West London Tram to go ahead
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

West London Tram to go ahead
 

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

West London Tram to go ahead
 

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?

West London Tram to go ahead
 

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. The
signing of this partnership agreement sets the seal on a project that I
firmly believe will introduce a step change in the way that local
transport authorities and operators deliver public travel.'

Press release 15 May 2006

We are very sorry for any inconvenience experienced by our customers as
a result of teething difficulties on ftr.

'We are working hard to make sure that we deliver the highest standards
of service and appreciate your patience as we deal with the issues that
you, our customers, are helpfully bringing to our attention. '

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On 2 Jun 2006 06:19:51 -0700, "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. The
signing of this partnership agreement sets the seal on a project that I
firmly believe will introduce a step change in the way that local
transport authorities and operators deliver public travel.'

Press release 15 May 2006

We are very sorry for any inconvenience experienced by our customers as
a result of teething difficulties on ftr.

'We are working hard to make sure that we deliver the highest standards
of service and appreciate your patience as we deal with the issues that
you, our customers, are helpfully bringing to our attention. '

Comment on 2 June 2006.

We are very sorry that we chose technology that if anyone with a brain
had been asked to evaluate it we would never have bought. We are also
very sorry that we bought too few buses and cut the frequency compared
to the old service. Finally we are very sorry we could not plan our way
out of a paper bag and this is really why our lovely ftr concept does
not work.

Love and kisses - First Group HQ.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:11:20 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

Your subject line is a little misleading - there are still hurdles to
clear before it goes ahead.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:11:20 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

Your subject line is a little misleading - there are still hurdles to
clear before it goes ahead.

Agree - perhaps 'West London Tram _planning_ to go ahead'?

The plans are then still subject to the Transport Secretary approval - see
Liverpool, SE Hants etc etc

Paul

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Paul Scott wrote:

The plans are then still subject to the Transport Secretary approval - see
Liverpool, SE Hants etc etc

It's in London - that won't be a problem.
--
Chris Johns

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On 2 Jun 2006 05:36:15 -0700, wrote:

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?'.

The reason for the difference is as follows:

WLT is in London and would be funded by TfL. TfL likes trams.

Other tram schemes were outside London, and would have been funded by
the DfT. The DfT doesn't like trams.

And in the case of WLT, "nanny" really does know best - the opposition
are a bunch of raving NIMBYs who know nothing about transport
planning. (Normally I wouldn't use such terms, but their arguments are
idiotic enough to justify it.)

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote:

'We are working hard to make sure that we deliver the highest standards
of service and appreciate your patience as we deal with the issues that
you, our customers, are helpfully bringing to our attention. '

That reminds me to email them my thoughts on the 'ftr' of travel in York.
--
Chris Johns

West London Tram to go ahead
 

asdf wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:11:20 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

Your subject line is a little misleading - there are still hurdles to
clear before it goes ahead.

I was a bit shocked by the subject line... I thought given the recent
change in political air in Ealing, TfL would decide to just let the
people of the Uxbridge Road stuff themselves harder into bendy buses and
would switch funding to the much less controversial (popular, even)
Cross River Tram.

As much as I think there is a lot of scaremongering and
statistics-waving over the West London Tram, having local authorities
opposed to an infrastructure scheme is always a bad idea, and they will
cause all sorts of problems for the WLT now.

Incidentally, the news article implies that only Ealing is against the
scheme, when in reality Hamm & Fulham and Hillingdon were already
against the scheme, and Ealing changed opinion recently following the
elections! (including the remaining Labour councillors who were
previously in favour...)

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

West London Tram to go ahead
 

"Paul Scott" wrote:

The plans are then still subject to the Transport Secretary approval - see
Liverpool, SE Hants etc etc


The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In article , Asdf wrote:
On 2 Jun 2006 05:36:15 -0700, wrote:

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?'.

The reason for the difference is as follows:

WLT is in London and would be funded by TfL. TfL likes trams.

Other tram schemes were outside London, and would have been funded by
the DfT. The DfT doesn't like trams.

And in the case of WLT, "nanny" really does know best - the opposition
are a bunch of raving NIMBYs who know nothing about transport
planning. (Normally I wouldn't use such terms, but their arguments are
idiotic enough to justify it.)

Agreed, having just sampled remarkably joined-up (and probably highly
subsidised) public transport in and around Berlin. S-bahn, U-bahn, trams
and buses all interconnected and integrated.

--

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

West London Tram to go ahead
 

asdf wrote:
On 2 Jun 2006 05:36:15 -0700, wrote:

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?'.

