Forum Topic

Trolleybuses:  something positive for Uxbridge Road  -  what the Gag-ette didn't want you to read

While pretending to reflect the clear public feeling against the Uxbridge Road tram scheme the Ealing Gag-ette has given the tram promoters and supporters opportunities for pro-team propaganda while quietly suppressing any comparable publicity for the most promising alternative means of bringing the many benefits of electric traction: TROLLEYBUSES.For example the Gag-ette published in 2003 a half-page 'Viewpoint' article by a reader titled 'So many reasons to have the tram'. In response I later wrote the article below explaining why trolleybuses are a much better idea. They even encouraged me to submit it for publication but have never published it, nor other pro-trolleybus articles and letters. It appears that the Gag-ette is in reality a closet tram supporter, probably because they think the tram will increase the value of their Uxbridge Road premises. High time for some competition in our local news media. Meanwhile here's the text my suppressed article:-Trams?  -   There is a better way:  TrolleybusesTramways cost too much, lose money, do little to cut traffic and don’t link to other transport modes. That’s the view of the National Audit Office, not just mine. And without even taking account of the disruption and chaos while they’re being built, and once they’re up and running.The Uxbridge Road tramway hasn’t a hope of being built because the necessary private finance won’t be forthcoming, yet Ealing Council and Transport for London continue to ignore well-founded local concerns and waste millions of pounds developing the scheme, while neglecting provision of even basic facilities such as passenger shelters and seating on other local bus routes in west London.The truth, which vested interests, naïve ‘green’ activists and blinkered tram fanatics refuse to see, is that it’s just not possible to fit a street tramway into a busy main road corridor like Uxbridge Road from Shepherds Bush to Hanwell without unacceptable disruption to local access and other activities, and without starving the rest of the transport system of investment. Only a trolleybus system can bring the huge environmental benefits of electric traction cost-effectively and without the disruption.Trolleybuses are powered by electricity from overhead wires, like trams, but run freely on rubber tyres like buses, thus giving trams’ freedom from noise, fumes and vibration while retaining buses’ flexibility and avoiding the need to push everybody else out of the way to make room for fixed tram tracks in the road. Unlike trams, trolleybuses can, and do, steer round parked vehicles and other obstructions.Because they don’t need rail tracks, trolleybus systems can be installed for a fraction of the cost, construction time and disruption of street tramways. That’s why trolleybuses replaced tramways in many cities, including London, before being killed off themselves by the oil and bus vested interests  -   London Transport actually commissioned Shell Oil to advise them on whether to keep trolleybuses or replace them with diesel buses!In other countries modern trolleybuses are running successfully, and world cities such as Rome and Athens are introducing new trolley systems. Worldwide there are more trolleybus systems than tramways, including the well-established and popular system in Lyons (see picture) with its sleek modern vehicles. Not everybody likes overhead wires, though modern trolleybus wires are much neater than tram overhead, and the visual impact is far outweighed by the absence of noise, fumes and vibration, compared to buses idling at stops or in traffic queues, which they inevitably have to much of the time in busy areas like this.Trolleybuses don’t need expensive and inflexible guidance rails or channels  -  contrary to the deliberate misinformation still being put out by the Transport for London and the tram project team. Last year tram project manager Tim Jones persisted in trying to tell a meeting of local business people that trolleybuses need fixed guidance systems, and at the tram project exhibition last June I caught his staff telling people that trolleybuses are ‘new and untried technology’ (!).Why do the tram project staff and their supporters keep peddling such nonsense? The truth is the Mayor, other politicians and some so-called ‘professionals’, are determined to force their pet project through regardless of the obvious drawbacks, and are prepared to say anything to try to rubbish any alternative idea which might get the tram scheme stopped. And be prepared for a propaganda onslaught by tram enthusiasts who are being egged on by present and former London transport staff.If the tram scheme is built it will replace the 207 and 607 buses, but all the other buses currently running along Uxbridge Road for part of their route  -  including the E2, E3, E7, E8, E11, 70, 83, 92, 195, 260, 266, 282, 283 and 440  -   are at risk of being pushed off Uxbridge Road so they don’t get in the way of the trams, and cut back to serve as ‘feeders’ to the trams. This will disrupt the journeys of many thousands of local people who only travel on Uxbridge Road en route for a mile or two because they have to.If trolleybuses are introduced instead of trams none of this disruption will be necessary  -  trolleybuses can work with buses and other traffic  -  and the money saved could and should be used to electrify other bus services using Uxbridge Road, further improving the environment and providing a proper network of electric trolleyroutes which would benefit far more people than just one long thin tramway along Uxbridge Road.Moreover, because trolleybus systems are quick as well as cheap to build, we’ll get the benefits years before a tramway could be up and running. Trolleybuses are cheaper to operate than diesel buses as well as much more environmentally friendly, and in Europe have been found to much more attractive to passengers than buses. They’re by far the best solution for Uxbridge Road and other busy bus routes.

Chris Veasey ● 7670d45 Comments

My goodness!  I remember the trolleybuses but not the trams before them in the Uxbridge Road!  There were reasons why they disappeared the first time around but one of the most significant was of the (still) greedy oil interests, recognised by your correspondent.My feeling is that there is a place for both trams and trolleybuses BUT trams are far more suited to serving the public on trunk routes such as the Uxbridge Road.  The capacity would be there and I would dare to offer to pay for a selection of your business folk to visit, say, Karlsruhe in Germany, where the main shopping street, some 1.8 Km. long, no wider than the inner end of the Uxbridge Road, carries an almost embarrasingly large number of trams because of their popularity and not a car in sight! Strange to these climes is that the shoppers like it, too.  I forever wonder why such a concept cannot be applied here.However, your correspondent then loses the plot somewhat.  When did one last trust the figures from the National Audit Office?  Ask the right question and you will get the right answer to suit the purpose.  Trams do NOT lose money; it is the incompetent system of financing and introducing major projects in this wretched country that cause the problem.  Eurostar makes a profit but the Eurotunnel through which it runs is heavily in debt.  In other words, the (tram)service can pay for itself and it is neither your fault nor mine if the cost of installing the infrastructure reaches to the heavens.  There is no sensible reason why it should, either.To return to trolleybuses, I would like to point out that they are far less energy efficient than trams, since their rolling resistance is dictated by rubber tyres on the road as opposed to the steel wheel on steel rail (steel can still be produced in this country, too, as opposed to the need to import rubber).  All that bit about about flexibility of trolleybuses is a bit dry - the whole point is that trams should have NO obstructions, so as to improve and maintain the reliable timetable that a tram can achieve.  Please consult the TfL site for the excellent Croydon Tramlink achievements in that respect.  To pull in and out of a bus stop takes its time in itself. To add additional time because of selfish obstructions can only add to that.I need to correct some other points made.  There are MANY more tram systems than trolleybus systems in the world.  Trams DO link with other modes, e.g. Karsruhe, where they almost frighteningly (but safely) run along the same railway lines as the Intercity expresses - I wondered why the tram driver pulled his wing mirror in!  In (poor) East Germany, they even have new trams that leave the streets of the town of Nordhausen and switch to diesel mode to run out on the local railway to a suburb.  What is more, what other modes is your correspondent thinking about?  The City of Vienna, as an example, carries freight from the railways on its tramways.  Where else would you expect to see a trolleybus - certainly not on a cycle lane! Munich replaced a major (and I mean major) tramway junction outside the main station - think Victoria station (after no less than thirty years of use)involving seven tram routes this last month over a matter of a couple of weeks, so why is it not conceivable to install similar infrasture over a related period of time here? If your corespondent is so keen on trolleybuses, then perhaps he would like to explain why both Salzburg in Austria and Basle in Switzerland are busy at the time of writing in replacing its trolleybus routes by new tramways (not buses, note). So, no more of that nonsense, please.You had trolleybuses once and (old) trams before them but the new tramway proposed can only bring significant advantage to the area.  I wish you would all stop bickering and get on with it.  With my unblinkered view but with some knowledge, it gives me great sadness to see, read and thus understand the reasons why this country continues its tradition of arguing until the cows come home and getting nothing done.  Trams might not be perfect (they could be, however) for the situation but the more you delay, the later it will be that you will realise that your area will degenerate even further without a tramway along that most important of West London arteries, or will you wish the road to be closed to ALL traffic?  It might be just as well so, with the stationary traffic in it at the moment.  Please do come to your senses.  I would like to assist in that and so contact me if you so wish.Graham FeakinsHerne Hill, SE24

Graham Feakins ● 7669d

My goodness!  I remember the trolleybuses but not the trams before them in the Uxbridge Road!  There were reasons why they disappeared the first time around but one of the most significant was of the (still) greedy oil interests, recognised by your correspondent.My feeling is that there is a place for both trams and trolleybuses BUT trams are far more suited to serving the public on trunk routes such as the Uxbridge Road.  The capacity would be there and I would dare to offer to pay for a selection of your business folk to visit, say, Karlsruhe in Germany, where the main shopping street, some 1.8 Km. long, no wider than the inner end of the Uxbridge Road, carries an almost embarrasingly large number of trams because of their popularity and not a car in sight! Strange to these climes is that the shoppers like it, too.  I forever wonder why such a concept cannot be applied here.However, your correspondent then loses the plot somewhat.  When did one last trust the figures from the National Audit Office?  Ask the right question and you will get the right answer to suit the purpose.  Trams do NOT lose money; it is the incompetent system of financing and introducing major projects in this wretched country that cause the problem.  Eurostar makes a profit but the Eurotunnel through which it runs is heavily in debt.  In other words, the (tram)service can pay for itself and it is neither your fault nor mine if the cost of installing the infrastructure reaches to the heavens.  There is no sensible reason why it should, either.To return to trolleybuses, I would like to point out that they are far less energy efficient than trams, since their rolling resistance is dictated by rubber tyres on the road as opposed to the steel wheel on steel rail (steel can still be produced in this country, too, as opposed to the need to import rubber).  All that bit about about flexibility of trolleybuses is a bit dry - the whole point is that trams should have NO obstructions, so as to improve and maintain the reliable timetable that a tram can achieve.  Please consult the TfL site for the excellent Croydon Tramlink achievements in that respect.  To pull in and out of a bus stop takes its time in itself. To add additional time because of selfish obstructions can only add to that.I need to correct some other points made.  There are MANY more tram systems than trolleybus systems in the world.  Trams DO link with other modes, e.g. Karsruhe, where they almost frighteningly (but safely) run along the same railway lines as the Intercity expresses - I wondered why the tram driver pulled his wing mirror in!  In (poor) East Germany, they even have new trams that leave the streets of the town of Nordhausen and switch to diesel mode to run out on the local railway to a suburb.  What is more, what other modes is your correspondent thinking about?  The City of Vienna, as an example, carries freight from the railways on its tramways.  Where else would you expect to see a trolleybus - certainly not on a cycle lane! Munich replaced a major (and I mean major) tramway junction outside the main station - think Victoria station (after no less than thirty years of use)involving seven tram routes this last month over a matter of a couple of weeks, so why is it not conceivable to install similar infrasture over a related period of time here? If your corespondent is so keen on trolleybuses, then perhaps he would like to explain why both Salzburg in Austria and Basle in Switzerland are busy at the time of writing in replacing its trolleybus routes by new tramways (not buses, note). So, no more of that nonsense, please.You had trolleybuses once and (old) trams before them but the new tramway proposed can only bring significant advantage to the area.  I wish you would all stop bickering and get on with it.  With my unblinkered view but with some knowledge, it gives me great sadness to see, read and thus understand the reasons why this country continues its tradition of arguing until the cows come home and getting nothing done.  Trams might not be perfect (they could be, however) for the situation but the more you delay, the later it will be that you will realise that your area will degenerate even further without a tramway along that most important of West London arteries, or will you wish the road to be closed to ALL traffic?  It might be just as well so, with the stationary traffic in it at the moment.  Please do come to your senses.  I would like to assist in that and so contact me if you so wish.Graham FeakinsHerne Hill, SE24

