Sunday, 8 March 2026

Does London need a new ‘bespoke bus’ to replace the hybrid New Routemaster?


This piece is written in response to a recent article by Ross Lydall in The Standard, in which the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, stated: "If that means getting rid of the legacy of the mess made by the previous mayor, so be it."

In relation to the Mayor's statement, I hosted a poll on X asking whether London should have a bespoke bus to replace the New Routemaster. The result shows a majority "No" vote at 48.1%. However, if you combine the "Yes" votes and "All makers should", it makes the result similar to a tie. This indicates that while there is support for moving on, there is still significant interest in a bespoke bus for London.


I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ross for linking to my previous articles regarding the London Bus Tender awards. These specifically cover routes 8, 16, 267, and 313, which are now set to replace their New Routemasters with new zero-emission buses.

Originally, the idea for a New Routemaster concept was suggested by Policy Exchange from their 'Replacing the Routemaster' book. Where they suggested to lobby the candidates for the 2008 London Mayoral election for a New Routemaster bus, which has certainly influenced Boris Johnson to adopt it to his manifesto as a Conservative party candidate.

The following analysis aims to provide a realistic and politically impartial perspective on the future of the capital's bus fleet.

The Legacy of the New Routemaster

Aesthetically, the NRM was arguably a success, as it was originally designed by Heatherwick Studio. It helped bus manufacturers improve their double-deck designs, which is why various elements of the NRM's "DNA" can now be seen on buses throughout the UK and around the world. However, aesthetics are only one part of the equation, as the vehicle became notorious for significant engineering flaws that compromised passenger comfort and operational reliability. The most prominent failure was the inadequate air-cooling system combined with a sealed-window design, which led to upper-deck temperatures exceeding 30°C and earned the bus the "Roastmaster" nickname; this eventually necessitated a costly £2 million retrofit programme to install opening hopper windows. Beyond the heat, the fleet was plagued by mechanical issues, including premature battery failures that forced many hybrids to run solely on diesel, and safety-critical recalls for steering defects and faulty door sensors that allowed the three-door system to open while the bus was in motion. Now the tide is turning as the NRM is reaching its 14-year life cycle in passenger service.

The NRM remains a popular bus. A couple of months ago, I covered in a previous article that I had researched consultation reports which showed a number of comments by users suggesting they would like more New Routemasters in zero-emission form.

However, just to recap, I am not advocating for the simple relaunch of the old New Routemaster project. Rather, I suggest a new chapter for zero-emission buses in London that builds on this popularity. I firmly believe that creativity is essential to the future of public transport; this includes bold branding and unique visual identities that make services more attractive and help them stand out against the rest of the network.

Should TfL Establish its Own Bus Manufacturing?

Separately, on 22nd February, I posted a poll on X asking whether TfL should establish its own manufacturing. The result shows a tie, with 50% of votes on either side. It is evident that this is a controversial topic.


It would mean that TfL would have to allocate resources to establishing their own bus manufacturing company; whereas, in fact, Transport for London and their predecessor, London Regional Transport, have historically worked with manufacturers to improve features such as accessibility and safety. These improvements have subsequently filtered through to bus services throughout the UK.

Establishing a new, independent bus manufacturer in the London area is a possibility, but it would require vast resources. High land values and labour costs in the South East would likely make such a project prohibitively expensive, necessitating significant private investment or government subsidies to ensure its long-term viability against established global competitors.

Financial Realities

Despite ongoing financial turnovers and operating profits, TfL remains subject to a limited budget, as does the Greater London Authority. Any proposal for a new bespoke vehicle must be viewed through this lens.

Currently, the priority for TfL is the rollout of new rolling stock trains for the Docklands Light Railway, specifically the B23 stock, the London Underground's Piccadilly line 2024 Tube Stock, and the Bakerloo line. In addition, finance must be secured for major infrastructure projects such as the West London Orbital and the Bakerloo line extension. Given these competing demands for capital, the business case for a bespoke bus manufacturing programme is difficult to make.
London at the Forefront of Improving Bus Accessibility and Layouts

After the failed XRM project in the early 1980s, London Transport went on to improving bus designs by collaborating with manufacturers.


Which is why it has been beneficial to multiple bus manufacturers and the bus operating companies that run the services, especially in regards to bus safety standards.

