| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#231
April 25th 17, 10:57 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
Woking to Heathrow
|
|
#233
April 25th 17, 10:56 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 04:57:55 on Tue, 25 Apr 2017, remarked: You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though. Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the Trumpington cutting to deal with. They certainly did. A tunnel needed major works and the Hardengreen viaduct is longer than the Ouse one UIVMM. The Ouse viaduct is 220m (Guided bus leaflet Jan 2009), and the Hardengreen one approximately three sprinter carriages (from photos, so about 75m). The total Hardengreen structure is longer than that. More like 100m and looks longer than the Ouse viaduct. It's an embankment on dry land, not a bridge over a river and flood plain. The part which spans the road is just two short sections of concrete beam with a central pillar. But it had been totally removed while the Ouse Viaduct was basically still complete. Doesn't matter. The 220m spans of the Ouse viaduct are much more of an engineering challenge than 75m of spans at Hardengreen plus some solid embankments. Anyway, this is a silly argument. There are lots of other structures on the Borders Railway and only the Ouse Viaduct on the busway. Trumpington cutting, new bridge on Long Road, bridge over the railway to Addenbrookes... Compared to many miles of Borders Railway with lots of bridges and tunnels too. Stop being silly. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#234
April 26th 17, 01:36 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , () wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:41:40 -0500 wrote: In article , () wrote: On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 19:51:45 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: What nonsense? Are you saying guideway rails are made of some special type of highly expensive Unobtainium and the steel from recycled rails just isn't up to the job? Its a ****ing busway, not a railgun launch platform! Its primitive construction personified - it doesn't even require points FFS. They're not rails. And there is no guideway at junctions either. I'm afraid No ****. Perhaps thats why I said it doesn't require points. you are talking out of your posterior. They aren't rails for starters. They're guiderails. They are concrete structures providing channels for wheels. Have a good look at them. I have! Huh? Its basically a concrete road with steel guiderails either side and with the occasional hole in the concrete to stop chavs driving their Halfords enhanced Fiestas along it. No it isn't! Either go and look at how the guideway is constructed or stop spouting nonsense here. The rails are purely made of concrete castings. I visited the concrete track factory while they were being made. I do wonder if some brown envelopes changed hands to get this busway built. I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative. You obviously didn't look at the state the railway was in after the sand trains ceased. It would have been costly to get a proper railway line reinstated. Some replacement track and ballast and a bit of tlc on the stations. No route engineering required and far less effort than the miles of heavy concrete guideway (not to mention the immense CO2 footprint of its construction) just for the occasional 10 ton bus to trundle down at moderate speeds carrying 1 train carriage worth of passengers. More than that, as Roland has been reminding us. But you have the general case right despite that. The government decided they could get "high quality public transport" on the cheap and gave the County Council no realistic rail option. The government was paying. He who pays the piper picks the tune. The government wouldn't have done the cost benefit analysis - that would have been the local council and I find it hard to believe that a light rail link would have cost more than the cost of the white elephant cambridge ended up with. I'd be interested in your definition of "white elephant". The busway is well used, despite its drawbacks. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#235
April 26th 17, 05:40 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:36:18 -0500
wrote: In article , () wrote: Huh? Its basically a concrete road with steel guiderails either side and with the occasional hole in the concrete to stop chavs driving their Halfords enhanced Fiestas along it. No it isn't! Either go and look at how the guideway is constructed or stop spouting nonsense here. The rails are purely made of concrete castings. I visited the concrete track factory while they were being made. So how come the section at Orchard Park uses steel guiderails then? And I didn't just look on streetview, I was there! The government wouldn't have done the cost benefit analysis - that would have been the local council and I find it hard to believe that a light rail link would have cost more than the cost of the white elephant cambridge ended up with. I'd be interested in your definition of "white elephant". The busway is well used, despite its drawbacks. Huge up front infrastructure cost (lets not forget the council didn't even have to pay for rolling stock like they would have with a tram) that ends up with a slow, low capacity system that is still shafted by heavy traffic in the town centre anyway. IMO that = white elephant. Personally I think the best solution for small cities is a pre-metro as is popular in some parts of europe. Its a tram in the suburbs running along the street but dives into tunnel in the city centre to avoid the traffic. Tunneling is expensive obviously but it pays long term. -- Spud |
|
#236
April 26th 17, 06:46 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , d ()
wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:36:18 -0500 wrote: In article , () wrote: Huh? Its basically a concrete road with steel guiderails either side and with the occasional hole in the concrete to stop chavs driving their Halfords enhanced Fiestas along it. No it isn't! Either go and look at how the guideway is constructed or stop spouting nonsense here. The rails are purely made of concrete castings. I visited the concrete track factory while they were being made. So how come the section at Orchard Park uses steel guiderails then? And I didn't just look on streetview, I was there! If you did, you will have seen a genuine concrete guideway section eastbound at the Histon Road end. The curves on the Orchard Park section are too tight for guided operation so, to save money, it was decided to make it a concrete roadway with just the entry and exit steelwork to make the stops guided. The government wouldn't have done the cost benefit analysis - that would have been the local council and I find it hard to believe that a light rail link would have cost more than the cost of the white elephant cambridge ended up with. I'd be interested in your definition of "white elephant". The busway is well used, despite its drawbacks. Huge up front infrastructure cost (lets not forget the council didn't even have to pay for rolling stock like they would have with a tram) that ends up with a slow, low capacity system that is still shafted by heavy traffic in the town centre anyway. IMO that = white elephant. While I agree with your criticisms, it is more successful than you imply. It has grown public transport usage in the St Ives corridor and a last bus from Cambridge to Huntingdon at 23:30 is unheard of in this part of the world! It's also made Trumpington a viable Park & Ride car park for Cambridge station with route R, never thought of when the busway was planned and first open. In the short term it's been sabotaged by lack of a turning facility in front of the station but I expect that will get fixed in the longer term. Note how Whippet bought a guided bus fleet so its Universal route could start a fast service between Addenbrookes and the station recently. The southern section was always more problematic for rail reopening, being a bit short. Personally I think the best solution for small cities is a pre-metro as is popular in some parts of europe. Its a tram in the suburbs running along the street but dives into tunnel in the city centre to avoid the traffic. Tunneling is expensive obviously but it pays long term. The main reason why I think heavy rail would have been better is for access to Cambridge station. We are hopeless at tram-train operation in this country so, deciding ten years ago, it would be the only way to get an uncongested north-south corridor across Cambridge. If were doing tram-train with the aplomb shown on the continent then I agree light rail would have been best. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#237
April 26th 17, 08:04 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
|
#238
April 26th 17, 08:40 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 13:46:24 on Wed, 26 Apr 2017, remarked: It's also made Trumpington a viable Park & Ride car park for Cambridge station with route R, never thought of when the busway was planned and first open. A direct route was always in the original plan. Years of doing a scenic tour of Addenbrookes was a cost saving measure. Not the turning round at the station, avoiding all road traffic delays, wasn't though. At present the southern section is grossly under-used with nothing after 8pm or on Sundays. The main reason why I think heavy rail would have been better is for access to Cambridge station. We are hopeless at tram-train operation in this country so, deciding ten years ago, it would be the only way to get an uncongested north-south corridor across Cambridge. If were doing tram-train with the aplomb shown on the continent then I agree light rail would have been best. IIRC the NIMBYs sabotaged through-running on account of it needing widening of the rail corridor across Stourbridge Common. That was an appalling idea. Calling the opposition NIMBYs shows you have no respect for Cambridge's precious open spaces. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#239
April 27th 17, 07:37 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
|
#240
April 27th 17, 08:05 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 15:40:22 on Wed, 26 Apr 2017, remarked: It's also made Trumpington a viable Park & Ride car park for Cambridge station with route R, never thought of when the busway was planned and first open. A direct route was always in the original plan. Years of doing a scenic tour of Addenbrookes was a cost saving measure. Not the turning round at the station, avoiding all road traffic delays, wasn't though. Sure, it was suppose to be part of the longer through routes, but those were supposed to have sufficient "bus priority measures". Nobody thought of a busway Park & Ride shuttle until a bus company with a bit of marketing go thought of the idea. Just as well it's not a nationalised monopoly as some would have. At present the southern section is grossly under-used with nothing after 8pm or on Sundays. You keep telling us the P&R is for shoppers, and not many of those catered for historically that late, nor is the much going on a Addenbrookes. I have said no such thing. I have said that people staying most of the day, at whom Park & Ride is aimed, often do shopping as well as other things like tourism. You are the one falsely assuming rigid market segmentation that doesn't exist. The main reason why I think heavy rail would have been better is for access to Cambridge station. We are hopeless at tram-train operation in this country so, deciding ten years ago, it would be the only way to get an uncongested north-south corridor across Cambridge. If were doing tram-train with the aplomb shown on the continent then I agree light rail would have been best. IIRC the NIMBYs sabotaged through-running on account of it needing widening of the rail corridor across Stourbridge Common. That was an appalling idea. Calling the opposition NIMBYs shows you have no respect for Cambridge's precious open spaces. Competing environmentalists again. Losing a narrow strip of one of Cambridge's numerous open spaces would have been a sensible compromise. Creating a separate right of way across Stourbridge Common would have been extremely damaging, more than doubling the land take in the corridor. That was why a solution using the existing right of way was far better. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
| Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
| Jetpod - Woking to London in 4 minutes | London Transport | |||
Linear Mode
