I just want to gauge people's opinion about adding the tram network to the London Underground map?

I realise that it is not the tube, but neither is the DLR or Overground. This is a TFL run light rail system operating in South London, why is it not included on the map?

This may seem really petty, but my interest is only in boosting the local economy and raising the profile of a often forgotten area.

Any thoughts?

I'd say no becuase it would confuse the map too much. You couldn't add all the stops and in the future we can but hope for more lines.

I just want to gauge people's opinion about adding the tram network to the London Underground map?

I realise that it is not the tube, but neither is the DLR or Overground. This is a TFL run light rail system operating in South London, why is it not included on the map?

This may seem really petty, but my interest is only in boosting the local economy and raising the profile of a often forgotten area.

Any thoughts?

If you want maps, have you had a look at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/1106.aspx There are loads of different maps there and you should be able to find one which would suit you.

Looking on http://www.tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround/1106.aspx, adding the tram to the tube map would look a bit odd, because only the western end would bear any relationship to the rest of the tube lines.

However, that is all about to change, with the Overground lines being added down to West Croydon.

So it seems an excellent time to start lobbying to add the tram line. Maybe it wouldn't be on the tiny maps in diaries, but it could be on the standard large posters.

You could look up the membership of the GLA Transport Committee and the GLA member for your borough(s), as well as some Chambers of Commerce, and start your lobbying there.

seen as tramlink is just an express bus service on rails (in terms of fares), putting it on a rail map would be wrong really

But surely it can't be excluded on the grounds of fares?

The trams in South London are excellent. They speed along between East and West. Certainly feels faster than the DLR. They are also mostly segregated for their route. I think it can only be a positive to place it on the main tube map. Would highlight that there are places to live, breathe and work in the depths of South London! (albeit - they are dives).

But surely it can't be excluded on the grounds of fares?

then lets put bus routes on the map too... oh wait, they already have

The public perception of rail-based transport is that it is reliable (usually), not affected by congestion (usually), and comfortable, because it does not have the accelerations in every direction of a bus.

So there is every difference in the world between trams and buses on the tube map.

This system only runs very short distances on roads, running mostly on old railway routes. Plus it is over 15 miles long which is why there are so many stops. That would be an unusually long bus route.

It is exactly the same type of service as the DLR.

Thank you, that is good advice.

seen as tramlink is just an express bus service on rails (in terms of fares), putting it on a rail map would be wrong really

But it's run by TfL London Rail, not TfL London Buses. Now that TfL has brought the service back in house, I think they'll be keen to add it to the map. London Overground doesn't reach central London but it's included, so why shouldn't London Trams.

As a matter of interest, have the passenger numbers matched the predicted numbers before the system was built?

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2annual/images/image05.jpg


What is the local perception of the quality of the service provided?

It seemed that a lot of the windows had been etched, and there was felt-pen graffiti on the backs of seats the last time I used it. Can TfL reverse that problem?

The trams are currently going through a refurbishment programme including a new colour scheme (in an attempt to further tie in the system to TfL's branding) so they'll certainly be in better nick... but for how long?

The new green coloured trams have slightly grown on me, but I still prefer the original red and white.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/londonstreetscenes/2949999426/

But it's run by TfL London Rail, not TfL London Buses. Now that TfL has brought the service back in house, I think they'll be keen to add it to the map. London Overground doesn't reach central London but it's included, so why shouldn't London Trams.

But London Overground has lots of places where you can change to LUL.

But it's run by TfL London Rail, not TfL London Buses. Now that TfL has brought the service back in house, I think they'll be keen to add it to the map. London Overground doesn't reach central London but it's included, so why shouldn't London Trams.

because trams aren't grade segregated, they are street vehicles!

it's got nothing to do with running into central london

But London Overground has lots of places where you can change to LUL.

This is true. The Tram system only has one current link to the Metropolitan Line at Wimbledon. This will however change soon, with a link to East London Line at West Croydon and if the politicians are sucessful in the getting the Crystal Palace extension back on track then a third link at that station.

I am really interested in all of the comments made in this thread and thank everyone for their contributions. I have the interest of the local area at heart and truly believe that inclusion will bring many benefits to this forgotten and often unfairly judged area of the City. After all this is the same as the DLR. When friends visit the area from other areas of the city they comment on how much better the tram is to the tube and definably. ore modern. If TFL are going to draw money from this area then the people should benefit.

This is true. The Tram system only has one current link to the Metropolitan Line at Wimbledon. This will however change soon, with a link to East London Line at West Croydon and if the politicians are sucessful in the getting the Crystal Palace extension back on track then a third link at that station.

I am really interested in all of the comments made in this thread and thank everyone for their contributions. I have the interest of the local area at heart and truly believe that inclusion will bring many benefits to this forgotten and often unfairly judged area of the City. After all this is the same as the DLR. When friends visit the area from other areas of the city they comment on how much better the tram is to the tube and definably. ore modern. If TFL are going to draw money from this area then the people should benefit.


District line runs to wimbledon not the metropolitan, and the east london line wont be part of London Underground when it's "extended" to croydon!

District line runs to wimbledon not the metropolitan, and the east london line wont be part of London Underground when it's "extended" to croydon!

Ok, apparently 'the big boss man' doesn't like the tram, it doesn't fit the post code snobbery of Londons Transport system (DLR). Can Croydon please leave Greater London. I want back into Surrey :)

Ok, apparently 'the big boss man' doesn't like the tram, it doesn't fit the post code snobbery of Londons Transport system (DLR). Can Croydon please leave Greater London. I want back into Surrey :)

We wanna bite of that exclusive pie!!!!!:) The tube map is a map.... NOt a work of art. If it ain't big enough, add an extra fold.

We wanna bite of that exclusive pie!!!!!:) The tube map is a map.... NOt a work of art. If it ain't big enough, add an extra fold.

you're an idiot, i love the tram and i love croydon (Blue orchid RIP), i was devastated when they chopped the 54 at elmers end, used to be my gateway to the place, i just don't think it deserves a place on a rail map, considering it is street based transport.


Ok, apparently 'the big boss man' doesn't like the tram, it doesn't fit the post code snobbery of Londons Transport system (DLR). Can Croydon please leave Greater London. I want back into Surrey :)

The DLR is a segregated high frequency railway, the tram runs on street and is thus applicable to street rules, it was a part of London Buses until the recent TfL take over of it.


And shows how much you know about croydon, it wasn't even in surrey when it joined greater london, it was an independent county borough, just like west ham and east ham. In fact it hadn't been a part of surrey since 1889.

What you talking about postcode snobbery, i believe croydon is much a part of London as anywhere in greater london, i ain't one of them idiots who takes the royal mails' postal counties as gospel, when everyone knows they have never reflected the boundary of any county and city accurately and in places have put towns in completely the wrong county... denham anyone!

oh yeah and FYI my thread on Croydon http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=761620

I stand very much corrected. Peace and love

Hello fellow interested in the Trams people. I have been in contact with TFL over the station improvements on the service and this is what they had to say.

"Lebanon Road tram stop, like all the others, is being refurbished in 2 phases.

· Phase one includes a deep clean, re-painting, replacement of bins, new passenger information and repairs to the platform surface.

· Phase two includes re-glazing the shelter, new vitreous enamel signs, new seating and updating the shelter with a Tramlink green edging.

The first phase has been completed for Lebanon Road. The phase two works are scheduled for the end of February but completion date is dependent on the weather"

PS I hope me and the Bossman are cool?

