Would a Reading Tram system work?

[AlastairFraser]

At only ~1.5 miles out I expect it would interfere with the ability to clear trains to the east effectively from the main station. If a stopping passenger train left in front of a long heavy freight, there'd be a chance the freight would get stopped behind it, possibly with its tail fouling Reading East Junction, maybe even still partly in the station itself or in signal overlaps preventing subsequent arrivals from the west in that platform. Then it would have to struggle into motion again once the passenger train moved on. Today everything leaving Reading for the east on the Reliefs can engage full power departing and trains accelerate optimally and space themselves out effectively in the five mile stretch to Twyford. If there could be a separate platform track for the TVP stoppers, that might make a difference but the NR position really strengthens the case for a new independent transit system, busway probably, in parallel with the GWML to the north, providing a swift, frequent link from main station and town centre to the site. Other existing fast buses such as Winnersh P&R and Railair link could also use the busway to access the main station, with the possibility of a TVP stop en route.

Reading needs a tram system really, the eastern busway was rejected and you need something higher capacity and off-road in the centre.

 

[crablab]

Reading needs a tram system really

It used to have one!

The frequency of buses is really at the limit of what's possible without some major infrastructure improvements, I think.

Buses down the Oxford Road get delayed by vehicles performing all sorts of manoeuvres, including at the very end across the IDR and up to Broad Street Mall - there's ~10 routes through that narrow choke point, plus everything turning onto Friar Street!

As previously discussed, my view is that the Brunel demolition should result in an integrated transport hub at the station which would help with the congestion along Friar Street.

In general, Reading has a solid bus network with good frequencies and even into the night. But you can't cram any more buses into the town centre and they're pretty busy services. There's lots hub-and-spoke but no radial services and what bus lanes exist are fairly piecemeal.

So what's the solution? Unfortunately we're too wedded to our cars in the UK, I think, to find the kind of radical public transport priority that exists on the Continent palatable.

The low density of the urban sprall further out (which as discussed further up, isn't actually in the purview of RBC) doesn't help either if you're trying to run a frequent metro-style service.

Maybe this should diverge into Speculative Discussion...

 

[JonathanH]

It used to have one!

Yes, although it only lasted until the mid 1930s, with the expansion of the trolleybus system.

Buses down the Oxford Road get delayed by vehicles performing all sorts of manoeuvres, including at the very end across the IDR and up to Broad Street Mall - there's ~10 routes through that narrow choke point, plus everything turning onto Friar Street!

Just think how much worse that would be if the public transport vehicles weren't as manoeuvrable as buses are.

 

[crablab]

Just think how much worse that would be if the public transport vehicles weren't as manoeuvrable as buses are.

Or how much better it would be if the other vehicles were not required and you could get a tram whizzing down there

 

[JonathanH]

Or how much better it would be if the other vehicles were not required and you could get a tram whizzing down there

Yes, but the reality is that the Reading approaches, other than the A33, remain fairly narrow artiaries and don't have much space for traffic. The bus lane on London Road being a case in point. There isn't really a practical way to service the shops on the Oxford Road, or indeed at Cemetery Junction without on street delivery vans.

 

[duffield]

Yes, although it only lasted until the mid 1930s, with the expansion of the trolleybus system.


Just think how much worse that would be if the public transport vehicles weren't as manoeuvrable as buses are.

I'm just old enough to (faintly) remember the Reading trolleybuses, one of the routes ran almost right outside my house. The system closed when I was five.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It used to have one!

The frequency of buses is really at the limit of what's possible without some major infrastructure improvements, I think.

Buses down the Oxford Road get delayed by vehicles performing all sorts of manoeuvres, including at the very end across the IDR and up to Broad Street Mall - there's ~10 routes through that narrow choke point, plus everything turning onto Friar Street!

As previously discussed, my view is that the Brunel demolition should result in an integrated transport hub at the station which would help with the congestion along Friar Street.

In general, Reading has a solid bus network with good frequencies and even into the night. But you can't cram any more buses into the town centre and they're pretty busy services. There's lots hub-and-spoke but no radial services and what bus lanes exist are fairly piecemeal.

