"Arthur Figgis" ] wrote in message
...

DD trams used to be standard in the British Isles,
and they also existed elsewhere but fell out of favour.
They are now found in Blackpool, Hong Kong,
Alexandria and Birkenhead (which hardly counts).

And Seaton. Why does Birkenhead hardly count?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 at 14:33:23, Cheeky wrote:


Drifting slightly OT, I know, but the reason here in Manchester that I
(and others) gravitate towards the lower deck on a bus is the reduced
threat of physical violence and/or avoidiing tobacco/cannabis fumes.
Needless to say Stagecoach don't give a f*** :-(

Seldom a problem on London Buses, I find. I won't say "never", but
mostly people obey the non-smoking ordinances.

But reverting to the topic of "accessible" buses, my blind sister-in-law
and I were laughing yesterday at the fact that the bell-pushes have
braille letters on them telling you what they are - by the time you have
felt around to find them, we reckoned, you would know you had without
needing to be told!

However she agreed, as did her son (who is registered blind but, unlike
his mother, does have some residual peripheral vision), that the
painting of poles and step edges yellow was a Good Thing.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 at 22:57:49, Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 10:07:20 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote in :

I understand that in some places, they have
double-decked trams and trains, too. Seems like an easy and general way to
increase capacity (obviously not very practical for tube lines, though).

Certainly double-decker trains in Switzerland. From the entry
doors you descend several steps to the lower deck or climb stairs to the
upper. Many of the S-Bahn trains around Zurich are so equipped.

And most of the RER system in the Greater Paris area is served with
double-decker trains. And, increasingly, I'm told, the TGV lines, too.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 at 05:01:58, Alistair McIndoe
wrote:

And then you've got the double-decker trains that go under bits of Paris.
RTAP or RER or whatever. Why does most of the Paris metro smell like a
sewer? London's tubes don't whiff like that. I know Paris is marginally
closer to the equator (and marginally further away from the Arctic), but is
a climate difference to blame? Maybe a diet of snails, horsemeat and frogs'
legs leads to more frequent methane emissions.


It's certainly a distinctive smell! When I lived there, back in the
1970s, the central car on each train was first-class - I'm not sure when
that was abolished, but it was quite a shock to the system to find it
had been when we returned in the 1990s! Anyway, our joke always was
that you got a better class of garlic-breath in first class.....
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004

Annabel Smyth wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 at 05:01:58, Alistair McIndoe
wrote:

And then you've got the double-decker trains that go under bits of
Paris. RTAP or RER or whatever. Why does most of the Paris metro
smell like a sewer? London's tubes don't whiff like that. I know
Paris is marginally closer to the equator (and marginally further
away from the Arctic), but is a climate difference to blame?
Maybe a diet of snails, horsemeat and frogs' legs leads to more
frequent methane emissions.


It's certainly a distinctive smell!

The distinctive smell that I've experienced on the Paris Métro is from
the rubber-tyred trains, the smell of which can drift through to other
lines at interchange stations.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

Incidentally, in Brussels at the weekend I noticed that more or less
all the (single-decker) buses were low floor more or less throughout
with 3 sets of doors, one right at the back, and were mid-engined. I
wonder why that's never made it to the UK. Surely the engine could be
accommodated under/by the stairs in a decker, perhaps with the
(front?) wheels individually driven in some way?

Ever looked at an AEC Q?
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
...

my blind sister-in-law and I were laughing yesterday
at the fact that the bell-pushes have braille letters
on them telling you what they are - by the time you
have felt around to find them, we reckoned, you
would know you had without needing to be told!

It won't be long until the supermarket deli counters have their "Hot - don't
touch" signs in braille.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Stuart wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Why couldn't a double-decker bendy have three doors, like a single-decker?

3 sets of doors on a double decker would leave very little space for
downstairs seating

I was talking about a double-decker bendy; since single-decker bendies
have three doors, there'd be exactly the same amount of space. Well, apart
from the stairs.

Next time, i promise, i'll make myself clearer when i start a thread!

tom

--
Georgia New York Los Angeles Vegas Washington Utah

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Ian Tindale wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

Yes. Articulated vehicles don't just bend left to right, they bend up
and down as well. Assuming that the lower floor was of a fixed length,
the upper floor would have to be able to change length, i.e. there
would need to be something like a concertina section in the *floor* of
the upper deck. The best I can think of would be to have something
like the combs used at the end of an escalator, but because the combs
would be sliding back and forth unpredictably, I think it would be
less safe than an escalator.

I think there should just be a gap, with some netting across it; people
can jump across if they want. Would also improve ventilation.

Hang on, there is also twisting to think of. That scuppers the combs idea,
so the only way to have a double-decker bendibus would be to have two
separate upper decks with two staircases.

Then again, if the bendibus had only four wheels - one at the front, two
in the articulation and one at the back - there would be no twisting
movements to worry about, so that resuscitates the combs idea.

YOU ARE AN ENGINEERING GENIUS.

I don't know what I'm talking about. I should shut up.

What about, instead of increasingly complex double decker bendy
polydimensional buses with towbars for the wheelchairs, prams,
cyclists and skateboarders to tag along behind the bus, etc, what
about simply having normal buses, but more than one of them. Say,
perhaps, three - all come at once. Wouldn't that be a functional
equivalent?

I think what's required are buses which are out of phase with each other
and so can simultaneously occupy the same position in space and time.
They could have Tardis-like properties too. Then you might have a
10-minute wait between buses but at least when three of them arrive at
once, they do so without obstructing traffic, and each one has enough
seats to fill a stadium.

Better yet, we could arrange for the buses to travel in _imaginary_ time,
so if we had a suitable complex timetable, the product would be that
delays would be negative!

No, wait, that would still suck. And a lot of people would probably get
turned inside-out in the process.

Either way, it's another manifesto commitment!

Actually that's probably not a good idea; you might have problems with
dwell times at stops as 150,000 people try to alight from three buses at
the same stop.

Yes, flash crowds, rather dangerous; see 'The Stars My Destination', by
Alfred Bester, for further details.

tom

--
Georgia New York Los Angeles Vegas Washington Utah

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Alistair McIndoe wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...

On 9 Jul 2004, Dominic wrote:

Spyke wrote in message
...

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:49:53 +0100, Tom Anderson

wrote:

Why are bendy-buses not double-decker?

The Neoplan Jumbocruiser was an double deck articulated coach, which
was available in both 'tractor and trailer' and 'pusher' versions.

Good grief! This appears to have *three* decks:

http://www.rotel.de/rotel-tours/de/index.php

Although the bit that does is a trailer rather than a real back half, i
think.

I think it depends which photo you look at. Are they all different models?
The one at http://www.rotel.de/rotel-tours/gale...p?show=3&off=0
seems to be a one-piece (possibly non-bendy) triple decker. The one at
http://www.rotel.de/rotel-tours/gale...p?show=4&off=0 appears to be
a normal coach/bus with a triple-decker trailer.

Quite true. Sadly, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the decks in the
triple bit are only big enough for supine people (or midgets), and so
don't really count.

Is being able to walk between the halves what makes a bendy bus a bendy
bus, rather than a bus and a trailer?

Yes, i think so. Or at least substantial physical continuity between the
parts. But then you get into awkward cases like trains which have
logically separate carriages but which are built as a single physical rake
(or set, or whatever it's called).

And what's the difference between a bus and a coach?

To me, it's the seating layout, or rather the intention behind it. Coach
is to bus as A-stock (or mainline train) is to C-stock (or most other
underground trains) - designed for low-density long-haul trips, rather
than the kind of trips you actually make in cities.

tom

--
Georgia New York Los Angeles Vegas Washington Utah