A fact from New Routemaster appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,800 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Hi. This sentence:
- 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?
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:
- 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:
or
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)
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:
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for removing the one-person operation timings from the table. Which category of WP:NOTGUIDE do you think this falls into? If so, most of the detail on this page should be removed. PVR is less important than OPO/TPO. As a compromise, and as you suggested, I have moved the detail down into the prose. Let's not turn this into an edit war, if you think the format should be changed, let me know and I'll be happy to do it. Urban469
It is a bit of a short-coming, that not a single one of the photos here shows the left side of the bus. Lathamibird ( talk) 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I am somewhat surprised that the article does not mention the number plates of these buses. All these buses appear to have been granted some form of exemption from The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 inasmuch as the registration mark does not conform to paragraph 13(i) of the regulations (basically requiring numbers to conform to the new format for British registration numbers - in the form XX99 XXX). All the operating New Routemaster buses seem to have been granted an exclusive registration number series of the form LTZ 9999 (where the 9999 is the fleet number plus 1000). These are not recycled previously issued plates, but newly generated numbers.
I understand that this was a previous practise with London buses, but am unable to find any reliable sourcing (beyond the usual WP:FANSITEs). Someone has suggested to me that the number format matches the XXX 9999 format used in Northern Ireland, but that this particular series (LTZ) is not due to be issued there yet. The article should cover this and confirm whether the buses are registered in Northern Ireland using not due to be issued numbers or registered with the DVLA using non standard (and technically illegal) format numbers. – LiveRail < Talk > 12:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Does this article really need an incidents and accidents section? I'm bothered by the feeling that it is not quite appropriate, or undue weight, or something ... but I am not a bus articles expert. DBaK ( talk) 22:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
*In September 2013, three people were seriously hurt when a New Routemaster on route 11 crashed into three other buses and some parked cars on Chelsea Bridge Road. [1]. It later emerged that there was a computer failure which caused the brakes to fail. [2]. The bus (LT62) was damaged beyond repair and written off
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
New Routemaster. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New Routemaster. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
A two-door design of the New Routemaster had been unveiled last month. This new design uses the Volvo B5LH Chassis.
The name SRM means 'Son of Routemaster'. Currently six of these are brought by RATP-Dev for use on route 13 by September.
Here's some articles of the SRM.
http://www.transportengineer.org.uk/transport-engineer-news/wrightbus-and-volvo-launch-srm-hybrid-bus/116868/
http://www.busandcoach.com/news/articles/2016/london-launch-for-new-wrightbus-srm-on-volvo-b5lh/
http://www.busandcoachbuyer.com/son-routemaster/
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on New Routemaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on New Routemaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on New Routemaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we really still need the route table? There are a large number of routes using this bus type and the PVR and start date sources are questionable. To be fair, this is fancruft and there are plenty of other fansites to find out which bus routes use it. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised that an almost 68 kB article on a bus (i.e., a motor vehicle) totally fails at describing the technical characteristics of said motor vehicle… -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 21:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)