|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
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 :- * 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? * Is this a good thing? Does it contribute to the general good? The London economy, and hence the whole country? The Cambridge economy? and hence the whole country? What INSTITUTIONS have benefitted from this? How have PEOPLE benefitted from this? Is it a good thing for people to travel more? The Greens would say NO. Is it a good thing for people to spend so much time travelling? or Could their time be better spent doing other things? Michael Bell -- |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Michael Bell" wrote in message ... 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 :- * 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? * Is this a good thing? Does it contribute to the general good? The London economy, and hence the whole country? The Cambridge economy? and hence the whole country? What INSTITUTIONS have benefitted from this? How have PEOPLE benefitted from this? Is it a good thing for people to travel more? The Greens would say NO. Is it a good thing for people to spend so much time travelling? or Could their time be better spent doing other things? Michael Bell -- It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised, but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many others, the consequences are not altogether desirable. This probably sounds like heresy, but I would like all forms of transport, public and private, land, sea and air, to be self-supporting, and to be taxed in proportion to the damage that they do to the environment. David Fairthorne |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , David Fairthorne
wrote: "Michael Bell" wrote in message ... 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 :- * 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? * Is this a good thing? Does it contribute to the general good? The London economy, and hence the whole country? The Cambridge economy? and hence the whole country? What INSTITUTIONS have benefitted from this? How have PEOPLE benefitted from this? Is it a good thing for people to travel more? The Greens would say NO. Is it a good thing for people to spend so much time travelling? or Could their time be better spent doing other things? Michael Bell -- It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised, but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many others, the consequences are not altogether desirable. This probably sounds like heresy, but I would like all forms of transport, public and private, land, sea and air, to be self-supporting, and to be taxed in proportion to the damage that they do to the environment. David Fairthorne You're a brave man! You will get streams of denunciations for this. I might have mentioned it earlier, but Kings Lynn council paid (whether in whole or only in part, I do not know) for the Cambridge electrification to be extended to Kings Lynn. There may be many views on this, but one thing can be said for it, they put THEIR OWN MONEY where their mouth was, rather than calling for other people's money to be spent for them. Michael Bell -- |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Michael Bell" wrote in message
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 Doesn't surprise me, isn't this linked to the house price boom and simply comes down to one inescapable fact: the population is increasing in our towns hand over fist? It is not a bad thing (luckily - because it cannot be controlled) but you can feel it around here (SW London), neighbourhood shopping centres which have been in decline for years are suddenly reopening as twee resaurants or ethnic shops, streets where no cars ever parked are now jammed with cars nose to tail their entire length. Perhaps the "Cambridge effect" is people cashing in on the doubling and redoubling of their properties in London over the last ten years. -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 11:08:51 on
Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Michael Bell remarked: 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 :- * WHY has this happened? More trains, mainly; and the effects of end-to-end electrification biting. Natural traffic growth? Cambridge has expanded a lot. Special efforts made to promote growth? There's probably some tourist day-trip growth due to the half-hourly Cambridge Cruisers. People in Cambridge getting jobs in Londom ? or Yes, the technology boom-bust cycle means it's often necessary to look further afield for work. Londoners moving to Cambridge, but keeping their London jobs? Commuters leaving the outer suburbs to live in Cambridge, which is nicer and cheaper. How much subsidy was involved? Average for a ToC I think. Nothing special. * Is this a good thing? Does it contribute to the general good? The London economy, and hence the whole country? If all the commuters were competing for houses in London instead, then prices there would be even higher. The Cambridge economy? and hence the whole country? Not a large enough number of people to distort Cambridge house prices very much, but lots of high-paid London workers sending money in the local economy. What INSTITUTIONS have benefitted from this? Those in London who can employ people from Cambridge who would not otherwise have moved to London to get a job. How have PEOPLE benefitted from this? Choice about where to live. Lots of people rather like Cambridge. Is it a good thing for people to travel more? The Greens would say NO. The greens need to suggest where these people would live in Central London. Is it a good thing for people to spend so much time travelling? or Not really fair to single out Cambridge, plenty of people commute similar times (approx 70 mins) to London from all around the Capital. Could their time be better spent doing other things? Sitting on a bus in a traffic jam somewhere inside the M25? No thanks. -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"David Fairthorne" wrote in message ... It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised, but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many others, the consequences are not altogether desirable. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with this completely. Like public education and the military, public transport is an important form of social overhead capital. Many people may not benefit from the subsidies directly. But if rail travel was priced at cost, then commuting would for many become impossible. Cities would become overcrowded both with traffic and people needing to live closer to their jobs, and wider economic growth would probably be impaired. While it's possible to debate the amount of public funding required for transport, I'm personally happy to pay a little out of my taxes to ensure we can all get about. Jonn |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
What surprises me is that there isn't more reverse commuute -
within shortdistances of King's Cross there are properties less expensive than Cambridge (I still own one), and there are interesting possibilities for people who's jobs involve, say, trips abroad, especially when the St Pancras Terminal is finished,for Paris, Brussels etc. I'm guessing that only the rather baroque residence requirement of the University has stopped some of that community taking that view but for others, I already talked to people in some hi-tech companies in Cambridge who had partners with jobs which were in or nearer London or involved travel sometimes more easily started from there (of course we have Stansted, which is pretty staggeringly good for Europe). Going the other way, a friend of mine who works at UCL (where I used to) did indeed move to Cambridge for life style reasons, and the 70min estimate for commute time is about right (note - depending on your work, this is made up of 45 mins of useable reading/working time...so in fact its very tractable - in his case, he even gets london weighting on his salary which almost exactly covers the train ticket costs ) If GNER trains didnt get in the way at the Hitchin junction, theCambridge-London service for King's Cross could easily be a tad faster - _ believe there was discussion 3-4 years ago about speeding the route up further to 35 mins but: Of course, some people might be discouraged by things like the Potters Bar disaster (but of course the track maintenance is now under new management...) - statistically though its safer than cycling:) Oh, the statistics on the train company are one of the least bad for reliability, which must also be a factor in the increase too (compared with say going to Oxford:) happy new year! -- Jon Crowcroft |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Jon Crowcroft
writes What surprises me is that there isn't more reverse commuute Trains to Cambridge in the morning have appalling timekeeping. Even people commuting from as close as Royston/Meldreth etc are only doing it as a distress purchase. I'm guessing that only the rather baroque residence requirement of the University has stopped some of that community taking that view You entirely misunderstand the "boarding school" nature of education at Cambridge, which takes places 7 days a week. It's simply not like most other Universities. It suits people very well, and if it's not to your taste then no-one is forcing you to go there. Going the other way, a friend of mine who works at UCL (where I used to) did indeed move to Cambridge for life style reasons, and the 70min estimate for commute time is about right (note - depending on your work, this is made up of 45 mins of useable reading/working time...so in fact its very tractable - in his case, he even gets london weighting on his salary which almost exactly covers the train ticket costs ) Actually, the 70 minutes is the time *on the train* in the rush hour (not door to door). That's 58 minutes for the journey and five minutes either end for getting on and off. 45 mins is the much faster journey time during the day on a non-stop Cambridge Cruiser, which don't run in the peaks. And if you are lucky enough to get a seat you can do some work, but the trains lack useful tables and it's a real struggle. If GNER trains didnt get in the way at the Hitchin junction, theCambridge-London service for King's Cross could easily be a tad faster - _ believe there was discussion 3-4 years ago about speeding the route up further to 35 mins but: The cruisers manage to get through Hitchin without stopping. It's about 57 miles by train, and 35 mins is a bit optimistic (average of 98mph using trains that I think have a max speed of 100mph). The line speed from Hitchin to Cambridge is the limiting factor, a major upgrade about 5 years ago raised it to the 70-80 mph region, I think (and knocked 2 mins of the timings). Upgrading again to 100 mph is unrealistic. If you look at GNER timings (and they run at well over 100mph) then Hitchin would seem to be about 21 mins from KX (Stevenage is timetabled at 19 mins as a stop; or dividing the KX-HIT-PBO distance equally into 45 mins you get 20 mins, but the southern end is always slower) leaving only 14 mins for the remaining 25 miles! The cruisers do well to average about 70 north of Hitchin (assuming they can also get to Hitchin in 21 mins, which is averaging just over 90). -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Meldrew of Meldreth writes: In article , Jon Crowcroft writes What surprises me is that there isn't more reverse commuute Trains to Cambridge in the morning have appalling timekeeping. Even people commuting from as close as Royston/Meldreth etc are only doing it as a distress purchase. I'm guessing that only the rather baroque residence requirement of the University has stopped some of that community taking that view You entirely misunderstand the "boarding school" nature of education at Cambridge, which takes places 7 days a week. It's simply not like most other Universities. It suits people very well, and if it's not to your taste then no-one is forcing you to go there. This is rather an over-statement of the specialness of Cambridge (especially given there's Oxford, Durham, and even UKC and a couple of other places that are based on College/Residence model formally); but having studied for taught degrees and research degrees in London and Cambridge, let mesaytell you that since the move to most teaching and much supervision being department or school centric in Cambridge, the collegiate (or boarding school) model you describe is much less pronounced. What is more, MOST universities traditionally had a model that students were "away from home" for the first time living in dorms, staying in their university town all term, and going home in the vac. Indeed, given the economic pressures, travel is not high on the typical student (or academic)'s agenda. For real cabin fever though, there are ofcourse students who are obliged to live at home due to falling in between various "wealth bins" that the governemnt constructs. Anyhow this is not directly connected with transport (although actually cost of living and pressures on where to live in relation to work are clearly major factors in planning, so I dont think its off topic for this group). Going the other way, a friend of mine who works at UCL (where I used to) did indeed move to Cambridge for life style reasons, and the 70min estimate for commute time is about right (note - depending on your work, this is made up of 45 mins of useable reading/working time...so in fact its very tractable - in his case, he even gets london weighting on his salary which almost exactly covers the train ticket costs ) Actually, the 70 minutes is the time *on the train* in the rush hour (not door to door). That's 58 minutes for the journey and five minutes either end for getting on and off. Um, my friend is an _academic_: You assume he commutes in the peak time, but thats not a requirement, as he can go after (or befo). But you're right I guess for some jobs, e.g. some city banker type who wants to live in a nice quiet town/village, unless they go really early, and that would kind of negate the point of a quiet half-life. For the reverse commute, there _are_ fast trains and smaller crowds. 45 mins is the much faster journey time during the day on a non-stop Cambridge Cruiser, which don't run in the peaks. Yes, true - and thats reasonable given they have to stop so many times so a faster train couldnt easily overtake. I wonder if they've looked at this increase in demand and figured out if there's money in it to improve that service yet? And if you are lucky enough to get a seat you can do some work, but the trains lack useful tables and it's a real struggle. Yes, that is a drag ... the trick WAGN play with 8 and 4 carriage trains is neat, but it doesnt quite produce enough space for the commute load...I agree - If GNER trains didnt get in the way at the Hitchin junction, theCambridge-London service for King's Cross could easily be a tad faster - _ believe there was discussion 3-4 years ago about speeding the route up further to 35 mins but: The cruisers manage to get through Hitchin without stopping. It's about 57 miles by train, and 35 mins is a bit optimistic (average of 98mph using trains that I think have a max speed of 100mph). The line speed from Hitchin to Cambridge is the limiting factor, a major upgrade about 5 years ago raised it to the 70-80 mph region, I think (and knocked 2 mins of the timings). Upgrading again to 100 mph is unrealistic. I thouht the points were a big limiting factor between Hitchin and Cambridge and at Hitchin too...but I am not a Jarvis employee of course:-) If you look at GNER timings (and they run at well over 100mph) then Hitchin would seem to be about 21 mins from KX (Stevenage is timetabled at 19 mins as a stop; or dividing the KX-HIT-PBO distance equally into 45 mins you get 20 mins, but the southern end is always slower) leaving only 14 mins for the remaining 25 miles! The cruisers do well to average about 70 north of Hitchin (assuming they can also get to Hitchin in 21 mins, which is averaging just over 90). Well I certainly remember reading about plans; I am fairly sure that the problems are slwing for the various points and level crossings like round Foxton. If there was a road bridge there (or road tunnel, although it doesnt look easy to engineer that) that would obviate the rather long slow down and speed up a train has to do. I am guessing that the 70mph is simply coz there's not enough run between these places to make it worth getting up to 90 or 100 and then back down again but you may well be right... but imagine if it was 35 mins - you could be looking at Cambridge-Paris by train in 2 years time in under 3 hours... which would probably be very close to the cambridge-stansted-charles de gaul-paris haul given checkin/security etc, and an awful lot greener....and when fuel prices go up and hit economy airlines, an awful lot cheaper (though thats rather further off:-( "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 , Jon Crowcroft
writes What surprises me is that there isn't more reverse commuute Trains to Cambridge in the morning have appalling timekeeping. Even people commuting from as close as Royston/Meldreth etc are only doing it as a distress purchase. I'm guessing that only the rather baroque residence requirement of the University has stopped some of that community taking that view You entirely misunderstand the "boarding school" nature of education at Cambridge, which takes places 7 days a week. It's simply not like most other Universities. It suits people very well, and if it's not to your taste then no-one is forcing you to go there. This is rather an over-statement of the specialness of Cambridge (especially given there's Oxford, Durham, and even UKC Did I say it was unique to Cambridge? I just said "*most* other Universities". Um, my friend is an _academic_: You assume he commutes in the peak time, but thats not a requirement, as he can go after (or befo). The cruisers don't run either before the morning peak or after the evening one. Unless he's putting in 6 hour days, he can only use them at most one way. 45 mins is the much faster journey time during the day on a non-stop Cambridge Cruiser, which don't run in the peaks. Yes, true - and thats reasonable given they have to stop so many times so a faster train couldnt easily overtake. I wonder if they've looked at this increase in demand and figured out if there's money in it to improve that service yet? The last I heard, WAGN wanted to cancel the Cruisers and rely on the remaining semi-fasts (there is plenty of capacity as all these trains run rather empty during the day), but were prevented from doing that because the Cruisers are a franchise obligation. I thouht the points were a big limiting factor between Hitchin and Cambridge and at Hitchin too...but I am not a Jarvis employee of course:-) The points *at* Hitchin have to be taken slowly (it's also a quite severe curve) but there's no similar restrictions I know of further north until just outside Cambridge (where the junction with the LS line is also a slow one). If you look