-- "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)

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:09:33 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

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

It apparantly polled the most votes, although this may have been in
the last century.

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 in message
...

227, London's favourite bus route.

For many years my 'home' route, when it went through to Chislehurst. I can
even (just about) remember the RFs arriving on the route, and at the age of
6 a bus trip to Crystal Palace seemed quite exotic.
Peter

--- "PRAR" wrote:


227, London's favourite bus route.


And a very crowded bus route. Trams, with their higher passenger-carrying
capacity, would be an improvement.

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

True. :-(

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


--- "PRAR" wrote:


227, London's favourite bus route.


And a very crowded bus route. Trams, with their higher passenger-carrying
capacity, would be an improvement.

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.

If the passenger demand is there, then a more frequent bus service
would serve the the travelling public much better than the not
inconsiderable expense, and construction disruption, of a tramway to
provide the same result.

And if you want an eco friendly vehicle then use trolleybuses.

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

True. :-(




David Bradley