http://www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=1034

FIRST 'BUSTITUTION' CONFIRMED - WOLVERHAMPTON-WALSALL TRAINS TO BE REPLACED 
BY 'FAST COACH SERVICE'
Rail news & views | July 2005

25 July 2005


THE first official 'bustitution' has been confirmed by the government's 
Strategic Rail Authority, with news that the Wolverhampton-Walsall train 
service will be replaced by 'a fast coach service' next April.


The replacement of the train service by a bus service is confirmed in the 
SRA's final Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for the West Midlands.


'Bustitutuion' is made possible by the 2005 Railways Act, which was rushed 
through Parliament just before the General Election last May.


In confirming the final West Midlands' strategy, the SRA said: "It indicates 
that route capacity in the region is likely to be sufficient to meet 
expected rail freight growth in the West Midlands up to 2011, except for 
Water Orton to Birmingham where Network Rail are developing a scheme to 
provide more capacity."


But it adds: "In order to deliver the Strategy's benefits there would have 
to be associated reductions on lightly used routes on, or crossing, busy 
main lines, such as the local services between Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford, 
Stafford and Nuneaton and Walsall and Wolverhampton."


The local train services between Stoke and Stafford, and between Stafford 
and Nuneaton, have already been replaced by "temporary" bus services for 
more than a year now.


The draft strategy was published in February. Now the strategy - which is 
configured to accommodate passenger growth up to 2011 - has been finalised. 
The main changes from the February version are:-


* Train services at Stone, Staffs., station will continue, with calls in the 
Birmingham-Manchester services to replace the former local service between 
Stafford and Stoke;


* Wolverhampton-Walsall local service will be retained until April 2006, 
then replaced by a fast coach service.


The RUS covers a geographic area including the lines from Birmingham and 
bounded by: Shrewsbury; Hereford; Worcester; Redditch; Stratford-upon-Avon; 
Leamington Spa; Coventry; Nuneaton; Burton-on-Trent; Lichfield; and 
Stoke-on-Trent.


The SRA says the strategy is aimed to deliver:-


- Better use of rolling stock, especially in the peak;


- Longer peak time trains, "where they are affordable and deliver value for 
money";


- Extension of off-peak services from Birmingham to provide a higher 
frequency to Kidderminster, Stratford-upon-Avon and Rugeley Trent Valley;


- Changes on the Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton-Birmingham corridor to improve 
performance including possibly. in the future, the operation of a peak time 
Shrewsbury-London service.


Passenger services affected by the RUS are operated at present by Central 
Trains, Virgin West Coast, Virgin CrossCountry, Chiltern Railways, Arriva 
Trains Wales, First Great Western, Wessex Trains and Northern Rail. Freight 
train operators covered by the RUS are: EWS, Freightliner, GB Railfreight 
and Direct Rail Services.

Dave  wrote in message
news:xaCdndbQe9UFPHXfRVnygQ@eclipse.net.uk...

> http://www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=1034
>
> FIRST 'BUSTITUTION' CONFIRMED - WOLVERHAMPTON-WALSALL TRAINS TO BE
REPLACED
> BY 'FAST COACH SERVICE'
> Rail news & views | July 2005
>
> 25 July 2005
>
>
> THE first official 'bustitution' has been confirmed by the government's
> Strategic Rail Authority, with news that the Wolverhampton-Walsall train
> service will be replaced by 'a fast coach service' next April.
>
>
> The replacement of the train service by a bus service is confirmed in the
> SRA's final Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for the West Midlands.
>
>
> 'Bustitutuion' is made possible by the 2005 Railways Act, which was rushed
> through Parliament just before the General Election last May.
>
>
> In confirming the final West Midlands' strategy, the SRA said: "It
indicates
> that route capacity in the region is likely to be sufficient to meet
> expected rail freight growth in the West Midlands up to 2011, except for
> Water Orton to Birmingham where Network Rail are developing a scheme to
> provide more capacity."
>
>
> But it adds: "In order to deliver the Strategy's benefits there would have
> to be associated reductions on lightly used routes on, or crossing, busy
> main lines, such as the local services between Stoke-on-Trent and
Stafford,
> Stafford and Nuneaton and Walsall and Wolverhampton."
>
>
> The local train services between Stoke and Stafford, and between Stafford
> and Nuneaton, have already been replaced by "temporary" bus services for
> more than a year now.
>
>
> The draft strategy was published in February. Now the strategy - which is
> configured to accommodate passenger growth up to 2011 - has been
finalised.
> The main changes from the February version are:-
>
>
> * Train services at Stone, Staffs., station will continue, with calls in
the
> Birmingham-Manchester services to replace the former local service between

> Stafford and Stoke;
>
>
> * Wolverhampton-Walsall local service will be retained until April 2006,
> then replaced by a fast coach service.
>
>
> The RUS covers a geographic area including the lines from Birmingham and
> bounded by: Shrewsbury; Hereford; Worcester; Redditch;

Stratford-upon-Avon;

> Leamington Spa; Coventry; Nuneaton; Burton-on-Trent; Lichfield; and
> Stoke-on-Trent.
>
>
> The SRA says the strategy is aimed to deliver:-
>
>
> - Better use of rolling stock, especially in the peak;
>
>
> - Longer peak time trains, "where they are affordable and deliver value
for
> money";
>
>
> - Extension of off-peak services from Birmingham to provide a higher
> frequency to Kidderminster, Stratford-upon-Avon and Rugeley Trent Valley;
>
>
> - Changes on the Shrewsbury-Wolverhampton-Birmingham corridor to improve
> performance including possibly. in the future, the operation of a peak
time
> Shrewsbury-London service.
>
>
> Passenger services affected by the RUS are operated at present by Central
> Trains, Virgin West Coast, Virgin CrossCountry, Chiltern Railways, Arriva
> Trains Wales, First Great Western, Wessex Trains and Northern Rail.
Freight
> train operators covered by the RUS are: EWS, Freightliner, GB Railfreight
> and Direct Rail Services.
>
>

Don't they ever learn?  How many of the replacement bus services following
the Beeching butchery survived more than a year or so?

Dave  wrote:

> THE first official 'bustitution' has been confirmed by the government's 
> Strategic Rail Authority, with news that the Wolverhampton-Walsall train 
> service will be replaced by 'a fast coach service' next April.


Remind me: when do we finally get rid of the SRA?  Lets hope its soon
or else there'll be precious little rail for them to be strategically
authoritative over...

Jim'll

J.P.Knight@lboro.ac.uk wrote:

> 
> Remind me: when do we finally get rid of the SRA?  Lets hope its soon
> or else there'll be precious little rail for them to be strategically
> authoritative over...


The SRA is/was just a mere pawn. It's the Ernest-Marples-alike that
sits at the top that we need to get rid of.

Cheers

mark-r

-- 
"Let's meet the panel. You couldn't ask for four finer comedians -
so that answers your next question..."
 -- Humphrey Lyttleton

At least the people between Wolverhampton and Walsall get Bustitution.

The people between Stafford and Stoke living at Norton Bridge, Barlaston and 
Wedgwood will not be getting bustitution at all despite their stations being 
closed in the West Midlands RUS.

Trains will call at Stone, starting Dec 2006 at the letest, so why run a bus 
service covering the other stations on the line.

This I think is going to be more common in the future as more RUS's are 
carried out across the country.

Mark Robinson  writes

>
>J.P.Knight@lboro.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> Remind me: when do we finally get rid of the SRA?  Lets hope its soon
>> or else there'll be precious little rail for them to be strategically
>> authoritative over...
>
>The SRA is/was just a mere pawn. It's the Ernest-Marples-alike that
>sits at the top that we need to get rid of.


Well as teletext stated the other day the cost of new roads was 
spiralling upwards to very high levels. MAYBE (just maybe) a level 
playing field might emerge re building rail lines.

"Capture Boy"  wrote:

>
>This I think is going to be more common in the future as more RUS's are 
>carried out across the country. 



It makes good sense to utilise scarce or limited capacity for the
benefit of the greater number of passengers/freight flows.  It would
be perverse to utilise that capacity for a tiny number of passengers
on a little-used rural service at the expense of the busy flows.

The RUS documents are the most strategic outputs the SRA has ever
generated.  They should be welcomed.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:6sshe1lhfc2m97jh0d3g390nh2ja49t5jo@4ax.com...

> "Capture Boy"  wrote:
>>
>>This I think is going to be more common in the future as more RUS's are
>>carried out across the country.
>
>
> It makes good sense to utilise scarce or limited capacity for the
> benefit of the greater number of passengers/freight flows.  It would
> be perverse to utilise that capacity for a tiny number of passengers
> on a little-used rural service at the expense of the busy flows.
>
> The RUS documents are the most strategic outputs the SRA has ever
> generated.  They should be welcomed.
>

Bet you wont say that when your local station is threatened with closure and 
you are faced with a 10 mile drive to the nearest station. If you have to 
drive that far to get to a rail station why not carry on and drive the whole 
way.

"Capture Boy"  wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote: 
>> It makes good sense to utilise scarce or limited capacity for the
>> benefit of the greater number of passengers/freight flows.  It would
>> be perverse to utilise that capacity for a tiny number of passengers
>> on a little-used rural service at the expense of the busy flows.
>>
>> The RUS documents are the most strategic outputs the SRA has ever
>> generated.  They should be welcomed.
>>
>Bet you wont say that when your local station is threatened with closure and 
>you are faced with a 10 mile drive to the nearest station. If you have to 
>drive that far to get to a rail station why not carry on and drive the whole 
>way. 



No-one has a right to a rail service.  A rail service is only worth
providing if it brings benefits that justify its costs.  Social and
environmental benefits need to be taken into account as well as purely
financial return.

However there is a limit to how much money or capacity should be
devoted to a tiny number of people.  A service that consumes a
disproportionate amount of money, or scarce capacity, while delivering
benefits to only a very few people, simply cannot be justified when
the same money or capacity could be used to benefit a far greater
number of people either directly (through a passenger service) or
indirectly (through additional freight flows).

If that affected me I would accept it, just as we all have to accept
so many things that might possibly disbenefit us personally, but
contribute to the greater good of society.  If people cannot accept
that principle, then they should either learn to accept it, or move.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:16:38 UTC, "Capture Boy" 
 wrote:

: Bet you wont say that when your local station is threatened with closure and 
: you are faced with a 10 mile drive to the nearest station. If you have to 
: drive that far to get to a rail station why not carry on and drive the whole 
: way. 

My nearest station - Dumfries - is seventeen miles away. Lockerbie 
(from and to which I have just travelled) is twenty nine miles. 

1) Some of us would love to have a station within ten miles

2) Having driven twenty nine miles to Lockerbie I am very happy indeed
to have Virgin Trains take me the remaining seventy miles to 
Edinburgh, or three hundred plus to Oxford.

Ian

superted wrote:

> Well as teletext stated the other day the cost of new roads was
> spiralling upwards to very high levels. MAYBE (just maybe) a level
> playing field might emerge re building rail lines.


Don't bank on it.  For example, if useable aggregates are found in the
excavations for a new road they are exempt from aggregates levy.....you
guessed it.....if useable aggregates are found in the excavations for a
new railway, aggregates levy is payable!
George

"Capture Boy"  wrote in message
news:dcanoj$51o$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...

> At least the people between Wolverhampton and Walsall get
Bustitution.
>
> The people between Stafford and Stoke living at Norton

Bridge, Barlaston and

> Wedgwood will not be getting bustitution at all despite

their stations being

> closed in the West Midlands RUS.
>
> Trains will call at Stone, starting Dec 2006 at the

letest, so why run a bus

> service covering the other stations on the line.
>
> This I think is going to be more common in the future as

more RUS's are

> carried out across the country.


Typical Treasury-inspired stupidity. After a few months,
they will find that almost everyone uses the slow, but more
frequent Travel West Midlands Wolverhampton - Walsall bus
service, and the "bustitution" service will quietly
disappear.

However, I think that this rail service would have been more
succesful if they had reopened the intermediate station at
Willenhall, with maybe a new station for the newish housing
estates between Wolverhampton and Willenhall.

