|
|
Post by astock5000 on Dec 29, 2008 14:39:03 GMT
Bendy bus drivers should take fares because the total revenue from the routes dropped when the bendy buses took over. But on double deck routes in central London, don't pay the driver, you show them your ticket as you get on. It is more to do with what doors people use to get on the bus, than if you pay the driver or a ticket machine. The original Routemasters should never had been withdrawn and that was the biggest mistake of the previous Mayor They would have to go eventually, as they cost a lot to run, and the newest one is 40 years old. Also all buses will eventually have to be low floor. Anyway, TfL won't keep vehicles built in the 60s, even if people like them, and they are better that what has replaced (or will replace) them... Routemasters are one of them things that signifies London like the black cab. I disagree, because before the last RTs went in 1979, the public didn't know what Routemasters were called. Red double deck open platform buses signify London, not Routemasters. Trams are for the 18th century not the 21st.  Trams are for the 21st century, although they should be used in the right place. Cross River Tram wasn't a good idea, as they would have been on the roads the whole time, and not using old railways, so they wouldn't be any quicker than the buses. I think that the DLR is better for london than trams, but then you can't build a viaduct across central London. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2008 15:59:24 GMT
But on double deck routes in central London, don't pay the driver, you show them your ticket as you get on. It is more to do with what doors people use to get on the bus, than if you pay the driver or a ticket machine.Yep I understand your point, but my point was about revenue. Something has to be done to get back to the levels before the bendy bus. They would have to go eventually, as they cost a lot to run, and the newest one is 40 years old. Also all buses will eventually have to be low floor. Anyway, TfL won't keep vehicles built in the 60s, even if people like them, and they are better that what has replaced (or will replace) them...Yes agree, but if you drive in central London the congestion a bendy bus makes is scandalous. The Routemasters would of been ideal if kept on the main routes like for instance off of Oxford Street. The Routemasters get passengers on and off far quicker than bendy buses. I disagree, because before the last RTs went in 1979, the public didn't know what Routemasters were called. Red double deck open platform buses signify London, not Routemasters.Maybe, but Routemasters are still recognised worldwide.  I think that the DLR is better for london than tramsTotally agree, it's my opinion about trams, I am surprised that H&S haven't had a field day about power cables strewn high above London streets.
|
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Dec 29, 2008 20:20:18 GMT
The Routemasters get passengers on and off far quicker than bendy buses. If there are less than 10 people getting on/off. If there are more than 10 people, a bendy is quicker. The plug doors are the problem on the bendy buses (and the newer double deckers as well). Maybe, but Routemasters are still recognised worldwide. That is why the heritage routes exist, although I think it would be a good idea to join the routes together, so you don't have to change buses somewhere between Aldwych and Charing Cross. |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Dec 29, 2008 20:28:15 GMT
It would be a good idea to join the 9H and 15H routes, and this has been suggested many times. But this would then constitute a 'new' route, and thus a journey which could not be made in a wheelchair without using the conventional low-floor 9 and 15 and changing. And in the brave new world of TFL, if someone in a wheelchair can't make a journey then no one's allowed too.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Dec 29, 2008 20:54:46 GMT
And in the brave new world of TFL, if someone in a wheelchair can't make a journey then no one's allowed too. As I said on page 1 of this thread: All buses must be DDA compliant (ie, low floor) by 2017. T fL decided that London would be compliant by December 2005 - that was the main reason Routemasters were withdrawn. There are now two 'heritage' Routemaster routes in London (9 & 15) - I believe they are (if it were now 2017) fine by DDA legislation because there are parallel routes operated by accessible vehicles. Granted 2017 is some way off, but it is going to happen by law - T fL may be guilty of being quick off the mark, but they have simply responded to legislation that will force the situation anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 29, 2008 21:00:28 GMT
The plug doors are the problem on the bendy buses (and the newer double deckers as well). Last time I went on a London bus, the doors went through a stupid sequence of having a beeping sound, then finally shutting, before the driver could move off. I'm not sure exactly why - you will not be harmed if caught in closing bus doors, I've had them shut on me a few times. And this is in the unlikely event that the driver shuts them on you! Again, not a problem with the concept, but the implementation. Granted 2017 is some way off, but it is going to happen by law - T fL may be guilty of being quick off the mark, but they have simply responded to legislation that will force the situation anyway. Overall, though, they've not actually made the situation change. They merely ensured that deliveries of low floor buses were concentrated in London, rather than being evenly distributed throughout the country. |
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Dec 29, 2008 22:26:04 GMT
I have seen you say before that other areas of the country get London's cast offs - there is a very simple reason for that.......many other areas don't actually generate the revenue to support new vehicles.
