|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Clive Coleman
writes Otherwise all those points are set to "needed" (causing them to move if they're currently wrong). One the train passes over each set they move back to "free" (unless another route is also holding them) What's the chances that the points freed at Poters Bar, whist the train was going over them, allowing the first part of the train in the right direct and the second part by the point being able to move? None at all, the points "fell apart" because there were strategic bolts missing. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Clive Coleman
wrote: In message , Clive D. W. Feather writes Otherwise all those points are set to "needed" (causing them to move if they're currently wrong). One the train passes over each set they move back to "free" (unless another route is also holding them) What's the chances that the points freed at Poters Bar, whist the train was going over them, allowing the first part of the train in the right direct and the second part by the point being able to move? -- |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Clive Coleman
wrote: In message , Clive D. W. Feather writes Otherwise all those points are set to "needed" (causing them to move if they're currently wrong). One the train passes over each set they move back to "free" (unless another route is also holding them) What's the chances that the points freed at Poters Bar, whist the train was going over them, allowing the first part of the train in the right direct and the second part by the point being able to move? Where a branch line diverges from a main line, as at Hitchin, when idle and no train is immediately expectd. the points normally return ("default" it would be called in computer terms) the straight ahead main-line setting. Is this a question about the Potters Bar crash? I don't think it happend like this. Michael Bell -- |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Michael Bell wrote: It was announced on today's BBC(East) TV news that train traffic from Cambridge to London) is up 75% in ten years (or at least we were allowed to ASSUME it was train and not road, and NOT London to Cambridge. Some questions Well, I would hazard a guess that if Cambridge to London train traffic is up 75%, then London to Cambridge is also up 75% :-) * WHY has this happened? Natural traffic growth? Special efforts made to promote growth? People in Cambridge getting jobs in Londom ? or Londoners moving to Cambridge, but keeping their London jobs? How much subsidy was involved? All of the above, plus a few people living in London with jobs in Cambridge (like myself) who realise that the Cambridge - London train journey isn't that much different from going from a zone 6 tube station into central London - and in fact is a whole lot pleasanter. The real reason the traffic has grown so much on this particular journey has been, I think, WAGN's attempts to make it their 'flagship' service, both through marketing and speed. 10 years ago, the Cambridge to London train used to stop at millions of minor stations en route, meaning that the journey took well over an hour. Now, with the (heavily used) non-stop Cambridge Cruiser, this journey takes 45 minutes. Well, it is timetabled to do so :-) And WAGN have advertised this fact heavily, and so traffic has increased. They also bought new networker trains for this service, again giving an impression of quality. Although sadly the trains are beginning to look rather tatty after not very long in service - but it would help if the cleaners gave them a good scrub now and again. * Is this a good thing? Does it contribute to the general good? I think so. Mobility is normally perceived as a good thing, especially between a major science centre and a major econonic centre. What INSTITUTIONS have benefitted from this? The universities and science start-up companies spring to mind. Plus the plethora of IT companies. Is it a good thing for people to travel more? The Greens would say NO. From global environmental perspective, I agree, no. Is it a good thing for people to spend so much time travelling? or Personally, I'd rather do something else! Could their time be better spent doing other things? Yes! David. |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
D.M. Garner wrote:
I think so. Mobility is normally perceived as a good thing, especially between a major science centre and a major econonic centre. On the other hand, those two particular endevours are prime candidates for telecommuting and staying put. -- Ian Tindale |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 00:08:20 on Sat, 8
Jan 2005, D.M. Garner remarked: The real reason the traffic has grown so much on this particular journey has been, I think, WAGN's attempts to make it their 'flagship' service, both through marketing and speed. 10 years ago, the Cambridge to London train used to stop at millions of minor stations en route, meaning that the journey took well over an hour. Now, with the (heavily used) non-stop Cambridge Cruiser, this journey takes 45 minutes. Only during the day, though. In the rush hour, when the trains are more crowded, there are only semi-fasts. Well, it is timetabled to do so :-) And WAGN have advertised this fact heavily, and so traffic has increased. They also bought new networker trains for this service, again giving an impression of quality. No, they were bough by Network SE in the dying days of BR. http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/class365_01.html Although sadly the trains are beginning to look rather tatty after not very long in service - but it would help if the cleaners gave them a good scrub now and again. Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in 1995. -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in 1995. I'm sure they were introduced later than that. They were built in c.1995, but my memory tells me they didn't start to enter service until 1997-8. The WAGN units are just at the beginning of their first cycle of overhauls; I don't know how this affects the South Eastern ones which had a certain amount of "remedial" work done upon transfer (and are therefore generally in a slightly better internal condition). |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... In message , at 13:29:48 on Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Terry Harper remarked: As regards punting, we had a JCR punt scheme, where the JCR hired a number of punts for the summer term, one or two mat each of three locations, and you put your name down when you wanted one. IIRC there are fewer "riverside" colleges in Oxford, than Cambridge, so perhaps there's more incentive to organise things like that. Did a bit of punting from the wrong end of the boat in Cambridge in 1964, when on a course there. Oxford folk get plenty of training for punting at the wrong end, when out on the Isis! We prefer to use the Cherwell, thank you very much. Why do you like to punt standing on the foc'stle? It makes steering a hazardous occupation. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society 75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