Croydon Advertiser article http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/Exclusive-Plan-revealed-borrow-trams-Germany-Croydon-network/article-693890-detail/article.html

Exclusive: Plan revealed to borrow trams from Germany for Croydon network
by Neil Millard

Tramlink bosses want to bring in trams from Germany to ease overcrowding on the network. With Croydon's 24 trams struggling to cope with ever-greater demand the city of Cologne has been approached in the hope it can offer short-term help. It takes up to three years to order and receive a new tram - at a cost of £2.6 million - so Transport for London (TfL) wants to borrow some in the meantime. At present Cologne doesn't have any spare but TfL hopes the city could provide some in the future. Other cities, including Saarbrucken, in Germany, and Istanbul, in Turkey, are also being considered as possible donors. During the rush hour stations such as Addiscombe, Church Street and East Croydon are beset by overcrowding. Up to 500,000 passengers use the trams each week, five per cent up on last year, and TfL knows something needs to be done.
Spokesman Guy Pitt said: "We're well aware of the problem and are looking at several schemes to try to alleviate it." TfL points out that some sections of the network - where there is only a single track - would not benefit from there being extra trams. So transport chiefs are looking to solve this problem too. "We're looking at doubling track where possible," Mr Pitt added. "Having stretches of single track militates against the sheer number of trams. "The other big problem we have got is Wimbledon because there is just one bit of track there where the trams come in." TfL believes borrowed trams could satisfy commuter demand prior to getting new ones. Mr Pitt said: "We're looking at the possibility of leasing trams from cities such as Cologne who run a similar system to ours. "Unfortunately there are not immediately any trams they have got spare."
TfL took over the network from Tramtrack last June. Soon afterwards there was controversy when new mayor Boris Johnson reneged on his election pledge to build the £170 million Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace, claiming the money was needed for transport projects elsewhere in London. Steve O'Connell, Greater London Assembly member for Croydon, does not think there is an overcrowding problem outside rush hour. But he welcomed the plan to borrow trams, adding: "I think it's evidently sensible. "We are arriving at a capacity issue around rush hour. That needs to be addressed. I think the answer is increasing the number of trams out there. "The trams are almost a victim of their own success." Allan Ramsay, from TfL, meanwhile said that just three extra trams would significantly reduce current capacity problems. But he added that no new trams had yet been ordered to solve the problem long-term and said that station improvements were also being considered as a way of easing overcrowding.


Sounds pretty good, looks like Croydon may be getting some new trams, also sounds like TFL are looking at doubling some single tracks and improving some station layouts in addition to the current upgrade programme. Last time I checked Therapia Lane was the only stop to be fully upgraded. Seems like Tfl are actually going to throw some money at the system to bring it up to an even better standard.

I just want to gauge people's opinion about adding the tram network to the London Underground map?

I realise that it is not the tube, but neither is the DLR or Overground. This is a TFL run light rail system operating in South London, why is it not included on the map?

This may seem really petty, but my interest is only in boosting the local economy and raising the profile of a often forgotten area.

Any thoughts?

I agree.

I've never understood why Croydon's trams were not included. It's no different from having the DLR on there. At the moment, it looks like South London has next to nothing in terms of rail/light rail transport.

I think the trams were built with the potential to replace the articulated mid-section with a longer body thus increasing capacity. Of course this would also mean opening a production line but presumably a shorter-term solution than manufacturing extra trams. (Obviously I'd prefer to see more trams on the system to increase frequencies.)

As always with transport, South London the poor relation.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/media/designstandards/assets/downloads/trams/tramlink-stop-signs-standard-issue03.pdf

This is an interesting document. I really like the Roundel network identifier on section 2.1.

Thanks for that, I've seen something similar to that before, pre-Tfl takeover. However this is obviously a new version, strange then that they don't seem to have followed all of it especially that they've just upgraded the stops. It's a shame that they don't use those Roundel network identifiers at the stops, it could look really good, maybe they'll put them up some time, they also don't appear to have put the network maps in the canopy bays at the tram stops.

As CSK mentioned earlier in the thread, TfL have hinted in the past about wanting to borrow or lease more trams. I've just read that Madrid has scaled back its tram plans and now has 22 Alstom Citadis trams spare, 11 of which look set to head to Adelaide to bolster their Bombardier Flexity Classic fleet.

Could the Alstom Citidas trams work in Croydon, obviously with some carriage sections removed? I know that means having a non-standard fleet, but if Adelaide can manage it then surely we could too?

Alternatively, perhaps a deal could be struck whereby Adelaide takes more trams from Madrid and leases some Flexity Classics to us. I'm aware that Flexity Classic are a different family to our Flexity Swift tams but they're both Bombardier products.

Here's the report about Adelaide, although it's illustrated with a Barcelona tram.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25529055-2682,00.html

Madrid tram (not my pics)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/malter/1251798694/

Adelaide Flexity Classic (page down)
http://www.freewebs.com/adelaiderailpics/adelaidestrams.htm

because trams aren't grade segregated, they are street vehicles!

it's got nothing to do with running into central london

Croydon Tram is basically segregated except a small amount of street running. Maybe you should campaign for the name to be changed to Croydon Light Rail!

I think the main problem of adding it to the tube map would become apparent if they ever did the North, West and East London Transits. A crazy mess of lines. I'd say docklands is central enough to be an expcetion.

As always with transport, South London the poor relation.

Motorways maybe but not rail. North London only has a handful of network lines and no branches whereas South Lndon has hardly any tube but lots of network rail including branches, alternative destinations and cross-routes plus it has the extensive Croydon Tram.

Croydon Tram is basically segregated except a small amount of street running. Maybe you should campaign for the name to be changed to Croydon Light Rail!

I think the main problem of adding it to the tube map would become apparent if they ever did the North, West and East London Transits. A crazy mess of lines. I'd say docklands is central enough to be an expcetion.



Motorways maybe but not rail. North London only has a handful of network lines and no branches whereas South Lndon has hardly any tube but lots of network rail including branches, alternative destinations and cross-routes plus it has the extensive Croydon Tram.

It has more in common with a Tram/Train than a Light Rail. As I understand the definition a Tram/Train runs on both rail alignment and on street, whereas Light Rail does what it says on the tin.

It has more in common with a Tram/Train than a Light Rail. As I understand the definition a Tram/Train runs on both rail alignment and on street, whereas Light Rail does what it says on the tin.

Tram/Train is a bit more involved than whether a route runs on a segregated alignment. The forerunner of modern tram/train operation is generally taken to be the Karlsruhe system in Germany. This operates in town as a conventional modern tram system, but then switches to share heavy rail mainline infrastructure akin to a regional rail service. Therefore the vehicles used must be able to conform to both Deutsche Bahn and local Karlsruhe standards for signalling, loading gauge, crash worthiness, etc.

Although all modern UK LRT/tram systems share their alignment with heavy rail NR infrastructure, none actually share the same track/signalling (the systems are physically separate). The closest example the UK currently has to tram/train is the Tyne and Wear Metro service extension to Sunderland via Network Rail metals. However as the Tyne and Wear system is more akin to a light metro than a modern tram or LRT network, the comparison with "proper" hybrid tram/train operation is not a perfect one. It is however a useful safety/operational/etc. comparator for any future implementation of the concept in South Yorkshire or elsewhere.

Best regards,
Slip

Thanks for your comments Slip.

There are huge activities going on at East Croydon Tram stop. I think that they are relaying the track. I have to say that the work appears to be happening at a very impressive rate.

Still no joy on the tube map thing, but looking forwards to london overground!:)

It may be happening at an impressive rate but they have run over, they should be finished by now so not to cause problems to school kids that use the trams I guess but they will not finish for another week.

The works in the middle of the cross roads ran over as well.

The temporary tram stop they are using for East Croydon must have been expensive to build and with no ticket machines always has inspectors there for people to pay and explain the route they should take which will cost more.

The trams I think would be too much disruption in the busy narrow streets...

I have often wondered, whilst waiting for a tram at Wimbledon, where the tracks heading north continue to. Whether there have been any suggestions as to continuing the tram on from that point.

If you're talking about the trains that share the same platform, then I think they're the First Capital Connect (Thameslink) services via Streatham, Tulse Hill etc. Many of the stations on the route are (or at least, were) managed by Southern despite most of the trains stopping at them being operated by First Capital Connect. I think there is speculation that the services willl transfer to Southern (or the then SouthCental franchise holder) and only run as far as London Bridge once the Thameslink upgrade is complete.

If you're talking about the trains that share the same platform, then I think they're the First Capital Connect (Thameslink) services via Streatham, Tulse Hill etc. Many of the stations on the route are (or at least, were) managed by Southern despite most of the trains stopping at them being operated by First Capital Connect. I think there is speculation that the services willl transfer to Southern (or the then SouthCental franchise holder) and only run as far as London Bridge once the Thameslink upgrade is complete.

No. If you look beyond the buffer, on the same platform that the tram has arrived at, the rails carry on.

No. If you look beyond the buffer, on the same platform that the tram has arrived at, the rails carry on.

As stated... :)

If you're talking about the trains that share the same platform, then I think they're the First Capital Connect (Thameslink) services via Streatham, Tulse Hill etc.

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/croydon/pictures/002148?sid=1251902689&seq=1&ref=L3N0b3BzLnBocD9zZWN0aW9uPWNyb3lkb24mc3RvcD1XaW1ibGVkb24=

Best regards,
Slip

As stated... :)



http://www.thetrams.co.uk/croydon/pictures/002148?sid=1251902689&seq=1&ref=L3N0b3BzLnBocD9zZWN0aW9uPWNyb3lkb24mc3RvcD1XaW1ibGVkb24=

Best regards,
Slip

The tracks that I am referring to are a set of redundant tracks that do not tie into the tracks that you refer to.

The tracks that I am referring to are a set of redundant tracks that do not tie into the tracks that you refer to.

Could you point them out on googlemaps/bing if you get the chance? I'd also like to get to the bottom of this :)

Best regards,
Slip

Could you point them out on googlemaps/bing if you get the chance? I'd also like to get to the bottom of this :)

Best regards,
Slip

I have tried to find a map that shows what I am trying to describe. Both Google and Bing only show lines in operation. The best I can do to describe the tracks as viewed from the tramlink platform and away from an incoming tram. The tracks I am refering to run parallel to the Haydons Road out of Wimbledon Station.

I have tried to find a map that shows what I am trying to describe. Both Google and Bing only show lines in operation. The best I can do to describe the tracks as viewed from the tramlink platform and away from an incoming tram. The tracks I am refering to run parallel to the Haydons Road out of Wimbledon Station.

The only railway alignments that I am aware of that come close to Haydons Road (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Haydons+Road,+wimbledon&sll=51.423915,-0.201901&sspn=0.001522,0.004823&ie=UTF8&ll=51.423751,-0.187283&spn=0.006088,0.01929&t=h&z=16) are:

i)the operational Network rail lines from Wimbledon towards Tooting, Streatham, and eventually Blackfriars.
ii) the disused (and partially built over) alignment from Merton Park (now part of Tramlink) running over what is now Merantum way, to Tooting.

(see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aldershot,_Ash,_Shalford,_Basingstoke,_Guildford_%26_Peasmarsh_,_Wimbledon_RJD_4.jpg) for what was extant in 1914.)

Alternatively, the only other tracks I can think of that may appear to be disused in the area of Wimbledon station are outlined here on this superb diagram from the great unofficial Croydon Tramlink website: http://www.tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/diag.php?num=1

Any help?
Slip

New trams coming from Edinburgh. Woo Hoo

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/east-central/121507-edinburghs-trams-on-trackfor-croydon/

New trams coming from Edinburgh. Woo Hoo

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/east-central/121507-edinburghs-trams-on-trackfor-croydon/

Nice find, thats fantastic news, any idea when we should be getting them, and are they due to run in service to help alleviate congestion or will they just be tested here and there, but otherwise just sit idle most of the time?

Only know what was said in article i'm afraid. I kind of hoped somebody else would know more about it.

Only know what was said in article i'm afraid. I kind of hoped somebody else would know more about it.

Fair enough, look forward to hearing more, hopefully some other press of some sort or tfl will start shedding some more light on it over the coming weeks, can't wait to see these new trams glide through Croydon, hopefully we won't give them back to Edinburgh!lol! They can have some of the old fleet instead.

Also found this;

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/City39s-first-tram-stop-unveiled.5626180.jp

They are coming Spring 2010. Bit later than I hoped, but hey.

If you look at the reader's comments on the second article there are some interesting comments made there. Their cynical view is that the trams won't be going back to Edinburgh. They ordered 27 trams, based on the fact that there would be two lines; 1A and 1B, however 1B was cancelled but it was evidently too late to reduce the order, so TIE just said that they'd run a more frequent service. It seems as though the Edinburgh scheme is facing some financial dificulties and as Croydon and TFL are so desperate for new trams, it might be in both places favour to agree a deal where Croydon kept these four trams, it could possibly get them at a slightly knocked down rate! It might be a bit of a pipe dream, but TFL may have landed on their feet here if Edinburgh go along with this.

Trams destined for other networks around Europe seem surplus to requirements as a result of the economic climate. Adelaide is leasing trams from a postponed Spanish system, and Melbourne has used trams from Mulhouse in France.

From a maintenance point of view, I'd assume that leasing Bombardier trams would be easier but I'm certainly not compaining about the possible arrival of the Spanish-built Edinburgh trams. I wonder if they'll be delivered in the Edinbrugh livery or plain white, allowing TfL to re-livery them into Tramlink colours using vinyl transfers.

In relation to Tramlink buying or leasing more trams, extending the length of current trams, and replacing single track with double track, the London Trams factsheet published in summer 2009, says: "By the autumn, we should be ready to publish a programme of improvement works to be carried out." Not long to go then!

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tramlink-factsheet.pdf

QOUTE>>In relation to Tramlink buying or leasing more trams, extending the length of current trams, and replacing single track with double track, the London Trams factsheet published in summer 2009, says: "By the autumn, we should be ready to publish a programme of improvement works to be carried out." Not long to go then!<<QUOTE

We now know about the sourcing of trams. But how would they go about doubling track, some sections seem to make this impossible. How would they deal with Wimbledon? I heard that they wanted to rationalise access to the station and wanted to move the tram closer to the tube platforms.

Fresh hope tram network could be extended to Purley
Friday, October 16, 2009, 07:00Comment on this story

By Ian Austen
ian.austen@essnmedia.co.uk
Prospects of a north/south extension to Tramlink are back on the agenda.
Plans to one day link Croydon town centre with Purley, and then possibly Coulsdon, were revealed in the final draft of the Mayor of London's transport strategy, which was released this week.
Croydon's London Assembly member Steve O'Connell has expressed his delight at the news, even though he admits it could be 20 years before the idea becomes reality.
But opposition politicians say he is "living in a dream world" if he thinks anything will happen while Boris Johnson is mayor.
The strategy makes reference to the success of Tramlink and points out that £54 million is committed to making improvements to the existing system, including upgrading track and providing more capacity.
It then, tantalisingly, adds: "Consideration will be given to further extensions with a strong focus on a potential north/south axis in order to accommodate Croydon's future growth needs."
This has got Mr O'Connell, who is also Croydon Council's regeneration chief, "very excited".
He said: "A tram extension would be an enormous benefit to the regeneration of Purley and Coulsdon."
Mr O'Connell believes a link between Croydon and Purley would happen before any consideration was given to extending the line to Coulsdon.
He added: "I have heard figures which suggest this could be done for £180 million."
What is not clear is what route a Purley extension would take. Linking up in Waddon and travelling down the A23 Purley Way or using the Brighton Road from the town centre appear to be the likely options.
No mention of the existing plans to extend Tramlink to Crystal Palace is contained in the 10-year strategy.
But Mr O'Connell believes any extension to Purley would be in addition to the Crystal Palace link.
The Crystal Palace extension was dropped from earlier drafts of the strategy, with the mayor claiming there was no money available.
And despite lobbying from the council, businesses and residents, it has not been reinstated in the final draft meaning it will be at least 10 years before it is considered again.
It is this that has prompted cries of derision from Labour councillor Gerry Ryan, who has been heading a campaign for the reinstatement of the Crystal Palace extension.
He said: "I would love to see an extension to Purley but Cllr O'Connell is living in a dream world.
"If the mayor can't agree to getting a link up to Crystal Palace, the truth is nothing is going to happen."
It has been suggested that the Crystal Palace extension could be completed for as little as £60 million.
Tarsem Flora, chairman of Purley and Woodcote Residents' Association, personally wants a north/south extension but says residents generally are split on the idea.
He explained: "Many people think it is just not practical to use the Brighton Road as it is too narrow and they wonder how trams could cope alongside the existing traffic."
He accepts, though, that using Purley Way, which is much wider, may be a realistic

:lol: "20 years" :lol: this country

The joint inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group (APPLRG) and pteg will hold its first hearing on Tuesday 27th October at the House of Commons.

The Chair of the inquiry, Paul Rowen MP, today said:

“We have been very pleased by the number of responses to our call for evidence. The other MPs on the Inquiry Panel and myself are looking forward to the oral evidence sessions starting on Tuesday – it’ll give us the scope to really explore the arguments and evidence being put to us. Sessions are open to the public and we would encourage anyone with an interest in this debate to attend.”

The first session will hear evidence from the Light Rail Transit Association, the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, Confederation of Passenger Transport and representatives from the Ultra Light Rail sector. It will cover issues around peak oil, climate change, health impacts and the role of innovation in light rail. Future sessions will hear from a wide range of witnesses, including existing and aspiring tram promoters (including Nottingham, TfL and the PTEs) as well as lobby groups like Campaign for Better Transport, and private sector perspectives from the light rail industry and business representatives.

The inquiry, run along the lines of a select committee, will be seeking to understand how all stakeholders can work together to improve the take-up and implementation of tram systems in the UK. Further details of the inquiry’s terms of reference and timetable can be found at: http://www.pteg.net/PolicyCentre/LRInquiry

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/media/designstandards/assets/downloads/trams/tramlink-stop-signs-standard-issue03.pdf

This is an interesting document. I really like the Roundel network identifier on section 2.1.

I'd be more impressed if it weren't for the legions of typos and other fluffs that riddle the document. (The writer of section 2.15 consistently misspells "identifier" as "identier".) Doesn't anyone proofread any more?

With regard to the lack of Tramlink on most maps: Trams are essentially buses on rails and have a much higher station density than other rail-based modes. If TfL's map designers were to try and squeeze all these stops onto the main Tube Map diagrams, they'd need show every single stop to make the entire map consistent. This would result in the Tramlink routes looking ridiculously long and out of scale with the rest of the network. It also scales poorly as the Tramlink network itself is (hopefully) extended over time: tram routes would effectively end up dominating any such map.

The alternative is to only show interchanges with other lines, but this would give a misleading impression of the Tramlink network.

*

When Harry Beck came up with his original design, he did so in an era when trams were everywhere in London, yet he didn't include them. Why? Because they address a different market. Buses and trams are local transport solutions, rarely used for more than a mile or two. The Tube serves a different market.

Separate maps for different markets are going to be more common. A "one size fits all" map is only going to become more unwieldy as London's transport network expands.

Fair enough. I think that I now agree with you.

I assumed tram stops from Harry Beck's time were closer together than those on the modern Tramlink. Stops in Croydon town centre are close together but the distances between branches don't seem any closer than those on the DLR and even some tube stations.

I think Plaistow is right. I think that maybe a line should be added to the map, but only the important stops and or stops with transport connections. I would show the following. Wimbledon - Mitcham - Mitcham Junction - Therapia Lane (IKEA) - West Croydon - East Croydon - Sandilands (as line splits)

North Branch

Addiscombe - Woodside - Elmers End (terminates)
- Birkbeck - Beckenham Junction (terminates)

South Branch

Addington Village - New Addington

What do you all think?

I assumed tram stops from Harry Beck's time were closer together than those on the modern Tramlink. Stops in Croydon town centre are close together but the distances between branches don't seem any closer than those on the DLR and even some tube stations.

The problem is that it doesn't scale. If any of the various Tramlink extensions go ahead, you'll need to cram in a lot of station names in a very small space. It'll look very confusing.

In any case, as I pointed out earlier, trams are basically buses on rails. The fact that they use rail technology isn't relevant: they're primarily designed for short, local journeys. The Tube caters for longer (primarily commuter) journeys over much greater distances. There is no single bus route connecting Epping with Ealing.

Finally, the DLR is not a light railway, despite its name: once the three-car stock is in place, its throughput will be on a par (at least!) with that of the Metropolitan or District lines. Its name has become increasingly misleading. It is not a true light rail network, nor is it entirely focused on the Docklands area.

A scheme called City Tram has been proposed by the City of London, linking Battersea and Hackney via Elephant and Castle and The City, but does not appear in any of TfL's transport plans.

Funny to read the apparent infighting down there. If the 'frozen north' had as much money available as has been spent on DLR over recent years both Liverpool and Leeds would have tramways every bit as good as the Croydon system. I agree with Croydon Dave the trams are far better than the DLR units despite the far lower capital costs.
Please spare a thought for those out in the Regions when complaining about the TfL systems. We fight to keep hopld of 25 year old 2 car diesel units when we see 10 and 12 car trains running half empty all day in the South East.

We fight to keep hopld of 25 year old 2 car diesel units when we see 10 and 12 car trains running half empty all day in the South East.

Yeah, but firstly those trains are actually relatively busy still during the day, besides they are desparately needed during rush hour, I commute every day East Croydon to London (busiest point to point journey apparently on the British rail network), if anywhere needs 12 car trains it's here, if they could be utilised a bit better during the day, would be good, but where else does'nt have that problem. When I lived in Manchester, I had to catch 3 (sometimes 2) car trains into Piccadilly (on the airport line) into town every day in rush hour and they ran every half hour, and they were far less overcrowded than the equivilent 12 car trains that I catch in London which run at a frequency of around every 2 to 3 mins in the height of rush hour, more flexible working hours would help ease the crush.

From the Streatham Guardian

Croydon tramlink extension to Crystal Palace back on track
9:55am Wednesday 5th May 2010

Plans to extend the Croydon tram line to Crystal Palace have returned after they were included in Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s transport blueprint for the capital.

Mr Johnson revealed exclusively in an interview with this newspaper he had included the plans for the extension in his transport strategy to be published in the coming weeks.

It was the Mayor who mothballed the plans in 2008 because of a lack of funding.

Question marks still remain over how the project, estimated to cost between £62m and £170m, would be financed.

But its inclusion in the strategy has been welcomed by business leaders as a “statement of commitment” to the extension.

Crystal Palace and Norwood Chamber of Commerce chairman Ray Hall said it would boost businesses in the Crystal Palace triangle.

He said: “This is excellent news for Crystal Palace. It will make the area easier to access, bringing more shoppers and encouraging people to further invest in the area.”

The news of the potential improvement comes just weeks before the East London Line is due to open in the area on May 23, connecting Crystal Palace to West Croydon and London’s financial powerhouse, Canary Wharf.

Peter Cooper, partner at Cooper Giles estate agents, said both transport improvements were likely to push up property values, making Crystal Palace a more attractive option for people who work in Croydon or Canary Wharf to live.

Mr Johnson said no public funds were available for the project, but he would be lobbying for finances in the coming months. This is expected to be in both public and private sectors.

A spokesman for the Mayor said Transport for London was committed to a £54m investment in Tramlink up to 2015, but no funds were currently available for extensions to the network, although initial investigation of Tramlink extensions had been undertaken and would be explored further with boroughs and other key stakeholders.

From Croydon Advertiser

Croydon's Tramlink network will grow in 'bite-sized chunks'
TO BE EXTENDED: Bits will be added to the tram network in "bite-size chunks"
Extending the tram network is something that has not been ruled out in the future.

On Monday, the system celebrated its tenth anniversary and Phil Hewitt, TfL's director of London Tramlink, says there is still a desire to extend the track.

The proposed extension to Crystal Palace was dropped in 2008 as London mayor Boris Johnson decided there was not enough money for it to be included in Transport for London's (TfL's) latest 10-year business plan.

But TfL claims this does not signal the end of the line for progress.


Mr Hewitt said: "We are not looking at a 20-kilometre extension costing £1 billion. We would be looking at affordable schemes people can believe in."

TfL, he added, would be looking at improving and adding to the system in "bite-sized chunks" which would cost tens of millions, rather than hundreds of millions, if funding is available.

Mr Hewitt refused to be drawn on locations, but as well as Crystal Palace, Sutton and Purley are two areas mentioned in the past as possibilities for extensions.

Any extension would need to tie in with the Mayor of London's transport strategy.

Even if the go-ahead was given to an extension today, it would take around five years to start work and a further 18 months to three years to complete, meaning the system will definitely stay the same until at least 2016.

However, there are short to medium-term plans being looked at.

Mr Hewitt said: "There are a lot of people who like to travel on Tramlink but are effectively crowded off the network. The short-term aspiration is to improve capacity in key areas."

This means bringing in more trams and increasing the level of service.

Upgrading computer systems, which date from the late 1990s, is another project TfL is looking at.

Mr Hewitt said: "This is the backroom stuff that the public won't see, but if we do get it right they will see the benefits.

"These things have to be done. They're not attractive, but if we don't get them done we run the risk of the service deteriorating."

http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/content/bromley/times/news/story.aspx?brand=BMLYTOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsbmlyt&itemid=WeED26%20May%202010%2017%3A24%3A10%3A397

The above article bemoans that there is no tramlink to the town, and fears that the new ELL/London Overground externsion may be the death of the town. Was there any suggestion that trams might go to Bromley, and onwards elswhere, and move beyond the suggestion stage?

http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/content/bromley/times/news/story.aspx?brand=BMLYTOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsbmlyt&itemid=WeED26%20May%202010%2017%3A24%3A10%3A397

The above article bemoans that there is no tramlink to the town, and fears that the new ELL/London Overground externsion may be the death of the town. Was there any suggestion that trams might go to Bromley, and onwards elswhere, and move beyond the suggestion stage?

The most obvious Tramlink branch to extend to Bromley is the one terminating at Beckenham Junction. But this will require crossing a nasty little junction just beyond the present terminus—tailbacks well beyond the roundabout aren't uncommon as the traffic lights here are on a round-robin sequence—on the flat. Beyond this, there's the small matter of negotiating the hills and ridges between Beckenham and Bromley.

