-- "Mait001" wrote...

Today, for those of you that don't know it, sees the largest withdrawal of
Routemaster buses from London since the current withdrawals began last
year:
from tomorrow, Routemasters will be no more on routes 9, 73 and 390.

That's a "sad day"? Why???: It sounds more like a cause for celebration.
Those crappy old buses will finally be gone, and we'll have ones that are
actually tall enough for people to stand up in!


If you cannot see that, for many, it is a sad day, then you are beyond
redemption.

As for standing, yes, I hope you will enjoy standing between, for example,
Tottenhama and Victoria, because the number of seats per passenger has been
drastically reduced with bendy buses. Personally, if I pay a fare for a
journey, I expect to be able to sit.



This is an incredibly sad "improvement"

Why? We're going to get proper large buses fit for the tall 21st century
travellers, not those cramped dinosaurs the should've been scrapped years
ago. How is that not a great improvement?

Because the number of seats is being reduced.

Yes, your "large" buses might be fit for modern cities with grid-patterm
streets and wide multi-lane highways, but this is so patently untrue of London
that I am amazed it needs explaining to you.

, and I would like to record both my
dismay at the wanton vandalism that is being visited on London's bus
routes by
T.F.L (or whatever quango-based morons now control these matters)

Ahhh... You must be part of the evil conspiracy of skinny midgets that
thinks that everything *has* to be designed *only* for people under 6ft 3in.
(E.g. It's because of your lot that I can no longer go to the cinema
anymore, because I know I'm not going to fit in the seats.)

It's nobody fault if you happen to be too large for ordinary bus seats.

Well, if TfL
are one of the few organisations finally willing to stand up against your
conspiracy, then they're not vandals or morons but *public* *heroes*. (If
only cinemas and airlines would follow their example!)

If you say so.

my sincerest thanks to the Routemaster buses and their crews who
have so faithfully served London for the last few decades.

And my sincerest contempt for the evil midgets who designed them in first
place.

If 99.9% of people manage to fit in ordinary bus seats, you can hardly accuse
them of being designed by midgets, unless that 99.9% also happen to be midgets
without realising it.

Only a handful of Routemaster-operated routes remain

Why???? Why haven't TfL replaced them *all* with comfortable modern buses,
instead of continuing to inflict them on us?

Be sensible. Do you think that bus operators are magicians? Do you realise just
how expensive these new buses are, how long crew-training takes and just how
few new buses are actually manufatcured each year?

Farewell friendly Routemasters

Friendly??? How is giving a painful crick in the neck everyone over 6ft 3in
friendly?

The vast majority of people are not over 6' 3" tall.

That isn't friendly, it's evil! Buy a dictionary and learn the
difference between the two words.

This is just a prejudiced rant. I happen to be very short and find stairs very
difficult to manage. That's just my bad luck. Why should the entire bus fleet
be designed on the assumption that either all of its passengers are very short
or very tall?

Marc.

(Mait001)typed


It's nobody fault if you happen to be too large for ordinary bus seats.

I have to disagree with you here, Marc.

I am too large for quite a few bus seats. At a whopping 5'5½"(166cm)
tall, I find my long??!! legs mean my knees are crammed against the seat
in front, even on some modern buses. My hips are too wide for some of
the seats too but I'm not overweight.

The problem is that the seats have been designed for tiny people.

That is the fault of the designers, not 'nobody'!


The vast majority of people are not over 6' 3" tall.

A significant minority exceeds 6'3" but I'm nowhere near that and still
find seats too small.
I think this is why some people decide to occupy two seats, a despicable
habit.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 4 Sep 2004:

I am too large for quite a few bus seats. At a whopping 5'5½"(166cm)
tall, I find my long??!! legs mean my knees are crammed against the seat
in front, even on some modern buses. My hips are too wide for some of
the seats too but I'm not overweight.

Surely that should read *especially* on some modern buses? And trains,
too, for that matter. I am overweight, but not as badly as some people,
and I find modern train seats so tiny that a journey of more than ten
minutes or so is a penance!

I personally find Routemasters, VEPs, and especially CIGs far, far more
comfortable than their modern equivalents!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/

In article , Annabel Smyth wrote:

Surely that should read *especially* on some modern buses? And trains,
too, for that matter. I am overweight, but not as badly as some people,
and I find modern train seats so tiny that a journey of more than ten
minutes or so is a penance!

I personally find Routemasters, VEPs, and especially CIGs far, far more
comfortable than their modern equivalents!

At 6' and thin as a stick, I'm within the "loading gauge" for most
train/bus seats (though I do have the problem of my legs being crammed
up against the seat in front of me on many buses), but I agree
wholeheartedly with Annabel's statement! The designers of slammers like
VEPs and CIGs seemed at least dimly aware that actual humans would be
using their vehicles...

Niklas
--
"If one loop goes HX-T4-T123-HX and the other goes HX-T123-T5-HX, then the
diagram will need to resemble a pair of testicles at the end of the line, no?"
-- Ben Nunn, on the extension of the London Tube to Heathrow's Terminal 5

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 4 Sep 2004:

I am too large for quite a few bus seats. At a whopping 5'5½"(166cm)
tall, I find my long??!! legs mean my knees are crammed against the seat
in front, even on some modern buses. My hips are too wide for some of
the seats too but I'm not overweight.

It's not necessarily how tall you are that dictates whether you can fit your
legs into bus seats (or plane seats, or theatre seats, etc, etc) but how
long your femur (thigh bone) is. Helen has trouble fitting in her 166cm
height yet she may find herself crammed in next to somebody exactly the same
height as she is who has no problem at all because he or she has shorter
femurs, thus requiring less horizontal distance from hip to knee when
seated. It's all down to genetics!

That being said, I don't know anyone over 8 years old who can sit
comfortably in those cursed little PDs that Stagecoach East London brought
in from Oxford. Travelling anywhere twice in those things was enough to
send anyone into the arms of the nearest car dealer.

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message

I am overweight, but not as badly as some people, and I find modern train
seats so tiny that a journey of more than ten minutes or so is a penance!

I'm not grossly overweight, either and usually find the width ok in Summer
but Winter's coming on and then it will be miserable trying to fit people in
big overcoats and parkas side by side in narrow seats without the person on
the aisle side having one buttock suspended in space!

While we're on the subject of stupid seat design, does anybody know why so
many train seats are so low down and close to the floor? They're not
comfortable & for anyone with a back problem or arthritic hips, the seats on
(eg) the class 315 stock that runs out of Liverpool St are difficult and
painful to get out of.

K-Type.

"Axlegrease" typed


It's not necessarily how tall you are that dictates whether you can fit your
legs into bus seats (or plane seats, or theatre seats, etc, etc) but how
long your femur (thigh bone) is. Helen has trouble fitting in her 166cm
height yet she may find herself crammed in next to somebody exactly the same
height as she is who has no problem at all because he or she has shorter
femurs, thus requiring less horizontal distance from hip to knee when
seated. It's all down to genetics!

And sex differences. Women tend to have longer thighs and shorter shins
for a given leg length. The point is, I'm NOT exceptionally leggy, even
if my femur may be an inch longer than Ms Average (and possibly the same
length as Mr Average). If I can't fit in comfortably, half the adult
population won't either. That is poor design.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

" And sex differences. Women tend to have longer thighs and shorter shins
for a given leg length. The point is, I'm NOT exceptionally leggy, even
if my femur may be an inch longer than Ms Average (and possibly the same
length as Mr Average). If I can't fit in comfortably, half the adult
population won't either. That is poor design.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.


As one of the average-height-but-long-femur contingent, I agree with you
entirely. It seems to me that the people who design bus seating layouts and
the people from operating companies who commission them are all in the short
femur category. Or, more likely in the case of OCs, they don't give a 4X
about passenger comfort. They just want to be able to say they've put so
many new buses into service and that the buses will seat x-amount of
passengers (to placate those who detest all that standing space) and blah
and blah .... It's all grist for the mill when it comes to getting their
contracts from TfL renewed.

Pardon? Did I hear someone say "cynical"?

(Warning, this is long - but I think it addresses a number of
important points from both the "pro-bendy" and "anti-bendy" camps.)

On 04 Sep 2004 11:19:58 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:

Yes, your "large" buses might be fit for modern cities with grid-patterm
streets and wide multi-lane highways, but this is so patently untrue of London
that I am amazed it needs explaining to you.

Milton Keynes?

No - most of our bus services wind their way around local estates, and
do not run on the grid roads - and 90% are minibuses. Bizarrely, it's
actually a place where a short-wheelbase double-decker would be quite
useful because of the tight turns in the estate roads - but it'd have
to be driver-only because the economics wouldn't add up for crew
operation.

It's nobody fault if you happen to be too large for ordinary bus seats.

People have grown over the last 40-50 years, both upwards as well as
outwards. I do not fit in seats in a Routemaster except the
side-facing ones or the ones right at the front or upstairs at the
back. That's no good.

That the Routemaster in its current form has had its day I have no
doubt. What it should be replaced with is quite another issue. The
recent generation of low-floor double-deckers has perfectly acceptable
legroom. If it wasn't for the sue-everyone culture, there could quite
easily be an open-platform version of such a bus developed.

If 99.9% of people manage to fit in ordinary bus seats, you can hardly accuse
them of being designed by midgets, unless that 99.9% also happen to be midgets
without realising it.

"99.9% of people" do not fit comfortably in Routemaster seats, IMX.
Look next time you travel on one. I'd consider the figure nearer 75%.
I would also dispute that the spacing of them is the same as "ordinary
bus seats" - most deckers I've ridden around the country, even those
from the 1970s and 1980s, have substantially more legroom than a
Routemaster. I think there's a good reason for that.

The vast majority of people are not over 6' 3" tall.

The figure is increasing year-on-year. I think they call it
"evolution".

This is just a prejudiced rant. I happen to be very short and find stairs very
difficult to manage. That's just my bad luck. Why should the entire bus fleet
be designed on the assumption that either all of its passengers are very short
or very tall?

I know I'm going to get criticised for this, but here we go again...

"Why should the entire bus fleet be designed to carry a wheelchair,
when probably less than 5% of passengers use one?"

Why not? Low-floor buses, like wheelchair ramps, don't just benefit
those in wheelchairs. And, in a civilised society, we don't exclude
minorities just because they are less mobile (or whatever) due to, in
the great majority of cases, something which was not at all their
fault.

Is it not the same issue (on a very high level)?

Whether bendies are suitable for what they're being used for is a
totally different question, and one that has more to do with the
difference in bus operational style between the UK (which
traditionally favours deckers) and mainland Europe (which has used
bendies for many years).

This (apart from restricted bridge height) tends to come down to the
fact that the British style of bus operation favours joining a bus in
the suburbs which then goes on to travel a relatively long journey
(either in terms of distance, time or both) into the city centre,
where many routes meet.

The European city style, by contrast, concentrates bus operation on
taking people to the nearest railhead, which results in most journeys
being very short (~15 minutes at most) and so standing not being an
issue. In Hamburg, for example, the number of regular city bus routes
that penetrate the city centre is probably around 10.

Now, bendies are perfectly suited to this kind of operation. It
could, of course, be argued that, to complete the "transformation",
London's bus and rail services need to be reorganised to fit. The
trouble with that, of course, is that the Tube is overcrowded and
underfunded, and the National Rail services around the city are
nothing short of a sick joke compared with a modern heavy-rail S-Bahn
that would be found in Germany.

Have TfL made a mistake, then? Perhaps. IMO, bendy operation is well
suited to the core section of the 73, which is mainly shoppers
travelling to/from Oxford Street to/from either Victoria or
Euston/Kings Cross or other tube stations. It sounds to me like the
outer reaches of the 73 are somewhat different, and consist of
longer-distance travellers coming into the City to work etc.

This would suggest to me that the real solution is twofold. Separate
the through routes from the very busy "intra-city" ones, and run them
via quieter parallel streets (e.g. take the 73 off Oxford Street).
Create a new route running from Vic to Kings X via Euston and Oxford
St using bendies at a high frequency. This kind of thing may well
need applying elsewhere on converted routes as well.

The other option, of course, is to go back to low-floor
longer-wheelbase deckers, with the top deck for the long-distance
passengers who want seats, and the bottom for short-distance standees.
This approach seems to have proven itself over time.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

The vast majority of people are not over 6' 3" tall.

The figure is increasing year-on-year.
I think they call it "evolution".

You think wrong. They call it "nutrition" and possibly "immigration", but we
are not evolving to be noticeably taller within one generation.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" typed


"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

The vast majority of people are not over 6' 3" tall.

The figure is increasing year-on-year.
I think they call it "evolution".

You think wrong. They call it "nutrition" and possibly "immigration", but we
are not evolving to be noticeably taller within one generation.

I think the clothing manufacturers would disagree.
Anyway, if the average height increases by an inch, the percentage of
men over, say, six feet tall increases from about 10% to about 25% given
a normal distribution.

If anything, immigation would have reduced the average height. IIRC the
Met Police dropped their height restrictions to allow more Asians to
join.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.