In message , at 03:05:43
on Thu, 27 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.

I'm not talking about a shuttle! The original plan was for the southern
section to have two separate routes: one from the P&R to Addenbrookes in
3 minutes [it currently takes longer than that just to circumnavigate
the hospital site!], and another from the P&R to the station in 5
minutes, and beyond.

At the time there was some speculation about how the hospital might be
served from the station, with a guess that maybe buses would travel
North-City-Station-P&R-Addenbrookes-P&R-Station-City-North to provide a
through service for patients.

They changed their mind at some stage, resulting in the six(!) minute
trip from P&R to Addenbrookes and seventeen to the station.

[Of course the original Cambridge-Huntingdon timing of 42 mins has been
busted too, being 64 minutes in the current timetable)

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.

When I used to complain about the P&R being unsuitable for commuters
from Cambridge, you used to claim that's because it was for shoppers.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
03:05:43 on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, remarked:

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.

When I used to complain about the P&R being unsuitable for commuters
from Cambridge, you used to claim that's because it was for shoppers.

I did not!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 09:13:15
on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, remarked:

When I used to complain about the P&R being unsuitable for commuters
from Cambridge, you used to claim that's because it was for shoppers.

I did not!

panto Oh yes you did!
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:46:24 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:
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

The only problem with cambridge station is that its a rather long walk
from the town centre. However it would IMO still have been a better option
than a busway as the train would have been a lot faster point to point and
with a dedicated shuttle bus to the town centre the former problem is
solved.

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.

Sadly the powers that be in this country don't seem to believe in public
transport. If the tube didn't exist it certainly wouldn't get built today in
its current form. Maybe 1 or 2 lines plus an on the cheap tram system like
manchester or nottingham but that would be about it. How newcastle got the
funding a fully fledged underground metro in the city centre 80s is anyones
guess especially when Brum or Manchester were far more deserving. An attack of
benevolence by the government at the time perhaps, or maybe Thatcher trying to
keep the north east on side for a short time given the problems with the
miners.

--
Spud

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
09:13:15 on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, remarked:

When I used to complain about the P&R being unsuitable for commuters
from Cambridge, you used to claim that's because it was for shoppers.

I did not!

panto Oh yes you did!

Prove it! I've known all about Park & Ride since before you were a student.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:46:24 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:
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

The only problem with cambridge station is that its a rather long walk
from the town centre. However it would IMO still have been a better option
than a busway as the train would have been a lot faster point to point and
with a dedicated shuttle bus to the town centre the former problem is
solved.

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.

Sadly the powers that be in this country don't seem to believe in public
transport. If the tube didn't exist it certainly wouldn't get built today in
its current form. Maybe 1 or 2 lines plus an on the cheap tram system like
manchester or nottingham but that would be about it. How newcastle got the
funding a fully fledged underground metro in the city centre 80s is anyones
guess especially when Brum or Manchester were far more deserving. An attack of
benevolence by the government at the time perhaps, or maybe Thatcher trying to
keep the north east on side for a short time given the problems with the
miners.

Very little (10%) of the Newcastle Metro is underground. It's much more of
an S-Bahn than a U-Bahn.

On 2017-04-27 20:42:58 +0000, Recliner said:

Very little (10%) of the Newcastle Metro is underground. It's much more of
an S-Bahn than a U-Bahn.

An U-Bahn doesn't have to spend that much of its length underground,
plenty of the Hamburg system is above ground, including the comedy bit
where the U-Bahn (Hochbahn) is elevated and the S-Bahn underground.
The distinction is mo

U-Bahn: segregated light rail metro, not on "national rail" (DB)
tracks, no level crossings.
(Subcategory: Stadtbahn: branded U-Bahn but is more of a souped up tram
system with an underground bit in the city centre. Very much like what
Metrolink would be if it had a city crossing tram tunnel)

S-Bahn: heavy rail metro, runs on DB tracks, can have level crossings
and interworking with other mainline services but doesn't necessarily.

Which leaves LU a bit of a curiosity, being an U-Bahn by all
definitions except that it's heavy rail, though the Met is really an
S-Bahn in character. The Newcastle Metro, being light rail, is a
textbook U-Bahn. Merseyrail is near enough a textbook S-Bahn.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-04-27 20:42:58 +0000, Recliner said:

Very little (10%) of the Newcastle Metro is underground. It's much more of
an S-Bahn than a U-Bahn.

An U-Bahn doesn't have to spend that much of its length underground,
plenty of the Hamburg system is above ground, including the comedy bit
where the U-Bahn (Hochbahn) is elevated and the S-Bahn underground.
The distinction is mo

U-Bahn: segregated light rail metro, not on "national rail" (DB)
tracks, no level crossings.
(Subcategory: Stadtbahn: branded U-Bahn but is more of a souped up tram
system with an underground bit in the city centre. Very much like what
Metrolink would be if it had a city crossing tram tunnel)

S-Bahn: heavy rail metro, runs on DB tracks, can have level crossings
and interworking with other mainline services but doesn't necessarily.

Which leaves LU a bit of a curiosity, being an U-Bahn by all
definitions except that it's heavy rail, though the Met is really an
S-Bahn in character. The Newcastle Metro, being light rail, is a
textbook U-Bahn. Merseyrail is near enough a textbook S-Bahn.

Though, of course, the Newcastle Metro largely runs on former BR tracks,
and it does share NR tracks with heavy rail, making it more like an S-Bahn
in that respect.

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/tyneandwear/sunderland/

In message , at 15:28:13
on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, remarked:

When I used to complain about the P&R being unsuitable for commuters
from Cambridge, you used to claim that's because it was for shoppers.

I did not!

panto Oh yes you did!

Prove it! I've known all about Park & Ride since before you were a student.

We've discussed this many times over the years, and the main indicator
of intended use was the operating hours of the buses.

You said that the original intention was for the P&R to be used by
people working in Cambridge (but that was always misconceived in my view
because it simply abstracts passengers from existing bus routes, and
also concentrates all the demand for the P&R bus service into two short
windows) and therefore ended up being used mainly by shoppers.

Those bus hours were not suitable for people commuting to London wanting
to use the P&R as a substitute for the station car park.

--
Roland Perry

On 2017-04-28 04:36:54 +0000, Recliner said:

Though, of course, the Newcastle Metro largely runs on former BR tracks,

The Hamburg U-Bahn has a couple of sections where it's on ex-DB metals
I believe. The key is that they are *ex* DB.

and it does share NR tracks with heavy rail, making it more like an S-Bahn
in that respect.

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/tyneandwear/sunderland/

Yes, I forgot that curious bit.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.