|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 8, 2017 23:35:29 GMT
How about the 271 route between Archway* and Moorgate? Yes it's short but in terms of infrastructure the roads are mostly wide enough. (*not sure about Highgate, both the hill and the village locals) That would break the rules I imposed in the first place as it runs from Central London Rules aside, this routing could work for trams, however the massive caveat would be that this would lead to the demise of several bus routes along the Moorgate/Holloway corridor as it's in too close proximity to Central London where the bus system is at its most dense. These routes are perfectly justified along there, so having trams alongside wouldn't be desirable. It's more ideal for trams to be implemented on routings that popular, fairly unique trunk routes with high ridership traverse i.e. the 65/120/140 in the west, 34/102/123 in the north and 145/229/269 in the east etc. These routes are just examples for illustrative purposes.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 9, 2017 9:15:26 GMT
How about the 271 route between Archway* and Moorgate? Yes it's short but in terms of infrastructure the roads are mostly wide enough. (*not sure about Highgate, both the hill and the village locals) That would break the rules I imposed in the first place as it runs from Central London Rules aside, this routing could work for trams, however the massive caveat would be that this would lead to the demise of several bus routes along the Moorgate/Holloway corridor as it's in too close proximity to Central London where the bus system is at its most dense. These routes are perfectly justified along there, so having trams alongside wouldn't be desirable. It's more ideal for trams to be implemented on routings that popular, fairly unique trunk routes with high ridership traverse i.e. the 65/120/140 in the west, 34/102/123 in the north and 145/229/269 in the east etc. These routes are just examples for illustrative purposes. I appreciate you have quoted the 34/102/123 as "illustrative" but I can't see any of those being converted to tram (sadly). The really big problem on each will be the interface with the A1 and / or A406. I simply can't see tram tracks being put on those roads especially given the pounding the road surface gets and the difficulty of dealing with the all too frequent serious accidents. I could just about envisage trolleybuses but not trams. I also think you'd struggle to get trams through Muswell Hill or the Bishops Avenue because of "angry locals".
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jun 9, 2017 10:36:20 GMT
That would break the rules I imposed in the first place as it runs from Central London Rules aside, this routing could work for trams, however the massive caveat would be that this would lead to the demise of several bus routes along the Moorgate/Holloway corridor as it's in too close proximity to Central London where the bus system is at its most dense. These routes are perfectly justified along there, so having trams alongside wouldn't be desirable. It's more ideal for trams to be implemented on routings that popular, fairly unique trunk routes with high ridership traverse i.e. the 65/120/140 in the west, 34/102/123 in the north and 145/229/269 in the east etc. These routes are just examples for illustrative purposes. I appreciate you have quoted the 34/102/123 as "illustrative" but I can't see any of those being converted to tram (sadly). The really big problem on each will be the interface with the A1 and / or A406. I simply can't see tram tracks being put on those roads especially given the pounding the road surface gets and the difficulty of dealing with the all too frequent serious accidents. I could just about envisage trolleybuses but not trams. I also think you'd struggle to get trams through Muswell Hill or the Bishops Avenue because of "angry locals". I posted this a long time ago; trams work where they have there own dedicated road i.e. Blackpool, or utilise redundant railways i.e. Manchester and Croydon. To install tram lines on already congested roads would be a nightmare, I was working in Croydon when they installed the track there and the congestion had to be seen to be beleived. The trollybuses in London were scrapped as the infrastructure that was inherited from the tram network was well past its sell by date, and the buzz word for using diesel buses was 'flexibility.' Now that everyone is thinking 'green' you could install a trollybus system, with little inconvenience to other road users.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Jun 11, 2017 10:40:42 GMT
You could extend the line from Beckenham Junction to Bromley using the 162 route via Park Langley.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 11, 2017 19:17:27 GMT
I appreciate you have quoted the 34/102/123 as "illustrative" but I can't see any of those being converted to tram (sadly). The really big problem on each will be the interface with the A1 and / or A406. I simply can't see tram tracks being put on those roads especially given the pounding the road surface gets and the difficulty of dealing with the all too frequent serious accidents. I could just about envisage trolleybuses but not trams. I also think you'd struggle to get trams through Muswell Hill or the Bishops Avenue because of "angry locals". I posted this a long time ago; trams work where they have there own dedicated road i.e. Blackpool, or utilise redundant railways i.e. Manchester and Croydon. To install tram lines on already congested roads would be a nightmare, I was working in Croydon when they installed the track there and the congestion had to be seen to be beleived. The trollybuses in London were scrapped as the infrastructure that was inherited from the tram network was well past its sell by date, and the buzz word for using diesel buses was 'flexibility.' Now that everyone is thinking 'green' you could install a trollybus system, with little inconvenience to other road users. I very much like the idea of trolleybuses, particularly if there is a quick and easy way to attach / detach the poles to the wires. You could then combine this with a battery, so where trolley bus wires can not easily be installed, the bus runs on its batteries. The vast majority of time it will run attached to its wires and this can also be used to charge the battery. This would also deal with road works, diversions etc and give the 'flexibility' required. If of course in say 5-10 years the battery problem is solved, then it would look very short sighted installing trolley bus wires at significant cost, when they would suddenly become redundant due to the massively improved battery technology.
