please empty your brain below
Sounds like politics as it has always been, "promise them anything" then spend your first term in office, making EXCUSES.

Miichael | 19.03.08 - 9:20 a.m. | #

Buses get the majority of public-transport-using Londoners moving. That's why it's such a central political issue, and why they are (and have always been) core to Ken's agenda since the days of the GLC. Boris is playing with Ken at his own game.

Jag | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 9:37 a.m. | #

It would be ironic, though, If Boris was elected on a misunderstanding of his bendy bus policy, after Ken was elected on his "only some ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemasters" policy.

Simon | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 9:54 a.m. | #

I've said it before, but with all their faults the bendy bus does excel at its raison d'etre - moving lots of people. Not comfortably, no; but standing on a bus is better than waiting for the next one (two? three?) because the double decker's full.

Chz | 19.03.08 - 10:03 a.m. | #

It's a bit of an issue for me, the bendy buses vs Routemasters thing. For a long time, I loved the old Routemasters - even though I knew, as someone who knows a lot of disabled people, how hideously inaccessible they were. The bendies were huge, lumbering, soulless creatures.

Then I became physically disabled. At the moment, the tube is out of the question - like it is for a lot of people with mobility impairments. The Taxicard is great, I suppose, but I happen to live in a borough who don't give as generous a discount as others - plus Computer Cab (tha main suppliers) are hugely unreliable.

Bendy buses are accessible. Fact. I'm walking now, on crutches, and a bendy bus provides easy access for me. It already did when I was still a wheelchair user. With a Routemaster, I might as well forget it.

Looking at those redesigned Routemasters - yes, they look lovely. But they are still fundamentally not disabled-friendly. The whole shape and design of them makes them so.

So what are disabled people supposed to do if Routemasters are reintroduced? I have to say that the 'romantic Londoner brigade' never really seem to answer that, and it infuriates me.

I really do think it's time that people put away their rose-coloured spectacles on this issue.

An Unreliable Witness | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 10:14 a.m. | #

Consider that problem number 6, UW.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 10:23 a.m. | #

It is quite surprising how little used by Londoners the two Routemaster heritage routes are. Whatever we say and nostalgically believe, when it comes travelling on a daily basis people are voting with their feet to use the modern buses.

Pedantic of Purley | 19.03.08 - 10:39 a.m. | #

P of P - that's probably because very few Londoners actually want to travel from Trafalgar Square to the Tower of London or the Royal Albert Hall on a bus that only goes every 15 minutes.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 10:47 a.m. | #

Like UW I never appreciated a bendybus until I had a leg in plaster, now I have no problems with them. To me the downside of modern buses is the fact you're stuck inside them until the next stop whatever the traffic conditions. In former times you could board a 25 and at all the traffic snarl-ups you could get off and walk to one ahead of you, sometimes two ahead of you. Despite all the hoo-hah about Routemasters the real proper London bus was the RT.

TMJ | 19.03.08 - 11:01 a.m. | #

I have never thought bendy buses to be a problem. I do, however, believe quite strongly that it is a combination of bad driving, and people not being sensible.
Personally, I think the buses are excellent to ride on. Multiple entry points means people get on/off quicker, and I have never felt overly jostled or crushed on busy buses.
Teach drivers to drive, and Londoners to observe and all well be well.

SheyMouse | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 11:05 a.m. | #

I don't like bendy buses, but so what. I find it depressing that any londoner would even for second consider the design of bus we have to be a major electoral issue.

Rhys | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 11:20 a.m. | #

The timing of Ken's announcement that there will be no more Bendy Buses is interesting. Route 453 received over 20 new Bendy Buses last month as the contract transferred from Selkent (formerly Stagecoach) to London General. Funny how Ken waited until that had happened before announcing there would be no more. Does anyone know what happened to all the bendy buses which used to run on the 453? They were only 5 years old.

dg writes: I think he means no more bendy bus routes, not no more new bendy buses

Emmesse | 19.03.08 - 11:24 a.m. | #

@Emmesse read here: http://www.londonbusroutes.net/p.../photos/
453.htm

Why stop at Routemaster's and conductors? Let's bring back Jo Lyons cafés with their "nippies" or telephone boxes with "press button B" and we can all pretend it's "safe old" 1950/1940 all over again.. Jolly Hockey Sticks..! Boris

IsarSteve | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 11:41 a.m. | #

The salient fact is that Boris will get rid of the bendy buses. No matter how long it takes, that is the correct policy versus keeping them. They are ugly monstrosities and when I get on one at the middle or rear entrances, I'm the only one paying a fare and that gets on my wick, dear fellow travellers. They are ugly, uncomfortable, dangerous, ludicrously unfit for the roads of London and in short, I'm backing Boris. At least he's a human not a lizard. He has proven in his opinion columns that he has great percipience and insight. All that Livingstone has proven is that he is a croneyist, winker at corruption, lapdog of Chavez the dictator and apologist for the warmongering new Labour party.

Steve Moran | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 11:45 a.m. | #

In answer to emmesse most are currently held delicenced at Plumstead garage. I have seen a couple on the 25, noticable by being branded Selkent instead of East London.

TMJ | 19.03.08 - 11:49 a.m. | #

There are several issues to untangle here.

1) Oystercard: the real death of the conductor. Conductors only really speed up a bus when most people are paying cash, but that hasn't been the case in London for decades. If we have a security issue on certain bus routes, then we really should be putting police on every bus, not conductors.

2) Seating capacity. Bendybuses do well for this, the real offenders are those horrible low floor double-deckers. People get so obsessed with getting wheelchairs on buses, that they forget about the costs. People, over 60, free travel? What does that mean? Well on a busy route on a low-seating bus, it means that some, with shopping, are going to have to stand or go upstairs. Swerve the bus and falls and broken hips are a real risk.

3) That rear entrance. I've travelled on Routemasters a lot, four a day every day during my school years. I've only ever witnessed one platform accident that was not the fault of the passenger (I had one myself, it was my own stupid fault, in those days people took responsibility for their own actions). Even so, their advantages are probably over-rated compared with the disadvantages.

The Boris approved plan is a very stylish vehicle, but two entrances at opposite ends of the bus will be difficult to supervise by one person (imagine school kids trying to jump the queue, and how is the driver supposed to position the bus at a stop), and the vehicle is lacking in the seat department. I would seal up the back, reposition the staircase, add extra seats, and make the front the entrance/exit for everyone. Even so, without the AEC engine and Wilson gearbox, it won't sound like the real thing.

Max Roberts | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 12:07 p.m. | #

Just get rid of them on the 25 and ensure all passengers pay! Then those of us with the misfortune to live mid-route will have a chance of finding room to get on one and maybe even a seat - the situation which had existed pre-conversion for years. Probably 40-50\\% of the 25's passengers are travelling Ilford/Forest Gate to the West End free whereas they would previously have used National Rail and Underground.

Bowroad | 19.03.08 - 12:11 p.m. | #

The lack of regular ticket inspections is a problem in itself rather than the design of the bus. I don't think any of the other criticisms have any merit.

On my road we have bendies and double deckers that all go the same way to the tube station, and I much prefer the bendies for this journey except at very quiet times of day.

Mr Thant | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 12:29 p.m. | #

Sorry to post twice, but where did Ken's spokesman get the numbers from?

"But a spokesman for London Mayor Ken Livingstone said the cost of the new buses would be an extra £600m a year."

OK, say we need 600 of the things, 1 million pounds per vehicle seems a bit steep, but its possible these days. But new buses are not free either. Anyway, once they are paid for, thats it, so the "per year" figure seems wrong.

Perhaps they mean wages? OK, 600 buses, lets assume they are all going to run seven days a week, multiply that by four to cover shifts and holidays, thats 2400 conductors per year, divide 600m by 2400:

250 grand per year, even when you include NI and pension payments, it seems that a conductor gets paid over 150 grand per year, I think I am in the wrong job here.