Bevan






>
>

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:51:01 +0100, "Capture Boy"
 wrote:


>At least the people between Wolverhampton and Walsall get Bustitution.
>
>The people between Stafford and Stoke living at Norton Bridge, Barlaston and 
>Wedgwood will not be getting bustitution at all despite their stations being 
>closed in the West Midlands RUS.


It doesn't say that in this version; it is suggested that a bus will
continue to operate, and indeed may be re-routed to serve village/town
centres, which is remarkably sensible.

Sadly, there is a suggestion that the railway may not fund it forever,
and that it might end up as a normal local authority funded bus
service at some undefined point.

As for Wolves-Walsall, an infrequent railway bus service is a nonsense
when there is already a frequent service bus.


>Trains will call at Stone, starting Dec 2006 at the letest, so why run a bus 
>service covering the other stations on the line.


Because we don't want to stop InterCity services at all stations.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:28:31 +0100, "Bevan Price"
 wrote:


>Typical Treasury-inspired stupidity. After a few months,
>they will find that almost everyone uses the slow, but more
>frequent Travel West Midlands Wolverhampton - Walsall bus
>service, and the "bustitution" service will quietly
>disappear.


So why bother providing it, and why not just promote and integrate
said bus service?

In any sensible country, certainly in a city area as this is (is it
within the WMPTE?), that is exactly what would happen.  The service is
either needed (in which case keep it), or it is not (in which case
withdraw it).  The halfway house is ridiculous and a waste of money.

It's as stupid as if then-LRT had provided a replacement bus between
Aldwych and Piccadilly Circus.  Pointless duplication at the
taxpayer's expense.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In article <42e8b974$0$3495$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Tim 
Christian wrote:


> Don't they ever learn?  How many of the replacement bus services following
> the Beeching butchery survived more than a year or so?


The only one I know of which is still operating after nearly 40 years is the 
(former) London Country route 366 from Luton to Welwyn G.C. and Hatfield.

-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

In article , Neil Williams wrote:
 

> It's as stupid as if then-LRT had provided a replacement bus between
> Aldwych and Piccadilly Circus.  Pointless duplication at the
> taxpayer's expense.


Bustitution of a tube line that was never built is an interesting 
concept (Brompton and Picadilly Circus). Since there were/are already 
buses along Kingsway in both directions, a dedicated bus seems hardly 
necessary. 

-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:28:56 +0100, superted wrote:


> MAYBE (just maybe) a level playing field might emerge re building rail
> lines.


Good site for a station, perhaps - no gradients.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633072.html
(50 021 at Exeter St Davids, 1984)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:43:27 GMT, Jock Mackirdy
 wrote:

<snip>

>Bustitution of a tube line that was never built is an interesting 
>concept (Brompton and Picadilly Circus).

Or Mill Hill (The Hale) to Edgware, an LT "tarmac railway" service
which served the ex-GNR route to Edgware with tickets sold at Mill
Hill Broadway BR and used on normal buses to Edgware.

                                                             _______
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |\\   //|
 | Charles Ellson: charles@e11son.demon.co.uk        |      | \\ // |
 +---------------------------------------------------+      |  > <  |
                                                            | // \\ |
                                              Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Tony Polson wrote:


> However there is a limit to how much money or capacity should be
> devoted to a tiny number of people.  A service that consumes a
> disproportionate amount of money, or scarce capacity, while delivering
> benefits to only a very few people, simply cannot be justified when
> the same money or capacity could be used to benefit a far greater



Well said, sir.

If one were in the habit of wearing head atire one would doff ones cap
to you.

--
Nick

"Neil Williams"  wrote in
message news:42e91c21.3443251@news.tesco.net...

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:28:31 +0100, "Bevan Price"
>  wrote:
>
> >Typical Treasury-inspired stupidity. After a few months,
> >they will find that almost everyone uses the slow, but
more
> >frequent Travel West Midlands Wolverhampton - Walsall bus
> >service, and the "bustitution" service will quietly
> >disappear.
>
> So why bother providing it, and why not just promote and
integrate
> said bus service?
>
> In any sensible country, certainly in a city area as this
is (is it
> within the WMPTE?), that is exactly what would happen.

The service is

> either needed (in which case keep it), or it is not (in
which case
> withdraw it).  The halfway house is ridiculous and a waste
of money.
>


OK, but this is just the first one. If they find they can
get away with it without objections, they will do the same
elsewhere - Marples/Beeching Episode 2 will follow. Buses
may be alright for local urban services, but they will
always be too slow to attract passengers on inter-town
services. The only long term winners of bustitution will be
the car industry.

Bevan

Jock Mackirdy  wrote:


>In article <42e8b974$0$3495$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Tim 
>Christian wrote:
>
>> Don't they ever learn?  How many of the replacement bus services following
>> the Beeching butchery survived more than a year or so?
>
>The only one I know of which is still operating after nearly 40 years is the 
>(former) London Country route 366 from Luton to Welwyn G.C. and Hatfield.



Doesn't Peterborough - Wisbech still operate?

"D7666"  wrote:


>
>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> However there is a limit to how much money or capacity should be
>> devoted to a tiny number of people.  A service that consumes a
>> disproportionate amount of money, or scarce capacity, while delivering
>> benefits to only a very few people, simply cannot be justified when
>> the same money or capacity could be used to benefit a far greater
>
>
>Well said, sir.
>
>If one were in the habit of wearing head atire one would doff ones cap
>to you.



Thanks.  A rare compliment, which makes it all the more appreciated.

;-)

"Bevan Price" 
wrote:


>OK, but this is just the first one. If they find they can
>get away with it without objections, they will do the same
>elsewhere - Marples/Beeching Episode 2 will follow. Buses
>may be alright for local urban services, but they will
>always be too slow to attract passengers on inter-town
>services. The only long term winners of bustitution will be
>the car industry.



On the contrary, the long term winners will be other rail passengers
and users of freight services, whose services will be able to run in
the paths previously taken up by hopelessly uneconomic train services
serving a mere handful of people.

When you have limited resources, whether train paths, rolling stock or
money, you should use it to best effect to benefit the greatest number
of people and/or the country's economy on which we all depend.  

Having rebuilt the West Coast Main Line at huge expense for a mix of
high speed tilting trains, busy commuter services and strategically
important freight, to use scarce WCML paths on trains that serve only
tiny numbers of people is a ridiculous choice to make.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:43:27 GMT, Jock Mackirdy
 wrote:


>Bustitution of a tube line that was never built is an interesting 
>concept (Brompton and Picadilly Circus). 


What I actually meant was Aldwych and Holborn.  Oops.  The point,
nonetheless, stands...


>Since there were/are already 
>buses along Kingsway in both directions, a dedicated bus seems hardly 
>necessary. 


As there are already lots of buses from Wolverhampton to Walsall...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Jock Mackirdy wrote:


>> Don't they ever learn?  How many of the replacement bus services following
>> the Beeching butchery survived more than a year or so?
> 
> The only one I know of which is still operating after nearly 40 years is the 
> (former) London Country route 366 from Luton to Welwyn G.C. and Hatfield.


In this neck of the woods, there is the East Yorkshire X46 (York -
Hull) and 128 (Scarborough - Helmsley), and Arriva 93 (Scarborough -
Whitby) that certainly follow the route of Beeching lines and are
still going strong, with an hourly service running during the day ...
whether these were official bustitutions, or were set up as commercial
bus routes before or after the closure of the railway, I'm not sure.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Tony Polson (tp@nospam.net) said:

> Having rebuilt the West Coast Main Line at huge expense
> for a mix of high speed tilting trains, busy commuter
> services and strategically important freight, to use
> scarce WCML paths on trains that serve only tiny numbers
> of people is a ridiculous choice to make.


Was a study carried out regarding the viability and cost of a new-build 
CTRL style line, to run adajcent or close to the existing WCML? Given 
the price hikes and prolonged disruption over the years, I wouldn't at 
all be suprised if with 20/20 hindsight this option would have been 
chosen. Would have been a coup for the Virgin marketing machine too... 
Britain's first domestic high speed rail service!

-- 
Andrew

"Andrew Bell"  wrote:


>Was a study carried out regarding the viability and cost of a new-build 
>CTRL style line, to run adajcent or close to the existing WCML? Given 
>the price hikes and prolonged disruption over the years, I wouldn't at 
>all be suprised if with 20/20 hindsight this option would have been 
>chosen. Would have been a coup for the Virgin marketing machine too... 
>Britain's first domestic high speed rail service!



A feasibility study was carried out into a possible north-south high
speed line but no particular route was chosen.  

The WCML upgrade had to happen anyway, because all trains other than
the high speed passenger trains would still have had to use the
existing route.  

There is no way Virgin or any other TOC would have been granted a
monopoly over any high speed line from the start.  There is a big
difference between allowing a partial monopoly over the 2 billion*
WCML and a total monopoly over a 20 billion high speed line.

(*That was the projected cost at the time of signing the Virgin West
Coast franchise agreement)

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:39:42 +0100 someone who may be Tony Polson
 wrote this:-


>Having rebuilt the West Coast Main Line at huge expense for a mix of
>high speed tilting trains, busy commuter services and strategically
>important freight, to use scarce WCML paths on trains that serve only
>tiny numbers of people is a ridiculous choice to make.


When I stop to look at the WCML in the Trent Valley there can be
gaps of 15 minutes or more between trains during the day.

My recollection of high speed tilting train services in the Stoke
area is that there is now one every half an hour with no plans to
increase this. Are railway lines really so inefficient that this
takes up their capacity?



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:43:27 UTC, Jock Mackirdy 
 wrote:

: In article <42e8b974$0$3495$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Tim 
: Christian wrote:
: 
: > Don't they ever learn?  How many of the replacement bus services following
: > the Beeching butchery survived more than a year or so?
: 
: The only one I know of which is still operating after nearly 40 years is the 
: (former) London Country route 366 from Luton to Welwyn G.C. and Hatfield.

What about the Scottish Borders Bus Service: Carlisle / Hawick / 
Edinburgh? Still runs from Carlisle Railway Station.

Ian

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:04:03 UTC, "Bevan Price" 
 wrote:

: Buses
: may be alright for local urban services, but they will
: always be too slow to attract passengers on inter-town
: services.

There is a train every fifteen minutes from Edinburgh to Glasgow. 
There are buses, from two operators, every ten minutes or so. OK, 
that's a lot less capacity, but some people prefer 'em.

Ian
--

Tony Polson wrote:


> No-one has a right to a rail service.  A rail service is only worth
> providing if it brings benefits that justify its costs.  Social and
> environmental benefits need to be taken into account as well as purely
> financial return.
> 
> However there is a limit to how much money or capacity should be
> devoted to a tiny number of people.  A service that consumes a
> disproportionate amount of money, or scarce capacity, while delivering
> benefits to only a very few people, simply cannot be justified when
> the same money or capacity could be used to benefit a far greater
> number of people either directly (through a passenger service) or
> indirectly (through additional freight flows).
> 
> If that affected me I would accept it, just as we all have to accept
> so many things that might possibly disbenefit us personally, but
> contribute to the greater good of society.  If people cannot accept
> that principle, then they should either learn to accept it, or move.


True, but both political and business decision-makers are pressured into
considering short-term, direct costs to the exclusion of long-term and
social costs, so I find it difficult to trust them.

Tony Polson wrote:

> "D7666"  wrote:

> >> However there is a limit to how much money or capacity should be
> >> devoted to a tiny number of people.  A service that consumes a
> >> disproportionate amount of money, or scarce capacity, while delivering
> >> benefits to only a very few people, simply cannot be justified when
> >> the same money or capacity could be used to benefit a far greater


IMHO this is also the crux of the matter concerning the SRA RUS and
whether or not to keep GEx as a seperate entity.

What they were driving at is the fundamental point that however you
look at it, GEx does hog scarce route and platform capacity at the
expense of the rest of service in that area.

--
Nick

furnessvale wrote:

>if useable aggregates are found in the excavations for a
> new railway, aggregates levy is payable!


But not a lot of new railway building going on right now.

On 29 Jul 2005 07:39:15 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
 wrote this:-


>: The only one I know of which is still operating after nearly 40 years is the 
>: (former) London Country route 366 from Luton to Welwyn G.C. and Hatfield.
>
>What about the Scottish Borders Bus Service: Carlisle / Hawick / 
>Edinburgh? Still runs from Carlisle Railway Station.


