|
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 16:14:24
on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a smashed sump. Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis. The first one to get a lot of publicity was an out-of-town taxi. Will *all* transgressors get ANPR tickets now, or is there still scope for chancing? -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 16:14:24
on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. The train company, more likely. They control access to the station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway. No, it's the council. On what basis do you make that mendacious claim? Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard. I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the article say exactly? "promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the district." What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits. That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways who wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council. No. I said the railway controls access to station forecourts with whatever conditions they deem appropriate. Which is irrelevant to new rules from the council. You mentioned dress code, not me. Yes, in a report of the proposed new taxi-code from the COUNCIL. You then disputed that the [new] dress code was something the council wanted. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr
2017, d remarked: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500 wrote: This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on cost grounds. Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place, how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't recycle the old rail track to create them. Isn't Colin saying they *didn't* cast concrete guided sections for Cambridge North. In effect it must be just "a normal road, buses only". Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to buses-with-guide-wheels. See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the "car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in the box. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20427214 "[Stagecoach] said it thought the driver had misjudged the entrance to busway, causing it to leave the tracks. The bus was left at a 45-degree angle across the entrance, before being recovered from the scene a few hours later." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21479277 "Passenger Michaela Murray said the bus she was on slowed down for horses and another bus hit it from behind." http://assets9.heart.co.uk/2016/27/c...ay-crash-july- 2016-1467897287-article-0.jpg and probably the worst: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35841300 "A guided bus driver who crashed near Cambridge injuring five passengers was travelling at more than 53mph in a 30mph zone, a report concluded. .... The "excessive speed" at a junction between one set of guide tracks and another made it "unlikely the bus was under the driver's control". -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 09:44:24 on Thu, 20 Apr
2017, Roland Perry remarked: See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. If I'd pasted it in! https://goo.gl/maps/HBDgRgXMfkn -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr 2017, d remarked: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500 wrote: This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on cost grounds. Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place, how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't recycle the old rail track to create them. I suggest you come to Cambridge and have a closer look at Guided Busway construction. You wouldn't then spout that nonsense. Isn't Colin saying they *didn't* cast concrete guided sections for Cambridge North. In effect it must be just "a normal road, buses only". Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to buses-with-guide-wheels. Not so. The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway prevent anything other than guided buses from entering. There's a similar arrangement controlling access from the guideway across Harrison Way at St Ives. See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the "car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in the box. Which are amongst the reasons why it's probably illegal under the ROGS regulations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20427214 "[Stagecoach] said it thought the driver had misjudged the entrance to busway, causing it to leave the tracks. The bus was left at a 45-degree angle across the entrance, before being recovered from the scene a few hours later." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21479277 "Passenger Michaela Murray said the bus she was on slowed down for horses and another bus hit it from behind." http://assets9.heart.co.uk/2016/27/c...ay-crash-july- 2016-1467897287-article-0.jpg and probably the worst: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35841300 "A guided bus driver who crashed near Cambridge injuring five passengers was travelling at more than 53mph in a 30mph zone, a report concluded. ... The "excessive speed" at a junction between one set of guide tracks and another made it "unlikely the bus was under the driver's control". -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 16:14:24 on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a smashed sump. Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis. The first one to get a lot of publicity was an out-of-town taxi. Will *all* transgressors get ANPR tickets now, or is there still scope for chancing? No idea. The media have gone very quiet on this. I do see chancers and clueless tourists driving through the New Square gate at times, usually late at night. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 16:14:24 on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. The train company, more likely. They control access to the station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway. No, it's the council. On what basis do you make that mendacious claim? Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard. I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the article say exactly? "promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the district." What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits. That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways who wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council. No. I said the railway controls access to station forecourts with whatever conditions they deem appropriate. Which is irrelevant to new rules from the council. True. I don't understand why you think council rules on dress code are anything to do with taxi access to the station. You mentioned dress code, not me. Yes, in a report of the proposed new taxi-code from the COUNCIL. You then disputed that the [new] dress code was something the council wanted. It's not a local feature in Cambridge. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 13:32:46
on Thu, 20 Apr 2017, remarked: The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway prevent anything other than guided buses from entering. .... See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the "car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in the box. Which are amongst the reasons why it's probably illegal under the ROGS regulations. So is speeding. -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:32:46 -0500
wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr 2017, d remarked: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500 wrote: This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on cost grounds. Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place, how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't recycle the old rail track to create them. I suggest you come to Cambridge and have a closer look at Guided Busway construction. You wouldn't then spout that nonsense. 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. Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to buses-with-guide-wheels. Not so. The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway prevent anything other than guided buses from entering. There's a similar arrangement controlling access from the guideway across Harrison Way at St Ives. I'm pretty sure plenty of bus drivers with good judgement could get an unguided bus between those rails. Still, perhaps like in Edinburgh, sense might one day prevail and the whole pathetic system is ripped up and replaced by a tramway. And don't say there isn't the room - if they can squeeze a tramway into hilly nottinghams market square and weave one around the centre of manchester they could do it in cambridge too. -- Spud |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , d () wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:32:46 -0500 wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr 2017, d remarked: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500 wrote: This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on cost grounds. Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place, how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't recycle the old rail track to create them. I suggest you come to Cambridge and have a closer look at Guided Busway construction. You wouldn't then spout that nonsense. 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 you are talking out of your posterior. They aren't rails for starters. Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to buses-with-guide-wheels. Not so. The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway prevent anything other than guided buses from entering. There's a similar arrangement controlling access from the guideway across Harrison Way at St Ives. I'm pretty sure plenty of bus drivers with good judgement could get an unguided bus between those rails. Not safely which is why it's verboten. Still, perhaps like in Edinburgh, sense might one day prevail and the whole pathetic system is ripped up and replaced by a tramway. And don't say there isn't the room - if they can squeeze a tramway into hilly nottinghams market square and weave one around the centre of manchester they could do it in cambridge too. There I agree with you, though I think heavy rail would have been the better solution for St Ives. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
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. say there isn't the room - if they can squeeze a tramway into hilly nottinghams market square and weave one around the centre of manchester they could do it in cambridge too. There I agree with you, though I think heavy rail would have been the better solution for St Ives. 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. -- Spud |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 19:51:45 on Fri, 21 Apr 2017, remarked: Still, perhaps like in Edinburgh, sense might one day prevail and the whole pathetic system is ripped up and replaced by a tramway. And don't say there isn't the room - if they can squeeze a tramway into hilly nottinghams market square and weave one around the centre of manchester they could do it in cambridge too. There I agree with you, though I think heavy rail would have been the better solution for St Ives. St Ives is not nearly large enough to justify a new heavy rail station. And remember the guided bus serves not just a field outside St Ives, but many of the local villages, and Huntingdon. The only reason *anything* was done is to serve Northstowe, and love it or hate it the bus is better than 1tph 2-car DMU shuttling between Cambridge and St Ives Parkway. That wasn't the rail plan which for through trains and electrification. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , d ()
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! say there isn't the room - if they can squeeze a tramway into hilly nottinghams market square and weave one around the centre of manchester they could do it in cambridge too. There I agree with you, though I think heavy rail would have been the better solution for St Ives. 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. 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. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 15:04:54 on Sat, 22 Apr 2017, d remarked: There I agree with you, though I think heavy rail would have been the better solution for St Ives. I do wonder if some brown envelopes changed hands to get this busway built. Most of the money was a government grant (until the project went into crazy-overspend mode). I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative. It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone. No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still there. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 20:23:10 on Sun, 23 Apr 2017, remarked: I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative. It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone. No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still there. Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in. Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two carriages). There was more still there than on the Borders Railway. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 06:46:35 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked: I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative. It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone. No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still there. Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in. Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two carriages). There was more still there than on the Borders Railway. Over budget and under spec at £350m. You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 10:20:10 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked: I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative. It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone. No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still there. Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in. Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two carriages). There was more still there than on the Borders Railway. Over budget and under spec at £350m. 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. I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a railway. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
In message , at 11:47:37
on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 10:20:10 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked: I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative. It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone. No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still there. Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in. Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two carriages). There was more still there than on the Borders Railway. Over budget and under spec at £350m. 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). I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a railway. Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus? -- Roland Perry |
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: *Subject:* Woking to Heathrow *From:* Roland Perry *Date:* Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:29:28 +0100 In message , at 11:47:37 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 10:20:10 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked: I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative. It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone. No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still there. Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in. Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two carriages). There was more still there than on the Borders Railway. Over budget and under spec at £350m. 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 Bowshank Tunnel, by the way. I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a railway. Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus? The bus structure is quite a bit wider I suspect and I doubt that the 220m is all viaduct. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 15:52:14 on Mon, 24 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. I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a railway. Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus? The bus structure is quite a bit wider I suspect and I doubt that the 220m is all viaduct. The bus structure has the advantage of being slightly arched, and a third of the width is the cycle track. From a structural point of view the dominant parameters are the length of the unsupported span, and the design load. Looking at Bing Maps, I think that the 220m is all viaduct (rather than try to establish sections of embankment close to the river) but with numerous supporting pillars at 30m intervals. [Making seven sections = 220m, versus two sections at Hardengreen] Anyway, this is a silly argument. There are lots of other structures on the Borders Railway and only the Ouse Viaduct on the busway. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Woking to Heathrow
|
Woking to Heathrow
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 01:41:40 -0500
wrote: In article , d () 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. 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. 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. -- Spud |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Woking to Heathrow
|
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 |
Woking to Heathrow
|
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk