In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
11:11:17 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the
station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's
railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the
article say exactly?

"promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the
district."

What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway land?
Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they do it
confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits.

In Cambridge, I gather a few hire cars are signed up to Uber but
the established firms seem to have the market pretty well sewn up.
Within the city they

The Uber ones?

No. Hire cars licensed by the city council AIUI. I am assuming that
Uber is relying on existing operators' cars.

Perhaps so, because they have to be licenced by someone.

But would a car licenced to a council far away be allowed to be an
Uber in Cambridge, and to use their app rather than charging on the
meter?

After all, the latter would almost completely destroy their
proposition.

I must admit I don't entirely understand how the Uber proposition fits
with UK Hire Car licensing law. local hire car operators seem to manage
though.

They rely upon the ability to negotiate a fixed fee for the journey
at the start. And famously to adapt the fee to the instantaneous
demand.

I'm not up to date in this area but journeys across the city boundary can
always operate on that basis anyway.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Once again a thread in this newsgroup has descended into an irrelevant,
off topic discussion of taxi/private hire/minicab licensing in
Cambridgeshire - a subject that some denizens of this realm seem to be
inordinately fascinated with.

Is there any chance that it can be taken elsewhere - maybe the two main
protagonists could perhaps meet up in person, drink a few shandies and
then take it outside to the car park?

If there is nowhere else to take the discussion, maybe we can
collectively vote for a new newsgroup where they can slug it out until
they stupify each other rather than the rest of us?

In message , at 16:07:44
on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

The bollards have either gone completely or been disabled.

So a failed experiment then?

At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming they
aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a smashed sump.

The layouts have changed, with many of the cycle bypass lanes removed.

Does that mean cycles are not permitted or are they thrown into the
chicane with the buses?

If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago.

I'll look more carefully next time I walk.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:07:44
on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the
station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis.

The train company, more likely. They control access to the station
forecourt. It's not part of the public highway.

No, it's the council.

On what basis do you make that mendacious claim?

Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard.

I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's
railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the
article say exactly?

"promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the
district."

What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway land?
Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they do it
confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits.

That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways who
wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council.

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:28:08 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:07:44
If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago.

I'll look more carefully next time I walk.
--

On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway not
have guiderails? I don't mean the bits that cross other roads, I'm talking
about segregated sections such as the bit in Orchard Park? I'm struggling to
see the logic.

--
Spud

In message , at 12:47:02 on Wed, 19 Apr
2017, d remarked:

On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway not
have guiderails?

Because the buses are guided by the kerbs. Rails only required at the
entrance to sections.
--
Roland Perry

On 2017-04-19 12:47:02 +0000, d said:

On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway not
have guiderails? I don't mean the bits that cross other roads, I'm talking
about segregated sections such as the bit in Orchard Park? I'm struggling to
see the logic.

I think it's so other buses can use that bit.

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

On 19/04/2017 13:47, d wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:28:08 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:07:44
If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago.

I'll look more carefully next time I walk.
--

On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway not
have guiderails? I don't mean the bits that cross other roads, I'm talking
about segregated sections such as the bit in Orchard Park? I'm struggling to
see the logic.

My understanding is that the guidance system is designed for high-speed
running on large-radius curves (i.e. on an old railway alignment), and
does not cope safely with curves below a certain radius. In order to fit
around the Orchard Park devlopment, that section of busway has a bend
which is too tight for guidance. It doesn't matter, as that section is
low-speed, and only a short distance between the junction with the main
busway and the point at which the busway ends. At both of those points
the driver has to take over the steering anyway, so doing so between
them is no great matter.

The only other significant unguided segregated section I am aware of is
the new piece between Milton Road and Cambridge North Station. This
doesn't have sharp bends, but again is short and low-speed. I would
guess that cost was the deciding factor there.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

In article , (Alan Grayer)
wrote:

On 19/04/2017 13:47, d wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:28:08 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:07:44
If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago.

I'll look more carefully next time I walk.

On a related cambridge note - why do some parts of the "guided" busway
not have guiderails? I don't mean the bits that cross other roads, I'm
talking about segregated sections such as the bit in Orchard Park? I'm
struggling to see the logic.

My understanding is that the guidance system is designed for
high-speed running on large-radius curves (i.e. on an old railway
alignment), and does not cope safely with curves below a certain
radius. In order to fit around the Orchard Park devlopment, that
section of busway has a bend which is too tight for guidance. It
doesn't matter, as that section is low-speed, and only a short
distance between the junction with the main busway and the point at
which the busway ends. At both of those points the driver has to take
over the steering anyway, so doing so between them is no great matter.

The exception on the Orchard Park section is the stops and a short eastbound
section near Histon Road. They were built with true guideway sections. All
newer guidance is by steel strips on flat road surfaces.

The only other significant unguided segregated section I am aware of
is the new piece between Milton Road and Cambridge North Station.
This doesn't have sharp bends, but again is short and low-speed. I
would guess that cost was the deciding factor there.

This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and
the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on
cost grounds.

The guideway track sections were cast at a concrete factory set up specially
for the purpose at (I think) Longstanton. Once the sections were made it was
demolished and the site is now a park and ride car park. So the cost of
making new guideway sections would be prohibitive and that's before you talk
about getting the special laying machine back on site. I'm not even sure
what happened to that.

None of the Cambridgeshire kit was used for the Luton busway which has
shorter track sections which can be laid by mobile crane. They probably
don't have a track section casting capability at Luton any more either.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked:

The bollards have either gone completely or been disabled.

So a failed experiment then?

Over nearly 20 years? Technology moves on, as you of all people should know.

At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming
they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a
smashed sump.

Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis.

The layouts have changed, with many of the cycle bypass lanes removed.

Does that mean cycles are not permitted or are they thrown into the
chicane with the buses?

No change to cycle access rules. But they share with other vehicles at some
of the bus gates now.

If you cycled in Cambridge you would have noticed a year or more ago.

I'll look more carefully next time I walk.

It's going past on a daily basis that showed me the changes as they
happened. I also noticed that the New Square bollards stopped working long
before they were officially replaced. Obviously none of us locals made that
public, not wanting any more chancers going through illicitly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel