2. Fuel efficiency (ever tried standing near the rear of a more modern
bus: the
engine emissions change the climate for several feet in area).

Hmmm, ITYF that the vast majority of Routemasters have been re-engined
in the last decade, so surely the emissions will be similar? The
Sovereign ones on the 13 are very similar to Dennis Darts mechanically.

The point I am making is that the engines are simple, without all the
air-conditioning gubbins and hydraulics that more modern buses have.

3. Ease of maintenance.

Agreed, but surely a worry for the operators not the passenger.

No, if a bus is off the road because it takes 2 days to repair instead of one,
that's a problem for the passenger too.


4. Conductors.

True. But low-floors partially counter this by pushchairs not needing to
be folded and the elderly not needing to be helped up high steps. And
fare-dodging is only a real problem on the artics.

What about the security implications of having no conductor?

5. Upper deck on which to get away from the melee downstairs

Surely *all* double-deckers have this?! :-) The 73 is the only RM route
so far (in this period) to be converted away from double-deckers.

Yes, well the fact that such a busy route is being Bendi-bused says a lot about
how T.F.L.'s priorities work! No doubt lots of others will folow - Bendi is
clearly the Promised Land.



6. Excellent suspension.

Personally, I don't notice much difference, but probably a matter of
personal preference.


Have you travelled on the trailer bit of a Bendy bus? It's a cross between a
carousel ride and being at sea.

7. Superbly ergonomically designed and aesthetic from all angles.

Matter of opinion - see below.

Of course, what else could it be?

9. Aluminium construction ensuring less weight, i.e. less wear & tear
on roads.

Is this really much of a problem? I have no idea?

Of course it is: have you seen the damage done by rear axles of H.G.V.s when
turning: why do you think there are so many potholes at road junctions?

Weigth reduction was such an important issue for L.T. that originally the
Routemaster was fitted with a very vestigial blinds-display equipment and it
also experimented with an unpainted RM. The lighter a bus, also the less fuel
it uses.



10. The rear upper storey seats are the nearest thing I will ever
experience to
being in a (double-decker) limousine!

Again a matter of preference.

Of course, and said with tongue-in-cheek as a quirky personal preference/

I think the more recent Metroline
Presidents, e.g. on the 205, are some of the most comfortable buses in
London - excellent legroom.

Legroom is not the only quality that I look for in a bus!

Utter rubbish. Do you realy think at TPL or whatever they are now
called are
more aesthetically pleasing?

I reckon this is an age thing (no offence Marc, I of course don't know
how old you are!). Older people like the buses they saw when they were
younger, whereas today's younger people like more modern designs,
fitting with design trends in cars, mobile phones, etc.. From what I've
read, the Wright Eclipse Gemini seems to be considered one of the best
looking buses around.


I'm sure it' an age thing (I'm 39) but I also happen to think that the curved
lines of the Routemaster are generally more pleasing than the box-like square
structures that are replacing them (single- and double-deckers).

AFAICS, the presence of conductors on RMs seems to be the only universal
(i.e. non-subjective) reason as to why they should be kept. I'm not
convinced. Nevertheless, I am worrying about the 73...

James

Yes, the conversion of the 73 will be (I predict) an appalling disaster for
all concerned.

Marc.