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