On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 wrote:

On 24 Feb, 14:47, "John Rowland"
wrote:
wrote:

Someone ought to do a similar proposal to revive a trolleybus system
along the Edgware Road (from Edgware to Marble Arch) Dead straight
(because the Romans built it) and flat for 10 miles.

This is the gradient profile you get when you use the software properly!
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=729874

Aha! So it doesn't sample the elevation between waypoints? Understandable,
i suppose, but not a good feature.

tom

--
Programming is a skill best acquired by practice and example rather than
from books -- Alan Turing

Why are there no double decker Trolly buses? Is this just because most
cities do not have the need for such high capacity or is there a technical
issue? Having much higher wiring might make it visually less intrusive.
If as the tread has suggested, most trolleybus systems can support battery
power for short distances, why the need for such complex and possibly ugly
junction wiring if battery power could be used to get over a 100 or so yard
jucntion? Is it that no one has yet built a slick/automated method of
re-engaging the overhead wires?
Kevin


"sweek" wrote in message
ups.com...
How are they more attractive? Definitely not more attractive-looking,
and a tram has a higher capacity, unless they come up with a way of
letting double deckers under them. Trams also simply attract more
people since buses have a more negative and slower image.

On Feb 22, 8:48 pm, asdf wrote:
On 22 Feb 2007 05:58:39 -0800, wrote:

The point about Uxbridge Road (made consistently on thewww.tfwlsite)
is that no mode of transport along the road itself simply replacing
the 207/427/607 buses will cure the congestion. It is TfL who claim
that by changing mode this will magically happen!

I don't think anyone's claiming that congestion will be "cured". In
fact, IIRC, TfL predict that congestion will increase even with the
tram - it just won't increase by as much as it would without.

That is just semantics. The claim by TfL is that sime congestion that
would otherwise happen will not because the 207/427/607 bus routes
become a tram route.

The tram is
certainly not planned to be very fast (19 kph = 13 mph!).

No doubt still faster than car traffic on the same road.

No. The worst prediction for general traffic speeds in 2011 (by TfL
themselves in 2003) is 34 m.p.h. nearly double the planned speed of
the tram!

The plan would be for it to be slower than the 607

Really? The tram would have faster acceleration, better priority
measures, and faster loading/unloading. Even with extra stops, I can't
see how it could be slower than the 607.

'Route 607 covers the whole of the Uxbridge
Road in just over 60 minutes and stops 20 times.' - Report to TfL
Board 2004
The 'best guess' by TfL for the tram is 63 minutes with admittedly
more stops.
If you increase the 607 bus tming pro rata for the number of stops
envisaged in the tram scheme (but with no traffic improvemnets
whatsoever and therefroe at no cost) you would get a 69 minute overall
journey time, so £600 million + is buying you a few minutes on the
whole journey (which very few people avctually do). In practice for
the average trip actually made by the vast majority of passengers the
difference in time on the vehicle (bus or tram) would be negligible.



Strangely, however, I can't find any information online about speed or
end-to-end journey time. In the TfL documents it's almost conspicuous
by its absence (unless I've missed it).


It was there in the 2003/4 doucments. It is strange that it has
quietly disappeared isn't it?


and in fact no faster than a
bus (diesel or electric) would be with similar restricted stops (one
every 400 metres).

With a normal bus, you'd need 60 buses per hour to achieve the same
capacity as 20 trams per hour. At that frequency, priority at
junctions (i.e. lights change in favour of bus/tram as it approaches)
isn't possible, as routes crossing Uxbridge Road would never get a
green.

This is well covered on the TfWL site. If you really did need 40
metres of tram, you can just as easily get two by 18 metres of bus or
trolleybus across the same lights. The question is of course whether
you really need that capacity which has never been proved unless you
accept TfL saying it is so as proof.

The current peak flow along the Uxbridge Road (paper to TfL Board
2004) is 2000 per hour. 75% of people going along (i.e. from and to
the Uxbridge Road) use buses (MORI Poll 2005). A tram of 300 capacity
every three minutes is 6000 per hour. Reconcile those figures if you
can!

Of course at the western end (Hayes - Uxbridge) the flows are much
less (1100 passengers per hour even if all buses are full and standing
throughout). This can be achieved by a 300 capacity tram every 12
minutes with room to spare (1500 passengers per hour). What do you
think people will do if a 4 minute interval service is replaced by a
12 minute interval service? Of course you can run a tram every four
minutes which gives you a 4500 [assenger per hour capacity and means
the tram is running at maximum 24% load. Is this very efficient? In
fact TfL's last proposal was to run half the frequency (every six
minutes) at this end giving 3000 capacity and therefore running at
around 36% load at the height of the peak. You can do your own
calculations on off peak loadings!

A 140 capacity trolleybus operating a six minute frequency would give
1400 passengers per hour with around 79% load. Of course there are no
problems at any junctions with light phasing on a six minute headway
of diesel bus, trolleybus or tram.


Whether the new
junctions and layouts along the route will work has of course never
been proved by TfL who have never done any simulations,

What's all this then?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/download...lt/info-sheets...

"3. What models have been developed for WLT?
[...]
- A range of individual junction models for all signalised junctions
on the Uxbridge Road"

What is being referred to is 'mathematical modelling'. This takes
various figures for traffic flows and calculates variations due to
changes. This is a relatively quick and easy tool but it relies on
many approximations and assumptions and treats all junctions
individually. For a long section of road with many junctions and very
great changes in layout and road use, it is very unlikely to give an
accurate prediction of what is likley to happen along the road from
day to day in the future.

To get a more accurate estimate of what will actually happen, you need
to do much more complex (and more expensive and time consuming)
computer simulation of flows along the whole road and surrounding area
road network. The GLA asked for this to be done and so did London
Travel Watch. There has never been any indication from TfL that any
such simulation has ever been put in hand.

so the trams
could well not move faster than the buses but in fact much slower.
This of course is one of the reasons why the scheme is now opposed by
the councils of all the boroughs through which it is planned to pass.

If that's true, I see no reason why TfL should respect their
opposition.

I cannot comment upon the TfL corporate mind.

The problem with the Uxbridge Road is that large numbers of journeys
are not simply along it but use it for only part of the journey. These
represent the vast bulk of the current car journeys (all the evidence
is available publicly in the MORI poll question answers and even more
evidence is available to TfL if they chose to look).

I can't find anything in either of the MORI polls that suggests this.
What answer are you looking at?

What exact proportion is "vast bulk", anyway? One thing the MORI poll
does say is that 46% of those who travel by car along Uxbridge Road
would be likely to make use of the tram at least some of the time.

Mori Poll 2005: 75% of people going along the Uxbridge Road use the
bus (therefore only 25% all other modes) but 60% of people use their
cars at least partly along the Uxbridge Road so therefore most of
these journeys do not start or finish in the Uxbridge Road.

The 46% is against a proposition that the tram was going to be faster
and more reliable than buses and reduce congestion (all claims by TfL)
and of course a public desire to be seen to be public transport
friendly. If you asked heavy drinkers or smokers whether they intended
to cut down in the future, what do you think they would reply? Similar
ideas apply. In the 2006 Mori Poll only 32% thought that they would
personally benefit from the tram. Please read all the MORI poll
answers carefully to get the overall picture.

If you want to get people
out of cars you have to improve the whole network of services in the
West London area including buses off and across the Uxbridge Road.
With a much cheaper and more flexible electrictrolleybustrunk option
you have money left to do that.

How does that offer any advantage (apart from reducing local
emissions) over not bothering with trams or trolleybuses at all, and
just improving the conventional bus services in the area?

You have answered your own question. Improve the public transport over
the whole area and reduce car usage, operate as much as is cost
effective with electric trolleybuses and you can produce real
improvements in air quality and thus less asthma problems, less
hospital admissions and les premature deaths. More diesel buses along
restricted corridors equals more concentrations of Nitrogen Oxides and
more air quality related health problems

If you waste all your money on a slow
inflexible street running tram and worsen the bus routes (to make them
tram 'feeders' as proposed ) you are actually likely to encourage more
car usage not less.

Rubbish. Feeder buses for light rail systems work well elsewhere.

Generalisations are not helpful. Feeders (i.e. changing modes) work
when those making the change deem it advantageous to do so. So people
change from stopping buses (and even cars) to much faster moving heavy
rail and underground services. Where the car journey in the centre is
likely to be slow and/or parking is a problem people will use park and
ride systems and change to bus, tram or rail services. But people will
not change from a through mode to another mode involving a change if
there is little overall advantage in terms of speed or convenience
especially if the interchange itself is inconvenient and involves
walking and waiting in whatever weather apples at the time.

I do not believe that those currently making through bus journeys
would be happy to have to change to a bus feeder to tram option. I am
certain that some would decide to now go by car (if the option were
available to them). Likewise it is almost inconceivable that large
number of car users would desert their cars for a composite bus/tram
journey when they currently do not choose a composite bus or direct
bus journey.

On Feb 26, 12:03 am, "KOS"
wrote:
Why are there no double decker Trolly buses? Is this just because most
cities do not have the need for such high capacity or is there a technical
issue? Having much higher wiring might make it visually less intrusive.
If as the tread has suggested, mosttrolleybussystems can support battery
power for short distances, why the need for such complex and possibly ugly
junction wiring if battery power could be used to get over a 100 or so yard
jucntion? Is it that no one has yet built a slick/automated method of
re-engaging the overhead wires?
Kevin

"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...



How are they more attractive? Definitely not more attractive-looking,
and a tram has a higher capacity, unless they come up with a way of
letting double deckers under them. Trams also simply attract more
people since buses have a more negative and slower image.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 26, 12:03 am, "KOS"
wrote:
Why are there no double decker Trolly buses? Is this just because most
cities do not have the need for such high capacity or is there a technical
issue? Having much higher wiring might make it visually less intrusive.
If as the tread has suggested, mosttrolleybussystems can support battery
power for short distances, why the need for such complex and possibly ugly
junction wiring if battery power could be used to get over a 100 or so yard
jucntion? Is it that no one has yet built a slick/automated method of
re-engaging the overhead wires?
Kevin

"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...



How are they more attractive? Definitely not more attractive-looking,
and a tram has a higher capacity, unless they come up with a way of
letting double deckers under them. Trams also simply attract more
people since buses have a more negative and slower image.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Theer is no practical problem in having double deck trolleybuses. They
existed of course until 1972 in the UK. It is simply that those
locations that have continued to operate trolleybuses and the new
systems are in cities where double deck vehicles iof any type are not
generally used hence manufacturers have constructed single deck
vehicles for the market. If ther were a substantial demand for double
deck trolleybuses, I am sure that a manufacturer would probably come
forward.

Modern batteries can give substantial off wire capability (Rome claim
10km. maximum although prudence requires that such a distance is not
required in normal service).

Small diesel units can of course give much longer distances and mean
that runs to depots and the depots themselves need not be wired. This
gives a great advantage in flexibility and cost over trams which need
a special expensive depot very close to the system or else long
sections of infrastructure that do not actually earn any revenue.
(2 kilomteres of such proposed for WLT, which is only a 20 Km long
route!).

There are a number of automatic rewiring systems that do not require
manual manipulation of the booms. On a new system you could certainly
make a judgement on whether to have a complex overhead junction or
whether to dewire and rewire the other side at the next convenient
stop. In practice it is unlikley that any new schemes would have such
a complex route system as to require many overhead frogs so it is
perhaps a little academic.

On 26 Feb 2007 03:24:06 -0800, wrote:

The problem with the Uxbridge Road is that large numbers of journeys
are not simply along it but use it for only part of the journey. These
represent the vast bulk of the current car journeys (all the evidence
is available publicly in the MORI poll question answers and even more
evidence is available to TfL if they chose to look).

I can't find anything in either of the MORI polls that suggests this.
What answer are you looking at?

Mori Poll 2005: 75% of people going along the Uxbridge Road use the
bus (therefore only 25% all other modes) but 60% of people use their
cars at least partly along the Uxbridge Road so therefore most of
these journeys do not start or finish in the Uxbridge Road.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion from the data. All it tells
you is that around 35% of people sometimes use their cars and
sometimes use the bus (as opposed to always using one or the other).
There could be any number of reasons for car users sometimes taking
the bus (e.g. night out drinking, car being used by someone else,
non-car-owner who sometimes gets lifts but normally uses the bus,
etc). There's nothing to suggest that many of these people have a
policy of using the bus if their destination is on Uxbridge Road and
using the car otherwise.

If you want to get people
out of cars you have to improve the whole network of services in the
West London area including buses off and across the Uxbridge Road.
With a much cheaper and more flexible electrictrolleybustrunk option
you have money left to do that.

How does that offer any advantage (apart from reducing local
emissions) over not bothering with trams or trolleybuses at all, and
just improving the conventional bus services in the area?

You have answered your own question. Improve the public transport over
the whole area and reduce car usage, operate as much as is cost
effective with electric trolleybuses and you can produce real
improvements in air quality and thus less asthma problems, less
hospital admissions and les premature deaths. More diesel buses along
restricted corridors equals more concentrations of Nitrogen Oxides and
more air quality related health problems

In that case I'd guess that, if the costs and health benefits of
replacing conventional bendy-buses with trolleybuses were evaluated,
there would turn out to be much better ways to spend the money to
improve health.