West London Tram (and others)
 

In article ,
(Michael Johnson) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:36:28 +0000, Ross
wrote:

I've met too many people who simply will not travel on a
bus, full stop. Even if that bus were to have comfort levels
equivalent to a top-end limo, they wouldn't travel on it - because
it's a bus.

Trains, for some reason, don't suffer from that attitude, even when
the ambience of the train is worse than any bus operated in the area.
It's as if trains still have some perceived exclusivity whereas buses
are seen as being common as muck.

Trams, IMLX, seem to have some of the exclusivity of trains with
accessibility (and penetration) more like that of buses. Trolleybuses
I don't know about because there aren't any in regular service in the
UK, but I suspect that they'd been grouped closer to buses and seen
as almost as downmarket.

This is true. I have friends who simply 'don't do buses' while being
perfectly happy to travel on other forms of public transport.

I suspect the new tram-style bus in Edinburgh is intended to overcome
this attitude:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2251042005

This looks like an attempt to introduce a bus service that has all the
perceived 'quality' of a tram...while, essentially, simply being a
bendy bus with covers over the wheels.

Has this bus actually entered service yet? Does anyone know how it's
doing?

Given that Edinburgh already has a guided busway I'd like to know what
different sort of bus lane this is supposed to use.

The Government seems to have got the idea that these fancy buses will
given them cheaper trams. Excuse my scepticism.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:36:28 +0000, Ross wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:48:02 +0000, David Bradley wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
Jo Public doesn't really care if the public transport vehicle has steel wheels
or rubber tyres, just as long as it provides him with a travel experience
which approximates to the use of a car or improves upon that mode of travel
with either/or/and faster journey times at a perceived fair price.

I disagree. I've met too many people who simply will not travel on a
bus, full stop. Even if that bus were to have comfort levels
equivalent to a top-end limo, they wouldn't travel on it - because
it's a bus.

Trains, for some reason, don't suffer from that attitude, even when
the ambience of the train is worse than any bus operated in the area.
It's as if trains still have some perceived exclusivity whereas buses
are seen as being common as muck.

Trams, IMLX, seem to have some of the exclusivity of trains with
accessibility (and penetration) more like that of buses. Trolleybuses
I don't know about because there aren't any in regular service in the
UK, but I suspect that they'd been grouped closer to buses and seen as
almost as downmarket.


Of course, I'm looking at it from a provincial point of view, and I do
accept that buses are more socially acceptable in the London area than
in the provinces - but I suspect that even in London there are people
who simply will not travel by bus at all (but who _might_ give up
their cars for trams).

A more complete response would be nice but unfortunately the festive season is
getting in the way for that luxury. However for those that "don't do the
bus", I just wondered what they do at airports. Presumably "Park and Ride" is
out of the question, so it must be the nearest car park or "Meet and Greet" to
the departure/arrival louges. But what on earth happens when they are
presented with being bused to the aircraft? Trip abandoned?

David Bradley

West London Tram (and others)
 

Matthew Geier wrote:


I would be extremely surprised to find a modern ETB that didn't have
some capability to run independently of the wires.


B prepared to be extremely surprised, then - Wellington's new prototype
TBs (I don't think there's such a thing as a non-E TB) don't have that
capability.

Mike

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005, David Bradley wrote:

A more complete response would be nice but unfortunately the festive
season is getting in the way for that luxury. However for those that
"don't do the bus", I just wondered what they do at airports.
Presumably "Park and Ride" is out of the question, so it must be the
nearest car park or "Meet and Greet" to the departure/arrival louges.
But what on earth happens when they are presented with being bused to
the aircraft? Trip abandoned?

That doesn't count.

Yes, theres not "logic" in it, but thats probably the way people think. I
wonder if that bus is regarded as a big taxi, at least for the one that
meets you from the plane.

It's also full of other people "like them", who are going to or come
from the flight. That might make a difference. Or maybe there is no other
option, so they have to take it.

Like I said, theres no logic behind the thinking, but thats how it goes.
--
Chris Johns

West London Tram (and others)
 

Michael Johnson wrote:


I suspect the new tram-style bus in Edinburgh is intended to overcome
this attitude:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2251042005

This looks like an attempt to introduce a bus service that has all the
perceived 'quality' of a tram...while, essentially, simply being a
bendy bus with covers over the wheels.

Has this bus actually entered service yet? Does anyone know how it's
doing?

It's had non-passenger carrying running trials in Bath and York IIRC
(both cities where First's buses are doing unusually well, and where
local authorities have been making encouraging noises about bus
priority measures). The interior is also as tram-like as possible
(though the intrusion of the wheels above the floor obviously restricts
this).

I would post a link to more photos, but the page seems to be broken:

http://www.firstgroup.com/ftr/pressenquiries/index.php

In fact, it's quite a lot like the Nancy tram-trolleybus I've mentioned
elsewhere on this thread, but without the clever bi-mode bit.

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:26:51 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
wrote:

To the best of my recollection, some German trolleybuses have (or have
had) a fully fledged diesel motor, used routinely on the outer parts
of their routes, and only switch to/from OHL power for the more
central parts of the town/city. Evidently, in the event of a problem
(road blockage, OHL or power failure) they would be capable of
continuing in service on the other power source.

Seattle's system does this, running as trolley buses underground
through the city centre, and using diesel once on the surface. They
are articulated but I don't know who made them.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

West London Tram (and others)
 

Terry Harper wrote:

Seattle's system does this, running as trolley buses underground
through the city centre, and using diesel once on the surface. They
are articulated but I don't know who made them.

The Seattle dual power buses were made by Breda of Italy, but they are being
phased out due to maintenance and parts availability issues. Apparently, there
were only just over 200 made and they shared a similar heritage to Fiat cars
("Fix It Again, Tony").

The Seattle bus tunnel is currently closed for renovation for 2 years, and the
metro bus authority is taking the opportunity to replace the Bredas with deisel
electric hybird buses that cost $200,000 more than standard deisels and get less
than 4 miles per gallon.

West London Tram (and others)
 

Rupert Candy wrote:

In fact, it's quite a lot like the Nancy tram-trolleybus I've mentioned
elsewhere on this thread, but without the clever bi-mode bit.

The Nancy guided trolleybuses raise an interesting conundrum for the
pro-trolleybus/anti-tram faction: They can run as guided trolleybuses,
unguided trolleybuses, guided buses, or just buses. However, identical
vehicles run in Caen, except that they use a pantograph (with return
via the guide rail), instead of twin trolley booms. Thus they are
restricted to guided trolleybus (or should that be rubber-tyred tram?),
guided bus, and bus modes.

Is Nancy acceptable to the trolleybus people, and Caen not?

West London Tram (and others)
 

Peter Masson wrote:

"CJB" wrote...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram relate to
'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be closed to all other
traffic, which will be diverted on to a parallel residential street -
naturally residents on those streets don't like the idea.

Have they considered all the other alternatives? If so, what was the
drawback to just giving the trams priority but letting the rest of the
traffic use the Uxbridge Road benind them?

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk