|
About West London Tram
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:34:06 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote: David Bradley wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:09:27 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: David Bradley wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 00:58:36 -0000, "Marratxi" wrote: "R.C. Payne" wrote in message ... HUGE SNIP Indeed, memory suggests that in parts of the US (Philadelphia spring to mind) they are sometimes called "trackless trolleys" where "trolley" is a common synonym for "streetcar" or "tram" (for those of us brought up that side of the atlantic in the last 40 years, we all remember Mr. Rogers' Trolley). Robin When, as a kid in the 1940s and 50s, I visited my grandmothers in Bradford the trolleybuses were always referred to as tracklesses. Baz This thread has prompted me to produce a web site on the 'issues'. Please have a look at www.tfwl.co.uk I note you still haven't told us which "unique shopping outlets and generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings" are kikely to be demolished. I have now by putting up a page at http://www.tfwl.org.uk/lido1.html So why put your response in a place where no one can react? You site doesn't even include photos of the building you claim will be affected to allow people to make their own judgement. Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by English Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be demolished so listed? If not will you be making a listing application? You must be looking at a different page to the URL given above. Pictures of the retail outlets affected *ARE* on this page and the row of icons at the bottom of the page includes a link to provide any feedback. The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such applications and then miss a few through such a crusade. As for the web page I don't know what more I really can do to satisfy your obsession of criticism you have on our beliefs that it is totally wrong to destroy a vibrant collection of retail outlets that serves the local community well, just for the sake of pushing a tramway through the neighbourhood. It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme. I have, however, given you one concession by adding text that gives information on how you can provide your feedback. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:34:06 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: David Bradley wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:09:27 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: David Bradley wrote: On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 00:58:36 -0000, "Marratxi" wrote: "R.C. Payne" wrote in message ... HUGE SNIP Indeed, memory suggests that in parts of the US (Philadelphia spring to mind) they are sometimes called "trackless trolleys" where "trolley" is a common synonym for "streetcar" or "tram" (for those of us brought up that side of the atlantic in the last 40 years, we all remember Mr. Rogers' Trolley). Robin When, as a kid in the 1940s and 50s, I visited my grandmothers in Bradford the trolleybuses were always referred to as tracklesses. Baz This thread has prompted me to produce a web site on the 'issues'. Please have a look at www.tfwl.co.uk I note you still haven't told us which "unique shopping outlets and generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings" are kikely to be demolished. I have now by putting up a page at http://www.tfwl.org.uk/lido1.html So why put your response in a place where no one can react? You site doesn't even include photos of the building you claim will be affected to allow people to make their own judgement. Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by English Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be demolished so listed? If not will you be making a listing application? You must be looking at a different page to the URL given above. Pictures of the retail outlets affected *ARE* on this page and the row of icons at the bottom of the page includes a link to provide any feedback. I couldn't see a picture that provided a view of the fronts of the building between Northfield Ave and Chapel Road. The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such applications and then miss a few through such a crusade. It doesn't "have" to be you, apart from the fact that you are the one here arguing for their retention in the face of a much needed improvement. As for the web page I don't know what more I really can do to satisfy your obsession of criticism you have on our beliefs that it is totally wrong to destroy a vibrant collection of retail outlets that serves the local community well, just for the sake of pushing a tramway through the neighbourhood. It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme. There is one very simple reason why a tram will fare better than your proposal. People don't like buses, they do however like trams and trains. You appear to be someone who is proposing a solution because of a personal preference rather than because it would truly be of benefit to the community. I have, however, given you one concession by adding text that gives information on how you can provide your feedback. However, that is not where the discussion started, this is. Why do you want to move it? |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such applications and then miss a few through such a crusade. ADDITIONAL: The map on your web page shewing which buildings are to be demolished is at variance with that on Tfl's page at http://tinyurl.com/a6ad2 Your map shews the that the houses are to be demolished whereas the Tfl map shews that only the buildings on what were the front gardens are to give way to the junction improvement. Those shops are of no architecural merit at all, in fact they are something of an architecural eyesore although I recognise that they do provide employment for a small number of people. |
About West London Tram
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:43:22 +0000, David Bradley
wrote: Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by English Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be demolished so listed? If not will you be making a listing application? The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed application? If you care so passionately about these interesting and important examples of our architectural heritage that you think the transport needs of everyone living in the entire Uxbridge Road corridor are secondary to the preservation of these buildings, surely making an application to have them listed would be a small sacrifice? It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme. Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a trolleybus scheme? |
About West London Tram
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:02:47 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote: [snip] You must be looking at a different page to the URL given above. Pictures of the retail outlets affected *ARE* on this page and the row of icons at the bottom of the page includes a link to provide any feedback. I couldn't see a picture that provided a view of the fronts of the building between Northfield Ave and Chapel Road. Pictures 1,2,6.7 and 8 together show the threatened parade between Northfield Ave and Chapel Rd, as best as the photographer could during daylight hours at this time of year without risking life and limb by standing in the middle of a relentlessly busy main road. The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such applications and then miss a few through such a crusade. It doesn't "have" to be you, apart from the fact that you are the one here arguing for their retention in the face of a much needed improvement. With regard to listed buildings, even statutory listing would be no gurarantee of safety from destruction, particularly as the local planning authority Ealing Concil supports the tram scheme and therefore the building destruction in this case. As for the web page I don't know what more I really can do to satisfy your obsession of criticism you have on our beliefs that it is totally wrong to destroy a vibrant collection of retail outlets that serves the local community well, just for the sake of pushing a tramway through the neighbourhood. It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme. There is one very simple reason why a tram will fare better than your proposal. People don't like buses, they do however like trams and trains. I'm not sure I can be bothered to take time out to dignify this with a refutation. People certainly did like the previous generations of trolleybuses in this country, and the modern ones on other countries. People don't like buses because of the noise, vibration, fumes and jerky motion, all of which trolleybuses are free from. And perhaps you should ask some of the hapless human sardines in the London tube and overground rail commuter area whether they really like the trains they're forced to use. If you bothered to actually look you will see there are several refgerences on my web site that approaches the issue you raise head on. For example at http://www.tfwl.org.uk/foe.html we write: "From evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Sheffield's Supertram it was noted that the original projected ridership was 20+ million annually - Actual ridership has never exceeded around the 12 million mark. As a result the tramway got into severe financial difficulties Given a free choice, many Sheffield travellers chose to travel by bus rather than tram. To make something of the Manchester experience the original scheme linked two suburban electric railways by a small amount of street track in the city centre. It was cheap to build as it re-cycled railway assets. The scheme doubled the previous railway ridership, attracting many motorists However the subsequent small extension to Eccles was all new build involving a lot of street track. The extension cost about as much in real terms as the whole original scheme and added only a few percent to total system ridership. It suffers from bus competition as they offer a quicker way into central Manchester than the tramway extension Therefore given a free choice, many travellers chose to travel by bus rather than using the tramway extension. The original scheme is rightly judged as very successful since it used re-cycled railway alignments and little new build or street track whereas the new extension, which was all new build as street track, gave extremely poor value for money and must be judged as unsuccessful. One can hardly argue therefore of the 'superior' attractiveness of the tram compared with the bus!" You appear to be someone who is proposing a solution because of a personal preference rather than because it would truly be of benefit to the community. True. My personal preference for trolleys in this corridor is because it's the only sensible solution here, with the potential to benefit the wider community through expansion to form a network of electrified routes; while a street tramway would only benefit (if at all) travellers just along Uxbridge Road, leaving the rest of West London with noxious and umcomfortable diesel buses, primitive stop facilities, no real-time service information and curtailed and slower and less reliable service performance. It's you who clearly supports the tram scheme in the face of the realities of this corridor and the needs of wider West London, because of your personal preference for trams. I have, however, given you one concession by adding text that gives information on how you can provide your feedback. However, that is not where the discussion started, this is. Why do you want to move it? I only responded to an issue that you raised about the aparent lack of ability to respond to statements made on the web site. To move onto other points that have been raised in a subsequent posts which challange the demolition that is proposed in the locality. it is quite clear from TfL info sheet C16 that you are unaware of what is actually proposed by TfL.. The whole of this group of buildings including the 2 storey houses or former houses behind the shopfronts ARE to be demolished. This whole site is to be completely cleared not only for the road widening but also to serve as a construction compound. Iit is also quite possible that the whole site east of Chapel Road will also be acquired and demolished, but this can not be determined from the published TfL information. As for the "architecural eyesore" of this group of buildings, I have already made my views clear on this. Real architectural merit requires fitness for purpose, not just visual prettiness or elaboration. Forget about the precious aesthetes, these well-maintained parades are not an eyesore, they present a lively, varied, cheerful and vibrant street scene. In addition, the red building behind the Coral shopfront at least is IMHO of real architectural merit in your narrow sense. In addition to 'employment for a small number of people' these premises provide a variety of services for a large number of people who will be deprived of a local retail outlet. Perhaps this is where the true extra number of passengers for the tram will come from, not from modal shift but from those least able to afford it who would have travel further afield to obtain services that were previously nearby. If I have not covered an issue to the detail you desire, no doubt you will respond in due course. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:37:31 +0000, asdf wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:43:22 +0000, David Bradley wrote: Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by English Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be demolished so listed? If not will you be making a listing application? The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed application? If you care so passionately about these interesting and important examples of our architectural heritage that you think the transport needs of everyone living in the entire Uxbridge Road corridor are secondary to the preservation of these buildings, surely making an application to have them listed would be a small sacrifice? On the contrary it's you who thinks the transport AND OTHER needs of everyone else living in, working in, visiting or having to pass through West London are secondary to the desires of the minority who need to travel only along Uxbridge Road (and who continue to be duped into believing that this street tramway will improve their travel). ASs mentioned in an earlier posting, making an application to have buildings listed in this locality is bound to fail. It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme. Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a trolleybus scheme? Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to make it work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido junction widening is 'necessary' only to make room for a pair of reserved tramtracks and associated segregation islands. This junction scheme will disadvantage nearly all other road users, including: the remaining bus services which will have the existing bus lanes on Uxbridge Road removed, and will have no right turn priority (except for the E8 in the Ealing direction, but for which the benefit thereof is likely to be outweighed by even shorter green signal time than now on the Northfield Avenue approach to the junction. Pedestrians who will have fewer and less direct crossing facilities than now; many travellers on the trams who will have fewer stops than the current 207/427 buses the trams will replace, and will therefore have to walk further to access the service. The trams will in any case derive little if any benefit from the priority at the junction itself since they will be stuck in the consequently lengthened queues of othe traffic, including buses, on the shared running sections away from the junction. A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening, and would integrate much better with the remaining bus services (many if not all of which could justify conversion to trolley routes in any case, with some of the vast amount of money saved by dropping the tram scheme) and other traffic. Trolleybuses will be silent, vibration-free and pollution-free while stationary in the traffic queues which are inevitable at this location as elsewhere on Uxbridge Road and the rest of West London's road network, and therefore a considerable improvement in journey quality over diesel buses, and unlike trams will be able to steer round parked vehicles and other obstructions, or go off-route under battery power in the event of more serious disruption on the route. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
In message , David Bradley
writes Trolleybuses will be silent, vibration-free and pollution-free while stationary in the traffic queues which are inevitable at this location as elsewhere on Uxbridge Road and the rest of West London's road network, and therefore a considerable improvement in journey quality over diesel buses, and unlike trams will be able to steer round parked vehicles and other obstructions, or go off-route under battery power in the event of more serious disruption on the route. You are making the case for the destruction of cars with IC engines, I don't see this to be a very popular move. -- Clive |
About West London Tram
David Bradley said
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:37:31 +0000, asdf wrote: Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a trolleybus scheme? Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to make it work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido junction widening is 'necessary' only to make room for a pair of reserved tramtracks and associated segregation islands. *snip* A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines? Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. |
About West London Tram
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote:
David Bradley said On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:37:31 +0000, asdf wrote: Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a trolleybus scheme? Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to make it work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido junction widening is 'necessary' only to make room for a pair of reserved tramtracks and associated segregation islands. *snip* A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines? A false assumption. Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. 40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call to explain that one away. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:09:16 +0000, David Bradley
wrote: It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme. Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a trolleybus scheme? Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to make it work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido junction widening is 'necessary' only to make room for a pair of reserved tramtracks and associated segregation islands. But it's possible for a tramway to share road space with street traffic. So any necessity for a separate lane is nothing to do with the fact that the vehicles are trams. So it would apply equally to trolleybuses. A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening, You didn't explain what the difference is. What technical difference between trams and trolleybuses requires a widening of this junction for trams, but not for trolleybuses? As far as I can see, it makes no difference whatsoever - both tram and trolleybus proposals could propose either widening or not widening the junction. Yet because TfL's proposal does and yours doesn't, you proclaim it as an advantage of trolleybus technology over tram technology. |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote: Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. 40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call to explain that one away. Perhaps it is, but it doesn't alter the fact that you haven't answered the question. |
About West London Tram
David Bradley said:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote: David Bradley said A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines? A false assumption. Why? What's false about it? Speaking from congestion point of view, what's going to magically stop this this trolleybus from being just another bendy-bus with the novelty of overhead power lines? What's going to make it solve traffic congestion better than all the other bendy-buses out there? Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. 40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call to explain that one away. Trams running along the EXISTING Uxbridge Road would make things worse, just as your electrical bendy-buses running along the existing Uxbridge Road will make things worse. Trams (or your electric bendy-buses, or whatever) running along the new, improved WIDENED Uxbridge Road, won't because there will be more room for them. That's why the road widening is the important thing, no matter whether it's trams or trolleybuses that just happen to run in the new lanes after they've been created. |
About West London Tram
|
About West London Tram
|
About West London Tram
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:05:54 -0000, wrote:
David Bradley said: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote: David Bradley said A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines? A false assumption. Why? What's false about it? Speaking from congestion point of view, what's going to magically stop this this trolleybus from being just another bendy-bus with the novelty of overhead power lines? What's going to make it solve traffic congestion better than all the other bendy-buses out there? Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. 40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call to explain that one away. Trams running along the EXISTING Uxbridge Road would make things worse, just as your electrical bendy-buses running along the existing Uxbridge Road will make things worse. Trams (or your electric bendy-buses, or whatever) running along the new, improved WIDENED Uxbridge Road, won't because there will be more room for them. That's why the road widening is the important thing, no matter whether it's trams or trolleybuses that just happen to run in the new lanes after they've been created. My response to your posting would be tailored to whether you are in favour of the tram or not. Which is it please? David Bradley |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:05:54 -0000, wrote: David Bradley said: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote: David Bradley said A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines? A false assumption. Why? What's false about it? Speaking from congestion point of view, what's going to magically stop this this trolleybus from being just another bendy-bus with the novelty of overhead power lines? What's going to make it solve traffic congestion better than all the other bendy-buses out there? Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. 40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call to explain that one away. Trams running along the EXISTING Uxbridge Road would make things worse, just as your electrical bendy-buses running along the existing Uxbridge Road will make things worse. Trams (or your electric bendy-buses, or whatever) running along the new, improved WIDENED Uxbridge Road, won't because there will be more room for them. That's why the road widening is the important thing, no matter whether it's trams or trolleybuses that just happen to run in the new lanes after they've been created. My response to your posting would be tailored to whether you are in favour of the tram or not. Which is it please? How can one decide if one is in favour of a scheme until one has explored all the options? |
About West London Tram
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 22:42:59 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote: David Bradley wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:05:54 -0000, wrote: David Bradley said: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote: David Bradley said A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating road widening But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines? A false assumption. Why? What's false about it? Speaking from congestion point of view, what's going to magically stop this this trolleybus from being just another bendy-bus with the novelty of overhead power lines? What's going to make it solve traffic congestion better than all the other bendy-buses out there? Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. 40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call to explain that one away. Trams running along the EXISTING Uxbridge Road would make things worse, just as your electrical bendy-buses running along the existing Uxbridge Road will make things worse. Trams (or your electric bendy-buses, or whatever) running along the new, improved WIDENED Uxbridge Road, won't because there will be more room for them. That's why the road widening is the important thing, no matter whether it's trams or trolleybuses that just happen to run in the new lanes after they've been created. My response to your posting would be tailored to whether you are in favour of the tram or not. Which is it please? How can one decide if one is in favour of a scheme until one has explored all the options? There's five possible answers to the question: 1) Yes 2) No 3) Don't Know 4) Don't care 5) Something else [and what would that be?] Depending on the answer I will respond accordingly. Another question for you. How do you explore ALL the options when information from official sources is held back - where does that leave you in deciding if you are in favour of the scheme or otherwise? I am not the font of all knowledge on this issue but I have carried out a considerable amount of research on the proposed west London tramway based upon information that is in the public domain. I am not alone to discover the good, bad and really ugly aspects of the scheme and have pooled the information with other researchers. This pooled knowledged is in the process of being place on a web site www.tfwl.org.uk. Do check it out to help you decide which side of the fence you are on. Personally I think the billon pounds that the tramway scheme will cost, perhaps even more, would be better spent on other public transport improvements over a wider area of London. Quality, efficient public transport has to be provided as the number of vehicles wishing to use a given road space simply won't fit. Making roads wider is only a very short term solution but the loss of interesting buildings that make up the character of a locality are lost for ever to create this 'extra' road space. Of course you can have your own view point on this matter but to get anything meaningful out of a discussion you have to join in without holding your cards so close to your chest that even you do not know what your opinion is. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
In message , David Bradley
writes the good, bad and really ugly I don't think this is unbiased by any means. -- Clive |
About West London Tram
David Bradley said:
My response to your posting would be tailored to whether you are in favour of the tram or not. Which is it please? Neither. I'm completely neutral on the subject, since I've never been to the Uxbridge Road and have no plans for going there in the foreseeable future. I'm simply asking out of curiosity because I'm genuinely puzzled by your claim that congestion there will be solved by more buses but only if they just happen to be powered by overhead electrical cables. Most bendybuses can't manoeuvre easily on crowded roads anyway, and my limited experience of travelling on trolleybuses in Shanghai suggests that they're even LESS manoeuvrable than regular diesel buses because swerving at high speed can shake the poles loose from the wires. So I really am curious why you think they would be a good solution. (I guess it's just the puzzle of trying to get inside someone's mind and trying to see what makes him tick, especially when his opinions are so different from everyone else's.)) -- |
About West London Tram
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:14:25 +0000, Clive wrote:
In message , David Bradley writes the good, bad and really ugly I don't think this is unbiased by any means. OK what would you like to appear that redresses your thoughts on this matter? The site is still under construction and I am quite happy to take on board suggestions made by visitors. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 01:34:01 -0000, wrote:
David Bradley said: My response to your posting would be tailored to whether you are in favour of the tram or not. Which is it please? Neither. I'm completely neutral on the subject, since I've never been to the Uxbridge Road and have no plans for going there in the foreseeable future. I'm simply asking out of curiosity because I'm genuinely puzzled by your claim that congestion there will be solved by more buses but only if they just happen to be powered by overhead electrical cables. Most bendybuses can't manoeuvre easily on crowded roads anyway, and my limited experience of travelling on trolleybuses in Shanghai suggests that they're even LESS manoeuvrable than regular diesel buses because swerving at high speed can shake the poles loose from the wires. So I really am curious why you think they would be a good solution. (I guess it's just the puzzle of trying to get inside someone's mind and trying to see what makes him tick, especially when his opinions are so different from everyone else's.)) I am not suggesting 'more buses' just much superior electrically powered trolleybuses, to provide a much more attractive environment both for those inside and outside the vehicles. Congestion in Uxbridge Road corridor won't be solved by 'more buses', trolleybuses or trams. Congestion will be reduced (nothing will 'solve' or eliminate it in such a large, densely populated and generally economically buoyant urban area) by reducing the NEED for people to travel on Uxbridge Road, by improvements such as:- 1) Providing a proper high frequency local train service 7 days a week on the parallel railway line through West Ealing, Hanwell and Southall (there's currently just a miserable 2 trains per hour 6 days a week). 2) Providing new high quality rail or trolleybus links between places like Southall and central Greenford and the tube and rail services and other travel objectives at Northfields, South Ealing, Acton, Brentford etc, along existing transport corridors where possible such as the Brentford freight rail branch and the unused or under-used spare tracks on the Piccadilly Line west of Acton Town; on new routes where none currently exist, such as up the Brent Valley to Greenford. 3) Providing high quality shelter, seating and real-time service arrival information at the numerous bus stops in West London which currently lack these basic amenities. 4) Electrifying as many as possible of the rest of the bus route network in West London, to provide a proper high quality modern trolleybus network, instead of just one long thin tramway with just bog standard diesel buses on the rest. If you actually knew this area (and therefore what you are talking about) you would know that most people including bus travellers) don't travel primarily along Uxbridge Road, and that many of the most serious congestion problems are on north-south routes and other east/west routes, eg Greenford. No public transport 'improvement' on Uxbridge Road will do anything about that, and a tram scheme which pushes other road users off Uxbridge Road is bound to make conditions worse on these other routes including for numerous bus services. As for swerving and manoeuvring, nobody should want any public transport vehicle to swerve. It's a distinct advantage of trolleybuses that they impose a more disciplined, safe and passenger-friendly driving style than diesel buses. Our opinions are not 'so different from everyone else's' - there are many here who not only don't want this expensive, disruptive and destructive tram scheme, but DO want a modern trolleybus network. I believe you are being disingenuous in claiming neutrality - you are clearly pro-tram and anti-trolley, and no amount of reasoned argument is gonng to persuade you otherwise. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
"David Bradley" wrote in message ... I am not suggesting 'more buses' just much superior electrically powered trolleybuses, to provide a much more attractive environment both for those inside and outside the vehicles. When they got rid of trolleybuses in Newcastle during the 60s, one of the great changes was the improvement to the cityscape caused by the removal of the mess of overhead wires. At busy junctions the mass of rigging, and the huge number of supporting poles to cater for the switches and crossings was very complex and didn't help the environment at all. It's a distinct advantage of trolleybuses that they impose a more disciplined, safe and passenger-friendly driving style than diesel buses. It is comparatively difficult for them to overtake one another, and impossible for them to take a diversionary route in the event of roadworks, accidents etc. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
In message , David Bradley
writes On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 00:14:25 +0000, Clive wrote: In message , David Bradley writes the good, bad and really ugly I don't think this is unbiased by any means. OK what would you like to appear that redresses your thoughts on this matter? The site is still under construction and I am quite happy to take on board suggestions made by visitors. David Bradley I was just pointing up the bias to the "really" ugly. -- Clive |
About West London Tram
In message , Paul
Scott writes It is comparatively difficult for them to overtake one another, and impossible for them to take a diversionary route in the event of roadworks, accidents etc. Surely it is trams that are unable to divert around roadworks, accidents, etc. (other than with the aid of crossovers and reverse working on an adjacent track). Trolleybuses have batteries that allow them to run for short distances off-route. -- Paul Terry |
About West London Tram
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:13:52 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Scott"
wrote: "David Bradley" wrote in message .. . I am not suggesting 'more buses' just much superior electrically powered trolleybuses, to provide a much more attractive environment both for those inside and outside the vehicles. When they got rid of trolleybuses in Newcastle during the 60s, one of the great changes was the improvement to the cityscape caused by the removal of the mess of overhead wires. At busy junctions the mass of rigging, and the huge number of supporting poles to cater for the switches and crossings was very complex and didn't help the environment at all. Technology has moved on quite a bit from the overhead designs of the 1930's which can eliminate complex switches and crossings if so desired. But you know, I much prefer visual enviromental damage to that of unseen dangerous exhausts from diesel and petrol engines which are responsible for more deaths than road accidents. It's a distinct advantage of trolleybuses that they impose a more disciplined, safe and passenger-friendly driving style than diesel buses. It is comparatively difficult for them to overtake one another, and impossible for them to take a diversionary route in the event of roadworks, accidents etc. Again modern trolleybuses have on board auxiliary power supplies that will enable the vehicle to operate off wire when necessary. In fact in Rome where a new trolleybus systen has been introduced, part of the route has no overhead wiring because of a desire to have a clutter free skyline in an area of particular historical importance. The booms can be disconnected and reconnected to the wires without the need for the driver [or crew] to leave the vehicle. Clearly this ability can also be used in the first point that you made. I don't see too much difficulty in flicking a switch to lower or raise the booms as required, thus enabling that fabled overtaking of service vehicles, as if that happens much anyway with the traffic congestion the way it is. David Bradley David Bradley |
About West London Tram
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:35:26 +0000, David Bradley
wrote: If you actually knew this area (and therefore what you are talking about) you would know that most people including bus travellers) don't travel primarily along Uxbridge Road, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm somewhat surprised by this statement, considering the Uxbridge Road has for many years had an "express" bus route (the 607) which is rare in London, it's one of the first suburban routes to have received bendy buses, and it's the only route in the London suburbs (Croydon aside) to have a serious proposal for trams. In any case, knowing what proportion of people are travelling primarily along Uxbridge Road takes more than just "knowing the area" - it surely requires detailed transport studies. and that many of the most serious congestion problems are on north-south routes and other east/west routes, eg Greenford. No public transport 'improvement' on Uxbridge Road will do anything about that, I don't see that as an argument against the tram. No single scheme can be a universal panacea for the whole of west London, unless inordinately expensive. If the money earmarked for the tram were instead spread around many different routes, the total reduction in congestion would probably be much smaller. Taking the trolleybus idea, there would only be enough money to wire up an extremely limited number of routes, and in any case, just replacing diesel buses with electric ones doesn't (arguably) achieve much in the way of congestion relief. and a tram scheme which pushes other road users off Uxbridge Road is bound to make conditions worse on these other routes including for numerous bus services. That is far too broad a statement - some roads will be worse, some will be better, and for some there will be no change. Detailed projections are available at: http://www.ealingfoe.org.uk/TramItem...ithoutTram.htm Overall, however, there will be a huge net reduction in the total number of cars on the road. I believe you are being disingenuous in claiming neutrality - you are clearly pro-tram and anti-trolley, Everything she said is entirely consistent with being neutral. You are jumping to conclusions, to say the least. and no amount of reasoned argument is gonng to persuade you otherwise. On what grounds do you make this statement? I have seen nothing whatsoever in this group that would support it. |
About West London Tram
asdf said:
and in any case, just replacing diesel buses with electric ones doesn't (arguably) achieve much in the way of congestion relief. Thank you. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:35:26 +0000, David Bradley wrote: I believe you are being disingenuous in claiming neutrality - you are clearly pro-tram and anti-trolley, Everything she said is entirely consistent with being neutral. You are jumping to conclusions, to say the least. Thank you. I think David might be a bit of a fanatic, one of those: "Either you're with me or against me but there's no middle ground"-types. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it's begining to look like. |
About West London Tram
David Bradley said:
I believe you are being disingenuous in claiming neutrality - you are clearly pro-tram and anti-trolley, and no amount of reasoned argument is gonng to persuade you otherwise. I am cetrtainly not pro-trolley, but I'm not pro-tram or pro-car either. If that doesn't make me neutral, then what would? Perhaps you might try actually making a reasoned argument for a change? Then you could see for yourself whether it persuades me or not? |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
Considering the overhead aspect, a tramway service will use a pantagraph system for current collection. The traction wires require to be at a significant tension for the contact wire to be almost horizontal and there is considerable upward pressure from the pantagraph itself. Such forces need some quite chunky traction support post which are invarably girders and horizontal "scaffolding poles" as the primary support. Hardly asthetically pleasing and yet it seems to be acceptable because it is a tramway. The photographs of Sheffield and Manchester, on your page: http://www.tfwl.org.uk/sbt.html don't seem to bear out that assertion. As for using H-section girder for posts, the only place that seems to have done so is Croydon, and that is now acknowledged as something of a mistake. On the otherhand trolleybus current collection methods use twin booms wich are more tollorant of the contact wires which are at a lower tension than that for a tramway. Consequently lighter traction support poles can be used. The amount of actual wiring in the sky is not significantly different between either system. Except that it has twice as many contact wires. |
About West London Tram
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:42:57 -0000, wrote:
asdf said: and in any case, just replacing diesel buses with electric ones doesn't (arguably) achieve much in the way of congestion relief. Thank you. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:35:26 +0000, David Bradley wrote: I believe you are being disingenuous in claiming neutrality - you are clearly pro-tram and anti-trolley, Everything she said is entirely consistent with being neutral. You are jumping to conclusions, to say the least. Thank you. I think David might be a bit of a fanatic, one of those: "Either you're with me or against me but there's no middle ground"-types. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it's begining to look like. OK then let's take on board what you are saying here and let you into a preview of a page that will shortly be put up on www.tfwl.org.uk. You are invited to make suggested changes to ensure that a middle ground stance is taken provided it is honest and accurate. In my case, the more I get to grips with the detail of the sheme the more I became concerned about the sense and sensability of building a tramway along the Uxbidge Road corridor. Therefore everything is slanted towards a trolleybus solution. If the tramway becomes unaffordable and the trolleybus scheme is thought no more than bendy buses with poles on top, then what? Solving congestion may be a rather tall order. If anyone claims that any form of WLT scheme (tram, trolleybus or whatever) is going to 'solve congestion across West London', they are to quote (a polite version of) the phrase: 'talking through their hat'. Congestion affects a widespread area and is not simply a function of east -west traffic along the Uxbridge Road itself. What is needed is a whole package of measures which will improve both the actuality and perception of public transport in this area and thus reduce the use of cars as much as possible. WLT as a tram scheme does not give any greater benefits along the Uxbridge Road than a trolleybus scheme would but costs very much more. This implicitly implies less (or possibly no) resources available for schemes away from Uxbridge Road itself. Also the very nature of the WLT tram scheme proposed is likely to worsen flows by buses which are not simply along the Uxbridge Road (by creating a greater requirement to change - which is universally unpopular and thus often causes modal shift the wrong way). The advantages of trolleybuses is that they are non-polluting on street. This is very important on a corridor where there are very frequent bus services. If for instance you doubled the 207 frequency with diesel buses, you have double the air-borne pollutants. Double a trolleybus service and you still have none. The ability to steer trolleybuses across (both) the carriageway(s) and the design of the vehicles means that they can be better integrated into the overall bus provision along the corridor. There is no need to curtail services as will be done in the proposed tram solution. This will therefore be beneficial in the general area around the Uxbridge Road. The lesser capital costs will allow funding to be available to improve these services further (including possibly electrifying many of them into trolleybus routes). Along the Uxbridge Road itself, the fixed route of a street tramway is very susceptible to delay if running with other traffic on the kerb side of the carriageway. For this reason tracks are usually aligned in the centre (as in much of the proposed tram based WLT). This requires centre islands as tram stops. As the design of WLT as a tramway does not integrate bus stops with trams stops, this makes great demands on narrower parts of the carriageway where buses are stopping at kerb side stops close to where there are centre islands for tram stops are located. This is likely to cause congestion rather than remove it (unless of course you remove the bus services concerned). This is exacerbated by the proposed length of the trams which at 40 metres is longer than anything that has regularly operated on UK roads. High speeds are not likely to be a problem along the Uxbridge Road (the proposed mean speed for the tramway is 13 M.P.H.!). No buses should be driven so that they 'swerve at high speeds' either diesel or electric and there will certainly be no requirement (or likely possibility) of doing so along the Uxbridge Road. There is no reason why artic trolleybuses of 18 metres cannot traverse the route (diesel versions have already been used along the route) and even a 25 metre double artic would describe the same swept path. There is no experience whatsoever of 40 metre trams in UK streets, so we have no knowledge of how they will fare even with their fixed path. Dewirements of trolleybuses are a much overstated problem when there is discussion in the UK. In both western and eastern European mainland experience, they are extremely rare and with the very simple layouts along the Uxbridge Road (virtually no overhead junctions) should be almost non existent. It should be remembered that even if such a likely rare event occurs, rewiring a modern trolleybus is quick and easy and damage to the overhead is unlikely. Even in that rarest of all situations that the overhead were damaged, trolleybuses could still operate using auxiliary power. When highly sprung tram pantographs have problems with the tensioned overhead (as has not been that uncommon on the Croydon system), the overhead is often damaged such that the tram route has to be suspended until repairs are effected. The MORI survey (the one where the one line 'support for the scheme' headline is usually quoted) does not indicate that 'everyone' is in favour of the scheme - very far from it. If the full MORI report is read it will be found that it made it quite clear that the more people knew about the tram version of the scheme, the less they supported it (no options other than tram were of course offered to them), Conversely many of those who 'supported' the scheme stated themselves that they had only limited knowledge of it. As more of the precise details are released, it is likely that even more people will oppose the scheme and not because they are all NIMBY drivers of gas guzzling 4 X 4 cars as is often disingenuously argued by pro-tram supporters but because they can see that the tram is not the optimum mode for this particular corridor and represents a very costly experiment by the Mayor with the people of West London as the guinea pigs and the London taxpayers as the funders. It is worth noting that trolleybuses have misleadingly been described by TfL as 'unproven technology' (tell that to the citizens of those cities who have been travelling on them throughout almost all of the 20th Century!), whilst the trams have been likened to the (totally different) systems in both Croydon and Nottingham. There is a small outbreak of honesty on the current TfL website however: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=521 This reads as below: TfL is bringing forward detailed modelling work to undertake it before an application for a Transport and Works Order. Some of this work would more usually be done later in the project. This change is a reflection of the complex nature of the West London Tram project, which would be the first modern fully street-running tram in the UK and of likely needs for information that have become clear in the light of recent public inquiries. So what really is the answer as to which mode is 'tried and tested'? Is it trolleybuses that operate successfully in and out of traffic on their own rights of way and on both lesser used and congested streets in over 300 cities in the world or 'the first modern fully street-running tram in the UK' (TfL's own words) using the largest vehicles ever on a UK street? It's make you mind up time. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Paul Scott writes It is comparatively difficult for them to overtake one another, and impossible for them to take a diversionary route in the event of roadworks, accidents etc. Surely it is trams that are unable to divert around roadworks, accidents, etc. (other than with the aid of crossovers and reverse working on an adjacent track). But what normally happens is that dedicated tramways are built. In much of Croydon this is the case. The trams only run on the roads in the town centre. Much faster than a bus. At least some parts of Geneva it's the same too. -- Paul |
About West London Tram
"David Bradley" wrote...
OK then let's take on board what you are saying here and let you into a preview of a page that will shortly be put up on www.tfwl.org.uk. You are invited to make suggested changes to ensure that a middle ground stance is taken provided it is honest and accurate. Well, you've certainly put a lot of work into this. I've got to give you that, at least. In my case, the more I get to grips with the detail of the sheme the more I became concerned about the sense and sensability of building a tramway along the Uxbidge Road corridor. Therefore everything is slanted towards a trolleybus solution. I don't believe those are the only two options. For example, the streetmaps show some branch lines coming off the Paddington railway line in West London. The Greenford line is still in use, but the line to Ruislip might as well be closed down, and AIUI the Hayes (or was it West Drayton?) to Uxbridge line was closed and removed ages ago. (I'm sure the trainspotters here can give us the full details if we need them) Why not convert a couple of those into a tram scheme? Say the Greenford line (because we know there's a demand for travel in that corridor) and the old Hayes/Uxbridge line (because TfL apparently wants a transit going to Uxbridge). Add on-street running to join the two the northern ends together in a loop and to cover places where the Uxbridge route has been built over, but the bulk of the lines will remain off-road. This way, it'll be building on TfL's solid, practical experience of running a mostly off-road tram network in Croydon. The links to Crossrail at the southern ends will be more useful to central London commuters than TfL's pointless proposal for a Shepherd's Bush terminus. And the fact that it's mostly a new rapid-transit route will grab people's attention more than just adding overhead wires to existing bus routes. (And while we're at it, what about sending some Crossrail trains up the old line to Ruislip?) No. I'm not seriously proposing this scheme. Just showing that a couple of minutes thinking outside the box can produce other new ideas at least as viable as TfL's trams vs. your trolleybuses. Just because there are flaws in TfL's scheme, it doesn't automatically make trolleybuses the best of all possible options. Solving congestion may be a rather tall order. If anyone claims that any form of WLT scheme (tram, trolleybus or whatever) is going to 'solve congestion across West London', they are to quote (a polite version of) the phrase: 'talking through their hat'. I don't think anyone's trying 'to solve congestion across all of West London.' Just reducing it along one main road is a much more realistic target. What is needed is a whole package of measures which will improve both the actuality and perception of public transport in this area and thus reduce the use of cars as much as possible. We need to 'improve both the actuality and perception of public transport' in all areas. There's nothing special about West London. WLT as a tram scheme does not give any greater benefits along the Uxbridge Road than a trolleybus scheme would but costs very much more. Warning. Now you're starting to use vague weasel-words. *A* tram scheme may or may not be better than *a* trolleybus scheme. It depends on the details of the schemes. Also the very nature of the WLT tram scheme proposed is likely to worsen flows by buses which are not simply along the Uxbridge Road (by creating a greater requirement to change - which is universally unpopular and thus often causes modal shift the wrong way). The advantages of trolleybuses is that they are non-polluting on street. Ah, now, do you see what you did there? You were talking about an advantage of trolleybuses over TfL's tram scheme, then in the next paragraph you continued talking about "advantages of trolleybuses" but actually, you've changed to their advantage over diesel buses. It gives the misleading impression that trams ARE polluting on street. The ability to steer trolleybuses across (both) the carriageway(s) and the design of the vehicles means that they can be better integrated into the overall bus provision along the corridor. Better integrated than diesel buses? Really? Oh, wait, no. You've sneakily switched reference points without telling us again and now you're comparing trolley buses to trams once more. Naughty David. You should be ashamed of yourself. There is no need to curtail services as will be done in the proposed tram solution. Sadly, long routes will probaly be split and curtailed anyway. It always happens. The tram would just've been a convenient excuse, but they'll find some other reason to curtail them if they look hard enough. This will therefore be beneficial in the general area around the Uxbridge Road. The lesser capital costs will allow funding to be available to improve these services further (including possibly electrifying many of them into trolleybus routes). You're rather niave if you think that TfL will automatically ringfence the saved money purely for the general area around the Uxbridge Road. They'll probably either spend it across all of London, or just line their pockets with it. I wouldn't dare say which one it'll be. As the design of WLT as a tramway does not integrate bus stops with trams stops I would hope that whatever mode of WLT is chosen, it wouldn't integrate its stops with bus stops. Keeping them separate would help establish it in the public's imagination as something new and different. This will help stimulate their curiosity more than just the same old bus routes calling at the same old bus stops but with added overhead cables. and even a 25 metre double artic would describe the same swept path. There is no experience whatsoever of 40 metre trams in UK streets, so we have no knowledge of how they will fare even with their fixed path. How much experience of 25 metre double artic trolleybuses is there in UK streets? If experience matters for one, it should matter for both. Even in that rarest of all situations that the overhead were damaged, trolleybuses could still operate using auxiliary power Is there any technical reason why trams can't be designed with auxiliary power for emergencies? I know TfL's specific tram scheme doesn't, but you do seem to be making the falacy of assuming that just because one particular trolleybus scheme is better than one possible tram scheme, therefore it must also be better than all possible tram schemes and all other possible schemes as well. The MORI survey (the one where the one line 'support for the scheme' headline is usually quoted) does not indicate that 'everyone' is in favour of the scheme - very far from it. Well, it would be VERY suspicious if a survey said 100% of people supported anything. Conversely many of those who 'supported' the scheme stated themselves that they had only limited knowledge of it. As more of the precise details are released, it is likely that even more people will oppose the scheme and not because they are all NIMBY drivers of gas guzzling 4 X 4 cars as is often disingenuously argued by pro-tram supporters but because they can see that the tram is not the optimum mode for this particular corridor Yes, but you're making that falacy again. You're assuming that just beacuse TfL's tram is not the optimum mode and your trolleybus isn't TfL's tram, therefore your trolleybus must be the optimum mode. It doesn't work like that. The world isn't all black and white. There are middle grounds and other options, but you aren't even interested in exploring them because of your trolleybus fixation. It's make you mind up time. Make our minds up? We haven't even begun to discover all the options yet... |
About West London Tram
|
About West London Tram
In article , David Bradley
writes In fact in Rome where a new trolleybus systen has been introduced, part of the route has no overhead wiring because of a desire to have a clutter free skyline in an area of particular historical importance. The booms can be disconnected and reconnected to the wires without the need for the driver [or crew] to leave the vehicle. Clearly this ability can also be used in the first point that you made. I don't see too much difficulty in flicking a switch to lower or raise the booms as required, thus enabling that fabled overtaking of service vehicles, The only places where I've seen this de-wiring and re-wiring arrangement, the re-wiring can only be done at specific locations - there's a sort of plastic M attached to the wires that guides the booms into place. This is fine for the sort of situation you describe in Rome, but it does *not* work for unplanned overtaking. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
About West London Tram
In article , David Bradley
writes High speeds are not likely to be a problem along the Uxbridge Road (the proposed mean speed for the tramway is 13 M.P.H.!). Is this mean speed while running, mean speed calculated start-to-stop, or mean speed from end point to end point? There's a huge difference between these. For example, consider a route 10km long with 29 intermediate stops (that is, a stop every 333m), assume that the dwell time at stops is 30 seconds, and that trams can accelerate and brake at 2m/s^2. I'll use 5m/s (11.2mph) for ease of calculation: * End-to-end speed of 5m/s means end-to-end time of 2000 seconds (just under 35 minutes). * 870 seconds is spent stopped, so that's 1130 seconds of running time, or just under 38 seconds between stops. That's a start-to-stop speed of 8.85m/s (19.9mph). * This requires accelerating to 10m/s (22.5mph), running at that speed for 28 seconds, then decelerating again. So the end-to-end speed is only half the service speed. There is no experience whatsoever of 40 metre trams in UK streets, so we have no knowledge of how they will fare even with their fixed path. There is experience with coupled pairs in Manchester and even Blackpool. We also have hundreds of years of experience of rail transport which shows us that all the vehicles follow the same fixed path, whether the combination is 5 or 500m long. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
About West London Tram
|
About West London Tram
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:02:33 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote: In article , David Bradley writes High speeds are not likely to be a problem along the Uxbridge Road (the proposed mean speed for the tramway is 13 M.P.H.!). Is this mean speed while running, mean speed calculated start-to-stop, or mean speed from end point to end point? There's a huge difference between these. For example, consider a route 10km long with 29 intermediate stops (that is, a stop every 333m), assume that the dwell time at stops is 30 seconds, and that trams can accelerate and brake at 2m/s^2. I'll use 5m/s (11.2mph) for ease of calculation: * End-to-end speed of 5m/s means end-to-end time of 2000 seconds (just under 35 minutes). * 870 seconds is spent stopped, so that's 1130 seconds of running time, or just under 38 seconds between stops. That's a start-to-stop speed of 8.85m/s (19.9mph). * This requires accelerating to 10m/s (22.5mph), running at that speed for 28 seconds, then decelerating again. So the end-to-end speed is only half the service speed. There is no experience whatsoever of 40 metre trams in UK streets, so we have no knowledge of how they will fare even with their fixed path. There is experience with coupled pairs in Manchester and even Blackpool. We also have hundreds of years of experience of rail transport which shows us that all the vehicles follow the same fixed path, whether the combination is 5 or 500m long. It is unfortunate that all this nit picking continues with statements that I make concerning the viablity of tramway services along the Uxbridge Road. Responses to inaccurate statements, such as made here, have to be challeged before they become folklore. I would really prefere to actively persue development of my web site www.tfwl.org.uk where true facts are given following the most detailed research, as far as time permits, in anything that is said there. So you don't like the statement that mean speed for the tramway is quoted as 13 MPH. Well various TfL reports give the overall jourrney time from Uxbridge to Shepherd's Bush (20 km.) of around an hour and the mean end to end speed (thus including stops) of 19 or 20 k.p.h. (depends on which report!). I have (slightly generously) approximated this to 13 m.p.h. Clearly the vehicles should be able to exceed this between stops but it is unlikely that they will exceed 30 m.p.h. ( 48 k.p.h.) in doing so and in many places they will going far slower. They will have no opportunity for 'high speed' running of 50 m.p.h. (80 k.p.h.) which Croydon Tramlink achieves on many sections. Manchester is essentially railway branches joined together with very limited street running in between and a small section at the end of the Eccles Line. Blackpool is not on-street either except for a part at the Fleetwood end. The point is that the Uxbridge Road is **ALL** street and of course as all the information reminds us, a very congested street at that. The issue is not that of the path of the tram. That is clearly defined by the rails, as stated, The question is how you can fit the 40 metre length in the street between junctions, tram stops, stationary traffic of one sort or another, traffic 'nipping in' etc. Even with the flexibility of path available (by steering) of a bus, 'bendies' on London routes often have to be guided very carefully to be able to be squeezed into the available road space and these are 18 metres long. The tram has to occupy 40 metres of carriageway at any time. I believe that to get a clear 40 metres along some of the more heavily congested sections of this road, may at many times prove difficult and the tram will be delayed not because other traffic has stopped, but because of its own size. A good analogy would be that of artic lorries which are often unable to proceed even when other traffic is moving because there simply is not enough carriageway into which they can fit. the tram will of course be over twice the length of any artic lorry. This sort of problem can be experienced daily (only to a lesser extent as the trams are shorter than 40 metres) in those cities with extensive street running of their trams and congested streets such as Turin for example. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:42:41 +0000, David Bradley
wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:02:33 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote: In article , David Bradley writes There is no experience whatsoever of 40 metre trams in UK streets, so we have no knowledge of how they will fare even with their fixed path. There is experience with coupled pairs in Manchester and even Blackpool. We also have hundreds of years of experience of rail transport which shows us that all the vehicles follow the same fixed path, whether the combination is 5 or 500m long. The issue is not that of the path of the tram. That is clearly defined by the rails, as stated, The question is how you can fit the 40 metre length in the street between junctions, tram stops, stationary traffic of one sort or another, traffic 'nipping in' etc. Even with the flexibility of path available (by steering) of a bus, 'bendies' on London routes often have to be guided very carefully to be able to be squeezed into the available road space and these are 18 metres long. The tram has to occupy 40 metres of carriageway at any time. I believe that to get a clear 40 metres along some of the more heavily congested sections of this road, may at many times prove difficult and the tram will be delayed not because other traffic has stopped, but because of its own size. A good analogy would be that of artic lorries which are often unable to proceed even when other traffic is moving because there simply is not enough carriageway into which they can fit. the tram will of course be over twice the length of any artic lorry. This sort of problem can be experienced daily (only to a lesser extent as the trams are shorter than 40 metres) in those cities with extensive street running of their trams and congested streets such as Turin for example. The U9 (I think) that runs between Duesseldorf and Duisburg has a considerable stretch of street running after it emerges from below ground and before it goes onto reserved track north of the Messe. When they run double units, it takes up almost all the road between certain pairs of traffic signals. If that coincides with a tram stop, it stops everything. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 07:23:36 -0800, wrote: David Bradley wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote: Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly power lines to the bus. 40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call to explain that one away. Perhaps it is, but it doesn't alter the fact that you haven't answered the question. Well let's have a go then although I have never said anything about using bendy trolleybuses although it's fair to assume that is what will be used. Not much of a go, unfortunately - the question was about why a trolleybus would reduce traffic congestion more than a similarly-sized diesel bus. The question isn't about pollution, or environmental issues, or the appearance of overhead wiring. They are all subjects worthy of debate in their own right, but they aren't the question currently posed. So how about taking another shot at it? Now it's about time you made your position clear of which mode of transport you prefer and why. I'm undecided, and open-minded, and open to persuasion by sensible debate. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk