When it comes to believing what I read in "The Standard" or the
utterances of Ken Livingstone, I know which I prefer to believe!

What was it he once said about dehumanised morons wanting to get rid of
the Routemaster?

And he then makes that very same dehumanised moron (that is, unless he
was referring to himself), Peter Hendy-Bendy his Transport
Commissioner!

No doubt Mr. (presumably soon to be Sir) Peter Hendy-Bendy will be in
line for a Kiley-style 6-figure payoff when he eventually discovers he
can't work with Ken any longer and wants to end his contract early.

Marc.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:17:57 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:


"MIG" wrote in message
roups.com...

Double-deck trains and bendy buses: two solutions looking for a problem.

Thats clever, I never thought of it like that.

Most European countries find both of them very useful.

"Ken" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:17:57 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:


"MIG" wrote in message
groups.com...

Double-deck trains and bendy buses: two solutions looking for a problem.

Thats clever, I never thought of it like that.

Most European countries find both of them very useful.

They even find them useful in the US, too. Clearly the poster hasn't been
on the trains in the Netherlands. Their double-decker trains are sweet, and
actually work a damn-sight better than ours. Maybe double-decker trains and
bendy-busses are the way to go

Ken wrote:

Most European countries find both of them very useful.

The main thing that prompts them to use DD trains is to save money.
They tend (TGV Duplex excepted) to end up largely on short regional
trains that could easily be made longer for that reason. This even
happens in countries like Germany where low platforms mean that longer
platforms are cheaper than the UK.

Bendy buses are a different matter, and their suitability for, say,
German-style operations has a different reason behind it. In a typical
large German city, there exists an integrated public transport system
with sufficient capacity on all modes and a good distribution. Thus,
the purpose of a bus is to move people in the areas not served by rail
rapid transit of whatever type to the nearest station on such a system.
There are comparatively few bus services that penetrate the city
centre compared with London, and most of those are rather short
distance runs.

In the UK, by contrast, it is common for buses to provide a through
service from a location not served by rapid transit rail (of whatever
type) to the city centre. Outside London, this is often a competitive
service. This means longer journeys by bus than would be typically
seen in the mainland European city. This, in turn, means that people
are more likely to be bothered about wanting a seat.

The double-decker bus, therefore, is more suited to such a situation.
It means that the long-distance travellers can take a seat in the upper
deck, while anyone taking a short journey can remain on the lower deck
in a similar low-seating configuration to the bendy.

To apply the question to London, then - yes, long-distance routes are
better with deckers. Whether the aim should be to move to a European
interchange model or remain with a British through service model is
another, rather more difficult, question. However, there are routes
where bendies are more suitable, potentially with the appropriate
infrastructure changes. I'd certainly nominate Oxford Street - but
then on the European model, it also needs fewer routes (maybe only
one?) and interchange at convenient points at each end.

There is one more factor. It is my understanding that the standard
bridge height in most European countries tends to be lower than the UK,
thus DD buses don't necessarily fit. They (and some pretty huge ones
by the typical UK standard) do exist, however - in Berlin, for one.

Neil

On 3 Mar 2006 10:04:41 -0800,
wrote:
I actually quite like the bendy buses. They're very quick to board and
get off.
No crowding around the single narrow doorway with people half falling
down the stairs like you get on a double decker.


Totally agree - I can't help feeling that most people who so vehently
object to them don't actually use buses that regularly. I use the 207
most days and the reduced dwell time at stops really makes a big
difference to the timing of the journey.

I do wonder how much of the non-payment thing is mythology. I have seen
inspectors go through the bus on numerous occasions in the last few
months and everybody has always had a ticket (and, yes, I realise that
all the evaders could have jumped off, but it didn't seem to be the
case).

I got on a 436 in Rye Lane Peckham a couple of saturdays ago heading for
the Oval, two stops further along there was a crowd of rpi's and police
waiting, they boarded the bus and more than a dozen people were taken off.
There was a similar crowd at New Cross Garage a few days later, probably
also waiting for a 436.
So not everybody rides for free...


--
Martin Smith

Neil Williams wrote:
Ken wrote:

Most European countries find both of them very useful.

The main thing that prompts them to use DD trains is to save money.
They tend (TGV Duplex excepted) to end up largely on short regional
trains that could easily be made longer for that reason. This even
happens in countries like Germany where low platforms mean that longer
platforms are cheaper than the UK.

Bendy buses are a different matter, and their suitability for, say,
German-style operations has a different reason behind it. In a typical
large German city, there exists an integrated public transport system
with sufficient capacity on all modes and a good distribution. Thus,
the purpose of a bus is to move people in the areas not served by rail
rapid transit of whatever type to the nearest station on such a system.
There are comparatively few bus services that penetrate the city
centre compared with London, and most of those are rather short
distance runs.

