| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
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Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn?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! -- |
Where have all the RMs gone?
Nes huge discussion on Smartgroups.
Others due to go are the 23 not far off too. WVL's from SW and more are arriving to replace the 11. No doubt PVLs and PDLs will occasionally be on there. "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 Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn?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. Nes. -- To reply directly to me, please remove all the spam-deflecting X's! Either that, or simply reply to the group! -- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/2003 |
Where have all the RMs gone?
94? Not yet??
"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 Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn?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. Nes. -- To reply directly to me, please remove all the spam-deflecting X's! Either that, or simply reply to the group! -- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/2003 |
Where have all the RMs gone?
Sunny Dale wrote:
"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 Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn?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. Nes huge discussion on Smartgroups. Huh? Others due to go are the 23 not far off too. WVL's from SW and more are arriving to replace the 11. No doubt PVLs and PDLs will occasionally be on there. And various other TLAs no doubt. What he actually asked was "why?". Routemasters are being withdrawn because they are becoming increasingly expensive to maintain in service, because modern buses are more accessible to less-mobile passengers, and because it's cheaper not to have a conductor. It is expected that some RMs will be retained on one or two routes as a tourist attraction, but I'm not aware of any plans for this. I believe that the 94 is still a Routemaster route on Mondays to Fridays until January 2004. Perhaps you encountered it at a weekend when they do use other buses. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Where have all the RMs gone?
Nes wrote:
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. Because Ken reckons that with bendy buses and off-bus ticketing, an equivalent or better level of service can be provided with conductorless buses. We shall see. It's certain that low-floor double deckers weigh about 1.5x what RMLs do, per passenger, with fewer seats. Bendy buses weigh even more, but maybe not on a per passenger basis. It is rarely possible for them to overtake cycles safely while on the move in London. This will either slow them down or lead to collisions. There is vague talk of retaining RMLs on one route, but I wouldn't count on it. If you want to ride on them in normal service, make the most of the next year or two. Colin McKenzie |
Where have all the RMs gone?
Because Ken reckons that with bendy buses and off-bus ticketing, an
equivalent or better level of service can be provided with conductorless buses. We shall see. That's not what I recall his election manifesto saying: something along the lines of "vote for Ken and conductors will be safe" I seem to recall. But why should that surprise me: just one more of Ken's many lies. And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"? Marc. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
"Mait001" wrote in message
... And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"? Marc. Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible idea. Jonn |
Where have all the RMs gone?
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Jonn Elledge
), in message who said: "Mait001" wrote in message ... And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"? Marc. Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible idea. Umm... cheaper how? I thought it was simply transfering some of the cost from a voluntary payment to an involuntary contribution. BTN |
Where have all the RMs gone?
"Mait001" wrote in message
... And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"? Marc. Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible idea. Jonn Jonn, Cheaper public transport, subsidised in a lawful way is not a bad idea. The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do) which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords. Had Ken introduced a more modest scheme to start with, which would have been legally watertight, then the legal challenge, huge Court costs etc. would not have occurred and the ultimate disastrous demise of "Fares Fair", and with it a fair number of Routemasters which had to go in the ensuing service cuts, would not have happened. Hence Ken was directly to blame for the service reductions and Routemaster demise that followed. Marc. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do) which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords. What was unlawful about it? I remember Fares Fair and that it was was withdrawn shortly after being introduced but can't remember why it was supposedly unlawful. It was unlawful because the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords said it was unlawful. It was judicially reviewed by the High Court, then the Court of Appeal then finally it reached the House of Lords which upheld the original complaint by Bromley. 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). Marc. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
Hence Ken was directly to blame for the service reductions and Routemaster
^^^^^^^^ demise that followed. As a barrister, would you term this chain of events as 'directly'? Helen, Maybe "directly" is putting it a bit strongly, but I would, as a barrister (which I am) certainly say it was foreseeable. Introducing a massive subsidy scheme that is bound to fail (I'd love to know which Q.C.s, if any, advised Ken that his scheme would succeed!) which itself causes much more disruption than if things had just been left alone, is bound eventually to result in some compensating reallocation of funds, i.e. robbing Peter to pay Paul. Quite apart from this, the costs of the legal action iself would have been better! Not that I am averse to lawyers earning their keep, but every time a politician dreams up a looney scheme (the present Government is on a hiding to nothing with its latest asylum announcements - all of which will be curbed on Human Rights grounds, thus earning more money for immigration lawyers - I am not one, being a criminal barrister!) lawyers are bound to make money. A good reason for leaving things alone unless absolutely essential to meddle. Marc. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
"Nes" wrote in
: Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? At the risk of being controversial, isn't it about time the remainder were scrapped? I'm not a frequent visitor to the metropolis, but the last RML I saw was dirty, noisy, dented and tired. Frankly, it was making London look untidy. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
On 28 Oct 2003 20:58:26 GMT, Peter Wright Overground wrote:
I'm not a frequent visitor to the metropolis, but the last RML I saw was dirty, noisy, dented and tired. Frankly, it was making London look untidy. 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. From the passenger's point of view, I think a combination of large single-deck buses, bendies and modern double-deckers is really better. The only thing I'd add is 100% off-bus ticketing (already a reality in Central London) and boarding by any door for ticket-holders with an increased penalty fare (how about gbp60 with 50% discount for prompt or on-the-spot payment - like a parking fine) and regular inspections - on all buses, not just bendies. Neil -- Neil Williams is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null. Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
Although the legal logic of the Lords decision is not exactly
clear.... Rob. There are many other Judgements, some of which run to hundreds of pages, which are far more opqaue than the Bromley case! But then, I'm a barrister! Marc. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
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, unreliable, cramped, cold, dirty and rather embarassing museum pieces in a supposedly world class capital city. But I'll still enjoy seeing them in museums! |
Where have all the RMs gone?
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 |
Where have all the RMs gone?
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 |
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
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 |
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
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 :-( |
Where have all the RMs gone?
"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 |
Where have all the RMs gone?
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 |
Where have all the RMs gone?
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. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
|
Where have all the RMs gone?
Why is that unlawful? Unfair, perhaps, but unlawful? What law was it
breaking? The law that requires subsidiary authorities to adhere to the statutory provisions creating the powers they are exercising. The High Court has always had the power to review the procedures adopted by inferior tribunals and local authorities when a citizen wishes to challenge their adherence to proper procedures, on grounds of irrationality, illegality or breach of natural justice. The statute was the Transport (London) Act 1969, and basically the majority of the House of Lords decided that L.T. had to be run on a break-even basis, and that the G.L.C. in seeking to reimburse L.T. for the inevitable operating loss that would result from "Fares Fair" (which involved a 25% fares reduction across the board) was abusing its power. Under Section 7(6), L.T. was required to balance its books and by Section 11, the G.L.C. was empowered to give general directions to L.T.but the Courts held that it was abuse of this power to institute "Fares Fair" which was a socio-political act (to encourage people to use public transport) because that was not the purpose of the 1969 Act or the proper function of the G.L.C. Marc. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
In article , Peter
Beale writes In article , (Ian Jelf) wrote: 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. How many years ago is it since they had the Tilling ST running a heritage route (100, I think)? I saw it running at Easter 1980 on my first ever trip to London (gulp!). -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Where have all the RMs gone?
In article , Mait001
writes 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. No, I could perhaps understand them regarding it as an *unfair* subsidy [1] but not as an *illegal* one. 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. I have a lot of difficulty with this "proportion" argument, though. Something's either legal or illegal and I still can't see how a "small" subsidy was enshrined in law as okay, while a "large" one was not. That said, thanks for explaining the detail of the relevant act in your other posting on this thread. I've never seen that done on this matter in detail before and much appreciated it. I still don't think it's right but then who am I as a mere mortal to argue with Lord Denning et al? ;-) [1] As you correctly point out in the following paragraph, just because there were no Underground Services in Bromley doesn't mean that they had no *LT* services. That said, Fares Fair should perhaps really have applied equally to railway services, too. After all, the mode of transport itself is irrelevant, only the service. -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Where have all the RMs gone?
In article ,
says... In article , (Rupert Goodwins) wrote: 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... And for the trams on their way to New Cross Gate Depot in 1952. I was there that night!!! |
Where have all the RMs gone?
I have a lot of difficulty with this "proportion" argument, though.
Something's either legal or illegal and I still can't see how a "small" subsidy was enshrined in law as okay, while a "large" one was not. The real point, Ian, was that this was an overtly political act (a "small subsidy would have gone largely unnoticed) and that's why Conservative Bromley challenged it. That said, thanks for explaining the detail of the relevant act in your other posting on this thread. I've never seen that done on this matter in detail before and much appreciated it. I still don't think it's right but then who am I as a mere mortal to argue with Lord Denning et al? ;-) Thanks for your compliment. I treasure a moment when, around 1986, Ken was invited to speak after dinner at my Inn, when amongst those in the audience were several of the Judges who had judged against him. Ken unwisely started on some class war nonsense about upper class judges being against him and the working classes, and one Judge got up and rebuked him thus: " I went to my local council primary school, won a scholarship to my local garmmar school, I served my country in the War, rising to the grand rank of sergeant major, read for the Bar whilst a P.O.W., then did pupillage where I was earning a Guinea a week doing traffic accident cases, then worked my way up and used the bus and tube every day of my working life and still do when sitting in London". Ken's embarrassment was a picture! Marc. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:44:56 +0000, K wrote:
They're *far* more comfotable than later buses, and give a much smother ride. (unless they just have better drivers) Lower acceleration, probably. Don't know about smoother - except for the few that've been refurbished with a modern drivetrain, most shudder like anything and jerk badly on changing gear. Most other places with mostly off-bus ticketing allow for buying a ticket on board as well. True - while others board at the rear, people can pay at the front - in Hamburg, a wide range of tickets is available and doesn't cause a lot of delay. Neil -- Neil Williams is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null. Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me. |
Where have all the RMs gone?
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:56:34 GMT, Rupert Goodwins
wrote: 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 Would you get J.Clarkson and J .Collins to travel on a Routemaster even if it had just crossed the Atlantic at mach2? G.Harman |
Where have all the RMs gone?
In article , g.harman
writes On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:56:34 GMT, Rupert Goodwins wrote: 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 Would you get J.Clarkson and J .Collins to travel on a Routemaster even if it had just crossed the Atlantic at mach2? No. That's another reason why I like the RM....... -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:08 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk