Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.

Nes.
--
To reply directly to me, please remove all the spam-deflecting X's!
Either that, or simply reply to the group!
--

Nes huge discussion on Smartgroups.

Others due to go are the 23 not far off too.

WVL's from SW and more are arriving to replace the 11. No doubt PVLs and
PDLs will occasionally be on there.


"Nes" wrote in message
...
Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First
the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.

Nes.
--
To reply directly to me, please remove all the spam-deflecting X's!
Either that, or simply reply to the group!
--




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/2003

94? Not yet??


"Nes" wrote in message
...
Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First
the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.

Nes.
--
To reply directly to me, please remove all the spam-deflecting X's!
Either that, or simply reply to the group!
--




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/2003

Sunny Dale wrote:
"Nes" wrote in message
...
Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn?
First the 94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but
those routes are what first comes to mind.

Nes huge discussion on Smartgroups.

Huh?

Others due to go are the 23 not far off too.

WVL's from SW and more are arriving to replace the 11. No doubt PVLs
and PDLs will occasionally be on there.

And various other TLAs no doubt. What he actually asked was "why?".

Routemasters are being withdrawn because they are becoming increasingly
expensive to maintain in service, because modern buses are more accessible
to less-mobile passengers, and because it's cheaper not to have a conductor.
It is expected that some RMs will be retained on one or two routes as a
tourist attraction, but I'm not aware of any plans for this.

I believe that the 94 is still a Routemaster route on Mondays to Fridays
until January 2004. Perhaps you encountered it at a weekend when they do
use other buses.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Nes wrote:
Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.

Because Ken reckons that with bendy buses and off-bus ticketing, an
equivalent or better level of service can be provided with conductorless
buses. We shall see.

It's certain that low-floor double deckers weigh about 1.5x what RMLs
do, per passenger, with fewer seats.

Bendy buses weigh even more, but maybe not on a per passenger basis. It
is rarely possible for them to overtake cycles safely while on the move
in London. This will either slow them down or lead to collisions.

There is vague talk of retaining RMLs on one route, but I wouldn't count
on it. If you want to ride on them in normal service, make the most of
the next year or two.

Colin McKenzie

Because Ken reckons that with bendy buses and off-bus ticketing, an
equivalent or better level of service can be provided with conductorless
buses. We shall see.

That's not what I recall his election manifesto saying: something along the
lines of "vote for Ken and conductors will be safe" I seem to recall.

But why should that surprise me: just one more of Ken's many lies.

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have
resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have
resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible
idea.

Jonn

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Jonn Elledge
), in message
who said:
"Mait001" wrote in message
...

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals
have resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a
terrible idea.


Umm... cheaper how?

I thought it was simply transfering some of the cost from a voluntary
payment to an involuntary contribution.

BTN

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have
resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible
idea.

Jonn

Jonn,

Cheaper public transport, subsidised in a lawful way is not a bad idea.

The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do)
which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords.

Had Ken introduced a more modest scheme to start with, which would have been
legally watertight, then the legal challenge, huge Court costs etc. would not
have occurred and the ultimate disastrous demise of "Fares Fair", and with it a
fair number of Routemasters which had to go in the ensuing service cuts, would
not have happened.

Hence Ken was directly to blame for the service reductions and Routemaster
demise that followed.

Marc.

(Mait001)typed


Had Ken introduced a more modest scheme to start with, which would have been
legally watertight, then the legal challenge, huge Court costs etc.
would not
have occurred and the ultimate disastrous demise of "Fares Fair", and
with it a
fair number of Routemasters which had to go in the ensuing service
cuts, would
not have happened.

Hence Ken was directly to blame for the service reductions and Routemaster
^^^^^^^^
demise that followed.

As a barrister, would you term this chain of events as 'directly'?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.