On 22 Feb 2007 05:58:39 -0800, wrote:

The point about Uxbridge Road (made consistently on the www.tfwl site)
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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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...-Modelling.pdf

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

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.

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.

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 electric trolleybus trunk 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?

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.

Trams can also be battery powered.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...+by+battery%22

To avoid unsightly overhead wires a third rail system can also be used as
was the case in central London and Washington DC.
wrote in message
ups.com...
On 19 Feb, 12:45, "Boltar" wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:46 am, "sweek" wrote:

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.

If theres definately no option of a tram system being put in because
of cost then trolleybuses would have their place. Even if they don't
attract more passengers they wouldn't belch out any fumes into the
street which is always a good thing (even if the power station does -
but at least thats miles away).

B2003

In terms of pollution, the figures quoted on the website link are as
follows: -

CO2 Emissions Range (NYC Duty Cycle)
"Clean Diesel" 4,469 - 4,563 g/km
Hybrid Diesel-Elec 2,500 - 3,438
Trolley (UK grid) 1,744 - 2,189
Trolley(renewables) 0

So even with conventional electric power, trolleybuses emit less than
half the CO2 of conventional diesel buses and no particularates ( a
known cause of asthma)
Assuming the electricity was generated using renewables like Wind the
pollution levels approach 0.

The big advantage of the newer syle trolley bus over trams is their
ability to move round obstructions and the fact that they can be
independent of wires for several miles.
In Rome and Shanghai for example, they consciously chose this form of
operation in areas where overhead wires were excluded for
environmental/ conservation reasons.

While this requires a weight overhead in battery power, it makes them
flexible enough to compete with conventional diesel buses on certain
routes.

I am glad to hear the hybrid test is going well too.

Probably what will be needed will be a variety of systems such as
Tram, Trolley and Hybrid - aimed at reducing CO2 emissions.

P.S. The issue of hydrogen doesn't really belong in this thread, but
is debatable

On 20 Feb, 11:18, "Kev" wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:33 am, wrote:





On 20 Feb, 09:39, "Kev" wrote:

On Feb 20, 8:36 am, wrote:

Assuming the electricity was generated using renewables like Wind the
pollution levels approach 0.

Nothing is zero emmisions, it still has to be manufactured, scrapped
at the end of its life, the power has to be distributed and
maintained.

Kevin

This depends on how power is produced.
It's an issue beyond the scope of this newsgroup, but as a matter of
scientific principle, all of the things you mention can be done
without producing any CO2 whatsoever.

As a matter of scientific principle perhaps that is correct but as a
matter of scientific fact zero emmissions are unobtainable. For a
start there will never be 100 % zero emmission generation and we still
come back to the question of CO2 produced during manufacture, since we
don't do it anymore it is out of our control.

kevin- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


"Calgary's CTrain is 100 percent emissions-free, the only light rail
transit system in North America to be powered by wind-generated
electricity."

http://www.calgarytransit.com/ctrain...k_25years.html

No figures on manufacture, but a diesel vehicle needs manufacturing
too.....

In article ,
(Ken) wrote:

At least one Trolleybus had a diesel engine and it was based on a
Dennis Dominator and had a small engine in the back for NON
electrified roads. It was owned by SYPTE and was based at Doncaster
depot and it is now at Sandtoft Museum. I know about that one as I
was one of the few drivers to drive it on the test track at the
side of the race course.

But that was built long after 1972, though, surely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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)

Not as straight as people think.

and flat for 10 miles.

Rubbish. Part of it is even called "Shoot Up Hill".

An Edgware Road tram/trolley was considered by TfL (or whatever they were
called then) but ruled out, possibly because a lot of the road is quite
narrow.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 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)

Not as straight as people think.

and flat for 10 miles.

Rubbish. Part of it is even called "Shoot Up Hill".

An Edgware Road tram/trolley was considered by TfL (or whatever they were
called then) but ruled out, possibly because a lot of the road is quite
narrow.


And Uxbridge Road isn't?
--
Thoss

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)

Not as straight as people think.

and flat for 10 miles.

Rubbish. Part of it is even called "Shoot Up Hill".

An Edgware Road tram/trolley was considered by TfL (or whatever they were
called then) but ruled out, possibly because a lot of the road is quite
narrow.

Shoot Up Hill is a gross exaggeration, there are no woods in
Cricklewood, Swiss Cottage isn't in Switzerland and there's no a
circus in Picadilly

They probably ruled out an Edgware Rd Trolleybus because Tfl they were
too cash-strapped.

It's time Londoners regained control of their transport system and the
private bus companies were told to sling their hooks.

Reducing CO2 is the main advantage of an electric bus system, whether
a trolley or a tram.

BTW the clip below has had 250 hits sinced I posted it on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSxTniqh_EQ

P.S. What is a Crickle?

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)

Not as straight as people think.

Our survey says:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=728859

Yes it bloody is!

and flat for 10 miles.

Rubbish. Part of it is even called "Shoot Up Hill".

Because of the junkies.

An Edgware Road tram/trolley was considered by TfL (or whatever they
were called then) but ruled out, possibly because a lot of the road is
quite narrow.

Shoot Up Hill is a gross exaggeration,

gmap-pedometer.com says there's a ~110 metre rise between the junction
with Marylebone Road and the end of the straight bit it Stanmore, over a
distance of 14 km, but it also says it's distributed evenly over the
distance, so i think this reflects the poverty of the elevation data
rather than any aspect of London topography.

there are no woods in Cricklewood,

There are some wooded areas on the greenway that runs round the back of
the business park at Staples Corner.

Swiss Cottage isn't in Switzerland

It is, actually. It's an exclave. Long story.

and there's no a circus in Picadilly

Says you!

P.S. What is a Crickle?

Round thing of cheese.

tom

--
a blood-spattered Canadarm flinging goat carcasses into the void

On 25 Feb, 00:50, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 wrote:

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


Shoot Up Hill is a gross exaggeration,

gmap-pedometer.com says there's a ~110 metre rise between the junction
with Marylebone Road and the end of the straight bit it Stanmore, over a
distance of 14 km, but it also says it's distributed evenly over the
distance, so i think this reflects the poverty of the elevation data
rather than any aspect of London topography.

From your description, I think you are including the section of the A5
that goes up to the near the old Roman site known called 'Sulloniace',
near to the Orthopaedic Hospital.
The old Edgware Rd trolley buses never went beyond somewhere near the
T.A. centre, between Edgware and Burnt Oak, well before the hilly bit.
They went as far as Cricklewood Garage I thnk. The minor gradient
rise up to Kilburn Station would be of no consequence at all for a
modern electric trolleybus.
After that it's flat all the way to Marble Arch.

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)

Not as straight as people think.

Our survey says:

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=728859

Yes it bloody is!

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