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.