"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

Yet this type of vehicle (albeit newer) is still used routinely in
public service as well - National Express for one - and even two newer
operations, Megabus and Easybus (the latter with brand-new vehicles)
have publically stated that they will not accept wheelchairs.

The next lot of replacements are likely to have wheelchair lifts, for the
high-floor coaches where the luggage space is essential. An alternative is a
small area just inside the door for wheelchairs, with a fold-out ramp and a
low level floor, in front of the steps to the higher level.
--
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/

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:04:57 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

As someone who spends a lot of his professional life on "tourist
coaches" I thought I'd "chip in" here.....


Thanks you - this is very interesting



How large a loo would you have liked, by the way? :-)) (Any bigger
than they are now and you lose yet more seats.)


I'd think of a typical aircraft loo as the smallest acceptable, but
the one on the coach probably wasn't much smaller. Better I think to
make sure that passengers are aware that they are for emergencies only


This is the case for two reasons. Firstly, it gives space for large
amounts of luggage (which usually accompany people on such vehicles)
underneath and secondly it gives a much higher and better view.


Ah!!! The luggage hold explains a lot. It also implies that, unless
you used a wheelchair lift, you would need to adopt a radically
different design to accommodate wheelchairs.

Thanks perhaps to rather bulkier seats than a city bus,
"Bulkier" meaning much more comfortable, especially on longer journeys
which, again, these vehicles are intended to operate.


Fair point which I did notice - in fact re-reading my original post it
might have come across as rather more critical of tourist coaches than
I intended



so we
had to prop up the folded pushchair against an empty seat.
Now *that* plays havoc with safety issues. Such an object unsecured
could either block exit in the case of an emergency or else move around
an injure someone. I'm surprised at a coach driver for allowing it.


Presumably the driver should have taken it and stowed it - btw it was
a Maclaren Volo which is about as light and compact as push-chairs
come...

Martin

In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

7t15cwt = 7.75 tons = 7.874 tonnes

If you look at the side of an RML (while you still can) it says it weighs
7874 Kg.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
, Colin
Rosenstiel wrote:
7t15cwt = 7.75 tons = 7.874 tonnes

If you look at the side of an RML (while you still can) it says
it weighs 7874 Kg.

Which of course implies a figure correct to the nearest kg, whilst
it's just a metric conversion of a figure correct to the nearest
10lbs or cwt.


--
Tony Bryer

In article ,
(Tony Bryer) wrote:

In article
, Colin
Rosenstiel wrote:
7t15cwt = 7.75 tons = 7.874 tonnes

If you look at the side of an RML (while you still can) it says
it weighs 7874 Kg.

Which of course implies a figure correct to the nearest kg, whilst
it's just a metric conversion of a figure correct to the nearest
10lbs or cwt.

Indeed. Utterly illiterate I realise.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel writes:
If you look at the side of an RML (while you still can) it says it weighs
7874 Kg.

If I was in a position to do so, I'd look for myself, but does it
really say "Kg" rather than "kg"?
--
Mark Brader "Thus the metric system did not really catch on
Toronto in the States, unless you count the increasing
popularity of the 9 mm bullet." -- Dave Barry

Tony Bryer wrote:

In article
, Colin
Rosenstiel wrote:

7t15cwt = 7.75 tons = 7.874 tonnes

If you look at the side of an RML (while you still can) it says
it weighs 7874 Kg.


Which of course implies a figure correct to the nearest kg, whilst
it's just a metric conversion of a figure correct to the nearest
10lbs or cwt.

Surely it would have been to the weighbridge since the metric system was
properly introduced?

For a conversion, the margin of error is ±25.4kg (3sf) if the original
measurement was to the nearest cwt, or ±2.27kg (3sf) if the original
measurement was to the nearest 10lbs.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article , (Mark Brader)
wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel writes:
If you look at the side of an RML (while you still can) it says it
weighs 7874 Kg.

If I was in a position to do so, I'd look for myself, but does it
really say "Kg" rather than "kg"?

Probably KG TBH. I looked at one last week too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

7t15cwt = 7.75 tons = 7.874 tonnes

If you look at the side of an RML (while you still can) it says it weighs
7874 Kg.

And a modern double decker weights 11 or 12 tons. You have to wonder where
that extra 3 or 4 tons of flab was needed. As for the 16 ton bendy busses...
Arn't vehicles supposed to become more efficient as the years go by? How
can adding tons and tons of extra weight to these vehicles accomplish that?

B2003

And a modern double decker weights 11 or 12 tons. You have to wonder where
that extra 3 or 4 tons of flab was needed. As for the 16 ton bendy busses...
Arn't vehicles supposed to become more efficient as the years go by? How
can adding tons and tons of extra weight to these vehicles accomplish that?

B2003

Why not ask their arch-proponent, Mr. Peter Hendy-Bendy-Bus?

Marc.