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?

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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