On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 10:05:41 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:22:22PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

And today Boris's latest idea is to spend (or is he expecting someone
else to spend) ?220m on new buses (and all contactless payment) because
the Roastmaster was such a success, apparently.

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're very heavy, which limits their capacity as does the rear platform
and second staircase, the hybrid system has never worked properly, perhaps
because of the very limited space for the power unit under the rear stairs,
like the bendies they have double the fare evasion of normal buses, and
they cost almost twice as much as a conventional double decker (£350k vs
£190k). They acquired their 'Roastmaster' nickname because their
air-cooling didn't work and they lacked ventilation, which had to be
retro-fitted.

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.

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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 14:31:56 +0100, Trolleybus
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 10:05:41 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:22:22PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

And today Boris's latest idea is to spend (or is he expecting someone
else to spend) ?220m on new buses (and all contactless payment) because
the Roastmaster was such a success, apparently.

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're very heavy, which limits their capacity as does the rear platform
and second staircase, the hybrid system has never worked properly, perhaps
because of the very limited space for the power unit under the rear stairs,
like the bendies they have double the fare evasion of normal buses, and
they cost almost twice as much as a conventional double decker (£350k vs
£190k). They acquired their 'Roastmaster' nickname because their
air-cooling didn't work and they lacked ventilation, which had to be
retro-fitted.

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.

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.

You can rejoice, as soon you'll be in the same position as all the
other passengers: the current proposal is to ban boarding from the
mid/rear doors, so they'll be exit-only. Everyone will have to board
from the front door, just like all other London buses, thus removing
the one supposed advantage of the bus, faster boarding.

This is to reduce the high level of fare evasion, more than double the
rate on the much cheaper, more economical, more reliable, more
comfortable conventional buses.

https://londonist.com/london/transport/routemaster-buses-trialling-boarding-by-the-front-door-only

I wasn't aware of this other problem with them:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-38800789

I wonder what will happen to the manufacturer's guarantee and software
support if Wrightbus is shut down?

It's interesting that Boris apparently regards this as the triumph of
his mayoralty, along with the overseas trade missions for London that
included his otherwise unqualified, pole-dancing American mistress.

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.

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.

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