Transport Tycoon Forums

He makes a couple of valid points but he still annoys me with his ignorance and arrogance. Anyway, fixed the post above so it should make more sense (ie. The quotes now work).

Ameecher wrote:He makes a couple of valid points but he still annoys me with his ignorance and arrogance. Anyway, fixed the post above so it should make more sense (ie. The quotes now work).

If you want ignorance and arrogance look at any NIMBY's anti-tram arguments. If you want valid points look elsewhere.

Erm, i think he meant it as a laugh. Its a mate of an acquaintance, he passed me it and i had the link in my bookmarks. If i come across him again, ill point him here. Quite funny though if you say he's wrong as he works in the industry so should know better

If he works in the industry that's even more worrying...

Lol, Pathetic Railways is an interesting idea at least...the Pathetic Motorways site that he admits to ripping off is a faveourite of mine...actually anyone interested in grand ideas for HSL networks in the UK should read it, because it is full of grand ideas for motorway networks that never came to fruition because there wasn't the political will, money or because of NIMBYism etc.

Teccuk talks a lot of sense about buses. Those that talk of trams as creating modal shift do so because the track creates psycological ressaurance in people's mind that the tram actually will turn up. If busses could do that then it there is no reason that they couldn't be a useful solution in places where the population densities are too low for trams - and the expirience of London Buses (ok not always low density, but not everyone can get a tubeline to their door!), with the use of clear bus lanes and realtime bus indicators plus super frequent services (at least every 10 mins, as little as 4 mins on some routes in the centre) suggests that this is the case. Busses are more flexible than trains, trams or trolleybuses and can take people from nearer their home to nearer their destination without the need to change - a more comprehensive network is possible. The early expirience of the Tyne and Wear Metro, where passengers were forced to change from bus onto Metro for 'trunk journeys' with much protest suggests that people prefer to change as little as possible. Busses can be quicker than driving, this is often the case in London (and Edinburgh) where bus lanes usually mean cars are left in long queues at the lights. In addition when an incident happens busses are a lot more flexible than fixed guideway vehicles - I always used to enjoy reading the (sadly) late Stephen Pascardino's website about the Croydon Tramlink; there he used to frequently feature news stories about accidents occuring or even tram failures which caused massive disruption to the entire tramlink system with trams being turned, whole routes being closed etc. When a bus breaks down, another one can come, pick up the passengers and simply drive round the one that has broken down.

In summary I think high frequency bus routes could help in a lot of provincial places where the densities for trams or rail re-openings don't really exist. In County Durham, where I am at the moment, you could not feasibly have a light rail system or reopen the old rail network (extensive as it was until the 1960s, for coal traffic) but you could create a lot of higher frequency bus corridors with some investment that would be an alternative to the car for locals. Trams and rail re-opening is a good idea where the population densities exist and bus capacities would be challenged (probably in and around cities of 200k pop minimum) but its not suitable for everyone. Hope all that makes sense - I prefer trains to bus (I use a lot of both) - but I can see that both have their place.

Kevo00 wrote:Busses are more flexible than trains, trams or trolleybuses and can take people from nearer their home to nearer their destination without the need to change - a more comprehensive network is possible. The early expirience of the Tyne and Wear Metro, where passengers were forced to change from bus onto Metro for 'trunk journeys' with much protest suggests that people prefer to change as little as possible.

Oh thats interesting, i hadn't heard of that. Thats exactly the sort of dumb thing i would do unless someone stopped me. Transport Planners dream, looks good on paper... but...

The changes thing I have heard many times, bus companies are often perplexed by authorities obsessions with 'interchanges' people don't like changing. Which doesn't explain why recent changes to my local bus service have replaced through routes with two separate busses (Yeah yeah i know its congestion and journey time reliability and stuff).

Indeed. Note Wikipedia's article on the Tyne and Wear Metro:

When the Metro first opened, it was claimed to be part of the UK's first integrated public transport system. The Metro was intended to cover trunk journeys, while buses were reoriented toward shorter local trips, tightly integrated with the Metro schedule, to bring passengers to and from the Metro stations, using unified ticketing. Much was made of the Metro's interchange stations such as Four Lane Ends and Regent Centre, which combined a large parking facility with a bus and Metro station[8]; this distinction is no longer emphasised. Some passengers complained that the Metro integration was pursued overzealously, and for example, bus passengers to Newcastle would be forced to change to the Metro in Gateshead for a short trip, rather than have the bus route continue for a short distance further into Newcastle. Integration lasted until deregulation of bus routes in 1986. However, it is still possible to buy Transfare tickets that combine a Metro and bus journey

The Metro is great for those living near it, irrelevant for those living outside walking distance of it - why spend time changing when the additional bus distance is not really that long?

Kevo00 wrote:Those that talk of trams as creating modal shift do so because the track creates psycological ressaurance in people's mind that the tram actually will turn up.

Yes, when you turn up to a tram, metro or railway station it's much easier to feel confident that one will show up. Buses simply can't keep to a reliable timetable in the way that trams or trains on segregated lines can. I've also yet to wait 15 minutes for an "every 5 minutes" train service, only to have a convoy of three trains turn up at once. Buses have a reputation for being unreliable which is often well deserved.

I think there's more to it than that though. In this day and age Buses are perceived as the poor-man's solution. Nottingham has the best bus services I've ever seen - clean, reliable, and very modern vehicles - but one still finds the majority of people there still feel that to step onto a bus is beneath their dignity. Trams somehow don't suffer from this to the same extent, as surveys of the ridership of NET has shown.

As for integration, in my opinion the London Underground is the best example of an integrated system. There are many lines, all of which pass through the central zone - so there are no lines that merely act as feeder services to others - and all of them are useful in their own right. What makes the system work well though is the fact that it's easy to switch between lines. I think the same attitude can be applied to bus routes - each route should be useful in itself, but interchange points with other routes and modes of transport are essential.

I don't hate buses at all, in fact I love being able to leave the car at home and hop on a bus. The challenge though is selling public transport as a viable alternative to the devoted motorist, and in doing that I feel that buses will always be a second best option.

Ironically, I hear they are installing radio signalling on the Cambrian coast route

1. Replace the voyagers.
2. Reintroduce the mail train.
3. Have some expresses steam-hauled.
4. Lengthen some trains.
5. More busses.

That's not nice. What did the Voyagers ever do to you?

I know I'd way rather travel by Voyager than by steam train. Unless I am on a preserved railway, in which case I am paying for the pleasure of slow travel behind a chuffer.

Locomotionfan wrote:1. Replace the voyagers.
2. Reintroduce the mail train.
3. Have some expresses steam-hauled.
4. Lengthen some trains.
5. More busses.

They'll be really popular. You know, really precise about what you want.

We all know that most trains needed extra carraiges and that some places need more buses. The Mail train is technically still running, just mail isn't sorted anymore and the network is much smaller. As for the steam locos... I won't comment on that. I'd also much rather travel on a Voyager than on the crumby Mark 2 stock that the voyagers replaced.

Theres no need to sort the mail on trains TPO style any longer, because its all done by fast computerised machinery with handwriting decoding OCR capability at the sorting offices these days. Hence its simply a case of putting the mail on the trains in containers which can easily be transferred to other vehicles.

Winning the traffic for other similar products that used to be carried by rail, such as newspapers and milk is something rail companies ought to think about IMO, but which has not happened as far as I'm aware. With the exception of DRS carrying out a trial with milk almost ten years ago.

Ameecher wrote: I'd also much rather travel on a Voyager than on the crumby Mark 2 stock that the voyagers replaced.

I think you mean mark 3 but I personaly prefer the 125 to the Voyger, the 125s had plenty of space, they were reliable and they were british .

alistairgrew wrote:

Ameecher wrote: I'd also much rather travel on a Voyager than on the crumby Mark 2 stock that the voyagers replaced.

I think you mean mark 3 but I personaly prefer the 125 to the Voyger, the 125s had plenty of space, they were reliable and they were british .

No, I mean mark 2. The HSTs used mk3s but the class 47s hauled mark 2 stock.

Locomotionfan wrote:1. Replace the voyagers.
2. Reintroduce the mail train.
3. Have some expresses steam-hauled.
4. Lengthen some trains.
5. More busses.

Who is this joker?

The last item on that wish list makes me imagine a minister for transport holding a clipboard and standing in a giant car park that is completely packed with buses nodding and saying "Yup. More buses. Check. Next..."

nationalize but give it to someone who knows what they are doing and not the goverment cos they are stupid and would f*** it up again hence the nhs with all the red tape

voila1 wrote:nationalize but give it to someone who knows what they are doing and not the goverment cos they are stupid and would f*** it up again hence the nhs with all the red tape

At current, the only franchise to be operated by a train company, London Overground (MTR and a bloke who builds houses) is so tightly controlled it can't do anything. With the exception of Serco (who builds prisons, bombs and educates children), every other franchise is run by a bus company.

Are you proposing that DB take over our trains? I'm afraid it's already happening (Yes, that is a British Class 60, and it's actually blue during the day)