|
Post by Steve80 on May 22, 2005 0:43:15 GMT
Is there anyone here that uses the croydon tramlink? What do you think of the planned extentions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2005 9:37:52 GMT
Yes, I use it at least twice a week. Grouses: cars too hot in this hot weather; constantly irrated by wretched "personal" stereos (which are anything but) and much fare evasion evident. Culprits never seem to be charged with penalty fares. Much vandalism around -cannot Tramlink organise some hit squads to remove and possibly prevent inane and illegal scribbling and paint-spraying on trackside equipment/buildings?
Good points: regular reliable service; useful for popping into Croydon; invalid access etc. Crystal Palace extension seems likely. Not sure about Purley or Norbury. Wish they'd take cycles in the off-peak.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jun 24, 2005 23:13:33 GMT
I use alot the Croydon to Wimbledon line. If anything they should extend the frequency on this section. You not always guaranteed a seat.
I seen inspectors and they come in groups but not many. They need air con in there definately.
The extension to Crystal Palace would be good. I would like an extension to Bromley. Don't really need it to go to Purley. Can't imagine trams to Streatham at this moment. What happen to Biggin Hill extension?
|
|
|
Post by jrussa on Jan 13, 2007 23:47:45 GMT
I think the Croydon Tramlink (first) should extend from Wimbledon to Putney or somwhere near Central London. If going to Crystal Palace, should extend to Brixton, then Elephant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2007 0:02:26 GMT
Crystal Palace and Purley is a better bet. The point of Tramlink is that it gives South London some sort of transport system that is quick and easy. They have hardly any tube service because of the ground in south London and the tramlink is perfect to fit the job. Tramlink connects to the District Line and near enough the Northern, so it serves its purpose.
The Cross River trams will go from Brixton and Peckham to Camden and will take the pressure off the Northern Line, which can only be good!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2007 11:39:05 GMT
Crystal Palace and Purley is a better bet. The point of Tramlink is that it gives South London some sort of transport system that is quick and easy. They have hardly any tube service because of the ground in south London and the tramlink is perfect to fit the job. Tramlink connects to the District Line and near enough the Northern, so it serves its purpose. The Cross River trams will go from Brixton and Peckham to Camden and will take the pressure off the Northern Line, which can only be good! It's highly unlikely that the Cross River Trams will happen. It's cost prohibitive. Any money TfL had as well is being blown on the Olympics.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Apr 12, 2007 13:01:31 GMT
Can someone please explain this facination with tramways? I worked in Croydon when the 'new' lines were being laid, the traffic was horrendous! For something which is just a Bendy on rails, its only benefit is 'green.' Its been said before by others and myself, they only work where they use redundant rail lines, or you can build a dedicated route, as in some European cities. Where is the route to Crystal Palace going to run, and as for a north-south link, can you imagine what the A23 and the A2 will be like??!! And if there's a north-south link, will it use the old Kingsway tunnel? If thats the case, the Aldwych will be a car park. As Bob writes, there'll be no money for horse & cart let alone a tram route, once our grandchildren have finished paying for the 5 ring circus. I read recently that Montreal had just finished paying for theirs!!
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Apr 12, 2007 22:33:57 GMT
There are still problems with the traffic every time the trams pass through east croydon especially. Traffic lights also goes haywire when the trams pass through merton park causing big tailbacks especially for routes 163 and 164 on hartfield road.
Only thing wrong with croydon trams is that they are too busy and not guaranteed a seat. Shoud of made it 3 carriages instead of 2. Its seriously overcrowed on rush hour.
I think it would be good to extend the tram to crystal palace. The proposed route seems a bit u-shaped though and wonder if it would make any difference to taking a direct 157 bus
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2007 7:56:00 GMT
Can someone please explain this facination with tramways? I worked in Croydon when the 'new' lines were being laid, the traffic was horrendous! For something which is just a Bendy on rails, its only benefit is 'green.' Its been said before by others and myself, they only work where they use redundant rail lines, or you can build a dedicated route, as in some European cities. Where is the route to Crystal Palace going to run, and as for a north-south link, can you imagine what the A23 and the A2 will be like??!! And if there's a north-south link, will it use the old Kingsway tunnel? If thats the case, the Aldwych will be a car park. As Bob writes, there'll be no money for horse & cart let alone a tram route, once our grandchildren have finished paying for the 5 ring circus. I read recently that Montreal had just finished paying for theirs!! It seems to be the facination polititians have with expensive white elephants, we have had the Millenium Dome, we are getting the London Olympics fiasco and their other pet one at present is building tram lines. Trams only really work where the roads are wide enough to accomodate them or they run on old railway lines. The Croydon trams work well enough where they are running on the old Railway lines but once they come onto normal roads is a total mess. Have a look here dewi.ca/trains/london/trams.html for some old London Trams. They did work back then but this Trams were a lot narrower and shorter then modern Trams and the other noticable think is the very few number of cars on the road. Trying to put trams on Londons narrow , congested roads with lots of pedestrians about as well is just crazy. Trams are also very very expensive and take years to put in. They operate on a fixed track so cannot even steer around obstructions. Any breakdown , Traffic accident etc brings the service to a total halt. To me Trolleybuses seem a much better alternative, they are far far cheaper & just as clean and also have the advatage over trams that they are not noisy. The cost difference even beteen Modern environmentaly friendly buses & Trollybuses is small currently trollybuses being about 10% more expensive to operate but Trollybuses tend to attract more passengers so that offsets that cost a bit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2007 16:02:25 GMT
Can someone please explain this facination with tramways? I worked in Croydon when the 'new' lines were being laid, the traffic was horrendous! For something which is just a Bendy on rails, its only benefit is 'green.' Its been said before by others and myself, they only work where they use redundant rail lines, or you can build a dedicated route, as in some European cities. Where is the route to Crystal Palace going to run, and as for a north-south link, can you imagine what the A23 and the A2 will be like??!! And if there's a north-south link, will it use the old Kingsway tunnel? If thats the case, the Aldwych will be a car park. As Bob writes, there'll be no money for horse & cart let alone a tram route, once our grandchildren have finished paying for the 5 ring circus. I read recently that Montreal had just finished paying for theirs!! The latest cost estimates for the proposed West London Tram link now exceed £1 Billion pounds. The scheme will cause considerable permant disruption in the area and increase congestion in the area. It also involves wholesale demolition of properties along the route. TfL have been unable to give any real benefit o the Scheme. It seems to be they just think Trams are a good idea.. The main reasons trams were scraped originally was they were becoing an increasing danger to pedestrians and other traffic and lacked flexibility and that was in traffic conditions of probably 1/20th of what they are today. To be economic the Tram link would need Peak loads of 10,000 passengers per hour. Even TfL's most optimitic case only comes to about 2000 per hour. In comparsion buses cost about £15Million to £20 Million. A Trollybus Scheme would cost under £50 Million. Its difficult to see how TfL can justify spending £1 Billion pound on a service which is in fact 1 Route and offers little benefit over what is already in place. The Croydon Tram Link has already proved Trams & other Vehicles & Pedestrians are not a good mix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2007 19:41:28 GMT
In the long term, a trolleybus system will hardly be more expensive than an ordinary bus system. However, I've said this and I'll say it again - trams and trolleybuses are modes on different hierarchies, whereas trolleybuses and buses are on the same one. The ONLY similarity between a trolleybus and a tram is they use the same power - electricity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2007 12:27:03 GMT
In the long term, a trolleybus system will hardly be more expensive than an ordinary bus system. However, I've said this and I'll say it again - trams and trolleybuses are modes on different hierarchies, whereas trolleybuses and buses are on the same one. The ONLY similarity between a trolleybus and a tram is they use the same power - electricity. No Trams, Trolleybuses & buses are all fundamentally the same in that they are used to transport people from A to B and travel along a predefined route so there is no real differences. There cannot be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2007 12:49:10 GMT
No Trams, Trolleybuses & buses are all fundamentally the same in that they are used to transport people from A to B and travel along a predefined route so there is no real differences. There cannot be. To Joe public - there might not be, but to the person planning transport, there HAS to be. There must be the right type of transport mode to best suit the loading demand and speed requirements. There is a whole host of geographyic topics that affect these factors. And indeed FUNDAMENTALLY they are the same, but within the class 'public transport' there are sub-classes. And transport cannot be properly planned without breaking things down to every little detail. Even urban and urban-rural buses may be technicially different in that they could have different axle ratios.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Apr 22, 2007 13:41:46 GMT
I would have thought trams are faster than trolleybuses? Possibly safer? Don't forget that trains used to run from croydon to wimbledon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2007 16:49:11 GMT
Trolleybuses can achieve the same speeds if there are segregated lanes, as well as buses.
|
|