news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7489380.stm
I hope it happens then maybe Leeds will get rid of it's FTR 'bendy' buses, which for some reason seem to go round in pairs - overtaking one is bad enough, two is impossible.
Edited by daveyjp on 04/07/2008 at 22:33
|
Why bother to design a new one when they can just copy the original? Great idea though, I assume they would bring back conductors as pay-the-driver buses are a major source of congestion in the cities, especially London.
|
|
If nothing else you have to give the Mayor credit for keeping his promises. Incidentally Autocar magazine suggested a suitable design for a new Routemaster last year - can't find a link at the moment.
|
One of the big problems with double-deck buses in cities like London however is the number of bridges that are impassable to them. This means that bus routes are based on where the bus can go rather than where the passengers and their destinations are.
I don't have a problem with bendy-buses. There was a report recently (The Independent?) that showed that despite tabloid headlines about "killer buses" that there have been very few incidents and fewer than there were in the days of routemasters where people would often fall out of them, especially on a Saturday night.
|
Never a school term went by without without someone departing a bus face first, generally on the way home when the major tomfoolery went on. I don't remember any of my contemporaries being killed, though there was the occasional stay in hospital for one or two.
All part of the charm of growing up, a few casualties adds to the charm of the things.
|
|
I like bendy buses. Never been squished by one, and they never had any major issues with them in Leeds. Now, the ol' double deckers I hated. I fell down the stairs once thanks to crap driving, and I saw several other people take tumbles in the 3 years I was riding them.
|
They may be ok in Leeds, don't know. But London is slow moving, very crowded and with narrow streets. Any vehicle driver needs to both look where they are going, and watch the sides as well. The latter is important as there is always stuff to sides, be it pedestrians, cyclists, or other vehicles. You can't do do that with a bendy.
True, artics have some of the same problems, but they don't, if they have any sense, deviate from major routes with wider and less severe turns.
And then there is the length. Even if driven well, bendys will block junctions and impede traffic flows.
My understanding is LT have a real problem with revenue evasion on these buses as well. Even if you had more roving inspectors, they still have three doors.
Not suitable for the purpose IMHO, and one wonders how the idea was sold.
Biggest problem to the design competition though is going to be the disabled access.
|
|
One of the major problems with Routemasters was that people used to jump on and jump off again without paying. BJ seems to have forgotten this.
|
The Routemaster was a lovely bus, one of the handsomest vehicles ever built. It's nice to see that a few are still in use and more are preserved.
But it's yesterday's technology. The RM prototype was built in 1954 and the production run was from 1958 to 1968.
All the designs for a 'new Routemaster' that I've seen have been unattractive, in contrast to the original. New buses have to be low floor designs. A new Routemaster, if it was to have a rear platform, would have to also have a front engine, which would neccessitate front-wheel drive in order to meet current low-floor access requirents.
A rear-engined, front-entrance Routemaster prototype was built, called the FRM. It used 60% normal Routemaster parts. As Eric Morecambe might have said - "it had all the right bits but not neccesarily in the right places"! The layout of the FRM was similar to cheaper off-the-shelf chassis like the Leyland Atlantean, although it was technically quite different, with chassisless construction and independednt front suspension. The FRM, which remained unique, still exists and is preserved in fine condtion.
FRM picture:
www.londonbuspage.com/JPGs/040724-5.jpg
Edited by Sofa Spud on 06/07/2008 at 15:58
|
BEA / BOAC used to have a fleet of RMs with coach seats [ RMCs I think? ] for the Heathrow run from Central london; these had folding doors across the rear platform.
Simple.
So how about a bodyshell shaped like the Dennis Dominator [ the curves are reminiscent of the RM ] but fitted with front cab, drive and engine with a rear platform protected by folding doors?
It would look "right", basically just like an updated RM - which it would effectively be anyway - and would meet the protection and low floor requirements. It could even "sit" at the rear so that the platform would be level with the kerb - no need for those slow deployment ramps.
|
^^^^^
I'm sorry, I meant the bodyshell style of the Enviro 400.
You can tell I'm not very good with bus identification can't you?!
|
The BEA Routemaster RMA's eventually passsed back to London Transport, who had always operated them on behalf of BEA / British Airways anyway. They were repainted red and used for private hire, I think.
Another front-entrance Routemaster was RMF1254, which was built as a demontrator and painted in LT livery but never operated by LT. (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH the rear-engined FRM from my post above). RMF1254 was basically similar to the BEA RMA's but was longer, like an RML, with the extra square windows in the centre.
The Routemaster was offered on the open market but the only ones sold were a batch of 50 to Northern General on Tyneside. These were similar to RMF1254, and I think RMF1254 was also sold to this operator in the end.
I can't see any benefit of building a front-engined, rear-platform double decker today.
Because of low-floor legislation, there wouldn't be room for a diveline or diff, even if offset to one side. The vehicle would have to be front-wheel drive, which is an un-necessary complication on a heavy vehicle. Also a bus like this would need a crew of 2.
A modern rear-engine double decker is quite suitable for crew operation in need be, although they are nearly always one-person-operated.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 11/07/2008 at 19:58
|
Here is a link to a pic of one of the Northern General Routemasters - the only ones sold new outside London (because they were so expensive)
www.countrybus.org/RMF/N2105nf.jpg
|
The drive line problem is soluble. What you need is a front mounted engine driving an alternator/generator at constant speed. Electrical power would then be fed to individual wheel motors. Like in this link;
www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229691/
The problem with the Enviro 400 idea is that there is a huge radiator right where you would want to put the rear door.
Edited by AlastairW on 11/07/2008 at 22:16
|
Yes, good point about the radiators, so I should clarify that I was refering to the shape of the bodywork; the curves on the upper deck are very like what you'd imagine a modern Routemaster to look like.
As for crewing - I would suggest that all buses should have a two person crew anyway; it would be quicker and safer.
|
Of course buses in these days of poor public behaviour should have a conductor or security man as well as a driver. It is ridiculous to talk about the cost. Urban transport should be subsidised anyway as it is in civilised countries. It's cheaper for everyone in the long run. Privatisation of buses and railways has been a disaster and has freed public money to be wasted or lavished on expensive but fruitless foreign wars and government IT systems, ensuring continuous pressure on the taxpayer.
I like open platform buses but the British have become such control freaks and jobsworths by former standards that they won't be allowed until there has been a sea-change in attitudes, and I'm not holding my breath. Any new Routemaster equivalent should be at least as compact and driveable in tight urban conditions as the old one. But there's nothing wrong with a more modern monocoque-type structure, like some of the better continental long-distance double-deck coaches. Probably stronger than separate-chassis original Routemaster and should be a bit lower too.
Simply doesn't matter where the engine is and which wheels are driven. Function is all.
|
