On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:28:53 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:

For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric
traction, the best way would be by the 654.


Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something?


654 is the old Trolley Bus route that ran from Crystal Palace, through
South Norwood and Croydon and on to Sutton. It became the 154 bus
route, which has now been cut back to run from West Croydon rather
then Crystal Palace.

Much more gen at http://www.trolleybus.net/654.htm


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

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:56:22 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...

ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal
Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham
Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains
to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more
useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London
should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon
would increase.

The main point is that the Tramlink Beckenham single track section is a PITA
and Tramlink wants to take over the other track.

Why can't they share the track in the same way Nexus and * do at
Sunderland?

Running trams between
Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do in order to get their
hands on the track. If the existing trains were that empty, the service
would just be closed,

They may be empty between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction, but
they are not Empty north of Crystal Palace, they are an integral part
of the service pattern. I doubt there is scope to divert them to
terminate at West Croydon or East Croydon, and running further out
would require more stock (and more importantly paths on the lines
adjacent to Selhurst depot).




* insert correct name of operator at this point.

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

PRAR wrote:
wrote:
"Jonn Elledge" wrote...

ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal
Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham
Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains
to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more
useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London
should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon
would increase.

The main point is that the Tramlink Beckenham single track section is a
PITA and Tramlink wants to take over the other track.

Why can't they share the track in the same way Nexus and * do at
Sunderland?

Because the track is third rail electrified. Getting safety rules
changed is difficult at the best of times, and in this case it's
certainly not worth the effort. Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving Annerley
station and Crystal Palace bus station) and increased frequency.

Running trams between Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do
in order to get their hands on the track. If the existing trains were
that empty, the service would just be closed,

They may be empty between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction, but
they are not Empty north of Crystal Palace, they are an integral part
of the service pattern. I doubt there is scope to divert them to
terminate at West Croydon or East Croydon, and running further out
would require more stock (and more importantly paths on the lines
adjacent to Selhurst depot).

Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:33:16 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Why can't they share the track in the same way Nexus and * do at
Sunderland?

Because the track is third rail electrified. Getting safety rules
changed is difficult at the best of times, and in this case it's
certainly not worth the effort. Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving Annerley
station and Crystal Palace bus station) and increased frequency.

I see no evidence to back up this claim. For a start the Trams aren't
going to go near the bus station, and Anerley station hardly has a
suitable service to interchange with.



Running trams between Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do
in order to get their hands on the track. If the existing trains were
that empty, the service would just be closed,

They may be empty between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction, but
they are not Empty north of Crystal Palace, they are an integral part
of the service pattern. I doubt there is scope to divert them to
terminate at West Croydon or East Croydon, and running further out
would require more stock (and more importantly paths on the lines
adjacent to Selhurst depot).

Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Because there still aren't the paths at Norwood Junction.

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

-- "PRAR" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:33:16 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving
Annerley station and Crystal Palace bus station)

I see no evidence to back up this claim. For a start the Trams
aren't going to go near the bus station, and Anerley station
hardly has a suitable service to interchange with.


Good point. Anerley's 2tph both go to Croydon anyway, so there's better
interchange available there. Besides, if the trams just follow the existing
railway line to Crystal Palace, then they won't even go anyhere near Anerley
station!


Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Because there still aren't the paths at Norwood Junction.

So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:20:25 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


-- "PRAR" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:33:16 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving
Annerley station and Crystal Palace bus station)

I see no evidence to back up this claim. For a start the Trams
aren't going to go near the bus station, and Anerley station
hardly has a suitable service to interchange with.


Good point. Anerley's 2tph both go to Croydon anyway, so there's better
interchange available there. Besides, if the trams just follow the existing
railway line to Crystal Palace, then they won't even go anyhere near Anerley
station!


Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Because there still aren't the paths at Norwood Junction.

So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify the
not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction plus the
cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very dubious benefit.

At the top of the thread it was stated the extension will go ahead -
sounds more like an election promise that won't be delivered within
Ken's new term of office, assuming he is elected.

David Bradley

In message , David Bradley
writes
At the top of the thread it was stated the extension will go ahead -
sounds more like an election promise that won't be delivered within
Ken's new term of office, assuming he is elected.

Well, the election's not until 2008 so, if he stands for a third term,
that would take us to 2012. I'd hope it would be finished by then.
--
Michael Parry
Tony Blair MP Anagram I'm Tory plan B

--- "David Bradley" wrote:


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify
the not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction
plus the cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very
dubious benefit.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-tram... It *could* benefit Crystal Palace
if the extension to Bromley goes ahead as well. That would bring in a
useful new service, and improvement over the buses currently running between
CP and Bromley.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:16:14 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "David Bradley" wrote:


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify
the not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction
plus the cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very
dubious benefit.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-tram... It *could* benefit Crystal Palace
if the extension to Bromley goes ahead as well. That would bring in a
useful new service, and improvement over the buses currently running between
CP and Bromley.


227, London's favourite bus route.

Crystal Palace & Croydon to Bromley would be a useful service, but I
can't see the PT hating denizens of Bromley ever accepting it.

Is there scope for entending the existing service from Beckenham
through to say Orpington? (I suspect paths between Beckenham &
Shortlands are quite sparse and also crossing on the level at
Beckenham will be quite inefficient for starters).

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

PRAR wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:16:14 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "David Bradley" wrote:


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify
the not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction
plus the cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very
dubious benefit.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-tram... It *could* benefit
Crystal Palace if the extension to Bromley goes ahead as well.
That would bring in a useful new service, and improvement over the
buses currently running between CP and Bromley.


227, London's favourite bus route.

Ah, my local bus route years ago, with single-decker LTs! (From
Chislehurst to the Crooked Billet, Penge, originally, none of this
Crystal Palace stuff.)

What makes it London's favourite bus route, or is it just *your*
favourite?

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