"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

"tim" wrote in message
...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Just seen this story online:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N5BE22DA5

When did this project surface and why haven't we heard anything
about it
before?

Because you haven't been reading in the right place.

These ideas for 'south to central london' trams have been around for a
few
(6 or more) months, though this particular route to the city looks
new. I
guess that something Ken has done is encouraging them.

Well Cross River Transit from Peckham and Brixton to Camden and King's
Cross
I knew about since it's been around for ages and is well advanced. South
*west* London to the centre is all new to me.

A tram good idea?

IMHO it's a stupid idea. If the routes are overground then they will
get stuck in the traffic just like the buses and if they are
underground
the'll be prohibitively expensive. If a dedicated route is the
solution
then why not just build one for buses, it will be cheaper and much
more flexible

Tim

See the Croydon tram. Dedicate the route to *trams* not buses and you
have a
high capacity, less polluting, more attractive route.

90% of this is on segregated, previously under-utilised, railway
alignments.
I don't see how it can be comparable?

True... but isn't the principle of segregation the same whether its on old
railway alignments or not? Segregate an on-road tram and its route still
doesn't have any cars in it. The disadvantage on road is that there are more
crossings and access problems; the advantage is that you can use the
segregated portion for other public transport too, i.e. buses.

We already have bus lanes so by a "dedicated route" I assume you mean
something more than just a lane on the road. If you have a dedicated,
generally traffic-free route for buses, and the buses are full up, it's an
obvious next step to introduce trams since they are more attractive and
higher capacity - you cater for the overcrowding as well as allowing for
further growth, and even creating it since people are more likely to make a
journey by tram than bus.

Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

"tim" wrote in message
...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Just seen this story online:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N5BE22DA5



See the Croydon tram. Dedicate the route to *trams* not buses and you
have a
high capacity, less polluting, more attractive route.

90% of this is on segregated, previously under-utilised, railway
alignments.
I don't see how it can be comparable?

True... but isn't the principle of segregation the same whether its on old
railway alignments or not? Segregate an on-road tram and its route still
doesn't have any cars in it. The disadvantage on road is that there are more
crossings and access problems; the advantage is that you can use the
segregated portion for other public transport too, i.e. buses.

We already have bus lanes so by a "dedicated route"

But where in the Central London area (anywhere up to about 7 miles out)
are you going to find space for a dedicated link? A bus lane doesn't have
to be continuous but a tram line does.

I assume you mean
something more than just a lane on the road. If you have a dedicated,
generally traffic-free route for buses,

but we don't in many areas.

and the buses are full up, it's an
obvious next step to introduce trams since they are more attractive and
higher capacity - you cater for the overcrowding as well as allowing for
further growth, and even creating it since people are more likely to make a
journey by tram than bus.

IMHO you just spend a lot of money to replace an inadequate system
with a more desirable but still inadequate system

Tim



Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

tim wrote:
IMHO you just spend a lot of money to replace an inadequate
system
with a more desirable but still inadequate system

What in your view would be an adequate system in this context?

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ...
tim wrote:
IMHO you just spend a lot of money to replace an inadequate
system
with a more desirable but still inadequate system

What in your view would be an adequate system in this context?

I've no particular idea for this route as I don't know what it's
problems are. What about doubling the frequency of the
buses, much cheaper than building a tram line

But London needs a 21st century transport system. The lines
that were planned more than 30 years ago (crossrail 12 &2 and
Chelsea/hackney ) should have been built by now and then
there would possibly be enough slack in the central area to add
short links from the suburbs.

But of course that hasn't happened so we can't do it.

So someone suggest that we should spend lots of money building
tram lines on already congested streets with what result?

Tim

"tim" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
tim wrote:
IMHO you just spend a lot of money to replace an inadequate
system
with a more desirable but still inadequate system

What in your view would be an adequate system in this context?

I've no particular idea for this route as I don't know what it's
problems are. What about doubling the frequency of the
buses, much cheaper than building a tram line

But London needs a 21st century transport system. The lines
that were planned more than 30 years ago (crossrail 12 &2 and
Chelsea/hackney ) should have been built by now and then
there would possibly be enough slack in the central area to add
short links from the suburbs.

But of course that hasn't happened so we can't do it.

So someone suggest that we should spend lots of money building
tram lines on already congested streets with what result?

As has been indicated in this newsgroup people in general will travel on a
rail vehicle where they won't travel on a bus. So the intention is to
persuade people to transfer from car to tram and reduce congestion. I'm told
it works in continental Europe, if we could have similar strategic planning
and management there's no reason it can't work here.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"tim" wrote in message
...

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
tim wrote:
IMHO you just spend a lot of money to replace an inadequate
system
with a more desirable but still inadequate system

What in your view would be an adequate system in this context?

I've no particular idea for this route as I don't know what it's
problems are. What about doubling the frequency of the
buses, much cheaper than building a tram line

But London needs a 21st century transport system. The lines
that were planned more than 30 years ago (crossrail 12 &2 and
Chelsea/hackney ) should have been built by now and then
there would possibly be enough slack in the central area to add
short links from the suburbs.

But of course that hasn't happened so we can't do it.

So someone suggest that we should spend lots of money building
tram lines on already congested streets with what result?

As has been indicated in this newsgroup people in general will travel on a
rail vehicle where they won't travel on a bus. So the intention is to
persuade people to transfer from car to tram and reduce congestion. I'm
told
it works in continental Europe, if we could have similar strategic
planning
and management there's no reason it can't work here.

I wonder how electric trolley buses would fare compared to internal
combustion in public perception? Better acceleration, cleaner, less noise
and vibration, obvious line of route (follow the wires to find next stop).
Unfortunately there are no such systems in UK public service for people to
form any opinions towards!

Speed and reliability and hence bus perception may also be down to less than
adequate priority measures - less extensive than implemented with new LRT
perhaps, and is implemented for all surface modes in the best Worldwide
examples.

Advantage for LRT is bigger vehicle per driver and ability to turn off the
street environment onto segregated alignments narrower than can be
negotiated by unguided buses. Also possibility of inter-operation on railway
lines as Karlsruhr.

http://www.lrta.org/facts46.html

Guided superbuses of the future might tackle the vehicle size issue, but
unless 'dual-mode' they could not venture on to standard rail tracks.

Mechanically guided bus marginally narrows minimum guideway width when
segregated (compared to unguided bus) but places awkward high curbstones,
impractical for many applications in pedestrian areas for instance, and
totally unsuitable for shared use with non-guided vehicles. A peculiar
variant is the single central rail-slot following technology by Bombardier
used in Nancy.

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

Electronically guided bus concepts have been developed, but none in public
service yet I believe.

--
Mark
http://www.maprail.com/

In message , tim
writes
I've no particular idea for this route as I don't know what it's problems are.
What about doubling the frequency of the buses, much cheaper than building
a tram line

As the biggest problem of travelling through London is congestion caused
by too many vehicles, I do not see how increasing the number of buses is
going to help anything?

On the other hand, a tram type of vehicle on a dedicated track will
greatly speed up travel time. See DLR, Manchester or Croydon for proven
examples.

Bob (Daily user and fan of the DLR)

--
Bob Adams.
email to: