About West London Tram
 

Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram, ostensibly because of the large strategic construction compound which
would occupy a big chunk of Shepherd's Bush Green, and about which TfL didn't
inform them before going public to the media.

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website
[http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiati...ion2005.shtml] detailing
the construction compounds and substations and, even more importantly, the
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished. In some cases
the land used to provide sites for construction compounds and will ultimately
be used for permanent substations.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

Of course if it had been a new road scheme then they'd
probably be rubbing their hands with glee as all the Fulham
tractors would be able to get that little bit quicker to harrods.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities,

Trolleybuses have an image problem. The public would
probably just see them as another bus.
When Ken was running his fuel cell buses the other year I
didn't notice them packed to the rafters with happy eco
commuters. Trams though tend to get much more ridership
than a buses ever would - witness whats happened elsewhere
around the country particularly Nottingham. Would a trolleybus do the
same? Maybe for a short time for the
novelty value , but long term I doubt it. At the end of
the day they're just another uncomfortable , small capacity
(compared to a tram) bus albeit an electric one.

B2003

About West London Tram
 

Glad, Boltar, that you recognise just how in the pocket of business and
yuppies Hammersmith and Fulham (Labour) Council is! They certainly
don't give a fig about those of us who are neither big business nor
yuppies (I'm aged 40 and have lived in Fulham my entire life).

Marc.

About West London Tram
 

David Bradley wrote:

Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram,...

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website ...
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished.

If the tram doesn't go ahead, some of this demolition may happen
anyway, to increase capacity for cars and buses. The basic premise
behind the tram is to increase the capacity of the Uxbridge Road to
move people, in exchange for a reduction in its capacity to move cars.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

The reasons for choosing tram over trolleybus were never, in my view,
very good. They were mainly: trams are better at attracting people out
of cars, and will make it politically easier to achieve the necessary
demolitions and reductions in capacity for other motor vehicles.

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?
Asking people to predict what they'd do is not very accurate,
especially if you don't explain very carefully what a tolleybus is.

Cyclists may like to know that at present they can get from one end to
the other faster than the tram is projected to be able to. There is a
real danger that changes to get the tram in will delay cyclists enough
to make them slower than the tram.

Colin McKenzie

About West London Tram
 

The whole West London Tram scheme is dead in the water, so much
opposition exists to the scheme in West London that I cannot personally
see it happenning in the forseeable future. I suspect the scheme will
be dropped on cost grounds as the benefits behind the whole scheme are
pretty limited and cost have been escalating.


Colin McKenzie wrote:
David Bradley wrote:

Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram,...

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website ...
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished.

If the tram doesn't go ahead, some of this demolition may happen
anyway, to increase capacity for cars and buses. The basic premise
behind the tram is to increase the capacity of the Uxbridge Road to
move people, in exchange for a reduction in its capacity to move cars.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

The reasons for choosing tram over trolleybus were never, in my view,
very good. They were mainly: trams are better at attracting people out
of cars, and will make it politically easier to achieve the necessary
demolitions and reductions in capacity for other motor vehicles.

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?
Asking people to predict what they'd do is not very accurate,
especially if you don't explain very carefully what a tolleybus is.

Cyclists may like to know that at present they can get from one end to
the other faster than the tram is projected to be able to. There is a
real danger that changes to get the tram in will delay cyclists enough
to make them slower than the tram.

Colin McKenzie

About West London Tram
 

In article . com,
MartyJ writes
The whole West London Tram scheme is dead in the water, so much
opposition exists to the scheme in West London that I cannot personally
see it happenning in the forseeable future. I suspect the scheme will be
dropped on cost grounds as the benefits behind the whole scheme are
pretty limited and cost have been escalating.

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Incidentally, what is the latest cost estimate? The last figure I saw
was £648 m, but that was probably a year ago. I imagine it must be
nearing £1 bn, which means that if it were ever built it would probably
cost not far short of £3bn - of your and my money.
--
Thoss

About West London Tram
 

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003

About West London Tram
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003

Have a look at this from the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...846599,00.html

'......Transport for London embarked on a massive consultation exercise,
produced 500 pages of data, interviewed 16,895 people and printed 440,000
brochures and questionnaires in 11 different languages.
The findings were as clear as a thumb's down from the emperor in the
Colosseum: 70 per cent of respondents did not support the idea.'

Paul

About West London Tram
 

Bit of selective cut and pasting by you there I think. You
forgot the next bit:"The only enthusiasm came from 71 people living way
beyond the terminus, in Buckinghamshire.". Last time I looked 71 people
is not 30% of 16895. So I suspect this journalist is playing a bit
fast and loose with the facts. On an aside I'd also be interested
to know why TfL thought it appropriate to do the survey in 11
languages. If people can't be arsed to learnt the language of
the country they're living in why the hell should they be allowed to
give their views and perhaps influence people
who do give a **** about this place?

B2003

About West London Tram
 

OK, I take your postings to mean that you are in favour of the tramway scheme.
To understand your point of view please confirm you have no vested interest in
the project other than a potential user of the tramway. I would then be
interested to hear why you feel that such a huge investment should be made and
what you perceive to be the benefits of the tramway. Are you not in the least
bit concerned at the loss of unique shopping outlets and the demolition of
generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings that still have many
years of useful life?

David Bradley



On 30 Oct 2005 12:56:20 -0800, "Boltar" wrote:

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003

About West London Tram
 

David Bradley wrote:
OK, I take your postings to mean that you are in favour of the
tramway scheme. To understand your point of view please confirm you
have no vested interest in the project other than a potential user of
the tramway. I would then be interested to hear why you feel that
such a huge investment should be made and what you perceive to be the
benefits of the tramway. Are you not in the least bit concerned at
the loss of unique shopping outlets and the demolition of generally
architecturally interesting and sound buildings that still have many
years of useful life?


Which "unique shopping outlets and generally architecturally interesting and
sound buildings" have you in mind?

About West London Tram
 

Boltar wrote:
Bit of selective cut and pasting by you there I think. You
forgot the next bit:"The only enthusiasm came from 71 people living
way beyond the terminus, in Buckinghamshire.". Last time I looked
71 people is not 30% of 16895. So I suspect this journalist is
playing a bit fast and loose with the facts.

Between the 70% opposed to it and the 71 from rural Bucks who were
enthusiastic, there were presumably 29.996% who weren't terribly
bothered either way.

On an aside I'd also be interested to know why TfL thought it
appropriate to do the survey in 11 languages. If people can't be
arsed to learnt [sic] the language of the country they're living in
[,] why the hell should they be allowed to give their views and
perhaps influence people who do give a **** about this place?

I'm not sure why you deserve a response, given the standard of English
in that last sentence, but it's probably because they are the very
people in Southall whose welfare you were concerned about in your
previous post, all of 21 minutes earlier. Remember?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

About West London Tram
 

Paul Scott wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003

Have a look at this from the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...846599,00.html

'......Transport for London embarked on a massive consultation exercise,
produced 500 pages of data, interviewed 16,895 people and printed 440,000
brochures and questionnaires in 11 different languages.
The findings were as clear as a thumb's down from the emperor in the
Colosseum: 70 per cent of respondents did not support the idea.'

I always thought it was rather obvious that consultation responses are
heavily biased towards opponents of a scheme. You wouldn't ring up the
gas company to tell them they sent you a nice low bill, but you
certainly would if they tried to overcharge you.

The market research TfL did should be much more representative of public
opinion. The 2005 MORI market research says that 48% are in favour of
and 37% are opposed to the scheme, with higher support in Southall and
Uxbridge and lower support in Ealing.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/download...eportFINAL.pdf


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

About West London Tram
 

In article , Colin
McKenzie writes
The reasons for choosing tram over trolleybus were never, in my view,
very good. They were mainly: trams are better at attracting people out
of cars, and will make it politically easier to achieve the necessary
demolitions and reductions in capacity for other motor vehicles.

The main reason for choosing trams over trolleybuses for any given
scheme is capacity. My vague memory is that the Cross-London route would
require 40tph or 130tbph to provide the same capacity; presumably the
same applies on the Uxbridge Road.

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract more
people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?

Again, IIRC, when Tramlink opened the shopping centre in Croydon saw
something like a 30% increase in visitors with a *decrease* in parking.

--
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
 

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:28:39 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

Paul Scott wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003

Have a look at this from the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...846599,00.html

'......Transport for London embarked on a massive consultation exercise,
produced 500 pages of data, interviewed 16,895 people and printed 440,000
brochures and questionnaires in 11 different languages.
The findings were as clear as a thumb's down from the emperor in the
Colosseum: 70 per cent of respondents did not support the idea.'

I always thought it was rather obvious that consultation responses are
heavily biased towards opponents of a scheme. You wouldn't ring up the
gas company to tell them they sent you a nice low bill, but you
certainly would if they tried to overcharge you.

The market research TfL did should be much more representative of public
opinion. The 2005 MORI market research says that 48% are in favour of
and 37% are opposed to the scheme, with higher support in Southall and
Uxbridge and lower support in Ealing.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/download...eportFINAL.pdf


First of all it needs be said that MORI are a very professional and objective
polling organisation. Polls for things like general elections are relatively
simple affairs (there really only being three main parties plus the 'don't
knows'). That being said all the pollsters (including MORI) got the prediction
for the 1992 general election badly wrong (in the sense of winning party not
majority!) So it's not an exact science.

Polling for a subject like WLT is far more complex than elections and that is
why there is always a full report given by the polling organisation. If you
are going to comment meaningfully, all of this should be read carefully in
detail. A one liner headline does not really do justice to the report which is
available publicly at the URL which you provided.

Some parts of the detail which can be extracted are as follows:

If you want to be 95% certain of the final result (note still not 100% certain
- that's never possible) you cannot just take the 48% pro and 37% against. The
figures are actually 48+/- 5 pro and 37+/-5 against (Top of page 8 of the
report). So although its is less likely than 48 to 37, it is still within the
95% probability that the result was 43% pro and 42% against. This of course is
a rather different picture.

Of probably much greater significance is the information contained on page 12
which states that only about 25% of respondents, by their own judgment,
considered that they had a good understanding of the scheme and 38% stated
that they only had a limited understanding. Note that the 'undecideds' were
only 15% so even if all of those were in the 'limited understanding' group,
there was still a significant percentage (23%) who definitely voted one way or
the other based on 'a limited understanding' of the scheme'. Note the comment
on page 13,

'Opponents of the WLT are more likely to have a 'good' understanding of the
scheme than those who are in favour of it (35% and 22% respectively).'
We can deduce therefore that many of those who voted in favour had by their
own admission actually a 'limited understanding' of what they were voting for.
If we assume that this group is only slightly more than half of the 23% (as
seems reasonable from the statement quoted from page 13), let's call it 13%
and that if they had had a 'good understanding' then they would have voted
against, then the end result would have been 35+/-5 % for and 50+/-5 % against
- a totally different result.

The results on the bottom of page 9 and the top of page 10 are also very
telling and I have quoted them in full below:
Among those residents who support the WLT scheme, the main reasons relate to
the perception that it will lead to less congestion, journeys will be quicker
and that trams are more environmentally friendly. In contrast, the most common
spontaneous reasons for opposing the scheme are the view that it will lead to
greater congestion in other areas as cars divert to side roads, that it will
not provide a solution to transport problems and that roads are not wide
enough to support the WLT. In addition, when prompted, 71% of residents agree
that the tram will cause too much disruption whilst building work takes place.
When presented with a number of potential benefits of the WLT scheme (e.g.
reduced pollution, more reliable than current bus services, lead to more jobs
in the area) the majority of residents say they would be more in favour of the
scheme if these scenarios transpired.

Similarly, when presented with a list of potential drawbacks of the scheme
(e.g. increased congestion, parts of the Uxbridge Road being closed to
traffic), the majority say they would be less in favour of it. Of note, seven
in ten would be less in favour of the scheme if it resulted in increased
congestion, including 57% of those who currently support the scheme. o On
balance, more residents disagree than agree that they would personally benefit
from the WLT scheme (47% and 38% respectively). Despite this, 59% say they
will actually use it. Of note, 28% of those who oppose the scheme say they are
likely to use the scheme.

In effect the respondents supporting the scheme are saying that they recognise
that there is a problem and that the tramway scheme has been stated to be a
way of solving that problem. They therefore feel that they should support it.
Note of course that no possible alternative options are presented in the poll.
So in effect the question is, 'This is a solution to the Uxbridge Road
congestion problem - do you support it?'

What is of great interest is the statistic at the end. Cynicism has led even
many of those supposed 'supporters' to believe that it really is not going to
work because they say that they will gain no personal benefit from it. Note
that 70% would be less in favour if they were convinced that the scheme was
not going to deliver its promoted benefits.

If 70% of those who were pro scheme for instance were to become agnostic
because of such conviction, then the overall result would be 15+/- 3% in
favour, still 37+/-5% against and nearly half not sure at all!

I would venture to suggest that if far more people understood the issues
better and were honestly informed that there were other (cheaper) options
available, this latter result might actually be far nearer to a true opinion.

The bottom line is that policy in regard to an issue as important and complex
as WLT should be based on all information (and that includes the full detail
of the MORI report). What appears to have been done is that one headline
statistic has been extracted for political expediency. To quote Andrew Lang,

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts-for support rather than
illumination."

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

In message , David Bradley
writes
'Opponents of the WLT are more likely to have a 'good' understanding of
the scheme than those who are in favour of it (35% and 22%
respectively).' We can deduce therefore that many of those who voted in
favour had by their own admission actually a 'limited understanding'
of what they were voting for. If we assume that this group is only
slightly more than half of the 23% (as seems reasonable from the
statement quoted from page 13), let's call it 13% and that if they had
had a 'good understanding' then they would have voted against, then the
end result would have been 35+/-5 % for and 50+/-5 % against - a
totally different result.
Nice troll. What's that saying? Oh yes, Lies, damned lies and
statistics.
--
Clive

About West London Tram
 

In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
The main reason for choosing trams over trolleybuses for any given
scheme is capacity. My vague memory is that the Cross-London route would
require 40tph or 130tbph to provide the same capacity; presumably the
same applies on the Uxbridge Road.

That implies that a trolley-bus can carry only 30% of a tram's
passengers. Why not bigger trolley-buses, maybe bendy ones?
--
Thoss

About West London Tram
 

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, thoss wrote:

In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes

The main reason for choosing trams over trolleybuses for any given
scheme is capacity. My vague memory is that the Cross-London route
would require 40tph or 130tbph to provide the same capacity; presumably
the same applies on the Uxbridge Road.

That implies that a trolley-bus can carry only 30% of a tram's
passengers. Why not bigger trolley-buses, maybe bendy ones?

For the same reason we don't have bendy-buses the length of a train - the
presence of a track. The track guides the vehicle, at every point along
its length, over a very precisely defined path, with no input from the
driver. This makes it possible for a long, bendy vehicle to take fairly
sharp corners extremely safely.

ISTR the idea of a bus guided automatically by a signal from a cable
buried under the road, a sort of 'virtual tram'; that would presumably
allow much longer buses. I don't know if this is a real technology or a
pipe dream, though.

tom

--
see im down wid yo sci fi crew

About West London Tram
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, thoss wrote:

In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes

The main reason for choosing trams over trolleybuses for any given
scheme is capacity. My vague memory is that the Cross-London route
would require 40tph or 130tbph to provide the same capacity;
presumably the same applies on the Uxbridge Road.

That implies that a trolley-bus can carry only 30% of a tram's
passengers. Why not bigger trolley-buses, maybe bendy ones?

For the same reason we don't have bendy-buses the length of a train -
the presence of a track. The track guides the vehicle, at every point
along its length, over a very precisely defined path, with no input from
the driver. This makes it possible for a long, bendy vehicle to take
fairly sharp corners extremely safely.

ISTR the idea of a bus guided automatically by a signal from a cable
buried under the road, a sort of 'virtual tram'; that would presumably
allow much longer buses. I don't know if this is a real technology or a
pipe dream, though.

I believe the technology exists to have optically guided trolleybuses,
i.e. following something painted/otherwise marked in the road. A more
pipe-dream style idea has the buses actually following the trolley wires
themselves, subject to needing to maneouvre around obstacles and into
stops. The idea was that pulling into stops could essentially be an
automated procedure depending on the extension of the overhead arms and
feedback from a Kassel kerb at the stop (a specially designed kerb which
helps to guide vehicles to a suitable distance for level boarding).



--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

About West London Tram
 

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:41:09 +0000, thoss
wrote:

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Public opinion (or a noisy section of it) will object to ANY proposal.
It's easy to block, hard to achieve. Ken is a doer. Rather like
Thatcher was. I rarely agreed with Maggie and sometimes don't with
Ken. But I admire both of them for actually getting things done.

About West London Tram
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Colin
McKenzie writes

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?

Again, IIRC, when Tramlink opened the shopping centre in Croydon saw
something like a 30% increase in visitors with a *decrease* in parking.

Yes, granted - but we don't know what would have happened with a
trolleybus scheme - it might have been even better. Unfortunately for
science, I can't see a tram and trolleybus route being introduced
simultaneously in comparable locations to allow the direct comparison.

You could always promote trolleybuses as trackless trams.

Colin McKenzie

About West London Tram
 

On 29 Oct 2005 10:17:18 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

Of course if it had been a new road scheme then they'd
probably be rubbing their hands with glee as all the Fulham
tractors would be able to get that little bit quicker to harrods.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities,

Trolleybuses have an image problem. The public would
probably just see them as another bus.
When Ken was running his fuel cell buses the other year I
didn't notice them packed to the rafters with happy eco
commuters. Trams though tend to get much more ridership
than a buses ever would - witness whats happened elsewhere
around the country particularly Nottingham. Would a trolleybus do the
same? Maybe for a short time for the
novelty value , but long term I doubt it. At the end of
the day they're just another uncomfortable , small capacity
(compared to a tram) bus albeit an electric one.

B2003

A number of issues to pick up on this thread that require a response so I'll
deal with these one at a time over the next few days. First of all this so
called image problem of trolleybuses. Just because we do not have any
trolleybuses in the UK, yet, it is a misconception that there is no "good
feel" factor aboyt this type of vehicle.

In Arnhem [olland] he transport operators have seen ridership increases in the
order of 17% on routes converted from diesels on a "like-for-like" basis. When
their 5 year "Trolley 2000" is completed the strategy is expected to see
passenger levels 21% higher than it would have been under the best type of
diesel buses. In Salzburg, Austria ridership increases have been 16% and the
city has recently started a similar trolleybus expansion which will include
several brand new trolleybus routes (one of which will be an express service
with the overhead wiring configured for overtaking) and converting several
more diesel routes to electric operation. These plans will mean that within
two years Salzburg will have achieved an almost total elimination of fossil
fuel powered buses from its streets.

Increases in ridership have also been noted in the USA, for instance Seattle
and San Francisco where experiences have been even more significant because
not only has it been found that electric buses will attract more passengers
than the diesels but also that replacing electric buses with diesels (even
temporarily) can lead to passengers pro-actively choosing to avoid the buses!

But then we are falling into the trap of only considering the vehicle as if
the trolleybus was nothing more than a bus requiring an external electricity
supply. A tramway, rather than a tram, is considered as a whole project with
high quality stops, traffic priorities, segregated lanes (where practicable)
etc. and therefore the term "trolleyway" should be used to indicate that the
same features are also provided, thus giving a step change in transit
provision and the "wow" factor that you seem to crave. Trackwork and
underground services diversions cost an absolute fortune for a tramway
schemes, an expense not necessary for trolleybuses.

25m long tri-axle trolleybuses run in Europe and can carry around 200
passengers, the use of such vehicles is currently not permitted in the UK but
there is no reason to believe that an application to run such vehicles here
would be refused. Capacity can be provided to meet demand through the use of
trolleybuses and they have better comfort levels than a any tram. Furthmore,
street running trams that don't have an exclusive use of the roadway will be
prone to more delays than the equivalent trolleybus.

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway in the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting nowhere
fast.

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

MAJOR SNIP

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway in
the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting
nowhere
fast.
David Bradley

The system in use in Nancy is a combination of tram and trolleybus. They
look like trams, with two or three articulated units, but are guided by a
slot in the road (could be a painted-on stripe ?) and can, if necessary, be
steered by the driver. They have two trolley poles, run on pneumatic tyres
and are capable of climbing steep inclines.
In my view the best possible combination of features.
Cheerz,
Baz

About West London Tram
 

I'm not sure why you deserve a response, given the standard of English
in that last sentence, but it's probably because they are the very
people in Southall whose welfare you were concerned about in your
previous post, all of 21 minutes earlier. Remember?

Never heard of a typo? And my god , what a patronising reply
for the people of Southall. You ever been there? I have on
numerous occasions and I've never met anyone there who
couldn't speak English. The only people who can't be
bothered to learn the language are the ones who really don't
give a toss about this country but just use the place as a
convenient location to wash up in. So **** them and their
opinions and TfL should not have wasted money translating
into 11 languages. Same goes for my local council and its
endless PC efforts in all its hopeless multi ligual booklets.

B2003

About West London Tram
 

Marratxi wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

MAJOR SNIP

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway in
the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting
nowhere
fast.
David Bradley

The system in use in Nancy is a combination of tram and trolleybus. They
look like trams, with two or three articulated units, but are guided by a
slot in the road (could be a painted-on stripe ?) and can, if necessary, be
steered by the driver. They have two trolley poles, run on pneumatic tyres
and are capable of climbing steep inclines.
In my view the best possible combination of features.
Cheerz,
Baz

Not everyone agrees that it is "the best possible combination of
features". I don't have any particular opinion on the matter, but
these people seem pretty anti:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_ncy001.htm

Regards,

Sid

About West London Tram
 

Colin McKenzie wrote:
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article ,
Colin McKenzie writes


But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?


Again, IIRC, when Tramlink opened the shopping centre in Croydon saw
something like a 30% increase in visitors with a *decrease* in parking.


Yes, granted - but we don't know what would have happened with a
trolleybus scheme - it might have been even better. Unfortunately for
science, I can't see a tram and trolleybus route being introduced
simultaneously in comparable locations to allow the direct comparison.

You could always promote trolleybuses as trackless trams.

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

About West London Tram
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Marratxi wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

MAJOR SNIP

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at
a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and
are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway
in
the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only
one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting
nowhere
fast.
David Bradley

The system in use in Nancy is a combination of tram and trolleybus. They
look like trams, with two or three articulated units, but are guided by
a
slot in the road (could be a painted-on stripe ?) and can, if necessary,
be
steered by the driver. They have two trolley poles, run on pneumatic
tyres
and are capable of climbing steep inclines.
In my view the best possible combination of features.
Cheerz,
Baz

Not everyone agrees that it is "the best possible combination of
features". I don't have any particular opinion on the matter, but
these people seem pretty anti:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_ncy001.htm
Regards,
Sid

Possibly somewhat slanted article from Light Rail Now (hint) and dated back
in 2001. When I saw them last year they appeared to be running well and if,
as somebody previously suggested, they could be made to follow a painted
stripe on the road rather than a slot in the road that would reduce costs
considerably.
Cheerz,
Baz

About West London Tram
 

"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

About West London Tram
 

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

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

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.

About West London Tram
 

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.


The weather has been a bit naff lately to get some pictures of the buildings
that will be demolished to create enough room for the trams to operate. The
pictures are intended to show that the buildings are far from their end of
their useful life and make up the rich canvas of interesting buildings in the
area that gives it its unique character. In so many places today, one high
street is very much the same as found elsewhere. Then there are unique
business that will be displaced that are unlikely to set up shop elsewhere.

You must be aware that existing bus routes will not share the tram stops and
therefore must use lay bys to allow the trams to overtake. In some cases
demolition is required to achieve that aim. Now whether the night service,
where buses are used, will use tram stops or bus stops is currently unknown.

I am not against progress providing there is a real improvement upon that
which was there previously. Perhaps you may care to state your case on what
you think would be better with the tramway built and why that can't be
achieved with a trolleybus facility,

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

David Bradley wrote:

I am not against progress providing there is a real improvement upon
that which was there previously. Perhaps you may care to state your
case on what you think would be better with the tramway built and why
that can't be achieved with a trolleybus facility,

You're making an unfounded assumption. I merely asked a question.

The buildings that will need to be demolished at The Lido in West Ealing are
merely lockup shops built on the front gardens of the houses. Whilst some of
them undoubtedly provide useful employment and services and as buildings are
probably sound even if of "lightweight" construction. However, they are not
by any stretch of the imagination "architecturally interesting".

As a road junction The Lido crossroads is tight and awkward. I would suggest
that the proposed slight widening will benefit the flow of all traffic.

With the exception of the increased traffic levels over the intervening
years why should reinstated trams along the Uxbridge Road be any more of a
problem than they were previously?

About West London Tram
 

In article , David Bradley
writes
I note you still haven't told us which "unique shopping outlets and
generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings" are kikely to be
demolished.


The weather has been a bit naff lately to get some pictures of the
buildings that will be demolished to create enough room for the trams to
operate.

An unfortunate choice of word there. I hope you meant would (if the
tramway ever gets built).
--
Thoss

About West London Tram
 

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:51:42 +0000, thoss wrote:

In article , David Bradley
writes
I note you still haven't told us which "unique shopping outlets and
generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings" are kikely to be
demolished.


The weather has been a bit naff lately to get some pictures of the
buildings that will be demolished to create enough room for the trams to
operate.

An unfortunate choice of word there. I hope you meant would (if the
tramway ever gets built).


Dam keyboard - it never understands what I wish to say and then has the nerve
to leave the odd word or two out, quite apart from the fact it can't spell.

Meanwhile, a start of the Lido junction segment has started with a web page of
the junction as it was in the summer of 2002. The page can be found at
http://www.tfwl.org.uk/lido2.html - this isn't the segment of the site I
wanted to work on right now but there does seem to be a lot of interest in
this particular junction.

The text relating to buildings is being prepared now. Any one care to add
some captions to the pictures to lessen my load a bit?

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:41:59 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

You must be aware that existing bus routes will not share the tram stops and
therefore must use lay bys to allow the trams to overtake. In some cases
demolition is required to achieve that aim.

I had read that existing bus routes would be rearranged to avoid
running along the tram route.

Can you give any specific locations where such demolition would be
required?

Now whether the night service, where buses are used, will use tram
stops or bus stops is currently unknown.

However, I don't see that this is a matter of concern.

About West London Tram
 

In article , David Bradley
writes
The text relating to buildings is being prepared now. Any one care to
add some captions to the pictures to lessen my load a bit?

I'll have a go.

1) Northfield Avenue looking north towards Lido Junction. Gosai cinema
entrance on right. Dean Gardens on left.

2) Looking north up Northfield Avenue towards Lido Junction.

3) Looking west along West Ealing Broadway from Lido Junction.

4) West Ealing Broadway west of Lido Junction, facing north.

5) West Ealing Broadway approaching Lido Junction from west.

6) as (5)

7) Lido Junction looking south down Northfield Avenue. Dean Gardens on
right. Gosai cinema in the centre; this was previously The Lido, from
which the junction took its name.

8) Looking south down Drayton Green Road towards Lido Junction and
Northfield Avenue. Gosai cinema in the distance.

9) Lido Junction looking west along West Ealing Broadway. Dean Gardens
in the background.

10) Lido Junction looking west along West Ealing Broadway.

11) Looking west along West Ealing Broadway towards Lido Junction,


With the Lido cinema now demolished, let's hope that it retains the
name.

Note: The road up from the south is often misnamed Northfields Avenue;
the correct name is Northfield Avenue.
--
Thoss

About West London Tram
 

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:10:43 +0000, thoss wrote:

In article , David Bradley
writes
The text relating to buildings is being prepared now. Any one care to
add some captions to the pictures to lessen my load a bit?

I'll have a go.

[snip]

Many thanks for the caption information which has been added to the web site.

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

In article , David Bradley
writes
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:10:43 +0000, thoss wrote:

In article , David Bradley
writes
The text relating to buildings is being prepared now. Any one care to
add some captions to the pictures to lessen my load a bit?

I'll have a go.

[snip]

Many thanks for the caption information which has been added to the web site.

David Bradley

You're welcome. Would you please amend Note 1 to read

1) With the Lido cinema now demolished, let's hope that the junction
retains the name Lido
(if you agree with the sentiment, that is).
--
Thoss

About West London Tram
 

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

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

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?