Terry Harper wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Terry Harper wrote:

For a long time all of the Eastern Coachworks bodies had vents at
the front of both upper and lower decks. With a front entrance
this is not possible downstairs.

Perhaps they should talk to car manufacturers, who have found it
possible to fit front air vents on vehicles with front entrances
for the last 50 years or so.

Not the sort we are talking about here. Have a look at the front of
a Routemaster or an RT, or even a Lodekka, to see what is meant. Or
did you mean opening windscreens?

I'm thinking about a technology similar to the fresh-air vents on any
car dashboard. All it needs on a bus is to make the front windows
smaller so as to leave room for air vents which would feed through to
the interior, with fan assistance. What's so difficult about that?
Replacing upper deck opening windows by vast sheets of glass with no
front ventilation whatsoever is a gross design blunder that ought to
have been corrected by now.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...

The only valid reason for withdrawing RMs now is if they are falling
apart. Actually some may be, but all of them?

They've mostly had three new heads and two new handles. TfL have decided
that payment off-bus is the way to go, and that the benefits of the
articulated single-decker are speed of loading, ease of access, and very
high crush capacity.

The RM and its clones have to have a conductor to supervise boarding and
getting off, even if fares are paid off-bus, and the lower deck has a
limited capacity, because people won't climb the stairs. Keep enough of them
for a tourist free-service along Oxford Street, and get rid of the rest of
them.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Terry Harper ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

and the lower deck has a limited capacity, because people won't climb the
stairs.

So why are so many new double deckers in use?

The Bendis just don't physically work - they're too damn long - and now it
seems that double deckers are pointless due to people using them as single
deckers due to indolence.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Terry Harper ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

and the lower deck has a limited capacity, because people won't climb
the
stairs.

So why are so many new double deckers in use?

The Bendis just don't physically work - they're too damn long - and now it
seems that double deckers are pointless due to people using them as single
deckers due to indolence.

The new double deckers are there because Red Ken and the regulations say
they will be. They have more standing space downstairs because of the way
that the seating is arranged. Unfortunately a lot is lost to the staircase.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

The new double deckers are there because Red Ken and the regulations say
they will be. They have more standing space downstairs because of the way
that the seating is arranged. Unfortunately a lot is lost to the staircase.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society

But what about the "lost" space on bendy-buses in the following areas:-

- each side where the "bendy mechanism" is situated - narrowing the available
space;
- the seat lost on the rear offside back row where is the engine compartment;

I doubt that, overall, there is any saving over a Routemaster.

What is undeniable is that these monsters take up much more roadspace, and
require greater turning space than normal-length buses.


Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

But what about the "lost" space on bendy-buses in the following areas:-

- each side where the "bendy mechanism" is situated - narrowing the
available
space;
- the seat lost on the rear offside back row where is the engine
compartment;

I doubt that, overall, there is any saving over a Routemaster.

What is undeniable is that these monsters take up much more roadspace, and
require greater turning space than normal-length buses.

I've not been on one of the London ones yet, but on the typical Ikarus
articulated bus in Eastern Europe the area near the doors at the rear and in
the centre was all standing space, and minimal seating was provided. They
were high-floor with underfloor engines, so the side rear engine was not a
feature.

By bendy mechanism, I assume that you mean where the concertina joint is,
and where there would probably be a turntable plate over the centre of the
joint in the floor. Narrowing is a consequence of having the joint. I'd be
surprised if the turning circle was significantly more than a rigid bus with
the same wheelbase.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Aidan Stanger wrote:


The only valid reason for withdrawing RMs now is if they are falling
apart. Actually some may be, but all of them?

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!


Apparently the scrap men don't like buying up the Routemasters simply
because they are so difficult to break up. They take about 12 hours per
vehicle compared to other buses that take about 3 hours. (figures based on
something that someone said a few months ago so they may be innaccurat...
but you get the gist?)

Nick

Apparently the scrap men don't like buying up the Routemasters simply
because they are so difficult to break up. They take about 12 hours per
vehicle compared to other buses that take about 3 hours. (figures based on
something that someone said a few months ago so they may be innaccurat...
but you get the gist?)

Nick


Good - the thought of a Routemaster being scrapped fills me with the same sort
of revulsion as infanticide or gang-rape.

Marc.

In article , Colin
McKenzie writes
Yesterday I checked the weights of some buses. RMs are 7t 5cwt, RMLs 7t
15cwt, as any fule kno, but I think a tonne is a few % less than a ton,
so say 8 tonnes for a RML.

1 ton = 2240 lbs
1 tonne = 2204.6 lbs

So 1.6% less.

7t15cwt = 7.75 tons = 7.874 tonnes
7t 5cwt = 7.25 tons = 7.366 tonnes

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

From: (Mark Brader)
Date: 15/08/2004 19:32 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Aidan Stanger writes:
Dr John Stockton wrote:

JRS: In article , dated
Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:12:29, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Acrosticus
posted :
From: Stuart
Date: 11/08/2004 09:58 GMT Daylight Time

No such thing.

Not only is there no such thing, Acrosticus's claim that Stuart had
posted that was a lie! ...

We don't have to throw around words like "lie"; his software is probably
rendering all Date: lines converted to his local time zone (which it
obviously doesn't know the name of), and he copied what he saw.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Don't be evil."
-- corporate policy, Google Inc.

Thanks for that! It does know the name of the time zone though, which for half
the year is Greenwich Mean Time but at the moment it's British Summer Time (ie
GMT plus 1 hour); which it calls "GMT Daylight Time" for some reason of its
own.

Bit of a shame that someone with "Dr" in front of their name should be so
pedantic and ignorant at the same time though isn't it? Still, as yesterday's
British newspapers pointed out rather well, GCE A-Level standards are
plummeting and first year undergraduates are arriving at British universities
with amazing gaps in their supposed knowledge according to tutors, so why
shouldn't the same be happening further up the system with doctorates too?