Safety - more revenue inspection personnel and a greater Police presence
on buses.


Unseen in my area and certainly not at night when risks are greater, this is
only rhetoric I'm sorry to say. As an example I spent many days in dialogue
with TFL trying to find out why a driver failed to summon the police when a
riot broke out on the top deck. They are a very slippery bunch indeed when
it comes to pinning them down to take some kind of action.

Comfort - what you mentioned was passenger discourtesy, not much that
Ken can do about that.

Passenger discourtesy is certainly part of the problem, but as I pointed out
it the situation deteriorated when conductors were removed because those
with anti-social attitudes took advantage of the lack of an authoritative
presence. Even today, there's a certain comfort in knowing that when things
get out of hand, there's someone there who can be appealed to for
assistance. You don't have to tell me it one will probably not get any but
the presence of a conductor, however useless is a deterrent all the same.


Bendy buses - not sure what your point is here. Are you saying they are
a good thing, bad thing, they premised to introduce more of them, etc.
There are plenty of them in operation now on Red Arrow routes 507/521
plus other routes that have been 'split' (436, 453/N453). Route 18 is
due to get them in the Autumn and 149 by next Spring.

Son of Routemaster - well you'll have to tell me about that.

Something suggested as the replacement for the tired old RM a few years ago
which may well have turned out to be the bendy bus, yet to be seen in SW
London. Don't know whether they are good ar bad yet but they certaintly do
the job in other parts of Europe and the question was about improvement's
that hadn't happened. I'll only know when I experience the pleasure.

Come to think of it the 149 used to come here and go all the way to
Shepherds Bush, but that was a long time ago.

Jeff Mowatt

Jeff Mowatt writes
but the presence of a conductor, however useless is a deterrent all
the same.

If 'useless', then clearly the presence of a conductor is *not* a
deterrent.

--
Dave

It does seem fairly obvious that there is more vandalism and hooliganism on
buses without a conductor. This does not mean that conductors are allways able
to stop it - on late-night buses particularly conductors (and conductresses)
themselves have frequently been the unfortunate victims of violence, including
stabbings, by the fine upstanding young of London.
I remember once a clippie (there, showing my age!) saying she would use her
ticket machine(swung from a strap round her wrist) as a weapon if she had to,
even if it meant losing her job. Judging from the reported threat to a driver
who threw tea, it would undoubtedly mean her being penalised for defending
herself.
But quite often the trouble these days comes from quite young kids who can be
quelled if dealt with firmly by an adult. Unfortunately many adult travellers
today seem too cowed to do anything except stare intently out the window when
something is going on, and don't even resist when they themselves are
targetted.
But a conductor (when I was a kid they were sometimes also called "guards")
would instil more confidence in the public and remove some of the cockiness
from the yobs.
More positively, we would have fewer accidents such as old people (and kids)
being thrown to the floor, or small kids trapped in closing doors, if the
driver was not having to collect fares, then start up, and was not expected to
know what was going on in the bus while keeping his or her eyes on the road and
traffic. (I've seen people thrown down because the driver had to suddenly stop
because some motorist suddenly pulled across in front. At least if someone was
there to offer a steadying hand to the passenger...)
One last point, to those who have offered examples of conductors not doing
their job properly. LT used to employ not only uniformed 'Blakey' inspectors
but plainclothes ones who hopped on the bus to check on the conductor (and in
one case I know, even acted as a bit of a provocateur). There seemed to be
more regulations in those days too, like how many standing passengers could be
carried, and so forth.

CharlesPottins writes
LT used to employ not only uniformed 'Blakey' inspectors
but plainclothes ones who hopped on the bus to check on the conductor (and in
one case I know, even acted as a bit of a provocateur).

Plenty of plain-clothes inspectors these days - checking tickets and so
forth.

There seemed to be more regulations in those days too, like how many
standing passengers could be carried, and so forth.

Er, there still are rules regarding the maximum number of standees.

--
Dave

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:20:58 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Er, there still are rules regarding the maximum number of standees.

Indeed there are - and fewer are permitted when crew-operated, leading
to the ridiculous situation where, on a busy modern decker which was
being crew-operated, I had to go upstairs and take a seat rather than
standing downstairs, which I would have preferred to do as I was
making a short journey.

Going a bit off-topic, the Blackpool Tramway is rather strict on the
number of standees, making it (at peak times) a bit of a joke as a
public transport operation rather than an interesting curiosity -
which suggests to me that the rules under which it operates are closer
to those of a "classic" crew-operated bus service rather than a modern
tram with conductors like those in (for example) Sheffield.

Neil

Dave wrote:
CharlesPottins writes
LT used to employ not only uniformed 'Blakey' inspectors
but plainclothes ones who hopped on the bus to check on the
conductor (and in one case I know, even acted as a bit of a
provocateur).

Plenty of plain-clothes inspectors these days - checking tickets and
so forth.

where are they then? It is *years* since my ticket has been checked. I
regularly (approx twice weekly) use the bus between Picadilly and
Hammersmith. I can regularly do that whole journey on the 9 without being
asked for a fare or ticket at all if I sit upstairs.


There seemed to be more regulations in those days too, like how many
standing passengers could be carried, and so forth.

Er, there still are rules regarding the maximum number of standees.

Surprised to learn there are still rules, I thought deregulation had taken
effect. It may seem kindly of the driver to let people crowd on to the
gunwhales(sp?) in some circumstances, but is it wise?
Apart from safety considerations, it can be a damn nuisance trying to get
through a crowded gangway to get off at your stop. I used to regularly
experience this boarding a westbound single-deck bus opposite Westminster City
Hall, it would get crowded going by Victoria, and then it was really difficult
trying to get off by Ebury Bridge, especially if I was carrying shopping.
More recently taking a 112 from Ealing I found it difficult squeezing past
people to get off on the N.Circular. Incidentally, glad to see double deckers
introduced on the 297 route, which can be quite busy sometimes, especially in
the mornings.

CharlesPottins writes
Surprised to learn there are still rules, I thought deregulation had
taken effect.

1. Deregulation never happened in London.
2. That's not what deregulation was about anyway.

Deregulation was about allowing 'open-access' competition. If you had a
bus or buses; you could effectively run it/them on any route, at any
time, charging whatever fare you wished. There are still rules about
having to register services and meeting all the safety requirements,
etc.

--
Dave