On Dec 1, 10:01 am, MIG wrote:
If that's fair, does it not also apply to the Routemaster, hence the
poster's question?

The routemaster isn't a pastiche , its the real thing. And while its
looks might be old fashioned they don't look as plain daft as the
current LTI taxi. Having said that the only good thing about the
routemaster IMO is the hop on/off ability. Apart from that its too
small and too cramped to be a realistic bus for todays crowds.

B2003

On Dec 1, 10:29*am, Boltar wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:01 am, MIG wrote:

If that's fair, does it not also apply to the Routemaster, hence the
poster's question?

The routemaster isn't a pastiche , its the real thing. And while its
looks might be old fashioned they don't look as plain daft as the
current LTI taxi. Having said that the only good thing about the
routemaster IMO is the hop on/off ability. Apart from that its too
small and too cramped to be a realistic bus for todays crowds.

B2003

I am not criticising or praising the Routemaster, but by 1969 or so it
was an updated version of a design that was going out of date in the
1950s, and certainly not exactly overpowered.

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On Dec 1, 10:29*am, Boltar wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:01 am, MIG wrote:

If that's fair, does it not also apply to the Routemaster, hence
the poster's question?

The routemaster isn't a pastiche , its the real thing. And while its
looks might be old fashioned they don't look as plain daft as the
current LTI taxi. Having said that the only good thing about the
routemaster IMO is the hop on/off ability. Apart from that its too
small and too cramped to be a realistic bus for todays crowds.

I am not criticising or praising the Routemaster, but by 1969 or so it
was an updated version of a design that was going out of date in the
1950s, and certainly not exactly overpowered.

It also stopped being built in 1968!

It has not been beaten since in a number of areas, most notably that most
modern buses weigh half as much again (or double in the case of bendies).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

It has not been beaten since in a number of areas, most notably that
most modern buses weigh half as much again (or double in the case of
bendies).

A chunk more than that...

An RM is about 7.5t ULW.
A Citaro bendy is about 18t ULW.

Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

It has not been beaten since in a number of areas, most notably that
most modern buses weigh half as much again (or double in the case of
bendies).

A chunk more than that...

An RM is about 7.5t ULW.
A Citaro bendy is about 18t ULW.

With substantially higher capacity, nearly twice as much. I still don't
get why people compare RMs with bendies all the time - the former is the
ultimate traditional London bus from an age where you could afford large
amounts of labour, the latter is a cheap tram, brought in quickly to
cope with rising demand before proper electrically powered rail based
solutions could be developed.

However, the mass per passenger is a lot more (in the range of about
40-50%), but if you compare bendy against conventional double decker
it's rather closer and if you compare bendy against bendy replacement
single decker the bendy wins on weight (and indeed on pretty much every
other ground - the rigid option has more buses, more cumulative length
of bus, more drivers and more risk to cyclists) This is important
because the replacement for bendies on two of the first three routes
will be rigid single deckers - they were never RM routes. I can't wait
for the spin on that one.

So why are modern buses heavier? Partly, I suspect, for the same
reasons modern trains are heavier - for many years the commercial
incentives in what is now a competitive market were around minimising
initial cost, maintenance and downtime (which translates as 'stick a bit
of extra metal on it and don't waste time optimising for weight or it'll
be late to market and uncompetitive on price') and people have got
bigger - the RM is a bit narrower and a lot shorter than a modern bus,
which are usually 2550mm wide.

Free markets don't lead to optimised design, since design quality is one
of a number of conflicting requirements in product design in a
competitive environment. I'm not sure a convinced Thatcherite like
Boris necessarily understands this, considering how he keeps going on
about value for money.

Tom

Tom Barry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

With substantially higher capacity, nearly twice as much.

....as long as everybody's happy about standing, of course.

The Bendy has far less seating capacity.

and if you compare bendy against bendy replacement single decker the
bendy wins on weight (and indeed on pretty much every other ground -
the rigid option has more buses

That's a bad thing?

more cumulative length of bus

Only if the buses are somehow firmly fixed nose-to-tail.

more drivers

And?

and more risk to cyclists

Mmmm. Every London cyclist I know seems to loath bendis with a _passion_.
Usually based on a near-death-experience.

So why are modern buses heavier? Partly, I suspect, for the same
reasons modern trains are heavier - for many years the commercial
incentives in what is now a competitive market were around minimising
initial cost, maintenance and downtime (which translates as 'stick a bit
of extra metal on it and don't waste time optimising for weight or it'll
be late to market and uncompetitive on price') and people have got
bigger - the RM is a bit narrower and a lot shorter than a modern bus,
which are usually 2550mm wide.

OK, so scale the RM width up from 2440mm (8') to 2550mm. You've just gone
up from 7.5t to 7.8t.
Scale the RM length up from 9.1m (30' RML) to 10.8m (Dennis Enviro 400),
and you're up to 9.2t. So where'd that other few tons come from on the
nice shiny modern "fuel-efficient" bus, then?

The modern double-deckers don't seat or stand any more people than the
RMs, either.

Bendis just plain don't fit London streets with tight junctions,
pedestrian refuges and frequent traffic lights.

Free markets don't lead to optimised design, since design quality is one
of a number of conflicting requirements in product design in a
competitive environment. I'm not sure a convinced Thatcherite like
Boris necessarily understands this, considering how he keeps going on
about value for money.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Purchase cost is just one factor in
the complete lifecycle running costs.

On Dec 1, 3:24 pm, Adrian wrote:
Mmmm. Every London cyclist I know seems to loath bendis with a _passion_.
Usually based on a near-death-experience.

Most cyclists seem to be pretty clueless with regards to basic
survival techniques on the road. They jump red lights, pass vehicles
on the inside near left turns, then surprise! One day they're a jam
sandwich under someones wheels and yet for some reason its always the
drivers fault.

OK, so scale the RM width up from 2440mm (8') to 2550mm. You've just gone
up from 7.5t to 7.8t.
Scale the RM length up from 9.1m (30' RML) to 10.8m (Dennis Enviro 400),
and you're up to 9.2t. So where'd that other few tons come from on the
nice shiny modern "fuel-efficient" bus, then?

Crash protection and emissions control systems I should imagine.

Bendis just plain don't fit London streets with tight junctions,
pedestrian refuges and frequent traffic lights.

********. They fit fine on all the main roads. Funnily enough so do
HGVs.

B2003

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Adrian wrote:

Tom Barry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

and more risk to cyclists

Mmmm. Every London cyclist I know seems to loath bendis with a
_passion_. Usually based on a near-death-experience.

I'm pleased to offer myself as one that doesn't.

The stats show very clearly that bendy buses are no more dangerous to
cyclists than normal buses, when considered on a route basis, and may even
be substantially safer.

Bendis just plain don't fit London streets with tight junctions,
pedestrian refuges and frequent traffic lights.

I would certainly agree that there are some routes where they don't fit,
and those should perhaps be debendified or re-routed. There are also many
routes where they fit fine.

tom

--
All roads lead unto death row; who knows what's after?

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

It has not been beaten since in a number of areas, most notably that
most modern buses weigh half as much again (or double in the case of
bendies).

A chunk more than that...

An RM is about 7.5t ULW.
A Citaro bendy is about 18t ULW.

Actually, an RML (nearer in capacity to a bendy and not appreciably
different from a modern double-decker) is 8.25 tons ULW. You only get a
64-seater RM for 7.5 tons.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

An RM is about 7.5t ULW.
A Citaro bendy is about 18t ULW.

Actually, an RML (nearer in capacity to a bendy and not appreciably
different from a modern double-decker) is 8.25 tons ULW. You only get a
64-seater RM for 7.5 tons.

Difference between tonne and ton? RMLs were always labelled as 7t15cwt -
so your figure is high unless the replacement engines were half a ton
heavier than the originals. RMs were 7t5wt.

And the RM is as rigid a bus as has ever been produced.

I suspect a big part of the reason why modern buses are so heavy is that
the low floor requirement means you have to put in more metal to get the
same rigidity (because it can't be in the most weight-efficient places).

A front engine, front entrance (behind the front wheel) Borismaster
might be able to be lighter than any existing low-floor bus, especially
if it didn't have a driveshaft to the back wheels.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.