|
Public Transport Expansion
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built
between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy. It makes me sick. On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive tube expansion? Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)? I'm guessing the red tape involved in creating a private mass transit system is prohibitive. How I long for a return to the days of the twopenny tube. P.S. Buses are crap |
Public Transport Expansion
"Paul Weaver" wrote in message .. . Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy. It makes me sick. On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive tube expansion? Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)? I'm guessing the red tape involved in creating a private mass transit system is prohibitive. How I long for a return to the days of the twopenny tube. P.S. Buses are crap Ummm - The Victoria Line & the Jubilee Line (both bits). Hardly nothing. Croydon Tramlink was an example of PFI - and is in dire straights finance wise. Why aren't those fine capitalists rushing to invest their money without any centralised meddling (you'd call it subsidy rather than investment no doubt)? Perhaps because they know they'll never get a worthwhile return. Colin |
Public Transport Expansion
Paul Weaver wrote the following in:
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy. ********. There's been the Victoria line, the Jubilee line, the DLR, new stations and interchanges (e.g. c2c stop at West Ham) and I'm sure there are other things I haven't heard of. There's also the point that the first tubes were built at a time when there was almost nothing. I saw a post earlier today where someone made the point that there was more railway building in the early years of the 20th century than in the past 50 years. What a silly thing to point out. 50 years ago there was already quite a large tube network whereas a hundred years ago there was practically nothing. Of course more was built then when there was nothing in existence. It makes me sick. Perhaps your one of those people who desperately looks for things to be sick about, and if nothing reasonable is available then makes something up. -- message by Robin May, consumer of liquids "A very large head, a head like a bear's" Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort. |
Public Transport Expansion
Paul Weaver wrote:
Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy. It makes me sick. On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive tube expansion? Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)? I'm guessing the red tape involved in creating a private mass transit system is prohibitive. How I long for a return to the days of the twopenny tube. P.S. Buses are crap For a return to the twopenny tube you're probably out of place in the 21st Century, as you must be at least ... how old? |
Public Transport Expansion
Robin May wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote the following in: Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. There's also the point that the first tubes were built at a time when there was almost nothing. I saw a post earlier today where someone made the point that there was more railway building in the early years of the 20th century than in the past 50 years. What a silly thing to point out. 50 years ago there was already quite a large tube network whereas a hundred years ago there was practically nothing. Of course more was built then when there was nothing in existence. There's also the point that, having built the lines, the entrepreneurs, on the whole, failed to make money from them, and were eventually bailed out by nationalisation in the '30s. Presumably potential modern tube entrepreneurs know this, even if most people don't. Colin McKeznie |
Public Transport Expansion
On 29 Sep 2003 19:43:57 GMT, Robin May
wrote: Paul Weaver wrote the following in: k Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy. ********. There's been the Victoria line, the Jubilee line, the DLR, new stations and interchanges (e.g. c2c stop at West Ham) and I'm sure there are other things I haven't heard of. The original poster also conveniently ignores anything between the first and second world wars. In fact great chunks of the network outside the centre - particularly stretches of the Northern, Piccadilly, and Central lines - were built in the 1930s when the system was already in public ownership, and its management was very centralised. Those magnificent Holden stations weren't funded by venture capitalists :-) Of course that was in a very different economic and political climate from today, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the relative merits of public and private funding from any of this Martin |
Public Transport Expansion
In article , Paul Weaver
wrote: Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Thanks to centralisation, lack of competition and general socialist policy. It makes me sick. What is this "centralisation" you complain of? If you read Croom & Jackson's wonderful book "Rails through the clay", at least in it's earlier editions before it become just another publicity handout for LT, it is plain that the tube has never ever made a commercial return on capital. An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys") started the tube in the early 1890s as a string of separate railways, one of the reasons why they still don't interconnect very well. They were going to be cable-hauled in the manner of San Francisco cable cars, this accounts for the small crosssection of the tube, but while the tunnels were being dug, electric traction was developed, so the system was finished as an electric railway. But technical progress had also reached street transport, there were now electric trams and petrol buses, and the tube never pulled in the passengers that had been hoped for. It was still a city-centre system, in the 1920s and 30s, the tube was extended into the suburbs, as unemployment relief. Post-war, it was recognised from the start that lines like the Victoria line would never make money, but they were built as a public service. This is of course quite separate from the argument about whether public transport in cities OUGHT to at least break even. But the foreknowledge that no return on capital will be made, and there might even be an operating loss, inevitably reduces enthusiasm. By the way, I was struck to read over the weekend that the government now spends MORE money on railways than on roads. When you consider that much smaller amount of total traffic that is carried on the railways, I can feel for Alistair Darling's refusal to spend more money on them and his comment "The railways have to live within their means, like everybody else". Bring back British Railways! -- Michael Bell |
Public Transport Expansion
In message , Paul Weaver
writes Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Actually, comparatively little of today's tube network had been built by then. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. On the contrary, limited capacity and over-crowding was a problem from the outset, and private capital was insufficient to finance the expansion needed. Even after the formation of LUR the company was straddled with debt and couldn't pay a dividend on ordinary shares for year after year after year - nationalisation came as a blessed relief. It was not until the New Works programme of the 1930s that more ambitious schemes could be financed. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Erm ... Central line extended from Liverpool Street out to Epping/Ongar + Hainault loop Central line extended from North Acton to Ruislip Victoria line constructed Piccadilly line extended from Hounslow to Heathrow Jubilee line - new construction from Baker Street to Stratford plus, of course, the Docklands Light Railway network. -- Paul Terry |
Public Transport Expansion
In article , Paul Weaver
writes Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Quite a lot. But you should actually be comparing before- and after-1933, when the system was nationalised. New lines since 1933: Central: all the bits east of Liverpool Street, and the West Ruislip branch, were planned in the late 1930s and opened after WW2. H&C: service between Aldgate East and Barking started in 1936. Jubilee: Baker Street to Finchley Road tunnels opened 1939 (the private sector having failed to do anything about this bottleneck). The line south/east of Baker Street is all 1979 or later. Metropolitan: four-tracking north of Harrow-on-the-Hill and electrification beyond Rickmansworth are 1960s. Northern: the bits north of Archway were opened in the late 1930s or early 1940s. Piccadilly: Heathrow extension is 1970s & 1980s. Victoria Line: built in the 1960s. On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive tube expansion? There's so much stuff at medium depth that new lines have to go much deeper, possibly below the Blue Clay. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
Yerkes (was Public Transport Expansion)
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote: An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys") Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name. Sam -- Sam Holloway, Cambridge |
Yerkes (was Public Transport Expansion)
In article , Sam Holloway
wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell wrote: An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys") Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name. Sam It is authoritatively stated so in "Rails through the clay" By Croom & Jackson (actually, I am not quite certain of the spelling of Croom. Might be Croom, Croome, Croomb, Croombe etc) -- Michael Bell |
Public Transport Expansion
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:08:48 +0100, Paul Weaver
wrote: On a similar note, what geological problems are there preventing massive tube expansion? It's usually impossible to get more than three deep tube lines running through one place. Strictly speaking there are four deep tube lines at Waterloo, but the Waterloo and City is in fact very shallow at that point, and also terminates there which presumably is easier to accommodate than a through line. That doesn't rule out tube expansion completely but it does limit what could be achieved in Central London. Tunnelling is a slow and labour-intensive process, so any investment now in tube expansion would not yield benefits for quite a few years. Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)? Because it's incredibly speculative. Monorail, light rail, and other such ideas have been around for decades. In practice very few have been implemented successfully, and it's very hard to see how such a system could ever be profitable. I'm guessing the red tape involved in creating a private mass transit system is prohibitive. There would be prohibitive planning difficulties, but ultimately that's because residents and businesses often don't like new elevated structures being put along their roads. Martin |
Public Transport Expansion
In article , Martin Rich
wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:08:48 +0100, Paul Weaver wrote: Why is no one investing in PRT (http://www.atsltd.co.uk/)? What problems does it solve to put a single-occupant vehicle onto rails? None whatsoever. If the standard vehicle is going to be a 4-seater like a car to allow for family outings, then it will take up the same space as a car. If it is a single-seater, then if the crossection of the route is reduced to make use of the small size, then 4-seaters will be too big. Not likely to be acceptable. Braking distances will be about the same as for rubber-tyred vehicles, the examples in the Highway Code assumes a deceleration of about 0.5g. In very good conditions a road vehicle can achieve 1.2g, this is exceptional, but in rain etc 0.2g is all that can be achieved. Rail vehicles can achieve 0.2 in normal conditions, with magnetic track brakes they can achieve 0.5g. So safety distances will be about the same. You can have automatic close-following, as on the French VAL system, and there are plenty of systems for doing likewise with road vehicles. This approach means you have to have short platoons of close-following vehicles behaving as if they were a single vehicle, with a normal safety-distance between platoons. You have to assemble the platoons, run them through to near their destination, then disperse them to their final destination. It's all difficulty. And a lot of infrastructure. And what will the return be? The sums have been done, many times, and the prospects found not appealing. It's not nice to stamp on enthusiasm and bright ideas, but sometimes it has to be done. -- Michael Bell |
