Annabel Smyth wrote:

The thing is, at the moment, the Tube empties out at Brixton and
everybody crowds on to southbound buses. Which, admittedly, mostly
start in Brixton so are empty (but not for long). It's better than it
was, but trying to get on a southbound bus in Brixton at about 5.30-6.00
pm is still a nightmare. What it will be like if/when the CRT opens, I
dread to think.

What will happen is that you won't be able to get onto a bus at Brixton
Station, because all the people getting off CRT will have got on at the
previous stop (Brixton Police Station), since all buses stop there even
if their official starting point is Brixton Station.

At least if people didn't have to get off the Tube or CRT in Brixton,
the buses would be emptier for those who chose to use them!

Brixton is one of the two or three busiest Tube stations outside Zone 1
- this alone should indicate that there are a lot of people who might
want to go a bit further!


Matt Ashby

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 at 22:42:46, Dave Arquati wrote:

East Brixton seems to be an irritating distance from Brixton station itself
- it's not as close as Clapham High St is to Clapham North.

Which, I suspect, is why it was closed.

I Googled for the Loughborough Junction platforms but I couldn't find
them. But East Brixton seems to be an incredibly short distance from
Loughborough Junction - were there really platforms at both locations?
Maybe the L'boro Jcn platforms are on the tracks for Elephant & Castle -
Denmark Hill services?

Could be, I suppose. Never really known..... I don't think LJ was ever
used for the South London Line, though, because East Brixton was, as you
say, very close.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004

"Alistair Bell" wrote in message
om...

- Greenwich Waterfront line - interesting!

Yes, I liked that -- hadn't seen details of that before. Amazing how
many tram (or tram-like) systems there are planned in London (one
existing system with extensions and three new ones on the map).

Four actually - Cross River, West London, East London and Greenwich.

Jonn

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:39:24 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 at 22:42:46, Dave Arquati wrote:

East Brixton seems to be an irritating distance from Brixton station itself
- it's not as close as Clapham High St is to Clapham North.

Which, I suspect, is why it was closed.

The main reason it was closed was that it was (literally) falling to
pieces and traffic levels didn't warrant the cost of repairs.

For a few years before final closure, the platform shelters were
removed to reduce the weight on the rotting supports. For the
record, final closure was on 5th January 1976.

In its heyday, it was a very busy station with certain trains
terminating (from the London Bridge direction). Even in the
sixties, which is when I first remember it, it had full length
canopies, waiting rooms etc, (and a ticket office on each platform).

--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

Bill Hayles said...

wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

East Brixton seems to be an irritating distance from
Brixton station itself [Dave]

Which, I suspect, is why it was closed. [Annabel]

The main reason it was closed was that it was (literally)
falling to pieces and traffic levels didn't warrant the cost
of repairs. [Bill]


But if it had been closer to Brixton, traffic levels should have been
higher, and so the station would have been repaired, not closed...

In article , Dave Arquati
writes
- Greenwich Waterfront line - interesting!
Not so much a railway or tram as a "super-bus". Segregated alignments
initially for bendy-buses, with allowance for later conversion to tram.

Trolleybuses, not just bendy-buses.

TfL view this as a "transit" network - superior to buses and almost as
good as tram

"Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres" was the term being used at one point.
The separate alignment, fixed infrastructure - overhead wires - and
special vehicles were all designed to make it look more like tram/rail
and less like bus.

The same is true for East London Transit.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
news
In article , Dave Arquati
writes
- Greenwich Waterfront line - interesting!
Not so much a railway or tram as a "super-bus". Segregated alignments
initially for bendy-buses, with allowance for later conversion to tram.

Trolleybuses, not just bendy-buses.
TfL view this as a "transit" network - superior to buses and almost as
good as tram

"Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres" was the term being used at one point.
The separate alignment, fixed infrastructure - overhead wires - and
special vehicles were all designed to make it look more like tram/rail
and less like bus.

The same is true for East London Transit.

Sounds just like the "trams" used in Nancy,
cheerz,
Baz

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Arquati
writes
- Greenwich Waterfront line - interesting!
Not so much a railway or tram as a "super-bus". Segregated alignments
initially for bendy-buses, with allowance for later conversion to tram.

Trolleybuses, not just bendy-buses.

TfL view this as a "transit" network - superior to buses and almost as
good as tram

"Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres" was the term being used at one point.
The separate alignment, fixed infrastructure - overhead wires - and
special vehicles were all designed to make it look more like tram/rail
and less like bus.

I never understood the point of trolleybuses. If you're going to have fixed
electric infrastructure why not have a tram and get the extra people carrying
capacity and greater efficiency. Whats the point of a bus if its physically
limited to fixed routes?

B2003
fixed routes

On 19 Jul 2004 15:06:17 -0700, (Boltar) wrote:


I never understood the point of trolleybuses. If you're going to have fixed
electric infrastructure why not have a tram and get the extra people carrying
capacity and greater efficiency. Whats the point of a bus if its physically
limited to fixed routes?


Things can change an evolve.

In the UK Trolleybuses were generally tram replacements.

The replacement was by and large started in the 1930's when most tram
systems needed replacement track and vehicles. The electrical
distribution network was often still serviceable.
Some towns needed to expand route to new housing in suburbs and the
cost of laying track was to expensive. Overhead alone even though more
wiring was needed was easier to install.

At the time councils who ran most systems still also owned or
controlled the towns power stations and it made sense to use
themselves as a main customer and provide a base load.
Domestic customers used far less than now and a lot of heavy industry
still generated its own power with steam plant from coal boilers,often
with mechanical means rather than electric motors.

Diesel engines and gear boxes had not been evolved enough to power
busses the equal of trams and Trolleybuses .


Nationlisation of the power industry took the power stations away from
the councils so they had to buy in power.

After WW2 Motor buses had developed enough to cope and was even
easier to adapt to new routes and suburbs.


Hence the Trolleybus in the UK died.
Abroad it has survived in some places due to certain conditions
E.G San Francisco. There the Authority has access to cheap Hydro
Generated power and has routes which have hills which can still test
the transmission of a modern motor bus.

G.Harman

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 at 01:03:45, g.harman
wrote:

Diesel engines and gear boxes had not been evolved enough to power
busses the equal of trams and Trolleybuses .


Nationlisation of the power industry took the power stations away from
the councils so they had to buy in power.

After WW2 Motor buses had developed enough to cope and was even
easier to adapt to new routes and suburbs.

A pity, really, since we know realise how relatively non-polluting they
were, compared with motor buses.


Hence the Trolleybus in the UK died.
Abroad it has survived in some places due to certain conditions
E.G San Francisco. There the Authority has access to cheap Hydro
Generated power and has routes which have hills which can still test
the transmission of a modern motor bus.

Why have they survived in Salzburg, do you know? I suppose
hydro-electric power from the Alps.....
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004