On Jun 15, 12:19*pm, "Richard J." wrote:
Roland Perry wrote on 15 June 2009 09:54:24 ...

In message , at 22:40:37
on Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Richard J. remarked:
I don't really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly
reduced by having a rear platform.

Because people can get on and off whenever the bus stops, and not have
to wait until it's got all the way to the official bus stop and then
opened its doors. Especially if it's stuck in traffic, most of the
getting on and off will happen away from the official bus stops.

Surely it will be mainly getting off that will happen like that? *Most
people will wait at bus stops, and the dwell time to enable them to load
will be little affected.

You're suggesting that the rear platform will be used for entry as well
as exit. *If so, you'll have longer dwell times due to conflicting flows.

I have to ask why on earth have a rear platform unless it is used for
both flows? Are you assuming that people only enter via a front door
and people exit solely via a open platform rear door? If that's the
plan (and who knows what it actually is) then you might as well go and
buy some Neoman Lion City deckers in a Berlin stylee and use those.
They're pretty "iconic" buses in their own right and it saves on
several manufacturers wasting time and effort mucking about with their
existing designs to shove a door at the back.

Several foreign manufacturers do build chassis with vertical corner
mounted engines that could, in theory, sit under a rear staircase and
permit an open platform but that design of engine location is
completely contrary to UK garage design / maintenance practice. This
is why the first version of the Volvo B7 double decker was so
unpopular - Volvo went away and designed a transverse engined design
for the UK. If we end up with such buses in London then how much will
the operators charge to modify their garages to deal with the new
buses? Oh dear, more money and more time to get them into service.
And finally I am not aware that any hybrid bus design has vertically
located power components - they all seem to be to a transverse design.

--
Paul C
via google

In message , at 11:19:10
on Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Richard J. remarked:

I don't really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly
reduced by having a rear platform.
Because people can get on and off whenever the bus stops, and not
have to wait until it's got all the way to the official bus stop and
then opened its doors. Especially if it's stuck in traffic, most of
the getting on and off will happen away from the official bus stops.

Surely it will be mainly getting off that will happen like that? Most
people will wait at bus stops, and the dwell time to enable them to
load will be little affected.

My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking in the
general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a suitable route
then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a result of not being
able to do that any more, I very rarely use London buses.

You're suggesting that the rear platform will be used for entry as well
as exit. If so, you'll have longer dwell times due to conflicting
flows.

Not if the entry and exits happen in dribs and drabs along the route.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote on 15 June 2009 13:59:41 ...
In message , at 11:19:10
on Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Richard J. remarked:

I don't really see how dwell times at stops would be significantly
reduced by having a rear platform.

Because people can get on and off whenever the bus stops, and not
have to wait until it's got all the way to the official bus stop and
then opened its doors. Especially if it's stuck in traffic, most of
the getting on and off will happen away from the official bus stops.

Surely it will be mainly getting off that will happen like that? Most
people will wait at bus stops, and the dwell time to enable them to
load will be little affected.

My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking in the
general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a suitable route
then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a result of not being
able to do that any more, I very rarely use London buses.

Why don't you start walking until you see a suitable bus coming, then
walk to the next bus stop? Since you seem to do this in very congested
streets, I'm sure you'd arrive at the bus stop before the bus did.

You're suggesting that the rear platform will be used for entry as well
as exit. If so, you'll have longer dwell times due to conflicting
flows.

Not if the entry and exits happen in dribs and drabs along the route.

That would only apply to the most congested parts of the routes, and
even there the much wider provision of bus lanes these days has limited
the opportunity to hop on a bus.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Roland Perry wrote:


My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking in the
general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a suitable route
then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a result of not being
able to do that any more, I very rarely use London buses.


A point of view not shared with the people forming that large increase
in bus ridership over the last few years, who seem to find the concept
of bus stops with frequent services adequate. I certainly do, round
here you can't catch them anyway and if you can then it's almost
certainly because some traffic snarl up is preventing the bus from
moving and thus rendering catching it rather a pointless use of a quid.

I could see your point if it was one bus every half an hour, but these
things come along every few minutes. Much more important to concentrate
on dwell time and journey length, really, to my mind.

Tom

On 15 June, 15:05, Tom Barry wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

My experience of using London buses was that I'd start walking in the
general direction I wanted to go until I saw a bus on a suitable route
then hop aboard - when it stopped in traffic. As a result of not being
able to do that any more, I very rarely use London buses.

