How long does it take to build and supply a double decker bus?

LordSutch

Just curious how long its takes to build a double decker bus, and how many can be produced over a given timespan. Lets take for example 'Wrightbus' of Ballymena/Northern Ireland, a relatively small bus builder who supplies buses to London (a massive City), so what happens if Transport for London puts in an order for two hunderd buses? would the order take ten years to fulfil? or can they whack out buses at a really fast pace? (Two double deckers a week maybe)? I have no idea, but I am curious to know.

Curious.

foggy_lad

LordSutch wrote: »

Just curious how long its takes to build a double decker bus, and how many can be produced over a given timespan. Lets take for example 'Wrightbus' of Ballymena/Northern Ireland, a relatively small bus builder who supplies buses to London (a massive City), so what happens if Transport for London puts in an order for two hunderd buses? would the order take ten years to fulfil? or can they whack out buses at a really fast pace? (Two double deckers a week maybe)? I have no idea, but I am curious to know.

Curious.

They will be able to increase their workforce depending on orders received so as to speed up production I would imagine?

josh59

foggy_lad wrote: »

They will be able to increase their workforce depending on orders received so as to speed up production I would imagine?

According to their Wikipedia page they employ 1000 people

I don't think this really answers your question but it's interesting nonetheless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0wuzjLoouU

LordSutch

I suppose what I am really interested in is why its taking so long to build just eight of the new Hybrids for London? Apparently if Mr Johnson is re elected as Mayor, he will want to order many more of the NBFL.

But could Wrightbus manage the demand of such a large order, or might they 'out source' production?

Losty Dublin

It depends on what parts are used on the bus. Not much of the bus is actually built in Ballymena, it's more so an assembler of the bus. The chassis, panels, windows, engine, gearbox and internal panel's will all have been built elsewhere and by different companies. In the case of a hybrid and for a very small order, it may require a totally different design, engineering and part sourcing that takes longer. There is a delay between tendering and actually constructing the bus, maybe that's part of the timespan you heard about.

I guess the fact it's not an off the shelf design like the Gemini (Wrightbus) or Enviro 400/500 (Alexander Dennis) means that the parts have to specifically produced, which would delay the production.

LXFlyer

Also they may have other orders to fulfill.

Victor

It really depends on what you want, whether it is off the shelf and how much demand there is in the market. Design of a new model might take years, but final assembly might be done in days. In practical terms, I imagine from tender to delivery takes several months.

Sometimes what happens for small or urgent orders is that units are diverted from a larger order that is ahead of schedule, assuming it doesn't cause too much disruption, e.g. if there are elements of customisation that will need machines to be reset and then changed back.

You could order a bus in the morning and have it in the afternoon, but you might have to pay double the price up front.

Conway635

LordSutch wrote: »

I suppose what I am really interested in is why its taking so long to build just eight of the new Hybrids for London? Apparently if Mr Johnson is re elected as Mayor, he will want to order many more of the NBFL.

But could Wrightbus manage the demand of such a large order, or might they 'out source' production?

We're really talking about something very different from the run of the mill bus production here.

Wrightbus supplies hundreds of buses to London every year, and hundreds more around the UK, Ireland, and further afield. Time from order to delivery for a batch of double-deck buses would normally be between 9 months and a year, but much of this is due to order backlog - getting a "build slot" for your batch in a very busy schedule. The actual building of the bus takes only a few weeks.

The New Bus For London is different, and subject to "delay" because it is the start of production of a brand new product.

Generally in the bus industry, complete new products are developed over a period of a number of years, with prototypes being produced and tested long before volume production is possible. (if the product is merely a new type of body on an existing proven chassis/drivetrain, the cycle is much shorter).

What is happening here is that due to the political involvement (buses strongly identified with mayor, up for re-election next month) they are the focus of considerable attention, with wild claims/demands being made on both sides (Borris wants as many of the 8 prototypes in service as quickly as possible, his opponents are calling the normal testing/modifying cycle evidence of failure, and also attributing the product development cost to these 8 buses only to make them seem wildly expensive, whereas the industry norm is that the development cost is spread over all vehicles produced in the lifetime of the product).

The delivery rate of NBFL is actually fast considering normal process - usually only 1 would have been produced, and tested to destruction first, then a couple more for in-service trials, maybe another year, then limited production beginning, then ramping up to fullscale production.

If you take the classic Routemaster, the first prototype was built in 1954 (but not on the road until 1956) and for the first four years only four prototypes were produced, spending periods in service, and periods off road for modification in the light of data gained. It was only in 1959 that production proper started, and buses entered service in numbers.

The Leyland Atlantean was developed through several prototypes over a number of years in the late 1950s before it entered service in any numbers. CIE's experience with this bus, the D-class from 1966, merely involved putting it's own body on what was by them a well-established design, but even then problems were quickly encountered, and modifications had to be made to the ventilation, cooling and fuel systems shortly after the buses entered service.

For the KD type Bombardier buses, the first prototype KD1, built in 1979, was driven a quarter of a million kilometers at a testing facility in the UK (MIRA), and when the Shannon factory opened a second prototype KD2 was built, and ran in service in Dublin for 3 months before volume production began.

So the NBFL situation is not at all unusual, except in the sense of being in the political and media spotlight.

C635

LordSutch

Many thanks to all contributors, specially that last post by Conway635.

They'll certainly be very busy at Wrightbus if Boris wants a few hundred.

CIE

All I get reminded of is CIE's self-evisceration. After all, they themselves used to build bus bodies, the last ones for the cities being the first batch of Atlanteans...

Pity that whatever museum buses are out there aren't put into revenue service occasionally, like they've done in New York City, e.g. these "Old Look" General Motors buses from 1956 running on Manhattan route M42...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOD2k_4tKAY

Markcheese

Prob a bit off topic but....the hybrid buses, are they 2 drive trains (diesel and electric) , a complicated joint system (like a Prius) or a diesel electric( tram motor powered by a diesel generator) which is proven tech..

LordSutch

Markcheese wrote: »

Prob a bit off topic but....the hybrid buses, are they 2 drive trains (diesel and electric) , a complicated joint system (like a Prius) or a diesel electric( tram motor powered by a diesel generator) which is proven tech..

Well on the (NBFL/ Borismaster) the drivetrain is 100% battery powered electric, and when the batteries need charging the 4.5L Cummins diesel engine comes to life (situated under the rear stairs) and charges up the batteries, I did read some blog saying that it cuts in/out on ten minute intervals.

Markcheese

Kinda makes sense, can see a few advantages with it... Put the electric motors at wheels, no need for gears, should be able to run the engine at it's optimum efficiency( let batteries do the acceleration) it just has to chug away to charge up. And if u can use the motors to do regenerative breaking should save a lot of wear there too.... Jeeze if it works the only way a driver could wreck it would be by smacking it into something

CIE

Markcheese wrote: »

Kinda makes sense, can see a few advantages with it... Put the electric motors at wheels, no need for gears, should be able to run the engine at it's optimum efficiency (let batteries do the acceleration) it just has to chug away to charge up. And if you can use the motors to do regenerative braking should save a lot of wear there too.... Jeeze if it works the only way a driver could wreck it would be by smacking it into something

Not really. All the batteries add to electromechanical complexity (i.e. one more thing to service). Also sounds like you can't bypass the batteries in case of failure.

Regenerative braking does not save on parts wear. It takes the braking energy and converts it to generated electricity. Now if most of that was what you used to charge the batteries, that's not a terribly bad idea (otherwise the energy would be lost as heat); but you'd need some really reliable batteries.

Run_to_da_hills

Markcheese wrote: »

Prob a bit off topic but....the hybrid buses, are they 2 drive trains (diesel and electric) , a complicated joint system (like a Prius) or a diesel electric( tram motor powered by a diesel generator) which is proven tech..

They have these in Seattle, they weigh tonnes and are not as efficient as they make them out to be, The only advantage they have is that they can use city tunnels without fuming the place up.