I also suspect that some of the services in the West of England are
still running. They may have evolved over the years, but the buses
to places like Lyme Regis are presumably still advertised in the
railway timetable.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On 29 Jul 2005 07:40:55 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
 wrote this:-


>There is a train every fifteen minutes from Edinburgh to Glasgow. 


Which takes somewhat longer then trains did in the late 1970s. One
could say that they take significantly longer.


>There are buses, from two operators, every ten minutes or so. OK, 
>that's a lot less capacity, but some people prefer 'em.


I tend to agree that some people would want to use the bus no matter
how good the rail service is. It may be more convenient for them for
a start.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:11:18 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:

: On 29 Jul 2005 07:40:55 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
:  wrote this:-
: 
: >There is a train every fifteen minutes from Edinburgh to Glasgow. 
: 
: Which takes somewhat longer then trains did in the late 1970s. One
: could say that they take significantly longer.

I can't remember how long it used to take - is the current service 
more than five or ten minutes slower? The fifteen minute headway is 
slo, I think, a huge improvement, even if the trains are a wee bit 
slower.

: >There are buses, from two operators, every ten minutes or so. OK, 
: >that's a lot less capacity, but some people prefer 'em.
: 
: I tend to agree that some people would want to use the bus no matter
: how good the rail service is. It may be more convenient for them for
: a start.

And cheaper. And they run all night.

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:11:18 UTC, David Hansen
>  wrote:
> : I tend to agree that some people would want to use the bus no matter
> : how good the rail service is. It may be more convenient for them for
> : a start.
>
> And cheaper. And they run all night.


A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
service)...

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:10:03 UTC, "Rupert Candy" 
 wrote:

: 
: Ian Johnston wrote:
: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:11:18 UTC, David Hansen
: >  wrote:
: > : I tend to agree that some people would want to use the bus no matter
: > : how good the rail service is. It may be more convenient for them for
: > : a start.
: >
: > And cheaper. And they run all night.
: 
: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
: service)...

Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of 
London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.

Ian, twelve journey ticket for the X90 in his wallet.

"D7666"  wrote:


>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>> "D7666"  wrote:
>
>> >> However there is a limit to how much money or capacity should be
>> >> devoted to a tiny number of people.  A service that consumes a
>> >> disproportionate amount of money, or scarce capacity, while delivering
>> >> benefits to only a very few people, simply cannot be justified when
>> >> the same money or capacity could be used to benefit a far greater
>
>IMHO this is also the crux of the matter concerning the SRA RUS and
>whether or not to keep GEx as a seperate entity.
>
>What they were driving at is the fundamental point that however you
>look at it, GEx does hog scarce route and platform capacity at the
>expense of the rest of service in that area.



That's true.  However I wonder if the suggested cure would actually be
worse than the disease.  

Before Gatwick Express, air passengers crowded onto slam door trains
with their luggage causing all kinds of mayhem.  Some Mk 1 EMU sets
were branded for the Gatwick service but they shared the burden with
normal service trains.  Commuters with their slick, accustomed ways of
travelling to and from work do not sit easily with air passengers
straight off the many "red-eye" transatlantic flights that arrive at
Gatwick perfectly timed to hit the morning peak.

When Gatwick Express arrived, it largely segregated the flows so that
air passengers with luggage were largely excluded from the normal
Brighton Line services.  Opening up the Gatwick Express sets to all
Brighton Line passengers and running them south of Gatwick might seem
like a good idea, but it would cause all kinds of problems, not least
when up services in the morning peak arrived at Gatwick Airport
already wedged with commuters.

A problem the SRA does not seem to have recognised is that of line
capacity south of Three Bridges.  The Balcombe Tunnel and nearby Ouse
Valley Viaduct have only two tracks, and this section already limits
capacity so that only minor delays in the evening peak can have huge
knock-on effects on trains behind.  

Adding Gatwick Express to this would cause even greater problems -
maybe not in theory, which is where the SRA are coming from, but in
practice.  I don't anticipate that adding two tracks to the tunnel and
Grade II* listed viaduct would be a realistic possibility, at least
for the next 20-30 years when there are plenty of better places to
spend the money.

Also, from a commercial point of view, it is difficult to see how
Gatwick Express and Southern would operate together.  Perhaps one
integrated franchise would be the best option, as in Kent, Great
Western and "One".

Adam Funk  wrote:


>True, but both political and business decision-makers are pressured into
>considering short-term, direct costs to the exclusion of long-term and
>social costs, so I find it difficult to trust them.



That is precisely why the RUSs are such a good thing.  

They force people to think strategically and in the medium term - at
least .  The wide consultation also helps to encourage people who are
rail users, not involved in running the railways, to contribute their
views.  Rather than allowing rail professionals to dictate what is
going to happen, they enable a consensus to be formed.

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:10:03 UTC, "Rupert Candy" 
> wrote:
>
>: 
>: Ian Johnston wrote:
>: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:11:18 UTC, David Hansen
>: >  wrote:
>: > : I tend to agree that some people would want to use the bus no matter
>: > : how good the rail service is. It may be more convenient for them for
>: > : a start.
>: >
>: > And cheaper. And they run all night.
>: 
>: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
>: service)...
>
>Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of 
>London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.
>
>Ian, twelve journey ticket for the X90 in his wallet.



The "Oxford tube" bus serves four stops in the heart of Oxford city
centre, plus Oxford Brookes University, Headington and the Thornhill
park and ride, then Shepherd's Bush, Notting Hill Gate, Marble Arch
and Victoria every ten minutes during the day.  

Since when were these "the outskirts" of either Oxford or London?

Tony Polson wrote:

> >: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
> >: service)...
> >
> >Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of
> >London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.

> Since when were these "the outskirts" of either Oxford or London?



He's talking about the train, not the bus.

PhilD

--
<><

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:28:31 +0100, Bevan Price wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

[....]

> After a few months,
> they will find that almost everyone uses the slow, but more
> frequent Travel West Midlands Wolverhampton - Walsall bus
> service, 


They already use that in preference to the train. The only stupidity,
IMNSHO, is running a train once an hour on a route served by buses
every few minutes.


[....]

> However, I think that this rail service would have been more
> succesful if they had reopened the intermediate station at
> Willenhall, 


People would still have used the bus or their car. An hourly service
simply is not attractive between two adjacent major urban centres.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On 29 Jul 2005 10:06:53 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
 wrote this:-


>I can't remember how long it used to take - is the current service 
>more than five or ten minutes slower?


I don't have an old timetable at work and search engines have not
been kind to me today. However, my recollection is that the train
which only stopped at Haymarket took around 35 minutes for the trip.

Times were increased when alternate stops at Linlithgow and Polmont
were introduced. 


>The fifteen minute headway is 
>slo, I think, a huge improvement, even if the trains are a wee bit 
>slower.


It is indeed. BR aspired to it for a long time, but it only happened
after privatisation. Had Chris Green remained in Scotland it would
have happened under BR (his return was too short and at the wrong
time to do much).


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

PhilD wrote:

> Tony Polson wrote:
> > >: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
> > >: service)...
> > >
> > >Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of
> > >London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.
>
> > Since when were these "the outskirts" of either Oxford or London?
>
>
> He's talking about the train, not the bus.


Indeed. Though I always though Oxford station was reasonably central
(though perhaps that's just compared to Cambridge...)

I wonder whether the unlamented demise of Thames Trains has hit the bus
companies? I know the X90's vehicles were recently done up with
?leather seats, power sockets etc, so they certainly compared very
favourably to a scruffy 165, but now Oxford fasts are 180s they are
actually competing with 'proper' trains!

"PhilD"  wrote:


>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>> >: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
>> >: service)...
>> >
>> >Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of
>> >London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.
>
>> Since when were these "the outskirts" of either Oxford or London?
>
>
>He's talking about the train, not the bus.



oops!

;-)

"Rupert Candy"  wrote:


>Indeed. Though I always though Oxford station was reasonably central
>(though perhaps that's just compared to Cambridge...)



Ian's right.  Oxford station is a brisk walk to the west of the city
centre, and Paddington is much more than a brisk walk from most places
that people want to go to in London.

"David Hansen"  wrote

>
> I don't have an old timetable at work and search engines have not
> been kind to me today. However, my recollection is that the train
> which only stopped at Haymarket took around 35 minutes for the trip.
>

IIRC the fastest scheduled times were 43 minutes, with one intermediate stop
at Haymarket, or 45 minutes with stops at Falkirk High and Haymarket. There
were times when passengers between Glasgow and Polmont/ Linlithgow, or
between Edinburgh and Croy, Lenzie or Bishopbriggs generally had to travel
on stopping trains (Modernisation Plan dmus) and change at Falkirk
Grahamston.IMHO this is a case when the slightly longer end to end times are
entirely justified by the better service to intermediate stops coupled with
the improved frequency.

Peter .

Ross wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:28:31 +0100, Bevan Price wrote in
> , seen in
> uk.railway:
> 
> [....]
> 
>>After a few months,
>>they will find that almost everyone uses the slow, but more
>>frequent Travel West Midlands Wolverhampton - Walsall bus
>>service, 
> 
> 
> They already use that in preference to the train. The only stupidity,
> IMNSHO, is running a train once an hour on a route served by buses
> every few minutes.
> 
> 
> [....]
> 
>>However, I think that this rail service would have been more
>>succesful if they had reopened the intermediate station at
>>Willenhall, 
> 
> 
> People would still have used the bus or their car. An hourly service
> simply is not attractive between two adjacent major urban centres.
> 



I've been following this thread with interest as it's always puzzled me 
why a service between two adjacent major urban centres should struggle 
for loadings. Especially when trains on the other routes from Walsall 
and Wolverhampton do well (and not everyone goes to Brum either).

Amongst the reasons which occur to me are these. Firstly in it's early 
days (IIRC) the service wasn't clockface, unlike everything else which 
runs out of Walsall or Wolves. There are two obvious downsides to this: 
train times aren't easy to remember; and connections will be random.

The next problem was the service being regularly caped whenever there 
were unit or traincrew shortages. On this route it isn't something 
that's only been going on for the last year or so on a semi-permanent 
basis. Frequent but random cancellations were occurring well before that.

Provision of an intermediate station or two is really needed to provide 
some additional journey opportunities - although as Ross observes this 
requires at least the same level of service as other lines in the 
conurbation (30 mins minimum during the day). A station in the 
Willenhall area has long been discussed, but like a lot of PT stories 
the years roll by and nothing much happens.

As it stands we've had a town centre to town centre service with no 
provision to capture intermediate traffic. Which is unfortunate because 
on this route both ends would be a potential traffic target from places 
like Willenhall.

As things stand it strikes me that there will be very little potential 
traffic which doesn't require some other PT at either end. I can't 
imagine that there are too many people who happen to live or work within 
the town centre areas at either end, and who need *only* to get to the 
other town centre. And no-one is going to drive into the centre of 
Walsall or Wolves to catch a train to the other town. But if the 
potential userbase consists of people making multi-leg PT journeys the 
connection-waiting times are very important.

It's not that there aren't plenty of connectional opportunities - both 
ends are very well served by buses, and in both cases the buses are 
close to the stations. Wolverhampton also offers regular trains to the 
north, which aren't available from Walsall.

But an hourly service isn't really much use to anyone trying to make 
usable connections with other PT, and it's totally inconsistent with the 
frequencies people have come to expect on other local PT.

All in all it strikes me that this service hasn't really been given much 
  of a chance.


As for the future, like others I don't see the point of an end-to-end 
bus. Well not one which replicates the existing train service anyway. It 
would suffer from the same failings, and just add in a longer journey 
time on top. If there's any point at all in running a replacement bus 
then at least correct some of the failings of the train service and drop 
in one or two stops at key places en-route. But even with that it would 
have to be at least a 30 min frequency to be of any practical use.

Of course what I'm inventing here is some approximation of the 
limited-stop bus, which the West Midlands used to have a network of back 
in the 1980s. We may be able to make some judgements about the viability 
of limited-stop buses in urban areas from whether they still exist now. 
I stopped using WM buses in 1991 when I bought a car, so I'm way out of 
touch, but I don't think many - if any - of the WM limited-stop routes 
still survive.

