🚀 go-pugleaf

Surely the cost of building the proposed Edinburgh tramway will
be prohibitive? Sheffield had to be bailed out by Stagecoach with
the surrounding local authorities taking huge losses.
I am well aware that Mr Begg will no doubt throw his weight
behind this scheme, but one thing troubles me whether it
be Manchester, London, Sheffield, Glasgow, Edinburgh etc.
Why does no-one go for trolleybuses?
I really don't understand, please help.
David

--
Visit the UCS Website at:
www.ucsweb.freeserve.co.uk

David Hansen wrote:

> NEW EDINBURGH TRAMWAYS PRESENTATION & EXHIBITION: HAYMARKET - LEITH
> TRAMWAY

<snippage>

Has funding been arranged? And has Prescott had anything to say on the
matter. He doesn't like trams, though I wish somebody would take him on a
tour of the UK's systems so he can see the error of his ways...

But if they can get together 100% of the funding, then Prescott's not going
to say no, just "build it as a guided bus".

A.Boodoo

"David Munro" <davidmunro@cableinet.co.uk> writes:

> Surely the cost of building the proposed Edinburgh tramway will
> be prohibitive? Sheffield had to be bailed out by Stagecoach with
> the surrounding local authorities taking huge losses.
> I am well aware that Mr Begg will no doubt throw his weight
> behind this scheme, ...

Back when Begg was an Edinburgh councillor, the council was very
doubtful indeed about the tram scheme - perhaps swayed by their 90%+
stake in LRT, who knows.  Have I missed a change of heart since then?
-- 

	-- Chris.
		

David Munro wrote in message <7j1lhb$k2s$1@news1.cableinet.co.uk>...
>Surely the cost of building the proposed Edinburgh tramway will
>be prohibitive? Sheffield had to be bailed out by Stagecoach with
>the surrounding local authorities taking huge losses.
>I am well aware that Mr Begg will no doubt throw his weight
>behind this scheme, but one thing troubles me whether it
>be Manchester, London, Sheffield, Glasgow, Edinburgh etc.
>Why does no-one go for trolleybuses?
>I really don't understand, please help.


Part of the issue is that the Edinburgh tram people will be going for a much
cheaper and lighter tram design, which has been prototyped in Blackpool.
This substantially lowers the cost, particularly as the different design of
track means that utility diversions are not needed. As such, they think the
costs will be massively lower than existing tram projects.

In terms of Supertram, the main problem was that the routeing was stupid,
due to various major traffic objectives being demolished after construction
had started. This is unlikely in Edinburgh.

Finally, trolleybuses are unlikely because they are buses! This may sound
silly, but there is a perception that the definition of a failure is "anyone
over 25 sitting on a bus". So, basically, anything bus-based won't get the
ridership. A tram (particularly if it is largely on segregated track)
"feels" like a train and so does get it.

You might guess that I am quite excited about the Edinburgh tram project
(even from down here in London). It looks like, if taken up, it might
provide very good low-cost light rail, and expand the light railway and tram
market in the UK.

--
Alistair Bell (my feet are big, not small)
I don't speak for anyone (including myself!)

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."

In article <7j1lhb$k2s$1@news1.cableinet.co.uk>, David Munro (dm) writes:

dm> Why does no-one go for trolleybuses?

What wouldbe the point? We've _got_ busses. OK, a small improvement in
terms of pollution, but I presume the main object is to unclog the
streets. 

-- 
Mail me as rjc not spt@cstr.ed.ac.uk		_O_
						 |<

Richard Caley wrote:
> 
> In article <7j1lhb$k2s$1@news1.cableinet.co.uk>, David Munro (dm) writes:
> 
> dm> Why does no-one go for trolleybuses?
> 
> What wouldbe the point? We've _got_ busses. OK, a small improvement in
> terms of pollution, but I presume the main object is to unclog the
> streets.
> 
> --
> Mail me as rjc not spt@cstr.ed.ac.uk            _O_
>                                                  |<

Yes, I agree. The last trolleybusses I use were the ones in Bournemouth
(incidentally, when were they removed?), and they operated exactly like
busses, including getting held up by the other traffic (presumably more
so since their manoueverability is limited). Surely the perceived
benefits of trams are (1) their own dedicated track free from jams, with
a frequent regular service, and (2) a better ride?

Anthony.

In article <7j636q$2smn$1@quince.news.easynet.net>, "Alistair Bell"
<AlistairBell@smallfoot.com> wrote:
> Part of the issue is that the Edinburgh tram people will be going for a
> much
> cheaper and lighter tram design, which has been prototyped in Blackpool.
> This substantially lowers the cost, particularly as the different design
> of
> track means that utility diversions are not needed. As such, they think
> the
> costs will be massively lower than existing tram projects. 

There is an article on the TRAM group prototype and its progress in the June
Tramways & Urban Transit. 

-- 
 __  __  __  __      __ ___   _____________________________________        
|__||__)/ __/  \|\ ||_   |   /    geoffbannister@argonet.co.uk
|  ||  \\__/\__/| \||__  |  /     Reviews Editor, Railway Observer
___________________________/
30453 rules..OK?

Anthony New <amn@wsi.co.uk> writes:

> Surely the perceived
> benefits of trams are (1) their own dedicated track free from jams, with
> a frequent regular service, and (2) a better ride?

I was under the impression that nowadays one of the main 'perceived'
benefits is that trams produce pollution away from city centres.

-- 
--- -  -   -    -     -      -        -            -                 - 
Chris Gathercole

Chris Gathercole wrote:
> 
> Anthony New <amn@wsi.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > Surely the perceived
> > benefits of trams are (1) their own dedicated track free from jams, with
> > a frequent regular service, and (2) a better ride?
> 
> I was under the impression that nowadays one of the main 'perceived'
> benefits is that trams produce pollution away from city centres.
> 
> --
> --- -  -   -    -     -      -        -            -                 -
> Chris Gathercole

I wouldn't have thought so - in any case the main reason busses produce
pollution is their use of diesel engines. Many cleaner alternatives
exist for busses, including batteries, LPG, and gas, all of which have
been successfully tried. That they are not more common is probably down
to economics and regulations, both of which could be rigged to force the
issue given sufficient public pressure.
Anthony.

> 
> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 17:03:52 +0100, Anthony New <amn@wsi.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >Yes, I agree. The last trolleybusses I use were the ones in Bournemouth

> >(incidentally, when were they removed?), 

April 1969.

-- 
 __  __  __  __      __ ___   _____________________________________        
|__||__)/ __/  \|\ ||_   |   /    geoffbannister@argonet.co.uk
|  ||  \\__/\__/| \||__  |  /     Reviews Editor, Railway Observer
___________________________/
Come back, Bulleid, all is forgiven!

In article <3757c688.15715394@news.freeserve.co.uk>,
kenneth.glazier@which.net (Ken Glazier) wrote: 

 Surely the benefits of
> trolleybuses are that (1) they can have their own dedicated track free
> from traffic jams, 

Eh? Sounds more like trams to me......

-- 
 __  __  __  __      __ ___   _____________________________________        
|__||__)/ __/  \|\ ||_   |   /    geoffbannister@argonet.co.uk
|  ||  \\__/\__/| \||__  |  /     Reviews Editor, Railway Observer
___________________________/
John 3:16

Geoff Bannister wrote in message ...
>In article <7j636q$2smn$1@quince.news.easynet.net>, "Alistair Bell"
><AlistairBell@smallfoot.com> wrote:
>> Part of the issue is that the Edinburgh tram people will be going for a
>> much
>> cheaper and lighter tram design, which has been prototyped in Blackpool.
>> This substantially lowers the cost, particularly as the different design
>> of
>> track means that utility diversions are not needed. As such, they think
>> the
>> costs will be massively lower than existing tram projects.
>
Unfortunately the LR50 rail project relies on the strength of the existing
highway  paving to maintain the gauge and level, but most roads on which the
rails might be laid aren't up to standard.

Peter Fox

In article <375851d1.51377273@news.freeserve.co.uk>,
kenneth.glazier@which.net (Ken Glazier) wrote:
> 
> So you've made the same mistake as everyone else - in assuming that
> only trams can have a dedicated track. So can trolleybuses and buses -
> it's just a matter of deciding to do it. (Sorry if my irony confused
> you....)  

Not your irony, your choice of word.....

I wouldn't use "track" for a dedicated piece of road for TBs or buses. Lane
maybe but track in a transport context implied a railed section.

-- 
 __  __  __  __      __ ___   _____________________________________        
|__||__)/ __/  \|\ ||_   |   /    geoffbannister@argonet.co.uk
|  ||  \\__/\__/| \||__  |  /     Reviews Editor, Railway Observer
___________________________/
John 3:16

In article <375851d1.51377273@news.freeserve.co.uk>
           kenneth.glazier@which.net "Ken Glazier" writes:

<snip> 
> So you've made the same mistake as everyone else - in assuming that
> only trams can have a dedicated track. So can trolleybuses and buses -
> 
Which doesn't quite square with trolleybusses' alternative long title of
"trackless trolley vehicles".
<snip>
-- 
                                                         _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+  |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson:E-mail charlesATellson.demon.co.uk |  | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+  |  > <  |
                                                        | // \\ |
                                          Alba gu brath |//___\\|