..... because I haven't got the technical knowledge to refute it! - although even I can think of a few comments such as "What have the higher production costs got to do with it if it is what is needed??" - the original RM was more expensive than your common old ordinary bus anyway. I'm referring to this letter below on Times Online - does anyone fancy responding with a bit of authority!!?

"Sir, On completely valid safety grounds there can be no new-build open-platform bus (“Blueprint for son of Routemaster”, Dec 19). Even if such a vehicle could legally be built, it would be grossly uneconomic because the quantity required would be pitifully small in the context of the pan-European markets the manufacturers must now serve.

Whilst no dimensions are given, it is clear that the increase in upper-deck capacity and addition of a forward entrance implies a lengthened wheelbase that would substantially impair the manoeuvrability of the bus. The hydrogen engine, apart from being a very expensive and largely untried power source at this stage, would appear to require the inclusion of a tank for this highly volatile fuel within the passenger accommodation. This would not be acceptable on safety grounds.

London’s bus services have been brought up to date by the modernisation of the fleet, and particularly the adoption of articulated single-deck vehicles with off-bus ticketing, which have been a deciding factor in the much higher number of people using urban public transport in the rest of Europe compared with the UK since the 1960s. The Routemaster was outmoded when it appeared and, with what we know now about atmospheric pollution, it is little short of a tragedy that its principal purpose was to replace the environmentally superior trolleybus. It is time to bury the notion of a “son of Routemaster”. The idea is nonsense.

Andrew Braddock

Yateley, Hants"

.. the link to respond is http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3079826.ece

God, Braddock.

The only man who can use a thousand words and say absolutely nothing, month after month. Can I have a refund for all the pages of BUSES magazine wasted by his entirely worthless column? Think of how many pictures would fit in.

Having read many of Mr Braddock's recommendations and points over the last 5 or six years, I've yet to read anything that really relates to the real world.
His knowledge of engineering is little better than that of the average schoolkid and much of his views are whimsical although his ability lies in his method of authoritative articulation. He could sell fridges to Eskimos.

He is indicative of many who seem to hold highly paid advisory positions in Mr Livingstones agencies, are good at spending money and producing very little that actually works and makes a difference.

Three years on and still a tiny minority of wheelchair users use the bus and tube regularly, the figure is so small that it is almost the same as in 1998 when far fewer facilities existed.
The reason?
Simple, Most wheelchair users are not as stupid or blinkered as Mr Braddock and his acolytes would like.

They are intelligent, resourceful folk who like most of the rest of us, will seek out the best solution to the problem faced. hence most will drive a car and benefit from a door to door journey. No-one begrudges a disability space for a disabled car user or even financial assistance for the extra costs,for something that could not be described as a luxury. Fact is too, that those who are so disabled as to be unable to drive can't really ever use public transport without help either which also flies in the face of disability policymakers.

Mr Braddock and his like have done a major disservice in casting a blind eye and a deaf ear to all those who have lesser disabilities which often prohibit car driving and make Public transport the only option.
Modern bus design and some of the ill concieved gimmicks have made nil improvement to these people despite the dissproportinate priority.
One has to remember that much of the Routemasters design features were actually the product of thought from the many people with hearing, sight and missing limbs that were a consequence of the war and worked in places like LT, AEC and Park Royal. Hence ergonomic handrails, anti-fall stairs, a bell cord and everything in the same place to name a few.
The difference is that it simply was not publicised in the way we do now. Disabled were included in society and worked in places where their disability did not impede their ability to work productively, in other words just the same as for everyone else. They got on and led normal as possible lives. My Grandfather was one of them, disabled by an air raid whilst defending Acton Works but worked on at LT right up to retirement in 1971.

Its a shame that Mr Braddock and co. ( Whom, I understand use cars and taxis in the main) cannot put more thought and less politics into their rhetoric but I guess these days that's asking too much.

I was just roaming this site and read this stuff, That opinion about this Mr Braddock is so typical of Britain and could not resist entering a comment. How do you guys keep these guys in work, or is it surely for entertainment value?

Why is it that modern buses are so poor.? That is so true. I have a hearing deficiency and photosensitive epilepsy, so naturally I don't get to keep a driving license. When I lived in London I could not use some new type buses ( in particular the number 11 ) as the lighting oscillated at less than 20Hz caused by the tremendous engine vibration on the bus. Other buses and the Central line trains used to send my hearing aid into amplified feedback by the pitch of the door beepers. Do these people not research and test all this? I can hear a bell ding with my aid, In Paris and other overseas cities a lower noise is used that is audiable to a wider range. Yet it seems to be only London that spends so much money on getting it wrong and telling everyone how great it is. Funny place, glad I left it.

Interesting forum this and a happy new year to y'all