About Us

Roland Perry · April 24th 17, 06:40 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In message , at 20:23:10
on Sun, 23 Apr 2017, remarked:

I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway to
be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in. Apart
from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be required
anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would take the trains
you envisage running (I note that CastIron were proposing DMUs, so might
have got away with platforms for only two carriages).
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · April 24th 17, 11:46 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
20:23:10 on Sun, 23 Apr 2017, remarked:

I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway
to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still
there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry · April 24th 17, 11:51 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In message , at 06:46:35
on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable railway
to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still
there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

Over budget and under spec at £350m.
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · April 24th 17, 03:20 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
06:46:35 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable
railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still
there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

Over budget and under spec at £350m.

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The
Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry · April 24th 17, 03:49 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In message , at 10:20:10
on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable
railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are still
there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

Over budget and under spec at £350m.

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The
Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the
Trumpington cutting to deal with.
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · April 24th 17, 04:47 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
10:20:10 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable
railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior
alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are
still there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

Over budget and under spec at £350m.

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The
Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the
Trumpington cutting to deal with.

They certainly did. A tunnel needed major works and the Hardengreen viaduct
is longer than the Ouse one UIVMM. I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have
been cheaper to restore for a railway.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry · April 24th 17, 07:29 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In message , at 11:47:37
on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
10:20:10 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly servicable
railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior
alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms are
still there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

Over budget and under spec at £350m.

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The
Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the
Trumpington cutting to deal with.

They certainly did. A tunnel needed major works and the Hardengreen viaduct
is longer than the Ouse one UIVMM.

The Ouse viaduct is 220m (Guided bus leaflet Jan 2009), and the
Hardengreen one approximately three sprinter carriages (from photos, so
about 75m).

I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a
railway.

Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus?

--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · April 24th 17, 08:52 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

*Subject:* Woking to Heathrow
*From:* Roland Perry
*Date:* Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:29:28 +0100

In message , at
11:47:37 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:
In article ,
(Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
10:20:10 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017,
remarked:
I can't see any other good reason for a perfectly
servicable
railway to be ripped up and replaced with an inferior
alternative.

It wasn't serviceable, and all the stations were gone.

No they weren't. Indeed some of the buildings and platforms
are
still there.

Stations require more than "a building" that someone is
living in.
Apart from Histon, which was in such a poor state a rebuild
would be
required anyway, what other platforms existed, and how many
would
take the trains you envisage running (I note that CastIron
were
proposing DMUs, so might have got away with platforms for
only two
carriages).

There was more still there than on the Borders Railway.

Over budget and under spec at £350m.

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The
Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the
Trumpington cutting to deal with.

They certainly did. A tunnel needed major works and the Hardengreen
viaduct is longer than the Ouse one UIVMM.

The Ouse viaduct is 220m (Guided bus leaflet Jan 2009), and the
Hardengreen one approximately three sprinter carriages (from photos,
so about 75m).

The total Hardengreen structure is longer than that. More like 100m and
looks longer than the Ouse viaduct. It's Bowshank Tunnel, by the way.

I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a
railway.

Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus?

The bus structure is quite a bit wider I suspect and I doubt that the 220m
is all viaduct.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry · April 25th 17, 07:19 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In message , at 15:52:14
on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have. The
Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the
Trumpington cutting to deal with.

They certainly did. A tunnel needed major works and the Hardengreen
viaduct is longer than the Ouse one UIVMM.

The Ouse viaduct is 220m (Guided bus leaflet Jan 2009), and the
Hardengreen one approximately three sprinter carriages (from photos,
so about 75m).

The total Hardengreen structure is longer than that. More like 100m and
looks longer than the Ouse viaduct.

It's an embankment on dry land, not a bridge over a river and flood
plain. The part which spans the road is just two short sections of
concrete beam with a central pillar.

I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a
railway.

Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus?

The bus structure is quite a bit wider I suspect and I doubt that the 220m
is all viaduct.

The bus structure has the advantage of being slightly arched, and a
third of the width is the cycle track. From a structural point of view
the dominant parameters are the length of the unsupported span, and the
design load.

Looking at Bing Maps, I think that the 220m is all viaduct (rather than
try to establish sections of embankment close to the river) but with
numerous supporting pillars at 30m intervals. [Making seven sections =
220m, versus two sections at Hardengreen]
--
Roland Perry

[email protected] · April 25th 17, 09:57 AM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
15:52:14 on Mon, 24 Apr 2017, remarked:

You could say the same of the busway of course, and probably have.
The Borders Railway is an awful lot longer though.

Maybe didn't have things as difficult as the Ouse viaduct and the
Trumpington cutting to deal with.

They certainly did. A tunnel needed major works and the Hardengreen
viaduct is longer than the Ouse one UIVMM.

The Ouse viaduct is 220m (Guided bus leaflet Jan 2009), and the
Hardengreen one approximately three sprinter carriages (from photos,
so about 75m).

The total Hardengreen structure is longer than that. More like 100m and
looks longer than the Ouse viaduct.

It's an embankment on dry land, not a bridge over a river and flood
plain. The part which spans the road is just two short sections of
concrete beam with a central pillar.

But it had been totally removed while the Ouse Viaduct was basically still
complete.

I suspect the Ouse Viaduct would have been cheaper to restore for a
railway.

Why? Because of the greater load imposed by a train compared to a bus?

The bus structure is quite a bit wider I suspect and I doubt that the
220m is all viaduct.

The bus structure has the advantage of being slightly arched, and a
third of the width is the cycle track. From a structural point of
view the dominant parameters are the length of the unsupported span,
and the design load.

Looking at Bing Maps, I think that the 220m is all viaduct (rather
than try to establish sections of embankment close to the river) but
with numerous supporting pillars at 30m intervals. [Making seven
sections = 220m, versus two sections at Hardengreen]

Anyway, this is a silly argument. There are lots of other structures on the
Borders Railway and only the Ouse Viaduct on the busway.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Woking to Heathrow	[email protected]	London Transport	0	April 27th 17 09:16 PM
Woking to Heathrow	[email protected]	London Transport	0	April 6th 17 06:24 PM
Jetpod - Woking to London in 4 minutes	John Rowland	London Transport	8	January 6th 05 01:32 PM

Menu

About Us