So what's the solution? Unfortunately we're too wedded to our cars in the UK, I think, to find the kind of radical public transport priority that exists on the Continent palatable.

The low density of the urban sprall further out (which as discussed further up, isn't actually in the purview of RBC) doesn't help either if you're trying to run a frequent metro-style service.

Maybe this should diverge into Speculative Discussion...

I know! Unfortunately, I was born about 65 years too late to see it run! To dodge the traffic, you'd probably need a premetro section (like e.g. Charleroi) between the IDR end of Great Knollys St and Kenavon Drive for an initial Norcot Junction Park and Ride to Thames Valley Park line.

From Norcot Jcn Park and Ride (which I'd put on Scours Lane), you'd probably able to create an alignment along the relatively wide Wigmore Lane/Portman Road corridor, then short tunnel at the end of that to link to Great Knollys St and run along that towards the IDR.

Tunnel portal there, towards the station under Tudor Rd, the plaza, Station Hill and Forbury Rd (which you could do mostly cut and cover with a subsurface Reading Stn stop near the subway entrance).

Exit the tunnel by the old Homebase onto Kenavon Drive, from there onto Kennet Walk and Carson Rd, bridge across the Kennet onto Cholmeley (run one way up Liverpool Rd/one way up Cholmeley Rd), under London Rd bridge, across the roundabout and up Shepherds House Lane (rebuild the GWML bridge) for a loop around TVP.

Yes, it's ambitious, but realistically more buses aren't going to solve Reading's traffic problems. The built environment and density of the town makes it too difficult.

 

[crablab]

From Norcot Jcn Park and Ride (which I'd put on Scours Lane), you'd probably able to create an alignment along the relatively wide Wigmore Lane/Portman Road corridor, then short tunnel at the end of that to link to Great Knollys St and run along that towards the IDR.

Content warning: crayonista

To be honest, I don't have much sympathy for traffic on Oxford Road. I'd just whack the tram straight up it from Cheapside to Pond House.
There's probably enough space to run it with traffic coming down Grovelands Road all the way to Norcot Junction and then go straight through the roundabout and down to Tilehurst Station & Purley.
The other branch could go up Norcot Road and ultimately I'd like to think you could get all the way to IKEA with some remodeling.

On the other side, I don't really know where the 17 goes past Cemetery Junction. TVP seems sensible as does the university.

I think you'd also want a North South from Shinfield-ish through Whitley, under the IDR and across into Caversham.

Of course these run into all sorts of practical issues. However radical solutions are required and to build better public transport, which has various socioeconomic benefits, it does require reallocating space from boxes on wheels.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Content warning: crayonista

To be honest, I don't have much sympathy for traffic on Oxford Road. I'd just whack the tram straight up it from Cheapside to Pond House.
There's probably enough space to run it with traffic coming down Grovelands Road all the way to Norcot Junction and then go straight through the roundabout and down to Tilehurst Station & Purley.
The other branch could go up Norcot Road and ultimately I'd like to think you could get all the way to IKEA with some remodeling.

On the other side, I don't really know where the 17 goes past Cemetery Junction. TVP seems sensible as does the university.

I think you'd also want a North South from Shinfield-ish through Whitley, under the IDR and across into Caversham.

Of course these run into all sorts of practical issues. However radical solutions are required and to build better public transport, which has various socioeconomic benefits, it does require reallocating space from boxes on wheels.

My second projected line would be Emmer Green-Whitley, so I agree there, but Green Park Village needs thousands more housing (and Ryeish Green/Spencers Wood/TMC for the Park and Ride custom) to make that viable at all.
Oxford Road seems silly to stick a tram down if you want it to be fast, you'd still need road access for business, so an off road or at least mostly reserved alignment down Portman Road.

All the way to Tilehurst station and Purley would be too cost intensive for the passenger numbers - you could up the frequency of the 16 and 18, and have them call in at the Scours Lane/Norcot Jcn park and ride for connections. University would be on my line 3, a route towards IKEA would be fine as far as Tilehurst Triangle but getting down Langley Hill and through Calcot would be a nightmare. A line 4 would head in the direction of Savacentre/IKEA, but via Southcote instead of Tilehurst (and sometime in the 2030s.)

 

[crablab]

Oxford Road seems silly to stick a tram down if you want it to be fast, you'd still need road access for business, so an off road or at least mostly reserved alignment down Portman Road.

Problem is, connections along Oxford Road are much more useful than Portman Road, which has quite a lot of traffic going to/from Caversham.
I'm not opposed to it entirely as I know many continental trams run successfully through commercial areas, but I don't know how many people will use a tram that calls at the flooring warehouse...
There is the interesting option of routing it under the railway at Cow Lane and round on the north of the station which would avoid some choke points. But it also excludes all the traffic between West Village and the centre.

All the way to Tilehurst station and Purley would be too cost intensive for the passenger numbers

It's a more sensible place to terminate than Norcot Jn.

University would be on my line 3, a route towards IKEA would be fine as far as Tilehurst Triangle but getting down Langley Hill and through Calcot would be a nightmare. A line 4 would head in the direction of Savacentre/IKEA, but via Southcote instead of Tilehurst (and sometime in the 2030s.)

Langley Hill is a non-starter for a tram.
Otherwise agreed. I don't think it would be too difficult to run a tram down Bath Road as it stands. A limited amount of realignment and demolition would be required and it would probably be possible to have (reduced) road access alongside.
Most of the traffic comes from Southcote (or further out on the 1/2(a)), it's probably much better to send it along a straightened version of the 26.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Quick question -- what's a 'crayonista'?

Links to Green Park station would help. Because of the route of the railway line it is in the wrong place for the majority of users; it would have helped if they could have coordinated it better with Mereoak Park and Ride and thus enabled me to get a direct bus to Swallowfield from the Basingstoke train rather than having to go into town and then out again. The main benefit of buses, however, is that they use existing infrastructure without needing more. There would have to be a big demand for it to be worthwhile. Yup, the traffic is bad in the Bath Road area (the place where I was just turning up at the bus stop behind where I worked and waiting to see what turned up when), but in general it's a much better local service than many others.

The issue that would need thought is to sort out the links to villages south of Junction 11 of the M4, which was renovated in the late 00s/early 10s into the behemoth it is now. To be useful, I think a tram or metro system would have to have links beyond Mereoak Park and Ride, but the 7 bus was cancelled because of not enough demand. The route was reinstated as an extension of the park and ride system, and I try to use it as much as possible, but crucially I'm often the only person on it by the time it gets as far as Swallowfield and am thus very concerned about its long term viability. Crossing the motorway junction is made possible by bus lanes (and refurbishment of those roads a decade or so ago helped ease the passage of buses through that junction and up the Basingstoke Road as well) but it would be hard to justify a second set of tracks so that it could penetrate that area.

Additionally, rail links to and from Basingstoke are so reliable and quick that a bus or tram that stopped everywhere between the two places would be much quieter. There are a decent number of stations within the other main area that people travel along (between Reading and Newbury) like Midgham and Aldermaston Wharf that better use of those might stimulate local travel, again without having to put down more track.

I think the emphasis should be on ensuring there are enough links in the system for people to ditch their cars. My late husband would not drive in Reading at all and I don't blame him, but once he had moved to Basingstoke itself (in from Tadley), he had the railway line to use and that is not only efficient but actually gained a station at Green Park. An addition at Chineham would make sense as the big shopping centre out there would gain from it, and it's using what we have already rather than building more.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Quick question -- what's a 'crayonista'?

The idea is that people are getting out their crayons in the way that a 5 year old would to come up with a plan that professionals (or even grown-ups) would dismiss as being wildly over-ambitious/uneconomic/silly/etc. And a 'crayonista' is a mock-Spanish expansion of this to someone who has crayons, and aren't afraid to use them.

On the substantive matter of this thread, it's perhaps worth asking whether the hoped-for benefits of trams couldn't be delivered by limited stop buses, with infrastructure exclusively for use by these buses. This would (it seems to me) be cheaper than building a tramway, and if by any chance the money ran out before the project was completed then bus-friendly improvements could be used by existing buses.

 

[BazingaTribe]

The idea is that people are getting out their crayons in the way that a 5 year old would to come up with a plan that professionals (or even grown-ups) would dismiss as being wildly over-ambitious/uneconomic/silly/etc. And a 'crayonista' is a mock-Spanish expansion of this to someone who has crayons, and aren't afraid to use them.

Yeah, understand the concept completely! I'm in property management and trying to explain some things to our crayonista brigade is like banging your head against a brick wall.

On the substantive matter of this thread, it's perhaps worth asking whether the hoped-for benefits of trams couldn't be delivered by limited stop buses, with infrastructure exclusively for use by these buses. This would (it seems to me) be cheaper than building a tramway, and if by any chance the money ran out before the project was completed then bus-friendly improvements could be used by existing buses.

Yup. What the specific situation needs is reliable and strong links to the south of the M4. The motorway presents a large barrier to non-road transport and we used to be better served with cross-country links to Aldershot. There were howls of distress when those were severed, but Aldershot is pretty far out from the Reading area.

What would benefit me how I work now is more road links between Slough/Windsor/Maidenhead and Reading.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Problem is, connections along Oxford Road are much more useful than Portman Road, which has quite a lot of traffic going to/from Caversham.
I'm not opposed to it entirely as I know many continental trams run successfully through commercial areas, but I don't know how many people will use a tram that calls at the flooring warehouse...
There is the interesting option of routing it under the railway at Cow Lane and round on the north of the station which would avoid some choke points. But it also excludes all the traffic between West Village and the centre.

Problem is that Oxford Road traffic and parking issues would make a tram highly unreliable, you'd still be able to run some 17s and a higher 15/16 frequency to serve those passengers who can't walk the 5 mins to stops on the Portman Road corridor.

Connections along Portman Road are slightly less useful, but you'd still be able to build relatively regular stops along that stretch to serve Oxford Road passengers (Bridgewater Close for the Pond House/Grovelands Road section), Gordon Place/Portman Road Park (for the Little John's Lane section), Portman Way (for West Village/big Tescos) and Ashmere Terrace (for the Beresford Road section).

One alternative hybrid route of what you and I have suggested east of Beresford Road would be north under the first Cow Lane bridge, along the old Reading rail depot access road, then a short section of new alignment and under the Reading stn - Basingstoke curve to George St + Gt. Knollys St.

It's a more sensible place to terminate than Norcot Jn.

It could be if Tilehurst station was given a multistorey car park on the existing site, but, if not, we need a large P and R at the western end to attract enough traffic before it hits Oxford or Portman Rd, and I think that would be easier at Scours Lane/Norcot Jcn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Nov 2024 ==

Langley Hill is a non-starter for a tram.
Otherwise agreed. I don't think it would be too difficult to run a tram down Bath Road as it stands. A limited amount of realignment and demolition would be required and it would probably be possible to have (reduced) road access alongside.
Most of the traffic comes from Southcote (or further out on the 1/2(a)), it's probably much better to send it along a straightened version of the 26.

Yes, the 26 route (apart from running along Berkeley Avenue and Southampton St instead of Bath Road/Castle Hill/Castle St at the town centre end/Dorking Way instead of Bath Road at the Calcot end would make sense.

 

[BazingaTribe]

I got the 26 to work every day for ten years. The only other buses running along Bath Road are half hourly -- and while it might not be a tightly knit residential area, it's an area with a handful of care homes, a private clinic (Spire Dunedin) the hospice up at Dellwood and the NHS office block which is being converted into outpatient facilities (mostly physiotherapy) and has a private physiotherapist on site. 1 and 2 would still run but there's a definite need for a relatively frequent service along that route.

Not that I'm biased, per se, but the pandemic was miserable -- I routinely sat for half an hour or so watching full buses go and then they put on extra school buses for the kids, and -- because the NHS never paid for us like the schools did -- not being picked up was the proverbial insult to injury thing.

So something needs to run fairly regularly along the Bath Road. It's totally right to send it off the main drag at the Beefeater -- but it is all but, effectively, patient transport.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I got the 26 to work every day for ten years. The only other buses running along Bath Road are half hourly -- and while it might not be a tightly knit residential area, it's an area with a handful of care homes, a private clinic (Spire Dunedin) the hospice up at Dellwood and the NHS office block which is being converted into outpatient facilities (mostly physiotherapy) and has a private physiotherapist on site. 1 and 2 would still run but there's a definite need for a relatively frequent service along that route.

Not that I'm biased, per se, but the pandemic was miserable -- I routinely sat for half an hour or so watching full buses go and then they put on extra school buses for the kids, and -- because the NHS never paid for us like the schools did -- not being picked up was the proverbial insult to injury thing.

So something needs to run fairly regularly along the Bath Road. It's totally right to send it off the main drag at the Beefeater -- but it is all but, effectively, patient transport.

Well, in the scenario that line 4 of my projected tram system was built from town to Savacentre on the route I described, you'd increase the frequency of the 2/2a significantly, with a more regular service to Tadley too (to link the large populations of Burghfield, both Mortimers and Tadley into the tram system), and to serve the populations and workplaces on Bath Road east of Southcote Beefeater.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, but the reality is that the Reading approaches, other than the A33, remain fairly narrow artiaries and don't have much space for traffic. The bus lane on London Road being a case in point. There isn't really a practical way to service the shops on the Oxford Road, or indeed at Cemetery Junction without on street delivery vans.

You're right. Reading does need an Underground system!

 

[AlastairFraser]

You're right. Reading does need an Underground system!

I do have a dream Reading light metro map (link here:ReadiLink phase 2 ), but all we need is trams or light rail at best!

 

[BazingaTribe]

Tadley has a bit more of an orientation towards Newbury and Basingstoke. My husband grew up there (he stayed with his mum and dad and only moved out when he was around 34 having saved up for his own bachelor pad...that he only got to use as such for two years before he was no longer a bachelor ) and he talked a lot more about connections with those two towns rather than about Reading. There's a relatively good bus service connecting Tadley with Basingstoke via the hospital, which is in the same county and thus connected to the same education system, local government funding etc. He went to sixth form college (it's compulsory to move schools at that age in Hampshire) at QMC in Basingstoke.

Also you'd be going through Aldermaston to get there and that's very carefully maintained to keep the character of the village intact. Even the road signs are unobtrusive (of the old finger post style with just a hint of Worboys flair for consistency and visibility), so in an effort to connect somewhere that doesn't have much business with Reading and capture the market for them you'd be trying to run a tram through somewhere that won't necessarily take kindly to the metal rails and likely the perspex stands and so on. Sadly, the advantage of motor vehicles is that they only need a road laying. Trams and trains need a whole lot of other infrastructure that adds to the bottleneck that Aldermaston already is. The metal and glass and plastic needed would spoil one of the remaining unspoilt villages in the area.

The only benefit might be to make AWE more accessible. As you can imagine they've been running recruitment campaigns, but when I was jobhunting, I was offered an opportunity there but had to decline because of lack of transport. It might be better to link Basingstoke and Reading via Tadley, but then you'd be ploughing up half of north Hampshire to get it and buses start to look a bit more landscape-friendly.

As I also said on the last enthusiastic thread about trams, they're not the most comfortable mode of transport for longer distance journeys. Reading Buses generally uses single decker buses for SimplyNetwork routes (outside the core Reading area itself and with the exception of the 1 to Newbury) and it's possible to enjoy the ride out to Swallowfield on the 600. However, my experience even of modern trams elsewhere on the continent would make a journey as far as Tadley rather unpleasant. Motor vehicles have good suspension and relatively wide bodies and don't involve laying yet more clutter on the actual roads. Trams are good for short journeys in cities with a lot of contiguous urban or suburban areas (the whole Farnborough-Aldershot-Blackwater conurbation would be a good candidate).

But the Reading area has, as yet, not swallowed up outlying places, and you still have open countryside and areas that take cultural protection very seriously like Aldermaston and my parents' area to cross in a lot of places. Some of it is NIMBYism, but a lot of it is to try and stop Reading sprawling too far and keep discrete areas of human habitation in more harmony with the natural areas surrounding them.

I'm not against this in theory but in practice the landscape and infrastructure may not work too well together. It's kind of icing on a cake that's already perfectly iced. Focusing on bus routes for the villages (as well as a Sunday service of some kind) would be better and a railway station at Chineham would be the most practical solutions.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Tadley has a bit more of an orientation towards Newbury and Basingstoke. My husband grew up there (he stayed with his mum and dad and only moved out when he was around 34 having saved up for his own bachelor pad...that he only got to use as such for two years before he was no longer a bachelor ) and he talked a lot more about connections with those two towns rather than about Reading. There's a relatively good bus service connecting Tadley with Basingstoke via the hospital, which is in the same county and thus connected to the same education system, local government funding etc. He went to sixth form college (it's compulsory to move schools at that age in Hampshire) at QMC in Basingstoke.

Also you'd be going through Aldermaston to get there and that's very carefully maintained to keep the character of the village intact. Even the road signs are unobtrusive (of the old finger post style with just a hint of Worboys flair for consistency and visibility), so in an effort to connect somewhere that doesn't have much business with Reading and capture the market for them you'd be trying to run a tram through somewhere that won't necessarily take kindly to the metal rails and likely the perspex stands and so on. Sadly, the advantage of motor vehicles is that they only need a road laying. Trams and trains need a whole lot of other infrastructure that adds to the bottleneck that Aldermaston already is. The metal and glass and plastic needed would spoil one of the remaining unspoilt villages in the area.

The only benefit might be to make AWE more accessible. As you can imagine they've been running recruitment campaigns, but when I was jobhunting, I was offered an opportunity there but had to decline because of lack of transport. It might be better to link Basingstoke and Reading via Tadley, but then you'd be ploughing up half of north Hampshire to get it and buses start to look a bit more landscape-friendly.

As I also said on the last enthusiastic thread about trams, they're not the most comfortable mode of transport for longer distance journeys. Reading Buses generally uses single decker buses for SimplyNetwork routes (outside the core Reading area itself and with the exception of the 1 to Newbury) and it's possible to enjoy the ride out to Swallowfield on the 600. However, my experience even of modern trams elsewhere on the continent would make a journey as far as Tadley rather unpleasant. Motor vehicles have good suspension and relatively wide bodies and don't involve laying yet more clutter on the actual roads. Trams are good for short journeys in cities with a lot of contiguous urban or suburban areas (the whole Farnborough-Aldershot-Blackwater conurbation would be a good candidate).

But the Reading area has, as yet, not swallowed up outlying places, and you still have open countryside and areas that take cultural protection very seriously like Aldermaston and my parents' area to cross in a lot of places. Some of it is NIMBYism, but a lot of it is to try and stop Reading sprawling too far and keep discrete areas of human habitation in more harmony with the natural areas surrounding them.

I'm not against this in theory but in practice the landscape and infrastructure may not work too well together. It's kind of icing on a cake that's already perfectly iced. Focusing on bus routes for the villages (as well as a Sunday service of some kind) would be better and a railway station at Chineham would be the most practical solutions.

Oh, I think I have confused a few people! I wasn't proposing putting Tadley or Aldermaston on the tram system (trams up the A340 would be a disaster!), I was proposing increased frequency on the 2/2a (every 15 mins to Burghfield/Mortimer, every 30 mins extension to AWE and Tadley) to connect into the tram system in Southcote. There is precedent for the traffic - before Covid, the TadRed bus service (run by the coach company Mortons Travel) was reasonably popular.

Tadley could do with a rail connection, but as part of a Kennet Valley tram train system that is a discussion for another time!

 

[BazingaTribe]

Ah, gotcha!

I totally agree with that. The luck of the draw put me right on the 2 bus route from work. I only ever used it once in the 6 years between starting work there and my husband being able to go up unaided to see his mum, but it was really useful to have had that link if I had needed it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Ah, gotcha!

I totally agree with that. The luck of the draw put me right on the 2 bus route from work. I only ever used it once in the 6 years between starting work there and my husband being able to go up unaided to see his mum, but it was really useful to have had that link if I had needed it.

Indeed it is useful. It's a shame it got cut back from being a crosstown route (I grew up on the northern end of the old crosstown route), but it improved punctuality a lot.

 

[crablab]

So something needs to run fairly regularly along the Bath Road. It's totally right to send it off the main drag at the Beefeater -- but it is all but, effectively, patient transport.

I'm not sure I agree that's the primary purpose! I'm vaguely aware of the various healthcare facilities but I wouldn't say they were the driver of demand on those routes.
The 2/2a are regularly full coming in from outside Reading and really need more capacity (I don't know why they don't use double deckers on those route? Trees?) or frequency.
But there's a lot of people travelling in to work on the 26/1, either in Reading or commuting to beyond. I would say that makes up a significant portion of the demand given the number of people the 26 collects coming through Calcot.

I'm also not sure I understand the concern about frequencies along Bath Road - it's pretty much 'turn up and go' with a bus every few minutes. There are sometimes awkward gaps, especially overnight, but it's generally pretty good.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Hah! I'd like to live in that parallel universe but it's really not the one I live in! Turn up and sit for half an hour guessing whether '15 minutes' is reality or code for 'your guess is as good as mine' when the tracker shows them somewhere way more than 15 minutes away. On a bad day it can be really bad.

I did that for a long time (at least since the pandemic and all of the time after I broke my ankle and could no longer walk down to Reading West) -- Monks Way bus stop going in the direction of town is right outside the back entrance to the office where I was a receptionist for ten years. Put it this way, I'm glad they have seats in the shelter. I still do it occasionally now because although I got promoted and can work from home, I still have go in every so often (and it's a small price to pay for the privilege of not having to sit on buses and trains and at bus stops for four hours every day).

So yeah, from recent experience it's not that predictable.

 

[crablab]

So yeah, from recent experience it's not that predictable.

Okay. I'm not dismissing your experience, simply stating that mine, as someone who lives along here, is clearly very different.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Okay. I'm not dismissing your experience, simply stating that mine, as someone who lives along here, is clearly very different.

Fair enough. Time of day probably makes some difference -- in the morning I got the 1 or 2 because they stop right outside the office.

 

[Ghostbus]

I've never been to Reading, but to this layman a quick look at a map seems to show a tram is not remotely viable.

The northern part looks too small, too close, and would require the loss of one of only two river crossings or the building of a third, which is the planning stage where it all quickly seems to look completely unviable given the sheer lack of space or routes. Stick to buses, they're perfect for this kind of scenario.

To the east, even if you could get a tram across the North Downs Line / A3290, Woodley looks to be impenetrable with a tram line without major changes. If it's not already, the London Road/Bath Road to Pound Lane should be full bus priority (lanes, lights and gates) so that every inch of Woodley can be served by fast, frequent buses. Far more benefit for far less disruption to the overall capacity of the local road network.

To the south east, the Wokingham Road/Reading Road corridor to Wokingham would have been perfect for a tram, but of course some fool already put a railway there first. This would mean your most useful (if not your only) tram route competes with the railway and is paralleled by a very fast road. Not great. Surely you would try a mix of express buses using the A3290/A329M and a bus rapid transit system down the Wokingham/Reading Road, both terminating in Bracknell, before considering a tram? If it is wildly successful, then get to work. If not, you haven't bankrupted the town.

To the west, even if you ignored the impact on their usefulness as regional roads, the Oxford Road and Bath Road, the most logical paths for a tram line, have very small catchment areas. And as the lines diverge, the vast area between the two, Tilehurst et al, looks similar to Woodley. Surely a guided bus or bus rapid transit route that connects these two roads with a run along Park Lane / School Road in a triangle, would be a cheaper and far more useful alternative? If it doesn't work, then at least you know and can easily revert back to conventional buses.

To the south, it's painful to see how impenetrable a huge catchment area like Lower Earley is to a tram, given the possibility of getting there with a line down the A327. The whole place ways seems to have been designed with the car and bus in mind, by the looks of it.

This would seem to only leave the straight run south through Whitley to Whitley Wood as prime tram territory. Multiple potential routes, a wide variety of potential custom, residential and employment, limited impact on both the local and regional road network. It might even be possible to add a western spur to Reading Green Park. Do that, with the northern end running all the way to the main railway station, and you're looking at a very healthy business case. But will the town put up with all that disruption, for a single tram line? Probably not when people realise you could just make the main section an urban guided busway, and have its fast frequent buses not only serving Whitley and Whitley Wood almost as good as a tram would, but also speeding up bus journeys to Green Park and the villages south of the M4.

 

[BazingaTribe]

I've never been to Reading, but to this layman a quick look at a map seems to show a tram is not remotely viable.

The northern part looks too small, too close, and would require the loss of one of only two river crossings or the building of a third, which is the planning stage where it all quickly seems to look completely unviable given the sheer lack of space or routes. Stick to buses, they're perfect for this kind of scenario.

To the east, even if you could get a tram across the North Downs Line / A3290, Woodley looks to be impenetrable with a tram line without major changes. If it's not already, the London Road/Bath Road to Pound Lane should be full bus priority (lanes, lights and gates) so that every inch of Woodley can be served by fast, frequent buses. Far more benefit for far less disruption to the overall capacity of the local road network.

To the south east, the Wokingham Road/Reading Road corridor to Wokingham would have been perfect for a tram, but of course some fool already put a railway there first. This would mean your most useful (if not your only) tram route competes with the railway and is paralleled by a very fast road. Not great. Surely you would try a mix of express buses using the A3290/A329M and a bus rapid transit system down the Wokingham/Reading Road, both terminating in Bracknell, before considering a tram? If it is wildly successful, then get to work. If not, you haven't bankrupted the town.

To the west, even if you ignored the impact on their usefulness as regional roads, the Oxford Road and Bath Road, the most logical paths for a tram line, have very small catchment areas. And as the lines diverge, the vast area between the two, Tilehurst et al, looks similar to Woodley. Surely a guided bus or bus rapid transit route that connects these two roads with a run along Park Lane / School Road in a triangle, would be a cheaper and far more useful alternative? If it doesn't work, then at least you know and can easily revert back to conventional buses.

To the south, it's painful to see how impenetrable a huge catchment area like Lower Earley is to a tram, given the possibility of getting there with a line down the A327. The whole place ways seems to have been designed with the car and bus in mind, by the looks of it.

This would seem to only leave the straight run south through Whitley to Whitley Wood as prime tram territory. Multiple potential routes, a wide variety of potential custom, residential and employment, limited impact on both the local and regional road network. It might even be possible to add a western spur to Reading Green Park. Do that, with the northern end running all the way to the main railway station, and you're looking at a very healthy business case. But will the town put up with all that disruption, for a single tram line? Probably not when people realise you could just make the main section an urban guided busway, and have its fast frequent buses not only serving Whitley and Whitley Wood almost as good as a tram would, but also speeding up bus journeys to Green Park and the villages south of the M4.

Spot on.

Reading Buses have an overall very good service. Green Park station is an anomaly of sorts as the development is very new and a bit out of the way for a lot of passing traffic. The railway goes straight into town, with a relatively good service all day. They do need an extra bus route, but buses are much easier to put on than trams are to build.

And you're absolutely right about Whitley and Whitley Wood. They are very well served by existing buses they're within a reasonable walk of the town centre as well.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Problem with reading is that there are a lot of hills, and trams don't like hills.

While the buses are reliable, I think they could be a bit faster, (I'm looking at you 17), Reading could do with some form of express bus service on key routes like the 17, or between major train stations to have an integrated network.

I'd love a bus from tilehurst Station to Theale station

 

[A S Leib]

Would there be enough demand for a tram-train between Reading and Henley? I think there's five buses per hour, and, outside Greater London, it's the third* most popular flow with no direct connection. I can't imagine that it would be cheap to build, or if there's another solution. With a new curve at Twyford, is there enough capacity on existing lines for an hourly or better direct service? Given that there's a 'via Reading' Henley to Paddington fare, presumably missing out Twyford wouldn't be a massive issue.

* Glasgow Central – Stirling and Falkirk High are probably data errors with Glasgow Central; Liverpool Lime Street – Edinburgh and Bognor Regis – Chichester are the two most common.