It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

There may be other ways of doing it, but I want to explore the
possibilities of bi-cable gondelbahnen/cableways (Sorry, I am not sure
of the English word) as used, for example, in ski-resorts.

"Bi-cable" means that the weight is carried by wheels running
on a fixed cable, and the cars are pulled along by a moving cable.

Cableways certainly have very low visual impact, just two
wires, high up, and the masts necessary to support them. That can't
be very expensive. Certainly not as expensive as the Birmingham
airport shuttle at £10M for 1Km of double route, when the track bed
already existed.

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

I have always been struck by the fact that cable cars are
always hung well below the level of the cable. Why is that? Is it to
ensure that like pendulums, they swing slowly and don't make the
passengers sick? That will be a problem in cases where the route has
to go underground because the tunnel has to be so much bigger. But
could the difficulty be overcome? The car is fitted with rail
wheels set into the corners (ie, not increasing its total
height), where the route is of reduced height, the car is guided onto
rails which carry its weight, the hanger at the top folds down, and
the moving cable continues to pull it along.

Cable cars can be run automatically, and the number of cars
can be varied to match the level of traffic.

No doubt a lorry could be fitted inside with rails
and overhead cable so that the cars could be run into it over a
special route and taken away to be maintained at a central depot.

Is this workable?

--

Michael Bell

In article , Steve Naïve
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote in
:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.


What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

A bus?

Crew = costs. With the waiting time, and the traffic, they will always
be slower than a cable car.


There may be other ways of doing it, but I want to explore the
possibilities of bi-cable gondelbahnen/cableways (Sorry, I am not sure
of the English word) as used, for example, in ski-resorts.

Cable Cars (as you wrote in the subject).

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

Do we have lots of steep gradients in London?

Again, Putney and East Putney


No doubt a lorry could be fitted inside with rails
and overhead cable so that the cars could be run into it over a
special route and taken away to be maintained at a central depot.

Is this workable?

No.


Do you mean the idea of transporting cars to a central depot is
unworkable, or the whole idea is unworkable?

--
Michael Bell

"Steve Naïve" wrote in message
...
Michael Bell wrote in
:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

Taken on their own a lot of these stations *are* in good sites from the
local spatial point of view. Interchange with competitors did not figure
highly in plans of the time and I'm willing to wager journey
origin-destinations were far less diverse 100 years ago than they are in
todays car dominated cities, so a good fast way of linking such station
pairs could start to make more potential rail journeys competitive.

Do you have examples?

Many outside central London - look at a map!

South West London has good connectivity already with useful hubs like
Wimbledon, Richmond, and the Grand-daddy of interchange, Clapham Junction.
The rest of London is not so well provided for unfortunately.

What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

A bus?

A conventional bus can't be automated easily, mainly because it would have
to share it's route with other traffic, pedestrians cyclist etc, which
depending on congestion could result in variable journey times. A
segregated, automated system could work 'on demand', departing when required
like a taxi, and driver costs no longer become a key issue in how many
vehicles can be running at the same time. Automation also changes the
economics of optimum vehicle size.

.. . .

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

Do we have lots of steep gradients in London?

A vehicle's *ability* to climb (perhaps quite short) steep gradients and
turn sharp corners can reduce guideway construction costs and disruption
compared to conventional railways for instance.

I recommend a visit to this excellent website covering a wide range of
Innovative Transportation Technology -

http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/


--
Mark Townend
http://www.maprail.com/

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:10:37 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!
[snip]
Cableways certainly have very low visual impact, just two
wires, high up, and the masts necessary to support them. That can't
be very expensive. Certainly not as expensive as the Birmingham
airport shuttle at £10M for 1Km of double route, when the track bed
already existed.

So when I'm loaded up with luggage or shopping I'm supposed to hang from
a thread in order to move between two stations?

Oh and if you are scared of heights?

What if it is windy or wet or snowing? You too can get frozen to the
core, blown to the ground or soaked to the skin courtesy of a new form
of air travel.

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short distances.

Do they? I don't recall there being a mountain range e.g. between
Shepherds Bush H&C and Shepherds Bush Central Line.

I'll tell you what - there are these fantastic inventions called
footpaths which allow people to walk along the ground on solid material.
If they are well maintained they are a pretty good and practical
alternative to dangling in the air.

I have always been struck by the fact that cable cars are
always hung well below the level of the cable. Why is that? Is it to
ensure that like pendulums, they swing slowly and don't make the
passengers sick? That will be a problem in cases where the route has
to go underground because the tunnel has to be so much bigger. But
could the difficulty be overcome?

Install a moving walkway.

Is this workable?

Not in the slightest.

ding next stupid idea please.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:10:37 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

Pairs of stations often have a large height difference between them.

Do they? I don't recall there being a mountain range e.g. between
Shepherds Bush H&C and Shepherds Bush Central Line.

Whyteleafe to Upper Warlingham is a bit of a climb. A cable car there would
be quite fun, actually...

But in general, cable cars (like paternosters) are suitable for a continuous
dribble of traffic, not for the intermittent crowds that leave stations.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Michael Bell wrote:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy of
the railway politics of the 19th century!

Is it just me who saw the thread title and thought "well, they have
them in San Francisco..."? :-)


--
James Farrar |
London, SE13 |

In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

In article , Steve Naïve
wrote:
Michael Bell wrote in
:

It seems to me that there is a great need for means to link
the dozens of pairs of stations in London and elsewhere where the
two stations are just too far apart to be considered "the same
place", and too far apart to walk conveniently between. The legacy
of the railway politics of the 19th century!

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.


What means of transport could link such pairs? It would be
nice to have a standard thing which could be widely used.

A bus?

Crew = costs. With the waiting time, and the traffic, they will always
be slower than a cable car.


There may be other ways of doing it, but I want to explore the
possibilities of bi-cable gondelbahnen/cableways (Sorry, I am not
sure of the English word) as used, for example, in ski-resorts.

Cable Cars (as you wrote in the subject).

Cableways can go up and down steep gradients, that's their
function in ski resorts. Pairs of stations often have a large height
difference between them. Speed is adequate for such short
distances.
Do we have lots of steep gradients in London?

Again, Putney and East Putney

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would want to
interchange between Putney and East Putney

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[snip]

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.

[snip]

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would want to
interchange between Putney and East Putney

That's not the point. I am thinking of people on longer journeys for
whom a change at Putney would connect two otherwise unconnectable
routes and make the overall journey much easier.

--

Michael Bell

In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[snip]

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.

[snip]

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would
want to interchange between Putney and East Putney

That's not the point. I am thinking of people on longer journeys for
whom a change at Putney would connect two otherwise unconnectable
routes and make the overall journey much easier.

Which "otherwise unconnectable routes", though?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Michael Bell) wrote:

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[snip]

Do you have examples?

Putney and East Putney.

[snip]

As someone brought up in Putney I wonder why on earth anyone would
want to interchange between Putney and East Putney

That's not the point. I am thinking of people on longer journeys for
whom a change at Putney would connect two otherwise unconnectable
routes and make the overall journey much easier.

Which "otherwise unconnectable routes", though?

Barnes to Parsons Green for example. There are lots of journeys from SWT
stations to District Line stations where this interchange is the quickest
route.

Peter Smyth