|
Bendy buses
Yesterday's Evening Standard had as its main story that Ken Livingstone
was thinking of scrapping all bendy buses. I'm surprised that there has been nothing on this here. -- Thoss [To reply, replace * with . in Reply-To address] |
Bendy buses
"thoss" wrote in message ... Yesterday's Evening Standard had as its main story that Ken Livingstone was thinking of scrapping all bendy buses. I'm surprised that there has been nothing on this here. -- Thoss Maybe because that wasn't what he said just the Standard's "spin" on it From someone who was at the "meeting" "He made it clear that he recognises they are not working -as well- on *some routes* compared to others, and that they were working very well on high volume short distance routes, but they are looking at the way they work on the longer routes, re-iterating that only 300 of 8,000 buses are bendy. This being in response to a question that wondered why double-deckers were not being used." Paul |
Bendy buses
"thoss" wrote in message ... Yesterday's Evening Standard had as its main story that Ken Livingstone was thinking of scrapping all bendy buses. I'm surprised that there has been nothing on this here. -- I think people on here know, from bitter experience, to ignore every word that appears in that newspaper. It is so transparent that they have their own axe to grind, regardless of the truth, that reading their stories winds me up even when I agree with what they're saying! Jim |
Bendy buses
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 Paul wrote:
"thoss" wrote in message ... Yesterday's Evening Standard had as its main story that Ken Livingstone was thinking of scrapping all bendy buses. I'm surprised that there has been nothing on this here. -- Thoss Maybe because that wasn't what he said just the Standard's "spin" on it From someone who was at the "meeting" "He made it clear that he recognises they are not working -as well- on *some routes* compared to others, and that they were working very well on high volume short distance routes, but they are looking at the way they work on the longer routes, re-iterating that only 300 of 8,000 buses are bendy. This being in response to a question that wondered why double-deckers were not being used." Thanks for putting it in perspective. -- Thoss [To reply, replace * with . in Reply-To address] |
Bendy buses
Jim wrote: "thoss" wrote in message ... Yesterday's Evening Standard had as its main story that Ken Livingstone was thinking of scrapping all bendy buses. I'm surprised that there has been nothing on this here. -- I think people on here know, from bitter experience, to ignore every word that appears in that newspaper. It is so transparent that they have their own axe to grind, regardless of the truth, that reading their stories winds me up even when I agree with what they're saying! I feel the same about the Standard, yet probably agree with them if they don't like bendy buses. Double-deck trains and bendy buses: two solutions looking for a problem. |
Bendy buses
"MIG" wrote in message oups.com... Double-deck trains and bendy buses: two solutions looking for a problem. Thats clever, I never thought of it like that. |
Bendy buses
On 2 Mar 2006 11:08:28 -0800, "MIG"
wrote: I feel the same about the Standard, yet probably agree with them if they don't like bendy buses. I wonder if they're used on the right routes - I don't use buses that often, but they do seem to have a habit of blocking junctions and generally getting in the way. However on some roads, mainly straighter, wider ones with relatively few junctions, they seem to work well. So maybe... the bus routes need reviewing and perhaps changing so that routes suitable for bendy buses are created. |
Bendy buses
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:19:38 GMT, Phil Clark
wrote in : I wonder if they're used on the right routes - I don't use buses that often, but they do seem to have a habit of blocking junctions and generally getting in the way. However on some roads, mainly straighter, wider ones with relatively few junctions, they seem to work well. So maybe... the bus routes need reviewing and perhaps changing so that routes suitable for bendy buses are created. 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. -- Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration, Brunel University. ] Room 40-1-B12, CERN KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty". |
Bendy buses
"Boltar" wrote in message
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. I actually agree on this, for the reasons stated above, however, I do feel that the problems that others have stated regarding the suitability of Bendys on some routes could do with review. Something long-distance and reasonably straight - the 207/607 (before they split them) would be (in my humble wotsit) be ideal - presumably this is why the route was chosen for the trials back in -erm- 2001? Cheers Matt |
Bendy buses
"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? You didn't mention the lamentable progress the buses made on the days the bins were emptied, when things were even worse. I too have commuted on that stretch of the 114 route. -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
Bendy buses
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. |
Bendy buses
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. |
Bendy buses
"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 :) |
Bendy buses
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 |
Bendy buses
|
Bendy buses
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 |
Bendy buses
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 |
Bendy buses
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? |
Bendy buses
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 |
Bendy buses
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". |
Bendy buses
"Neil Williams" wrote in message oups.com... 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? Long double-deckers would be unable to fit under many bridges. |
Bendy buses
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 Paul Terry wrote:
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. Maybe they could do what they did with the 207, split the route with a lot of overlap. The bendys couldn't get into Uxbridge, so now the bendy 207s run from Shepherd's Bush to the Hayes Roundabout, while a new route 427 runs from Acton to Uxbridge. -- Thoss [To reply, replace * with . in Reply-To address] |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk