"The Equalizer" wrote in message ...
Do you want to stop TFL from scrapping yet another Routemaster bus route, do
you want to save London`s heritage?



Only if they keep the cold creaky wet and damp and not to mention
dangerous (don't stand too close to the yellow line when one is coming
into Waterloo) slam door trains as well.
Just because something has been used for ages doesn't mean they should
be kept. Im sure once Routemasters disspear off schedulded bus routes
they will still be around as tourist attractions and private buses

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:29:31 +0000, Ian Jelf wrote:

To be honest, I've never thought that paying at stops slows the service
down (relatively few people did so anyway and the flat fare made it
pretty painless).

It doesn't make *much* difference, but over the length of a route all-door
boarding (with two sets of doors on a regular length single-decker and
three on a bendy) and no requirement to purchase or show tickets to
the driver really does speed things up, as I saw in Hamburg.

TfL's current fudge, where a ticket needs to be bought off the bus but
shown to the driver, makes precious little difference. It either needs to
be done properly, with lots of revenue squads out and about and no need to
even speak to the driver, or not at all.

Neil

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:37:20 +0000, Graham J wrote:

So these low floor buses might be more
accessible in terms of boarded and alighting but the same considerations can
greatly reduce the number of usable seats for many and add several new
dangers. Indeed on some of the double decker low floor buses there are only
about four seats that are really suitable for many people.

I've yet to see a two-doored low-floor double-decker with a sensible
layout. You can just about fit a sensible number of seats in a
single-doored standard length vehicle, but this slows boarding/alighting
too much.

Better would be to make the vehicles longer to give enough
space on the lower deck. Having two staircases and the main exit door
right at the back (stepped) would also be worthy of consideration.

Neil

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
news

I still await (with baited breath) the "tourist routes" on which the RMs
will (apparently) be retained indefinitely. As I said in previous
posting, I thought when I first heard this that it would be the 9, 11
and 15 but events have proved me wrong. So where will they be?

My view is that they should be restricted to a free shuttle the full length
of Oxford Street, and that all other buses be diverted from it.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:26:50 +0000, Terry Harper wrote:

My view is that they should be restricted to a free shuttle the full length
of Oxford Street, and that all other buses be diverted from it.

I'd be tempted to agree. One of the problems with Oxford Street (just
like its equally busy in bus terms namesake in Manchester, Oxford Road)
is that there are too many different buses to too many destinations. This
means that you end up with lots of buses stopping all over the place,
blocking the road and impeding progress.

Doing this would require some heavyweight planning to make connections
work properly, mind. It'd also help to lose the taxis, or if they are to
be retained have specific taxi ranks/"stops" off the main flow of the
road, and no stopping whatsoever at other points.

Neil

In message , Neil
Williams writes
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:26:50 +0000, Terry Harper wrote:

My view is that they should be restricted to a free shuttle the full length
of Oxford Street, and that all other buses be diverted from it.
But you then lose the through routeing from so many places directly to
Oxford Street [1] which makes buses so useful.

Terry's suggestion has, though, reminded me of the "Shoplinker" service
operated in the early 1980s with specially-liveried RMs. Anyone else
remember that? (It wasn't a success, as I recall.)

I'd be tempted to agree. One of the problems with Oxford Street (just
like its equally busy in bus terms namesake in Manchester, Oxford Road)
Or Corporation Street in Birmingham. But diverting buses away from
*that* would be harder because there really aren't many suitable
alternatives. To be honest, that's not so very different in the case
of Oxford Street, either.


[1] Quite *why* people so adore Oxford Street has always escaped me.
However.......

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

My view is that they should be restricted to a free shuttle the full
length
of Oxford Street, and that all other buses be diverted from it.

Interesting idea! Buses from the west could loop at Marble Arch, returning
back from whence they came and feeding into the Routemasters along Oxford
Street. Buses from the north to the centre of Oxford Street could loop back
at Cavendish Square. Not sure about the eastern end (Holborn?) or how you
would handle buses from the south that currently approach via Regent Street.
Then there's the problem of people who want to make through journeys across
the central zone.

Nevertheless, with a bit of thought many of those problems could probably be
very easily solved. It certainly sounds like an idea worth further
investigation!

Neil Williams wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:29:31 +0000, Ian Jelf wrote:

To be honest, I've never thought that paying at stops slows the service
down (relatively few people did so anyway and the flat fare made it
pretty painless).

It doesn't make *much* difference, but over the length of a route all-door
boarding (with two sets of doors on a regular length single-decker and
three on a bendy) and no requirement to purchase or show tickets to
the driver really does speed things up, as I saw in Hamburg.

TfL's current fudge, where a ticket needs to be bought off the bus but
shown to the driver, makes precious little difference.

I hadn't realised that was the situation - the bendy buses have all door
boarding, so I assumed that all cashless routes did.

Does this mean that the ticketless operation was brought in for a
different reason? One Crystals (now TGM) driver I spoke to was looking
forward to cashless operation throughout Greater London (as the drivers
had secretly been told would happen) because it would make it much safer
for drivers.

It either needs to be done properly, with lots of revenue squads out and
about and no need to even speak to the driver, or not at all.

I'd support having lots of revenue squads, as it means they'd be able to
properly enforce the smoking ban.

CJG Now Thankfully Living In The North wrote:

"The Equalizer" wrote...
Do you want to stop TFL from scrapping yet another Routemaster bus route, do
you want to save London`s heritage?



Only if they keep the cold creaky wet and damp and not to mention
dangerous (don't stand too close to the yellow line when one is coming
into Waterloo) slam door trains as well.

Plenty of people do support them, partly because of faster boarding but
mainly because some of the newer trains were so badly designed!

Just because something has been used for ages doesn't mean they should
be kept. Im sure once Routemasters disspear off schedulded bus routes
they will still be around as tourist attractions and private buses

Unlike the slam door trains, the Routemasters are a London Icon! They're
a lot better suited to London's busy streets than the modern buses that
only let passengers on and off at bus stops! And many of the new buses
have an upper deck that's almost unusable in hot weather! To get better
ventilation than the Routemasters you need air conditioning!

On 1 Feb 2004 11:34:50 -0800, (Matt Ashby) wrote:


Their engines also contribute far more than modern buses to our city's
pollution levels.


Is this true even of those (admittedly a minority) fitted with new
engines within the last 5 years? Surely new engines in Routemasters
are made to the same emission standards as those in new buses. If
anything I'd expect a Routemaster with a new engine to be slightly
better overall in environmental terms than a new bus, if only because
it's lighter so should use less fuel

Martin