| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
Every other day there seems to be some major signal failure or even
worse such as last nights power failure. Are there any competant engineers left in this country? B2003 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In article , d ()
wrote: Every other day there seems to be some major signal failure or even worse such as last nights power failure. Are there any competant engineers left in this country? Perhaps not. See http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...-needed-after- blunder-20032011.htm. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
On 20/04/2011 19:39, Paul Terry wrote:
There is an enormous shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies. Is it? Or is it because there are non-engineering jobs open to people with an education in engineering which can pay a lot more than engineering businesses will, and sooner? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
On Apr 20, 10:02*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 20/04/2011 19:39, Paul Terry wrote: There is an enormous shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies. Is it? Or is it because there are non-engineering jobs open to people with an education in engineering which can pay a lot more than engineering businesses will, and sooner? And provide great opportunities to engineer the economy... to destruction. 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 some sort of vague rant about the Thatcherised and atomised 'I'm alright Jack' attitude which, in the spirit of this thread, I'll only make a half-arsed effort to construct. |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
On Apr 20, 7:39*pm, Paul Terry wrote: In message , writes Are there any competant engineers left in this country? Very few, and many of them are due to retire. There is an enormous shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies. What the country needs is technicians (not graduates) in engineering, but it is becoming increasingly difficult even to recruit them from abroad, as countries such as Germany are having similar problems. I know there is this and that out there, but from the outside there often appears to be scant pathways into engineering - I'm thinking about the likes of accessible apprenticeships for youngsters who'd love to get stuck in to such a career but just don't have any way in. |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
On 20/04/2011 23:05, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 20, 10:02 pm, Arthur wrote: On 20/04/2011 19:39, Paul Terry wrote: There is an enormous shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies. Is it? Or is it because there are non-engineering jobs open to people with an education in engineering which can pay a lot more than engineering businesses will, and sooner? And provide great opportunities to engineer the economy... to destruction. The people doing it don't seem to be doing too badly! There's more to life than getting paid oodles of cash But oodles of cash generally do help get the more (so people with oodles of cash tell me, anyway). - 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 some sort of vague rant about the Thatcherised and atomised 'I'm alright Jack' attitude which, in the spirit of this thread, I'll only make a half-arsed effort to construct. Plus the Stalinist system, the EU, Gordon Brown, Bilderbergers, Bob Crow etc. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In message , at 03:52:01
on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, 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. It's another case of a combination of thread drift and people not comparing like with like. The comments about width started off when I observed that one objection to re-opening an old railway alignment in Nottingham was the loss of a nature trail. That was countered by an observation that railways take up less space than a guided bus and therefore the nature trail could co-exist. Theo has posted a photo of an old trackbed with a single track preserved railway and a footpath alongside. Given that we were told that it had "most of the track and stations still in situ" we must conclude that the poster in question was wanting to restore a single track railway, but it's a shame it wasn't always next to what I think was the only remaining platforms: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/histon/histon4.jpg Yes, a twin track busway with cycle/maintenance path is wider than a railway, but not wider than a two-track railway and nature trail. As far as I'm concerned the only place that width matters very much is through bridge holes. 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. And very few through[1] cast.iron trains, I expect. (another case of comparing like with like). [1] Even reaching Cambridge station requires using a substantial investment from Network Rail to get from the Science Park, let alone re-opening south towards the Trumpington P&R. -- Roland Perry |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In message , at 08:45:52 on Tue, 26 Apr
2011, d remarked: 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. That's built to carry three lanes of 40 ton HGVs. 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 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. Buses and busways are narrower than trains and their tracks. The only wild card is whether you have a pathway beside them. 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 , The route from St Ives to Huntingdon has only ever been speculation, especially over the route it might take (the old trackbed's not available for almost the entire length). Every suggestion I've seen results in joining the ECML from the north, and the folks keenest on reopening the line finish their route at "Huntingdon East" conveniently not specifying the final mile. 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. -- Roland Perry |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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. 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. 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. B2003 |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 03:52:01 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, remarked: Given that we were told that it had "most of the track and stations still in situ" we must conclude that the poster in question was wanting to restore a single track railway, but it's a shame it wasn't always next to what I think was the only remaining platforms: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/histon/histon4.jpg Yes, a twin track busway with cycle/maintenance path is wider than a railway, but not wider than a two-track railway and nature trail. As far as I'm concerned the only place that width matters very much is through bridge holes. The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme. The track was double until after passenger closure so restoring track to the platforms could be easily incorporated in any track relaying. 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. And very few through[1] cast.iron trains, I expect. (another case of comparing like with like). [1] Even reaching Cambridge station requires using a substantial investment from Network Rail to get from the Science Park, let alone re-opening south towards the Trumpington P&R. The junction is still there and was signalled, UIVMM. There are a number of station area signalling changes needed in any case. The incremental cost of allowing trains from St Ives in and through would be small. I tend to agree that extending to Trumpington wasn't top priority. It is the only bit of the busway which makes some sense, especially with the Addenbrooke's spur. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
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? I took some photos of the Nottingham nature trail yesterday, not very inspiring towards the south end. Who would believe this is the old Great Central railway? http://www.panoramio.com/photo/51704614 That picture taken just a few yards north of the proposed Ruddington Lane tram stop. It'll be fascinating to come back and see this in a few years: http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/net...ndler.ashx?id= 15768&p=0 It seems they've safeguarded a bridge under the A52, but Ruddington Lane has been built on top of the embankment and will need a new bridge - but they need new bridges over Wilford Lane and Midland Station as well. The track was double until after passenger closure so restoring track to the platforms could be easily incorporated in any track relaying. 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. -- Roland Perry |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
|
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In message , at 12:25:31
on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, remarked: 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 officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was handed over to the County Council, if you remember. There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one of the spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can have been a railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the un-ripped up old track" issue is an oversimplification. This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944 and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958 -- Roland Perry |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 12:25:31 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, remarked: 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 officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was handed over to the County Council, if you remember. There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one of the spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can have been a railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the un-ripped up old track" issue is an oversimplification. This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944 and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958 The railway only extended to Fen Drayton by then. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In message , at 15:04:06
on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, remarked: It was officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was handed over to the County Council, if you remember. There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one of the spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can have been a railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the un-ripped up old track" issue is an oversimplification. This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944 and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958 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! -- Roland Perry |
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 15:04:06 on Tue, 26 Apr 2011, remarked: It was officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was handed over to the County Council, if you remember. There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one of the spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can have been a railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the un-ripped up old track" issue is an oversimplification. This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944 and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958 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. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:26 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk