"Paul Corfield" wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:13:50 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


I reckon that, were the Routemaster to be re-introduced to oust the
bendies,
there would be a torrent of complaints - not least from those who fought
the
scrapping of the RM so vociferously over the last couple of years.

Out of curiosity why?

A number of reasons:

1. The bendies load/unload more quickly than the RM.
2. They make faster progress than the RM when on the move. This has
surprised me, but would anyone deny it is true? In simple terms, the power
of the engine and efficiency of the brakes seem light years removed from the
RM.
3. Although there are fewer seats, IMO the bendies are pleasant vehicles in
which to stand - light and airy, and lots of rails to hang on to. By
contrast, standing on an RM was always a pretty miserable experience.
Obviously, you still wouldn't want to stand from Clapton to Victoria (for
example), but in reality, few make end-to-end journies, and for those that
do, a seat normally becomes available at some point.
4. They are undeniably well built (blinds aside!). They feel like a quality
product.

And in more general terms:

1. Now they are (almost) entirely gone, the RM just looks so *old*. It's
funny - I never felt that way until the 159 disappeared, but somehow, seeing
an RM now just doesn't look right. It reminds you that the RM had to finish
sometime - it was life expired.
2. We Brits always try to cling to our history and bemoan the passing of
supposed national institutions. We are almost equally good at adapting when
change finally happens, however. I sense the initial uprising against the
bendies has turned to acquiesence, and I suspect if, in five years time, the
bendies are threatened with withdrawal, the 'Evening Standard' will mount a
'Save our bendies' campaign of outrage, as it did (very belatedly) with the
RM.
3. Enthusiasts like almost everything which is old and rare. It appears even
Titans and Metrobuses are now coveted. Bendies remain relatively rare, and
in a few years, they will also be old. Enthusiasts will then claim that
bendies single-handedly saved the London bus.

So I think the RM is now viewed like steam railway engines - we're glad
that there are still some around for posterity, but we wouldn't want one as
daily transport.

In terms of fare evasion, I am a semi-regular on the Heritage 15, and
there
have been several occasions where the Conductor has not ventured upstairs
for the entire journey, despite only having to 'look after' about 20
passengers in total. Of course, this was widespread when the Routemaster
was
in normal service.

The current MD of Stagecoach London would be interested in any specific
feedback on poor service. He has certainly asked for it to be provided
when posters on other London Bus groups have made negative comments
about customer service by the conductors. I would also think First
London would wish to know about instances on the 9 as well.

I should say, there are also some very good conductors on the 15, who remain
consistently chirpy after what must be long and often tedious shifts.

The counter argument, of course, is that pre-payment is now so high in
London and that so many forms of fraud have been removed by structural
changes you can argue just how effective a big effort would be. We have
flat fares so no over-riding, we have one bus zone so no "out of zone"
season ticket fraud, Travelcards are valid on all buses so rail zones
are irrelevant, all Oyster personalised and registered cards can be
barred from use, smartcard technology facilitates sophisticated fraud
analysis, Oyster checking helps the driver detect out of date or out of
value cards more readily and children travel free. This really only
leaves out of date passes / permits, forgeries and stolen cards, non
validated cards on cashless routes and blatant non payment - again
probably only on cashless / heritage routes to any level as drivers
check on all other routes.

I think the 'blatant non payment' category is a large(ish) one on the
bendies, with people hopping on opportunistically for a couple of stops,
wagering that the probability of getting caught is very slim. I would say
the typical offender would be:

i) The usual 'yoofs' in gangs, especially in the evenings.
ii) Commuters on 'London Terminals' (ie no Travelcard) seasons, running a
bit late for work/the train home, and wishing to avoid a short walk.

However, I have no evidence for this other than anecdote and instinct.

Part of the problem here is that TfL were so defensive about fare evasion on
bendies, it looked as though they had something to hide. It may be there
isn't a problem at all, but only if you take a very generous view about the
honesty of the average Londoner. I doubt whether the vagrant(s) who frequent
the 38 have Oyster cards.

Many people complain about the London fare
structure but it many ways the policy is ingenious in that it has
designed out the opportunity for many frauds to be committed.

Albeit at some cost in terms of overall subsidy requirement, surely?

Chris

Conductor 119466 on the 15H made no use of his ticket machine on Monday
from Tower Hill c1830 to Charing Cross. Oyster Cards were merely looked
at, so no idea if these were valid and no stored value debited. On the
plus side at least 8 people boarded between stops showing what are/were
truly the most accessible buses in London.

wrote:


Conductor 119466 on the 15H made no use of his ticket machine on Monday
from Tower Hill c1830 to Charing Cross. Oyster Cards were merely looked
at, so no idea if these were valid and no stored value debited. On the
plus side at least 8 people boarded between stops showing what are/were
truly the most accessible buses in London.

Possible flat battery on the machine? I've seen that before. Inexcusable if
it was not charged properly before use, but sometimes electrical faults
cause the batteries to drain rapidly with little warning.

Chris

wrote in message
oups.com...

Conductor 119466 on the 15H made no use of his ticket machine on Monday
from Tower Hill c1830 to Charing Cross. Oyster Cards were merely looked
at, so no idea if these were valid and no stored value debited. On the
plus side at least 8 people boarded between stops showing what are/were
truly the most accessible buses in London.

Try using one in a wheelchair, and then let us know just how accessible it
is. Or if you're old, or have limited mobility. Or even if you're over 6'4
tall - sitting doesn't work, and standing certainly isn't. I saw an older
guy thrown off the back of one as it went round a corner, so it seems their
accessibility can be a little bit too good for some people, in some
occasions

RMs are great for able-bodied people - the leaping-on/off really is great,
and will be the reason I miss RMs the most. The only problem is that they
are complete non-starters for a large sections of the community. Its
luggage capacity is ridiculous, too, not to mention you can't fit a stroller
on it (let alone 3, complete with occupants, as I witnessed on a 38 the
other day).

dave

In article ,
(d) wrote:

[RMs]
Try using one in a wheelchair, and then let us know just how
accessible it is.

Are you aware that only 5% of people with disabilities are wheelchair
users?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
[RMs]
Try using one in a wheelchair, and then let us know just how
accessible it is.

Are you aware that only 5% of people with disabilities are wheelchair
users?


True, but I suspect they're also not easy to use if you have trouble
standing, climbing, gripping onto things or seeing.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Chris Read wrote:
In simple terms, the power
of the engine and efficiency of the brakes seem light years removed from the
RM.


Why, Chris, do you regard this as an improvement?

Marc.

wrote:
Chris Read wrote:
In simple terms, the power
of the engine and efficiency of the brakes seem light years removed from the
RM.


Why, Chris, do you regard this as an improvement?

I'm guessing becuase of reasons stated in the previous 2 sentences that
you chose to snip:

"2. They make faster progress than the RM when on the move. This has
surprised me, but would anyone deny it is true? "

Dave Newt wrote:
wrote:
Chris Read wrote:
In simple terms, the power
of the engine and efficiency of the brakes seem light years removed from the
RM.


Why, Chris, do you regard this as an improvement?

I'm guessing becuase of reasons stated in the previous 2 sentences that
you chose to snip:

"2. They make faster progress than the RM when on the move. This has
surprised me, but would anyone deny it is true? "

The reason I asked the question was, with the appalling standard of
driving of so many London bus drivers, who regard emergency braking and
Grand Prix-style accelerating as mandatory when stopping or starting,
the lesser braking / acceleration offered the better.

Marc.

wrote:

The reason I asked the question was, with the appalling standard of
driving of so many London bus drivers, who regard emergency braking and
Grand Prix-style accelerating as mandatory when stopping or starting,

Ah, so you've used the 63 then! A service with drivers that seem so
sick of their job, that throwing people around is the only thing that
gives them job satisfaction!

Jonathan