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

--

"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

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

--

"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

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

"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

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

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"

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 before.
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

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 before.

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"