On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:29:11 -0000, "JMUpton2000" securitynovels @
freeuk.com wrote:

"Robert McCall" wrote in message
...

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
Saw the most RMs at Trafalgar Square for months this morning. Two of the
heritage buses on the 15 (surprising for a half-hourly frequency). Plus
a couple of 159s there and RM85 at Parliament Square in well-presented
Arriva livery.

Try the London Bus Page, specifically he
http://www.londonbuspage.com/051114.htm

Nice to see Stagecoach made a lovely effort with their allocation!

Nice photos. Florid tect though - wish he'd grow up. The bus service
is not designed for enthusiasts desires - its for moving people
safely, effciently, economically and accessibly.


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:53:15 +0000 (UTC), "Chris Read"
wrote:

One
nice touch is that the blinds between the drivers cab and lower saloon are
being left up, to give a better view.

As a schoolboy I always enjoyed sitting right behind the driver on
Routemasters and RTs, at least during daylight when the blinds used to
be left up; after dark the blind on the screen behing the bonnet would
also usually be lowered. I'm not sure when drivers started leaving
the blinds down all the time, nor whether it was a conscious change of
policy or just a collective habit which formed.

I left the bus without the
slightly nauseous sensation I often get on modern buses, which must be
something to do with the suspension set up or vibration.

Routemasters have firm suspension and don't roll much. It means you
sometimes feel every bump in the road but if you're even faintly
susceptible to travel sickness that can be no bad thing. The only
London buses where the ride has made me, personally, nauseous are some
of Arriva's DAFs and some of the early rear-engined double-deckers
from the 1970s.

Martin

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:11:00 +0000, Robert Woolley
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:29:11 -0000, "JMUpton2000" securitynovels @
freeuk.com wrote:

Try the London Bus Page, specifically he
http://www.londonbuspage.com/051114.htm

Nice photos. Florid tect though - wish he'd grow up. The bus service
is not designed for enthusiasts desires - its for moving people
safely, effciently, economically and accessibly.

I cannot recall a single article where Matt has demanded a bus service
solely for enthusiasts. His view of what meets the terms you use are
simply different to yours. There is more than one way of delivering such
a system - hence why most bus networks are not like London's.

Aren't people entitled to their opinions even if put with passion?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Full marks to the London Bus Page for telling it like it is. Firstly,
Ken's disgraceful about-turn on the notion of RM retention which he was
elected on, and secondly that bendi-buses are bringing the standards of
the Third World to London. I can't see how, for example, a 25 bus can
now be deemed 'accessible' to anyone living on the middle of the route
(like me!) when almost every bus, whether heading east or west, arrives
crush-loaded worse than a Tube in rush hour since 'free' travel was
introduced. I often travelled off-peak on the 25 and was almost always
able to get a seat downstairs, now buses are arriving full at 0600 in
the morning and 2200 at night! And we're paying for all these
freeloaders via our Council Tax! The last time I saw ticket inspectors
at work - about 9 months ago - the bus arrived at Bow Church and
promptly changed drivers with all doors left often. Needless to say,
seeing the group of six white males in blue trousers, fleeces and white
shirts carrying notebooks preparing to board, four passengers simply
got off to wait for the next bus. Obvious to me, but seemingly
oblivious to the inspectors! OK this debate has been done-to-death, but
the bendies are destined to go down as a short ill-starred abberation,
like the standeed MBS's of the late-60s which were equally hated. Nor I
can't see a Tory Mayor putting up with TfL's Economics of the Madhouse
for very long.

On 20 Nov 2005 06:56:13 -0800, wrote:

Nor I
can't see a Tory Mayor putting up with TfL's Economics of the Madhouse
for very long.


The last lot of Tories' policy towards public transport was to either
(a) let it decay or (B) sell it.

On 20 Nov 2005 06:56:13 -0800, wrote:

Needless to say,
seeing the group of six white males in blue trousers, fleeces and white
shirts carrying notebooks preparing to board, four passengers simply
got off to wait for the next bus

So 6 got on, 4 got off. Net result - slightly more congestion :-)

In article .com,
() wrote:

Nor I can't see a Tory Mayor putting up with TfL's Economics of the
Madhouse for very long.

No, I can't see there being a Tory mayor either.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I'm all in favour of a pro-public transport Mayor, and certainly don't
think one in Tory mode will fit that category, but there *will*
eventually be a change of regime at City Hall and if it does fall to
the Conservatives, I fear that the losses stacked up by the
bendy/roadside ticket machine concept will lead to swinging cuts across
the TfL system as a whole.

