On Apr 4, 6:50 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 14:45:18 -0700, "MIG" wrote:





On Apr 3, 9:16 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 04:31:08 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:

That might imply that each bus company designs its own, rather than
them being imposed by TfL. Is there a correlation between the
different versions and the company?

At least TfL don't have buses running round with "Wolverhampton" on
the blind with the "hamp" coloured in in black pen to make it say
"Wolver ton", nor with "Blecthley" on, nor other sillies as can be
seen on the contracted evening services in Milton Keynes.

Perhaps we should be grateful that it isn't just a bit of A4 in the
windscreen...

Although a few years ago on the 185 (which goes to Lewisham as it
happens), there was a real mixture of almost-museum-piece buses from
various counties, with carboard destinations in the front windows and
so on.

Maybe someone else can remember the story of the operator which went
bust, resulting in that situation. I think the 185 was the only route
they had run.

You are referring to London Easylink [1] - they ran the 42 and 185. The
company basically went bust because the MD, I think but am happy to be
corrected, siphoned off a load of the companies money to fund his
mistress. When the company collapsed TfL had to put emergency
arrangements in place that led to the multi operator scenario on the
185. Initially Blue Triangle were put in charge of pulling together the
emergency contract on the 185;

http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/185.htm

The 42 went straight to East Thames Buses - probably because it was a
smaller scale operation and could be taken on quickly.

http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/042.htm

In the circumstances I'd rather have a bus and then worry about whether
it has a piece of cardboard in the window. Blinds were improvised pretty
quickly though.



I don't remember anyone complaining. It was all quite fun, travelling
from Victoria to Vauxhall and wondering what might turn up next.