On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:23:12 +0000
Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:20:51 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>>Slam doors were unnecessarily dangerous in a modern age when better
>>>alternatives exist. Not only did people fall out but people on
>>
>>If we had the indian system of no doors altogether on some trains I suspect
>>the survival instinct would kick in and almost no people would be hurt or
>>killed.
>>
>I remember my first day in Bombay (as it was) looking at the Times of
>India that had just been posted under my door. It said that over 500
>people had been killed on the Eastern Railway alone (I assume in a
>year). The split between pedestrians and riders wasn't made clear. But

Bear in mind that assuming this was a few decades ago, even then india would
have had a population 10x the UK. But yes, 500 is still a lot and I suspect
it was people wandering on the track mostly.

>by your logic presumably wandering over the track is fine, too, due to
>that same survival instinct?

If they die its their lookout, so long as it doesn't delay the train.
Unfortunatly in this country everything has to grind to a halt even if someone
has seen a dog remotely near the line never mind a person.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:13:28 -0000 (UTC),
> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> https://youtu.be/wyAWEoCV3YY?si=o0TSof_6XXZ8MDHr
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if Boris Buses will be brought back as a tourist novelty ride in
>>> the 2070s?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am over 60 now. I do not care :-)
>> However I really appreciate this londonbus project. Pity London Transport
>> withdrew the routemaster heritage routes.
>
> TfL regards them as a tourist attraction, like the open top buses, not a
> means of transport.
>

I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
well, at least some Londoners love them too.

--
Titus Atomicus

Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> https://youtu.be/wyAWEoCV3YY?si=o0TSof_6XXZ8MDHr
>
>

I have just visited their website:
https://londonerbuses.co.uk

Unfortunately they withdrew the Route A this year.
The good news is they launched the Route T15 instead.
From Waterloo Stn through Trafalgar Sq and further on via Strand and Fleet
St to Tower Hill (as the late Heritage Route 15).

--
Titus Atomicus

Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:13:28 -0000 (UTC),
>> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/wyAWEoCV3YY?si=o0TSof_6XXZ8MDHr
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if Boris Buses will be brought back as a tourist novelty ride in
>>>> the 2070s?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am over 60 now. I do not care :-)
>>> However I really appreciate this londonbus project. Pity London Transport
>>> withdrew the routemaster heritage routes.
>>
>> TfL regards them as a tourist attraction, like the open top buses, not a
>> means of transport.
>>
>
> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.

London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.

> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
> well, at least some Londoners love them too.

I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus. Leave them
for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.

On 17/03/2024 17:53, Recliner wrote:
>> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
> London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
> historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.
>
>
>> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
>> well, at least some Londoners love them too.
> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus. Leave them
> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>

That argument falls a bit flat when you consider the modern tecnhology
is a Boris bus!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
>
> London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
> historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.

I still think there is something between the modern infrastructure and a
tourist attraction.
>
>> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
>> well, at least some Londoners love them too.
>
> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus.
Why?

>Leave them
> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>
>
Ok. If you see someone driving a vintage car do you consider him a tourist?

--
Titus Atomicus

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 17:53, Recliner wrote:
>>> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
>> London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
>> historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.
>>
>>
>>> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
>>> well, at least some Londoners love them too.
>> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus. Leave them
>> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>>
>
> That argument falls a bit flat when you consider the modern tecnhology
> is a Boris bus!
>

Not any more. The modern buses I'm thinking of are the smooth, quiet
electric double-deckers.

Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
>>
>> London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
>> historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.
>
> I still think there is something between the modern infrastructure and a
> tourist attraction.

It's not a 1950s bus.

>>
>>> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
>>> well, at least some Londoners love them too.
>>
>> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus.
> Why?

Low floor, more space, front and mid doors, smoother, quieter.

But when I visit the EOR, then a ride on a vintage bus is part of the
vintage travel experience.

>
>> Leave them
>> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>>
>>
> Ok. If you see someone driving a vintage car do you consider him a tourist?

Of course not. Similarly, I don't think of the owners of vintage buses as
tourists.

Recliner wrote:

> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world
> <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather
> > say. Many, well, at least some Londoners love them too.
>
> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern
> bus. Leave them for the tourists, while the modern world uses
> modern technology.

The irony being, this is a post on Usenet! :-)

Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:

> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > TfL regards them as a tourist attraction, like the open top
> > buses, not a means of transport.
>
> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist
> attraction”. Routmasters are the part of London tradition I
> would rather say. Many, well, at least some Londoners love
> them too.

I went to a wedding in Sidcup that used a [hired] Routemaster to
drive the guests from the church to the reception... it was
great to hear that familiar throb of the Routemaster's diesel
engine. It wasn't the smoothest of rides, but we all loved to be
on a Routemaster again.

Buses had character back when they were the staple of LT's bus
fleet. Modern buses are like cereal boxes on wheels, but they
are quieter and generally a smoother ride. They're probably a
lot more fuel efficient too, so unfortunately there's no going
back.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Leave them
>>> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>>>
>>>
>> Ok. If you see someone driving a vintage car do you consider him a tourist?
>
> Of course not. Similarly, I don't think of the owners of vintage buses as
> tourists.
>
>
How about the passengers of that vintage car? Are they tourists?

--
Titus Atomicus

In message <ut9cbl$vr4$1$Atomicus@news.chmurka.net>, at 12:34:01 on Mon,
18 Mar 2024, Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world remarked:

>>>> Leave them
>>>> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>>>>
>>> Ok. If you see someone driving a vintage car do you consider him a tourist?
>>
>> Of course not. Similarly, I don't think of the owners of vintage buses as
>> tourists.
>>
>How about the passengers of that vintage car? Are they tourists?

Often yes, or "out for the ride" which amounts to the same thing.
--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 17/03/2024 17:53, Recliner wrote:
> >>> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
> >> London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
> >> historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
> >>> well, at least some Londoners love them too.
> >> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus. Leave them
> >> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
> >>
> >
> > That argument falls a bit flat when you consider the modern tecnhology
> > is a Boris bus!
> >
>
> Not any more. The modern buses I'm thinking of are the smooth, quiet
> electric double-deckers.

I wonder how long it'll be before Boris buses appear on the used market.
The early ones are now 12 years old - not sure what the service life of a
regular London bus is, but they must be getting towards that.

The original Routemasters lasted a long time because they were endlessly
refurbished, but that doesn't happen today. Given the many problems they
have, I'd expect operators would much rather replace them with new electric
buses - especially the Euro 5 examples.

Maybe at some point TfL will cut their losses?

Perhaps Skopje would like some to go alongside their faux Routemasters?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutong_City_Master

Theo

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 17/03/2024 17:53, Recliner wrote:
>>>> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
>>> London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
>>> historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
>>>> well, at least some Londoners love them too.
>>> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus. Leave them
>>> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>>>
>>
>> That argument falls a bit flat when you consider the modern tecnhology
>> is a Boris bus!
>>
>
> Not any more. The modern buses I'm thinking of are the smooth, quiet
> electric double-deckers.
>
>

I still slightly hold a childhood grudge that it was the Routemaster that
took over from the Trolleybuses with their fascinating overhead that plied
Chiswick High Road around to Shepherds Bush and Hammersmith Broadway which
I was frequently taken on.
Inside the Trolleys would now seem equally old fashioned and awkward but
the noise and vibration of a Diesel bus was obviously an inferior travel
experience however modern the Routemaster was touted as.
Modern buses are way ahead of those of 60-40 years ago and now that
electric propulsion has started to come back the ambience is getting better
as well. And battery buses that are now capable of running in service for a
day are allowing a lot more places to have that smoothness as they work
routes that would never be wired due to the capital expenditure.

GH

Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Titus_Atomicus@somewhere.in.the.world <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Leave them
>>>> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ok. If you see someone driving a vintage car do you consider him a tourist?
>>
>> Of course not. Similarly, I don't think of the owners of vintage buses as
>> tourists.
>>
>>
> How about the passengers of that vintage car? Are they tourists?
>
>

The vast majority will be riding in it for the pleasure of doing so ,often
in company with drivers and passengers in other similar vehicles on a tour
around a scenic area or a meet at a tourist destination like the grounds of
a stately Home so yes they are, especially if the vehicle is a GT.

GH

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/03/2024 17:53, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> I do not consider these routmaster just as a „tourist attraction”.
>>>> London has lots of history that tourists come to visit. But those
>>>> historical artefacts are not part of the modern infrastructure of the city.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Routmasters are the part of London tradition I would rather say. Many,
>>>>> well, at least some Londoners love them too.
>>>> I like seeing them, but I'd much rather travel on a modern bus. Leave them
>>>> for the tourists, while the modern world uses modern technology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That argument falls a bit flat when you consider the modern tecnhology
>>> is a Boris bus!
>>>
>>
>> Not any more. The modern buses I'm thinking of are the smooth, quiet
>> electric double-deckers.
>
> I wonder how long it'll be before Boris buses appear on the used market.
> The early ones are now 12 years old - not sure what the service life of a
> regular London bus is, but they must be getting towards that.
>
> The original Routemasters lasted a long time because they were endlessly
> refurbished, but that doesn't happen today. Given the many problems they
> have, I'd expect operators would much rather replace them with new electric
> buses - especially the Euro 5 examples.

There's only one operator: TfL. It owns the whole fleet, as the leasing
companies wouldn't fund a bus with so little re-sale potential.

>
> Maybe at some point TfL will cut their losses?

I suspect TfL will be keen to investigate converting them to battery
operation.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how long it'll be before Boris buses appear on the used market.
> > The early ones are now 12 years old - not sure what the service life of a
> > regular London bus is, but they must be getting towards that.
> >
> > The original Routemasters lasted a long time because they were endlessly
> > refurbished, but that doesn't happen today. Given the many problems
> > they have, I'd expect operators would much rather replace them with new
> > electric buses - especially the Euro 5 examples.
>
> There's only one operator: TfL. It owns the whole fleet, as the leasing
> companies wouldn't fund a bus with so little re-sale potential.

TfL don't operate them, they're leased out to contract bus operators
(Go-ahead, RATP, etc*) aren't they? I wonder at what point they refuse to
tender if TfL insist on using the New Routemaster?

* I haven't surveyed exactly which operators use them at present

> > Maybe at some point TfL will cut their losses?
>
> I suspect TfL will be keen to investigate converting them to battery
> operation.

Conversions have worked so well on the railways...

More to the point, I doubt a 'restomod' New Routemaster is going to have as
good performance as a purpose built electric bus - as well as having to deal
with the problems like temperature control inside and the wasted rear
platform and staircase. If the price of a new electric bus is less than a
conversion, will TfL throw good money after bad?

(For comparison, restomod classic cars often get roughly half the range of a
comparable new electric car - which is fine for a Sunday roadster, less good
for a daily workhorse)

Theo

On 19/03/2024 10:23, Theo wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder how long it'll be before Boris buses appear on the used market.
>>> The early ones are now 12 years old - not sure what the service life of a
>>> regular London bus is, but they must be getting towards that.
>>>
>>> The original Routemasters lasted a long time because they were endlessly
>>> refurbished, but that doesn't happen today. Given the many problems
>>> they have, I'd expect operators would much rather replace them with new
>>> electric buses - especially the Euro 5 examples.
>>
>> There's only one operator: TfL. It owns the whole fleet, as the leasing
>> companies wouldn't fund a bus with so little re-sale potential.
>
> TfL don't operate them, they're leased out to contract bus operators
> (Go-ahead, RATP, etc*) aren't they? I wonder at what point they refuse to
> tender if TfL insist on using the New Routemaster?
>
> * I haven't surveyed exactly which operators use them at present
>
>>> Maybe at some point TfL will cut their losses?
>>
>> I suspect TfL will be keen to investigate converting them to battery
>> operation.
>
> Conversions have worked so well on the railways...

They are hybrid buses so already have most of the kit necessary for full
electric operation. Remove the diesel engine and fit a bigger battery.

Remove the rear staircase and doors and replace with extra seating and
you might have a serviceable vehicle.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> They are hybrid buses so already have most of the kit necessary for full
> electric operation. Remove the diesel engine and fit a bigger battery.
>
> Remove the rear staircase and doors and replace with extra seating and
> you might have a serviceable vehicle.

Equipmake's conversion replaces the motor:
https://equipmake.co.uk/equipmake-showcases-sector-leading-repower-technology-with-fully-electric-new-routemaster-bus/

400kWh for 150 miles, that's 0.375 miles/kWh (about 10x worse than a Tesla)
or 1.6 kWh/km.

For comparison Cambridge's electric double deckers (Volvo BZL) are 1.2
kWh/km:
https://www.stagecoachbus.com/promos-and-offers/east/cambridges-electric-buses

and Alexander Dennis are quoting 0.67kWh/km for Enviro400EVs:
https://www.alexander-dennis.com/next-generation-alexander-dennis-enviro400ev-is-driving-value-through-efficiency-with-benchmark-0-67kwh-km-energy-consumption/

so even if you convert them, the efficiency is low.

Theo

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:31:50 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 19/03/2024 10:23, Theo wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how long it'll be before Boris buses appear on the used market.
>>>> The early ones are now 12 years old - not sure what the service life of a
>>>> regular London bus is, but they must be getting towards that.
>>>>
>>>> The original Routemasters lasted a long time because they were endlessly
>>>> refurbished, but that doesn't happen today. Given the many problems
>>>> they have, I'd expect operators would much rather replace them with new
>>>> electric buses - especially the Euro 5 examples.
>>>
>>> There's only one operator: TfL. It owns the whole fleet, as the leasing
>>> companies wouldn't fund a bus with so little re-sale potential.
>>
>> TfL don't operate them, they're leased out to contract bus operators
>> (Go-ahead, RATP, etc*) aren't they? I wonder at what point they refuse to
>> tender if TfL insist on using the New Routemaster?
>>
>> * I haven't surveyed exactly which operators use them at present
>>
>>>> Maybe at some point TfL will cut their losses?
>>>
>>> I suspect TfL will be keen to investigate converting them to battery
>>> operation.
>>
>> Conversions have worked so well on the railways...
>
>They are hybrid buses so already have most of the kit necessary for full
>electric operation. Remove the diesel engine and fit a bigger battery.

IIRC the engine is rather small. I doubt it would free up enough room for
the amount of batteries required.

>Remove the rear staircase and doors and replace with extra seating and
>you might have a serviceable vehicle.

The rear staircase is the only thing that makes it a usable vehicle. If
you get rid of it it'll only have one entrance and exit which is no use for
a london bus, might work on services in a small country town however.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:52:33 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:31:50 +0000
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Remove the rear staircase and doors and replace with extra seating and
>>you might have a serviceable vehicle.
>
>The rear staircase is the only thing that makes it a usable vehicle. If
>you get rid of it it'll only have one entrance and exit which is no use for
>a london bus, might work on services in a small country town however.

Duh, idiot. They have 3 exits.

On 19/03/2024 14:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:31:50 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 10:23, Theo wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how long it'll be before Boris buses appear on the used market.
>>>>> The early ones are now 12 years old - not sure what the service life of a
>>>>> regular London bus is, but they must be getting towards that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The original Routemasters lasted a long time because they were endlessly
>>>>> refurbished, but that doesn't happen today. Given the many problems
>>>>> they have, I'd expect operators would much rather replace them with new
>>>>> electric buses - especially the Euro 5 examples.
>>>>
>>>> There's only one operator: TfL. It owns the whole fleet, as the leasing
>>>> companies wouldn't fund a bus with so little re-sale potential.
>>>
>>> TfL don't operate them, they're leased out to contract bus operators
>>> (Go-ahead, RATP, etc*) aren't they? I wonder at what point they refuse to
>>> tender if TfL insist on using the New Routemaster?
>>>
>>> * I haven't surveyed exactly which operators use them at present
>>>
>>>>> Maybe at some point TfL will cut their losses?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect TfL will be keen to investigate converting them to battery
>>>> operation.
>>>
>>> Conversions have worked so well on the railways...
>>
>> They are hybrid buses so already have most of the kit necessary for full
>> electric operation. Remove the diesel engine and fit a bigger battery.
>
> IIRC the engine is rather small. I doubt it would free up enough room for
> the amount of batteries required.
>
>> Remove the rear staircase and doors and replace with extra seating and
>> you might have a serviceable vehicle.
>
> The rear staircase is the only thing that makes it a usable vehicle. If
> you get rid of it it'll only have one entrance and exit which is no use for
> a london bus, might work on services in a small country town however.
>
>

Still got the mid-exit, like most buses.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 15:04:36 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 19/03/2024 14:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> The rear staircase is the only thing that makes it a usable vehicle. If
>> you get rid of it it'll only have one entrance and exit which is no use for
>> a london bus, might work on services in a small country town however.
>>
>>
>
>Still got the mid-exit, like most buses.

Yes, I forgot about it. Though the rear exit is what differentiates it from
other buses and is its only advantage. Take that away and its an overpriced
badly ventilated nothing special bus.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 15:04:36 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 14:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> The rear staircase is the only thing that makes it a usable vehicle. If
>>> you get rid of it it'll only have one entrance and exit which is no use for
>>> a london bus, might work on services in a small country town however.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Still got the mid-exit, like most buses.
>
> Yes, I forgot about it. Though the rear exit is what differentiates it from
> other buses and is its only advantage. Take that away and its an overpriced
> badly ventilated nothing special bus.
>
>

Take some of the roof off , install a coffee counter in the rear platform
space and use them as tour buses.

GH

On 19 Mar 2024 16:05:17 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Yes, I forgot about it. Though the rear exit is what differentiates it from
>> other buses and is its only advantage. Take that away and its an overpriced
>> badly ventilated nothing special bus.
>>
>>
>
>Take some of the roof off , install a coffee counter in the rear platform
>space and use them as tour buses.

I imagine the tour bus companies run on fairly thin margins. The last thing
they'll probably want is some overcomplicated unreliable hybrid bus that needs
specialist maintenance.