If it runs along the main road, (or the parallel road roughly opposite the terminus) it'll also have to contend with another notorious pinch-point at Shortlands Station, which is built partly on a low bridge. (This is why the 227 and other buses along that road are single-deck.) The road to Hayes joins the one from Beckenham right before the bridge. Beyond the bridge, the narrow main road winds its way up a steep hill. It's not wide enough to accommodate the tram as well, and demolition is unlikely to be an option, so the tram is more likely to have to run through the nearby park to reach Bromley, before running to either Bromley North or, following the Ravensbourne, to Bromley South.

Plan B: The primary arterial route into Bromley is the A21 (via Downham), but the tram would have to negotiate Beckenham Hill to reach it first. (It's feasible, but not cheap.)

Plan C would be to build the line through the residential streets between Beckenham and Bromley, but this would be expensive, disruptive (it'd have to be almost entirely on-street), and the resulting journey times would likely be slower than catching a bus.

Plan D is to use the two parks between Beckenham and Bromley, but this would mean losing a lot of potential revenue from the residential areas. (The golf course is privately owned too, if memory serves.) This is likely to be easier to engineer, but would give few benefits to the locals, and probably require surgery to the park's Listed entrance too.

In short: it's possible to extend Tramlink to Bromley from Beckenham, but it's hard to see the benefits of doing so. It's far more likely that this branch will be extended to Lewisham as the A21 is much easier going.

If linking Bromley with Croydon is the priority, it'd be better to extend the New Addington branch to Hayes and Bromley instead. Although it'd mean leaving New Addington itself on a stub branch, most of the route to Hayes is practically open countryside, and the roads themselves are usually wide enough to accommodate a tram right-of-way with only minor surgery.

The open countryside also means you can get away with far fewer stops, making for a much quicker journey than the Beckenham option.

^^
If the Sheffield-to-Rotherham tram-train persuades the authorities to be a bit saner you could also go from Beckenham to Bromley using the railway tracks, maybe you could get into the town centre along Bromley High Street.

^^
If the Sheffield-to-Rotherham tram-train persuades the authorities to be a bit saner you could also go from Beckenham to Bromley using the railway tracks, maybe you could get into the town centre along Bromley High Street.

Along the Chatham Main Line from Victoria and Blackfriars? It's only two-track, and most of it is in cutting between Beckenham and Shortlands. It's also close to capacity and there's little scope for adding more tracks, or tram stops on passing loops, without some major engineering work and disruption to the existing heavy rail service. They only got away with it on the Birkbeck route because the existing heavy rail line had been singled some years before, and had been downgraded to a low-frequency service. (It's hard to believe that this was the first line to reach Beckenham!)

The LC&DR, LB&SCR and SER preferred to build new routes on different alignments rather than quadrupling. (The "relief" tracks for the Chatham Main Line are better known today as the "Catford Loop".) There's not a lot of capacity left on the existing railway infrastructure, so throwing trams onto it as well isn't going to be popular with the locals.

You also lose an advantage of using light rail: more frequent stops. Essentially, the trams would just be duplicating the existing stopping services between Beckenham and Bromley South.

You'd probably have to build new tracks—with new stations—alongside the existing line, and rebuild Shortlands station.

That's not to say it can't be done from an engineering standpoint, just that it's unlikely to be cheaper, or offer better value, than the alternatives. Besides, if you want to get to Croydon from Bromley, a route via Hayes would be quicker as there's less urban sprawl. Getting there via Beckenham would take so long, you'd get there quicker by bus!

Despite some strong arguments earlier in this thread against featuring Tramlink on the Underground map, having seen the latest version of the map incorporating the extended East London Line I think now's the right time to feature it. There is so much space on the map which could easily be taken up by Tramlink.

Despite some strong arguments earlier in this thread against featuring Tramlink on the Underground map, having seen the latest version of the map incorporating the extended East London Line I think now's the right time to feature it. There is so much space on the map which could easily be taken up by Tramlink.

Agreed

Despite some strong arguments earlier in this thread against featuring Tramlink on the Underground map, having seen the latest version of the map incorporating the extended East London Line I think now's the right time to feature it. There is so much space on the map which could easily be taken up by Tramlink.

And what happens to the map if trams (finally) take off in London in a big way? Having the DLR on there is bad enough!

Trams are just buses on rails. They're primarily for short, local journeys. (Sorry, but it's true: Trams replace buses. Tubes and other heavy rail networks complement buses. That difference is crucial when planning diagrams like these!)

Trams, like bus routes, have a much higher station density—on a par with the DLR's original core. It'd be like trying to have both Tube and TfL-owned bus routes on the same map.

Note that Tramlink, being in South London, is not representative of how trams would be used in most of London. North London has both heavy rail and Tube services. South London has only heavy rail, which is having to do double duty. The Tube provides a lot of orbital journey opportunities, but South London lacks these, so Tramlink contains clear elements of an orbital railway.

Similarly, the DLR, which began as a light rail / tram operation, has since become physically indistinguishable from a heavy metro network, but retains a high station density.

Both Tramlink and the DLR are unusual examples of light rail and urban metro services. The present, diagrammatic network map is becoming no easier to read than the geographical maps it replaced. It may be time to move on to something new.

^^

Agreed. If Tramlink is on the map,then the buses should be there as well.
And when trams start expanding the map would be unreadable! Perhaps a multilayer map with different modes of transport on different layers would be a solution? Kind of hard do to on paper though...

Anyway, about the trams. Now that the Edinburgh vehicles won't be tested in Croydon where will Tramlink find the 4 additional trams needed?

Trams are nothing like buses. You could never put the bus routes onto the Tube map because there are too many stops and stations (not that any sane person would want to anyway).

However, Tramlink could easily fit on to the map and works for South London in a similar way to how the DLR works for East London.

I remember in the US, seeing a map much like the multi-level one mentioned above this was electronic (I think). The map had a dull screen, until you pressed a button, say for buses, then say all bus routes were shown lit up. A further key pad to the side enabled you to select a bus number and this showed the bus route in detail.

Needlessly to say this was not at a bus stop, but at what is termed a transit mall.This is the equivilent of a transport node/hub or transport interchange.

Similar thing to you describe was built for the abandoned Picc-Vic tunnel (and is now in the Manchester Museum of Transport), you pressed a destination button and it indicated how you got there, where you changed train and your route. (sorry for large picture)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Manchester_Transport_Museum_SELNEC_Futurote_sign.jpg

The Cross River Tram would be more like a bus route with extensive (if not exclusive) on-street running but I'd bet my bottom dollar that should the Cross River Tram ever go ahead its line will be added to the Tube map.

The old trams were like buses but Croydon Tramlink is a very different beast with only limited on-street running. Most of the lines are on converted railway routes with stops more frequently placed than stations but further apart than bus stops.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/hybrid-tram-goes-live-in-us-city-2191448.html#

Came across this article, and wondered whether, if it were introduced into London it could help revive some of the Tram schemes that have suggested. Perhaps inspiring new ones.

The old trams were like buses but Croydon Tramlink is a very different beast with only limited on-street running. Most of the lines are on converted railway routes with stops more frequently placed than stations but further apart than bus stops.

I know this is late, but...

The present Croydon Tramlink network (and its only slightly older peers up north) primarily uses existing rail infrastructure. Very little of it runs on-street, with the New Addington branch also having its own right-of-way thanks to the rural nature of the area.

Unfortunately, the same opportunities do not apply for future tram infrastructure in London: there simply isn't that much disused trackbed left. The mooted extensions to Epsom and Crystal Palace will rely much more heavily on on-street running.

This is arguably the greatest obstacle to building any new tram infrastructure in London: you're going to be digging up an awful lot of streets to build it.

I don't think overhead power lines are a major issue concerning the viability of trams in London. The main concern IMO is still robustness in an on-street environment, i.e. whether it would perform significantly better than buses.

I don't think overhead power lines are a major issue concerning the viability of trams in London. The main concern IMO is still robustness in an on-street environment, i.e. whether it would perform significantly better than buses.

The OHLE isn't an issue. Mature, tested technology already exists (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/primove-catenary-free-operation) to remove them entirely if desired. The problem is that you have to dig up the entire road—and in London, with its Health & Safety culture, that means closing it—to lay down the tracks.

The people of Edinburgh's Princes Street know what this means, as did the businesses in Croydon, who suffered much the same disruption while Tramlink was built. It means months of major disruption, of reduced custom (because buses need to use roads too, not just cars), and, in some cases, even bankruptcy or liquidation.

Trams need to serve useful destinations, with convenient, financially-viable stops en route. You can't send 'em round the back of the ancient High Street if you want to make the tram worthwhile, but this means a long period of pain while the necessary works are taking place.

My own view is that traditional light rail is unsuited to cities like London, which lacks the vast quantities of disused rail infrastructure found in the more industrialised northern cities like Manchester, Nottingham and Birmingham. Any such infrastructure is effectively limited to sharing road space with existing users. Grade separation would be much more desirable, but traditional light rail technologies result in massive, visually intrusive viaducts, or expensive tunnelling.

You'd be better off using some form of overhead guideway. These people (http://monometro.com/) were nearly on the right lines, but I'd have just run it at street level for most of its length, with grade separation only used where circumstances require it. This would greatly reduce the cost of stations.

(I know I keep banging this particular drum, but I make no apologies for it. Traditional rail technology has its place, but not embedded into London's streets.)

Theirs a Monorail like that being installed at a US university/Town centre somewhere isnt there?

Only problem I can see with that overhead rail is that you'd have a hell of a time getting it under railway bridges, whilst maintaining clearance for HGVs and double-deckers. Otherwise, I like it. No works to the pavement, no wear and tear on the road, completely flexible in terms of grade separation. Great fun to ride :)

Only problem I can see with that overhead rail is that you'd have a hell of a time getting it under railway bridges, whilst maintaining clearance for HGVs and double-deckers. Otherwise, I like it. No works to the pavement, no wear and tear on the road, completely flexible in terms of grade separation. Great fun to ride :)

Why would it have to go under bridges? It's no harder to make it go over such obstacles. It's a continuous bridge structure; from an engineering standpoint, there's no great difficulty making the support pylons taller.

Not sure what NR would have to say about that!

They dont maintain light rail networks.

They dont maintain light rail networks.

I meant they may object to having suspended trains flying over their tracks.

TBF, my objection was pretty slim in the first place. In my area (south london) I can only really think of a handful of railway bridges that would present an obstacle. It's not a showstopper by any means and I think the idea deserves serious consideration.

I particularly like the fact that grade separation is so easy with it. With a regular tram, when a road gets narrow, the bottlenecks are only made worse (running trams back down streatham high street would have this problem). The suspended train can simply fly over the bottleneck.

I think the major objections that such a system would face are safety and aesthetics. Planners & public would have to be convinced that a train or part of a train can't fall off the rail onto traffic/people/property below. Just how unobtrusive can the pylons and track be? Westminster council, for instance, have a rabid hatred of anything that goes against the "area's distinctive heritage"

PS: What sort of incline can this sort of system cope with? And curve radius?

I meant they may object to having suspended trains flying over their tracks.

Why? They're quite happy to have road bridges, and even entire supermarkets on top of collapsing wonder-tunnels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrards_Cross_tunnel_collapse) built over them! :P


I think the major objections that such a system would face are safety and aesthetics.

My contention is that the Japanese have entire metro routes built using 1960s SAFEGE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFEGE) suspended monorail technology, which have been running for decades now. (Some of their monorail metros even... wait for it... run at a profit!)

I'd prefer a 'lighter' design, but then, these existing examples are getting on a bit and construction materials and technologies have improved in leaps and bounds since then.

Planners & public would have to be convinced that a train or part of a train can't fall off the rail onto traffic/people/property below.

The usual design has a trapdoor with an extendible ladder that can be lowered to the ground. I've also seen at least one system test photo where a cherry-picker is used to extract the less mobile passengers, though I doubt it'd be within the wit of the designer to specify a couple of suitable 'big scissor lift' vehicles. And, assuming the brakes aren't the problem, you could always just use the train behind to push the failed unit into the next station, before shoving it onto a nearby cripple siding.

The Wuppertal Schwebebahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn)—a contemporary of the "City & South London Railway"—has only ever had one serious incident. That, like the TransRapid MagLev test train crash a few years ago, was caused entirely by human error: leaving an obstacle on the guideway during maintenance. However, the Wuppertal Schwebebahn's infrastructure is very old and is literally just a bogie running on a rail with a glorified tram hanging off it. There's nothing in its design to prevent the wheels coming off, so the fact that it's only ever happened once in over a century is telling in itself.

The 1960s French "SAFEGE" suspended monorail system used by the Japanese lines is an enclosed beam with the wheels contained inside, which makes it inherently safer than the Wuppertal design. The MonoMetro system is technically a "suspended narrow gauge railway". Each vehicle makes use of two rails, not just one. The bogie is wrapped around the underside of the beam, so it's also less prone to derailing.

Just how unobtrusive can the pylons and track be? Westminster council, for instance, have a rabid hatred of anything that goes against the "area's distinctive heritage"

The MonoMetro pylon and guideway designs have a very slim profile in their videos and CGI mockups, with the blurb also referring to custom-designed elements to adapt the aesthetics to suit the local environment.

The Japanese infrastructure shown in the earlier link is for stock equivalent in size and capacity to an urban metro; MonoMetro's stock is closer to trams in size and capacity, and is quite a bit lighter. I'd therefore expect such a "flying tram" system to be a lot less visually intrusive. (MonoMetro themselves have links with steelmakers and the usual Japanese monorail manufacturers—including Hitachi—so I have no reason to doubt their assertions.)

Westminster is a tricky proposition, but I'd debate the value of running a "flying tram" system through much of its central tourist spots anyway: there's already quite a bit of Tube running under that neck of the woods already. A light rail system, no matter how it's built, should complement existing infrastructure, not compete with it. That said, Portcullis House isn't exactly in keeping with its more illustrious neighbours, so it's clear that Westminster Council can be... flexible! :)

PS: What sort of incline can this sort of system cope with? And curve radius?

It depends on the propulsion technology used. The reason why I try to avoid "monorail" is that very few of the options bear much, if any, resemblance to traditional rail systems. The only system that really is just a steel wheel on a steel rail, with an electric motor nailed on, is the Wuppertal one.

Some systems use linear induction, while others use rubber tyres wrapped around a concrete beam. If you need a 10% gradient, it shouldn't be a problem no matter which you go for.

Wouldn't it just be easier, cheaper, and simpler to have electric trolleybuses, either guided or unguided, running on OHLE and decent infrastructure, such as stops with kerbed platforms, real-time running information, etc.?

You would then build up market share, reduce congestion, and then possibly convert to LRT/tramway at a later date, reducing overall costs and disruption?

Wouldn't it just be easier, cheaper, and simpler to have electric trolleybuses, either guided or unguided, running on OHLE and decent infrastructure, such as stops with kerbed platforms, real-time running information, etc.?

You would then build up market share, reduce congestion, and then possibly convert to LRT/tramway at a later date, reducing overall costs and disruption?

The problem is that the bus network is already very heavily used; making the buses run on electricity would be a good move, but it won't have any noticeable effect on traffic congestion.

Most proposals tend to be of the "why don't we adopt this road-sharing alternative and try to wean off people out of their cars", but there are two major flaws with this approach to the problem:

1. You won't get people out of their cars until the alternative provides a better solution. Street-running trams will initially only add to the road congestion, slowing their own progress as well as that of other road users. That transitional period is inevitable, but there are few options in London to mitigate this. You can't just shut down the A4 or A2 to private road users overnight.

2. London's traffic congestion is not—and never has been—those private cars. Only a tiny minority of commuters drive into work every day. Take a look at Oxford Street during peak hours and you'll be staring at an endless stream of buses, taxis and vans. Cars barely contribute to the congestion problems.

Ergo, any solution has to be grade-separated wherever possible. At-grade running can be done away from congestion hotspots to keep the capital costs down. You can't realistically do this with any of the existing steel-wheel-on-light-rail solutions without using tunnels, and lots of them.

Hence my advocacy of suspended, continuous bridge guideway systems.

Only the variants which suspend the vehicles beneath the guideway make at-grade running viable as the beam remains above the other road users. Straddle-beam variants—i.e. those which sit on the guideway—would not be able to share road space due to the beam itself getting in the way of other traffic.

And that's why I specifically advocate the overhead-beam systems.

Agreed with the above, but I think station structures would be a major challenge, since you'd have to convert buildings into stations and construction could be just as disruptive.

Agreed with the above, but I think station structures would be a major challenge, since you'd have to convert buildings into stations and construction could be just as disruptive.

The most common rationale for building new infrastructure like this is that of "regeneration". (The UK has no LVT system, so the funding is inevitably going to have to be dragged from the grasping hands of the Treasury. Promise them jam—sorry, 'more tax revenues'—tomorrow, and they'll be on your side.)

Even so, many existing buildings could easily be converted, rather than replaced entirely. And there's no shortage of railway stations, bus stations, commercial districts, supermarkets and the like that could also double up as new "flying tram" stations. The platforms don't even need to be that close to each other, so having the 'down' line served by a platform on the 1st floor of a Sainsbury's, while the shop across the road gets the 'up' platform wouldn't be too onerous. All you'd see at street level is a guideway above a bunch of sliding glass doors—the PEDs—at 1st floor or 2nd floor level, depending on the topology of the area. (For US readers, that'd be "2nd floor or 3rd floor".)

There'd need to be clever ways of coordinating road widths and all that. Having the two lines on different heights and apart from each other would require twice the amount of pillars taking up more roadspace, and if situated awkwardly entire lanes would be disrupted. Of course with a little bit of joined up thinking these difficulties can be overcome.

Not sure what NR would have to say about that!

Only what anyone else they built over the top of would say:

"OK sonny, let's talk about how you're going to build, operate, maintain and demolish that then."

Network Rail would also make them build it high enough to get 25kV electrification under, but that's about it - no different from a bridge, pipeline, air rights office block, etc.

Only what anyone else they built over the top of would say:

"OK sonny, let's talk about how you're going to build, operate, maintain and demolish that then."

Network Rail would also make them build it high enough to get 25kV electrification under, but that's about it - no different from a bridge, pipeline, air rights office block, etc.

Odds are they would probably specify that it would have to have a bridge like platform below it for evacuating passengers safely from a failed vehicle above the wires.

Odds are they would probably specify that it would have to have a bridge like platform below it for evacuating passengers safely from a failed vehicle above the wires.

Quite possibly. However, it begs an interesting question, and a point of order.

Q. Which safety regulations apply - ROGS?

POA. It patently isn't a tram, so it shouldn't be in this thread - quick, someone start a "rubber-wheeled suspended monorail" thread!

POA. It patently isn't a tram, so it shouldn't be in this thread - quick, someone start a "rubber-wheeled suspended monorail" thread!

It'd only end up being hijacked into a Maglev monorail type thread. :lol:

Even so, many existing buildings could easily be converted, rather than replaced entirely. And there's no shortage of railway stations, bus stations, commercial districts, supermarkets and the like that could also double up as new "flying tram" stations. The platforms don't even need to be that close to each other, so having the 'down' line served by a platform on the 1st floor of a Sainsbury's, while the shop across the road gets the 'up' platform wouldn't be too onerous. All you'd see at street level is a guideway above a bunch of sliding glass doors—the PEDs—at 1st floor or 2nd floor level, depending on the topology of the area. (For US readers, that'd be "2nd floor or 3rd floor".)

Or, if road width allows, bring the guideway down to street level for the stops. They would look like bus rapid transit stations

http://www.cmt4austin.org/ImageFilesBRT/Beijing_BRT_stn_crowded_50pc.JPG

I'm tempted to mock something up actually :)

Or, if road width allows, bring the guideway down to street level for the stops. They would look like bus rapid transit stations

http://www.cmt4austin.org/ImageFilesBRT/Beijing_BRT_stn_crowded_50pc.JPG

I'm tempted to mock something up actually :)

Indeed, I've been suggesting most of the stations would be at-grade most of the route. It's by far the cheapest option, while also proving the best user experience: no stairs, no lifts—no need for any major civil engineering at all, for the most part.

I've been advocating using at-grade running wherever it makes sense to do so, rather than just building the entire system as a fully grade-separated one. The primary advantage of this approach is that at-grade stations will be, as you point out, much like bus stops or modern tram stops, with no need for expensive lifts and stairs as found on the DLR's overhead stations.

Only the congestion hotspots—e.g. somewhere like Peckham, Catford or Oxford Street—would definitely need full-fat, overhead stations and grade separated running. And even then, most of these centres have no shortage of buildings that could be adapted or replaced by something which can have a station built through it. E.g. both Catford and Peckham have large shopping centres that could easily accommodate something like this. Even Lewisham's enclosed one could cope with a line running above the shop level—there's ample ceiling height.

Once architects get to grips with the concept, you'd find very little need for large structures hovering above streets. Such lines could just as easily run parallel to the many High Streets of London as directly over them, so you'd just buy up one or two of the smaller shops and build the platforms out of sight, behind them.

That's the key benefit of a system which is built along these lines: you can think in terms of all three dimensions. The possibilities, in terms of routing and architecture, are huge.

The DLR has already shown some of the possibilities, including stations built right inside new developments, such as the rebuilt one at Heron Quays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_Quays_DLR_station). The routing advantages of a suspended guideway are illustrated perfectly by the DLR, but that system's viaducts are visually very intrusive due to the nature of the technology. A more modern system would be much less intrusive, casting smaller shadows.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8933515.Boris_Johnson_promises_to_get_Crystal_Palace_tram_extension_back_on_track/

Following on from Ken Livingston committing himself to reviving the Crystal Palace Tramlink extension in the race for the post of Mayor of London, to be held next year. Boris Johnson, the present incumbent, has also committed to the same.

10 new trams delayed, theyve selected three prefered bidders but the timetable has slipped from Summer delivery Winter service to Winter delivery Spring service.

10 new trams delayed, theyve selected three prefered bidders but the timetable has slipped from Summer delivery Winter service to Winter delivery Spring service.

Aren't the Edinburgh trams also a possibility? Seems like a good deal: new (or as near as dammit) trams for Croydon, and TIE gets to release some capital. Though that capital will probably end up being spent on lawyers.

Croydon also gets to play the role of public beta testers for the new trams, so Edinburgh gets some very useful R&D data out of them for when their own line eventually opens. (Which I sincerely hope it does. It's not the technology's fault the management has been so inept.)

Yes, and the Edinburgh Trams were originally to be tested and recieve certification on Croydon anyway. TIE is one of the prefered bidders though theirs a couple of issues, the Edinburgh Trams are longer than the Croydon ones so they wouldnt be capable of running double and traffic light timings may need to be adjusted. The other is their fitted for an Airport service so have next to no seats with large baggage storage racks and large standing areas for when in the centre of the City.

Yes, and the Edinburgh Trams were originally to be tested and recieve certification on Croydon anyway. TIE is one of the prefered bidders though theirs a couple of issues, the Edinburgh Trams are longer than the Croydon ones so they wouldnt be capable of running double and traffic light timings may need to be adjusted. The other is their fitted for an Airport service so have next to no seats with large baggage storage racks and large standing areas for when in the centre of the City.

Actually, that sounds ideal for peak services, given the current loadings.

As for the length: I was under the impression these articulated designs were modular, so sections can be hoisted out of the unit and stored to keep the lengths within a suitable limit. (I distinctly recall reading that one of the options for increasing capacity was to insert more articulated sections into the original stock, but I may be confusing it with another line.)

If we do get the Edinburgh trams then this is a taster of what they could look like, excuse the roughness, I just mocked this up quickly in a spare 10 mins on photoshop.

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk99/csk1000/Tram2.jpg

That looks great. (Incidentally a while back on another forum someone mocked up the DLR in the TfL style livery of white, blue skirt, and turquoise front and doors to match the DLR roundel).

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Boris-puts-tram-extension-map/story-12826966-detail/story.html

Here we go again!

Theres a rumour going round that Tfl will choose eastern european trams because Edinburgh isnt offering a long enough lease.

Edinburgh Trams are going to be built now - about 60% of the planned route from Edinburgh Airport will be built, so it will terminate in Edinburgh City Centre now.

I have no idea how this affects the Croyden Tram lease, but the news is breaking, they won't be scrapped anymore.

Suggestion that Edinburgh trams weren't front runner for Croydon anyway, according to David Miller on the BBC. (http://twitter.com/#!/BBCDavidMiller/status/86504249403523072)

Edinburgh Trams are going to be built now - about 60% of the planned route from Edinburgh Airport will be built, so it will terminate in Edinburgh City Centre now.

I have no idea how this affects the Croyden Tram lease, but the news is breaking, they won't be scrapped anymore.

They have been built already, 27 of them. However completion to the centre still only requires 17 so theres still 10 spare.

I seriously pray it would be the Stadler Tango (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Rhonexpressretouche.JPG) and not that PESA (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/687/1252011250000455.jpg) crap.

The new trams will be six instead of ten.
Only two bidders left now: Standler and Edinburgh Council/CAF (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Edinburgh_tram_02.jpg).
The new line will be 'LINE 4' (Elmer's End <-> Therapia Lane).

Still unsure which model Stadler have placed their bid with.Any info on that? Rumors maybe? :)

Edinburgh councils minutes show that they expect to be the reserve bidder not the primary winner of the contract due to being unable to guarentee a long enough lease.

Edinburgh councils minutes show that they expect to be the reserve bidder not the primary winner of the contract due to being unable to guarentee a long enough lease.

I'm not even sure those CAF trams can run on Tramlink tracks as is. They are too long which means that the first and the last doors won't fit at the tram stops!

Will have to be sorted eventually anyway, like with the dual tracking of some parts they are going to have to make infrastructure changes whoever wins, and they also will order longer trams in the future for new routes.

I thought this tread was about London Trams! Somehow Edinburgh has got involved.

I thought this tread was about London Trams! Somehow Edinburgh has got involved.

Edinburgh got involved because London might buy some trams from them.

Edinburgh got involved because London might buy some trams from them.

I know. What I was trying to do was stop threaders going of on tangents re Edinburgh and its problems. Reining it back a bit.

STADLER FOR EXTRA CROYDON TRAMS?
London Tramlink – Sunday 14th August 2011

It would appear that the extra trams for the London Tramlink network will be provided by Stadler following reports in the Edinburgh Evening News that the City of Edinburgh Council have been informed their bid has been turned down. Pesa – the other firm on the original shortlist – also seem to have been ruled out as a recent TfL document did not mention them in connection with providing the vehicles.

tie had hoped they would be able to lease up to ten trams to TfL for use on Tramlink to rise some extra funds to complete the section of line which is still due to be constructed. It is believed that up to 20 of the 27 trams ordered from CAF could be surplus and it had been hoped they could be leased but the option of leasing them to Tramlink now seems to be over, although it hasn’t been ruled out some could be leased elsewhere in Europe.

Cllr Gordon Mackenzie, City of Edinburgh Council transport convener, said: “Part of what we're looking at now is how realistic the figures are that we have for selling or leasing the trams. We will be looking at what's coming up in the next few years where other cities are extending or building new tram lines.”

A spokesman from the tram project added: “To date, we can confirm that the bid for leasing Edinburgh's trams has not been accepted. Whilst we would not rule out exploring future opportunities to lease vehicles, we do look forward to achieving good use of the full fleet of trams on our own tram system."

TfL have yet to confirm which firm will be supplying the extra trams for the London Tramlink network but considering the information which has been released in recent weeks it is now pointing towards Stadler.

The most likely vehicle the German firm would offer would be the Variobahn which was first introduced in 1993 (although has been through several different manufacturers including Bombardier in that time). Other places who have had Variobahn’s have included Helsinki, Sydney, Nuremberg, Munich, Bergen, Graz and Potsdam.

It has originally been hoped any extra vehicles for Tramlink would be ready for service by the end of the year but it is not yet known when the trams will be delivered and enter service.

Source: The Scotsman & Stadler Rail

From: http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/ (http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk)

Hope their more reliable than the Helsinki ones...

No idea why they are going for the Variotrams instead of the Tangos. Clearly the later ones suit London's tram network better.

Great news people, we're getting 6 brand new shiny trams!!!

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/20777.aspx

They should be in service at the start of 2012, and the first one will be delivered for testing this autumn, they are based on the Bergen trams below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bybanen23.juni2010.jpg

These look pretty smart, plus the new trams will also be air-conditioned, looking forward to seeing these on Croydon's streets!

Basically they chose the most Bombardier like model tendered (infact Stadlers Variotram was a part of Bombardier but had to be divested on competition grounds) while Edinburgh made the mistake of only offering a 5 year lease. I will say again, pray these are more reliable than the Helsinki ones (look it up) and the Bergen ones were delivered several months late too.

Image released of new Croydon trams!

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk99/csk1000/getdata_mainphp.jpg

Look quite smart. How much are they costing per unit?

Just over £2m each

Edit: Do my eyes decieve me or based on the reflections and shadows is this the source image for the above?

http://www.tramways-monthly.com/images/stories/Bybanen23.juni2010[1].jpg

Just over £2m each

Edit: Do my eyes decieve me or based on the reflections and shadows is this the source image for the above?

http://www.tramways-monthly.com/images/stories/Bybanen23.juni2010[1].jpg

Well spotted. Clearly a rather rushed job on photoshop.

Lol indeed, just noticed you can see the window on the street on the far side of the tram through the cab which they replaced with trees. Also the headlight, airbrushed the edges white bit they are still obviously set into a black frontage.

Lol ...

And the pantograph seems to be in contact with the wire on the other side of the support post! There's going to be tears before bedtime...

Good news people, the first of our new trams arrived early this morning in Croydon, it looks very sleek! Follow the links below to somebody's photos I have found on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/londonstreetscenes/6666229461/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/londonstreetscenes/6666220643/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/londonstreetscenes/6666259387/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewgrantham/6666439029/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Interestingly it appears as though these trams are blue, green and silver, as opposed to the blue, green and white of the current stock!

Interesting article appearing on London Reconnections on Crystal Palace High Level with photos of tunnels. In the comments to the article mention is made of reusing these tunnels for a prospective extention of Croydon Tramlink beyond Crystal Palace (if and when this ever built) and how via these tunnels and other remanent lines could work its way to Waterloo.

Interesting article appearing on London Reconnections on Crystal Palace High Level with photos of tunnels. In the comments to the article mention is made of reusing these tunnels for a prospective extention of Croydon Tramlink beyond Crystal Palace (if and when this ever built) and how via these tunnels and other remanent lines could work its way to Waterloo.

link?

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/not-stopping-here-crystal-palace-high-level/

Although I cannot see anything mentioned about trams.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/not-stopping-here-crystal-palace-high-level/

Although I cannot see anything mentioned about trams.

It's in the comments.

I think they look great.

So with the prospect of the Watford/St Albans line being converted to trams and the Croydon network largely once being heavy rail, I'm looking to know more about why certain train lines are suitable for conversion to light rail. Are there any good articles on t'interweb that gives the lowdown on that sort of stuff.

Image released of new Croydon trams!

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk99/csk1000/getdata_mainphp.jpg

http://www.trambus.org/img/data/media/48/TPL_Citaro_20Lanchetta.jpg

Croydon's livrery looks like the one of Lugano (Switzerland), in use since 2001.

:crazy:

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5935

Nobody seems to have commented on this, Would it be at all feasible?

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5935

Nobody seems to have commented on this, Would it be at all feasible?

Not sure if the business case stacks up. If it's mixed in with other traffic then it offers no advantage over buses on speed, reliability or capacity, yet there's all the cost and disruption invoved with digging up the road. It's a very short route, and so buses will have to be revised, which could mean direct journeys becoming bus-tram-bus.

Not sure if the business case stacks up. If it's mixed in with other traffic then it offers no advantage over buses on speed, reliability or capacity, yet there's all the cost and disruption invoved with digging up the road. It's a very short route, and so buses will have to be revised, which could mean direct journeys becoming bus-tram-bus.

Ken Livingston has said that he would revive the Cross River Tram (CRT) if he were elected for London Mayor. Could it be part of the CRT?

Ken Livingston has said that he would revive the Cross River Tram (CRT) if he were elected for London Mayor. Could it be part of the CRT?

Not unless the plan is substantially augmented or changed
http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/images/7/7c/TfL_latest_revised_route_map_with_rail.pdf

TfL have expunged a lot of material they previously published about the CRT. Are they trying to rewrite history? Photoshopping the Politburo by rubbing Red Ken out of the picture ?

Not unless the plan is substantially augmented or changed
http://www.peckhamvision.org/wiki/images/7/7c/TfL_latest_revised_route_map_with_rail.pdf

TfL have expunged a lot of material they previously published about the CRT. Are they trying to rewrite history? Photoshopping the Politburo by rubbing Red Ken out of the picture ?

Perhaps Boris is thinking about building it but doesn't want to be seen to be using another one of Ken's ideas that he'd chopped before?

I was lucky to catch some driver training for the new Stadler trams. Was told by a member of staff on board, there's a new route 4, Elmers End - Therapia Lane being introduced for the trams to work on (assuming the Therapia Lane terminus may be for operational purposes)

Some photos I took:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3536/p90751r.jpg
Interior. No steps are present.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8128/p90752r.jpg
The (front?/rear?) cab.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8127/p90754r.jpg
The lights above the doors go green when opening and red when closing.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5885/p90755r.jpg
Driver training in progress

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8333/p90756r.jpg
At Wimbledon

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5474/p90757r.jpg
Also at Wimbledon
(Route 4 will not start from here, this was for the purpose of training.)

(PS: I've submitted these images to London Reconnections, so they may possibly appear there as well.)

Gorgeous!