http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...nsons-problems

This confirms the observation that the Boris buses seem to run noisily on
diesel most of the time.

It's a pity that the Grauniad has angled this as a political
Wolmar-for-mayor story, though: whatever Boris's faults, technical problems
with a battery pack can hardly be blamed on him. But I wonder why the Boris
bus batteries are seemingly more troublesome than those in other hybrid
buses?

In message
-septembe
r.org, at 08:29:47 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Recliner
remarked:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ries-london-bu
ses-add-to-boris-johnsons-problems

This confirms the observation that the Boris buses seem to run noisily on
diesel most of the time.

It's a pity that the Grauniad has angled this as a political
Wolmar-for-mayor story, though: whatever Boris's faults, technical problems
with a battery pack can hardly be blamed on him. But I wonder why the Boris
bus batteries are seemingly more troublesome than those in other hybrid
buses?

I doubt it's the batteries themselves, but it's quite plausible the
charging/discharging electronics wasn't quite right and this could have
shortened the life of the batteries (both the life each day, and the
number of days).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septembe
r.org, at 08:29:47 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Recliner remarked:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ries-london-bu
ses-add-to-boris-johnsons-problems

This confirms the observation that the Boris buses seem to run noisily on
diesel most of the time.

It's a pity that the Grauniad has angled this as a political
Wolmar-for-mayor story, though: whatever Boris's faults, technical problems
with a battery pack can hardly be blamed on him. But I wonder why the Boris
bus batteries are seemingly more troublesome than those in other hybrid
buses?

I doubt it's the batteries themselves, but it's quite plausible the
charging/discharging electronics wasn't quite right and this could have
shortened the life of the batteries (both the life each day, and the number of days).

Or I wonder if the batteries/electronics overheat, like the passengers?
Everything is squashed into quite a small volume under the rear stairs, and
maybe the ventilation is inadequate.

Maybe they just had a faulty component, which is what the story suggests:
"The battery packs are being upgraded as soon as possible and within the
warranty period, at no cost to TfL or the taxpayer.�

I'm not sure what you mean by the battery "life each day," though. These
batteries are continually charged and discharged, almost at every stop.
They're not charged overnight and used all day. Even when they were
brand-new, the buses didn't run for more than about five minutes without
the noisy four-cylinder engine firing up. So the batteries are subjected to
hundreds of charge/discharge cycles very day, which can't be good for them.

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 09:13:08 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Recliner
remarked:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ries-london-bu
ses-add-to-boris-johnsons-problems

This confirms the observation that the Boris buses seem to run noisily on
diesel most of the time.

It's a pity that the Grauniad has angled this as a political
Wolmar-for-mayor story, though: whatever Boris's faults, technical problems
with a battery pack can hardly be blamed on him. But I wonder why the Boris
bus batteries are seemingly more troublesome than those in other hybrid
buses?

I doubt it's the batteries themselves, but it's quite plausible the
charging/discharging electronics wasn't quite right and this could have
shortened the life of the batteries (both the life each day, and the
number of days).

Or I wonder if the batteries/electronics overheat, like the passengers?
Everything is squashed into quite a small volume under the rear stairs, and
maybe the ventilation is inadequate.

Maybe they just had a faulty component, which is what the story suggests:
"The battery packs are being upgraded as soon as possible and within the
warranty period, at no cost to TfL or the taxpayer.�

Faulty design of component, rather than faulty manufacturing, I suspect.

I'm not sure what you mean by the battery "life each day," though.

The "half hour" (see below).

These batteries are continually charged and discharged, almost at every
stop. They're not charged overnight and used all day.

They might start charging them en-route when they've reached some
specific level - like 50% perhaps.

It's got a 75kWH battery and a 130kW electric motor. So that's half an
hour flat out - which is less than I'd have expected.

Even when they were brand-new, the buses didn't run for more than about
five minutes without the noisy four-cylinder engine firing up.

That's been described as "something that's being worked on".

So the batteries are subjected to
hundreds of charge/discharge cycles very day, which can't be good for them.

They aren't full charge/discharge cycles, and that degree of punishment
should be factored into the overall design.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septem
ber.org, at 09:13:08 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Recliner remarked:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ries-london-bu
ses-add-to-boris-johnsons-problems

This confirms the observation that the Boris buses seem to run noisily on
diesel most of the time.

It's a pity that the Grauniad has angled this as a political
Wolmar-for-mayor story, though: whatever Boris's faults, technical problems
with a battery pack can hardly be blamed on him. But I wonder why the Boris
bus batteries are seemingly more troublesome than those in other hybrid
buses?

I doubt it's the batteries themselves, but it's quite plausible the
charging/discharging electronics wasn't quite right and this could have
shortened the life of the batteries (both the life each day, and the number of days).

Or I wonder if the batteries/electronics overheat, like the passengers?
Everything is squashed into quite a small volume under the rear stairs, and
maybe the ventilation is inadequate.

Maybe they just had a faulty component, which is what the story suggests:
"The battery packs are being upgraded as soon as possible and within
theThe battery packs are being upgraded as soon as possible and within
the warranty period, at no cost to TfL or the taxpayer.�
warranty period, at no cost to TfL or the taxpayer.�

Faulty design of component, rather than faulty manufacturing, I suspect.

Yes, I agree.


I'm not sure what you mean by the battery "life each day," though.

The "half hour" (see below).

These batteries are continually charged and discharged, almost at every
stop. They're not charged overnight and used all day.

They might start charging them en-route when they've reached some
specific level - like 50% perhaps.

It's got a 75kWH battery and a 130kW electric motor. So that's half an
hour flat out - which is less than I'd have expected.

And the actual battery capacity after a few thousand cycles is probably
much less.


Even when they were brand-new, the buses didn't run for more than about
five minutes without the noisy four-cylinder engine firing up.

That's been described as "something that's being worked on".

So the batteries are subjected to
hundreds of charge/discharge cycles very day, which can't be good for them.

They aren't full charge/discharge cycles, and that degree of punishment
should be factored into the overall design.

It should, but apparently wasn't.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:13:08 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
They're not charged overnight and used all day. Even when they were
brand-new, the buses didn't run for more than about five minutes without
the noisy four-cylinder engine firing up. So the batteries are subjected to

Its not just the routemasters, they're all like that. Rather defeats the
whole purpose of them.

--
Spud

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:25:34 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
of that lack of testing. I fear we will keep on reaping the
consequences for years to come - long after any warranty period has
expired.

And long after Boris's tenure as Mayor is just another footnote in political
history.

I don't see tweets and comments from people complaining about other
bus types "smelling of ****" - this seems a rather unique NB4L trait.

I wonder if there's a fault with the adblue system? I presume they use it.

One thing I do think should be answered is whether the alleged sacking
by Metroline of a bus driver who refused to drive NB4Ls on safety
grounds happened or not. I notice nothing's been said about that.
That's a pretty crucial issue given the Mayor's recent decision to
extend confidential reporting (CIRAS) to London's bus operations.

While I'm no fan of the things are can't really see how there could be an
issue so severe that it would affect safety, unless the driver was claiming
that the brakes don't work properly.

--
Spud

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:52:48 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
The allegations include

a) brake / handbrake problems.
b) slow acceleration meaning risk of misjudging moves into traffic.
c) the electrical system failing meaning loss of steering control -
this has happened umpteen times.

http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/londoner...-con-that-is-t
e-boris-bus/

I might be more inclined to believe what he said if he got some basic facts
right.

"The fact that they cannot operate on their electric motors because of battery
failure"

They're serial hybrids, the electric motors are the only things turning the
wheels. The diesel engine is a generator.

"Some buses disengage from gears"

What gears? Does he mean it comes out of drive mode?

“The most unreliable and poorly engineered bus that has ever been made�

Obviously this guy has a short memory. When boris buses start spontainiously
bursting into flames then perhaps he might have a point.

Who wrote this - oh Mr Wolmar, a well known source of unbiased commentary.
*cough*

--
Spud

On 2015-07-20 20:25:34 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

I don't see tweets and comments from people complaining about other
bus types "smelling of ****" - this seems a rather unique NB4L trait.

A common trait of other buses prior to the installation of the
forced-air ventilation coupled with opening windows. Er, oops.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2015-07-21 08:52:48 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

a) brake / handbrake problems.

That is concerning. And odd, given that there's no need for the
braking systems to be other than standard Wrightbus kit. Are other
Wrightbus vehicles affected?

b) slow acceleration meaning risk of misjudging moves into traffic.

A professional driver needs to drive to the capability of their
vehicle. Perhaps reduced acceleration will stop the passengers being
thrown around by way of aggressive acceleration, often unnecessarily
so. So this, while perhaps a design flaw, is not in and of itself
dangerous. Professional drivers shouldn't "misjudge moves into
traffic" whatever they are driving. It is their professional role not
to.

c) the electrical system failing meaning loss of steering control -
this has happened umpteen times.

*Loss* of steering control, or just loss of power-assist? I didn't
think fly-by-wire steering was permissible, while it should be possible
to pull the vehicle over safely (if heavily) to the kerb and stop if
power-assist is lost.

(a) is a concern if true, (b) and (c) are just inconveniences, which
perhaps the driver is simply bored of.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.