On 23 Dec, 23:36, Tom Barry wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 13:46, Paul wrote:
On 23/12/2009 12:30, Tom Barry wrote:

...and it's Wrightbus. *Three doors, two staircases, wtf?
http://www.wrightbus.com/site/default.asp?CATID=9
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/13903.aspx
"Capacity for at least 87 passengers"

Including standing? *Seems a bit low.
Bendy buses have a capacity of 49 sitting, 149 total.

Capacities for well-designed vehicles are based on things like the
number of seats.

Capacities for badly-designed vehicles are based on dividing the total
volume by the average volume of a person, assuming that all the bodies
can be slotted in upside down or chopped into bits or impaled on
obstructions as necessary.

That's why so many bad designs get approved on the grounds of
"capacity".

It's bollox.

You want a seat for everyone. *I want people to be able to afford to get
to work.

Since these are mutually exclusive in a London context, shall we agree
to differ?

Not necessarily, I just object to false claims of standing capacity,
particularly in vehicles that are spectacularly badly designed for it,
whatever their internal volume.


There is no such things as 'well-designed' - either it's well designed
for the job it's expected to do, or it isn't. *The problem with Boris's
bus is that it's well designed for the twin roles of getting him elected
and burnishing his CV as a Man Who Gets Things Done. *The concept of
'moving people about' appears to have fallen by the wayside at some
point, as has any mention of who pays for this thing.

Something is badly-designed if it isn't fit for the purpose for which
it's designed (many modern trains, eg 376 emus, are designed for
standing, but actually don't allow for much standing because of the
layout, lack of holds etc). I think that both Routemasters and Bendys
are not suitable buses for current-day London.