West London Tram (and others)
 

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. I remember many years ago (late 1960s / early
1970s) when Europe was going anti-tram that they closed a main system
down in - I think - Zurich (or it may have been Geneva or somewhere
like that). Anyway, wherever, the lack of the trams actually caused
traffic to build up, bottle neck, and snarl up even more so than when
they were running. Apparently the trams were very useful in bunching up
blocks of traffic and actually kept the traffic moving. It was reported
that soon after closing the system down they re-introduced the trams.
CJB.

West London Tram (and others)
 

"CJB" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

West London Tram (and others)
 

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. I remember many years ago (late 1960s / early
1970s) when Europe was going anti-tram that they closed a main system
down in - I think - Zurich (or it may have been Geneva or somewhere
like that). Anyway, wherever, the lack of the trams actually caused
traffic to build up, bottle neck, and snarl up even more so than when
they were running. Apparently the trams were very useful in bunching up
blocks of traffic and actually kept the traffic moving. It was reported
that soon after closing the system down they re-introduced the trams.
CJB.

Just as increasing road space increases traffic levels beyond normal
growth levels, the reverse also appears to be true according to various
pieces of research - decreasing roadspace reduces traffic levels (or
rather slows the rate of growth). By that I don't mean it makes the same
traffic volumes divert to other routes - it means that the overall
volume is lower.

Once the scheme has been in place for a while, the levels of traffic
will reduce and adjust, and traffic is unlikely to snarl up any more
than it does at the moment (although without road pricing it's unlikely
to snarl up less either).

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

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

West London Tram (and others)
 

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
roups.com...
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.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

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.

Naturally.

I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram
scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum
or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been shown to
solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is because of their
layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is a bus is a bus, no
matter what its power source.

Peter Fox

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Peter Fox wrote:

However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned,
a trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus.

They accelerate briskly away from stops, reducing overall journey time
compared to buses. Of course in the UK we're determined to sabotage
that by having the driver take fares, ho hum. And of course they have
no emissions at the point of service, which is nice. Try Geneva
sometime, you'll see how a modern-day trolleybus can work (e.g the one
to/from the airport).

But it's no automatic alternative to a tram. Indeed the Genevois are
now extending their tram routes.

West London Tram (and others)
 

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

They accelerate briskly away from stops, reducing overall journey time
compared to buses. Of course in the UK we're determined to sabotage
that by having the driver take fares, ho hum

Well, actually, we aren't, because we haven't got any trolleybus
systems (and aren't likely to get any).

West London Tram (and others)
 

Peter Fox wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

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.

Naturally.

But it would not just be residential streets that would suffer increased
traffic. Many drivers would choose an alternative main road, thus
pushing more traffic on to Western Avenue and Chiswick High Road, and
thus increasing congestion and pollution there.

Today, Acton High Street was closed eastbound for emergency gas repairs,
so the 207 bendy-buses were using Chiswick High Road, presumably because
they couldn't get round the corners on any shorter alternative route on
residential roads.

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

West London Tram (and others)
 

Richard J. wrote:

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.

The trolleybus faction usually advocate hybrids, with auxilliary diesel
engines, both for diversionary and route extension purposes.

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Richard J. wrote:

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.

Take a look at (apologies for the horrible URLs) some of the fleet
listed at
http://www.tpg.ch/Internet+TPG/Franc...cVehicules.htm
for example
http://www.tpg.ch/Internet%20TPG/Fra...HESSBBC-SE.htm

GMA (Groupe de marche autonome)
Moteur essence VW / 127

I read that as something like
"autonomous propulsion group / petrol motor", no?

I don't know whether this feature is ever used for rescues in
passenger service, but evidently these trolleybuses are capable of
moving themselves if/when the need arises. (Not all of them are shown
as fitted with this feature, in case you want to have a whine.)

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.

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Chippy wrote:

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

They accelerate briskly away from stops, reducing overall journey time
compared to buses. Of course in the UK we're determined to sabotage
that by having the driver take fares, ho hum

Well, actually, we aren't, because we haven't got any trolleybus
systems

Actually, we *are* ("determined to") - with any kind of bus, except
perhaps in London. The fact that we don't happen to have that
particular kind of bus in service right now doesn't change that
general idea, IMHO.

(and aren't likely to get any).

Even worse :-{

Where's Pete B when we need him :-))

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:47:15 -0800, Chippy wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.

The trolleybus faction usually advocate hybrids, with auxilliary diesel
engines, both for diversionary and route extension purposes.

Or battery. I've seen both - in regular use, running on their traction
batteries or diesel auxillary engines.
Often now the poles no longer have ropes, if the bus de-wires, they drive
on auxillary power still they get to the next re-wire point.
I would be extremely surprised to find a modern ETB that didn't have
some capability to run independently of the wires.

The traction battery option is not new. I was told at Carlton Colville
museum last year that the old London ETB's had traction batteries and
could run quite a few miles with out the wires. Was told 'this was quite
handy in the war as they could work past damaged sections of overhead'.

In the end what a ETB buys you is the pollution is made some where else -
at the power station. They are also quiet to operate.

West London Tram (and others)
 

"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.

As do some in the US - Seattle among other cities use them. Interestingly
enough, it appears that they are being phased out though. Note the last
paragraph:

Planned rebuilding of articulated trolley buses: The dual-powered
(electric-diesel) articulated buses that go through Seattle's bus tunnel are
reaching the end of their useful lives. Metro plans to rebuild them as
electric-only articulated trolley buses and bring them into service in 2004-2005
on high-ridership routes 7, 43, and 44.

http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archiv...4-trolley.html

West London Tram (and others)
 

"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.

There's an interesting video here

mms://winmedia.metrokc.gov/transit/ITtunnel.wmv

It shows dual operating buses and some other detaiils.

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:26:07 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Fox"
wrote:


"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
groups.com...
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.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

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.

Naturally.

I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram
scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum
or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been shown to
solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is because of their
layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is a bus is a bus, no
matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road corridor as
being totally unsuitable for a tramway. TfL's stance is that passenger
numbers will grow considerably over the next decade and that a high capacity,
quality service is therefore required to meet this demand. It is a matter of
pure conjecture that a high proportion of private transport will evaporate
away with the provision of a tramway since it doesn't supply a service for the
travel objectives of many private motorists; a switch to PT would for many
mean a bus / tram / bus journey. At interchange points the distance between
stops will be considerable as there is no integration between the two modes
of public transport.

Electrically powered transport is certainly environmentally friendly where it
matters, at street level, and pollution output from power generation sources
has certainly been cleaned up considerably over the last decade or so. Until
now in the UK, what has separated the image of tram travel over that of a bus
is the provision of quality, information rich and secure areas for intended
passengers to wait. Then there is the ease of boarding and a swift journey
because of exclusive use of road space or a private right of way. There is
absolutely no reason way buses can use these concepts to give the "right"
image and certainly a trolleybus route can be built to these standards for a
fraction of the cost of a tramway.

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.

While there are many factors affecting choice of mode by passengers, no
evidence has ever been produced that steel wheels on rails intrinsically
attract normal members of the public as passengers whereas there is
considerable evidence across the world (such as in Arnhem, Lyon and
Salzburg) that the quietness and environmental credentials of electric
traction do attract greater patronage.

Electric traction does of course also line up with government aspirations
in terms of both air quality and carbon dioxide emissions. High quality
trolleyways could therefore represent an even greater step forward in quality
and patronage than diesel buses.

This is my response to your statement that trams have been shown to solve
transport problems in ways that buses can't. Perhaps you may now care to
elaborate on this generalised statement?


David Bradley

West London Tram (and others)
 

In article , David Bradley
wrote:
David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been
shown to solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is
because of their layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is
a bus is a bus, no matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road
corridor as being totally unsuitable for a tramway.

And it will regard any other road as "unsuitable" if someone proposes to
build a tramway there.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:08:27 +0000 (GMT), David H Wild
wrote:

In article , David Bradley
wrote:
David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been
shown to solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is
because of their layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is
a bus is a bus, no matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road
corridor as being totally unsuitable for a tramway.

And it will regard any other road as "unsuitable" if someone proposes to
build a tramway there.

Everything has to be judged on its merits, but to get the very best out of a
tramway scheme, as much as possible of the network requires to be segregated
from other traffic. It is for this reason that that Croydon Tramlink works
well whereas the Manchester Eccles extension is very problematical and has
failed to deliver value for money.

David Bradley

West London Tram (and others)
 

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:43:42 -0700, Clark W. Griswold, Jr. wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote:
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.

As do some in the US - Seattle among other cities use them. Interestingly
enough, it appears that they are being phased out though. Note the last
paragraph:


Metro plans to rebuild them as
electric-only articulated trolley buses and bring them into service in 2004-2005
on high-ridership routes 7, 43, and 44.

http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archiv...4-trolley.html

I bet they have traction batteries though - the weight of the diesel
engine and the fuel tank would hold quite a lot of battery power.


The new Roma (Italy) Route 90 trolley buses actually run the into the
city centre on battery - the wires stop at the old city wall. They stop,
drop their poles and drive in on battery.

The lights dim slightly, the air-conditioning stops, and the bus can't
accelerate as hard when the poles are dropped, but they are quite capable
of moving with the traffic at that point.

West London Tram (and others)
 

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).
--
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life), Diplom-Skeptiker (DB)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

West London Tram (and others)
 

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?


--
Michael Johnson

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