Bill Hayles wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:49:24 +0100, Colin McKenzie
I believe there was a time when a few route number suffix letters got
up to and beyond H.

Not since the Bassom era. Certainly, post-war, the highest was
406F, and that only ran on Derby Day. Plenty of D suffixes, a few
"E" and that single "F".

I was probably thinking of the Bassom era.

But there were enough suffixes in the early RM era for suffixes to be
more appropriate than prefixes for these routes.

Colin McKenzie

In article ,
(Colin McKenzie) wrote:

Bill Hayles wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:49:24 +0100, Colin McKenzie
I believe there was a time when a few route number suffix letters got
up to and beyond H.

Not since the Bassom era. Certainly, post-war, the highest was
406F, and that only ran on Derby Day. Plenty of D suffixes, a few
"E" and that single "F".

I was probably thinking of the Bassom era.

But there were enough suffixes in the early RM era for suffixes to be
more appropriate than prefixes for these routes.

My recollection from the early days of RMs was that suffix letters were
for old-fashioned routes running RTs and the like and not for modern RMs.
Very few trolleybus routes had suffixes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"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 article , Colin
McKenzie writes
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

"Ian F." typed
"umpston" wrote in message
egroups.com...

Does this mean the existing 9 and 15 routes will remain, with a higher
frequency but that every 2nd or 3rd bus will be a RM in the central
area? Or will the heritage services have new route numbers?

I'll hazard a guess at H9 and H15.
Ummm... H9 already exists; it's the H10 doing the loop 'backwards'.

I'd vote for 9A and 15A - or perhaps 9H and 15H to stop people being
disappointed when they encounter the 77A!

I believe there was a time when a few route number suffix letters got
up to and beyond H.

Colin McKenzie


There was the 2B or not 2B. Was there ever a 2A, but then 2A or not 2A
does not sound as good.
--
Nicholas David Richards -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:59:57 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

In many ways it is, since dwell times at stops are a great deal shorter,

Not necessarily with off-bus ticketing and front/rear doors.

and also, a conductor can help someone on to a bus (say, someone with
poor sight, or who can walk, but with difficulty) in a way that a driver
cannot.

A driver could, if he wasn't required to protect the takings[1] and
therefore could leave the cab. The safety argument is essentially the
same for a driver or a conductor (though admittedly they could assist
one another in a really serious case).

[1] These could be protected by taking ticketing completely off the
bus, or by using a farebox/automatic change machine setup whereby the
driver was not capable of influencing change given.

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.

On 30 Jun 2005 07:34:20 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Neil Williams ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

couldn't a modern, lightweight OPO bus be designed?

It would seem not.

Is there the demand for one? I'm sure it would be technically
possible if the fuel cost became so high that it would make no sense
not to.

A modern double decker is about 150% the weight of an RM.

It's also bigger, and has either a higher passenger capacity, a
wheelchair/buggy area or more legroom. These characteristics are
considered desirable. If a modern decker was the same size as a RM, I
very much doubt it'd be a lot heavier.

A bloatibus is about 250% the weight.

And has a higher (admittedly standing) passenger capacity.

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.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:21:31 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Bill Hayles
writes
Not since the Bassom era. Certainly, post-war, the highest was 406F,
and that only ran on Derby Day. Plenty of D suffixes, a few "E" and
that single "F".
I remember an H1 flat fare bus in Harrow in the early seventies.

That's a prefix, not a suffix!

--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

Nicholas D Richards wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 30 Jun 2005:


There was the 2B or not 2B. Was there ever a 2A, but then 2A or not 2A
does not sound as good.

Yes, there was a 2A - certainly at some time within the last 26 years, I
remember there was a 2, 2A and 2B. What I can't remember is where its
route diverged with that of the 2 and 2B, though.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 May 2005

Neil Williams wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 30 Jun 2005:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:59:57 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

In many ways it is, since dwell times at stops are a great deal shorter,

Not necessarily with off-bus ticketing and front/rear doors.

Hmmm - we don't have off-bus ticketing here (other than passes/Oysters),
and the 159 still seems to take less time at stops than the other buses
do. Even at a major interchange stop like Brixton Station.

and also, a conductor can help someone on to a bus (say, someone with
poor sight, or who can walk, but with difficulty) in a way that a driver
cannot.

A driver could, if he wasn't required to protect the takings[1] and
therefore could leave the cab.

Yes, but he is, so he can't. So those unfortunate people - and, indeed,
mothers with pushchairs (I do remember conductors used to help by taking
the pushchair from me as I got on to the bus, and handing it to me as I
got off) - have to manage by themselves. As, indeed, do wheelchair
users. Someone was trying to get his wheelchair into position the other
day and was having an awful time of it, especially as he had to ask
people to move their shopping first. He got there in the end, but it
took quite a long time!

The safety argument is essentially the
same for a driver or a conductor (though admittedly they could assist
one another in a really serious case).

Granted.

[1] These could be protected by taking ticketing completely off the
bus, or by using a farebox/automatic change machine setup whereby the
driver was not capable of influencing change given.

I don't like the idea of *never* being able to buy a ticket from the
driver. Even if I had to pay a premium to do so..... although in some
countries people seem to manage very happily without.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 May 2005

Neil Williams ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

A modern double decker is about 150% the weight of an RM.

It's also bigger, and has either a higher passenger capacity, a
wheelchair/buggy area or more legroom. These characteristics are
considered desirable. If a modern decker was the same size as a RM, I
very much doubt it'd be a lot heavier.

Is a modern double 50% larger, then?

A bloatibus is about 250% the weight.

And has a higher (admittedly standing) passenger capacity.

150% higher?