Sunday, 9 February 2025

Let's Discuss the Rear Open Platform of a Bus

The open platform of various double-deck buses

The open platform had been the most unique and controversial feature, especially when it was in use in London for regular passenger services.

I'm not an expert in history, especially with the (double-deck) trams and trolleybuses prior to 1962.

If we go back a century, trams, trolleybuses, and buses had open platforms (or steps) where anyone could board and enter at any time, similar to the hail-and-ride system.

This was especially true for horse buses, where fixed bus stop points were unknown. Essentially, it was hail-and-ride everywhere at the time.

The horse bus first played a key role in London's public transport evolution. In the late 19th century, the 'knifeboard' horse bus was introduced, allowing passengers to sit back-to-back on the roof, accessed by a rear ladder. The London General Omnibus Company (L.G.O.C.) adopted this design in 1855, consolidating many smaller bus operators. The 'garden seat' horse bus, introduced in 1880 by the London & District Omnibus Co., replaced the knifeboard design, providing forward-facing seats and improving comfort, especially for female passengers. This became the model for early motor buses.

By 1911, the L.G.O.C. had phased out horse buses in favour of motor buses, but independent operators continued using them until the First World War. Notable bus companies included the L.G.O.C., London Road-Car Co., and Thomas Tilling, which served different parts of London. The horse bus's legacy lived on as a key step towards modern bus transport.

During World War I, fixed bus stops were introduced in London to manage growing passenger numbers and avoid chaotic queues. By 1919, the Ministry of Transport initiated an experiment to ease traffic flow. The scheme officially began on 18 February 1920, with omnibuses between Cricklewood and Victoria, and Hammersmith and Piccadilly stopping only at marked points. The affected routes included Cricklewood Road, Edgware Road, Park Lane, and Piccadilly. The experiment, led by the Advisory Committee on London Traffic, aimed to regulate bus stops and improve traffic flow. Stops were either ‘Compulsory’ or ‘By Request,’ placed about 300 yards apart, ensuring no passenger had to walk more than 150 yards to a stop. Despite initial efforts, competition from independent bus operators not bound by the fixed-stop system reduced its effectiveness, and by 1924, the experiment was abandoned. Fixed stops continued to be used at fare stages, but the broader scheme was not revived for over a decade.

In the mid-1930s, the idea of fixed stops resurfaced, with a new trial starting in 1935 to alleviate congestion and improve punctuality. By 1937, fixed stops had been introduced across much of London, with the entire network adopting them after the war.

Regarding bus operations, the General’s Rules & Regulations (1927) required drivers and conductors to be vigilant for passengers, particularly near stations, theatres, and schools. Buses were required to stop when hailed unless full, with the conductor signalling to the driver if the bus was at capacity. Stops were to be made at recognised locations, though "prohibited stopping areas" were not clearly defined.

The reason for the open platform historically was that buses were similar to hail-and-ride, as London had minimal coverage of bus stops. Then, during the 1930s, they became compulsory, but included request bus stops. Buses in many parts of the world, especially in America, adopted doors, while London remained with half-cab, open-platform buses.

It's interesting how buses in certain parts of the world introduced doored buses, but London Transport didn't introduce them until the mid/late 1960s for the red bus services, which first experimented with a front-entrance bus on route 24.

At the time, there were no (or minimal) road markings, especially for trams. The traffic situation over a century ago was completely different from the present day.

In 1954, London Transport was not convinced that the trend of adopting large single-decker buses, popular in other areas, was suitable for London. The narrow, winding streets made longer buses difficult to manoeuvre, and the double-decker was seen as the best way to carry 56 seated passengers in a compact 26 ft vehicle. Moreover, single-deckers with higher entrances were harder for passengers to board and alight, reinforcing the preference for double-deckers.

The Leyland Atlantean pioneered the design of rear-engined, front-entrance double-decker buses in the United Kingdom, allowing for the introduction of one-man-operated buses, dispensing with the need for a bus conductor.

In the late 1950s, new double-decker bus designs appeared in the United Kingdom that provided higher capacity, with the engine compartment at the rear and the entrance door by the driver. From July 1966, United Kingdom transport regulations were changed to allow the operation of urban double-decker buses by the driver only, who could now collect fares and supervise all passenger loading and unloading.

However, by 1964, the Phelps Brown Committee, which had been set up to examine pay and conditions for London bus crews, recommended a reappraisal of operating methods to improve productivity. This led London Transport to reconsider large-capacity double-deckers, with an emphasis on one-man operation and the possibility of closing the upper deck during off-peak times.