Obviously city areas like Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester, etc, etc are going to have a fairly profitable network; but take the rest of the country, the majority - it really is 'country' and those are the routes that cannot support new low floor vehicles.
Those areas need the city areas like London, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester, etc, etc to get the newer vehicles onto the second hand market.
My main local operator is the well known Ensign bus - their PVR is around 20 and their fleet is split evenly (10 new/10 second hand) - 100% low floor. Of the 'others', Blue Triangle, Arriva & First (5 routes) are 100% low floor (40% new/60% second hand); then we have the council supported routes (5 routes) - they're all step entrance. All school buses - step entrance. Supermarket free buses - step entrance.
The second hand low floors in my area have come from a variety of places - Reading, Lancashire, Glasgow, London, Nottingham, Airlinks, Southend to name a few......so London hardly has the monopoly.
My local area is lucky in that it's bus network has supported a fairly decent number of low floor vehicles into service - other areas are less fortunate and will struggle to make the change from step entrance to low floor. Those areas will rely heavily on the second hand market come 2017.
The council supported routes, the school services, the supermarket services........they will never generate the income to justify new low floor vehicles - they will get them when they are cheap enough on the second hand market.
That's why the 2017 deadline is realistic providing places like London do what they have done - they've ensured the second hand market will allow all those low income routes to continue in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 29, 2008 22:54:04 GMT
I shall not get into a disagreement upon the subject; suffice to say that prior to the big groups (Firstbus, Stagecoach etc) being formed, my local area warranted almost yearly batches of new buses. Since then, First have delivered new buses in 2003 and 2008, making the rest of the replacements up with secondhand buses. Unfortunately, the latter by nature of their previous owner are not often suited to the routes deployed on.
Unfortunately, this is what we're stuck with - a system where things are run less on common sense grounds, and more on the whims of pen-pushers and beancounters.
Council supported routes often actually see low floor buses, because the contract specifies they must be used. Again, we see a strange situation where a particular route isn't given low floor buses, because that finite resource has been put to use on the council route - irrespective of which needs the bus most! However, the beancounters have decided that route X shall be given new buses, so it gets them.
School routes are indeed generally step entry, unless they interwork with a low floor route.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Dec 29, 2008 23:11:21 GMT
I shall not get into a disagreement upon the subject; There is no disagreement - we are having a discussion with two opposite points of view! ;D ;D Unfortunately, this is what we're stuck with - a system where things are run less on common sense grounds, and more on the whims of pen-pushers and beancounters. The days of the National Bus Company are long gone - all bus companies are now private business's that must make money; if they don't make money, they go out of business. So in this case, the bean counters are right whether you like it or not! |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 29, 2008 23:27:07 GMT
Any business must make money to survive; how much profit depends upon the business. All bus companies are run for their shareholders. If, however, the shareholders are the passengers, then you end up with a decent service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2008 9:59:27 GMT
If, however, the shareholders are the passengers, then you end up with a decent service.
Agree totally, just look at the obsorbatant fares and lack of trains on national rail, but thats another discussion. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Dec 30, 2008 23:12:07 GMT
Bendy bus drivers should take fares because the total revenue from the routes dropped when the bendy buses took over. The fundamental purpose of buses is to move people, not gather revenue. Bendy buses are very good at the former, and at considerably lower cost than any alternative of similar capacity. Spending millions to replace them with something less good at doing the job in the hope of recovering a relatively insignificant amount of lost revenue is madness. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 30, 2008 23:57:18 GMT
The fundamental purpose of buses is to move people, not gather revenue. Have you tried telling that to Firstbus? |
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Dec 31, 2008 0:04:46 GMT
Bendy bus drivers should take fares because the total revenue from the routes dropped when the bendy buses took over. The fundamental purpose of buses is to move people, not gather revenue. Bendy buses are very good at the former, and at considerably lower cost than any alternative of similar capacity. Spending millions to replace them with something less good at doing the job in the hope of recovering a relatively insignificant amount of lost revenue is madness. Yes but decent people don't want to travel with the sort of "customer" which flood routes deemed as being "free". Sorry, on the 25 I'm fed up with the winos, alchies, tramps, hoodies etc. Why should I have to put up them just because TFL have deemed certain routes as "free"? Even when there is revenue check (every 6 months?) it means law-abiding passengers are held captive on a stationary bus for around 15 minutes whilst 50% of riders are processed for evasion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2008 4:59:48 GMT
IMO proper revenue enforcement is a better answer to fare evasion than changing the bus type. Try fare evading on services in continental Europe, you'll soon find yourself dishing out fines! It's not so hard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2008 5:16:25 GMT
Having been away from this thread for a while, I would like to make clear that I support the Bendies where appropriate - on the 207 and 18 for sure, possibly also on the 507 and 521.
At the other end of the scale the 29 has been a disaster for a number of reasons, and the 73 and 38 are also inappropriate.
As for the debate about trams - I'm all in favour of the Sydney-style monorail as a 21st century answer. They're much quicker and less disruptive to install than trams and much cheaper than underground trains. Plus, there are parts of central London where there is no more practical space underground for more train lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by cetacean on Dec 31, 2008 16:25:06 GMT
Yes but decent people don't want to travel with the sort of "customer" which flood routes deemed as being "free". Sorry, on the 25 I'm fed up with the winos, alchies, tramps, hoodies etc. Why should I have to put up them just because TFL have deemed certain routes as "free"? Well that's hardly a problem, as there are no decent people in east London. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Dec 31, 2008 18:17:38 GMT
IMO proper revenue enforcement is a better answer to fare evasion than changing the bus type. Try fare evading on services in continental Europe, you'll soon find yourself dishing out fines! It's not so hard. Indeed - surely if fare dodging was that bad, inspectors would be increased? The recent trick, however, is for neds to get on the bus last, shuffling artistically in pockets. "Just a minute, I've got ma fare here somewhere" they say, and the driver shuts the doors and sails off, with them still turning their pockets out. After a few stops, it is realised that they have no such fare and they are chucked off. Repeat same on bus behind... |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Dec 31, 2008 19:56:09 GMT
I'm not entirely sure I support bendies atall on the grounds of their poor lane discipline whilst turning or changing. Now in the new world, it'd be a different story...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2009 23:19:11 GMT
Cost of Bendy Replacement programme - Route Additional Cost (£pa) 507 £214,713.00 521 £351,103.00 38 £2,784,000.00 18 £1,895,489.36 149 £1,599,319.15 73 £2,547,063.83 25 £2,547,063.83 12 £1,836,255.32 207 £1,599,319.15 29 £1,717,787.23 436 £1,540,085.11 453 £1,362,382.98 Total: £19,994,581.96 So now you know where your fare hike is going www.boriswatch.co.uk/2009/01/05/bendy-bus-contract-costs-in-full/
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jan 6, 2009 23:52:12 GMT
25 £2,547,063.83
Well spent
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 0:24:49 GMT
What I find strange about this is that in 2003 the tenders for double deckers were actually lower. see 2003 Route 25 tenderand 2003 route 12and 2003 route 73and finally, Route 149I think they are being cautious by ordering so many extra buses - the largest change is £2.7m for the route 38. Having an even more frequent service with 25 extra buses on the route for £2.7m is almost good value as £2.7m can't buy too many buses. The fact that fare evasion will be tackled and passengers will get a seat is also a bonus. And if we are looking for silver linings, the money spent on the new buses is likely to be spent on ADL buses (Scotland) or Optare or Wrights - two of which are British companies. Which is good as all that money would have been spent on new Citaros from Germany. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 9:26:35 GMT
What I find strange about this is that in 2003 the tenders for double deckers were actually lower At a guess, either new deckers would have been cheaper than the new bendies, or there were already sufficiently new deckers available to operate some of the capacity so fewer new buses would have been required... which brings be on to... And if we are looking for silver linings, the money spent on the new buses is likely to be spent on ADL buses (Scotland) or Optare or Wrights - two of which are British companies. Which is good as all that money would have been spent on new Citaros from Germany. Except that the bendies are less than a contract's length old and wouldn't need replacing. The contract premium pays for the new buses that wouldn't otherwise have been required. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2009 14:36:47 GMT
What I find strange about this is that in 2003 the tenders for double deckers were actually lower. see 2003 Route 25 tenderand 2003 route 12and 2003 route 73and finally, Route 149I think they are being cautious by ordering so many extra buses - the largest change is £2.7m for the route 38. Having an even more frequent service with 25 extra buses on the route for £2.7m is almost good value as £2.7m can't buy too many buses. The fact that fare evasion will be tackled and passengers will get a seat is also a bonus. It's's hardly good value to spend £20 million extra (a year, not once) to receive LESS capacity. The increase in frequency does not help the passenger much as these are already very frequent routes. Waiting times would go down from every 4 minutes to every 3 or so. In fact, they may actually be going up as there is a much higher chance of not being able to get on a bus. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Jan 7, 2009 17:45:46 GMT
This is all a bit confusing. The 12 and 73 ran perfectly well with steam powered Routemasters a few years back, so why is replacing Bendies with low floor double deckers being treated as armageddon in some quarters?
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,348
|
Post by Colin on Jan 7, 2009 18:01:33 GMT
It's's hardly good value to spend £20 million extra (a year, not once) to receive LESS capacity. The increase in frequency does not help the passenger much as these are already very frequent routes. Waiting times would go down from every 4 minutes to every 3 or so. In fact, they may actually be going up as there is a much higher chance of not being able to get on a bus. No, you won't loose capacity or frequency - you'll actually gain better as the bendies will be replaced by more vehicles than are currently used. And that's why the bendies come out cheaper than conventional double deckers - current bendy routes are using less vehicles. It's basic mathematics when you think about it! Anyway, has a figure been put on the estimated fare evasion on bendy routes? I'm sure that would make a fair dent in the £20m argument...... |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Jan 7, 2009 23:31:16 GMT
Except that the bendies are less than a contract's length old and wouldn't need replacing. The contract premium pays for the new buses that wouldn't otherwise have been required. What a shocking thought - that a bus is used more than for one contracted route before being disposed of! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2009 0:39:40 GMT
The existing bendy buses are leased in any case - so replacing after one contract length won't impose a massive cost on TfL. TC - would you want 7 year old or 14 year old buses sent second hand to the provinces? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2009 12:43:03 GMT
It's's hardly good value to spend £20 million extra (a year, not once) to receive LESS capacity. The increase in frequency does not help the passenger much as these are already very frequent routes. Waiting times would go down from every 4 minutes to every 3 or so. In fact, they may actually be going up as there is a much higher chance of not being able to get on a bus. No, you won't loose capacity or frequency - you'll actually gain better as the bendies will be replaced by more vehicles than are currently used. And that's why the bendies come out cheaper than conventional double deckers - current bendy routes are using less vehicles. It's basic mathematics when you think about it! Anyway, has a figure been put on the estimated fare evasion on bendy routes? I'm sure that would make a fair dent in the £20m argument...... You will lose capacity. Diamond Geezer describes it perfectly on his blog: As an example, the 38 bus in morning peak, now and in a year: Now: 20 bendy buses - frequency of every 3 minutes - capacity of 2980 passengers per hour (bendy bus capacity of 149 passengers per bus) Situation in a year, with double decker buses: 28 double deckers - frequency of every 2m10s - capacity of 2380 passengers per hour (85 passengers per bus on a DD) So that's a capacity decrease of 600 passengers per hour! The reason I said that frequencies may actually decrease is because the 38 bus is madly busy, which means that there is a very good chance that you won't be able to get on the first double decker bus anymore in the future. That's why I think that the the frequency of buses you can actually get on will very likely also be going down. Post is here, by the way: diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html#6418556667188970785 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2009 13:01:46 GMT
I seriously doubt any bendy bus in London has had 140 people onboard.
Also, the bunching issue will hopefully be eased by using conventional buses as they can move through traffic more easily.
|
|
