Just come back from Amsterdam where they operate a decent tram service
and also bendy buses. On BOTH the rule is: boarding ONLY at the front
and you must show your ticket to the driver there, and only then may
you pass down through the aisle to the rear; to alight you use the
middle and rear doors (sometime through the front doors if no-one is
trying to board). On trams they also have a ticket inspector/seller
opposite the central doors for those boarding there. Whatever you MUST
show your ticket to boatd. Seems to me T4L doesn't know how to operate
their bendy buses. All they have to do is to restrict boarding to the
front doors only. CJB.

CJB wrote:
All they have to do is to restrict boarding to the
front doors only.

Which would slow down boarding and alighting. That isn't the point.

I think it works poorly on Amsterdam trams, and a better investment
would be additional inspectors. Increase the penalty fare if it is
necessary to pay for them.

Neil

On 13 Jun 2006 08:30:45 -0700, "CJB"
wrote:

Just come back from Amsterdam where they operate a decent tram service
and also bendy buses. On BOTH the rule is: boarding ONLY at the front
and you must show your ticket to the driver there, and only then may
you pass down through the aisle to the rear; to alight you use the
middle and rear doors (sometime through the front doors if no-one is
trying to board). On trams they also have a ticket inspector/seller
opposite the central doors for those boarding there. Whatever you MUST
show your ticket to boatd. Seems to me T4L doesn't know how to operate
their bendy buses. All they have to do is to restrict boarding to the
front doors only. CJB.

This argument has been aired many times in many places. Amsterdam is a
poor example to use - not so many years ago you could board and alight
through any door on trams and buses. Needless to say fraud was rampant
and coupled with the generally tolerant Dutch society no one was greatly
concerned. However the levels of subsidy needed to keep the system
running were such that the GVB Amsterdam became extremely sloppy and
inefficient and IIRC was on the edge of financial collapse. It is
certainly the case that investment in the tram fleet suffered and only
in recent years has significant modernisation taken place.

In the light of local political pressure there was the obvious move to
tighten up fare collection and revenue control on the system. This has
been part of a general trend on the continent that has typically not
touched the UK because we have always had small scale subsidies and the
move to deregulation rather changes the operator's view of how he looks
after the pennies.

The London Bendy Bus conversions are justified on the basis that they
replace RM operation (and in some cases conventional OPO) with fewer
vehicles and fewer staff. The boarding speeds are very quick which
generate passenger time benefits when compared with the other options.
In the context of the time savings and the basic economic argument
(including the vehicles and associated infrastructure and some increase
in evasion) then bendy buses are justified. It is worth pointing out
that the latest figures on cashless transactions show that 95% of all
ticket transactions are now off bus and therefore vast numbers of people
on bendy buses will have a pass, permit or Oyster Pre-Pay or a Saver
ticket or a ticket from a RTM. A recent trip on the 29 left me with
ringing ears because the validators were used so much by people using
their Oyster cards.

There will now follow a torrent of posts telling me I'm talking out of
the top of my head and that TfL is the evil empire and should be nuked
by George Dubya.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

There will now follow a torrent of posts telling me I'm talking out of
the top of my head and that TfL is the evil empire and should be nuked
by George Dubya.

I reckon that, were the Routemaster to be re-introduced to oust the bendies,
there would be a torrent of complaints - not least from those who fought the
scrapping of the RM so vociferously over the last couple of years.

In terms of fare evasion, I am a semi-regular on the Heritage 15, and there
have been several occasions where the Conductor has not ventured upstairs
for the entire journey, despite only having to 'look after' about 20
passengers in total. Of course, this was widespread when the Routemaster was
in normal service.

However, to my mind, the Bendies should be heavily targetted by Inspectors.
I rather suspect that, as is human nature, the Inspectors go for 'easy
targets' - ie nice quiet suburban routes - wherever possible. I'm willing to
be proven wrong here, however. I use bendies maybe twice a week, and have
never been asked to produce my ticket since the Red Arrow 507 went over in
2002(?).

Chris

In message , Chris Read
writes

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

There will now follow a torrent of posts telling me I'm talking out of
the top of my head and that TfL is the evil empire and should be nuked
by George Dubya.

I reckon that, were the Routemaster to be re-introduced to oust the bendies,
there would be a torrent of complaints - not least from those who fought the
scrapping of the RM so vociferously over the last couple of years.

In terms of fare evasion, I am a semi-regular on the Heritage 15, and there
have been several occasions where the Conductor has not ventured upstairs
for the entire journey, despite only having to 'look after' about 20
passengers in total.
Conductors' attention to fare collecting on the Heritage routes was
exemplary when they first started, in marked contrast to their
latter-day work on the conventional RM services. However, as another
semi-regular user of the services, I, too, have noticed them becoming
more slack in this respect.

However, to my mind, the Bendies should be heavily targetted by Inspectors.
Indeed. The message that you are *very* likely to be checked needs to
come across.

I rather suspect that, as is human nature, the Inspectors go for 'easy
targets' - ie nice quiet suburban routes - wherever possible. I'm willing to
be proven wrong here, however. I use bendies maybe twice a week, and have
never been asked to produce my ticket since the Red Arrow 507 went over in
2002(?).
I've been asked a couple of times on the 521. I don't use suburban
buses much in London but I've never encountered *any* inspections on
those I have used.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:13:50 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


"Paul Corfield" wrote:

There will now follow a torrent of posts telling me I'm talking out of
the top of my head and that TfL is the evil empire and should be nuked
by George Dubya.

I reckon that, were the Routemaster to be re-introduced to oust the bendies,
there would be a torrent of complaints - not least from those who fought the
scrapping of the RM so vociferously over the last couple of years.

Out of curiosity why?

In terms of fare evasion, I am a semi-regular on the Heritage 15, and there
have been several occasions where the Conductor has not ventured upstairs
for the entire journey, despite only having to 'look after' about 20
passengers in total. Of course, this was widespread when the Routemaster was
in normal service.

I haven't used the heritage routes at all but I rarely use those
corridors and if I do use the 9 it's usually to High St Ken and of
course the RMs don't go that far - more's the pity.

The current MD of Stagecoach London would be interested in any specific
feedback on poor service. He has certainly asked for it to be provided
when posters on other London Bus groups have made negative comments
about customer service by the conductors. I would also think First
London would wish to know about instances on the 9 as well.

However, to my mind, the Bendies should be heavily targetted by Inspectors.
I rather suspect that, as is human nature, the Inspectors go for 'easy
targets' - ie nice quiet suburban routes - wherever possible. I'm willing to
be proven wrong here, however. I use bendies maybe twice a week, and have
never been asked to produce my ticket since the Red Arrow 507 went over in
2002(?).

I think I have been inspected on a bendy and I have certainly witnessed
"mass" ticket checks on them as well. In terms of other inspections I
have been checked on central area routes and also at 06.35 on my local
route in North East London. The proportion is not huge given that I use
buses almost every day of the week but checks do occur. I would agree
that there would be no harm at all if checks were more intensive as a
general rule across the whole network.

The counter argument, of course, is that pre-payment is now so high in
London and that so many forms of fraud have been removed by structural
changes you can argue just how effective a big effort would be. We have
flat fares so no over-riding, we have one bus zone so no "out of zone"
season ticket fraud, Travelcards are valid on all buses so rail zones
are irrelevant, all Oyster personalised and registered cards can be
barred from use, smartcard technology facilitates sophisticated fraud
analysis, Oyster checking helps the driver detect out of date or out of
value cards more readily and children travel free. This really only
leaves out of date passes / permits, forgeries and stolen cards, non
validated cards on cashless routes and blatant non payment - again
probably only on cashless / heritage routes to any level as drivers
check on all other routes. Many people complain about the London fare
structure but it many ways the policy is ingenious in that it has
designed out the opportunity for many frauds to be committed.

It will be interesting to see what the revenue protection philosophy
will be for an entirely cashless network as drivers will be unable to
assist passengers "on vehicle". I remain to be convinced that on a
practical level a fully cashless London network can work.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:13:50 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:


I reckon that, were the Routemaster to be re-introduced to oust the
bendies,
there would be a torrent of complaints - not least from those who fought
the
scrapping of the RM so vociferously over the last couple of years.

Out of curiosity why?

A number of reasons:

1. The bendies load/unload more quickly than the RM.
2. They make faster progress than the RM when on the move. This has
surprised me, but would anyone deny it is true? In simple terms, the power
of the engine and efficiency of the brakes seem light years removed from the
RM.
3. Although there are fewer seats, IMO the bendies are pleasant vehicles in
which to stand - light and airy, and lots of rails to hang on to. By
contrast, standing on an RM was always a pretty miserable experience.
Obviously, you still wouldn't want to stand from Clapton to Victoria (for
example), but in reality, few make end-to-end journies, and for those that
do, a seat normally becomes available at some point.
4. They are undeniably well built (blinds aside!). They feel like a quality
product.

And in more general terms:

1. Now they are (almost) entirely gone, the RM just looks so *old*. It's
funny - I never felt that way until the 159 disappeared, but somehow, seeing
an RM now just doesn't look right. It reminds you that the RM had to finish
sometime - it was life expired.
2. We Brits always try to cling to our history and bemoan the passing of
supposed national institutions. We are almost equally good at adapting when
change finally happens, however. I sense the initial uprising against the
bendies has turned to acquiesence, and I suspect if, in five years time, the
bendies are threatened with withdrawal, the 'Evening Standard' will mount a
'Save our bendies' campaign of outrage, as it did (very belatedly) with the
RM.
3. Enthusiasts like almost everything which is old and rare. It appears even
Titans and Metrobuses are now coveted. Bendies remain relatively rare, and
in a few years, they will also be old. Enthusiasts will then claim that
bendies single-handedly saved the London bus.

So I think the RM is now viewed like steam railway engines - we're glad
that there are still some around for posterity, but we wouldn't want one as
daily transport.

In terms of fare evasion, I am a semi-regular on the Heritage 15, and
there
have been several occasions where the Conductor has not ventured upstairs
for the entire journey, despite only having to 'look after' about 20
passengers in total. Of course, this was widespread when the Routemaster
was
in normal service.

The current MD of Stagecoach London would be interested in any specific
feedback on poor service. He has certainly asked for it to be provided
when posters on other London Bus groups have made negative comments
about customer service by the conductors. I would also think First
London would wish to know about instances on the 9 as well.

I should say, there are also some very good conductors on the 15, who remain
consistently chirpy after what must be long and often tedious shifts.

The counter argument, of course, is that pre-payment is now so high in
London and that so many forms of fraud have been removed by structural
changes you can argue just how effective a big effort would be. We have
flat fares so no over-riding, we have one bus zone so no "out of zone"
season ticket fraud, Travelcards are valid on all buses so rail zones
are irrelevant, all Oyster personalised and registered cards can be
barred from use, smartcard technology facilitates sophisticated fraud
analysis, Oyster checking helps the driver detect out of date or out of
value cards more readily and children travel free. This really only
leaves out of date passes / permits, forgeries and stolen cards, non
validated cards on cashless routes and blatant non payment - again
probably only on cashless / heritage routes to any level as drivers
check on all other routes.

I think the 'blatant non payment' category is a large(ish) one on the
bendies, with people hopping on opportunistically for a couple of stops,
wagering that the probability of getting caught is very slim. I would say
the typical offender would be:

i) The usual 'yoofs' in gangs, especially in the evenings.
ii) Commuters on 'London Terminals' (ie no Travelcard) seasons, running a
bit late for work/the train home, and wishing to avoid a short walk.

However, I have no evidence for this other than anecdote and instinct.

Part of the problem here is that TfL were so defensive about fare evasion on
bendies, it looked as though they had something to hide. It may be there
isn't a problem at all, but only if you take a very generous view about the
honesty of the average Londoner. I doubt whether the vagrant(s) who frequent
the 38 have Oyster cards.

Many people complain about the London fare
structure but it many ways the policy is ingenious in that it has
designed out the opportunity for many frauds to be committed.

Albeit at some cost in terms of overall subsidy requirement, surely?

Chris

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jun 2006 08:30:45 -0700, "CJB"
wrote:
There will now follow a torrent of posts telling me I'm talking out of
the top of my head and that TfL is the evil empire and should be nuked
by George Dubya.

Not at all, Paul. I think you always have something interesting and
informative to say about transport in London.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Why 'admits'? You're not ashamed of LU, are you?

EZ

Conductor 119466 on the 15H made no use of his ticket machine on Monday
from Tower Hill c1830 to Charing Cross. Oyster Cards were merely looked
at, so no idea if these were valid and no stored value debited. On the
plus side at least 8 people boarded between stops showing what are/were
truly the most accessible buses in London.

wrote:


Conductor 119466 on the 15H made no use of his ticket machine on Monday
from Tower Hill c1830 to Charing Cross. Oyster Cards were merely looked
at, so no idea if these were valid and no stored value debited. On the
plus side at least 8 people boarded between stops showing what are/were
truly the most accessible buses in London.

Possible flat battery on the machine? I've seen that before. Inexcusable if
it was not charged properly before use, but sometimes electrical faults
cause the batteries to drain rapidly with little warning.

Chris