Anyone know why I have seen this route worked by single deck vehicles
recently? This route has been double deck for as long as I remember
and certainly was 'cosy' on the occasions I have seen it recently.

CIG_BIG_CIG wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 4 Nov 2004:

Anyone know why I have seen this route worked by single deck vehicles
recently? This route has been double deck for as long as I remember
and certainly was 'cosy' on the occasions I have seen it recently.

I think you do get the odd strange working - I saw a route 37 being
worked by a single-decker bus the other day.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

Anthony due to the TFL ruling on TFL low floor routes that have a policy to
run low floor buses. This indeed has been noticed on neighbouring 57 which
has seen TA's subbed in for DPS' instead of the VA's. 213 has a regular LDP
working from Sutton since NV's were not to be used on double deck routes
from Sutton. Though 213 has been picked for the odd single decker vice EVL
running. Personally I would have thought the 154 should have the honours.
Would surprise me if they ran an LDP on the 93.


"CIG_BIG_CIG" wrote in message
om...
Anyone know why I have seen this route worked by single deck vehicles
recently? This route has been double deck for as long as I remember
and certainly was 'cosy' on the occasions I have seen it recently.

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:36:27 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

CIG_BIG_CIG wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 4 Nov 2004:

Anyone know why I have seen this route worked by single deck vehicles
recently? This route has been double deck for as long as I remember
and certainly was 'cosy' on the occasions I have seen it recently.

I think you do get the odd strange working - I saw a route 37 being
worked by a single-decker bus the other day.

the reason is pretty simple. In July TfL issued an edict that said that
non low floor buses could not run on any route that is contractually
specified for low floor buses. In addition if low floor buses are placed
into service with defective ramps then this will count as lost mileage
against their contract payments (i.e. a deduction).

Therefore the old practice of sticking an older double deck to cover for
a defective low floor one has stopped. Therefore companies stick on a
low floor single deck instead of incurring the penalty for a cancelled
journey.

There has been much debate about the rights and wrongs of this policy
with regard to majority vs minority benefits and isn't a single deck
just going to be packed like a sardine tin while an older double deck
wouldn't be.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:36:27 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:


CIG_BIG_CIG wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 4 Nov 2004:


Anyone know why I have seen this route worked by single deck vehicles
recently? This route has been double deck for as long as I remember
and certainly was 'cosy' on the occasions I have seen it recently.

I think you do get the odd strange working - I saw a route 37 being
worked by a single-decker bus the other day.


the reason is pretty simple. In July TfL issued an edict that said that
non low floor buses could not run on any route that is contractually
specified for low floor buses. In addition if low floor buses are placed
into service with defective ramps then this will count as lost mileage
against their contract payments (i.e. a deduction).

Therefore the old practice of sticking an older double deck to cover for
a defective low floor one has stopped. Therefore companies stick on a
low floor single deck instead of incurring the penalty for a cancelled
journey.

There has been much debate about the rights and wrongs of this policy
with regard to majority vs minority benefits and isn't a single deck
just going to be packed like a sardine tin while an older double deck
wouldn't be.

One might think that a performance penalty should be incurred for
waiting passengers left behind at bus stops, regardless of disability or
otherwise. Difficult to measure though.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:13:09 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:36:27 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:


CIG_BIG_CIG wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 4 Nov 2004:


Anyone know why I have seen this route worked by single deck vehicles
recently? This route has been double deck for as long as I remember
and certainly was 'cosy' on the occasions I have seen it recently.

There has been much debate about the rights and wrongs of this policy
with regard to majority vs minority benefits and isn't a single deck
just going to be packed like a sardine tin while an older double deck
wouldn't be.

One might think that a performance penalty should be incurred for
waiting passengers left behind at bus stops, regardless of disability or
otherwise. Difficult to measure though.

That is obviously part of the debate - small buses leaving people
behind, what's the chance of a mobility impaired person actually needing
a low floor bus if a high floor one turned up, a small low floor bus
being so crowded that a mobility impaired person couldn't board even if
they wanted to. As with so many things like this the operator will do
anything to avoid the penalty and the TfL requirement is loose enough to
allow them to escape such if a small bus runs in service.

On the general issue of leaving people behind that can result from all
sorts of issues - late running, traffic congestion, other parallel
routes running late causing overcrowding on a route that may actually be
running perfectly well etc. It's also not helped by TfL's policy of bus
service expansion having been stopped in favour of money being spent of
the Tube. While I can't deny the Tube needs money spent on it I would
love to have seen what sort of bus network we would have got on the most
expansionist of Tf:'s policy options. I suspect we will never know as I
can't see an enlightened bus policy being pursued in the rest of this
Mayoral term or any subsequent one.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 5 Nov 2004:

It's also not helped by TfL's policy of bus
service expansion having been stopped in favour of money being spent of
the Tube. While I can't deny the Tube needs money spent on it I would
love to have seen what sort of bus network we would have got on the most
expansionist of Tf:'s policy options. I suspect we will never know as I
can't see an enlightened bus policy being pursued in the rest of this
Mayoral term or any subsequent one.

All the same, Paul, buses are infinitely better than they were even five
years ago. More frequent, less crowded and one can even usually get on
a Southbound bus in Brixton at 18.00 without having to let six or seven
go past already full! Sometimes there are so many buses on the road,
each with about two passengers on board, that you wonder whether they
haven't over-expanded!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 31 October 2004

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 5 Nov 2004:


It's also not helped by TfL's policy of bus
service expansion having been stopped in favour of money being spent of
the Tube. While I can't deny the Tube needs money spent on it I would
love to have seen what sort of bus network we would have got on the most
expansionist of Tf:'s policy options. I suspect we will never know as I
can't see an enlightened bus policy being pursued in the rest of this
Mayoral term or any subsequent one.


All the same, Paul, buses are infinitely better than they were even five
years ago. More frequent, less crowded and one can even usually get on
a Southbound bus in Brixton at 18.00 without having to let six or seven
go past already full! Sometimes there are so many buses on the road,
each with about two passengers on board, that you wonder whether they
haven't over-expanded!

I'm pleased with the bus expansion (noticeable in the last 2-3 years
that I've been here). More routes and more buses, day and night.
Unfortunately the budget deficit is getting a bit hefty for it, so I
think perhaps it's time to regroup (and get people using the extra
capacity that's currently unused, e.g. off-peak suburban routes).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:59:15 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 5 Nov 2004:

It's also not helped by TfL's policy of bus
service expansion having been stopped in favour of money being spent of
the Tube. While I can't deny the Tube needs money spent on it I would
love to have seen what sort of bus network we would have got on the most
expansionist of Tf:'s policy options. I suspect we will never know as I
can't see an enlightened bus policy being pursued in the rest of this
Mayoral term or any subsequent one.

All the same, Paul, buses are infinitely better than they were even five
years ago. More frequent, less crowded and one can even usually get on
a Southbound bus in Brixton at 18.00 without having to let six or seven
go past already full! Sometimes there are so many buses on the road,
each with about two passengers on board, that you wonder whether they
haven't over-expanded!

I don't disagree with the fact that a number of routes are better - we
even have the odd one or two in Waltham Forest that have been improved.
However I am disappointed that the money has been turned off because I'd
love to have seen just how much better things could have been. Our local
network has just been retendered for a March 05 start and there are
hardly any improvements at all in terms of frequencies although some
effort seems to be being made to increase running times to boost
reliability. That's fine but if our buses are full to bursting now then
being consigned to them getting worse and worse is not really a policy
from where I sit.

It would have been good to see some of the old LRT inspired cost control
being exercised under the TfL regime - the booming budget would then
have gone a lot further than it has.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!