Won't be the first time TfL screw up the numbers, you should look at the projected passengers for the Cross-River tram, hilarious. Anyone with a bit of sense and a calculator can take them apart.

dg writes: Dave Hill has the figures, here.

Max Roberts | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 12:30 p.m. | #

I have few problems with the bendybus in practice, as most of the routes which they run on share the roads with conventional double decker routes. Hence I can now get a 243 from Tottenham towards Dalston safe in the knowledge that all the freeriders and psychopaths will have waited for the 149 instead. Ditto 253 for the 29, 476 for the 73, 185/36 for the 436 etc etc etc. Little consolation for the people stuck with the 18 and 25, though, as the bendies are on their own for most of the roads they run along.

I believe that quite a few of the bendy routes are going to come up for tender in the next couple of years. It'll be interesting to see whether Ken means 'no more bendies' as in a phased withdrawal, or simply not adding any more routes than are running at present. In any case the bendies do good work on the short-hop commuter-crush 507 and 521 so it would be a retrograde step to take them off there anyway.

Nico | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 12:30 p.m. | #

few Londoners actually want to travel from Trafalgar Square to the Tower of London or the Royal Albert Hall on a bus that only goes every 15 minutes

I beg to differ. The fact that it turns up only every 15 minutes is irrelevant. When Londoners have the choice as two buses turn up they nearly always shun the Routemaster. The routes they go on are major routes that serve Charing Cross main line station.

Stand in the evening rush hour at Charing Cross eastbound or City Thameslink westbound to see this.

Pedantic of Purley | 19.03.08 - 12:36 p.m. | #

Bendy buses must go at some point. They cause congestion, when they turn tight corners they have to use the whole road. They may hold one and a half times what a double decker holds but they take up twice the road space. They kill cyclists cause the driver can't see anything. I don't really care what they're replaced with, I just want rid of them.

Sam | 19.03.08 - 1:20 p.m. | #

Yes, cyclists are not expendable. Stalinists like Livingstone are very fond of deeming people expendable. He's expendable, just him, for the sake of the rest of us. Target expendibility where it's most needed.

Steve Moran | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 1:29 p.m. | #

If you want to travel on a Routemaster
come to Japan :

Shimonoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture. A Japanese diplomat in London persuaded TFL to donate one of the Routemasters to Japan and they will using it to transport tourists round the city

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/
c...20070215f3.html

Jon Allen | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 1:42 p.m. | #

Bendy buses are wonderful. They are free because you don't have to walk near the driver. Keep our free buses. Long live Ken.

Damian Shaw | 19.03.08 - 1:46 p.m. | #

I will never understand the mentality that believes in tradition for tradition's sake.

I'm sure the Routemasters were wonderful, I'm sure everyone had delightful happy childhood memories riding on them in the time before sex and crime and headphones... but those are *memories*, and are best left as such.

(Sorry.)

Red Dalek | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 1:55 p.m. | #

Surely no-one is really attracted to the Routemasters per se, but just the jump on-jump off. So Boris's new ones might work, but also I doubt that people are really that keen on replacing the Bendy buses, and as someone above said they are good people movers at peak time.

Matthew | 19.03.08 - 2:07 p.m. | #

True, its a nonsense policy and a con. All he is offering is buses which look a little like routemasters and conductors. I do not see the benefit of conductors over, for instance, increased police presence and security staff. During the rush hour, how are conductors supposed to check oyster cards etc.? In reality, fares were rarely fully collected during busy times. As for bendy buses being dangerous - how many people will be killed jumping off the platform of the new buses?

If this policy is so weak, how do his other polcies stand up?

IanB | 19.03.08 - 2:14 p.m. | #

Ooh, two comments in one day; apart from the difficulty in coping with bendy London roads, one of the main reasons why Ken is declaring "no more bendies" is because people ride them without paying. Everyone knows that. And bus loads of fare-evading citizens have a greater tendency to evade other things as well, like decency and good behaviour et. Basically, the bendy bus experiment has shown that the design reduces security and increases crime on the transport system.

Jag | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 2:45 p.m. | #

Ignore any proposed replacement or political wailing or gnashing of teeth for a minute. The bendy bus, is – to use the parlance of our times – not fit for purpose. I’ve seen Whitehall blocked more than once for more than 15 minutes by 29s coming into service from a side road. I’ve witnessed the 149 struggling around a tiny mini-roundabout at the back of Stoke Newington, unable to go backwards, or forwards. I’ve witnessed 4 separate incidences of cyclists nearly getting squashed as these things blindly and blissfully unaware jack-knife around narrow streets.

There is – I’m sure - a way to enable old people/wheelchair users onto a bus without it having to be 60 foot long. They had to adjust bus stop positions, renovate terminals, extend depots and pay the drivers more money for these wretched things – at what cost? That money would have been better spend improving and extending the ‘dial-a-ride, for example.

Rather than one bendy bus, how about two conventional length busses, complete with a top deck? Significantly more people can get on them and get a seat. They can also move around our streets with significantly more ease and are less of a danger to cyclists/unwitting pedestrians.

As Nico pointed out, though, their advantage for me is their late night psychopath-attracting abilities. It means the 243 & 253 are comparatively bereft of punters and thus a more pleasant ride, while the 149 behind looks like a human battery farm.

Battersea Pig | 19.03.08 - 3:04 p.m. | #

The "Ken's Transport Plans" link is plain nonsense. As if the current bendy bus routes are so vastly different from all other bus routes in London. The 38, for instance, shifts vast numbers of people because they wait for a non-fare collecting bus to come along. Amazing how what has been done is just about right! If they are so good economically, why not convert more routes? And I don't think anyone,especially Boris, is thinking of re-introducing high-floor buses

felix | 19.03.08 - 4:47 p.m. | #

felix - actually most of the bendy bus routes are vastly different from all other bus routes in London. They were all really busy routes before being bendied. The 25, for example, is the busiest route in London. And the 38 and 73, in their Routemaster days, required one bus every three minutes to transport tube-free Hackney citizens into central London.

diamond geezer | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 4:50 p.m. | #

For a lengthy rundown of the many inadequacies of the bendy bus, you might want to read some stuff I wrote before...

• First bendy morning on the 38
• First bendy morning on the 25
• Ten reasons why bendy buses are rubbish

diamond geezer | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 4:52 p.m. | #

Let the routemaster go! Let it die in peace, it's time has passed.

I'm a proud Londoner but one thing which annoys me about the general London 'psyche' we tend to be prone to, is the often stubborn unwillingness to embrace the future when it comes to design and architecture. Why does everything have to be a tribute to the past? It's as if since the disaster of 60's brutalism we've been incapable, or should I say terrified, of trying to create our own identity and image in terms of an urban environment. I don't like this attitude of "how dare we attempt to upstage the Victorians?!". We should be more playful, creative and open when it comes to design which represents our cultural image. The routemaster was a product of Victorian London, and it's legacy belongs to the Victorian age, not ours. Let the Victorians keep the Routemaster for themselves and let it lie in a Victorian grave.

Right now we should be designing future icons for the London of TODAY, not just Routemaster Version 2.0's, but something new, original and inventive that a future generation can be proud of, much like we are today of the Routemaster. Not that i'm suggesting the Bendy Bus is anything such (i'm really not a huge fan of it either, to be honest), but when confronted with Boris's childishly naive ideas, I know which option i'd rather go with.

One thing I respect Ken Livingstone for, is the fact that at least he has a proper vision for London. At least he has the guts to try and drag London, whether it be kicking and screaming, back up to speed with other world cities. It's a vision that utterly terrifies people like Prince Charles, Boris and organisations such as English Heritage, because it challenges their nostalgic view of London as a smoggy old town of brick and stone buildings, red telephone boxes and a skyline only punctuated by church steeples. In this day and age, it's nothing but pure romanticism and deserves no place in politics.

English Heritage are more concerned about preserving completely obscure and pointless sight-lines, plus nit-picking over tedious height limits, than they are with ensuring that London's future heritage is blessed with good design and architecture. They are in an incredible position of power which they could use to do this, and yet they seem adamant on waiting for Christopher Wren and Harry Beck to jump out of their graves and save us all from the nightmare of the modern world. They promote the idea that Ken Livingstone is a vandal willing to sacrifice London's historic identity and skyline overnight, which also seems to be fully endorsed by resident nostalgic hacks The Evening Standard. The reality is that a lot, if not most, of the architecture which currently populates London's cityscape is utterly bland and disposable as it is. Just because there's a lot of cranes going up in The City doesn't mean old churches are being knocked down! It may sound ridiculous, but there's a strong argument that in some ways London's architecture and design is STILL only just recovering from the destruction caused by the Blitz.

Boris, Prince Charles and English Heritage's dream to rebuild what we've lost has arrived too late. Nostalgia will only turn our fantastic and vibrant city into a dusty old museum, where people come to merely stand and gaze at relics of the past. Now that is what I call terrifying.

Sorry to derail the topic a bit beyond the bendy bus and into the realms of architecture... but that's where I fear the focus will eventually shift if Boris gets his way.

dg writes: "The routemaster was a product of Victorian London"??? Do you want me to delete that bit?

Blackstock | 19.03.08 - 7:30 p.m. | #

when the 38 was a routemaster I often couldn't get onto it even as late as 8 or 9 at night, it was so packed. So more capacity was needed, but as a cyclist I can't agree that bendy buses were the answer - they just shift the problem elsewhere. Modern double-deckers take more passengers than routemasters, they kneel for wheelchairs, and they fit with the image of London. Throw in a regular ticket inspection and hey presto you've got almost all the benefits of the routemaster, and we could do it now.

disgruntled commuter | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 8:44 p.m. | #

I'm old enough to just remember going on a test journey in a Routemaster at a London Transport open day before they came into service. The gear change was a jerky and uncomfortable as anything today, and I don't regret their departure.

Boris Johnson is, simply, an opportunistic arse.

Autolycus | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 9:28 p.m. | #

As someone who disliked the Routemaster - Boris won' be fooling me into voting for him.

gareth H | Homepage | 19.03.08 - 9:55 p.m. | #

Ooh! The photo of that 159 bus really took me back to my childhood. They used to go beyond Streatham and terminate at Thornton Heath Clock Tower. It was a gateway to London for us living on the fringes, taking nearly an hour, but you had a great view from the Upper Deck, and only cost a shilling. I agree with disgruntled Commuter that there should be a modern equivalent, Boris is living in the past. He'll be bringing back 'Women Only' train carriages next, now there's a thought!

Surrey Girl | 19.03.08 - 11:05 p.m. | #

thank you diamond geezer, ive been waiting for an article like this ever since boris started his campaign! he's a joke! his policies are jokes! and anyone who votes for him is responsible for whatever this upper class delusioned twit does to our amazing city. Ive been cycling to work for years and all busses are dangerous, not just bendy-busses. i use the 12 regularly to go shopping and its airy spacious and quick! if people are dodging fairs then why not put conductors on bendy-busses? and not waste all this money scrapping a fleet of perfectly good busses? they wouldn't use them in paris and berlin as extensively as they do if they were as bad as boris and his standard say! this is just a gimmick and political interference... there's better things to spend money on. i cant believe the evening standard actually managed to convince as many people as they have that boris is a serious candidate! when his whole campaign revolves around this policy????!!!! what's more have you seen the Autocar design? it looks repulsive and SH*T! and has concept design all over it..! lets pray that monstrosity will never see the light of day and luckily i dont think it ever will! with all his talk about ken throwing away money at least it was on cool fireworks display and fun events... GOD with the money he's going to waste we could complete the ELL extension and extend the tram to crystal palace!

sean | 19.03.08 - 11:09 p.m. | #

In defence of blackstock the routemaster was the final version of the double-decker crew-operated half-cab omnibus. Its forerunner (Shillibeer's omnibus) pre-dated even Victorian times but certainly helped London to develop in Victorian times and was well established by the end of her reign - even if not yet motorised.

