The New Bus for London (Routemaster)

Meep wrote:Bendy buses are actually a better design, since the double deck model is unstable and the stairs make it harder to accomodate older/disabled people. They can also have more doors, which makes getting people on and off faster. Also, they are more fuel efficient because they are more streamline.

A better design if London was a massive airfield. Which it isn't.

Alpine Flurry wrote:

Minto wrote:300K each, no recession in London I see.

London and the southern lines are getting shiny new trains too, while the rest of the country is burdened with their cast-offs.

Preferential treatment much?

To be fair, we contribute to a massive disproportionate amount of the UK's GDP..

These new Routemasters are a waste of money though.

jambot wrote:

Meep wrote:Bendy buses are actually a better design, since the double deck model is unstable and the stairs make it harder to accomodate older/disabled people. They can also have more doors, which makes getting people on and off faster. Also, they are more fuel efficient because they are more streamline.

A better design if London was a massive airfield. Which it isn't.

The bendy buses were ditched largely because people thought they were unsafe and led to crushed cyclists, etc.... But there's absolutely no evidence that that's the case.

jambot wrote:

Meep wrote:Bendy buses are actually a better design, since the double deck model is unstable and the stairs make it harder to accomodate older/disabled people. They can also have more doors, which makes getting people on and off faster. Also, they are more fuel efficient because they are more streamline.

A better design if London was a massive airfield. Which it isn't.

They were terrible. They produced slower journeys, were regularly far more cramped inside during rush hour than the double-deckers and, as a driver and cyclist in London, terrible as other vehicles on the road.

My guess is that Mr Meep is not a London resident.

In other news, when I was a boy this is exactly what I thought public transport should look like in 2012. Actually, I thought there should be hovercars and I'd have hoped that teleportation devices - à la The Tomorrow People - would be a bit more prevalent by now, but in the meantime the new buses will do nicely.

jamcc wrote:

Alpine Flurry wrote:

Minto wrote:300K each, no recession in London I see.

London and the southern lines are getting shiny new trains too, while the rest of the country is burdened with their cast-offs.

Preferential treatment much?

To be fair, we contribute to a massive disproportionate amount of the UK's GDP..

These new Routemasters are a waste of money though.

jambot wrote:

Meep wrote:Bendy buses are actually a better design, since the double deck model is unstable and the stairs make it harder to accomodate older/disabled people. They can also have more doors, which makes getting people on and off faster. Also, they are more fuel efficient because they are more streamline.

A better design if London was a massive airfield. Which it isn't.

The bendy buses were ditched largely because people thought they were unsafe and led to crushed cyclists, etc.... But there's absolutely no evidence that that's the case.

Cyclists in London deserve to be crushed, along with everything else they get.

I am aware that bendy buses represent an inconvenience to motorists, however I don't think the slight convenience of motorists should be put above all common sense when making choices in public transport. Bendy buses are safer, more practical for more users, more economical and hold more passengers than double deckers can. There is also zero evidence to say they are hazardous to cyclists. On purely rational grounds the choice should be obvious. Alas, sentiment has triumphed over rationality here and taxpayers and commuters will pay the price.

Good job, Boris. I don't for a minute think he doesn't know what he's doing. The whole buffoon thing he has going is just a tact to make him seem harmless and amiable, rather than as a politically shrewd, highly educated member of the privledged elite who would otherwise alienate many voters. Pandering to populist notions to gain favour at the expense of the city may be good politics but in my books it is highly unethical. Personal gain should never be but above national interest.

So a monster long monstrosity of a bus taking 5mins to turn a corner forcing bikes to move out of the cycle lane into the main flow of traffic isn't a traffic hazard?

Clueless, Meep. Clueless.

Meep wrote:Bendy buses are safer, more economical and hold more passengers than double deckers can.

No they aren't. Fair point on the "more practical for more users", but on everything else you're wrong.

Meep wrote:What is this I don't even

Without wanting to resort to a StayDead style "Wow" response, your entire view on these buses seems to be completely wrong. Going by your posts, I assume your resentment to the routemaster stems more from your dislike of BJ than anything else.

Also, in a city as crowded as London, the last thing you need is a bus that takes up twice the road area than it should.

Bendy buses were strawberry floating gooseberry fool. Boris best thing was taking the monstrosity off the roads!!! Also they kept blowing up.

BORIS FTMFW!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3563279.stm

Yeah, great design.

Delusibeta wrote:

Meep wrote:Bendy buses are safer, more economical and hold more passengers than double deckers can.

No they aren't. Fair point on the "more practical for more users", but on everything else you're wrong.

They're no more unsafe than other types of bus. At least, there's no evidence that says so. Just because people want to believe it or think that it obviously must be the case didn't make it true.

Sorry if I overeacted, but stuff like this really annoys me. Bad enough when public money is wasted, worse then it's wasted on actually providing inferior service. I wonder at what stage in all this actual traffic and transport experts were consulted because it seems like all the basic process of proofing the idea was ignored.

Meep wrote:Sorry if I overeacted, but stuff like this really annoys me. Bad enough when public money is wasted, worse then it's wasted on actually providing inferior service. I wonder at what stage in all this actual traffic and transport experts were consulted because it seems like all the basic process of proofing the idea was ignored.

You know, this post would make sense if they commissioned more bendy buses. They haven't, so this post is nonsense.

jamcc wrote:

Delusibeta wrote:

Meep wrote:Bendy buses are safer, more economical and hold more passengers than double deckers can.

No they aren't. Fair point on the "more practical for more users", but on everything else you're wrong.

They're no more unsafe than other types of bus. At least, there's no evidence that says so. Just because people want to believe it or think that it obviously must be the case didn't make it true.

I work for a bus company in London and while I wont go into details I can tell you there is evidence thats Bendy's are less safe, less economical and less reliable than other types available. They cost an absolute gooseberry fool load to maintain too due to being Mercedes

I work in civil engineering and I've talked to people who have been involved with TfL who have basically said that the full necessary asesments were not carried out prior to the introduction of bendy buses, there are software packages which are used to calculate if certain vehicles will be able to function on certain roads (lorries on a construction site for example) which were not employed.

They were unsafe, particularly for cyclists and they were a major cause of jams but most of all they were an absolute haven for fare dodgers, I've used the bendys many times and not one single trip went by without a handful of people getting on and not using the oyster pads to pay for their journey. I'm glad to see them gone but I've yet to be convinced that the new bus will be worth the money.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Alpine Flurry wrote:

Frank wrote:On the line I use, they were replacing 20-25 year old Class 150's, so it was hardly a needless update (for us, anyway)

Many northern lines are still utilizing trains that age or older. Why are they not allowed brand new trains? Why must they suffer the castaways of the south, while the south always seems to receive everything new first?

You do realise that train companies are all privately operated now right? If you're not getting new trains, it's because your local train company doesn't want the expense...

The government still spends vast amounts of public money on transport projects. And do you know how badly skewed it is?

TRANSPORT SPENDING PER HEAD
London - £2,731
South-east of England - £792
East Midlands - £311
West Midlands - £269
Yorkshire and Humberside - £201
North-west of England - £134
Eastern England - £43
South-west of England - £19
North-east of England - £5

...analysis by IPPR North shows almost half of major transport projects involving public funding benefit only London and the south-east, accounting for 84% of planned spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

How can that obscene disparity possibly be justified?

rinks wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Alpine Flurry wrote:

Frank wrote:On the line I use, they were replacing 20-25 year old Class 150's, so it was hardly a needless update (for us, anyway)

Many northern lines are still utilizing trains that age or older. Why are they not allowed brand new trains? Why must they suffer the castaways of the south, while the south always seems to receive everything new first?

You do realise that train companies are all privately operated now right? If you're not getting new trains, it's because your local train company doesn't want the expense...

The government still spends vast amounts of public money on transport projects. And do you know how badly skewed it is?

TRANSPORT SPENDING PER HEAD
London - £2,731
South-east of England - £792
East Midlands - £311
West Midlands - £269
Yorkshire and Humberside - £201
North-west of England - £134
Eastern England - £43
South-west of England - £19
North-east of England - £5

...analysis by IPPR North shows almost half of major transport projects involving public funding benefit only London and the south-east, accounting for 84% of planned spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

How can that obscene disparity possibly be justified?

Unbelievable.

Bunch of pricks
EDIT: The average Londoner is 546 times more productive than someone living in the north-east, apparently.

Turboman wrote:

rinks wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Alpine Flurry wrote:

Frank wrote:On the line I use, they were replacing 20-25 year old Class 150's, so it was hardly a needless update (for us, anyway)

Many northern lines are still utilizing trains that age or older. Why are they not allowed brand new trains? Why must they suffer the castaways of the south, while the south always seems to receive everything new first?

You do realise that train companies are all privately operated now right? If you're not getting new trains, it's because your local train company doesn't want the expense...

The government still spends vast amounts of public money on transport projects. And do you know how badly skewed it is?

TRANSPORT SPENDING PER HEAD
London - £2,731
South-east of England - £792
East Midlands - £311
West Midlands - £269
Yorkshire and Humberside - £201
North-west of England - £134
Eastern England - £43
South-west of England - £19
North-east of England - £5

...analysis by IPPR North shows almost half of major transport projects involving public funding benefit only London and the south-east, accounting for 84% of planned spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

How can that obscene disparity possibly be justified?

Unbelievable.

Bunch of pricks
EDIT: The average Londoner is 546 times more productive than someone living in the north-east, apparently.

Yes. That's why they send us people from the North East down there to do their work for them

Lagamorph wrote:

Turboman wrote:

rinks wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Alpine Flurry wrote:

Frank wrote:On the line I use, they were replacing 20-25 year old Class 150's, so it was hardly a needless update (for us, anyway)

Many northern lines are still utilizing trains that age or older. Why are they not allowed brand new trains? Why must they suffer the castaways of the south, while the south always seems to receive everything new first?

You do realise that train companies are all privately operated now right? If you're not getting new trains, it's because your local train company doesn't want the expense...

The government still spends vast amounts of public money on transport projects. And do you know how badly skewed it is?

TRANSPORT SPENDING PER HEAD
London - £2,731
South-east of England - £792
East Midlands - £311
West Midlands - £269
Yorkshire and Humberside - £201
North-west of England - £134
Eastern England - £43
South-west of England - £19
North-east of England - £5

...analysis by IPPR North shows almost half of major transport projects involving public funding benefit only London and the south-east, accounting for 84% of planned spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

How can that obscene disparity possibly be justified?

Unbelievable.

Bunch of pricks
EDIT: The average Londoner is 546 times more productive than someone living in the north-east, apparently.

Yes. That's why they send us people from the North East down there to do their work for them

Did your productivity increase 546 times?