A point of view not shared with the people forming that large increase
in bus ridership over the last few years, who seem to find the concept
of bus stops with frequent services adequate. *I certainly do, round
here you can't catch them anyway and if you can then it's almost
certainly because some traffic snarl up is preventing the bus from
moving and thus rendering catching it rather a pointless use of a quid.

I could see your point if it was one bus every half an hour, but these
things come along every few minutes. *Much more important to concentrate
on dwell time and journey length, really, to my mind.

Tom

It's the person's journey time that matters, not the bus's journey
time. That's why the getting off option is most important.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been trapped in a bus "so
near and yet so far", missing trains at places like Euston and Charing
Cross because the bus is stuck in traffic and I can't get out.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:30:11 +0100
Tom Barry wrote:
Of course the chance of this being allowed these days with elf and softies
paranoia is zero so its all a bit academic.

B2003


The same way that there are no open-back Routemasters in service in
London any more. Oh hang on a minute, there are those two heritage
routes operated in exactly that manner (and at vast expense compared to
conventionally operated routes, but there you go).

*sigh* Those have grandfather rights. Try building a new bus with an open
back exit and see how far you get. About the same distance as if you tried
to build slam door train carraiges made out of wood.

B2003

MIG wrote:


It's the person's journey time that matters, not the bus's journey
time. That's why the getting off option is most important.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been trapped in a bus "so
near and yet so far", missing trains at places like Euston and Charing
Cross because the bus is stuck in traffic and I can't get out.

May I humbly suggest that the problem is therefore traffic congestion
rather than bus design, which is rather what I was getting at.

The bus journey time is important, anyway - if it's too variable because
of traffic conditions or road network design or routing then the service
is unreliable or has to stop and wait time or has so much slack built in
it's daft to expect people to use it.

Tom

On 15 June, 15:57, Tom Barry wrote:
MIG wrote:

It's the person's journey time that matters, not the bus's journey
time. *That's why the getting off option is most important.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been trapped in a bus "so
near and yet so far", missing trains at places like Euston and Charing
Cross because the bus is stuck in traffic and I can't get out.

May I humbly suggest that the problem is therefore traffic congestion
rather than bus design, which is rather what I was getting at.

The bus journey time is important, anyway - if it's too variable because
of traffic conditions or road network design or routing then the service
is unreliable or has to stop and wait time or has so much slack built in
it's daft to expect people to use it.

If people can't use buses till the problem of congestion is solved, no
one will ever use bus routes in the centre of London.

The proposed design change is to enable people to adapt to the
inevitable traffic congestion that will persist, unfortunately.

If it's going, stay on; if it's stuck, get off. You don't have to
worry about getting trapped.

It's often a one-off, like I whiz down Charing Cross Road on a 24 or
29, and then there's something happening at Trafalgar Square so I end
up stuck by St Martins while my trains depart from Charing Cross.

In article ,
(Tom Barry) wrote:

MIG wrote:

It's the person's journey time that matters, not the bus's journey
time. That's why the getting off option is most important.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been trapped in a bus "so
near and yet so far", missing trains at places like Euston and Charing
Cross because the bus is stuck in traffic and I can't get out.

May I humbly suggest that the problem is therefore traffic congestion
rather than bus design, which is rather what I was getting at.

The bus journey time is important, anyway - if it's too variable
because of traffic conditions or road network design or routing
then the service is unreliable or has to stop and wait time or has
so much slack built in it's daft to expect people to use it.

What a ludicrous attitude! Before the Elfin Safety Fascists got control I
could make my own decisions when to get on and off buses. Why should I be
falsely imprisoned "for my own good"? I'll be the judge of that, thank you.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 15 June, 17:50, wrote:
In article ,





(Tom Barry) wrote:
MIG wrote:

It's the person's journey time that matters, not the bus's journey
time. *That's why the getting off option is most important.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been trapped in a bus "so
near and yet so far", missing trains at places like Euston and Charing
Cross because the bus is stuck in traffic and I can't get out.

May I humbly suggest that the problem is therefore traffic congestion
rather than bus design, which is rather what I was getting at.

The bus journey time is important, anyway - if it's too variable
because of traffic conditions or road network design or routing
then the service is unreliable or has to stop and wait time or has
so much slack built in it's daft to expect people to use it.

What a ludicrous attitude! Before the Elfin Safety Fascists got control I
could make my own decisions when to get on and off buses. Why should I be
falsely imprisoned "for my own good"? I'll be the judge of that, thank you.

I am in favour of being able to get off when I want to, although open
platforms aren't necessarily the best way of achieving it.

In a traffic jam, the driver could open the doors preceded by warnings
about looking out for cyclists etc. Trouble is they would probably be
sacked for doing that at the moment.