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

In message , at 08:31:25 on Mon, 25 Apr
2011, d remarked:

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.

In that case I have the advantage over you, knowing the locality quite
well, and having followed the project for the last ten years.

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.

You'd have to compulsorily purchase them if it was someone's home; three
of the intermediate ones remain, and they do look like stations:
http://goo.gl/maps/cYdT http://goo.gl/maps/Q6gY http://goo.gl/maps/CNlP
but is it cheaper to start from scratch when you've that little to work
with? On the other hand, when you get to the edge of St Ives the station
is now under the bypass, so you'd need to build a brand new station in
the field to the southeast.

As for the viaduct - I presume it had to be replaced anyway so what
difference does that make?

Because it's not clear whether the cost of replacing it was included in
the rail-reopening quotes.

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.

Of course not. After all you'd only have to design for two trains at 150
tons each (45ton/car), versus two buses at 14 tons each. Remind me not
to stand under any bridges you've built!

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.

I've posted some, above; as for costings, it's very important to compare
like with like - hence the difficulty with knowing whether the new
viaduct is included, what sort of new level crossings (one on a very
busy road) were proposed, and so on.

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.

That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.

And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.

Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?

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.

As the line would run empty most of the day, it's preferable for the
buses to be carting air around than a train. The buses also have a
larger catchment area (the rival rail proposal only covered about half
the guided bus's route, something that's often forgotten).

But please don't mistake my scepticism about reopening the railway as
support for the guided bus. Both of the schemes are follies.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:17:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Of course not. After all you'd only have to design for two trains at 150
tons each (45ton/car), versus two buses at 14 tons each. Remind me not
to stand under any bridges you've built!

Most of the weight a bridge has to support is its own weight. When you
get into those sorts of tonnages the weight of the vehicle crossing it
becomes only a small percentage of the total weight so the overall structure
of a busway bridge I suspect is not much less than that of a railway bridge.
You only have to look at how well built most road bridges are to appreciate
this.

That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations.

That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.

Not on a mainline no. But a number of preserved railways do have that. I
don't know if the rules are different however.

And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.

Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?

Looking at streetview it looks wider. And I remember reading that they
had to demolish some structures and cut back the old station platforms
to fit it in on the same route.

As the line would run empty most of the day, it's preferable for the
buses to be carting air around than a train. The buses also have a
larger catchment area (the rival rail proposal only covered about half
the guided bus's route, something that's often forgotten).

Are you talking about the actual busway or the entire bus route?
If you include normal roads thats an unfair comparison since the buses
can used them whether the busway exists or not and their cost is
zero.

B2003

In message , at 11:47:08 on Mon, 25 Apr
2011, d remarked:

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.

Of course not. After all you'd only have to design for two trains at 150
tons each (45ton/car), versus two buses at 14 tons each. Remind me not
to stand under any bridges you've built!

Most of the weight a bridge has to support is its own weight. When you
get into those sorts of tonnages the weight of the vehicle crossing it
becomes only a small percentage of the total weight so the overall structure
of a busway bridge I suspect is not much less than that of a railway bridge.

Let's say 90% of the weight of the bridge is required to keep itself up, and
only 10% is represented by the safe load above it. That would indicate that
a bridge for a 14 ton bus would need to weigh 140 tons. Are you suggesting
you could run a 150 ton train across such a bridge, rather than needing a
1500 ton construction?

You only have to look at how well built most road bridges are to appreciate
this.

That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations.

That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.

Not on a mainline no. But a number of preserved railways do have that. I
don't know if the rules are different however.

I think a big part of the problem with proposed rail re-openings on this
line have been a result of treating it like a preserved railway, rather than
a service railway.

And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.

Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?

Looking at streetview it looks wider.

A bus is narrower than a train, you can't get away from that basic fact. And
if you guide the buses through bridge holes, you can get them side by side
in the same gap as trains. Here's the bridge where the A14 crosses the
track: http://lh5.ggpht.com/_bKS0Ey2ovWg/S0...Juw/lsOI55-V7_
E/P1030018.JPG

And I remember reading that they
had to demolish some structures and cut back the old station platforms
to fit it in on the same route.

They demolished the platforms at Histon Station, but that's probably because
it's the site of a bus stop, not just tracks, http://goo.gl/maps/8rRZ
and they've also raised the ground level there quite a bit. Compare this
picture with today's streetview http://goo.gl/maps/Q6gY

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h...11.2005)22.jpg

As the line would run empty most of the day, it's preferable for the
buses to be carting air around than a train. The buses also have a
larger catchment area (the rival rail proposal only covered about half
the guided bus's route, something that's often forgotten).

Are you talking about the actual busway or the entire bus route?

The buses are travelling from Huntingdon to Trumpington, via the centre of
Cambridge. The rail reopening was just St Ives to Chesterton.

If you include normal roads thats an unfair comparison since the buses
can used them whether the busway exists or not and their cost is
zero.

There isn't a direct road between the villages which the busway connects, so
it would be very hard to run a bus in the absence of the busway. The bigger
problem is that those villages won't create enough custom to fill a bus
every 20 minutes, let alone a train.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes

The buses are travelling from Huntingdon to Trumpington, via the centre of
Cambridge. The rail reopening was just St Ives to Chesterton.

Which was surely the main attraction of the bus solution? Cambridge
station is far from the city centre (thanks to the university), which
makes it very unappealing for short shopping trips from the hinterland.
--
Paul Terry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:31:25 on Mon, 25 Apr
2011, d remarked:
As for the viaduct - I presume it had to be replaced anyway so what
difference does that make?

Because it's not clear whether the cost of replacing it was included in
the rail-reopening quotes.

Er, yes it is:
http://www.castiron.org.uk/Stage1Bdetail.php

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.

Start here for CAST.IRON's costings:
http://www.castiron.org.uk/VisionDoc.php
(there's a PDF document around with more detail, but I can't find a link to
it ATM)

Feel free to take those apart. The CHUMMS report (government study with
rail costings by Atkins) is he
http://www.eera.gov.uk/publications-...i-modal-study/

I've posted some, above; as for costings, it's very important to compare
like with like - hence the difficulty with knowing whether the new
viaduct is included, what sort of new level crossings (one on a very
busy road) were proposed, and so on.

See the description of Stage 1B above, which describes the types of
crossings installed.

That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations.

That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.

Avon Valley Railway is one (cycle track not nature trail):
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Ste...l/article.html
I don't know any local details so can't say how many crossings there are.

And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.

Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?

Except when it doesn't. For example, Trumpington cutting was a double track
railway in 1951 (to Bedford), but is now single track busway plus
maintenance track.

Theo

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:53:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Most of the weight a bridge has to support is its own weight. When you
get into those sorts of tonnages the weight of the vehicle crossing it
becomes only a small percentage of the total weight so the overall structure
of a busway bridge I suspect is not much less than that of a railway bridge.

Let's say 90% of the weight of the bridge is required to keep itself up, and
only 10% is represented by the safe load above it. That would indicate that
a bridge for a 14 ton bus would need to weigh 140 tons. Are you suggesting
you could run a 150 ton train across such a bridge, rather than needing a
1500 ton construction?

I don't know. What I do know is that modern road bridges and viaducts to me
seem to be very over engineered given the total weight they'd ever be expected
to carry. Eg , that M1 viaduct that had a fire underneath. Rail bridges OTOH
seem to be somewhat slender in comparison. So while I may have phrased it
wrongly I still don't think a replacement rail bridge would have been much more
hefty than a busway bridge.

A bus is narrower than a train, you can't get away from that basic fact. And

Not by much in this country. Buses are what, 2.5 metres wide? The UK loading
gauge is 2.8 max.

There isn't a direct road between the villages which the busway connects, so
it would be very hard to run a bus in the absence of the busway. The bigger
problem is that those villages won't create enough custom to fill a bus
every 20 minutes, let alone a train.

True, but a rail link from huntingdon to cambridge via ST Ives may well have
done , coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful diversion
route for the ECML.

B2003

In article ,
(Theo Markettos) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:31:25 on Mon,
25 Apr 2011, d remarked:

And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.

Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do
you have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so
they can squeeze through a smaller gap?

Except when it doesn't. For example, Trumpington cutting was a double
track railway in 1951 (to Bedford), but is now single track busway plus
maintenance track.

Roland is overlooking the maintenance track which is what prevents the
busway fitting within the railway alignment. It's being sold as a free
cycleway but it's actually what has cut capacity considerably on the
busway in places.

The other factor overlooked is that trains only require the headroom of
single deck buses. Most buses used in Cambridge are double deck (for
capacity reasons). The Southern section of the guideway is available to
single deck buses only due to the low height of the bridges. On the
Northern section the track below bridges has had to be lowered in order to
accommodate double deckers. Luckily there aren't many bridges there but
there will be few through buses to Addenbrooke's Hospital and Trumpington
from the North because of the limitations.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , d ()
wrote:

True, but a rail link from huntingdon to cambridge via ST Ives may well
have done , coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful
diversion route for the ECML.

This is impossibly dreamy nonsense I'm afraid.

The Cast.Iron scheme was a good one for Cambridge to St Ives but any idea
of a through route to the ECML via Huntingdon doesn't take account the
railway history of the area. St Ives was on a through route until the late
1960s but it was from Cambridge to March. The line from St Ives to
Huntingdon (and on to Kettering) was a very lightly engineered single
track with no proper connection at Huntingdon which in any case faced
South. It is somewhat obstructed by the A14 too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:49:52 -0500
wrote:
This is impossibly dreamy nonsense I'm afraid.

The Cast.Iron scheme was a good one for Cambridge to St Ives but any idea
of a through route to the ECML via Huntingdon doesn't take account the
railway history of the area. St Ives was on a through route until the late
1960s but it was from Cambridge to March. The line from St Ives to
Huntingdon (and on to Kettering) was a very lightly engineered single
track with no proper connection at Huntingdon which in any case faced
South. It is somewhat obstructed by the A14 too.

Fair enough. I thought the line joined up with the ECML originally. Still, if
it could be done it would be useful.

B2003