Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
(Dominic) wrote in message . com... In article , Tom Anderson wrote: What's the point of trams? I'm not having a go, i just don't really understand what's so great about them. Not from the heavy rail side (they're obviously much cheaper and more flexible, whilst smaller and slower), but from the bus side. Yeah, why do we need trams? Here's my opinion - feel free to criticise it: 1. Buses are as fast as trams - even with diesel engines. If Croydon trams ran long sections on the road mixing with cars, or if London buses ran on a proper network of properly enforced bus lanes, that would become clear. The maximum acceleration of both buses and trams is set by passenger comfort - I reckon both can reach that maximum. No , the maximum acceleration of busses is set by their engine hp. For trams you are correct however as due to the huge torque of electric motors they could easily accelerate much faster. I wouldn't underrate the acceleration of buses - with poor use of the clutch they can easily throw people off balance - that's surely enough. But they do lack the hp for sustained hill climbing. Trams have enough power on tap to simply keep going. 2. Buses can easily rival trams at shifting passengers - just 2 of these 180 passenger Van Hool double-artic buses carry more than a Croydon tram: http://www.vanhool.com/products_bus_...Categ oryID=1 They're a bit unwieldy, but so would Croydon trams be if they really had to mix with the traffic! And how exactly would those busses navigate around tight corners and narrow british roads? Its not an issue for trams as the tracks guide them but if a driver makes a mistake with one of those the bus could be all over the place. Why do you think we don't have truck road trains like in australia? Those buses (and truck road trains!) couldn't get around tight corners, and neither can trams. That's why suitable routes are chosen for them. This shows that trams could never meet all our urban transport needs. It's horses for courses. Send smaller buses where only smaller buses can go. But what trams really can't navigate around is roadworks. 3. Buses ride just as well as trams, if you put them on a well surfaced road. Both can suffer from harsh braking when mixing with And how many well surfaced roads are there in london? Or perhaps you're suggesting spending a few hundred million on resurfacing every single road in london that busses use with all the associated traffic chaos? I wouldn't suggest that. But it'd be cheap compared with laying tram tracks and diverting all the utilities. cars and pedestrians. There's nothing wrong with rubber tyres - they allow you to apply greater tractive and braking forces. That's why many Paris Metro trains have them. Yes , paris metro trains designed in the 60s. These days you can do better with steel wheels and rails aside from which rubber tyres have much greater rolling resistance and hence use more energy/fuel. Friction factor for steel wheels on steel rails is about 0.3. Rubber tyres on tarmac is about 0.8. You can't beat rubber tyres for a vehicle with frequent stops, no matter what kind of traction control you use*. You're right about the higher rolling restistance. (Unless you don't apply traction using the wheels ie LIM, cable, rack etc!) 4. Diesel buses are more environmentally friendly than electric trams. Although buses produce more pollution at the point of use, trams produce more pollution overall - the electricity they run on has to be produced somewhere, and it's been through a lot of inefficient energy conversions by the time it reaches the tram. Err , you seem to forget that someone has to refine and transport the diesel fuel the bus uses to the filling station. That takes energy too. And if the electricity used by the tram is produced by nuclear or renewable sources then the enviromental impact is negligable. And thats not even mentioning the soot produced by diesels, so basically your argument is crap. I said buses produce more pollution at the point of use. As for your argument about using nuclear or renewable sources, I wish we did. Instead we use mostly gas to meet our Kyoto protocol targets. I would use London's fuel cell buses to support my argument, but the hydrogen for them wasn't produced using renewable energy. Bummer. 5. Buses could have the "wow factor" and desirability of trams, if they were made to look more exciting. Designs like the Wright Eclipse Gemini are heading in the right direction. I doubt anyone gets on a bus , tram , train or any kind of public transport just because it looks cool. They use it to get from A to B. 6. One final point - buses require no fixed infrastructure to be built on their route. You can run them on the road - brilliant! If there are roadworks, you drive around them! Yeah , they can get stuck in a hour long traffic jam too just like the cars - brilliant! And just like the tram too if it's not in a segregated lane. B2003 |