On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:00:57 -0800 (PST), MIG
wrote:

That sort of thing is sometimes done to rail services and it isn't in
the intrinsic nature of buses to stop early, run once a day or
anything else, any more than it's in the intrinsic nature of monorails
to run frequently all night. They run when someone runs them.

And buses are typically far cheaper to run. The trouble is that there
is a reluctance to subsidise them, so the service operated is (unlike
rail) often either purely commercial or, if subsidised, on a
lowest-cost tender.

This results in services of appalling quality such as the Milton
Keynes evening routes which are tendered purely on lowest cost, for
which the cowboy operators tend to come forward.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

Worth looking at the accompanying PDF at the bottom of this page:
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/me...08/brent_cross

As rail fantasy, It's up there with the finest work of uk.t.l. It even
manages to include a North Acton triangle interchange station. I
especially like the half mile gap between Brent Cross shopping centre
and the Dudding Hill branch (including the crossing of the Midland
Mainline), where they can't even see a possible route. Also, top marks
for the pasted in Windows Live Local maps and satellite pictures.

They haven't included even the beginnings of a cost-benefit analysis,
which says a lot about how seriously it wishes to be taken. It's just
hot air.

Hang on, though, I get the impression that the organisation behind ths
plan is not one which has the expertise or resources to do or commission a
cost-benefit analysis: they're not simple to do. It's therefore a bit
harsh to dismiss them for not doing one, as it would be for dismissing
them for not supply detailed engineering drawings, or built a test track.

It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.
Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

tom

--
made up languages, delusions, skin diseases and unaided human flight

On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:
It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

Yes, maybe I was a bit harsh on it, but I wouldn't have been if it was
presented in these terms. If it'd been "we think the development
should include light rail, and here's an idea for a possible route",
that'd be one thing, but they presented it as "this particular route
must be built", and once you do that, you've got to back it up with
numbers, otherwise it's just fantasy.

Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

Airport style people movers might be the answer.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Jan 28, 3:18*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
Airport style people movers might be the answer.

Absolutely right. I understand the North-South Terminal sets at
Gatwick Airport want to be DLR trains when they grow up :-)

On Jan 28, 3:18 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:

It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

Yes, maybe I was a bit harsh on it, but I wouldn't have been if it was
presented in these terms. If it'd been "we think the development
should include light rail, and here's an idea for a possible route",
that'd be one thing, but they presented it as "this particular route
must be built", and once you do that, you've got to back it up with
numbers, otherwise it's just fantasy.

Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

Airport style people movers might be the answer.

Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5, There are small
areas like Brent Cross that could benefit from a lightweight system
like that (Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras -- Thameslink end, or
Lancaster Gate/Paddington/Marylebone/Baker Street/Marble Arch, or
something involving City Thameslink, Bank and Charing Cross)

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Paul Weaver wrote:

On Jan 28, 3:18 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:

It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

Yes, maybe I was a bit harsh on it, but I wouldn't have been if it was
presented in these terms. If it'd been "we think the development
should include light rail, and here's an idea for a possible route",
that'd be one thing, but they presented it as "this particular route
must be built", and once you do that, you've got to back it up with
numbers, otherwise it's just fantasy.

Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

Airport style people movers might be the answer.

Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in cost/benefit
terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost per passenger of
the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

There are small areas like Brent Cross that could benefit from a
lightweight system like that (Euston, Kings Cross, St Pancras --
Thameslink end, or Lancaster Gate/Paddington/Marylebone/Baker
Street/Marble Arch, or something involving City Thameslink, Bank and
Charing Cross)

Good points. I note that the Euston Road axis is sort of part of the
Cross-River Tram proposal, and the Oxford Street tram idea would go to
Marble Arch, if not Paddington. I'm not aware of a plan for trams to City
Thameslink (maybe Blackfriars instead?) or Charing Cross, but that would
be an excellent transverse link between the Cross-River Tram and City Tram
schemes.

Anyway, the thing to do would be to secure alignments that could be used
to build trams or light rail, and then build the cheapest kind of railway
on them to begin with. If it reaches the limits of the capacity it can
deliver, it could be upgraded to something heavier.


tom

--
The future will accost us with boob-slapping ferocity. -- H. G. Wells

In message , at
23:56:13 on Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in
cost/benefit terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost
per passenger of the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

Although they have pretty much a green fields site for the pod route at
T5, if/when it is extended to T123 (via the old taxi tunnels) it would
not be easy to construct light rail instead.
--
Roland Perry

On Jan 29, 7:43 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
23:56:13 on Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:

Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in
cost/benefit terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost
per passenger of the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

Although they have pretty much a green fields site for the pod route at
T5, if/when it is extended to T123 (via the old taxi tunnels) it would
not be easy to construct light rail instead.

I understand the pods can be fairly easilly mounted on pillars --
lighter than the DLR, although presumably less capacity than a DLR at
full rate (say 1.3 people per car, one car per 5 seconds, 1000 people
per hour).

That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

The size of a station to disgorge one car per 15 seconds (assume 3
stations either side of a central coridor) would be fairly high, but
it works on ski lifts.

On 29 Jan, 08:22, Paul Weaver wrote:
That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

Peak loading on the DLR is 200-300 people per articulated vehicle,
about the same as two tube carriages.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Jan 29, 8:22*am, Paul Weaver wrote:
I understand the pods can be fairly easilly mounted on pillars --
lighter than the DLR, although presumably less capacity than a DLR at
full rate (say 1.3 people per car, one car per 5 seconds, 1000 people
per hour).

That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

The size of *a station to disgorge one car per 15 seconds (assume 3
stations either side of a central coridor) would be fairly high, but
it works on ski lifts.

However people on ski lifts are not normally encumbered with
suitcases, baby buggies and hurricane proof rucksacks. The ultra
system will work at Heathrow as it is intended to operate from
relatively low density car parks to a high density terminal. Like a
taxi rank at the terminal there will be multiple discharges taking
place in parallel rather than in series. At Brent Cross LUL and at
Cricklewood passengers for the shopping centre will arrive in groups
off the trains - undoubtedly encumbered with baby buggies even if they
have left their rucksacks at home. Batch handling because of the
larger population units and limited number of dispersion points make
an airport people carrier solution a better choice for Brent Cross.
Heresy though it might be on this group the use of rubber tyres could
allow for steeper gradients and possibly in terms of routing an
elevated section above the alignment of the North Circular Road
cutting through the back of Cricklewood TMD to a bay at the new
Cricklewood.