I'm quite surprised nobody's commented on this yet!
Not only is there a whole new section of the TfL site devoted to it (http://tinyurl.com/5euecn), they've even produced detailed specifications for the 'serious' competition in proper house style. These look very businesslike and impressive, with the occasional bit of humour (Articulated design: No. Doors/Apertures: 1 open platform at nearside). It's at http://tinyurl.com/6gnvpt if anyone's interested.
I know Autocar magazine sponsored a design company (Capoco?) to come up with a New Routemaster concept a while back - I wonder if they will enter it. Otherwise, I can't see any of the bus builders taking this as anything other than the humorous whim of a bored politician...
Rupert Candy wrote: > I'm quite surprised nobody's commented on this yet!
> Not only is there a whole new section of the TfL site devoted to it > (http://tinyurl.com/5euecn), they've even produced detailed > specifications for the 'serious' competition in proper house style. > These look very businesslike and impressive, with the occasional bit > of humour (Articulated design: No. Doors/Apertures: 1 open platform at > nearside). It's at http://tinyurl.com/6gnvpt if anyone's interested.
> I know Autocar magazine sponsored a design company (Capoco?) to come > up with a New Routemaster concept a while back - I wonder if they will > enter it. Otherwise, I can't see any of the bus builders taking this > as anything other than the humorous whim of a bored politician...
Bored? It's the only transport policy he's shown any interest in (I'm including the extra security on buses and tubes as a crime policy here). He's deadly serious, although buried yesterday was some sort of announcement that the first three bendy lines will go double-deck next year on contract re-award (the 38 was mentioned, anyone know the other two? Six lines have contracts expiring in 2009; 12, 25, 38, 73, 507, 521 - I'd like to see them try and operate the last two as single door entry double deckers).
However, if the bendies do go at contract re-award it means the 436 and 453 will still be bendy under the current contracts in 2013, having only just been awarded this year.
The Autocar proposal was about the same size as a normal double-decker but with a longer wheelbase, which presumably means it's actually *less* maneouvrable. I'm not sure how serious it was meant to be, and in any case it was hideous.
I still think it's a total waste of everyone's time though - far more important things to do; where's ELLX Phase 2 then?
>Rupert Candy wrote: >> I'm quite surprised nobody's commented on this yet!
>> Not only is there a whole new section of the TfL site devoted to it >> (http://tinyurl.com/5euecn), they've even produced detailed >> specifications for the 'serious' competition in proper house style. >> These look very businesslike and impressive, with the occasional bit >> of humour (Articulated design: No. Doors/Apertures: 1 open platform at >> nearside). It's at http://tinyurl.com/6gnvpt if anyone's interested.
>> I know Autocar magazine sponsored a design company (Capoco?) to come >> up with a New Routemaster concept a while back - I wonder if they will >> enter it. Otherwise, I can't see any of the bus builders taking this >> as anything other than the humorous whim of a bored politician...
>Bored? It's the only transport policy he's shown any interest in (I'm >including the extra security on buses and tubes as a crime policy here).
I wish he would come up with something that resembled a transport policy. I'm heartily fed up with this tokenistic tinkering.
> He's deadly serious, although buried yesterday was some sort of >announcement that the first three bendy lines will go double-deck next >year on contract re-award (the 38 was mentioned, anyone know the other >two? Six lines have contracts expiring in 2009; 12, 25, 38, 73, 507, >521 - I'd like to see them try and operate the last two as single door >entry double deckers).
I think they are referring to the 507 and 521 which are the earliest tranche in the "out to tender" list. The 25 and 73 have been awarded 2 year extensions to 2011. The 38 is definitely up for retender as I think the old crew contract was extended for 2 years to "finance" the conversion to bendy. TfL don't extend contracts beyond 7 years and always retender school, tendered gross contract and all cross boundary services after 5 years.
Quite why on earth the sensible use of bendy buses on routes like the 18, 25, 29, 149 and 207 should be stopped when they do a far better job that the previous double decks in terms of getting people on and off fast and then getting on their way I don't know. People have short memories of how bad the former double deck routes were in terms of dwell times, bunching and curtailments.
All we'll get are high density single decks on the former Red Arrows with virtually no seats in them - think back to the old Nationals. People will have worse crush conditions and fewer seats - think of the typical single deck in a city like Rome which has 3 door rigid Citaros with very few seats in them.
I think we'll just get conventional double decks on everything else because TfL's budget constraints will mean that it will not be able to afford to fund much higher numbers of untried custom vehicles on former bendy routes. I could tolerate something like 12m tri-axles or something swish like the Berlin Lion City big double decks but I don't think they would fit on some of the routes like the 38 and 73. Worse still given people's great reluctance to go upstairs on double decks these days I can see any replacement design being less effective because it'll be crammed full downstairs with seats available upstairs but people will have to wait longer as drivers will simply be unable to get people through the lower deck crush.
I can't see operators wishing to buy a completely untried design for a 5 or possible 7 year term. This is just a repeat of the old LT bus design experiments that have gone wrong time after time after time.
>However, if the bendies do go at contract re-award it means the 436 and >453 will still be bendy under the current contracts in 2013, having only >just been awarded this year.
And possibly through to 2015 if extensions are granted.
>The Autocar proposal was about the same size as a normal double-decker >but with a longer wheelbase, which presumably means it's actually *less* >maneouvrable. I'm not sure how serious it was meant to be, and in any >case it was hideous.
>I still think it's a total waste of everyone's time though - far more >important things to do; where's ELLX Phase 2 then?
Precisely. The Borismaster is a waste of time and public money based on a personal prejudice of the Mayor and an unhinged press campaign. And yes can we please have the go ahead for ELLX Phase 2 as soon as possible.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:08:15 +0100, Tom Barry <il...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Six lines have contracts expiring in 2009; 12, 25, 38, 73, 507, >521 - I'd like to see them try and operate the last two as single door >entry double deckers).
Might the 507 and 521 work with Berlin-style 3-door full-length (12m?) 3 axle deckers with stairs at both front and rear? I think that might have some potential.
Single-entry buses of any kind are not a good way of shifting crowds.
Neil
-- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply.
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:24:22 GMT, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote: >On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:08:15 +0100, Tom Barry <il...@blueyonder.co.uk> >wrote:
>> Six lines have contracts expiring in 2009; 12, 25, 38, 73, 507, >>521 - I'd like to see them try and operate the last two as single door >>entry double deckers).
>Might the 507 and 521 work with Berlin-style 3-door full-length (12m?) >3 axle deckers with stairs at both front and rear? I think that might >have some potential.
13.7m IIRC. Buses of that length would not get round Horseferry Road or turn at Waterloo round to the garage area. I like the concept but it wouldn't work and I suspect the 4m height with its "squashed" upper deck ceiling would be very unpopular in the UK.
>Single-entry buses of any kind are not a good way of shifting crowds.
On Jul 5, 1:24 pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:08:15 +0100, Tom Barry <il...@blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote:
> > Six lines have contracts expiring in 2009; 12, 25, 38, 73, 507, > >521 - I'd like to see them try and operate the last two as single door > >entry double deckers).
> Might the 507 and 521 work with Berlin-style 3-door full-length (12m?) > 3 axle deckers with stairs at both front and rear? I think that might > have some potential.
> Single-entry buses of any kind are not a good way of shifting crowds.
Surely the need for single entry is to do with having to show something to the driver, and has nothing to do with the shape and flexibility of the bus.
This requirement also results in people having to squeeze through the most narrow part of the bus and conflict with people coming down the stairs.
So presumably the competition ought to be to design something that avoids these problems, now that we are out of the habit of showing things to drivers on certain routes.
In message <qCIbk.233502$M63.144...@newsfe13.ams2>, Tom Barry <il...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>Rupert Candy wrote: >> I'm quite surprised nobody's commented on this yet! >> Not only is there a whole new section of the TfL site devoted to it >> (http://tinyurl.com/5euecn), they've even produced detailed >> specifications for the 'serious' competition in proper house style. >> These look very businesslike and impressive, with the occasional bit >> of humour (Articulated design: No. Doors/Apertures: 1 open platform at >> nearside). It's at http://tinyurl.com/6gnvpt if anyone's interested. >> I know Autocar magazine sponsored a design company (Capoco?) to come >> up with a New Routemaster concept a while back - I wonder if they will >> enter it. Otherwise, I can't see any of the bus builders taking this >> as anything other than the humorous whim of a bored politician...
>Bored? It's the only transport policy he's shown any interest in
Not quite. He recently went out late at night (think it was a Friday) in a taxi together with lady from a rape crisis (or something like it) unit and was shown the extant that the unlicensed touts were completely ignoring the law and potentially putting 'vulnerable' (i.e drunken hence the use of the commas!) women in danger.
The best part of the story was that one minicab driver was seen blatantly picking up illegally and when challenged by the lady in the taxi gave her a load of verbal abuse including several swear words!
Boris has promised to double the number of officers employed on specific enforcement from 34 to 68. I doubt if that will be enough but it is a start.
-- Mike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England Interested in American trains real and model? Look here http://mikehughes627.fotopic.net/
<m...@mikehughes.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Boris has promised to double the number of officers employed on specific >enforcement from 34 to 68. I doubt if that will be enough but it is a >start.
Why can the general police not make some progress in enforcing this? After all, a crime is, in my understanding, being committed.
Neil
-- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply.
In message <4870d79b.762556...@news.individual.net>, at 14:33:30 on Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Neil Williams <wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>>Boris has promised to double the number of officers employed on specific >>enforcement from 34 to 68. I doubt if that will be enough but it is a >>start.
>Why can the general police not make some progress in enforcing this? >After all, a crime is, in my understanding, being committed.
It's common misconception that the "general police" enforce all legislation. A desperately needed reform (IMHO) is that every Act of Parliament should state clearly which agency is expected to enforce its provisions. -- Roland Perry
>>Boris has promised to double the number of officers employed on specific >>enforcement from 34 to 68. I doubt if that will be enough but it is a >>start.
>Why can the general police not make some progress in enforcing this? >After all, a crime is, in my understanding, being committed.
That's a question that many people, nit just those in the taxi trade, have asked. The main problem appears to be that of having the 'political' will to do something as to take someone to court requires time and money. That money has increased since introduction of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) as introduced (IMO)
-- Mike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England Interested in American trains real and model? Look here http://mikehughes627.fotopic.net/
On 6 Jul, 21:11, Mike Hughes <m...@mikehughes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That's a question that many people, nit just those in the taxi trade, > have asked. The main problem appears to be that of having the > 'political' will to do something as to take someone to court requires > time and money. That money has increased since introduction of PACE > (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) as introduced (IMO)
That'll be why the prison population is at an all-time low then. Oh, hang on a minute...
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Mike Hughes wrote: > In message <4870d79b.762556...@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams > <wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> writes >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:25:12 +0100, Mike Hughes >> <m...@mikehughes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Boris has promised to double the number of officers employed on specific >>> enforcement from 34 to 68. I doubt if that will be enough but it is a >>> start.
>> Why can the general police not make some progress in enforcing this? >> After all, a crime is, in my understanding, being committed.
> That's a question that many people, nit just those in the taxi trade, > have asked. The main problem appears to be that of having the > 'political' will to do something as to take someone to court requires > time and money. That money has increased since introduction of PACE > (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) as introduced (IMO)
That's true. Before PACE, you could just forge a confession and beat a suspect into signing it, which was much more cost-effective than all this 'proof' business.
tom
-- unconstrained by any considerations of humanity or decency
>> In message <4870d79b.762556...@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams >><wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> writes >>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:25:12 +0100, Mike Hughes >>> <m...@mikehughes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Boris has promised to double the number of officers employed on >>>>specific >>>> enforcement from 34 to 68. I doubt if that will be enough but it is a >>>> start. >>> Why can the general police not make some progress in enforcing >>>this? >>> After all, a crime is, in my understanding, being committed.
>> That's a question that many people, nit just those in the taxi trade, >>have asked. The main problem appears to be that of having the >>'political' will to do something as to take someone to court requires >>time and money. That money has increased since introduction of PACE >>(Police and Criminal Evidence Act) as introduced (IMO)
>That's true. Before PACE, you could just forge a confession and beat a >suspect into signing it, which was much more cost-effective than all >this 'proof' business.
There were undoubtedly *some* miscarriages of justice pre-PACE which needed to be addressed. It is at the 'lower' levels of criminal prosecutions such as most traffic offences that PACE has imposed an extra layer of bureaucracy which has increased costs. It is these costs concerns that mean these offences are not going to court and *some* (not all) guilty persons are not being punished.
In the original context of this part of the thread that the 'touting' and unlawful plying for hire, etc. is not being dealt with.
I can remember way back when I was a police officer we would prosecute (low level) cases at magistrates court without getting solicitors involved and the magistrates would decide based upon the evidence. Nowadays the CPS 'decide' the case beforehand with cost being a greater consideration that it used to be.
IMO 'low' level crime, if not dealt with, leads to a greater and greater likelihood of people continuing to break the law and treat with more and more contempt.
-- Mike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England Interested in American trains real and model? Look here http://mikehughes627.fotopic.net/
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Mike Hughes wrote: > In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0807071338250.15...@urchin.earth.li>, Tom Anderson > <t...@urchin.earth.li> writes >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Mike Hughes wrote:
>>> In message <4870d79b.762556...@news.individual.net>, Neil Williams >>> <wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk> writes >>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 15:25:12 +0100, Mike Hughes >>>> <m...@mikehughes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Boris has promised to double the number of officers employed on specific >>>>> enforcement from 34 to 68. I doubt if that will be enough but it is a >>>>> start. >>>> Why can the general police not make some progress in enforcing this? >>>> After all, a crime is, in my understanding, being committed.
>>> That's a question that many people, nit just those in the taxi trade, have >>> asked. The main problem appears to be that of having the 'political' will >>> to do something as to take someone to court requires time and money. That >>> money has increased since introduction of PACE (Police and Criminal >>> Evidence Act) as introduced (IMO)
>> That's true. Before PACE, you could just forge a confession and beat a >> suspect into signing it, which was much more cost-effective than all this >> 'proof' business.
> There were undoubtedly *some* miscarriages of justice pre-PACE which > needed to be addressed. It is at the 'lower' levels of criminal > prosecutions such as most traffic offences that PACE has imposed an > extra layer of bureaucracy which has increased costs. It is these costs > concerns that mean these offences are not going to court and *some* (not > all) guilty persons are not being punished.
> In the original context of this part of the thread that the 'touting' and > unlawful plying for hire, etc. is not being dealt with.
> I can remember way back when I was a police officer we would prosecute (low > level) cases at magistrates court without getting solicitors involved and the > magistrates would decide based upon the evidence. Nowadays the CPS 'decide' > the case beforehand with cost being a greater consideration that it used to > be.
> IMO 'low' level crime, if not dealt with, leads to a greater and greater > likelihood of people continuing to break the law and treat with more and > more contempt.
This is a very interesting point, Mike, one i hadn't thought of before, and one which you have expressed very clearly, and perhaps with more patience than my sarcastic response deserved.
The protections PACE and related laws gave to the public are extremely important ones, and i'm very concerned by recent movements towards reducing them in the name of efficiency (the stop and search receipts, for instance). However, i can see that when it comes to low-level crime, runaway bureaucracy can get in the way of dealing with problems. I am a bit skeptical about this being a direct consequence of the law, rather than being manufactured by overzealous administrators in the police and CPS, but it certainly sounds like a real problem.
tom
-- There are lousy reviews, and then there's empirical shitness. -- pikelet
|
