Another squashed bus
 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:58:14 +0100, MarkVarley - MVP
wrote:

That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often
use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my
bus won't make-it!

In a sensible world, where TfL was an operator and had hundreds of
buses at its disposal, turning short wouldn't be necessary because
they could take one bus off each of several high-frequency routes and
use it to beef up the number of buses on the problem route to maintain
frequency and coverage.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Another squashed bus
 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:40:23 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote this gibberish:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:58:14 +0100, MarkVarley - MVP
wrote:

That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often
use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my
bus won't make-it!

In a sensible world, where TfL was an operator and had hundreds of
buses at its disposal, turning short wouldn't be necessary because
they could take one bus off each of several high-frequency routes and
use it to beef up the number of buses on the problem route to maintain
frequency and coverage.

Neil

does kicking 30 people off a bus 5-10 minutes from the end of it's
route really do anything to help the provision of service?

grumble grumble
--
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.

Another squashed bus
 

In message , at 19:38:34 on Thu,
31 Jul 2008, Neil Williams remarked:
Rebuild a bridge to the same height as before - but a brand new low
bridge?? What kind of railway would that be, anyway?

I'm wondering if he might be referring to the reinstatement of a
railway with historic rights, e.g. the WHR.

I'm still not at all convinced that those "rights" would involve
building a low bridge over something that would be in the database as a
bus-friendly route.
--
Roland Perry

Another squashed bus
 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:40:23 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:58:14 +0100, MarkVarley - MVP
wrote:

That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often
use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my
bus won't make-it!

In a sensible world, where TfL was an operator and had hundreds of
buses at its disposal, turning short wouldn't be necessary because
they could take one bus off each of several high-frequency routes and
use it to beef up the number of buses on the problem route to maintain
frequency and coverage.

When LT was the operator it was never, ever like that. Reliability was
often utterly dire and there was no flexibility to move anything between
routes. The 38 has always been problematic - even with 55 RMs on it.
The extent of roadworks in the West End in recent months have wrecked a
number of bus routes - the 38 being one - and unfortunately the ELL
works at Dalston in a few weeks time will affect the 38 for several
months. Then we'll have the deep joy of it being type converted away
from bendy buses back to double decks and seeing the reliability
collapse all over again while whatever operator wins the contract gets
used to using pay as you enter buses on this very busy route.

Yes there are rigidities with the contracted regime that is now used but
overall it gives a decent result plus there is proper performance
monitoring and the public can see the results of that process. Did you
have a comparable operation in mind when you made your comment? The
nearest I can think of is Kowloon Motor Bus in HK which has more
flexibility to respond in the way you suggest than most operators.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Another squashed bus
 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:46:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

When LT was the operator it was never, ever like that. Reliability was
often utterly dire and there was no flexibility to move anything between
routes.

Perhaps so, but it so easily could be with modern technology.

The 38 has always been problematic - even with 55 RMs on it.
The extent of roadworks in the West End in recent months have wrecked a
number of bus routes - the 38 being one - and unfortunately the ELL
works at Dalston in a few weeks time will affect the 38 for several
months. Then we'll have the deep joy of it being type converted away
from bendy buses back to double decks and seeing the reliability
collapse all over again while whatever operator wins the contract gets
used to using pay as you enter buses on this very busy route.

Who said anything about paying on entry? I would assume that it will
remain the case that in zone 1 prepurchase is required, just that
it'll need to be shown to / touched in in front of the driver.

That said, I will miss the bendies, personally.

Did you
have a comparable operation in mind when you made your comment?

Not really, just a concept I think would hold a lot of water. My
usual example, Hamburg, doesn't really compare because it has very
little serious traffic congestion that affects buses, partly because
of the superbly-designed bus lanes and partly because more people are
*using* the buses!

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Another squashed bus
 

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:59:33PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:43:26
on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, David Cantrell remarked:
That's not failsafe anyway. What if a low bridge is built over one of
your routes?
I'd be a bit surprised if you could get planning permission to build a
new bridge that's too low for a bus, over an existing street.

Possibly not over a street which is a regular bus route used by
double-deckers, but I'd not be at all surprised to see a low bridge go
up over a road that doesn't normally carry any buses at all. This would
then catch out any database system (not just those that use GPS!) when it
gets used as a diversion, or even worse by a tourist bus.

As always, the solution is for drivers to watch where they're going.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

"IMO, the primary historical significance of Unix is that it marks the
time in computer history where CPUs became so cheap that it was possible
to build an operating system without adult supervision."
-- Russ Holsclaw in a.f.c

Another squashed bus
 

In message , at 14:16:53
on Tue, 5 Aug 2008, David Cantrell remarked:
I'd be a bit surprised if you could get planning permission to build a
new bridge that's too low for a bus, over an existing street.

Possibly not over a street which is a regular bus route used by
double-deckers, but I'd not be at all surprised to see a low bridge go
up over a road that doesn't normally carry any buses at all. This would
then catch out any database system (not just those that use GPS!) when it
gets used as a diversion, or even worse by a tourist bus.

The database in question, if you recall, includes "roads without low
bridges", so even if such a bridge was built the database could be
interrogated to see if the road was one that was currently marked as
"suitable for bus diversions", and some evasive action taken.

For example updating the database well before the bridge was built, or
in my perfect scenario denying permission to build it.
--
Roland Perry

Another squashed bus
 

Paul Corfield wrote:

Fine but in the example being quoted the 38 will have built up delay
on its way in to town. People may have been persuaded that they hate
bendy buses but I suspect they will be begging to have them back,
once they've gone, when they realise that shoving everyone -
including the great buggy contest - past the driver means buses will
sit still for 5 minutes in places like Hackney, Dalston and
Islington. While trying to board a 38 at Tottenham Court Road in the
PM peak has always been a challenge I think the bendies do a bit
better than the RMs did. I dread to think what it will be like with
standard double deckers.

Would Curitiba-style enclosed bus stops at select locations do the trick?
During the peak, passengers would operate turnstyles to get into the manned
stop, and then when the bus arrived, they could pile onto the bus without
showing the driver anything. Outside the peak, the stops would be open,
unmanned and function as normal stops.

Another squashed bus
 

On 5 Aug, 14:16, David Cantrell wrote:

Possibly not over a street which is a regular bus route used by
double-deckers, but I'd not be at all surprised to see a low bridge go
up over a road that doesn't normally carry any buses at all. *This would
then catch out any database system (not just those that use GPS!) when it
gets used as a diversion, or even worse by a tourist bus.

What exactly is a 'Low bridge'? i.e. what is the minimum height which
will be available under a bridge which does not have a height
restriction marked on it? I would be surprised if you would be
allowed to build a low bridge over any road now, except possibly under
very exceptional circumstances, is that not the case?

Another squashed bus
 

On Aug 12, 6:52 am, wrote:
What exactly is a 'Low bridge'? i.e. what is the minimum height which

My guess would be any bridge that a standard road vehicle such as a
double decker or artic can't get under with reasonable clearance.

B2003