"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
Reports in the Evening Standard and The Times say that the two
"heritage" routes on which Routemasters will run will be based on the
central sections of routes 9 and 15, as follows:

Piccadilly Circus - Trafalgar Square - Strand - Fleet Street -Ludgate
Hill - Cannon Street - Eastcheap - Tower Hill.

Royal Albert Hall - Knightsbridge - Piccadilly - Trafalgar Square -
Strand - Aldwych.

The buses are expected to run every 15 minutes between about 09:30 and
18:30, 7 days a week. TfL say that Travelcards will be valid on the two
routes, and that standard fares will be charged. Companies were being
invited to tender for the routes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...672228,00.html

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)


Sounds like it's going to end up like the San Francisco trams.
Where the two tram routes left (from the city centre area) are mainly for
tourists who want to ride the SF icon.
A half an hour or more wait for a tram is almost guaranteed but worth it for
a tourist.
and forget starting your journey at any other place appart from the
terminating stops.

Shame really!

ANDY

londoncityslicker wrote:

Sounds like it's going to end up like the San Francisco trams.
Where the two tram routes left (from the city centre area) are mainly for
tourists who want to ride the SF icon.

I imagine you mean the cable cars (there are still plenty of trams).

And there are three cable car routes.
--
Michael Hoffman

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
londoncityslicker wrote:

Sounds like it's going to end up like the San Francisco trams.
Where the two tram routes left (from the city centre area) are mainly for
tourists who want to ride the SF icon.

I imagine you mean the cable cars (there are still plenty of trams).

And there are three cable car routes.
--
Michael Hoffman

No, he means the trams.

http://www.streetcar.org/ should explain.
The main "Light Rail" routes were put in a subway beneath Market St when the
BART (Metro) was built. But the surface tracks were retained andnow a
fleet of PCC cars and ex Milan Peter Witts ply the F/Market route up Market
and along the Embarcadero to Fishermans Wharf. There a plans for an E
route as well. The subway routes are J,K,L,M,N and you can see how they
(and the F) cars run at http://www.nextbus.com/predictor/stopSelector.jsp
and http://www.sfmunicentral.com/

Graham Harrison wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...

londoncityslicker wrote:

Sounds like it's going to end up like the San Francisco trams.
Where the two tram routes left (from the city centre area) are mainly for
tourists who want to ride the SF icon.

I imagine you mean the cable cars (there are still plenty of trams).

And there are three cable car routes.

No, he means the trams.

I think you'll find that the OP has already admitted he actually meant
the cable cars, not the trams.

http://www.streetcar.org/ should explain.
The main "Light Rail" routes were put in a subway beneath Market St when the
BART (Metro) was built. But the surface tracks were retained andnow a
fleet of PCC cars and ex Milan Peter Witts ply the F/Market route up Market
and along the Embarcadero to Fishermans Wharf. There a plans for an E
route as well. The subway routes are J,K,L,M,N and you can see how they
(and the F) cars run at http://www.nextbus.com/predictor/stopSelector.jsp
and http://www.sfmunicentral.com/

I am well aware of the Muni Metro lines. They do not fit his description
of "trams" in San Francisco--two lines used primarily by tourists.
--
Michael Hoffman

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
londoncityslicker wrote:

Sounds like it's going to end up like the San Francisco trams.
Where the two tram routes left (from the city centre area) are mainly
for
tourists who want to ride the SF icon.

I imagine you mean the cable cars (there are still plenty of trams).

And there are three cable car routes.
--
Michael Hoffman

Sorry, yes I meant the cable car. (there are trams elsewhere in SF)

And yes you are right there are 3 routes in downtown SF.
but the two main routes are the ones predominatly used by tourists and the
follow the same route for the majority of the journey.
In a similar fashion to what they plan to do with the Routemaster. Hence my
comparison.

A.

"londoncityslicker" wrote in
message ...

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
londoncityslicker wrote:

Sounds like it's going to end up like the San Francisco trams.
Where the two tram routes left (from the city centre area) are mainly
for
tourists who want to ride the SF icon.

I imagine you mean the cable cars (there are still plenty of trams).

And there are three cable car routes.
--
Michael Hoffman

Sorry, yes I meant the cable car. (there are trams elsewhere in SF)

And yes you are right there are 3 routes in downtown SF.
but the two main routes are the ones predominatly used by tourists and the
follow the same route for the majority of the journey.
In a similar fashion to what they plan to do with the Routemaster. Hence
my
comparison.

A.

Predominantly they were tourists, but i recall when travelling on it there
were a number of San Franciscans riding the cable car!

In message ,
londoncityslicker writes
A half an hour or more wait for a tram is almost guaranteed but worth
it for a tourist. and forget starting your journey at any other place
appart from the terminating stops.
Wife and self stayed a part of a route half way between the north-south
and east-west ones, we never encountered any problems apart from it's
limited range, but the tram and BART more than made up for that. S.F.
should be congratulated for it's integrated transport, and without cable
haulage nothing else would go up some of those hills.
--
Clive

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:27:03 +0100, "londoncityslicker"
wrote:


Sounds like it's going to end up like the San Francisco trams.
That's pretty much the intention.


RMs are pretty much museum pieces for modern operation. This is just
clarifying the position....

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

Robert Woolley ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

RMs are pretty much museum pieces for modern operation.

LYNCH THE HERETIC!

Seriously... Are they?

They've all been recently mechanically rebuilt to modern standards.

The extremely low weight means that they are the most economical of all the
buses in services, AIUI.

That economy means that they'll be the least polluting of all in service,
even before you take the environmental cost of production into account.

Now let's look at how appropriate they are or aren't - physically, they fit
FAR better than the bloatibuses - they get round junctions and corners,
they don't hang into the traffic at stops.

The hop-on-and-off-ability means they spend less time at stops.

OK, so they're not perfect. Some people are stupid enough to fall off them,
and that's not good in this era of litigation taking the place of personal
responsibility.

Some disabled users find them difficult/impossible to use - but others
prefer them.

Some complain they're cramped - but others prefer the higher density of
seats.

The conductor means they're expensive to run - but how much has been spent
on the ticket machines at stops? What about the safety benefit of having a
real live staff member in the back of the bus?

If the RM is a "museum piece", then why can't we have a "new RM"?

On 28 Jun 2005 22:27:42 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Robert Woolley ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

RMs are pretty much museum pieces for modern operation.

LYNCH THE HERETIC!

Seriously... Are they?

They've all been recently mechanically rebuilt to modern standards.
Although they can't go for ever.

The extremely low weight means that they are the most economical of all the
buses in services, AIUI.

That economy means that they'll be the least polluting of all in service,
even before you take the environmental cost of production into account.

Now let's look at how appropriate they are or aren't - physically, they fit
FAR better than the bloatibuses - they get round junctions and corners,
they don't hang into the traffic at stops.

The hop-on-and-off-ability means they spend less time at stops.

One boarding point compared with 3 on an artic.
OK, so they're not perfect. Some people are stupid enough to fall off them,
and that's not good in this era of litigation taking the place of personal
responsibility.

Yep and some regularly end up dieing. Open boarding is inherently
unsafe.
Some disabled users find them difficult/impossible to use - but others
prefer them.

Many disabled people can't physically get on an RM. Neither can mums
with pushchairs...

Some complain they're cramped - but others prefer the higher density of
seats.

The conductor means they're expensive to run - but how much has been spent
on the ticket machines at stops? What about the safety benefit of having a
real live staff member in the back of the bus?

Conductors tend to get thumped/stabbed. And if a conductor is off sick
you can't take a bus out. With only 10% of passengers paying cash in
central London they have little to do.
If the RM is a "museum piece", then why can't we have a "new RM"?

a) Short production cycle.
b) A bus designed for open boarding is inherently unsafe./
Manufacturers would get sued into next week.
c) The world has moved on from crew operated buses....

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk