On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:31 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Only a few bendy routes are those previously run by RMs and thus we get
to an interesting issue about whether the new RM, if it is ever built,
would replace standard double decks on routes like the 13, 14, 19, 22,
390. Would they be deployed on routes like the 253 or 254 which are
very, very busy and were run with RMs years before but which could
justifiably be a stronger candidate for conversion back to crew than
some other routes? Would the new RM be put onto routes like the 18 or
29 which are bendy now but were OPO double deck for years before
conversion but which were frankly spending more time standing still at
stops than going anywhere.

A lot of the later bendy-bus routes were Routemaster replacements, e.g.
12, 38, 73.

Err they were the *only* ones Colin. You can argue over whether the 436
replaced RMs or not on route 36. Every other bendy conversion replaced
OPO vehicles. People need to be careful about swallowing the "bendy
buses ate my Routemaster" press mythology.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 19 May, 09:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:22:29 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"

wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

The most surprising (to me) aspect is how busy
Sunday services are - I've been out most Sundays recently and many buses
are full or near to full which is a big turn round from about 10 years
ago when demand was much lower.

Sometimes too full - how often are Sunday services reviewed and potentially
expanded?

The standard TfL answer is that routes are reviewed every 5 years about
18 months before they are retendered or considered for contract
extension (if performance has been good). *This is certainly the answer
I have had from TfL when corresponding with them about my local
services.

When routes are retendered then some will get improved frequencies while
a 2 year "good performance" extension also triggers frequency
improvements and these are typically Evenings and Sundays.

Service enhancements can occur independently of that cycle and I would
guess that it is the result of surveys, operator or passenger feedback
or review of performance information. *If routes are chronically
overloaded then their performance would fall. Oyster and ticket machine
data is another source of info too.

One particular problem I've seen is the over reliance on existing bus routes
to double as rail replacement services. The Central Line betwen Mile End and
Stratford is the most obvious case in my normal routine and often I've found
the 25 ridiculously crowded (even by its standards) and insufficiently
frequent when there's no tube between those points.

I agree that the current extent of weekend engineering works is leading
to diversion to bus services. The current Victoria Line closures at
weekends either stop me using the tube altogether or else I transfer to
the bus. *I'm not a great enthusiast for the limited rail replacement
services that operate. *You cite the 25 as an example but the 25 has
been awful for years no matter what day of the week. I remain amazed
that it is as busy as it is given that it is duplicated over its length
by other rail and bus routes. *The Sunday 25 has recently been increased
in frequency in an attempt to cope - it had a temporary enhancement
between Aldgate and Stratford for a few months. *Whether TfL will agree
to increase the main service on M-S using spare former route 453 buses
will be interesting - will Boris allow it!?


The 25 is now the only route along stretches that used to be covered
by two or three overlapping routes such as the 86 and the 10, which
must have taken a lot of pressure off it, given that not everyone goes
all the way from Ilford to Oxford Circus.

I am not completely clear how all the rationalisation has worked in
terms of total capacity.

On Mon, 19 May 2008 06:52:55 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 19 May, 09:55, Paul Corfield wrote:

You cite the 25 as an example but the 25 has
been awful for years no matter what day of the week. I remain amazed
that it is as busy as it is given that it is duplicated over its length
by other rail and bus routes. *The Sunday 25 has recently been increased
in frequency in an attempt to cope - it had a temporary enhancement
between Aldgate and Stratford for a few months. *Whether TfL will agree
to increase the main service on M-S using spare former route 453 buses
will be interesting - will Boris allow it!?

The 25 is now the only route along stretches that used to be covered
by two or three overlapping routes such as the 86 and the 10, which
must have taken a lot of pressure off it, given that not everyone goes
all the way from Ilford to Oxford Circus.

I am not completely clear how all the rationalisation has worked in
terms of total capacity.

To be fair the 25 had one capacity boost not long after it went bendy
plus the 205 was extended to Mile End within the last year. I accept
there's a gap between Mile End and Stratford but that gets filled in by
the new 425 in a few weeks time. Thus the 25 will be duplicated along
almost all of its length - Aldgate to Bank being the gap.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 19 May, 15:13, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2008 06:52:55 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
On 19 May, 09:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
You cite the 25 as an example but the 25 has
been awful for years no matter what day of the week. I remain amazed
that it is as busy as it is given that it is duplicated over its length
by other rail and bus routes. *The Sunday 25 has recently been increased
in frequency in an attempt to cope - it had a temporary enhancement
between Aldgate and Stratford for a few months. *Whether TfL will agree
to increase the main service on M-S using spare former route 453 buses
will be interesting - will Boris allow it!?

The 25 is now the only route along stretches that used to be covered
by two or three overlapping routes such as the 86 and the 10, which
must have taken a lot of pressure off it, given that not everyone goes
all the way from Ilford to Oxford Circus.

I am not completely clear how all the rationalisation has worked in
terms of total capacity.

To be fair the 25 had one capacity boost not long after it went bendy
plus the 205 was extended to Mile End within the last year. *I accept
there's a gap between Mile End and Stratford but that gets filled in by
the new 425 in a few weeks time. Thus the 25 will be duplicated along
almost all of its length - Aldgate to Bank being the gap.
--


Been searching TfL to find where the 425 will go, but apart from "The
consultation is closed" I can't seem to find anything.

Will it cover part of the old 25 (Becontree Heath to Victoria, often
in overlapping sections anyway) or does it branch off?

In message
, MIG
writes

Been searching TfL to find where the 425 will go, but apart from "The
consultation is closed" I can't seem to find anything.

Will it cover part of the old 25 (Becontree Heath to Victoria, often in
overlapping sections anyway) or does it branch off?

Unless the plan has changed, it will run from Stratford through Bow,
Mile End and Homerton, terminating at Clapton, Nightingale Road.
--
Paul Terry

On May 19, 5:41*pm, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
, MIG
writes

Been searching TfL to find where the 425 will go, but apart from "The
consultation is closed" I can't seem to find anything.

Will it cover part of the old 25 (Becontree Heath to Victoria, often in
overlapping sections anyway) or does it branch off?

Unless the plan has changed, it will run from Stratford through Bow,
Mile End and Homerton, terminating at Clapton, Nightingale Road.

Ah thanks. Do you know where the plans can be found now?

In message
, MIG
writes

On May 19, 5:41*pm, Paul Terry wrote:

Unless the plan has changed, it will run from Stratford through Bow,
Mile End and Homerton, terminating at Clapton, Nightingale Road.

Ah thanks. Do you know where the plans can be found now?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...hive/6516.aspx
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:31 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

Only a few bendy routes are those previously run by RMs and thus we
get to an interesting issue about whether the new RM, if it is ever
built, would replace standard double decks on routes like the 13,
14, 19, 22, 390. Would they be deployed on routes like the 253 or
254 which are very, very busy and were run with RMs years before
but which could justifiably be a stronger candidate for conversion
back to crew than some other routes? Would the new RM be put onto
routes like the 18 or 29 which are bendy now but were OPO double
deck for years before conversion but which were frankly spending
more time standing still at stops than going anywhere.

A lot of the later bendy-bus routes were Routemaster replacements,
e.g. 12, 38, 73.

Err they were the *only* ones Colin. You can argue over whether the 436
replaced RMs or not on route 36. Every other bendy conversion replaced
OPO vehicles. People need to be careful about swallowing the "bendy
buses ate my Routemaster" press mythology.

I suppose it rather depends on when you count the days of RM operation of
the routes or their predecessors. They weren't always OPO double deckers.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Martin Rich wrote:
One effect of the insistence on low-floor buses, whcih have really
only been the norm for double-deckers for the last ten years or so, is
that currently London has quite a young fleet of buses. About the
oldest one-person double-deckers that you see are 'S' registration,
which would have been new in 1998-9, but most are much newer than
that.

Yes. TfL achieved what has only happened once before in London: the
replacement of almost the whole fleet over 7 years. The last time was
1947-54, when most existing buses were worn out after the war.

I wonder if the current buses will last as long as the RTs and RFs did.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Mark Brader:
What I haven't heard about is the status of the
*other* double-deckers, the ones operated only by a driver.

Martin Rich:
As others have already said, one-person double-deckers remain the
commonest type in London.

Thanks to Martin and others who have explained this.

One effect of the insistence on low-floor buses, whcih have really
only been the norm for double-deckers for the last ten years or so...

The "low-floor" buses we're now getting in Toronto are only low-floor
for about 2/3 of the bus, including both doors. To ride in the back
of the bus you have to climb two steps. Compare the window heights
in different parts of the bus in either of these photos (taken a few
minutes' walk from my house, incidentally):

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/TTC7860.JPG
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/images/TTC7865%20CS.JPG

This means that the rear wheels don't cut into the seating capacity
and there's more space for underfloor equipment.

But it also means that if the bus is full then it's quite likely that
people will be on the steps or near the top of the steps when the
driver brakes for a bus stop, and if they fall they'll fall forward
down the steps. I think that's dangerous and I'm dismayed that it's
being widely used here, but I remember encountering a similar design
in London.

Are most of the present London buses entirely low-floor, or split in
a similar way, or of some other pattern?
--
Mark Brader | "[Jupiter's] satellites are invisible to the naked eye
Toronto | and therefore can have no influence on the Earth
| and therefore would be useless
| and therefore do not exist." -- Francesco Sizi

My text in this article is in the public domain.