"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

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:


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

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...

227, London's favourite bus route.

And a very crowded bus route.

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

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

--- "David Bradley" wrote:


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.

The buses currently running on that route have a maximuim capacity of 64
people. A lot less than the typical tram.

And as for squeezing 300 people into one...

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,

I was basing my claim on what I'd heard in the December 2002 London LRTA
meeting. Having since checked the Croydontramlink yahoogroup, I was
rather dismayed to find that they'd abandoned the part of the plan to
venture into Crystal Palace Park to reach the top of the hill. It seems
someone important wants Crystal Palace Park kept the way it is. Having
been there last year, I can't imagine why! There are far too many
fences, and a lot of the space seems to be wasted on car parking.

and Anerley station hardly has a suitable service to interchange with.

It can easily be improved.

Good point. Anerley's 2tph both go to Croydon anyway, so there's better
interchange available there.

Beckenham via Croydon would be quite a detour.

Besides, if the trams just follow the existing railway line to Crystal
Palace, then they won't even go anyhere near Anerley station!

They couldn't follow the existing railway line to Crystal Palace if they
wanted to, as it will still be used for trains to Croydon.

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...

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