Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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.

My only regret is that (through work commitments) I cannot participate in any
of the special runs taking place today to mark this sad day.

This is an incredibly sad "improvement", 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) and my
sincerest thanks to the Routemaster buses and their crews who have so
faithfully served London for the last few decades.

To paraphrase our moronic Prime Minister: Things can only get worse.

Only a handful of Routemaster-operated routes remain - they wil not do so for
much longer. For those that care - cherish the opportunity to travel on these
few routes (from memory) 12, 14, 19, 22, 36, 159 whilst you can!

Farewell friendly Routemasters - may you ever reign supreme in our affections.

Marc.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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.

The *******s!!! How can they wreck the 73 like that?!?

My only regret is that (through work commitments) I cannot participate in any
of the special runs taking place today to mark this sad day.

Nor me, I'm about to go to Cardiff, of all god-forsaken places.

Only a handful of Routemaster-operated routes remain - they wil not do so for
much longer. For those that care - cherish the opportunity to travel on these
few routes (from memory) 12, 14, 19, 22, 36, 159 whilst you can!

None of which are a hell of a lot of use to me :-(

Farewell friendly Routemasters - may you ever reign supreme in our affections.

Maybe we should start a campaign to lobby parliament to legislate that
all buses from Victoria to Oxford St should be Routemasters ;-)

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

--- "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!

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?

, 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.) 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!)

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.

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?

Farewell friendly Routemasters

Friendly??? How is giving a painful crick in the neck everyone over 6ft 3in
friendly? That isn't friendly, it's evil! Buy a dictionary and learn the
difference between the two words.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

On 03 Sep 2004 17:44:42 GMT, (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.

My only regret is that (through work commitments) I cannot participate in any
of the special runs taking place today to mark this sad day.

I did manage some photos at lunchtime and I rode home on FRM1 - the rear
engined Routemaster - and that was great fun with many ordinary people
out and about taking pictures of their local buses complete with unusual
visitors.

This is an incredibly sad "improvement", 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) and my
sincerest thanks to the Routemaster buses and their crews who have so
faithfully served London for the last few decades.

Well the crews deserve the thank you. I have mixed feelings - I've
always enjoyed the 73 with Routemasters as a convenient way to get
about. However the RMLs are old and not in good condition. I don't think
artics will work on that route and would have much preferred
conventional low floor double decks to be provided as I think it is
wrong to expect 60-80 people to stand on a bus for many miles in order
to get to work.

Only a handful of Routemaster-operated routes remain - they wil not do so for
much longer. For those that care - cherish the opportunity to travel on these
few routes (from memory) 12, 14, 19, 22, 36, 159 whilst you can!

You missed route 13 from Golders Green to Aldwych which is rumoured to
be losing its recently modernised Routemasters very soon to former route
9 RMLs. Note this is a rumour that has just emerged and it may have no
foundation at all.

Farewell friendly Routemasters - may you ever reign supreme in our affections.

Yep - I cannot imagine what the events will be like when the very last
one leaves service if the experience of the last days of route 8 and now
9/73 and 390 are anything to go by.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Farewell friendly Routemasters - may you ever reign supreme in our
affections.

Maybe we should start a campaign to lobby parliament to legislate that
all buses from Victoria to Oxford St should be Routemasters ;-)



Maybe we could, but Parliament has no powers over the issue: it's all now
devolved to Ken Livingstone.

Marc.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

-- "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.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

You missed route 13 from Golders Green to Aldwych which is rumoured to
be losing its recently modernised Routemasters very soon to former route
9 RMLs. Note this is a rumour that has just emerged and it may have no
foundation at all.

Yes, I think I also missed the 38.

Farewell friendly Routemasters - may you ever reign supreme in our
affections.

Yep - I cannot imagine what the events will be like when the very last
one leaves service if the experience of the last days of route 8 and now
9/73 and 390 are anything to go by.
--
Paul C


Writing as someone who was at Barking on the last day of the RT in April 1979
(the Routemaster's predecessor) I would imagine it to be a very sad day indeed.
At least in 1979 we could still look forward to RMs and RMLs after the last RTs
had gone. What do we have to look forward to now? Self-combustible bendy-buses.
Greenhouse-like double deckers?

Marc.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Solar Penguin wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 4 Sep 2004:



--- "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!

But we no longer have conductors to help disabled people get on and off,
to tell us when our stop is, and generally to keep the buses free of
unpleasantness. Granted, you have to fold your baby-buggy if you wish
to use them, but many conductors are very helpful about doing this for
you, and stowing it in the designated place. Granted, too, that some
conductors are less than helpful, but they are a minority.

As for cramped - you obviously don't have to travel on tiny buses like
the P5 or the 322....
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

From: Paul Corfield
Date: 04/09/2004 10:34 GMT

I did manage some photos at lunchtime and I rode home on FRM1 - the rear
engined Routemaster - and that was great fun with many ordinary people
out and about taking pictures of their local buses complete with unusual
visitors.

Ah yes, dear old KGY4D! Consider a few "what ifs?" and imagine what London
might be like today if:

(a) Leyland hadn't taken over AEC and then deliberately scuppered the FRM
project (after only one had been built) so that it wouldn't compete with the
Atlantean and Fleetline (which were both sacks of ****e anyway in my opinion);

(b) the government hadn't dragged its feet for so long in the 1960s before
allowing driver only operation of deckers, which was the obvious USP (unique
selling point) for rear engined vehicles like FRM1.

With a fleet of a few thousand FRMs, built to the usual Park Royal standards of
Routemaster robustness (anyone remember seeing an exasperated employee at
Wombwell Diesels trying to break up a Routemaster using an orange peel grab
fitted to the jib of a crane? It was on a documentary about "Routies" fronted
by John Peel several years ago. The bloke couldn't pull the roof off so he
started picking the entire body up and slamming it back onto the ground. This
broke most of the windows, but it didn't significantly deform the body shell.
The poor lad had obviously got too used to smashing up MCW bodied Atlanteans or
similar flimsy rubbish and couldn't understand why this particular "Routie" was
being so stubborn about the whole business!) the basic body structure would
have been sound almost forever, it would just have been a question of upgrading
power packs to "greener" ones from time to time, and "frying tonight"
articulated vehicles would have been left where they belong; in the
unenlightened conurbations of mainland Europe.

If the FRM project hadn't been killed off by a combination of Leyland's desire
to fix the market in favour of obviously inferior products and a 1960s Labour
government's apparent fixation with maintaining full employment, even if it
meant giving people meaningless jobs to do, I think we'd have seen rear engined
Routemasters in service in London until perhaps the middle of this century.

Finally, a couple of interesting asides. I remember pretty clearly the demise
of the RT (because I'm an old fart), but I don't remember that being as much of
a cause celebre as the death throes of the RM seem to have become today. Has
anyone else formed the same impression? Also, the demise of trolleybuses, which
the RM was originally designed to replace, is just within the span of my memory
(because in fact I'm a very old fart!) and my dim recollections of that are
that they were here today and gone tomorrow without any farewell parties or
other razamatazz. Does anyone else think that was the case too, or has the
passage of time dulled my memory?

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Acrosticus wrote:

Finally, a couple of interesting asides. I remember pretty clearly the demise
of the RT (because I'm an old fart), but I don't remember that being as much of
a cause celebre as the death throes of the RM seem to have become today.

Well, to the general public an RT looks not very different from an RM,
and I guess in 1979 it didn't look as out-of-date as an RM looks in 2004
anyway. So it was probably seen as the demise of just another batch of
old buses by most people, even those interested in buses.

The coming demise of the RM, however, means the demise of an entire class
of buses - rear entry, conductor-operated double deckers - which has dis-
appeared about two decades ago from most other places and survived almost
only in London. (For example, the last Berlin D2U was taken out of service
in 1978.)

Also, the demise of trolleybuses, which
the RM was originally designed to replace, is just within the span of my memory
(because in fact I'm a very old fart!) and my dim recollections of that are
that they were here today and gone tomorrow without any farewell parties or
other razamatazz.

Again, to the general public a trolleybus is just another sort of bus.
I've heard, however, that the demise of the trams did cause some farewell
parties.

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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

In article , (Martin Bienwald) wrote:

Well, to the general public an RT looks not very different from an RM,
and I guess in 1979 it didn't look as out-of-date as an RM looks in 2004
anyway. So it was probably seen as the demise of just another batch of
old buses by most people, even those interested in buses.

They did look different in that they were 7'6" instead of 8'0" (apart from the
RTWs). Another unique feature was that they were allowed to run with just
a single rear light for quite a few years after all other traffic (not bikes of
course) had to have two. ISTR this was because they were pretty obvious
with all their interior lights on.

Incidentally, that's the one thing that so many "period" films and television
programmes fall down on - they have the right vehicles, but with twin rear
lights when they would have had only one.


--
Peter Beale

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

From: Martin Bienwald
Date: 04/09/2004 15:00 GMT

Again, to the general public a trolleybus is just another sort of bus.
I've heard, however, that the demise of the trams did cause some farewell
parties.

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

The demise of London's trams was before my time (therefore putting me only in
the "very old fart" league rather than the "extremely old fart" one!) so I
wasn't there, but I've seen the photos of the partying as they were withdrawn,
as well as "The Elephant Never Forgets" (the commemorative film made by the
British Transport Film Unit as their farewell to London). The National Tramway
Museum at Crich even staged a re-run of the London tramway closing ceremony
back in 2002 (the 50th anniversary), so they certainly went out in style.

.... Acrosticus, who last rode in an RT in regular service in the spring too ...
(except that was back in 1972!).

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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/

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Martin Bienwald wrote:
Acrosticus wrote:
Finally, a couple of interesting asides. I remember pretty clearly the demise
of the RT (because I'm an old fart), but I don't remember that being as much of
a cause celebre as the death throes of the RM seem to have become today.

Well, to the general public an RT looks not very different from an RM,
and I guess in 1979 it didn't look as out-of-date as an RM looks in 2004
anyway. So it was probably seen as the demise of just another batch of
old buses by most people, even those interested in buses.

Personally I much prefer RTs to RMs on aesthetic grounds - sight and
sound. The RT already looked old-fashioned when I first encountered
one in about 1962. My eyes are not young enough to say how
old-fashioned the RM looks now.

The coming demise of the RM, however, means the demise of an entire class
of buses - rear entry, conductor-operated double deckers - which has dis-
appeared about two decades ago from most other places and survived almost
only in London.

Losing three things I value: conductors, hop-on/hop off, and the
downstairs front seat, with a view forward no modern bus can offer.

What really annoys me is that I don't believe the economic case for
replacement
of RMs has been made. Apart from the cost of new buses vs refurbished,
conductors prevent lots of expensive vandalism, bigger buses will be
delayed
more in traffic, and all new buses consume far more fuel than RMs.
Some RMs and RMLs are undoubtedly falling apart, but not all.

All new buses are around 6" wider than RMLs, excluding mirrors. Bendy
buses weigh twice as much as RMLs; low-floor double-deckers weigh
about 50% more than RMLs.

They really ought to keep at least one RM route as long as it's legal
to do so, but it must be a proper route useful to ordinary Londoners,
not a tourist special, or it won't survive.

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

Where? Blue Triangle's RT was great yesterday on the 10, proving RTs
are still not too slow to run in modern traffic.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

From: Colin McKenzie
Date: 04/09/2004 21:29 GMT

Losing three things I value: conductors, hop-on/hop off, and the
downstairs front seat, with a view forward no modern bus can offer.

But you're gaining spontaneous combustion, which is something only one
Routemaster ever offered AFAIK!

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

In article , Martin Bienwald wrote:
Well, to the general public an RT looks not very different from an
RM, and I guess in 1979 it didn't look as out-of-date as an RM
looks in 2004 anyway. So it was probably seen as the demise of
just another batch of old buses by most people, even those
interested in buses.

IMO the upright radiator grille and headlamp on stalk of the RT made
it look old fashioned long before 1979. The last car to have these
was the Ford Popular which ceased production in 1959 and was a
hangover even then.


--
Tony Bryer

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Mait001 wrote:
This is an incredibly sad "improvement", 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)


Not that TFL is a Quango.

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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

IMO the upright radiator grille and headlamp on stalk of the RT made
it look old fashioned long before 1979. The last car to have these
was the Ford Popular which ceased production in 1959 and was a
hangover even then.

Well, both of those were designed and introduced at about the same time,
1939 for the RT and essentially 1946 for the Ford Anglia which became the
Popular. It was derived from the Ford 8 of 1938-9.
--
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/

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

(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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Mait001 wrote:
This is an incredibly sad "improvement", 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)


Not that TFL is a Quango.

I did not state that T.F.L. is a quango.



Not that TFL is a Quango.

Anyway it's not a sad day, good riddance to the too warm,

That's a joke - have you been on the upper deck of one of the oven-like
replacement buses?

too cold

this is nonsense: if the windows are open, that's the passengers' or
conductor's fault, not the fault of the bus design

tiny
midget buses


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


Marc.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Paul Corfield wrote in message . ..

Yep - I cannot imagine what the events will be like when the very last
one leaves service if the experience of the last days of route 8 and now
9/73 and 390 are anything to go by.

like 'The Elephant Will Never Forget'?

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

"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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

"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.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

--- "Mait001" wrote...

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.

I wouldn't want make a journey that long by bus in the first place. I'd
probably take One to Liv St then the Circle Line to Victoria. Or if I was
*really* in a hurry, the Victoria Line all the way. Buses are only last
resort means of travel for when there's no other public transport
alternative.

Personally, if I pay a fare for a journey, I
expect to be able to sit.

Sitting on a bus isn't easy either. There's just not enough legroom on most
seats, so I normally end up standing anyway. On routemasters, the
alternative is those sideways seats that we're supposed to give up for the
elderly and children. Even though the elderly and children are normally
small enough to fit into regular seats anyway!

(You are right on one thing though. Tall people should pay less because
we're forced to stand so often. The fact that we don't is more *proof* that
the world is run by an evil conspiracy of midgets dedicated to spreading
suffering amongst those taller than them!)


I happen to be very short

Ah-ha! I *knew* it...

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?

Single decker buses are the solution for both of us. No stairs for you, no
low ceilings for me. Perfect. We should both be glad to see them replacing
routemasters.

Seriously, name one good thing about routemasters. Go on, just one.
They're not even nice to look at thanks to that ugly great hole at the back
where some penny-pinching accountant must have decided that there wasn't
enough money for proper doors! Compare that to the sleek, stylish lines of
modern buses, designed by proper designers, not a committee of bean-counting
bureaucrats.

Ugly on the outside, cramped on the inside. No redeeming features at all.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

--- "Annabel Smyth" wrote...

But we no longer have conductors to help disabled people get on and off,
to tell us when our stop is, and generally to keep the buses free of
unpleasantness

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!)


As for cramped - you obviously don't have to travel on tiny buses like
the P5 or the 322....

No, never been on the P5. Don't even know where it runs. As for the 322,
anywhere I'd want to go on it is also served by the 432 or the 3, so in
practice I don't need to use it. But I still wouldn't use either of them
even if they were routemasters!

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

On 04 Sep 2004 12:03:22 GMT, are (Acrosticus)
wrote:

Finally, a couple of interesting asides. I remember pretty clearly the demise
of the RT (because I'm an old fart), but I don't remember that being as much of
a cause celebre as the death throes of the RM seem to have become today. Has
anyone else formed the same impression?

I remember the end of the RTs, notably finding an excuse to travel on
the 140 which was one of the last RT routes circa 1978, and yes, I did
form the same impression.

Partly that's could be accounted for simply by age: the oldest RTs at
the time must have been a bit newer than the newest Routemasters are
now. But mostly it was simply the end of one particular model of bus;
now we are seing the end of a whole way of operating buses. In the
1970s there were still buses with engines at the front and open
platforms at the back elsewhere in Britain - albeit rapidly on the way
out by the time that the last RTs were used in London. And, at the
end of the 1970s, continuing crew operation seemed assured for the
time being in London, after being threatened in the late 1960s and
early 1970s; in fact a lot of the then new rear engined buses were
used with conductors

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.

Finally, I think the Routemaster has a sronger claim than the RT to be
a design and engineering classic: Douglas Scott's industrial design,
and innovative suspension, brakes, and construction which set out to
be way ahead of their time.

Martin

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 08:55:07 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


Friendly??? How is giving a painful crick in the neck everyone over 6ft 3in
friendly? That isn't friendly, it's evil! Buy a dictionary and learn the
difference between the two words.



OK - I'm a mere 6ft. No seating in city buses is particularly
comfortable but I find that the Routemasters have more seats per bus
that are *adequate* for me than the newer double-deckers. I haven't
yet been on a bendy in London but I would expect that to be even more
the case with bendies: they are comfortable provided that you get one
of a limited number of good seats. That's my personal experience;
others might have different perceptions. In the same way I prefer the
firm ride of the Routemaster to that of most other buses, though apart
from the ghastly floaty DAF buses which I really make an effort to
avoid, the current one-person buses are much better than some of the
long-forgotten London buses of the 1970s.

At least the 73 changeover was accompanied by some publicity on the
route itself, and as an Oyster card holder I received an e-mail from
TfL (I replied commenting that bendies didn't seem very suitable
vehicles). Some of the earlier changeovers were given less publicity
than some very straightforward alterations to vehicles or operators on
some other routes.

Martin

Martin

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Seriously, name one good thing about routemasters. Go on, just one.

I'll give you ten:

1. Windows that open at the front of the upper deck.
2. Fuel efficiency (ever tried standing near the rear of a more modern bus: the
engine emissions change the climate for several feet in area).
3. Ease of maintenance.
4. Conductors.
5. Upper deck on which to get away from the melee downstairs
6. Excellent suspension.
7. Superbly ergonomically designed and aesthetic from all angles.
8. Excellent drver visibility.
9. Aluminium construction ensuring less weight, i.e. less wear & tear on roads.
10. The rear upper storey seats are the nearest thing I will ever experience to
being in a (double-decker) limousine!

They're not even nice to look at thanks to that ugly great hole at the back
where some penny-pinching accountant must have decided that there wasn't
enough money for proper doors!

That's just a ridiculous assertion: absence of doors is the whole point. Also,
at the time of their design, fitted doors on buses were illegal.


Compare that to the sleek, stylish lines of
modern buses, designed by proper designers, not a committee of bean-counting
bureaucrats.

Utter rubbish. Do you realy think at TPL or whatever they are now called are
more aesthetically pleasing?

Ugly on the outside, cramped on the inside. No redeeming features at all.

Several million will disagree with you there.

Marc.

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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/

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Martin Bienwald wrote:

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

Where?

Davis, California.

.... Martin

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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.../

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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!

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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

Sad day for London and farewell to faithful friends
 

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...