On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Chippy wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

They accelerate briskly away from stops, reducing overall journey time
compared to buses. Of course in the UK we're determined to sabotage
that by having the driver take fares, ho hum

Well, actually, we aren't, because we haven't got any trolleybus
systems

Actually, we *are* ("determined to") - with any kind of bus, except
perhaps in London. The fact that we don't happen to have that
particular kind of bus in service right now doesn't change that
general idea, IMHO.

(and aren't likely to get any).

Even worse :-{

Where's Pete B when we need him :-))

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:47:15 -0800, Chippy wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.

The trolleybus faction usually advocate hybrids, with auxilliary diesel
engines, both for diversionary and route extension purposes.

Or battery. I've seen both - in regular use, running on their traction
batteries or diesel auxillary engines.
Often now the poles no longer have ropes, if the bus de-wires, they drive
on auxillary power still they get to the next re-wire point.
I would be extremely surprised to find a modern ETB that didn't have
some capability to run independently of the wires.

The traction battery option is not new. I was told at Carlton Colville
museum last year that the old London ETB's had traction batteries and
could run quite a few miles with out the wires. Was told 'this was quite
handy in the war as they could work past damaged sections of overhead'.

In the end what a ETB buys you is the pollution is made some where else -
at the power station. They are also quiet to operate.

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote:

To the best of my recollection, some German trolleybuses have (or have
had) a fully fledged diesel motor, used routinely on the outer parts
of their routes, and only switch to/from OHL power for the more
central parts of the town/city. Evidently, in the event of a problem
(road blockage, OHL or power failure) they would be capable of
continuing in service on the other power source.

As do some in the US - Seattle among other cities use them. Interestingly
enough, it appears that they are being phased out though. Note the last
paragraph:

Planned rebuilding of articulated trolley buses: The dual-powered
(electric-diesel) articulated buses that go through Seattle's bus tunnel are
reaching the end of their useful lives. Metro plans to rebuild them as
electric-only articulated trolley buses and bring them into service in 2004-2005
on high-ridership routes 7, 43, and 44.

http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archiv...4-trolley.html

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote:

To the best of my recollection, some German trolleybuses have (or have
had) a fully fledged diesel motor, used routinely on the outer parts
of their routes, and only switch to/from OHL power for the more
central parts of the town/city.

There's an interesting video here

mms://winmedia.metrokc.gov/transit/ITtunnel.wmv

It shows dual operating buses and some other detaiils.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:26:07 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Fox"
wrote:


"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
groups.com...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram relate
to
'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be closed to all other
traffic, which will be diverted on to a parallel residential street -
naturally residents on those streets don't like the idea.

Naturally.

I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram
scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum
or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been shown to
solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is because of their
layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is a bus is a bus, no
matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road corridor as
being totally unsuitable for a tramway. TfL's stance is that passenger
numbers will grow considerably over the next decade and that a high capacity,
quality service is therefore required to meet this demand. It is a matter of
pure conjecture that a high proportion of private transport will evaporate
away with the provision of a tramway since it doesn't supply a service for the
travel objectives of many private motorists; a switch to PT would for many
mean a bus / tram / bus journey. At interchange points the distance between
stops will be considerable as there is no integration between the two modes
of public transport.

Electrically powered transport is certainly environmentally friendly where it
matters, at street level, and pollution output from power generation sources
has certainly been cleaned up considerably over the last decade or so. Until
now in the UK, what has separated the image of tram travel over that of a bus
is the provision of quality, information rich and secure areas for intended
passengers to wait. Then there is the ease of boarding and a swift journey
because of exclusive use of road space or a private right of way. There is
absolutely no reason way buses can use these concepts to give the "right"
image and certainly a trolleybus route can be built to these standards for a
fraction of the cost of a tramway.

Jo Public doesn't really care if the public transport vehicle has steel wheels
or rubber tyres, just as long as it provides him with a travel experience
which approximates to the use of a car or improves upon that mode of travel
with either/or/and faster journey times at a perceived fair price.

While there are many factors affecting choice of mode by passengers, no
evidence has ever been produced that steel wheels on rails intrinsically
attract normal members of the public as passengers whereas there is
considerable evidence across the world (such as in Arnhem, Lyon and
Salzburg) that the quietness and environmental credentials of electric
traction do attract greater patronage.

Electric traction does of course also line up with government aspirations
in terms of both air quality and carbon dioxide emissions. High quality
trolleyways could therefore represent an even greater step forward in quality
and patronage than diesel buses.

This is my response to your statement that trams have been shown to solve
transport problems in ways that buses can't. Perhaps you may now care to
elaborate on this generalised statement?


David Bradley

In article , David Bradley
wrote:
David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been
shown to solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is
because of their layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is
a bus is a bus, no matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road
corridor as being totally unsuitable for a tramway.

And it will regard any other road as "unsuitable" if someone proposes to
build a tramway there.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:08:27 +0000 (GMT), David H Wild
wrote:

In article , David Bradley
wrote:
David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been
shown to solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is
because of their layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is
a bus is a bus, no matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road
corridor as being totally unsuitable for a tramway.

And it will regard any other road as "unsuitable" if someone proposes to
build a tramway there.

Everything has to be judged on its merits, but to get the very best out of a
tramway scheme, as much as possible of the network requires to be segregated
from other traffic. It is for this reason that that Croydon Tramlink works
well whereas the Manchester Eccles extension is very problematical and has
failed to deliver value for money.

David Bradley

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:43:42 -0700, Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote:
Evidently, in the event of a problem
(road blockage, OHL or power failure) they would be capable of
continuing in service on the other power source.

As do some in the US - Seattle among other cities use them. Interestingly
enough, it appears that they are being phased out though. Note the last
paragraph:


Metro plans to rebuild them as
electric-only articulated trolley buses and bring them into service in 2004-2005
on high-ridership routes 7, 43, and 44.

http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archiv...4-trolley.html

I bet they have traction batteries though - the weight of the diesel
engine and the fuel tank would hold quite a lot of battery power.


The new Roma (Italy) Route 90 trolley buses actually run the into the
city centre on battery - the wires stop at the old city wall. They stop,
drop their poles and drive in on battery.

The lights dim slightly, the air-conditioning stops, and the bus can't
accelerate as hard when the poles are dropped, but they are quite capable
of moving with the traffic at that point.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:48:02 +0000, David Bradley wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
Jo Public doesn't really care if the public transport vehicle has steel wheels
or rubber tyres, just as long as it provides him with a travel experience
which approximates to the use of a car or improves upon that mode of travel
with either/or/and faster journey times at a perceived fair price.

I disagree. I've met too many people who simply will not travel on a
bus, full stop. Even if that bus were to have comfort levels
equivalent to a top-end limo, they wouldn't travel on it - because
it's a bus.

Trains, for some reason, don't suffer from that attitude, even when
the ambience of the train is worse than any bus operated in the area.
It's as if trains still have some perceived exclusivity whereas buses
are seen as being common as muck.

Trams, IMLX, seem to have some of the exclusivity of trains with
accessibility (and penetration) more like that of buses. Trolleybuses
I don't know about because there aren't any in regular service in the
UK, but I suspect that they'd been grouped closer to buses and seen as
almost as downmarket.


Of course, I'm looking at it from a provincial point of view, and I do
accept that buses are more socially acceptable in the London area than
in the provinces - but I suspect that even in London there are people
who simply will not travel by bus at all (but who _might_ give up
their cars for trams).
--
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life), Diplom-Skeptiker (DB)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:36:28 +0000, Ross
wrote:

I've met too many people who simply will not travel on a
bus, full stop. Even if that bus were to have comfort levels
equivalent to a top-end limo, they wouldn't travel on it - because
it's a bus.

Trains, for some reason, don't suffer from that attitude, even when
the ambience of the train is worse than any bus operated in the area.
It's as if trains still have some perceived exclusivity whereas buses
are seen as being common as muck.

Trams, IMLX, seem to have some of the exclusivity of trains with
accessibility (and penetration) more like that of buses. Trolleybuses
I don't know about because there aren't any in regular service in the
UK, but I suspect that they'd been grouped closer to buses and seen as
almost as downmarket.

This is true. I have friends who simply 'don't do buses' while being
perfectly happy to travel on other forms of public transport.

I suspect the new tram-style bus in Edinburgh is intended to overcome
this attitude:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2251042005

This looks like an attempt to introduce a bus service that has all the
perceived 'quality' of a tram...while, essentially, simply being a
bendy bus with covers over the wheels.

Has this bus actually entered service yet? Does anyone know how it's
doing?


--
Michael Johnson