In message , at 14:31:56 on
Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Trolleybus remarked:

So, we have a bus that's 84% more expensive, with less capacity, longer and
heavier than a normal double-decker, less comfortable, worse fuel
consumption and whose entire reason for existence, the open rear platform,
is not used. No wonder the hoped-for sale of the design to other cities
never happened.

Yes, all granted. But apart from that, they're fine.

Nothing to do with the Romans.

Actually I really dislike them. I can't really say why, but they seem
cramped. And, as I normally have a paper ticket (an ODTC from outside
London) I can't take advantage of the mid/rear dors.

Isn't the rear door locked out of use (it's hard to keep up).

If you asked BoJo in his current mood he'd say "We are absolutely
committed to keeping the rear door". [But you just can't use it].
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:31:56 on
Tue, 1 Oct 2019, Trolleybus remarked:

So, we have a bus that's 84% more expensive, with less capacity, longer and
heavier than a normal double-decker, less comfortable, worse fuel
consumption and whose entire reason for existence, the open rear platform,
is not used. No wonder the hoped-for sale of the design to other cities
never happened.

Yes, all granted. But apart from that, they're fine.

Nothing to do with the Romans.

Actually I really dislike them. I can't really say why, but they seem
cramped. And, as I normally have a paper ticket (an ODTC from outside
London) I can't take advantage of the mid/rear dors.

Isn't the rear door locked out of use (it's hard to keep up).

No, it behaves the same as the other two doors: open at stops, closed when
moving. It's long been that way out of the central area, but it's been
like that everywhere since Khan cut the excessive costs of the buses by
getting rid of all the platform attendants. Strangely, the unions didn't go
on strike, unlike on the railways where the guards' role was changed, but
none lost their jobs or any income.

On 01/10/2019 10:50, David Cantrell wrote:

I don't get this antipathy to the Boris buses. I'm a passenger,
frequently. They do their job well, combining the benefits of a normal
double decker with the one benefit of the bendy monstrosities - quick
boarding - without the humungous downsides of the bendies taking up too
much road space and blocking junctions.

They just look "wrong" to me. And furthermore, they are an insult to the
genuine, real Routemaster, which served London for many years and still
would to this day if not for the PC brigade.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

In message , at 19:11:01 on Tue, 1 Oct 2019,
Recliner remarked:

So, we have a bus that's 84% more expensive, with less capacity, longer and
heavier than a normal double-decker, less comfortable, worse fuel
consumption and whose entire reason for existence, the open rear platform,
is not used. No wonder the hoped-for sale of the design to other cities
never happened.

Yes, all granted. But apart from that, they're fine.

Nothing to do with the Romans.

Actually I really dislike them. I can't really say why, but they seem
cramped. And, as I normally have a paper ticket (an ODTC from outside
London) I can't take advantage of the mid/rear dors.

Isn't the rear door locked out of use (it's hard to keep up).

No, it behaves the same as the other two doors: open at stops, closed when
moving. It's long been that way out of the central area, but it's been
like that everywhere since Khan cut the excessive costs of the buses by
getting rid of all the platform attendants.

Thanks. I was conflating "locked out of use always", with "locked out of
use when under way". The essential difference [user friendliness] of the
old London buses was you could hop and off whenever they were paused, eg
at traffic lights, quite irrespective of where the bus stops were.

Strangely, the unions didn't go on strike, unlike on the railways where
the guards' role was changed, but none lost their jobs or any income.

Hmm.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:11:01 on Tue, 1 Oct 2019,
Recliner remarked:

So, we have a bus that's 84% more expensive, with less capacity, longer and
heavier than a normal double-decker, less comfortable, worse fuel
consumption and whose entire reason for existence, the open rear platform,
is not used. No wonder the hoped-for sale of the design to other cities
never happened.

Yes, all granted. But apart from that, they're fine.

Nothing to do with the Romans.

Actually I really dislike them. I can't really say why, but they seem
cramped. And, as I normally have a paper ticket (an ODTC from outside
London) I can't take advantage of the mid/rear dors.

Isn't the rear door locked out of use (it's hard to keep up).

No, it behaves the same as the other two doors: open at stops, closed when
moving. It's long been that way out of the central area, but it's been
like that everywhere since Khan cut the excessive costs of the buses by
getting rid of all the platform attendants.

Thanks. I was conflating "locked out of use always", with "locked out of
use when under way". The essential difference [user friendliness] of the
old London buses was you could hop and off whenever they were paused, eg
at traffic lights, quite irrespective of where the bus stops were.

Yup, and that was the original idea with the new buses, but Boris ignored
the warnings that this would no longer be permitted with an unsupervised
open platform, because of modern elfin safety rules.

With his perennial, verbose optimism, you could say he was confident that
"the doomsters and the gloomsters" would be proved wrong. But it turned out
that they did know what they were talking about, and TfL was left to keep
paying the hefty bill for his failed experiment, while he moved onwards and
upwards. He also cost TfL money for dumping the bendies prematurely.

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/10/2019 10:50, David Cantrell wrote:

I don't get this antipathy to the Boris buses. I'm a passenger,
frequently. They do their job well, combining the benefits of a normal
double decker with the one benefit of the bendy monstrosities - quick
boarding - without the humungous downsides of the bendies taking up too
much road space and blocking junctions.

They just look "wrong" to me. And furthermore, they are an insult to the
genuine, real Routemaster, which served London for many years and still
would to this day if not for the PC brigade.


Form followed function with the compact, light-weight, attractive, original
RM, whereas style dictated structure with the huge, heavy, expensive new
one.

In message , at 20:34:18 on Tue, 1 Oct 2019,
Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:11:01 on Tue, 1 Oct 2019,
Recliner remarked:

So, we have a bus that's 84% more expensive, with less capacity,
longer and
heavier than a normal double-decker, less comfortable, worse fuel
consumption and whose entire reason for existence, the open rear
platform,
is not used. No wonder the hoped-for sale of the design to other cities
never happened.

Yes, all granted. But apart from that, they're fine.

Nothing to do with the Romans.

Actually I really dislike them. I can't really say why, but they seem
cramped. And, as I normally have a paper ticket (an ODTC from outside
London) I can't take advantage of the mid/rear dors.

Isn't the rear door locked out of use (it's hard to keep up).

No, it behaves the same as the other two doors: open at stops, closed when
moving. It's long been that way out of the central area, but it's been
like that everywhere since Khan cut the excessive costs of the buses by
getting rid of all the platform attendants.

Thanks. I was conflating "locked out of use always", with "locked out of
use when under way". The essential difference [user friendliness] of the
old London buses was you could hop and off whenever they were paused, eg
at traffic lights, quite irrespective of where the bus stops were.

Yup, and that was the original idea with the new buses, but Boris ignored
the warnings that this would no longer be permitted with an unsupervised
open platform, because of modern elfin safety rules.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/...oris_routemast
er_feature.shtml

Shows "hop-on hop-off" buses with only a rear platform.

With his perennial, verbose optimism, you could say he was confident that
"the doomsters and the gloomsters" would be proved wrong. But it turned out
that they did know what they were talking about, and TfL was left to keep
paying the hefty bill for his failed experiment, while he moved onwards and
upwards. He also cost TfL money for dumping the bendies prematurely.

I was amused by his interview n BBC Breakfast yesterday where he quoted
what he claimed was a well know saying "there's no problem you can't fix
with a single decker bus".

I doubt he was indulging in self-parody regarding the double decker
Routemaster (replacing the single decker bendy bus); was it perhaps a
referenceto his battle bus?

Anyway Boris is unabashed, and his new London bus is "wonderful",
apparently.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 20:18:06 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote:

On 01/10/2019 10:50, David Cantrell wrote:

I don't get this antipathy to the Boris buses. I'm a passenger,
frequently. They do their job well, combining the benefits of a normal
double decker with the one benefit of the bendy monstrosities - quick
boarding - without the humungous downsides of the bendies taking up too
much road space and blocking junctions.

They just look "wrong" to me. And furthermore, they are an insult to the
genuine, real Routemaster, which served London for many years and still
would to this day if not for the PC brigade.

It's a shame you added "PC brigade". It is not a terrible thing that
almost everyone can use a bus now, or that 50 year old buses are not
on our streets. Routemasters were wonderful in their day, and I agree
that BJ's buses don't deserve the name. The only benefit they have is
the one that is on the way out.

I don't think the articulated buses were monstrosities either, in my
opinion they were the most user-friendly buses we've ever had. That
the mayor would have started a campaign of lies about them won't be a
surprise to anyone now.

Richard.

On 02/10/2019 15:19, Richard wrote:

I don't think the articulated buses were monstrosities either, in my
opinion they were the most user-friendly buses we've ever had. That
the mayor would have started a campaign of lies about them won't be a
surprise to anyone now.

We still have bendy buses up here, and long may they remain, they do the
job.

My comment on the PC brigade was valid. I never said Routemasters had to
be the only buses in service. My brother is disabled and uses a
wheelchair, I know all about the requirement for disabled access.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 02/10/2019 15:19, Richard wrote:

I don't think the articulated buses were monstrosities either, in my
opinion they were the most user-friendly buses we've ever had. That
the mayor would have started a campaign of lies about them won't be a
surprise to anyone now.

We still have bendy buses up here, and long may they remain, they do the
job.

My comment on the PC brigade was valid. I never said Routemasters had to
be the only buses in service. My brother is disabled and uses a
wheelchair, I know all about the requirement for disabled access.

Apart from that, the old buses needed conductors, while modern buses are
OPO. That was the main factor in the initial switch from the popular RMs.