Graham Feakins ● 7669d

'So good you had to post it twice' eh? Unfortunately as yet another pro-trammer from South London you don't understand, or have chosen to overlook, the realities of the situation here and have also got your facts completely wrong re other matters.Uxbridge Road is not a 'trunk route' but a distinctly local main road, albeit an important artery, on which most journeys by any mode of transport are local, mostly travelling along Uxbridge Road itself for no more than a mile or two, usually in the course of to jouney to and from other places which the tramway wouldn't serve. There are some dual carriageway sections along its western half where a tramway could be put in without too much disruption (but a trolleybus route could be put in instead much more cheaply and quickly with just as much benefit). The eastern half, however, together with central Southall, is congested single carriageway forming the spine of a succession of busy town centres without bypasses, where a street tramway just won't fit in modern conditions without unacceptable displacement of other essential traffic and activity, or (as is now proposed in the promoters' revised scheme) having the trams share the roadspace with other traffic, thereby eliminating any possible advantage which a hugely expensive tramway would have over a much cheaper and more flexible trolleybus system.You must know that the only street-running section of the Croydon Tramlink system is in Croydon town centre, from which much other traffic had already been removed by Croydon's vile and noisome 'concrete collar' of a ring road  -  the sort of monstrosity which more forward-looking places like Birmingham are now getting rid of, and which we certainly don't want here.Even then, what has Tramlink done for Reeves Corner, or West Croydon?  -  no 'regeneration there, just seediness, continnued traffic congestion and desolation.As you must perfectly well know, the rest of the Tramlink system areafully avoids runnning on the street at all, let alone on busy main roads  -  the Wimbledon, Elmers End and Beckenham routes almost entirely along pre-existing railway lines, the new Addington branch along a disused railway cutting and then through a succession of woodlands and fields off the road to the isolated hilltop encampment of New Addington itself.As said in another thread on this forum, if sreet tramways along busy single carriageway main roads are such a good idea why doesn't Croydon Tramlink run on the A236 through Mitcham and Merton town centres to Wimbledon, and on the A213 and A222 to Beckenham and Elmers End, instead of avoiding them by following railway corridors through the backland? -  or for tham matter on the congested A13 through the middle of Norbury and Streatham to Brixton, which is South London'd real equivalent of Uxbridge Road.As TfL and other pro-trammers have found out, West Londoners are not all stupid and ignorant, know full well what's been going on elsewhere and understand only too well what the consequences would be of this untried idea of such a long street tramway on an already busy and congested urban main road.Trolleybuses are NOT 'far less energy efficient then trams' and the difference in roling residtance between steel and rubber wheels in a meaningless academic point far outweighed by the overhwelming disadvantages of trams in street situations like Uxbridge Road compared to trolleybuses. On the other hand the point about the flexibility of trolleybuses in operation and their ability to steer round obstructions (which are inevitable in the real world of roads like (Uxbridge Road), and the facility for modern trolleybuses to go off-wroad under battery power in the event of a road acident or other serious disruotion which would (and on systems like Croydon Tramlink does) paralyse a tram, is a very real benefit, not 'a bit dry (whatever you may mean by that, if anything).As for the overseas situation, your assertion that there are 'many more tram systems than trolleybus systems in the world' is simply rubbish, which can be checked by anybody bothered to do so  -  as is your claims about Salzburg. On the contrary, Salzburg is arguably THE showcase city for trolleybuses in Europe, progressively extending and modernising its already extensive and locally popular trolleybus network and dramatically increasing public transport patronage. Other more major cities such as Lyons, and Athens have successfully introduced modern trolleybus systems (in additon to trams on appropriate corridors) and Rome is introducing a brand new trolleybus system.Sure, some trolleybus systems in Europe and elswehere, as indeed some tram systems, have bitten the dust, but this is not necessarily for the best of reasons  -  as with the official reluctance to consider trolleybuses here, this is often due to corrupt politicians and blinkered incompetent managers pursuing their own agenda contrary to the public good. For example, the citizens of Edmonton, Canada, have recently managed to fight off a determined attempt by the city's transport authority to scrap the long-established trolleybus system rather than invest in modernising it. This involved a ferocious and well-informed campaign to expose the glaring mis-statements and false figures by the authority itself and in a supposedly 'professional' appraisal report by a 'big name' consultancy firm, just as is happening here.I could go on but better hadn't. Enough said to show that you either don't know what you're talking about or do but have chosen to misrepresent the facts, safe in the knowledge that you don't live here and unlike us won't have to live with the consequences, all day every day, of forcing a tramway down our main road.A street tramway won't fit on Uxbridge Road and work with other road user needs, a troleybus system will, and very nicely. There are many corridors of need and oppotunity in West London for light rail and indeed heavy rail, where real and valuable new travel opportunities could be opened up. Uxbridge Road is not one of them.

Chris Veasey ● 7669d

Why should we not trust the NAO? They are the public sector’s independent auditor, with no axe to grind in favour of any particular mode of transport. I used to work for them and my only criticism is that, in the pursuit of being impartial, they are often too cautious in their reports. How independent are you Mr Feakins? Are you by any chance Graham Feakins, Assistant Development Officer for the Light Rail Transit Association, an organisation whose constitution states its principal objective is “advocating and otherwise supporting the retention, extension and development of efficient public transport, and especially of light rail transit systems and tramways”? (see www.lrta.org)If you are not, then I’m sure you’ll welcome the opportunity to point out this pure coincidence of names. If you are the same then please say so that forum members can read your comments and appreciate them as having all the independence and objectivity of a tobacco industry funded scientist writing on the health impacts of smoking. (My credentials are that I’m an accountant working mostly on local authority PFI schemes, never having worked on any tram/bus/rail/trolleybus project. My interest is as a resident of LBE and an ex auditor versed in options appraisal techniques in the public sector).Chris’s observations about WLT are spot on. I’d only add that the usage figures in the business case have been inflated by making ridiculous assumptions about the numbers of people who will transfer to the tram from forms of public transports other than the 207/607 (9M of the 17M forecast new users) and an equally bizarre inclusion of £7M a year revenue – 25% of the total fare income – coming from more people using other, non-tram, forms of public transport when the tram is introduced (honestly, I’m not making this up!). Actually, I could add several other things but that’s enough for the moment.The only serious options for the Uxbridge Rd are trolleybus or conventional bus; I remain to be convinced as to which is best. Hybrid engine technology seems to swing the decision towards the bus; should we not expect within a decade all new buses to be fitted with diesel/electric engines with significantly reduced emissions? If so, the benefits of switching to trolleybuses is decreased.I don't think the Gazette is pro tram; indeed its seems to miss no opportunity at present to put the boot into any doings of the current political administration in Ealing (quite right too). I've had about 5 anti-tram letters published in the last year. As with any newspaper/magazine they don't like long letters, so one has to sacrifice some subtely of argument for brevity.

Vlod Barchuk ● 7669d

Excellent and authoritative contribution Vlod. Must admit I'd no idea Mr Feakins was an LRTA official, but it figures. I hope you'll be putting your spoke in on behalf of the community at the forthcoming public inquiry (if the tram scheme doesn't bite the dust before that) as I intend to.Re hybrid engined buses, would just point out they'll still be diesel or other combustible fuel powered, and no internal combustion engine will ever be produced, particularly piston-engined and capable of powering a large public transport vehicle, whatever 'Euro' standard it's built to, which does not generate and emit exhaust fumes, noise and vibration, particularly when the vehicle is idling at passenger stops or in traffic queues. hence the huge local environmental benefits, both the the traveller and those outside but close to the vehicle, of electric trolleybuses over motorbuses, particularly on a route like Uxbridge Road where any form of road-based public transpot vehicle will inevitably have to spend a substantial propprtion of the total journey time at rest at stops and in traffic queues.Nevertheless, if it has to be a choice between motorbuses or this extravagant and disruptive street tramway I'll settle for motorbuses. As said in another thread on this topic on this forum, I'm not fussed what breed of public transport operates anywhere as long as it does the job properly and if possible in an environmentally friendly manner.Re the Gag-ette, while it's possible they may not in fact be secretly pro-tram they've proved remarkably unwilling to give pro-trolleybus contributions anything like the same degree of exposure and coverage as they've given the pro-trammers; and remarkably incompetent, ignorant and inaccurate in such limited reporting of the trolleybus alternative they have deigned to print. The article (not letter) was written to exactly the same length as the 'So many reasons to have the tram' viewpoint article they'd published previously , and was written after discussion with the Gag-ette editorship and submitted on the understanding that it would be equally prominently published. Instead they suppressed it without explaining why and without returning any of my subsequent phone calls to those responsible for this gagging. This was the second pro-trolley anti-tram article of mine they'd suppressed.I take the point about length of letters to the press, but they always have, and exercise, the freedom to edit. I've managed to get one or two letters on this and related topics published in recent years without too heavy-handed editing, but my last letter in response to an appallingly inaccurate report of theirs, and challenging the credentials and mis-statements of some of the pro-trammers whose letters they'd published, was again suppressed (it will, however, appear on this forum in the next day or two  -  sorry folks, but this is or should be an important function of this forum particularly in the absence of any meaningful alternative local press outlet).The Gag-ette has indeed reported some of the innumerable misdealings of our atrocious Council administration, but I think it's an exaggeration to say that they have 'put the boot in'. On the contrary, as with all too much of the local, as opposed to 'national' press in this country, they tend to shrink from too much reporter or editorial outspokenness, and always tend to let the offending authority spokespersons have the last word, as they have time after time in respect of the tram issue  -  a failing compounded by subsequent failure to print well-founded challenges to offical mis-information by members of the public who know what they're talking about, including in this case One's Good Self.

Chris Veasey ● 7669d

Gentlemen, so I have been found out!  I am indeed an officer of the Light Rail Transit Association but I deliberately wanted to address your views from the point of view of an individual.  The LRTA is comprised of volunteers but has many members of professional standing, e.g. civil and railway engineers.  The LRTA certainly has no axe to grind either but wants simply to encourage a good transport system where appropriate, as I am sure you will agree.  I would prefer that you treat me as an individual, albeit with some knowledge of tramways, trolleybuses and indeed of your area.  Why do you not think that I remember your trolleybuses?  That was long before I joined the LRTA, or to put another way, I went to the Shepherds Bush Empire to see the BBC recording of the Billy Cotton Bandshow and visited family friends often in Hanwell in the 1960's.As I said, I have nothing against trolleybuses and maybe they would work in Ealing. Mr Veasey made me look up the lists of world tram and trolleybus systems and it certainly is a close run thing - some 366 tramways and 362 trolleybus systems.  However, most of the trolleybus systems are to be found in the former Eastern bloc countries, with vehicles dating back to that time.  There are some 110 in Russia, 45 in the Ukraine and a similar number still run in China (although even there, routes are being withdrawn).  I also made a mistake - it is Innsbruck and not Salzburg that is replacing its trolleybuses with trams because the trolleybuses cannot cope with the passenger traffic on offer.  I leave you to draw your own conclusions. I thought that your Ealing corridor would warrant more traffic than could be supported by trolleybuses.  You tell me if it is true or not that you will soon be able to walk along the rooves of the buses in some places if something is not done, as I have been told by a certain Mr. Livingstone (no politics, please). There are ceratinly more tramways than trolleybus systems in Western Europe. Mr. Veasey also mentions Tramlink.  West Croydon IS shabby but the £4m rebuilding scheme has gone quiet.  Something to do with money, I feel.  As a point, I have written to Greene King only by coincidence this weekend to try to get them to smarten up the exterior of their pub opposite West Croydon Station.  As for the ring road (thankfully never completed), it was a 60's vision and nothing to do with Tramlink.  I should know, I played rugby on the Whigift shooping centre site!  At least there has been regeneration (if you can call another large shopping centre that) in the form of Centrale at West Croydon. You are also right about the route from Brixton and Streatham to Croydon. In many ways, it would be ideal for trams but like Ealing, it links a succession of "villages" and nobody is prepared to tackle that.  However, it is on Tramlink's plans for the future.  I would support that, too.  When the 16/18 tram routes between the Embankment and Purley in 1951 were abandoned, London Transport had to introduce a unique timetable of TWO buses in every slot to replace each tram run.  That might say something to you and maybe I believe it is still pertinent today.No, I would not believe the projected figures either.  The Tramlink promoters got it wrong with the Wimbledon line and there is now severe overcrowding on the trams at rush hours and even at weekends as a result!  The timetable will be re-cast to try and meet the demand but we almost cannot afford one extra tram for goodness' sake (and that is not simply because somebody thinks that they cost so much). They also got it out on the Beckenham route, which is quiter than expected but I always held the view that the route should have run as far as the neighbouring town centre of Bromley. The roads between are invariably clogged these days.I am sure that you know that very much comes down to money and it was cheaper to take over little-used railway line alignments than to run on the street.  There were many cut-backs from the original scheme simply to obtain the Government grant - those ugly girder masts is a simple example.  As for the business case, you may know that an objection to the Jubilee extension was because it would abstract passengers from the Central Line.You can play around with figures as much as you want but will that solve the traffic problems of the Ealing area?As for hybrid buses/trolleybuses, Nancy in France has decommissioned the sytem it installed.  Whatever may be the reason behind that, you still have to carry around the dead weight of a diesel engine and fuel when running in electric mode.  It has also been shown that new buses can be as energy-efficient and as good in performance as trolleybuses (depending, of course, upon which set of figures you look at).I do take rather unkindly to being put in the same bed as a tobacco industry funded scientist writing on the health impacts of smoking.  The whole point about the LRTA is that its members are unpaid and it IS independent, both politically and otherwise and only has views which support a better life in our towns and cities by the use of trams, where appropriate.In replying to an accountant and an ex-auditor, I hope that I have not further ruffled feathers; my father ran a firm of Chartered Accountants and I emply an auditor for my own firm.  We trust him to manage our annual accounts without distrust but from my personal knowledge of some members of the Civil Service, facts and figures and public presentations can be "arranged" to present the the best picture.  I am certainly not trying to do that with Ealing.  I just wanted to help and advise.  If you feel that you can all manage on your own, then so be it.To complete my credentials, should you trouble to visit www.raworth.co.uk, you will see that I am a Chartered Patent Attorney and engineer by profession.  I certainly am not a badge-wearing "trammy".  However, I am partial to a good ale (and smoker but I can concede to that in company, if required) and maybe one or more of you can think of a nice (Fullers?) hostelry in your area, where we might be able to discuss matters in good company further.  I need to learn from you.  If the West London tram scheme has so many vociferous voices against it, then we have sort out those who have real fears and those who are against any change.  I am quite happy to help you but the conversation needs to be both ways.  I have experience with expert witnesses in the High Court in my own work and I do know that you can have (a) those witnesses who do not, for one reason or another, manage to put forward in a good impression or (b) barristers on the other side who "destroy" the witness.Supposing I say that I support the case for trams in the first place but want to know even more why you think they would not suit your environment.  What is your solution? I am not confident that trolleybuses are the answer to relieving the traffic congestion in the area and allowing freedom of an enhanced public transport system but you could try, only maybe to replace them by trams later... .  If you want to retain diesel buses, then you can but I thought the whole problem was because there are too many buses and related traffic congestion in any case.  Diesel fuel might run out in forty years and that might solve the problem.As pointed out, I am only a mere mortal from South London, as an individual, with more knowledge of across the river than you seem to guess and perhaps I have told, maybe you would prefer that I do not interfere further with your village politics (I try to use that expression objectively but it is naturally difficult to avoid).  We all have our expertise and I am willing to assist; it is through the LRTA that I have learned how trams can be successful but I am quite content to be open to other suggestions (don't anyone propose a monorail, however!).If you want to write to me, then my address can be found in the London telephone book.  No bricks through the window, please!  A pint with you would be better.  If you really think that trams are a lost cause, then it would save an awful lot of public money in these consultations and we can all leave West London and Ealing in particular to get on with its own thing.I repeat that I write these messages as myself and not on behalf of the LRTA (maybe I should).  It is through the LRTA that your frustratuionms have come to a wider audience.With all good wishes,Graham Feakins

Graham Feakins ● 7669d

Thanks to all for a knowledgeable debate, which I have found very interesting. And a gentle reminder to all posters to stick to the arguments in hand and not descend into insulting other posters' intelligence or knowledge. We're all free to have our own opinions, and yes, they will not all be the same! By making it personal, we discourage other people from joining the debate. OK, I'll get off my soap box now.

Editor ● 7668d

Thanks for such a constructive response. While we may end up agreeing to continue to differ on certain matters, therr ecertainly looks to be scope for beneficial discussion, off-forum in accordance with the code of conduct.For now I'd just make the following comments:-Re 'walking on bus roofs (rooves?)' this is a typical piece of extravagant Livingston exaggeration for effect. I'm tempted to respond that there can be no more effective way of stopping people walking on bus roofs than by replacing the motorbuses with electric trolleybuses with overhead electric wiring  -  but that might be thought facetious, so I won't.Re upgrading trolleyroutes to light rail, there may be some corridors across the world where the succcess of modern trolleybuses in attracting increased patronage, combined with a suitable operational environment, makes it viable, practicable and desirable to replace the trolleybuses with trams  -  but on the town centre sections of Uxbridge Road, NEVER!Re Croydon, Tramlnk and the new Centrale shopping precinct, surely the fact that that new development, right next to the Tramlink route, incorporates yet another huge new multistorey car park tells its own story as to the value and relevance of Tramlink (as perceived by Croydon Council and the developers, let alone the public) to many shoppers in and Croydon and its hinterland (and yes I know about the ludicrous stand-off between the Tramlink company and the developer re provision of a tramstop to serve the development, but that didn't influence the massive on-site car parking provision)I know all that because while the Centrale development was still being built I found myself as a transport expert witness having to defend (fortunately successfully) an unfortunate minicab firm in nearby Church Street from a determined attempt by the Council to put them out of business by refusing permission or continuse use of their premises as an operational base, on the spurious grounds that obstructively parked minicabs were causing traffic tailbacks across the nearby tramtracks  -  an attempt they persisted with despite a strong letter of support from the local Police who knew that this minicab operator provided a vital service in ferrying youthful nightclub patrons safely to their homes where neither Tramlink nor any other public transport service could or would  -  as is the case in the Uxbridge Road corridor.If anything, it was the unbelievably convoluted and circuitous access route for cars to the Centrale car park which Croydon Council traffic planners had cooked up, which was most likely to cause traffic tailbacks on Church Street and nearby Reeves Corner and put the Tramlink operation at risk there.That episode points up the risk of socially desirable and even vital local business and services being pushed out by tidy-minded but wrong-headed or even vindictive authorities like Ealing Council to make way for the trams and the supposedly desirable glossy developments it is intended to attract.

Chris Veasey ● 7668d

Point entirely taken on my part. I'm always fonder of a solution than a grievance, and it's refreshing to see from a tram supporter such a constructive and open minded response as Mr Feakins'latest.

Chris Veasey ● 7668d

Firstly to the editor, I think this thread has been remarkably polite and avoided personal insult. Compared to what they write on the Chiswick forum everyday this is tea party at the vicarage stuff.Thank you Graham for your reply and clarifying your position. I think all readers of the forum are entitled to know where people are coming from, especially if people  make it part of their argument to cast aspersions on the trustworthiness of the independent auditor of government expenditure!Whilst you are clearly knowledge about trams your discursive style is rather slippery. Glib remarks about diesel running out in 40 years time really won’t do. And those of us who don’t support the WLT don’t need ‘help’ as you put it. We would like our arguments to be taken seriously and specific points addressed, rather than being patronised.And thank you for your offer of meeting up but no thanks. I prefer to make my observations on this and the Acton forum where others can choose to respond, read or ignore as the ravings as someone with nothing better to do with his time. This is after all the raison d’etre of these public fora – cheaper than drugs or institutionalisation and no one really gets hurt.And yes, facts and figures can be arranged to present a particular case, TfL are past masters of this. You deal with my points about demand projections by referring to other projects rather than addressing the specifics. Do you think it is reasonable to assume 2M passenger journeys a year will transfer from tube and rail to the tram when neither of the other transport routes run within 10 mins walking distance of the Uxbridge Rd for any great length and are both faster than the tram? Do you believe 7M passenger journeys a year will transfer from feeder bus routes to the tram when most passengers on these buses begin and/or end their journey somewhere other than the Uxbridge Rd? As best as I can make out from TfL’s figures – and they don’t make it easy to work out – the total passenger journeys on these feeder routes will be 8M a year in 2011: so they’re assuming about 90% of the current passengers will transfer to the tram! These are the assumptions TfL are making and the reasons they do it is clear: trams are expensive to build and operate and therefore only make sense where there is high passenger volume.Remember that the 2000 document on the WLT forecast the cost/benefit ratio at about 3.5:1, or in other words the benefits of the tram would be 250% greater than the cost. The current business case puts that advantage at 50%, based on 44M passenger journeys a year (including the 9M referred to above) and £7M a year extra revenue from non tram public transport journeys being stimulated by the tram’s existence (this bit always make me laugh). It would be interesting to know what happens to the cost/benefit analysis when you take obviously dubious passenger numbers and revenue assumptions out of the equation.The solution is an honest appraisal of the trolley bus and motor bus options, which the obsession with the tram prevented.This is not an argument against trams per se but against trams on the Uxbridge Rd. Specific responses to specific points are welcome.

Vlod Barchuk ● 7668d

Editor, does this item really need four threads?  Can't you edit them all into one as it looks like the forum is being completely dominated by this issue.  A very important issue, agreed, but four threads is too much!

Jessamy Sanbello ● 7667d

Chris said ..and I agree ""A street tramway won't fit on Uxbridge Road and work with other road user needs, a trolleybus system will, and very nicely. There are many corridors of need and opportunity in West London for light rail and indeed heavy rail, where real and valuable new travel opportunities could be opened up. Uxbridge Road is not one of them.""What a good heavyweight debate on this thread..with enlightening information included...so well done.  I've had a chance to digest your arguements for and against this past hour..and I must say that Chris's points of view are spot on!! (IMHO). I'm no expert on these matters but I am familiar with the plans and the localities to be affected.There was much discussion on the Chiswick Forum last year (type West London Tram into W4's Forum Search)..and many attended a TFL presentation at Chiswick's Council Area Meeting and the overwhelming judgement was a big thumbs down for the project.  What was disturbing at the presentation was that the TFL representatives lacked geographical knowledge of the roads south of the Uxbridge Road in Acton. Their maps on display were vague and misleading. The key gentleman was clueless in having any understanding of the implications of diverting traffic southwards off the Uxbridge Road..so that the TRAM could be left unhindered the High Street roadway. How to remove thousands of cars off the Uxbridge Road is a task that's not going to be easy...especially as the prosperous local population deems car ownership and usage as an essential indicator of their wellbeing.  There are major north to south traffic movements across the Uxbridge Roadto take into account as well.The bottlenecks at Southall, Hanwell, and Acton High Streetcould only be overcome by demolishing long terraces of shops and homes. The £650,000,000 cost is a ridiculously hugh pile of ten pound notes to spend.I well remember London Trams..and the the breakdowns and jams...and sadly miss the trolleybuses that glided gently along Chiswick High Road.  The current single decker buses seem unstylish,smokey and noisy. The tramways are wonderful in Helsinki and Melbourne..but they are not suitable for the Uxbridge Road...(which I would not describe as a trunk road!!)

Jim Lawes ● 7666d

A fair point in some respects, though it might be a bit tricky now to combine the lot. I plead guilty to starting only one new thread, this one. I deliberately made it a separate one in order to draw attention to the separate but in this instance related wilful shortcomings of the Ealing Gag-ette (and its stablemates) as a balanced reporter of news and information on the Uxbridge Road public transport corridor issues, and as a mouthpiece for legitimate opinion, particularly locally-based.I was going to make a further two new 'Gag-ette postings, respectively  of an inportant letter and an earlier article which the gag-ette suppressed. Perhaps in deference to your concerns I could instead tack them onto this one, though I fear they'll thereby attract far less attention from the Forum audience (such as it is).

Chris Veasey ● 7666d

Well, I for one always look at the postings with multi entries, as these are obviously the interesting/controversial ones generating responses!

Jessamy Sanbello ● 7666d

OK here's the second Gag-ette item I was going to post  -  a letter sent October 2004 but not printed, in response to an appallingly bad and inadequate piece of reporting of a key meeting of the GLA Transport Committee (called specifically to consider the Uxbridge Road tram scheme; the proceedings included some brazen pro-tram and anti-trolley mis-information from tram project staff, not least its wideboy of a project 'manager' Tim Jones) and a crop of pro-tram letters the Gag-ette did print from pro-trammers including some now are only too well known to this forum:-"Another propaganda coup for the tram lobby (Gazette October 1) courtesy of a pageful of highlighted pro-tram letters and an abysmal and partial report on the GLA Transport Committee meeting.  "Of the pro-tram letters, the first was from David Cockle, a well known pro-tram lobbyist from south London having no connection with this area. What Mr Cockle didn’t point out is that his consultancy company has a direct commercial interest in rail based public transport projects, whereas a more sensible and cost-effective bus or trolleybus based scheme would not make him any money. Mr Cockle’s utterances have no credibility at all, and his letter should have appeared in your advertisement pages, charged to him at the full commercial advertising rate."The second letter writer, Steve Barber is an equally well known tram enthusiast from Nottingham, where the tram lobby benefited from some particularly inept opposition and a more sensible tram scheme primarily on recycled railway lines off the highway.  Nottingham is no more comparable with Ealing than is Croydon with its largely off-road tram system."The letters from Messrs Kemp and Sehmi serve to remind us that the ill-starred Sheffield tram system has fallen far short of its projected patronage, with many local travellers preferring cheaper buses which take them where they actually want to go, not just on the limited tramroute. The Sheffield system had to be virtually given away to a commercial operator with the huge public investment being written off to get the financial millstone off the authority’s neck."As for ‘Name and Address Supplied’ from Southall, if most Southall folk really want a tramway and the money can be found without continuing to starve the rest of the bus network of investment in even basic passenger facilities, then let it terminate somewhere sensible such as Ealing Hospital, with convenient interchange with buses or trolleybuses which can actually be fitted in on the constricted Hanwell-Shepherds Bush corridor without pushing everybody else out of the way. After all, if the rest of us off the Uxbridge Road are expected to be willing to change buses en route (and pay a double fare for the privilege), this should also be good enough for travellers from Southall."As regards the report on the GLA meeting in the same issue, your report concentrated on the views of two out-of-touch professors and persistent misinformation from Transport for London, while completely ignoring the views of locally based GLA Member Peter Hulme-Cross and others who seriously questioned the viability of the tram option and TfL’s dismissal of a trolleybus solution. Anybody who wants to find out what was really said at that meeting can find links to a webcast or transcript on the TfL website."In fact the Liberal Democrats on the GLA have now come out strongly criticising TfL for grossly overestimating the cost of a trolleybus system, and urging serious investigation of this highly cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution to the Uxbridge Road problem. This week’s announcement that the tram scheme has been ‘put on hold’ due to lack of money lends further force to the need to pursue a less extravagant and destructive scheme for Uxbridge Road."Chris VeaseyOctober 2004

Chris Veasey ● 7666d

And here's the third and final piece the Gag-ette suppressed  -  a text-only version of one I made earlier, in February 2003 in response to a Gag-ette interview with the tram project's estimable manager Tim Jones (a man who as some of us have experienced all too well, spouts any old rubbish which suits his purpose, particularly in controlled meetings where he knows those who can contradict him won't get a chance to do so) under the heading 'Tram Man Speaks Out'. He was at it again in that interview with one of the Gag-ette's better reporters, Polly Manser, who regrettably proved a pushover in this instance. All too typically the Gag-ette let him get away with it by failing to publish my response article debunking the man and some of his more outrageous misinformation. If this seems to some to be now ancient history two and a half years on, remember the consequences are still with us and Tim Jones and his team, and their arrogant and corrupt Labour political masters, are still at it, with the full support of equally arrogant Green party politicians:-"Trolley Man Answers back"So the Tram Taliban is taking over West London, and Tim Laden has broadcast his first triumphalist message to the world via the Gazette. The Ombudsman has proved as ineffectual as the UN, leaving the tyrants free to trample over citizens’ lives and human rights."Everybody in West London, and many elsewhere, know that the ‘consultation’ on  West London Transit was a sham  -  and a deliberate sham. The authorities made sure that few people  -  especially few of those most directly affected  -  got the leaflet or heard about the local ‘roadshows’ (a trendy name for an exhibition)."Those who did saw a leaflet and display boards dominated by pictures of trams and no mention of the road closures pushing traffic into local streets, demolition of shops and homes and other ‘collateral damage’ which forcing a tramway into one of West London’s busiest main roads would cause  -  to say nothing of the huge cost of embedding rails in the street, which will soak up all the money and ensure the rest of us can whistle for any transport improvements, or even competent provision of basic services, for decades if ever. "Tim Laden claims he now “has proof that public opinion is broadly in favour of the tram” . How?  -  only a tiny fraction of those affected favoured the tram option, and many of them are now regretting it having realised what problems the tramway will cause. "As for Tim Laden’s assertion that “There are 1.5 million people living in West London”, where did he dream up that from? The combined population of the three boroughs (Hillingdon, Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham) through which the tramway would pass is only two thirds of a million, and most of them would get no benefit from this tramway. Adding in the surrounding boroughs of Harrow, Brent, Kensington & Chelsea, Richmond and Hounslow (but why? -  what’s it to do with them?) still brings the total up to only 1.4 million. This is unfortunately just one typical example of the brazen dishonesty of the Tram Taliban."Another is his appeal to “The woman who has three children to get to school and is wondering how she’ll do it….” Unfortunately the chances are that “In ten years’ time when your children are out clubbing” the tramway will be useless because the clubs are in Ealing town centre and they live in South Ealing or Perivale. And in any case, a new generation of children and their parents will be having their daily travel needs disrupted by the tramway."At the same time as Tim Laden and his employers are determinedly proceeding to waste hundreds of millions of pounds of OUR money on an unwanted and destructive tramway in West London, the people of East London who voted for a trolleybus system, which would bring the considerable benefits of electric traction without the problems a tramway would cause, are not going to get it because Transport for London say there’s no money for it."Unfortunately the likes of Tim Laden are too young to know what even the previous generation of trolleybus systems could provide in the way of quiet, comfortable and non-polluting transport, which doesn’t need to push all other road users out of the way and can steer round obstructions."In 1962, when London’s trolleybus network -  the world’s largest  -  was finally extinguished, Tim Laden wasn’t even a twinkle in his parents’ eye."In 1964, when the UK’s most modern trolleybus system (in Hull) closed, Tim Laden was a baby with even less awareness of the real world than now."In 1972, when the UK’s last trolleybus operator (Bradford) reluctantly got rid of its trolleys because they couldn’t get spare parts any more, Tim Laden was still running around in short trousers."Many West Londoners do fondly remember the 607 trolleybuses on Uxbridge Road, though London trolleybuses were never as advanced as those we took for granted in more forward-thinking areas in Britain’s heartland, notably Hull (see picture above)."This is not just nostalgia  -  I’ve travelled on the new tramways in places like Manchester, and have sat in trams stuck at crossroads while opposing vehicles overshot the stopline and wouldn’t move. A trolleybus would have steered round such obstructions. And modern trolleybus systems, increasingly widespread across the world, are incomparable for the quality of service they provide  -  and cost a fraction of a street tramway and without the attendant disruption during construction and after. "Anybody who wants to understand what modern trolleys can do should look at the Electric Tbus Group’s website:  www.tbus.org.uk. I joined this voluntary pressure group precisely because I foresaw all the problems an Uxbridge Road tramway would bring when I first heard the idea years ago, and knew that a trolleybus system was the natural solution to the problems in this corridor, and many others in London."With the money saved by scrapping the tramway we could have a proper comprehensive network of electric trolley routes in West London  -  not just one long narrow route serving a few  -  and East Londoners could get theirs as well. Thus all of us can see an end to the noise, vibration and fumes diesel buses cause, both to their luckless passengers and anybody else nearby – and perhaps some new services running where local people need to travel, such as South Ealing/ Northfields to North ealing ans Ealing Hospital."But let’s face it, the Tram Taliban are not going to climb down and admit they’re wrong, so the key dates to look forward to are:-"London mayoral election 2004, and the chance to boot out sneering Ken Livingstone and elect a mayor who will listen to us and scrap this crackpot scheme."If that doesn’t work, Public inquiry into the scheme 2004-5  -  all those affected are entitled to  - and must  - formally object to the scheme and put their objections before the Government Inspector who will preside."If all else fails, Ealing Council elections 2007. Their persistent support for this tramway in the face of mounting opposition is just one of many reasons to take the opportunity to vote out this corrupt and incompetent administration, which has already been condemned by the Government as a rotten service provider."Chris VeaseyFebruary 2003

Chris Veasey ● 7666d

This, is, of course not just a simple reply to Chris Veasey from Graham Feakins but a couple of points I would like to be allowed to address.Firstly, I have taken on board your editor's admonition since it appears that not everybody has taken that to heart.  Only a remark.I was questioned on my view that in 40 years there would be no fuel to argue about.  That figure came from what I thought was a thoughtful article in one of last week's "The Independent" newspaper.  Perhaps, that is why that newspaper carries such a title.I will only add that I enjoyed luncheon yesterday in the company, amongst many others, of no less than a former Board member of the CEGB sitting beside me on one side and a retired member of the nuclear power industry on the other.  I can only tell you that they repeated the impression (I have known them personally  for many years) that they did their best to support electric traction whether that be trams, trolleybuses or railways, in positive (no pun intended as your editor would say) ways.  It was not specific to the WLT project but they supported electric traction in general.  There has to be a solution to this general problem but trying to balance the thoughts of quite strong-minded individuals involved in as what I can only at the moment see as the turmoil of the WLT scheme offers only continued debate.There many things that I could add.  For example, in France, this sort of thing would not go on and did not in Nantes, where a new tram system was installed, some years before Croydon Tramlink.  What happened, as many may know, was that the then London Transport as one party, the Croydon Council and their Tramlink team (cross-party support) as the other major party promoting Croydon Tramlink sensibly decided to involve the Croydon Chamber of Commerce and its business members, including my firm, quite openly, and to invite us come to (a) take a business trip to Nantes to make new business colleagues (which most of us did), (b) to taste the wine from the Loire vally (which all of us did!) AND (c)to see the then new tramway -two routes and to be hosted by the Nantes tramway authority, and to ask very frank questions about the problems involved.  We asked and, to my surprise, we received most frank answers.  We were not taken to Grenoble, because they were able simply to lavish money on a new tram system and Croydon/LT knew that such a luxury could not be afforded.  Nantes was more to our scale, and with similar problems before as in Croydon.But then, I asked a question.  There was an east-west route and a north-south route.  Just to the north of the junction between the meeting of the two routes, there was another double-track junction of tram rails leading off the north-south route, the two sets of tram rails running from the set of points, up onto the pavement and terminating outside the front door and windows in the midst of a long-establshed building.  "Oh, Mr. Feakins, that is our new Route 3 and we do not want to disrupt the tram route 2 service by having to take up the track to lay the junction". "But", I said, "The tracks stop in front of this building".  "Let me just say that we have refused the owner planning permission to extend his bathroom... ."  There was a "main road" behind the property leading up the hill to the university, which now supports what may be described as one of the most successful tram routes of Nantes. That was in the time of an anti-tram mayor and so I wonder how the French managed to achieve such an improvement and it is openly admitted that it was the tram that was solely instrumental in assisting/prompting the re-generation of of a run-down city centre.  The then mayor was anti-tram and pro-car but changed his mind after the introduction of the first two routes.  All this, of course comes from mainland Europe and it could never happen here.  They thought like that in France ("We don't want trams here") but the trams came and now the French, to my mind, are ahead of us in such positive thinking with still results to envy.  It's a worry.Now, I reflect upon the emotive comments below and I just wonder why everything gets so personal.  Is there no chance of any sensible, thoughtful debate amongst you?  Perhaps some of your emotive correspondents really need to be taken, resisting in handcuffs, to see what can be achieved elswhere on the Continent, to the improved surroundings of a modern tram/light rail system, just as we did before Tramlink was granted permission to proceed.  Maybe it was the wine that did it.Finally, I must return the comments of Mr. Veasey.  The only minicab firm in Church Street that we can think of is indeed by Reeves Corner and the cars would not only have blocked the trams but the buses and other traffic in the neighbourhood and the solution was to have the cars set back in the lay-by above, close to Argos in Church Street, from where they could be called onto the cab office.  Of course, as readily admitted, the time of the youthful exodus in the early hours of the morning would find no buses or trams running in any case and so, presumably, the road outside the cab office would be free... .As for the Centrale development, surely the "yet another huge new multistorey car park", which is quoted, simply is a rebuild of the former Drummond Road multistorey car park that existed on the same site since the 1960's, albeit with, I feel, now actually FEWER car parking spaces?  Please do not try to try to pull the wool over the eyes of those who are not familiar with the area.The one point that I have really have to agree with you is the unbelieveably convoluted and circuitous route for the cars to the Centrale (aka Drummond Road) car park.  You clearly have not had stay in the Holiday Inn "Express" hotel further round that route.  You can see the sign on top the hotel from the Croydon Flyover but you try and get there!  As I said before, that has little to do Tramlink.  The Croydon one-way system in all the local roads in that area was basically established in the late 1960's (when the parking meter scheme was installed) by Croydon Council and only comparatively small adjustments were made as a result of Tramlink.  Please do not blame the trams for all that!  Please also remember that the trams now run along roads in that area where trolleybuses ran until 1959.  Enough said tonight.

Graham Feakins ● 7665d

The only 'emotive' comments on this thread have come from you. You are misusing the word 'emotive' as a term of abuse for well-founded expressions of opinions and facts you don't happen to agree with.All this guff about Nantes is of relevance here, if at all, only in highlighting the endemic corruption in French public life which results in the sort of blackmailing and bullying tactics such as unreasonable refusal of planning permission for a householder for a bathroom  -  the sort of outrageous behaviour which our planning appeal system in this country would or should cut through; as in the case of the minicab operator in Croydon Church Street I highlighted  -  so far as I know they're still there and still operating and the trams and other traffic are still running.If Nantes was considered comparable with the Croydon situation that only confirms that Nantes and continental cities like it are of no relevance whatever to the west London situation, any more than Croysdon and Tramlink are.Re Centrale and other Croydon realities, I'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. On the contrary I've publicly advised others here to go and see the situation in Croydon for themselves. Whether or not the Centrale multistoray car park re represents a replacement of a previous facility on the site, the undeniable fact remains that this development, approved and built since Tramlink and right next to the tram route, demonstrates that the authorities themselves accept that for many people Tramlink can not possibly substitute for car travel.I agree that Croydon's one-way system and, more importantly its vile, noisome and destructive concrete collar of a ring road (or more accurately three quarters of a ring) were introduced before Tramlink, but nevertheless made Tramlink street running in central Croydon feasible. There are no such ring roads or bypasses to any of the several town centres through which Uxbridge Road passes (except Uxbridge itself) and people here won't want such destructive enormities smashed through the urban fabric. There's therefore no chance of replicating the central Croydon/ Tramlink situation here, and if anybody on this thread is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes it's you.

Chris Veasey ● 7665d

Glad you acknowledged your mistake about Salzburg and its thriving and comprehensive modern trolleybus network. However, you are also wrong about Innsbruck, as the following information passed to me by an expert just back from a visit:  yes, the city has scaled down the trolley routes and has proposals to replace route 'O' with a tramway - BUT this has come to a grinding halt as it is regarded as - wait for it - too expensive and too disruptive to instal !!!  The plans are on hold, and there is now optimism that the trolleybus fleet could be renewed.

Chris Veasey ● 7665d

I wish to take up the points in Graham Feakins posting below in the order that he presents them.I am not sure that everything published in the media can be taken as gospel truth but I, and many others are prepared to accept that by about 2012, the world petroleum supply will have peaked. There is unlikely to be major new oil finds, and oil production will begin to decline steadily. The cost of petroleum products like petrol, diesel fuel, home heating oil will rise drastically in comparison with today's prices. The decline in petroleum resources will be coupled with a rising demand for energy. Commuting with privately owned automobiles is destined to become very expensive. See: http://www.bettertransit.ab.ca/images/supplies.jpg So it makes sense to consider alternative fuels for public transport real soon.  However a universal answer to this is not a network of tramways across London and more particularly along Uxbridge Road. So in my book the trolleybus is the real contender for this role.I worked for the CEGB and then NGC for almost 40 years and not once did I find any evidence of positive support for electric street transport within that organisation.  Clearly you had a nice chat over lunch with the former captains of industry but this seems quite irrelevant to this thread on the merits of trams on Uxbridge Road.Last time I looked Paris was in France and currently there is a new tram system being constructed there.  A tramway enthusiasts has only last week returned from there with quite a collection of pictures of this tramway under construction including several of those parts which are currently in operation. [The URL of thses pictures can be posted if required].  A study of these pictures shows it was VERY easy to find the road space to fit this tramway network into - there is simply no comparision with the limited road widths and pinch points where the West London tram scheme is being attempted to be shoe horn in. Your history of Croydon Tramlink does not really go back far enough to draw any meaningfull conclusions.  From the 1960's it was always a desire to provide New Addington with a rail link; the fact that many years later it happened to be a light rail link is not a blueprint that can be applied to other tramway schemes now.  For starters it is virtually 100% off road and even where it does use road space, other vehicles are virtually denied joint usage.  I struggle to think of anywhere in Croydon where I can drive my car along tram tracks [in the road] as part of a meaningful journey from A to B.There is absolutely no point being whisked off to other parts of the world to see how wonderful trams can be; the plain fact is that they are not suitable for the Uxbridge Road.  Full stop.So the Drummond Road car park is been reincarnated with perhaps a few spaces less; so what?  If Tramlink, with a stop right outside the Centrale development [it might open after Christmas], can provide everyones traveling needs, why is the car park there?Your concluding statements are very questionable.  There were **major** adjustments made to the usage of the road network for all other users when Tramlink was built; can you drive along Tamworth Road into Station Road anymore? Nope. Can you drop car passengers off at the entrance to East Croydon Station anymore?  Nope. These are hardly only comparatively small adjustments!  Check out URL http://www.trolleybus.net/images/wc-ing.gif for the West Croydon area road map.I accept that trolleybus previously ran along Tamworth Road into Station Road using the same sections of roadway that Tramlink now uses but at least then those roads were fully open to other road users - so what is the point you are trying to make with that statement?There are many people on this Forum who are very knowledgable about Croydon, its former trolleybus routes and tramway matters in depth.  We apply all this information and knowledge to the proposals for a tramway along the Uxbidge Road corridor and find that official sources of information that are available, combined with our detailed knowledge of the area don't stack up for the general good of the area.

David Bradley ● 7665d

Thank you all. Maybe I should retire from this discussion now but I do notice that every contributor can pick the bones out of almost each phrase submitted and that still does not usefully contribute to the perceived problem in the Uxbridge Road.  David Bradley is and always has been a keen supporter of trolleybuses and so am I - see his website, you will see those trolleybuses that I was talking about in Tamworth Road and Station Road, West Croydon.I think that we can also admit that the car park facilities (and road systems) now allowed in the Croydon Centrale area has more to do with politics (and business money) than practicalities.It appears strange to me, as a person, as mentioned earlier, who is experienced in such matters within the confines of the law, how many "experts" have appeared on the scene recently in this thread.  Normally, experts are extremely hard to find on the ground and opposing sides in the High Court often have a struggle to get to the one and only expert versed in the subject first. I therefore do not pretend to be an expert in this field. It is difficult to comment further here since Mr. Veasey does not identify the qualifications in any sense of the "expert" who has just returned from Innsbruck.  As an aside, I hope the trolleybus fleet is renewed but that does not prevent a tramway being installed.As for the complaint regarding "emotive",  that means "likely to arouse an ill-considered or irrational response", the sort of thing I guess your editor has recognised and I will not rise to that bait further than this comment.  I am certainly not emotive but I could be encouraged to be so, by way of comment, should I recognise others who are so emotive.  If you all want your thread to be of value to those who really need to understand wnat you feel is the solution, then the emotional bits need to be omitted.  For example, we were not "whisked off" to somewhere (and France at that, and the French way of doing things), we did it of our own volition and with our personal funds, by invitation, in order to witness and experience how they did it, rightly or wrongly but they ended up with a pretty good tram installation.I am trying to translate that kind of experience to the Uxbridge Road.  I must also implore you all to remember that I might well know, and have known, your area that is the subject of concern, for very many years.As for my "electrical connections", I can also say that many of those whom I know forever regret the passing of the major electric traction engineering industries in this country and they would support both trams and trolleybuses but the general opinion is that trams would fare better than trolleybuses.  Both choices are better than buses, in my mind.Finally, nobody yet on this thread seems to have answered my question fully as to how it it is thought that trolleybuses could in some way improve on the bus service now provided.  I do not need to know, it is up to those politicians again whom you have to persuade and the figures which you present have to be correct AND supportable.  Then, you may be able to further your case without a judge throwing the case out for being unreliable ("emotive").  This only advice from me, a mere person who oft times is involved in the Chancery Division.From a non-emotive but perhaps concerned,GrahamP.S.  Please do not accuse me of either "right" or "wrong" - how do you know that the news from your "expert" from Innsbruck, Mr.Veasey, is accurate without verification, for example?  Was he talking to somebody at a trolleybus stop at the time?  I suggest that you may wish to consult a tome generally known as "Phipson on Evidence", in order to appreciate that what I would term "hearsay evidence" would be immediately be dismissed in Court as inadmissible.  Until proven, facts produced cannot be admitted and emotions cannot normally form part of an argument, as serious as they may be.  If they are well-founded, then careful presentation will help to be persuasive. It is to be trusted that you find nothing emotive in the above.GAF

Graham Feakins ● 7664d

I have no wish to see GAF to retire from this discussion, he has a point of view that needs to be digested and dissected to understand why he believes that trams along the Uxbridge Road are the solution to the areas congestion problems and the needs of the travelling public.Let me make it quite clear that I am no expert on these matters, just simply a "Cyberspace Celebrity" as someone kindly put it; nor do I have any particular emotive point to put forward for either the use of trolleybuses or trams other than if there was a sizeable fleet of externally electrically powered vehicles plying London's streets then the quality of life for residents would be much better with the advantage of sensibly using the every dwindling supply of fuel oils for situations where no other practical fuel source currently exists.Yes, I have created a web site [plug: www.trolleybus.net] featuring London's trolleybuses and their might have equally been a tram version had that mode of transport been around when I was roaming around London with a camera in the late fifties and early sixties. Because I was an overhead electrical engineer for the best part of my working life, I had an affinity towards trolleybuses AND trams and I was saddened to see their demise. The environment of this forum is not the same as a court of law and therefore phrases and words used here would be chosen more carefully to suit that location, but the message would still be the same that, in my humble opinion and many experts I know, trams are not suited for the Uxbridge Road corridor. Where statements are made in favour of trams that contain factual errors, then they need to be challenged and the record put straight. Only with a full set of true facts can a sensible decision be made for the best way forward.The clarification of your "electrical connections" are welcomed and endorsed but where does the "general opinion" come from that states the 'trams are better than trolleybuses'?  Has value for money been removed from the equation for example? You complain that nobody on the forum has fully answered your question as to how it is thought that trolleybuses could in some way improve on the bus service now provided. Well, this can only be done in a very limited way on this Forum and now is perhaps the time to branch out with a web site that specifically addresses all the issues for a new trolleybus network along the Uxbridge corridor. A guest book facility will be provided and it is hoped that contributors to this thread will pay a visit in due course. The website is currently going through the registration process but is likely to be www.tfwl.org.uk - Trolleybuses for West London. Naturally any statements made on the website will be fully qualified and their sources attributed. We have no reason to be dishonest in our pusuit of the ideal.

David Bradley ● 7664d

You say "Finally, nobody yet on this thread seems to have answered my question fully as to how it it is thought that trolleybuses could in some way improve on the bus service now provided". Surely there's been more than enough information on this and other threads on this site to convince any reasonable person of the benefits of replacing noxious diesel buses with electrically powered ones, and also to explain why rubber tyred electrically powered vehicles (ie trolleybuses) are a far more cost-effective and less disruptive solution for Uxbridge Road than trams.Even where a tramway could reasonably be fitted in on a road (such as the dual carriageway sections of Uxbridge Road west of the River Brent) without unacceptable displacement of other essential traffic and legitimate activities, the huge cost of installing railway tracks for the sole use of this particular small subset of the total vehicle and person movement (to say nothing of goods) in that corridor would merely absorb scarce funding for no benefit over the alternative of a railless trolleybus system, which could otherwise be spent more usefully in extending the benefits of electric traction to other busy bus routes by converting them to trolleybus operation.The only 'justification' the Uxbridge Road tramway promoters and supporters have come up with for going for a tram rather than trolleybus system is the supposed greater crush loading passenger capacity of a tram system. However, as many local people including members of the Ealing Chamber of Commerce (including me) have pointed out, even if the projected passenger demand figures are correct (and Vlod Barchuk has ably demonstrated on this site how TfL has grotesqely exaggerated the demand, particularly the predictions of passengers transferring from other travel modes and corridors) this supposed extra carrying capacity would be needed for just two short peak periods on weekdays.In fact TfL's conduct has been characterised by persistent and widespread misinformation throughout, much of it evidently deliberate. The project is being 'managed' by a patent wideboy who says any old rubbish which comes into his head and suits his purpose, particularly in controlled meetings where he knows those in a position to refute hum won't have chance to do so effectively (I've crossed swords with him myself). To take just one of the more outrageous examples, at a key meeting of the GLA Transport Committee last year he actually told the Committee that a traoleybus depot would need to be twice the size of an equivalent tram depot! Regrettably none of the Committee had the knowledge or wit to pull him up on it, and that blatant misinformation is now enshrined in the official record of that meeting.The same 'manager' had also previously told a meeting of the Ealing Chamber of Commerce that it the tram project was defeated, the mayor would take 'his' money elsewhere and we'd get no public transport improvement in West London. Sneering Livingstone has himself publicly denounced opponents of the Uxbridge Road tramway as 'just my political opponents' and persisted with dishonest comparisons of the Uxbridge Road corridor with Croydon (just like you and many of your fellow tram enthusiasts).At the same time the project has been characterised by persistent official misreprentation of the requirements for and cost of an alternative trolleybus system, partiularly the TfL insistence that trolleybuses require and expensive fixed guidance system. TfL have been given enough information to the contrary, and it is quite obvious that TfL have persisted with this rubbish in order to artificially bump up the cost of the trolleybus option, and to eliminate the real advantage of operational flexibility and particularly the ability to steer round an obstruction such as a parked vehicle (which would bring a tram to a standstill) which trolleybuses have over trams. As you must be aware, not only do trolleybuses not need a fixed guidance system, they need NOT to be encumbered with such a thing, and on only a few of the numerous trolleybus systems worldwide have a variety of guidance systems been tried with indifferent results. Trolleybuses DON'T need guidance systems.One final point: sure, there are many urban tramways, old and new, both in West European cities and towns and further afield. But how many of them might have been converted to or built as much more cost-effective trolleybus operation, thereby retaining or introducing all the considerable envoronmental and service quailty benefits of electric traction at a fraction of the cost of tram systems? Your Nantes anecdote highlighted the irredemably corrupt and dictatorial nature of much of French public life, and which has also characterised the Uxbridge Road tram promoters' conduct throughout this sorry saga  -  TfL's, Mayor Livingstone's, and other Labour and Green politicians' attitude is that we'll have a tramway here whether we want it or not and regardless of the realities of the situation and the real needs of the people of West London, and if we succed in fighting that off we'll do without any public transport improvements. Do you really believe vermin like that should be in charge of anything, let alone transport planning and provision?

Chris Veasey ● 7664d

Vermin???????grow up

Verification required ● 7664d

Not too strong a word in view of the way that lot have behaved and are determined to continue to behave, and not an unfair description of the deteterious effect they're having on our community and our transport - and no stronger than the sort of language your (presumed) hero (and possibly employer?) Livingstone repeatedly uses publicly to describe those it suits his purpose to do so.If you've anything meaningful to contribute to the serious debate on this crucial topic lets hear it. Brief schoolboy catcalls from the sidelines like yours are of no help to anyone. Neither I nor I trust any of the others who have had to spend time and effort we can ill-afford to put the record straight and counter the persistent mis-information from the tram lobby have any reason to apologise or retract anything we've said.

Chris Veasey ● 7664d

I am interested in the real debate over the tram, trolley bus etc and am weighing up the pros and cons. Ken is not my hero and i am not employed by him but you, sir, are hysterical and need to chill out.

Verification required ● 7664d

No I'm not hysterical, merely fed up to the back teeth of the machinations, derelictions and false propaganda inflicted on this community by the politicians, authority staff, consultants, tram lobbyists etc determined to steamroller this unwanted tram scheme through and starving the rest of the transport system of resources.I view this both as a longstanding resident and worker based in this community, and as an experienced transport professional who tries to behave to the highest professional standards in my own work, and to whom it is galling to see such widespread and serious unprofessional behaviour and work by so-called professional officers and consultants engaged on this project and other elements of the existing transport networks in this area  -  and getting away with it. The politicians I suppose we can not expect to be honest, but some of the key players in this saga have sunk even below the customary abysmal standards of politicians' behaviour.As for 'chilling out', chance would be a fine thing. The way of life I'm stuck with doesn't permit of such a thing, nor is likely to in the foreseeable future  -  and having to spend time on issues like this doesn't help.

Chris Veasey ● 7664d

(A sight seen in The Grove, Ealing).The idea of closing Acton High Street to traffic and redirecting westbound cars ,vans and lorries southwards towards Chiswick and South Acton...is one of the many achilles heels of the Scheme.    The current queues of traffic in Bollo Lane and Gunnersbury Lane would become almost intolerable at rush-hour time. To introduced diverted traffic to the narrow Bollo Bridge Road and Acton Lane is just madness.Diverting traffic southwards down Larden Road and Emlyn Road(both already kitted out with speed bumps and "gates") is a double madness whammy..in my view.Whilst trams passing the front of Ealing Town Hall may be the passionate dream of Ealing Council big -wigs ...these officials need to be realistic and realise that large sized trams with up to 300 passengers on board....stopping at more distant intervals.. is inappropriate for the Uxbridge to Shepherds Bush route...especially in Southall, Hanwell,West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton.Perhaps the developers of the giant new White City shopping  complex at Shepherds Bush are the main spur behind the scenes..for the tram. Who knows?

Jim Lawes ● 7662d

Again, may I offer just a couple of points with the hope of tempering the discusssion.  Firstly, Mr. Veasey quotes a GLA comment that a trolleybus depot would require twice as much space as a tram depot.  What is not then explained is why that should be wrong.  It might need three times as much space(!)- only joking but maybe you need to explain why you disagree in your reply for the uninitiated.  Having said that, trolleybuses DO need to manoeuvre within the confines of a depot to turn around to get out again, whereas double-ended trams need no such additional space. It therefore follows that a tram depot would indeed require less area than would be required for trolleybuses.  Then, put in the equation that tram vehicles generally have a greater passenger-carrying capacity than trolleybuses, then it follows that you would require more trolleybuses than trams and therefore more space to be allocated for each vehicle.  Many former London tram depots needed to be expanded for such reasons (and new depots constructed).You also run down the politics of the French (no comment) in relation to Nantes and try to couple that with the trams there.  The trouble is, the trams there are highly successful and the routes are being extended and the general population wants that.  Therefore, your comment should be disregarded, unless there is something that you have not made clear, so far.Then, a point is made about about trolleybuses being able to negotiate parked vehicles.  Of course they can but does that not run to the crux of the matter?  To my mind, the said vehicles should not be parked in the way in the first place.  It is the Queen's Highway and nobody has a God-given right other than to allow a free passage along it.  That is why there are so many people against "pavement parking".  I fully understand the need for local deliveries to be maintained and somewhere like the Uxbridge Road could well present a problem but it might not be insurmountable;  has anyone presented a sensible plan should trams be introduced, or thought through how that might be achieved?  My late mother always told me that "nothing is impossible!".As I have previously intimated, go on, try for trolleybuses but there is no great industry producing them these days and therefore may be proportionately more expensive than buses but then again again perhaps approaching the cost of trams and at least the electrical infrastructure will be there should everybody then agree that trams might be the better option.Has anyone considered putting trams in "short" subways underneath the contentious parts of the Uxbridge Road east of the River Brent?  Of course it will cost more but it might be an answer to all the problems, once constructed.  Just a thought.You say: No I'm not hysterical, merely fed up to the back teeth of the machinations, derelictions and false propaganda inflicted on this community by the politicians, authority staff, consultants, tram lobbyists etc determined to steamroller this unwanted tram scheme through and starving the rest of the transport system of resources.I wonder if (a) you count me as a tram lobbyist and (b) what you consider to be "the rest of the transport system".  I have already suggested that the consultants' fees could be saved forthwith should the whole project be abandoned now but then you would have start all over again to introduce trolleybuses.  Am I right or are you back to where I guess you might have been in the first place - to maintain the staus quo?  Please progress my knowledge.I have to admit that the more I read here, the greater is the difficulty in "chilling out", too, and appear to interfere but when points are made, then they really must be supported objectively, i.e. with the truth "why".  For example, why should unpaid tram lobbyists be determined to steamroller the scheme through, as you view the matter?  Surely not just because they want to see trams running in London again.  There must be other, better reasons, I suggest.  Again, I might be wrong and it would be useful for me if you could identify any tram protaganists that you have recognised in the category in which you have placed them.  On the hand, steam rollers worked very well, as I remember them!

Graham Feakins ● 7662d

I can only assume that GAF has written here something entirely to provoke controversy. He MUST know that many of his statements can so very easy be refuted with the cold FACTS of the day. I also note that he continually focuses on detail throughout his posting[s] without every considering the wider picture or culture differences between our European neighbours and this part of London.I do consider you to be a tram lobbyist, how could I think otherwise from your writings?  I also feel that spending the millions in creating the West London tram scheme will have a large affect on improvements to surface public transport for the rest of London.At the end of the day both you and I can see a need to provide an enhanced service for the travelling public, so does it really matter if the vehicles have steel or rubber wheels?  A tramway provides a concept of a superior service which is equally achievable by trolleybuses at a lower OVERALL cost.  So the question I put to you is why you are so convinced that trolleybuses can not deliver the benefits that our sought?If there are no postings that pickup in more detail of what you have said in your last posting within the next few days, then I will fill that gap.

David Bradley ● 7662d

Is that your house Jim?

Hugh Telford ● 7662d

Re depot size, your apparent endorsement rather than condemnation of the TfL tram project manager's outrageous mis-information to the GLA (not a 'GLA statement') speaks volumes (no pun intended). If you have any verifiable information about specific examples of tram depots having to be significantly enlarged, let along doubled is size to accommodate replacement trolleybuses then lets hear them. This certainly didn't happen in Hull where former tram depots were satisfactorily re-used as trolleybus garages without having to enlarge them.Your comment that trams 'generally have a greater passenger-carrying capacity than trolleybuses' is  -  how shall I put it politely  -  disingenuous to say the least. This may be true for individual units, but only because the tram units are much longer. Per unit length the passenger capacity is the same, notwithstanding the tram bodies are or can be slightly wider than trolleybus bodies. Moreover, that trams (or alternative trolleybuses or motorbuses) are only likely to be full to capacity or anywhere near it during the relatively short am and pm peak travel periods, and not always then due to irregular passenger arrival at the stops and irregular running (which is likely to be greater on Uxbridge Road for trams than for trolleybuses, as the trams will inevitably suffer more delays and operational disruption as they can't steer round obstructions as trolleybuses can).As a result of the latter inherent defect of street-running trams, together with the inherently superior acceleration and braking characteristics of trolleybuses compared to heavier trams, significantly more trams or total length of all trams put together are likely to be required to run a service on Uxbridge Road than would be required for trolleybuses, thus requiring a larger tram depot than a trolleybus depot. Moreover, the much greater impact which inflexible street tram operation would have on other traffic (including the numerous other bus services) both on Uxbridge Road and the numerous other main roads which intersect it (even though the originally proposed draconian tram priority has now been watered down to the point of meaninglessness) would result in increased peak vehicle requirement on the other bus services throughout the area, resulting in the depots for buses on those other services having to be enlarged if the same levels of service were to be maintained, or  a degradation of (in many if not all cases already inadequate) service levels, leading in due course to increased car traffic and congestion further degrading bus service performance if the authorities just accept the detrimental impact of the trams on other services and do nothing to counter it.Sorry but as shown above the situation is much more complex than you simplistic tram lobbyists realise (most real-world traffic situations are, particularly in constricted traditional urban areas like this). Your rant about the unrealisable ideal of a highway completely clear of parked vehicles likewise represents unreal-world thinking (or lack of thought). Your late mother’s reported assertion that ‘nothing is impossible’ merely demonstrates her, and you, not to have been experienced traffic engineers working in areas like this.As for your suggestion of ‘short’ subways under pinchpoints (ie most of the way between and including Shepherds Bush and Hanwell, and through central Southall), any experienced civil or highway engineer will tell you that such subways, including their approach ramps with adequate gradients and forward visibility providing safe sight stopping distance (particularly for trams which can’t cope with as steep slopes or stop as quickly as rubber-tyred trolleybuses) would certainly not be ‘short’ and would require the devastating demolition of large amounts of property for the road widening necessary to accommodate the ramps  -  quite apart from the hideous cost and the prolonged and highly disruptive construction period. I got this point across to Save Ealing’s Streets at a very early stage in their campaign, and the tram promoters ruled the idea out from the start.As for consultants’ fees, the point about tramways, particularly street tramways, is that they require huge amounts of costly track planning design work which is completely unnecessary for a trolleybus system (to say nothing of the huge construction management and supervision work and costs).  That’s the real reason so many civil engineering and transport planning consultants favour tram/ light rail rather than trolleybus systems. A much better trolleybus system than tram system could be put in on Uxbridge Road and similar corridors at a fraction of the cost of a street tramway and in a fraction of the construction time of the tramway, thereby getting the benefits of electric traction years earlier than we would with the tram.

Chris Veasey ● 7661d

Hi ChrisI hope you're still plugging for the trollybus along the Uxbridge Road.Now that Boris is going to drop the bendy-bus and we know he wishes to promote his green credentials, have you taken the opportunity to contact him with the idea of running trollybuses along the route.

Peter Wright ● 6698d

We are back from Riga where the trolley buses are excellent. They have good buses and trams too.

Graham Weeks ● 6698d

Apols slow response  -  been away a few days, plus severely self-rationing all forum chatgroup time these days. Yes Bozza will at least be worth tackling (preferably by those with more time and fewer commitments on their hands than One's Good Self) on this once he's got his feet under the table and once the inevitable initial flurry of lobbying on all subjects from all quarters has settled down a bit.-  and particularly if dinosaur Commissioner Hendy belatedly honours his loudly-trumpeted undertaking to take his services and his ego elsewhere if Bozza won the election (which I'm reliably informed he did). Sadly it looks as if, while losing (IMHO deeply regrettably) Dave Wetzel we're stuck with Hendy for the foreseeable.

Chris Veasey ● 6688d

Hi Chris, I sent an E-mail to Boris this afternoon about this, nothing much, no more than testing the water really. I did include the 'www.tbus.org.uk/home.htm' link so we'll wait and see what happens.

Peter Wright ● 6688d

You are so right. I am old enough to remember both trams and trolleybuses.I have particularly fond memories of the 607 and 655 services. I lived in Hanwell in those times and went to school at Acton Tech. Those large-capacity, swift, clean and silent forms of transport were the means by which I got there and back.Though they were restricted by the overhead wires they nonetheless manoeuvred like conventional buses and did not cause any obstruction as would a tram.Trolleybuses had one "failing" that I never overcame. They accelerated from a standstill at such a rate that I could never catch one if I was a few seconds late. The diesel buses were easy!!!

John Chant ● 6683d

Regarding trolleybuses' acceleration I remember the only family cars that could outrun them were the Ford 100Es - the boxy Populars and Prefects.

Alan Brainsby ● 6682d

If the trolley bus option isn't worth pursuing, how on earth, could anyone have considered having a tram? Dear Mr WrightThank you for your recent e-mail to Boris Johnson about bendy buses and trolley buses. I am replying on the Mayor's behalf.Bendy buses are currently in operation on 12 of London's 700+ bus routes. As you know, the Mayor has suggested that when the contracts for bendy bus route contracts come up for renewal, new terms could be set with regard to the type of bus used on these routes. Transport for London (TfL) is therefore working closely with the Mayor's office to consider the future of bendy buses in London. The details of any changes will of course be widely publicised as soon they become available.You suggest trolley buses could be introduced as a replacement along the Uxbridge Road and surrounding areas. However, we do not in general consider these vehicles to be a viable solution for London's transport needs.  Whilst they may offer some marginal energy efficiencies compared with conventional buses, these are likely to be more than offset in pure cost terms by the cost of supplying and maintaining the electrical power supply infrastructure. Ongoing developments in bus technology, such as the hydrogen fuel cell buses and hybrid electro diesel buses which have been on trial in London can deliver many of the environmental benefits of the trolley bus without the need for the fixed infrastructure. The combination of these factors makes the consideration of trolley buses low on TfL's current plans for investment in the network.Thanks again for taking the time to write to the Mayor on this issue. If I can be of any further help, please let me know.

Peter Wright ● 6681d

My flabber is entirely ungasted at that response.Who did you address your letter to and who's the signatory on their reply? Whoever, that letter has Hendy's fingerprints all over it.Note all they're interested in is cost (whether or not they've got their sums right in that regard)  -  they couldn't give a toss about the huge benefits in terms of (among others) passenger and driver comfort which electric trolleybuses would give, particularly  when stationary at stops and in traffic queues  -  inevitably a high proportion of total running time on any on-road local public transport route in a large dense urban area like west London.So now you see why I'm not prepared to waste my ever-diminishing supply of spare time trying to talk sense into the arrogant, complacent, pig-ignorant, swelled-headed, professionally incompetent and wilfully-negligent dinosaurs responsible for public transport in this conurbation.As long as their sort of mentality prevails, and continues to manifest itself only too clearly in the standard of 'service' we're fobbed off with, I and many others will continue to use public transport when  - and ONLY when -  we have absolutely no other feasible means of travel.

Chris Veasey ● 6681d

The reply was from Gavin Clark, London Buses Customer Services and my enquiry was addressed to Boris Johnson.

Peter Wright ● 6681d

Right, more or less as I suspacted - I'd be very surprised if your letter got anywhere near BeeJay himself at any stage  -  just intercepted and dealt with by the impervious TfL bureaucracy.

Chris Veasey ● 6681d

Chris, surprised at your antagonism towards Peter Hendy. I knew him eons ago and he was sound, did his PSV licence at the earliest age, drove buses as summer jobs whilst at University, joined LT as a trainee and worked himself up through the ranks (with a lucrative interlude during privatisation)He is definately for public transport, can you explain the problem?.....possibly trolley buses?

Iain Muir ● 6681d

No the negative, closed-minded attitude to trolleybuses is just one manifestation of a wider malaise. I've seen and experienced him in action, and read and heard other reports  -  not least his attitude to any punter or even elected representatives he's meant to be answerable to who disagree with him  -  enough to have come to my own soundly-based conclusion.Many of us did summer jobs in our chosen degree subject/ profession to gain practical experience, and have 'worked our way up the ranks' with varying fortunes. That does not make any of us god's gift. Unfortunately uncritical schoolgirlish adulation from some transport 'professionals' who should know better seems to have fuelled that impression in the case referred to.And I could tell you a tale or two about the impact of his time in the private sector, but I won't.The plain fact is that after many recent years of Hendy's stewardship of London's local bus network, despite some improvements in certain directions the service has in some respects got worse rather than better in ways having nothing to do with the impact of general traffic congestion (the busmens' stock excuse for any failing on their part). For example, what excuse do you think there possibly can be for falure to provide (and in some cases to actually remove) such basic facilities as shelter and seating at heavily-used bus stops, and to ignore all complaints about that, even from the local authority?In summary:  an all-too-typical redneck busman (the rail industry breeds a similar type) with far too much power and influence, who seems unable and/or unwilling to see that the standard of service they've become used to from their 'inside' perception is just nowhere near as good as it could and should be to do the job sorely needed, as perceived and experienced by discerning punters 'outside'.

Chris Veasey ● 6680d

Hallo Alan.Oddly enough my first "car" was a 100E in 1962. Unfortunately it was a right bomb. The water pump whistled at me all the time and first gear was a hit and miss affair. On one occasion the old wreck decided to stall smack in the middle of Lewisham, much to my chagrin. In those times I used to commute between my then place of residence in Tunbridge Wells and Central London.My employer soon upgraded me to a new Anglia, much to my relief. Happy daze!

John Chant ● 6679d