Sadiq Kahn cancels NB4L/New Routemaster contract with Wrightbus

[Deerfold]

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?
.

Potentially, but if you want that perhaps you should suggest to people they use one for up and one for down.

And how many people are going to walk past one staircase to use another?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Potentially, but if you want that perhaps you should suggest to people they use one for up and one for down.

And how many people are going to walk past one staircase to use another?

well that must be the most fatuous question ever asked... apart from the front 4 most seats upstairs there would be no conflict of movement... and no need to walk past a staircase to use the other.. and surely with cashless boarding the crush of people rushing upstairs would make it impossible for people to go against the flow? remember the original layout of the enviro E200? one door at each end? the only real objection TfL had was "not invented here"

of course you cannot legislate against human stupidity as evidenced by people's refusal to "keep to the right" on the underground... but have you also noticed the glares of disapproval received by those same people as they push their way through the crowds...

 

[Deerfold]

well that must be the most fatuous question ever asked... apart from the front 4 most seats upstairs there would be no conflict of movement... and no need to walk past a staircase to use the other.. and surely with cashless boarding the crush of people rushing upstairs would make it impossible for people to go against the flow? remember the original layout of the enviro E200? one door at each end? the only real objection TfL had was "not invented here"

of course you cannot legislate against human stupidity as evidenced by people's refusal to "keep to the right" on the underground... but have you also noticed the glares of disapproval received by those same people as they push their way through the crowds...

I'm sorry you think this question is fatuous but I don't see this happening. People go down whichever staircase is nearest them. As people are usually going out of the middle and rear doors and feeding down from both staircases there is no rush of people upstairs to push against.

On most of the underground signs say 'keep left'.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I'm sorry you think this question is fatuous but I don't see this happening. People go down whichever staircase is nearest them. As people are usually going out of the middle and rear doors and feeding down from both staircases there is no rush of people upstairs to push against.

Seeing as though my argument was that there should be a door at each end and a staircase at each end... are you REALLY suggesting to me that people would still push their way down the front staircase knowing they are going to have to walk to the back of the bus to get off? After all in my experience of bus travel in London drivers can be very officious about people getting off through the front doors (admittedly I've not been to London since the introduction of cashless open boarding)

 

[jon0844]

Not everyone may even know there's a rear staircase. I've boarded at the rear and used that staircase (but only after anyone has come down) but generally walk up the front and down the back, where it's easier to get off - albeit slower as those doors can take ages to open.

I like the dual staircase design.

 

[daikilo]

Not everyone may even know there's a rear staircase. I've boarded at the rear and used that staircase (but only after anyone has come down) but generally walk up the front and down the back, where it's easier to get off - albeit slower as those doors can take ages to open.

I like the dual staircase design.

The really important thing is the balance between stair and door locations. Even with forward and centre doors, a single forward stair can cause blockage to boarding if there is any number of passengers leaving the upper deck and particularly if there is standing on the lower deck. A single centre stair resolves this.

A rear stair doesn't really help flow compared to a centre stair, so I would suggest that the optimum two stair would be one forward (up) and one centre (down) with the doors to match (on/off).

Of course, if the second door is in the rear then forward and aft stairs could also work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
(continued)

However, what really matters is the on/off flow at each stop. A route which collects passengers from say a suburb and then deposits them over a few stops before a central terminus may not need a second door or staircase. However, if the route crosses the centre and is linked to another surburban route then the central part can have significant on/off at central stops.

Finally, and as I said on another thread, a central door with adjacent wheelchair/standing space can prove very efficient.

 

[Mikey C]

The problem with central staircases is that they occupy the prime low floor area of the bus, between the two axles. The first low floor double deckers in London had this problem, leaving a tiny number of available seats in the low floor area. The current staircase position occupies the less valuable space over the front offside wheel arch

The rear staircase on the NB4L has the engine (and batteries?) under it, which is quite clever in some ways, as it also enables a fully flat floor which the current Volvo hybrids in London don't have.

 

[MCR247]

But the seats require a step up as far as i remember, so not all that much benefit of a fully flat floor

 

[J-2739]

But the seats require a step up as far as i remember, so not all that much benefit of a fully flat floor

The step up area in generic buses do not allow standing passengers from my experience, so a fully flat floor has a benefit of letting more standing passengers in.

 

[MCR247]

Which would be great if they could accommodate large numbers of standing pax, but afaik because they're so heavy they can't? (can't remember where I read this so happy to be corrected)

 

[Busaholic]

Which would be great if they could accommodate large numbers of standing pax, but afaik because they're so heavy they can't? (can't remember where I read this so happy to be corrected)

Unless these figures have altered in recent years, 40 seats upstairs, 22 seats downstairs and 25 standing. The standard RM Routemaster had 64 seats, the longer RML version 72, both plus 5 standing passengers (at conductor's discretion.)

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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

but by and large the efficiency of the RAF and USAAF has meant rather more opportunity and ncessity than the abortive schemes in the UK of the 60s that would have achieved what the the luftwaffe failed to do

 

[Dent]

Unless these figures have altered in recent years, 40 seats upstairs, 22 seats downstairs and 25 standing. The standard RM Routemaster had 64 seats, the longer RML version 72, both plus 5 standing passengers (at conductor's discretion.)

That's not the relevant comparison. The choice operators have is between NBfL and other modern buses, the capacity of the long obsolete Routemaster is irrelevant to that choice.

 

[Busaholic]

That's not the relevant comparison. The choice operators have is between NBfL and other modern buses, the capacity of the long obsolete Routemaster is irrelevant to that choice.

It would be irrelevant if its creation had not been promulgated as the 'New Routemaster' as it was, by its chief cheerleader at least, and his tame designer sidekick. I will therefore feel free to draw that comparison. Indeed, if 500 of these 'New Routemasters' are still in service 40 plus years after their introduction, as was the case with the 'obsolete' Routemaster, then I will come back from the dead to express my due amazement.

 

[Dent]

It would be irrelevant if its creation had not been promulgated as the 'New Routemaster' as it was, by its chief cheerleader at least, and his tame designer sidekick. I will therefore feel free to draw that comparison. Indeed, if 500 of these 'New Routemasters' are still in service 40 plus years after their introduction, as was the case with the 'obsolete' Routemaster, then I will come back from the dead to express my due amazement.

You can draw whatever comparison you want purely for personal curiosity, but it does not change the fact that for an operator deciding what vehicle to use, the capacity of something which is not an option to them anyway is not a relevant factor in their decision.

 

[fredk]

You can draw whatever comparison you want purely for personal curiosity, but it does not change the fact that for an operator deciding what vehicle to use, the capacity of something which is not an option to them anyway is not a relevant factor in their decision.

Clearly not, but it is a good historical comparison to judge progress.

 

[Busaholic]

You can draw whatever comparison you want purely for personal curiosity, but it does not change the fact that for an operator deciding what vehicle to use, the capacity of something which is not an option to them anyway is not a relevant factor in their decision.

First West Yorkshire must have been deluding themselves, then, when they borrowed a NBfL soon after their introduction and announced that they were considering buying a fleet of them to operate in Leeds as an alternative to the then-proposed trolleybus. Actually, they were deluding no-one, but certainly nobody said at the time 'oh, you can't do that as you won't be allowed to buy them'. The fact is quite simple - nobody else wants/wanted them, and probably TfL didn't either but had their hand forced by a Mayor with too many powers.

 

[fowler9]

First West Yorkshire must have been deluding themselves, then, when they borrowed a NBfL soon after their introduction and announced that they were considering buying a fleet of them to operate in Leeds as an alternative to the then-proposed trolleybus. Actually, they were deluding no-one, but certainly nobody said at the time 'oh, you can't do that as you won't be allowed to buy them'. The fact is quite simple - nobody else wants/wanted them, and probably TfL didn't either but had their hand forced by a Mayor with too many powers.

And now said Mayor is the UK Foreign Secretary. Frankly terrifying. A proper Post Turtle.

 

[carlberry]

First West Yorkshire must have been deluding themselves, then, when they borrowed a NBfL soon after their introduction and announced that they were considering buying a fleet of them to operate in Leeds as an alternative to the then-proposed trolleybus. Actually, they were deluding no-one, but certainly nobody said at the time 'oh, you can't do that as you won't be allowed to buy them'. The fact is quite simple - nobody else wants/wanted them, and probably TfL didn't either but had their hand forced by a Mayor with too many powers.

As First borrowed (and were allowed to revinyl) the vehicle from TfL (the vehicle owners and owners of the production rights) I suspect they'd have been able to come to some arrangement if by some madness they'd actually intended buying any as apposed to just using it for a bit of PR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And now said Mayor is the UK Foreign Secretary. Frankly terrifying. A proper Post Turtle.

My original view was that May put him and others in those positions to set them up to fail and end their careers. However, I'm now not so convinced she is that clever.

 

[fowler9]

My original view was that May put him and others in those positions to set them up to fail and end their careers. However, I'm now not so convinced she is that clever.

Ha ha, true.

 

[Busaholic]

My original view was that May put him and others in those positions to set them up to fail and end their careers. However, I'm now not so convinced she is that clever.

My reasoning was exactly the same, but, as you say, she appears not to be that bright. I loathed Margaret Thatcher and her policies, but I always got the impression she knew exactly what she was doing, and for whose benefit it was. May seems to be flailing in the dark.

 

[AndrewE]

And now this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38800789

Hundreds of London's New Routemaster buses are to be recalled because of a fault with the rear doors.

The problem was discovered in November when the door on one bus opened while the vehicle was moving, causing it to stop suddenly and injure a passenger.

 

[carlberry]

And now this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38800789

The quote of 423 effected is odd. If it's the earlier ones then it was a known fault that has been ignored for ages, if it's a later batch then somebody has 'improved' them with a fault!

 

[plcd1]

The quote of 423 effected is odd. If it's the earlier ones then it was a known fault that has been ignored for ages, if it's a later batch then somebody has 'improved' them with a fault!

It only affects those later buses with the sliding plug door design at the rear door. Those with the inward swinging door are not in scope of the recall. Given the recall applies to buses from LT517 (?) up to whatever was built by 5th Dec 2016 (date on recall notice) that gets us to around LT 940 or so. There has been a bit of a gap in deliveries but they're now coming across for the take up of "EL" routes in Barking in just over a fortnight. I assume that buses on delivery are being modified before dispatch to London.