Design Questions: Half-Cabs and Open Platforms

To determine if a bespoke bus is viable, we must look at specific design features.

Should it be a half-cab designed bus?

As discussed in my previous article, it is impossible for TfL to specify a half-cab design for a new double-deck bus, as the bus safety standards require a sloped front end to reduce injuries in an event of an accident.

In theory, it can be possible, hence why Skopje, North Macedonia uses these half-cab double-deckers, but it requires 'open boarding' and proof of payment, which is prone to fare evasion.

There are bendy buses where they have drivers cab that separates the passenger from the saloon, similar to the tram, but they have off boarding payment similar to the DLR and Tramlink, and it requires an increased revenue protection.

It can be possible, but to further meet the Bus Safety Standards, the drivers seat can be positioned in the centre, similar to the Kenworth SuperTruck 2 Concept, and the Tesla Semi truck.

This explains why the NRM was designed as a three-door, two-staircase bus instead of a half-cab and permanent open platform bus, in which some people expected during the late 2000s.

Should it have an open platform with a conductor?

This is the controversial of all. The NRMs had an open platform and conductor on six routes (9, 10. 11, 24, 38, 390), which lasted till September 2016. But the rest of the routes were served as One Person Operation (OPO) buses. I did provide a further discussion about it in my previous article.

It was largely by chance that the NRM was designed as a OPO bus. The articulated "bendy buses" were withdrawn in 2011 due to significant fare evasion issues; subsequently, the NRMs, which originally featured three-door open boarding, reverted to front-door only boarding in the early 2020s to address the same problem.

So to revive the open platform and conductor once again can be too costly and politically risky, which explained why TfL specified the NRMs to have outward sliding door at the rear.

An open platform has its pros and cons, but it would impede traffic safety measures such as Vision Zero. Historically, the open platform allowed people to board and alight between stops, which is particularly dangerous when a bus is several lanes away from the footway. It can encourage people to run towards a bus while it is in motion, a risk taken by those who find it inconvenient to wait at a designated stop to board safely. While one perceived advantage of the old design was the ability to alight between stops during heavy traffic, modern regulations are much stricter. For today’s fleet, TfL’s Conditions of Carriage state:

2.4 On our buses, you must only get on or off at official bus stops, except where we advertise the service as being ‘hail and ride’ when the driver will stop where it is safe to do so. There may also be special circumstances e.g. when the bus is stuck in traffic, in which case drivers may pull over at a safe place and let you get off. However, they will only do this where/when they judge it is safe to do so.

Should the new bespoke bus have three doors and two staircases?

It can be possible, but it is not ruled out as a conventional bus, as the TfL's New Bus Vehicle Specification v2.6 allows it when requested:

4.5.8.4 Centre and rear doors

• Centre or rear doors to be outward glider type, flush fitting to the body side when closed and one-piece full depth glass in each door leaf for maximum view of kerb side.

6.3 Minimising dwell time

The choice of the number of doors fitted to a bus shall be informed by an analysis of the effect of dwell time at typical bus stops on the route intended for.

London Buses generally operate a two door system with the entrance door forward of the front axle and the exit door between front and rear axle. When single or three door buses are requested, the front door remains unchanged, the centre door is deleted or duplicated at a specified area of the bus.

Requirement for all service doorways are as follows:

Entrance and exit doors shall provide a minimum individual clear width of 1200 mm, utilising an equal width two door leaf closure. A reduction in the clear width is permitted as defined within UNECE Regulation 107 as amended. Where a reduction is required, the minimum individual clear width of 1030 mm must be maintained across the entire height of the door.

7.2 Ramps
7.2.1 General Ramp Requirements

An access ramp shall be provided to enable wheelchairs to ride across the gap between kerb and vehicle. Access ramps shall:[...]

• The driver shall be informed during the following conditions:

o Ramp Requested [...]

Both the solid light and the driver’s dash message shall continue to be illuminated/displayed until the access ramp doors are closed.

▪ For single door vehicles this is the front door
▪ For double and triple door vehicles this is the middle door

New zero-emission buses in Singapore are specified with three doors for single-deckers and three doors and two-staircases for double-deckers.

Singapore’s LTA will deploy 660 new electric buses from end-2026, including double-deck models with three doors and two staircases. They will replace ageing diesel buses and feature improved range, safety systems, and real-time passenger info, supporting a fully cleaner-energy fleet by 2040.

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) December 15, 2025 at 11:54 AM


I did mention in my previous article that the three-door, two-staircase buses are ideal for Bus Rapid Transit services, routes with extensive bus priority measures, high frequency routes, etc. to improve boarding and alighting times at bus stops.



Future of the New Routemaster

I suggested that they should be retrofitted to fully electric with new deep refurbished technology including air cooling systems and sell them for Bus Rapid Transit services throughout the UK and beyond (where they drive on the left).

Can a successor be possible?

The concept of a bespoke London bus is kinda obsolete because TfL and Heatherwick Studio already has the design of the NRM, they could work with bus manufacturers to have a custom body design similar to the New Routemaster bus by updating the New Bus Specification and by working together with bus manufacturers. Irrespective if its a three-door, two-staircase or a two-door, single-staircase double-deck bus.

Going back 10 years ago, bus manufacturers launched the variants of their double-deck buses based on the NRM. That is the Enviro400 City by Alexander Dennis and the SRM by Wrightbus. According to Bus Lists on the Web, there were 2204 records of double-deck buses built with the Enviro400 City body (in various chasis and drivetrains) and there were only 9 records of the SRM by Wrightbus. It's really disappointing that Wrightbus should have competed with Alexander Dennis in styling terms to make the SRM a zero-emission double-deck bus.

Now more recent, there's a new design by Yutong U11DD which looks similar to the New Routemaster, still no further updates about it, and I hope to see they launch the new London specification soon.
Past statements by Mayor Sadiq Khan

I've made further research about the Mayor's past statements, where in 2015 it was stated to place a moratorium on the purchases of the New Routemaster bus.

Then briefly move forward to his Mayor Question Time back in 2019, where he stated that TfL did not cancel further purchases, but had run its course with the full allowance of 1,000 New Routemasters under the contract with Wrightbus.

Then in 2024, he stated that some [New Routemasters] may need to be retro-fitted, but aims for a full zero-emission fleet by 2030.

Conclusion

While the New Routemaster project remains a point of political friction, its design legacy is undeniable. The technical advancements it forced upon the industry—from multi-door boarding to improved aesthetic standards—have set a high bar for the future of London's streets. However, the financial landscape of 2026 makes a ground-up bespoke vehicle project difficult to justify alongside urgent tube and rail renewals.

The most pragmatic way forward is not to start from scratch, but to embrace creativity through evolution. By utilising existing design IP and working with manufacturers to adapt modern zero-emission platforms into "London-spec" bodies, TfL can maintain the capital's iconic identity without the immense capital risk of a new bespoke programme. Ultimately, high-quality branding and imaginative design are not mere luxuries; they are vital tools to make public transport stand out. Whether it is a three-door Yutong or a retrofitted NRM, the goal remains the same: a creative, zero-emission fleet that passengers actually enjoy using.

Insights from Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests

Transport for London Freedom of Information release: TfL issued 2009 tender papers for PRO1632 on the New Bus for London (New Routemaster), highlighting its open-platform design, 14-year operational life requirement and Wrightbus as preferred bidder. tfl.gov.uk/corporate/tr...

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) November 17, 2025 at 10:43 AM

Transport for London Freedom of Information release: TfL documents on the New Routemaster programme cover amended contracts, technical specifications, regulatory issues around the open rear platform, and later modifications for driver-only operation. tfl.gov.uk/corporate/tr...

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 5:28 PM

Transport for London Freedom of Information release: TfL released a 2015 study and historic evidence showing ticketing, staffing and bus type affect boarding. New Routemasters boarded faster per passenger but often had longer stops, with delays mainly from congestion. tfl.gov.uk/corporate/tr...

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) January 8, 2026 at 1:51 PM

Transport for London Freedom of Information release: TfL says limited documents exist on New Routemaster front-boarding trials, route 8 speed data is published online, no prepared Covid-era dwell time reports were held, and fare evasion patterns later changed. tfl.gov.uk/corporate/tr...

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) February 2, 2026 at 12:59 PM

I would like to extend an invite for you to follow me on X (formerly Twitter) for transport-related updates. You can find me by searching for @CLondoner92 or by clicking on the direct link to my X page here. I am also present on BlueSky and Mastodon. I look forward to connecting with you on these platforms. Thank you for your support.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

Share this page