The New Bus For The West Midlands?

[Liverpool Street]

I've travelled on the NBFL many times and they are very comfortable and by far the best Hybrid I've travelled on (judging by comfort and smooth ride), I don't think they'll be seen in the West Midlands or anywhere else, if they did appear anywhere else it would more likely be a shorter version with only 1 staircase and the centre door omitted, this possible shorter version was mentioned in the BUSES magazine earlier in 2013 for London routes outside the central area.

What's the length of the NB4L?

[Stuharris 6360]

I've travelled on the NBFL many times and they are very comfortable and by far the best Hybrid I've travelled on (judging by comfort and smooth ride), I don't think they'll be seen in the West Midlands or anywhere else, if they did appear anywhere else it would more likely be a shorter version with only 1 staircase and the centre door omitted, this possible shorter version was mentioned in the BUSES magazine earlier in 2013 for London routes outside the central area.

What's the length of the NB4L?

11.23m (36ft 10inches)

[CL]

Personally, I don't think the NB4L if 'worthy' for use in the West Midlands. I like the design, as where some of you might disagree, but it's my own opinion. However, I do think a bus specifically designed for the Midlands would be great. As we all know now, congestion is a problem, especially at rush hour. This could also be a problem, as Birmingham, is, potentially, England's second largest city. I'd really want a bus, designed to be the 'problem-solver' to this dilemma.

I think places like the Soho Road, Bearwood High Street, and mainly the City Centre could benefit from a couple dual door buses to prevent lateness of passengers and quicker accessibility through the front & rear doors. This could also be a step forward for the Swiftcard project, as there could be sensors at the rear door, so passengers could alight quicker onto the bus, via the rear door. (You see, I have it carefully planned.)  ;)

Then again, it's only my opinion.  :-\

[Stuharris 6360]

Personally, I don't think the NB4L if 'worthy' for use in the West Midlands. I like the design, as where some of you might disagree, but it's my own opinion. However, I do think a bus specifically designed for the Midlands would be great. As we all know now, congestion is a problem, especially at rush hour. This could also be a problem, as Birmingham, is, potentially, England's second largest city. I'd really want a bus, designed to be the 'problem-solver' to this dilemma.

I think places like the Soho Road, Bearwood High Street, and mainly the City Centre could benefit from a couple dual door buses to prevent lateness of passengers and quicker accessibility through the front & rear doors. This could also be a step forward for the Swiftcard project, as there could be sensors at the rear door, so passengers could alight quicker onto the bus, via the rear door. (You see, I have it carefully planned.)  ;)

Then again, it's only my opinion.  :-\

Anything other than a single entrance bus will cause problems, unless you have CCTV monitoring the middle/rear entrance.

Open rear platform would never be wise in the West Midlands, i am told there has akready been 4 accidents involving people in London falling from the rear platform.

[CL]

Personally, I don't think the NB4L if 'worthy' for use in the West Midlands. I like the design, as where some of you might disagree, but it's my own opinion. However, I do think a bus specifically designed for the Midlands would be great. As we all know now, congestion is a problem, especially at rush hour. This could also be a problem, as Birmingham, is, potentially, England's second largest city. I'd really want a bus, designed to be the 'problem-solver' to this dilemma.

I think places like the Soho Road, Bearwood High Street, and mainly the City Centre could benefit from a couple dual door buses to prevent lateness of passengers and quicker accessibility through the front & rear doors. This could also be a step forward for the Swiftcard project, as there could be sensors at the rear door, so passengers could alight quicker onto the bus, via the rear door. (You see, I have it carefully planned.)  ;)

Then again, it's only my opinion.  :-\

Anything other than a single entrance bus will cause problems, unless you have CCTV monitoring the middle/rear entrance.

Open rear platform would never be wise in the West Midlands, i am told there has already been 4 accidents involving people in London falling from the rear platform.

Your point seems valid, although, I think my point may stand, about the rush hour scenario (when carefully used). However, buses with dual door technology are somewhat 'difficult' to handle - don't get me wrong, it's an innovation - but only to London, it seems. Not all of us are wild about the fact of Dual Door tech on our classic one door entrance/exit. I for one, have a semi-love/hate to this.

I've been to London, at least twice before - and let me tell you, it's not very pleasant when your bus if full over capacity... If you're a tourist into London, you might as well leave your personal space at home - because in London, you're probably entitled to approximately 5cm on a full bus - or 50cm on a busy street, such as Oxford Street, but only if you're lucky! ;D

[Stuharris 6360]

Personally, I don't think the NB4L if 'worthy' for use in the West Midlands. I like the design, as where some of you might disagree, but it's my own opinion. However, I do think a bus specifically designed for the Midlands would be great. As we all know now, congestion is a problem, especially at rush hour. This could also be a problem, as Birmingham, is, potentially, England's second largest city. I'd really want a bus, designed to be the 'problem-solver' to this dilemma.

I think places like the Soho Road, Bearwood High Street, and mainly the City Centre could benefit from a couple dual door buses to prevent lateness of passengers and quicker accessibility through the front & rear doors. This could also be a step forward for the Swiftcard project, as there could be sensors at the rear door, so passengers could alight quicker onto the bus, via the rear door. (You see, I have it carefully planned.)  ;)

Then again, it's only my opinion.  :-\

Anything other than a single entrance bus will cause problems, unless you have CCTV monitoring the middle/rear entrance.

Open rear platform would never be wise in the West Midlands, i am told there has already been 4 accidents involving people in London falling from the rear platform.

Your point seems valid, although, I think my point may stand, about the rush hour scenario (when carefully used). However, buses with dual door technology are somewhat 'difficult' to handle - don't get me wrong, it's an innovation - but only to London, it seems. Not all of us are wild about the fact of Dual Door tech on our classic one door entrance/exit. I for one, have a semi-love/hate to this.

I've been to London, at least twice before - and let me tell you, it's not very pleasant when your bus if full over capacity... If you're a tourist into London, you might as well leave your personal space at home - because in London, you're probably entitled to approximately 5cm on a full bus - or 50cm on a busy street, such as Oxford Street, but only if you're lucky! ;D

Dual door buses were used in Birmingham many years ago, but after an accident were taken out of use. Some buses were converted to single door & others had the middle door taken out of use.

London is a very different kettle of fish to Birmingham, standing is the norm in the rush hour, consider yourself royalty if you get a seat. Many routes like 25 (PVR 59) 38 (PVR57) & 73 (PVR51) are sometimes as regular as every 2 to 3 minutes. Route 25 carried just short of 25 million passengers in 2012/3. Even the Underground is not reaching the point where capacity is overwhelmed by demand with stations having to close for times during the rush hour when the platforms get full to dangerous levels.

[don]

The NBFL is born of political whim, nothing more. In the same way that the removal of bendibuses has occurred. Both of these allegedly populist actions came about as a result of the continual moaning in the Evening Standard. The mayor is a very astute man and can see a political expedient and advantage a mile off.

It is ironic in the extreme that London Council tax payers are paying through the nose for this batch of buses which are far longer than normal buses (to accommodate the ridiculous open rear door module) - remember the bendibuses were withdrawn to improve safety for cyclists owing to their length - the NBFL is also significantly longer than a normal bus and all of these expedients have done nothing to alter safety for cyclists which continues to reach new depths.

The Routemaster routes had appalling levels of platform accidents and even with the new vehicles and their customer assistants in place there have been injury accidents already.

The buses themselves look quite distinctive but give the air of a design studio interpreting 100 years of bus design in the capital. Why would you want to reintroduce the narrow window style of the FRM of 1968 which create a more chlaustophobic interior atmosphere - well this has been explained by the fact these buses don't have to support standing passengers so the windows can be shallower!!! It's also been suggested that headroom is impaired in some areas of the vehicles.

The fact is these buses show little advantage if any in fuel consumption in operation, cost more to buy, cost more to operate, and in some areas seem to be worse for passengers. This appears guaranteed to cause reductions in other elements of expenditure across the system with little benefit except for bus enthusiasts!! It's interesting that the introduction of these buses has coincided with the cost cutting exercise of changing blinds to white on black across the system to save money - they are not as clear in my opinion.

So let's hope these vehicles do not make it beyond the current political project in London unless you want part of the taxpayers money wasted when it could be used on arguably more worthy public transport expenditure.

[nx4737]

The NBFL is born of political whim, nothing more. In the same way that the removal of bendibuses has occurred. Both of these allegedly populist actions came about as a result of the continual moaning in the Evening Standard. The mayor is a very astute man and can see a political expedient and advantage a mile off.

It is ironic in the extreme that London Council tax payers are paying through the nose for this batch of buses which are far longer than normal buses (to accommodate the ridiculous open rear door module) - remember the bendibuses were withdrawn to improve safety for cyclists owing to their length - the NBFL is also significantly longer than a normal bus and all of these expedients have done nothing to alter safety for cyclists which continues to reach new depths.

The Routemaster routes had appalling levels of platform accidents and even with the new vehicles and their customer assistants in place there have been injury accidents already.

The buses themselves look quite distinctive but give the air of a design studio interpreting 100 years of bus design in the capital. Why would you want to reintroduce the narrow window style of the FRM of 1968 which create a more chlaustophobic interior atmosphere - well this has been explained by the fact these buses don't have to support standing passengers so the windows can be shallower!!! It's also been suggested that headroom is impaired in some areas of the vehicles.

The fact is these buses show little advantage if any in fuel consumption in operation, cost more to buy, cost more to operate, and in some areas seem to be worse for passengers. This appears guaranteed to cause reductions in other elements of expenditure across the system with little benefit except for bus enthusiasts!! It's interesting that the introduction of these buses has coincided with the cost cutting exercise of changing blinds to white on black across the system to save money - they are not as clear in my opinion.

So let's hope these vehicles do not make it beyond the current political project in London unless you want part of the taxpayers money wasted when it could be used on arguably more worthy public transport expenditure.

Ironic really then that you have a NB4L as your avatar...

[Liverpool Street]

The NBFL is born of political whim, nothing more. In the same way that the removal of bendibuses has occurred. Both of these allegedly populist actions came about as a result of the continual moaning in the Evening Standard. The mayor is a very astute man and can see a political expedient and advantage a mile off.

It is ironic in the extreme that London Council tax payers are paying through the nose for this batch of buses which are far longer than normal buses (to accommodate the ridiculous open rear door module) - remember the bendibuses were withdrawn to improve safety for cyclists owing to their length - the NBFL is also significantly longer than a normal bus and all of these expedients have done nothing to alter safety for cyclists which continues to reach new depths.

The Routemaster routes had appalling levels of platform accidents and even with the new vehicles and their customer assistants in place there have been injury accidents already.

The buses themselves look quite distinctive but give the air of a design studio interpreting 100 years of bus design in the capital. Why would you want to reintroduce the narrow window style of the FRM of 1968 which create a more chlaustophobic interior atmosphere - well this has been explained by the fact these buses don't have to support standing passengers so the windows can be shallower!!! It's also been suggested that headroom is impaired in some areas of the vehicles.

The fact is these buses show little advantage if any in fuel consumption in operation, cost more to buy, cost more to operate, and in some areas seem to be worse for passengers. This appears guaranteed to cause reductions in other elements of expenditure across the system with little benefit except for bus enthusiasts!! It's interesting that the introduction of these buses has coincided with the cost cutting exercise of changing blinds to white on black across the system to save money - they are not as clear in my opinion.

So let's hope these vehicles do not make it beyond the current political project in London unless you want part of the taxpayers money wasted when it could be used on arguably more worthy public transport expenditure.

Ironic really then that you have a NB4L as your avatar...

Not really. Its smashed to bits.

[Tony]

The NBFL is born of political whim, nothing more. In the same way that the removal of bendibuses has occurred. Both of these allegedly populist actions came about as a result of the continual moaning in the Evening Standard. The mayor is a very astute man and can see a political expedient and advantage a mile off.

It is ironic in the extreme that London Council tax payers are paying through the nose for this batch of buses which are far longer than normal buses (to accommodate the ridiculous open rear door module) - remember the bendibuses were withdrawn to improve safety for cyclists owing to their length - the NBFL is also significantly longer than a normal bus and all of these expedients have done nothing to alter safety for cyclists which continues to reach new depths.

The Routemaster routes had appalling levels of platform accidents and even with the new vehicles and their customer assistants in place there have been injury accidents already.

The buses themselves look quite distinctive but give the air of a design studio interpreting 100 years of bus design in the capital. Why would you want to reintroduce the narrow window style of the FRM of 1968 which create a more chlaustophobic interior atmosphere - well this has been explained by the fact these buses don't have to support standing passengers so the windows can be shallower!!! It's also been suggested that headroom is impaired in some areas of the vehicles.

The fact is these buses show little advantage if any in fuel consumption in operation, cost more to buy, cost more to operate, and in some areas seem to be worse for passengers. This appears guaranteed to cause reductions in other elements of expenditure across the system with little benefit except for bus enthusiasts!! It's interesting that the introduction of these buses has coincided with the cost cutting exercise of changing blinds to white on black across the system to save money - they are not as clear in my opinion.

So let's hope these vehicles do not make it beyond the current political project in London unless you want part of the taxpayers money wasted when it could be used on arguably more worthy public transport expenditure.

The reason for the shallower windows, is the same as you will see on most newer designs coming out now, that is aluminium is lighter than glass, so by reducing window size you reduce the weight of the vehicle considerably.

They do office quite a fuel saving over other hybrids, which, considering they are longer with a higher capacity is an achievement, I think it close to 10% less fuel than the B5LH.

As for the original question, TfL hold the copyright on the design, so nowhere else in the UK will be getting lookalikes for some time. Wrights have exclusivity on building them for a few years as well, I think it is another 4. This was done to reduce the price (yes I Know).

[don]

The NBFL is born of political whim, nothing more. In the same way that the removal of bendibuses has occurred. Both of these allegedly populist actions came about as a result of the continual moaning in the Evening Standard. The mayor is a very astute man and can see a political expedient and advantage a mile off.

It is ironic in the extreme that London Council tax payers are paying through the nose for this batch of buses which are far longer than normal buses (to accommodate the ridiculous open rear door module) - remember the bendibuses were withdrawn to improve safety for cyclists owing to their length - the NBFL is also significantly longer than a normal bus and all of these expedients have done nothing to alter safety for cyclists which continues to reach new depths.

The Routemaster routes had appalling levels of platform accidents and even with the new vehicles and their customer assistants in place there have been injury accidents already.

The buses themselves look quite distinctive but give the air of a design studio interpreting 100 years of bus design in the capital. Why would you want to reintroduce the narrow window style of the FRM of 1968 which create a more chlaustophobic interior atmosphere - well this has been explained by the fact these buses don't have to support standing passengers so the windows can be shallower!!! It's also been suggested that headroom is impaired in some areas of the vehicles.

The fact is these buses show little advantage if any in fuel consumption in operation, cost more to buy, cost more to operate, and in some areas seem to be worse for passengers. This appears guaranteed to cause reductions in other elements of expenditure across the system with little benefit except for bus enthusiasts!! It's interesting that the introduction of these buses has coincided with the cost cutting exercise of changing blinds to white on black across the system to save money - they are not as clear in my opinion.

So let's hope these vehicles do not make it beyond the current political project in London unless you want part of the taxpayers money wasted when it could be used on arguably more worthy public transport expenditure.

The reason for the shallower windows, is the same as you will see on most newer designs coming out now, that is aluminium is lighter than glass, so by reducing window size you reduce the weight of the vehicle considerably.

They do office quite a fuel saving over other hybrids, which, considering they are longer with a higher capacity is an achievement, I think it close to 10% less fuel than the B5LH.

As for the original question, TfL hold the copyright on the design, so nowhere else in the UK will be getting lookalikes for some time. Wrights have exclusivity on building them for a few years as well, I think it is another 4. This was done to reduce the price (yes I Know).

Interesting about the copyright! I wasn't aware of that.

I thought that the level of fuel savings shown on the test track had not materialised in operation. It is to be hoped that manufacturers don't return to narrow windows generally. The deeper windows from designs after 1968 have been great for passengers I think.

Ironically the amount of glass on the front of these vehicles is one of their distinguishing features - interesting how it behaves in a crash (though LT62s was a huge crash to be fair - for anyone who hasn't seen this look up bus crash on Chelsea Bridge - somewhat spectacular)

[Tony]

The NBFL is born of political whim, nothing more. In the same way that the removal of bendibuses has occurred. Both of these allegedly populist actions came about as a result of the continual moaning in the Evening Standard. The mayor is a very astute man and can see a political expedient and advantage a mile off.

It is ironic in the extreme that London Council tax payers are paying through the nose for this batch of buses which are far longer than normal buses (to accommodate the ridiculous open rear door module) - remember the bendibuses were withdrawn to improve safety for cyclists owing to their length - the NBFL is also significantly longer than a normal bus and all of these expedients have done nothing to alter safety for cyclists which continues to reach new depths.

The Routemaster routes had appalling levels of platform accidents and even with the new vehicles and their customer assistants in place there have been injury accidents already.

The buses themselves look quite distinctive but give the air of a design studio interpreting 100 years of bus design in the capital. Why would you want to reintroduce the narrow window style of the FRM of 1968 which create a more chlaustophobic interior atmosphere - well this has been explained by the fact these buses don't have to support standing passengers so the windows can be shallower!!! It's also been suggested that headroom is impaired in some areas of the vehicles.

The fact is these buses show little advantage if any in fuel consumption in operation, cost more to buy, cost more to operate, and in some areas seem to be worse for passengers. This appears guaranteed to cause reductions in other elements of expenditure across the system with little benefit except for bus enthusiasts!! It's interesting that the introduction of these buses has coincided with the cost cutting exercise of changing blinds to white on black across the system to save money - they are not as clear in my opinion.

So let's hope these vehicles do not make it beyond the current political project in London unless you want part of the taxpayers money wasted when it could be used on arguably more worthy public transport expenditure.

The reason for the shallower windows, is the same as you will see on most newer designs coming out now, that is aluminium is lighter than glass, so by reducing window size you reduce the weight of the vehicle considerably.

They do office quite a fuel saving over other hybrids, which, considering they are longer with a higher capacity is an achievement, I think it close to 10% less fuel than the B5LH.

As for the original question, TfL hold the copyright on the design, so nowhere else in the UK will be getting lookalikes for some time. Wrights have exclusivity on building them for a few years as well, I think it is another 4. This was done to reduce the price (yes I Know).

Interesting about the copyright! I wasn't aware of that.

I thought that the level of fuel savings shown on the test track had not materialised in operation. It is to be hoped that manufacturers don't return to narrow windows generally. The deeper windows from designs after 1968 have been great for passengers I think.

Ironically the amount of glass on the front of these vehicles is one of their distinguishing features - interesting how it behaves in a crash (though LT62s was a huge crash to be fair - for anyone who hasn't seen this look up bus crash on Chelsea Bridge - somewhat spectacular)

The test track fuel savings, which were about 30% if I remember correctly, haven't materialised in service, but last figures I saw were 6.1mpg for a B5, and 6.7 for a NB4L which is still 10%

[the trainbasher]

There's already a standard brand new decker in Birmingham - they call it Alexander Dennis!

[mranon]

is there much difference between nxwm two hybrid types with their fuel consumption? i often wonder if its worth the extra cost and hassle compared to a normal diesel powered bus

[don]

There's already a standard brand new decker in Birmingham - they call it Alexander Dennis!

Indeed there is - and reading the blurb on the Heatherwick web site (design studio awarded NBFL design) they give the impression NBFL is the first integrally designed bus for decades - somewhat wide of the mark and rather disrespectful to the rest if the industry.

NBFL is a tremendous gamble - although one can have a great deal of faith in Wrightbus and their ability to design a durable well engineered vehicle, some of us will remember some of the more disastrous designs of the past - many of them associated with premature body faults in excessively long multi doored double deckers.

And the fact is there are perfectly good standard double deckers operating all over London.

Regarding dual doors, an issue found in most of the country was that the safety interlocks required to prevent vehicles driving off with the middle doors open resulted in dual doored vehicles being slower to operate at bus stops than single doored ones - whilst they resulted in reduced seating capacity - and in the case of lengthened vehicles to compensate, these tended to have structural weaknesses.