The roadshow is open on various dates between 9th July and 2nd October.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/wlt/index.shtml

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/wlt/index.shtml


Interesting. Thanks for posting the link.

Random thought after reading the consultation document... To solve the
Acton High Street bottleneck, why not send the trams along Churchfield Road
instead? As well as avoiding the High Street, this would give interchange
with the NLL at Acton Central. Then the trams could cut across the park to
rejoin the Uxbridge road further east.

Or is there some obvious reason why this isn't viable?

"John Rowland" wrote the
following in:

The roadshow is open on various dates between 9th July and 2nd
October.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/wlt/index.shtml

For those who are interested in that sort of thing: it looks to me as
if the consultation brochure uses New Johnston Book, with the curvy
sided diamonds, for text larger than 12 point. Can anyone confirm this?

--
message by Robin May-Silk and his close friend, Robert Kilroy-Kotton
"GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care.

Would you take the office of relief?:
http://robinmay.fotopic.net/p4600200.html

Solar Penguin wrote:
Random thought after reading the consultation document... To solve the
Acton High Street bottleneck, why not send the trams along Churchfield Road
instead? As well as avoiding the High Street, this would give interchange
with the NLL at Acton Central. Then the trams could cut across the park to
rejoin the Uxbridge road further east.

A similar deviation was considered but rejected, mainly I think
because it would increase end to end time. It would not have crossed
the railway or the park, though.

Or is there some obvious reason why this isn't viable?

Conflicting overhead wires.

The tram is expected to be about as fast as a medium-fit cyclist,
overall - 65 minutes for 13 miles.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Robin May wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote the
following in:

The roadshow is open on various dates between 9th July and 2nd
October.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/wlt/index.shtml

For those who are interested in that sort of thing: it looks to me
as if the consultation brochure uses New Johnston Book, with the
curvy sided diamonds, for text larger than 12 point. Can anyone
confirm this?

Well spotted, Robin! Pasting from Acrobat Reader to Word reveals that
the page headings are in New Johnston Book Bold at 45pt. Although TfL's
"Desktop Publishing Standards" says that NJ Book was designed for 12pt
and below, and should not be used larger than this, it doesn't extend
the restriction to Book Bold, and the restriction isn't mentioned at all
in the TfL Corporate Publications Standards. So it seems that someone
has exploited a loophole.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Alternative bottleneck solution: cut-and-cover or elevate the tramway.

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message ...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiatives/wlt/index.shtml


Interesting. Thanks for posting the link.

Random thought after reading the consultation document... To solve the
Acton High Street bottleneck, why not send the trams along Churchfield Road
instead? As well as avoiding the High Street, this would give interchange
with the NLL at Acton Central. Then the trams could cut across the park to
rejoin the Uxbridge road further east.

Or is there some obvious reason why this isn't viable?