The reason for the difference is as follows:

WLT is in London and would be funded by TfL. TfL likes trams.

Other tram schemes were outside London, and would have been funded
by the DfT. The DfT doesn't like trams.

And in the case of WLT, "nanny" really does know best - the
opposition are a bunch of raving NIMBYs who know nothing about
transport planning.

If you were faced with the prospect of half the general traffic from
Acton High Street being diverted down your narrow residential street,
you might be a NIMBY too. "Transport planning" is supposed to avoid
that sort of thing.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Tony Polson wrote:

The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

There is also the the important point that the WLT is a genuine
transport scheme, the purpose of which is to address the need for
improved public transport in a busy established corridor.

In this respect it is markedly different from several of the schemes
that have failed to secure funding, and which were seen as part of
regeneration strategies.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In message .com
wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

There is also the the important point that the WLT is a genuine
transport scheme, the purpose of which is to address the need for
improved public transport in a busy established corridor.

In this respect it is markedly different from several of the schemes
that have failed to secure funding, and which were seen as part of
regeneration strategies.


Which "several of the schemes" do you mean?

But on another thread, I don't know London well, but one point strikes
me as exemplary: The planners have made great efforts to give their
new route interchange with surface and underground rail. If such
efforts had been consistently made in the past, we would be a lot
better off now.

Michael Bell




--

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:57:04 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Incidentally, the news article implies that only Ealing is against the
scheme, when in reality Hamm & Fulham and Hillingdon were already
against the scheme, and Ealing changed opinion recently following the
elections! (including the remaining Labour councillors who were
previously in favour...)

I did laugh at the number of houses here I saw with two posters side
by side: one saying "Vote NO Tram" and one saying "Vote Labour"...

No wonder they had such a landslide against them(!)

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

West London Tram to go ahead
 

If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

West London Tram to go ahead
 

victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote:

Press release 15 May 2006

We are very sorry for any inconvenience experienced by our customers as
a result of teething difficulties on ftr.

Any word on what these teething difficulties are, and why it's so
difficult to operate what is basically a fancy bendy bus with fancy
ticket machines and a few extra decorative bits of plastic on the
outside?

Neil

West London Tram to go ahead
 

asdf wrote:

And in the case of WLT, "nanny" really does know best - the opposition
are a bunch of raving NIMBYs who know nothing about transport
planning. (Normally I wouldn't use such terms, but their arguments are
idiotic enough to justify it.)

Quite common. Bus services have been changed in and around Milton
Keynes at times when car-dependent residents have complained about
them.

Apparently, the "play toy" Routemaster running round Monkston was
complained about in this way, though its withdrawal was down to its
owner not wanting to play buses any more rather than just the
complaints. Thing is, a Routemaster (or an OPO version of such) would
be ideal for the MK estate services due to the short and narrow
wheelbase - I think they're smaller than some of the "LWB" Merc
Beavers.

Neil

West London Tram to go ahead
 

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On 3 Jun 2006 03:14:46 -0700, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote:

Press release 15 May 2006

We are very sorry for any inconvenience experienced by our customers as
a result of teething difficulties on ftr.

Any word on what these teething difficulties are, and why it's so
difficult to operate what is basically a fancy bendy bus with fancy
ticket machines and a few extra decorative bits of plastic on the
outside?

The ticket machines don't work.
The bar code readers for the period tickets and mobile phone bought
tickets don't work.
They didn't get the bar code stickers for OAP permits delivered on time.
They reduced the frequency on ftr compared to the old service thus
increasing boarding times.
They didn't advertise how the new system worked properly.
The real time displays are not real time - they only work based on the
time now against the theoretical schedule.

There will also be the usual issues of passengers and drivers being
unfamiliar with the vehicles and the schedule. This will take a bit of
time to bed down so they can be forgiven this part of their problems.

The above is based on what I have read - I have not been to York to try
the service out.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Bob wrote:
If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

I think the Mayor is keen to avoid accusations of being a Mayor for
central London only - hence the progression of the East London and
Greenwich Waterfront Transit schemes, and WLT.

Additionally, the CRT scheme is partly dependent on the ins and outs of
the regeneration schemes at King's Cross and Elephant & Castle. The
latter in particular will create a route for CRT through the road
junctions which doesn't currently exist; to construct CRT before the E&C
regeneration scheme would either mean a delay to the start of Peckham
branch services (thus also limiting frequency through the core section)
or would mean ripping up the tram tracks just a year or two after
putting them down (and indeed rebuilding the road junction twice).

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

West London Tram to go ahead
 

The sooner the whole West London Tram scheme is abandoned the better,
it has a huge level of public hostility along with the Councils being
opposed the scheme. Far better to progress Croydon Tramlink extension
schemes in South London(where public hostility is very little) and
Cross River Tram. The scheme will die or death sooner or later, why
don't TfL just pull the plug on the whole thing now and spend the money
on more worthwhile schemes?

Martin
Dave Arquati wrote:
Bob wrote:
If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

I think the Mayor is keen to avoid accusations of being a Mayor for
central London only - hence the progression of the East London and
Greenwich Waterfront Transit schemes, and WLT.

Additionally, the CRT scheme is partly dependent on the ins and outs of
the regeneration schemes at King's Cross and Elephant & Castle. The
latter in particular will create a route for CRT through the road
junctions which doesn't currently exist; to construct CRT before the E&C
regeneration scheme would either mean a delay to the start of Peckham
branch services (thus also limiting frequency through the core section)
or would mean ripping up the tram tracks just a year or two after
putting them down (and indeed rebuilding the road junction twice).

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

West London Tram to go ahead
 

"MartyJ" wrote in message
ups.com...
The sooner the whole West London Tram scheme is abandoned the better,
it has a huge level of public hostility along with the Councils being
opposed the scheme. Far better to progress Croydon Tramlink extension
schemes in South London(where public hostility is very little) and
Cross River Tram. The scheme will die or death sooner or later, why
don't TfL just pull the plug on the whole thing now and spend the money
on more worthwhile schemes?

Martin
Dave Arquati wrote:
Bob wrote:
If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck
me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

I think the Mayor is keen to avoid accusations of being a Mayor for
central London only - hence the progression of the East London and
Greenwich Waterfront Transit schemes, and WLT.

Additionally, the CRT scheme is partly dependent on the ins and outs of
the regeneration schemes at King's Cross and Elephant & Castle. The
latter in particular will create a route for CRT through the road
junctions which doesn't currently exist; to construct CRT before the E&C
regeneration scheme would either mean a delay to the start of Peckham
branch services (thus also limiting frequency through the core section)
or would mean ripping up the tram tracks just a year or two after
putting them down (and indeed rebuilding the road junction twice).

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


I live and work not too far away from the West London Tram area.
What is proposed has already been done. The bus route 207 is the tram route.
And the 207 is currently a fleet of bendies which do as bendies do and block
up
junctions and cause congestion when driven badly or without consideration.
The 207 has it's own bus lane for most of the section where the WLT will go.
And there are lots of 207's.

So I really see not a lot of difference to what we already have.
I can see why Tfl may want to do this solely as a replacement for the
existing 207.

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.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, londoncityslicker wrote:

So I really see not a lot of difference to what we already have.
I can see why Tfl may want to do this solely as a replacement for the
existing 207.

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.

If busses are good enough for the provinces, why aren't the good enough
for London? Ironically, London is about the only place where busses aren't
viewed upon as the "poor persons transport" like they are everywhere else,
so in reality you could get away with a bus service in London (and have
people use it) whereas outside of London they'd drive/walk/magic carpet
rather than get a bus.

Cheers

Chris
--
Chris Johns

West London Tram to go ahead
 

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Neil Williams wrote:

Any word on what these teething difficulties are, and why it's so
difficult to operate what is basically a fancy bendy bus with fancy
ticket machines and a few extra decorative bits of plastic on the
outside?

The ticket machine was prone to breaking down at first - much to our (the
passenger's) delight - quick boarding and a free ride. The ticket machine
when working is so slow that it must throw the schedules out (which were
reduced from ever 8 mins to every 10 mins when the ftr started).

A few of the busses broke down on the first day, which led to some slating
in the local press. At least one of the 'ftr's must be out of service, as
there's a normal "park and ride" bendybus on the 'ftr' route that
occasionally turns up.

The doors can sometimes misbehave, and theres a big "open" button but
thats only for use in emergencies apparently - which confuses people.
have been incidents (in the local rag) about the doors closing on people.

The bendyness of the busses probably causes more problems in York's
streets - they will fit along "the route" but any obstruction probably
causes them more problems than a tradional bus.

The view of most people i've spoken to seems to be that it was all a lot
of fuss for no gain. I think we're going to be stuck with it as a) they
have the vehicles now and b) it's such a high profile thing for first
(with their new busses) and york council (who did a load of road works to
enable them to run) that they won't admit it's no good.

Cheers

Chris
--
Chris Johns

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In message , Chris
Johns writes

Ironically, London is about the only place where busses aren't
viewed upon as the "poor persons transport" like they are everywhere else,

I agree, but it largely an acceptance of reality by many of us who live
in London. I certainly wouldn't regard myself as poor - we have two cars
(posh and not-so-posh), but I wouldn't dream of driving the 7 miles into
London, except perhaps early on a Sunday.

The Congestion Charge plus the near impossibility of parking in the
central area (or the exorbitant charges if you do find a space) are only
half the story - the fact is that public transport in London is usually
both quicker and cheaper than driving in.

As a result, there is a broad social mix to be found on buses, as on all
forms of public transport in the capital.

so in reality you could get away with a bus service in London (and have
people use it) whereas outside of London they'd drive/walk/magic carpet
rather than get a bus.

I'd like to think that matters in the provinces might change if and when
using a car becomes as difficult as it now is in London ... but a lot
more, including a political will for intervention and probably an
acceptance of the need for regulation, is going to be needed first.
--
Paul Terry

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Bob wrote

If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in
traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck
me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

But if what the "majority of the current residents don't want" is key,
what has the economic impact to do with it ?

Those who merely work there or pass through are to be ignored ?

Taking into account those who would find it convenient to shop there
but find the congestion too bad is not democratic ?

On your version of the constitution our multi level government might be
debarred on democratic grounds from building any new or improved Thames
crossing road, bridge or tunnel in the area betweenbetween Staines and
Kingston ?
(The Walton-on-Thames residents association had been opposing any but a
narrow, low weight limit Thames crossing for twenty years)

--
Mike D

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Neil Williams wrote:
Any word on what these teething difficulties are, and why it's so
difficult to operate what is basically a fancy bendy bus with fancy
ticket machines and a few extra decorative bits of plastic on the
outside?


The ticket machine's crashed on both of my ftr rides so far -
unfortunately after I'd got on and successfully bought a ticket...

Overall... not much difference between ftr and a normal bendybus,
although I can't see how the driver being isolated behind smoked glass
will make passengers feel any safer... (wasn't one of the objectives of
ftr to make bus travel less unappealing to women?)

pete
--
"That is enigmatic. That is textbook enigmatic..." - Dr Who
"There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas." - N Blackwell

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Chris Johns wrote:
The bendyness of the busses probably causes more problems in York's
streets - they will fit along "the route" but any obstruction probably
causes them more problems than a tradional bus.


It'd certainly be interesting to see which routes they can and can't be
used on. I would guess that the twisty bit of route 6 through Osbaldwick
will be problematic for them!

Not sure what the next routes planned for ftr are - 1, 3 or 5 would seem
to be the logical next choices.

through traffic - most of York's bus routes are radial, serving two
entirely different areas on opposite sides of the town. Osbaldwick and
Clifton Moor have relatively little in common; neither do Acomb and
Heslington (4) or Poppleton and Stamford Bridge (10). First could have a
much more reliable schedule if they split these routes in town.

pete
--
"That is enigmatic. That is textbook enigmatic..." - Dr Who
"There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas." - N Blackwell

West London Tram to go ahead
 

In message
Pete Fenelon wrote:

Chris Johns wrote:
The bendyness of the busses probably causes more problems in York's
streets - they will fit along "the route" but any obstruction probably
causes them more problems than a tradional bus.


It'd certainly be interesting to see which routes they can and can't be
used on. I would guess that the twisty bit of route 6 through Osbaldwick
will be problematic for them!

Not sure what the next routes planned for ftr are - 1, 3 or 5 would seem
to be the logical next choices.

through traffic - most of York's bus routes are radial, serving two
entirely different areas on opposite sides of the town. Osbaldwick and
Clifton Moor have relatively little in common; neither do Acomb and
Heslington (4) or Poppleton and Stamford Bridge (10). First could have a
much more reliable schedule if they split these routes in town.

pete

I think this is probably the thinking behind Nottingham's system of
not having buses running straight across the city centre -as you well
know, suburbs directly opposite each other over the city centre rarely
have much in common, traffic between them is slight, and there is no
reason why traffic North - South or East - West should balance, the
buses one side might be overfull one side and half empty the other
side.

Instead Nottingham runs buses into a city centre loop, this loop (the
same loop for busses coming from all direction) runs round the city
centre, at a comfortable distance from all city centre destinations,
and then the busses go out the way they came in. If you want to
continue your journey the other side of the city centre, you wait at
the same stop, or just along the pavement, for the bus that goes your
way. I think it is a very good idea. In middle-sized cities, I think
it would be a good idea for trams too.

Michael Bell

--

West London Tram to go ahead
 

"Pete Fenelon" wrote in message
...
Chris Johns wrote:
The bendyness of the busses probably causes more problems in York's
streets - they will fit along "the route" but any obstruction
probably
causes them more problems than a tradional bus.


It'd certainly be interesting to see which routes they can and can't
be
used on. I would guess that the twisty bit of route 6 through
Osbaldwick
will be problematic for them!


I think the next route planned for ftr buses is the 4 ....


Not sure what the next routes planned for ftr are - 1, 3 or 5 would
seem
to be the logical next choices.


that being route 4 in Leeds.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Press release 15 May 2006

We are very sorry for any inconvenience experienced by our customers as
a result of teething difficulties on ftr.

Any word on what these teething difficulties are, and why it's so
difficult to operate what is basically a fancy bendy bus with fancy
ticket machines and a few extra decorative bits of plastic on the
outside?

The other down side (for some) is the £1.50 flat fare, which is double what
I pay on the "normal" buses.

As already mentioned, they should be on the No. 3

--
King B Boogaloo
http://europeanrailways.fotopic.net/
Any views or opinions expressed and presented are not those of the author
and do not represent those of his employers, they belong to the voices in
his head.

West London Tram to go ahead
 

Pete Fenelon wrote:

The ticket machine's crashed on both of my ftr rides so far -
unfortunately after I'd got on and successfully bought a ticket...

Bad software, then...probably either a rush job or too cheap.

Overall... not much difference between ftr and a normal bendybus,
although I can't see how the driver being isolated behind smoked glass
will make passengers feel any safer... (wasn't one of the objectives of
ftr to make bus travel less unappealing to women?)

I find that the fact that MK Metro *don't* have screens of any kind[1]
protecting the drivers to be much more reassuring, as the only reason
they don't is because they don't need them, because bus driver assaults
are pretty much unknown.

[1] A very small number (3 I think) of the very new full-size single
deckers do, but they are always left fully open. I think they were
provided because they were standard rather than necessary, especially
as Metro are now Arriva owned[2] so probably procure through them.

[2] You'd never know, as there hasn't been a rebranding, and Arriva
have actually openly stated they don't plan to, possibly because Metro
has a very good local identity (almost like a municipal, even though
they've never been one) and generally seem to be liked.

Neil

West London Tram to go ahead
 

KingBBoogaloo wrote:
The other down side (for some) is the ?1.50 flat fare, which is double what
I pay on the "normal" buses.


The shocking rise from 60p to a quid for the cheapest single back in
January was bad enough...



pete
--
"That is enigmatic. That is textbook enigmatic..." - Dr Who
"There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas." - N Blackwell

West London Tram to go ahead
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pete Fenelon wrote:

The ticket machine's crashed on both of my ftr rides so far -
unfortunately after I'd got on and successfully bought a ticket...

Bad software, then...probably either a rush job or too cheap.

Overall... not much difference between ftr and a normal bendybus,
although I can't see how the driver being isolated behind smoked
glass
will make passengers feel any safer... (wasn't one of the
objectives of
ftr to make bus travel less unappealing to women?)

I find that the fact that MK Metro *don't* have screens of any
kind[1]
protecting the drivers to be much more reassuring, as the only
reason
they don't is because they don't need them, because bus driver
assaults
are pretty much unknown.

[1] A very small number (3 I think) of the very new full-size single
deckers do, but they are always left fully open. I think they were
provided because they were standard rather than necessary,
especially
as Metro are now Arriva owned[2] so probably procure through them.


Although I strongly suspect the buses were already on order prior to
the Arriva takeover... although I guess some minor changes may have
been possible.


[2] You'd never know, as there hasn't been a rebranding, and Arriva
have actually openly stated they don't plan to, possibly because
Metro
has a very good local identity (almost like a municipal, even though
they've never been one) and generally seem to be liked.


I have a theory on why there has been no re-branding yet.... its
because Arriva thought there might be a Competition Commission
referral.... last I heard this was still a possibility.... why rebrand
something you may have to sell on (or give back to the original
owners). If (when?) it gets cleared (either with or without a CC
referral), I wouldn't be surprised if Arriva logos start to appear,
followed by the eventual rebranding.

Neil

West London Tram to go ahead
 

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.

--
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
 

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Neil Williams wrote:

The ticket machine's crashed on both of my ftr rides so far -
unfortunately after I'd got on and successfully bought a ticket...
Bad software, then...probably either a rush job or too cheap.

What advantage is this machine meant to give anyway? I can't its in any
way an improvement on the previous mode of operation.
--
Chris Johns

West London Tram to go ahead
 

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

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.

What is actually the limiting factor in how many buses you can run on
a route?