In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:09:00 +0100, Ken wrote:

In article , Paul Corfield
writes
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:58:59 +0100, Ken wrote:

In article , Arthur
Figgis writes
On 19/08/2011 17:51, Ken wrote:
In article
,
Tristán White writes
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/new...dler-wins-lond
on-tramlink-tram-order/archiv/2011/08.html

Swiss company Stadler's won the £16.3m contract, towards which Croydon
Council contributes £3m.

So they're using them where they are least needed then.

Surely they wouldn't be much good anywhere else in London?


What I meant was that they are putting the extra trams where they
already have a frequent service, rather than using them where there is
no service, or the service is infrequent.

I am confused by your statement. Surely the plan is to put the trams
on the section where there is the greatest demand in order to provide
relief from overcrowding? I thought it was understood that the
Wimbledon line suffers some of the worst overcrowding so it makes
sense to add service there even if only on part of the route. The
single track sections are a bigger and more costly problem to solve.

What part of Tramlink has no service that, in your view, should have a
service? I am not aware that any part of the Tramlink network has an
infrequent service. Frequencies have been bolstered twice since TfL
took direct control of the service and the service has never really
been that infrequent - especially if you look at some of the rail
services on branches in and around South London. A number of them are
no better than every 30 minutes off peak although overlap sections do
better.

Before the tramlink was introduced there was a bus 726 between Bromley
and Croydon, the first bus on Sunday Morning leaving Bromley at 6.00. If
you have a look at the Tramlink timetable you will find the first tram
doesn't leave from Beckenham Junction until 07:20.

The laugh is that when they withdrew the bus service, instead of
providing any useful information, they put notices in the timetable
windows along the route saying "Your services are improving"

Transport services are planned by people in suits who drive cars, but
want to use the train service (or something that goes on rails) for
their commute to work, but use cars for weekend leisure activities. They
can't relate to anyone using public transport at weekends and take them
to be destitutes or losers with no money but infinite amounts of time,
and who deserve to be punished and humiliated.

Now instead of making unsubstantiated rants perhaps you can answer the
questions I posed? Referring to a bus route that is long dead is of
no relevance to Tramlink where you said there were places where there
was no service on the Tramlink network.

Ranting about weekend service levels and the alleged motivations of
transport planners is not helpful. Please explain the allegations you
made about Tramlink rather than just going on a whinge about public
transport. If you live in London you are far, far better off than
many places where they're lucky to a single bus on a Sunday never mind
one at 0600!

00:20 - 07:20

The tram link was used as an excuse for cutting out 726 (and 54 but I
didn't personally use that) and in my view is very relevant.

That enabled them to kill a bus service whilst claiming "Your services
are improving".

You comments about other places are not germane to the issue.

My original point was that if they were getting some extra trams it
would be useful to extend the service. I'd be willing to put up with a
bit of overcrowding in the middle of the day.
--
Ken