at GNER timings (and they run at well over 100mph) then Hitchin would seem to be about 21 mins from KX (Stevenage is timetabled at 19 mins as a stop; or dividing the KX-HIT-PBO distance equally into 45 mins you get 20 mins, but the southern end is always slower) leaving only 14 mins for the remaining 25 miles! The cruisers do well to average about 70 north of Hitchin (assuming they can also get to Hitchin in 21 mins, which is averaging just over 90). Well I certainly remember reading about plans; I am fairly sure that the problems are slwing for the various points and level crossings like round Foxton. If there was a road bridge there (or road tunnel, although it doesnt look easy to engineer that) that would obviate the rather long slow down and speed up a train has to do. Would have to do. The current trains don't slow down for Foxton. I am guessing that the 70mph is simply coz there's not enough run between these places to make it worth getting up to 90 or 100 and then back down again but you may well be right... The track is very bumpy and poorly maintained. That's the main reason for the limits. The line is basically three straight stretches joined together with a curve each at Royston and Shepreth. but imagine if it was 35 mins - you could be looking at Cambridge-Paris by train in 2 years time in under 3 hours... It's a dream. You'll never get the required 125 mph running on the line, and even that won't help unless KX-Hitchin is improved (remember the 14 mins for 25 miles from the earlier sums), and that's *already* high speed. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Jonn Elledge
wrote: "David Fairthorne" wrote in message ... It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised, but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many others, the consequences are not altogether desirable. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with this completely. Like public education and the military, public transport is an important form of social overhead capital. Many people may not benefit from the subsidies directly. But if rail travel was priced at cost, then commuting would for many become impossible. Cities would become overcrowded both with traffic and people needing to live closer to their jobs, and wider economic growth would probably be impaired. While it's possible to debate the amount of public funding required for transport, I'm personally happy to pay a little out of my taxes to ensure we can all get about. Jonn This is certainly one of the aspects I am interested in. Markets are supposed to reach an "equilibrium" or "steady state" where the various trade-offs balance. Why should city size not be allowed to reach equilibrium as result of such market forces? If we cancel out the constraints on the size of London by giving "London weighting", then London can grow to absorb the whole population of the country, and indeed the world. Is this what we want? Of course, a lot depends on where the money comes from. I see no harm, and a lot of benefit, in a city deciding to spend money on itself, its roads, its theatres, its police, its transport system, etc. It's when a city levies a tax on the country as a whole to pay for its services that a distortion of the market happens. Are the results good? Michael Bell -- |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
You entirely misunderstand the "boarding school" nature of education at Cambridge, which takes places 7 days a week. It's simply not like most other Universities. It suits people very well, and if it's not to your taste then no-one is forcing you to go there. This is rather an over-statement of the specialness of Cambridge (especially given there's Oxford, Durham, and even UKC Did I say it was unique to Cambridge? I just said "*most* other Universities". Certainly back in the 70's/80's, almost all universities expected first (and often third) years to live on site |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:02:18 -0000, "Stimpy"
wrote: Certainly back in the 70's/80's, almost all universities expected first (and often third) years to live on site Perhaps - though I've not heard in a long time of another university (like I'm told is the case in Cambridge and possibly Oxford) that requires you to be in residence over a specified number of weekends. Many universities guarantee first years a place in halls, but I don't think any (other than those two) now enforce it as a requirement. 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. |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Stimpy
writes Certainly back in the 70's/80's, almost all universities expected first (and often third) years to live on site That may have been because there were fewer "new" universities then, but even in those days there were few students at London University living anywhere near their lecture facilities, even if they were in halls of residence. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Neil Williams
writes Perhaps - though I've not heard in a long time of another university (like I'm told is the case in Cambridge and possibly Oxford) that requires you to be in residence over a specified number of weekends. Weekends aren't special (nor are Bank Holidays during exams); it's the number of *nights* that count. You need the weekends to make up the numbers, and in my day there were quite a few courses with Saturday morning lectures- I'm not sure whether that's changed now. Comparing our calendars with friends at London University, their terms were 2 weeks longer, but everyone routinely took time off most weekends - so they actually worked less. My college library was full of people studying on a Sunday afternoon, and with no TV or other distractions to speak of (one set in a common room) people did tend to work most of the time. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:55:38 +0000, Meldrew of Meldreth
wrote: Weekends aren't special (nor are Bank Holidays during exams); it's the number of *nights* that count. You need the weekends to make up the numbers, and in my day there were quite a few courses with Saturday morning lectures- I'm not sure whether that's changed now. OOI, how is it enforced? Do they come around knocking on doors in the late evening to ensure you haven't sneaked off for a couple of days? (In Manchester, we were supposed to notify the hall office if going away overnight, presumably for fire list reasons, but in practice nobody actually did that I could tell, and a register was never taken when the fire alarm went off). 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. |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Neil Williams