#London #Transport (LT) Central Bus News (No 7. - November 1965): The first front-entrance double-deck buses with power-operated doors, the Leyland Atlanteans, were trialled on Route 24, alongside rear-entrance AEC Routemasters. The trial assessed their performance and public response.

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) February 9, 2025 at 12:51 PM
In response to these developments, London Transport purchased 50 Leyland Atlanteans with rear engines and front entrances in 1965, as part of an experiment to explore one-man operation and better fit London’s needs. This was followed by the introduction of other experimental buses, including the FRM1, a front-entrance, rear-engine version of the AEC Routemaster, and the Daimler Fleetlines for country routes.

#London #Transport (LT) Magazine (Vol. 18, No 12 - March 1965) clipping: LT launched the Atlantean (XA) double-deckers and Green Line AEC Routemaster coaches (RCL). The Atlanteans were the first with front entrances and power doors. The RCL had power folding doors at the rear.

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) November 24, 2024 at 1:35 PM
The AEC Routemaster did have different variants with doors at the rear and the front behind the front axle.

Some municipal operators outside of London adopted rear-engine bus designs and "one-person operation" quickly, while others more slowly. More conservative municipal operators continued to order new half-cab buses throughout the 1960s, but this type of vehicle ceased production in the UK by about 1970. This was accelerated by a UK Government grant that supported purchasing "one-person-operated" vehicles but was not available for purchasing traditional half-cab buses.
In 1968, the New Bus Grant was introduced, which provided up to 25% of the cost of new one-man-operated buses, rather than crewed buses with a driver and conductor. This made full staffing of bus services easier at a time of labour shortage and lowered costs significantly in a labour-intensive industry. However, these buses were slower in service than crewed buses and were more vulnerable to "bus bunching" due to drastically increased passenger loading times, particularly where fare stages were not revised and simplified. The loss of crewed buses was largely correlated with urban bus services requiring exact fares with no change being given on the bus. The New Bus Grant was phased out in 1980.

As for the New Routemaster (NRM), it featured an open platform and conductor on six routes from 2012 until September 2016. I have covered many details about this in my previous article. I also have an article discussing the potential successors to the AEC Routemaster before the New Routemaster was launched.
The Advantages of the Open Platform

The concept of the open platform was to allow passengers to board and exit between stops, especially at traffic lights.

Of course, the open platform did have its perks, particularly with the conductor, as it enabled faster boarding and alighting, especially along Oxford Street.

The NRMs were similar, although they still used doors at bus stops, particularly for pushchairs and wheelchair users. However, the driver was responsible for the doors, and the conductor had to wave at the driver from the back to signal that it was clear. Unlike the AEC Routemasters, the NRMs did not have the "ding-ding" bell button.

Buses with door operations are safer, especially when disabled and elderly passengers need to board and alight at bus stops.

Let’s take a look at some historic excerpts about the conductors for open-platform buses.

According to the London Industrial Strategy:

20.40 In addition to the proposals for reducing the capacity of in-house engineering work, the LRT management is pursuing a bus purchase programme which involves relatively rapid replacement of the Routemaster buses with buses with doors suitable for driver-only operation. Up to early 1983, the London Transport management had always argued that such a major shift to one person operation - the present level of OPO is just over half - was financially and operationally undesirable. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry accepted this view. The reasons for this caution are still valid: Routemasters with their open back platform have much faster boarding times, and are more efficient in inner and central London conditions. The LRT management is now however locking itself into a commitment to 100% OPO, by reducing the rate of maintenance of the Routemasters (which have survived so long because they can be virtually rebuilt at the Aldenham bus works) and programming a rapid shift to OPO as new buses become available. Only OPO buses are being evaluated for purchase. The implications, according to internal LRT planning, will be the loss of nearly 3,000 conductors jobs in the next three years since the change to driver-only operation will be speeded up as compared to earlier plans.

Then, according to This Is... London Transport (1992):

There is still a need for big double-deckers for the busier routes, or routes where there are sudden surges in demand; for example, when large numbers of children come out of schools simultaneously.
The busiest routes of all are in central London, and those with the heaviest traffic (and the largest numbers of visitors) are still worked by the familiar front-engined Routemaster, of which the newest were built in 1968. They have conductors to collect the fares, and have an open rear platform so that people can still board or alight when the bus is stationary in a traffic jam.
At one time it was feared that the Routemasters (and the conductors) might vanish altogether, but nearly 500 of the newest vehicles are now being extensively refurbished in a £10 million scheme that will keep them on the road for another ten years — into the next century. Routemasters do not work ordinary services on Sundays: traffic levels are lower, congestion is usually less, and one-person operated double-deckers are suitable and cost less to run.

Then, according to the London Transport Statement of Strategy (1998):
Routemaster Buses

67. A key issue for LT Buses in the future is the eventual need to replace the Routemaster bus, which makes up some 10% of London's bus fleet. Several respondents supported the Routemaster bus for varying reasons, such as the convenience of boarding and alighting, its attraction to tourists and the advantages from having a conductor. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the open platform raises safety issues and the high steps make it much less accessible than new buses. There can also be a substantial cost premium. However, a balance has to be struck between these conflicting factors. For the time being, LT Buses will support the retention of existing Routemasters where reasonable, and indeed, London Central are buying new engines, more friendly to the environment, for 38 of their Routemasters and new five year contracts have been awarded for Routes 14 and 38. For the longer term LT Buses recognises the features of Routemasters that passengers value and, where realistic, will seek to retain these in any vehicle that replaces them.

The Disadvantage of the Open Platform

The open platform can be dangerous, as passengers can board, alight, and stand on the platform at any time, even while the bus is travelling at speed. As a result, people may fall and seriously injure themselves. While the presence of a conductor to regulate access to the platform helps, the conductor also has to collect fares throughout the bus. Even when on the platform, the conductor cannot prevent all incidents.

We will take a look at the information provided by the UK Government, the Mayor of London, and Transport for London regarding injuries involving open-platform buses:

LRT (Driver-Operated Passenger Doors) - Volume 139 - House of Commons Written Answers:

Minister of State for Transport Michael Portillo

"Figures for the 24 years since such buses were introduced are not available. Listed in the table are boarding and alighting accident figures in recent years for LRT's subsidiary, London Buses Ltd. Accident rates on one-person-operated (OPO) doored buses have declined. Such buses are five times safer than open-platform crewed buses."

From 1983 to 1987, accidents involving London Buses Ltd. were recorded for both OPO and crew buses.

In 1983, OPO buses had 575 accidents (1.00 per million passenger journeys), and crew buses had 2,127 accidents (4.15 per million).
In 1984, OPO buses had 807 accidents (1.24 per million), and crew buses had 2,230 accidents (4.37 per million).
In 1985, OPO buses had 749 accidents (1.01 per million), and crew buses had 1,662 accidents (4.15 per million).
In 1986, OPO buses had 737 accidents (0.91 per million), and crew buses had 1,305 accidents (4.56 per million).
In 1987, OPO buses had 801 accidents (0.85 per million), and crew buses had 922 accidents (4.78 per million).

Answer by London Mayor Ken Livingstone
Date: Monday 4 March 2002
"The total number of incidents of deaths and injuries (both passengers and staff) on Routemasters is around 2 times that on doored buses.
I acknowledge that there is a higher risk of accidents on open platform buses. However, the absolute number of major accidents on all buses across the network is small.
Routemasters are liked by many Londoners and will continue to make a valuable contribution to central London bus operations, especially in the short term until further measures are implemented to speed up boarding on doored vehicles."

Answer
Date: Sunday 24 October 2004

"During the period from the 1st October 2003 to the 30th September 2004 there have been 287 reported injuries to passengers as a result of falls from the open platforms of Routemaster buses. This figure includes one fatality.During the period from 1 October 2003 to the 30 September 2004 there have been a network total of 3045 passenger injuries reported to TfL, which were the result of all types of falls on buses (including falling down stairs and the alighting and boarding incidents on Routemaster buses). It is not possible to determine how many of these passengers were standing prior to the incident. This amounts to 0.04 injuries per million passenger journeys."

Open platform warning signs for the NRM
From TfL's Graphic Standards
Archived

Appendix 1 - Follow-up Letter from TfL re New Routemaster Buses - 5 October 2015

Data on passenger incidents involving the rear door of New Routemaster buses;
The original business case for the New Routemaster looked at rear platform boarding and alighting injury incidents experienced on previous Routemasters operated and applied these as a disbenefit. Actual rates on New Routemasters have been slightly lower in practice than their classic open-platform predecessors in the fleet. In the original business case, the rate of hop-on hop-off injuries was calculated at 1.86 for every million passenger journeys. TfL has applied the same analysis for boarding and alighting injuries at the rear platform on routes 9, 10, 11, 24, 38 and 390 for the years 2013/14 to 2015/16. Seventy four incidents were identified during this period and when normalised by the number of passenger journeys, the rate per million journeys for the three years in question was 1.67 which is around 10 per cent lower.

The rules regarding the use of open-platform buses:

London Transport website in 1998, Travel Advice for Buses:

"Some buses have an open platform, not doors. NEVER try to get on or off an open platform bus except at a bus stop and always wait until the bus has stopped."

The unused "Watch out for moving traffic" sign for the NRM

In response to an enquiry on 16 September 2013, TfL stated that the terms "Hop on, Hop off" and "Hop on and off" referred to passengers boarding and alighting between stops when a Passenger Services Assistant was on board. However, they clarified that this practice was not encouraged, and passengers should only use recognised bus stops.

Date: 16 September 2013
Our Ref: 1012727739

"The term “Hop on, Hop off” and “Hop on and off” are in our literature that relates to the New Bus for London and classic Routemasters. They are interchangeable but ultimately mean the same thing. It applies to the ability of passengers being able to get on and off buses between stops when a Passenger Services Assistant is on board. This term does not appear in our Conditions of Carriage as it is not something we want to encourage passengers to do, and passengers should only get on and off at recognised bus stops. However, we accept that boarding and alighting between stops does occur."

Taking a look at Section 2.4 of TfL's Conditions of Carriage:

"On our buses, you must only get on or off at official bus stops, except where we advertise the service as being ‘hail and ride’ when the driver will stop where it is safe to do so. There may also be special circumstances eg when the bus is stuck in traffic, in which case drivers may pull over at a safe place and let you get off. However, they will only do this where/when they judge it is safe to do so."

Conclusion

The open platform was undoubtedly the most controversial aspect of bus design, as it would have increased operating costs for both the transport authority and the bus operating company, in terms of hiring a conductor, insurance, etc. It would also have been costly for the bus manufacturer due to product liability and regulatory concerns.

An artist's impression of a double-deck London bus, created with the potential to compete with the New Bus for London (New Routemaster), featuring three doors and two staircases. Designed by Capoco Design Ltd in collaboration with Alexander Dennis Ltd and published in 2012.

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) January 26, 2025 at 6:29 PM
This explains why the Wrightbus New Routemaster (New Bus for London), designed by Heatherwick Studio, featured a convertible open platform with a door, rather than a fully open rear platform.

It’s interesting to note that LT/TfL maintained the tradition of buses with an open platform and conductor, such as the AEC Routemaster, in front-line service until 2005. A small number of these buses continued in supplementary heritage service on parts of routes 9 and 15, which ended in 2019.

In hindsight, I’m glad that London Buses didn’t adopt the half-cab and open platform design for new buses during the 1990s. It would have been costly, and they would have faced difficulties in selling them to new owners across the UK.

Furthermore, such a design would have conflicted with safety regulations and the specifications set by the Unit for Disabled Passengers, such as the requirement for a rear platform.
That’s why it was a wise move for LT to purchase low-floor single-deck buses to improve wheelchair accessibility, gradually expanding their use across more routes in the years that followed.

A new bus (post-New Routemaster) featuring an open platform is certainly controversial and costly, and could impede the (current) Mayor's and TfL's current policies, such as Vision Zero and Bus Safety Standards. However, over the past few decades, London Transport and Transport for London have introduced various types of ticketing to improve loading and unloading times at bus stops, such as the Bus Pass, Travelcards, and the Oyster card, which was launched in 2003.

Of course, there was multi-door open boarding, which started with the bendy buses in 2002. The bendy buses were fully withdrawn in 2011 due to fare evasion issues, although open boarding continued to be used on Red Arrow routes 507 and 521 when they switched from bendy buses to single-deck buses. These Red Arrow routes were withdrawn in 2023. Open boarding was expanded to New Routemaster buses alongside their open platform in 2012, but it was converted to front-door boarding in 2020 due to similar fare evasion issues.

Smartcards and contactless ticketing, along with bus passes and Travelcards, have significantly helped reduce loading times at bus stops and enabled open boarding, a feature already implemented in many cities worldwide.

Providing an attractive bus service doesn’t necessarily require a conductor with an open platform at the rear; it requires creativity, such as route branding, the use of different bus types like bendy buses, extensive bus priority measures, and other initiatives to keep buses moving. Additionally, measures to assist emergency services in bypassing heavy traffic on these roads are also essential.

I would like to extend an invite for you to follow me on X (formerly Twitter) for transport-related updates. You can find me by searching for @CLondoner92 or by clicking on the direct link to my X page here. I am also present on BlueSky and Mastodon. I look forward to connecting with you on these platforms. Thank you for your support.

Further reading
Reviewing and Suggesting a New Common Bus Specification for London, Greater Manchester and Other Franchised Areas

My Standards for Providing Bus Services: Tailoring Vehicle Types and Door Configurations to Meet Route Needs

Image attribution
By sv1ambo - 1911 LGOC B-Type Omnibus replica, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38834264

By Les Chatfield from Brighton, England - East Grinstead Bus running day (2), CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26139462

By allen watkin from London, UK - Routemaster bus, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32042440

By Charlotte Gilhooly from London, England - Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18531755





Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share this page