Discussion:
So what's going wrong with the Jubilee line?
(too old to reply)
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-20 09:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Every other day there seems to be some major signal failure or even
worse such as last nights power failure. Are there any competant engineers
left in this country?

B2003
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-20 16:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Every other day there seems to be some major signal failure or even
worse such as last nights power failure. Are there any competant
engineers left in this country?
Perhaps not. See
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/New-busway-safety-checks-needed-after-
blunder-20032011.htm.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-21 08:33:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:08:54 -0500
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@boltar.world
Every other day there seems to be some major signal failure or even
worse such as last nights power failure. Are there any competant
engineers left in this country?
Perhaps not. See
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/New-busway-safety-checks-needed-after-
blunder-20032011.htm.
I'll give it 10 years before that busway is closed down due to high
maintenance costs and bus operators no longer wanting to pay to use it
when they can use the roads for free.

B2003
Theo Markettos
2011-04-22 18:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
I'll give it 10 years before that busway is closed down due to high
maintenance costs and bus operators no longer wanting to pay to use it
when they can use the roads for free.
I had a wander down it this afternoon. The concrete beam sides have small
gullies (about 1" across and deep) across the top surface, about 2 or 3 per
beam. There's already what looks like freeze-thaw weathering, to the extent
that pretty much every gully has a crack leading down, that's the height of
the beam side (about 8").

It may be this is a design 'feature', but it doesn't bode well. These beams
were only laid last year. A few look like they've been bodge-patched with
cement.

In other news, the busway has finally been signed off by the contractor.
Only 2.5 years late...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Guided-bus-finally-handed-over-21042011.htm

Theo
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-23 09:40:58 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Apr 2011 19:18:37 +0100 (BST)
Post by Theo Markettos
I had a wander down it this afternoon. The concrete beam sides have small
gullies (about 1" across and deep) across the top surface, about 2 or 3 per
beam. There's already what looks like freeze-thaw weathering, to the extent
that pretty much every gully has a crack leading down, that's the height of
the beam side (about 8").
It may be this is a design 'feature', but it doesn't bode well. These beams
were only laid last year. A few look like they've been bodge-patched with
cement.
In other news, the busway has finally been signed off by the contractor.
Only 2.5 years late...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Guided-bus-finally-handed-over-21042011.ht
Sounds like its turning out to be an entire herd of white elephants. I'm
glad its not me paying council tax up there. I wonder if the law should
get involved at some point over this given how much less re-opening the
railway would have cost and how much more useful it would have been.
Something smells bad to me.

B2003
Roland Perry
2011-04-23 09:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Theo Markettos
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Guided-bus-finally-handed-over-21042011.ht
Sounds like its turning out to be an entire herd of white elephants. I'm
glad its not me paying council tax up there.
The County Council has always insisted that the line won't cost council
tax payers anything. If it turns out that it does, then that'll be a
quite separate issue.
Post by b***@boltar.world
I wonder if the law should get involved at some point over this given
how much less re-opening the railway would have cost and how much more
useful it would have been.
The sort of problems involved in making the route fit for a bus would
have applied even more so for a train. There's no chance the route could
have been used for a train instead at anything like this price.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Something smells bad to me.
It's a fairly typical set of civil engineering over-runs, unexpected
glitches, and arguments about the specification. A railway would also
have needed fancy measures to be built over gas main, a new viaduct over
the river (and suitable drainage), a big new P&R car park. It doesn't
make sense, for example, to imagine that a railway station car park
would have had any different issues to the bus stop.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-23 10:16:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:59:10 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
I wonder if the law should get involved at some point over this given
how much less re-opening the railway would have cost and how much more
useful it would have been.
The sort of problems involved in making the route fit for a bus would
have applied even more so for a train. There's no chance the route could
have been used for a train instead at anything like this price.
Umm, you are apparently unaware that almost all of the route actually was an
old mothballed railway line with most of the track and stations still in situ
up until the point that they ripped it up to build this busway.

B2003
Roland Perry
2011-04-23 10:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
I wonder if the law should get involved at some point over this given
how much less re-opening the railway would have cost and how much more
useful it would have been.
The sort of problems involved in making the route fit for a bus would
have applied even more so for a train. There's no chance the route could
have been used for a train instead at anything like this price.
Umm, you are apparently unaware that almost all of the route actually was an
old mothballed railway line with most of the track and stations still in situ
up until the point that they ripped it up to build this busway.
I am perfectly aware of that. What you seem unaware of, however, is what
a poor state it was in ("mothballed" is a bit optimistic), and how much
work was required on ancillary aspects. I don't think any of the
stations were re-openable, for example, all the level crossings were
missing, and several large items like a viaduct over the river were
beyond repair.

Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.

I'm not convinced that it's best as a busway, a tram would be by
preferred option. But the Nottingham tramway extensions are costing
vastly more than the guided bus, even though one of the extensions is
again mainly on an old railway line.

One of the objections in Nottingham is that the railway line is now a
nature trail, and the Cambridge busway would have been much more
difficult to justify had they not been able to accommodate walkers and
cycles (and some horse crossings) into the design.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-23 12:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
I am perfectly aware of that. What you seem unaware of, however, is
what a poor state it was in ("mothballed" is a bit optimistic), and
how much work was required on ancillary aspects. I don't think any
of the stations were re-openable, for example, all the level
crossings were missing, and several large items like a viaduct over
the river were beyond repair.
Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.
While I agree with your description of the state of the old railway, are
you aware of rail industry estimates of railway restoration costs
published by Castiron which contract your last sentence?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-23 15:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
I am perfectly aware of that. What you seem unaware of, however, is
what a poor state it was in ("mothballed" is a bit optimistic), and
how much work was required on ancillary aspects. I don't think any
of the stations were re-openable, for example, all the level
crossings were missing, and several large items like a viaduct over
the river were beyond repair.
Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.
While I agree with your description of the state of the old railway, are
you aware of rail industry estimates of railway restoration costs
published by Castiron which contract your last sentence?
I'm not aware of any estimates that took account of all the issues that
had to be overcome. I doubt they covered the Trumpington cutting at all,
for example. I don't know to what extent the Castiron estimates included
building the P&R sites and other ancillary stuff.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-23 16:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
I am perfectly aware of that. What you seem unaware of, however, is
what a poor state it was in ("mothballed" is a bit optimistic), and
how much work was required on ancillary aspects. I don't think any
of the stations were re-openable, for example, all the level
crossings were missing, and several large items like a viaduct over
the river were beyond repair.
Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.
While I agree with your description of the state of the old railway,
are you aware of rail industry estimates of railway restoration costs
published by Castiron which contract your last sentence?
Oops! s/contract/contradict/
Post by Roland Perry
I'm not aware of any estimates that took account of all the issues
that had to be overcome. I doubt they covered the Trumpington
cutting at all, for example. I don't know to what extent the
Castiron estimates included building the P&R sites and other
ancillary stuff.
It was a railway reopening so maybe the park and ride car parks were not
included. They aren't very expensive, though.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-23 18:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
I'm not aware of any estimates that took account of all the issues
that had to be overcome. I doubt they covered the Trumpington
cutting at all, for example. I don't know to what extent the
Castiron estimates included building the P&R sites and other
ancillary stuff.
It was a railway reopening so maybe the park and ride car parks were not
included.
One of the main problems with comparing the estimates is that they are
for different projects. eg Would Castiron have rebuilt the Ouse viaduct,
or didn't they think it was necessary.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-25 08:31:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 11:54:26 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Umm, you are apparently unaware that almost all of the route actually was an
old mothballed railway line with most of the track and stations still in situ
up until the point that they ripped it up to build this busway.
I am perfectly aware of that. What you seem unaware of, however, is what
a poor state it was in ("mothballed" is a bit optimistic), and how much
work was required on ancillary aspects. I don't think any of the
stations were re-openable, for example, all the level crossings were
missing, and several large items like a viaduct over the river were
beyond repair.
Well I don't know, I've never been there. But I don't see how a station
can't be re-openable given that plenty of old disused stations have been
converted back into working stations elsewhere or even into family homes.

As for the viaduct - I presume it had to be replaced anyway so what
difference does that make? I doubt one designed to carry the weight of
2 buses is significantly cheaper than one designed to carry 2 or 3 car
passenger trains or even light rail.
Post by Roland Perry
Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.
I'd be interested to see some figures rather than vague hand waving.
Post by Roland Perry
One of the objections in Nottingham is that the railway line is now a
nature trail, and the Cambridge busway would have been much more
difficult to justify had they not been able to accommodate walkers and
cycles (and some horse crossings) into the design.
That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations. And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load
more room than even a double railway line.

And thats before we get onto the issue of the huge amount of CO2 generated
by and from all that poured concrete and the inefficiencies of a bus
compared to a rail vehicle.

B2003
Roland Perry
2011-04-25 10:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Umm, you are apparently unaware that almost all of the route actually was an
old mothballed railway line with most of the track and stations still in situ
up until the point that they ripped it up to build this busway.
I am perfectly aware of that. What you seem unaware of, however, is what
a poor state it was in ("mothballed" is a bit optimistic), and how much
work was required on ancillary aspects. I don't think any of the
stations were re-openable, for example, all the level crossings were
missing, and several large items like a viaduct over the river were
beyond repair.
Well I don't know, I've never been there.
In that case I have the advantage over you, knowing the locality quite
well, and having followed the project for the last ten years.
Post by b***@boltar.world
But I don't see how a station can't be re-openable given that plenty of
old disused stations have been converted back into working stations
elsewhere or even into family homes.
You'd have to compulsorily purchase them if it was someone's home; three
of the intermediate ones remain, and they do look like stations:
http://goo.gl/maps/cYdT http://goo.gl/maps/Q6gY http://goo.gl/maps/CNlP
but is it cheaper to start from scratch when you've that little to work
with? On the other hand, when you get to the edge of St Ives the station
is now under the bypass, so you'd need to build a brand new station in
the field to the southeast.
Post by b***@boltar.world
As for the viaduct - I presume it had to be replaced anyway so what
difference does that make?
Because it's not clear whether the cost of replacing it was included in
the rail-reopening quotes.
Post by b***@boltar.world
I doubt one designed to carry the weight of 2 buses is significantly
cheaper than one designed to carry 2 or 3 car passenger trains or even
light rail.
Of course not. After all you'd only have to design for two trains at 150
tons each (45ton/car), versus two buses at 14 tons each. Remind me not
to stand under any bridges you've built!
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.
I'd be interested to see some figures rather than vague hand waving.
I've posted some, above; as for costings, it's very important to compare
like with like - hence the difficulty with knowing whether the new
viaduct is included, what sort of new level crossings (one on a very
busy road) were proposed, and so on.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
One of the objections in Nottingham is that the railway line is now a
nature trail, and the Cambridge busway would have been much more
difficult to justify had they not been able to accommodate walkers and
cycles (and some horse crossings) into the design.
That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations.
That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.
Post by b***@boltar.world
And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.
Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?
Post by b***@boltar.world
And thats before we get onto the issue of the huge amount of CO2 generated
by and from all that poured concrete and the inefficiencies of a bus
compared to a rail vehicle.
As the line would run empty most of the day, it's preferable for the
buses to be carting air around than a train. The buses also have a
larger catchment area (the rival rail proposal only covered about half
the guided bus's route, something that's often forgotten).

But please don't mistake my scepticism about reopening the railway as
support for the guided bus. Both of the schemes are follies.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-25 11:47:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:17:34 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
I doubt one designed to carry the weight of 2 buses is significantly
cheaper than one designed to carry 2 or 3 car passenger trains or even
light rail.
Of course not. After all you'd only have to design for two trains at 150
tons each (45ton/car), versus two buses at 14 tons each. Remind me not
to stand under any bridges you've built!
Most of the weight a bridge has to support is its own weight. When you
get into those sorts of tonnages the weight of the vehicle crossing it
becomes only a small percentage of the total weight so the overall structure
of a busway bridge I suspect is not much less than that of a railway bridge.
You only have to look at how well built most road bridges are to appreciate
this.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations.
That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.
Not on a mainline no. But a number of preserved railways do have that. I
don't know if the rules are different however.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.
Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?
Looking at streetview it looks wider. And I remember reading that they
had to demolish some structures and cut back the old station platforms
to fit it in on the same route.
Post by Roland Perry
As the line would run empty most of the day, it's preferable for the
buses to be carting air around than a train. The buses also have a
larger catchment area (the rival rail proposal only covered about half
the guided bus's route, something that's often forgotten).
Are you talking about the actual busway or the entire bus route?
If you include normal roads thats an unfair comparison since the buses
can used them whether the busway exists or not and their cost is
zero.

B2003
Roland Perry
2011-04-25 16:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
I doubt one designed to carry the weight of 2 buses is significantly
cheaper than one designed to carry 2 or 3 car passenger trains or even
light rail.
Of course not. After all you'd only have to design for two trains at 150
tons each (45ton/car), versus two buses at 14 tons each. Remind me not
to stand under any bridges you've built!
Most of the weight a bridge has to support is its own weight. When you
get into those sorts of tonnages the weight of the vehicle crossing it
becomes only a small percentage of the total weight so the overall structure
of a busway bridge I suspect is not much less than that of a railway bridge.
Let's say 90% of the weight of the bridge is required to keep itself up, and
only 10% is represented by the safe load above it. That would indicate that
a bridge for a 14 ton bus would need to weigh 140 tons. Are you suggesting
you could run a 150 ton train across such a bridge, rather than needing a
1500 ton construction?
Post by b***@boltar.world
You only have to look at how well built most road bridges are to appreciate
this.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations.
That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.
Not on a mainline no. But a number of preserved railways do have that. I
don't know if the rules are different however.
I think a big part of the problem with proposed rail re-openings on this
line have been a result of treating it like a preserved railway, rather than
a service railway.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.
Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?
Looking at streetview it looks wider.
A bus is narrower than a train, you can't get away from that basic fact. And
if you guide the buses through bridge holes, you can get them side by side
in the same gap as trains. Here's the bridge where the A14 crosses the
track: <http://lh5.ggpht.com/_bKS0Ey2ovWg/S0DsBpNSrOI/AAAAAAAAJuw/lsOI55-V7_
E/P1030018.JPG>
Post by b***@boltar.world
And I remember reading that they
had to demolish some structures and cut back the old station platforms
to fit it in on the same route.
They demolished the platforms at Histon Station, but that's probably because
it's the site of a bus stop, not just tracks, http://goo.gl/maps/8rRZ
and they've also raised the ground level there quite a bit. Compare this
picture with today's streetview http://goo.gl/maps/Q6gY

Loading Image...
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
As the line would run empty most of the day, it's preferable for the
buses to be carting air around than a train. The buses also have a
larger catchment area (the rival rail proposal only covered about half
the guided bus's route, something that's often forgotten).
Are you talking about the actual busway or the entire bus route?
The buses are travelling from Huntingdon to Trumpington, via the centre of
Cambridge. The rail reopening was just St Ives to Chesterton.
Post by b***@boltar.world
If you include normal roads thats an unfair comparison since the buses
can used them whether the busway exists or not and their cost is
zero.
There isn't a direct road between the villages which the busway connects, so
it would be very hard to run a bus in the absence of the busway. The bigger
problem is that those villages won't create enough custom to fill a bus
every 20 minutes, let alone a train.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Terry
2011-04-25 19:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
The buses are travelling from Huntingdon to Trumpington, via the centre of
Cambridge. The rail reopening was just St Ives to Chesterton.
Which was surely the main attraction of the bus solution? Cambridge
station is far from the city centre (thanks to the university), which
makes it very unappealing for short shopping trips from the hinterland.
--
Paul Terry
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-26 08:45:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:53:28 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Most of the weight a bridge has to support is its own weight. When you
get into those sorts of tonnages the weight of the vehicle crossing it
becomes only a small percentage of the total weight so the overall structure
of a busway bridge I suspect is not much less than that of a railway bridge.
Let's say 90% of the weight of the bridge is required to keep itself up, and
only 10% is represented by the safe load above it. That would indicate that
a bridge for a 14 ton bus would need to weigh 140 tons. Are you suggesting
you could run a 150 ton train across such a bridge, rather than needing a
1500 ton construction?
I don't know. What I do know is that modern road bridges and viaducts to me
seem to be very over engineered given the total weight they'd ever be expected
to carry. Eg , that M1 viaduct that had a fire underneath. Rail bridges OTOH
seem to be somewhat slender in comparison. So while I may have phrased it
wrongly I still don't think a replacement rail bridge would have been much more
hefty than a busway bridge.
Post by Roland Perry
A bus is narrower than a train, you can't get away from that basic fact. And
Not by much in this country. Buses are what, 2.5 metres wide? The UK loading
gauge is 2.8 max.
Post by Roland Perry
There isn't a direct road between the villages which the busway connects, so
it would be very hard to run a bus in the absence of the busway. The bigger
problem is that those villages won't create enough custom to fill a bus
every 20 minutes, let alone a train.
True, but a rail link from huntingdon to cambridge via ST Ives may well have
done , coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful diversion
route for the ECML.

B2003
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-26 09:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
True, but a rail link from huntingdon to cambridge via ST Ives may well
have done , coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful
diversion route for the ECML.
This is impossibly dreamy nonsense I'm afraid.

The Cast.Iron scheme was a good one for Cambridge to St Ives but any idea
of a through route to the ECML via Huntingdon doesn't take account the
railway history of the area. St Ives was on a through route until the late
1960s but it was from Cambridge to March. The line from St Ives to
Huntingdon (and on to Kettering) was a very lightly engineered single
track with no proper connection at Huntingdon which in any case faced
South. It is somewhat obstructed by the A14 too.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-26 09:59:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:49:52 -0500
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
This is impossibly dreamy nonsense I'm afraid.
The Cast.Iron scheme was a good one for Cambridge to St Ives but any idea
of a through route to the ECML via Huntingdon doesn't take account the
railway history of the area. St Ives was on a through route until the late
1960s but it was from Cambridge to March. The line from St Ives to
Huntingdon (and on to Kettering) was a very lightly engineered single
track with no proper connection at Huntingdon which in any case faced
South. It is somewhat obstructed by the A14 too.
Fair enough. I thought the line joined up with the ECML originally. Still, if
it could be done it would be useful.

B2003
Roland Perry
2011-04-26 10:24:58 UTC
Permalink
The line from St Ives to Huntingdon (and on to Kettering) was a very
lightly engineered single track with no proper connection at Huntingdon
which in any case faced South.
And the original line crosses a water meadow of SSI. I suppose the
resurrected passengers would get a good view of the butterflies!
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2011-04-26 10:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Most of the weight a bridge has to support is its own weight. When you
get into those sorts of tonnages the weight of the vehicle crossing it
becomes only a small percentage of the total weight so the overall structure
of a busway bridge I suspect is not much less than that of a railway bridge.
Let's say 90% of the weight of the bridge is required to keep itself up, and
only 10% is represented by the safe load above it. That would indicate that
a bridge for a 14 ton bus would need to weigh 140 tons. Are you suggesting
you could run a 150 ton train across such a bridge, rather than needing a
1500 ton construction?
I don't know. What I do know is that modern road bridges and viaducts to me
seem to be very over engineered given the total weight they'd ever be expected
to carry. Eg , that M1 viaduct that had a fire underneath.
That's built to carry three lanes of 40 ton HGVs.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Rail bridges OTOH seem to be somewhat slender in comparison.
The busway bridge is pretty slender too. Here's someone's picture of it
under construction.

Loading Image...
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
A bus is narrower than a train, you can't get away from that basic fact. And
Not by much in this country. Buses are what, 2.5 metres wide? The UK loading
gauge is 2.8 max.
Buses and busways are narrower than trains and their tracks. The only
wild card is whether you have a pathway beside them.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
There isn't a direct road between the villages which the busway connects, so
it would be very hard to run a bus in the absence of the busway. The bigger
problem is that those villages won't create enough custom to fill a bus
every 20 minutes, let alone a train.
True, but a rail link from huntingdon to cambridge via ST Ives may well have
done ,
The route from St Ives to Huntingdon has only ever been speculation,
especially over the route it might take (the old trackbed's not
available for almost the entire length). Every suggestion I've seen
results in joining the ECML from the north, and the folks keenest on
reopening the line finish their route at "Huntingdon East" conveniently
not specifying the final mile.
Post by b***@boltar.world
coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful diversion
route for the ECML.
Single track and non-electrified (ignoring the reverse at Huntingdon for
a moment) does not make a very useful diversion.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-26 10:45:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:22:27 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
I don't know. What I do know is that modern road bridges and viaducts to me
seem to be very over engineered given the total weight they'd ever be expected
to carry. Eg , that M1 viaduct that had a fire underneath.
That's built to carry three lanes of 40 ton HGVs.
Even 3 HGVs only weigh the same as a single locomotive. A rail bridge may have
to carry 2 locomotives plus their trains at the same time.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Rail bridges OTOH seem to be somewhat slender in comparison.
The busway bridge is pretty slender too. Here's someone's picture of it
under construction.
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/12999233.jpg
It would be interesting to see how slender it looks with a few hundred tons
of concrete busway on top of it.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful diversion
route for the ECML.
Single track and non-electrified (ignoring the reverse at Huntingdon for
a moment) does not make a very useful diversion.
If the line had been re-opened electrifying it would have been the only
sensible option unless DMUs were to be run all the way from london or have a
DMU shuttle service from cambridge.

B2003
Roland Perry
2011-04-27 10:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:22:27 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
I don't know. What I do know is that modern road bridges and viaducts to me
seem to be very over engineered given the total weight they'd ever be expected
to carry. Eg , that M1 viaduct that had a fire underneath.
That's built to carry three lanes of 40 ton HGVs.
Even 3 HGVs only weigh the same as a single locomotive. A rail bridge may have
to carry 2 locomotives plus their trains at the same time.
Huh? I thought you were arguing that a bridge built for a couple of 14
ton buses would be adequate for two 150 ton trains... and now you are
quibbling about a mere couple of hundred tons of loco as well ;)
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Rail bridges OTOH seem to be somewhat slender in comparison.
The busway bridge is pretty slender too. Here's someone's picture of it
under construction.
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/12999233.jpg
It would be interesting to see how slender it looks with a few hundred tons
of concrete busway on top of it.
I'm sure you can find some photos online. The trackbed isn't going to be
structural (because it's prefabricated blocks laid down) but you should
also compare the size of those beams with the ones under a motorway.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
coupled with the fact that it would have provided a useful diversion
route for the ECML.
Single track and non-electrified (ignoring the reverse at Huntingdon for
a moment) does not make a very useful diversion.
If the line had been re-opened electrifying it would have been the only
sensible option unless DMUs were to be run all the way from london or have a
DMU shuttle service from cambridge.
Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-27 10:39:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:25:09 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Even 3 HGVs only weigh the same as a single locomotive. A rail bridge may have
to carry 2 locomotives plus their trains at the same time.
Huh? I thought you were arguing that a bridge built for a couple of 14
ton buses would be adequate for two 150 ton trains... and now you are
quibbling about a mere couple of hundred tons of loco as well ;)
No , I was saying road bridges and viaducts are built far more robustly than
you'd expect given the max weight of traffic you'd expect on them at any one
time, possibly with a few exceptions such as suspension bridges.
Post by Roland Perry
Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.
I have no idea if thats the case. I'd assumed the natural project would be
to re-open the route from Cambridge station otherwise whats the point?

B2003
Roland Perry
2011-04-27 14:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Even 3 HGVs only weigh the same as a single locomotive. A rail bridge may have
to carry 2 locomotives plus their trains at the same time.
Huh? I thought you were arguing that a bridge built for a couple of 14
ton buses would be adequate for two 150 ton trains... and now you are
quibbling about a mere couple of hundred tons of loco as well ;)
No , I was saying road bridges and viaducts are built far more robustly than
you'd expect given the max weight of traffic you'd expect on them at any one
time, possibly with a few exceptions such as suspension bridges.
I realise that, but a bridge designed to carry a 14 ton load is likely
to be much more robustly designed than one expected to carry 150 tons.
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.
I have no idea if thats the case.
It is, I've read the proposals.
Post by b***@boltar.world
I'd assumed the natural project would be to re-open the route from
Cambridge station otherwise whats the point?
Correct. Many people have indeed said "what's the point" of a railway
running from a little outside St Ives [1] to a long way outside
Cambridge; expecting someone else to connect it to the Cambridge line;
with proposals for extension to Huntingdon that just don't stand up; and
planning to run a pair of single coach railcars much of the day (when
the original idea was to relieve a road carrying 5,000 vehicles an
hour).

[1] With no track remaining at all the last few miles.
--
Roland Perry
Theo Markettos
2011-04-27 13:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.
Roland, please stop spreading FUD. The costings included an electrified spur
from Chesterton Junction as far as the east side of Milton Road.

http://www.castiron.org.uk/VisionDoc.php
http://www.castiron.org.uk/Stage1Bdetail.php

(perhaps it's slightly ambiguous from the document, but it was definitely
stated at the time)

Theo
Roland Perry
2011-04-27 14:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Roland Perry
Actually, the proposal was for "railcars", terminating just west of the
Milton Road in Cambridge. The proposers then expected Network Rail's
tooth fairy to reopen and electrify the line across the Milton Road
(level crossing) and onwards towards Cambridge station, with passengers
changing trains to start with.
Roland, please stop spreading FUD. The costings included an electrified spur
from Chesterton Junction as far as the east side of Milton Road.
http://www.castiron.org.uk/VisionDoc.php
http://www.castiron.org.uk/Stage1Bdetail.php
(perhaps it's slightly ambiguous from the document, but it was definitely
stated at the time)
It doesn't seem ambiguous to me (all Network Rail stuff):

"CAST.IRON trains will terminate at the west side of Milton
Road. Here two new platforms will be constructed, one for
CAST.IRON trains and one for Network Rail trains.

4.2. Network Rail Trackway

"A new 70mph track will be laid from Chesterton Junction to
Milton Road station, running parallel to the CAST.IRON access
track.

"This new Network Rail track spur will cross Milton Road to
reach the new station.... [and] will be overhead electrified.
--
Roland Perry
Theo Markettos
2011-04-28 20:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
"CAST.IRON trains will terminate at the west side of Milton
Road. Here two new platforms will be constructed, one for
CAST.IRON trains and one for Network Rail trains.
4.2. Network Rail Trackway
"A new 70mph track will be laid from Chesterton Junction to
Milton Road station, running parallel to the CAST.IRON access
track.
"This new Network Rail track spur will cross Milton Road to
reach the new station.... [and] will be overhead electrified.
The possible point of ambiguity being about who was paying for this. It was
clearly stated at the meeting I went to that this was included in
CAST.IRON's costings.

Theo
Roland Perry
2011-04-29 07:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Roland Perry
"CAST.IRON trains will terminate at the west side of Milton
Road. Here two new platforms will be constructed, one for
CAST.IRON trains and one for Network Rail trains.
4.2. Network Rail Trackway
"A new 70mph track will be laid from Chesterton Junction to
Milton Road station, running parallel to the CAST.IRON access
track.
"This new Network Rail track spur will cross Milton Road to
reach the new station.... [and] will be overhead electrified.
The possible point of ambiguity being about who was paying for this. It was
clearly stated at the meeting I went to that this was included in
CAST.IRON's costings.
The estimates for Chesterton Sidings Station exceed CAST.IRON's *total*
costings for Cambridge to St Ives, and CSS needs less extra
electrification and no new level crossing on Milton Road. That's the
sort of thing which makes me sceptical about the costings and who is
paying what.
--
Roland Perry
Theo Markettos
2011-04-25 22:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
As for the viaduct - I presume it had to be replaced anyway so what
difference does that make?
Because it's not clear whether the cost of replacing it was included in
the rail-reopening quotes.
Er, yes it is:
http://www.castiron.org.uk/Stage1Bdetail.php
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
Post by Roland Perry
Unless you can some to terms with that, you'll never understand why
reopening as a railway would have been very costly.
I'd be interested to see some figures rather than vague hand waving.
Start here for CAST.IRON's costings:
http://www.castiron.org.uk/VisionDoc.php
(there's a PDF document around with more detail, but I can't find a link to
it ATM)

Feel free to take those apart. The CHUMMS report (government study with
rail costings by Atkins) is here:
http://www.eera.gov.uk/publications-and-resources/studies/transport-studies/multi-modal-studies/chumms-cambridge-to-hunktingdon-multi-modal-study/
Post by Roland Perry
I've posted some, above; as for costings, it's very important to compare
like with like - hence the difficulty with knowing whether the new
viaduct is included, what sort of new level crossings (one on a very
busy road) were proposed, and so on.
See the description of Stage 1B above, which describes the types of
crossings installed.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
That could easily be accomodated with a railway by having single track
with double track at stations.
That's a novel idea - do you know anywhere there's a railway and nature
trail squeezed onto an old railway track, with sufficient crossings that
people can access the trail from both sides of course.
Avon Valley Railway is one (cycle track not nature trail):
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Steam-train-rescue-cycle-accident/article-2465190-detail/article.html
I don't know any local details so can't say how many crossings there are.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.
Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do you
have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so they can
squeeze through a smaller gap?
Except when it doesn't. For example, Trumpington cutting was a double track
railway in 1951 (to Bedford), but is now single track busway plus
maintenance track.

