Remember the passenger!
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IT WAS with interest that I read the article—"Bigger doubledeckers or crush-loaded singles?" (CM, January 5)—on the future of the double-decker bus. But there were a number of points that in my view, as an ordinary fare-paying passenger, remain unanswered.
Both examples, shown in diagram form, appeared to possess the same faults. Both had double entrances and exits; but once on the vehicle, passengers would have to pass the longitudinal seats over the front wheels in single file, since if anyone was sitting on them, a gangway of 2ft of less would be available. Boarding passengers would then have to wait while alighting passengers descended the single-width staircase. So it would appear that the system would work well if there were about half a dozen passengers boarding and alighting; but if this were the case, why a double entrance or double exit?
Another point that seems unnecessary to me arc the angled stairs. Like most humans, I have one right leg and one left, whereas these staircases appear to be made for people with seven right legs and no left ones! I regard the 44in. or so on the inside of the curve as potentially dangerous, especially while descending. This should be borne out by passengers who have descended the MCW curved staircase and the ECW staircase with one safe rightangle bend on the older rear-entrance buses.
Nowadays, if I take my wife shopping, I use a car and suffer the agonies of parking problems and the usually long walks from and to the car parks. This preference for car travel is due to what I would term the shortcomings of our modern buses. In line with common modern practice, our local bus company only displays the route number and extreme destination at the front of the vehicle. Since few passengers want the extreme destination, one has either to hold up the vehicle, while the conductor or driver explains the route; or buy a time-table, but to do this would entail travelling on the correct route over 10 miles to the nearest depot (an intermediate destination)!
When I board a bus, I expect a seat and therefore object to being herded on to a standee-type vehicle. When I get a seat, I object to bruising my knees on the back of the seat in front, which often happens although I am less than 5ft 9in. tall; and many coach builders forget that I have feet on my lower extremities!
I feel that the seats should be 2ft 6in. from back squab to back squab with an extra 1 1 in. allowed for legs and feet should there be some form of bulkhead in front of the seat. Also lft 6in. should be the minimum width of a seat.
Usually when shopping, I take a pram for the baby; this will fit easily into a small car such'as a Minor Traveller, but at present I know of no bus company that could allow a pram on board.
It was mentioned in the article that some companies would prefer larger-capacity vehicles if possible. Under the new regulations I cannot see why larger-capacity vehicles could not be designed, since they would occupy no more road space than the new 12metre single-deckers.
I have made a drawing of what I regard as a practical design from passenger, operator and crew (oneor two-man) points of view. The bus design is 12 metres long, though it has a nonpassenger-carrying semi-trailer which could be used for prams and other bulky luggage, taking the overall length to 15 metres.
For two-man operation, passengers would board through a double rear entrance and, while the vehicle was in motion, file past the conductor's desk, this being equipped with automatic ticket-issuing and change-giving machines necessary for the large capacity. Passengers could then pass to the lower deck to the forward-facing or safer rearward-facing seats; or to the rearwardascending staircase, equipped with two right-angled steps, which besides taking less space, would be safer than the conventional semi-spiral stairs. There is a double front exit controlled by the driver. Apart from a high capacity of 86 seated passengers and a large entry platform, transverse seat spacing is 2ft 6in., and 3ft 6in. is allowed from the rear of the front upper deck seats to the vehicle's front.
Since passengers look to the destination blinds before boarding, that is where we should indicate whether the vehicle has a rear entrance (two-man operation), or front entrance (one-man operation).
If these practical improvements could be built into bus design, then I for one would be lured back to bus travel.
D. W. WRIGHT Barry, Glamorgan Derek Moses comments: With his letter Mr. Wright enclosed a drawing of a twin-steer six-wheeled double-deck bus with trailer. The engine is shown fitted beneath and behind the driving cab, resulting unfortunately in an unpractical engine and transmission layout. A very large platform is shown at the rear, but it is a long walk to the staircase, the access to which is at the extreme front of the bus. The staircase itself is shown mounted on the nearside of the vehicle. However, I endorse his comments regarding seat spacing and staircase design.
Buy British?
HOW MANY TIMES have we heard on TV and radio in the past few weeks that we should buy British? Well, I should have thought that Mrs. Castle would have dictated policies, as she is so often doing these days, with her new "baby", British Railways and their purchasing department. I have seen a few of their C. and D. motive units at their rail terminals and these do not suggest the "Buy British" slogan. Is this an example of putting the economy right?
J. D. MARSHALL Durham