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.

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

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.

On 9 Jan 2005 00:05:32 GMT, (D.M. Garner) wrote:

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.

I'd agree with that. While I'm still based in an office, my role has
changed somewhat over the 3 years I've been with the company, in that
it mostly involved face-to-face working at the start and is now almost
entirely involving working with people in the US via teleconferences.


As far as I am concerned, my productivity has dropped markedly as a
result, largely because of the fact that people have very little
discipline in teleconferences and so either invite people who don't
need to be there, or waffle on for ages rather than getting to the
point.

I have quite a bit of time (!) for the management consultancy (can't
recall which one) that banned seating and refreshments from meeting
rooms, in order that they could be over with as quickly as possible.
Pity such things can't be applied easily to teleconferences.

Productivity (or not) aside, I find it a bit more difficult to work
with people (at a personal level) who I've never actually met. Just
feels odd.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

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

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news
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).

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

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

In article ,
(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?

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."

I remember them taking some time to get into service Roland. It could have
been two years before the job was complete.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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