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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

TfL have evidently proposed tram segregation through various junctions in an
attempt to insulate the trams from junction congestion, whereas this is less
important for trolleybuses with their flexibility of manoeuvre and ability to
steer round obstructions. In any case, even if the needs and benefits were the
same for trams and trolleybuses once implemented, there remains
(1) the huge disparity in construction cost and time and related disruption as
between trams and trolleys, and
(2) the trolley advantage of getting the benefits of electric traction several
years earlier through much quicker construction and correspondingly earlier
opening date.

If there's to be no segregation and priority anywhere along the tramroute it's
hard to see what benefit a hugely expensive and disruptive tram scheme could
possibly have over a much cheaper and virtually disruption-free trolley
scheme, even ignoring the huge cost diffrential.

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.

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.

There are huge benefits from having electric buses instead of diesel buses
that more than outweigh the visual intrusion of overhead wiring and booms on
the top of vehicles, most of which are attributed to tramway operation.
However if your desire is to have diesel trams, so be it and sod the
enviroment.

Now it's about time you made your position clear of which mode of transport
you prefer and why.

David Bradley

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.

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.

On 12 Nov 2005 09:01:39 -0800, wrote:

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.

OK then, it's difficult for me to keep track of various different threads that
appear here and elsewhere. The only sensible way was to maintain a web site
where the responses to these very questions get aired for a larger population
to see and comment upon.

Unlike pro tram supporters and the green element, we do not duck and dive from
any issues raised; if the answer to your question[s] have not been addressed
at www.tfwl.org.uk then hammer away at the "Contact Us" section.

But to speciffically answer your question here as to whether a trolleybus
alone is the magic bullet that solves traffic congestion then the answer is no
it won't; neither will a tram either. It will be a whole raft of intergrated
measures that actually gives improvements to the travelling public and these
must consider value for money and respect for the enviroment.

David Bradley

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.