Chris Read wrote:

Not sure what you mean there. London bus services are tendered
route-by-route (1), so none of the large operators are going to lose all
their routes 'at the drop of a hat'.

OK, I worded it badly. The point I was making is that the retention of
routes in London is not entirely within Stagecoach's control. In other
places where they operate commercially, it is much more so - the way
the industry works, it's unlikely that anyone will try to steal a route
from them these days - and if they do Stagecoach are big enough to run
them off the road or at least retain their majority.

Neil

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
() wrote:

Yes, Colin, but that doesn't cure the problem that if, on the way back
through the Grafton Centre to catch the Citi 3, I came upon a 007,
which stop I would have to pass before I even entered the shopping
centre - I would not be able to it because my ticket would be
restricted to the Citi 3. Maybe there's another stop in Newmarket
Road which would be nearer, but that doesn't cure the
untranferrability of ticket problem.

The nearest stop for the Citi 3 towards the station is no further in the
other direction from the court as is the Grafton bus station. It's just
past the Rose and Crown PH. The stop for buses from the station is just
across Newmarket Road from there.

Okay, admittedly my knowledge of that part o Cambridge is rather
sketchy, but nothing you say overcomes the lack of ticket
interchangeability, or even the use of different stopping points.

I don't really care who operates bus services - one company, or lots,
privately-owned or public, as long as at the point of delivery there
is full interchangeability of tickets and a single route numbering
structure ("007" and "Citi 1", "Citi 2" etc. are frankly ridiculous
names - when Stagecoach develop their 7th Citi [and yes, I do know
what "Citi" stands for - but it's hardly what I would call
"integrated"!], will there be a "007" and "Citi 7" just to confuse
everyone?) with common stopping points, a single map etc. All of this,
mercifully, we still have in London.

Blame competition legislation.

Why?


The Emmanuel Street bus stopping arrangements are a joke. Approaching
from the South, by the time I had inspected all of the microscopic
writing on the first 2 or 3 shelters to see if that is where the
Babraham Road Park & Ride stopped, I would have most likely missed at
least one of them! It's the small things like standardised signs and
typefaces that make all the difference between an integgrated and
efficient service and a shambles. The ease of finding the right stop
for the "007" at Grafton Centre is hardly any better. If I recall (it
was over a year ago), there was no sign at all, and I had to ask
people standing at each shelter before I reached the right one.

There is an improvement scheme there due to be implemented shortly.

Good!

And positively misleading (by omission) websites and maps like the
Stagecoach one referred to ought to be totally outlawed.

How? it's a free market. The County Council provides comprehensive
information. Use their site.

By having a single provider of information - like London. If I come
want London travel info, obviously I would go to the T.f.L. site. How
was I to know that Cambridge City Council even provided the info' you
state it does? I find the Stagecoach website, because it's the one
company I have heard of, and no reference is made to any other service
provider (or even the Council website!) which, being a commercial
concern not in the business of advertising its competitors, is hardly
surprising.



I also fervently believe in standardisation of buses themselves.
Sadly, we have lost this in London. What I mean is, buses with steps,
handlebars, windows etc. all of a common design and in the same place
on buses, so that the elderly, infirm and blind can at least know
where to expect to find railings, can familiarise themselves with
steps etc. The appalling mish-mash we now have, means I am forever
catching my finger on a railing attachment on the stairs because the
last bus I travelled in did not have an attachment there, or tripping
on a step that in one bus protrudes where in the others it doesn't,
etc. etc.

If you thought about what you were saying for only a moment you would
realise how impractical you are being. We would still have buses with
outside stairs and open tops.


Don't be silly, Colin. I am merely advocating common standards in
design. If they can do that for things like bus blinds (which, by
bitter irony in London, means the wholesale removal of everything
except route number and final destination!) and wheelchair space, they
can do it for other things, like staircase size / position, railings
etc.

Moreover, London achieved a standard fleet of some 7,000 RTs (and
varieties) and some 2760 Routemasters. All the easier for a smaller
operator to have a standardised fleet. Of course, there would be change
from one model to another, at intervals, but what I abhor is one route
or group of routes using a plethora of different vehicles, none of
which the hapless passenger can get used to. Why, for example, in
London is the route 28 and 295, both operated out of the same garage by
(I think) the same bus model, but with significant variations in
bodywork design between the two. For example, I always usually sit in
the second seat from the front on the nearside upper deck. Don't ask me
why, I just like that spot. Some of them have a bell push button
attached to the railing behind that seat, and some do not/ Why?!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Marc.

In message om, Neil
Williams writes
What would make sense is for numbers to have to be approved by the
Traffic Commissioners, such that it is not permitted to register a
route with a number that already exists in a specified area. That
would be easy to implement as part of route registration.

Out of interest would that prevent there being - say - two "7" routes
going to different places or would it prevent two operators on the same
route sharing the same number? The latter has arguments for and
against, of course.

In the West Midlands, TWM tried some years ago to stop other operators
using its numbers on identical routes but was ultimately unsuccessful.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ermmm....Is Mr Livingston elegible for another term as Lawd Mayuh..?
Or is he calling it a day....?
Does any poster have a copy of the Shareholders Roll of the Mc Quarie
Bank...?
It all sounds very like the Politician who leaves the field suddenly in
order to "Spend more time with his/her Family" or ever topical,The
Football Manager who has the "Full Support of the Board" etc.......

In article .com,
() wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
() wrote:

Yes, Colin, but that doesn't cure the problem that if, on the way
back through the Grafton Centre to catch the Citi 3, I came upon a
007, which stop I would have to pass before I even entered the
shopping centre - I would not be able to it because my ticket
would be restricted to the Citi 3. Maybe there's another stop in
Newmarket Road which would be nearer, but that doesn't cure the
untranferrability of ticket problem.

The nearest stop for the Citi 3 towards the station is no further
in the other direction from the court as is the Grafton bus station.
It's just past the Rose and Crown PH. The stop for buses from the
station is just across Newmarket Road from there.

Okay, admittedly my knowledge of that part o Cambridge is rather
sketchy, but nothing you say overcomes the lack of ticket
interchangeability, or even the use of different stopping points.

If you go both ways on the 3 you can buy tickets valid on all Stagecoach
services of course. I agree about lack of interchangeability but
providing it could be an illegal cartel.

I don't really care who operates bus services - one company, or
lots, privately-owned or public, as long as at the point of
delivery there is full interchangeability of tickets and a single
route numbering structure ("007" and "Citi 1", "Citi 2" etc. are
frankly ridiculous names - when Stagecoach develop their 7th Citi
[and yes, I do know what "Citi" stands for - but it's hardly what
I would call "integrated"!], will there be a "007" and "Citi 7"
just to confuse everyone?) with common stopping points, a single
map etc. All of this, mercifully, we still have in London.

Blame competition legislation.

Why?

See above. The County Council is planning to provide for some ticket
interchangeability on the guided Busway but it can't prevent bus
operators selling tickets only valid on their own services if they want
to.

On the route numbers, it appears to be a free-for-all. The "Citi" bit is
optional and Ensignbus seem to have decided on 007 when there already
was a 7. No-one seems to have thought they could stop them. The sooner
this nonsense outside London stops the better.

And positively misleading (by omission) websites and maps like the
Stagecoach one referred to ought to be totally outlawed.

How? it's a free market. The County Council provides comprehensive
information. Use their site.

By having a single provider of information - like London. If I come
want London travel info, obviously I would go to the T.f.L. site. How
was I to know that Cambridge City Council even provided the info' you
state it does? I find the Stagecoach website, because it's the one
company I have heard of, and no reference is made to any other service
provider (or even the Council website!) which, being a commercial
concern not in the business of advertising its competitors, is hardly
surprising.

There is a single provider - the Public Transport Authority, which is
the County Council. Everything else is up to the providers. If it
matters that much to you, ignore them.

I also fervently believe in standardisation of buses themselves.
Sadly, we have lost this in London. What I mean is, buses with
steps, handlebars, windows etc. all of a common design and in the
same place on buses, so that the elderly, infirm and blind can at
least know where to expect to find railings, can familiarise
themselves with steps etc. The appalling mish-mash we now have,
means I am forever catching my finger on a railing attachment on
the stairs because the last bus I travelled in did not have an
attachment there, or tripping on a step that in one bus protrudes
where in the others it doesn't, etc. etc.

If you thought about what you were saying for only a moment you
would realise how impractical you are being. We would still have
buses with outside stairs and open tops.

Don't be silly, Colin. I am merely advocating common standards in
design. If they can do that for things like bus blinds (which, by
bitter irony in London, means the wholesale removal of everything
except route number and final destination!) and wheelchair space, they
can do it for other things, like staircase size / position, railings
etc.

While I have sympathy on the need for standards, the Met Police between
the wars thought that and we had outside staircases and no windscreens
long after their sell-by dates. There has to be a balance between
standards and progress. Why does London have no LED destination displays
yet?

Moreover, London achieved a standard fleet of some 7,000 RTs (and
varieties) and some 2760 Routemasters. All the easier for a smaller
operator to have a standardised fleet.

There's your first misunderstanding. When the Routemaster fleet was
completed there were still several thousand RT family buses in use. Then
came the various generations of buses that were supposed to replace the
Routemasters, starting with the Merlins. There has never been more
standardisation than the full RT family of over 5000 buses and even that
was only partial.

Of course, there would be change from one model to another, at
intervals, but what I abhor is one route or group of routes using a
plethora of different vehicles, none of which the hapless passenger
can get used to. Why, for example, in London is the route 28 and 295,
both operated out of the same garage by (I think) the same bus model,
but with significant variations in bodywork design between the two.
For example, I always usually sit in the second seat from the front on
the nearside upper deck. Don't ask me why, I just like that spot. Some
of them have a bell push button attached to the railing behind that
seat, and some do not/ Why?!

Why not?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
() wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article .com,
() wrote:

Yes, Colin, but that doesn't cure the problem that if, on the way
back through the Grafton Centre to catch the Citi 3, I came upon a
007, which stop I would have to pass before I even entered the
shopping centre - I would not be able to it because my ticket
would be restricted to the Citi 3. Maybe there's another stop in
Newmarket Road which would be nearer, but that doesn't cure the
untranferrability of ticket problem.

The nearest stop for the Citi 3 towards the station is no further
in the other direction from the court as is the Grafton bus station.
It's just past the Rose and Crown PH. The stop for buses from the
station is just across Newmarket Road from there.

Okay, admittedly my knowledge of that part o Cambridge is rather
sketchy, but nothing you say overcomes the lack of ticket
interchangeability, or even the use of different stopping points.

If you go both ways on the 3 you can buy tickets valid on all Stagecoach
services of course. I agree about lack of interchangeability but
providing it could be an illegal cartel.

Yes, I see, and we're back to the criticism of the Competition
Commission. To the man in the street this is all nonsense - he (I) just
want the most convenient service possible, and a fractional fare
increase (which is presumably the evil that the competition law is
designed to prevent) is a small price to pay (in my opinion).


I don't really care who operates bus services - one company, or
lots, privately-owned or public, as long as at the point of
delivery there is full interchangeability of tickets and a single
route numbering structure ("007" and "Citi 1", "Citi 2" etc. are
frankly ridiculous names - when Stagecoach develop their 7th Citi
[and yes, I do know what "Citi" stands for - but it's hardly what
I would call "integrated"!], will there be a "007" and "Citi 7"
just to confuse everyone?) with common stopping points, a single
map etc. All of this, mercifully, we still have in London.

Blame competition legislation.

Why?

See above. The County Council is planning to provide for some ticket
interchangeability on the guided Busway but it can't prevent bus
operators selling tickets only valid on their own services if they want
to.

Of course, I agree with your last sentence, which is why the effects
of pure self-interested competition ought to be mitigated, as they are
in London. I hadn't heard of the guided busway. Where is that propose
to run?

On the route numbers, it appears to be a free-for-all. The "Citi" bit is
optional and Ensignbus seem to have decided on 007 when there already
was a 7. No-one seems to have thought they could stop them. The sooner
this nonsense outside London stops the better.

We are in agreement there!

And positively misleading (by omission) websites and maps like the
Stagecoach one referred to ought to be totally outlawed.

How? it's a free market. The County Council provides comprehensive
information. Use their site.

By having a single provider of information - like London. If I come
want London travel info, obviously I would go to the T.f.L. site. How
was I to know that Cambridge City Council even provided the info' you
state it does? I find the Stagecoach website, because it's the one
company I have heard of, and no reference is made to any other service
provider (or even the Council website!) which, being a commercial
concern not in the business of advertising its competitors, is hardly
surprising.

There is a single provider - the Public Transport Authority, which is
the County Council. Everything else is up to the providers. If it
matters that much to you, ignore them.

And how much publicity does the County Council put out? And if so,
where? Certainly not at important places like the Park & Ride waiting
hut at Babraham Road, which I have searched in vain, even for a
comprehensive Park & Ride leaflet! Which is why I did not know that one
route operated on Sunday!


I also fervently believe in standardisation of buses themselves.
Sadly, we have lost this in London. What I mean is, buses with
steps, handlebars, windows etc. all of a common design and in the
same place on buses, so that the elderly, infirm and blind can at
least know where to expect to find railings, can familiarise
themselves with steps etc. The appalling mish-mash we now have,
means I am forever catching my finger on a railing attachment on
the stairs because the last bus I travelled in did not have an
attachment there, or tripping on a step that in one bus protrudes
where in the others it doesn't, etc. etc.

If you thought about what you were saying for only a moment you
would realise how impractical you are being. We would still have
buses with outside stairs and open tops.

Don't be silly, Colin. I am merely advocating common standards in
design. If they can do that for things like bus blinds (which, by
bitter irony in London, means the wholesale removal of everything
except route number and final destination!) and wheelchair space, they
can do it for other things, like staircase size / position, railings
etc.

While I have sympathy on the need for standards, the Met Police between
the wars thought that and we had outside staircases and no windscreens
long after their sell-by dates. There has to be a balance between
standards and progress. Why does London have no LED destination displays
yet?

Moreover, London achieved a standard fleet of some 7,000 RTs (and
varieties) and some 2760 Routemasters. All the easier for a smaller
operator to have a standardised fleet.

There's your first misunderstanding. When the Routemaster fleet was
completed there were still several thousand RT family buses in use. Then
came the various generations of buses that were supposed to replace the
Routemasters, starting with the Merlins. There has never been more
standardisation than the full RT family of over 5000 buses and even that
was only partial.

There was a period, Colin, when the vast majority of routes in London
had either RTs or Routemasters. I am old enough to remember it! Having
two models to cope with, which are broadly similar to each other, is
fine. But, now, how many routes (save for Bendybuses) have the same bus
as each other, even if operated from the same garage?

Of course, there would be change from one model to another, at
intervals, but what I abhor is one route or group of routes using a
plethora of different vehicles, none of which the hapless passenger
can get used to. Why, for example, in London is the route 28 and 295,
both operated out of the same garage by (I think) the same bus model,
but with significant variations in bodywork design between the two.
For example, I always usually sit in the second seat from the front on
the nearside upper deck. Don't ask me why, I just like that spot. Some
of them have a bell push button attached to the railing behind that
seat, and some do not/ Why?!

Why not?


Because the unfortunate souls who have to use them are human beings,
not animals. We tend to learn things, like where to expect a railing,
or bell-push, or step depth, and it's disorientating (and potentially
dangerous) to expect something to be in one place and then not find it
there.

You ask, "why not?": I have never understood the concept of change for
change's sake, which concept presages a question like "why not?"

If someone were to suggest replacing the Mathematical Bridge, would you
ask "why?" or "why not?"?
--
Colin Rosenstiel

Marc.

In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
Why does London have no LED destination displays yet?

Because even the best ones are much less legible than traditional
blinds.

And am I alone in thinking that the new London system of ultimate
destination only on the front is a *terrible* retrograde step? The
previous (but *very* well established) one wasn't perfect but was still
a good way of indicating overall routes.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
Why does London have no LED destination displays yet?

Because even the best ones are much less legible than traditional
blinds.

And am I alone in thinking that the new London system of ultimate
destination only on the front is a *terrible* retrograde step? The
previous (but *very* well established) one wasn't perfect but was still
a good way of indicating overall routes.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

I couldn't agree more, Ian.

Marc.

In article .com,
() wrote:

Yes, I see, and we're back to the criticism of the Competition
Commission. To the man in the street this is all nonsense - he (I)
just want the most convenient service possible, and a fractional fare
increase (which is presumably the evil that the competition law is
designed to prevent) is a small price to pay (in my opinion).

Totally agree, though I blame the present and previous governments'
competitiveness legislation rather than the Commission.

Roll on the day when a London-type system is adopted across the country.

I hadn't heard of the guided busway. Where is that propose
to run?

Huntingdon to St Ives to Cambridge to Trumpington Park and Ride via
(mostly) the late Cambridge-St Ives railway line. Don't let's start on
that waste of a good railway line! The Government are besotted with
guided busways, imagining they are trams on the cheap. They will learn
otherwise the hard way, at our and Luton's expense.

And how much publicity does the County Council put out? And if so,
where? Certainly not at important places like the Park & Ride waiting
hut at Babraham Road, which I have searched in vain, even for a
comprehensive Park & Ride leaflet! Which is why I did not know that
one route operated on Sunday!

Hmm. Something's gone wrong there. They must have run out of leaflets.

There's your first misunderstanding. When the Routemaster fleet was
completed there were still several thousand RT family buses in use.
Then came the various generations of buses that were supposed to
replace the Routemasters, starting with the Merlins. There has never
been more standardisation than the full RT family of over 5000 buses
and even that was only partial.

There was a period, Colin, when the vast majority of routes in London
had either RTs or Routemasters. I am old enough to remember it!
Having two models to cope with, which are broadly similar to each
other, is fine. But, now, how many routes (save for Bendybuses) have
the same bus as each other, even if operated from the same garage?

It wasn't /that/ long. When were the first Merlins? 1971? The last RM was
built in 1968. When were the first "Londoner" double deckers? A misnomer
if there ever was one.

Of course, there would be change from one model to another, at
intervals, but what I abhor is one route or group of routes using
a plethora of different vehicles, none of which the hapless
passenger can get used to. Why, for example, in London is the
route 28 and 295, both operated out of the same garage by (I
think) the same bus model, but with significant variations in
bodywork design between the two. For example, I always usually sit
in the second seat from the front on the nearside upper deck.
Don't ask me why, I just like that spot. Some of them have a bell
push button attached to the railing behind that seat, and some do
not/ Why?!

Why not?

Because the unfortunate souls who have to use them are human beings,
not animals. We tend to learn things, like where to expect a railing,
or bell-push, or step depth, and it's disorientating (and potentially
dangerous) to expect something to be in one place and then not find it
there.

You ask, "why not?": I have never understood the concept of change for
change's sake, which concept presages a question like "why not?"

If someone were to suggest replacing the Mathematical Bridge, would
you ask "why?" or "why not?"?

I think we are in danger of getting bogged down in details.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article .com,
() wrote:

Ian Jelf wrote:
In message ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
Why does London have no LED destination displays yet?

Because even the best ones are much less legible than traditional
blinds.

And am I alone in thinking that the new London system of ultimate
destination only on the front is a *terrible* retrograde step? The
previous (but *very* well established) one wasn't perfect but was
still a good way of indicating overall routes.

I couldn't agree more, Ian.

The illuminated dot matrix "blinds" on the Citi 1 in Cambridge are
vastly better than the new limited London blinds. The dot matrix
"blinds" before them are also better. But then London has once again
decided to go for the Luddite approach.

--
Colin Rosenstiel