| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Do you want to stop TFL from scrapping yet another Routemaster bus route, do you want to save London`s heritage? If so please click on www.savethe73.com and sign the petition. I heard about this website on BBC LDN 94.9 FM. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:03:37 +0000, The Equalizer wrote:
Do you want to stop TFL from scrapping yet another Routemaster bus route, do you want to save London`s heritage? No. I want to see route 73 operated using bendy buses with off-bus ticketing in the manner of a tramway, such that conversion to such could be considered in the future. Routemasters are an interesting curiosity, but they do not lend themselves well to the operation of such a busy route. Better than a driver-only double-decker with the driver selling tickets, yes, but better than what is effectively a rubber-tyred tram? No. Neil |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Hmmmmm.Very logical response indeed.
However the present concentration on Cashless Articulated operation in Central London appears to be throwing up substantial funding issues. The Routemaster is simply a very efficient machine which as yet has not been surpassed in design philosophy. It would be interesting to gat a true breakdown of the Costs of such route conversions and how these costs are being apportioned. For example many of the new high-tech vehicles,be they Mercedes,Volvo or Dennis have substantial mechanical/electrical/electronic teething difficulties some of which remain ongoing for long periods. The various manufactures all operate warranty departments to rectify these problems,however the question remains as to how much of this cost has been factored into the "On The Road" price of the Bus. With Three fully refurbished Routemasters (Marshall Standard) being available for the cost of a single modern vehicle it appears sensible to maximise the Passenger carrying ability of ANY route by retaining them and distributing them throughout the network as the situation demands. The other factor which needs careful consideration is why with all the modern technology at its disposal the Modern Bus Design Industry has never cpome close to producing a vehicle as supremely suited and efficent at its task as the Routemaster. Save the Routemaster Indeed......But only if it remains capable of performing its task !! |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"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? I think you're directing your ire at the wrong place; AIUI it's the EU which is demanding the removal of Routemaster buses. TfL is just complying with new European regulations about open buses. Patrick |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 13:47:16 +0000, Alek wrote:
However the present concentration on Cashless Articulated operation in Central London appears to be throwing up substantial funding issues. Which is a separate issue. I noted on the site concerned that there is a plan to reduce frequency with the introduction of bendies. This isn't a problem with bendies - it's a problem with cutting corners for financial reasons. The Routemaster is simply a very efficient machine which as yet has not been surpassed in design philosophy. Is it? I think it's more of a solid, old design which has lasted a long time (just like the Class 101 DMU trains on the railway which lasted over 40 years until finally being withdrawn on 31/12/03), and one people have come to associate (emotionally) with the London cityscape, but it isn't necessarily the best design. I personally very much agree with the "cashless bus" concept - and this together with fast loading/unloading allows the operation of a very "efficient" service. I know this because I've experienced it on the Continent. The sensible operation of bendies in a Continental-style "rubber-tyred tram" operation requires other things, though, such as bus lanes, traffic-light priority/overtaking lanes, good passenger information, sensibly-located and -spaced stops and *strict* enforcement of no-stopping in the way of bus stops. In the UK, even in London, these things tend to be done half-heartedly. Enough for a bit of good publicity, not enough to make it work properly. Save the Routemaster Indeed......But only if it remains capable of performing its task !! Which, if funding is not available to do bendies *properly*, might well be the case. Neil |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
|
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
The Only Living Boy in New Cross 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? I think you're directing your ire at the wrong place; AIUI it's the EU which is demanding the removal of Routemaster buses. TfL is just complying with new European regulations about open buses. The EU have made a lot of stupid demands but that's not one of them. Removal of Routemasters is a TfL decision. What I want to know is what's happening after they're withdrawn. Are TfL selling them to people who could sell them back to TfL next time there's a policy backflip? |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
With Three fully refurbished Routemasters (Marshall Standard) being
