On 12/06/2015 09:37, d wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:20:07 +0100
Paul Corfield wrote:
We must beg to differ. They make me ill [1] and I refuse to travel on

They're not *that* bad. God knows I remember some school bus trips back
in the day when it was like being in an overheating tumble dryer.

Complete waste of money however. The Bendy buses were far more convenient
and if it hadn't been for Boris sucking up to the militant cycle lobby who
represent nobody apart from themselves and wanting to give Ken 2 fingers london
would have got its moneys worth from them. Though I expect by now they'd be
life expired anyway or wouldn't meet current pollution regs and would have been
pastured off somewhere else.


It was *not* to do with any cycling lobby.

There were cyclists who didn't like the bendy buses, but there was never
any consensus across the 'cycling lobby' against bendy buses.

The idea that bendies went because cyclists disliked them is a myth.
(Just because Boris is a cyclist doesn't mean his views match those of
all cyclists - very far from it.)

There were a number of reasons given for the removal of bendy buses,
some of them being rather more emotional than rational.

Given the (metaphorical) heat over bendy buses, I don't expect anyone to
be proposing their reintroduction to London any time soon, however
suitable they might be for at least a few duties. Such is politics.

In the meantime, we've got a bus that's too hot, courtesy of a Mayor who
never travels by bus.


impressed. Constant demands for working air con or opening windows.

Didn't you get the memo? Windows that open are so 20th century. Far too simple
and convenient - much better to have an expensive technical solution that
doesn't work quite as well.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2015 21:10, tim..... wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the mayor "

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?


In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept your
point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit that
they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!

tim

On 2015-06-13 00:14:56 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

God knows what the next Mayor does with them.

I know you won't like it, but I'm hoping for "fits new aircon or
opening windows and keeps them". While the platform is a gimmick and I
would expect them to be OPO in due course, I don't think they are bad
in and of themselves, and I don't (except through the heat) have
sickness issues on them and would be very interested to know what it is
(while I guess you don't know yourself) specifically that causes this.
I also think the identity of having a distinct London bus body has a
strong aspect to it, though this was sort-of achieved a while ago when
almost everything was the old-style Wright Gemini which is a very
distinctive body (particularly the front) which became somewhat
synonymous with London.

I suppose each to their own on such things - I find Class 180 Adelantes
on FGW make me feel ill, I think it's down to the lousy ride and wobbly
seats. No other UK train has ever done that, though the relatively
soft suspension and resulting sway on the Canadian did make me feel
queasy to start with, though I got used to it (fortunately, as I was on
it for 4 days!)

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:48:30 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 11/06/2015 21:10, tim..... wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the mayor
"

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?


In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept your
point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit
that
they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!

For goodness sake. You really think I would make it up?

No I'm not.

I assumed that you quoted someone else's claim

I'm actually
offended by that. I've no axe to grind given I don't live in South
East London and rarely use the trains there.

Well I do ... and I don't - because I live in the bit that KCC want to
"protect", and ISTM that KCCs view here is entirely sensible.

I'm currently suffering a vastly reduced service because the works at LB
have meant that fewer SW locals can run, so in order to protect them, my
services have had extra stops inserted.

I don't want this reduction in service to be perpetuated because TfL take
over responsibility after LB is complete and think "that's what their
getting now so we don't need to go back to the previous service, and can use
the new paths for our own stations"

The transcript of the meeting hasn't been provided yet so I can't
point you at it. Now go and tell City Hall's Secretariat that they're
a bunch of slackers.

Meeting agenda with attendees listed. Mr Balfour from Kent is the
person to listen to.

http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/d...20Services.pdf

The webcast is at

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assem...embly/webcasts

9th June 2015 Transport Committee is the one to watch / listen to.

Fast forward to 1 hour 48 mins for the bit on "red lines" and then
keep watching to see the ongoing discussion about what happens when
TfL take over a service. 2hrs 10min is the point about Kent's
objection to previous plans.

Oh so I've still got to listen to 30 minutes :-(

tim

On 13/06/2015 12:42, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2015-06-13 00:14:56 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

God knows what the next Mayor does with them.

I know you won't like it, but I'm hoping for "fits new aircon or opening
windows and keeps them". While the platform is a gimmick and I would
expect them to be OPO in due course, [...]

Many Boris Bus routes are OPO already (that is, 24/7, rather than
partially two manned for some of the day).

Two comments on this...

(1) Boris made a *big* deal of promising a bus with an open platform
that one could hop-on and hop-off. You can't do that if the door is closed.

(2) When in OPO mode, the rear door is somewhat restrictive, in part I
think because of the need to have the centre grab pole for when the rear
open platform is, er, actually open.

I think Paul has suggested that there might be structural problems with
retro-fitting windows. Retro-fitting aircon isn't necessarily an easy
task either, nor cheap - and I doubt it'd so the efficiency credentials
of the bus much good.

I think the 'Roastmaster' issue might well be the thing that really dogs
this bus.

On 13/06/2015 09:48, tim..... wrote:
[...]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

um, just where is the proof of the statement

"But not only did it take a dim view, it exacted revenge on the
mayor "

It just seems to be made up ******** to me

Watch the transport committee webcast and listen to what the reps from
Kent CC said. I've watched all 2.5 hours of it and I'm very clear
about what was said. Tom Edwards of the BBC was at City Hall during
the meeting so he may have put a journalistic flourish on what was
said but the basic detail is correct.

Kent CC objected to the Estuary
Airport and refused to agree to the rail devolution proposal.

None of that is contested

but where the proof of the link?

In the 2 1/2 hour webcast of the committee session that Paul has
watched/listened to, and you have not...

so the claimant should provide a transcript of the relevant bit then

expecting someone to watch a 2 and a half hour presentation to accept
your point is plain unreasonable.

I still think that the link is invented up by someone with a vested
interest. I don't believe that elected "officials" would openly admit
that they acted out of spite (even if in private, they have)!


You're ridiculous. Who is the "claimant" of which you speak - the
journalist Tom Edwards who wrote the article? In which case, journalism
doesn't work like that - you provide summaries.

If you're referring to Paul C, then why on earth should he provide a
transcript if you're too distrustful of him and also too lazy to find it
yourself. His previous postings clearly show that his analysis has
integrity, so he's not just going making something like that up.

Also, given two sources corroborate the point - a BBC journalists report
and Paul C's summary of the committee hearing - I trust the point. More
fool you if you don't.

On 13/06/2015 14:04, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 12:42:25 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2015-06-13 00:14:56 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

God knows what the next Mayor does with them.

I know you won't like it, but I'm hoping for "fits new aircon or
opening windows and keeps them".

There is no aircon on them. TfL have specifically ruled it out
because the extra weight and power requirement would reduce vehicle
carrying capacity and increase fuel consumption. This was stated in
the TfL Board Paper requesting approval to buy 200 extra vehicles.

I think the public don't realise that air con isn't fitted. It's
merely air cooling and it doesn't work because of its design and the
heat thrown out by the engine on the buses. I think the weight of
opening windows plus the squashed upper deck window design mitigates
against the use of opening windows. There have been long term rumours
about opening windows but I'd have expected to see them before now to
be honest - even as a trial on one vehicle. Plenty of opportunity for
TfL and Wrightbus to do that.

On hot days I think people must realise they don't have aircon fitted!
Either that or they think the aircon is faulty or broken... but such an
illusion wouldn't hold up to repeated experiences on board.


On the Mk2 NB4Ls (the extra 200) TfL have said they will try to
improve the ventilation and heat insulation in the vehicles.
Unfortunately that doesn't provide a fix for the 608 preceeding
vehicles!

While the platform is a gimmick and I would expect them to be OPO in due course,

The rear open platform is effectively being abolished in the Mk2
design although there will still be three doors. The rearmost door
will be a sliding plug type door rather than one that swings inside.
TfL have said there will be no crew operation on the extra buses and
route 73 is being converted now but is remaining OPO despite being
vastly busier than the 10 and 390 which are part crew. I agree that
TfL will scrap crew operation as quickly as possible post May 2016
*unless* the new Mayor requires its retention. I expect some people
will moan about that and making people redundant is never good but
better to do it early in a new term than leave it.

Thanks Paul, I'm quite out of date in that case - I hadn't realised
there was to be a new Mk2 design with a different design at the back.

Blimey Boris is an idiot. All that chat from him about bringing back an
open platform.


Apparently we will see the Mk2 design fairly soon because the first
batch is in build.

I don't think they are bad
in and of themselves, and I don't (except through the heat) have
sickness issues on them and would be very interested to know what it is
(while I guess you don't know yourself) specifically that causes this.

Heat, noise from the engine and never ending bleeps and announcements,
gloom, lack of ventilation, poor seating.

I don't agree with the poor seating criticism, not the "never ending
bleeps and announcements" - but it's definitely gloomier. Just thinking
if the old RMs had an element of that about them too upstairs, not sure.


I also think the identity of having a distinct London bus body has a
strong aspect to it, though this was sort-of achieved a while ago when
almost everything was the old-style Wright Gemini which is a very
distinctive body (particularly the front) which became somewhat
synonymous with London.

I don't really buy that to be honest. I'd rather the bus companies
were allowed to keep investing via the route contracting process in
modern vehicles. The NB4L is ludicrously heavy compared to the very
latest buses coming on the market which are designed for excellent
fuel economy and decent comfort / carrying capacity and which can have
opening windows!


I do recall someone describing it as "the bus for people who don't take
buses", in that in part it's all about the exterior image.

There were some who wanted this new bus to be a disaster because it was
a Boris project. I'm definitely not one of them - not least because
people have to travel on them for many years into the future, so I
wanted them to work. I'm testing my willingness to give it the benefit
of the doubt to the limit.

On 2015-06-13 13:26:54 +0000, Mizter T said:

I don't agree with the poor seating criticism, not the "never ending
bleeps and announcements" - but it's definitely gloomier. Just thinking
if the old RMs had an element of that about them too upstairs, not sure.

I think they did. I also think the subdued, mostly spot lighting
upstairs is classy, rather than gloomy, but I recognise that is a
matter of opinion.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

The one thing we all, Paul Corfield, Spud, myself, everyone else, agree on!

Robin9 wrote:
Mizter T;148811 Wrote:


Blimey Boris is an idiot.


The one thing we all, Paul Corfield, Spud, myself, everyone else, agree
on!


I don't: I think he's a very smart operator who successfully adopts the
guise of a bumbling idiot. He won election, twice, as mayor of a
Labour-voting city, and currently has four jobs (as a very highly paid
journo, best-selling biographer, the politician with the most direct voters
in the UK, and an MP with a majority of 10,695). Despite never having
served in government in any capacity, he's frequently spoken of as a future
prime minister.

He's also rather good at getting things named after himself. Ken spent many
years promoting public transport in London, whereas Boris had no previous
interest in it before becoming mayor, and will probably lose all interest
in it in a year's time. But we have the Boris Bus, Boris Bike, and would-be
Boris Island, but no Ken Fare, Ken Train, Ken Card, Ken Tram, etc.