Public Transport Expansion
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Paul Terry
), in message who said: In message , Paul Weaver writes Looking at the history of the tube, the vast majority of it was built between 1890 and the first world war. Actually, comparatively little of today's tube network had been built by then. Hmm... if one includes all the bits that already existed under alternate ownership, I'd guess that around two thirds of the current network was already in place in 1914. Obviously this was all entrepreneurs, capitalists that produced the finest public transport system of its day. On the contrary, limited capacity and over-crowding was a problem from the outset, and private capital was insufficient to finance the expansion needed. Even after the formation of LUR the company was straddled with debt and couldn't pay a dividend on ordinary shares for year after year after year - nationalisation came as a blessed relief. It was not until the New Works programme of the 1930s that more ambitious schemes could be financed. Whats happened since the end of the second world war? Nothing. Erm ... Central line extended from Liverpool Street out to Epping/Ongar + Hainault loop Central line extended from North Acton to Ruislip Victoria line constructed Piccadilly line extended from Hounslow to Heathrow Jubilee line - new construction from Baker Street to Stratford plus, of course, the Docklands Light Railway network. Of these, the only achievements of any great geographical scope were the Vic, and the Jubilee extension. BTN |
Public Transport Expansion
In article , Michael Bell
writes If you read Croom & Jackson's wonderful book "Rails through the clay", Your following text makes me wonder if *you* have read it. An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys") started the tube in the early 1890s as a string of separate railways, No, he didn't. The tube was started in the 1890s and 1900s as a string of separate railways. Yerkes bought out five (CCE&HR, BS&WR, GN&SR, B&PCR, DLD[*]) but not the other four (CLR, C&SLR, GN&CR, W&CR). They were going to be cable-hauled in the manner of San Francisco cable cars, this accounts for the small crosssection of the tube, but while the tunnels were being dug, electric traction was developed, so the system was finished as an electric railway. This applies to exactly one of those nine (C&SLR). It was still a city-centre system, in the 1920s and 30s, the tube was extended into the suburbs, as unemployment relief. No, it was extended for a range of reasons; government guarantees for schemes that provided employment simply made the financing easier. By the way, I was struck to read over the weekend that the government now spends MORE money on railways than on roads. Would this be because most of the latter is spent by local authorities? -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
Yerkes (was Public Transport Expansion)
Michael Bell wrote in message ...
In article , Sam Holloway wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:08:08 +0100, Michael Bell wrote: An American called Yerkes (Rhymes with "Turkeys") Is that true? I'd always assumed it was Yerkes, rhymes with Turks. But then again I've never heard anyone speak it; only read the name. Sam It is authoritatively stated so in "Rails through the clay" By Croom & Jackson (actually, I am not quite certain of the spelling of Croom. Might be Croom, Croome, Croomb, Croombe etc) Actually, the other name should be pronounced Yaksown! :-) |
Public Transport Expansion
In addition to the points already made concerning private enterprise,
it's worth bearing in mind that the tubes that were built in the immediate wake of the City and South London Line sought to beat the congestion in Central London caused by roads incapable of dealing with the huge amount of horse-drawn traffic. In addition, they sought to break into virgin suburbs in order to profit from suburban traffic. However, the advent of the internal combustion engine lessened journey times for all surface vehicles, making Central London sections much less profitable, and the enormous capital sums required to build tube lines were not compensated for by ticket receipts (railway companies were banned from taking advantage of the appreciation in real estate that resulted). As a result, it became almost impossible to raise capital for tube lines in the capital markets after about 1905. Edgar Speyer, a close associate of Yerkes, informally broached the idea of selling the Yerkes lines to the L.C.C. about this time, but nothing came of it. All tube lines (and most other railway extensions, in London at least) after 1915 and before nationalisation depended on the provision of government assistance. This mostly consisted of loan guarantees. |
Public Transport Expansion
|
Public Transport Expansion
|
Public Transport Expansion
Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Clive D. W. Feather
), in message who said: But you should actually be comparing before- and after-1933, when the system was nationalised. New lines since 1933: Central: all the bits east of Liverpool Street, and the West Ruislip branch, were planned in the late 1930s and opened after WW2. A large proportion of which ran over existing track which, funnily enough, had been developed privately before nationalisation. H&C: service between Aldgate East and Barking started in 1936. Eh? That runs *entirely* over the existing network. FFS, if that's going to be the line of logic, then TfL could introduce a whole raft of new lines with new names, running over existing bits of the network, and then claim expansion. Jubilee: Baker Street to Finchley Road tunnels opened 1939 (the private sector having failed to do anything about this bottleneck). The line south/east of Baker Street is all 1979 or later. Metropolitan: four-tracking north of Harrow-on-the-Hill and electrification beyond Rickmansworth are 1960s. Northern: the bits north of Archway were opened in the late 1930s or early 1940s. Over existing lines again. Piccadilly: Heathrow extension is 1970s & 1980s. Victoria Line: built in the 1960s. The Vic and the Jubilee extension have been the only enhancements to the system on a scale similar to the achievements of the 1863-1910 period. BTN |
Public Transport Expansion
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk