'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

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

--- "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?

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!

"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

--- "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..?

--- "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.

"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

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 |//___\\|

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