Monday, 11 February 2013

B*ms on Seats

Was it the early 1980s pre-deregulation West Yorkshire PTE operator that spawned the marketing campaign whose slogan was “Put your b*m on a bus” or “Put your b*m on a [bus] seat”? Rather than the actual word b*m, there was a picture of a well-formed female be-jeaned botty. This life size derrière was cleverly aligned so that the person sitting amidships upstairs appeared to own this particular bottom.

Back then, there was a slight drawing in of breath at the campaign. The word b*m was still considered rather vulgar. The promotion reached the general media because it was considered a little risqué. Times change and not only are we used to hearing the word b*m well before the 2100 watershed, now even BBC TV uses the f-word at almost every opportunity, it seems. Shame on them. Lord Reith is constantly turning in his grave.

The racy nature and subsequent exposure (excuse the pun) of West Yorkshire’s campaign (or whomsoever it belonged to) was guaranteed to bring it success. But, as a result, I wonder how people also thought of having to squeeze their b*ms on a crowded bus.

Friday’s post considered the advantages of 2+1 seating and conmmenters made reference to standard versus single seating. Ray Stenning, he of the Marmite fame : ) himself said,

“If you sit on a normal single seat, your b*m hangs off it (unless you're a child or tiny)”

Well, judging by the highly specified buses bought by More from Wilts & Dorset, the front singe seats are actually very popular but spacers make them acceptable. The overhanging issue, in my opinion, actually therefore affects double seats “more”.

We’ve all been there. Board a bus with standing passengers and you’ll probably find a spare seat at the back, sometimes overlooked by those at the front, sometimes not taken because the single occupant appears intimidating. These are seats no one seems to want. There’s usually some selfish type, who’s luxuriating on the aisle side while blocking the half by the window by stowing nothing other than shopping or luggage. Pardon me, but that’s just self-centred and greedy. Me, in such situations, I always make the blighter move, choosing the one seat that others might feel is most awkward, leaving any “easier” seats for anyone who might be less shy.

And when they do reluctantly move, as an act of defiance, they still spread over more than their fair share, so you have to squeeze into them. Plus, no matter your size, there are times when you sit next to someone who’s larger than you. In these situations, it may mean your cheek hangs off the seat squab, dangling haplessly into the aisle.

During such occurrences, it’s sobering to remember that a double adult seat squab need be no more than 32" wide. That’s the minimum size in the Construction & Use regs. Which is 4" short of a yard. Fortunately, other than 3+2 school buses and perhaps the 19-seat Mercedes 608 [oddly, that link being to one of Omnibuses’  most popular posts, dating form Feb 2007] with its 2+1 seating of yore, few buses are quite this stingy. But do remember, next time you sit beside some colossus, that the DfT feels you only need 16" of space (actually 400mm = 15¾ inches).

If you remember that, when you put your b*m on a bus you’ll never complain about the hogger next to you ever again.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

My Grandad worked for the old Yorkshire Wooollen company and was given a record (Vinyl) from West Yorks Metro. I specifically remember this as it has the verse "Get you bum on the bus, get your fun (or maybe rump) on the bus, travel for all of time.... or if you'd rather, go with your father but don't leave your bum behind!"

This may seem like I've lost the plot but as a small boy, this record was played every week when visiting - myself and young cousins found it hilarious to hear the word "bum" on a record. I'm not sure where the record is now or if there is a copy out there somewhere....?

Countrybus said...

Never mind b*ms, I wish youngsters today would keep their feet off the seats!

Neil said...

"But do remember, next time you sit beside some colossus, that the DfT feels you only need 16" of space (actually 400mm = 15¾ inches)."

Are 3+2 seats actually that wide?

My backside fits exactly in an easyJet seat, which (from a quick Google) is 18" wide (probably about 17" between armrests I guess). This seems to be a sensible if a little tight minimum.

Or should we return to bench seats, with a wide one on one side and a narrow one on the other - 3+2 in the peak and 2+1 off-peak?

Neil

Anonymous said...

In regards to sitting on the aisle side of a seat I do this as I find the lack of leg room to be rather uncomfortable especially on a long journey. The problem I have is that my knees just end up digging in to the back of the seat in front which I'm sure would annoy anyone sitting in front of me. Hence I sit at an angle with one leg angled out slightly in to the gangway and the other leg at an angle to the seat so that my knee rests more alongside than dug in to the seat in front. It’s not an “anti-social” thing but a comfort thing for me. Some newer double decker designs have started to resolve this somewhat upstairs however I’ve not come across any single deckers that have yet to solve this problem.

Anonymous said...

I've heard normal passengers considering bench seats as old, on a number of occassions, so a return to them probably isn't the answer.

Neil said...

"Some newer double decker designs have started to resolve this somewhat upstairs"

The ones used on son-of-Stationlink 205 in London have good legroom upstairs, but I think this is primarily so luggage can go in front of you. It is nice though!

"however I’ve not come across any single deckers that have yet to solve this problem."

The problem with single deckers is that there is with a low-floor bus only really one seating layout that is workable. You can't just take one row out and adjust the spacing like you could with an old-style high-floor vehicle - you have to work around engines, doors and wheel arches.

Neil

Anonymous said...

@ Neil 11.41: Sorry but that's nonsense. The ex-Connex Jersey Enviro200 that is for sale at Ensign right now has 35 generously-spaced seats in a 10.8m body. The Solos that replaced the Connex fleet are only 33 in the 9.7m length. Both lower than the manufacturer's stock spec.

Anonymous said...

Neil @ 11:41

If you mean the Scania OmniCitys used on the 205, then all the OmniCity double deckers are like that, and it has nothing to do with luggage on that one route.

The buses are just abnormally long so the seats upstairs are spread out more.

Anonymous said...

Neil @ 11:41

If you mean the Scania OmniCitys used on the 205, then all the OmniCity double deckers are like that, and it has nothing to do with luggage on that one route.

The buses are just abnormally long so the seats upstairs are spread out more.

Eric said...

Neil, in South Wales Stagecoach's Darts are mainly 38 seaters - 4 seats on the step, 17 at the rear and 17 squeezed in at the front. First Cymru's 53 plate darts, exactly the same length, are 31 seaters. Same configuration from the step to the back but there's an extra luggage rack behind the driver instead of 3 seats plus one row taken out and the seats spaced rather generously over two rows at the front rather than three.

Neil said...

"If you mean the Scania OmniCitys used on the 205, then all the OmniCity double deckers are like that, and it has nothing to do with luggage on that one route.

The buses are just abnormally long so the seats upstairs are spread out more."

Ah OK. The previous generation of buses on that route (Dennis something-or-others) had that generous spacing as well, which was far better than most other London buses of the time.

That's probably the answer generally, also to the single deck problem - make the buses a bit bigger without adding seats and the problem can be solved.

The 16m single-decks you see in Germany are quite good for this - because they're so long, you can have a very long unobstructed low-floor area for whatever seating area you like. That said, if people don't like bendies they *really* won't like those.

FWIW, I just looked up that Jersey one and the spacing looks poor at best, certainly nowhere near that of the deckers being discussed.

Neil

Anonymous said...

Quite agree with the comment at 11.11. My long legs mean that I have sit in the aisle seat on saloons - those Urban 90 seats in things like MPDs are some of the worst.

I do wish the legroom could be increased slightly.

Neil said...

Part of the issue is the shape of the seat back. Men are on average taller than women, so are more likely to have legroom issues, and because of their physical shape tend to sit with knees apart rather than together, yet seats tend to be the same thickness across their width, or worse have pillars at the outside.

The Class 175/180 train seats seem to solve this by the shape of the seat and the presence of a stronger middle pillar meaning the side pillars can be much narrower thus giving greater effective legroom in the same pitch. Time for such innovation in bus seats? The airline industry spends a lot of money on thin seats to increase legroom while still being able to pack them in...

Neil

Anonymous said...

@ Neil 9.43
3+2 bench seats aren't the answer as the leyland national dervied northern train I get on a morning occasionly has 3+2 bench seats, and all that happens is that 2 people spread out on them and put there bags in the middle, so any advantage in capacity is lost.

Anonymous said...

Anon 16:43 "and all that happens is that 2 people spread out on them and put there bags in the middle,"

Perhaps a rapidly descending bum would clear the place. That's something I did in my younger days to selectively deaf lady on the London Hastings rail line.

Neil said...

Just went on a 33 seat Solo (Vale Travel). "Upstairs" legroom good but "downstairs" a bit tight. If they went for 29 it would have been perfect.

Neil