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.

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

I think that reputation's undeserved. Bromley's buses are well used and
Bromley South station seems quite busy.

Of course, if it does reach Bromley, further extensions could easily
follow. The Bromley North branch would benefit greatly from conversion,
and from Grove Park it would be possible to extend it to Woolwich via
Mottingham and Eltham without too much street running.

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).

I think you've answered your own question - there is scope, but it's
probably more trouble than it's worth.

In article
"David Bradley" writes:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
snip
How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


Your first statement is untrue, trams carry more passengers because
they are physically larger!
Therefore you _can_ "get more people on a tram than you can on a bus" as
it is not permitted (or practicable?) to build a bus to carry as many
people as the larger trams currently in operation.

snip
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.
snip
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:58:18 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:


I think that reputation's undeserved. Bromley's buses are well used and
Bromley South station seems quite busy.


These people are peope who are coming in to Bromley from places such
as Orpington, St Mary Cray, Lewisham etc. They are not the people who
will be affected by any tram line building which takes place.

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 Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:

You're overlooking one vital factor, people don't like buses. They are
perceived as a poor quality product.

Which is because, in the way they are operated in this country, they
generally *are* a poor-quality product. This applies to everything
from the vehicles themselves to ticketing, staff, routes,
co-ordination, information, connections and so on.

While living in Germany, where most of this is done much more
professionally, I did not see such a stigma.

It'll take a long time to reverse this, but I see TfL are doing a lot
more about it than anywhere else in the country.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

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

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

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

In article
"David Bradley" writes:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
snip
How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


Your first statement is untrue, trams carry more passengers because
they are physically larger!
Therefore you _can_ "get more people on a tram than you can on a bus" as
it is not permitted (or practicable?) to build a bus to carry as many
people as the larger trams currently in operation.

My, we are being pedantic with this aren't we? As it happens there
are some pretty huge DD buses around that can certainly pack the
punters in, but I would not advocate their use even if they were
permitted in the UK. But to get back to the point, you can certainly
get more people on a single tram, but each person takes up the same
amount of room irespective of the mode of travel, so size for size you
can't get more people on a tram. Your statement that "You can get
more people on a tram than you can a bus" is therefore false unless
the tram is larger than the bus.

snip
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.

Nope, this is in the Highway Code to cover circumstances of a one tram
towing a disable vehicle to the depot. It is not permitted in the UK
to have trams in revenue earning service of almost 200ft in length.
snip

David Bradley

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


In article
"David Bradley" writes:


On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:


David Bradley wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"

snip

How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


Your first statement is untrue, trams carry more passengers because
they are physically larger!

Therefore you _can_ "get more people on a tram than you can on a bus" as
it is not permitted (or practicable?) to build a bus to carry as many
people as the larger trams currently in operation.


My, we are being pedantic with this aren't we? As it happens there
are some pretty huge DD buses around that can certainly pack the
punters in, but I would not advocate their use even if they were
permitted in the UK. But to get back to the point, you can certainly
get more people on a single tram, but each person takes up the same
amount of room irespective of the mode of travel, so size for size you
can't get more people on a tram. Your statement that "You can get
more people on a tram than you can a bus" is therefore false unless
the tram is larger than the bus.

It's safe to say that a tram is larger than a bus given that we are
talking about Croydon trams vs London buses. All modern trams in the UK
are larger than the vast majority of buses anyway - so I wouldn't say he
was being pedantic at all.

snip

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:58:17 +0930, (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.

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,
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.

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 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?

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.

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?

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