In article .com,
() wrote:

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?

In my youth Routemasters *did* replace the trolleybuses I used for
school. However, they still allowed me to get on and off when I wanted
and not have to be be nannied by drivers.

I wasn't that bothered by the passing of the RT family but the loss of
open platforms is another matter entirely.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:11:17 GMT, "d" wrote:

- 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

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.

"Progress" is exactly what this isn't. See the perfectly legitimate
points listed above.

Few would be complaining if the buses were replaced with a new design
of modern Routemaster, "clean"-engined and accessible while retaining
the open platform and conductor.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:56:33 +0000, asdf wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:11:17 GMT, "d" wrote:

- 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

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.

"Progress" is exactly what this isn't. See the perfectly legitimate
points listed above.

Few would be complaining if the buses were replaced with a new design
of modern Routemaster, "clean"-engined and accessible while retaining
the open platform and conductor.

Then I am one ofthe few because there is no such thing as a clean diesel, only
a less dirty one. Progress would have been served if the route had been
electrified with zero polluting, quiet, trolleybuses. O yes it wasn't
something to cheer about when the Routemaster was initially introduced as they
were the instrument that inhibited brand new trolleybuses at the time.

David Bradley

In message , David Bradley
writes
Then I am one ofthe few because there is no such thing as a clean
diesel, only a less dirty one. Progress would have been served if the
route had been electrified with zero polluting,
Such a thing doesn't yet exist.
--
Clive

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:31:23 +0000, Clive wrote:

In message , David Bradley
writes
Then I am one ofthe few because there is no such thing as a clean
diesel, only a less dirty one. Progress would have been served if the
route had been electrified with zero polluting,
Such a thing doesn't yet exist.

Please explain further. In my book a trolleybus IS zero polluting.

David Bradley

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

Progress would have been served if
the route had been electrified with zero polluting,

Such a thing doesn't yet exist.

Please explain further. In my book a trolleybus IS zero polluting.

Your book is - at best - skimpy.

Where does the electricity come from?

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

More to do with it than "noise" - and the drive-by noise is more to do with
the fact there isn't acres of (heavy) sound deadening.

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).

You forget that all RMs were re-engined within the last decade or so, hence
the Euro2 compliance.

As far as the weight goes, it costs fuel to drag that much lard about.

Most emissions are expressed in parts per million, Burning far more fuel
means that far more millions of parts are emitted, which means that far
more pollutants are emitted.

"Wasted time and fuel in traffic"? Bendy busses can overtake traffic RMs
would struggle to.

Indeed. But the excessive length makes for big problems elsewhen.

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.

Not when a bus can't get through the junction no matter how quickly it
accelerates, because it would end up blocking it solid. And when there's
that many passengers standing, is fast acceleration a good thing? One
thing's for certain, accelerating 18ton of bus plus another 10ton of people
quickly uses a LOT of fuel.

In message , David Bradley
writes
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:31:23 +0000, Clive wrote:

In message , David Bradley
writes
Then I am one ofthe few because there is no such thing as a clean
diesel, only a less dirty one. Progress would have been served if the
route had been electrified with zero polluting,
Such a thing doesn't yet exist.

Please explain further. In my book a trolleybus IS zero polluting.

David Bradley

Not only do trolley buses pollute, (carbon from motor brushes asbestos
from brake pads etc.) but there is also the pollution from the source of
the traction current supplied.
--
Clive

On 06 Nov 2005 20:34:10 GMT, Adrian wrote:

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

Progress would have been served if
the route had been electrified with zero polluting,

Such a thing doesn't yet exist.

Please explain further. In my book a trolleybus IS zero polluting.

Your book is - at best - skimpy.

Where does the electricity come from?

As a former CEGB / NGC employer I can answer that question in exceptional
detail. In can see where you are coming from by suggesting that the
production of electricity is sometimes less than enviromental friendly but
equally can be derived from renewable sources such as wind power or hydro
sources. The power might even have been provided from another country but
however it was produced, and where ever it originated from, the product does
not come with any kind of labelling for your average user to be able to
determine its source.

The right combination of circumstances can therefore have a trolleybus
operating on a fuel that can be considered to be entirely zero polluting and
to suggest that can't happen is bunkum. In any event I would certainly prefer
a trolleybus service running past my front, especially at night, rather than
the cleanest of diesel buses.

David Bradley

Clive wrote:
In message , David
Bradley writes
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:31:23 +0000, Clive
wrote:

In message , David
Bradley writes
Then I am one ofthe few because there is no such thing as a clean
diesel, only a less dirty one. Progress would have been served
if the route had been electrified with zero polluting,
Such a thing doesn't yet exist.

Please explain further. In my book a trolleybus IS zero polluting.

David Bradley

Not only do trolley buses pollute, (carbon from motor brushes
asbestos from brake pads etc.) but there is also the pollution
from the source of the traction current supplied.

Asbestos is no longer used in brake pads. From the DfT website:
"Regulations introduced under the Consumer Protection Act, the Road
Vehicles (Brake Linings Safety) Regulations 1999, prohibited the
manufacture, supply or fitting of asbestos-based brake linings."

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