Jump to content

Edwin_m

Members
  • Content Count

    5,880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edwin_m

  1. I was under the impression it was similar to Reading, in that they started by re-signaling essentially the existing track layout with the only major change being back-to-back signals in place of the St Andrew's Crosses at the midpoint of the long platforms. The signaling is now computer-based and therefore reconfigurable as the layout changes without re-wiring hundreds of relays, and this will facilitate a re-modelling of at least the eastern end which is much easier to do before electrification than after.
  2. Having been remodeled in the last few years, Oxford probably doesn't need much work doing other than the electrification itself, so can be done relatively quickly. There's also an immediate operational benefit of getting rid of the current inefficient and unattractive service where some trains terminate at Didcot that would more logically continue to Oxford, so probably also displacing some Turbo units. Electrifying the route via Bath wouldn't eliminate any DMUs so there is only the relatively marginal benefit of allowing the bi-modes to run for longer in electric mode. It also
  3. View New Content appears to be including a line for each post made, not just one for each topic with new content in it. So the same topic can appear multiple times in the list.
  4. It's officially a return to dealer to have the battery replaced. I did solder a coin cell holder into mine so it would take a standard battery instead of needing the rather strange battery with legs to be soldered in (it looks as if when the designed it they could have made room for this but didn't). But after two or three replacements it seemed to get deranged and I couldn't get anything out of it other than error 97 despite replacing the battery and doing a factory reset.
  5. Not a bay, but Platform 1 at Nottingham had a parcels platform on the "far" side in the 90s. It's now the cycle storage. I'm trying to think where I've seen bay platforms in use, still with the remains of end loading ramps.
  6. Assuming the facing end of 7 is a simple trap and doesn't look like a signaled route, then I agree with others no feather is necessary. The hazard here is the train taking a turnout too fast because the driver is expecting to continue on a straight route. Even if the driver was somehow expecting to continue past 2 in the wrong direction they would be adjusting their speed for turnout 7 which is likely to have the same speed as 6.
  7. However for a lot of those people who have to work at a particular place, those places are distributed widely across the country so most aren't easily accessible by train (and even fewer will also have a station near the person's home). Most rail commuters work in a big office in a city centre, and others work at shops and other facilities that are in business because of the custom from office workers. Combined with the government advice (now ceased but not forgotten) to avoid public transport, those rail (and to a lesser extent bus) commuters will be less likely to return than those who wor
  8. You'd think they'd have noticed, as it's in most of their back yards...
  9. As I'm partly guilty of leading this one astray, I've created this one for us:
  10. Any sort of demand-responsive transport only works if it isn't too successful. Otherwise the numbers build up to the extent that a more traditional fixed-route public transport is more efficient. So essentially in an urban area it's a fallback for people without cars, not the primary transport systems, and the bulk of the transport still takes place by car.
  11. A Personal Rapid Transit system, which is what you describe, has historically been even less successful than a monorail and is one of the classic examples of a "solution in need of a problem". It has been proven technically since the 1970s, but there are only a handful of working PRT systems worldwide and none that really delivers the dream of automated transport from everywhere to everywhere else. To do that they would need mostly grade-separated, and hugely expensive and unsightly, infrastructure on every street. Autonomous vehicles that can share space with pedestrians or other road vehi
  12. Absolutely. MK was of its time in transport planning terms, it wouldn't have been build as it was if we were starting now. I'm merely trying to make the point that if policies had been more foresighted in that era then it might have been centered on Bletchley not on a green field site. But no such public transport has ever appeared. If you make somewhere easy to drive around then most people will drive, and there won't be the demand to sustain good public transport except at huge subsidy, which we don't do in the UK. The lower urban density necessary to accommodate all those road
  13. Which also shows how hopeless transport planning was at the time. Monorails don't do junctions, so how would you make a grid system easily accessible?
  14. It sets a bad precedent for sustainable transport. Just look at the situation most of America is in to understand where we would be if everywhere was like that. Most American cities are similarly built for access car (though with signal junctions not roundabouts), with the result that those without a car have to rely on rather desultory transit services. They still have traffic congestion and keep having to build more roads which essentially makes things worse due to induced demand. So MK is probably fine for those who have cars and still have the ability to drive them, or are fit enough t
  15. I'm not suggesting that anyone would have done that in the 60s, not in the UK at least. When we were building roads the Germans and Swiss were keeping and developing their light rail. Some sort of autonomous transport system is probably the only way out for Milton Keynes, but still have problems of their own such as tyre particulate pollution and the risks of antisocial behavior in an unsupervised vehicle. And they won't solve the problem that the focus of the local transport network is a longer-distance railway station serving only two points of the compass, maybe three in fut
  16. A pretty fundamental one though. Even the 1950 map shows open land within a few hundred yards of Bletchley station. If the will had been there it could have been focused there instead of further north. It could also have been designed so that the Bedford line served several local centres, with light rail to serve others.
  17. Because one of them is a potentially important railway junction? The fundamental problem is that MK, like many other developments of its era, was mostly designed around the car. Places that are easy to drive around are generally difficult to serve by public transport. Hence...
  18. If it's the same one where the top is pictured in an earlier post, then I think I can see a pit between the rails on the right hand track, which would contain a bullwheel (?) leading the cable underground. It could then presumably be led off to a winding engine somewhere convenient. Long shot, but is it something where a normal slow-moving wagon will be diverted off to safety, but one moving too fast will go straight on into the catchpit? I'm thinking maybe a casting with a slope on it left to right, that the wheel flanges will slide down if it's going slowly enough. But I've neve
  19. It's normal to upgrade goods lines to passenger standards on re-signaling etc, unless there's a good reason not to. For example the survivors of the extensive Goods lines on the Midland Main Line are all now passenger-rated, with the exception of ones on the west side just north of Leicester. Those in the Erewash Valley, for example, rarely carry passenger trains but were upgraded anyway. With low traffic densities between Aylesbury Vale and Calvert there's no real saving from omitting signaling overlaps etc, and if the track is being relayed anyway by HS2 then if specified suitable for fre
  20. HS2 is re-aligning much of the line between Aylesbury and Claydon so I assume the track and signaling will be upgraded to modern standards. There may be some extra cost specifically for restoring the passenger service, such as the loop you mention, but it's going to be small compared to the total amount being spent on the line in the next few years.
  21. When did the track at Chippenham move across so there were tracks on both sides of the island and the side platform had no track? It was definitely like that in the 1990s.
  22. Enabling works are generally let under smaller contracts while the procurement for the main contract is still in progress. They are the items on or near the "critical path" of the programme, which need to be done early otherwise they will delay the eventual completion.
  23. The railway requirement may be more stringent than for aircraft in some ways. Aircraft may hit non-frozen birds from time to time but they don't generally encounter flying bricks. On the other hand a rail windscreen has a lower impact speed and doesn't have the stresses from pressurization.
  24. I was one of about 8 in the front cab of a 159 once … and one of the others was an HMRI Inspector.
  25. I think one number per island was common in the 19th century - Manchester Victoria was like that until rebuilding in about 1903. Sheffield has 2a and 2b as either end of the long platform 2, 2c is a bay alongside one end of it. Birmingham New Street platform 4 is similar.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.