wrote:

The Business

1st August 2004

Business Platform by Ian Watson

Why must the last bell sound for proper buses?

Proper buses that are cramped and uncomfortable.

Never mind the infirm, those of us over 6 foot can't use them properly!

Give me a bendy bus any day

Stuart wrote:

Proper buses that are cramped and uncomfortable.
Never mind the infirm, those of us over 6 foot can't use them properly!
Give me a bendy bus any day

Just sit down.

AIUI, bendy buses have fewer seats than Routemasters.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:24:07 +0100, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

Just sit down.

I would if there was any legroom. The only place I can sit is either
right at the front or on the side-facing seats, and in the latter case
my knees block the aisle.

AIUI, bendy buses have fewer seats than Routemasters.

I'd rather stand in comfort than sit with my knees up my nose.

The Routemasters are fun, but regardless of the accessibility issue
they are not suited to the modern day. The bendies are better, as are
those newer deckers with lots of legroom on the upper deck.

Also, a good two-doored double-decker loads and unloads far quicker
than the single-entrance Routemaster.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Neil Williams wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:24:07 +0100, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

Just sit down.

I would if there was any legroom. The only place I can sit is either
right at the front or on the side-facing seats, and in the latter case
my knees block the aisle.

How wide are the people using the aisle? There was plenty of spare
aisleroom last time I checked!

BTW the back seat upstairs (next to the stairs) also has a decent amount
of legroom.

AIUI, bendy buses have fewer seats than Routemasters.

I'd rather stand in comfort than sit with my knees up my nose.

Yes, the Routemasters would be a lot better if they had more legroom.

The Routemasters are fun, but regardless of the accessibility issue
they are not suited to the modern day. The bendies are better, as are
those newer deckers with lots of legroom on the upper deck.

But how long will it be before those make up even the majority of
London's double deckers?

Generalizations are almost always wrong. There are some situations
where bendies are better, and other where Routemasters are better.

Also, a good two-doored double-decker loads and unloads far quicker
than the single-entrance Routemaster.

Only where the bus stops are the only places where people get on and
off.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 09:58:02, Stuart
wrote:

Proper buses that are cramped and uncomfortable.

Never mind the infirm, those of us over 6 foot can't use them properly!

Give me a bendy bus any day


I mourn the demise of the conductor - and that is one of the main
reasons for the demise of the Routemaster. Cost, I mean - cheaper to
pay one person than two. Granted RMs are awkward for pushchairs, and
impossible for wheelchair-users, but those who have other forms of
disability used to be able to rely on a helping hand from the conductor,
who would get them on and see them safely seated before allowing the bus
to move off. Sigh....

I do agree, though, they are rather low in the ceiling (at 5'8", I have
to bend, on the upper deck!). But no, not bendy buses - they make me
feel sick, and there is no upper deck to go on where one can see where
one is going....
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

In message , Annabel Smyth
writes

I mourn the demise of the conductor - and that is one of the main
reasons for the demise of the Routemaster. Cost, I mean - cheaper to
pay one person than two. Granted RMs are awkward for pushchairs, and
impossible for wheelchair-users, but those who have other forms of
disability used to be able to rely on a helping hand from the conductor,
who would get them on and see them safely seated before allowing the bus
to move off. Sigh....

I do agree, though, they are rather low in the ceiling (at 5'8", I have
to bend, on the upper deck!). But no, not bendy buses - they make me
feel sick, and there is no upper deck to go on where one can see where
one is going....

I rather like bendi-buses; they somehow remind me off camels in the way
they get up from the kerb before they leave..
--
Kat

In message , Annabel Smyth
writes
I mourn the demise of the conductor - and that is one of the main
reasons for the demise of the Routemaster. Cost, I mean - cheaper to
pay one person than two.
Sadly yes. But I believe it's a false economy. Having extra people
on hand helps with all sorts of things, mot least security, limiting
damage and making people feel safer (and therefore happier to use public
transport).

Granted RMs are awkward for pushchairs,
I beg to differ. For *folded* pushchairs they're better than most
modern buses, thanks to the little "cubby hole" beneath the stairs.

and
impossible for wheelchair-users,
Indeed, I agree.

but those who have other forms of
disability used to be able to rely on a helping hand from the conductor,
who would get them on and see them safely seated before allowing the bus
to move off. Sigh....
*Exactly* the situation my mother is in. She seldom visits London but
it much happier with older buses as there are more grab-points than on
wheelchair accessible ones (inevitably, since the wheelchairs naturally
need circulating space).

I do agree, though, they are rather low in the ceiling (at 5'8", I have
to bend, on the upper deck!).
But only to and from your seat. Not the greatest hardship in the
world.

But no, not bendy buses - they make me
feel sick,
Good for crush capacity short rides but I'm glad to see from elsewhere
in this thread that I'm not alone in seeing them as being wasteful of
road space.

and there is no upper deck to go on where one can see where
one is going....
Which is, of course, the end of civilization as we know it! :-)

I'm still eager to find what the "tourist network" of RMs mentioned by
Ken Livingstone a long time ago will turn out to be.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote:

writes
I mourn the demise of the conductor - and that is one of the main
reasons for the demise of the Routemaster. Cost, I mean - cheaper to
pay one person than two.
Sadly yes. But I believe it's a false economy. Having extra people
on hand helps with all sorts of things, mot least security, limiting
damage and making people feel safer (and therefore happier to use public
transport).

Does anyone know what the running cost difference between Routemasters
and their replacements is? Even if the Routemaster's no faster, its
extra cost of a conductor is offset by fuel savings (and with oil prices
going the way they are, I'm sure that must be significant). And some of
these new buses are so poorly ventilated - if you want to do better than
a Routemaster, you really need air conditioning, so unless you're happy
for then to be replaced by junk, you should include the costs of running
that in your calculation...

I've not seen the figures, but if you also take vehicle costs into
consideration, I'd be surprised if there weren't some situations where
Routemasters would be better value.

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Ian Jelf wrote:

writes
I mourn the demise of the conductor - and that is one of the main
reasons for the demise of the Routemaster. Cost, I mean -
cheaper to pay one person than two.
Sadly yes. But I believe it's a false economy. Having extra
people on hand helps with all sorts of things, mot least security,
limiting damage and making people feel safer (and therefore
happier to use public transport).

Does anyone know what the running cost difference between
Routemasters and their replacements is? Even if the Routemaster's
no faster, its extra cost of a conductor is offset by fuel savings
(and with oil prices going the way they are, I'm sure that must be
significant). And some of these new buses are so poorly ventilated
- if you want to do better than a Routemaster, you really need air
conditioning,

Well actually, all you need is some decent ventilation. Why on earth
don't people design buses with air vents at the front? Also, in hot
weather, why can't buses be driven with front doors open? Is there an
interlock that prevents this? I was on a single decker in Brentford on
a very hot day recently, and the driver kept the front door open all the
time; it was wonderful to feel a flow of air for once.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...

Well actually, all you need is some decent ventilation. Why on earth
don't people design buses with air vents at the front? Also, in hot
weather, why can't buses be driven with front doors open? Is there an
interlock that prevents this? I was on a single decker in Brentford on
a very hot day recently, and the driver kept the front door open all the
time; it was wonderful to feel a flow of air for once.

For a long time all of the Eastern Coachworks bodies had vents at the front
of both upper and lower decks. With a front entrance this is not possible
downstairs. Back in the 1950s, the East Kent had Dennis Lancets with
half-drop windows all along the side, except for the very front window. In
summer we used to open the first two on each side fully, and the rest about
one quarter open, but not the ones by the side facing seats over the wheel
arches. That seemed to provide adequate ventilation and comfort.

Some buses have doors which can't be opened unless the hand brake is on, and
close automatically when the brake is released. Others use the gear lever to
open the doors, and you cannot put the bus into gear unless the door is
closed as a result. On ours it's the kneeling that works with the hand
brake, but not the doors.
--
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/