... Why do you like to punt standing on the foc'stle? It makes steering a hazardous occupation. It actually feels easier to drive a Cambridge boat from the Cambridge end, I haven't worked out the physics but it must be getting a better angle or something, and the length of the pole and the depth of the river probably come into it. I've tried punting an Oxford boat from the Cambridge end and indeed it doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is that Oxford punts are week feeble things and lack the necessary torsional rigidity, with the result that your energy goes into setting up twisting motions along the length of the boat (I guess if you tried hard enough you could get it to fling you sideways off the side of the boat) instead of moving the boat forwards. So I drive Cambridge boats from the Cambridge end and Oxford boats from the Oxford end. Not that punting in Oxford is a terribly interesting experience anyway, due to them having put the river in the wrong place. -- Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb Cambridge City Councillor |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Ian Tindale wrote: On the other hand, those two particular endevours are prime candidates for telecommuting and staying put. I would love to telecommute, but it can never replace the quality of interaction you get from chatting face-to-face and scribbling things on pieces of paper in meetings. David. |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Tim Ward" wrote in message
... So I drive Cambridge boats from the Cambridge end and Oxford boats from the Oxford end. Not that punting in Oxford is a terribly interesting experience anyway, due to them having put the river in the wrong place. You've never been on the rollers through Parson's Pleasure, then? -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society 75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 18:31:20 on Sat, 8 Jan
2005, David Splett remarked: Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in 1995. I'm sure they were introduced later than that. They were built in c.1995, but my memory tells me they didn't start to enter service until 1997-8. http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/class365_01.html "two batches of the now designated class 365 were built between 1994 and 1995. Sixteen DC units (but with provision for AC) were provided for Kent Coast services (numbered 365501-365516) and twenty five AC units (but with provision for DC) for Great Northern services out of Kings Cross (numbered 365517-365541)." Why would they sit un-used for 2 years? http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/pottersbar/interim1.htm "The Class 365/5 was introduced to the Kings Lynn – Cambridge - Kings Cross line in the mid 1990's." -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 08:19:18 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 18:31:20 on Sat, 8 Jan 2005, David Splett remarked: Cleaning would help, but they are older than you think. Introduced in 1995. I'm sure they were introduced later than that. They were built in c.1995, but my memory tells me they didn't start to enter service until 1997-8. http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/class365_01.html "two batches of the now designated class 365 were built between 1994 and 1995. Sixteen DC units (but with provision for AC) were provided for Kent Coast services (numbered 365501-365516) and twenty five AC units (but with provision for DC) for Great Northern services out of Kings Cross (numbered 365517-365541)." Why would they sit un-used for 2 years? I'm not sure why, but I think they did. Something to do with traction motor problems? I'm sure I first saw one in use in Cambridge during the summer of 1997. There had been some sat around near the station earlier in the year (along with the cement wagons!), but I hadn't /seen/ one in use until then. Google groups shows that Barry Salter wrote: Does anyone here know when WAGN are going to start using their Class 365's as they're currently sitting outside Hornsey depot doing nothing :-) in May 1997. There is also a reference to someone riding one to Cambridge in April 1997. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Clive Coleman
writes In message , Clive D. W. Feather writes Otherwise all those points are set to "needed" (causing them to move if they're currently wrong). One the train passes over each set they move back to "free" (unless another route is also holding them) What's the chances that the points freed at Poters Bar, whist the train was going over them, allowing the first part of the train in the right direct and the second part by the point being able to move? Zero. As well as various controls in the signalling logic (note that I said "once the train passed, modulo misspelling), there is a separate "direct track locking". If the track circuit covering the points is not clear, the points are not allowed to move. The relay concerned is "slow to rise" to allow for a momentary failure to detect the train. This was allowed for in the investigation. There was no train movement in the near future requiring those points to be swung, so there would have been no reason for them to try to move. In any case, the points were found to be correctly set and locked. The accident happened because one of the blades broke free from the locking mechanism underneath the train. The processes involved - and the errors in assembly - are well understood by now; the question is *why* the points were wrongly assembled. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Michael Bell
writes Where a branch line diverges from a main line, as at Hitchin, when idle and no train is immediately expectd. the points normally return ("default" it would be called in computer terms) the straight ahead main-line setting. That's called "self-restoring" and it is *NOT* the normal arrangement. Indeed, if you watch at Hitchin you can see it not happen. There are a few places where points are made self-restoring. There are rather more cases where points may move for a not-immediately-obvious reason. For example, at crossovers - the links between adjacent tracks - it is normal for both ends to move at the same time. So the points at the end of the northbound platform at Hitchin have to be set for Peterborough before a northbound fast train can go through, even though it doesn't cross them. There are more complex layouts where the relationship is less obvious, but it's there nevertheless. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at
01:19:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could have been two years before the job was complete. OK, so we are agreed that they entered service in 1997. Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use?? -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at
08:36:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use?? I thought they had worn pretty well until I noticed a recent increase in glass scratching and graffiti when in service. Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee level down. The insides were reasonable, though. -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at
12:30:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee level down. The insides were reasonable, though. I don't agree. The external paintwork is in very good condition. Generally, yes, but there are lots of scrapes and dents. And brown stains. -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... In message , at 12:30:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: Even two years ago there were plenty of scratches and dents in the doors, and a generally "rusty/grubby" look to the outsides from knee level down. The insides were reasonable, though. I don't agree. The external paintwork is in very good condition. Generally, yes, but there are lots of scrapes and dents. And brown stains. What about some of the 317s though? The unrefurbished ones must have been like that for much longer. Angus |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 15:21:01 on Mon, 17
Jan 2005, Angus Bryant remarked: What about some of the 317s though? The unrefurbished ones must have been like that for much longer. Yes, but that's not the point. We were discussing how well the *365*'s were holding up. -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... In message , at 15:21:01 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Angus Bryant remarked: What about some of the 317s though? The unrefurbished ones must have been like that for much longer. Yes, but that's not the point. We were discussing how well the *365*'s were holding up. Good point. Just thought I'd say something about the 317s though! :-) Angus |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... Getting back to the original issue, are we surprised/shocked/unphased that they are looking a bit worn and dirty after 8 years daily use?? IMO they are in pretty good condition, especially when compared to other members of the Networker family. Many of the 465s are in a shocking internal and external condition, and a 365 looks new by comparison. One of the main problems with the 365s (common to many new trains) is the way the lighting diffusers collect dust, which in turn creates a yellowish glow to the lighting, making the interiors seem dark and dirty. The ex-South Eastern units, having had a deep clean upon transfer, are much better in this respect. The interior poster-frames could also benefit from replacement with a more robust design. |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at
20:13:00 on Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: I don't recognise the 365s *I* travel in three days most weeks from Roland's description. Maybe they've cleaned them up. I had plenty of opportunity to examine them a close quarters, waiting at Royston station for the 4 cars from Cambridge to arrive before they'd let us get on the 4 cars already at the platform. -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:13:51 +0000, Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
In the old days the cleaners who came round at 8am would notice people who were absent. Or early risers aleady at breakfast, or working, or out for a morning run -- Everything I write here is my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact. |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Paul Weaver
writes In the old days the cleaners who came round at 8am would notice people who were absent. Or early risers aleady at breakfast, or working, or out for a morning run Your college did breakfast before 8am? I'm impressed. But the bedders weren't that dumb that they didn't know whose bed had been slept in, or who were the habitual early risers. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:53:27 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Meldrew of Meldreth writes I think I paid about 300 quid a term for the room, meals (and the cleaning thrown in). Or maybe it was 300 quid a year. I'd have a hard time finding the receipts at the moment. Vague memory says I paid 80 pounds a term for a bedsit at Trinity, and I was a few years after you. Grants were something like 1400 for the year So, no fees and twice the grant, and you didn't have to pay it back Then soon as you got into government you decided the rest of us wouldn't have that. And of course in 0 years time we'll have to pay for your pension too. -- Everything I write here is my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:46:32 +0000, Paul Weaver wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:53:27 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article , Meldrew of Meldreth writes I think I paid about 300 quid a term for the room, meals (and the cleaning thrown in). Or maybe it was 300 quid a year. I'd have a hard time finding the receipts at the moment. Vague memory says I paid 80 pounds a term for a bedsit at Trinity, and I was a few years after you. Grants were something like 1400 for the year So, no fees and twice the grant, and you didn't have to pay it back Sorry, thinking yearly loan was termly then. 6 times the grant. Undergrads on £18,000 a year, no repayments? I'd stay in uni for ever! -- Everything I write here is my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact. |
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 13:46:32 on
Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Paul Weaver remarked: Vague memory says I paid 80 pounds a term for a bedsit at Trinity, and I was a few years after you. Grants were something like 1400 for the year So, no fees and twice the grant, and you didn't have to pay it back The grant was linked to parental income. The equivalent of about 30K today would mean you didn't get a maintenance grant (parents had to pay). It's a good example of "be careful what you wish for". The current situation has been largely brought about by pressure from students whose parents refused to contribute under the old scheme - those students then saying they'd rather have a loan than be penniless. Then soon as you got into government you decided the rest of us wouldn't have that. See above. And of course in 0 years time we'll have to pay for your pension too. You are a generation out of synch. The people who got the best deal were those who are now in their 60's and 70's. They retired (often early) during the 80's and early 90's on pensions linked to their final salary. Such schemes are now turning to dust (as are independent funds, raided for stealth tax by Gordon) for those in their 40's and 50's. -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Well, I'd be surprised if royal holloway and bedford new college
managed to be terribly different from Imperial or UCL or QMC or Kings and n all those, you need to pass exams each year, just like Cambridge or many other UK unviersities- there's no points system nor was there any between 1981 and 2001 when i was teaching at UCL (and examining occasionally at Imperial). Points systems typically are part of modular degrees which are typically part of New Universities (e.g. London Metropolitan - was North london Poly where I worked 79-80, or oxford brookes, where i was examiner in math/cs for 4 years in the 1990s...) - taking "time off for long weekends" was something I recall a LOT of students doing in Cambridge in the 1970s, but not in NatSci:-) The A level grades for Imperial and UCL are almost indistinguishable from those for Cambridge university for many science subjects btw (CS&Physics for example:) I didnt realize Imperial didnt have a reading week. They do have _less_ lectures than UCL (although they have more lab sessions for sciences). Most the time taken across many universities is similar simply because there's a system of external examiners who check the syllabi and the exams to make sure degrees are worth the same - this is why, when you look at number of 1sts/2nds/3rds etc, awarded, they vary, fairly much in line with the entrance grade requiements across many UK universities that still use a class of degree system. Of course as a cyclist, your mileage may vary across these educational establishments in terms of safe routes, secure places to park your bike etc, sympathy from the police, council, etc when you have an accident:) Jon Crowcroft (Now with leg in a cast instead of with metal frame, after only 4 months - oh, they still havnt done anything about the lamppost or crack in the tarmac...which I would say, if there was another accident there, could constitute something quite potentially legally expensive for them). In article , Meldrew of Meldreth writes: In article .com, writes Which of the universities in London were your friends at? Bedford College is one I remember - that's part of the traditional "London" University. Appears to have merged with Royal Holloway in the mean time, and relocated out into the sticks. So in short... I take offence to you suggesting that students "at London" skip lectures and don't work hard No need to take offence. My impression was that courses were completed on a "points" basis. From what I recall it was common to almost get enough points for a degree after two years, so the third year was plain sailing and no need to go to every single lecture. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" -- Jon Crowcroft |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes Eh? You came up after me (1968), didn't you Roland? The punt firms, Scudamores and Tyrells existed then. I'm sure they did, but not on the scale of today, and as I said earlier, an extravagance for student on a small grant. There were college punts too, Yes, but not mine, nor did I know anyone well enough (at the time) in a college that did, to be able to have them book one out for me. including a substantial Trinity fleet hired to the public too. See above. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Jon Crowcroft
writes Well, I'd be surprised if royal holloway and bedford new college managed to be terribly different from Imperial or UCL or QMC or Kings and n all those, you need to pass exams each year, just like Cambridge or many other UK unviersities- there's no points system nor was there any between 1981 and 2001 when i was teaching at UCL (and examining occasionally at Imperial). They had a points system at the time I'm talking abut - 1973. taking "time off for long weekends" was something I recall a LOT of students doing in Cambridge in the 1970s, but not in NatSci:-) Our experiences differ, then. Remember, no cars (unaffordable as well as not allowed) and useful trains to London about once every 2 hours with the famous LS/KX shuffle [you had to know which to head for to get the next train] meant that people stayed put. The A level grades for Imperial and UCL are almost indistinguishable from those for Cambridge university for many science subjects btw (CS&Physics for example:) I'm sure they are (not so sure how this is relevant to the current discussion, though). -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Colin Rosenstiel wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 24 Jan 2005:
Eh? You came up after me (1968), didn't you Roland? The punt firms, Scudamores and Tyrells existed then. There were college punts too, including a substantial Trinity fleet hired to the public too. The only time I ever went on the river in a punt was in the early 1970s, and there seemed to be plenty for hire then. My cousin, who took me, was not a student at that time, so presumably was unable to use a College punt. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 11:34:42 on Mon,
24 Jan 2005, Mrs Redboots remarked: The only time I ever went on the river in a punt was in the early 1970s, and there seemed to be plenty for hire then. The issue isn't the availability, but the cost. And to a certain extent the contempt of familiarity. My cousin, who took me, was not a student at that time, so presumably was unable to use a College punt. Most colleges would allow their alumni to, I think. Assuming you knew the ins and outs of the booking system. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk