Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#243
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#244
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:46:24 -0500
wrote: In article , d () wrote: Personally I think the best solution for small cities is a pre-metro as is popular in some parts of europe. Its a tram in the suburbs running along the street but dives into tunnel in the city centre to avoid the traffic. Tunneling is expensive obviously but it pays long term. The main reason why I think heavy rail would have been better is for access to Cambridge station. We are hopeless at tram-train operation in this The only problem with cambridge station is that its a rather long walk from the town centre. However it would IMO still have been a better option than a busway as the train would have been a lot faster point to point and with a dedicated shuttle bus to the town centre the former problem is solved. country so, deciding ten years ago, it would be the only way to get an uncongested north-south corridor across Cambridge. If were doing tram-train with the aplomb shown on the continent then I agree light rail would have been best. Sadly the powers that be in this country don't seem to believe in public transport. If the tube didn't exist it certainly wouldn't get built today in its current form. Maybe 1 or 2 lines plus an on the cheap tram system like manchester or nottingham but that would be about it. How newcastle got the funding a fully fledged underground metro in the city centre 80s is anyones guess especially when Brum or Manchester were far more deserving. An attack of benevolence by the government at the time perhaps, or maybe Thatcher trying to keep the north east on side for a short time given the problems with the miners. -- Spud |
#245
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 09:13:15 on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, remarked: When I used to complain about the P&R being unsuitable for commuters from Cambridge, you used to claim that's because it was for shoppers. I did not! panto Oh yes you did! Prove it! I've known all about Park & Ride since before you were a student. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
#246
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:46:24 -0500 wrote: In article , d () wrote: Personally I think the best solution for small cities is a pre-metro as is popular in some parts of europe. Its a tram in the suburbs running along the street but dives into tunnel in the city centre to avoid the traffic. Tunneling is expensive obviously but it pays long term. The main reason why I think heavy rail would have been better is for access to Cambridge station. We are hopeless at tram-train operation in this The only problem with cambridge station is that its a rather long walk from the town centre. However it would IMO still have been a better option than a busway as the train would have been a lot faster point to point and with a dedicated shuttle bus to the town centre the former problem is solved. country so, deciding ten years ago, it would be the only way to get an uncongested north-south corridor across Cambridge. If were doing tram-train with the aplomb shown on the continent then I agree light rail would have been best. Sadly the powers that be in this country don't seem to believe in public transport. If the tube didn't exist it certainly wouldn't get built today in its current form. Maybe 1 or 2 lines plus an on the cheap tram system like manchester or nottingham but that would be about it. How newcastle got the funding a fully fledged underground metro in the city centre 80s is anyones guess especially when Brum or Manchester were far more deserving. An attack of benevolence by the government at the time perhaps, or maybe Thatcher trying to keep the north east on side for a short time given the problems with the miners. Very little (10%) of the Newcastle Metro is underground. It's much more of an S-Bahn than a U-Bahn. |
#247
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2017-04-27 20:42:58 +0000, Recliner said:
Very little (10%) of the Newcastle Metro is underground. It's much more of an S-Bahn than a U-Bahn. An U-Bahn doesn't have to spend that much of its length underground, plenty of the Hamburg system is above ground, including the comedy bit where the U-Bahn (Hochbahn) is elevated and the S-Bahn underground. The distinction is mo U-Bahn: segregated light rail metro, not on "national rail" (DB) tracks, no level crossings. (Subcategory: Stadtbahn: branded U-Bahn but is more of a souped up tram system with an underground bit in the city centre. Very much like what Metrolink would be if it had a city crossing tram tunnel) S-Bahn: heavy rail metro, runs on DB tracks, can have level crossings and interworking with other mainline services but doesn't necessarily. Which leaves LU a bit of a curiosity, being an U-Bahn by all definitions except that it's heavy rail, though the Met is really an S-Bahn in character. The Newcastle Metro, being light rail, is a textbook U-Bahn. Merseyrail is near enough a textbook S-Bahn. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
#248
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2017-04-27 20:42:58 +0000, Recliner said: Very little (10%) of the Newcastle Metro is underground. It's much more of an S-Bahn than a U-Bahn. An U-Bahn doesn't have to spend that much of its length underground, plenty of the Hamburg system is above ground, including the comedy bit where the U-Bahn (Hochbahn) is elevated and the S-Bahn underground. The distinction is mo U-Bahn: segregated light rail metro, not on "national rail" (DB) tracks, no level crossings. (Subcategory: Stadtbahn: branded U-Bahn but is more of a souped up tram system with an underground bit in the city centre. Very much like what Metrolink would be if it had a city crossing tram tunnel) S-Bahn: heavy rail metro, runs on DB tracks, can have level crossings and interworking with other mainline services but doesn't necessarily. Which leaves LU a bit of a curiosity, being an U-Bahn by all definitions except that it's heavy rail, though the Met is really an S-Bahn in character. The Newcastle Metro, being light rail, is a textbook U-Bahn. Merseyrail is near enough a textbook S-Bahn. Though, of course, the Newcastle Metro largely runs on former BR tracks, and it does share NR tracks with heavy rail, making it more like an S-Bahn in that respect. http://www.thetrams.co.uk/tyneandwear/sunderland/ |
#249
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#250
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2017-04-28 04:36:54 +0000, Recliner said:
Though, of course, the Newcastle Metro largely runs on former BR tracks, The Hamburg U-Bahn has a couple of sections where it's on ex-DB metals I believe. The key is that they are *ex* DB. and it does share NR tracks with heavy rail, making it more like an S-Bahn in that respect. http://www.thetrams.co.uk/tyneandwear/sunderland/ Yes, I forgot that curious bit. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the @ to reply. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
Jetpod - Woking to London in 4 minutes | London Transport |