| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:What is a modern trolleybus and improving modal shift | |
| Posted by: | Michael Brandt | |
| Date/Time: | 31/08/10 13:04:00 |
| The episode with Articulated buses has shown that they are not wholly practicable or successful to operate in London, nor is there ever likely to be the capital for the massive amount of infrastructure work which would make them more effective. Apart from fare evasion, axle weight to road loadings exceed the tolerances of the below surface infastructure. Hence the high volume of burst mains and failures along the 25, 73 and 38 routes which had had the heaviest tonnage loadings for the majority of journeys. Arctic buses are far more versatile than trams or trolleybuses but nowhere near as versatile as the old Routemaster was. That really could go almost anywhere with a full load. Light weight and low fuel consumption make that 1950's design to date unsurpassed. Diesel Arctics are strangely, still replacing Trolleybus networks worldwide and the only tram networks now being developed are mostly really light rail routes that utilise existing heavy rail branch line routes or share wide expanses of road or urban areas with bypass roads. Here, the roads are too small and the envirions too developed. This is exactly the scenario that led to the development of the tube. Which is really the perfect and correct solution long term. The tram was a pipe dream that would in an ideal situation be a perfect system. Hard fact is, it, as proposed, went way beyond the realms of practical reality It could never work crammed into what is now a developed area the length of the route. The damage caused by shoehorning the infrastucture in would never be repaired. The gains and benefits were never there. A bus support network would always be required and the limit on stops made the whole thing a complete farce. The dismissal of the Trolleybus proposal as" impractical and too expensive" summed up the wholly political agenda of TfL as did the slanted surveys and the playing down of the traffic displacement north and south. ie. A 48-70% increase in South Ealing road traffic alone would be a disaster from every point of view. Having lived in cities where there are tram networks, they are great, but only in a place where an extensive network exists. Networks can handle diversions, reversing triangles and turning loops and cover for the almost daily occurence of breakdowns, accidents and roadworks. A single line route cannot and the published poor performance figures for urban single route trams is not good. The Trolleybus is a better option. There is no reason why a double-deck 150 seat Trolleybus could not operate, reducing length by going upwards. If a vehicle fails, it simply comes off the wires and others carry on around it. Even better, Arnhem in Holland uses new hybrid trolleys which run on the wires in built up areas and switch to a diesel generator engine in the suburbs making it a go-anywhere vehicle. TfL and it 's LRT predecessor, refused invites to visit the system poo-pooing it in one breath. |