I wonder how much more this bus costs over a regular Euro-4 bus? Can the 40% reduced fuel consumption pay for the difference in one year?
anyone on know?

40% fuel reduction?
Okay, at 300 miles per day, 3 miles/gal@$3gal= $300/day
5 days a week, 20 days per month is fuel cost of $6000/mon.
so the whole year would be about $72,000/yr of normal fuel cost.
So with a 40% reduction, the saving would be about 30K/year.
On a different subject, I would think the noise would be reduced more than 3dB given the much smaller engine?
Maybe they removed sound reducting materials in the normal bus to increase mileage?

Does anyone know what the fuel economy is for these Wrightbuses? What is the engine horsepower? I would like what these are, before I make any further comments.

3USD a gallon? You realise this is London, the capital of the UK right? ;-)

Last time I looked diesel is nearer 6USD/UKgallon so about 4.80USD/USgallon. It'll pay off quicker but more importantly those emissions reductions are very significant for clean air in London.

Oh and a 3db noise reduction means that the noise has been halved (log scale)

With that higher fuel cost, the payback should be about $100,000 in one year! So if the trials turn out fine, it will force rapid adaption.
However it is short lived, since in three years, the bus would be worn out with about 220,000 miiles.
For noise, I was thinking that they did not put the same amount of sound suppression material as a regular bus to save weight with the new design. I was hoping for 6db reduction,1/4 of the acoustic power or 1/2 the amplitude.
Or maybe the designers kept a minimum amount of noise, so people can hear the bus approaching. thus avoiding being runned over :)

It's a city bus, and I assume the city doesn't have to pay taxes. So the cost is probably around 2.5pounds per imperial gallon.

I believe it is fair to say that what we have here is a case of the politically-correct new versus the politically-incorrect old.

Let's say this new bus(45 passenger?)having an initial first cost approximately $200,000+ more than a conventional unit, gets about 25% better fuel economy versus a conventional which may get 3 m.p.g. This means that the Enova-Wrightbus would get a whopping 3.75 m.p.g.(a 40% increase in economy is fiction; N.Y. City units only realize a temporary 25% increase).

The old Double-Decker Routemaster that was replaced supposedly due to "its environmentally unfrendly 680 c.i.d. diesel" could haul around 80 passengers and get 10 m.p.g. (U.S.)

This means that per passenger, for every gallon of diesel that the Routemaster used the new Wrightbus Hybrids will consume about 4.74 gallons, all the while having only a 3 year lifespan (Routemasters were 48+ years old and still running) and costing that $200,000 premium just to possess an unreliable, unproven hybrid drive.

How can anyone dare to call this progress?

I too am love with the past, but I don't think it is accurate? that a 680Cuin diesel can get 10miles/gal, with a load of people, over the same stop and go route.
Also over a 48 year life there must be many major overhauls of the engine and transmission.
Any old Routemaster mechcanics out there?

All road fuels are taxed. There are no exceptions.

@Zeller, your arguments are entirely based on assu,ptions. Why are we to assume that the units cost 200k MORE than an existing unit?

@CHilling, why would the bus be worn out at 220k miles? Properly designed for maintenance, the various components of the new drivetrain hybrid can be swapped in and out in packs. The rest of the bus will last a lot longer than 220k!

I used 220k as a figure most people would agree with, BEFORE repair cost affect return on investment analysis.
IF the non hybrid bus got 3miles/gal and IF hybrid gave 40% reduction for fuel comsumption, The added cost would pay for itself in a year-- which is fanastic!
My hope is that someone who knows what the facts are about the buses used on the route(even the routemaster) would enlighten us.

Cost of an electrocity is $200,000 pounds vs 120,000 pounds for a regular bus. Says so on the BBC2 Working Lunch vid from the other day.

SO that's only 80k more than a normal bus not 200kUSD More as stated by Zeller.

Typical lifetime mileages of London Buses are 750k miles (TfL)

There were many Routemasters with different types of engine. Typically the original AEC 9.6 litre engine and the equivalent Leyland 0600 did around 8 - 10 miles per (Imperial or English) Gallon. Remember that that's a bigger gallon than the US one by a factor of 1.2!
The problem with hybrid buses is not only their extra initial costs but the system is not the same as hybrid cars and the fuel savings are often mythical. Seattle has found that they use more fuel than the conventional diesels they replaced! Add to this the extra ongoing maintenance and battery renewal and you have a much more expensive vehicle in life costs terms. Other problems are that the small engines can make the vehicle very underpowered (especially when the batteries are not fully charged) and therefore they can be very sluggish with very poor hill climbing abilities (not so much a problem in London but has been elsewhere in the UK). If you really want to help the environment and get good fuel efficiency and not be dependent on oil to boot, you need trolleybuses - 100% pollution free, very energy efficient and with power to spare on all urban cycles!