I think I know what blackstock was trying to say. It is easy to misunderstand (intentionally or otherwise). It is also easy to mock.

Pedantic of Purley | 19.03.08 - 11:37 p.m. | #

I think this is a double-edged sword. People obviously like the old Routemasters doing their rounds on London's streets, and there's no denying that the RMs have character and romance.

A short while ago, I travelled on RM 2071 on Heritage Route 15, all the way from Tower Hill to Trafalgar Square, a journey which I very much enjoyed. However, many would argue that the bus was showing its age. Rides on newer buses are undeniably a lot smoother, and it's definitely a good thing that buses in London are now wheelchair-friendly. However, there will always be resistance to change, and bendy buses can clearly be a menace - fare evasion has skyrocketed on bendy bus routes, and their design, combined with their length, is clearly a nuisance and a hazard to other road users, particularly cyclists.

Personally, it's a matter of opinion. I thought my bumpy RM journey was quite splendid, but a lot of people may well disagree with DG and myself, and will find journeys on the old bus uncomfortable.

Looking at the CAD drawings of Boris's new Routemaster, I do think that it is bringing the old workhorse into the 21st century. It may not be the original RM, and it may not even serve exactly the same routes as the orignals. IMHO, however, the design seems to successfully combine the classic RM design with the demands of the 21st century, particularly with regards to accessibility. Indeed, if it means that bendy buses are gradually consigned to the history books, who are we to complain?

Andrewh | 19.03.08 - 11:50 p.m. | #

The new designs just look fake... its like building a disney land castle... its trying to be something that it is not... a folly!

sean | 20.03.08 - 12:02 a.m. | #

OK, so we could argue about fine details and accuracy in Blackstock's comment, but the argument presented is a compelling one in my humble opinion; spirit of progress etc. If you look at it in that way, then I would have to say that in Ken's term of office we have seen massive improvements in the way that people are accommodated and transported across our beloved city. And for this reason alone he deserves the continuity of vision. 'Cos Boris doesn't seem to have any at all ...

Jag | Homepage | 20.03.08 - 12:59 a.m. | #

Bendy buses dont have to be awful.

The ones they have in Seattle are quite good. The are just single decker buses that have been stretched to 60 ft. They are narrower than the London ones and seem to have no problems with any of the narrower suburban streets.

Plus all buses have wheelchair lifts, so no access problems for those who cannot climb the steps.

jmc | 20.03.08 - 6:01 a.m. | #

Trash something because it is Victorian? Well, lets get rid of electricity, cars, railways, get the picture? Come up with a catchy statement, to the effect that here is something that can trace its lineage, then assert that therefore it must be bad.

The reason why the British can be suspicious of modern things is because post-war, too many of these self-conscious deliberate attempts to come up with fresh new ideas have turned out to be disasters. There are too many third-rate frustrated artist designers (e.g. architects, engineers) out there trying to foist their bonkers ideas on the public so that they can win awards, and too many marketing types trying to create instant brands.

The reason why many of our so-called icons are old is because it takes a while for people to realise just how good they are. The Routemaster became an icon, the 'Londoner' did not (which bus am I referring to here?) because it did not work well in London. Many of today's icons were not the outcome of self-conscious designers trying to reinvent London, they were just the result of people who were very good at their jobs and were determined that fitness for purpose would be their overriding concern.

You can't reinvent London overnight, and if you try, it will be a disaster. Just do your job, do things well, and then in 40 years time we will evaluate what you did and whether it was any good.

English Heritage might have its flaws, but we need them to keep the vandals from the door (once that old building has gone, its gone forever), in this case two-bit architects following the latest fad. How many modern buildings in London are breathtakingly attractive once you take out novelty value. It takes real skill to design attractive new buildings which work together with the old ones.

Max Roberts | Homepage | 20.03.08 - 8:20 a.m. | #

Boris may be allowing us to think they will come sooner than is likely.

But then Ken *lied* outright about scrapping the routemasters.
As he did about raising the congestion charge.
You may think it a good thing that it was raised - and living within the zone I happen to think it was good - but he still *lied* about it.

cjcjc | 20.03.08 - 1:24 p.m. | #

Vote for whomever cos they'll keep/scrap a certain kind of bus?

Oh boy! Hope there are enough intelligent voters 'out there' to select a candidate on what really needs doing. Glad I live elsewhere, though suspect our city leaders get in on similar sillinesses.

BTW - as an ex-Bristolian, the proper colour for buses is Green.

In the words of Flanders & Swan,
"Hold very tight, please!"

Bronchitikat | Homepage | 20.03.08 - 1:39 p.m. | #

I had the local library order a copy of that book you recommended about the Routemaster. Very interesting...

Here in Seattle the public first voted to build a new Monorail transportation system... which was completely insane. An inflexible concrete monstrosity that only served distant parts of the city. Finally they came to their senses and axed the plan (after spending $180 million)

Now they're talking about a new kind of 'train-bus' that is sort of a hybrid between buses and light rail. It looks like a 3 car light rail train, only it's got bus wheels and drives on the street.

At least it's not set in concrete!

:0)

john | Homepage | 20.03.08 - 3:19 p.m. | #

Between the ages of 8-12 I spent most of my Saturday's trundling round with Daddy(!) on Routemasters and I loved it. We went down one weekend and got the 73 to Victoria if I remember rightly, on a Routemaster. The next weekend it was a bendy bus. It was less crowded etc and I liked standing in the bit that bent being the stupid person I am (it was fun though...) but I prefer the Routemasters. Call me traditional but it's a "proper bus" and looks like one.

So if Boris decides to go ahead and make that plan work I shall be happy. We can't go backwards in this day and age so he shouldn't make these new Routemasters exactly like the old ones otherwise all those problems will be reality.

Best memory of the Routemasters was 3 years ago, Dad and I jumped off the back of one, because we were going to miss the train home etc and it was probably the most stupidist thing he could have done (maybe more so than me standing in the bendy bit of the new buses). It was the last time we ever went on one and I'm glad I went on my last one and got off it that way.

Sarah | Homepage | 20.03.08 - 4:46 p.m. | #

Routemaster's were great, but what he is proposing is not a Routemaster...! I have no faith he will ever see it through, if he gets in (god forbid..), hell admit that this thing would be to expensive and everyone will quietly forget about it, or even worse he will waste millions of pounds designing it only to order a token few busses and deprive much more needy transport projects of their funding! its a joke policy...
max said earlier about the routemaster being good design because it was the result of people who were very good at their jobs doing what they do best... Exactly! good design should be just that, good design and not something deliberatly mimicking the past for no reason but romance... like this new 'routemaster'

Sean | 20.03.08 - 7:08 p.m. | #

Meanwhile, some of the old Routemasters are going to be fetching up in Nottingham, for the first time in 31 years: http://tinyurl.com/3xwba7

mike | Homepage | 26.03.08 - 2:46 p.m. | #

People seem to think the general principle of multiple entry points is unique to bendies. It's very common on trams, trolleybuses and buses across Europe. You generally have to stamp your (pre-bought) ticket in a machine, although systems vary. Particularly in Italy they seem to be providing a free service, as hardly anyone stamps anything. The systems are funded by the cities from taxes and by commuters on weekly passes and such. Any odd fares taken are regarded as a bonus, it would seem.

I reckon that is how TfL see the bendies; they move large numbers of people efficiently, and the 90p's that get evaded don't outweigh the cost/inconvenience of running more standard double deckers instead.

They can't come out and say this, of course ('KEN SAYS "FAREDODGE AT WILL"'), but I'm sure that's TfL's thinking.

Incidentally, not everyone who doesn't touch in on a bendy is a faredodger; a lot of them will have Oyster Travelcards and not bother to touch in; some will even have paper Travelcards, as still issued at NR stations.

kenromford | 26.03.08 - 4:26 p.m. | #

I know it's pedantic but,

the plural of "bus" is "buses",
not "busses".

Talk about falling standards of education, not to mention transport.

Bronchitikat | Homepage | 27.03.08 - 12:04 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy