Talk:AEC Routemaster/Archive 1

Text Added

i've added a little text on the makers and maintenance of the Routemaster - if someone knows better than me please update it!

Soarhead77 15:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How about some text? --Brion

Sure, but it's past midnight here, and I have to get up early tomorrow. Also, other people might know more about the Routemaster. Anyway, I'll try my best -- soon. KF

Well, I'm not asking for a tome here, just is "Routemaster" the type of bus? A company that runs buses? The particular individual bus pictured? --Brion

I've made a note of that under the "Bus" entry. But anyway -- just a moment. KF

Thanks! --Brion

You're welcome. Good night. Yawn. KF

Routemasters in Mumbai, India

Double decker buses modelled on the London Routemasters are still going strong in the city of Mumbai (formerly Bombay). See B.E.S.T. Should a mention be made of this in the article? Rohitbd 19:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Emotive passage

I feel the passage about the 'last day' is very... emotive for an encyclopdeic article - will come back and do my best to make it less so, if thats alright. - Moubiness

I wrote this article as I was sat on RM6 on it's last run using my handheld. I dont mind it being sanitized after the eventJohn Hyde

Withdrawn from regular service

Is it just me, or does this article give completely the wrong impression about the operational status of the Routemaster. The lead para says it has been withdrawn from regular service. There is a whole section on the last day in service. Anybody reading this would expect, I would submit, to visit London without seeing a single RM outside a museum.

That is just not true. There are two routes still operating, 7 days a week, every 15 minutes, through the centre of London, accepting standard fares. If that is withdrawn from regular service, I wish somebody would withdraw my local service (every 2 hours, 6 days a week) and make it a 'heritage operation'.

I suspect that the 'not a regular service' is more a piece of political necessity by TfL to try and keep from conflicting with accessibility legislation than anything. We are under no such constraints, and should tell the story as it is: 'The Routemaster is still in service'. -- Chris j wood 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree there are many routemasters "IN SERVICE" all over the world. However none are performing there original as built task of carrying passengers all hours of the day seven days a week in London. The closest is nothing more than a tourist operation, a kin to rides on a horse and cart being classed as a regular taxi service or a steam train on some tourist operation being considered as a "regular service" John Hyde

Would this count as spam?

I have come across a company which owns Routemasters which people can rent. It is called Timebus. I hope this doesn't sound like an advert. Simply south 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Routemasters in Sri Lanka

The double decker wikipedia article mentions that a number of routemasters were still in use in sri lanka. Does anybody know if this is still true? --80.43.50.99 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some routemasters still in sri lanka, though there use is more educational and medical rather than for public passenger service.

List of Route 15 Routemaster Number plates

Is this list really needed? and does it really count as trivia? There are links to a website listing the Routemasters that have been retained for the heritage routes on their respective wikipedia pages. I am also not sure BMT 342 is a valid registration number. Denham331 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this page is about routemaster buses ( the buses that became famous on the streets of London ) so any information related to existing services is only to be encouraged. Secondly, Yes or course it counts as trivia - of would you prefer a whole subsection devoted to Routemaster number plates ? How about a Wikipedia page for each number plate ? Thirdly, if there are indeed links to a website listing these routemasters then why don't you add this link to the wikipedia entry ? Or if it already exists them update the link to state what it included at the other end of the link ? Forthly, BMT 342 certainly is a valid number plate - I have seen, with my very own eyes, it pass by my Cannon Street office window (which you'd know about if it were not for some petty minded individual who "took offence" to my stating this when I first started compiling this list.

212.187.213.69 16:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of in service details

(Third opinion requested) An IP editor (212.187.213.69) above is edit warring on this IP and others over the inclusion of this section which I removed as part of a large rewrite. It purportedly lists the details of all buses on the heritage routes (although also includes a spam link to another company seemingly operating others. I have given my reasons on their talk page User_talk:212.187.213.69#Routemaster.2C_again, but the user continues to re-add with limited further input. In his own words above, the information originates from 'what he has seen out of his office window'. He now also refers to EL's I added, although the nature of these pages are completely unofficial at best, and would not pass WP:RS, however, they are suitable further reading EL's. Additionally, in my research I uncovered the fact that for th RMs on daily use on the heritage routes, there are apparently a larger than normal number held in reserve, such is their age. Hence the list is not maintainable in any case. Also note previous objections to the inclusion, prior to my arrival. MickMacNee (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have moved the section in dispute to here. Difficult to see how such trivial information would be of interest to the average reader. The section is also unsourced and unverifiable. Before being placed back in the article it would need to be sourced, and would also need some consensus among the editors working on this article that its inclusion is warranted. SilkTork *^YES! 15:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Routemasters Currently in Service

• The number plates of the remaining London based Routemaster buses that have been observed travelling along the Heritage Routes (15 and 9) are:
  • WLT 324 (RM324)
  • WLT 652 (RM652)
  • WLT 871 (RM871)
  • ALD 933B (RM1933)
  • ALD 941B (RM1941, also has a red light attached to the roof at the front of the bus)
  • ALD 968B (RM1968)
  • ALM 50B (RM2050)
  • ALM 60B (RM2060)
  • ALM 71B (RM2071)
  • ALM 89B (RM2089)
  • SMK 760F (RML2760)

• The number plates of the remaining London based Routemaster buses that have been observed travelling along the Charing Cross section of Route 9 include:
  • 204 CLT (RM1204)
  • 218 CLT (RM1218)
  • 280 CLT (RM1280)
  • 562 CLT (RM1562)
  • 627 DYE (RM1627)
  • 640 DYE (RM1640)
  • 650 DYE (RM1650)
  • 735 DYE (RM1735)
  • 776 DYE (RM1776)
  • ALM 913B (RM1913)

• The number plate of a Routemaster discovered on the H1 route to Loughton:
  • WTS 418A

RM numbers and Number plates

If MickMacNee seems so interested in removing valid information from wikipedia, then I suggest he wander along to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Fleet page and rip apart the RM references found there too. I'll seek out other pages for him to sanitise to his own way of thinking too if he so desires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.213.69 (talk • contribs)

Restoration Of Section

There is no evidence that this section contains incorrect data - indeed many users have corrected/added to the listing (see page history). This type of information belongs on a website such as wikipedia rather than a 3rd party external page so the information is in the public domain and can be updated as required. 87.112.67.23 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not the purpose of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The information being added is about the Routemaster, very much the purpose of this particular Wikipedia page. 87.112.67.23 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the criteria for entry of information to wikipedia, read the policies referred to on here repeatedly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The data listed is valid and verifiable. When you removed the data on 5th March, why did you not seek a 3rd party opinion prior to it's removal? Your actions are an act of Blanking Vandalism as described in [[1]]. No reasons for content removal were given. 87.112.67.23 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, in preparation for the rewrite, I read the talk page, and came to the conclusion that others already had, and I still hold now, it does not belong in the article, as explained again and again by myself and others. MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from questions of relevance, a list of number plates which have been 'observed' in particular circumstances seems a fairly clear example of original research. David Arthur (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reference number 20 listed in the article ([AEC Bus Society]) would seem to show that the numberplates listed meet the [Verifiability requirements]. Perhaps only data from that list should be included? Question remains though - is it relevent? 82.46.143.181 (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The text at the top of that page "See your name on this page (Send a sighting)" suggests the content is borderline verifiable, depending on whether they check any facts sent in, as opposed to the other info cited from that page, which can be verified from other citeable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts on that website are consistent with those being questioned here, and are also consistent with those on other specialist sites and publications. For example, [London Routemaster Heritage Route] lists the same vehicles. The claims made are certainly not exceptional - there are even photographs showing the buses in service. 82.46.143.181 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The geocites site is of equal or less reliability than the AEC society, a geocite is a free site, and it appears to be the work of one person with no statement as to the source of the information. It could come from the aec page, looking out the window or even here (it actually has this article as a link page), there is no more authority provided by it. In fact some sections do appear to be simply copied from other sites. Consistency with the 'out the window' information provided here is irrelevant in that case. Secondly, the info being pushed is being headed 'currently in service', given the reliability of these buses now, a photograph at a time in the past proves nothing with respect to whether they are in use now. Basically, the only reliable source per wp policy to assert 'these are the buses in use now' would be an official fleet list from Arriva, or from a site with a reputation for fact checked content, such as the omnibus society, or a third party site that asserts their info is from one of these sources (although I am not sure even attribution makes it reliable per policy). MickMacNee (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"a photograph at a time in the past proves nothing with respect to whether they are in use now". Perhaps then the section should be renamed to "Buses that remained in service on the Heritage route"? 82.46.143.181 (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I still can't see what is claimed as the source for that statement, I presume these photos have been taken at different times. Secondly, why is that information any more relevant than say, the number plates of the RMF Northern General class, or number plates of the buses that went to America/Southend/Edinburgh? To the casual reader, it is of little significance, this information is being pushed for inclusion to make WP a service for bus spotters, something it is frankly not. At a push, if properly sourced, lists could go on the heritage route articles. MickMacNee (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted a reuqest on the reliable sources noticeboard here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_for_Routemaster_buses_in_current_service_in_London. MickMacNee (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

IP editors restoring number plate section

(in order of 1st contrib)

• 212.187.213.69 (talk · contribs)
• 87.112.31.210 (talk · contribs)
• 82.10.225.195 (talk · contribs)
• 87.112.67.23 (talk · contribs)
• 87.114.132.159 (talk · contribs)
• 87.114.4.140 (talk · contribs)

Please do not continue to claim in edit summaries that you are not aware of why this section is being removed, or that there is no reason for it to be removed. There are explanations and opinions on this talk page, which some of those IP accounts above have clearly read/editted. The information is not verifiable and constitutes original research. MickMacNee (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Final withdrawal

I've just returned from a business visit to Boston, Massachusetts. Whilst there I got talking about WP to one of the guys at the conference, and he basically told me he thought WP was hopelessly inaccurate. When I asked for some evidence, he quoted me this article. He told me that the article said Routemasters had been finally withdrawn, but he knew that wasn't true because there was a route of them running past his hotel when he visited London a couple of weeks ago.

Looking at the article, I could see exactly what he meant. Whilst if you read the article in depth there are references to heritage routes, it also contains reference to the 'final withdrawal' and the 'last day' that frankly just are not true. I know that TfL has a 'political' issue admitting the Routemaster is still in service because of the disability access implications, but to an impartial external observer (like my friend from Boston) Routemasters are still very much 'in service' in Central London.

I tried to reflect this with some slight wording changes to headings and list items, but MickMacNee reverted these (along with another set of changes of paragraph text that were not my doing). As this article is clearly bringing WP into disrepute, I think we need to discuss how we can amend this article so that it doesn't read 'wrong' to someone not versed in 'Routemaster politics'. Suggestions please. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just disagree, I think with even just 5 minutes of reading it would be obvious that 2 routes still exist, and I think the expansion of headers and over clarification is undue weight. It was an effective "final withdrawal". There comes a point when you really have to expect people to read the article not the headings to undersatnd the subject. I mean, what actual header adequately explains: "after at least a decade of debated exustence and remaining prominent usage, and several attempts at withdrawal, with some resurgances, on such a such date it was finally decided to withdraw 95% of Routemasters, and over a period of months this was acheived, completed on this date when a large event was held. After that day, 2 routes remained as short and limited time routes as primarily tourist attractions". OK that's an over-reaction, but I hope the point is clear. In addition, the fact they are still in use in london is directly referred to in the first paragraph of the article. It couldn't be more clear than that for me. I don't want an edit war as I was just about to go fo GA review (which requires no current edit wars), so I will concede the changes to the headers, and change them now, but I still think 'The last day in general service' is still ambiguous and overly long for a header. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've changed the top header, but I couldn't see any appropriate wording for the last day details that satisfies all levels of reader knowledge of bus operation, so I've just removed the sub-headings. They weren't overly crucial. Now he will have to read the text!. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the point that, to somebody who remembers the time when Routemasters formed the bulk of the buses on the streets of central London, having 20 of them running a couple of inter-peak services may look pretty final. But we have to write from the perspective of a stranger to the subject, and not three or four years ago. If nothing else, think about what we will have to put in the article in 2017 or whenever it really does become final. I'm happy with your changes, and have no desire for an edit war either. Good luck with the GA review. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're a mind-reader, I was about to add the point about 20 buses being effectively withdrawn even compared to just a year before they went, and definitely compared to the 2000? buses in londo, but the problem being the 95% of people that might not get this (i.e. visitors), will visit some part of London that these routes go past. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)