On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:29:15 -0000
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
And here's one for you - if the bendies were so fantastic and the double
deckers clearly so outdated why weren't there bendies on more routes?

I've no idea. Cost, reliability, lots of nearly new DDs already in service
that they didn't want to bin? AFAIR the bendies replaced a lot of routemasters
that were put out to grass. Anyway , I'm simply giving a (former) passengers
point of view, not an operational one.

People in this group and others talk about double decker trains not being as a
good a solution for transporting a lot of passengers compared to longer single
deck trains because of dwell times at stations yet for some reason that logic
goes out the window when appled to buses. The only reason I can see is some
misty eyed nostaligia for double decker buses. God knows why.

B2003

d wrote:

And here's one for you - if the bendies were so fantastic and the double
deckers clearly so outdated why weren't there bendies on more routes?

I've no idea. Cost, reliability, lots of nearly new DDs already in service
that they didn't want to bin? AFAIR the bendies replaced a lot of
routemasters
that were put out to grass.

Very few of the bendified routes took over from routemasters. Many of them
took over from the more conventional double deckers.

People in this group and others talk about double decker trains not being
as a
good a solution for transporting a lot of passengers compared to longer
single
deck trains because of dwell times at stations yet for some reason that
logic
goes out the window when appled to buses.

Part of that is rooted in the different considerations on dwell times and
the speed of boarding/disembarking. The height restrictions of many rail
routes make double decker carriages extremely difficult to operate - the
4DDs were an especially cramped design. Plus railways can include ticket
checks before boarding, a feature not easily built into buses.

The only reason I can see is some
misty eyed nostaligia for double decker buses. God knows why.

Reasons aplenty have been given on this thread and others for why the double
decker is preferred. If you choose not to see them then you choose not to
see them.

In article ,
(Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

Very few of the bendified routes took over from routemasters. Many of
them took over from the more conventional double deckers.

Most of the bendy routes were in the last batch of Routemaster routes before
final conversion started in earnest. The only exception I can recall is the
29 but I expect there were others.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:42:30 -0000
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
People in this group and others talk about double decker trains not being
as a
good a solution for transporting a lot of passengers compared to longer
single
deck trains because of dwell times at stations yet for some reason that
logic
goes out the window when appled to buses.

Part of that is rooted in the different considerations on dwell times and
the speed of boarding/disembarking. The height restrictions of many rail

Dwell times of buses make a lot of difference to traffic stuck behind them.

4DDs were an especially cramped design. Plus railways can include ticket
checks before boarding, a feature not easily built into buses.

Buses can include conductors which is what boris is suggesting for his
vanity project. Which means he could equally have put them on bendy buses
and the whole fair evasion issue would have disappeared.

The only reason I can see is some
misty eyed nostaligia for double decker buses. God knows why.

Reasons aplenty have been given on this thread and others for why the double
decker is preferred. If you choose not to see them then you choose not to
see them.

When I see a good reason I'll get back to you.

B2003