Theo
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-26 08:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.
Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do
you have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so
they can squeeze through a smaller gap?
Except when it doesn't. For example, Trumpington cutting was a double
track railway in 1951 (to Bedford), but is now single track busway plus
maintenance track.
Roland is overlooking the maintenance track which is what prevents the
busway fitting within the railway alignment. It's being sold as a free
cycleway but it's actually what has cut capacity considerably on the
busway in places.

The other factor overlooked is that trains only require the headroom of
single deck buses. Most buses used in Cambridge are double deck (for
capacity reasons). The Southern section of the guideway is available to
single deck buses only due to the low height of the bridges. On the
Northern section the track below bridges has had to be lowered in order to
accommodate double deckers. Luckily there aren't many bridges there but
there will be few through buses to Addenbrooke's Hospital and Trumpington
from the North because of the limitations.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-26 10:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@boltar.world
And 2 busway tracks takes up a shed load more room than even a double
railway line.
Actually not, that's the point - it fits in the same space. Or do
you have some mythical trains that are narrower than a bus, so
they can squeeze through a smaller gap?
Except when it doesn't. For example, Trumpington cutting was a double
track railway in 1951 (to Bedford), but is now single track busway plus
maintenance track.
Roland is overlooking the maintenance track which is what prevents the
busway fitting within the railway alignment. It's being sold as a free
cycleway but it's actually what has cut capacity considerably on the
busway in places.
It's another case of a combination of thread drift and people not
comparing like with like.

The comments about width started off when I observed that one objection
to re-opening an old railway alignment in Nottingham was the loss of a
nature trail. That was countered by an observation that railways take up
less space than a guided bus and therefore the nature trail could
co-exist. Theo has posted a photo of an old trackbed with a single track
preserved railway and a footpath alongside.

Given that we were told that it had "most of the track and stations
still in situ" we must conclude that the poster in question was wanting
to restore a single track railway, but it's a shame it wasn't always
next to what I think was the only remaining platforms:

Loading Image...

Yes, a twin track busway with cycle/maintenance path is wider than a
railway, but not wider than a two-track railway and nature trail. As far
as I'm concerned the only place that width matters very much is through
bridge holes.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The other factor overlooked is that trains only require the headroom of
single deck buses. Most buses used in Cambridge are double deck (for
capacity reasons). The Southern section of the guideway is available to
single deck buses only due to the low height of the bridges. On the
Northern section the track below bridges has had to be lowered in order to
accommodate double deckers. Luckily there aren't many bridges there but
there will be few through buses to Addenbrooke's Hospital and Trumpington
from the North because of the limitations.
And very few through[1] cast.iron trains, I expect. (another case of
comparing like with like).

[1] Even reaching Cambridge station requires using a substantial
investment from Network Rail to get from the Science Park, let alone
re-opening south towards the Trumpington P&R.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-26 11:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Given that we were told that it had "most of the track and stations
still in situ" we must conclude that the poster in question was
wanting to restore a single track railway, but it's a shame it
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/histon/histon4.jpg
Yes, a twin track busway with cycle/maintenance path is wider than
a railway, but not wider than a two-track railway and nature trail.
As far as I'm concerned the only place that width matters very much
is through bridge holes.
The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme. The track
was double until after passenger closure so restoring track to the
platforms could be easily incorporated in any track relaying.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The other factor overlooked is that trains only require the headroom of
single deck buses. Most buses used in Cambridge are double deck (for
capacity reasons). The Southern section of the guideway is available to
single deck buses only due to the low height of the bridges. On the
Northern section the track below bridges has had to be lowered in order
to accommodate double deckers. Luckily there aren't many bridges there
but there will be few through buses to Addenbrooke's Hospital and
Trumpington from the North because of the limitations.
And very few through[1] cast.iron trains, I expect. (another case
of comparing like with like).
[1] Even reaching Cambridge station requires using a substantial
investment from Network Rail to get from the Science Park, let
alone re-opening south towards the Trumpington P&R.
The junction is still there and was signalled, UIVMM. There are a number
of station area signalling changes needed in any case. The incremental
cost of allowing trains from St Ives in and through would be small.

I tend to agree that extending to Trumpington wasn't top priority. It is
the only bit of the busway which makes some sense, especially with the
Addenbrooke's spur.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-26 12:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme.
Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a nature
trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried about it
potentially disappearing?

I took some photos of the Nottingham nature trail yesterday, not very
inspiring towards the south end. Who would believe this is the old Great
Central railway? http://www.panoramio.com/photo/51704614

That picture taken just a few yards north of the proposed Ruddington
Lane tram stop. It'll be fascinating to come back and see this in a few
years: <http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/netphase2/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=
15768&p=0>

It seems they've safeguarded a bridge under the A52, but Ruddington Lane
has been built on top of the embankment and will need a new bridge - but
they need new bridges over Wilford Lane and Midland Station as well.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The track was double until after passenger closure so restoring track
to the platforms could be easily incorporated in any track relaying.
Did any of the stations other than Histon have platforms left? And this
idea about relaying the track runs against assertions that a service
could be restored easily as long as the old track hadn't been "ripped
up". In reality, the old track would have been ripped up (and replaced,
even if with some of the old rails) for a railway restoration project.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-26 17:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a nature
trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried about it
potentially disappearing?
It was officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was
handed over to the County Council, if you remember.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-26 17:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a nature
trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried about it
potentially disappearing?
It was officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was
handed over to the County Council, if you remember.
There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one of the
spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can have been a
railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the un-ripped up old
track" issue is an oversimplification.

This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944
and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-26 20:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a
nature trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried
about it potentially disappearing?
It was officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was
handed over to the County Council, if you remember.
There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one
of the spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can
have been a railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the
un-ripped up old track" issue is an oversimplification.
This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944
and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958
The railway only extended to Fen Drayton by then.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-26 21:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
It was officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was
handed over to the County Council, if you remember.
There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one
of the spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can
have been a railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the
un-ripped up old track" issue is an oversimplification.
This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944
and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958
The railway only extended to Fen Drayton by then.
About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596

Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up, so
they could run trains on it!
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-26 23:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
It was officially a railway under engineers' possession until it was
handed over to the County Council, if you remember.
There are pictures of the Ouse bridge with a tarmac path over one
of the spans (the other being derelict). So I don't think it can
have been a railway all the way. Another reason why the "use the
un-ripped up old track" issue is an oversimplification.
This at Swavesey for example: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/6784944
and a little further west: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10391958
The railway only extended to Fen Drayton by then.
About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596
Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up,
so they could run trains on it!
That was a railway under engineers' possession at the time.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-27 10:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The railway only extended to Fen Drayton by then.
About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596
Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up,
so they could run trains on it!
That was a railway under engineers' possession at the time.
I'd love to see them get an engineer's train down there. Were things
like the Milton Rd level crossing in a working enough condition?
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-27 17:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The railway only extended to Fen Drayton by then.
About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596
Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up,
so they could run trains on it!
That was a railway under engineers' possession at the time.
I'd love to see them get an engineer's train down there. Were
things like the Milton Rd level crossing in a working enough
condition?
ITYF that's a common problem with railway lines under engineers'
possession, Roland! Presumably some engineers' attention could have
overcome the problems. My children travelled on it despite the fact that
the oldest was born more than 16 years after passenger closure.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-27 17:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596
Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up,
so they could run trains on it!
That was a railway under engineers' possession at the time.
I'd love to see them get an engineer's train down there. Were
things like the Milton Rd level crossing in a working enough
condition?
ITYF that's a common problem with railway lines under engineers'
possession, Roland! Presumably some engineers' attention could have
overcome the problems. My children travelled on it despite the fact that
the oldest was born more than 16 years after passenger closure.
Not difficult given that passenger closure was over 40 years ago. They'd
have last been able to travel on it in about 1990 I suppose, which still
gives 17 years for that vegetation to grow.
--
Roland Perry
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-27 08:35:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:28:46 +0100
Post by Roland Perry
About here then: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4580596
Oh dear, more track that we should have stopped people ripping up, so
they could run trains on it!
That track looks in pretty good condition to me given how long its been
out of use. Vegetation is easily removed.

B2003
Theo Markettos
2011-04-27 00:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme.
Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a nature
trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried about it
potentially disappearing?
It was still technically an operating railway until 2 August 2003, so it
wasn't officially available for walkers or cyclists. Some people did walk
on the tidier bits, but some of it was very overgrown - above head height
brambles just north of Oakington station, for example.
Post by Roland Perry
Did any of the stations other than Histon have platforms left? And this
idea about relaying the track runs against assertions that a service
could be restored easily as long as the old track hadn't been "ripped
up". In reality, the old track would have been ripped up (and replaced,
even if with some of the old rails) for a railway restoration project.
I think Oakington did. I didn't get further than Longstanton when I walked
it (in 2001) so don't know any other stations.

Theo
Roland Perry
2011-04-27 10:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme.
Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a nature
trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried about it
potentially disappearing?
It was still technically an operating railway until 2 August 2003, so it
wasn't officially available for walkers or cyclists.
Where was the official end of the line in 2003? The rails were lifted
beyond Fen Drayton, and the St Ives bypass was built on top of the St
Ives station site (apparently in 1980), the bypass uses the old trackbed
towards March.
--
Roland Perry
Theo Markettos
2011-04-27 14:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Where was the official end of the line in 2003? The rails were lifted
beyond Fen Drayton, and the St Ives bypass was built on top of the St
Ives station site (apparently in 1980), the bypass uses the old trackbed
towards March.
Fen Drayton I think. The last use for it was sand/gravel extraction at the
Fen Drayton pits, so that's why it was cut back to there. The line was
essentially abandoned since 1992, so I can't see why BRB/Railtrack/NR would
have further shortened it without any particular use in mind. Various
railway sources refer to it as the Chesterton Jct to Fen Drayton branch too.

Apparently Signalling Notice 129 from Nov 1984 refers to the Fen Drayton
branch, so it must have been cut back before then.

Theo
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2011-04-27 17:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Theo Markettos
Post by Theo Markettos
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The nature trail isn't a part of the Cambridge-St Ives scheme.
Do you mean that the trackbed had never acquired the status of a
nature trail, so apart from cyclists there's no-one that worried
about it potentially disappearing?
It was still technically an operating railway until 2 August 2003, so
it wasn't officially available for walkers or cyclists.
Where was the official end of the line in 2003? The rails were
lifted beyond Fen Drayton, and the St Ives bypass was built on top
of the St Ives station site (apparently in 1980), the bypass uses
the old trackbed towards March.
The sand trains ran to Fen Drayton until the extraction company was
allowed to build a road across the fields to the A14.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2011-04-27 17:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Where was the official end of the line in 2003? The rails were
lifted beyond Fen Drayton, and the St Ives bypass was built on top
of the St Ives station site (apparently in 1980), the bypass uses
the old trackbed towards March.
The sand trains ran to Fen Drayton until the extraction company was
allowed to build a road across the fields to the A14.
According to the "disused stations" site:

"service as far as Fen Drayton was retained until 1992 because
of a long term contract with the Amalgamated Road Stone
Corporation of St. Ives for aggregates. In the 1970's, the train
made a return trip there every work day though this had declined
to once a week by the late 1980's."

