Ian Jelf wrote:

Out of interest would that prevent there being - say - two "7" routes
going to different places or would it prevent two operators on the same
route sharing the same number? The latter has arguments for and
against, of course.

Personally, I would say it is essential to prevent two different routes
having the same number where those two routes meet at any location
along said routes. Within town areas where it might cause confusion,
I'd extend that to where the two routes exist within the specified area
as well.

Whether two operators share a number on an identical route is a
different matter - if the routes are completely identical (or one is a
short version of the other) it would make sense for them to be the
same, but as you say there are arguments both ways.

If the routes are similar but not identical (i.e. have a significant
common run) it's not quite as clear-cut, but the issue would need to be
considered carefully in each case.

Neil

Ian Jelf wrote:

Because even the best ones are much less legible than traditional
blinds.

Not necessarily - I find them far easier to read, personally, probably
because they are better-lit. They're also more flexible. However, I'm
aware opinion is split, and really there are more important things to
worry about.

And am I alone in thinking that the new London system of ultimate
destination only on the front is a *terrible* retrograde step?

Yes. It's less important outside London, but in central London where
tourists might want to use the buses, or where people might want to use
them with no familiarity with the route, it is making the buses less
friendly to those people as they can't just have a quick look at the
bus to see if it goes to X.

That said, stop information is getting ever better (and you can't board
away from stops any more) and will compensate to a small extent.

Neil

Ian Jelf wrote:
And am I alone in thinking that the new London system of ultimate
destination only on the front is a *terrible* retrograde step?

This way madness, "Service" and Blank Screens lie. There's a fine irony
that having reached a stage where technology can enable unprecedented
information provision the decision is taken to display the ultimate
destination only. If you were to do a survey I'd be amazed if
passengers indicated a preference for operators to be compelled to
display something like "Lock's Bottom (Frog and Penguin)" in splendid
isolation but for it to be an abasolute heresy even to hint at
something such as "via Tower" in case the tourists latch on and start
holding up the service.

--
Gordon

Mark Brader wrote:

You want Piccadilly Circus, but you a tourist unfamiliar with London.
Is this bus going there, or has it passed there already?

Valid point.

Of course, with modern technology in the form of LED displays you can
get clever, and remove the already-passed points, replacing them with
others, using GPS.

For MK Metro's benefit, that means you can do better than just
displaying "BLETCHLEY" in very large letters, which isn't a useful
piece of information as most of the southbound routes end up there.
That's just lazy. Stagecoach seem to have a much better idea of how to
use these displays on modern buses.

Neil

In message .com,
writes

Ian Jelf wrote:
And am I alone in thinking that the new London system of ultimate
destination only on the front is a *terrible* retrograde step?

This way madness, "Service" and Blank Screens lie. There's a fine irony
that having reached a stage where technology can enable unprecedented
information provision the decision is taken to display the ultimate
destination only. If you were to do a survey I'd be amazed if
passengers indicated a preference for operators to be compelled to
display something like "Lock's Bottom (Frog and Penguin)" in splendid
isolation but for it to be an abasolute heresy even to hint at
something such as "via Tower" in case the tourists latch on and start
holding up the service.

And that's *just* the problem. A 13 in Strand saying just "Golders
Green" won't be of interest to that many people. An indication - say -
Oxford Circus or Regent Street would be.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message , Mark Brader
writes
You never could, without some external knowledge. Here's a bus:

http://www.greggayden.com/europe05/London%20Bus.jpg

You want Piccadilly Circus, but you a tourist unfamiliar with London.
Is this bus going there, or has it passed there already?
I do take that point Mark and the old system wasn't perfect in that
respect of course. However, it does give people with some knowledge of
London a rough guide to which general route a bus is on. For example,
will this bus be heading from Strand up regent Street to oxford Street?
Or would it go off down Whitehall to Westminster? Or how about
straight on along Piccadilly and towards Knightsbridge?

Of course, it's different if you do have an idea of the order of the
various places and where you are in relation to them. Then the list of
places may indeed be useful.
Indeed.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message .com, Neil
Williams writes
Mark Brader wrote:

You want Piccadilly Circus, but you a tourist unfamiliar with London.
Is this bus going there, or has it passed there already?

Valid point.

Of course, with modern technology in the form of LED displays you can
get clever, and remove the already-passed points, replacing them with
others, using GPS.
But even the most modern and detailed dot matrix displays couldn't
produce the detail seen on a standard London bus blind, as far as I'm
aware. Or am I wrong? Oh and I truly detest scrolling displays as
there's no guarantee they'll be showing the "bit" of information
relevant to you in the couple of seconds you have to digest the
information.

On a slightly related note, does anyone know the rationale behind TfL
proscribing the prefix "Sorry" before "Not in service"? It seems such
a strange thing to remove (or to go to the bother of removing).
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote:

But even the most modern and detailed dot matrix displays couldn't
produce the detail seen on a standard London bus blind, as far as I'm
aware. Or am I wrong?

They aren't usually implemented in that way, and there may be some
disability discrimination issue that doesn't affect blinds, but I don't
see why the technology can't be used to provide exactly the same
display format.

Oh and I truly detest scrolling displays as
there's no guarantee they'll be showing the "bit" of information
relevant to you in the couple of seconds you have to digest the
information.

I personally like them, but hey...

On a slightly related note, does anyone know the rationale behind TfL
proscribing the prefix "Sorry" before "Not in service"? It seems such
a strange thing to remove (or to go to the bother of removing).

Not sure. It sounds a bit patronising, as not being in service isn't
something that needs apologising for, but instead a normal operational
occurrence? The personified "I'm not in service" is worse...

Neil

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

On a slightly related note, does anyone know the rationale behind TfL
proscribing the prefix "Sorry" before "Not in service"? It seems such
a strange thing to remove (or to go to the bother of removing).

Seems a very sensible thing to remove, to me. A computer can not
be "sorry". I wish they'd do the same thing on the autoannouncers
as well.

Richard [in SG19]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:39:25 +0100, "Richard M Willis"
wrote:


"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

On a slightly related note, does anyone know the rationale behind TfL
proscribing the prefix "Sorry" before "Not in service"? It seems such
a strange thing to remove (or to go to the bother of removing).

Seems a very sensible thing to remove, to me. A computer can not
be "sorry". I wish they'd do the same thing on the autoannouncers
as well.

Indeed.

"We are sorry" or "Southern is sorry" is fine. "I am sorry" really
****es me off. Or did, when I still used Southern.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com