West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Chris
Johns writes
The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.

There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Terry Harper wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Chris
Johns writes
The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.
Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.
There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.

True, but you can couple trams together and carry several hundred
passengers using a single driver (where you might need four drivers to
carry those people with buses).

In any case, the ability of buses to overtake is only useful when they
can avoid stopping at every stop, or when the infrastructure is
specifically designed to allow easy overtaking and multiple buses per
stop - something which would involve as much disruption to traffic as
the tram, if not more. For a super-high-capacity bus rapid transit
system, you'd essentially need to close most of the Uxbridge Road to
private traffic.

The reason trams were chosen for the Cross River scheme was that "only"
40 services were needed to meet peak hour demand, whereas 80 buses per
hour would have been needed. Even 40vph is pushing the limits at the key
junctions on the CRT route (Euston Road and High Holborn). Raising bus
frequencies to very high levels on the Uxbridge Road would also have
throughput implications at major junctions (e.g. North Circular).

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

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In message
Terry Harper wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Chris
Johns writes
The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.

There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there often
isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space they sometimes
don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and sometimes, I am sure, out
of wish to avoid work. Let the other man carry the load!. Though I
have sometimes seen examples of very good working, a pair of busses
overtaking each other to take alternate stops.

Michael Bell


--

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Michael Bell wrote:

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there often
isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space they sometimes
don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and sometimes, I am sure, out
of wish to avoid work. Let the other man carry the load!. Though I
have sometimes seen examples of very good working, a pair of busses
overtaking each other to take alternate stops.


Pity the poor passengers who wanted to get off at the stops "their"
bus didn't stop at.

;-)

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:57:10 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

In message
Terry Harper wrote:

But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there often
isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space they sometimes
don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and sometimes, I am sure, out
of wish to avoid work. Let the other man carry the load!. Though I
have sometimes seen examples of very good working, a pair of busses
overtaking each other to take alternate stops.

Oxford Street is full of buses overtaking each other at stops. Not all
on the same route, of course.

If you couple trams together, you have to ensure that, when one stops,
it does not block a crossing. From what I've seen on the U6 in
Dusseldorf, the distance between traffic lights, near Kennedydam, for
example, only allows one set to be at a stop without blocking a
cross-road.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 Tony Polson wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there often
isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space they sometimes
don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and sometimes, I am sure, out
of wish to avoid work. Let the other man carry the load!. Though I
have sometimes seen examples of very good working, a pair of busses
overtaking each other to take alternate stops.


Pity the poor passengers who wanted to get off at the stops "their"
bus didn't stop at.

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.
--
Thoss

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In message
thoss wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 Tony Polson wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there often
isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space they sometimes
don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and sometimes, I am sure, out
of wish to avoid work. Let the other man carry the load!. Though I
have sometimes seen examples of very good working, a pair of busses
overtaking each other to take alternate stops.


Pity the poor passengers who wanted to get off at the stops "their"
bus didn't stop at.

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

Why would that happen?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
thoss wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 Tony Polson wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there
often isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space
they sometimes don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and
sometimes, I am sure, out of wish to avoid work. Let the other
man carry the load!. Though I have sometimes seen examples of
very good working, a pair of busses overtaking each other to
take alternate stops.


Pity the poor passengers who wanted to get off at the stops
"their" bus didn't stop at.

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his
bus stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

Why would that happen?

Because it's in the WLT plan. Tram stops will be further apart than the
current bus stops on the route (207) that the tram will replace.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 Graeme Wall wrote:

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

Why would that happen?

I wish I knew. But that's in the tram plans.
--
Thoss

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In message
thoss wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 Graeme Wall wrote:

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

Why would that happen?

I wish I knew. But that's in the tram plans.

One assumes they've done some research, oh hang on a mo' this is Britain, no
they probably haven't.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Richard J. wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
thoss wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 Tony Polson wrote:

Michael Bell wrote:

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there
often isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space
they sometimes don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and
sometimes, I am sure, out of wish to avoid work. Let the other
man carry the load!. Though I have sometimes seen examples of
very good working, a pair of busses overtaking each other to
take alternate stops.


Pity the poor passengers who wanted to get off at the stops
"their" bus didn't stop at.

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his
bus stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

Why would that happen?

Because it's in the WLT plan. Tram stops will be further apart
than the current bus stops on the route (207) that the tram will
replace.

Further to the above, these are the figures on numbers and separation of
stops over the 20 km route from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge:

Current bus routes (207, 427): 74 stops Average separation 270 m
Current express bus route (607): 20 stops Average separation: 1 km

Proposed tram scheme: 40 stops Average separation: 500 m
(varies from 200 m to 1 km)

(Source: TfL Board paper, 29 Apr 2004)
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Terry Harper wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:57:10 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

In message
Terry Harper wrote:
But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.
They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there often
isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space they sometimes
don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and sometimes, I am sure, out
of wish to avoid work. Let the other man carry the load!. Though I
have sometimes seen examples of very good working, a pair of busses
overtaking each other to take alternate stops.

Oxford Street is full of buses overtaking each other at stops. Not all
on the same route, of course.

Oxford Street being a model of an efficient bus service...


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

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:56:50 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
thoss wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 Graeme Wall wrote:

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

Why would that happen?

I wish I knew. But that's in the tram plans.

One assumes they've done some research, oh hang on a mo' this is Britain, no
they probably haven't.

They will have done vast amounts of research. The questions are
whether or not they have been told to research the right things, and
if they then use the right methods.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 Arthur Figgis wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:56:50 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
thoss wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 Graeme Wall wrote:

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

Why would that happen?

I wish I knew. But that's in the tram plans.

One assumes they've done some research, oh hang on a mo' this is Britain, no
they probably haven't.

They will have done vast amounts of research. The questions are
whether or not they have been told to research the right things, and
if they then use the right methods.

and pay any heed to the findings.
--
Thoss

West London Tram to go ahead
 

David M typed


thoss wrote in uk.railway
about: West London Tram to go ahead

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

This doesn't strike me as a Bad Thing.

It does not appeal to me.
I have limited mobility.
Many of the older people on buses seem to *very* old and none too mobile.
An imposed walk of another 500 metres might encourage those on shopping
trips to use their cars.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 21:35:34 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:

David M typed

thoss wrote in uk.railway
about: West London Tram to go ahead

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

This doesn't strike me as a Bad Thing.

It does not appeal to me.
I have limited mobility.
Many of the older people on buses seem to *very* old and none too mobile.
An imposed walk of another 500 metres might encourage those on shopping
trips to use their cars.

I would rather have hail and ride than stops a long distance apart.
500 yards is much too far apart. 200 yards is more like it. Outside
your gate is even better
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 21:35:34 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Pity the poor passenger who has to walk twice as far because his bus
stop has been abolished by the coming of the tram.

This doesn't strike me as a Bad Thing.

It does not appeal to me.
I have limited mobility.
Many of the older people on buses seem to *very* old and none too mobile.
An imposed walk of another 500 metres might encourage those on shopping
trips to use their cars.

I'm prepared to be corrected on this, but I don't think anyone will
have to walk anywhere near as much as 500 metres extra. AIUI the vast
majority won't have to walk more than about 200m further (although
that's still not a great thing of course), while many won't have to
walk any further at all (the most-used stops will tend to stay in the
same places).

In slight mitigation, the vehicles themselves will be more easily
accessible than buses.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In article , asdf
writes
What is actually the limiting factor in how many buses you can run on
a route?

* How many buses you can spare.
* How many drivers you can spare.
* How quickly they can follow each other through bottlenecks.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In article , Terry Harper
writes
But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not.

But you probably don't need to - you can run them in multiple instead,
but in any case they carry far more passengers.

Remember that buses can overtake each other.

But it isn't necessarily a benefit to do so.

Trams cannot.

Depends whether the facility is provided.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Michael Bell wrote:

The planners have made great efforts to give their
new route interchange with surface and underground rail.

Except where the route crosses the North London Line.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote:

The planners have made great efforts to give their
new route interchange with surface and underground rail.

Except where the route crosses the North London Line.

Which is where ?
I thought the WL Tram scheme was supposed to
follow the alignt of the [26]07 bus approx
from SBG to Uxbridge. Where does this cross the NLL ?

Mind you, the NLL doesn't seem to interconnect with other
services pretty sensibly anyway. I've always thought there should be a
Northern Line station just underneath Camden Road NLL.

Richard [in SG19]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Richard M Willis wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote:
The planners have made great efforts to give their
new route interchange with surface and underground rail.
Except where the route crosses the North London Line.

Which is where ?
I thought the WL Tram scheme was supposed to
follow the alignt of the [26]07 bus approx
from SBG to Uxbridge. Where does this cross the NLL ?

A few hundred metres south of Acton Central.

Mind you, the NLL doesn't seem to interconnect with other
services pretty sensibly anyway. I've always thought there should be a
Northern Line station just underneath Camden Road NLL.

Too close to Camden Town. There used to be a station called South
Kentish Town between Camden Town and Kentish Town (somewhere near the
junction of Castle Road and Kentish Town Road IIRC), but that was closed
a long time ago.

Some alternative plans drawn up by Arup for the reconstruction of Camden
Town station included a possible underground link from the north end of
the High Barnet branch platforms to Camden Road station - it's not as
far as the walk along the surface.


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

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Richard M Willis wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in
message ...
Michael Bell wrote:

The planners have made great efforts to give their
new route interchange with surface and underground rail.

Except where the route crosses the North London Line.

Which is where ?

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll...,0.019956&om=1

Acton Central Station is on the south side of Churchfield Road, unmarked on
this map.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote:
Mark B wrote:
wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

Weird. Areas of the country that *do* want tram schemes have them
refused, and areas that *don't* have them foisted upon them. Is
this a case of 'Nanny knows best?'.

Sid


Or its within the M25 - Don't the government want these
http://www.goftr.com/view.php used in the provinces so London can get
more trams etc?


'Press release 8 May 2006:-

'Moir Lockhead, Chief Executive of FirstGroup plc, said: "First is
committed to providing high quality public transport networks. [snip]

Cobblers! What a joke!

We've been waiting for years for
a) our trains between Portishead and Bristol to be reinstated, and
b) trams back in the city of Bristol

Guess what - 1st GW are in charge of both the buses, and the trains here.

They have a near monoploy of the first, so do damnall about the second!

The trams were initially killed by Dawn Primarola, through whose
constituency the trams wouldn't be running, and a Labour Council who were
frightened they might get "touched" for a financial conrtibution.

1stGW kept talking about making the railway line a concrete roadway for
guided buses, but the docks beat them to it and got most of the track
rebuilt, but the last two miles from Royal Portbury to Portishead, didn't,
and are still lying there, rusting and rotting. Come to think of it, they
are in probably in a better shape than the Hatfield track.......since
you-know-who weren't "maintaining" them!

They also said there wasn't enough track into Temple Meads, but its still
been there, as is the platform that was dedicated to our trains. Not to
mention that they have reopened all the outer platforms at TM once again,
after years of them quiet (and literally) vegetating, so only about 3 miles
of new signals would be needed.......... Oh, and reinstate the passing loop
near Pill station and one new point before Portbury.!

And they claim all this would cost millions............probably via just the
same accounting methods that enabled most of Beechings cuts to be carried
through despite more accurate figures from the protestors.

Lies, damned lies, and government statistics.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 01:40:07 +0100, "Davebt"
wrote:

victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote:
Mark B wrote:
wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

Weird. Areas of the country that *do* want tram schemes have them
refused, and areas that *don't* have them foisted upon them. Is
this a case of 'Nanny knows best?'.

Sid


Or its within the M25 - Don't the government want these
http://www.goftr.com/view.php used in the provinces so London can get
more trams etc?


'Press release 8 May 2006:-

'Moir Lockhead, Chief Executive of FirstGroup plc, said: "First is
committed to providing high quality public transport networks. [snip]

Cobblers! What a joke!

We've been waiting for years for
a) our trains between Portishead and Bristol to be reinstated, and
b) trams back in the city of Bristol

Guess what - 1st GW are in charge of both the buses, and the trains here.

They have a near monoploy of the first, so do damnall about the second!

The trams were initially killed by Dawn Primarola, through whose
constituency the trams wouldn't be running, and a Labour Council who were
frightened they might get "touched" for a financial conrtibution.

1stGW kept talking about making the railway line a concrete roadway for
guided buses, but the docks beat them to it and got most of the track
rebuilt, but the last two miles from Royal Portbury to Portishead, didn't,
and are still lying there, rusting and rotting. Come to think of it, they
are in probably in a better shape than the Hatfield track.......since
you-know-who weren't "maintaining" them!

They also said there wasn't enough track into Temple Meads, but its still
been there, as is the platform that was dedicated to our trains. Not to
mention that they have reopened all the outer platforms at TM once again,
after years of them quiet (and literally) vegetating, so only about 3 miles
of new signals would be needed.......... Oh, and reinstate the passing loop
near Pill station and one new point before Portbury.!

And they claim all this would cost millions............probably via just the
same accounting methods that enabled most of Beechings cuts to be carried
through despite more accurate figures from the protestors.

Lies, damned lies, and government statistics.




The same Queen Dawn caused her little ward to be traffic free at the
cost of the neighbours. Her objections to the tramway was purely
political - the other crook was a conservative. When my ship operated
from portzed the railway was still in commercial use (1976) but
everyone made their journeys to Bristol by road (the Avon Bridge being
finally open (it was not needed really because only holiday traffic
went or came from the West - government view ). The south Bristol
approach road still does not exisit (thanks to the rather unpleasant
Lord Wraxall) and there is still the nightmare of cross city routes
in a city divided by water crossed in such few places. Apart from
moronic Preston and his dept of transport semi closing the only
eastern approach, her highness screwing the south, beeching and his
successors wrecking a very well placed railway system both from a
goods and passenger point of view (Avonmouth Docks under Bristol City
Labour Council removed some 45 miles of cargo handling track for it to
be replaced by lorry traffic). Just thnk, there were 61 stations in
the greater Bristol area when I were a boy! These days even the BBC
ignore the place in favour of such unlovely places as Cardydd and barf
on their weather charts. In the 70 's & 80's all commercial
initiatives got diverted d'ailleurs - like Abertawe or Glasgow ( may
the gods forgive them for existing ) because they had a greater need.

My own district spawned MP's like Stafford Cripps and Wedgewood Ben so
I grew up well versed in the politics of socialism as practised on us
by the indulgent rich. Even our vicar - Mervyn Stockwood was a hell
preaching socialist who oddly enough was a Roman Kat hiding in the COE
at St Mattew Moorfields with bells, smells and boy bishops.

Ranting finished - back to a balmy 1st Oct.

Peter A

Montarlot

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On 1/10/06 01:40, "Davebt" wrote:

We've been waiting for years for
a) our trains between Portishead and Bristol to be reinstated

...

1stGW kept talking about making the railway line a concrete roadway for
guided buses, but the docks beat them to it and got most of the track
rebuilt, but the last two miles from Royal Portbury to Portishead, didn't,
and are still lying there, rusting and rotting.

...

They also said there wasn't enough track into Temple Meads, but its still
been there, as is the platform that was dedicated to our trains. Not to
mention that they have reopened all the outer platforms at TM once again,
after years of them quiet (and literally) vegetating, so only about 3 miles
of new signals would be needed.......... Oh, and reinstate the passing loop
near Pill station and one new point before Portbury.!

And they claim all this would cost millions

The work you listed above *would* cost millions:

Portbury - Portishead (presumably including a new Portishead station)
Reinstate platform at Temple Meads
About 3 miles of new signals
Reinstate the passing loop near Pill station
Junction at Portbury ("one new point")