The New Bus for London (NBfL), also known as the New Routemaster, the Boris Bus and the Tory Mayor's Entirely Shameless Vanity Project (copyright: Team Livingstone) promises a number of environmental advantages over not only its conventional diesel counterparts but also fellow hybrid buses already operating in the capital.
Transport for London (TfL) tells me that on a simulated London bus route at the Millbrook proving ground the test model NBfL emitted 640 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometre compared with 864 grams for a current hybrid and 1,295 grams for a current diesel. It threw out 3.96 grams of mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx) per kilometre, compared with 7.7 grams from other hybrids and 9.3 grams from a diesel. And its fuel consumption was 11.6 miles per gallon, as against 8.6 for a a current hybrid and 5.8 for a standard diesel under similar test conditions.
Sounds pretty good, though I feel bound to point out that even the NBfL needs a bit of diesel in the tank to make its electric motor work and if it doesn't get enough, embarrassment can ensue - a matter I now pledge never to mention again. But with only eight of Wrightbus's creations ordered to join a fleet that was 8,528 strong as of March this year, how green is the capital's surface public transport these days?
Not as green as had been hoped when Boris became mayor, I'm afraid. When TfL announced in December 2008 that it was to quadruple London's hybrid count to 56 it also said that "a further 300 hybrid buses will be in operation by 2011," and that it and Boris's commitment to hybrid technology meant that "by 2012" it expected all new buses joining the fleet to be hybrids. A roll out of 500 a year was anticipated, which would have been the largest in Europe.
Come March 2010 TfL was still sticking to its commitment that by 2012 all newcomers to the fleet would hybrids, but the expectation that "a further 300" would appear by 2011 on top of the 56 previously announced had changed to 300 altogether. And last month, Green Party AM Darren Johnson was told in a written answer by Boris and TfL commissioner Peter Hendy that the target date for 300 hybrids was now "by 2012." As for all newcomers to the fleet being hybrids by then, that hope had bitten the dust. The written answer says:
TfL plans to introduce approximately 800 new buses in 2012/13, of which 52 will be hybrids.
Just 52 out of 800. The answer also said that there are 133 diesel-electric hybrids operating at the moment, with a further 184 on order.
Why the problem? As the Boris/Hendy answer also says, the price of hybrids "has not reduced as originally anticipated." A man at TfL tells me that it's basically down to the confidence of the companies that lease vehicles to the route operators. Hybrids haven't been around very long, so they've yet to prove their staying power over the dozen or more years required. That makes the leasing companies wary of investing in them, which means smaller orders for the bus manufacturers, which keeps the prices of the buses high, which puts the operators off buying them - yer basic economies of scale.
The TfL man stressed that they're doing all they can to build the confidence required to bring the price of a hybrid down from the £300,00-315,000 mark to something nearer the roughly £190,000 of a conventional double decker. It will be interesting to see how many additional NBfLs at £330,000 a shout Wrightbus is asked to provide.
Further comment on the NBfL can be read at Autocar. All previous installment of Boris's Bus (A Political Journey) can be read here.
From Cyclists in the City
From The London Word
Comments
22 December 2011 7:12PM
How much electric charge was in the batteries at the start of the test? The power used for that charge needs to be added to the figures.
22 December 2011 7:17PM
The life of a public service bus seems to be typically around 30 years (?), therefore the speed of emissions improvements will be dictated by the rate of renewal. So wouldn't it be a good idea for some enterprising company to come up with a way to retro-fit older buses with a hybrid power package?
It seems to me that designing a replacement diesel-electric power plant with a built in kinetic energy recovery system would be a much more effective route to improving overall fleet efficiency, rapidly.
Symbolically though, wouldn't look quite so good on the streets would it?
22 December 2011 7:18PM
...Oh: and even re-routing the exhausts on buses so they blow their gasses straight up in the air above roof height would do wonders for air quality at street level.
22 December 2011 7:23PM
Agreed.
But the point of hybrids is that battery power combined with kinetic energy recovery devices are used to smooth out wasteful fluctuations in demand -- in theory so that a smaller, lighter engine running at a much more efficient constant speed can be used.
As a consequence the charge in the battery at the start of the journey should be pretty much the same as at the end of the journey (though it is worth checking).
22 December 2011 7:37PM
The life of a public service bus is around 16 years on average.
22 December 2011 7:38PM
.. and so far hybrid buses have not reached that - some early ones in Gateshead have recentkly retired at 6 years old.
22 December 2011 7:58PM
It shoud be easier to convert them to gas-power like they did during the war?
These days some city buses run on CNG e.g. all Los Angeles public service buses. You need about four times the volume of space for fuel storage with CNG, hence the tanks are usually on the roof.
22 December 2011 8:03PM
If that money was used to buy a 1/3rd more normal buses so that we had more routes/frequency, wouldn't that be more environmentally friendly as less people would take their own cars? Just a thought.
22 December 2011 8:39PM
640 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) 864 ( hybrid) and 1,295 ( diesel.)
3.96 grams of mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx) 7.7 (hybrids) and 9.3 (diesel.)
fuel consumption was 11.6 miles per gallon, 8.6 (hybrid)and 5.8 (diesel )
These figures aren't too bad. Shame that the catalytic converters they have employed as 'environmental' actually WASTE fuel. They may reduce emissions but as it is the fuel ITSELF which is TOXIC before and after burning they could have 'compromised' by using water technology and blown the figures above out of the water.
http://www.econokit.fr/index.php/en_US/produits-econokit.html
http://www.ecopra.com/home/index.html
As many small businesses have difficulty in raising large funds to PAY Transport for London to test 'new' technology on buses,
and following the LOW EMISSION ZONE only allowing 'specific' exhaust manufacturers a look in,
How is it that to COMPLY with The Low Emission Zone you MUST PURCHASE a CATALYTIC CONVERTER OR ELSE they wont actually allow you to pay the 32quid emissions (smoke) test fee and physically test your vehicles emissions.
How ironic. Suddenly the ACTUAL emissions are NO longer the driving factor for an Emission Zone.
Wonder if TFL would care to (on behalf of LONDON) test a proven GREEN technology ? There are four different ways to save FUEL (tax payers' money) reduce emissions (tax payers' health) and prolong engine life(tausing water that i have either built or tested.
22 December 2011 8:45PM
Wonder if TFL would care to (on behalf of LONDON)
test a proven and definately real GREEN technology ? France has council vehicles fitted with this technology .
There are four different ways to save FUEL (tax payers' money)
reduce emissions (tax payers' health)
and prolong engine life (tax payers' money)
using water that i have either built or tested or have knowledge of.
Im on twitter, and have the time, and (for now) the energy, to clean the air better than you TFL.
22 December 2011 8:51PM
I'm very grateful for all of these extremely well-informed comments. Thank you.
23 December 2011 1:01AM
No mention ,of course, that it was the authors beloved Ken that has far more responsibility for TFL current fleet , he did after all have 8 years of power. And it was this 'great leader ' cruelly deprived of 'his job' by the wrong short of Londoner that was responsible for the bendy buses which were pretty bad in so many ways , but especial environmentally.
Now they could explain why the 'great leader ' never talked about extending the congestion zone eastward , after-all the traffic and the pollution was ever bit as bad , if not worse, than that seen in the western area he wanted to extend it to. But I guess that would mean taken on the 'political' reasons why the west the was favored over the east which had nothing to do with environmental anything .
23 December 2011 2:22PM
My assumption is the new bus is a hybrid, and not a plug-in hybrid. Does anyone know if that is correct?
It would be nice to see a bus with a ~20KWhr (so each can charge for 7 hours off a standard mains overnight) Sodium Sulfur battery that is charged overnight, and gradually depleted during the day supporting a 1.6 litre diesel engine.
@ JR Woodman
The way to do this would be four in wheel electric motors. Then remove the 6 litre engine and put in a smaller one and a descent power battery or ultra capacitor bank. The expensive bit would be the cabling.
23 December 2011 3:28PM
Quite so! I would have thought that some improvement in efficiency of an existing vehicle could be achieved by installing electric motors and energy recovery (whereby energy is recouped from actions like braking, and stored in batteries).
23 December 2011 7:46PM
The Boris bus actually uses the Volvo Hybrid drivetrain, quite a nice system. The battery is about 4.5kWh of A123 batteries. Interestingly enough, Volvo has proposed that these batteries be made larger to allow for "Plug-In" operation. The batteries would be charged for about 5 minutes or so at each end of the route. This makes for almost 100% electric operation, but with the ability to fall back to "normal" hybrid operation using diesel when needed. Details here:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110831005588/en/Volvo-developing-plug-in-hybrid-bus
A very bright future for the Borismaster.
23 December 2011 10:45PM
Thanks Cenes - that does though imply fast charging which A123 batteries can support, but the charging infrastructure might not. Plus they'd miss out on night time electricity.
