In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:48:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:37:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:27:16 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Will you get to see bendy buses on the streets of London again?

Doubtful and to be honest it's not important.
[...]
We need to get away from an obsession with vehicle types or some
aspect of them and concentrate on adding capacity where it is needed,

The environmental aspect is pretty important! Wouldn't running bendies
generate less polution for the same passenger capacity than using
double-deckers?

Why?

When both are full theres a greater number of passengers per unit mass of
the vehicle on a bendy. Hence more efficient.

Is that so? What data did you base that on?

I'm not an expert, but what I can see says that there's hardly any
difference. I calculate that a fully loaded Scania double-decker
carries about 8.6 pax per tonne of kerb weight, and a Mercedes Citaro
Bendy carries about 8.8. Do you have better figures?

That's too small to have any measurable difference on emissions. And
that's before you add in the emissions from Citaro spontaneous
combustion...

Yes, I'd forgotten what incredible lard-butts the bendies are. There must be
much to be said for bring back RMLs. They carry about 9.2 pax per tonne of
kerb weight.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:48:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:37:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:27:16 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Will you get to see bendy buses on the streets of London again?

Doubtful and to be honest it's not important.
[...]
We need to get away from an obsession with vehicle types or some
aspect of them and concentrate on adding capacity where it is needed,

The environmental aspect is pretty important! Wouldn't running bendies
generate less polution for the same passenger capacity than using
double-deckers?

Why?

When both are full theres a greater number of passengers per unit mass of
the vehicle on a bendy. Hence more efficient.

Is that so? What data did you base that on?

I'm not an expert, but what I can see says that there's hardly any
difference. I calculate that a fully loaded Scania double-decker
carries about 8.6 pax per tonne of kerb weight, and a Mercedes Citaro
Bendy carries about 8.8. Do you have better figures?

That's too small to have any measurable difference on emissions. And
that's before you add in the emissions from Citaro spontaneous
combustion...

Yes, I'd forgotten what incredible lard-butts the bendies are. There must be
much to be said for bring back RMLs. They carry about 9.2 pax per tonne of
kerb weight.

I wonder how well an RML would fare if it had to have a hybrid low
emissions engine, power sliding doors at the back, low floor access, radio,
CCTV cameras, air cooling, Oyster readers, and all the other requirements
for a modern bus?

On 2016-03-04 18:27:10 +0000, Peter Smyth said:

That depends how you define "fair". You could equally say that it is
unfair that a journey of a few stops would cost the same as a a three
bus journey from one side of London to the other.

In that case, bring in zones on buses (though you'd need to touch out
as you do in the Netherlands), or bring in a system like the Dutch one
based on a flat "starting fee" plus a kilometric fee.

All of those options are fairer than penalising someone because TfL
doesn't provide them a direct service, then penalising them again by
making them pay twice.

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

Hi all,

As we are speaking about fares here, I am going to go slightly off-topic
and ask about Contactless.

AIUI, Contactless is capped by the day and week, regardless of whether
one has registered their card or not. I notice when looking at my
financials, however, that I am paying above what I would normally pay
when travelling from home (in London) to Zone 1 on a weekly.

Thus, why is my card not capping the way it should?

wrote:
Hi all,

As we are speaking about fares here, I am going to go slightly off-topic
and ask about Contactless.

AIUI, Contactless is capped by the day and week, regardless of whether
one has registered their card or not. I notice when looking at my
financials, however, that I am paying above what I would normally pay
when travelling from home (in London) to Zone 1 on a weekly.

Thus, why is my card not capping the way it should?

I fear considerably more information required here...

(Like; what's the journey, when/how often, what's it actually being capped
at, what do you think it should be capped at...)

In article , () wrote:

Hi all,

As we are speaking about fares here, I am going to go slightly
off-topic and ask about Contactless.

AIUI, Contactless is capped by the day and week, regardless of
whether one has registered their card or not. I notice when looking
at my financials, however, that I am paying above what I would
normally pay when travelling from home (in London) to Zone 1 on a
weekly.

Thus, why is my card not capping the way it should?

Are you sure capping works without an account?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:48:15 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:37:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:

The environmental aspect is pretty important! Wouldn't running bendies
generate less polution for the same passenger capacity than using
double-deckers?

Why?

When both are full theres a greater number of passengers per unit mass of
the vehicle on a bendy. Hence more efficient.

That's one aspect, I agree, but not the whole story.

What's the rest of the story?

--
jhk

In article ,
(Jarle Hammen Knudsen) wrote:

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:48:15 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:37:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:

The environmental aspect is pretty important! Wouldn't running
bendies generate less polution for the same passenger capacity than
using double-deckers?

Why?

When both are full theres a greater number of passengers per unit mass
of the vehicle on a bendy. Hence more efficient.

That's one aspect, I agree, but not the whole story.

What's the rest of the story?

Too much free travel?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 07/03/2016 15:51, wrote:
In article ,
(Jarle Hammen Knudsen) wrote:

On Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:48:15 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:37:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Jarle Hammen Knudsen wrote:

The environmental aspect is pretty important! Wouldn't running
bendies generate less polution for the same passenger capacity than
using double-deckers?

Why?

When both are full theres a greater number of passengers per unit mass
of the vehicle on a bendy. Hence more efficient.

That's one aspect, I agree, but not the whole story.

What's the rest of the story?

Too much free travel?

And whether perceived or not, their ability to block junctions and
interrupt traffic flow (personally I've witnessed this several times but
have been told by the powers that be at TfL that I must have imagined it)