available for the cost of a single modern vehicle it appears sensible to maximise the Passenger carrying ability of ANY route by retaining them and distributing them throughout the network as the situation demands. ... Save the Routemaster Indeed......But only if it remains capable of performing its task !! Unfortunately the Routemaster isn't capable of performing the task required of it - safe and accessible road transport. Routemasters are not accessible to wheelchairs, buggies or the elderly, and are extraordinarily unsafe (as demonstrated by the people you occasionally see trying to push other people off the platform). Their engines also contribute far more than modern buses to our city's pollution levels. They might be cheap, and they might be the subject of some nostalgia, but they have nevertheless outlived their usefulness. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Old the Routemaster may well be and indeed solid too,but the this solidity
is belied by an Unladen Weight of 7tons 14Cwt for a 72 Seat RML type. This makes the Routemaster a featherweight compared with modern Volvo or Dennis chassied vehicles which come in at around 11 Tonnes ULW. Much of the Routemaster Design philosophy was a direct spin-off from the 2nd world War aeronautical industry and this led to its design having immense strength whilst remaining relatively light. There was a degree of scepticism within the Bus Industry regarding the Marshall Refurb programme as it was felt that once the vehicles were stripped down all sorts of hidden structural defects would manifest themselves. Engineers were somewhat surprised to find that most of the candidates for refurbishment were in amazingly good structural condition requiring little if any major structural work. The other interesting aspect of the Marshall programme was the ability of the Routemaster to accept a Bang-Up-to-Date Cummins Isbe Engine which fully complied with the stringent Euro 2 emissions regulations. This engine when coupled to the electronically controlled Allison gearbox and retarder allows for a smooth and extremely economical vehicle capable of returning Fuel Consumption figures which tend to make modern Bus Designers somewhat queasy. Part of TfL`s original spin focused on the down-at-heel appearance of many of the Routemaster fleet,convienently ignoring that this was a direct result of a downgrading of maintenance programmes within several operating companies. The standard of the Refurbished Routemaster vehicles bears comparison with any modern vehicle in London service and indeed some operators are quite well known for their LACK of maintenance resulting in even the second-hand dealers refusing to handle vehicles coming from their fleets. The issue of Disability Access remains one of the oddest to quantify and even now the debate over just how "Accessible" a SuperLowFloor design really is continues each day out on the streets. On a recent trip to London I listened to a conversation between two "Grannies" who bemoaned to each other the loss of the "Old" Bus on their route. They each agreed upon the preference for the "Long Seats" at the back of the Routemaster and most interestingly they each remarked upon how difficult it was FOR THEM to get to a seat on a new SLF bus because "They`re always crowded full with Push-Chairs and Prams" Listening to the two I wondered if anybody from TfL had ever asked them for their opinion but sadly I didnt interrupt their conversation. To me it still appears that the Issue of disability remains one where much lip-service is paid yet little real understanding of what the term really means exists. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:46:26 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote: I personally very much agree with the "cashless bus" concept - and this together with fast loading/unloading allows the operation of a very "efficient" service. I know this because I've experienced it on the Continent. I prefer what seems to be more normal on the continent. For most people it is cashless. But you can, if you like, buy a ticket from the driver and then validate it in the machine. This is the situation on, e.g. the Brussels buses and trams. I agree in essence with what Ken's trying to do but it seems a little absolute. Tourists, for instance, may have difficulty that could be avoided with a little flexibility. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Matt Ashby wrote:
With Three fully refurbished Routemasters (Marshall Standard) being available for the cost of a single modern vehicle it appears sensible to maximise the Passenger carrying ability of ANY route by retaining them and distributing them throughout the network as the situation demands. ... Save the Routemaster Indeed......But only if it remains capable of performing its task !! Unfortunately the Routemaster isn't capable of performing the task required of it - safe and accessible road transport. Routemasters are not accessible to wheelchairs, buggies Isn't that why so many Routemaster routes have very long shared sections with other routes? or the elderly, Not always - my grandmother has found she can use some Routemasters but not others. Apparently the platform heights vary. and are extraordinarily unsafe (as demonstrated by the people you occasionally see trying to push other people off the platform). I've never seen those! Their engines also contribute far more than modern buses to our city's pollution levels. Are there any AEC engined routemasters left in service? I thought it was only the ones with the clean engines that were left! A few months ago on ITV's "Ask Ken" there was a cabbie rather annoyed with the fact that the Routemasters were still on the road while he'd been required to switch to a new vehicle. The fact that Ken's response gave no indication that they had new engines made me wonder if he even knows they have. Next time they do such a programme, maybe someone from this ng should ask him why they're getting rid of the Routemasters when they've recently had new engines installed! They might be cheap, and they might be the subject of some nostalgia, but they have nevertheless outlived their usefulness. 'Tis really a case of how you use them. I think the best way of using them would be as a peak only supplement to the regular service: on very busy routes (the ones where buses are sometimes too full to get on), in addition to modern buses, there should be a good supply of Routemasters to accomodate the commuters. They should make no attempt to stick to a timetable - the new buses that they share the route with could do that. Instead the drivers should start at regular intervals (say every three minutes) with the instruction to go as fast as they comfortably and safely can. This way: A lot of capacity could quite cheaply be provided when and where it's needed. Routemasters would regain their reputation for being fast. Those who have trouble using Routemasters would be able to use the route more easily (as crowded new buses can be just as bad) Interpeak some of them could be used on routes that are popular with tourists. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:00:58 +0000, Ken Wheatley wrote:
I prefer what seems to be more normal on the continent. For most people it is cashless. But you can, if you like, buy a ticket from the driver and then validate it in the machine. This is the situation on, e.g. the Brussels buses and trams. Ditto Hamburg. The difference, though, is that single fares[1] are priced rather highly, and day and period passes more cheaply, so you are strongly discouraged from using single fares. This means few people actually want to buy from the driver, as they already have a ticket. [1] These are all-modes with changes of bus/train permitted. Neil |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
They each agreed upon the preference for the "Long Seats" at the back of
the Routemaster and most interestingly they each remarked upon how difficult it was FOR THEM to get to a seat on a new SLF bus because "They`re always crowded full with Push-Chairs and Prams" Yes that is indeed something I hear of a lot. Also the rear section of many low floor buses is near enough inaccessible to many because it is raised up so high and it can be quite precarious getting down again if you do make it. Also where there are side facing seats towards the front of buses they are dangerous because they are not deep enough and there are insufficient handholds resulting in a tendency to be thrown off the seat when cornering. Finally in the wheelchair areas there are often seats on a spring up mechanism. Unfortunately in order to reach the bell push it is necessary for many people to raise themselves off the chair slightly, only to find that is has sprung up and is no longer there when they sit back, leaving them deposited on the floor. 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. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
|
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
In message , David
Boothroyd writes 3) Routemasters are fundamentally inaccessible for anyone with mobility problems. A few (contradictory) observations. As someone with a slightly unsteady Mum I have to take issue with this. RMs are inaccessible to anyone in a "wheelchair* but are preferred by those who are a bit unsteady. In particular, Mum has great difficulty with modern low floor buses because of the lack of grab rails, necessitated by the circulating space for wheelchairs and push chairs. A case of helping one section of the community while buggering things up for another. That said, a few months ago, I travelled with a friend in a wheelchair in London, who was able to take his first ride on a bus in over 30 years as a result of the presence of a low floor bendy. It worked and it was delightful to see. As for cashless operation, it's now much harder for me to encourage clients to hop on a bus for short journeys in Central London than it used to be. "Get on a 13 there, the journey to Oxford Street will cost you £1" is now replaced by "Get on a 13 there but first you have to buy a ticket for £1 from the machine at the stop". That is relatively straightforward but puts off casual tourist use which is a pity. 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). The main cause of delays tends to be "do you go to X? No? Well where can I get a bus there? But how far along this road *are* you going?" etc. 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? -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Aidan Stangers response is exactly the type of commonsense thinking that TfL
and its Senior Executives (Including Hizzonor) are paid to come up with. The Routemaster has many years of good solid service left in it and this type of Peak-Time enhancement is right up its alley. There is also the question of occasions such as the great Power Cut when Tube and Rail services may be Nixed and extra Routemaster Capacity could very well make a huge contribution to the response. Surely SOMEBODY from TfL (Surface Transport) reads this ng....???? |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"Alek" typed
Listening to the two I wondered if anybody from TfL had ever asked them for their opinion but sadly I didnt interrupt their conversation. To me it still appears that the Issue of disability remains one where much lip-service is paid yet little real understanding of what the term really means exists. Quite. The 'ambulant disabled' far outnumber the wheelchair users. They need downstairs seats with good grab rails. Buggy & wheelchair spaces reduce the number of seats available for their use. -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"Graham J" typed
They each agreed upon the preference for the "Long Seats" at the back of the Routemaster and most interestingly they each remarked upon how difficult it was FOR THEM to get to a seat on a new SLF bus because "They`re always crowded full with Push-Chairs and Prams" Yes that is indeed something I hear of a lot. Also the rear section of many low floor buses is near enough inaccessible to many because it is raised up so high and it can be quite precarious getting down again if you do make it. Also where there are side facing seats towards the front of buses they are dangerous because they are not deep enough and there are insufficient handholds resulting in a tendency to be thrown off the seat when cornering. Finally in the wheelchair areas there are often seats on a spring up mechanism. Unfortunately in order to reach the bell push it is necessary for many people to raise themselves off the chair slightly, only to find that is has sprung up and is no longer there when they sit back, leaving them deposited on the floor. 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. And one person frequently occupies two seats... -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message ...
What I want to know is what's happening after they're withdrawn. Are TfL selling them to people who could sell them back to TfL next time there's a policy backflip? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...982982,00.html ===== But for some bus fans, reports of its death are greatly exaggerated. As quickly as Transport for London decommissions them, enthusiasts are buying them back. Peter Newman runs a second-hand bus dealership in Essex, and for him the demise of the Routemaster has meant an unexpected boom in business. "I have got literally 200 inquiries sitting on my desk from interested buyers," he says. "All of them have come in the last two months since the Routemaster began being sold off. One guy from London has bought five and just parked them in a barn, as an investment." Depending on the condition, you can pick up a Routemaster for as little as £2,000, although in good repair the price rises to £15,000. Newman says America is a lucrative market and that while private buyers want the buses purely for nostalgia, some businesses are becoming increasingly interested too. "We’ve had estate agents buying them to advertise their services like a mobile billboard, a school wants one to house their computer class, I’ve even got an order from a church that wants a Bible bus," he says. ===== Robin |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
... Quite. The 'ambulant disabled' far outnumber the wheelchair users. They need downstairs seats with good grab rails. Buggy & wheelchair spaces reduce the number of seats available for their use. And how often are elderly people forced to get up from these seats to accommodate minging, Croydon-facelifted, mobile 'phone-touting, Regals-smoking slapper chavs, with their whingeing pikey brats and a buggy the size of Peckham? ;-) Ian |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"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 |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
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 |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
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 |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
... 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/ |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
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 |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
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 |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"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! |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
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. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
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! |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
|
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
In article , 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. Melbourne has retained some W-class trams running a free City Circle route: http://www.victrip.com.au/city_circle/trams.html -- Tony Bryer |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Very True Martin.
The combination of low gross vehicle weight and new engine/transmision technology allow the Routemaster to return embarrasingly good economy figures indeed. Where present RM operations fall down is due to individual operators taking a decision to reduce maintenance input,ie:non-replacement of damaged body panels or leaving failed interior light tubes unattended to. However yet again it is a mark of the Vehicles overall good design that it takes far more to disable a RM than for example a Volvo B7tl which can and does become immobile at the soft Ding of a warning bell. My points are not intended as an anoraks "Keep the RM at all costs" but as a recognition that the vehicles continue to have a necessary and important role in Central London Public Transport provision. |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Alek wrote:
Very True Martin. The combination of low gross vehicle weight and new engine/transmision technology allow the Routemaster to return embarrasingly good economy figures indeed. Do you know how low? One of the major criticisms of Routemasters has been the extra cost of employing the conductor. Does the fuel saving make up for this? |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
Terry Harper wrote:
"Ian Jelf" wrote... 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, So missing nearly everything that the tourists want to see! and that all other buses be diverted from it. You want to ban wheelchair accessible buses from Oxford Street???? Why is it that so many people want to take the buses away from Central London's main bus interchange? 'Tis not as if there's a viable alternative. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society So why have you come up with the most anti-routemaster proposal yet? |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
|
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:53:14 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote: 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 How about Blackpool tram sort of layout? www.unseenlondon.co.uk www.blackpooltram.co.uk www.happysnapper.com www.boilerbill.com - main site www.amerseyferry.co.uk |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
When I did a stint in the Chiswick bus development office as an engineering
student in the mid-1960s, RMs were averaging about 9mpg in service. Furthermore, whereas RT engine life averaged out at 4 years, after 4 years 98% of RMs were still on their original engines. I always felt that this was due to the RM's automatic gearbox limiting the revs; RT drivers often revved right up to the governor in each gear! Does anyone know the average mpg of, say, Tridents? "Boltar" wrote in message om... (Matt Ashby) wrote in message . com... Unfortunately the Routemaster isn't capable of performing the task required of it - safe and accessible road transport. Routemasters are Really? Its managed it for 40 years , why suddenly has this changed (apart from the political correctness getting in on the act of course)? not accessible to wheelchairs, buggies or the elderly, and are extraordinarily unsafe (as demonstrated by the people you occasionally see trying to push other people off the platform). Ah rubbish. They're only unsafe for the terminally stupid. Their engines also contribute far more than modern buses to our city's pollution levels. Most of them have new engines. B2003 |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
My own info on the Volvo B7tl appears to indicate an average of 6mpg in City
Service. The Trident using a somewhat larger Cummins power unit may well be slightly better as in our service the smaller engined B7`s are constantly being thrashed especially when loaded. I would like to get accurate figures for the Marshall spec Cummins/Allison combination but I would be wary of any of the "Official" TfL ones as I should imagine any figure which would show a good average might have to be "Amended".......Conspiracy Theory.....You Bet.! |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
... Terry Harper wrote: My view is that they should be restricted to a free shuttle the full length of Oxford Street, So missing nearly everything that the tourists want to see! and that all other buses be diverted from it. You want to ban wheelchair accessible buses from Oxford Street???? Why is it that so many people want to take the buses away from Central London's main bus interchange? 'Tis not as if there's a viable alternative. So why have you come up with the most anti-routemaster proposal yet? I haven't. Their days are numbered, but Peter Hendy has said that some will always remain, so why not put them to work in London's biggest tourist trap. Wheelchair accessible buses would still cross Oxford Street, but be able to get on with going places, rather than clog up the already congested street. As for calling Oxford Street London's main bus interchange, a long street with interminable queues of buses trying to get onto blocked stops does not make an interchange. Aldwych or Victoria are a lot more effective. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Save the 73 Routemaster!!!!
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
... "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! There is no reason why buses can't cross Oxford Street, say at Tottenham Court Road, Oxford Circus and Baker Street, and also run alongside it using Welbeck Street. It's just the stupidity of running a large number of near-empty buses at less than walking place that gets me. People who want to make through journeys don't want all the delay involved. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk