So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 06:14:20
on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, remarked:

The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme.

Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a nature
trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried about it
potentially disappearing?

It was still technically an operating railway until 2 August 2003, so it
wasn't officially available for walkers or cyclists. Some people did walk
on the tidier bits, but some of it was very overgrown - above head height
brambles just north of Oakington station, for example.

Did any of the stations other than Histon have platforms left? And this
idea about relaying the track runs against assertions that a service
could be restored easily as long as the old track hadn't been "ripped
up". In reality, the old track would have been ripped up (and replaced,
even if with some of the old rails) for a railway restoration project.

I think Oakington did. I didn't get further than Longstanton when I walked
it (in 2001) so don't know any other stations.

Theo

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:28:46 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596

Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up, so
they could run trains on it!

That track looks in pretty good condition to me given how long its been
out of use. Vegetation is easily removed.

B2003

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

In message , at 18:20:02
on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, remarked:
The railway only extended to Fen Drayton by then.

About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596

Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up,
so they could run trains on it!

That was a railway under engineers' possession at the time.

I'd love to see them get an engineer's train down there. Were things
like the Milton Rd level crossing in a working enough condition?
--
Roland Perry

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

In message , at 01:36:42 on Wed,
27 Apr 2011, Theo Markettos
remarked:
The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme.

Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a nature
trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried about it
potentially disappearing?

It was still technically an operating railway until 2 August 2003, so it
wasn't officially available for walkers or cyclists.

Where was the official end of the line in 2003? The rails were lifted
beyond Fen Drayton, and the St Ives bypass was built on top of the St
Ives station site (apparently in 1980), the bypass uses the old trackbed
towards March.
--
Roland Perry

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

In message , at 10:45:45 on Tue, 26 Apr
2011, d remarked:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:22:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

That's built to carry three lanes of 40 ton HGVs.

Even 3 HGVs only weigh the same as a single locomotive. A rail bridge may have
to carry 2 locomotives plus their trains at the same time.

Huh? I thought you were arguing that a bridge built for a couple of 14
ton buses would be adequate for two 150 ton trains... and now you are
quibbling about a mere couple of hundred tons of loco as well ;)

Rail bridges OTOH seem to be somewhat slender in comparison.

The busway bridge is pretty slender too. Here's someone's picture of it
under construction.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/p...m/12999233.jpg

It would be interesting to see how slender it looks with a few hundred tons
of concrete busway on top of it.

I'm sure you can find some photos online. The trackbed isn't going to be
structural (because it's prefabricated blocks laid down) but you should
also compare the size of those beams with the ones under a motorway.

coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful diversion
route for the ECML.

Single track and non-electrified (ignoring the reverse at Huntingdon for
a moment) does not make a very useful diversion.

If the line had been re-opened electrifying it would have been the only
sensible option unless DMUs were to be run all the way from london or have a
DMU shuttle service from cambridge.

Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.
--
Roland Perry

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:25:09 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Even 3 HGVs only weigh the same as a single locomotive. A rail bridge may have
to carry 2 locomotives plus their trains at the same time.

Huh? I thought you were arguing that a bridge built for a couple of 14
ton buses would be adequate for two 150 ton trains... and now you are
quibbling about a mere couple of hundred tons of loco as well ;)

No , I was saying road bridges and viaducts are built far more robustly than
you'd expect given the max weight of traffic you'd expect on them at any one
time, possibly with a few exceptions such as suspension bridges.

Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.

I have no idea if thats the case. I'd assumed the natural project would be
to re-open the route from Cambridge station otherwise whats the point?

B2003

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

Roland Perry wrote:
Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.

Roland, please stop spreading FUD. The costings included an electrified spur
from Chesterton Junction as far as the east side of Milton Road.

http://www.castiron.org.uk/VisionDoc.php
http://www.castiron.org.uk/Stage1Bdetail.php

(perhaps it's slightly ambiguous from the document, but it was definitely
stated at the time)

Theo

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

Roland Perry wrote:
Where was the official end of the line in 2003? The rails were lifted
beyond Fen Drayton, and the St Ives bypass was built on top of the St
Ives station site (apparently in 1980), the bypass uses the old trackbed
towards March.

Fen Drayton I think. The last use for it was sand/gravel extraction at the
Fen Drayton pits, so that's why it was cut back to there. The line was
essentially abandoned since 1992, so I can't see why BRB/Railtrack/NR would
have further shortened it without any particular use in mind. Various
railway sources refer to it as the Chesterton Jct to Fen Drayton branch too.

Apparently Signalling Notice 129 from Nov 1984 refers to the Fen Drayton
branch, so it must have been cut back before then.

Theo

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

In message , at 14:43:04 on Wed,
27 Apr 2011, Theo Markettos
remarked:
Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.

Roland, please stop spreading FUD. The costings included an electrified spur
from Chesterton Junction as far as the east side of Milton Road.

http://www.castiron.org.uk/VisionDoc.php
http://www.castiron.org.uk/Stage1Bdetail.php

(perhaps it's slightly ambiguous from the document, but it was definitely
stated at the time)

It doesn't seem ambiguous to me (all Network Rail stuff):

"CAST.IRON trains will terminate at the west side of Milton
Road. Here two new platforms will be constructed, one for
CAST.IRON trains and one for Network Rail trains.

4.2. Network Rail Trackway

"A new 70mph track will be laid from Chesterton Junction to
Milton Road station, running parallel to the CAST.IRON access
track.

"This new Network Rail track spur will cross Milton Road to
reach the new station.... [and] will be overhead electrified.
--
Roland Perry

So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
 

In message , at 10:39:49 on Wed, 27 Apr
2011, d remarked:

Even 3 HGVs only weigh the same as a single locomotive. A rail bridge
may have
to carry 2 locomotives plus their trains at the same time.

Huh? I thought you were arguing that a bridge built for a couple of 14
ton buses would be adequate for two 150 ton trains... and now you are
quibbling about a mere couple of hundred tons of loco as well ;)

No , I was saying road bridges and viaducts are built far more robustly than
you'd expect given the max weight of traffic you'd expect on them at any one
time, possibly with a few exceptions such as suspension bridges.

I realise that, but a bridge designed to carry a 14 ton load is likely
to be much more robustly designed than one expected to carry 150 tons.

Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.

I have no idea if thats the case.

It is, I've read the proposals.

I'd assumed the natural project would be to re-open the route from
Cambridge station otherwise whats the point?

Correct. Many people have indeed said "what's the point" of a railway
running from a little outside St Ives [1] to a long way outside
Cambridge; expecting someone else to connect it to the Cambridge line;
with proposals for extension to Huntingdon that just don't stand up; and
planning to run a pair of single coach railcars much of the day (when
the original idea was to relieve a road carrying 5,000 vehicles an
hour).

[1] With no track remaining at all the last few miles.
--
Roland Perry