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Jul 4, 2017 16:06:39 GMT
Personally I just think we need MAN Lion City DD buses, they are more flexible than a tram
|
|
|
Post by guybowden on Jul 4, 2017 16:36:57 GMT
I think trams would be better on trunk roads more than replacing bus routes. My idea-
Tram terminus at Bromley South on the high street, following the 208 to lewisham then up to New Cross up through Peckham and Camberwell to terminate at Vauxhall. Split the 136 into two parts (Grove Park to Downham) (Peckham to E&C). Reduce the 208 to Bromley North or Catford (reducing the frequency for Catford), also reduce the 320 to Bromley North. The frequency of the 36, 436, 177 can be reduced.
Tram terminus at London Bridge following the 47 route but staying on Lower Road to Lewisham, linking in with the above route. Route 47 can be withdrawn, withdraw the 199 from Catford to Lewisham. The 75 can be cut back to Catford Town Centre.
A possible tram depot could be along the A21 after Farnborough Hospital (extending the Bromley South branch to Farnborough Hospital, again reducing the frequencies along the A21). You could also have a branch into Orpington but I am not sure on the routing because of the width or the roads from Locks Bottom.
Obviously this is just for South East London, I don't know many other parts of London well enough to comment on. I'm sure with more thinking it could be developed to expand into Greenwich, possibly Woolwich. With a bit of tweaking I'm sure you could extend the trams from Beckenham Junction to Bromley South following the railway line (modifying the platforms at Shortlands and Bromley South)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 1:20:28 GMT
It's very ironic that this is being debated, as London used to have an excellent tram network, until town centre planners decided to vandalise the network and rip it up, we can now look back retrospectively and say what a massive cock up was made.
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Jul 5, 2017 5:38:27 GMT
Personally I just think we need MAN Lion City DD buses, they are more flexible than a tram Although it may be great for passenger service in London, I think many do not consider how heavy a Tri-Axle bus such as the LC DD can be. I personally don't think tri-axle buses would do much to solve the passenger loads in London. Moreover, having tri-axle buses with a length of 13.7m won't be adequate for the way London's streets are currently developed.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 5, 2017 6:06:17 GMT
Not sure I would directly convert any routes, but would like to create a ring around London approximately on the zone 4 and 5 boundary. Not exactly on the boundary because it should deviate a bit to serve major shopping centres, hospitals, stadiums, and interchange rail stations.
I would then adjust the bus network to allow interchange and avoid buses duplicating the tram.
As an example, Starting at existing tram line, I would remove the tram from Wimbledon station, divert it over the bridge past fromt of station, continue tracks towards Wimbledon village, left towards Coombe flyover, Kingston hospital (Norbiton), Towards Park Road, Tudor Drive, Ham, new bridge over Thames to Strawberry Vale, Twickenham station, Rugby stadium, West Middlesex hospital, Ealing hospital etc. (Bus route 57/131, then 371, then 267/110, etc)
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Jul 5, 2017 10:14:23 GMT
Personally I just think we need MAN Lion City DD buses, they are more flexible than a tram Although it may be great for passenger service in London, I think many do not consider how heavy a Tri-Axle bus such as the LC DD can be. I personally don't think tri-axle buses would do much to solve the passenger loads in London. Moreover, having tri-axle buses with a length of 13.7m won't be adequate for the way London's streets are currently developed. While they might not solve the problem, they would certainly help, having a legal capacity of 128, that quite a bit more than the 90 you get out of a current tfl decker, it depends what routes they are put on really, the 25 for example is pretty straight, only issue I can see would be Ilford Stand where they would stick out a little, Longer buses aren't really such an issue with London as everyone thinks they are, plus they have rear steer so are more manoeuvrable than you think, the turn at Oxford Street onto Regent Street is more than possible with a 15M coach so I doubt a 13/14M bus will be a problem, obviously not all routes are going to be able to accommodate these but it would help some routes out. Going back on topic of trams, I think it would be a better idea for certain corridors to have a trams running the length eg Romford - Bank for example or Waterloo - Croydon, rather than routes converted
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 5, 2017 10:37:22 GMT
It's very ironic that this is being debated, as London used to have an excellent tram network, until town centre planners decided to vandalise the network and rip it up, we can now look back retrospectively and say what a massive cock up was made. Absolutely, interesting to ponder on the tram network we could have had now if it were not for the short sightedness of our forefathers!
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 5, 2017 10:41:06 GMT
Although it may be great for passenger service in London, I think many do not consider how heavy a Tri-Axle bus such as the LC DD can be. I personally don't think tri-axle buses would do much to solve the passenger loads in London. Moreover, having tri-axle buses with a length of 13.7m won't be adequate for the way London's streets are currently developed. While they might not solve the problem, they would certainly help, having a legal capacity of 128, that quite a bit more than the 90 you get out of a current tfl decker, it depends what routes they are put on really, the 25 for example is pretty straight, only issue I can see would be Ilford Stand where they would stick out a little, Longer buses aren't really such an issue with London as everyone thinks they are, plus they have rear steer so are more manoeuvrable than you think, the turn at Oxford Street onto Regent Street is more than possible with a 15M coach so I doubt a 13/14M bus will be a problem, obviously not all routes are going to be able to accommodate these but it would help some routes out. Going back on topic of trams, I think it would be a better idea for certain corridors to have a trams running the length eg Romford - Bank for example or Waterloo - Croydon, rather than routes converted To me the only candidates for tram conversions will be where you can get suitable stretches of off-street running, otherwise trams will be stuck in the same traffic as buses and cars. This is the main reason behind tramlinks success
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 5, 2017 11:20:11 GMT
Personally I just think we need MAN Lion City DD buses, they are more flexible than a tram Although it may be great for passenger service in London, I think many do not consider how heavy a Tri-Axle bus such as the LC DD can be. I personally don't think tri-axle buses would do much to solve the passenger loads in London. Moreover, having tri-axle buses with a length of 13.7m won't be adequate for the way London's streets are currently developed. The Sightseeing operators have tri axles running around Central London including down small roads without issues such as the side roads around Leicester Square. As VPL630 said, you wouldn't put them on every route anyway and I do think whilst they might not solve passengers loads, they'll certainly help. Routes like the 25, 109, 207/607, 279 would be great places to start.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 5, 2017 15:23:34 GMT
Although it may be great for passenger service in London, I think many do not consider how heavy a Tri-Axle bus such as the LC DD can be. I personally don't think tri-axle buses would do much to solve the passenger loads in London. Moreover, having tri-axle buses with a length of 13.7m won't be adequate for the way London's streets are currently developed. The Sightseeing operators have tri axles running around Central London including down small roads without issues such as the side roads around Leicester Square. As VPL630 said, you wouldn't put them on every route anyway and I do think whilst they might not solve passengers loads, they'll certainly help. Routes like the 25, 109, 207/607, 279 would be great places to start. I do love the way everyone eventually catches up with all the ideas I used to be the most successful Fantasy London Bus Operator. I used both Lion City deckers and HK style tri-axles on major routes that I ran.
|
|