Buses

As the pictures (above) show, Routemasters have large rear windows. As a contrast many modern buses either have small or even no rear windows. Apart from making the rear section of the lower deck very claustrophobic (which some people liken to a prison cell) the inability to see which other vehicles are following makes life very difficult for passengers whose journeys require a change of bus to complete. The reason for this is that where the two routes share the same road the ability to see whether the bus they want to change to is a long way behind / close by / nowhere to be seen etc helps the passenger choose the most advantageous 'spot' to make their interchange. Even if there is a purpose built passenger interchange it is still sometimes easier to change buses whilst in the street environment.

Without the rear window the passenger may never know that the bus they want is right behind until it passes them (ie: too late!). Sometimes its the seemingly 'inconsequential' things like this that make a big difference to the passengers - many of whom would question whether the people who design buses ever actually use buses??

Another 'Routemaster' feature is the excellent quality of their destination signage - which means the route number & destination blinds.

With Routemasters the route numbers and destinations are shown at both the front and back of the bus, with extra information above the doorway too.

As a contrast would-be passengers trying to use many of the more modern bus designs will be lucky if the bus sports anything more than a route number and a destination - at its front, only!

Motor buses normally have an expected lifespan of 15 - 18 years, yet many Routemasters lasted much longer than this. The following information (which comes from an internet-based discussion group about buses in London and includes bus drivers, garage staff & more) might help explain why.

Well possibly why they had such longevity was the very fact they underwent time interval maintenance. The amount of use those buses were put to in those days was tremendous. For instance: one bus on the 185 Victoria - Blackwall Tunnel was scheduled to start at something like 4.30 am and run all day and through the night and return to its garage at 5.30 am the next day.

The regime being discussed doesn't even need computers! Back in the 1970s, working for the state owned National Bus Company, I well remember the (manual) system used by London Country Bus Services to monitor vehicle usage in order to schedule component inspection and replacement. In those days automating this process was investigated but it was concluded that it couldn't then be done any better or cheaper than local engineering staff were already doing it.

re: the reference to LCBS (London Country Bus Services): at one time London Transport operated (red) Central area buses in London and (green) Country area buses in areas outside the main conurbation, however when in the late 1970's control of (red) Central area buses (plus the UndergrounD railway) became the responsibility of the (then) Greater London Council so the Country (green) bus operations became part of the state owned National Bus Company which operated many bus services elsewhere in Britain. Routemaster buses which had been allocated to the Country services remained with the hived-off business unit.

Below is an example of how the time interval (preventative) maintenance system worked. 'RMC' is a coach version of a Routemaster bus which typically would be used on the 'Green Line' longer distance express services which often linked central and suburban London with nearby regional towns.

Imagine an RMC taken off normal duties for one day, instead going out on AM peak jobs only. Back in the garage, by 10:00 the engine would have been removed, to be sent off (outsourcing by a Nationalised Industry in the 70s!) for overhaul. By about 15:00, the replacement engine previously refurbished would have been installed and tested; the bus would then be made available for PM peak duties.

The discussion continued to discuss the merits of time interval (preventative) maintenance and that as it costs money whether a private company would see this as an optional expense. It was suggested that the 'present day' philosophy is most likely to be to see it as a "useless" expense and to question the point of it, with instead the policy seeming to be "wait till it breaks down, we can't spend the annual bonuses on trivia!". One person suggested that maybe the leasing companies which actually own the buses should include preventative maintenance into the leasing contracts - that is assuming most buses are leased, rather than bought outright.

However someone else pointed out that this is not so easy with modern rear-engined buses and mentioned trials by London Transport engineers with a type of bus known as a DMS at their (now closed) Aldenham main bus works which found that removing the engine can take days rather than hours.

In conclusion the following may help explain how the policy of time interval (preventative) maintenance is the reason why these vehicles lasted so long...

The benefits of time-interval servicing was recently briefly mentioned on another group, where reference was made to the fact that the Northern General Routemasters (ie: a different bus operator remote from London) only lasted around 17 years in service - they did not have the same maintenance regime as London.

The two images below show withdrawn former London Transport buses which have been preserved in some of the different guises under which they operated - including the familiar red livery as well as the green liveries used by the Green Line coaches and country area buses.

Save the Routemaster!

Such was the dismay about the demise of the Routemaster that several websites were created to try and 'save' them. Both of the campaigning sites detailed below included petitions which could be signed. However neither is still extant and the links have been deactivated. The still working link is for a specialist (not campaigning) website for Routemaster owners (link opens in a new window).

It is not only in London that the Routemaster has proven popular. During the early years of bus de-regulation many bus operators across Britain bought 'surplus' (sic) examples from London Transport as 'enticements' to attract more bus passengers away from their commercial rival's. One such town was the Essex seaside resort of Southend-On-Sea; here they found that not only did patronage increase but that passengers would 'vote with their feet' and let the dreaded buses with doors pass, even if it was raining! Much to the local bus company's delight they even got favourable coverage in the local newspapers and TV news. Everyone agreed that Routemasters were what the local people wanted.

Another unexpected benefit came in the very severe winter of 1990/1, when there were extreme frosts combined with very heavy snow. Whereas Southend Transport's modern one person operated buses with doors kept breaking down (too cold, their systems just froze up) all the Routemasters ran faultlessly. Many suggest that if the council-owned bus company had not been sold off (ie: 'privatised') then Southend would still be using these buses today.

Their withdrawal from our towns and cities was partly because the big bus owning cartels are primarily interested in the economics of their operations, and to them crew operation was deemed 'uneconomical' (even though it attracted more passengers) plus partly because of their advanced age and partly because of their polluting engines; these all made using Routemasters to be seen as not "politically correct"; nevertheless the fact that they were preferred and attracted people to bus transport should not have been deemed "irrelevant" (sic). It is very regrettable that now bus services in Britain are mainly owned and operated by a fistful of large cartels such customer-focussed marketing ploys have been discontinued.

They are even popular overseas!

Over the years many retired British double decker buses (especially London Transport Routemasters) have been sold abroad to operate tourist services. Perhaps its the novelty factor of travelling upstairs, or the 'Ye Olde England' ambiance, who knows? but tourists seem to love them. Indeed even if when at home they would never normally use buses it seems that when taken out of their daily routine people will behave differently.

Time for "son of Routemaster?" The design already exists!

Bendi-Buses Arrive In London.

Concurrent with the demise of the Routemaster is the fleetwide introduction of the single deck articulated bendi-bus. These buses are not acting as direct replacements for Routemasters - some are replacing the pay-on-entry double-deck buses too. The conversion of a bus route to bendi-bus also sees the adoption of the "off-vehicle" ticketing system throughout that bus route ("off-vehicle" ticketing already applies in central London but for articulated bus routes it is extended out into the suburbs too) and a reduction in service frequency because with their increased total passenger capacity two bendi-buses are typically replacing three double deckers. This also saves the bus operators money - because they need fewer drivers - although as there is a shortage of bus drivers its unlikely that any would actually loose their jobs.

Whilst the bendi-buses are excellent for their disability access they are less than popular with many able-bodied passengers who bemoan the frequency reductions (which mean they have to wait longer at bus stops - something they dont like doing) and that the bendi-buses achieve their greater total passenger capacity at the price of there being considerably fewer seats. Most able bodied passengers dislike being forced to stand in this way - they would prefer to sit down. The loss of the grandstand views of the passing London scenery as seen out of the double deck buses' top deck windows also irks some passengers.

For reasons which cannot be looked at too closely here a situation has arisen whereby the articulated buses have become known (in some areas) as "happy" buses or "free" buses, with a significant proportion of passengers not buying tickets and for reasons of personal safety roving ticket inspectors have been known to refuse to work on these buses except as part of large groups, preferably with police assistance. London, as with most other large cities, has some areas where for reasons of personal safety even the police prefer not to go out on their own.

What Is needed For London.  Urgently!
(The Bus Solution To Air Pollution.)

In the late 1990's Transport for London (TfL - the London-wide regional government body for transport) published plans for a 33 mile (53km) high-profile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for east London & metropolitan Essex using clean zero emission electric trolleybuses. Known as East London Transit (ELT) this is part of a series of locally based transport schemes within the Greater London area which (at the time) planned to see trams used in south, west and central London as well as another trolleybus-based scheme for south-east London - this latter system eventually using its own dedicated lanes on a new bridge spanning the River Thames and then physically interconnecting with ELT.

Although the modal choice was influenced by the fact that a steel-wheel tramway would not have been financially viable TfL's own figures showed that the electric buses would have provided the most financially beneficial option and generate 24% higher revenues than a diesel bus scheme ("East London Transit - Summary Report" published by TfL in July 2001).

However by March 2005 TfL had back-peddled on their plans for ELT to use trolleybuses - and instead of lobbying against this downgrading the local councils in the relevant areas all blindly rubber stamped these changed proposals as if they are TfL's pet poodles. (This includes the London Borough of Redbridge, which is my local council).

When TfL asked for local people's opinions the response was 2:1 in favour of trolleybuses AND against yet more polluting dirty diesel buses so changing these proposals in this way makes a mockery of any form of public consultation - and even the democratic process which underpins our nation - as well as giving the impression that TfL see the people of east London as second class citizens who can be fobbed off with dirty diesel buses whilst they planned to give the people of south, central & west London are given clean zero pollution (in the streets) electric tramways.So far only South London / Croydon has actually received its trams.

It is understood that the decision to go for dirty diseasel buses was at least partially influenced by a budgetary shortfall. Everybody understands that even quasi-governmental organisations such as TfL have only a limited budget nevertheless it is most unfortunate that (at least some of) the people "behind the scenes" (presumably politicians, but this might include others too?) seem to be much more enthusiastic to use those funds on pet projects which disadvantage road users than those which improve the quality of life of the maximum number of people. So it is most regrettable that a westward expansion of the central London congestion charge (which many local people do not want) seems to be have been given a higher priority than an electric bus system (which many local people do want)

Whilst it is true that the existing congestion charge zone has resulted in lower levels of air pollution within central London this only benefits the relatively few who live and work there - the introduction of trolleybuses throughout London would benefit considerably more people throughout the entire Greater London area "adding value" to their (our) daily lives without either falling for the fashionable idea that its good to extract money out of motorists' wallets or negatively impacting on economic activity (although the oil companies might see sales fall). If still felt to be desirable the expansion of the charging zone could always be realised at a later date.

"Questionable Integrity"?

Poor health caused by air pollution is a big problem in London and with as many as 7000 diesel buses on London's streets it stands to reason that they must be part of the problem - with zero-emission (at point of use) electrically powered trolleybuses being part of the solution. In 1999 more Londoners died of air pollution related illnesses than in road traffic accidents. In February 2005 the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy - CSP - published a report warning that the PM10 air particles which are emitted mainly by diesel engines pose such a serious threat to public health that the World Health Organisation (WHO) believes there is NO SAFE exposure limit. The CSP's analysis revealed very high levels of this dangerous pollutant - not just in London but throughout the UK. The full story can be found by following this link. Link to an external site which opens in a new window.

In an effort to combat air pollution London's Mayor has declared that from early 2008 the entire Greater London area will be a "LEZ" Low Emissions Zone, Of course this is very laudable and there is no question that as a result there will be a reduction in the not inconsiderable air pollution emitted by taxis and heavy goods vehicles. But because buses enjoy the unique advantage in that they follow pre-determined fixed routes so their electrification using overhead wires would be relatively straightforward. For administrative convenience the LEZ will mostly be considered to be the area within the M25 Orbital motorway, although the motorway and London's political boundaries do not exactly coincide. The LEZ is being rolled out over a number of months with different types of vehicles needing to comply at different stages of the roll-out.

The Electric Tbus Group has conducted a detailed study which suggests that for London the conversion of the busiest bus routes (eg: those with a frequency of every 5 minutes or more) would offer significant financial and environmental benefits. Thanks to the network effect where multiple routes operate along the same roads the situation would soon arise whereby many subsequent conversions would entail less additional wiring - both increasing the cost effectiveness of existing wiring and reducing the cost of the electrification of additional routes.

Plus of course Londoners would benefit from the significantly cleaner air in the streets where they live, work and play.

In the search to find a bus solution to air pollution London's transport planners seem to be enthusiastic to try every which option possible, except those which are already proven viable.

This includes what are known as "hybrid" buses.

Hybrid buses come in various guises, the variants being trialed in London feature a diesel fossil fuel engine that runs at a constant speed to charge batteries which power the buses' electric drive system.

Normal motor buses create the most noticeable pollution, noise and sometimes even visible smoke when they are starting from rest - ie: pulling away from a bus stop, red traffic signals, etc., so by running the fossil fuel engine at a steady speed it is possible to sidestep this. However it must be remembered that whilst these buses produce less air pollution they do still pollute their local environments, and therefore are simply incapable of being substitutes for quiet zero emission electric trolleybuses.

One unknown factor with hybrid buses relates to their batteries, which will (eventually) require replacing. As yet it is too soon to know exactly how long (how many years) before this becomes necessary - and how much it will cost. Early indications point towards the very high cost of battery replacement (especially on a large fleet of such buses) possibly being their Achilles heel. Dealing with the large number of waste batteries will also require some environmentally enlightened decisions.

The travelling experience on these buses is different to regular diesel buses in that the usual engine noise (which varies according to speed) is replaced by a flat droning background engine noise, which a bus driver described as being akin to that of the aircraft engine noise heard by passengers whilst flying. Depending on where a passenger is standing or sitting it is sometimes possible to feel vibration from the engine too. Noise apart the electric drive system makes hybrid buses smoother to ride in than regular motor buses, plus there is considerably less "rattle" when stationery. If sitting at the very back of the bus there is a slight diesel smell and the warmth of the engine can also be felt.

Click the speaker symbol or here to download a 426kb mono soundclip (named inside-hybrid-bus.mp3) which was recorded using a mobile telephone and demonstrates the engine noise as heard whilst sitting at the back of the bus.

Apart from that the most noticeable noises on these specific buses comes from the trafficators, which are so irritatingly loud that even when passengers are sitting at the back of the bus can still clearly hear them above the flat monotonous drone of the diesel engine

More information about hybrid buses can be found on a dedicated Hybrid Buses page.

Just as the Routemaster buses seen above were popular outside of London too so the benefits of the electric trolleybus would also be appreciated elsewhere in Britain.

The logic however is more than just emotional.

Electric buses would help alleviate the problems of local air pollution - not just in the street domain but also within the wider global context. This would then help us in Britain meet our commitment to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010. The House of Commons environmental audit committee says that carbon emissions from transport are 'still moving in the wrong direction' but apart from clobbering motorists with yet more taxes the govt. has failed to find effective ways to entice people out of their cars.

By attracting car users who would not switch to a modern motor bus electrification of our urban bus routes could help reverse this upward trend. This would also help reduce overall road traffic levels too.

A nationwide programme of bus electrification here in Britain would help us justify to the other members of our planet-wide family of nations the urgent need for similar policies for improving both the global and their local environments. It would also "add value" to people's daily lives - something which current British government transport & environmental policies totally fail to do.

Trolleybuses, electric buses, air pollution and why so called "cleaner" diseasel§ (aka "less dirty") buses could be worse that buses which give off visible smoke are looked at on the Electric Buses page.

§the word "diseasal" is a merging of the words "diesel" and "disease". It accurately describes what heavy duty diesel engine exhuast fumes do to us humans, as well as some of the other living beings who share this planet with us.