Discussion in 'transport' started by ska invita, May 17, 2010.
I like the way the windows follow the stairwell on the new design.
And even then, there were anecdotal reports of routeys beating bendys on the same (congested) route. The routemasters were discharging and loading passengers all along the way, meaning at bus stops the changeover was minimal... but the bendys had to stop, open doors, do the *whole* swapover, close doors...
I love that new design. And they've said the platform will be open - at least during busy times - so what's the issue? Are people saying they are lying about that? It's the crux of the design. I can't see them "overlooking" any regulatory stuff.
The correct term for this in the jargon of regulation is "grandfathering".
It's also why we can still use Tube stations with curvy platforms and no lifts - thought it'd be illegal to build new ones like that.
But does it apply in this case?
Jobs created though.
Can't be arsed to read this thread, have just whizzed through.
From what I read in The Standard tonight:
Initial costs including the research, design, development, prototypes etc. and the first 5 buses = £7-£8 million
Thereafter (I assume with bulk orders), each bus will be around £190,000
Open back platform will apparently be manned by a conductor during rush hour
Buses 40% greener than current double deckers
Boris Johnson expects the rest of the world to be peeing their pants with jealousy at our new buses
That's all I remember. Apologies if any of it's wrong
Apparently normal buses are about £190,000, these ones are expected to be £250-300,000.
I'm not sure what to think about this. There seems to be a suspicious lack of definitive information on stuff like the rear platform. If it isn't going to be hop on/off, then one of the fundamental advantages of the routemaster is lost and it does all seem like an expensive vanity project.
On the other hand, if we're going to get a genuine rear platform, and something unique to London, then I don't mind if they cost a bit more.
Will they also be significantly more expensive to maintain?
I think I'm glad that Heatherwick is involved, at least.
First glimpse of the real thing...
It's a bus.
It's a plane.
Looks a bit like it's got a closing door on the rear platform there. What's the point of having the platform if there's a door?
I think the idea is to have it open at some times and closed at others.
Look at its little face!
That's some radical door re-purposing right there.
So that when there's no conductor on board (ie most of the time), they can close the rear platform.
Open when the normal doors are open anyway and closed when you want to get off at traffic lights and stuff?
Two staircases seems a little extravagant too.
Is there any official word on when there will be conductors?
I really hope that it's not just kept closed most of the time because there's no conductor. It would be a massive disappointment if so.
Will it not have them most of the time for the very centre of town too?
We don't know yet. But given the constraints on TfL's budget, a completely surplus staff cost will not look too attractive will it?
"Can these buses carry the same number of people per mile per hour without a conductor?"
"Sack the conductors then"
They should just give the plastic plods a new job of conducting busses. That way it's more secure, and we get value for money out of them.
Here is your new bus. It sort of looks like a routemaster, but we're not going to actually run it like a routemaster. And it costs significantly more than a normal bus.
But the photos look pretty don't they?
PS sorry about the cross river tram.
That's about the sum of things
That will reduce journey times on busy buses.
I think it looks good. Fuck the cost. If we took cost/value in to account the Settle to Carlyle line would be long gone, some things are worth having just for the sake of it, I think these buses are one of those things and will become an icon of London along with black cabs and vomit on the pavements.
Separate names with a comma.