Bonzo wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 14 May 2005:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:12:39 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote:


when I first saw the signs in Paris buses). And advertising/display
screens are only just coming into a few London buses now - they've been
in Paris ones for several years!

You seem to be assuming that's a good thing. They had them years ago
in Sheffield, but nobody learned the lesson, it seems.

Depends what they display - and even ads can be interesting the first
few times. Plus, if they generate enough revenue, they could help keep
fares a little lower.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

nMrs Redboots typed:
Bonzo wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 14 May 2005:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:12:39 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote:


when I first saw the signs in Paris buses). And advertising/display
screens are only just coming into a few London buses now - they've
been in Paris ones for several years!

You seem to be assuming that's a good thing. They had them years ago
in Sheffield, but nobody learned the lesson, it seems.

Depends what they display - and even ads can be interesting the first
few times. Plus, if they generate enough revenue, they could help
keep fares a little lower.

Personally, I get bombarded with enough advertising already. The real
need is for a decent display of next/this stop, with occasional updates
of destination and journey times to there and key intermediate points.
I've experienced all of this in Paris for the last month, and very
helpful it is, but I haven't noticed any advertising screens.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

I disagree - I find LEDs (as distinct from flipdot displays) far
easier to read from a distance than blinds due to the very high
contrast. Because they are operationally easier, as well, it is more

likely that they will be set correctly, which given that nobody is
pefect is a significant benefit.

What about the backlit (LCD?) type displays that are in use in other
parts of Europe? These give really superior contrast to either the
front-lit flipdot type or LEDs (which, IMO, always look too dark.)
Albeit with a slight drop of contrast when viewed at extreme angles.

And, as for roller-blind displays, they are completely unreadable
when they get dirty. Changing them all to a funny yellow colour in
the mid-90s didn't help. (Wasn't that about the time that the rest of
the continent started digitizing its displays?)

I agree. An LED display would have to be *very* high resolution to
even approach the legibility of a blind.

But we're talking about the bendy-buses here, not the Routemasters
they have (sadly) replaced. These usually only have one line of text
on the display, the destination, am I right? The types of digital
displays in use on buses all over Europe (and occasionally even in
the UK!) are more than adequate for this.

Anyway, Routemasters are meant to be modern buses, right? Printed
destination blinds look comically out of place.

Next stop announcements, if done sensibly (just the name, not the
rest of the doors opening/closing nonsense...

They do this in Berlin. But hang on, aren't we talking about a
_bus_ here? There are only doors on one side, so what's the
use of telling passengers which side to get out? ;-) Otherwise,
the direction could be indicated by an arrow on the internal
display that even foreigners could understand (oh hang on... they
haven't got those yet -- ooh, modern technology!)

...which if required should IMO be
distinct tones common across all transport modes) would be
excellent, I agree.

My experiences of the transport system in Vienna is that announcements
on all lines are recorded by the same announcer, who sounds as if
he's got something stuck up his ar*e. At least the Badner Bahn,
which also runs to Vienna, has a rather friendlier female voice.
Not to mention that the displays on the new-generation trams and
buses are brilliant too.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:06:52 +0100, Colin McKenzie
said:

Per seat, RMs win by even more. Per passenger, crush-loaded, the
bendis probably only use slightly more fuel than RMs.

I've not counted them, but I'm fairly sure that *any* of the double
deckers, including RMs, have more seats. Which would show that TfL's
claim that Bendies are more comfortable is a lie. Certainly I've
always got a seat on proper busses, and never on Bendies.

They also maintained that bendy buses were safer than Routemasters.
For occupants, maybe - fewer falls from platforms. The jury's still
out on their effects on cyclists and motorcyclists.

Idiots falling from the back of RMs is just Mr. Darwin at work. I
never fall off because I am capable of holding on to the pole.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

wrote:
And, as for roller-blind displays, they are completely unreadable
when they get dirty.

Really? I have never experienced an unreadable roller blind in London.
(alhough Occasionaly been on a 430 which has 74 on the rear blind)


Anyway, Routemasters are meant to be modern buses, right? Printed
destination blinds look comically out of place.

No, routemasters are very old buses which are currently being retired


Next stop announcements, if done sensibly (just the name, not the
rest of the doors opening/closing nonsense...

They do this in Berlin. But hang on, aren't we talking about a
_bus_ here? There are only doors on one side, so what's the
use of telling passengers which side to get out? ;-)


No one suggested telling people which doors to get out of. Some new
buses in London play very irritating announcements such as "Bus
stopping at next bus stop, please stand well clear of doors"; "stand
clear, doors opening", "doors closing" and something about and edge
being triggered.

Anyway, Routemasters are meant to be modern buses, right? Printed
destination blinds look comically out of place.

No, routemasters are very old buses which are currently being retired

Whoops, I meant the new bendy-buses, not the Routemasters! Typo.

David Cantrell wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 15 May 2005:

I've not counted them, but I'm fairly sure that *any* of the double
deckers, including RMs, have more seats. Which would show that TfL's
claim that Bendies are more comfortable is a lie. Certainly I've
always got a seat on proper busses, and never on Bendies.

The one thing I like about Bendies is that you can (on the ones I've
been on, anyway) sit behind the driver and still see out of the front
window, something you simply can't do inside a double-decker of any
description. Okay, you can see out the left front window of a
Routemaster, but not really on a modern one, as the seats are too low.

They also maintained that bendy buses were safer than Routemasters.
For occupants, maybe - fewer falls from platforms. The jury's still
out on their effects on cyclists and motorcyclists.

Idiots falling from the back of RMs is just Mr. Darwin at work. I
never fall off because I am capable of holding on to the pole.

Quite.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

Mrs Redboots wrote:
David Cantrell wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 15 May 2005:

I've not counted them, but I'm fairly sure that *any* of the double
deckers, including RMs, have more seats. Which would show that
TfL's
claim that Bendies are more comfortable is a lie. Certainly I've
always got a seat on proper busses, and never on Bendies.

The one thing I like about Bendies is that you can (on the ones I've
been on, anyway) sit behind the driver and still see out of the front
window, something you simply can't do inside a double-decker of any
description. Okay, you can see out the left front window of a
Routemaster, but not really on a modern one, as the seats are too
low.


Some of the new deckers have a CCTV camera peering out the front window
with a display on the inside. Also, on all deckers you can see out the
front windows upstairs but of course some people are unable to get
upstairs

Chris! wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 15 May 2005:


Some of the new deckers have a CCTV camera peering out the front window
with a display on the inside. Also, on all deckers you can see out the
front windows upstairs but of course some people are unable to get
upstairs


Indeed, and although I'm still quite capable of climbing the stairs, I
don't always want to!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005

On 13 May 2005 10:34:43 -0700, wrote:

Like when displays are invisible in bright sunlight,

Not IMX, or not the newer types. By comparison, though, roller blinds
are vastly more difficult to read at night as they're far too dim
compared with the headlights.

or the diodes burn
out (as on the Central Line trains)

Maintenance issue. They last ages, and good designs of display will
allow a small number to be replaced at once on a swap-out basis.
Similarly, as one will see on many cheap and nasty local bus
companies, rollers get bad very quickly when not maintained.

and in all cases the letters and
numerals are depicted in a clumsy, angular script?

Er, no. Not in every case. As with all technologies, there are good
and bad designs.

(And never mind the
fact that they often don't show up on photographs either.)

That isn't relevant in the slightest to the travelling passenger.

We're missing some of the major advantages of LEDs, as well. The
flexibility allows for such things as scrolling calling points (like
the Oxford Tube coaches), and dynamically updated via points. The
latter is very useful on "cross city" services, and would be good
applied to places like Milton Keynes which have many such services.

I've also seen Belgian buses at termini with a very clever variation
on the theme - all blinds show a countdown to departure in minutes.
Very useful.

They are also a totally solid-state technology, so maintenance is
easy, and it's far less effort for the driver to ensure all are set
correctly.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.