On 15 May, 09:16, Tom Barry wrote:
MIG wrote:
Surveys generally prove what they are designed to prove. *Bendy buses
are claimed to increase capacity, although I think that claims for
standing capacity must be based on how many people sized dummies could
be crammed into the volume, rather than whether the space is usable by
real people who need to splay out their legs to balance etc.

In what sense does this differ from Underground trains with transverse
seating, the Overground 378s (ditto) and modern light rail vehicles like
Tramlink's (quoted capacity 208, which certainly isn't all seated)?
It's something of a mistake to see bendy buses as merely a bigger bus,
they're more akin to large-scale people movers where some standing at
peak times is designed in, in return for speed of pickup/setdown.

Doesn't differ at all. The design of the 376s is rubbish. Well, in
parts. The wider gangway is good, because 2 + 3 seating is not very
effective, but the space around the doors is appallingly designed and
pretty much unusable. Similarly on the Jubilee line.

In the meantime, the refurbished 455s on SWT are an example of
sensible design, with the same intention, as I've mentioned before.

But I strongly question the assumption that volume of space
corresponds to the number of people that can actually use the space.

Compare Northern and Jubilee lines. On the Northern you have two
people sitting in the space where only one person can stand on the
Jubilee, because using the flip seats doesn't require the top half of
your body to meet obstructions higher up or for you to lean on a
seated person's head.