Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On 29 Sep 2004 03:11:35 -0700, (Torsten
Kleinert) wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:
Dare I suggest bendies?
Like this one?
http://www.vanhool.com/products_bus_...ID=1& Tabid=3
Total passengers: up to 180 + Driver (quoted from "technical file").

Torsten

Yep, that will do nicely; stick a couple of poles on top for eco
friendly operation and hey presto a rubber tyred tram without all that
hassell of utility diversion during construction and a world bank loan
to build a tramway.

David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

Yep, that will do nicely; stick a couple of poles
on top for eco friendly operation and hey presto
a rubber tyred tram without all that hassell of utility
diversion during construction and a world bank loan
to build a tramway.

David Bradley

Have you ever posted a message to Usenet that didn't advocate trolleybuses?

--
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

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:39:39 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .

Yep, that will do nicely; stick a couple of poles
on top for eco friendly operation and hey presto
a rubber tyred tram without all that hassell of utility
diversion during construction and a world bank loan
to build a tramway.

David Bradley

Have you ever posted a message to Usenet that didn't advocate trolleybuses?

Well one thing is for sure there's never going to be an extensive
tramway system in London and the cost of fuel oil is going to rise
year on end until supplies are exhausted. Only public transport that
is electrically feed from an external source is viable today, and that
remains so for many years to come, despite al the trials of
alternative fuels currently being pursued.

In the same way that 20 years ago trams were viewed as yesterdays
technology, and yet today they are a mode a transit that most cities
desire; the same scenario continues for rubber tyred trams or
trolleybuses or whatever trendy name you wish to use.

There is nothing wrong in raising awareness of what is happening
elsewhere in Europe in the public transport arena* and considering if
we should adopt similar solutions in the UK. I happen to believe there
is a place for trolleybus operations here and that their new image
will indeed be a step change with a significant modal change for
passengers. But before that happens they have to be at least on the
agenda for serious consideration and not swept under the carpet with
sarcastic one line messages.

David Bradley

* Geneva now has new double artic trolleybuses

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:39:39 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .

Yep, that will do nicely; stick a couple of poles
on top for eco friendly operation and hey presto
a rubber tyred tram without all that hassell of utility
diversion during construction and a world bank loan
to build a tramway.

David Bradley

Have you ever posted a message to Usenet
that didn't advocate trolleybuses?

Well one thing is for sure there's never going to
be an extensive tramway system in London and
the cost of fuel oil is going to rise year on end until
supplies are exhausted. Only public transport that
is electrically feed from an external source is viable
today, and that remains so for many years to come,
despite al the trials of alternative fuels currently
being pursued.

In the same way that 20 years ago trams were viewed
as yesterdays technology, and yet today they are a
mode a transit that most cities desire; the same
scenario continues for rubber tyred trams or
trolleybuses or whatever trendy name you wish to use.

There is nothing wrong in raising awareness of
what is happening elsewhere in Europe in the public
transport arena* and considering if we should adopt
similar solutions in the UK. I happen to believe there
is a place for trolleybus operations here and that their
new image will indeed be a step change with a
significant modal change for passengers. But before
that happens they have to be at least on the agenda
for serious consideration and not swept under the
carpet with sarcastic one line messages.

David Bradley

* Geneva now has new double artic trolleybuses

I'll take that as a "no" then.

--
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

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:53:42 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:39:39 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Have you ever posted a message to Usenet
that didn't advocate trolleybuses?

snip


I'll take that as a "no" then.

I am at a loss to understand why someone would wish to knock another
fellow public transit supporter and lifetime enthusiast who is making
an attempt to improve services in London. Last time I looked this was
a Usenet discussion group on transport matters relating to London, so
my occassional postings on trolleybuses seems appropriate here.

Not everything I post here relates to trolleybuses alone as I have a
much wider interest than that mode of transit. It is however
interesting to note you have picked up my relatively few postings [or
rantings if that's how you feel] on trolleybuses. Clearly someone is
making notes on what I say judging by discussions at the recent GLA
meeting on transport.

Apart from reporting on events, either here or through your web site,
what contribution are you actually making to the improvement of public
transport in the Capital? We would all like to know!

David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

David Bradley wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:53:42 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:39:39 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

snip

Have you ever posted a message to Usenet
that didn't advocate trolleybuses?

snip


I'll take that as a "no" then.

I am at a loss to understand why someone would wish to knock another
fellow public transit supporter and lifetime enthusiast who is
making an attempt to improve services in London. Last time I
looked this was a Usenet discussion group on transport matters
relating to London, so my occassional postings on trolleybuses
seems appropriate here.

Not everything I post here relates to trolleybuses alone as I have a
much wider interest than that mode of transit. It is however
interesting to note you have picked up my relatively few postings
[or rantings if that's how you feel] on trolleybuses. Clearly
someone is making notes on what I say judging by discussions at the
recent GLA meeting on transport.

Apart from reporting on events, either here or through your web
site, what contribution are you actually making to the improvement
of public transport in the Capital? We would all like to know!

Lighten up, David!

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:23:45 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

PRAR wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, (Aidan Stanger) wrote:
So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...

Are you sure there aren't the paths at Norwood Junction? What's limiting
their number?

Mostly they are all already in use by Southern, Thameslink & South
Eastern, and more are about to be swallowed up by back extensions of
the Uckfield services to London Bridge.

Wouldn't those use the fast lines?

Possibly, but rememeber there are 4 thameslinks, plus 2 Tattenhams and
the South Eastern already using those fast lines.



There's also a few odd operational lowlights including: trains to West
Croydon can only use platform 5 or 6, there's a flat crossing on top
of Cottage Bridge which creates conflicts on the slow lines,

Where is Cottage Bridge? I thought the only flat crossings in that area
were the depot access ones.

It's next to Lupin Bridge! It's where the Up London Bridge slow leaves
the Up Victoria slow (Milepost 9-68). Cottage Bridge is effectively
where the up London Bridge lines change from paired by use to paired
by direction.






Thameslink trains via Crystal Palace to East Croydon (and points
south) are always crossed to the fast lines North of Norwood Junction.

You could bring platform 7 back into use and use that for terminating
trains at though.

Apart from a signal upgrade, what would be required for a tube type
service on the Croydon lines?


PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, David Bradley wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:53:42 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:39:39 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Have you ever posted a message to Usenet
that didn't advocate trolleybuses?

snip

I'll take that as a "no" then.

I am at a loss to understand why someone would wish to knock another
fellow public transit supporter and lifetime enthusiast who is making
an attempt to improve services in London.

Listen! And understand! John Rowland is out there. He can't be bargained
with! He can't be reasoned with! He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or
fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he gets bored!

(with apologies to James Cameron)

tom

--
roger and kay payne, symmetry, piercing, archaeology, position, in ,,

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...

Listen! And understand! John Rowland is out there.
He can't be bargained with! He can't be reasoned with!
He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear.
And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until he gets bored!

**** you, asshole! ;-)

--
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

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Tue, 28 Sep 04 19:09:27 GMT, (Charles
Ellson) wrote:

Your second statement suggests vehicle lengths on the public highway
that would be totally unacceptable.
From the Highway Code:-
"Take care where trams (which can be up to 60 metres [196ft] in length)
run along the road."
That sounds rather like official acceptance/anticipation of more than
two vehicles coupled together.

The Highway Code is available online at http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/

I have spent a fair while looking through all the obvious places where
that statement might be but was unable to find this piece of
information. Could someone please say where in this electronic
document it can be found?

David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

In article
"David Bradley" writes:

On Tue, 28 Sep 04 19:09:27 GMT, (Charles
Ellson) wrote:

Your second statement suggests vehicle lengths on the public highway
that would be totally unacceptable.
From the Highway Code:-
"Take care where trams (which can be up to 60 metres [196ft] in length)
run along the road."
That sounds rather like official acceptance/anticipation of more than
two vehicles coupled together.

The Highway Code is available online at http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/

I have spent a fair while looking through all the obvious places where
that statement might be but was unable to find this piece of
information. Could someone please say where in this electronic
document it can be found?

The revisionists appear to have been at work. It was in rule 236 in the
1996 edition (also in the NI equivalent which helpfully stated "Currently
applies to Great Britain only") but no longer appears in the replacement
rule 273.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:00:51 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:

Needs double-deckers, apart from the *small* matter of Shortlands railway
bridge.

Dare I suggest bendies?

Neil

Only if you want to start a flame war...8^)