Bow Road does have a Point there.....
TfL`s Director of Surface Transport,Peter Hendy has been quite voluble
lately on the ReRegulation issue and has underlined the size of
his.......Budget.
With figures of £1 Billion per anum being spoken of for Surface Transport on
London it`s quite obviously an area which would be readily seen as a cost
savers dream.
It`s apparent to most now that fare Evasion IS an increasing problem on LB
services.
TfL figures obtained through the FoI appear to indicate that Fare Evasion is
running at least 25% higher than the figures which they were previously
quoting to the media.
Added to this is the rather dubious principle of extending Free Travel to
under 18`s which really does tempt fate and raises the prospect of a
generation of Public Transport users who really DO believe that Lunch is
Free.
With new vehicle orders due to be reined in and the term Refurbishment now
starting to occur in conversation with more regularity it is surely going to
be a very interesting time in old London Town.
It will be doubly interesting to see just how Refurbishable the Low Floor
generation of vehicle are in comparison to Mssrs Park Royal Vehicles
products especially in cost benefit terms.
I seem to recall P Hendy saying he could get 3 Euro 2 RM`s for the price of
a new Low Floor vehicle so one wonders how many Volvo/Scania/Mercedes units
he will get refurbed for the price of a new Citaro G..?

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:30:43 -0000, "Alek" wrote:

Bow Road does have a Point there.....
TfL`s Director of Surface Transport,Peter Hendy has been quite voluble
lately on the ReRegulation issue and has underlined the size of
his.......Budget.

His point was simply that the PTEs are wasting their time demanding
reregulation without considerable and sustained funding being part of
the package. As they aren't going to get that sort of money then they
might as well not bother - unfortunately. Knowing this the big groups
have no incentive to play ball either as they can just carry on because
the PTEs' threats of policy changes are empty.

With figures of £1 Billion per anum being spoken of for Surface Transport on
London it`s quite obviously an area which would be readily seen as a cost
savers dream.

It's all very well talking about cost but what about benefit? Yes you
can save money but how much benefit disappears at the same time. Once
you get to where LRT was in terms of declining service performance and
poor quality then it is very hard to get the system back to something
worthy of a capital city without spending a fortune. The last 5 years
teaches us that.

It`s apparent to most now that fare Evasion IS an increasing problem on LB
services.

It is? How so? Child fares have been removed so there is no scope for
adults travelling on child tickets. Flat fares remove the issue of
overriding. The removal of zones for the bus network removes season
ticket based fraud. The ability to stop lost or stolen Oyster cards
deals with one element of more serious fraud. While the number of
passengers has risen I struggle to understand how it is apparent that
fare evasion is an increasing problem

I completely fail to see how either the cashless zone or open boarding
on artics can possibly account for sufficient levels of evasion to
support your assertion.

TfL figures obtained through the FoI appear to indicate that Fare Evasion is
running at least 25% higher than the figures which they were previously
quoting to the media.

I think you are referring to *one* report about the levels of fare
evasion on bendy bus routes compared to other routes. This does not
constitute a valid argument in respect of the whole network.

Added to this is the rather dubious principle of extending Free Travel to
under 18`s which really does tempt fate and raises the prospect of a
generation of Public Transport users who really DO believe that Lunch is
Free.

I would agree that there is a potential risk here that will require
management in the future.

With new vehicle orders due to be reined in and the term Refurbishment now
starting to occur in conversation with more regularity it is surely going to
be a very interesting time in old London Town.

Not sure why refurbishment makes it a more interesting time. What is of
more concern is the "locked in" cycle of vehicle replacement in about 10
years time when there will be a huge requirement to replace the current
generation of low floor vehicles. It remains to be seen how keen TfL
buses will be to deal with the early generations of LF vehicles that are
now "non compliant" with standards and which are incapable of reaching
compliance. Will these be shoved out of London with TfL funding
replacements as they have done with some fleets of late?

It will be doubly interesting to see just how Refurbishable the Low Floor
generation of vehicle are in comparison to Mssrs Park Royal Vehicles
products especially in cost benefit terms.

As most refurbishments to date include tarting up the seats, removing
tip ups, sticking in some additional window openers and a white roof I
struggle to see the difficulty. These are all items that require regular
replacement as part of maintenance and repair activities. It is also
worth noting that more substantive chassis, bodywork and engine refurbs
are done in Hong Kong and I'm not aware of any issues there with LFDDs.

I seem to recall P Hendy saying he could get 3 Euro 2 RM`s for the price of
a new Low Floor vehicle so one wonders how many Volvo/Scania/Mercedes units
he will get refurbed for the price of a new Citaro G..?

Depends entirely on what the word refurbishment" means in this context.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!