On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:54:26 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Umm, you are apparently unaware that almost all of the route actually was an
old mothballed railway line with most of the track and stations still in situ
up until the point that they ripped it up to build this busway.

I am perfectly aware of that. What you seem unaware of, however, is what
a poor state it was in ("mothballed" is a bit optimistic), and how much
work was required on ancillary aspects. I don't think any of the
stations were re-openable, for example, all the level crossings were
missing, and several large items like a viaduct over the river were
beyond repair.

Well I don't know, I've never been there. But I don't see how a station
can't be re-openable given that plenty of old disused stations have been
converted back into working stations elsewhere or even into family homes.

As for the viaduct - I presume it had to be replaced anyway so what
difference does that make? I doubt one designed to carry the weight of
2 buses is significantly cheaper than one designed to carry 2 or 3 car
passenger trains or even light rail.

Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.

I'd be interested to see some figures rather than vague hand waving.

One of the objections in Nottingham is that the railway line is now a
nature trail, and the Cambridge busway would have been much more
difficult to justify had they not been able to accommodate walkers and
cycles (and some horse crossings) into the design.

That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations. And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load
more room than even a double railway line.

And thats before we get onto the issue of the huge amount of CO2 generated
by and from all that poured concrete and the inefficiencies of a bus
compared to a rail vehicle.

B2003