Tbus

[Wirlie G]

Apologies for second message, on mobile so quite difficult.
As it stands, I cannot see a simple solution for Leeds, the political and general population doesn't have the stomach to spend £10m's designing a scheme that may get no where.
Even with the will power the sums are very large due to how Whitehall demands these things progress.

[BannockBurnt]

Originally Posted by Skychaser 2005

Its impossible to get your head round the total incompetance of Metro/LCC in not getting their act together over nearly 15 years whilst most major cities in the UK have been developing rapid transit systems.

Somebody please answer this question: How on earth did Nottingham have the forsight and ability to get its tramline, and how have they securred more funding for new lines?

Whatever they did, why did our numpties at metro/LCC not learn from their success?

You have to blame Metro who to me, have no idea how to give the government a proposal which would be foolproof.

If Notts, Croydon, Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Man, Newcastle, now Edinburgh can do it, you got to ask why Leeds has been so inept at getting our proposal right.

I wouldn't be quite so presumptuous in including Edinburgh. The Edinburgh tram has stalled in spectacular fashion, with the line stopping dead half way down Princes Street, the director has resigned and the whole thing looks like another piece of Salmondella. Otherwise I agree. The Nottingham one amazes me. But then, so many things do these days.

[MattN]

The Edinburgh system dealt with Holyrood rather than Westminster, so it's a different ball game altogether anyway. The whole thing has just been badly managed and I have indeed seen suggestions that the SNP have been making matters worse. They were against it, though I have no idea how throwing away so much money and time would benefit them or anyone else but oh well. Nottinghamshire County Council weren't much help down here either with their withdrawal from the project (after realising they couldn't veto it altogether) and digging their heels in over transferring some land to the city council, much of the scheme is in the county's area. What is amazing about NET?

[Cherguevara]

Presumably that it exists at all.

[Rational Plan]

Originally Posted by Wirlie G

Worth considering that between about 1920 (when the last generation of tram lines were starting to be built) and today, only between about 1989 and 2002 did the local authorities and the governmant of the day consider conditions to be right for the construction of a light rail network in a new city.

All other works outside of that small window have been to existing systems.

The reasons for that observation probably go a long way to explaining the current plight in Leeds.

I think that it was seen that the schemes built were of a variable success. It's been a 50 50 toss up on whether they have met their targets for passenger numbers, never mind construction cost control. Though there has tended to be a good correlation between both.

Good; DLR, Manchester Metrolink, Nottingham Tram, Croydon Tramlink.

Bad; Sheffield Supertram, Birmingham Metro, Newcastle Metro extension to Sunderland.

While the Sheffield has been turned around somewhat, it does not vindicate the original backers as it took someone else to make a success of it.

Of the two most successful in expanding, DLR and Metrolink, both were started with really cheap schemes that attracted large number of passengers. That aura of success allowed further expansion and as long as each expansion has brought in the passenger numbers than it has allowed the system to expand. I think Tramlink could of gone the same way, except until they walked away in exasperation, it was controlled by a concessionaire and was therefore constant tension with TFL.

All the others all seemed to chose routes that were not the optimum routing.

If building a tram system seems to be a bit of guesswork why one works out and another doesn't why stake your career on spending hundreds of millions in one town, when you can sprinkle lots of little bus projects consisting of a few bus lanes and bus shelters. If only half of them achieve their goal the failures aren't really noticeable, and anyway with the bus schemes it is usually only one bit of bus lane that has not worked out not the whole scheme.


Until someone can say with 100% certainty that this scheme will be on budget and deliver the passenger numbers. If either are out it will decimate the BCR numbers for the scheme.

The whole Edinburgh debacle will only hurt everything.

People who have shown competence e.g. Manchester, Nottingham and DLR get more trust over their numbers. Plus systems that are seen as successful attract full support from all local politicians and then can fight Whitehall. Where locals are seen as divided then they can be picked off.

I don't know the Leeds proposal well enough to make a definitive answer, but maybe they might have had better luck with starting with a cheaper start system and/or a different route. Maybe if phase one had been to a Norther suburb they might have got better numbers, rather than to the South.

[Leeds No.1]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan

I don't know the Leeds proposal well enough to make a definitive answer, but maybe they might have had better luck with starting with a cheaper start system and/or a different route. Maybe if phase one had been to a Norther suburb they might have got better numbers, rather than to the South.

Phase 1 is the Northern Line to Bodington/Holt Park through via LMU Beckett's Park, Headingley, University of Leeds and LMU Civic Campus.

[Shiny_Dave]

One way to reduce costs could be to retain the route infrastructure changes but abandon the trolley element and just use electric buses. They could include electric car/ bus recharging stations at the terminus points. Would allow more flexibility in changing routes in the future, bring electric recharging points to Leeds as well as reducing some of the infrastructure costs.....

[Skychaser 2005]

Originally Posted by Shiny_Dave

One way to reduce costs could be to retain the route infrastructure changes but abandon the trolley element and just use electric buses. They could include electric car/ bus recharging stations at the terminus points. Would allow more flexibility in changing routes in the future, bring electric recharging points to Leeds as well as reducing some of the infrastructure costs.....

Tell you what, why don't they reduce cost even more and just have normal buses......the whole Leeds transport infrastructure thing is a joke. Metro/LCC get your act together and learn the lessons from other successful cities

[Leeds No.1]

Originally Posted by Skychaser 2005

Tell you what, why don't they reduce cost even more and just have normal buses......the whole Leeds transport infrastructure thing is a joke. Metro/LCC get your act together and learn the lessons from other successful cities

Exactly.

Tbus must not be watered down- if it is, it will be pointless. I mean it's already had corners cut from Supertram; and at the end of the day, you get what you pay for- something UK governments have yet to learn.

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by Shiny_Dave

One way to reduce costs could be to retain the route infrastructure changes but abandon the trolley element and just use electric buses. They could include electric car/ bus recharging stations at the terminus points. Would allow more flexibility in changing routes in the future, bring electric recharging points to Leeds as well as reducing some of the infrastructure costs.....

I'm afraid that battery buses cannot compete with either diesels or trolleybuses when providing a practical work cycle. The geographical range of battery vehicles is so limited that frequent charging is necessary. You just can't run a proper bus service when you're having to recharge every hour or so - it's uneconomical. Besides - what is the bus driver going to do whilst the bus is recharging (and you're still paying him his wages)?

A diesel bus can run an entire shift on a single tank of fuel. A trolleybus can run and run indefinitely until it needs servicing.

If you want the battery bus to recharge faster, then you have to install a number of much more heavy-duty transformers, which cost a lot of money and need more expensive cabling. If you want to recharge the buses en-route, then you have to put in more transformers (plus, the passengers have to wait - few people in this country would stand for that). By the time you've finished, you've not really saved much - in fact you could easily end up spending more.

Then there's the batteries to consider - how long will they last and how much will they cost to replace?

A battery car is ok if you only have to commute a few miles to work every day and a few miles back. Then you can recharge overnight. For a proper service bus, that system simply doesn't work.

As numerous recent trials have found (including one on Top Gear) a journey that would take a few hours in a petrol/diesel car can take literally several days in an equivalent battery vehicle. This is because of the time taken to recharge.

Besides, the cost of installing the electrical infrastructure (wires, transformers etc.) for a trolleybus system is only between £500,000 and £800,000 per km. For a 14 or 15km system like the one proposed in Leeds, that doesn't really amount to a great proportion of the overall cost.

[Shiny_Dave]

Fair do's to the responses. I made the comment based on seeing all those UPS and TNT vans quietly whirring around the city.

Did a bit of research and their 7.5 tonne vans can go for 70 miles before needing to be recharged overnight. UPS and TNT reckon that it is cheaper in the long term to run electric rather than petrol vans. This includes the cost of replacing batteries every 3 years.

Seoul and Oxford amongst others are currently using electric buses though not the size of the possible trolley bus. London, Cambridge, York, Nottingham are others trialling them. Lifetime of electric buses can run from 50 to 90 miles with recharging quoted as anywhere from 15 minutes(!) to 90 minutes to overnight. DfT state that electric buses are more expensive to run than diesel. China is also heavily investing in them too which is a big market to stimulate investment for speedy advancement of the technology.

I've seen the T-buses in Wellington which are just a conventional size and require loads of guys on the street in rush hour to reattach their cables. I think the Leeds lampost design for the cables is much less intrusive than they have - which harks back to the old generation of trolley buses. The people over there seem to like 'em.

It just seems that we are on the tipping point for the expansion of electric fleets. Also, Electric buses are made in Leeds which I didn't know before! However, I know Leeds needs mass transit transport now and the T-bus is probably the best way to go. But surely Metro should be investing in a local business and replace some of the less intensive routes with electric.

[Shiny_Dave]

ps check out mental Chinese public transport concept here......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...-in-China.html

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by Shiny_Dave

I've seen the T-buses in Wellington which are just a conventional size and require loads of guys on the street in rush hour to reattach their cables. I think the Leeds lampost design for the cables is much less intrusive than they have - which harks back to the old generation of trolley buses. The people over there seem to like 'em.

They did have major roadworks at one point in Wellington, with guys at either end switching poles between wires in places where there were no 'frogs'. A temporary measure. Of course, modern trolleybuses have back-up power, so there is no need for this kind of thing any more.

In Switzerland, the system is all computerised, so the driver just enters the route number at the start of the journey and all the switching, passenger announcements etc. are done for him.

Originally Posted by Shiny_Dave

Seoul and Oxford amongst others are currently using electric buses though not the size of the possible trolley bus. London, Cambridge, York, Nottingham are others trialling them. Lifetime of electric buses can run from 50 to 90 miles with recharging quoted as anywhere from 15 minutes(!) to 90 minutes to overnight. DfT state that electric buses are more expensive to run than diesel. China is also heavily investing in them too which is a big market to stimulate investment for speedy advancement of the technology.

With regards to Korea: their buses require charging up for 30 minutes every 3 hours. This means that one sixth of the bus's duty cycle is going to be spent charging up! In Britain, this wouldn't be regarded as economically viable.

In China, they are trying out Supercapacitor buses, rather than battery-powered, as these charge up faster. However, the bus and its passengers, still have to wait every so often whilst the bus recharges at a bus stop.

As I said in a previous post - I just don't think people will put up with that kind of delay in this country.

Places in the UK have been 'trialling' battery buses for years. These are often shelved after a while but do at least give the council the opportunity to present themselves as being 'green' or 'eco-friendly'. The buses will almost exclusively have some kind of livery which acts as an advert for the scheme.

In the York trial, there is only one battery bus and several hybrids. The battery bus will just be used to supplement the others during the rush hour. Why? Because it can't be relied upon to provide a proper all-day service.

Typically, a service bus will often do around 200 miles per day over two shifts without re-fuelling. In some cases it's quite a bit more. This is what you have to compete with.

[cmj]

Originally Posted by Electric_City

As I said in a previous post - I just don't think people will put up with that kind of delay in this country.

I made the mistake of getting on the 19 at York road (by the bus station). Having gone from there to Kirkgate the bus stopped for ten minutes!

[Suburban Knight]

Originally Posted by cmj

I made the mistake of getting on the 19 at York road (by the bus station). Having gone from there to Kirkgate the bus stopped for ten minutes!

was that one of those isntances where the driver realises he's ahead of schedule so just sits at the stop for ages? Infuriating, but I suppose it makes sense - would hate to go to a bus stop to get a bus at a certain time, only to find it went by 10mins early...

[MattN]

It does rather suggest a problem with the scheduling in the first place if it happens often, but of course you can't run ten minutes early. My local services in Nottingham have had absurd schedules for years that involve sitting for ages at the same timing point without fail, hopefully the real time system data will sort that out somewhat.

But obviously you can't run early (though sometimes it happens). It could be a huge inconvenience, especially on less frequent services, will create a very poor image of the company, and attracts sanctions from the traffic commissioners (either fines or a reduction in the operators licence size, which of course means service reductions and more inconvenience)!

[blackdog]

The whole point of trams/trains versus buses to my mind is that a train or a tram should, mechanical failures aside, turn up on time and leave on time. A bus is subject to being stuck in traffic so is not a reliable or timely way to get anywhere. A tram on the other hand has it's own tracks and where it shares the road way should have lights or traffic restrictions to prevent traffic being a problem.

Leeds doesn't need "nicer buses" it needs a reliable and good value transport system. If it's clean, quiet and electric powered then that's just a bonus IMO.

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by cmj

I made the mistake of getting on the 19 at York road (by the bus station). Having gone from there to Kirkgate the bus stopped for ten minutes!

I bet you'd be unwilling to do that again in a hurry.

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by blackdog

The whole point of trams/trains versus buses to my mind is that a train or a tram should, mechanical failures aside, turn up on time and leave on time. A bus is subject to being stuck in traffic so is not a reliable or timely way to get anywhere. A tram on the other hand has it's own tracks and where it shares the road way should have lights or traffic restrictions to prevent traffic being a problem.

Leeds doesn't need "nicer buses" it needs a reliable and good value transport system. If it's clean, quiet and electric powered then that's just a bonus IMO.

...and the point of the NGT system is to provide a lot of segregation on the routes so that the buses don't mix with other traffic so much.

Don't forget that trams mix with traffic too. Plus, if they get stuck behind a stationary vehicle, they can't overtake.

[Leeds No.1]

Originally Posted by blackdog

good value

I'm sick of hearing this phrase. It is the fundamental fact of everything to do with transport planning in this country, and is the exact reason why we have such terrible transport. Value comes in many forms, but all our country focuses on is value for money. What about the value of a project on people's standard of living?