Leeds trolley buses set to get the go ahead!

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Tue 15 Feb, 2011 9:58 am

headingleylad wrote: Trolleybuses will never the problems of Leeds, if they wont get out of their cars for buses do they really think they will for a bus with a pantograph on the roof running on the same roads as their cars. I couldn't agree more headingleylad - I would have hoped that the Authorities would surely have learnt from the "Purple slug/Streetcar" farce, hilarious if it wasn't so scandalous - and that's without any phenominally expensive electrical supply problems.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Tue 15 Feb, 2011 10:12 am

BLAKEY wrote: headingleylad wrote: Trolleybuses will never the problems of Leeds, if they wont get out of their cars for buses do they really think they will for a bus with a pantograph on the roof running on the same roads as their cars. I couldn't agree more headingleylad - I would have hoped that the Authorities would surely have learnt from the "Purple slug/Streetcar" farce, hilarious if it wasn't so scandalous - and that's without any phenominally expensive electrical supply problems. Do you remember the Y.E.P stories about the slugs Blakey?We were assured beyond doubt that this was the 'ultimate' mode of modern transport for our city, It was the cutting edge in rapid transport. I couldn't quite see what was marvelous about those slugs in those days, now years later after we've had a few of them on the number 4 route, I definitely can't see what was spectacular about them?I think Leeds has been let down badly, we need a strong campaign to show the power people of the city up.

wsmith · Post by **wsmith** » Tue 15 Feb, 2011 10:57 am

Has anyone yet seen the 'We Demand A Fair Deal'! suite of articles in the Evening Post today, prompted in part by the fact that Whitehall seems to be about to make a decision on the Trolleybus scheme. A press release from Councillors of all parties complains that, while Liverpool gets £1,300 central government money per head of population, & Manchester £1,100, we in Leeds only get £746 per head.But why, do you think?Cllrs Wakefield & Carter have both been around for years & have, or should have been, negotiating with central government on our behalf during that time. Meanwhile, we have Conservative councillors complaning about schemes to charge for Opera in the Park... A situation which has only come about because of cuts that their own party has made to the city's budget!Why?http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 6718413.jp

Reginal Perrin · Post by **Reginal Perrin** » Tue 22 Feb, 2011 4:08 pm

cnosni wrote: Reginal Perrin wrote: BLAKEY wrote: Reginal Perrin wrote: If a tram does not provide a commute from Rothwell then I'm buggered if I'm paying for it. It will be of no use to us whatsoever. Long ago you'd have been on a winner Reginald - there was an LCT tram service from Rothwell Church via Wood Lane, Bell Hill and Hunslet to the City - but the last one's gone a while since. Now mate, there was a shed at the top of Bell Hill, it's still there. Lot's of picture as of trams in Rothwell on Leodis.I don't use the bus because it is a stupid amount of money for a bu journey £5 a day to communte and to be carges through the back door for something that only goes from Stourton is criminal. People will not be happy to incur the cost of car ownership just to drive to meet a tram within spitting distance of town.I've said this before but if you wanted to do that, you could do it now. You could park up in Hunslet and get one of the dozens of busses into town. People don't because it's not practical. The shiny new-ness of the bus/tram/trolley is incedental.I don't think the level of investment neesd to be that high. Many of the main suburbs already have train stations, they need to grant licences to small operators to get people there and back and then built new stations in places like Rothwell which don't currentyl have a train.A tram or trolley bus just seems like showboating and not solving a problem. The tram is very successful in Manchester and Sheffield,im not so sure its a matter of keeping up with the Jonesy's as much as trying to stop Leeds coming to a grinding halt.The trouble with running more rail services is capacity,paths for trains are to the max.New operators would either have to get old cast off rolling stock or buy new,the latter option would not be viable to a rail operator.As i said,if we wish to benefit from some sort of mass public transport system we can either all carry on moaning about it and get nowhere,or bite the bullet and put our own hands in our own pockets,as if they weren't getting picked by the government one way or another as it is!!We are not going to get any help from anyone else,thats clear The one in manchester is successful because it serves the suburbs on old branch lines before becoming a tram in the city centre. The problem with the proposals in Leeds is that it does not solve any problems as it doesn't serve the suburbs where people travel from. The park and rides are situated almost within walking distance of town and on current busy bus routes (ie lots of services).

jf · Post by jf » Mon 28 Feb, 2011 4:23 am

They'd save a few quid if they stopped trying to squeeze it through Headingley. Use existing rail corridors rather than fight with the traffic, this is how Manchester does so well. Most of the 4-track formation out to Pudsey in the west and cross gates in the east is still there and unused. Most of the areas on this densely residential cross-city route are unglamourous and a high-frequency light rail service would lift them and make them better places to live, which could reduce demand elsewhere. Don't know why this has been overlooked.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Mon 28 Feb, 2011 8:39 am

problem is that there's no capacity left at leeds city staion. what they needs is a couple of commuter termini to the east and west of the city centre. Now where could they go......?

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Mon 28 Feb, 2011 8:47 am

jf wrote: They'd save a few quid if they stopped trying to squeeze it through Headingley. Use existing rail corridors rather than fight with the traffic, this is how Manchester does so well. Most of the 4-track formation out to Pudsey in the west and cross gates in the east is still there and unused. Most of the areas on this densely residential cross-city route are unglamourous and a high-frequency light rail service would lift them and make them better places to live, which could reduce demand elsewhere. Don't know why this has been overlooked. Great point J.f. The only trouble with the four track/light rail combination to the East is Neville Hill depot. There's no way they can keep seperate systems running side by side through that complex of tracks through the depot. A termini could be situated at Marsh lane if they could, but the narrow viaduct into Leeds puts the skids on any rail, and light rail set of tracks venturing further. It's a different story to the West. I can't see why they couldn't re-instate the Central viaduct, and use that land as some kind of terminus, interchange though. The Holbeck viaduct is another waisted possibility to ease congestion.

Post by **cnosni** » Thu 03 Mar, 2011 1:31 pm

Phill_dvsn wrote: jf wrote: They'd save a few quid if they stopped trying to squeeze it through Headingley. Use existing rail corridors rather than fight with the traffic, this is how Manchester does so well. Most of the 4-track formation out to Pudsey in the west and cross gates in the east is still there and unused. Most of the areas on this densely residential cross-city route are unglamourous and a high-frequency light rail service would lift them and make them better places to live, which could reduce demand elsewhere. Don't know why this has been overlooked. Great point J.f. The only trouble with the four track/light rail combination to the East is Neville Hill depot. There's no way they can keep seperate systems running side by side through that complex of tracks through the depot. A termini could be situated at Marsh lane if they could, but the narrow viaduct into Leeds puts the skids on any rail, and light rail set of tracks venturing further. It's a different story to the West. I can't see why they couldn't re-instate the Central viaduct, and use that land as some kind of terminus, interchange though. The Holbeck viaduct is another waisted possibility to ease congestion. The central viaduct would be great for a light rail/tram link,with possible bay platforms being built at the spare ground at the west of the station,a link then onto platform 16/17 and then people will be able to access town through either the normal entrance or the new southern entrance.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Thu 03 Mar, 2011 1:46 pm

I read a report on the Central viaduct Chris. It stated the full grown trees on top were in danger of seriously weakening the structure. Plans were mooted to open it as a walkway from the Armley gyratory, it cuts out that dingy subway that run under Holbeck station. I'll see if I can find the link again.

Post by **cnosni** » Thu 03 Mar, 2011 2:02 pm

Phill_dvsn wrote: I read a report on the Central viaduct Chris. It stated the full grown trees on top were in danger of seriously weakening the structure. Plans were mooted to open it as a walkway from the Armley gyratory, it cuts out that dingy subway that run under Holbeck station. I'll see if I can find the link again. The walkway idea seemed to drift away into the ether.