Beeching's cuts

[Ascot]

That last one doesn't show the route...

Oh right...

Never mind it's got the Stamford Bridge to York as requested though you can follow the B roads. :roll:

 

[Max]

Yeah but the railway line runs north of that

(Look on the map - dismantled railway runs off to the north )

Nick, go to the ordnance survey website, and use the 'get-a-map' program. Then search for York or Stamford Bridge and navigate to the right bit. You can follow the old route and also get an idea of where the new route might go.

 

[Ascot]

Yeah but the railway line runs north of that

(Look on the map - dismantled railway runs off to the north )

Nick, go to the ordnance survey website, and use the 'get-a-map' program. Then search for York or Stamford Bridge and navigate to the right bit. You can follow the old route and also get an idea of where the new route might go.

Yeah i can see it...

God knows how that's gonna open...

 

[Nick W]

Nick. Listen up. Beverley is a heavily congested town with very narrow streets and very little open space for development. Look at a streetmap of the town and tell me where you would run a tram-line and build a station. Same with Market Weighton, Pocklington and Stamford Bridge. They're not massive urban areas, just towns. Trams are not designed for rural inter-urban lines. They are designed for large urban areas such as London (aka. Croydon Tramlink!).

Beverley is one of the places where the alignment hasn't been blocked, so the tramtrain will use the existing station, follow the alignment with 2 road crossings, before speeding up to top speed.

Trams would bring these towns to a standstill and for what benefit?

And making people drive to a parkway station won't?

There are already perfectly good stations/dimantled stations in the middle of these places.

If we bash every ficking house down in the way!

With all these stupid deviations to little villages, and with a fairly poor maximum speed I could see trams taking at least an hour. Then what would the incentive be for potential customers?

No need to walk futher than the town centre at each end? No need to change and get a bus

I don't know where you get the figure of 10 miles from, having looked at the map I really can't see why it would the so much.

Draw or describe your proposed route west of stamford bridge for me please!

Why the hell do we need a 10 minute frequency? It's not a heavily populated urban area, it's very rural!! Why do you not see that such a frequency is extremely excessive?

We're competing with car with almost 24/7 frequency unless you're ****ed, in which case you dont' wanna stagger to a parkway station.

Chaz - it's not that easy, it's not a situation where you can just click your fingers and a 4 lane road appear. There are several villages which would have to be bypassed for this to work, meaning that most of this wouldn't be an upgrade, more like a total new-build! This would take years to get off the ground.

You can't click your fingers and get a railway in. You can easily built a tram line on existing roads. It's easier to build a bypass than a railway through a town, as the Attleborough by-pass project showed. All they needed was a retaining wall to avoid demolition of a barn.

I have seen some very good road upgrades, namely the A46 in Lincolnshire (between Lincoln and Newark), which was upgraded to a dual carriageway, vastly improving safety and helping traffic flow. But this only had to by-pass one village, it is very straight and flat and is only 10 miles long. The A1079 is quite windy between Beverley and Market Weighton. It's hilly and the overall length of the route is about 30 miles. An upgrade would: cost a vast amount of money; take a very long time to build; require many new alignments in places; further increase traffic along the road therefore create further CO2 emissions and contribute more to global warming. In this day and age we don't want to be encouraging further road use, it's madness!

If we want to lower CO2 emmisions, what's wrong with an electric medium railway with light vehicles rather then heavy DMUs?

Nick, go to the ordnance survey website, and use the 'get-a-map' program. Then search for York or Stamford Bridge and navigate to the right bit. You can follow the old route and also get an idea of where the new route might go.

Please do it yourself and tell me where you want your one to go. I know where mine would go, given that it can use roads where some idiot built on the old alignment.

 

[Donny Dave]

:roll: Nick, your backing a loser here. Trams will not work in this situation....

As your challenging people to produces maps, I've got a challenge for you.

Produce maps of Beverly, Hull and York where you would route the trams. Also produce maps of the towns and villages where you say that houses will have to be demolished

You have very limited knowledge of the area, yet you are insisting that trams would not only ease congestion, but the construction would not disrupt anything while the line is being built.

Like I said previously, this discussion was about how to save time for people from Hull and Beverly when making onward connections from York, yet you are completely disregarding this, and even insisting people will accept a longer journey time, because the tram will be "direct". As Max said, a Hull - York via Beverly jorney time would be about 45 minutes, meaning some one from Hull could be heading north from York inside an hour of leaving Hull, instead of being somewhere between Selby and York.

We're competing with car with almost 24/7 frequency

In my opinion, that is a very stupid remark. Every station in the UK competes with the car. In cases like this, Trams will not work, as they are slower and designed for local/urban running. Look at Manchester, Midlands, Croyden, Nottingham and Sheffield). How many of those go from one town to the next through rural areas?

I brought this up in a previous post, cost.

How much will it cost to build the tram line from scratch around each town and city and build a new fleet of trams for your proposed frequecy of 6 trams an hour?

How much would it cost to reinstate the line, and shuffle Northern's fleet to put 3 DMUs on the route?

You can easily built a tram line on existing roads.

How can you easily build a tram route on existing roads? It's not a case of just digging 2 grooves in the road and putting the lines down. You have to dig the road up, and rebuild it so it is strong enough for the trams, as well as the current traffic. You also have to make sure that the water, gas and sewer pipes are not in the way, as well as electricity cables. If they are, they have to be moved. That brings us back to my previous point. Cost....

Another thing that happens while the route is being built. Disruption, and lots of it. Too much disruption could kill a town like Beverly. Shops would lose too much business while all the construction work is going on, so they will close. If too many shops close, then people will start to move elsewhere, and suddenly, there is no market for your trams....

So please explain in detail why you think a tram system is the perfect solution for quicker journey times.

 

[Nick W]

Ok I give, build the heavy rail line as proposed, so Beverly, a few out of town parkway stations and York. Also dual carrigeway while you're at it for people not served or people who don't wish to get up 20 minutes earlier because leaving 10 minutes later would get them to work in York or Hull too late.

 

[Techniquest]

It's already 1hr 5 minutes then? For 35 miles? That's under 35mph. So if my tram trains average 40mph (hopefully their full speed will be 75mph (or 90mph in some American cities)), and have a maximum of 10 minutes wait, I will just about beat the train

:x:x:x

No, no no.

When I said, in my theoretical story, that "York is 45 minutes away" I was referring to the timetabled journey time to York from Beverley.

The 43 minutes I mention is what the actual journey time on this route would probably be in this story because it got a path ahead of another train.

Which means your 1h5m is not correct, that it is still FAR quicker to get the train than it would be via any other means.

Let's have a look at journey times for both tram and train (all times estimated):

Tram: Beverley town centre - Beverley P+R tram station: 20 minutes
Wait for next tram: 15 minutes
Beverley P+R - York city centre: 90 minutes
Walk to York station: 5 minutes

So you're looking at, from town to city, there of 130 minutes, ie 2h10m. All times are estimated and could be longer.

So let's do the train next, starting off again from the same point:

Walk Beverley town centre - Beverley BR: 5 minutes
Beverley BR - York BR: 45 minutes

Hmm, that's a mighty 50 minutes. Look at that, the difference between tram and train is a whopping 1h20m! I can't imagine whatsoever which method I would prefer!

 

[Nick W]

:x:x:x

No, no no.

When I said, in my theoretical story, that "York is 45 minutes away" I was referring to the timetabled journey time to York from Beverley.

The 43 minutes I mention is what the actual journey time on this route would probably be in this story because it got a path ahead of another train.

Which means your 1h5m is not correct, that it is still FAR quicker to get the train than it would be via any other means.

Let's have a look at journey times for both tram and train (all times estimated):

Tram: Beverley town centre - Beverley P+R tram station: 20 minutes

Actually I intended the tramtrains to share Network Rail from Hull to west of Beverly given that the alignment wasn't built on. There will be two traffic light controlled road crossings which are safer and cause less traffic delay than NR counter-parts.

So far tram 0 minutes, train 0 minutes relative

Wait for next tram: 15 minutes

Wait for next train 0-29 minutes verses tram 0-9 minutes. I know how often I just miss a train at Colchester where I'm not sure what time I'm gonna get let out of school. Normal school finishing time means I miss a train by 5 minutes thus adds 27 minutes to a 20 minute journey.

Beverley P+R - York city centre: 90 minutes

A 90 mph train does it in 45 minutes. The tramtrains will have a more direct route to make up for 30mph running in some places. We already have 50mph trams in this country which accelerate far quicker than a DMU and loading times are quicker. I am aware of 90mph light rail vehicles in America but can't say I've been there myself yet to confirm this.

Maybe tramtrain 60 mins, train 45 minutes?
The tram can find lighter routes where "tram gates" will prioritise them, and take priority over the traffic, while a train could have to wait around 5 mintes.

Walk to York station: 5 minutes

As stated, not everyone wants to go vegging in York station. And intercity trains from Hull could go via Selby just as quickly unless we demolish houses on the old alignment. The 2 houses figures involves huge detours. If there was significant intercity traffic from Hull and Beverly up north, then they'd be trains on this route. As it is, Hull trains don't run that many trains a day to London...

I'd bet a vast sum of money that over 50% of traffic on the road in question is not intercity car traffic to places north of York.

Hmm, that's a mighty 50 minutes. Look at that, the difference between tram and train is a whopping 1h20m! I can't imagine whatsoever which method I would prefer!

As stated, not everyone wants to go vegging in York station. You want to add extra time for people walking from the town centre to the station? I can think of far more places where I've walked from NR station to the town centre...

I wonder how many people from Beverly or Hull go to places north of York with a station each year. Whereas I bet many people on that route or each end commute to York or Hull town centre.

 

[Mintona]

I wish we still had a railway in Ross-on-Wye (just to change the subject), but Beeching put paid to that one too. Shame really, if it was still around now I'm sure it'd make money...

 

[Guinness]

I wonder how many people from Beverly or Hull go to places north of York with a station each year. Whereas I bet many people on that route or each end commute to York or Hull town centre.

I wonder how many people care....

*This post was brought to you by, half of the forum*

 

[Spaceflower]

isnt it better served by a bus?

cheaper to implement, run and use, probably faster and more frequent and flexible, just as environmentally freindly (where does electricity come from).

wealthy people in that neck of the woods will not want to leave their posh cars which bomb up the wide a roads very quickly for a crowded pushchair infested (you wish) tram anyway

just my take on it. railways are for longer distance journeys where their average higher speed and lowering stress levels?becomes an advantage and when congestion starts to bite in major conurbations?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
oh, one more thing......

i always think that beeching saw what was coming.....whoever he was.

alot of you complain about the state of the railways today

 

[Mojo]

Railways & trams are far more attractive to the average person... or even the "wealthy people" than buses will ever be, even that 'Ftr' thing.

 

[Spaceflower]

:blah5: still rather drive, even though it costs an arm and a leg, but then so does public transport.

if given the choice most people would rather drive on that stretch, far easier. i cant see no great benefits from a tram or train on that route, other than pleasing some enthusiasts, but agree if given a choice between train/tram and bus on an identical route, same cost, most people would opt for the tram/train.

interesting and funny, me and my twenty odd year old cousin went to the metro centre one day and i suggested getting the train. he said 'no way, get the bus, i dont like rollercoasters' he was being serious too.

pinched from another thread, cheers to the poster

There are too many public transport schemes which are marginal from a cost-benefit point of view and this policy tips the scales against them."

re: indirect tax revenue from fuel duty

 

[Nick W]

isnt it better served by a bus?

cheaper to implement, run and use, probably faster and more frequent and flexible, just as environmentally freindly (where does electricity come from).

I take it you've never actually been on light rail.

wealthy people in that neck of the woods will not want to leave their posh cars which bomb up the wide a roads very quickly for a crowded pushchair infested (you wish) tram anyway

just my take on it. railways are for longer distance journeys where their average higher speed and lowering stress levels?becomes an advantage and when congestion starts to bite in major conurbations?

Very true but let's not forget people who can't drive.

oh, one more thing......

i always think that beeching saw what was coming.....whoever he was.

alot of you complain about the state of the railways today

Everyone wants the train to serve them but no one wants their train to stop at stations they don't want.

Rather an old thread to dig up though.

 

[devon_metro]

:blah5: still rather drive, even though it costs an arm and a leg, but then so does public transport.

if given the choice most people would rather drive on that stretch, far easier.

If you have to park in a city and drive through hours of jams I can see a railway being far easier, afterall all you must do is get on rather than worry about driving and also you are far less likely to die - to put it frankly - on the way to work!

cant see no great benefits from a tram or train on that route, other than pleasing some enthusiasts, but agree if given a choice between train/tram and bus on an identical route, same cost, most people would opt for the tram/train.

I'm not sure that a line of this nature would please 'enthusiasts'. Generally if there is a train service that is reliable and doesn't cost too much people will use it!

 

[Spaceflower]

im not making many freinds here

I take it you've never actually been on light rail.

yes, tyne wear, sheffield, LU, Barcelona. i was referring to york-hull route only. they are more expensive to implement than buses, youve got to build dedicated routes for them, a pretty lengthy one at that for the route in question, would the demand be there to warrant building it? i doubt it.
they are more at home in large urban centres, no? as for flexibility, well its stuck to its routes, you cant pick the track up and just move it, buses have much more flexibilty. also buses can serve more stops closer to where people actually live and probably require less staff to maintain them per head than a tram?

Very true but let's not forget people who can't drive.

what percentage of people cant drive in rural east yorkshire, alot less than other areas, and because its rural and with park and ride facilities in york, surely is a more attractive option than any other mode anyway

If you have to park in a city and drive through hours of jams I can see a railway being far easier

yes i agree, hence light rail networks in these areas plus sticks, but east yorkshire doesnt really fit this picture does it? i dont know, but when ive visited york in my car it aint been THAT bad!!!

 

[Lewisham2221]

im not making many freinds here

Just ignore NickW the rest of us do!

 

[Spaceflower]

look im all for trains, i use them wherever possible (usually comes down to cost, lets face it they arent usually the cheapest way to travel), but just dont think its a viable option in this case

dont want to sound anti-train an a train forumhock:

 

[Tom B]

Trains are much cheaper than driving generally! Although they have an element of regulation (Government controls on fares) and competition (with the car, plane), which buses don't.

 

[Spaceflower]

depends where you live mate!!!!

up here they arent. in leeds (west yorks) they are, for example

once you've paid road tax, insurance, repairs, etc, yeah, cars, theyre very expensive, but offer unrivaled flexibility.

 

[Ascot]

Thing is tho with cars.. you go exactly where you want to, not the nearest station then jump a few miles...