On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:40 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Bill Hayles) wrote:


The RMC, RCL and those RMLs built for the Country Bus department
(and thus passed on to London Country) were only semi-automatic.

What happened to the ex-London Country buses that came back to LT? Did
they change the gearboxes?

I don't know, as it was after I stopped driving buses - I'd like to
know that too.

--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

David ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Ticket machines at every stop. Would be interesting to know how much
money some of them take in a day!

Are they getting vandalised/broken into?

On 31 Oct 2005 20:00:42 GMT, Adrian wrote:

David ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Ticket machines at every stop. Would be interesting to know how much
money some of them take in a day!

Are they getting vandalised/broken into?


I haven't seen any, but I've only seen those that are on main roads.


Dave

wrote in message
oups.com...
Air conditioning on bendy-buses? Have I missed something?!

The SEATING capacity on a bendy-bus is less than on a Routemaster and
it weighs almost twice as much. Not a particularly efficient use of
energy, methinks!

You fit many, many more people standing than sitting. Hence it actually is
a more efficient use of fuel.

What about the muscle-spasm or knocked heads that are inevitably
experienced when bendies go over bumps or around corners?

They aren't. Unless you're drunk

Marc.

d wrote:
You fit many, many more people standing than sitting. Hence it actually is
a more efficient use of fuel.

If it's full.

I don't believe even a crush-loaded bendibus carries as many as 144
people - so the weight per passenger is always more than that of a RM.
And in stop-start driving weight is the major factor in fuel consumption.

Colin McKenzie

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
d wrote:
You fit many, many more people standing than sitting. Hence it actually
is a more efficient use of fuel.

If it's full.

I don't believe even a crush-loaded bendibus carries as many as 144
people - so the weight per passenger is always more than that of a RM. And
in stop-start driving weight is the major factor in fuel consumption.

The "if it's full" argument equally applies to any bus, routemasters
included. As for 144 people? Close - they carry 140 people when full. Not
to mention they're more fuel-efficient (due to their modern engines), have
better acceleration, are much quieter, and have better heating when it's
cold. Plus, due to their many doors, people can get on/off quicker than the
usual melees that happen when trying to wrestle yourself on a crowded
routemaster. True, it's still not perfect, but far more acceptable. And
pushchairs can be used on them without having to be folded up. And
wheelchairs. And people on crutches can use them without being flung out
the back.

Colin McKenzie

d ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Not to mention (Bendis) more fuel-efficient (due to their modern
engines) (than RMs)

Don't forget that all recent service RMs were rebuilt mechanically only a
very few years ago, and meet at least Euro2 emission standards.

The Citaro G Bendis are Euro3, but they *CERTAINLY* won't be "more fuel
efficient", due to the fact they weigh ELEVEN TONS more than a Routemaster.
That's before you consider the wasted time and fuel in traffic due to the
unwieldy extra length where a Routemaster would get through.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
d ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Not to mention (Bendis) more fuel-efficient (due to their modern
engines) (than RMs)

Don't forget that all recent service RMs were rebuilt mechanically only a
very few years ago, and meet at least Euro2 emission standards.

Their engines aren't new designs, hence their massive noise. And emission
standards have little to do with fuel economy

The Citaro G Bendis are Euro3, but they *CERTAINLY* won't be "more fuel
efficient", due to the fact they weigh ELEVEN TONS more than a
Routemaster.
That's before you consider the wasted time and fuel in traffic due to the
unwieldy extra length where a Routemaster would get through.

That doesn't make much sense. You can't just look at the weight and make
all your conclusions from that. The engines on the new busses, and all the
bits connecting them to the wheels, are brand new designs (compared to the
RMs). "Wasted time and fuel in traffic"? Bendy busses can overtake traffic
RMs would struggle to. I've used lots of RMs and lots of bendy busses, and
the two aren't even comparable when it comes to speedy driving. Bendy
busses out-accelerate RMs, which counts for everything in London traffic.

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Harry Spencer wrote:
To me, they all seemed a bit naked without any adverts. Which got me
wondering how much lost revenue there now is from running bendy buses.
Forget running costs of the service itself, surely the lost revenue from
not
having any adverts on each side is quite some loss?

The extra costs of running bendis over Routemasters are considerable, but
many of them do not accrue to the operator. Most are due to the fact that
a bendibus weighs twice as much as a Routemaster, the rest to the facts
that it's wider and longer and has no conductor.
- extra vandalism of the bus
- extra traffic congestion
- extra fuel used
- extra damage to the road
- extra delay/danger to cyclists
- extra walking to and from bus stops

Any more?

Colin McKenzie

Christ it's like a meeting of old, crusty, whiney men in here. All cursing
the day progress was invented. It's just an old bus being replaced by a new
one. Funnily enough, the same process that brought the RM into public
service.

Look, "d", is it really so offensive to you that some of us are
mourning the loss of an icon from the streets of London?

Comparing a Routemaster with a bendy bus is comparing chalk with
cheese.

No doubt, in the eyes of some, there are virtues in bendies which many
others cannot see. Likewise with those of us who prefer Routemasters.
That is really no reason to castigate those of us of the latter
persuasion with the description of "old, crusty, whiney men". Do you
really have to lower the tone of the debate to that level?

Do you really think the process of replacing RTs and their predecessors
(even trams and trolleybuses) with Routemasters is in any way
comparable to the sea change that is now taking place: loss of double
deck and consequent increase in road occupation by cumbersome heavy
foreign-made machines, loss of conductors, loss of hop-on/off when
convenient etc.?

"It's just an old bus being replaced by a new one." Is that REALLY the
simplistic view you take?

Marc.