Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:57:45 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

I think I use the 655 more often than the school children.

So non-school people can use school buses in London?

From the picture, it's not actually a school bus as such, just an
ordinary double-decker bus deployed to a route aimed mainly at school
kids.

hich is what a school bus is in London (and I think UK) We don't have
the silly waste of separate school buses that the US have. Although that
does mean that some of ours are not very good buses.

--
Mark

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:08:51 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:57:45 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

I think I use the 655 more often than the school children.

So non-school people can use school buses in London?

From the picture, it's not actually a school bus as such, just an
ordinary double-decker bus deployed to a route aimed mainly at school
kids.

hich is what a school bus is in London (and I think UK) We don't have
the silly waste of separate school buses that the US have. Although that
does mean that some of ours are not very good buses.

Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:08:51 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:57:45 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

I think I use the 655 more often than the school children.

So non-school people can use school buses in London?

From the picture, it's not actually a school bus as such, just an
ordinary double-decker bus deployed to a route aimed mainly at school
kids.

hich is what a school bus is in London (and I think UK) We don't have
the silly waste of separate school buses that the US have. Although that
does mean that some of ours are not very good buses.

Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They also have more modern ones, but I suppose the old ones last for a very
long time. They don't do a high mileage, after all.

On 19/09/2017 13:45, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:08:51 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:57:45 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

I think I use the 655 more often than the school children.

So non-school people can use school buses in London?

From the picture, it's not actually a school bus as such, just an
ordinary double-decker bus deployed to a route aimed mainly at school
kids.

hich is what a school bus is in London (and I think UK) We don't have
the silly waste of separate school buses that the US have. Although that
does mean that some of ours are not very good buses.

Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They also have more modern ones, but I suppose the old ones last for a very
long time. They don't do a high mileage, after all.

Well they seem to keep replacing them with similar models - older ones
seem to end up as low-cost transport in central American countries such
as Guatemala.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:45:07 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:08:51 +0100
(Mark Bestley) wrote:
Recliner wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 19:57:45 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT), Offramp
wrote:

I think I use the 655 more often than the school children.

So non-school people can use school buses in London?

From the picture, it's not actually a school bus as such, just an
ordinary double-decker bus deployed to a route aimed mainly at school
kids.

hich is what a school bus is in London (and I think UK) We don't have
the silly waste of separate school buses that the US have. Although that
does mean that some of ours are not very good buses.

Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They also have more modern ones, but

still utilitarian.

I doubt any commuter in the Excited States or Canada would appreciate
having to board a 'school bus' to move from point A to point B.

The first problem is one-door entry/exit, which works fine as you pick
up/drop off the Dear Wee Kiddies and Stroppy Teens to/from their
school but falls flat for variable route coverage.

Second, I've yet to see a 'school bus' which is handicapped
accessible.

Third, their physical 'ride' is hellishly hard/rough; they're
basically trucks with closed-in bodies.

Having said that, a pile of discarded 'school buses' seem to migrate
to Latin America. Pay Bolivia a visit and look around while in La Paz
to observe what passes as public transport.

In message , at 12:28:48 on Tue, 19 Sep
2017, remarked:
Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They are robust and reliable. Why is anything more luxurious required?
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:25:09 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:28:48 on Tue, 19 Sep
2017, remarked:
Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They are robust and reliable. Why is anything more luxurious required?

So is a horse and cart. Also I'd be amazed if their crash worthiness and fuel
economy is as good as a normal bus.

In message , at 08:38:41 on Wed, 20 Sep
2017, remarked:
Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They are robust and reliable. Why is anything more luxurious required?

So is a horse and cart. Also I'd be amazed if their crash worthiness and fuel
economy is as good as a normal bus.

No-one cares about fuel efficiency in the USA, nor do people crash into
school buses very often (they are large and conspicuous, getting too
close is frowned upon, let alone overtaking them, and they'd lock you up
and throw away the key. I doubt they ever get much above 30mph.
--
Roland Perry

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:25:09 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:28:48 on Tue, 19 Sep
2017, remarked:
Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They are robust and reliable. Why is anything more luxurious required?

So is a horse and cart. Also I'd be amazed if their crash worthiness and fuel
economy is as good as a normal bus.

Are the kids required to wear seat belts on them? If not, the bus
crashworthiness hardly matters.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:38:41 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:25:09 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:28:48 on Tue, 19 Sep
2017, remarked:
Those US school buses look like they were designed in the 1940s to me. Is
there some reason they can't use a modern bus but have to use some archaic
throwbacks?

They are robust and reliable. Why is anything more luxurious required?

So is a horse and cart. Also I'd be amazed if their crash worthiness and fuel
economy is as good as a normal bus.

IMO a normal bus is better because of:

- Economy
- Accessibility (without a lot of fuss, both operationally and for the
passenger concerned)
- Reasonable comfort - don't laugh - as long as there is no 3-a-side
config
- Most importantly for the bus operator - gets kids used to using a
normal bus

Of course, for the last point to apply there has to *be* a normal bus,
but that's hardly a problem in London.

Richard.