2003 was 11 years later.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Terry
2011-04-20 18:39:37 UTC
Permalink
In message <iom7pn$n2a$***@speranza.aioe.org>, ***@boltar.world
writes
Are there any competant engineers left in this country?
Very few, and many of them are due to retire. There is an enormous
shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of
Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to
take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies.

What the country needs is technicians (not graduates) in engineering,
but it is becoming increasingly difficult even to recruit them from
abroad, as countries such as Germany are having similar problems.
--
Paul Terry
Arthur Figgis
2011-04-20 21:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Terry
There is an enormous
shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of
Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to
take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies.
Is it? Or is it because there are non-engineering jobs open to people
with an education in engineering which can pay a lot more than
engineering businesses will, and sooner?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Mizter T
2011-04-20 22:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Paul Terry
There is an enormous
shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of
Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to
take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies.
Is it? Or is it because there are non-engineering jobs open to people
with an education in engineering which can pay a lot more than
engineering businesses will, and sooner?
And provide great opportunities to engineer the economy... to
destruction.

There's more to life than getting paid oodles of cash - shame that
both engineering companies don't seem to be able to promote such a
notion, and many engineering graduates seem to reject it too... cue
some sort of vague rant about the Thatcherised and atomised 'I'm
alright Jack' attitude which, in the spirit of this thread, I'll only
make a half-arsed effort to construct.
Arthur Figgis
2011-04-20 22:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mizter T
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Paul Terry
There is an enormous
shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of
Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to
take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies.
Is it? Or is it because there are non-engineering jobs open to people
with an education in engineering which can pay a lot more than
engineering businesses will, and sooner?
And provide great opportunities to engineer the economy... to
destruction.
The people doing it don't seem to be doing too badly!
Post by Mizter T
There's more to life than getting paid oodles of cash
But oodles of cash generally do help get the more (so people with oodles
of cash tell me, anyway).


- shame that
Post by Mizter T
both engineering companies don't seem to be able to promote such a
notion, and many engineering graduates seem to reject it too... cue
some sort of vague rant about the Thatcherised and atomised 'I'm
alright Jack' attitude which, in the spirit of this thread, I'll only
make a half-arsed effort to construct.
Plus the Stalinist system, the EU, Gordon Brown, Bilderbergers, Bob Crow
etc.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Paul Corfield
2011-04-21 08:39:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:22:25 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Plus the Stalinist system, the EU, Gordon Brown, Bilderbergers, Bob Crow
etc.
You missed out "ZaNu Liebore", the concept of living in a compound and
being an addled addict living on state benefits. These are essential
elements of any rant in a current or former Associated Newspapers
publication.
--
Paul C
b***@boltar.world
2011-04-21 08:37:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Mizter T
There's more to life than getting paid oodles of cash - shame that
both engineering companies don't seem to be able to promote such a
notion, and many engineering graduates seem to reject it too... cue
Unfortunately in this country engineers and scientists are at best
treated as slightly dotty boffins. At worst , greasy haired sociopaths
who wouldn't be allowed in polite company. There are a few exceptions
who are allowed into polite society , usually biologists because thats
a slightly more soft focused subject that the liberal arts types can almost
understand the simpler concepts of so they don't feel so threatened.

Until this mindset changes science and engineering in this country is
pretty much doomed since if kids don't see it as attractive by the time
they're old enough to go to university its pretty much too late.

B2003
Ken Wheatley
2011-04-21 09:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Post by Mizter T
There's more to life than getting paid oodles of cash - shame that
both engineering companies don't seem to be able to promote such a
notion, and many engineering graduates seem to reject it too... cue
Unfortunately in this country engineers and scientists are at best
treated as slightly dotty boffins. At worst , greasy haired sociopaths
who wouldn't be allowed in polite company. There are a few exceptions
who are allowed into polite society , usually biologists because thats
a slightly more soft focused subject that the liberal arts types can almost
understand the simpler concepts of so they don't feel so threatened.
Until this mindset changes science and engineering in this country is
pretty much doomed since if kids don't see it as attractive by the time
they're old enough to go to university its pretty much too late.
B2003
Well said that man!
Mizter T
2011-04-20 22:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Terry
writes
Are there any competant engineers left in this country?
Very few, and many of them are due to retire. There is an enormous
shortage of engineers in the UK, mostly due to the under-funding of
Further Education and government policies to encourage youngsters to
take degrees in subjects such as tourism or media studies.
What the country needs is technicians (not graduates) in engineering,
but it is becoming increasingly difficult even to recruit them from
abroad, as countries such as Germany are having similar problems.
I know there is this and that out there, but from the outside there
often appears to be scant pathways into engineering - I'm thinking
about the likes of accessible apprenticeships for youngsters who'd
love to get stuck in to such a career but just don't have any way in.
Richard J.
2011-04-20 21:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@boltar.world
Every other day there seems to be some major signal failure or even
worse such as last nights power failure. Are there any competant engineers
left in this country?
Or railway managers?

Given the incompetence of the Standard's reporting today, I'm not sure
what happened last night, but something fell off a train or a trackside
cabinet and shorted the current rails. This was apparently in east
London. Why then was it necessary for passengers in north-west London
to be detrained along the tracks? Don't we have section switches any
more to enable parts of the line to run when others have the current
switched off?

To shut down the entire Jubilee Line for many hours because of a single
incident at one location is ridiculous. Or is there more to this fiasco
than is apparent from news reports?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...