There are many differences between bus operations in the 60s and 70s
and today. Here are a few:

VEHICLE & PAX
In the days of the "traditional: double-decker, eg Routemaster,
conductors would call 'seats on top" and persuade passengers to go up
rather than stand in the lower saloon.

Standing capacity was limited, with none of what the old regulations
used to call "perambulators or other wheeled conveyance" - in other
words, baby "buggies"

And, dare I say, passengers were "better behaved" with a sense of
shared responsibility and common purpose. If you try to interpret that
as some sort of right-wing racist rant, please see [1] below

ROADS, ROUTES & TRAFFIC

The roads are MUCH busier, with many more vehicles of all kinds -
including buses.

Here in SE London, the routes for both my local buses [244 and 380]
operate predominantly in residential roads.

The 380 in particular covers what must be one of the most challenging
routes in London on the section from Woolwich Dockyard to Blackheath -
steep hills, tight corners, lots of parked cars on both sides of the
road, and often very tight clearances, particularly where vans and SUVs
are parked.

When they do emerge on to main roads, for example between Plumstead and
Woolwich, these roads are highly congested in the rush hour with both
trucks heading to/from the Blackwall tunnel, local traffic and
commuters, more than a few of whom display poor lane discipline and a
lack of what's known as reasonable consideration for other road users.

Operating a route like that in conditions of poor adhesion and poor
visibility as we saw in yesterday's rush hour, would be irresponsible,
to put it mildly. It would put the bus, its passengers and other
vehicles / road users including pedestrians at risk.

SO: not lawyer-itis, not elfnsafety, and for goodness sake, not lazy
bus drivers. Just common sense.

Of course, there's an entirely separate issue about civil
contingencies, emergency planning, preparedness and the appropriate
levels of investment required.

But there London is not alone. Just a few days ago there was
astonishment chez Obama that Malia and Sasha's schools were closed
because there was some snow in and around DC.

"Back home in Chicago the schools never closed," an apparently bemused
President said [although we suspect that was a gentle prod at the
authorities in the District and there congressional paymasters].

The reason is simple: Chicago gets LOTs of snow every year. If you live
there or anywhere along the Great Lakes and Northern Midwest every
community has to plan for - and fund - its snowtime operations, because
between December and February or March heavy snow is as inevitable as
night and day. But when I worked in DC as a journalist I twice found
the government of the US effectively closed for business. Even the
Pentagon car park had spaces on one particularly bout of snow.

I made a joke of it in a feature article : "Don't tell the Kremlin.
They don't need all those missiles. All they need to do is watch the
weather forecast, and Washington DC could be theirs in a day. As long
as they brought their fur hats!"

But I wonder how Londoners would react if next year's council tax bill
had an extra line "weather precept - £50" or whatever?

Food for thought?

Ken

[1] I have mobility problems, requiring the use of a stick, and with
limited articulation of the knee can only fit into one or two seats.
Which group of pax most often allow me to board first and/or offer me
seats: black women aged mid-20s to 40s, particularly those with
children, who are often told "let the gentleman sit there - he needs
that seat more than you do" - and then provide interesting and engaging
travel companions.
Which least? White men, particularly under-40s.





On 2009-02-02 05:05:40 +0000, Epicentre said:

Matthew Dickinson wrote in
:

All TfL bus services have been suspended due to the snow.

I can't remember this happening in the 70s and 80s when we had the
same levels of snowfall, so I wonder what has changed...

I'm fairly certain it happened in 1979 when I had to walk back from Camden
Town to Stoke Newington one evening


--
Writer / editor on London's River

In article , (Bearded) wrote:

VEHICLE & PAX
In the days of the "traditional: double-decker, eg Routemaster,
conductors would call 'seats on top" and persuade passengers to go
up rather than stand in the lower saloon.

Standing capacity was limited, with none of what the old
regulations used to call "perambulators or other wheeled
conveyance" - in other words, baby "buggies"

Actually, the space under the stairs was for stowing things like (folded)
buggies and quite well used as such in my schooldays.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Folded is of course the key word. At least in this part of the world
most of the buggies look totally un-foldable - and even with those
which are, users look shocked if a driver asks them to fold because the
bus is busy.

My neighbour is totally fed up with these bulky "baby chariots" as she
calls them. She travels with a lightweight buggy which can open and
close with one hand, a front sling to carry baby on the bus or in the
supermarket, and a backpack to carry all the stuff. She is far more
mobile than the "charioteers" !

On 2009-02-03 10:39:52 +0000, said:

In article , (Bearded) wrote:

VEHICLE & PAX
In the days of the "traditional: double-decker, eg Routemaster,
conductors would call 'seats on top" and persuade passengers to go
up rather than stand in the lower saloon.

Standing capacity was limited, with none of what the old
regulations used to call "perambulators or other wheeled
conveyance" - in other words, baby "buggies"

Actually, the space under the stairs was for stowing things like (folded)
buggies and quite well used as such in my schooldays.


--
Writer / editor on London's River

On 3/2/09 10:39, in article ,
" wrote:

In article , (Bearded) wrote:

VEHICLE & PAX
In the days of the "traditional: double-decker, eg Routemaster,
conductors would call 'seats on top" and persuade passengers to go
up rather than stand in the lower saloon.

Standing capacity was limited, with none of what the old
regulations used to call "perambulators or other wheeled
conveyance" - in other words, baby "buggies"

Actually, the space under the stairs was for stowing things like (folded)
buggies and quite well used as such in my schooldays.

I think this was the case on the later buses, but not on the Routemaster. I
believe the wording of the notice was:

"Light luggage or parcels may be placed (or carried, or some similar word)
under the staircase by permission of the conductor but at owner's risk"

No mention of baby buggies, which didn't exist when the Routemaster was
designed, and I think a folded one would be too long to fit in the space
provided.

In article ,
(Stephen Furley) wrote:

On 3/2/09 10:39, in article
,
" wrote:

In article , (Bearded) wrote:

VEHICLE & PAX
In the days of the "traditional: double-decker, eg Routemaster,
conductors would call 'seats on top" and persuade passengers to go
up rather than stand in the lower saloon.

Standing capacity was limited, with none of what the old
regulations used to call "perambulators or other wheeled
conveyance" - in other words, baby "buggies"

Actually, the space under the stairs was for stowing things like
(folded) buggies and quite well used as such in my schooldays.

I think this was the case on the later buses, but not on the
Routemaster. I believe the wording of the notice was:

"Light luggage or parcels may be placed (or carried, or some similar
word) under the staircase by permission of the conductor but at owner's
risk"

No mention of baby buggies, which didn't exist when the Routemaster was
designed, and I think a folded one would be too long to fit in the space
provided.

They were folding pushchairs and they went there in the 1959s and 60s, I
can assure you.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , lid
writes
ROADS, ROUTES & TRAFFIC

The roads are MUCH busier, with many more vehicles of all kinds -
including buses.

Yes, I'm sure that's an issue. We travel for work and more notably for
school generally MUCH further than used to happen in the days before
parental choice became as great as it is now.


Here in SE London, the routes for both my local buses [244 and 380]
operate predominantly in residential roads.

The 380 in particular covers what must be one of the most challenging
routes in London on the section from Woolwich Dockyard to Blackheath -
steep hills, tight corners, lots of parked cars on both sides of the
road, and often very tight clearances, particularly where vans and SUVs
are parked.


I think the same about the W3 and W5 which traverse some roads around
Harringay and Stroud Green which I'm sure would not have been ever
remotely passable to a bus yesterday.

However, particular problems with some roads should not, I feel - have
resulted in a blanket cessation of London bus services on all routes.
(I feel the same about the "blanket" closure of schools here in the West
Midlands. A total over-reaction.)

Yes, they were exception conditions; yes we've not seen it quite like
this for a long time; yes there's more traffic; yes society is more
litigious.

But we are talking here about heavy levels of snow, not unprecedented
ones. We are talking about a city of getting on for 8 million people,
the economic centre of a region with perhaps twice that population.
Damn it, we're talking about what is probably the most "important"
single city in the world. The snow *was* forecast and the maximum
amount admissible of public transport should have run.

SO: not lawyer-itis, not elfnsafety, and for goodness sake, not lazy
bus drivers. Just common sense.

One thing I never for a moment thought it was was "lazy" bus drivers.


[1] I have mobility problems, requiring the use of a stick, and with
limited articulation of the knee can only fit into one or two seats.
Which group of pax most often allow me to board first and/or offer me
seats: black women aged mid-20s to 40s, particularly those with
children, who are often told "let the gentleman sit there - he needs
that seat more than you do" - and then provide interesting and engaging
travel companions.
Which least? White men, particularly under-40s.

I had to taker a group of elderly and not very mobile people for
Yorkshire on the District Line from Westminster to Tower Hill once (long
story). They were astonished at how - as we boarded the train - people
*everywhere* rose up together to offer them their seats. They said
that that wouldn't have happened back home on a bus or train. They
thought Londoners were great and were still talking about it when I
looked after them again a year later!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

I'm not happy. The word from work at 07:30 is that we are closed to
students today, but that staff have to go in, unless unsafe to do so, until
13:00 when the building will be closed.

I call 020 7222 1234; it's still saying that due to the volume of calls no
information can be provided by 'phone, and suggests the website. On the
website there is a snow section which suggests various sources of
information, including the TfL website, which I'm already in and, yes you've
guessed it, calling 020 7222 1234.

The website says something along the lines of, most buses are running
reasonably, and lists a few routes, in Edmonton, Enfield and Brentford,
which are not running. I leave home, and walk to the bus stop, there are no
buses to be seen, but a large crowd of passengers who say they have been
waiting for a long time. I can see no tyre tracks pulling in to the bus
stop, so I'm doubtful there have been any buses recently. If one does come
along I'm not going to be able to get on it with the size of the crowd
that's waiting. I walk to the next bus stop, which gives me an additional
route, but otherwise the situation is the same as at the first one. I carry
on walking; a 60 and a 405 pass me heading South, but nothing going North.
Somewhere approaching Purley I'm passed by two 405s which are full, and
don't stop; they're running on the main road, and not on their normal route.
Still no 60s. Eventually I do manage to get a 60 from South Croydon. No
sign of any 166 or 466 buses. Somebody said that there were no trains, and
I didn't see any crossing the bridges over the road, or on the line running
parallel where it can be seen from the road.

The pavements are covered in deep snow and ice; the East one being much
worse than the West for some reason. The road surface is wet, but almost
totally clear of snow and ice. There are significantly less vehicles on it
than normal, but none of them seems to have any difficulty. This applies to
the main road, there is still a lot of snow and ice on side roads; a
Waitrose lorry is stuck in snow completely blocking one side road for
example.

At 13:00 I leave work and walk to the bus stop. A 60 comes along, but I
don't notice the destination on it. We get to South Croydon, and it
terminates. I decide to walk down to the storage place to pay my rent. Get
there to find nobody in the office, as had been the case at 09:00 when I
passed it in the other direction. Unfortunately, in doing so I miss both a
405 and a 60. Wait quite some time for another 60 which does get me to
Coulsdon. We pass another 60 heading North, destination South Croydon. A
lot of buses seem to be terminating there, from both directions, but I can't
see why. Do they have a shortage of drivers to take them on?

This is clearly nothing like a normal service; why can't the web site give
more accurate information? When I arrived at work I looked for information
on those two specific routes, and was assured that they were operating
normally.

I've had to do a lot of walking on uneven snow ad ice in the last two days,
which has done my bad leg no good at all; twisting the knee, which I have
done several times, is particularly painful, and my feet are bleeding where
the ill-fitting boots have rubbed the skin off them. I hope things improve
tomorrow.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:17:40 +0000, Stephen Furley
wrote:
....
I call 020 7222 1234; it's still saying that due to the volume of calls no
information can be provided by 'phone, and suggests the website. On the
website there is a snow section which suggests various sources of
information, including the TfL website, which I'm already in and, yes you've
guessed it, calling 020 7222 1234.

The fix for this was to call 7222 1200 which has 1 for tubes, 2 for
buses. I needed both so it meant 2 calls as there's no way back from
"1" to "2", not * nor # nor 0.

Countdown was busy warning about unattended packages, and advising
peeps to call 7222 1234... No buses listed, no info to the odd waiting
soul that buses had gone for an all day sulk.

The whiteboards in HeathrowC and Hamm (P+D, the other one was closed
of course) had no info on what was up and what was down. Not like a
usual workday when they list all the daily drama.

This is clearly nothing like a normal service; why can't the web site give
more accurate information? When I arrived at work I looked for information
on those two specific routes, and was assured that they were operating
normally.

My flight was cancelled with 15 or so of us quaffing coffee (airline
version of). No info on baa.com nor the airlines' sites. In short, a
perfect demo of how the info age is not yet with us. Maybe one day
we'll get a 140 char Twitter-like improvement.
--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

In message , at 18:01:32 on
Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Colum Mylod remarked:
My flight was cancelled with 15 or so of us quaffing coffee (airline
version of). No info on baa.com nor the airlines' sites. In short, a
perfect demo of how the info age is not yet with us. Maybe one day
we'll get a 140 char Twitter-like improvement.

My experience is that most flight departure delays are caused by
"incoming aircraft" delays. So what you really need is information about
when the inbound aircraft left its last port of call.
--
Roland Perry