AW

On 29 Jul 2005 05:55:11 -0700, "Rupert Candy" 
wrote:

>
>PhilD wrote:
>> Tony Polson wrote:
>> > >: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
>> > >: service)...
>> > >
>> > >Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of
>> > >London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.
>>
>> > Since when were these "the outskirts" of either Oxford or London?
>>
>> He's talking about the train, not the bus.
>
>Indeed. Though I always though Oxford station was reasonably central
>(though perhaps that's just compared to Cambridge...)


It's on the western edge of the city centre, whereas the bulk of the
population live on the eastern side - the buses go right through this.


>I wonder whether the unlamented demise of Thames Trains has hit the bus
>companies? I know the X90's vehicles were recently done up with
>?leather seats, power sockets etc, so they certainly compared very
>favourably to a scruffy 165, but now Oxford fasts are 180s they are
>actually competing with 'proper' trains!


The bus fleets operated by both companies (Oxford Bus and
Stagecoach/Oxford Tube) are new and very high spec. The Tubes are
enormous luxury double deckers with some tables/facing seats and
facilities for bicycles.

http://www.oxfordbus.co.uk/espress1.shtml
http://www.oxfordtube.com/

I think most people pick the train or bus because of convenience or
cost rather than the quality of the train stock.

Best regards, Paul

--
Paul Sherwin Consulting     http://paulsherwin.co.uk

Paul Sherwin wrote:

> On 29 Jul 2005 05:55:11 -0700, "Rupert Candy" 
> wrote:
> >
> >PhilD wrote:
> >> Tony Polson wrote:
> >> > >: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
> >> > >: service)...
> >> > >
> >> > >Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of
> >> > >London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.
> >>
> >> > Since when were these "the outskirts" of either Oxford or London?
> >>
> >> He's talking about the train, not the bus.
> >
> >Indeed. Though I always though Oxford station was reasonably central
> >(though perhaps that's just compared to Cambridge...)
>
> It's on the western edge of the city centre, whereas the bulk of the
> population live on the eastern side - the buses go right through this.


....taking about 45 minutes to get from Headington to Carfax... (but
yes, I take your point, most people are probably nearer to a coach stop
than the station!)


> I think most people pick the train or bus because of convenience or
> cost rather than the quality of the train stock.


Perhaps, though you'd expect some sort of limited 'sparks effect' when
(in Oxford terms) 'new' air-conditioned inter-city stock replaces
suburban DMUs. Of course, when (Go-Ahead owned) Thames Trains ran the
service, they were competing with the (also Go-Ahead owned) OBC coach
to London!

Pity that the Wolverhampton - Walsall bus service isn't the "Joint" 
trolleybus operation that it used to be!

"David Hansen"  wrote in
message news:fdsje1pfq6u8jc0nlc6g76k7jvmlq0eo5c@4ax.com...

> On 29 Jul 2005 07:39:15 GMT someone who may be "Ian
Johnston"
>  wrote this:-
>
> >: The only one I know of which is still operating after

nearly 40 years is the

> >: (former) London Country route 366 from Luton to Welwyn

G.C. and Hatfield.

> >
> >What about the Scottish Borders Bus Service: Carlisle /
Hawick /
> >Edinburgh? Still runs from Carlisle Railway Station.
>
> I also suspect that some of the services in the West of
England are
> still running. They may have evolved over the years, but
the buses
> to places like Lyme Regis are presumably still advertised
in the
> railway timetable.
>
>

I think you may find that, in many cases,  it not the rail
replacement buses that are still running. Instead, it is a
modification of the normal bus services that existed before
and after the Marples-Beeching closures. Places like Lyme
Regis did once have bus services as well as rail services,
although the tendency of the big bus groups seems to be to
pull out of mainly rural areas.

However, influenced by some public-transport authorities,
particularly on contracted (subsidised) bus services, or in
some cases because a big bus group hold a rail franchise in
the same area, there has been a small, but welcome trend for
some bus services to call at major rail stations. If you are
lucky, some of them may even wait to connect with late
trains, although I personally would not rely on a connection
for the last bus of the day.

Bevan

In article <dcasp3$e9e$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Capture Boy
 writes

>Bet you wont say that when your local station is threatened with closure and 
>you are faced with a 10 mile drive to the nearest station. If you have to 
>drive that far to get to a rail station why not carry on and drive the whole 
>way. 
>

Then when you get to the station you are faced with a hefty charge for
parking your car there.

-- 
Alan

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:00:26 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:

: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
: 
: >On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:10:03 UTC, "Rupert Candy" 
: > wrote:

: >: A bit like London-Oxford then (which doesn't exactly have a poor rail
: >: service)...
: >
: >Except that it runs from the outskirts of Oxford to the outskirts of 
: >London and costs a fortune. All perceived, of course.
: >
: >Ian, twelve journey ticket for the X90 in his wallet.
 
: The "Oxford tube" bus serves four stops in the heart of Oxford city
: centre, plus Oxford Brookes University, Headington and the Thornhill
: park and ride, then Shepherd's Bush, Notting Hill Gate, Marble Arch
: and Victoria every ten minutes during the day.  
: 
: Since when were these "the outskirts" of either Oxford or London?

My apologies. By "it runs" I meant the train. Sloppy writing on my 
part.

Ian

PS The Oxford Tube is Stagecoach and therefore part of the Evil Empire
.... that's why I take the X90!

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:30:57 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:

: "Rupert Candy"  wrote:
: 
: >Indeed. Though I always though Oxford station was reasonably central
: >(though perhaps that's just compared to Cambridge...)
: 
: Ian's right.  Oxford station is a brisk walk to the west of the city
: centre, and Paddington is much more than a brisk walk from most places
: that people want to go to in London.

Thanks. It's also a brisk walk along some not very nice streets. which
makes it seem even further from the bustling heart of things.

Ian

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:36:40 UTC, "Peter Masson" 
 wrote:

: IIRC the fastest scheduled times were 43 minutes, with one intermediate stop
: at Haymarket, or 45 minutes with stops at Falkirk High and Haymarket. There
: were times when passengers between Glasgow and Polmont/ Linlithgow, or
: between Edinburgh and Croy, Lenzie or Bishopbriggs generally had to travel
: on stopping trains (Modernisation Plan dmus) and change at Falkirk
: Grahamston.

My memory, too, is that the trains split roughly 50-50 between Falkirk
High and Grahamston. Am I dreaming, again?

Ian
--

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-5dE8Y5MXXyZH@localhost...

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:36:40 UTC, "Peter Masson"
>  wrote:
>
> : IIRC the fastest scheduled times were 43 minutes, with one intermediate
stop
> : at Haymarket, or 45 minutes with stops at Falkirk High and Haymarket.
There
> : were times when passengers between Glasgow and Polmont/ Linlithgow, or
> : between Edinburgh and Croy, Lenzie or Bishopbriggs generally had to
travel
> : on stopping trains (Modernisation Plan dmus) and change at Falkirk
> : Grahamston.
>
> My memory, too, is that the trains split roughly 50-50 between Falkirk
> High and Grahamston. Am I dreaming, again?
>

The service outlined in my previous reply operated from the time that the
27-6Mk2-27s took over. Before that the InterCity dmus ran alternately via
Falkirk High, calling there and at Haymarket, in 55 minutes, and all
stations via Grahamston in 70 minutes. By 1990, in the 47+Mk3 era, all
trains were stopping at Falkirk High, and alternately at Polmont and
Linlithgow, with a journey time of 48 minutes.

Peter

AW  wrote:

>
>I've been following this thread with interest as it's always puzzled me 
>why a service between two adjacent major urban centres should struggle 
>for loadings.



The West Midlands is the home of the car.  Look no further.

On 29 Jul 2005 18:32:58 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>PS The Oxford Tube is Stagecoach and therefore part of the Evil Empire
>... that's why I take the X90!


Very nice looking (not been on one yet) new coaches, though.

TBH, I'm changing my opinion of Stagecoach as time goes on.  Their
extraordinarily professional operating of South West Trains is a good
reason why, and their bus operations do seem to be slowly cleaning up
their act to the point where I think people are now actively welcoming
their move into the Merseyside bus market.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:39:12 +0100, "Bevan Price"
 wrote:


>I think you may find that, in many cases,  it not the rail
>replacement buses that are still running. Instead, it is a
>modification of the normal bus services that existed before
>and after the Marples-Beeching closures.


Indeed.  I often thought that the United Counties X5 was a replacement
bus for the Oxford-Cambridge line - I learned in here some time ago
that it wasn't, and is a much more recent innovation.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:40:04 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>They already use that in preference to the train. The only stupidity,
>IMNSHO, is running a train once an hour on a route served by buses
>every few minutes.


Agreed, though the idea of running an hourly railway bus, whether
limited stop or not, in addition to said bus service is lunacy.

In the context, it either needs closing or it doesn't.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

>TBH, I'm changing my opinion of Stagecoach as time goes on.  Their
>extraordinarily professional operating of South West Trains is a good
>reason why, and their bus operations do seem to be slowly cleaning up
>their act to the point where I think people are now actively welcoming
>their move into the Merseyside bus market.



That's good to hear.  It is a far cry from the days (in 1996 IIRC)
when Stagecoach took over South West Trains, the first privatised
franchise, and cocked it up completely in a very short time.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>Agreed, though the idea of running an hourly railway bus, whether
>limited stop or not, in addition to said bus service is lunacy.



It is a requirement of the legislation, and serves to ensure that
there is seen to be a replacement for the withdrawn train service.

Tony Polson wrote:


> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Agreed, though the idea of running an hourly railway bus, whether
>>limited stop or not, in addition to said bus service is lunacy.
> 
> It is a requirement of the legislation, and serves to ensure that
> there is seen to be a replacement for the withdrawn train service.


Will it also be a requirement that the arrival times of the
buses are recorded and included on the on-line departure boards
and in the train company's punctuality statistics?

Charlie

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:19:49 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: On 29 Jul 2005 18:32:58 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
:  wrote:
: 
: >PS The Oxford Tube is Stagecoach and therefore part of the Evil Empire
: >... that's why I take the X90!
: 
: Very nice looking (not been on one yet) new coaches, though.

The new X90's are lovely. Plugs for laptops and all!

: TBH, I'm changing my opinion of Stagecoach as time goes on.  Their
: extraordinarily professional operating of South West Trains is a good
: reason why, and their bus operations do seem to be slowly cleaning up
: their act to the point where I think people are now actively welcoming
: their move into the Merseyside bus market.

Do they still move into bus markets by driving local operators into 
receivership? That and Souter's repulsive belief system are what put 
me off them.

Ian

Neil Williams wrote:



> TBH, I'm changing my opinion of Stagecoach as time goes on.  Their
> extraordinarily professional operating of South West Trains 


....agreed...


> is a good
> reason why, and their bus operations do seem to be slowly cleaning up
> their act 


.... no evidence of that from where I'm sitting.

Charlie

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:47:48 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:

: That's good to hear.  It is a far cry from the days (in 1996 IIRC)
: when Stagecoach took over South West Trains, the first privatised
: franchise, and cocked it up completely in a very short time.

Actually, the very very first privatised services were the Scotland - 
England overnight seated trains, well before the wholesale 
privatisation. They were run by Stagecoach. And cocked up.

Perhaps the improvement comes from Virgin trains expertise permeating 
through Stagecoach nowadays ...

Ian

On 29 Jul 2005 22:17:45 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:19:49 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>Williams) wrote:
>
>: TBH, I'm changing my opinion of Stagecoach as time goes on.  Their
>: extraordinarily professional operating of South West Trains is a good
>: reason why, and their bus operations do seem to be slowly cleaning up
>: their act to the point where I think people are now actively welcoming
>: their move into the Merseyside bus market.
>
>Do they still move into bus markets by driving local operators into 
>receivership? That and Souter's repulsive belief system are what put 
>me off them.


The take-over of Glenvale is more of a rescue of a failing company.

I don't think that they've done a Darlington since. In fact their
withdrawal from much of the old Ribble area and the hand-over to the
Harrogate and District combine seems to have been a model of
rectitude. Likewise their retrenchment in East Sussex.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Charlie Hulme  wrote:


>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Agreed, though the idea of running an hourly railway bus, whether
>>>limited stop or not, in addition to said bus service is lunacy.
>> 
>> It is a requirement of the legislation, and serves to ensure that
>> there is seen to be a replacement for the withdrawn train service.
>
>Will it also be a requirement that the arrival times of the
>buses are recorded and included on the on-line departure boards
>and in the train company's punctuality statistics?



No idea.  But I don't see any reason why not.

On 29 Jul 2005 22:20:48 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>Actually, the very very first privatised services were the Scotland - 
>England overnight seated trains, well before the wholesale 
>privatisation. They were run by Stagecoach. And cocked up.


I don't think they were cocked up per-se.  I think they were flawed as
a concept (in the sense that overnight services are rarely
profitable[1]) before they even started.

[1] There is an overnight Megabus to and from Scotland, though that
said the economics of a road coach operation, especially one that
isn't as damned difficult to book as the sleepers, are rather
different.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42eb3fbb.1061366@news.tesco.net...

> On 29 Jul 2005 22:20:48 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
>  wrote:
>
> >Actually, the very very first privatised services were the Scotland -
> >England overnight seated trains, well before the wholesale
> >privatisation. They were run by Stagecoach. And cocked up.
>
> I don't think they were cocked up per-se.  I think they were flawed as
> a concept (in the sense that overnight services are rarely
> profitable[1]) before they even started.
>

Stagecoach continued BR's Nightrider service, which had been moderately
successful, but was past its sell-by date. AIUI the only reason why the
Scotrail sleepers have a seating coach is that it makes use of spare space
in a brake vehicle which is needed anyway.

Peter

In message <pExGe.16555$Fx3.13957@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, at 21:58:45 on 
Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Charlie Hulme  remarked:

>Will it also be a requirement that the arrival times of the
>buses are recorded and included on the on-line departure boards
>and in the train company's punctuality statistics?


There are regular buses shown on the departure board at Peterborough 
station, and I've seen buses on the departure board at Nottingham - but 
I've not lived here long enough to know if these are temporary 
replacements rather than permanent ones.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:04:13 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>There are regular buses shown on the departure board at Peterborough 
>station, and I've seen buses on the departure board at Nottingham - but 
>I've not lived here long enough to know if these are temporary 
>replacements rather than permanent ones.


The X5 and VT99 are shown on the departure board at MK Central, even
though they're not true bustitutions and don't appear in the
punctuality stats (my experience of them is that they are very
punctual, however).

The X5 has once (in my experience) been shown delayed on said board,
however.  No idea how they got the information - presumably either a
phone call from Stagecoach or a delay entered against the wrong
service in the system...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:04:24 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


> AIUI the only reason why the
>Scotrail sleepers have a seating coach is that it makes use of spare space
>in a brake vehicle which is needed anyway.


Indeed, as the trains are at their maximum length.  Were they not,
adding a couple of extra vehicles (as on the South West sleepers)
would probably not significantly affect the economics of the
operation.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

I use the 01:45 coach from Sheffield, 06:20 into Victoria once or twice
each year; it's always completely full, at least by the time it leaves
Nottingham, there are sometimes one of two empty seats from Sheffield.
It's usually at least half full when it arrives at Sheffield; I'm not
sure where it starts from.

In message , at 
02:14:40 on Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Stephen Furley  
remarked:

>I use the 01:45 coach from Sheffield, 06:20 into Victoria once or twice
>each year; it's always completely full, at least by the time it leaves
>Nottingham, there are sometimes one of two empty seats from Sheffield.
>It's usually at least half full when it arrives at Sheffield; I'm not
>sure where it starts from.


Are you using it on random days, or (for example) co-inciding with 
student terms?
-- 
Roland Perry

The reason that Paddington was built where it is was to put it next to
the canal Basin.  The then fairly new Paddington Arm of the Grand
Junction Canal was then the express route for freight between London
and Birmingham; much quicker than going via the Thames and Oxford.

Marylebone, Euston, St. Pancras and King's Cross are where thay are
because the railways from the North weren't permitted to come beyond
the New Road, now Marylebone Road, Euston Road and Pentonville Road.
Being in a good location from the passengers' point of view didn't come
into it.  Of course, since London was an existing city, which had to be
served by the new railways was always going to make it difficut to
provide centrally located stations, unlike many other places where the
town or city grew up around the railway.

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <pExGe.16555$Fx3.13957@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, at 21:58:45 on 
> Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Charlie Hulme  remarked:
> 
>> Will it also be a requirement that the arrival times of the
>> buses are recorded and included on the on-line departure boards
>> and in the train company's punctuality statistics?
> 
> 
> There are regular buses shown on the departure board at Peterborough 
> station, and I've seen buses on the departure board at Nottingham - but 
> I've not lived here long enough to know if these are temporary 
> replacements rather than permanent ones.


Yes, but I wasn't talking about the station departure boards, I
meant the on-line ones on the Internet.

Charlie

I wondered how long it would be before somebody brought up that route.
The two coach services on this route are much better for most people
than the train service from Paddington, though the fare has risen by
well over inflation in the last few years.

Oxford is one of the few destinations, Birmingham is another, which has
a high frequency coach service from London.  Many quite large places
have only a few, or in some cases only one, coach service per day.  To
places which are served by rail the train service is usually more
frequent than the coach one.  Obviously, there are other exceptions.

The railways seem to have largely given up on overnight passengers.  Of
course, this does have the advantage of freeing up the tracks for
freight services, or for maintenance work.  Overnight coaches, in my
limited experience on a few routes, tend to be busy.

The 'tube' also serves Lewknor, which seems to be a road junction in
the middle of nowhere, and I don't think I ever saw anybody get on of
off there.  Then one day a couple of years ago I happened to be on a
service at the appropriate time of day, and a large number of girls
from Headington School got on at the stop outside the school.  Almost
all of them got off at Lewknor.  This seems odd, it's a considerable
distance from the school, and I can't imagine that they all live
nearby.  Do parents pick them up by car from there and take them home
to surounding areas?  They wouldn't have been going on a school trip to
somewhere at that time of day.

Tony Polson wrote:


> It makes good sense to utilise scarce or limited capacity for the
> benefit of the greater number of passengers/freight flows.  It would
> be perverse to utilise that capacity for a tiny number of passengers
> on a little-used rural service at the expense of the busy flows.


There is any lack of capacity on the Stafford - Stoke
line? Four VT services per hour in each direction and a very occasional 
freight, apart from the main line section north of Stafford which is 
four tracks.

Charlie

"Stephen Furley"  wrote

>
> The railways seem to have largely given up on overnight passengers.  Of
> course, this does have the advantage of freeing up the tracks for
> freight services, or for maintenance work.  Overnight coaches, in my
> limited experience on a few routes, tend to be busy.
>

To a large extent, overnight railway seating services were a matter of
tagging a few passenger coaches on to a train which would have run anyway,
for parcels, mail, newspapers, or sleeping cars. These other markets have
been lost - in the case of sleeping cars (apart from London - Scotland and
the West of England) because day trains are so much faster than they used to
be and businessmen have been prepared to make a much earlier start than was
once the case. Around 1970, in the Deltic + 8 era, BR tried running a train
at 0655 from Newcastle, into Kings Cross at 1035 (in time for 1100
meetings). It proved to be too early, and was put back by half an hour. Now,
for someone prepared to get up for the 0425 out of Newcastle an 0830 Central
London meeting is just about possible.

Peter

I used to use both about equally, but I won't use the X90 since they
made the wearing of seat belts compulsory.

I don't like the religious inspired homophobia in Stagecoach.  I'm not
gay, and I'm not a Christian.  I think that anybody should be free to
follow any religion they choose, as long as they don't try to impose
their beliefs on others.  Whether somebody is, or is not, gay is of no
possible significance to Stagecoach and, frankly, none of their
business.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 10:05:56 UTC, "Stephen Furley" 
 wrote:

: I used to use both about equally, but I won't use the X90 since they
: made the wearing of seat belts compulsory.

Doesn't bother me. If there is going to be an accident, I'd rather the
folks behind me were strapped in.

: I don't like the religious inspired homophobia in Stagecoach.  I'm not
: gay, and I'm not a Christian.  I think that anybody should be free to
: follow any religion they choose, as long as they don't try to impose
: their beliefs on others.  Whether somebody is, or is not, gay is of no
: possible significance to Stagecoach and, frankly, none of their
: business.

I don't suppose most of Stagecoach care. Some of the profits, though, 
do go to active homophobic campaigning: christian fundamentalists are,
imo, just as obnoxious as any other sort and I try to avoid supporting
them whenever possible.

Ian

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 09:57:47 UTC, "Stephen Furley" 
 wrote:

: The 'tube' also serves Lewknor, which seems to be a road junction in
: the middle of nowhere, and I don't think I ever saw anybody get on of
: off there.

The tube stops more frequently than the X90, I am told, because it 
then qualifies as a "bus" rather than a "coach", which has tax 
advantages.

Ian

In message <nWHGe.9104$Aw4.3796@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, at 09:40:35 on 
Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Charlie Hulme  remarked:

>>> Will it also be a requirement that the arrival times of the
>>> buses are recorded and included on the on-line departure boards
>>> and in the train company's punctuality statistics?
>>   There are regular buses shown on the departure board at 
>>Peterborough  station, and I've seen buses on the departure board at 
>>Nottingham - but  I've not lived here long enough to know if these are 
>>temporary  replacements rather than permanent ones.
>
>Yes, but I wasn't talking about the station departure boards, I
>meant the on-line ones on the Internet.


Ah, I'll have to monitor them for a while and see if any of them show 
up.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 
02:57:47 on Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Stephen Furley  
remarked:

>The 'tube' also serves Lewknor, which seems to be a road junction in
>the middle of nowhere, and I don't think I ever saw anybody get on of
>off there.  Then one day a couple of years ago I happened to be on a
>service at the appropriate time of day, and a large number of girls
>from Headington School got on at the stop outside the school.  Almost
>all of them got off at Lewknor.  This seems odd, it's a considerable
>distance from the school, and I can't imagine that they all live
>nearby.  Do parents pick them up by car from there and take them home
>to surounding areas?  They wouldn't have been going on a school trip to
>somewhere at that time of day.


Lewknor used to be quite a popular, but unofficial, park and ride site. 
There was lots of room under the bridge, and on the nearby grass verges. 
People would ride-share into London, and when the 'tube' started, they'd 
park and get the bus to London. At some stage this was spoilt by the 
"parking" areas being bollarded off [1], but no doubt the trade for the 
bus survives.

As for being in the middle of nowhere, it's not that far from 
Watlington, which is the second biggest town in that part of the county, 
and has very many commuters living there.

As for the girls, were they travelling east, and at school going home 
time? If so, it's quite likely they were meeting onward lifts home. Many 
kids travel to schools in Reading and Oxford from that part of the 
county, as there are no upmarket schools nearby. If they had come from 
London, the only sensible conclusion would be that it was the end of a 
school trip.

[1] Some say as an anti-car bomb precaution, but tptb never like it when 
the citizenry show some initiative in inventing such unofficial sites.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 30 Jul 2005 03:05:56 -0700, "Stephen Furley"
 wrote:


>I used to use both about equally, but I won't use the X90 since they
>made the wearing of seat belts compulsory.


Do they actually come through and check?  I rather doubt it.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:23:42 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


>"Andrew Bell"  wrote:
>
>>Was a study carried out regarding the viability and cost of a new-build 
>>CTRL style line, to run adajcent or close to the existing WCML? Given 
>>the price hikes and prolonged disruption over the years, I wouldn't at 
>>all be suprised if with 20/20 hindsight this option would have been 
>>chosen. Would have been a coup for the Virgin marketing machine too... 
>>Britain's first domestic high speed rail service!
>
>
>A feasibility study was carried out into a possible north-south high
>speed line but no particular route was chosen.  


And there'll ba a massive sulk from whichever side of the country
doesn't get it hence Mr Darling will do all he can to avoid making
that (or any other) decision. This report by Arup for ODPM and others
(www.emra.gov.uk/news/documents/REGIONAL_FUTURES_Final_Report.pdf )
seems to say that building it to the West Midlands would be a good
idea turning it into a commuter suburb of what will become the south
east mega-city...

In article , Tony Polson 
wrote:

> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
> >TBH, I'm changing my opinion of Stagecoach as time goes on.  Their
> >extraordinarily professional operating of South West Trains is a good
> >reason why, and their bus operations do seem to be slowly cleaning up
> >their act to the point where I think people are now actively welcoming
> >their move into the Merseyside bus market.
> 
> That's good to hear.  It is a far cry from the days (in 1996 IIRC)
> when Stagecoach took over South West Trains, the first privatised
> franchise, and cocked it up completely in a very short time.


Stagecoach have also started to invest in decent buses (and timetables) 
for some of the Bedford town services, though they are also still running 
a large fleet of elderly double-deckers. Arriva have made much greater 
progress in modernising the town services in Luton/Dunstable.

-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

In article , Andrew hamilton wrote:

> Pity that the Wolverhampton - Walsall bus service isn't the "Joint" 
> trolleybus operation that it used to be!


I wondered when that idea would surface <g>. (Reaches for "Trolleybus 
Trails" [pub. 1963] which describes a recently expanded Walsall 
trolleybus network in glowing terms).

(I was nurtured on a mixture of Rotherham tracklesses, Sheffield trams 
and London trolleybuses).

-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:44:09 +0100, AW wrote in
<42ea3281$0$3506$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, seen in
uk.railway:

> Ross wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:28:31 +0100, Bevan Price wrote in
> > , seen in
> > uk.railway:
> > 
> > [....]
> >>After a few months,
> >>they will find that almost everyone uses the slow, but more
> >>frequent Travel West Midlands Wolverhampton - Walsall bus
> >>service, 
> > They already use that in preference to the train. The only stupidity,
> > IMNSHO, is running a train once an hour on a route served by buses
> > every few minutes.
> > 
> > [....]
> >>However, I think that this rail service would have been more
> >>succesful if they had reopened the intermediate station at
> >>Willenhall, 
> > People would still have used the bus or their car. An hourly service
> > simply is not attractive between two adjacent major urban centres.
> 
> I've been following this thread with interest as it's always puzzled me 
> why a service between two adjacent major urban centres should struggle 
> for loadings. Especially when trains on the other routes from Walsall 
> and Wolverhampton do well (and not everyone goes to Brum either).


The primary reasons, which you comment on yourself in a series of very
good points, are the frequency of the other rail services (especially
compared to the alternatives), and the reliability of those other
services.

The Walsall - Wolves run has very much been an afterthought; it was
intended as a minimum cost addition to the NEG bid in the hope that it
would act as a "bribe" to Centro and get their backing for NEG rather
than the MBO. However, it is debatable whether any party actually saw
it as anything other than a sop to the "must provide better services
in the West Midlands" debate, something that looked good in the press
("privatisation means new train service!"), and I don't think it was
ever intended as a serious contribution to the PT network in the West
Midlands.


Frequency-wise,  hourly is OK for a semi-rural service such as the
Hednesford line (although there is a real case for making that
half-hourly IMO) but it's not acceptable for an urban service. 

Half-hourly might be OK but as an urban-only link I'm not convinced
there's any real justification for the Walsall - Wolves line unless
there are also re-openings en route (which always were unlikely and
are even more so now), and a half-hourly frequency might also run into
difficulties with regards to pathing in and out of both Walsall and
Wolves.

Walsall - Wolves strikes me as being a little like the Parry People
Mover: it's a solution looking for a problem.


[...]

> Of course what I'm inventing here is some approximation of the 
> limited-stop bus, which the West Midlands used to have a network of back 
> in the 1980s. We may be able to make some judgements about the viability 
> of limited-stop buses in urban areas from whether they still exist now. 
> I stopped using WM buses in 1991 when I bought a car, so I'm way out of 
> touch, but I don't think many - if any - of the WM limited-stop routes 
> still survive.


There are some, but it seems they're not advertised as a distinct
network in the way they were before, and some are arguably not true
limited stop services anyway.

900 Brum - Cov still exists,
902/904/905 Brum - Sutton - Hill Hook/Roughley are post-1991
introductions,
951 Brum - Cannock has just been reduced to a peak-hour only service
from an all-day operation,
964 Brum - Rubery - Gannow is a post-1991 peak hour introduction,
replacing the erstwhile 963 (you can tell it's a replacement of a
withdrawn service because it's been given a new number to make it
appear a completely new service, which is a TWM trick dating back to
the deregulation changes),
966 now only operates Solihull - Erdington, having long since lost the
link via Sutton through to Walsall,
995 Brum - Brownhills is peaks only,
996 Brum - Streetly - Sutton still runs,
997 Brum - Aldridge - Walsall still runs.

979 Brum - Wolves died years ago, IIRC, 
as did 926 Brum - Dudley - Wolves.

I'm sure there were others in the late 80s, but they've died too.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:27:41 GMT, Jock Mackirdy
 wrote:



>Stagecoach have also started to invest in decent buses (and timetables) 
>for some of the Bedford town services, though they are also still running 
>a large fleet of elderly double-deckers. Arriva have made much greater 
>progress in modernising the town services in Luton/Dunstable.


In he process they've also scrapped half a route in Linslade while
claiming to have improve the service - er....... This by removing a
service from half the largest area of housing in the area. 

While not explaining this I suspect that the potholes (and lack of
local authority action about same) probably are part of the cause. 
i.e. Arriva said to the council "if you don't resuface that road we're
stopping the service" and the council's reply was "go ahead". 

G

Cheeky (me@privacy.net) said:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 00:23:42 +0100, Tony Polson
>  wrote:
>
> > "Andrew Bell"  wrote:
> >
> > > Was a study carried out regarding the viability and
> > > cost of a new-build CTRL style line, to run adajcent
> > > or close to the existing WCML? Given the price hikes
> > > and prolonged disruption over the years, I wouldn't
> > > at all be suprised if with 20/20 hindsight this
> > > option would have been chosen. Would have been a coup
> > > for the Virgin marketing machine too... Britain's
> > > first domestic high speed rail service!
> >
> >
> > A feasibility study was carried out into a possible
> > north-south high speed line but no particular route was
> > chosen.
>
> And there'll ba a massive sulk from whichever side of the
> country doesn't get it hence Mr Darling will do all he
> can to avoid making that (or any other) decision. This
> report by Arup for ODPM and others
> (www.emra.gov.uk/news/documents/REGIONAL_FUTURES_Final_Report.pdf
> ) seems to say that building it to the West Midlands
> would be a good idea turning it into a commuter suburb of
> what will become the south east mega-city...


I'm sure Mr Darling will make sure at some point it serves his home of 
bonny Edinburgh. He was at a parents night last year... shame there 
wasn't a chance to speak.

-- 
Andrew

Ross wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:44:09 +0100, AW wrote in

>>Of course what I'm inventing here is some approximation of the 
>>limited-stop bus, which the West Midlands used to have a network of back 
>>in the 1980s. We may be able to make some judgements about the viability 
>>of limited-stop buses in urban areas from whether they still exist now. 
>>I stopped using WM buses in 1991 when I bought a car, so I'm way out of 
>>touch, but I don't think many - if any - of the WM limited-stop routes 
>>still survive.
> 
> 
> There are some, but it seems they're not advertised as a distinct
> network in the way they were before, and some are arguably not true
> limited stop services anyway.
> 
> 900 Brum - Cov still exists,
> 902/904/905 Brum - Sutton - Hill Hook/Roughley are post-1991
> introductions,
> 951 Brum - Cannock has just been reduced to a peak-hour only service
> from an all-day operation,
> 964 Brum - Rubery - Gannow is a post-1991 peak hour introduction,
> replacing the erstwhile 963 (you can tell it's a replacement of a
> withdrawn service because it's been given a new number to make it
> appear a completely new service, which is a TWM trick dating back to
> the deregulation changes),
> 966 now only operates Solihull - Erdington, having long since lost the
> link via Sutton through to Walsall,
> 995 Brum - Brownhills is peaks only,
> 996 Brum - Streetly - Sutton still runs,
> 997 Brum - Aldridge - Walsall still runs.
> 
> 979 Brum - Wolves died years ago, IIRC, 
> as did 926 Brum - Dudley - Wolves.
> 
> I'm sure there were others in the late 80s, but they've died too.
> 


Thanks for that info. More survive than I'd imagined, although I note 
your caveat about whether they're true limited-stop ones.

In recent years I'd noticed a few 9xx buses while driving through 
Sutton, but it's the disappearance of sightings on the routes around 
Walsall, Dudley, and West Brom that prompted the question.

I'm reminded of my occasional journeys on the 979 back in the 80s, and 
the unconventional route via Smethwick to avoid the Soho Road (Soho Road 
and limited-stop being mutually incompatible of course). Speaking as an 
occasional user I found them reasonably useful for some journeys. But 
even back in the 80s the traffic often made for erratic timekeeping, and 
if you were only doing a four or five mile jaunt it was often just as 
quick to jump on the next 79 than wait 5 or 10 mins for a 979 whose 
timely appearance couldn't be guaranteed anyway. And of course in foul 
weather it was better to be on *any* bus than standing in a windswept 
bus shelter for a later, faster one. They weren't frequent enough to be 
useful in other words. Or an example of a bus at the stand being worth 
10 in the timetable.

Where I'd have really valued a limited stop service would have been on 
the Dudley - Walsall axis, as that was my regular commute. But it never 
got one, despite having quite significant town-to-town flows (often by 
people making multi-leg journeys).

I have a particular memory of one of my last journeys on a 979 out of 
Brum. It made prompt progress until it reached West Brom, where it swept 
into the bus station and the driver bailed out to the messroom (end of 
turn). The well-filled bus then stood there for a good 5 or 6 minutes 
before the relief man arrived (with rather less urgency, as you might 
expect). At this remove I obviously can't remember whether we left late 
or not, but I do remember the irony of sitting there becalmed on the 
"fast" service while a procession of regular 78s and 79s tootled off up 
the High St towards Carters Green. Very much a tortoise and hare 
scenario, and something of a concept failure to my mind.

I suppose the tram is the new 979, although the latter had gone long 
before the former arrived I think. History repeats itself with the lack 
of an equivalent service on the Dudley - Walsall axis.

AW

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
news:rgIGe.17124$bT4.5931@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

> There is any lack of capacity on the Stafford - Stoke
> line? Four VT services per hour in each direction and a very occasional
> freight, apart from the main line section north of Stafford which is
> four tracks.


Could it be that the lack of capacity is at Stoke station, which has no
south-facing bay, thus making it difficult to terminate trains from the
south without their getting in the way of something else?

Roger

Roger H. Bennett wrote:

> "Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
> news:rgIGe.17124$bT4.5931@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> 
>>There is any lack of capacity on the Stafford - Stoke
>>line? Four VT services per hour in each direction and a very occasional
>>freight, apart from the main line section north of Stafford which is
>>four tracks.
> 
> 
> Could it be that the lack of capacity is at Stoke station, which has no
> south-facing bay, thus making it difficult to terminate trains from the
> south without their getting in the way of something else?


No problem: run through to Manchester, taking up the paths
of Macclesfield - Manchester locals.

Charlie

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
news:vCQGe.22956$Ag3.15097@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> No problem: run through to Manchester, taking up the paths
> of Macclesfield - Manchester locals.


Without sitting down with a current timetable I don't know how easy that is,
given that the first passing point is at Macclesfield. Yes it is what used
to be run, but that was with a much sparser Intercity service, and apart
from a few peak trains that pattern was abandoned some years ago, so even BR
clearly thought it was not a very attractive idea.

Roger

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 17:43:51 +0100, Gavin Hamilton
<gavin@hamilton.powernet.co.ukremovethis> wrote:


>While not explaining this I suspect that the potholes (and lack of
>local authority action about same) probably are part of the cause. 
>i.e. Arriva said to the council "if you don't resuface that road we're
>stopping the service" and the council's reply was "go ahead". 


Expecting local authorities to do something about potholes when they
go around installing deliberate, vehicle-damaging, back-jarring
"potholes" in the form of speed ramps is probably a bit naive.

They particularly annoy me where they are designed such that it it is
dangerous to cross them while driving at, or anywhere near, the speed
limit, just to get around the political implications of actually
reducing said speed limit where it is too high.

They also affect buses (especially of the cart-sprung converted
breadvan variety, and especially if you sit at the back) much worse
than they do cars.  This isn't exactly serving to encourage public
transport use, and indeed was one of the factors behind my original
purchase of a car.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:33:47 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>No problem: run through to Manchester, taking up the paths
>of Macclesfield - Manchester locals.


Weren't these cut back to Stoke as a result of, umm, lack of capacity?

An EMU service from Stafford to Manchester is an interesting idea...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:46:59 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> An EMU service from Stafford to Manchester is an interesting idea...


There used to be a booked Altrincham - Manchester - Stoke -
Wolverhampton working, which I think was all stations throughout.
Certainly was from Stoke to Wolves, as I worked it a few times.

It used to be booked a 304, so not exactly the world's most enjoyable
journey, especially if you needed to pay a visit to the loo and were
in the wrong car...

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:20:02 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>There used to be a booked Altrincham - Manchester - Stoke -
>Wolverhampton working, which I think was all stations throughout.
>Certainly was from Stoke to Wolves, as I worked it a few times.
>
>It used to be booked a 304, so not exactly the world's most enjoyable
>journey, especially if you needed to pay a visit to the loo and were
>in the wrong car...


I have a feeling that I travelled on such a train during a rail
strike, when we were instructed to travel to Stafford by a Liverpool
train, and there change onto a Manchester train. The one and only time
that I travelled from Stafford to Stone.

The Pullman it wasn't, but the journey was completed without undue
delay.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

"Ross"  wrote in message
news:ekrne1dugbtevla301sbvadguoufsc1bo3@4ax.com...

> There used to be a booked Altrincham - Manchester - Stoke -
> Wolverhampton working, which I think was all stations throughout.
> Certainly was from Stoke to Wolves, as I worked it a few times.
>
> It used to be booked a 304, so not exactly the world's most enjoyable
> journey, especially if you needed to pay a visit to the loo and were
> in the wrong car...


Or for real masochists, in 1987 there was Manchester 0606 via Birmingham to
Walsall arrive 0858...

Roger

Once each November for the last four years, once last December, and one
trip in May last year.

"Chris Tolley"  wrote in message
news:1d4wzwpgqjwlv$.tdc28z490hxr$.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:28:56 +0100, superted wrote:
>
> > MAYBE (just maybe) a level playing field might emerge re building rail
> > lines.
>
> Good site for a station, perhaps - no gradients.
>

Plenty of schools selling off their playing fields for housing, why not
include stations somewhere?!

Nick

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:45:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>Expecting local authorities to do something about potholes when they
>go around installing deliberate, vehicle-damaging, back-jarring
>"potholes" in the form of speed ramps is probably a bit naive.
<snip>
>They also affect buses (especially of the cart-sprung converted
>breadvan variety, and especially if you sit at the back) much worse
>than they do cars.  This isn't exactly serving to encourage public
>transport use, and indeed was one of the factors behind my original
>purchase of a car.


Speed cushions can get around this problem by allowing buses to pass
without having to hit the bump itself, and thankfully these are
becoming more popular with local authorities now.

Duncan

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:47:14 +0100, Duncan  wrote:


>Speed cushions can get around this problem by allowing buses to pass
>without having to hit the bump itself, and thankfully these are
>becoming more popular with local authorities now.


Agreed.  However, they[1] still damage cars[2] travelling at the speed
limit.  They are therefore inappropriate.  There are far better
choices, such as chicanes.  Other options could be considered, such as
lower limits with cameras (though the latter have their own
significant disadvantages), and approach-controlled traffic signals.

[1] Generally speaking.  Some allow a carefully driven car to pass
either over or between them without any jolt, but by no means all, and
in residential areas buses are often prevented from avoiding them by
parked cars.

[2] For those familiar with West Milton Keynes, I knocked the tracking
out on what was a brand new car the first time I turned from Standing
Way onto Shenley Road.  Just after the turning is a well-concealed
speed bump with insufficient warning that is dangerous to hit at over
5mph.  The limit was 30mph.  It is often difficult, without crossing
the ramp, to determine the damage it might cause.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:48:48 GMT, "Andrew Bell" 
wrote:



>
>I'm sure Mr Darling will make sure at some point it serves his home of 
>bonny Edinburgh. He was at a parents night last year... shame there 
>wasn't a chance to speak.


Indeed. Could you remind me once again which is the only LRT project
in Britain not to be canned...?

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:47:14 +0100, Duncan  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Speed cushions can get around this problem by allowing buses to pass
>>without having to hit the bump itself, and thankfully these are
>>becoming more popular with local authorities now.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  However, they[1] still damage cars[2] travelling at the speed
> limit.  They are therefore inappropriate.


The speed limit is just that - a limit. It is not a target speed or even 
a speed at which it is necessarily sensible or safe to travel. 
Therefore, it may be entirely appropriate to slow traffic to below the 
speed limit in certain places.

I'm very surprised that someone who drives a car would not know that. If 
you genuinely didn't know it, you should seriously consider further 
training before getting into a car again. For a start, please read and 
understand this clause from the highway code very carefully:

	http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm#104

I know people really hate having their driving criticised, but think 
about it - other peoples lives are at stake.

A

Neil Williams wrote:
   :

> and approach-controlled traffic signals.


If these are what I am thinking of, they are great. They actually give 
drivers an incentive to slow down, otherwise traffic lights already at 
green detect the overspeed and turn to red.

Of course they are probably not popular with council traffic management 
departments who seem to think that only they could possibly decide the 
sequence and pattern of lights.

..if !interested_in(rant) then goto skip_rant;

For example, a right turn off the main road near me used to have a right 
filter lane and filter arrow. "They" changed it to separate light heads, 
one for straight on, one for right. At night when there is no traffic 
coming the other way, you can no longer turn right before your lights 
change. And it's not as if its protecting a pedestrian crossing, or even 
managing the flow for a further set of lights or junction as there isn't 
one for nearly half a mile.

So when people started jumping these lights because they thought they 
were stupid, do you imagine the council (a) realised it had made a 
mistake and put things back to how they were, or (b) put up a red light 
camera to fine the drivers who, although many using that road every day, 
couldn't possibly know as much about traffic lights as the council ?

:skip_rant;

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:24:32 +0100, Anonymouse
<anonymouse@withheld.nothing> wrote:


>The speed limit is just that - a limit. It is not a target speed or even 
>a speed at which it is necessarily sensible or safe to travel. 


Indeed not.  Before said traffic "calming" was installed, I generally
drove at approximately 20mph in the area concerned.  I felt that to be
a safe and appropriate speed in the area, and it is, as of now, the
speed at which I will tend to travel between said speed bumps.


>Therefore, it may be entirely appropriate to slow traffic to below the 
>speed limit in certain places.


There are correct and incorrect ways of doing it.  Installing devices
to purposefully damage vehicles exceeding an arbitrary limit which has
nothing to do with the actual speed limit is not one of the ones I
consider in the "correct" bracket.

If a lower speed *limit* is seen as appropriate, rather than a lower
speed judged by the motorist as safe and proper, which is what these
things attempt to enforce, that is what should be in place.

If you read my post correctly, you would note that I suggested a good
number of alternative methods of traffic calming which do not result
in damage to vehicles.

As an aside, speed bumps and such appear to be put in place on many
occasions not to reduce traffic speed, but to discourage the use of
"rat runs".  A recent petition in my area to install them in a local
so-called "rat run" promoted itself on this basis.  I do not like that
term, because a public road is a public road, and all motorists are
equally entitled to use all of them subject to appropriate weight
restrictions etc.  It is not the target of a political whim, nor is it
something owned or in any way managed by local residents except if
unadopted.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:43:28 +0000 (UTC), matt
 wrote:


>If these are what I am thinking of, they are great. They actually give 
>drivers an incentive to slow down, otherwise traffic lights already at 
>green detect the overspeed and turn to red.


Yes, they're the ones.  I've not yet seen them in use in residential
areas purely for the purpose of slowing traffic, but I see no reason
why the appropriate laws should not be amended to allow for such use.


>So when people started jumping these lights because they thought they 
>were stupid, do you imagine the council (a) realised it had made a 
>mistake and put things back to how they were, or (b) put up a red light 
>camera to fine the drivers who, although many using that road every day, 
>couldn't possibly know as much about traffic lights as the council ?


I'm guessing (b), and a few quid in someone's back pocket.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Anonymouse" <anonymouse@withheld.nothing> wrote in message 
news:rcednfrot_mOTHHfRVnyvA@eclipse.net.uk...

> Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:47:14 +0100, Duncan  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Speed cushions can get around this problem by allowing buses to pass
>>>without having to hit the bump itself, and thankfully these are
>>>becoming more popular with local authorities now.
>>
>>
>> Agreed.  However, they[1] still damage cars[2] travelling at the speed
>> limit.  They are therefore inappropriate.
>
> The speed limit is just that - a limit. It is not a target speed or even a 
> speed at which it is necessarily sensible or safe to travel. Therefore, it 
> may be entirely appropriate to slow traffic to below the speed limit in 
> certain places.
>
> I'm very surprised that someone who drives a car would not know that. If 
> you genuinely didn't know it, you should seriously consider further 
> training before getting into a car again. For a start, please read and 
> understand this clause from the highway code very carefully:
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm#104
>
> I know people really hate having their driving criticised, but think about 
> it - other peoples lives are at stake.


If anyone wishes to reduce the effect of a "speedbump" then (if possible) 
drive with your nearside wheels between the kerb and the speedbump. This 
allows the bump to upset only half the suspension which most vehicles will 
cope without distress.

KW.

I managed to travel on the Wolverhampton -Walsall trolley route in 1964! 
(temporary work in Birmingham and having read Trolleybus Trails.) Preferred 
Wolves (BUTs) to Walsall (Sunbeams?) and same year did Manchester -Ashton 
(including SHMD mileage!) Pity all those wires are gone.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:05:05 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:47:14 +0100, Duncan  wrote:
>
>>Speed cushions can get around this problem by allowing buses to pass
>>without having to hit the bump itself, and thankfully these are
>>becoming more popular with local authorities now.
>
>Agreed.  However, they[1] still damage cars[2] travelling at the speed
>limit.  They are therefore inappropriate.  There are far better
>choices, such as chicanes.


These tend to be less frequent than speed humps so don't always have
the same effect and can caused additional danger to cyclists as cars
try to squeeze by while passing the islands. Experienced cyclists will
have learnt to move out into a more central position to prevent cars
trying to overtake, but still many cycle groups are against them. 


> Other options could be considered, such as
>lower limits with cameras (though the latter have their own
>significant disadvantages), and approach-controlled traffic signals.


I've never seen these yet, so can't really comment but in a lower
traffic area some road users might just jump the lights if they are
installed to a straight road purely to reduce speeds. I guess they
would have to be installed at junctions or in combination with other
chicanes features.

Duncan

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:47:14 +0100, Duncan  wrote:


>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:45:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>Williams) wrote:
>
>>They also affect buses (especially of the cart-sprung converted
>>breadvan variety, and especially if you sit at the back) much worse
>>than they do cars.  This isn't exactly serving to encourage public
>>transport use, and indeed was one of the factors behind my original
>>purchase of a car.
>
>Speed cushions can get around this problem by allowing buses to pass
>without having to hit the bump itself, and thankfully these are
>becoming more popular with local authorities now.


Speed cushions are only avoidable by a bus if there are no parked
vehicles around. Try Lewes Road in Ditchling about school closing
time.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

In article , Gavin Hamilton 
wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:27:41 GMT, Jock Mackirdy
>  wrote:
> 
> >Stagecoach have also started to invest in decent buses (and timetables) 
> >for some of the Bedford town services, though they are also still running 
> >a large fleet of elderly double-deckers. Arriva have made much greater 
> >progress in modernising the town services in Luton/Dunstable.
> 
> In he process they've also scrapped half a route in Linslade while
> claiming to have improve the service - er....... This by removing a
> service from half the largest area of housing in the area. 
> 
> While not explaining this I suspect that the potholes (and lack of
> local authority action about same) probably are part of the cause. 
> i.e. Arriva said to the council "if you don't resuface that road we're
> stopping the service" and the council's reply was "go ahead". 


The poor state of the road was the reason for rerouting one of our "new" 
routes. Stagecoach said it would damage the low-floor buses. They also 
stopped running on a section of route with vicious plastic road humps.

-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:21:32 +0100, Duncan  wrote:


>I've never seen these yet, so can't really comment but in a lower
>traffic area some road users might just jump the lights if they are
>installed to a straight road purely to reduce speeds. I guess they
>would have to be installed at junctions or in combination with other
>chicanes features.


Indeed, requiring some consideration and perhaps a combination of
measures.

Speed humps are the easy way out, and by and large are not a good
solution to the problem of cars travelling at excessive speed in
residential areas.

As to cyclists, I don't find chicanes particularly annoying.  Many are
provided with a cyclist's cut through on the left, and if not, or if
it is full of glass, it is far less hassle to move out to the centre
of the road (as I do at red traffic lights or in any other situation
where it would cause me personal danger to have cars overtaking for a
short period of time) than it is to bounce over a speed bump, which
will inevitably affect a bicycle worse than a car if it is of the
full-width variety.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:41:07 GMT, Jock Mackirdy
 wrote:


>The poor state of the road was the reason for rerouting one of our "new" 
>routes. Stagecoach said it would damage the low-floor buses. They also 
>stopped running on a section of route with vicious plastic road humps.


I'm certain that MK Metro's buses are being damaged by the things -
the jarring bang when you hit some of the worst ones makes one shudder
(if one doesn't fly 2' in the air).

I've noted a number of Optare Solos (these have a *very* low floor
compared even to other low-floor buses) with underside damage that
appears that it could only realistically have originated from them, as
well.

On a slightly separate point, the "drive over the top" bus station
kerb at Preston, designed for high-floor buses and coaches, is quite
evidently damaging Stagecoach Ribble's low-floor buses, judging by the
awful noise as they drive on and off it and the scratches left behind.
A design for the times?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

1501 wrote:

> furnessvale wrote:
> >if useable aggregates are found in the excavations for a
> > new railway, aggregates levy is payable!
>
> But not a lot of new railway building going on right now.


Several responses spring to mind.
Firstly, what has that got to do with such blatent discrimination being
unresolved?
Secondly, perhaps this discrimination is part of the reason that "not a
lot of new railway building going on right now".
George

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:13:30 GMT, Roger H. Bennett wrote in
<eYSGe.14390$YL5.7400@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> "Ross"  wrote in message
> news:ekrne1dugbtevla301sbvadguoufsc1bo3@4ax.com...
>
> > There used to be a booked Altrincham - Manchester - Stoke -
> > Wolverhampton working, which I think was all stations throughout.
> > Certainly was from Stoke to Wolves, as I worked it a few times.
> >
> > It used to be booked a 304, so not exactly the world's most enjoyable
> > journey, especially if you needed to pay a visit to the loo and were
> > in the wrong car...
> 
> Or for real masochists, in 1987 there was Manchester 0606 via Birmingham to
> Walsall arrive 0858...


I've a vague recollection of the Altrincham - Wolves taking almost two
hours to get to Stoke. 

18.24 ex Altrincham and 20.15 ex Stoke ring a bell. 

Hell of a jaunt, anyway.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

"Ross"  wrote in message
news:2ofqe19f3e0edtsu9b78eo4eu9fa42eu3j@4ax.com...

> I've a vague recollection of the Altrincham - Wolves taking almost two
> hours to get to Stoke.
>
> 18.24 ex Altrincham and 20.15 ex Stoke ring a bell.
>
> Hell of a jaunt, anyway.


Now you mention it I have found in 1987 an Altrincham (1935) to Birmingham
(2229) calling at Manchester (2000), Stoke (2102), Wolverhampton (2204) and
just about everywhere else on the way.  There were similar workings in other
years but that is the timetable which came most easily to hand.

Either train adds up to much longer than I would have wanted to spend on a
304 anyway.

Roger

Neil Williams wrote:


> They particularly annoy me where they are designed such that it it is
> dangerous to cross them while driving at, or anywhere near, the speed
> limit, just to get around the political implications of actually
> reducing said speed limit where it is too high.


I don't find that too bad, depending on the location.

There are a lot of 30mph roads there are NOT suitable for 30mph. If
that is the case, or even just at certain points, putting in speed
humps at those places will make drivers slow down to a sensible speed.

I agree that they cause more problems for buses than cars - one
solution I have seen, but I can't for the life of me thin where, was
to have a central island, with strips of tarmac along the edges of the
island and down the kerb, at exactly the right spacing for a bus, then
rough cobbles in the middle to slow car drivers down.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Neil Williams wrote:


> Duncan wrote:
> 
>> Speed cushions can get around this problem by allowing buses to pass
>> without having to hit the bump itself, and thankfully these are
>> becoming more popular with local authorities now.


Except that they don't slow cars down that much. In my fairly modest
Rover 45 I can straddle most speed cushions and drive at 40mph ... not
that I would, of course, apart from on a couple of roads where the
speed cushions are highly inappropriate.


> There are far better choices, such as chicanes.


A friend who lives in Leatherhead told me that the roads became _much_
quieter after the chicanes were replaced by speed humps - and when I
say 'quieter', this is because there was no traffic queueing to get
through the constriction, no engines revving, no chavvy kids seeing
just how fast they could get through the chicane - and invariably cars
parked nearby would get dented fairly regularly.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:03:23 +0100, Stevie D
 wrote:


>There are a lot of 30mph roads there are NOT suitable for 30mph. If
>that is the case, or even just at certain points, putting in speed
>humps at those places will make drivers slow down to a sensible speed.


I can't agree.  Speed limits are a tool for setting a maximum speed;
within that, the speed chosen should be down to the judgement of the
driver on the safety of the situation.

If the speed limit is seriously too high, it should be reduced.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote

>
> If the speed limit is seriously too high, it should be reduced.
>

Around the country there are numerous narrow, twisty, country lanes subject
to the national speed limit of 60 mph. If that speed were remotely possible
on many of them it would be downright dangerous. However, the last thing we
want is for the lanes to be spoilt by frequent speed limit repeater signs,
when the vast majority of motorists drive sensibly along them, and those
that don't would be unlikely to be deterred by a much lower speed limit.

Peter

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:21:30 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>Around the country there are numerous narrow, twisty, country lanes subject
>to the national speed limit of 60 mph. If that speed were remotely possible
>on many of them it would be downright dangerous. However, the last thing we
>want is for the lanes to be spoilt by frequent speed limit repeater signs,
>when the vast majority of motorists drive sensibly along them, and those
>that don't would be unlikely to be deterred by a much lower speed limit.


The difference, IMO, is that they have natural hazards, not speed
bumps.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:13:02 +0100, "Dave"  wrote:


>http://www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=1034
>
>FIRST 'BUSTITUTION' CONFIRMED - WOLVERHAMPTON-WALSALL TRAINS TO BE REPLACED 
>BY 'FAST COACH SERVICE'
>Rail news & views | July 2005
>
>25 July 2005
>

I would love to wade through 120 posts in this thread but do not have
the time.  Therefore I apologise if the point I want to make has been
comprehensively covered already.
SNCF do quite a lot of permanent bustitution but it is amazingly
integrated.  The station information system, whether it is posters or
an electroriic display does not distinguish between a bus or a train
except for platform number or some other simple indicator.
Whether the local population like it, I cannot judge.  You get the
same farewell groups with tears in their eyes whichever mode is
offered!

Guy Gorton

Cheeky wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:48:48 GMT, "Andrew Bell" 
> wrote:
> 
>>I'm sure Mr Darling will make sure at some point it serves his home of 
>>bonny Edinburgh. He was at a parents night last year... shame there 
>>wasn't a chance to speak.
> 
> Indeed. Could you remind me once again which is the only LRT project
> in Britain not to be canned...?


The one not being funded directly from Westminster?

-- 
<><|"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
....|   -- President Merkin Muffley
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/MacCookie <- further adventures

Neil Williams wrote:


> If a lower speed *limit* is seen as appropriate, rather than a lower
> speed judged by the motorist as safe and proper, which is what these
> things attempt to enforce, that is what should be in place.


I'm sorry, but if that's your attitude, you really shouldn't be
driving. Speed limits are (usually) set very generally. A suburban
residential road will usually have a 30 limit, an open country road
will usually have a 60 limit, and so on.

It may be that in some places, that limit is inappropriately high, but
it may not be necessary to reduce the limit - eg, there might only be
one junction or bend or school entrance where it is too high. In that
case, some sort of speed reduction measure - whether lots of warning
signs, humps, narrows or whatever - may be the best way to achieve the
aim of slowing drivers down where necessary.
 

> If you read my post correctly, you would note that I suggested a good
> number of alternative methods of traffic calming which do not result
> in damage to vehicles.


However, most methods of traffic calming do have some downsides. Speed
humps can cause vehicle damage if drivers take them too fast, chicanes
can cause congestion and be more dangerous for pedestrians, narrowings
can be hazardous to cyclists, speed-sensitive traffic lights are much
more expensive and could be ignored by drivers ... and so on. If
you're that worried about your car being damaged by speed humps (mine
never has, and I've driven over several thousand humps), slow down!
 

> As an aside, speed bumps and such appear to be put in place on many 
> occasions not to reduce traffic speed, but to discourage the use of 
> "rat runs" ... I do not like that term, because a public road is a 
> public road, and all motorists are equally entitled to use all of them 
> subject to appropriate weight restrictions etc.  


Roads are designed with a purpose in mind. Some roads are key radial
routes, designed to carry a high volume of traffic, and have little
direct access. Others are "distributor" roads, linking the key radial
routes with residential areas - these should still carry a
considerable amount of traffic, and will have limited direct access.
Smaller are residential routes; these are not intended to be used as
through routes, should only handle small volumes of small moving
traffic, and will have lots of direct access to properties.

In the same way that horse-riders and cyclists are encouraged to stay
away from busy high-speed roads, through traffic may need to be
encouraged to stay away from residential areas. If speed humps achieve
that, it may be appropriate to install them - or it may be more
appropriate to close some junctions or roads, or to make them
accessible only with a residents' pass, or to put width restrictions
on them ... or whatever else takes your fancy.

I am not saying that I never use residential roads as a cut-through to
avoid a traffic jam - there is one route that I use frequently to
avoid City of York Council's patented traffic-jam creating traffic
lights. But when I do, I drive slowly and with due consideration for
the fact that it is a residential area - many drivers don't.

If you have ever lived on a road that was designed as a quiet
residential street, but is used as a cut through by speeding drivers
in the rush hour, you would know _exactly_ why speed humps are often
necessary on these roads.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 18:00:55 UTC, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil 
Williams) wrote:

: On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:03:23 +0100, Stevie D
:  wrote:
: 
: >There are a lot of 30mph roads there are NOT suitable for 30mph. If
: >that is the case, or even just at certain points, putting in speed
: >humps at those places will make drivers slow down to a sensible speed.
: 
: I can't agree.  Speed limits are a tool for setting a maximum speed;
: within that, the speed chosen should be down to the judgement of the
: driver on the safety of the situation.

Safety is not the only reason for choosing a speed: courtesy to local 
residents should come into it as well. Unfortunately, many drivres 
couldn't give a toss about that, so the most elegant way of making 
them slow down is to reduce the physically possible speed to the 
courteously appropriate one.

Mid you, I drive a 2CV and a DS, so speed bumps don't really get 
noticed ...

Ian

In message <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-DEYdcdm885Fl@localhost>, Ian Johnston 
 writes

>Mid you, I drive a 2CV and a DS, so speed bumps don't really get 
>noticed ..

I bet your repair bills do.
-- 
Clive

DERWENT Re: First [permanant] bustitution confirmed
 30 Jul 2005 02:57:47 -0700, "Stephen Furley"
 


>The 'tube' also serves Lewknor, which seems to be a road junction in
>the middle of nowhere, and I don't think I ever saw anybody get on of
>off there.  Then one day a couple of years ago I happened to be on a
>service at the appropriate time of day, and a large number of girls
>from Headington School got on at the stop outside the school.  Almost
>all of them got off at Lewknor.  This seems odd, it's a considerable
>distance from the school, and I can't imagine that they all live
>nearby.  Do parents pick them up by car from there and take them home
>to surounding areas?  They wouldn't have been going on a school trip to
>somewhere at that time of day.



There are some big laybys at Lewknor. There are people who use it as a
park and ride for London. owever you have to be there at the correct
time of day to find them.

PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com