Looks good though.
25 December 2011 7:24AM
At least they are making progress, like most projects perhaps not as quickly as we would all like.
How about some progress on the tourist boats and replacing their dirty diesel exhaust, surely they must be ideal for hybrid engine solutions.
Perhaps the low tax diesel they can use is delaying progress and investment.
25 December 2011 4:27PM
The hybrid bus of the future has to compete with the diesel bus of the future. Diesel engines are getting cleaner all the time. Combination of exhaust particulate filter and catylist makes exhaust very clean.
There is also the possibility that the more expensive overhead trolly power is competitive with hybrid busses. Maintenance costs are roughly proportional to capital costs. A bus that costs 1.5 times more will probably cost 1.5 times more to maintain. Higher maintenance cost also corrosponds to more time the the shop and less time on the road.
A major emission problem is oil blowby as the engine wears. This problem becomes significant after best use of catylist converter and particulate filter is added. It may be that the extra expense of hybrid busses is better spent on reducing hours between rebuilding existing bus engines.
There is also the possibility that the more expensive overhead trolly power is competitive with hybrid busses. As mentioned before, CNG is being used in Los Angeles. The ultimate clean bus would burn hydrogen. Cheap hydrogen made by electrolysis using atomic power could make all other forms of transportation propulsion obsolete.
25 December 2011 11:12PM
The most practical answer will probably turn out to be a flywheel battery powered bus. Flywheels have the advantage that power can be added and taken out rapidly reducing any need for long periods recharging. They will be zero polluting which will be important in a city and the CO2 output per Km will fall as the proportion of our electricity from renewable sources rises.
There have been attempts at flywheel buses before, even some going back 50 years but the technology was not really there. The modern flywheel is enclosed in a vacuum chamber and supported on magnetic bearings with the unit mounted on a gimbal to avoid gyroscopic effects.
27 December 2011 9:35AM
If London is interested in the environmental cost of transport the last thing it should be doing is piling cost onto the bus budget. In the suburbs, where most journeys take place the car is the competition and that's where cost will be important in terms of mode choice.
The cost of scrapping high capacity articulated buses serving London's most patronised routes (using the cover of fare evasion etc.) and replacing them with two man (unbudgeted for) 1/3 million pound buses is nothing short of lunacy.
27 December 2011 4:48PM
Maybe, but you also have to look at the human factors of comfort and "coolness". If the new bus is perceived as being a nice place to be, more people will want to ride it. Also, the fuel savings over the life of the bus will pay for most, if not all, of the extra up-front cost. Finally if as I mentioned above, you add fast charging as Volvo has proposed, you get even more savings, and an almost 100% electric ride.
The charging infrastructure is fairly reasonable, since there is only one or two charging stations per route, and can be shared by up to 8 buses. The passenger and journey time isn't affected, since charging is done at the route end, when typically the bus is waiting for a few minutes anyway to synchronize the buses, and only the driver is on the bus.
If you do the math, an all-diesel bendy bus can burn a million pounds (GBP) of diesel over its lifetime 4MPG, 1 million miles, 130 p/l 4.5l /gallon. The current hybrid saves 40% of this, and the fast charged version probably about 70-80%. Makes the diesel way more expensive in the long run, even at today's prices. Not to mention all the carbon and pollution spewed into the air.
27 December 2011 6:17PM
Boris is a god.
28 December 2011 11:08AM
I love reading the defenders of Mr Linvingstone now attempting verbal somersaults to defend the infamous 'bendy bus', how anyone felt that introducing such vehicles to the narrow London streets was a good idea needs there head examined.
We have the bendy busses in the Netherlands, however our road layouts support such vehicles, your big cities clearly did / do not, and I imagine must have been a menace to cyclists and other road users?
Following the authors link to Autocar magazine it seems that the majority of commentators on that website also agree with Boris Johnsons introduction of the new routemaster.
It would seem to me that the author of this CiF piece seems to have issues with Boris Johnson?, rather than applaud the gradual phasing in of busses which are clearly better suited to the roads of London, and which would also I imagine ensure that less traffic jams are caused by bendy busses attempting tight turns, it seems that the author is trying to adjust the facts to fit his own predjudicies?
29 December 2011 3:21PM
I thought they were trialling hybrid buses in the UK back in the 80's?
and hybrid diesel-electric giant dumptrucks have been around since the 1960s.
it's odd how the technology has taken so long to be proven.