Aidan Stanger wrote:

Does anyone know what the running cost difference between Routemasters
and their replacements is? Even if the Routemaster's no faster, its
extra cost of a conductor is offset by fuel savings (and with oil prices
going the way they are, I'm sure that must be significant). And some of
these new buses are so poorly ventilated - if you want to do better than
a Routemaster, you really need air conditioning, so unless you're happy
for then to be replaced by junk, you should include the costs of running
that in your calculation...

Yesterday I checked the weights of some buses. RMs are 7t 5cwt, RMLs
7t 15cwt, as any fule kno, but I think a tonne is a few % less than a
ton, so say 8 tonnes for a RML.

High floor rear-engined double-deckers are around 10 tonnes; low-floor
11.5 to over 12. Bendis are 16 and a half - over twice the weight of a
RML.

Fuel consumption in London is roughly proportional to weight - but
bear in mind that 72 passengers weigh about 4 tonnes.

My best guess is that about a third to a half of the cost of the
conductor is covered by fuel savings. The real question is how much of
the rest is covered by reduced vandalism.

The only valid reason for withdrawing RMs now is if they are falling
apart. Actually some may be, but all of them?

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!