In the UK, by contrast, it is common for buses to provide a through
service from a location not served by rapid transit rail (of whatever
type) to the city centre. Outside London, this is often a competitive
service. This means longer journeys by bus than would be typically
seen in the mainland European city. This, in turn, means that people
are more likely to be bothered about wanting a seat.

The double-decker bus, therefore, is more suited to such a situation.
It means that the long-distance travellers can take a seat in the upper
deck, while anyone taking a short journey can remain on the lower deck
in a similar low-seating configuration to the bendy.

This is true, but I think the main reason bendies are used in London is
to provide rapid boarding and alighting. Judging from the London
Assembly report released today on the value-for-money of quality
incentive contracts, there now seems to be a recognition by TfL that the
rapid boarding and alighting capability should be used on routes used
for short hops, rather than automatically for all high-demand routes,
some of which are characterised by the longer journeys you mention (e.g.
38, 73).

Although German cities may generally be of the model you specify with
near-exclusive penetration of the city centre by rail-based modes, it's
not true of all European cities which use bendies - Rome has poor rail
penetration of the city centre and uses bendy buses from in the inner
suburbs to serve the centre along busy corridors which are not
well-served by rail.

Interestingly, two of the main bendy routes in London (18, Euston -
Sudbury and 25, Oxford Circus - Ilford) are high-demand and yet still
run along corridors well-served by rail compared to other bendy routes
such as the 436 and the 38. I'm not sure what's going on there - I think
perhaps the price differential plays a part on the 18, but I'm not sure
about the 25.

To apply the question to London, then - yes, long-distance routes are
better with deckers. Whether the aim should be to move to a European
interchange model or remain with a British through service model is
another, rather more difficult, question. However, there are routes
where bendies are more suitable, potentially with the appropriate
infrastructure changes. I'd certainly nominate Oxford Street - but
then on the European model, it also needs fewer routes (maybe only
one?) and interchange at convenient points at each end.

As Europe's biggest city, some of the problems facing London are
different to other cities. The expense of providing new rail capacity in
the centre makes through services much more attractive, as a price
differential can be set to discourage use of the faster mode by those
with a lower value of time.

Economically, given rail congestion and the massive cost of providing
new capacity, providing the choice between a fast, expensive mode and a
slow, cheap mode makes a lot of sense - travellers with a lower value of
time can be shifted off the fast mode and onto the slow mode, resulting
in those with a higher value of time experiencing less congestion. The
relief of congestion is a benefit to the high-value-of-time travellers
on the fast mode, and the lower prices are a benefit to the low
value-of-time travellers.

There is one more factor. It is my understanding that the standard
bridge height in most European countries tends to be lower than the UK,
thus DD buses don't necessarily fit. They (and some pretty huge ones
by the typical UK standard) do exist, however - in Berlin, for one.

Neil



--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

This is true, but I think the main reason bendies are used in London is
to provide rapid boarding and alighting. Judging from the London
Assembly report released today on the value-for-money of quality
incentive contracts, there now seems to be a recognition by TfL that the
rapid boarding and alighting capability should be used on routes used
for short hops, rather than automatically for all high-demand routes,
some of which are characterised by the longer journeys you mention (e.g.
38, 73).

The 73 is a difficult one, having both long-distance journeys and a
very dense, short journey section in the middle. I suspect the best
approach for it (without looking at the map) would be to remove it from
Oxford Street, sending it down a parallel street instead (also some
other services), and run a very high frequency bendy service from
Euston to Victoria down Oxford Street. With changed stop layouts and
other infrastructure customisation, that would work.

I also wonder if it would be worth looking at a Berlin-like design of
long-wheelbase double-decker with two staircases, which would provide
even more of a hybrid, possibly with several doors on the lower deck.
The front doors would be mainly for boarding and going upstairs, the
rear for exiting from upstairs and the middle doors for both. It has
always surprised me that "normal" single deckers in the UK are
typically much longer than double deckers - why not have a "super
decker" that's a hybrid? The Manchester Dennis Dragons are almost
there, but they don't work well because they are single-doored (and a
very narrow door at that).

Although German cities may generally be of the model you specify with
near-exclusive penetration of the city centre by rail-based modes, it's
not true of all European cities which use bendies - Rome has poor rail
penetration of the city centre and uses bendy buses from in the inner
suburbs to serve the centre along busy corridors which are not
well-served by rail.

Interesting, thanks. There is a counterexample in Hamburg, as well,
namely the route (used to be 102, but now one of the Metrobus routes)
from Niendorf-Markt via Lokstedt and Hoheluft to the centre. It's a
former tram route, but is operated using bendies on dedicated
infrastructure. It's also an interesting operation in that the bus
lanes are in the middle of the road, with stop "platforms" at the
lights. London would do well to copy it for any similar roads, if
there are any wide enough.