writes On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:55:38 +0000, Meldrew of Meldreth wrote: Weekends aren't special (nor are Bank Holidays during exams); it's the number of *nights* that count. You need the weekends to make up the numbers, and in my day there were quite a few courses with Saturday morning lectures- I'm not sure whether that's changed now. OOI, how is it enforced? Do they come around knocking on doors in the late evening to ensure you haven't sneaked off for a couple of days? (In Manchester, we were supposed to notify the hall office if going away overnight, presumably for fire list reasons, but in practice nobody actually did that I could tell, and a register was never taken when the fire alarm went off). In the old days the cleaners who came round at 8am would notice people who were absent. And colleges are small places (mine had only 300 students) - it's pretty obvious when people aren't around. Today, I expect there's more trust involved, as the colleges are more open (to their members if not the public). -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Meldrew of Meldreth writes:
... people did tend to work most of the time. Boggle. We are talking about student life here are we? My recollection is rather different. |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Paul Rudin
writes ... people did tend to work most of the time. Boggle. We are talking about student life here are we? My recollection is rather different. Yep. Not much else to do really. No money for living the high life, and consumer electronics hadn't been invented yet. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
1/ students are not gonna spend 3000-4000 commuting, so we're talking (well i was talking) about staff (teaching officers and related 2/ students do not have to live in hall, so they cannot be policed in fact. 3/ staff and students have to "keep nights" which actually is described (in the statutes and ordinances and is on the web somewhere or other) as no more than a number of nights sleeping away in a certain period where "away" (or whatever it says) is a certain distance (has varied over the years and for category of people. (is now in miles, was at least for a while in hours walk/horseride:) 4/ this ALL contributes to the high cost of housing in and near cambridge and probably doesnt particular reduce traffic (as the distance is still driving for staff, and there are enough of them to constitute congestion with families and they are badly enough paid that they wont all live near enough to cycle unless they were practically born here and inherited a house (or worked here for 10 years) (imho) London University has 3 taught terms of 12 weeks with a reading week, and 5 day terms - Cambridge taught term is 8 weeks of 5.5 days max - in practice UCL and Imperial students attend more lectures in sciences (at least where I know) though whether this constites working "harder" I couldn't possibly comment....well actually as an examiner at 10+ UK universities over the last 24 years I could - I'd say that the residence and working practices and "boarding school" or otherwise of the UK universities is remarkably uniform in the end, though. Bigger Pictu If I compare it to other European countries I am familiar with (e.g. UCD/TCD in Ireland, Lulea and Stockholm, Paris XI, Nice, Pisa, Athens, etc etc), I'd say we are more residential - if I compare it to US similar places, I'd say actually less (at least e.g. Dartmouth, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Berkeley, UPenn, Michegan - note some of those are private, some state). Of course, the trains in the rest of Europe are probably better and we know the ones in the US are probably worse, (if thats possible) so there's probably a Masters thesis in looking at the effects of fast and reliable rail travel on the residential nature of faculty and student body culture and locales in various countries of the developed world. :-) [can discuss Universities in Brasil and New Zealand too if you like:-] p.s. If the current cruiser train time is 45 mins, and we were discussing a possible time of 35 mins, and the distance is 55 miles, I am not quite sure where speeds of 125mph come up - 100mph tilting trains would work on most the route provided track and points are made up to a higher quality surely? If you've ever been on a eurostar coming into the chunnel from the continental side, when it stops sometimes, it is on a mighty lean - looks like even decent bogie design is sufficient given track conditions (yes, I know TGV track is ruinously pricy coz of fancy welds etc)... -- Jon Crowcroft |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 17:55:43 on Mon, 3
Jan 2005, Jon Crowcroft remarked: London University has 3 taught terms of 12 weeks with a reading week, and 5 day terms - Cambridge taught term is 8 weeks of 5.5 days max - in practice UCL and Imperial students attend more lectures in sciences (at least where I know) though whether this constites working "harder" I couldn't possibly comment.... In my time the average Cambridge science/maths/engineering student worked a 6-6.5 day week, while friends at London used to regularly skip Friday afternoons and Monday mornings to facilitate weekends away (and clearly had no intention of ever working Sat/Sun). p.s. If the current cruiser train time is 45 mins, and we were discussing a possible time of 35 mins, and the distance is 55 miles, I am not quite sure where speeds of 125mph come up Currently the ECML is a high speed line with the KX-Hitchin part taking approx 21 minutes (that's in an IC225, I'm not sure the WAGNs could keep up with that, it's an average of 90mph). This leaves 25 miles on the Cambridge branch. To meet a 45 minute schedule that requires an average speed of just over 60mph, which is what they just about manage to achieve on today's track. To meet a 35 minute time, they'd need to do the 25 miles in 14 minutes, which is an average of 107mph ! - 100mph tilting trains would work on most the route provided track and points are made up to a higher quality surely? Yes, but a *very* big "provided" !!! -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Huge
wrote: "Jonn Elledge" writes: "David Fairthorne" wrote in message ... It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised, but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many others, the consequences are not altogether desirable. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with this completely. Like public education and the military, public transport is an important form of social overhead capital. Many people may not benefit from the subsidies directly. But if rail travel was priced at cost, then commuting would for many become impossible. Thameslink make a profit. Ergo your asserion is incorrect. If that is so, then WHY is it so? Has it got much better management. That can be copied! Has it got unique geographical advantages? That cannot be copied! Michael Bell -- |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Jon Crowcroft
writes I thouht the points were a big limiting factor between Hitchin and Cambridge and at Hitchin too...but I am not a Jarvis employee of course:-) For a non-stop class 365 EMU, the bottlenecks are as follows: King's Cross approaches start at 15mph and ramp up to 100mph by, IIRC, Finsbury Park (my sources for this are a bit out of date). Limit is then never below 100mph to Hitchin. Hitchin junction is 40mph for 34c (just under 700m) northbound, 26c (just over 500m) southbound. Southbound trains are also limited to 75mph through Hitchin and for about 600m south, then IIRC 70mph over the connection to the fast line. Limit is then 80mph to Royston (but this may be out of date). North of Royston my sources predate the major works of a few years ago, but show limits varying between 50 and 90mph; the major restrictions are at the north end of Royston and at Shepreth. Shepreth Branch Junction (on to the Liverpool Street line) is 30mph. Then 90mph to Long Road, then 80mph northbound, 90mph southbound, to Hills Road, then 35mph into the station. -- 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 , Roland
Perry writes Currently the ECML is a high speed line with the KX-Hitchin part taking approx 21 minutes (that's in an IC225, I'm not sure the WAGNs could keep up with that, it's an average of 90mph). This leaves 25 miles on the Cambridge branch. To meet a 45 minute schedule that requires an average speed of just over 60mph, which is what they just about manage to achieve on today's track. The bit of the working timetable for Cruisers that I've been able to find gives: KX depart XX15 Finsbury Park pass XX18.5 Alexandra Palace pass XX20 0.5 pathing allowance Potters Bar pass XX25.5 WGC pass XX30 Woolmer Green pass XX32 Stevenage pass XX34 Hitchin pass XX37 Letchworth pass XX40 Royston pass XX47 2 engineering allowance -- 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 , Clive D. W. Feather
writes In article , Roland Perry writes Currently the ECML is a high speed line with the KX-Hitchin part taking approx 21 minutes (that's in an IC225, I'm not sure the WAGNs could keep up with that, it's an average of 90mph). This leaves 25 miles on the Cambridge branch. To meet a 45 minute schedule that requires an average speed of just over 60mph, which is what they just about manage to achieve on today's track. The bit of the working timetable for Cruisers that I've been able to find gives: KX depart XX15 Finsbury Park pass XX18.5 Alexandra Palace pass XX20 0.5 pathing allowance Potters Bar pass XX25.5 WGC pass XX30 Woolmer Green pass XX32 Stevenage pass XX34 Hitchin pass XX37 22 minutes. I had allowed 21. Nice to be so close to the actual answer using only classic engineering estimating skills! Letchworth pass XX40 Royston pass XX47 2 engineering allowance (And it means one minute less for Hitchin to Cambridge, 25 miles to do in 13 minutes for a 35 minute journey - 115 mph average. Not very realistic...) -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Roland Perry" wrote in message .uk... In message , at 17:55:43 on Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Jon Crowcroft remarked: London University has 3 taught terms of 12 weeks with a reading week, and 5 day terms - Cambridge taught term is 8 weeks of 5.5 days max - in practice UCL and Imperial students attend more lectures in sciences (at least where I know) though whether this constites working "harder" I couldn't possibly comment.... In my time the average Cambridge science/maths/engineering student worked a 6-6.5 day week, while friends at London used to regularly skip Friday afternoons and Monday mornings to facilitate weekends away (and clearly had no intention of ever working Sat/Sun). The word "taught" is superfluous, the correct expression being "Full Term". Back in my day in Oxford, and I doubt that Cambridge was different, there were lectures at 9 and 10 on most days Monday-Saturday, but attendance was not compulsory (although desirable, as questions in finals were mostly based on the lecture course over three years. A certain amount of attendance at the laboratories was also required, but could usually be fitted in between 11 and 1 before lunch. Afternoons would often be devoted to sport, games or the pleasures of punting, and in some cases to flying with the Air Squadron. One hour per week for a tutorial, and some hours (often after midnight) on doing the reading and essay-writing for the next tutorial. Organic preparations tended to require more than a day, and were regarded as only for the dedicated. In theory one was required to get permission to reside and to travel more than 3 miles from Carfax, and to be absent overnight. One was also required to come up a few days early for college Collections and to delay one's departure until after an interview with the tutors. For the final year in Chemistry, one was expected to spend at least 10 weeks in Oxford for each term, essentially working 9 to 5 Monday to Friday and possibly Saturday morning as well. Depending on the subject being studied, time could be much longer, especially if working towards a deadline for the thesis submission. -- 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%
Huge wrote: "Jonn Elledge" writes: "David Fairthorne" wrote in message ... It seems to be widely accepted that public transport must be subsidised, but subsidies modify peoples' behaviour, and in this example, and many others, the consequences are not altogether desirable. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree with this completely. Like public education and the military, public transport is an important form of social overhead capital. Many people may not benefit from the subsidies directly. But if rail travel was priced at cost, then commuting would for many become impossible. Thameslink make a profit. Ergo your asserion is incorrect. Well, no, actually. I wasn't saying that no railway can ever be profitable - I was saying that not all railways are profitable, but the fact that a railway isn't profitable does not mean it doesn't add value. Thameslink is a notoriously busy line - there are many emptier lines that may not be profitable, but the removal of which could have negative economic and social consequences. Jonn |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Terry Harper
writes The word "taught" is superfluous, the correct expression being "Full Term". Yes, but there's been a bit of an effort to avoid Oxbridge slang, I think. Cambridge also had the 8-week lecture term plus approx half a week either side for "housekeeping". Back in my day in Oxford, and I doubt that Cambridge was different, there were lectures at 9 and 10 on most days Monday-Saturday, but attendance was not compulsory Indeed, not compulsory, but in the later years with some specialist lectures being given to a handful of familiar students they were effectively compulsory. (although desirable, as questions in finals were mostly based on the lecture course over three years. A certain amount of attendance at the laboratories was also required, but could usually be fitted in between 11 and 1 before lunch. Afternoons would often be devoted to sport, games or the pleasures of punting My experience of Engineering at Cambridge was lectures 9-1 Mon-Fri and 9-12 Saturday; plus two or three afternoons of labs, and at least one 5pm lecture. The labs were just collecting experimental results, too; you could easily spend another two hours writing up and crunching the numbers - this being before electronic calculators, let alone PCs. -- "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 D. W. Feather
writes The bit of the working timetable for Cruisers that I've been able to find gives: KX depart XX15 [...] Royston pass XX47 2 engineering allowance and Cambridge at XX61 (IYSWIM) of course. Feeding that into a spreadsheet, I get the following: A B C D E King's Cross Finsbury Park 43 46 40 3.5 1.5 Alexandra Palace 99 118 84 1.5 1.5 Potters Bar 84 88 81 5.5 4.5 Welwyn Garden City 101 107 96 4.5 4.5 Woolmer Green 106 121 94 2 2 Stevenage 111 127 99 2 1.5 Hitchin 87 95 81 3 2.5 Letchworth 54 59 50 3 2 Royston 88 91 85 7 6 Cambridge 56 57 55 14 8 A = average booked speed between locations B = booked speed using a time 0.25 minutes less C = booked speed using a time 0.25 minutes more D = booked time between locations E = time between locations required for 100mph B and C are to allow for the fact that booked timings are only given to half minutes. The 2 minutes difference between D and E out of King's Cross is to allow for the train to accelerate, so we should expect the same at Cambridge. That leaves 4 minutes lost between Royston and Cambridge in 13 miles. -- 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%
"Meldrew of Meldreth" wrote in message
.uk... In article , Terry Harper writes Back in my day in Oxford, and I doubt that Cambridge was different, there were lectures at 9 and 10 on most days Monday-Saturday, but attendance was not compulsory Indeed, not compulsory, but in the later years with some specialist lectures being given to a handful of familiar students they were effectively compulsory. (although desirable, as questions in finals were mostly based on the lecture course over three years. A certain amount of attendance at the laboratories was also required, but could usually be fitted in between 11 and 1 before lunch. Afternoons would often be devoted to sport, games or the pleasures of punting My experience of Engineering at Cambridge was lectures 9-1 Mon-Fri and 9-12 Saturday; plus two or three afternoons of labs, and at least one 5pm lecture. The labs were just collecting experimental results, too; you could easily spend another two hours writing up and crunching the numbers - this being before electronic calculators, let alone PCs. Yes, it was necessary to spend at least two afternoons a week in the lab, particularly in Physical Chemistry where there was a list of experiments to complete during the half-term session, before you switched labs. I was warned off the river by my tutor, because of lack of attendance at the labs. -- 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 article , Terry Harper
writes I was warned off the river by my tutor, because of lack of attendance at the labs. I only went punting once in my three years - on the famous day that David Hamilton's Radio One roadshow hit town. It was just too difficult. Only a few colleges, on the river, had their own punts (for free hire to students), and I don't recall a lot of commercial hiring then (but it would have been a very indulgent expense). Only a very few students had their own punts. Or by "the river", do you mean competitive rowing? -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
"Meldrew of Meldreth" wrote in message
.uk... In article , Terry Harper writes I was warned off the river by my tutor, because of lack of attendance at the labs. I only went punting once in my three years - on the famous day that David Hamilton's Radio One roadshow hit town. It was just too difficult. Only a few colleges, on the river, had their own punts (for free hire to students), and I don't recall a lot of commercial hiring then (but it would have been a very indulgent expense). Only a very few students had their own punts. Or by "the river", do you mean competitive rowing? Coxing the long-distance eight. 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. After summer balls it was a do-it-yourself job. Did a bit of punting from the wrong end of the boat in Cambridge in 1964, when on a course there. -- 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%
So just for fun I did this trip on the 10.45 cruiser kings Cross-Cambridge this
morning - By chance, it was held up behind a slow train for 5 minutes, and yet arrived on time, this _despite_ a stop outside kings cross (bottleneck: simply because of 4 tracks from 11 platforms to get out) and coming into cambridge (bottleneck: due to only 1 stupid platform for 3 trains requiring extreme caution in correct use of semaphors for 2 sets of points), AND a stop at hitchin (as northbound trains to cambridge cross the fast line, there's always a good chance that there's some southbound GNER in the way...) On the topic of ENgland's longest platform - someone tried to sing its praises as oh so friendly to disabled people (no bridge or underpass or lift to negotiate to get to the other platform) - well as a person still on crutches after my bike accident, I can tell you that if you have to navigate from platform 4 to 1 on the uncertain surface (and lets say that for some unusual reason it is slightly damp too), it is not at all friendly to disabled people at all. Anyhow: I would say that if the slow train (which the driver told us was not according to schedule) had not been there, the cruiser could have been in cambridge in 40 minutes, (I checked the times on each section, but cannot speak for the speed of the train). If the other bottlenecks were not there, the journey would have taken approx 38 minutes. Admittedly, the 2 or 3 other bottlenecks wouldbe expensive to remove and make safe alternatives. I have no idea about the theory, but this was an empirical result:) (actually I've been on the cruiser one or two times when its taken 42 minutes platform to platform outside of busy times....) oh, I dont suppose now is the time to complain about the lack of safe places to put bikes (someones bike fell over as we went around the curve after hitchin - i -- Jon Crowcroft |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
I wrote:
The bit of the working timetable for Cruisers that I've been able to find gives: KX depart XX15 Finsbury Park pass XX18.5 Alexandra Palace pass XX20 0.5 pathing allowance Potters Bar pass XX25.5 WGC pass XX30 Woolmer Green pass XX32 Stevenage pass XX34 Hitchin pass XX37 Letchworth pass XX40 Royston pass XX47 2 engineering allowance Cambridge arrive XX01 1.5 engineering allowance The reverse timetable is: Cambridge depart XX15 Royston pass XX27.5 Letchworth pass XX34.5 Hitchin pass XX37 Stevenage pass XX41 Woolmer Green pass XX43 WGC pass XX45 Potters Bar pass XX50 Alexandra Palace pass XX54.5 1 pathing allowance Finsbury Park pass XX57 0.5 pathing allowance KX arrive XX64 2 engineering allowance -- 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%
I wrote a table, which showed the actual booked speed from Royston to
Cambridge as averaging 56mph. I then said: The 2 minutes difference between D and E out of King's Cross is to allow for the train to accelerate, so we should expect the same at Cambridge. That leaves 4 minutes lost between Royston and Cambridge in 13 miles. Sorry, that should be 2.5 minutes (compared with a 100mph journey throughout). The other 1.5 is allowance for engineering work. So the current actual booked speed is 74mph north of Royston, not including deceleration allowance. Overall, the timetabled 46 minutes consists of: - 2 minutes accelerating - 2 minutes decelerating - 3 minutes for pathing and engineering work - 39 minutes at speed (compared with 34 at 100mph). Making an average "full" speed of 87.5mph. -- 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 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! -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 13:30:34 on Tue, 4
Jan 2005, Jon Crowcroft remarked: On the topic of ENgland's longest platform That's at Gloucester, Manchester or Colchester, depending on who you ask... -- Roland Perry |
Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Jon Crowcroft
writes By chance, it was held up behind a slow train for 5 minutes, and yet arrived on time, this _despite_ a stop outside kings cross (bottleneck: simply because of 4 tracks from 11 platforms to get out) 4 from 11 is about the right ratio (design standards suggest at least 2 platforms for each line entering a terminus). Trains should be timed not to intersect; the Rules of the Plan specify minimum margins for crossing movements in the timetable. It's unusual to be stopped on departure; most trains depart on B or D roads (which become the Down Fast and Slow respectively after Gasworks Tunnel). and coming into cambridge (bottleneck: due to only 1 stupid platform for 3 trains requiring extreme caution in correct use of semaphors for 2 sets of points), For some reason I first read that as "metaphors". I'm not sure of your point here. If there were 3 trains in the platform, you'd have been coupling up to one of the others, hence the dead slow running. If not, do you mean that you had to wait for one to depart before you could enter? They're not semaphores in either the programming or railway senses. Each set of points can be in one of three states: needed normal (one of the positions), needed reverse (the other), or free (not currently needed by anything). The signaller at Cambridge selects a route (by pressing two buttons). The signalling logic has a list of points and positions that that route requires, plus a list of routes that are incompatible even though they don't conflict in their points requirements (usually routes in the opposite direction over the same track). If any of the points are already needed in the other position, the route is left unset. 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). [Clearing the signal requires other tests to be met as well; for example, all the points must be detected as locked in the correct position.] At Cambridge this is done by a network of relays; current to energise one relay passes through contacts on all those defining the appropriate conditions. AND a stop at hitchin (as northbound trains to cambridge cross the fast line, there's always a good chance that there's some southbound GNER in the way...) When trains are running to time, there won't be. Either the GNER was late, you were early, or you arrived during the "pathing allowance" - basically a scheduled delay to let another train through. I would say that if the slow train (which the driver told us was not according to schedule) had not been there, the cruiser could have been in cambridge in 40 minutes, It's allowed 43 for the journey, of which 30 seconds at each end - IIRC - is for station duties. So 42. -- 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 , 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? -- Clive. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk