Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

'The Mayor of London told the Association of London Government this week
that the Tramlink extension will "definitely go ahead".'

See
http://iccroydon.icnetwork.co.uk/new...name_page.html

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:53:02 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:


'The Mayor of London told the Association of London Government this week
that the Tramlink extension will "definitely go ahead".'

See
http://iccroydon.icnetwork.co.uk/new...name_page.html

Worth a read just to get a feel of newspaper hype.

What tube services are at Crystal Palace anyway? I suppose reference
is being made to the East London Project which will bring Underground
trains to Crystal Palace [LL] sometime in the summer of 2010.
[http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/faq/l...map_large.jpg].

The routing of this Tramlink extension is all off-street and
displaces/replaces some heavy route services in its provision, but the
logical destination of Crystal Palace Parade up the steeply graded
peak of Anerley Hill is a severe challenge to which no workable
solutions have ever been produced. There is also the sticky point of
purchasing more trams and slotting the new route into the existing
system; that might put the kybosh on the whole idea.

Still, this extension is very likely to come to fruition, using a
terminal location at some low level location at Crystal Palace. It
would probably be brought into revenue earning service long before
travellers can use the Centrale / Tamworth Road Stop.

For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric
traction, the best way would be by the 654.

David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

--- "David Bradley" wrote:


The routing of this Tramlink extension is all off-street and
displaces/replaces some heavy route services in its provision, but the
logical destination of Crystal Palace Parade up the steeply graded
peak of Anerley Hill is a severe challenge to which no workable
solutions have ever been produced. There is also the sticky point of
purchasing more trams and slotting the new route into the existing
system; that might put the kybosh on the whole idea.


I live near Crystal Palace, but I'm not happy about the extension. For a
start, we've already got good NR services to Croydon. (Well, evening and
Sunday services could be better, but the best way to fix that is by running
more trains in evenings and Sundays -- not by building a whole new tram
line!)

As for services to Beckenham Jn, well the existing trains are pretty much
empty, proving there's not much demand for it. However, the existing
Beckenham services do provide us with extra trains to central London, a
destination that's in great demand. What will happen to these London
services once Tramlink has taken over the Palace-Beckenham line completely?
Will they just be cut altogether, leaving people with a reduced train
service to London? There's something wrong with a plan to increase services
on routes that people don't use, and reduce them on lines which they do!

And, as David pointed out, there's the question of how trams are going to
get to Crystal Palace. Presumably, they'll be taking over all the existing
line from Beckenham at least as far as the 'Bromley junction' where it joins
the NR line from Croydon and Norwood Jn. And then what..? Single track on
both tram and train into Cyrstal Palace? That's going to reduce the number
of paths for NR trains on the line.

"But, Solar," I hear you cry, "it doesn't matter if the number of trains
from Crystal Palace to Croydon are reduced. You'll have the trams instead.

Well, yes. But that's not going to be much consolation to passengers from
Gipsy Hill and West Norwood, who could find ourselves with a reduced Croydon
service while those lucky people living just the other side of the hill
benefit from the improved service offred by the trams. And don't forget,
fewer London-Palace-Croydon trains means fewer trains connecting Palace to
London --the service with the greatest demand!

If new serivces could be created without damaging existing ones, I'd be all
for it. But this is just meddling for its own sake, and I can't see how
it's a good idea.


For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric
traction, the best way would be by the 654.


Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something?

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:28:53 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:

"David Bradley" wrote:
For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric
traction, the best way would be by the 654.


Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something?

it was a Trolleybus - now bus 154.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...

I live near Crystal Palace, but I'm not happy about the extension. For a
start, we've already got good NR services to Croydon. (Well, evening and
Sunday services could be better, but the best way to fix that is by
running
more trains in evenings and Sundays -- not by building a whole new tram
line!)

As for services to Beckenham Jn, well the existing trains are pretty much
empty, proving there's not much demand for it. However, the existing
Beckenham services do provide us with extra trains to central London, a
destination that's in great demand. What will happen to these London
services once Tramlink has taken over the Palace-Beckenham line
completely?
Will they just be cut altogether, leaving people with a reduced train
service to London? There's something wrong with a plan to increase
services
on routes that people don't use, and reduce them on lines which they do!

ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal Palace extension was
that it allows the Beckhenham Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain,
while trains to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more useful -
Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London should remain the same, but
the frequency to Croydon would increase.

Jonn

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

--- "Jonn Elledge" wrote:


ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal Palace extension
was that it allows the Beckhenham Junction-Crystal Palace service to
remain, while trains to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere
more useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London should
remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon would increase.


Well, as long as that happens, it'll be alright. Any evidence that the rail
companies will stick to their side of the agreement..?

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

--- "Paul Corfield" wrote:

wrote:

"David Bradley" wrote:
For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon
by eletric traction, the best way would be by the 654.


Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something?

it was a Trolleybus - now bus 154.


Ok, thanks. ITYM bus 157.

Perhaps that's what the trams should do. Drop down to street level at
Croydon Road and follow that route to Crystal Palace. (Maybe even taking a
short cut through the park to avoid road congestion at the Robin Hood.)

The big advantage of this route is that it provides an interchange at
Anerley station. The big disadvantage is lots of on-street running -- and
also, lots of on-street disruption while it's being built.

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...

ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal
Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham
Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains
to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more
useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London
should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon
would increase.

The main point is that the Tramlink Beckenham single track section is a PITA
and Tramlink wants to take over the other track. Running trams between
Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do in order to get their
hands on the track. If the existing trains were that empty, the service
would just be closed, and Tramlink would get the second track they want more
cheaply. But if they are fairly empty (which matches my limited experience
of that branch), converting it to a tram should give cheaper running costs
than leaving it as is.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

In article
"Solar Penguin" writes:

snip

For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric
traction, the best way would be by the 654.


Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something?

If the original LT route-numbering scheme is involved then it's probably
a trolley-bus.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

In article , David Bradley wrote:

For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric
traction, the best way would be by the 654.

Ensuring that only vehicles fitted with run-back brakes are rostered.

--

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:28:53 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:

For those wishing to get to Crystal Palace from Croydon by eletric
traction, the best way would be by the 654.


Eh? Is that a new battery-powered bus route or something?


654 is the old Trolley Bus route that ran from Crystal Palace, through
South Norwood and Croydon and on to Sutton. It became the 154 bus
route, which has now been cut back to run from West Croydon rather
then Crystal Palace.

Much more gen at http://www.trolleybus.net/654.htm


PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:56:22 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jonn Elledge" wrote in message
...

ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal
Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham
Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains
to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more
useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London
should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon
would increase.

The main point is that the Tramlink Beckenham single track section is a PITA
and Tramlink wants to take over the other track.

Why can't they share the track in the same way Nexus and * do at
Sunderland?

Running trams between
Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do in order to get their
hands on the track. If the existing trains were that empty, the service
would just be closed,

They may be empty between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction, but
they are not Empty north of Crystal Palace, they are an integral part
of the service pattern. I doubt there is scope to divert them to
terminate at West Croydon or East Croydon, and running further out
would require more stock (and more importantly paths on the lines
adjacent to Selhurst depot).




* insert correct name of operator at this point.

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

PRAR wrote:
wrote:
"Jonn Elledge" wrote...

ICBWB I thought that one of the points of the Crystal
Palace extension was that it allows the Beckhenham
Junction-Crystal Palace service to remain, while trains
to Crystal Palace could be diverted to somewhere more
useful - Croydon, for example. So the frequency to London
should remain the same, but the frequency to Croydon
would increase.

The main point is that the Tramlink Beckenham single track section is a
PITA and Tramlink wants to take over the other track.

Why can't they share the track in the same way Nexus and * do at
Sunderland?

Because the track is third rail electrified. Getting safety rules
changed is difficult at the best of times, and in this case it's
certainly not worth the effort. Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving Annerley
station and Crystal Palace bus station) and increased frequency.

Running trams between Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do
in order to get their hands on the track. If the existing trains were
that empty, the service would just be closed,

They may be empty between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction, but
they are not Empty north of Crystal Palace, they are an integral part
of the service pattern. I doubt there is scope to divert them to
terminate at West Croydon or East Croydon, and running further out
would require more stock (and more importantly paths on the lines
adjacent to Selhurst depot).

Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:33:16 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Why can't they share the track in the same way Nexus and * do at
Sunderland?

Because the track is third rail electrified. Getting safety rules
changed is difficult at the best of times, and in this case it's
certainly not worth the effort. Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving Annerley
station and Crystal Palace bus station) and increased frequency.

I see no evidence to back up this claim. For a start the Trams aren't
going to go near the bus station, and Anerley station hardly has a
suitable service to interchange with.



Running trams between Beckenham and CP is something they just have to do
in order to get their hands on the track. If the existing trains were
that empty, the service would just be closed,

They may be empty between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction, but
they are not Empty north of Crystal Palace, they are an integral part
of the service pattern. I doubt there is scope to divert them to
terminate at West Croydon or East Croydon, and running further out
would require more stock (and more importantly paths on the lines
adjacent to Selhurst depot).

Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Because there still aren't the paths at Norwood Junction.

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

-- "PRAR" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:33:16 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving
Annerley station and Crystal Palace bus station)

I see no evidence to back up this claim. For a start the Trams
aren't going to go near the bus station, and Anerley station
hardly has a suitable service to interchange with.


Good point. Anerley's 2tph both go to Croydon anyway, so there's better
interchange available there. Besides, if the trams just follow the existing
railway line to Crystal Palace, then they won't even go anyhere near Anerley
station!


Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Because there still aren't the paths at Norwood Junction.

So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:20:25 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


-- "PRAR" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:33:16 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving
Annerley station and Crystal Palace bus station)

I see no evidence to back up this claim. For a start the Trams
aren't going to go near the bus station, and Anerley station
hardly has a suitable service to interchange with.


Good point. Anerley's 2tph both go to Croydon anyway, so there's better
interchange available there. Besides, if the trams just follow the existing
railway line to Crystal Palace, then they won't even go anyhere near Anerley
station!


Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Because there still aren't the paths at Norwood Junction.

So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify the
not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction plus the
cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very dubious benefit.

At the top of the thread it was stated the extension will go ahead -
sounds more like an election promise that won't be delivered within
Ken's new term of office, assuming he is elected.

David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

In message , David Bradley
writes
At the top of the thread it was stated the extension will go ahead -
sounds more like an election promise that won't be delivered within
Ken's new term of office, assuming he is elected.

Well, the election's not until 2008 so, if he stands for a third term,
that would take us to 2012. I'd hope it would be finished by then.
--
Michael Parry
Tony Blair MP Anagram I'm Tory plan B

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

--- "David Bradley" wrote:


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify
the not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction
plus the cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very
dubious benefit.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-tram... It *could* benefit Crystal Palace
if the extension to Bromley goes ahead as well. That would bring in a
useful new service, and improvement over the buses currently running between
CP and Bromley.

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:16:14 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "David Bradley" wrote:


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify
the not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction
plus the cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very
dubious benefit.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-tram... It *could* benefit Crystal Palace
if the extension to Bromley goes ahead as well. That would bring in a
useful new service, and improvement over the buses currently running between
CP and Bromley.


227, London's favourite bus route.

Crystal Palace & Croydon to Bromley would be a useful service, but I
can't see the PT hating denizens of Bromley ever accepting it.

Is there scope for entending the existing service from Beckenham
through to say Orpington? (I suspect paths between Beckenham &
Shortlands are quite sparse and also crossing on the level at
Beckenham will be quite inefficient for starters).

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

PRAR wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:16:14 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "David Bradley" wrote:


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify
the not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction
plus the cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very
dubious benefit.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-tram... It *could* benefit
Crystal Palace if the extension to Bromley goes ahead as well.
That would bring in a useful new service, and improvement over the
buses currently running between CP and Bromley.


227, London's favourite bus route.

Ah, my local bus route years ago, with single-decker LTs! (From
Chislehurst to the Crooked Billet, Penge, originally, none of this
Crystal Palace stuff.)

What makes it London's favourite bus route, or is it just *your*
favourite?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"PRAR" wrote in message
...

227, London's favourite bus route.

For many years my 'home' route, when it went through to Chislehurst. I can
even (just about) remember the RFs arriving on the route, and at the age of
6 a bus trip to Crystal Palace seemed quite exotic.
Peter

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:09:33 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

What makes it London's favourite bus route, or is it just *your*
favourite?

It apparantly polled the most votes, although this may have been in
the last century.

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

--- "PRAR" wrote:


227, London's favourite bus route.


And a very crowded bus route. Trams, with their higher passenger-carrying
capacity, would be an improvement.

Crystal Palace & Croydon to Bromley would be a useful service, but I
can't see the PT hating denizens of Bromley ever accepting it.

True. :-(

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "PRAR" wrote:


227, London's favourite bus route.


And a very crowded bus route. Trams, with their higher passenger-carrying
capacity, would be an improvement.

How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

If the passenger demand is there, then a more frequent bus service
would serve the the travelling public much better than the not
inconsiderable expense, and construction disruption, of a tramway to
provide the same result.

And if you want an eco friendly vehicle then use trolleybuses.

Crystal Palace & Croydon to Bromley would be a useful service, but I
can't see the PT hating denizens of Bromley ever accepting it.

True. :-(




David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

David Bradley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "PRAR" wrote:


227, London's favourite bus route.


And a very crowded bus route. Trams, with their higher
passenger-carrying capacity, would be an improvement.

How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


If the passenger demand is there, then a more frequent bus service
would serve the the travelling public much better than the not
inconsiderable expense, and construction disruption, of a tramway to
provide the same result.

You're overlooking one vital factor, people don't like buses. They are
perceived as a poor quality product.

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "PRAR" wrote:


227, London's favourite bus route.


And a very crowded bus route. Trams, with their higher
passenger-carrying capacity, would be an improvement.

How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


Your first statement is untrue, trams carry more passengers because
they are physically larger! One would expect a railed vehicle 35m
long to hold roughly twice as many passengers as an 18m-long
articulated single-deck bus, and this indeed turns out to be the case.
The capacity for the given space is not greater, only a saving in man
power.

Your second statement suggests vehicle lengths on the public highway
that would be totally unacceptable. Finding seggrated road space for
even part of the route of a tramway is very difficult, if not
impossible. Unless, of course, you make the former highway a no go
area for other modes of traffic.


If the passenger demand is there, then a more frequent bus service
would serve the travelling public much better than the not
inconsiderable expense, and construction disruption, of a tramway to
provide the same result.

You're overlooking one vital factor, people don't like buses. They are
perceived as a poor quality product.

Possibly so, but elsewhere in the EU, where modern trolleybus systems
have been created in the last few years [e.g. Athens] there has been a
significant model shift of passengers to rubber tyred trams which has
not been less than their steel vehicle cousins found elsewhere.

Here in the UK a visit to Sheffield shows that travellers prefer the
bus instead of the tram; explain that one away!

David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...

227, London's favourite bus route.

And a very crowded bus route.

Needs double-deckers, apart from the *small* matter of Shortlands railway
bridge.
Peter

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

In message , David Bradley
writes
Here in the UK a visit to Sheffield shows that travellers prefer the
bus instead of the tram; explain that one away!

Because in deregulated Sheffield, the bus fare are lower than the tram
fares?

Interestingly, Midland Metro fares are higher (sometimes significantly
higher) than those on the parallel bus service, run by TWM, like Travel
Midland Metro a subsidiary of national Express. And yet Midland Metro
is regularly crowded.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

--- "David Bradley" wrote:


You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either
vehicle and a tram with 300 people on board would be
just as crowded as a bus.

The buses currently running on that route have a maximuim capacity of 64
people. A lot less than the typical tram.

And as for squeezing 300 people into one...

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

Solar Penguin wrote:

-- "PRAR" wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:33:16 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Conversion of the line to tramway will
bring real benefits, giving much better interchange (serving
Annerley station and Crystal Palace bus station)

I see no evidence to back up this claim.
For a start the Trams aren't going to go near the bus station,

I was basing my claim on what I'd heard in the December 2002 London LRTA
meeting. Having since checked the Croydontramlink yahoogroup, I was
rather dismayed to find that they'd abandoned the part of the plan to
venture into Crystal Palace Park to reach the top of the hill. It seems
someone important wants Crystal Palace Park kept the way it is. Having
been there last year, I can't imagine why! There are far too many
fences, and a lot of the space seems to be wasted on car parking.

and Anerley station hardly has a suitable service to interchange with.

It can easily be improved.

Good point. Anerley's 2tph both go to Croydon anyway, so there's better
interchange available there.

Beckenham via Croydon would be quite a detour.

Besides, if the trams just follow the existing railway line to Crystal
Palace, then they won't even go anyhere near Anerley station!

They couldn't follow the existing railway line to Crystal Palace if they
wanted to, as it will still be used for trains to Croydon.

Unless service patterns have changed in the last year or so, some of the
trains split at Purley. Why not take over half of that service?

Because there still aren't the paths at Norwood Junction.

So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...

Are you sure there aren't the paths at Norwood Junction? What's limiting
their number?

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

PRAR wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:16:14 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote:


--- "David Bradley" wrote:


So the pro tram advocates ought to post a response here to justify
the not inconsiderable sum that will be spent in its construction
plus the cost of an extra tram or two for what seems a very
dubious benefit.

Just to show I'm not totally anti-tram... It *could* benefit Crystal Palace
if the extension to Bromley goes ahead as well. That would bring in a
useful new service, and improvement over the buses currently running between
CP and Bromley.


227, London's favourite bus route.

Crystal Palace & Croydon to Bromley would be a useful service, but I
can't see the PT hating denizens of Bromley ever accepting it.

I think that reputation's undeserved. Bromley's buses are well used and
Bromley South station seems quite busy.

Of course, if it does reach Bromley, further extensions could easily
follow. The Bromley North branch would benefit greatly from conversion,
and from Grove Park it would be possible to extend it to Woolwich via
Mottingham and Eltham without too much street running.

Is there scope for entending the existing service from Beckenham
through to say Orpington? (I suspect paths between Beckenham &
Shortlands are quite sparse and also crossing on the level at
Beckenham will be quite inefficient for starters).

I think you've answered your own question - there is scope, but it's
probably more trouble than it's worth.

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

In article
"David Bradley" writes:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
snip
How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


Your first statement is untrue, trams carry more passengers because
they are physically larger!
Therefore you _can_ "get more people on a tram than you can on a bus" as
it is not permitted (or practicable?) to build a bus to carry as many
people as the larger trams currently in operation.

snip
Your second statement suggests vehicle lengths on the public highway
that would be totally unacceptable.
From the Highway Code:-
"Take care where trams (which can be up to 60 metres [196ft] in length)
run along the road."
That sounds rather like official acceptance/anticipation of more than
two vehicles coupled together.
snip
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:58:18 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:


I think that reputation's undeserved. Bromley's buses are well used and
Bromley South station seems quite busy.


These people are peope who are coming in to Bromley from places such
as Orpington, St Mary Cray, Lewisham etc. They are not the people who
will be affected by any tram line building which takes place.

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:

You're overlooking one vital factor, people don't like buses. They are
perceived as a poor quality product.

Which is because, in the way they are operated in this country, they
generally *are* a poor-quality product. This applies to everything
from the vehicles themselves to ticketing, staff, routes,
co-ordination, information, connections and so on.

While living in Germany, where most of this is done much more
professionally, I did not see such a stigma.

It'll take a long time to reverse this, but I see TfL are doing a lot
more about it than anywhere else in the country.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:00:51 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:

Needs double-deckers, apart from the *small* matter of Shortlands railway
bridge.

Dare I suggest bendies?

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Tue, 28 Sep 04 19:09:27 GMT, (Charles
Ellson) wrote:

In article
"David Bradley" writes:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
snip
How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


Your first statement is untrue, trams carry more passengers because
they are physically larger!
Therefore you _can_ "get more people on a tram than you can on a bus" as
it is not permitted (or practicable?) to build a bus to carry as many
people as the larger trams currently in operation.

My, we are being pedantic with this aren't we? As it happens there
are some pretty huge DD buses around that can certainly pack the
punters in, but I would not advocate their use even if they were
permitted in the UK. But to get back to the point, you can certainly
get more people on a single tram, but each person takes up the same
amount of room irespective of the mode of travel, so size for size you
can't get more people on a tram. Your statement that "You can get
more people on a tram than you can a bus" is therefore false unless
the tram is larger than the bus.

snip
Your second statement suggests vehicle lengths on the public highway
that would be totally unacceptable.
From the Highway Code:-
"Take care where trams (which can be up to 60 metres [196ft] in length)
run along the road."
That sounds rather like official acceptance/anticipation of more than
two vehicles coupled together.

Nope, this is in the Highway Code to cover circumstances of a one tram
towing a disable vehicle to the depot. It is not permitted in the UK
to have trams in revenue earning service of almost 200ft in length.
snip

David Bradley

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

David Bradley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 04 19:09:27 GMT, (Charles
Ellson) wrote:


In article
"David Bradley" writes:


On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:40 +0000 (UTC), "Piccadilly Pilot"
wrote:


David Bradley wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:32:29 +0100, "Solar Penguin"

snip

How exactly? You can't get more people on a tram than you can a bus.
Each passenger requires a similar amount of space on either vehicle
and a tram with 300 people on board would be just as crowded as a bus.

Firstly the carrying capacity of most trams is greater than that of most
buses. Secondly it is possible to couple two (and possibly more) trams
together to increase the capacity and still only need one driver.


Your first statement is untrue, trams carry more passengers because
they are physically larger!

Therefore you _can_ "get more people on a tram than you can on a bus" as
it is not permitted (or practicable?) to build a bus to carry as many
people as the larger trams currently in operation.


My, we are being pedantic with this aren't we? As it happens there
are some pretty huge DD buses around that can certainly pack the
punters in, but I would not advocate their use even if they were
permitted in the UK. But to get back to the point, you can certainly
get more people on a single tram, but each person takes up the same
amount of room irespective of the mode of travel, so size for size you
can't get more people on a tram. Your statement that "You can get
more people on a tram than you can a bus" is therefore false unless
the tram is larger than the bus.

It's safe to say that a tram is larger than a bus given that we are
talking about Croydon trams vs London buses. All modern trams in the UK
are larger than the vast majority of buses anyway - so I wouldn't say he
was being pedantic at all.

snip

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:58:17 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:
So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...

Are you sure there aren't the paths at Norwood Junction? What's limiting
their number?

Mostly they are all already in use by Southern, Thameslink & South
Eastern, and more are about to be swallowed up by back extensions of
the Uckfield services to London Bridge.

There's also a few odd operational lowlights including: trains to West
Croydon can only use platform 5 or 6, there's a flat crossing on top
of Cottage Bridge which creates conflicts on the slow lines,
Thameslink trains via Crystal Palace to East Croydon (and points
south) are always crossed to the fast lines North of Norwood Junction.

You could bring platform 7 back into use and use that for terminating
trains at though.

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

PRAR wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, (Aidan Stanger) wrote:
So it does look like the tramlink will bring a worse train service to
Crystal Palace after all...

Are you sure there aren't the paths at Norwood Junction? What's limiting
their number?

Mostly they are all already in use by Southern, Thameslink & South
Eastern, and more are about to be swallowed up by back extensions of
the Uckfield services to London Bridge.

Wouldn't those use the fast lines?

There's also a few odd operational lowlights including: trains to West
Croydon can only use platform 5 or 6, there's a flat crossing on top
of Cottage Bridge which creates conflicts on the slow lines,

Where is Cottage Bridge? I thought the only flat crossings in that area
were the depot access ones.

Thameslink trains via Crystal Palace to East Croydon (and points
south) are always crossed to the fast lines North of Norwood Junction.

You could bring platform 7 back into use and use that for terminating
trains at though.

Apart from a signal upgrade, what would be required for a tube type
service on the Croydon lines?

Ken says yes to Crystal Palace tram extension
 

Neil Williams wrote:
Dare I suggest bendies?
Like this one?
http://www.vanhool.com/products_bus_...ID=1& Tabid=3
Total passengers: up to 180 + Driver (quoted from "technical file").

Torsten