. The 12.8m Enviro 500 buses have 98 seats (2+2) and can carry 48 standees. That's very impressive for an air conditioned vehicle.

The big issue for HK operators will be how they can tidy up the emissions performance of their vehicles. Moving to hybrid or electric as London has done is a much bigger task for them given the need to keep air con and not sacrifice too much seating capacity. With the Borismaster we gained weight, lost capacity and didn't get air con despite the sealed windows. :roll:

 

[Robertj21a]

The legroom is no better nor worse than most other London buses, and I think they are comfortable enough for a short bus journey, which is what they are for.



This is very much a matter of opinion. I really like the subdued, relaxing interior with rich, deep colours - almost reminiscent of the Pendolino. I know some really don't like it, though. I really *don't* like other modern, overlit buses. The new Alexander Dennis ones with a single row of LEDs on each side are also good, particularly if they are warm white, but I think you may not approve



Now the novelty has worn off I expect that will happen soon enough. Newer ones are AIUI being ordered for OPO only anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've been on quite a few Borismasters, Geminis, E400s etc recently and, to me, when you sit down on a Borismaster it always seems there's less room for my legs !

I'm not concerned about the lighting as such, it's that overall interior colour scheme with others may call 'retro' but I call 'dull'. It may well look 'classic' but that doesn't make it brighter.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What I can't accept is the idea that any bespoke bus for London is a vast extravagance, when the extra cost of the Borismasters over conventional double deckers is a pittance when compared with the cost of Tube and Rail upgrades.

The main questions when assessing value for money are whether a bespoke product is needed and whether the product can do things that off-the-shelf products cannot.

A NB4L costs in the region of £150,000 more than an off-the-shelf hybrid double decker, and about £250,000 more than a conventional diesel double decker. What benefit do you get from a NB4L that you wouldn't get from, say, the Enviro 400 Hybrid City? There's nothing stopping you configuring any bus to allow boarding at the middle doors- they do on the Red Arrows Citaros.

I think the development costs of the NB4L- especially as the most recent batches no longer have an open platform at the back because the door has been changed- were a huge waste of money. The bus does nothing existing hybrid products don't do.

Comparing the cost of a NB4L to the cost of a tube station upgrade is a strawman argument.

 

[Mikey C]

You could presumably buy a RHD version of the Berlin decker, which is LWB with three doors. But indeed it's not a common British feature. I happen to think it's a good one, as it allows people to move down the bus without feeling trapped (and thus being reluctant to move down the bus). Indeed if I was designing a two door bus I might well go front and rear rather than front and centre, on a single decker at least.

3 door European buses generally have the engine vertically in one corner (left rear) to enable a 3rd door opposite, so would need reengineering to move the engine over to the other corner for the UK!

The Borismaster does this by having the engine under the staircase, so is quite clever in many ways. It also means that rebuilding them to remove the staircase would liberate few if any extra seats at the back

The original Enviro 200 had a vertical engine and rear door but was a flop, so was replaced by the current Dart based model.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The main questions when assessing value for money are whether a bespoke product is needed and whether the product can do things that off-the-shelf products cannot.

A NB4L costs in the region of £150,000 more than an off-the-shelf hybrid double decker, and about £250,000 more than a conventional diesel double decker. What benefit do you get from a NB4L that you wouldn't get from, say, the Enviro 400 Hybrid City? There's nothing stopping you configuring any bus to allow boarding at the middle doors- they do on the Red Arrows Citaros.

I think the development costs of the NB4L- especially as the most recent batches no longer have an open platform at the back because the door has been changed- were a huge waste of money. The bus does nothing existing hybrid products don't do.

Comparing the cost of a NB4L to the cost of a tube station upgrade is a strawman argument.

Absolutely David - you've got to compare apples with apples and for it to be a quantifiable comparison.

Compared to a standard hybrid, it is more expensive and offers no more in terms of functionality especially in two door mode.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where's that bus from? Was it a trial?

Personally I think that is the best layout for a rigid single decker (with wheelchairs boarding and alighting at the front). I used to prefer the London arrangement, but have found from discussions in various forums that wheelchair users actually generally prefer boarding and alighting at the front, even though it means squeezing through the wheelarches, because they can see the driver and he can provide assistance and reassurance.

 

[Mikey C]

Where's that bus from? Was it a trial?

Personally I think that is the best layout for a rigid single decker (with wheelchairs boarding and alighting at the front). I used to prefer the London arrangement, but have found from discussions in various forums that wheelchair users actually generally prefer boarding and alighting at the front, even though it means squeezing through the wheelarches, because they can see the driver and he can provide assistance and reassurance.

That's the original Enviro200, the planned replacement for the Dart, but hardly any were built - I recall the rear door was unpopular.

It was replaced by the Enviro 200 we all know.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The main questions when assessing value for money are whether a bespoke product is needed and whether the product can do things that off-the-shelf products cannot.

A NB4L costs in the region of £150,000 more than an off-the-shelf hybrid double decker, and about £250,000 more than a conventional diesel double decker. What benefit do you get from a NB4L that you wouldn't get from, say, the Enviro 400 Hybrid City? There's nothing stopping you configuring any bus to allow boarding at the middle doors- they do on the Red Arrows Citaros.

I think the development costs of the NB4L- especially as the most recent batches no longer have an open platform at the back because the door has been changed- were a huge waste of money. The bus does nothing existing hybrid products don't do.

Comparing the cost of a NB4L to the cost of a tube station upgrade is a strawman argument.

Isn't the price difference £50000 rather than £150000?

And then there's the intangible question of design and beauty. When designing stations, train interiors etc sometimes you pay more to make something that looks attractive and distinctive

Having a unique London bus does give London a visual icon.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Isn't the price difference £50000 rather than £150000?

And then there's the intangible question of design and beauty. When designing stations, train interiors etc sometimes you pay more to make something that looks attractive and distinctive

Having a unique London bus does give London a visual icon.

That's why I said quantifiable not subjective. London icon.... rubbish! Amazing that other cities don't need such a visual icon and can manage with off the peg designs. I remember wandering around Florence, looking at the Duomo and the Ponte Vecchio, and thinking.... but if only they had a bespoke bus!

The cost of a comparable hybrid is c.£50k. Add in the cost of the staff salaries for the customer assistant....

 

[Tetchytyke]

Isn't the price difference £50000 rather than £150000?

The difference for the equipment is about £50k-£70k, depending on model. Plus the cost of the extra staff.

Having a unique London bus does give London a visual icon.

The tourists consider any red double decker to be a "London Bus".

Londoners don't care about an "icon", they just want to get to work.

Anyway, the NB4L isn't distinctive: