Talk:New Routemaster

page title

firstly, god that picture looks terrible. At any rate, "new" bus for london seems too vague because another new bus may come in 2 years, 5 years, 15 years or even 6 months. can't this be either merged with London bus or some other title?Lihaas (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

New Bus for London is seemingly the common name, (look at the sources, both primary and secondary), presumably because Wrightbus or Tfl have not come up with a model name yet, and as the project has gone on, it looks less and less like a Future Routemater (the old title). It won't cause confusion with other 'new' London buses, because they are no different, apart from minor spec details and having a middle door, from the design of new bus models delivered all over the UK every few months. That is kind of the whole point, and why it is the "New Bus for London", not to be confused with simply a 'new bus for London'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The name is definitely "New Bus for London" at the moment. It was to be a "New Routemaster", but when it became less-and-less Routemaster like, it became "New Bus for London", or "NB4L". There has been some lazy reporting in the recent days when the designs were released, calling it a new Routemaster. But it certainly isn't one. All the official TfL PR spin calls it a New Bus for London. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

When will the new buses come in use in South London? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.113.222 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this sentence work?

Hi. This sentence:

• The hybrid drivetrain, with a front mounted continuous rev-ing hydrogenised petrol engine charges front mounted batteries, which power the rear wheels through rear mounted electric motors.

- seems difficult to follow. I think a few hyphens (e.g. front-mounted) and one less (revving not the ungainly rev-ing) might help legibility but even so I still find it difficult to follow. Is this, taking out a couple of chunks, the structure of what is meant?

• The hybrid drivetrain charges front mounted batteries, which power the rear wheels.

I find that odd - does a drivetrain charge batteries, or power wheels? Our Drivetrain disambiguation page says "group of components in a motor vehicle that generate power and deliver it to the road surface" which does not match this sense. If, nevertheless, that IS what is meant then maybe this is better:

• The hybrid drivetrain, with a front-mounted continuous-revving hydrogenised petrol engine, charges front-mounted batteries, which power the rear wheels through rear mounted electric motors.

- but if it's more like what I think it is, where the drivetrain is the whole thing including delivery to the road, then maybe something like this:

• The hybrid drivetrain has a front-mounted continuous-revving hydrogenised petrol engine; this charges front-mounted batteries, which power the rear wheels through rear mounted electric motors.

or

• The hybrid drivetrain has a front-mounted continuous-revving hydrogenised petrol engine charging front-mounted batteries, which power the rear wheels through rear mounted electric motors.

Sorry to waffle but do you see what I mean, and which is it please? The only thing I am sure of is that the current one, if not actually wrong, isn't easy to read. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to rush in and edit in a hurry - I should maybe have left this for a full year. In the absence of any view being expressed on this, I'm changing it to the second-from bottom suggestion above. Do please feel free to discuss. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus weight and capacity

There seems to be a revert war brewing with user CourtneyBonnick about my editing to correct the bus weight - I'd like to put my case openly for why the original weght of 11.8t based on a Daily Mail article is incorrect:

• Go and look at the side of a bus, just in front of the middle passenger door. Clearly says 12650kg. I have seen this for myself but also had someone tweet me a picture
• I put in a Freedom of Information request, which was answered, for the weight, capacity and delivery date of all pre-production vehicles. This also says 12650kg. This is the evidence of which CourtneyBonnick says in his last revert 'a news report is more notable than someone's email'; however an FoI response is not 'someone's email' but a legal requirement on a public body to disclose information on request. I therefore contend this is more accurate than a newspaper report, particularly when taken with the physical evidence on the vehicles themselves.

Furthermore, the capacity of the bus has now been accepted by TfL to be below the 87 target. This is actually a consequence of the high weight as there is a maximum gross vehicle weight of 18000kg and an allowance of 68kg per passenger leaves (18000-12650)/68 = 78 passengers. TfL have actually corrected my FoI response to say 77, the bus itself says 78 (63 seats/15 standing) on a placard in the cab not visible to passengers. I'm willing to listen to opinions on what the capacity in the article should say, but it's not the 87 it currently says.

Finally, there's an article in a recent Buses magazine interviewing TfL's Leon Daniels, who knows a thing or two about buses, in which he categorically states that the bus does not have an official name, so perhaps the entire article should be renamed the 'LT class', rather than the 'New Bus for London' (which is the project) or 'Borismaster' (which is a nickname) or 'New Routemaster' (which it categorically isn't).

No mention of cooling problems?

I'm surprised this article doesn't mention the well-documented (by the Evening Standard, at least) problems these buses have had in the recent hot weather in London, with the failure of the air conditioning leading to the nickname 'Roastmasters'. Does anyone else think that's worth including? Robofish (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any links? —Sladen (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Tentinator  22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't view the FT article, and I can't see the word "Roastmaster" used into any of them. Do you have a citation for the specific term "Roastmaster"? —Sladen (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The FT article uses it (use this link to view the contents). I've also found an article from The Huffington Post that uses it.   Tentinator   13:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

London Omnibus Traction Society uses the term in its August 2013 magazine (link here) and the Evening Standard here.   Tentinator   13:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Article name

Now that Transport for London are officially referring to the NB4L as the New Routemaster per [6] & [7] and having confirmed that it has adopted this name when asked in the trade press, (Buses Magazine January 2014), is it now time to rename the article? The NB4L name was always going to have a limited shelf life, given that there are probably already newer designs in service in London. Mo7838 (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Mo7838, so what are you proposing? —Sladen (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

New Routemaster Mo7838 (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't we need a link to Articulated buses in London

Nowhere in this article is the bendy bus mentioned that was the much talked bus that this bus was to replace. I could not come up with an nice way to write about them, maybe somebody else can. (at least here is the link to them :) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.229.248 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Table

I have moved the rear deck opening time column. This fails WP:NOTGUIDE and is excessively detailed. Perhaps it could be included in a more compact form in the prose. Looloo18 (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)