Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 March 22

= March 22 =

Michael Jackson reverse
Im born white but wanna be black. Can I do A Jackson in reverse?. What does it take to turn a white person ito a negro--178.102.66.206 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Try tanning. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How about the lips?--178.102.66.206 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Collagen injections. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The real news is that you can't, more's the pity. The necessary work to change your physical appearance which includes skin colour, facial features, hair texture, possibly eye iris colour and ability to jump would be prohibitively expensive, especially for someone from Salford. What is more difficult to figure is why your grammar and orthography is so bad here but your historical edits are immaculate. Hmm? Caesar&#39;s Daddy (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Aside from the physical attributes mentioned in previous responses, there's an extensive WP page on Rachel Dolezal and additional media coverage about her case available online. A person wanting to "be" black would do better as a white ally. Deborahjay (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You might get some useful advice if you read Black Like Me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And also the books by Ray Sprigle and Grace Halsell (linked in the article above). Sjö (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See the following two example: the first Rachel Dolezal, was widely chastised for her lack of earnestness and forthrightness in her adoption of her new race and Johnny Otis, who was widely accepted for the same, largely because he was always earnest and forthright about his adoption of a new race. It should be noted that being "black" or "white" is a complex melange of skin color, cultural identity, and local context, and there are very few universal worldwide definitions of these categories.  Even in the United States, skin color itself is not a universal determinant of either racial self-identity and how the society at large defines one's race.  -- Jayron 32 13:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think MJ wanted to be white but wanted to be Diana Ross, there's actually a lot out there to support this.. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Complex melange, in general, but in Dolezal's case, it was mostly the hair. With the right facial hair, Italians can be Arabs, too. These 25 white people gave various races a shot. Nothing says "Michael Jackson" like Joseph Fiennes? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the Fiennes comment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Read this article then. -- Jayron 32 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would expect them to use a black actor(s) for young MJ and a white actor for older MJ. (If they used a black actor for older MJ, then they would put him in the unusual position of having to wear white-face to impersonate a black man.) StuRat (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Whitewashing in film may give some hints. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Camera lenses
At the end of this commercial, the photographer uses a lens hood when photographing a sunrise. Is there some reason you'd want to do this in real life? The commercial already has significant issues with realism, as noted in the comments at the bottom of the page, but even ignoring those, I can't quite imagine the benefit of using a hood when you're photographing the brightest object in the sky. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If trying to capture the brilliant colors, then blocking the actual Sun would be a good idea, as that glare would make the colors hard to see. Of course, catching it just before the sunrise would work, too. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly StuRat you didn't take the time to look at the advert because it is a woman and she is aiming the camera directly at the rising sun. Given the apparent brightness of the sun in that advert I cannot imagine what kind of image would be produced and I can see no photographic reason to have the lens hood in position except that it is more convenient to keep it in place and only remove it for a particular effect. @Nytend, my experience is that most adverts have issues with realism ;-) Richard Avery (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All I saw was her aiming it in the general direction of the Sun. There's no way to tell if aimed directly at it or to one side or the other.   They didn't even show the Sun.  StuRat (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Look at the shadow.--TMCk (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree without reservation with Richard Avery (talk) “that most adverts have issues with realism”  (as adverts and realism is a contradiction in terms). Yet, having a lens hood always in place not only makes one look more professional   (cough, cough) but may save  a shot  during  those spontaneous photographic opportunities, when one doesn’t realize that there is  something close by (in my cases it was a greenhouse windows etc.) which causes  lens flare. In the seconds I had to compose and shoot, I did not not notice flare  in my view finder (back in the good old days of SLR). Even if I had, there was no time anyway to retrieve the hood from my gadget pack and still capture the shots. One learns for the Boy Scouts Motto   - be prepared and a photojournalist  duty is to capture the very moment that it happens. Second, the Boy Scouts teach how to travel light and  not to be weighted down by loads of equipment - keep your lens-hood on place. It is one of the lightest and often very useful accessories. Also, a very cheap Styrofoam plastic plate is also good a flash reflector  and at 2  ¢ a peice are cheaper than lesser performing $50 professional flash diffusers.  It is not the camera equipment that creates a good photograph but the skill of the photographer that knows and  understands what s/he is doing.--Aspro (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're reading something into the commercial that isn't there. There's nothing which indicates that the photographer got out of bed, got dressed, picked up her camera, and walked down to the coast with the firm and unwavering intention of taking one and only one shot directly into the rising sun, before returning home and packing up her camera again.
 * That said, if I were in her place, even if that were exactly what happened, I'd probably still have a lens hood. Leaving aside entirely the optical, technical purposes and benefits of a hood, I often leave one in place purely for the purposes of proving a bit of physical protection to my lenses.  If I were headed to the location shown in the commercial, clambering over rocks by the water, I'd much rather whack a cheap lens hood on something than damage one of my lenses or filters.
 * Unless you're working in cramped quarters, you want to minimize your conspicuousness as a photographer at an event, you need to frequently change filters or accessories at the end of your lens, you need to get the front element of your lens very close to something, or you specifically want to produce flare, there's no reason to remove a lens hood between shots, even if you don't strictly need it for every frame. The problem is that you're thinking of a lens hood as an accessory that a photographer would mount for a specific single shot and then immediately remove, rather than one which a photographer keeps on the camera and only removes if necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To underline what TenOfAllTrades(talk) was saying:  It only when one is  needing  to change filters frequently,  the hood gets in the way. Anyway, with digital cameras to-day this  can be done post-production  - unless one is a real arty-farty and uses graduation filter and such like, that Grand-papa cherished so much. But hey, it doesn't matter what one uses if the results are photogenic.--Aspro (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not want to contribute a complete comprehensive diatribe to the value of the lens hood (I could but I would demand a fee for my tuition), (and anyway it is only a piece of plastic)  yet  TenOfAllTrades(talk) added some the others reasons. So, for my 2¢ worth (add inflation and that about $85 per hour in to-days prices) The advert was not misleading in that sense. So, if you have one – then use it.  Years ago, when I did not have any money ( hope the ex-wives and their  greed for alimony are  not reading this) I used cardboard tubes painted with blackboard paint. Hoods are not a recent invention. They came about out of necessity.--Aspro (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Folks, the reason the camera has a hood is that it makes more easily recognized as a camera ... it is, after all, a commercial. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, sure. (Or at least, to make it look more camera-ey, and to give the actor a more skilled appearance.)  But you're answering a question that wasn't actually asked.  The original question wasn't why the actor had a lens hood&mdash;it was whether or not there might be a "real life" reason to emulate the actor's use of a lens hood. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Bus Questions
I have a few questions about buses. I would like to ask them here.

1. What's with the buses in London? They all seem to be the same colour, even though there are several different companies operating there? Stagecoach's famous blue and orange livery is nowhere to be found even though they operate down there. And the same is true of First's rather purpley colouration. Countless other examples exist, including Arriva's Blue and Yellow. Is this a massive conspiracy by Transport for London? What the hell is going on?

2. As a matter of fact TFL have some rather bizarre practices including the type of destination board. Why are they stupid enough to use old fashioned roller displays rather than the latest LED products? They are a most strange people. I don't see my SPT doing these things.

3. Finally, what are Wright thinking making the "new route master"? Why make a bus for a very specific region. We don't see any manufacturers making a specific "Glasgow" bus, now do we? Why does London get this preferential treatment?

I conclude that TFL and London are extremely unusual, especially with their buses. Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today? You seem very angry. Here are some suggestions:


 * 1) Tradition? More seriously, see London_Buses. The other operators are running services on behalf of TfL's bus operations. Looks like even the buses belong to TfL.
 * 2) They've been using the "old fashioned roller displays" since they were "new fangled roller displays"
 * 3) I cannot believe that Wrightbus, a commercial company that exists to make money, would be forced to do something that didn't make good commercial sense. Quite the opposite, they seem quite pleased to have won an order worth £60m. If you read the story carefully, there's a possibility of that £60m for 200 buses being quintupled in future. And who's to say they can't sell that bus design overseas? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep it's the same deal as for any government contractor. The payment for a vehicle designed to fit very specific requirements is usually pretty good taken as a whole, sometimes the order gets enlarged, it usually provides for maintenance and replacement parts, and even if you need to create all new toolings for the order (unlikely) you can reuse or adapt them for subsequent orders. A big guaranteed order like that over a long period of time gives you an excuse to build a larger facility, hire more workers, etc. And it's a huge PR boon; Wright's emblem gets affixed to those buses, they get to go to prospective clients with pictures of the iconic buses they build. A big government contract like that is something most manufacturers dream of. To answer the question of why London gets "preferential treatment", it all has to do with money. If Glasgow's public transit authority wanted to place a £60m order with Wright, they'd get a Glasgow bus that would be every bit as individualized as London's iconic buses. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * London Buses is the subsidiary of Transport for London (TfL) that manages bus services within Greater London. Since the privatisation of London bus services in 1985, London Buses has set criteria for bus operating contractors that include vehicle specifications such as a common red livery and printed roller destination blinds. Reasons for the uniform colour are to give easy recognition by travellers of the busses on which Travelcards and other bus passes are valid and to reduce profiling of individual contractors whose engagements are subject to renewals. Electronic dot matrix or LED displays have been discovered in Britain and may be seen on new buses; if the OP can provide a rational Business case for retrofitting thousands of roller displays now in use and do so without gratuitous ad hominem disparaging, they can be given a hearing, otherwise not likely. London Buses operate over 6,800 scheduled buses (2007), Glasgow bus terminus handles only around 1,700 buses daily. AllBestFaith (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I travelled on a bus in Glasgow a few years back. Submitted a £10 note for a £4 fare. Driver was unable to give any change because - as an anti-scally measure - Glasgow buses are designed to receive the exact fare and remit no change, fullstop. So. I tend to think Pablo needs to explain the mote in his city's eye before criticising omnibuses of the colonial capital. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For anyone as puzzled as I was, the reference at the end of that was to The Mote and the Beam. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 2) I can see some advantages to the old roller display:


 * They don't use much electricity (unless you aim a light at them so they can be viewed at night).


 * They may be easier to read in bright sunlight.


 * The letters are drawn at higher resolution, possibly making them clearer for the visually impaired.


 * The roller displays may last longer.


 * And, even if they do conclude that LEDs are better, that doesn't mean that buying new LED displays to replace currently functional roller displays would make sense. It may well make better economic and environmental sense to wait until the roller displays fail, then replace them with LED displays (or maybe even the next technology after that). StuRat (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As to electricity, roller-blind destination signs usually have lights behind them for visibility at night, like this.--69.159.61.172 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Presumably they keep those lights off during the day, so there is the savings there. StuRat (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Then why does every other bus company ever use the LEDs, then? Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that that is the case. However, some may decide to change them all at once "for consistency", even though waiting for the old ones to break before replacing them is more cost efficient. StuRat (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The engine on the new Routemaster produces 140kW of power. Four 35W incandescent bulbs (two for the front roller and two for the back) would consume 140 watts - which is therefore 0.1% of the engine power - and if they used LED bulbs to light up the roller sign instead of incandescents - 0.01% of the engine power.  A quick perusal on eBay shows multiple 'scrolling LED signs' that look like the ones you see in busses that consume 8 watts...with two of them, you're using 0.01% of the engine power...which shouldn't surprise us given the cost of lighting the 'roller' board.  Rotating the roller board a hundred times a day could be done with a highly geared-down motor consuming less than a watt for a tiny fraction of the day - which is even more negligible.  So energy savings are UTTERLY irrelevant to this decision - it's a wash.


 * I'd be surprised that reliability would be the reason to stick with the 'roller' because having a few hundred LED's forming the letters is a nicely fault-tolerant system - if one or two LED's fail, it won't affect the legibility of the sign too badly. If you have a couple of bulbs lighting up a 'roller' style display - then one failure is enough to make the sign very difficult to read.  Moving parts are usually bad news for reliability compared to solid-state electronics and a failure of the roller's motor would be a disaster.  Roller displays on the original RouteMaster were hand-cranked - which wasn't so bad when the bus had a "conductor" as well as a driver - but if the driver has to lock the cash receptical, stop the engine, and walk all the way to the back of the bus to hand crank it for EVERY trip - it would hit productivity badly - so at best, hand-cranking could only be a backup in the event that the motor failed.


 * It may be that there was little to choose between the two approaches and that they were mindful of "tradition" with these vehicles that are so iconic to the streets of London. It's also possible that the existing staff that are in place to set up the route names and maintain the roller units was best left undisturbed - and that this avoided a costly "transition" to the new signs.  That's my best guess...but it's only a guess.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are comparing the cost, you need to compare both the initial cost of buying and installing each display, the frequency of breakdowns and cost of repair or replacement. I imagine the labour cost of servicing is the most significant factor, and it may be that it would take far longer to diagnose and repair a typical fault on a LED board than a roller one. (Unionised) labour costs being higher in the UK than many other countries, that might explain why what is cost effective in another country would not be cost effective in the UK.
 * Even if not lit up, the route displays on the New Routemaster are quite visible. So whereas having no power would mean an LED display would be completely invisible, the physical display on the routemaster remains quite visible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You didn't figure in that the LED lights need to be lit even brighter during the day, while the roller doesn't need to be lit at all. And an LED sign with a few LEDs out may still be readable, but it looks horrid.  Presumably they don't want their buses to look like that. StuRat (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No - I didn't consider that - and if you think it matters a damn, please understand the meaning of the word "negligible" - especially when preceded by one or more occurrences of the word "utterly"!


 * 0.01% of the fuel consumption...OK...so you think I screwed up and it's 0.005% for the roller system and 0.01% for the LED's. Let's toss in some rough numbers: There are 8,400 busses in regular use in London, this says that the fuel consumption on a handful of selected routes varies between 3.9 and 7.4 mpg (UK gallons) - and over a single route appears to vary by one or two mpg for unspecified reasons.  This site says that the bus fleet drives a combined 500 million km's per year - that's 310 million miles at around 5 mpg - which means they consume about 62 million gallons of diesel fuel per year...and 0.01% of that, 620 gallons (2,800 liters) of which is consumed in running the signs.  Let's suppose LTE pays 50p/liter for diesel (about half the regular 'at-the-pump' price) - so around 1,400 pounds per year are spent on the energy required to light those signs.  That's 16p per bus per year if the lights are on all the time or 8p per year if they turn them off during the day.  The average London bus driver is paid 10 pounds/hour - if it takes him 10 seconds to flip the light switch for the roller lights - and he does it twice per day - that's 600 times per year, then he spends 1.6 hours/year doing that and the cost of paying the guy to flip the switch to save that 8p/year is 16 pounds.  It's 200 times cheaper to leave the light switched on all the time than to pay the driver to flip the switch!  Now you're probably going to suggest using a light sensor to automatically turn them on and off...but if the bus stays in service for 10 years - the savings for adding that device would be only 80p - well, 40p because you need two of them!  So it had better be a VERY cheap device!  It's truly, utterly, so far beyond anything that anyone should give a damn about!  NOBODY should give a damn whether they leave the lights turned on during the day or not - and they'd be stupid to wasted the money on even having a way to turn them off!
 * My car leaves it's headlights & tail lights on all the time the engine is running - car headlights need to be a heck of a lot brighter than a London bus signboard - and my car does 42mpg rather than 5mpg - and it's STILL not remotely worth the effort to turn them on and off! SteveBaker (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The "X is negligible relative to Y" argument could be applied to just about anything. The weight of any small part on the bus, for example.  But, collectively, those weights matter, as does everything on the bus that uses electricity. StuRat (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree running cost is almost definitely a red herring. does mention an important point namely maintance cost may be an issue. That and our Destination sign also covers the issue of the complexity of changing the sign for a different destination which was discussed above and can be a significant issue. I think StuRat did mention an important point above even if it was unsourced and possibly just another random comment. Visibility in strong sunlight can vary significantly. Unfortunately I don't have a source (I saw the OP's question before I think any replies but couldn't find anything so ended up not replying at the time) but anecdotally I can say that visibility of the older style red LED (or maybe it was LCD) displays on used on a number of Auckland (particularly Stagecoach) buses in 2002-2005 was fairly poor in strong sunlight. The old roller style as well as flip dot disc ones were much better. More modern LED displays seem better and I think roller style displays are fairly uncommon in Auckland now but I'm not sure since I don't use buses much nowadays and also I never went around that much anyway just mostly to and from the city (and only ever really used 2 operators). In any case, I think flip disc displays are more in use (or maybe it's LED flip disc).  has some limited discussion. When you consider developing countries particularly smaller cities in them (since frankly the Auckland PT standards are sometimes worse than that in a number of developing countries) definitely I don't think LEDs are as universal as the OP has suggested they are in the world. In particular as others have said, whether or not it's worth upgrading is going to vary significantly and buses can be used for a long time in some places. Heck I suspect it's hardly uncommon the older buses from places like London, or even Auckland may end up in some of the less developed developing Commonwealth countries with minimal upgrades. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To save people time going to work, they should serve breakfast on buses, and each, would, of course, be called a "cereal bus". StuRat (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah - but those don't take credit cards - you have to have cache. SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Specifications for London buses, set by Transport for London, may be of interest. Warofdreams talk 19:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the beginning, there was the Routemaster bus and the People of London thought that it was good. In the fullness of time, the Routemaster reached its allotted span of two-score years and ten, and passed away. And the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, brought forth bendy buses in their stead. And the People of London grew vexed for they blocketh-up the way overmuch. And lo, Boris Johnson spake saying; "Ye foolish people, if thou makest ME Mayor of London, I will give unto thee a New Routemaster". And it came to pass, and all the people rejoiced thereof, even though it cost them more when their Council Tax bills arrived and they never got the old-fashioned bus conductors to go with them, which is what they really wanted all along.   Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting comments there folks, London clearly is a city full of lunatics, or TFL as they are more properly known. See, that's what happens when you elect a Conservative government, thank god I have SNP! I suggest that the buses of London are guilty of an additional two crimes:
 * 1) Specifying two sets of doors rather than the more tradition one, because TFL are bonkers
 * 2) Specifiying every last detail of the buses, as TFL are clearly senile from many years of harking back to the "good old days" when bus conductors were still relevant.

Of course, a little sprinkle of common sense reveals that bus companies should be free to design their vehicles as crazily as they please, without TFL beaurocrats checking every last measurement, right down to the position of every individual atom in those buses. Clearly these people need help. Our help.

I have a few solutions to these problems to save London from losing its sanity:
 * 1) Instead of red buses, let companies use house colours, like the orange and blue of Stagecoach, for example
 * 2) LED Destination Boards!
 * 3) Get Wright to sell some of their "New Routemaster" buses to Glasgow, Dublin and good old Birmingham
 * 4) Finally, re-calibrate single to double decker ratio, to be more like Ayrshire, where singles are much more common, because we get it right.

Go on yers! Pablothepenguin (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what you mean by "Get Wright to sell". I don't see anything suggesting there is any limitations on Wrightbus selling the New Routemaster bus to anyone and whatever the flaws of Tfl and public policy making in London, there's good reason to think they will place no such limitation. Wrightbus does apparently sell double decker buses to various places in Asia of various other designs and it sounds like they also sell them to other places in the UK, as do others e.g. the Alexander Dennis Enviro400. If Wrightbus has not sold the new Routemaster elsewhere it's likely because it's not worth the cost in these places given their specific requirements. Our article mentions several alleged problems with the Routemaster (including for use elsewhere although there are primarily relating to more rural use) and you yourself have mentioned at least one and of course it was also promoted as an iconic London bus, so I'm not sure why it should be surprising that no one else has wanted a new Routermaster. Wrightbus is a private company and whatever money TfL contributed to the development of the New Routemaster, it doesn't sound like they make it back on sales, so it makes zero sense for TfL to involve themselves in trying to get operators elsewhere to buy new ones from Wrightbus. (Buying old ones that TFL own but no longer want may be a different issue.) If you personally want your operators to buy them, you should lobby your operator or government, although I'm not sure why you'd want them to buy something which you think is fairly flawed. BTW, I'm also fairly confident that even if there are significant less restrictions, it's not true that public bus operators in much of Scotland are "free to design their vehicles as crazily as they please", they will often be required to ensure their buses are suitable for people with various disabilities as well as of course comply with various environmental and safety legislation. It may be beyond the general requirements, there's little requirement on bus operators in Scotland, but even if this is the case, London isn't unique in imposing additional requirements for the buses used by public bus operators.  has some info on the recent requirements in Auckland. While people may disagree on the details, from what I've seen most people who actually use the bus or support PT seem to agree with minimum standards (beyond does like safety, environmental and disability related) to help encourage the uptake of PT by having a good citywide service. (Whatever those of a more libertarian bent may think about such intervention.) This doesn't of course negate the possibility TfL went too far or made poor decisions. As for unified livery, that also isn't exactly unique to London. See   for the plans in Auckland and  for the plans in Singapore (although in the later case the plan is for the government to own the buses). Adelaide Metro has details on the existing situation in Adelaide, Transperth has details on the existing situation in Perth, Buses in Sydney and  have some details on the situation in parts of NSW Transport for New South Wales and  has some info on livery in various places some of which seems to be common (although the ownership structure is not always clear). I don't know about in the other places but in Auckland it again seems most people who actually use the bus and support PT generally support the idea of a common livery which seems to be supported by the comments in the first link. (The most common fear is of the cost if the buses need to be painted too soon to make the change but this is mitigated by delaying it until normal repainting happens. And confusion in the interim which to be fair may be a while if you only repaint during normal schedules.)  has some discussion on the possibility of a common livery in Melbourne. Also I'm not really sure why you believe Ayrshire with a population of 366k and a density of about 90-150 people per square km would be a good model for double to single decker bus ratios for Greater London a city of over 8 million and a density of over 4500 people per square km. I guess suffice it to say, whatever the flaws of Tfl, it's probably a good thing that they're in charge not you. P.S. See also my comments above about display signage. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What about Glasgow then, with a population density of 3,300 people per square KM? Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason why London micromanages its vehicle supply is because the traffic conditions here are unique.  A few decades ago LT did purchase a fleet of off - the - peg single deckers.   Result?   They all soon broke down and hundreds of them were parked across station forecourts until they could be scrapped.   The new Routemaster doesn't have two doors, it has three.   I'm sure the continental "bendy buses" have at least that number.   There are also two staircases.
 * These duplications are designed in for a reason.  The population is rising by 10,000 a month and traffic speeds are at a record low.   So it's important to design buses so that the dwell time at stops, and consequent interruption of traffic flow, is minimised.   This is why last year the system went cash free.   The whole system is under pressure - it's not uncommon for Underground passengers to be corralled in the booking hall because the platforms are dangerously crowded.   At London Bridge on one occasion congestion was so great that passengers had to leap over the barriers to avoid injury. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some single articulated have four doors . Historically in Auckland I know some still only had 2 doors, however I've never used many of these buses so I'm not sure how common it was. The situation here is often still rather poor, e.g. probably at least particularly because how late integrated ticketing (and we still don't have integrated fares) was implemented along with teething problems and silly decisions which the media liked to play up, there is still a very high rate of cash use which obviously slows things down. Even with contactless payment, rear door boarding still isn't allowed and front entrances are sometimes too narrow to allow people making contactless payment to enter during cash payments. Nil Einne (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better comparison, but there are still significant populations differences. There may also be other differences which make Glasgow a flawed model. (And obvious one is that Glasgow is a lot smaller in area, while this may not necessarily have an effect on the ideal ratio, it definitely could have.) Perhaps most importantly, you've presented zero evidence that Glasgow actually has a better ratio of double decker to single decker buses. In fact a simple search finds some good evidence that the PT situation in Glasgow is poor compared to London  as in 2011 44.63% of people were commuting by PT (well bus, train or metro) vs 23.12% of people in Glasgow. And the situation improved in London from 2001 to 2011 . Of course this is only a single data point and it's unlikely increasing the ratio of double decker buses in Glasgow is going to magically improve PT use. Actually it's more likely the opposite, the reason the ratio is I assume much lower in Glasgow (at least I think that's what you're getting at) is because they have limited PT use due to a whole host of factors so they don't need so many double decker (or articulated) buses. Either way though, while I would hope those involved in making public policy have looked at this much much more in depth than this single data point, the only actual evidence I've seen presented in this thread is whatever the flaws of the London system, from a PT POV it's actually working better than Glasgow. Of course some may argue factors like higher density, more population and a large area should mean it's better and in fact it's doing worse than it should be compared to Glasgow. One of the reasons those involved in policy need to do much more analysis. (As I said before, you can to some extent seperately try to look at whether any specific decision like the new Routemaster, or double decker vs articulated or more frequent buses, or unified livery, or ownership models, or destination signage or whatever was the best decision. However you also can't ignore the wider picture or how these factors interact and help in achieving your wider goals which in PT terms tends to be increasing usage of PT.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)