Hamburg also, notably, has the Schnellbusse, which are express buses
that do penetrate the city centre. A premium fare is chargeable on
these. This is almost a recognition that buses penetrating the centre
aren't the best way to do things, but offers a direct service for those
who are willing to pay for it.

Interestingly, two of the main bendy routes in London (18, Euston -
Sudbury and 25, Oxford Circus - Ilford) are high-demand and yet still
run along corridors well-served by rail compared to other bendy routes
such as the 436 and the 38. I'm not sure what's going on there - I think
perhaps the price differential plays a part on the 18, but I'm not sure
about the 25.

Price differential does have an impact on modal choice in all British
cities, I'd say. It would be interesting to see what would happen if
all British cities adopted a true joint tariff without changing the
actual routes. This would particularly apply to cities like Manchester
- would routes like the 50 that parallel rail routes do a lot of
business? If the price differential went completely, would the old
British adage that people won't change vehicles still apply?

Economically, given rail congestion and the massive cost of providing
new capacity, providing the choice between a fast, expensive mode and a
slow, cheap mode makes a lot of sense - travellers with a lower value of
time can be shifted off the fast mode and onto the slow mode, resulting
in those with a higher value of time experiencing less congestion. The
relief of congestion is a benefit to the high-value-of-time travellers
on the fast mode, and the lower prices are a benefit to the low
value-of-time travellers.

True. The big difference with London is that the Tube is overloaded,
and the money isn't there to add capacity (nor, in some cases, the
physical space). Hamburg's U- and S-Bahn system has tons of spare
capacity, as does (say) Merseyrail. Given the latter, Merseytravel is
quite keen on having buses feed trains, and is spending a vast amount
of money on interchanges and the likes.

Neil

Boltar wrote:

MIG wrote:

Jim wrote:
Double-deck trains and bendy buses: two solutions looking for a problem.

I actually quite like the bendy buses. They're very quick to board and
get off.
No crowding around the single narrow doorway with people half falling
down the stairs like you get on a double decker.

Bendys would be very useful on the 337. It often happens that the bus
(double deck) is "full" so the driver will not let anyone on, depsite
there being only a handful of people upstairs. This bus is used for
short journeys (it follows the route from Richmond to Clapham Junction
pretty much the same as the trains) and most people using it are old or
lazy so block the bottom of the stairs. Most of the traffic lights are
simple ped crossings rather than junctions so there should be no need
for the driver to enter the crossing until the exit is clear. Seems
like a perfect route.

The 430 on the other hand: same staircase crowding problem, quite a lot
of fat passengers and pensioners who dislike/can't climb the stairs,
but a high chance for disrupting pedestrians on Putney High Street.
Probably best to not be a bendy

Related point: Why do elderly people like to be first on the bus, but
stand downstairs in the way of the queue behind them?

In message .com,
Chris! writes

Bendys would be very useful on the 337. It often happens that the bus
(double deck) is "full" so the driver will not let anyone on, depsite
there being only a handful of people upstairs.

Although most of the route would be suitable for bendies, I suspect that
Richmond town centre poses insuperable problems, given the narrow
streets and tight corners. Ordinary buses can only just make the very
tight bend into Eton Street, and entering and leaving the bus station
also involves tight turns on narrow streets.

I think the real problem with the 337 (which runs just past the end of
my road) is uneven service intervals, often caused by jams on the South
Circular and resulting short journeys, plus lack of provision for the
considerable school traffic in the mornings and mid-afternoons. For much
of the day the loading is quite light if service intervals are
maintained.
--
Paul Terry

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:24:31 GMT, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote in :
"Dr Ivan D. Reid" typed

A bit more attention to keeping parked cars off busy streets might
help, too. For a while I travelled regularly on the 114 from Mill Hill
Broadway to Harrow-otH; the bus was continually being blocked by oncoming
traffic because parked cars made the road effectively one lane -- even on
one stretch where most houses had a garage, a front yard, and a driveway
crossing first a lawn, then a footpath, then even more lawn. If the streets
along the route had been no-parking zones during the hours I travelled, the
journey times would have been cut by 1/3 to 1/2.

Don't you just *love* Mollison Way?

Ah, yes. I used to often get off at Burnt Oak to transfer to the
251; there was once a car abandoned in the bus bay, it just kept accumulating
a few more parking tickets every day...

You didn't mention the lamentable progress the buses made on the days
the bins were emptied, when things were even worse.

Fortunately I only commuted for less than two months, but I do
remember that disruption too, now that you mention it. Nowadays my only
congestion is waiting for a break in the traffic so I can cross Church Road
on my walk to work -- I think I'll petition for a pedestrian crossing. :-)

I too have commuted on that stretch of the 114 route.

--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. ] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".