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

David Bradley wrote:
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.

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.


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.

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

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"
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.

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! One would expect a railed vehicle 35m
long to hold roughly twice as many passengers as an 18m-long
articulated single-deck bus, and this indeed turns out to be the case.
The capacity for the given space is not greater, only a saving in man
power.

Your second statement suggests vehicle lengths on the public highway
that would be totally unacceptable. Finding seggrated road space for
even part of the route of a tramway is very difficult, if not
impossible. Unless, of course, you make the former highway a no go
area for other modes of traffic.


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

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

Possibly so, but elsewhere in the EU, where modern trolleybus systems
have been created in the last few years [e.g. Athens] there has been a
significant model shift of passengers to rubber tyred trams which has
not been less than their steel vehicle cousins found elsewhere.

Here in the UK a visit to Sheffield shows that travellers prefer the
bus instead of the tram; explain that one away!

David Bradley

In message , David Bradley
writes
Here in the UK a visit to Sheffield shows that travellers prefer the
bus instead of the tram; explain that one away!

Because in deregulated Sheffield, the bus fare are lower than the tram
fares?

Interestingly, Midland Metro fares are higher (sometimes significantly
higher) than those on the parallel bus service, run by TWM, like Travel
Midland Metro a subsidiary of national Express. And yet Midland Metro
is regularly crowded.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

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 |//___\\|