London Banter - View Single Post

Colin Rosenstiel · December 30th 07, 07:24 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article ,
(Martin Rich) wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

Now I've looked at the article the biggest point seem to me the
incredibly old-fashioned and space-wasting half cab design. That was
out of date when the Routemaster was new (the trolleybuses they
replaced had full width cabs).

Coming to this late, but I'm not convinced that the half-cab was
really dated when the first Routemasters were introduced. The first
rear-engined double-deckers came into production about the same time
as the first production Routemasters, so perhaps four years after the
prototype Routemasters were developed. Other half-cab buses continued
in production through most of the 1960s. Presumably the Routemaster's
designers believed (rightly, as it turned out) that conductor
operation would continue in London for some decades to come. In the
early 1960s the law didn't permit one-person operation of double
deckers, and there were proposals to fit trapdoors at the top of the
stairs of rear-engined double-deckers so that they could be operated
as single deckers at quiet times.

Yes, regulators have a lot to answer for too. However, the decline of
British manufacturing industry was accelerated by a technical
conservatism of which this was just one example. Another one that was
pilloried to me in Brazil in the late 1960s was rivetting pressure
vessels when the world had moved on to welding. This could be a valid
criticism of the Routemaster body if being reconsidered. And remember how
long London tram drivers had no windscreens because of police objections.
We still have almost no LED bus destination displays in London for
similar reasons.

There were buses in the 1950s and 1960s with a full-width front
windscreen, but following the half-cab layout with the engine next to
the driver. This was purely a styling feature, not one which would
have made any more space available for passengers, and one which
London Transport, who were presumably keen on saving weight and
ensuring ease of maintenance, were probably sensible not to adopt.

Yes, most (but not quite all) trolleybuses made little or no use of the
space gained. I would expect modern designers to do better.

So the layout of the Routemaster was undoubtedly traditional, but at
least when it was first introduced, surely couldn't have been
dismissed as 'dated'.

My main criticism was of the Autocar "Routemaster of the Future" for
perpetuating this long-obsolete feature.

(Incidentally I'm happy to be told I'm wrong by anybody else who
should come along with more technical knowledge)

It's lost space within the vehicle.

--
Colin Rosenstiel