Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
675 bus route
In message , at 20:05:18 on
Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Richard 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 "Normal" buses are only used as the very last resort in the USA, largely by economic migrants on minimum wage. There's very little overlap with students who ever took a school bus to High School. Of course, for the last point to apply there has to *be* a normal bus, but that's hardly a problem in London. It's a problem if we are discussing the majority of the USA. -- Roland Perry |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Maps of the Olympic cycling route and marathon route | London Transport | |||
Bus Route 186 Grahame Park Re-Route?? | London Transport | |||
Route 73 to go DD and Route 29 to go Bendi??? | London Transport | |||
Favourite Bus Route | London Transport | |||
Favourite Bus Route | London Transport |