A comment on Saturday’s post raised the question of whether London actually needs a bespoke bus design. It’s something I tackled, a little, one year ago. Given that the Wrightbus development vehicle is very much under test at the moment, the debate is technically over. It’s happening.
So, I thought I would try a different approach. Bespoke to London the NBfL certainly is. That’s because I can’t see anyone buying it in the Provinces, certainly not in its current guise. Provincial operators don’t need a 60-odd seat dual staircase three-door bus. Such a move chafes against operators’ commercial instincts.
But, for London, is this the first ever bespoke bus? Has London ever had a truly bespoke vehicle, other than the coming NB4L?
Take the Routemaster. Aside from a few scattered illiberally across the Provinces, the RM was largely almost entirely confined to the capital. It was certainly designed for duties therein. But was it really bespoke?
- It was a purely London design, a collaboration between London Transport, AEC and Park Royal.
- In shades of the NBfL, it was dubbed “London’s Bus of the Future”.
- It encompassed some revolutionary technology seen nowhere else, that’s absolutely true, and it often took other manufacturers decades to catch up.
- And it wasn’t derived from any other chassis.
In fact, the first production RMs were already dated. Double decks could now be longer and now began arriving with rear engines and front platforms. Other cities managed with this type of bus design. Others dispensed with the hop-off open rear platform provided. It was only in 1966 that the rear engined FRM1 appeared.Because the RM lasted longer than any other bus type ever, and because there were so few in the Provinces, we tended to become nostalgic towards it. But its 1950s design was far less unique to London that the 2011 design for the NB4L, with the new bus’ seemingly odd features that probably make it nigh unsalable elsewhere in England, let alone the world.
But the Borismaster is still a revolution.
13 comments:
I am still trying to understand the logic of 2 staircases and three doors.Will it stop the dodgers or is it to be card or bar entry system?
I did hear a rumour that Go Ahead Northern may buy a few front entranced buses,,,,lol
I still think it is the most ugly looking bus ever! ALL the current double deckers in TfL service are far superior from an aesthetics point of view.
The current generation of Berlin double deckers also have two staircases and three doors, although these also have three axles and are 13.7 metres long. They also seem to have a tendency to become 'banana buses' after a few years - unusual for a double decker. The third door is also at the rear, but it is a conventional one. Capacity is 83 seats + 45 standing.
I don't think there is particular attempt to achieve 'passenger flow' - the multiple stairs and doors are simply provided to speed the loading and unloading.
I presume that the NB4L, will be shorter, with only 2 axles, and 20 less seats, so one might justifiably question whether 2 stairs and 3 doors are really necessary.
Costs initial and ongoing will determine the success or otherwise.
Only London can dip into the taxpayers wallet to keep apparent fare levels to acceptable levels.
Outside London would the vehicle have a commercial case. In London would it become a political football if it requires high operational subsidies.
"I am still trying to understand the logic of 2 staircases and three doors.Will it stop the dodgers or is it to be card or bar entry system?"
It will be used as per a normal double decker off-peak, and per a Routemaster in the peak. So it seems to me that either the front two doors or the back door will be open.
Can't see any need for it at all, interesting as it may be. How are the fare collection arrangements any different to an articulated bus? Boris couldn't control fare dodgers on the artics so how can he on another 3-door vehicle when the 'guard' is to have no revenue role.
I just had a moments inspiration..only use one exit but only open it on card swipe.In other words let them board but dont let them off until proof of payment.simple!
Think we're missing the point here. The point is not whether NBfL is happening - it's whether it should be happening to start off with??
The question is why??, the other products on the market place are more than adequate to do the job, as for Berlin, the model is not just exclusive to that city, i know they have tried to sell the M.A.N. bus to Bilbao in Spain (opted for homegrown Ayatas bus) and also Moscow were interested in them too, there are chassis also available that are suitable for double deck bodywork and 3 doors in left hand drive format that would need little engineering for a right hand model,the East Lancs Volvos supplied to Copenhagen have 3 doors with a British designed chassis!.
As for value of rate payers money (or what ever its called now) i see very little market for these second hand, not even Skopje would want them as they have a London bus thats more like a London bus that a new London bus lol.
I dare say that a cheaper but still effective job could have been done by adapting, say, an Enviro 400 or a Wright Gemini. However, having such a revolutionary design will probably make it easier to sell to Londoners and the media.
Like the Routemaster, no doubt many of its less controversial new features will be incorporated in future off-the-shelf models.
I can't help thinking, though, that if Boris had been elected in the past year, he surely wouldn't have been able to justify such a project in these austere times.
A two stairwell and two door bus was trialled by Lndon Buses in 1984 - the Volvo Ailsas - quote "V3 was a radically different animal. Although the bodyshell was similar, the second door was located at the rear rather than the centre, and there were two staircases. The idea was to evaluate whether this layout stimulated free flow of passengers at stops, to solve the perennial problem of long dwell times. Unfortunately the twin staircases resulted in a blind spot for the driver, opposite the rear door, so a conductor had to be carried. So V3, which did not get into service until March 1985, eleven months after the other two, was restricted to crew-operated routes. At first it spent most of its time on the 77A, but was later confined to the 88."
Mmore info here : http://www.countrybus.org/Ailsa/V.htm
Anonymous said...
"Unfortunately the twin staircases resulted in a blind spot for the driver,..."
I'm not sure if that problem afflicts the Berlin double deckers, but I would have thought that the answer nowadays would be a camera system.
Post a Comment