Tom Anderson wrote in article
[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipe...communications
How frequent are those services, and how many vehicles do they
move per
trip? A bus-like service needs to move a busload of people every
ten
minutes or whatever.

Rubbish. There are zillions of bus services that operate once an
hour,
or even less often. They're mostly outside London.

Since we were talking about a service in London, that's of no
relevance
whatsoever.

If you really want a London example.

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/481.htm


--
Mike D

On Feb 12, 10:32*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:09:38 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, David Cantrell wrote:
Rubbish. *There are zillions of bus services that operate once an hour,
or even less often. *They're mostly outside London.

Since we were talking about a service in London, that's of no relevance
whatsoever.

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/W10.pdf

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/505.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/385.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/389.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/G01.htm*(on Sundays)

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/498.pdf(on Sundays)

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/467.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/U10.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/R07.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/R08.htm

and even less frequent

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/375.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/R05R10.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/603.htm

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/347.htm

The network is bit sparser than might be imagined in the outer fringes.


I believe the phrase the kids would use, Tom, is 'you got told'.

I suppose you could play the defensive manoeuvre of questioning the
definition of London, but I don't think the utl honour code shines
brightly on those who retreat to such technicalities, especially when
there's no definitive answer (and John Band isn't around to fight me
on that!) ;-)

Re the 603 - that's in the 600s which is the school bus numbering
range, right? Though I note there's no school days only limitation to
the service. Interesting route for an infrequent bus too - Hampstead
to Muswell Hill via Highgate and East Finchley. Actually this is one
thing where the new google-ised bus mapping on the TfL site really
does come in handy - that is quickly getting an overview of the route
of a, er, bus route. I'm guessing the 603 is all about the
schoolkids... which brings me back to where I came in - perhaps we can
arrange for Mr A to get on one at kicking out time to be greeted with
a verbal bombardment of...

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 08:09:38PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 07:39:42PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Adrian wrote:
Getting back to the original question... Would it be worth sending a
couple of managers from the area over to Sweden or Norway to see how they
manage to run a metric shedload of short ferry services effectively and
efficiently - and free to vehicles and foot passengers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipe...communications
How frequent are those services, and how many vehicles do they move per
trip? A bus-like service needs to move a busload of people every ten
minutes or whatever.
Rubbish. There are zillions of bus services that operate once an hour,
or even less often. They're mostly outside London.
Since we were talking about a service in London, that's of no relevance
whatsoever.

Since when was Sweden part of London?

As far as i know, never. But what we're discussing here - and the clues
are in the newsgroup name, the thread title, and the previous posts in the
thread - is the operation of passenger services across the Thames.
Scandinavia was brought up as an example of somewhere that does ferry
services very well; i was expressing doubt that the problems they solve
there are similar to those in London.

If you need any other help understanding things posted on this newsgroup,
don't hesitate to ask.

tom

--
Fusion is dangerous, sweaty, and stubborn. Antimatter-matter just runs
on its own. Plug-n-play. Like an iPod. -- PD, alt.lasers

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On Feb 12, 10:32*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:09:38 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, David Cantrell wrote:
Rubbish. *There are zillions of bus services that operate once an hour,
or even less often. *They're mostly outside London.

Since we were talking about a service in London, that's of no relevance
whatsoever.

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/W10.pdf
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/505.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/385.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/389.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/G01.htm*(on Sundays)
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/498.pdf(on Sundays)
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/467.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/U10.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/R07.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/R08.htm

and even less frequent

http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/375.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/R05R10.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/603.htm
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/times/347.htm

The network is bit sparser than might be imagined in the outer fringes.

I believe the phrase the kids would use, Tom, is 'you got told'.

Told what? How many of these services would be candidates for crossing the
Thames, or another large river? Oh, is it none? Do tell on!

tom

--
Fusion is dangerous, sweaty, and stubborn. Antimatter-matter just runs
on its own. Plug-n-play. Like an iPod. -- PD, alt.lasers

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010, Tom Anderson wrote:

If you need any other help understanding things posted on this
newsgroup, don't hesitate to ask.

That was needlessly intemperate. I apologise.

But i am genuinely baffled by some of the responses here. We're talking
about potential cross-river bus services in London, using whatever
technology. Those would experience high demand, and so would need to be
high-frequency. The irrelevance of ferries that run a few times day, or
buses that run a few times a day, seems obvious to me.

tom

--
Fusion is dangerous, sweaty, and stubborn. Antimatter-matter just runs
on its own. Plug-n-play. Like an iPod. -- PD, alt.lasers

"Basil Jet" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

A better solution is for normal buses to drive onto a raft. The raft
would be owned by the bus company, it would only carry one bus, and the
driver reaching out the window of the bus would steer it and lock it to
the quay. There would be no engine on the raft, but the wheels of the
bus would turn rollers which were attached to a screw or propellor.

There's nothing new under the sun...
http://www.youtube.com/user/Southern...23/rsit-g18GSg

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 01:28:55PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, David Cantrell wrote:
Since when was Sweden part of London?
As far as i know, never. But what we're discussing here - and the clues
are in the newsgroup name, the thread title, and the previous posts in the
thread - is the operation of passenger services across the Thames.

Actually, we started by talking about an amphibious bus trial in
Scotland, which morphed into Scandiwegian ferry services. Do try to
keep up.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing
in the English language doesn't mean it should be done

David Cantrell wrote:

Rubbish. There are zillions of bus services that operate once an
hour,
or even less often. They're mostly outside London.

And more than none within (in my neck of the woods, the 146 and some of
the R-routes, iirc)

--
Current nearest station: Alésia

Dr J R Stockton wrote on 11 February 2010
23:27:12 ...
In uk.transport.london message
ia.com, Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:08:32, Richard J.
posted:

Mostly middle drive, I think you'll find, often from the rear seat. If
you're referring to which side of the river they drive on, then the
general rule is to keep right, though upstream of Putney Bridge,
depending on the state of the tide, there may be a contraflow lane for
rowers on the inside of bends.

One trusts that those who do so when the tide is particularly high are
familiar with the case of Rumpelhammer v Potts (APH 1930).

I have a vague recollection of that, one of A.P. Herbert's "Misleading
Cases", but couldn't find a reference. By coincidence, the relevant
case is mentioned in a letter in The Times today. It's actually
Rumpelheimer v. Haddock, which explains why I couldn't find the case you
cited!

It's summarised here, together with biographical details of APH, the
origins of both World Wars, and much else in the footnotes:
http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/e.../sweeney31.htm

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In uk.transport.london message
dia.com, Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:06:07, Richard J.
posted:
Dr J R Stockton wrote on 11 February
2010 23:27:12 ...

One trusts that those who do so when the tide is particularly high are
familiar with the case of Rumpelhammer v Potts (APH 1930).

I have a vague recollection of that, one of A.P. Herbert's "Misleading
Cases", but couldn't find a reference. By coincidence, the relevant
case is mentioned in a letter in The Times today. It's actually
Rumpelheimer v. Haddock, which explains why I couldn't find the case
you cited!


It is consistently Rumpelhammer in my Penguin "Wigs at Work", 5/-, 1966.
Sorry for the Potts - an editing hangover from Fardell v Potts (APH),
which also refers to a Thames collision.

Does anyone recall the identity of a real case, perhaps from the later
19th century, concerning the equivalence of an escaping flood with an
escaping wild beast?

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. BP7, Delphi 3 & 2006.
URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm clpdmFAQ;
NOT URL:http://support.codegear.com/newsgroups/: news:borland.* Guidelines