Решил я тут в университете написать работу на тему аргументации, в соответствии с которой в Лондоне выпилили самую крупную в мире на тот момент троллейбусную сеть.
У них там ездило 1870 троллейбусов, больше, чем сейчас в Москве. А они взяли и заменили их на дизельные автобусы.
Оправдывает лондонцев лишь то, что эту градостроительную ошибку они совершили в 1954-1963 годах. Тогда многие города так заблуждались, а сейчас уже Лондон принял решение больше дизелем не пользоваться. Но я не об этом.
В интернетах оказалось совершенно невозможно найти никаких материалов о том, почему, собственно, они в 1954 году решили так поступить. Кроме газетных статей с простенькими лозунгами про "маневренность" ничего не находится.
В научных статьях нашлось лишь вот такое: "It came as little surprise when, in 1954, London announced its plan to replace all its trolleybuses with Routemaster diesel buses". И все, больше ничего. Литтл сюрпрайз.
А ведь тут же у них парламент, демократия, все дела. Наверняка были дебаты, обсуждения, какой-нибудь white paper выпускался. Но где б найти-то это всё?
В общем, требуется помощь зала. Если вам попадались или вы можете найти статьи про эту тему, пожалуйста, скиньте их в комментах или мне в телеграм: https://t.me/Maxkatz.
Также были бы полезны, если вам попадутся, статьи об оценках эффектов от этой замены и общая статистика по лондонскому транспорту тех времён — сколько было автобусов, а сколько троллейбусов.
Последнее, конечно, я и сам найду, это уж я так, ленюсь :). А вот про аргументацию в 1954 году фиг чего найдёшь, так что помощь зала необходима.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1956/may/31/new-clause-diesel-vehicles#S5CV0553P0_19560531_HOC_337
- рекомендую
материалы там скорее всего найдутся
- лондонцы просто не смогли их полюбить так же нежно, как некогда любили трамваи.
Сейчас они уже активно заменяются гибридными и даже полностью электрическими.
Или какие характеристики вы имеете ввиду?
А то меня давно удивляет обсуждение того, что, мол, западные страны через это прошли, но отсутствие внимания к вопросу, почему им не удалось этой ошибки избежать. Ведь тут могут быть уместные аналогии с нашей ситуацией, вплоть до ответа на вопрос: "есть ли смысл заниматься троллейбусной проблемой у нас, если присутствуют не зависящие от нас причины именно такого пути развития транспортной экосистемы мегаполисов?".
Вот хронология переписки Сэров. Там в контексте трамвайного департамента, потому что трамваи и троллейбусы управлялись одной компанией.
http://www.kentarchaeology.ac/authors/019.pdf
The decision for the replacement of the South London trams by buses was taken after
prolonged consideration of the alternatives:
1. Buses would give greater co-ordination with existing bus routes.
2. Extension of the routes will serve better traffic objectives.
Sir Cyril stated that the problems of tram retention were as follows:
1. The necessity of expanding the electricity distribution system.
2. Expansion of the cable system would be needed.
3. Electrical equipment and cables were in short supply and delivery dates a
long way ahead. 1
4. The erection of trolley poles and overhead wires would have to include
Westminster Bridge and the Embankment, which were both close to the
Houses of Parliament. This would result in a loss of civic amenity in the heart
of the capital.
(That was the real pièce de resistance).
Farewell to London's Trolleybuses. London: Ian Allan, 1995. 112 pp.
Examines the rise and decline of London's trolleybus fleet.
она много где есть.
и короткая статья там же
http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/7th-may-1954/40/london-trolleybuses-to-go
"London Transport's decision to abandon trolleybuses is because buses are more mobile and flexible in operation. It is estimated that running costs would be the same were the old trolleybuses replaced by new trolleybuses or motorbuses."
The Municipal Journal
Public Works Engineer and Contractors' Guide
May 21, 1954
Trolley v motorbus.
Even before the Transport Tribunal began its inquiry this week into the London Transport Executive's case for higher fares, it seemed that the way for a further fares application has been prepared. By an arbitrary decision, the LTE has decided to replace some 1,600 of London's trolleybuses with motorbuses.
These trolleybuses are due for replacement anyhow, but the comparative economics of operating motor and trolleybuses may show the decision to be a costly one. On this question the opinion of the Committee of Inquiry into London Transport would be valuable. This may yet be forthcoming, but the LTE has already made its decision and the committee is not expected to report much before the end of the year.
The committee may well feel that it has been slighted. So may the LCC, the metropolitan boroughs and other local authorities affected — all represented on the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and the Beaver Committee on smoke pollution, none of which were consulted. So, indeed, may Parliament, which had no prior notice of the executive's intentions and has been vouchsafed no more than a few pert answers from the Minister of Transport (since supplemented by his Parliamentary Secretary). The Minister of Fuel and Power does not appear to have been consulted either.
The most London Transport can claim is that its decision had the approval of the British Transport Commission and was made after consultation with the Minister. For its peremptory dealing, the executive is certainly open to criticism. Can it claim nonetheless that it has made the right decision?
The executive has, judging by its own published statement, taken only transport grounds into consideration, ignoring the wider issues of public policy involved. On both counts, opinion is keenly divided.
Divergent practice between municipal undertakings illustrates the point. Bradford, the pioneer (along with Leeds) in British trolleybus operation, has nearly 200 vehicles and is now converting one route from motorbuses to trolleybuses. Nottingham began trolleybus operation in 1949 and now has a modern fleet of more than 100 vehicles. Belfast has been expanding trolleybus operation to the exclusion of other forms of transport. Maidstone has lately extended one of its trolleybus routes. Among authorities with experience of both forms of transport, Bradford, Derby and Manchester have declared that the trolleybus is more economical in the operation.
On the other side are the examples of Edinburgh, Sunderland and Liverpool, which have switched direct from trams to motorbuses. The examples of Southend and St. Helens, which had decided to abandon trolleybuses, might be quoted in support, if it were not that these authorities are thinking again in view of the continued high taxation of fuel oil. West Hartlepool's plans were more advanced and trolleybus operation was abandoned last year.
The long life and low maintenance costs of the trolleybus, its high carrying capacity, its clean, powerful and smooth operation, its high acceleration and braking power, the relatively low cost of its motive power — these have to be set against high capital cost and loss of mobility and flexibility.
On grounds of public policy, especially in London, the case for the trolleybus is strong. Electricity is used at off-peak periods, the coal to produce it can be bought with sterling, its use does not pollute the atmosphere. From the defence aspect, it is an important point that diesel oil has to be imported. The counter-argument that trolleybus systems do not run far enough out of towns for evacuation purposes would have more force if there were no other forms of transport for this task.
All these considerations suggest that the issues involved are too big to be left to a transport authority without consultation with others. This feeling has been growing since the LTE made its announcement and more will be heard of it. Mr. Gerald Nabarro, MP, is to raise the matter in an adjournment debate in the House.
Edited at 2017-03-04 12:08 am (UTC)