On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:58:22AM -0700, Mait001@aol.com wrote:

> All these electronic devices - even the intrusive ones "announcing"
> each and every stop. Why are they necessary? On the rare occasion a
> passenger need to be told of a particular alighting point, why can't
> they tell the driver and he then announces it over the NEVER-USED P.A.
> system?

Hear hear!

And why, as happens far too frequently on route 38, does the
announcement say "the destination of this bus has changed" without
continuing "it will now terminate at ..."?

-- 
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

  Your call is important to me.  To see if it's important to
  you I'm going to make you wait on hold for five minutes
  before putting you through to Dave's mobile.  This call will
  be recorded for blackmail and amusement purposes.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:45:30 +0100, David Cantrell
 wrote this gibberish:

>On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:58:22AM -0700, Mait001@aol.com wrote:
>
>> All these electronic devices - even the intrusive ones "announcing"
>> each and every stop. Why are they necessary? On the rare occasion a
>> passenger need to be told of a particular alighting point, why can't
>> they tell the driver and he then announces it over the NEVER-USED P.A.
>> system?
>
>Hear hear!
>
>And why, as happens far too frequently on route 38, does the
>announcement say "the destination of this bus has changed" without
>continuing "it will now terminate at ..."?

That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often
use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my
bus won't make-it!

-- 
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:58:14 +0100, MarkVarley - MVP
<mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote:

>That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often
>use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my
>bus won't make-it!

In a sensible world, where TfL was an operator and had hundreds of
buses at its disposal, turning short wouldn't be necessary because
they could take one bus off each of several high-frequency routes and
use it to beef up the number of buses on the problem route to maintain
frequency and coverage.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:40:23 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote this gibberish:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:58:14 +0100, MarkVarley - MVP
><mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote:
>
>>That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often
>>use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my
>>bus won't make-it!
>
>In a sensible world, where TfL was an operator and had hundreds of
>buses at its disposal, turning short wouldn't be necessary because
>they could take one bus off each of several high-frequency routes and
>use it to beef up the number of buses on the problem route to maintain
>frequency and coverage.
>
>Neil

does kicking 30 people off a bus 5-10 minutes from the end of it's
route really do anything to help the provision of service?

grumble grumble
-- 
Mark Varley
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
London, England.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:40:23 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:58:14 +0100, MarkVarley - MVP
><mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote:
>
>>That winds me up often, I live at one end of the 38 route and often
>>use it to get to victoria at the other end, around 50% of the time my
>>bus won't make-it!
>
>In a sensible world, where TfL was an operator and had hundreds of
>buses at its disposal, turning short wouldn't be necessary because
>they could take one bus off each of several high-frequency routes and
>use it to beef up the number of buses on the problem route to maintain
>frequency and coverage.

When LT was the operator it was never, ever like that. Reliability was
often utterly dire and there was no flexibility to move anything between
routes.  The 38 has always been problematic - even with 55 RMs on it.
The extent of roadworks in the West End in recent months have wrecked a
number of bus routes - the 38 being one - and unfortunately the ELL
works at Dalston in a few weeks time will affect the 38 for several
months.  Then we'll have the deep joy of it being type converted away
from bendy buses back to double decks and seeing the reliability
collapse all over again while whatever operator wins the contract gets
used to using pay as you enter buses on this very busy route.

Yes there are rigidities with the contracted regime that is now used but
overall it gives a decent result plus there is proper performance
monitoring and the public can see the results of that process.  Did you
have a comparable operation in mind when you made your comment?  The
nearest I can think of is Kowloon Motor Bus in HK which has more
flexibility to respond in the way you suggest than most operators.
-- 
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:46:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
 wrote:

>When LT was the operator it was never, ever like that. Reliability was
>often utterly dire and there was no flexibility to move anything between
>routes.

Perhaps so, but it so easily could be with modern technology.

>  The 38 has always been problematic - even with 55 RMs on it.
>The extent of roadworks in the West End in recent months have wrecked a
>number of bus routes - the 38 being one - and unfortunately the ELL
>works at Dalston in a few weeks time will affect the 38 for several
>months.  Then we'll have the deep joy of it being type converted away
>from bendy buses back to double decks and seeing the reliability
>collapse all over again while whatever operator wins the contract gets
>used to using pay as you enter buses on this very busy route.

Who said anything about paying on entry?  I would assume that it will
remain the case that in zone 1 prepurchase is required, just that
it'll need to be shown to / touched in in front of the driver.

That said, I will miss the bendies, personally.

>Did you
>have a comparable operation in mind when you made your comment?  

Not really, just a concept I think would hold a lot of water.  My
usual example, Hamburg, doesn't really compare because it has very
little serious traffic congestion that affects buses, partly because
of the superbly-designed bus lanes and partly because more people are
*using* the buses!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:55:29 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:46:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
> wrote:
>
>>When LT was the operator it was never, ever like that. Reliability was
>>often utterly dire and there was no flexibility to move anything between
>>routes.
>
>Perhaps so, but it so easily could be with modern technology.

I wasn't thinking about vehicles. It was far more to do with labour
force flexibility, staff retention / turnover and overtime.  Also it was
more likely that big routes were run from more than one garage which
added to supervision problems.  TfL, to be fair, have helped in terms of
extra money for driving staff etc which has eased turnover and retention
problems.  The tendering regime has also meant single operators on
routes and usually just one garage providing the vehicles and drivers.

>>  The 38 has always been problematic - even with 55 RMs on it.
>>The extent of roadworks in the West End in recent months have wrecked a
>>number of bus routes - the 38 being one - and unfortunately the ELL
>>works at Dalston in a few weeks time will affect the 38 for several
>>months.  Then we'll have the deep joy of it being type converted away
>>from bendy buses back to double decks and seeing the reliability
>>collapse all over again while whatever operator wins the contract gets
>>used to using pay as you enter buses on this very busy route.
>
>Who said anything about paying on entry?  I would assume that it will
>remain the case that in zone 1 prepurchase is required, just that
>it'll need to be shown to / touched in in front of the driver.

Fine but in the example being quoted the 38 will have built up delay on
its way in to town. People may have been persuaded that they hate bendy
buses but I suspect they will be begging to have them back, once they've
gone, when they realise that shoving everyone - including the great
buggy contest - past the driver means buses will sit still for 5 minutes
in places like Hackney, Dalston and Islington.  While trying to board a
38 at Tottenham Court Road in the PM peak has always been a challenge I
think the bendies do a bit better than the RMs did.  I dread to think
what it will be like with standard double deckers.

I think Boris will be under great pressure to ensure any successor
system to bendy buses has less opportunity for fraud than any current
system and thus we'll end up with some sort of operational madness being
foisted on converted routes.  I also wonder just which way fares policy
is going to go - a cashless zone is not really compatible with spending
a fortune on Borismasters and conductors and I think the appetite for a
completely cashless system waned under Ken's tenure.  If you then add in
the "London must be nice and civil" aspect of the Johnson mayoralty then
"impersonal" things like roadside machines might well be doomed even if
they reduce dwell times in the central area.

This is what happens when you whip up a campaign for political purposes
that has little or no logic in transport terms and which may have
unintended consequences it it is followed through to its logical
conclusion.

>That said, I will miss the bendies, personally.

I will too. While I can see why some people complain about them I think
they do have advantages on the very busiest services that people will
miss when they've been taken off.

>>Did you
>>have a comparable operation in mind when you made your comment?  
>
>Not really, just a concept I think would hold a lot of water.  My
>usual example, Hamburg, doesn't really compare because it has very
>little serious traffic congestion that affects buses, partly because
>of the superbly-designed bus lanes and partly because more people are
>*using* the buses!

I did wonder whether Germany was lurking in your mind!
-- 
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
>
> Fine but in the example being quoted the 38 will have built up delay
> on its way in to town. People may have been persuaded that they hate
> bendy buses but I suspect they will be begging to have them back,
> once they've gone, when they realise that shoving everyone -
> including the great buggy contest - past the driver means buses will
> sit still for 5 minutes in places like Hackney, Dalston and
> Islington.  While trying to board a 38 at Tottenham Court Road in the
> PM peak has always been a challenge I think the bendies do a bit
> better than the RMs did.  I dread to think what it will be like with
> standard double deckers.

Would Curitiba-style enclosed bus stops at select locations do the trick? 
During the peak, passengers would operate turnstyles to get into the manned 
stop, and then when the bus arrived, they could pile onto the bus without 
showing the driver anything. Outside the peak, the stops would be open, 
unmanned and function as normal stops.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 22:30:32 +0100, "John Rowland"
 wrote:

>Paul Corfield wrote:
>>
>> Fine but in the example being quoted the 38 will have built up delay
>> on its way in to town. People may have been persuaded that they hate
>> bendy buses but I suspect they will be begging to have them back,
>> once they've gone, when they realise that shoving everyone -
>> including the great buggy contest - past the driver means buses will
>> sit still for 5 minutes in places like Hackney, Dalston and
>> Islington.  While trying to board a 38 at Tottenham Court Road in the
>> PM peak has always been a challenge I think the bendies do a bit
>> better than the RMs did.  I dread to think what it will be like with
>> standard double deckers.
>
>Would Curitiba-style enclosed bus stops at select locations do the trick? 
>During the peak, passengers would operate turnstyles to get into the manned 
>stop, and then when the bus arrived, they could pile onto the bus without 
>showing the driver anything. Outside the peak, the stops would be open, 
>unmanned and function as normal stops.

Not in my view.  Firstly where the heck is the space for such large
structures going to come from? Secondly the new regime wants as much
road space free for cars to use so why would it erect huge stops and
platforms that eat into road space?  Thirdly I suspect the rules
applying to LU ticket gates would be transferred across to any use of
turnstiles and thus such stops would have to be staffed. Given the
pressures on TfL's budget (now) I don't see there being an appetite for
such an expensive solution at any point in the future.  These pressures
may well force some interesting policy positions to be taken over other
proposed  bus developments but time will, of course, tell.

I think we'll simply end up with a less efficient, more costly bus
service which will be less attractive than the current one. I dearly
hope that I prove to be wrong.
-- 
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!