On 2015\06\10 12:46, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:53:25 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

So suggests this report, based on a meeting of the London Assembly's
Transport Committee - Kent County Council being the active objector to
the TfL rail takeover plan in revenge:

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

Hopefully it'll be an idea that'll surface again in the future - so long
as TfL does a good job on their new West Anglia metro routes.

The webcast from the session certainly confirmed Kent's viewpoint. I
suspect there were other issues too but this is politics at its worst.
However the reps from Kent CC and Surrey CC were much more positive
about devolution of some services to TfL *provided* there is proper
involvement for them in the decision making process and the scope.
Kent set out some "red lines" but the TfL rep present was confident
they could be dealt with sensibly or where already controlled by the
ORR (the old fear of TfL stealing train paths for trains into Kent).
Kent certainly wanted to see Oyster extended into Kent so that was a
positive thing.

TfL said they would be very happy to work with both Counties in
respect of the next franchising round and sorting out what lines /
services would be devolved and where the boundaries are. I felt it
was positive overall.

Are Kent holding out because they want Crossrail to come to them, perhaps?

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:20:25 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\06\10 12:46, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:53:25 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

So suggests this report, based on a meeting of the London Assembly's
Transport Committee - Kent County Council being the active objector to
the TfL rail takeover plan in revenge:

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

Hopefully it'll be an idea that'll surface again in the future - so long
as TfL does a good job on their new West Anglia metro routes.

The webcast from the session certainly confirmed Kent's viewpoint. I
suspect there were other issues too but this is politics at its worst.
However the reps from Kent CC and Surrey CC were much more positive
about devolution of some services to TfL *provided* there is proper
involvement for them in the decision making process and the scope.
Kent set out some "red lines" but the TfL rep present was confident
they could be dealt with sensibly or where already controlled by the
ORR (the old fear of TfL stealing train paths for trains into Kent).
Kent certainly wanted to see Oyster extended into Kent so that was a
positive thing.

TfL said they would be very happy to work with both Counties in
respect of the next franchising round and sorting out what lines /
services would be devolved and where the boundaries are. I felt it
was positive overall.

Are Kent holding out because they want Crossrail to come to them, perhaps?

No. Crossrail was not mentioned at all. Bizarrely they seem very
happy to have HS1 and with South Eastern generally. Rather shows
where the franchise priorities are - i.e. not on Metro services.

They seem keener now provided the following are met :-

a) TfL add capacity at peak times by lengthening trains to the
permissible longest length. They don't want train paths reallocated
from "their" trains to Metro routes.

b) There is no "theft" of train paths from "their" services to TfL
ones. This is impossible because ORR control track access. Obviously
if there are spare paths and TfL bid for them and South Eastern do not
then that's a different scenario.

c) There are no adverse or perverse issues relating to fares. They
didn't want fares to rise in Kent to somehow "pay" for TfL's takeover.
Also they didn't want TfL to introduce cheap fares that then created a
shift in commuter patterns causing traffic congestion issues and
localised parking problems in the vicinity of a "cheaper" station.
Given the DfT have effectively hobbled TfL's ability to lower fares
anyway (other than removing the Zone 1 add on fare) this is pretty
much a non issue.

Kent CC also had a specific question about whether the Metro services
that currently run on to Gravesend and Gillingham would be TfL
operated or remain with South Eastern or if the service pattern would
change. Clearly there wasn't a specific answer to that given.

My sense was that these are either non issues because of existing
industry controls / processes or else could be solved through
discussion. It's over to TfL to try again and hopefully keep people
on side. I still think the spectre of airport policy will hang heavy
given the government have not set a deadline for responding to the
Airports Commission and Boris won't give up either.

I thought Boris Island had already been removed from the list of airport
extension options under consideration? There are three options on the
short list: Gatwick, or the two Heathrow proposals.

On 2015-06-11 00:10:12 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

[1] Cue the New Train for England, New Bike for England, New Bus for
England etc etc [2]
[2] cue me leaving the country! ;-)

A bit extreme, perhaps. It's an expensive, fancy-looking bus, but it's
not *terrible*.

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

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.

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.

--
Spud

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.

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.

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 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!