In article , Mait001
writes
Introducing a massive subsidy scheme that is bound to fail

Purely out of interest, in law, how is a "massive" subsidy different
from a smaller one?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article ,
writes
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:19:31 +0000 (UTC), "Nes"
wrote:

Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.


They're going because they're old,
Yes.

unreliable,
I've not seen any figures to prove or disprove this one.

cramped,
I have more trouble fitting on newer buses than RMs/RMLs. I find them
some of the most comfortable buses I've ever been on.

cold,
Not in my experience.

dirty
Only the Arriva ones, for some reason.

and rather embarassing museum pieces
"Icons".

in a supposedly world class
capital city.
It *is* a world class capital city.

But I'll still enjoy seeing them in museums!
As will I. But I hope (and suspect) that there will always be some
form of "heritage" operation with them in Central London. That's why
I'm surprised at them vanishing from the 11, 9 and 15. I would have
expected those to form exactly such a heritage network.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:31:45 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:


They're fun, but they're not comfortable inside (the only place I can
sit is at the front or on the side-facing seats unless I take up 2
seats), and standing is best not attempted unless under 5' 6" in
height.


I agree with you about the height, but only the latest (low-floor)
generation of double-deckers are significantly better. Similarly,
Routemasters are noisier inside than recent double-deckers, but were
smooth and quiet compared to most rear-engined buses of the 1970s and
1980s. Personally I don't find the side-facing seats very
comfortable, but am usually OK on the forward-facing seats whether
upstairs or downstairs.

Again this is a personal reaction, but I much prefer the Routemaster's
firm ride to the softer suspension on newer buses. The very floaty
DAF double-deckers favoured by Arriva are particularly unpleasant, and
have a disconcerting tendency to bob around at bus stops as though
they're moored in slightly choppy waters.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:19:31 +0000 (UTC), "Nes"
wrote:

Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.

Nes.
--
To reply directly to me, please remove all the spam-deflecting X's!
Either that, or simply reply to the group!

I was on one the other night going up York Way. It was the first bus
for twenty minutes, and it was so packed that I could just about hang
onto the post at the back with most of my encumberance flapping about
in the wind. Great fun, but probably in contravention of every safety
standard ever invented - I'm sure that if a passing plod had seen us,
there'd have been trouble. I imagine that this sort of thing is a big
part of the thinking to remove them from service.

I wonder if the last three in service will process in state to
Willesden Bus Garage past roads thronged with wellwishers and camera
crews. It worked for Concorde...

R

On 28 Oct 2003 18:46:36 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:



In a nutshell, the scheme was unlawful because the ratepayers of Bromley were
being asked to subsidise a transport system to a disproportionate extent from
which they derived little benefit (there being no Underground within the
borough).


Why is that unlawful? Unfair, perhaps, but unlawful? What law was it
breaking?

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:31:45 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:



They're fun, but they're not comfortable inside

They're *far* more comfotable than later buses, and give a much
smother ride. (unless they just have better drivers)

The only thing I'd add is 100% off-bus ticketing

Most other places with mostly off-bus ticketing allow for buying a
ticket on board as well.

(already a reality in Central London)

Not quite - Routmaster conductors can and do sell tickets

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:20:40 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:


unreliable,
I've not seen any figures to prove or disprove this one.

Well, as they've lasted so long, they can't have been that unreliable.

cramped,
I have more trouble fitting on newer buses than RMs/RMLs. I find them
some of the most comfortable buses I've ever been on.

Indeed


cold,
Not in my experience.

nor mine



in a supposedly world class
capital city.
It *is* a world class capital city.

except for public transport :-(

"Nes" wrote in message ...
Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.

I asked London Buses a similar question last month.

Here's their reply:

=====
.... we are currently reviewing the benefits of replacing
Routemasters with fully accessible buses. Fully accessible buses will enable
all members of the community to use them. The intention is therefore to
remove the vast majority of Routemasters by 2008. Unfortunately, at the
current time we do not know whether some may be retained on "tourist
routes." However, we do recognise that these buses are popular with many
customers and are also an important part of London's transport heritage. We
will bear this in mind before taking any decisions.

In respect of specific routes, the vehicles used are constantly monitored
and decisions are taken to renew vehicles in light of ongoing assessments on
the state of the fleet. I am therefore unable to tell you which routes will
lose their routemasters and when. In respect of route 94, there is no
immediate plan to change the vehicles serving this route.

I am sorry I can not give you a clearer response at this time. Thank you
once again for your continued interest.
=====


Robin

In article , K
writes
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:20:40 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

unreliable,
I've not seen any figures to prove or disprove this one.

Well, as they've lasted so long, they can't have been that unreliable.
Well, they have been re-engined.

But then a "modular" approach to overhaul was inbuilt to the design,
really, wasn't it?! ;-)

cramped,
I have more trouble fitting on newer buses than RMs/RMLs. I find them
some of the most comfortable buses I've ever been on.

Indeed

cold,
Not in my experience.

nor mine


in a supposedly world class
capital city.
It *is* a world class capital city.

except for public transport :-(
Despite the constant digs at it, I still find London's public transport
pretty good. This is especially so when compared to other British
cities!

Even Paris, often cited as being streets ahead of London in public
transport provision, has nothing like as comprehensive a bus network.
During the evenings and on Sundays it reduces to a very skeletal
network.

(Though the Metro, thanks to ongoing investment, *is* far better than
the London Underground, it serves a smaller area. Now if we could have
had Crossrail at the same time that Paris managed to get its RER.......)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Purely out of interest, in law, how is a "massive" subsidy different
from a smaller one?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK

Ian, it is a matter of proportionality. If the ratepayers of Bromley ae paying
disproportionately for a service from which they do not benefit, no doubt they
would regard it (as did the Courts) a massive and illegal subsidy.

If it were a small amount, but even if it could have been proved that the
Bromley ratepayers received no direct benefit (for example, suppose there were
NO L.T. services whatsoever in that Borough), I think the G.L.C. might still
have won the case since it may have been provable that Bromleians when
travelling beyond their borough boundaries derive some benefit.

However, the scheme that Ken introduced required hugely disproportionate
contributions from some boroughs (maybe the richer ones, but also those South
of the Thames without Underground services) and this led to the challenge.

Marc.