|
|
Post by towerman on Sept 12, 2014 13:00:23 GMT
Do you think it would have been better & more enviromentally friendly for LT to have stuck to their original post war plan to upgrade & extend the trolleybus network & maybe have delayed the introduction of the Routemaster till the mid 60s to replace the RT fleet?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 12, 2014 14:04:51 GMT
Do you think it would have been better & more enviromentally friendly for LT to have stuck to their original post war plan to upgrade & extend the trolleybus network & maybe have delayed the introduction of the Routemaster till the mid 60s to replace the RT fleet? Warning - long reply. Depends when you look back from. If you look back from 2014 or even 2004 then probably yes. However if you go back to 1994, 1984 or 1974 I think it gets much much harder to see how it would have been afforded. London has changed massively and the transport pressures now seem to be inexorable in terms of ongoing increases in demand and worsening environmental performance. London in the 1970s or 80s was nothing like this and the entire transport network was run down and ageing. If I am remembering my history properly a fair bit of the Trolleybus electrical infrastructure was inherited from the tram system and was "worn out". That would have needed replacement at least twice by now. You then have to consider what would have happened with the vehicles. I know Trolleys can have a long life but they would probably have had to be replaced twice over by now and there would have been enormous cost associated with that. Every time the investment question arose the future of the Trolleybus would have been called in to question because for decades the diesel bus has been seen as "flexible" and the only option. We're now in a slightly different position with hybrids and dabbling with all electric vehicles. I would also ask the question whether people could see swish fleets of bendy / triple bendy single deck trolleybuses wafting through Kingston, Tottenham, Leyton or Bexleyheath. That's a serious question because of the unlikelihood (IMO) of an affordable double deck trolleybus being feasible given the concentration of knowhow with mainland european manufacturers. I have to say I am sceptical about any of the previous or current interations of LT / LRT / TfL being brave enough to have large fleets of low floor single deck trolleys in operation. As an aside I read Andrew Braddocks's column in the latest buses. Mr B is a big fan of trolleys and european bus operation. He recited a story about escorting LT managers on a trip to Zurich where three bars on a cab display meant the bus was 3 *seconds* late not 3 minutes. He also said Zurich have a vehicle weighing system so they can detect higher loadings on every individual bus and then reprogramme the schedule to add vehicles. This is because Zurich have a policy of offering enough capacity so no one has to stand on a journey. The computer system had even identified the time of the journeys of Mr B and his LT visitors on a roue 46 trolleybus the previous day. They also do try extremely hard not to curtail vehicles. This is partly because there are not many places where you can curtail a trolleybus or tram because you need the wiring / tracks to do it. In the event of a curtailment being necessary they run an empty bus in front of the bus to be curtailed and then seamlessly transfer to the empty bus. That sort of attention to detail is just streets ahead of what London does although London does have the difficulty of much tougher traffic conditions. I'd like to see trolleybuses come back to London because I think they can offer high capacity, high quality low impact public transport that the public would find attractive. Ditto for trams. Unfortunately no politicians have sufficient vision for that. If I can't have trolleys I'd like TfL to pursue Zurich style quality of service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 14:24:29 GMT
Do you think it would have been better & more enviromentally friendly for LT to have stuck to their original post war plan to upgrade & extend the trolleybus network & maybe have delayed the introduction of the Routemaster till the mid 60s to replace the RT fleet? It would certainly have been more environmentally friendly. There were many transport schemes abandoned in the 60's - 80's. The only major environmentally friendly scheme that did kick off was the DLR and who would have thought then how big the network was going to grow. TfL have dabbled with the Croydon tram scheme, abandoned the Uxbridge Road tram scheme and don't appear to mention the south - north tram line through Elephant . As for better, I can only say in my personal preference , which is for environmentally friendly mass transport systems over polluting diesel vehicles, so yes it would have been lovely to see trolley buses expanding across London. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 12, 2014 14:56:11 GMT
Do you think it would have been better & more enviromentally friendly for LT to have stuck to their original post war plan to upgrade & extend the trolleybus network & maybe have delayed the introduction of the Routemaster till the mid 60s to replace the RT fleet? It would certainly have been more environmentally friendly. There were many transport schemes abandoned in the 60's - 80's. The only major environmentally friendly scheme that did kick off was the DLR and who would have thought then how big the network was going to grow. TfL have dabbled with the Croydon tram scheme, abandoned the Uxbridge Road tram scheme and don't appear to mention the south - north tram line through Elephant . As for better, I can only say in my personal preference , which is for environmentally friendly mass transport systems over polluting diesel vehicles, so yes it would have been lovely to see trolley buses expanding across London. You can, of course, turn the DLR argument on its head and say it's been a complete disaster and waste of money. This is on the basis that it was built down to a price with all the inadequacies and failings that brought - trains too small, stations too small, inward folding doors that caused delays, unreliable signalling. The fact that billions have had to be spent on forever expanding DLR and it's still full and we now have multi billions still being spent to create Crossrail which duplicates several key links covered by the DLR plus the JLE expenditure, 7 car upgrade, signalling upgrade and next 36 tph upgrade shows that the planning process and lack of government funding means we could / should have had two Crossrails and a tube line for all the money that has been spent. I'm being a bit devil's advocate there as I quite like the DLR and the local transport links it gives but a fast, high capacity railway for major flows it is not. There are certainly no more plans to extend it which suggests it has fulfilled its purpose and cannot be expanded. The 2050 infrastructure plan only talks about removing a couple of pinchpoints and adding some extra services serving Stratford but otherwise that's it. If we need yet more transport capacity in the Isle of Dogs / East London then it's an automatic tube line or another Crossrail that will be needed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 17:22:06 GMT
It would certainly have been more environmentally friendly. There were many transport schemes abandoned in the 60's - 80's. The only major environmentally friendly scheme that did kick off was the DLR and who would have thought then how big the network was going to grow. TfL have dabbled with the Croydon tram scheme, abandoned the Uxbridge Road tram scheme and don't appear to mention the south - north tram line through Elephant . As for better, I can only say in my personal preference , which is for environmentally friendly mass transport systems over polluting diesel vehicles, so yes it would have been lovely to see trolley buses expanding across London. You can, of course, turn the DLR argument on its head and say it's been a complete disaster and waste of money. This is on the basis that it was built down to a price with all the inadequacies and failings that brought - trains too small, stations too small, inward folding doors that caused delays, unreliable signalling. The fact that billions have had to be spent on forever expanding DLR and it's still full and we now have multi billions still being spent to create Crossrail which duplicates several key links covered by the DLR plus the JLE expenditure, 7 car upgrade, signalling upgrade and next 36 tph upgrade shows that the planning process and lack of government funding means we could / should have had two Crossrails and a tube line for all the money that has been spent. I'm being a bit devil's advocate there as I quite like the DLR and the local transport links it gives but a fast, high capacity railway for major flows it is not. There are certainly no more plans to extend it which suggests it has fulfilled its purpose and cannot be expanded. The 2050 infrastructure plan only talks about removing a couple of pinchpoints and adding some extra services serving Stratford but otherwise that's it. If we need yet more transport capacity in the Isle of Dogs / East London then it's an automatic tube line or another Crossrail that will be needed. Wow quite a d*mning version of the DLR there. What about the proposals to extend the line to Bromley North ? This is the option Bromley Council would prefer. The point about the passenger numbers is just because growth in the area has been huge. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 12, 2014 18:47:55 GMT
Wow quite a d*mning version of the DLR there. What about the proposals to extend the line to Bromley North ? This is the option Bromley Council would prefer. The point about the passenger numbers is just because growth in the area has been huge. I did say I was playing devil's advocate. I've certainly read comments from people elsewhere who view the DLR as a complete waste of time and money and who take the view that a "proper railway" with much longer trains would have been a far more sensible solution. Unfortunately the politics of the time were poisonous given the GLC was in direct opposition to the Government and the LDDC wanted its own railway and nothing to do with LT. The government didn't believe in public transport either - remember Nicholas Ridley was in charge then. I understand it took pressure from Michael Heseltine to get anything done in terms of public transport access to the Isle of Dogs. Bromley Council have recently had an update paper on the prospects for extending the DLR or Tube to Bromley. The DLR option had a negligible business case and the Mayor has instructed TfL to stop working on that option. Therefore no prospect at all of the DLR reaching Bromley. We are left with either an Overground service to Bromley or possibly the Bakerloo Line extension. The Council is not convinced by a tram extension from Croydon so that's out of the window. It is also to be convinced about the tube because of concerns about the impact on Hayes line commuters. As you can see there is not much enthusiasm for anything apart from cars. I have to say the redevelopment at Lewisham has almost certainly stopped any DLR extension on from there. Given the rivers in the area and development on the approach from Elverson Road it would be extremely difficult to get the DLR into tunnel in order to get under the Gateway developments (assuming the foundations won't prevent it). The developments also severely restrict the options for unlocking NR capacity at Lewisham. This poses massive issues for improving frequency and capacity on the South Eastern network. You have to wonder what Lewisham Council were thinking about. There is clearly no appetite at City Hall for DLR extensions. It is all about squeezing the maximum capacity out of what is there today. The old ideas about running to Dagenham or to Farringdon / Euston or Charing Cross and Victoria are not mentioned in the 2050 Infrastructure Plan Transport supplement. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Sept 12, 2014 23:16:39 GMT
Do you think it would have been better & more enviromentally friendly for LT to have stuck to their original post war plan to upgrade & extend the trolleybus network & maybe have delayed the introduction of the Routemaster till the mid 60s to replace the RT fleet? This has always been a talking point now we're supposed to be 'green.' As the trolleybuses were using the same infrastructure as the trams, some of which was 30+ years old, the whole infrastructure would need replacement. During the blitz it was reported that the overhead wiring was as impediment for the Fire Brigade. 'Flexibility' was the buzz word post war in selling the diesel bus, where as the trolley like the tram had a 'rigidness' to it. I can't imagine a trolleybus system now as it was prior to 1962, we now have the technology for flywheel energy storage for in town, and use wiring in the suburbs? |
|
|
|
Post by moz on Sept 16, 2014 21:56:17 GMT
Do you think it would have been better & more enviromentally friendly for LT to have stuck to their original post war plan to upgrade & extend the trolleybus network & maybe have delayed the introduction of the Routemaster till the mid 60s to replace the RT fleet? This has always been a talking point now we're supposed to be 'green.' As the trolleybuses were using the same infrastructure as the trams, some of which was 30+ years old, the whole infrastructure would need replacement. During the blitz it was reported that the overhead wiring was as impediment for the Fire Brigade. 'Flexibility' was the buzz word post war in selling the diesel bus, where as the trolley like the tram had a 'rigidness' to it. I can't imagine a trolleybus system now as it was prior to 1962, we now have the technology for flywheel energy storage for in town, and use wiring in the suburbs? Just to expand the question a bit with a bit more 'what if', had the Q1 Trolleys survived in London until their scheduled withdrawal in the mid 70s then they would have still been in place when the fuel crisis started - would this have had any impact on their retention or possible re-expansion of the network? Moz Also, just to annoy vjaska  , all the tramway catanery poles along Brixton Hill and part of Streatham Hill were replaced with ones capable of accepting Trolleybus wires just prior to WWII... |
|
, all the tramway catanery poles along Brixton Hill and part of Streatham Hill were replaced with ones capable of accepting Trolleybus wires just prior to WWII...