Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram, ostensibly because of the large strategic construction compound which
would occupy a big chunk of Shepherd's Bush Green, and about which TfL didn't
inform them before going public to the media.

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website
[http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiati...ion2005.shtml] detailing
the construction compounds and substations and, even more importantly, the
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished. In some cases
the land used to provide sites for construction compounds and will ultimately
be used for permanent substations.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

David Bradley

Of course if it had been a new road scheme then they'd
probably be rubbing their hands with glee as all the Fulham
tractors would be able to get that little bit quicker to harrods.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities,

Trolleybuses have an image problem. The public would
probably just see them as another bus.
When Ken was running his fuel cell buses the other year I
didn't notice them packed to the rafters with happy eco
commuters. Trams though tend to get much more ridership
than a buses ever would - witness whats happened elsewhere
around the country particularly Nottingham. Would a trolleybus do the
same? Maybe for a short time for the
novelty value , but long term I doubt it. At the end of
the day they're just another uncomfortable , small capacity
(compared to a tram) bus albeit an electric one.

B2003

Glad, Boltar, that you recognise just how in the pocket of business and
yuppies Hammersmith and Fulham (Labour) Council is! They certainly
don't give a fig about those of us who are neither big business nor
yuppies (I'm aged 40 and have lived in Fulham my entire life).

Marc.

On 29 Oct 2005 10:17:18 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:

Of course if it had been a new road scheme then they'd
probably be rubbing their hands with glee as all the Fulham
tractors would be able to get that little bit quicker to harrods.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities,

Trolleybuses have an image problem. The public would
probably just see them as another bus.
When Ken was running his fuel cell buses the other year I
didn't notice them packed to the rafters with happy eco
commuters. Trams though tend to get much more ridership
than a buses ever would - witness whats happened elsewhere
around the country particularly Nottingham. Would a trolleybus do the
same? Maybe for a short time for the
novelty value , but long term I doubt it. At the end of
the day they're just another uncomfortable , small capacity
(compared to a tram) bus albeit an electric one.

B2003

A number of issues to pick up on this thread that require a response so I'll
deal with these one at a time over the next few days. First of all this so
called image problem of trolleybuses. Just because we do not have any
trolleybuses in the UK, yet, it is a misconception that there is no "good
feel" factor aboyt this type of vehicle.

In Arnhem [olland] he transport operators have seen ridership increases in the
order of 17% on routes converted from diesels on a "like-for-like" basis. When
their 5 year "Trolley 2000" is completed the strategy is expected to see
passenger levels 21% higher than it would have been under the best type of
diesel buses. In Salzburg, Austria ridership increases have been 16% and the
city has recently started a similar trolleybus expansion which will include
several brand new trolleybus routes (one of which will be an express service
with the overhead wiring configured for overtaking) and converting several
more diesel routes to electric operation. These plans will mean that within
two years Salzburg will have achieved an almost total elimination of fossil
fuel powered buses from its streets.

Increases in ridership have also been noted in the USA, for instance Seattle
and San Francisco where experiences have been even more significant because
not only has it been found that electric buses will attract more passengers
than the diesels but also that replacing electric buses with diesels (even
temporarily) can lead to passengers pro-actively choosing to avoid the buses!

But then we are falling into the trap of only considering the vehicle as if
the trolleybus was nothing more than a bus requiring an external electricity
supply. A tramway, rather than a tram, is considered as a whole project with
high quality stops, traffic priorities, segregated lanes (where practicable)
etc. and therefore the term "trolleyway" should be used to indicate that the
same features are also provided, thus giving a step change in transit
provision and the "wow" factor that you seem to crave. Trackwork and
underground services diversions cost an absolute fortune for a tramway
schemes, an expense not necessary for trolleybuses.

25m long tri-axle trolleybuses run in Europe and can carry around 200
passengers, the use of such vehicles is currently not permitted in the UK but
there is no reason to believe that an application to run such vehicles here
would be refused. Capacity can be provided to meet demand through the use of
trolleybuses and they have better comfort levels than a any tram. Furthmore,
street running trams that don't have an exclusive use of the roadway will be
prone to more delays than the equivalent trolleybus.

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway in the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting nowhere
fast.

David Bradley

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

MAJOR SNIP

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway in
the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting
nowhere
fast.
David Bradley

The system in use in Nancy is a combination of tram and trolleybus. They
look like trams, with two or three articulated units, but are guided by a
slot in the road (could be a painted-on stripe ?) and can, if necessary, be
steered by the driver. They have two trolley poles, run on pneumatic tyres
and are capable of climbing steep inclines.
In my view the best possible combination of features.
Cheerz,
Baz

Marratxi wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

MAJOR SNIP

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway in
the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting
nowhere
fast.
David Bradley

The system in use in Nancy is a combination of tram and trolleybus. They
look like trams, with two or three articulated units, but are guided by a
slot in the road (could be a painted-on stripe ?) and can, if necessary, be
steered by the driver. They have two trolley poles, run on pneumatic tyres
and are capable of climbing steep inclines.
In my view the best possible combination of features.
Cheerz,
Baz

Not everyone agrees that it is "the best possible combination of
features". I don't have any particular opinion on the matter, but
these people seem pretty anti:

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

Regards,

Sid

wrote in message
oups.com...

Marratxi wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
...

MAJOR SNIP

Open your eyes and see the possabilities that trolleybuses provide at
a
fraction of the cost of a tramway scheme. In europe they have, and
are
reaping the benefits NOW. With no new tramway construction underway
in
the
UK, and unlikely to be for may years to come, if at all, there is only
one
thing to look forward to, just more pollution with everyone getting
nowhere
fast.
David Bradley

The system in use in Nancy is a combination of tram and trolleybus. They
look like trams, with two or three articulated units, but are guided by
a
slot in the road (could be a painted-on stripe ?) and can, if necessary,
be
steered by the driver. They have two trolley poles, run on pneumatic
tyres
and are capable of climbing steep inclines.
In my view the best possible combination of features.
Cheerz,
Baz

Not everyone agrees that it is "the best possible combination of
features". I don't have any particular opinion on the matter, but
these people seem pretty anti:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_ncy001.htm
Regards,
Sid

Possibly somewhat slanted article from Light Rail Now (hint) and dated back
in 2001. When I saw them last year they appeared to be running well and if,
as somebody previously suggested, they could be made to follow a painted
stripe on the road rather than a slot in the road that would reduce costs
considerably.
Cheerz,
Baz

David Bradley wrote:

Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram,...

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website ...
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished.

If the tram doesn't go ahead, some of this demolition may happen
anyway, to increase capacity for cars and buses. The basic premise
behind the tram is to increase the capacity of the Uxbridge Road to
move people, in exchange for a reduction in its capacity to move cars.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

The reasons for choosing tram over trolleybus were never, in my view,
very good. They were mainly: trams are better at attracting people out
of cars, and will make it politically easier to achieve the necessary
demolitions and reductions in capacity for other motor vehicles.

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?
Asking people to predict what they'd do is not very accurate,
especially if you don't explain very carefully what a tolleybus is.

Cyclists may like to know that at present they can get from one end to
the other faster than the tram is projected to be able to. There is a
real danger that changes to get the tram in will delay cyclists enough
to make them slower than the tram.

Colin McKenzie

The whole West London Tram scheme is dead in the water, so much
opposition exists to the scheme in West London that I cannot personally
see it happenning in the forseeable future. I suspect the scheme will
be dropped on cost grounds as the benefits behind the whole scheme are
pretty limited and cost have been escalating.


Colin McKenzie wrote:
David Bradley wrote:

Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram,...

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website ...
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished.

If the tram doesn't go ahead, some of this demolition may happen
anyway, to increase capacity for cars and buses. The basic premise
behind the tram is to increase the capacity of the Uxbridge Road to
move people, in exchange for a reduction in its capacity to move cars.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

The reasons for choosing tram over trolleybus were never, in my view,
very good. They were mainly: trams are better at attracting people out
of cars, and will make it politically easier to achieve the necessary
demolitions and reductions in capacity for other motor vehicles.

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?
Asking people to predict what they'd do is not very accurate,
especially if you don't explain very carefully what a tolleybus is.

Cyclists may like to know that at present they can get from one end to
the other faster than the tram is projected to be able to. There is a
real danger that changes to get the tram in will delay cyclists enough
to make them slower than the tram.

Colin McKenzie

In article . com,
MartyJ writes
The whole West London Tram scheme is dead in the water, so much
opposition exists to the scheme in West London that I cannot personally
see it happenning in the forseeable future. I suspect the scheme will be
dropped on cost grounds as the benefits behind the whole scheme are
pretty limited and cost have been escalating.

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Incidentally, what is the latest cost estimate? The last figure I saw
was £648 m, but that was probably a year ago. I imagine it must be
nearing £1 bn, which means that if it were ever built it would probably
cost not far short of £3bn - of your and my money.
--
Thoss