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.

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

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 !!

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.