On 28 Jun 2005 22:27:42 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Robert Woolley ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

RMs are pretty much museum pieces for modern operation.

LYNCH THE HERETIC!

Seriously... Are they?

They've all been recently mechanically rebuilt to modern standards.
Although they can't go for ever.

The extremely low weight means that they are the most economical of all the
buses in services, AIUI.

That economy means that they'll be the least polluting of all in service,
even before you take the environmental cost of production into account.

Now let's look at how appropriate they are or aren't - physically, they fit
FAR better than the bloatibuses - they get round junctions and corners,
they don't hang into the traffic at stops.

The hop-on-and-off-ability means they spend less time at stops.

One boarding point compared with 3 on an artic.
OK, so they're not perfect. Some people are stupid enough to fall off them,
and that's not good in this era of litigation taking the place of personal
responsibility.

Yep and some regularly end up dieing. Open boarding is inherently
unsafe.
Some disabled users find them difficult/impossible to use - but others
prefer them.

Many disabled people can't physically get on an RM. Neither can mums
with pushchairs...

Some complain they're cramped - but others prefer the higher density of
seats.

The conductor means they're expensive to run - but how much has been spent
on the ticket machines at stops? What about the safety benefit of having a
real live staff member in the back of the bus?

Conductors tend to get thumped/stabbed. And if a conductor is off sick
you can't take a bus out. With only 10% of passengers paying cash in
central London they have little to do.
If the RM is a "museum piece", then why can't we have a "new RM"?

a) Short production cycle.
b) A bus designed for open boarding is inherently unsafe./
Manufacturers would get sued into next week.
c) The world has moved on from crew operated buses....

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk