On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 11:31:01 +0100, Martin Rich
wrote:


This is different: Routemasters have outlived most other open-platform
buses by 20 years (the resurgence in crew operation, particularly in
Scotland, in the late 1980s was all using Routemasters that had been
withdrawn from use in London), and the open platform bus has become
synonymous with London much more than it has with Britain as a whole.


Routemasters have comfortably outlived buses brought into replace
them. How many DMSs, MDs, Ls, Ms or Ts are there running at the moment
on schedule services?

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 10:54:04 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:

True, but there's nothing to stop TfL employing conductors on modern buses
if they wanted to. There's no law that says they can *only* be used on
routemasters. (In fact, I'd love to see conductors on *all* buses between
3pm and 4.30pm just to keep the kids quiet!)

It was tried, and it didn't work (I think it was route 8). It didn't
work for two reasons:-

1) People don't expect to be able to board "normal" double-deckers by
any door, nor do they expect not to have to pay the driver. Thus,
boarding was slowed by the conductor having to stand by the driver and
point this out. (Signs didn't work)

2) Modern deckers are designed for lower-deck crush loading. This
meant a substantial reduction in capacity, people being forced to go
upstairs for short journeys when they'd rather stand in the wheelchair
space, and annoyed passengers being left behind at stops when they'd
otherwise have fitted on.

Given the above, I doubt we'll see it reappearing.

Neil

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

Stuart wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 5 Sep 2004:

Anyway it's not a sad day, good riddance to the too warm, too cold tiny
midget buses

Oooh, are they getting rid of those awful single-deckers, then?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Martin Bienwald wrote:

... Martin, who rode an RT in regular service this spring ...

Where?

Davis, California.

.... Martin

(Neil Williams)typed


2) Modern deckers are designed for lower-deck crush loading. This
meant a substantial reduction in capacity, people being forced to go
upstairs for short journeys when they'd rather stand in the wheelchair
space, and annoyed passengers being left behind at stops when they'd
otherwise have fitted on.

Really?
I've been left behind at bus stops when I've seen loads of empty seats
upstairs but downstairs is crush overloaded. People don't go upstairs
enough.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

PRAR wrote in message . ..

Routemasters have comfortably outlived buses brought into replace
them. How many DMSs, MDs, Ls, Ms or Ts are there running at the moment
on schedule services?

Still plenty of Ls in use on the 432 and 249 (and occasionally on the
417, 176 and even the 2...). I'll be sorry to see them go, as
(contrary to popular belief) they were actually the last
"custom-built" London bus design.

rant Once the RMs go, they will also be the last buses where you can
be sure not to have to give up your seat to a pushchair. But that's a
different thread altogether.../

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

"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.

I think John means that we are not evolving to become taller, but
improved nutrition allows more people each generation to grow to a
taller height. Evolution implies a change in the genes as a response to
a selective pressure, e.g. longer legs to run away faster from faster
predators.

Here, nothing is causing a noticeable difference in the genetics of
height, but better nutrition fuels faster or longer growth independently
of genetics.

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

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 13:22:44 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 10:54:04 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:

True, but there's nothing to stop TfL employing conductors on modern buses
if they wanted to. There's no law that says they can *only* be used on
routemasters. (In fact, I'd love to see conductors on *all* buses between
3pm and 4.30pm just to keep the kids quiet!)

It was tried, and it didn't work (I think it was route 8). It didn't
work for two reasons:-

Route 55 - Oxford Circus to Leyton. A very busy route but with an
increased frequency now compared to during the conductor trial.

1) People don't expect to be able to board "normal" double-deckers by
any door, nor do they expect not to have to pay the driver. Thus,
boarding was slowed by the conductor having to stand by the driver and
point this out. (Signs didn't work)

Boarding was via the front door, alighting via the middle door. There
was no open boarding via all doors.

You are correct in saying that notices on the front of the bus and
covers over the ETM made little difference - if a bus has doors in
London then you pay the driver. Well you did during the route 55 trial -
it's somewhat different now.

2) Modern deckers are designed for lower-deck crush loading. This
meant a substantial reduction in capacity, people being forced to go
upstairs for short journeys when they'd rather stand in the wheelchair
space, and annoyed passengers being left behind at stops when they'd
otherwise have fitted on.

Although the buses did clear stops a bit quicker than under one person
operation you are correct in stating that standing capacity was reduced.
The 55 is stupidly busy in the rush hour and used to leave people
standing at stops from Holborn to Old Street - reduced rush hour
capacity is the last thing you needed. It is also TfL policy to not
expand rush hour capacity - it's time to cram them in a bit tighter as
it costs too much to expand capacity further at the busiest time of the
day. Hence the policy of frequency reductions with bendy bus
conversions.

Given the above, I doubt we'll see it reappearing.

I think you're right but I still cannot see how London Wide cashless
operation will be achieved either given the pretty useless roadside
machines, indifferent driver compliance with the rules and the continued
existence of hail and ride services.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Mait001 wrote:

how can you call a double-decker a midget bus?

Because you need to be under a certain height to use them.

I can't use them comfortably

Neil Williams ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

If it wasn't for the sue-everyone culture, there could quite
easily be an open-platform version of such a bus developed.

And yet California - the home of that sue-everything culture - manages to
retain the San Francisco cablecar, with passengers hanging off the outside
like lemmings...