Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I like the look MM, very cool, it's just they're the latest dim, waste of money, decision from a London Mayor.


Ken should never have introduced bendys; once they were introduced Boris should never have been so gung ho about getting rid of them; introducing this new Routemaster is the latest and stupidest decision from Boris; and no doubt if Ken gets in in May he'll have a good look at getting rid of these new Routemasters! We're going round in circles!

Actually the old routemasters were fairly future-proof and modular, this was proven when they fitted new engines to them sometime last decade (2000-2010 IIRC).


Ironically this made them fully compliant with the latest emissions standards and more fuel efficient - around 5mpg - than their successors.


They easily had another decade in them when they were withdrawn.

I loved the old Routemasters as a design icon but they were uncomfortable, freezing cold in winter and virtually impossible to get off when they were sardine-full during the rush hour. More importantly, they weren't designed for wheelchair users or anyone with mobility problems. I've heard that the new Boris Buses have been criticised by lobbyists representing the less mobile in London so I am would be worried if they are being seen as the future of public transport.

The disagreement here seems to be between single-issue stakeholders refusing to see the the project from the point of view of its many other objectives.


Yes getting Londoners around town efficiently and effectively is one, so is disabled access and so are the environmental considerations.


Howener, the Routemasters were always much more than this - they were an icon of London and the UK that positioned us on the world stage as a quirky nation with a sense of tradition and independence.


You rarely see iconic photos of London or Britain overseas that don't have a Routemaster in shot.


Retaining that positioning benefits us in terms of tourist dollars and international business.


I thought the bendys were a tragedy at so many levels - difficult to drive around London's streets, a threat to other road users, a characterless tilt at modernism, an inefficient use of limited roadspace...


The new Routemaster takes all this into account - and to attribute the R&D costs to the first 10 buses as 'proof of their poor value for money' is patently stupid.


It's base electioneering, and is a demonstration of the cynical intent of politicians willing to deceive the electorate to try and deliver substandard planning and solutions that London doesn't need.

Totally agree that the claims of "?1.4m per bus" are nothing short of stupid. (Tottenham MP David Lammy came out with a bizarre quote saying that it's equivalent of a new BMW per seat!). But even once production is scaled up, surely a custom-designed bus will still work out a lot more expensive than a Mercedes or Volvo bus produced in vast quantities? And I would still argue that this is not the right time to be spending money on "Cool Britannia" icons.


It does look good though...

Its a custom designed bus for London; and could be a custom designed bus for anyone of a score or more cities.


The Volvo buses on the streets of a core of cities all have the same basic chassis and body form. However, they all differ in detail, that is the nature of modern manufacturing.


Whether its Volvo or Mercedes or whoever, they all invest many millions of pounds in developing a new bus, then sell it in various forms and adaptations.


The same will be true of the Routemaster. There is nothing about this bus that will stop it selling elsewhere.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The same will be true of the Routemaster. There is

> nothing about this bus that will stop it selling

> elsewhere.


I did try googling, and could find nothing about plans to flog it abroad. Neither could I find anything about the original routemaster being sold overseas. But it is early days, time will tell.

According to this independent Autocar review, despite its unique design, the new Routemaster is only 10% more than the average hybrid bus.


I think that's a tiny price to pay for the iconic value, and the potential it has to make more cash for TfL on resale. Places like HK and Sg also have RHD buses with card only usage - so there's no reason why it shouldn'y be equally popular there (it would only really work for card based public transport and hence no use in the shires):


"At around ?330,000, the NBfL won?t be cheap when it makes full-scale production for 2013, but neither are its competitors: other hybrid double-deck buses cost ?300,000, and when you consider the 12 to 15-year lifespan in London (after which each bus might still get sold on), the NBfL doesn?t seem like such bad value.


"Especially when you consider its economy and emissions. A return of 11.6mpg and 640g/km of CO2 don?t sound that great until you consider that a typical hybrid double-decker returns just 8.6mpg and 864g/km, and a conventional diesel bus 5.8mpg and 1295g/km. London has to make big improvements to its air quality, and the reduction in emissions that comes from replacing several hundred of TfL?s 8000 buses with NBfLs will contribute to the clean-up. If all goes well, TfL might even clean up financially, too; if Wrightbus can sell this design to other cities and countries, TfL gets a cut of each sale.


"Price: ?330,000; Economy: 11.6mpg; CO2: 640g/km; Kerb weight: 17,900kg; Generator: 4 cyls in line, 4460cc, rear-mounted, turbodiesel; Transmission: RWD Siemens full-series hybrid system with DC inverter, Siemens AC electric moto and 75kWh lithium ion battery pack; Power: 174bhp; Torque: 1844lb ft"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QNtg7fwsPiA#t=102s


According to this link the new London Bus design cannot be exported due to lack of international standard regulations for a rear open platform vehicle.


With regards to the costs, Boris has previously stated the new buses will cost just a bit more than the standard buses after mass production. The ?12m figure quoted by Silverfox included the r&d costs.

That story merely relates that the new London Routemaster doesn't fall within current EU legislation.


Since there are no other back platform double deckers this isn't exactly surprising is it?


As all in the industry have observed, it is still likely to be passed as fit for use after the designs have been submitted.


The story is simply tabloid scaremongering from that rather populist bunch at BBC London.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That story merely relates that the new London

> Routemaster doesn't fall within current EU

> legislation.

>

> Since there are no other back platform double

> deckers this isn't exactly surprising is it?

>

what i don't get is that if the routemaster's strength is that the old one was a london icon (which didn't successfully export elsewhere (as far as i am aware) not even elsewhere in this country). why this one would be a successful export overseas when no else in the world seems to think that there's a market for back platform double deckers?

  Quote
That story merely relates that the new London Routemaster doesn't fall within current EU legislation.


The whole point of the video was that the new buses may not be exported. They said international regulations not EU legislation, you prat. With a small risk of a challenge by the EC.


Anyway, buses are heavily subsidised and I rather see the money spent on developing trams for London. They have cross party support, better green credentials, faster and more cost effective than buses. The current coalition government are in favour of trams.

I travelled on the Croydon tram network for the first time a couple of weeks ago and it was weirdly wonderful. Like being on a bus that was driving along the railway line. As it starts (at Wimbledon station) on the adjacent platform to the train you arrive on it's as convenient as heck too.

Haha! Being called a prat by UDT, it's like watching him soil his panties and limp slowly away with his knees held far apart.


One of the particular problems with the old Routemaster was that it required a staff of two. The new one can either operate as a one man bus, with only the front entrance open, or as a card system with all doors open. It's particularly suited to HK and SG for that reason. The majority of fleets in both those cities are double deck.


As it happens, old Routemasters continue to be employed around the world as tourist buses despite UDT claiming bus regulation as yet another area of expertise.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...