James Penton wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 5 Sep 2004:


AFAICS, the presence of conductors on RMs seems to be the only universal
(i.e. non-subjective) reason as to why they should be kept. I'm not
convinced. Nevertheless, I am worrying about the 73...

What about loading times? I know that in Central London you have to
possess a ticket before boarding the bus, but the area in which that
happens is very small - it takes far less time for passengers to get on
and off the (very wide) rear platforms than it does for them to enter
one at a time. Granted, most people have some sort of Travelcard, but
there are always one or two who don't, and need to buy a ticket. Or
else the driver has noticed that someone's Travelcard has expired, and
has to call them back to check it, and maybe there's a furious argument
with the bus going nowhere until it's been fixed. When there was a
conductor to deal with all that sort of thing, dwell times at bus stops
were (are) far quicker. The only reason I don't always catch a 159 from
Brixton to Streatham, given a choice, is that the 159 frequently pauses
for crew change at Brixton Garage, which does slow it down.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 10:34:41 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:

Compare that to the sleek, stylish lines of
modern buses, designed by proper designers, not a committee of bean-counting
bureaucrats.


Whatever the merits of keeping them now, the implication that the
Routemasters didn't have any input from 'proper designers' is patently
untrue. London Transport had a policy of sponsoring good design from
the 1930s onwards and this certainly had an impact on the Routemaster.
I've mentioned Douglas Scott who was responsible for the look of the
bus, inside and out, elsewhere in the thread. He was a very
reputable, and rather unassuming, designer, who trained under the
presigious American designer Raymond Loewy in the 1930s. There is an
interesting book about Scott's work by Jonathan Glancey - reference at
the end of this post.

Also the implication that the Routemaster was designed down to a
price by 'bean-counters' is ludicrous. On the whole the Routemaster
was over-engineered and very few were sold outside London because they
were so much more expensive than other buses of the period. The
designers did have an eye on (to use the current term) total cost of
ownership, but they could never have predicted that a significant
number would see 35-40 years of service on busy routes in London, so
must have repaid their development costs many times over.

Leaving the platforms open was hardly a cheeseparing measure.
Routemasters were made with doors for the former Green Line services,
and the open platform was a common characteristic of double decker
buses until the 1960s, and not just in London.

In fact I would be interested in learning about the designers involved
in some of the newer buses: personally I wouldn't call any of them
sleek and stylish and the quality of design is variable, but it
certainly isn't all bad.

Martin

Reference:

Glancey, Jonathan (1988): Douglas Scott. London, the Design Council.
ISBN 0-85072-215-2

Terry Harper ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

As has already been stated - all the RMs were re-engined to fit
modern emission regs a few years ago.

I understand that there is at least one still operating with an AEC
engine.

OK, virtually all.

Mait001 wrote:

how can you call a double-decker a midget bus?

Because you need to be under a certain height to use them.

I can't use them comfortably


Well, millions of us use them without problem - are we all midgets?

Marc.

2. Fuel efficiency (ever tried standing near the rear of a more modern
bus: the
engine emissions change the climate for several feet in area).

Hmmm, ITYF that the vast majority of Routemasters have been re-engined
in the last decade, so surely the emissions will be similar? The
Sovereign ones on the 13 are very similar to Dennis Darts mechanically.

The point I am making is that the engines are simple, without all the
air-conditioning gubbins and hydraulics that more modern buses have.

3. Ease of maintenance.

Agreed, but surely a worry for the operators not the passenger.

No, if a bus is off the road because it takes 2 days to repair instead of one,
that's a problem for the passenger too.


4. Conductors.

True. But low-floors partially counter this by pushchairs not needing to
be folded and the elderly not needing to be helped up high steps. And
fare-dodging is only a real problem on the artics.

What about the security implications of having no conductor?

5. Upper deck on which to get away from the melee downstairs

Surely *all* double-deckers have this?! :-) The 73 is the only RM route
so far (in this period) to be converted away from double-deckers.

Yes, well the fact that such a busy route is being Bendi-bused says a lot about
how T.F.L.'s priorities work! No doubt lots of others will folow - Bendi is
clearly the Promised Land.



6. Excellent suspension.

Personally, I don't notice much difference, but probably a matter of
personal preference.


Have you travelled on the trailer bit of a Bendy bus? It's a cross between a
carousel ride and being at sea.

7. Superbly ergonomically designed and aesthetic from all angles.

Matter of opinion - see below.

Of course, what else could it be?

9. Aluminium construction ensuring less weight, i.e. less wear & tear
on roads.

Is this really much of a problem? I have no idea?

Of course it is: have you seen the damage done by rear axles of H.G.V.s when
turning: why do you think there are so many potholes at road junctions?

Weigth reduction was such an important issue for L.T. that originally the
Routemaster was fitted with a very vestigial blinds-display equipment and it
also experimented with an unpainted RM. The lighter a bus, also the less fuel
it uses.



10. The rear upper storey seats are the nearest thing I will ever
experience to
being in a (double-decker) limousine!

Again a matter of preference.

Of course, and said with tongue-in-cheek as a quirky personal preference/

I think the more recent Metroline
Presidents, e.g. on the 205, are some of the most comfortable buses in
London - excellent legroom.

Legroom is not the only quality that I look for in a bus!

Utter rubbish. Do you realy think at TPL or whatever they are now
called are
more aesthetically pleasing?

I reckon this is an age thing (no offence Marc, I of course don't know
how old you are!). Older people like the buses they saw when they were
younger, whereas today's younger people like more modern designs,
fitting with design trends in cars, mobile phones, etc.. From what I've
read, the Wright Eclipse Gemini seems to be considered one of the best
looking buses around.


I'm sure it' an age thing (I'm 39) but I also happen to think that the curved
lines of the Routemaster are generally more pleasing than the box-like square
structures that are replacing them (single- and double-deckers).

AFAICS, the presence of conductors on RMs seems to be the only universal
(i.e. non-subjective) reason as to why they should be kept. I'm not
convinced. Nevertheless, I am worrying about the 73...

James

Yes, the conversion of the 73 will be (I predict) an appalling disaster for
all concerned.

Marc.

"Adrian" wrote in message
.4...

From what I've read, the Wright Eclipse Gemini seems to be
considered
one of the best looking buses around.

By the salesmen? Never mind what you've *read* - what do you think?
I've
googled, found an image, and - ewww. One of those.


Sorry, should have made myself clearer - I think it's a great design
too, I'd say certainly one of the most striking bus bodies ever. And
it's not the salesmen that sing its praises. 'Buses' magazine seems
particularly taken by the Gemini, and I'm sure I remember reading
somewhere that people have been overheard commenting on the looks
(favourably).

I also think that the operators are latching onto this too - look at how
London General put Geminis onto the 11 to replace RMs, this being rather
a flagship route.

Does anyone know if the same sort of debate occurred when RMs came out,
e.g. comparing them to RTs?

James

James Penton wrote:

Sorry, should have made myself clearer - I think it's a great design
too, I'd say certainly one of the most striking bus bodies ever. And
it's not the salesmen that sing its praises. 'Buses' magazine seems
particularly taken by the Gemini, and I'm sure I remember reading
somewhere that people have been overheard commenting on the looks
(favourably).

It certainly looks very striking, but why does it have a handrail on the
near side upper deck?

--
John Ray, London UK.

John Ray wrote:
James Penton wrote:

Sorry, should have made myself clearer - I think it's a great
design too, I'd say certainly one of the most striking bus bodies
ever. And it's not the salesmen that sing its praises. 'Buses'
magazine seems particularly taken by the Gemini, and I'm sure I
remember reading somewhere that people have been overheard
commenting on the looks (favourably).

It certainly looks very striking, but why does it have a handrail
on the near side upper deck?

Protection from overhanging branches of roadside trees.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Am I alone in finding that RMs have much *better* legroom than newer
buses?

I'm still eagerly waiting to discover more about the proposed "heritage"
operations which have been mentioned in only the vaguest terms.

Whatever the pros and cons of RM operation (and I am an unashamed
supporter of the presence of good conductors on vehicles) I feel that a
heritage operation, akin to Melbourne's with W Class trams or San
Francisco's Cable cars or heritage PCC operation is a must.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

why does it have a handrail on the
near side upper deck?

--
John Ray, London UK.


A number of modern double-deckers have this: I too would like to know why!

Marc.