Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On 21 Dec, 23:11, wrote:

(snip)

(I appreciate that conventional buses with conductors on route 55
wasn't a success which is perhaps why the driver has to be locked away
at the front with a rear entrance if conductors are to be reinstated.)

That rings a bell, can anyone remind me when that was and how long it
lasted for?

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On 21 Dec, 23:32, Mizter T wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:11, wrote:



(snip)

(I appreciate that conventional buses with conductors on route 55
wasn't a success which is perhaps why the driver has to be locked away
at the front with a rear entrance if conductors are to be reinstated.)

That rings a bell, can anyone remind me when that was and how long it
lasted for?

I had to check first before writing my comment.
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/055.htm

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:32, Mizter T wrote:
On 21 Dec, 23:11, wrote:

(snip)

(I appreciate that conventional buses with conductors on route 55
wasn't a success which is perhaps why the driver has to be locked
away at the front with a rear entrance if conductors are to be
reinstated.)

That rings a bell, can anyone remind me when that was and how long it
lasted for?

I had to check first before writing my comment.
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/055.htm

My experience at the time on several of these buses was that all of the
drivers were men and all of the conductors were women who stood by the
driver, nattering to him between stops and checking everyone's tickets on
boarding without ever moving from their man's side, thus combining the
slowness of OPO with the high cost of crew. A soundproof barrier between the
conductor and driver would stop that.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On 21 Dec, 14:33, MIG wrote:

On Dec 21, 2:13*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On 21 Dec, 13:23, MIG wrote:

(snip)

I expect that open platforms would be a far greater risk nowadays,
with drivers effectively required to avoid letting people get on or
off in order to keep to timings (and all stops being request stops
now).

Are all stops request stops now? I know there was a consultation on
this (to which I didn't respond, grrr) but is this now official
policy, or just your interpretation of what happens in reality?

That's an interesting point ... firstly, yes I was referring
facetiously to what is effectively the situation now (having been
whisked past a white-coloured stop at Trafalgar Square in the rush
hour when I was standing by the door, plus other examples, I am in no
doubt).

First off, silly question but was the bus stop the right one for your
bus? (I'm quite sure it was but it doesn't hurt to explore all
possibilities.)

Anyway, yes I do recall finding myself in that situation when on a bus
in the recent past when it should have stopped at a compulsory stop
(red roundel on white background, like you state) - however most of
the time I ding the bell as a matter of habit more than anything else.
And I've also found myself at a compulsory bus stop where the bus
sailed past without stopping. So I think I pretty much hail the bus
regardless of what type the stop is supposed to be!


But the thing about the proposal was that drivers would have to stop
at all stops if there was someone there, even current request stops,
so they'd probably end up stopping much more than they currently do.


Yes, I recall now - I only read about it on here TBH, and never read
any of the proposal documents - by the time I got round to looking in
to it the consultation period had finished. I certainly wouldn't want
there to be any such policy whereby all buses has to stop at all stops
whatsoever - in fact it would be ludicrous. I therefore wonder if the
proposal was not in fact a straw man set up simply so as to be
comprehensively demolished. Perhaps the genesis of this was the
problem of lots of buses approaching one bus stop and the complaints
from those who have missed their bus in the ensuing melee - in Hong
Kong I believe that all buses queue up to get right up to the bus
stop, however long this might take. I think that any such issues here
can be remedied through the bus drivers simply being a little bit more
considerate, as indeed I think most of them already are in this
situation. So perhaps the whole consultation exercise was the result
of a suggestion that this HK approach should be tried here.

So perhaps the official policy should simply change to one that
reflects what actually happens - all bus stops are request, full stop
(or indeed not).

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On 22 Dec, 00:01, "John Rowland"
wrote:

wrote:

On 21 Dec, 23:32, Mizter T wrote:

On 21 Dec, 23:11, wrote:

(snip)

(I appreciate that conventional buses with conductors on route 55
wasn't a success which is perhaps why the driver has to be locked
away at the front with a rear entrance if conductors are to be
reinstated.)

That rings a bell, can anyone remind me when that was and how long it
lasted for?

I had to check first before writing my comment.
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/055.htm

My experience at the time on several of these buses was that all of the
drivers were men and all of the conductors were women who stood by the
driver, nattering to him between stops and checking everyone's tickets on
boarding without ever moving from their man's side, thus combining the
slowness of OPO with the high cost of crew. A soundproof barrier between the
conductor and driver would stop that.


I've a vague recollection of experiencing something similar a couple
of times on the in the dying days of crew operation on the 12 (I
think) when some buses were (somewhat inexplicably) not Routemasters
but OPO double deckers. I recall the friend I was with saying they'd
come across crew operated standard double-deckers instead of
Routemasters a few times around then.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:11:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So, why not run conventional buses down Oxford Street (and other
places of excessive congestion and lots of traffic lights) with the
doors open in advance of the introduction of the Boris-bus?

Short of trams, what is needed for Oxford St is a 100% bendy service
with a rearrangement of the bus stops so the layout actually makes
sense[1]. This was something that didn't matter in the days of the
RM, of course, but that's not a reason to get it wrong now.

[1] Big enough laybys, a sensible grouping of routes, and stops right
by traffic lights so the red phase can be used for boarding/alighting.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:32:19 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

That rings a bell, can anyone remind me when that was and how long it
lasted for?

About 2002, and not very long because people didn't work out that the
bus was different and just tried to show tickets to/buy tickets from
the driver.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:45:42 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

So perhaps the whole consultation exercise was the result
of a suggestion that this HK approach should be tried here.

Also the German one. The way it works there is that if there is
someone at the stop, the bus stops, but to alight you ring the bell.
It works well, but that's mainly because most stops are served by only
one route, connecting the area to the nearest rapid transit rail
service.

So perhaps the official policy should simply change to one that
reflects what actually happens - all bus stops are request, full stop
(or indeed not).

That, ****-poor though it is, would at least make things consistent
with other parts of the UK.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On 22 Dec, 02:18, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:45:42 -0800 (PST), Mizter T

wrote:
So perhaps the whole consultation exercise was the result
of a suggestion that this HK approach should be tried here.

Also the German one. *The way it works there is that if there is
someone at the stop, the bus stops, but to alight you ring the bell.
It works well, but that's mainly because most stops are served by only
one route, connecting the area to the nearest rapid transit rail
service.

So perhaps the official policy should simply change to one that
reflects what actually happens - all bus stops are request, full stop
(or indeed not).

That, ****-poor though it is, would at least make things consistent
with other parts of the UK.


Why would that be **** poor?

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

Mizter T wrote:

I've a vague recollection of experiencing something similar a couple
of times on the in the dying days of crew operation on the 12 (I
think) when some buses were (somewhat inexplicably) not Routemasters
but OPO double deckers. I recall the friend I was with saying they'd
come across crew operated standard double-deckers instead of
Routemasters a few times around then.

If memory serves, the MCW Metrobuses that replaced Routemasters on route
279 (amongst others) originally had a sign on the front displaying
either "PAY DRIVER" or "PAY CONDUCTOR" (or words to that effect anyway).

Cheers,

Barry

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

Barry Salter wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

I've a vague recollection of experiencing something similar a couple
of times on the in the dying days of crew operation on the 12 (I
think) when some buses were (somewhat inexplicably) not Routemasters
but OPO double deckers. I recall the friend I was with saying they'd
come across crew operated standard double-deckers instead of
Routemasters a few times around then.

If memory serves, the MCW Metrobuses that replaced Routemasters on
route 279 (amongst others) originally had a sign on the front
displaying either "PAY DRIVER"

..... in black on a yellow panel...

or "PAY CONDUCTOR" (or words to that
effect anyway).

..... in white on a blue panel.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:20:11 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:

Why would that be **** poor?

At busy stops it works badly, as it results in buses overtaking buses
at the stop and in difficulty flagging down the correct bus where
there is a procession.

Better that every bus is required to stop and open its doors at every
such stop.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On 22 Dec, 11:49, Barry Salter wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
I've a vague recollection of experiencing something similar a couple
of times on the in the dying days of crew operation on the 12 (I
think) when some buses were (somewhat inexplicably) not Routemasters
but OPO double deckers. I recall the friend I was with saying they'd
come across crew operated standard double-deckers instead of
Routemasters a few times around then.


Sorry, I realise I couldn't have been less clear if I tried! In the
situation I describe, during the last few months of Routemaster
operation on the 12, some of the actual buses provided were not
Routemasters but 'standard', modern double-deckers albeit with a
conductor (which is what what I meant when I said "OPO double
deckers"!). I don't know why this was the case, unless the bus company
(London Central) had started to give up on doing any heavy servicing
of their Routemaster stock, what with its imminent demise, and so had
substituted other buses. I recall one such bus I was on being one of
the double-deckers with high-seat backs that the company normally
offers for hire (the one's with the "Hire Me" notices on the side!),
not one of the buses used for day to day public services.

By the by, I remember now that the 12, like some other routes served
by Routemasters, was instead a one-person operation on Sundays - this
is confirmed by this 'ere webpage::
http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/012.htm


If memory serves, the MCW Metrobuses that replaced Routemasters on route
279 (amongst others) originally had a sign on the front displaying
either "PAY DRIVER" or "PAY CONDUCTOR" (or words to that effect anyway).


Interesting stuff - I bet it didn't work at all well though! If the
whole bus was a totally different colour like yellow it might just
about persuade the majority of passengers that there was a conductor
on board so they didn't have to pay the driver/ show tickets to the
driver/ beep in their Oyster in front of the driver.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

Mizter T wrote:

during the last few months of Routemaster
operation on the 12, some of the actual buses provided were not
Routemasters but 'standard', modern double-deckers albeit with a
conductor (which is what what I meant when I said "OPO double
deckers"!). I don't know why this was the case, unless the bus company
(London Central) had started to give up on doing any heavy servicing
of their Routemaster stock, what with its imminent demise, and so had
substituted other buses.

This wasn't unprecedented: for many years in the 1970s/80s two externally
identical buses made up (presumably) the majority of London's bus fleet,
with the OP version designated DMS and the crew-op version designated DM. A
DM would sometimes be used on a normally RM route.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On 22 Dec, 18:45, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

during the last few months of Routemaster
operation on the 12, some of the actual buses provided were not
Routemasters but 'standard', modern double-deckers albeit with a
conductor (which is what what I meant when I said "OPO double
deckers"!). I don't know why this was the case, unless the bus company
(London Central) had started to give up on doing any heavy servicing
of their Routemaster stock, what with its imminent demise, and so had
substituted other buses.

This wasn't unprecedented: for many years in the 1970s/80s two externally
identical buses made up (presumably) the majority of London's bus fleet,
with the OP version designated DMS and the crew-op version designated DM. A
DM would sometimes be used on a normally RM route.

Yeah I do recall coming across it in the 80's - I seem to remember one
occasion in particular of a driver bamboozling waiting prospective
passengers because he only opened the rear door, not the front one -
but I don't remember it being common in the more recent years of
Routemaster operations.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

Martin Smith wrote:

Having had a lot of experience with leather..

Oh yes? ;)

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

Petert wrote:

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s1_route73.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...2_route507.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...3_route521.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s4_route12.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...5_route436.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s6_route18.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...6_route453.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...7_route149.xls

http://www.yrtk.org/wp-content/bendy...s8_route25.xls


And how does that compare with non-bendy routes?

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

John Rowland wrote:
This wasn't unprecedented: for many years in the 1970s/80s two externally
identical buses made up (presumably) the majority of London's bus fleet,
with the OP version designated DMS and the crew-op version designated DM. A
DM would sometimes be used on a normally RM route.

Never the majority, due to their unreliability. They didn't even manage
to get rid of the last of the RM's predecessors (RTs) until the next
generation double-deckers (Ms and Ts) started to join the fleet.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

Neil Williams wrote:
Short of trams, what is needed for Oxford St is ...

travolators. With a key for disabled people to stop and start them.

Colin Mckenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 07:19:22PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:

While having fewer doors and more stairs. Which means it will have to wait
for longer at each stop, and so ...

The quicker boarding claim was demolished by the ASA in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531057.stm

While there are a few stops where lots of people get on and off -
bendies are quite clearly faster here - most stops aren't used anything
like that heavily so the number of doors makes no difference.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved
by killing everyone even remotely associated with it

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:12:31PM -0800, wrote:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed with
open rear deck. With the old routemaster about 10 people used to die
every year falling from the bus.

Serves 'em right for trying to get on and off a moving vehicle. I know
that when I had the opportunity to do that, I would have blamed no-one
but myself if I screwed up. Likewise if I was standing on the open
platform while the bus was moving - something which you weren't supposed
to do.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

PLEASE NOTE: This message was meant to offend everyone equally,
regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, politics, choice
of beer, operating system, mode of transport, or their editor.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

David Cantrell wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:12:31PM -0800,
wrote:

Does anybody here seriously think that a new bus will be allowed with
open rear deck. With the old routemaster about 10 people used to die
every year falling from the bus.

Serves 'em right for trying to get on and off a moving vehicle. I
know that when I had the opportunity to do that, I would have blamed
no-one but myself if I screwed up.

That's fine, for adults. I fell off a moving routemaster when I was a child,
and landed between two bollards. If I'd landed on the bollard, I might not
be here now.

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 07:19:22PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:

While having fewer doors and more stairs. Which means it will have to wait
for longer at each stop, and so ...

The quicker boarding claim was demolished by the ASA in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531057.stm

Firstly, please have the good grace not to trim posts so hard that i have
to wade through google groups to find out what was actually written.

Secondly, i hardly call it 'demolished' - for those interested in reading
sources rather than halfwit BBC reporters' praeses:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudicati...ation_id=39734

While there are a few stops where lots of people get on and off -
bendies are quite clearly faster here - most stops aren't used anything
like that heavily so the number of doors makes no difference.

A bendy has a shorter dwell time if 10 more more passengers are boarding,
and longer if it's less than that. But that's compared to a routemaster,
not a blunderbus. The reason a bendy can take longer is because of the
kneeling suspension - the bus takes time to lower and raise itself at
stops, so that there's level boarding. The routemaster didn't do that. If
the new buses don't, then they may be able to retain that advantage.
However, if they have an engine at the front and a rear-wheel drive, as
we've been promised, then they'll have an axle, and won't be low-floor (no
matter what the concept sketches say), which means they probably will have
to kneel, in which case the advantage evaporates.

tom

--
resistance is fertile

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, David Cantrell wrote:

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 07:19:22PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:

While having fewer doors and more stairs. Which means it will have to wait
for longer at each stop, and so ...

The quicker boarding claim was demolished by the ASA in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531057.stm

Firstly, please have the good grace not to trim posts so hard that i have to
wade through google groups to find out what was actually written.

On re-reading this, that comes across as far nastier than i had intended -
my apologies.

tom

--
It's a surprising finding, but that's science all over: the results
are often counterintuitive. And that's exactly why you do scientific
research, to check your assumptions. Otherwise it wouldn't be called
"science", it would be called "assuming", or "guessing", or "making it
up as you go along". -- Ben Goldacre

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 12:04:55PM -0000, John Rowland wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
Serves 'em right for trying to get on and off a moving vehicle. I
know that when I had the opportunity to do that, I would have blamed
no-one but myself if I screwed up.
That's fine, for adults. I fell off a moving routemaster when I was a child,
and landed between two bollards. If I'd landed on the bollard, I might not
be here now.

That would be your parents' fault.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

THIS IS THE LANGUAGE POLICE
PUT DOWN YOUR THESAURUS
STEP AWAY FROM THE CLICHE

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 06:45:44PM +0000, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, David Cantrell wrote:
The quicker boarding claim was demolished by the ASA in 2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4531057.stm
Firstly, please have the good grace not to trim posts so hard that i have
to wade through google groups to find out what was actually written.

That's what threading is for. If your chosen news client doesn't
support it very well, I suggest using something else.

A bendy has a shorter dwell time if 10 more more passengers are boarding,
and longer if it's less than that. But that's compared to a routemaster,
not a blunderbus. The reason a bendy can take longer is because of the
kneeling suspension - the bus takes time to lower and raise itself at
stops, so that there's level boarding.

I wish they took longer to lower and raise themselves! The sudden
vertical jerks can be quite un-nerving! Especially the ones that happen
nowhere near bus stops.

However, if they have an engine at the front and a rear-wheel drive, as
we've been promised

I wonder why they'd want rear wheel drive. I don't see why FWD would be
any kind of disadvantage.

then they'll have an axle, and won't be low-floor (no
matter what the concept sketches say), which means they probably will have
to kneel, in which case the advantage evaporates.

Not necessarily. The engine could be an electrical generator, driving
electric motors on the wheels. It works on trains, and I believe there
are some concept road vehicles doing similar.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor

Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary

Aston-Martin Boris bus
 

David Cantrell wrote:


Not necessarily. The engine could be an electrical generator, driving
electric motors on the wheels. It works on trains, and I believe there
are some concept road vehicles doing similar.


It's pretty much got to be series-hybrid operation, with the engine
driving a generator driving motors. Or 'diesel-electric' as you might
say. There are batteries, too.

London is currently experimenting with both series and parallel hybrid
designs from a variety of manufacturers, where the engine and motors are
linked to the wheels via a gearbox and conventional mechanical
transmission. It's not clear yet which one's best, but Boris is
pre-empting it by the choice of layout.

By the way, he's come out today and said that they won't have conductors
but PCSOs on them. Total farce.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...emasters-boris

Tom