jonny777 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Simple, just convert them to electric buses. And then to save crew costs, join lots of them together. Oh, wait... I remember that being said by the (then) chairman of the BRB (Richard Marsh I think) in front of the TV cameras way back in the 1970s, after being asked a political question by some pushy Tory-biased interviewer about it being more efficient to replace trains by buses. It certainly shut the interviewer up for a short while; long enough for Marsh to move on. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWales Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Further reading? Then try 'The Great Railway Conspiracy' By David Henshaw Well worth a read and covers such topics in detail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purley Oaks Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 We had a guided busway in Edinburgh at Stenhouse and Saughton - now it's a part of the tram system (I say system but it's just one line... so far ) Mal 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Paul Withrington has been peddling this nonsense for many, many years unfortunately - there's a great article on London Reconnections about the proposals to convert the line into Marylebone which even had Paul engaging in a discussion in the comments, alas he appears to have ignored everything that was pointed out to him. Almost Terminal: Marylebone’s Brush With Destruction Thank you very much indeed for posting this link Christopher. Everyone PLEASE read this and especially the first of the subsequent comments by "GrahamH", an ex very senior civil servant who was closely involved at the time. It reveals so much both about the abilities and attitudes of some very famous politicians of the time, and about the facile and bigoted way in which government policy is, or was, developed. Fascinating and required reading for the battles and mindgames that are bound to come following the next election. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I, along with a lot of others on the replies to that, would love Graham H to publish his memoirs! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roythebus Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Part of the problems of converting the Marylebone tunnels was that they were not high enough to pass 2 standard road coaches; they were not wide enough to pass 2 road coaches! There was also the loopy plan to convert the South Western to a busway. As someone said earlier, where would all these thousands of coaches park and where would the double that number of drivers come from? Only 52% of candidates taking the bus driving test pass; many give up after the first attempt, I know someone who has taken the test 4 times and failed and has now agreed bus driving is not for her. What would all those drivers do during the day? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim H Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I have always assumed the IEA are made up of people who never got over not getting a train set for Christmas. Or used to get beated up by trainspotters while at school.... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher125 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Aren't there supposed to be some quite long tunnels in south London which were built just before or during World War 2 and used as munitions factories? They were never linked up and made into a Tube line, if I remember. Or was that just a fairytale? I presume you mean the Deep Level Shelters - 8 pairs of 1200ft tunnels were completed, 7 under various Northern Line stations, which in theory could've been used as running tunnels after the war for future 'express' tube lines. Chris Edited February 9, 2015 by Christopher125 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Nice to see the deluded Flat Earther's are alive and well. Where do this people get their stupid ideas from, the fountain of stupidity? Marylebone has been already mentioned and look at it now a very busy and important link with the Chilterns and beyond! Even the burghers at DaFT do not go down tthis misguided busway anymore! Edited February 10, 2015 by Xerces Fobe2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 The use of Marylebone rather than Paddington is more of a historical and political decision than one based on sensible planning. Amersham to Aylesbury and Neasden to South Ruislip would probably be more sensible as Metropolitan destinations rather than maintaining Marylebone as a separate terminus - but the franchising put the stations as part of the franchise and Chiltern being a successful franchisee has made Marylebone appear to be the cause of their magical success - they would have succeeded just as well or maybe even better at Paddington with the improved connections. Marylebone is not a key part of the infrastructure - just used as such - and is not easy to get to if you are not on the Bakerloo! Forget the coachway - use the lines in to Marylebone to improve the Metropolitan and how about extending to a new Metropolitan terminus further south, or a tunneled link to Charing Cross perhaps for Thameslink style services Harrow - West Hampstead - Bond Street - Charing Cross - London Bridge? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Forget the coachway - use the lines in to Marylebone to improve the Metropolitan and how about extending to a new Metropolitan terminus further south, or a tunneled link to Charing Cross perhaps for Thameslink style services Harrow - West Hampstead - Bond Street - Charing Cross - London Bridge? Crossrail, erm, (runs out of fingers....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted February 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 10, 2015 Forget the coachway - use the lines in to Marylebone to improve the Metropolitan and how about extending to a new Metropolitan terminus further south, or a tunneled link to Charing Cross perhaps for Thameslink style services Harrow - West Hampstead - Bond Street - Charing Cross - London Bridge? Nah, do the full job and go all the way to Paris (and don't forget the tower at Wembley whilst you're about it) - with due respects to the ghost of Sir Edward Watkin. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Poor old Watkin must be turning in his grave. james Staats Forbes of the LCDR is probably happy though.... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Perhaps it is time to rebuild Watkin's Folly to drum up some tourism! There won't be any need to go to Paris then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 A quick google suggests that the contractor is Balfour Beatty. I doubt if the the council leader owns them, although he may have a few shares. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 My apologies, Post duly edited to reflect the facts. In fact, despite all the above being "local knowledge", it is not 'provable' and hence, to protect RMweb, I am removing that post! Cheers, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Fee fo fi fum I smell the blood of an oil man !! Remember the vested interests of oil companies, bus builders and highway contractors that in the 1950s bought and then closed down the Pacific Electric in L.A. and similar urban transit systems in most other American cities helping to turn them into the clean, civilised, pollution and traffic free places we came to know so well in the 1960s and 70s Anyway they've got it all wrong because what London really needs is a MONORAIL... Monorail..monorail .monorail (you've seen the Simpsons episode) complete with the incredibly slender concrete posts that can somehow able to support the weight they can't when it's a railway - even a light one- and so much simpler than rotten old trains because they don't have any points !! More seriously the general experience is that if you replace trains with buses you lose about two thirds of your ridership, but hey if that dissuades the lower orders from moving about - the Duke of Wellington's well known objection to railways- that's surely a good thing. Since we now know with mathematical precision that the IEA are talking out of their collective posterior on this matter, can we safely assume that they're doing the same on every other issue they pontificate about? Edited February 10, 2015 by Pacific231G 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 That actually makes some limited sense, as they are talking about reusing disused tube tunnels. Not that there are many of those under London - the Aldwych branch, Kingsway tram subway and the old Widened line branch to Moorgate are the only ones I can think of (I suspect the Post Office railway tunnels are too small). Conversion of one of those to a cycle tunnel might make an expensive novelty. Just watch out for the cannibals that inhabit the disused tube tunnels. The Kingsway tram subway would be interesting given how much of it is now a road and it would be a great novelty to get all the way down to the Aldwych tunnel, cycle for half a mile and then push the bike all the way back up again. I used to use it occasionally to get from Ealing Common to Bush House on the rare occasions when my shifts coincided with the rush hour. Given the lift to the surface at Aldwych and the not exactly frequent service it was usually quicker to walk - but it was definitely a novelty. A far greater danger than the canibals was the gang who were diverting Waterloo and City trains into an old tunnel, abducting the hapless commuters and using them as slave labour to dig a tunnel into the Bank of England. I know that really happened because it was on the BBC in 405line black and white and that nice Gerald Harper foiled the whole dastardly scheme. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 A quick google suggests that the contractor is Balfour Beatty. I doubt if the the council leader owns them, although he may have a few shares. Am I right in thinking B-B were involved with the Cambridge Misguided Busway? and also the upgrade of the Blackpool Tramway? Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted February 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2015 Since we now know with mathematical precision that the IEA are talking out of their collective posterior on this matter, can we safely assume that they're doing the same on every other issue they pontificate about? In a word, yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
runs as required Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 It was the highlight of a campaign run by a Brigadier Angus Dalgleish, who formed the "Railway Conversion League" in the 1950's until his death in 1994. This league had strong links with the IEA (who published this latest, already highly discredited "let the market decide" bit of spittle), which was formed in the 1970's once Thatcher became Tory leader and was driven hard by her monetarist advisors. Their complete inability to comprehend the need to develop homogeneous policy and strategy in a modern, highly inter-dependent society, stems much from US influence. Brig Dalgleish had been one of a large number who long resisted the nationalisation of Britain;s railways, alongside for example, the founding fathers of the Talyllyn preservation group, but with very different agenda! the "Railway Conversion League" was financed by Shell Mex and BP Ltd as it was in those days - who had a (smaller) finger in the rail pie with another ex military gent in sponsoring the multi engined Fell loco that ran for a time on the Midland mainline through the Peak. The only actual conversion I believe they achieved was the straight bit of single carriageway between Dereham and Swaffham on the former GER Norwich - Kings Lynn line. What is always resisted is revealing the source of the funding for these highly influential 'think tanks' whose 'studies' are often 'quick and dirty projects done by unpaid 'interns'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 What is always resisted is revealing the source of the funding for these highly influential 'think tanks' whose 'studies' are often 'quick and dirty projects done by unpaid 'interns'. I suspect that if I wanted to 'prove' that the Moon is made of green cheese, I could fund a study that comes to exactly that conclusion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisman56 Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 There are lies, damn lies, and statistics... and now, apparently, think-tank reports... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foulounoux Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 My email to them As a member of the public ie not aligned to any particular interest group I was to say the least shocked by their report It reminds me of the emperors new clothes as it seems to omit the obvious in an effort to justify the beliefs of the authors Summarising my initial concerns with it the capacity figures only work if one assumes the coaches don't have to stop to pick up passengers actual capacity for the bus ways would be much much lower than those for rail Speeds would also be lower as the speeds quoted are maximum rather than the correct average speeds In both cases the corresponding rail figures appear to be the correct ones so we are comparing apples with oranges so to speak Then is the routes to convert The authors seem to have assumed that the only use of these rail corridors is for commuter rail. Can the please explain where the intercity rail passengers would be diverted to and where would the freight be moved to. The whole report is to me flawed and has taken the briefest of inspections to identify these obvious errors I am happy to be corrected should the authors wish to Kind Regards Colin S 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welly Posted February 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 10, 2015 Am I right in thinking B-B were involved with the Cambridge Misguided Busway? and also the upgrade of the Blackpool Tramway? Stewart Don't know about the Blackpool Tramway but I know that it was BAM Nuttall who built the guided busway (incidentally enjoying higher ridership than expected) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now