On 2011-04-21 09:37:36 +0100, d said:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
There's more to life than getting paid oodles of cash - shame that
both engineering companies don't seem to be able to promote such a
notion, and many engineering graduates seem to reject it too... cue

Unfortunately in this country engineers and scientists are at best
treated as slightly dotty boffins. At worst , greasy haired sociopaths
who wouldn't be allowed in polite company. There are a few exceptions
who are allowed into polite society , usually biologists because thats
a slightly more soft focused subject that the liberal arts types can almost
understand the simpler concepts of so they don't feel so threatened.

Until this mindset changes science and engineering in this country is
pretty much doomed since if kids don't see it as attractive by the time
they're old enough to go to university its pretty much too late.

B2003

Well said that man!

d wrote:
I'll give it 10 years before that busway is closed down due to high
maintenance costs and bus operators no longer wanting to pay to use it
when they can use the roads for free.

I had a wander down it this afternoon. The concrete beam sides have small
gullies (about 1" across and deep) across the top surface, about 2 or 3 per
beam. There's already what looks like freeze-thaw weathering, to the extent
that pretty much every gully has a crack leading down, that's the height of
the beam side (about 8").

It may be this is a design 'feature', but it doesn't bode well. These beams
were only laid last year. A few look like they've been bodge-patched with
cement.

In other news, the busway has finally been signed off by the contractor.
Only 2.5 years late...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...r-21042011.htm

Theo

On 22 Apr 2011 19:18:37 +0100 (BST)
Theo Markettos wrote:
I had a wander down it this afternoon. The concrete beam sides have small
gullies (about 1" across and deep) across the top surface, about 2 or 3 per
beam. There's already what looks like freeze-thaw weathering, to the extent
that pretty much every gully has a crack leading down, that's the height of
the beam side (about 8").

It may be this is a design 'feature', but it doesn't bode well. These beams
were only laid last year. A few look like they've been bodge-patched with
cement.

In other news, the busway has finally been signed off by the contractor.
Only 2.5 years late...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...er-21042011.ht

Sounds like its turning out to be an entire herd of white elephants. I'm
glad its not me paying council tax up there. I wonder if the law should
get involved at some point over this given how much less re-opening the
railway would have cost and how much more useful it would have been.
Something smells bad to me.

B2003

In message , at 09:40:58 on Sat, 23 Apr
2011, d remarked:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...er-21042011.ht

Sounds like its turning out to be an entire herd of white elephants. I'm
glad its not me paying council tax up there.

The County Council has always insisted that the line won't cost council
tax payers anything. If it turns out that it does, then that'll be a
quite separate issue.

I wonder if the law should get involved at some point over this given
how much less re-opening the railway would have cost and how much more
useful it would have been.

The sort of problems involved in making the route fit for a bus would
have applied even more so for a train. There's no chance the route could
have been used for a train instead at anything like this price.

Something smells bad to me.

It's a fairly typical set of civil engineering over-runs, unexpected
glitches, and arguments about the specification. A railway would also
have needed fancy measures to be built over gas main, a new viaduct over
the river (and suitable drainage), a big new P&R car park. It doesn't
make sense, for example, to imagine that a railway station car park
would have had any different issues to the bus stop.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:59:10 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
I wonder if the law should get involved at some point over this given
how much less re-opening the railway would have cost and how much more
useful it would have been.

The sort of problems involved in making the route fit for a bus would
have applied even more so for a train. There's no chance the route could
have been used for a train instead at anything like this price.

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.

B2003

In message , at 10:16:06 on Sat, 23 Apr
2011, d remarked:
I wonder if the law should get involved at some point over this given
how much less re-opening the railway would have cost and how much more
useful it would have been.

The sort of problems involved in making the route fit for a bus would
have applied even more so for a train. There's no chance the route could
have been used for a train instead at anything like this price.

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.

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

I'm not convinced that it's best as a busway, a tram would be by
preferred option. But the Nottingham tramway extensions are costing
vastly more than the guided bus, even though one of the extensions is
again mainly on an old railway line.

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.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

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

While I agree with your description of the state of the old railway, are
you aware of rail industry estimates of railway restoration costs
published by Castiron which contract your last sentence?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 07:14:16
on Sat, 23 Apr 2011, remarked:
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.

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

While I agree with your description of the state of the old railway, are
you aware of rail industry estimates of railway restoration costs
published by Castiron which contract your last sentence?

I'm not aware of any estimates that took account of all the issues that
had to be overcome. I doubt they covered the Trumpington cutting at all,
for example. I don't know to what extent the Castiron estimates included
building the P&R sites and other ancillary stuff.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
07:14:16 on Sat, 23 Apr 2011, remarked:
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.

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

While I agree with your description of the state of the old railway,
are you aware of rail industry estimates of railway restoration costs
published by Castiron which contract your last sentence?

Oops! s/contract/contradict/

I'm not aware of any estimates that took account of all the issues
that had to be overcome. I doubt they covered the Trumpington
cutting at all, for example. I don't know to what extent the
Castiron estimates included building the P&R sites and other
ancillary stuff.

It was a railway reopening so maybe the park and ride car parks were not
included. They aren't very expensive, though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:15:07
on Sat, 23 Apr 2011, remarked:

I'm not aware of any estimates that took account of all the issues
that had to be overcome. I doubt they covered the Trumpington
cutting at all, for example. I don't know to what extent the
Castiron estimates included building the P&R sites and other
ancillary stuff.

It was a railway reopening so maybe the park and ride car parks were not
included.

One of the main problems with comparing the estimates is that they are
for different projects. eg Would Castiron have rebuilt the Ouse viaduct,
or didn't they think it was necessary.

--
Roland Perry