Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:

Moreover I believe the Pacific Electric Railway better served Los
Angeles and its environs better than the present day freeway system.
In that respect my view is a minority one. But my view on that is far
from unique. New and shining is NOT always better. All that glitters
is not gold.

Don't jump up and down on the bridge, if you get my drift.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tony Polson
gently breathed:

Presumably you would like the little-used rural lines that used to
radiate from Aylesbury to be kept open with large government subsidy,
rather than spending the money on services that people actually want
to use, in very large numbers.

I don't know the area, but given that the govt seems hell-bent on
converting the entire SouthEast into one vast sea of Barrat box houses,
I suspect those same "little used rural lines" will indeed be needed
before much longer, except they'll no longer be rural, and be running at
inner-city-metro type frequencies in a desperate attempt to stave off
the inevitable gridlock.

Just why does gov.uk seem so utterly convinced that the entire
population of England, bar a few west-country hoteliers and the landed
gentry, should live within 50 miles of Central London?

NP: Razed In Black - Oh My Goth!
--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.

Pyromancer wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tony
Polson gently breathed:

Presumably you would like the little-used rural lines that used to
radiate from Aylesbury to be kept open with large government subsidy,
rather than spending the money on services that people actually want
to use, in very large numbers.

I don't know the area, but given that the govt seems hell-bent on
converting the entire SouthEast into one vast sea of Barrat box
houses, I suspect those same "little used rural lines" will indeed be
needed before much longer, except they'll no longer be rural, and be
running at inner-city-metro type frequencies in a desperate attempt
to stave off the inevitable gridlock.

Just why does gov.uk seem so utterly convinced that the entire
population of England, bar a few west-country hoteliers and the landed
gentry, should live within 50 miles of Central London?


Because it has long been the case that people running businesses and other
organisation think they have to be near the seat of government which in turn
drags in other businesses and so it goes on. It's nothing new and if one
casts one's mind back governments spent large sums of money persuading
businesses to move out of London.

In message , Pyromancer
writes
Just why does gov.uk seem so utterly convinced that the entire
population of England, bar a few west-country hoteliers and the landed
gentry, should live within 50 miles of Central London?

Because the asking price of an ordinary terraced house in Reading is GBP
215k
http://www.austinandco.co.uk/details.php?prop=AUCO206
and for something similar in Bolton, it's GBP 80k?
http://www.regencyestates.co.uk/detail.asp?PID=479

Which is not to say they shouldn't be doing something to reduce demand
in the south east and increase it elsewhere.
--
Goalie of the Century

Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:

Nevertheless having grown up near a town (Aylesbury) with fine rail
links both north and south. Said routes having the potential for
development into a fine network, you will understand my disappointment
at the leftovers that Aylesbury has for it rail link today.

This is particularly strange in so far as Aylesbury was part of an area
that was expected to see, and did see, expanded housing and employment
as companies and individual were encouraged to relocate away from
London in the 1960s and 1970s.

This was typical of planning in the period, which assumed universal car
ownership. After all, we all watched Perry Mason, didn't we?
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Martin
Edwards gently breathed:
Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
Nevertheless having grown up near a town (Aylesbury) with fine rail
links both north and south. Said routes having the potential for
development into a fine network, you will understand my disappointment
at the leftovers that Aylesbury has for it rail link today.
This is particularly strange in so far as Aylesbury was part of an
area
that was expected to see, and did see, expanded housing and employment
as companies and individual were encouraged to relocate away from
London in the 1960s and 1970s.

This was typical of planning in the period, which assumed universal car
ownership. After all, we all watched Perry Mason, didn't we?

Back in the 1980s I recorded a long Channel 4 series about public
transport. Alas I never got round to watching all of it (what was that
Douglas Addams said about having videos to watch programmes so you
didn't have to? g), but from one of the episodes I did watch I
remember someone commenting that the New Towns had been based on the
concept of universal car ownership, but completely ignored the fact that
one car per household does not mean one car per person, as usually the
main breadwinner will drive the car to work and leave the rest of the
family marooned in their
impossible-to-serve-sensibly-with-public-transport house for the day.

NP: Paralysed Age - Bloodsucker 2000 (Empire Of The Vampire).
--
- Pyromancer Stormshadow.
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk -- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk -- Electronic Metal!
http://www.revival.stormshadow.com -- The Gothic Revival.

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 01:33:12 +0100, Pyromancer
wrote:

Back in the 1980s I recorded a long Channel 4 series about public
transport. Alas I never got round to watching all of it (what was that
Douglas Addams said about having videos to watch programmes so you
didn't have to? g), but from one of the episodes I did watch I
remember someone commenting that the New Towns had been based on the
concept of universal car ownership, but completely ignored the fact that
one car per household does not mean one car per person, as usually the
main breadwinner will drive the car to work and leave the rest of the
family marooned in their
impossible-to-serve-sensibly-with-public-transport house for the day.

That certainly was not the case in Crawley, where the provision of
both garages and parking places assumed a very low level of car
ownership in the initial developments.

The thinking seemed to be that, if you relocated people from inner
London, they would not want to own cars, and would be happy with
public transport. They were wrong.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
Actually Tony, I am from Aylesbury.

I geussed that you might be from somewhere in that area; you're
probably the only person in America who has ever even heard of Verney
Junction for a start!

There's actually a lot of rail development going on over there at the
moment, at least in the New York/New Jersey area where I've been.

Re-equipment, modernisation and extension of the Newark City Subway,
with another extension in progress.

Opening, in four stages so far, with another under construction, of the
Hudson Bergen Light Rail system.

Opening of the NJ Transit 'River Line'

Opening of the Airtrain systems at JFK and EWR airports.

Refurbishment of the tunnel under the Hudson and construction of the
temporary station at WTC for PATH, plus re-opening of the IRT line to
South Ferry. New South Ferry station to be constructed soon.

Massive refurbishment and improvment works on the New York Subway, with
the construction of the 2nd Avenue Subway now a real possibility.

All of these are 'metro' type systems, rather than main line railways,
but there's a lot going on.

Tony Polson wrote:
"Adrian Auer-Hudson" wrote:


The diversion through Aylesbury is not an elegant solution. Wouldn't
it be great if there was an alternative?

Aylesbury through Verney Junction and Buckingham to Banbury would be so
useful right now.

As for Central Railway or the Great Central based HSL, Leicester
through Rugby, Woodford, Banbury and High Wycombe to London would be a
great route. Banbury would work well as interchange with local
traffic.

One can't imagine how the passenger feels, having reached Princess
Risborough to be going backward to Aylesbury. I guess as long as the
UK has politicians she will have a bizarre railway system.



And as long as the US has politicians it will have an almost total
absence of passenger railroads.

It beggars belief that someone from the land of the gas guzzling
automobile, and especially from the home of permanent smog, should
have the temerity to criticise any European railway system.

;-)

There are politicians and ploiticians. Back in the days of President
Ford, he wanted to carve up Amtrack in a way that would probably ended
in its closure, but the House of Representatives stopped him. The Yanks
have some head bangers, but there are more checks and balances in their
system.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

In message .com,
Adrian Auer-Hudson writes
One can't imagine how the passenger feels, having reached Princess
Risborough to be going backward to Aylesbury.
They probably feel as I did when I last had to do that during
engineering works, in order to get back to Birmingham: grateful that
there was a through rail service at all at that time and that there
wasn't a replacement bus for part of the journey.

I guess as long as the UK has politicians she will have a bizarre
railway system.
True up to a point. However, Chiltern nor politicians can truly be
blamed for the circumstances which have caused the Gerrard's Cross
closure. Keeping the route open to Banbury via Verney Junction would
indeed have been useful now but can hardly have been justified *solely*
in case of a closure on one part of the line as now. To do that, every
section of track would require a diversionary alternative.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk