In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

The legacy of short gaps between stops may actually be from
trolleybus days rather than the Routemaster era.

Tramway era, more like.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

I found this story earlier on the BBC News website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7149722.stm

Autocar magazine (somewhat bizarrely) asked bus design company Capoco
Design (which designed the the Dennis Dart and Trident amongst others)
to come up with a concept design for a new Routemaster-type bus. It's
hardly a spectacularly original idea, but it's interesting nonetheless.

When I first read the BBC story (above) I scoffed somewhat, not least
because Boris Johnson (the Tory candidate in the forthcoming Mayoral
elections in May) declared it was "the shape of the future" - so my
instant prejudice was to be highly sceptical! However, the full
article has now been put up on the Autocar website, and it's less
ridiculous than I first though - you can read it for yourself he

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsAr...llCars/229691/

Now I've looked at the article the biggest point seem to me the
incredibly old-fashioned and space-wasting half cab design. That was out
of date when the Routemaster was new (the trolleybuses they replaced had
full width cabs). With modern engine arrangements I'd have thought they'd
want to put it full in the body and the best place would be under the
stairs. That would allow more buggy and wheelchair space downstairs by
the front entrance.

The article says "At 8230kg, it will weigh around 400kg more than the old
version — a tribute to the original aluminium spaceframe design".

In fact that weight is almost the same as the 30ft long RMLs which
weighed 8.25 tons (8382 kilos).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

Now I've looked at the article the biggest point seem to me the
incredibly old-fashioned and space-wasting half cab design. That was out
of date when the Routemaster was new (the trolleybuses they replaced had
full width cabs).

Coming to this late, but I'm not convinced that the half-cab was
really dated when the first Routemasters were introduced. The first
rear-engined double-deckers came into production about the same time
as the first production Routemasters, so perhaps four years after the
prototype Routemasters were developed. Other half-cab buses continued
in production through most of the 1960s. Presumably the Routemaster's
designers believed (rightly, as it turned out) that conductor
operation would continue in London for some decades to come. In the
early 1960s the law didn't permit one-person operation of double
deckers, and there were proposals to fit trapdoors at the top of the
stairs of rear-engined double-deckers so that they could be operated
as single deckers at quiet times.

There were buses in the 1950s and 1960s with a full-width front
windscreen, but following the half-cab layout with the engine next to
the driver. This was purely a styling feature, not one which would
have made any more space available for passengers, and one which
London Transport, who were presumably keen on saving weight and
ensuring ease of maintenance, were probably sensible not to adopt.

So the layout of the Routemaster was undoubtedly traditional, but at
least when it was first introduced, surely couldn't have been
dismissed as 'dated'.

(Incidentally I'm happy to be told I'm wrong by anybody else who
should come along with more technical knowledge)

Martin

In article ,
(Martin Rich) wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

Now I've looked at the article the biggest point seem to me the
incredibly old-fashioned and space-wasting half cab design. That was
out of date when the Routemaster was new (the trolleybuses they
replaced had full width cabs).

Coming to this late, but I'm not convinced that the half-cab was
really dated when the first Routemasters were introduced. The first
rear-engined double-deckers came into production about the same time
as the first production Routemasters, so perhaps four years after the
prototype Routemasters were developed. Other half-cab buses continued
in production through most of the 1960s. Presumably the Routemaster's
designers believed (rightly, as it turned out) that conductor
operation would continue in London for some decades to come. In the
early 1960s the law didn't permit one-person operation of double
deckers, and there were proposals to fit trapdoors at the top of the
stairs of rear-engined double-deckers so that they could be operated
as single deckers at quiet times.

Yes, regulators have a lot to answer for too. However, the decline of
British manufacturing industry was accelerated by a technical
conservatism of which this was just one example. Another one that was
pilloried to me in Brazil in the late 1960s was rivetting pressure
vessels when the world had moved on to welding. This could be a valid
criticism of the Routemaster body if being reconsidered. And remember how
long London tram drivers had no windscreens because of police objections.
We still have almost no LED bus destination displays in London for
similar reasons.

There were buses in the 1950s and 1960s with a full-width front
windscreen, but following the half-cab layout with the engine next to
the driver. This was purely a styling feature, not one which would
have made any more space available for passengers, and one which
London Transport, who were presumably keen on saving weight and
ensuring ease of maintenance, were probably sensible not to adopt.

Yes, most (but not quite all) trolleybuses made little or no use of the
space gained. I would expect modern designers to do better.

So the layout of the Routemaster was undoubtedly traditional, but at
least when it was first introduced, surely couldn't have been
dismissed as 'dated'.

My main criticism was of the Autocar "Routemaster of the Future" for
perpetuating this long-obsolete feature.

(Incidentally I'm happy to be told I'm wrong by anybody else who
should come along with more technical knowledge)

It's lost space within the vehicle.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

And remember how long London tram drivers had no windscreens because of
police objections.

Say what?

We still have almost no LED bus destination displays in London for
similar reasons.

Isn't that a disability thing, LED matrices being of lower contrast than
blinds, and thus less good for the partially sighted?

tom

--
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets
of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a
whole galaxy of multi colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and
also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw
ether and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all this for the trip,
but once you get locked in a serious drug collection, the tendency is
to push it as far as you can. -- Hunter S. Thompson, 'Fear and loathing
in Las Vegas'

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

And remember how long London tram drivers had no windscreens
because of police objections.

Say what?

Huh? In the 1920s and 30s, trams (and ISTR buses) didn't have windscreens
in case they obstructed the view for drivers. The police licensed
transport in London, unlike everywhere else in the country that had no
such nonsense.

We still have almost no LED bus destination displays in London
for similar reasons.

Isn't that a disability thing, LED matrices being of lower contrast
than blinds, and thus less good for the partially sighted?

Quite the contrary these days IME. Anyway, why is London out of line with
the whole of the rest of the country on this?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:54:14 +0000, Martin Rich
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

Now I've looked at the article the biggest point seem to me the
incredibly old-fashioned and space-wasting half cab design. That was out
of date when the Routemaster was new (the trolleybuses they replaced had
full width cabs).

Coming to this late, but I'm not convinced that the half-cab was
really dated when the first Routemasters were introduced. The first
rear-engined double-deckers came into production about the same time
as the first production Routemasters, so perhaps four years after the
prototype Routemasters were developed. Other half-cab buses continued
in production through most of the 1960s. Presumably the Routemaster's
designers believed (rightly, as it turned out) that conductor
operation would continue in London for some decades to come. In the
early 1960s the law didn't permit one-person operation of double
deckers, and there were proposals to fit trapdoors at the top of the
stairs of rear-engined double-deckers so that they could be operated
as single deckers at quiet times.

There were buses in the 1950s and 1960s with a full-width front
windscreen, but following the half-cab layout with the engine next to
the driver. This was purely a styling feature, not one which would
have made any more space available for passengers, and one which
London Transport, who were presumably keen on saving weight and
ensuring ease of maintenance, were probably sensible not to adopt.

So the layout of the Routemaster was undoubtedly traditional, but at
least when it was first introduced, surely couldn't have been
dismissed as 'dated'.

(Incidentally I'm happy to be told I'm wrong by anybody else who
should come along with more technical knowledge)

The AEC Q in both single and double-deck versions were around in the
1930s. Side-engined, of course, Other examples were the Maudslay ML
and the NGT in single-deck form, and various Midland Red prototypes
(S1-S5) with rear and then underfloor engines. London Transport
operated Q's on their services, along with the Leyland TF
underfloor-engined bus and the Leyland Cub CR rear-engined bus.

Oddly, the TF and the CR both had half-cab arrangements, with
entrances behind the front wheels. Maybe they didn't wish to frighten
the passengers.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

And remember how long London tram drivers had no windscreens
because of police objections.

Say what?

Huh? In the 1920s and 30s, trams (and ISTR buses) didn't have
windscreens in case they obstructed the view for drivers. The police
licensed transport in London, unlike everywhere else in the country that
had no such nonsense.

Good grief. I'd never heard of this before, thanks for the info! Seems
completely potty, but that's the Met for you (not the LU line) (actually,
the LU line too).

We still have almost no LED bus destination displays in London
for similar reasons.

Isn't that a disability thing, LED matrices being of lower contrast
than blinds, and thus less good for the partially sighted?

Quite the contrary these days IME. Anyway, why is London out of line
with the whole of the rest of the country on this?

Because we're not bumpkin provincials who couldn't organise their way out
of a paper bag? :P I don't know. I like the matrix screens, i have to say,
provided they retain the best features of blinds, like big route numbers
and via points.

Incidentally, i noticed while on the Circle line the other day that the
RNIB is now the 'Royal National Institute for Blind People', not 'for the
Blind'. Hurrah for rebranding!

tom

--
In my view, this is no different than a parent introducing his child to
Shakespeare (except that the iambic pentameter is replaced by a framework
of profanity, misogyny, substance abuse, violence, retaliation, crime
and infidelity). -- Dad Gone Mad, on rap

Colin Rosenstiel (Colin Rosenstiel)) gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Yes, regulators have a lot to answer for too. However, the decline of
British manufacturing industry was accelerated by a technical
conservatism of which this was just one example. Another one that was
pilloried to me in Brazil in the late 1960s was rivetting pressure
vessels when the world had moved on to welding.

Hmmm. Isn't an aircraft fuselage a "pressure vessel"? They're _still_
rivetted (well, except for composite ones, obviously)...

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

Incidentally, i noticed while on the Circle line the other day that the
RNIB is now the 'Royal National Institute for Blind People', not 'for the
Blind'. Hurrah for rebranding!


You can perhaps imagine that some sections of modern society believe its an
organisation of dedicated animal lovers that help elderly labradors with
failing eyesight get about more easily, particularly on busy streets and
trains...

Paul S