On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:07:43 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <sasp87$q53$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:40:23 on Tue, 22 Jun
>2021, MrSpook_z9gu098m0q@cfjjv291n8t.gov.uk remarked:
>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:51:34 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <sasei1$1hpp$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:37:53 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>2021, MrSpook_nkct1yw@mkco9y.info remarked:
>>>>Using that logic lets rip up all railway lines and convert them to busways.
>>>
>>>That makes no sense at all. Apart from anything else, a busway is only
>>>better than a branch line for end-to-end trips up to about 45mins, and
>>>is rarely better than a main line. Cambridge to St Ives was of course, a
>>>lightly used branch line.
>>
>>The line used to continue to Huntingdon and connect with the ECML. Most of
>>the trackbed is still there and could easily have been restored.
>
>You are misinformed. The trackbed from the former St Ives station for
>quite some distance towards Huntingdon is missing, as it that through
>Godmanchester, across the river, and all the way to Huntingdon station.

There's about 1km of it missing.

>The only bit which sort-of-exists is an embankment across an SSI meadow,
>and good luck getting that rebuilt.

I suggest you take a good look at google maps. I measure 4.5 miles - with a few
gaps such as a bridge across the ouse - of trackbed still in situ and a lot
of it apparently used as a farm road. And as we've seen in the past, an SSI
counts for nothing when infrastructure needs to be built plus the A14 has
just been punched through a load of pristine farmland in that area just to save
5 mins through Huntingdon with a junction with the A1 that is a hideous blot
on the landscape. Not a single sod protested about it yet all the hippies
rock up when a single tree is threatened in some suburban street.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>> road).
>>>>
>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>
>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>
>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>
> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5

I see no busway. What am I missing?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In article <2hSE5lL32e0gFAOl@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<roland@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>> >>
>>> >>If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>> >>was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>> >>completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>> >>about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>> >>road).
>>> >
>>> >You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>> >trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>
>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>
>>To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>
>This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5

No its here!..

you should get out more Roland;)...

https://goo.gl/maps/mwUUJ3EaxKi47Xm36

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <2hSE5lL32e0gFAOl@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
> <roland@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>> road).
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>
>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>
>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>
>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>
>
>
> No its here!..
>
> you should get out more Roland;)...
>
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/mwUUJ3EaxKi47Xm36

So the first one is a dual carriageway without a busway and the second is
busway without a dual carriageway. Right.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <sat02c$4p9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:36:43 on Tue, 22 Jun
2021, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> remarked:
>On 22/06/2021 15:09, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <saspdo$t45$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:43:20 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>2021, MrSpook_cxhecl3@54tomaq2fqtp6maw79.ac.uk remarked:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:52:55 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to
>>>>>convert the
>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>
>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>
>>> Are you saying the railway had a level crossing with the A14? I
>>>don't think so.

>> No, the A10.
>
>The A1309, or former A10, is not a dual carriageway.

It is on the stretch between the A14 Milton interchange, and where the
old St Ives line crossed.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>> road).
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>
>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>
>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>
>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>
>I see no busway. What am I missing?

It's about 100yds behind that view.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sat1dm$r0c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:59:50 on Tue, 22 Jun
2021, MrSpook_df78hy@wwa63zs4wghnr.edu remarked:
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 15:07:43 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <sasp87$q53$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:40:23 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>2021, MrSpook_z9gu098m0q@cfjjv291n8t.gov.uk remarked:
>>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:51:34 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <sasei1$1hpp$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:37:53 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>2021, MrSpook_nkct1yw@mkco9y.info remarked:
>>>>>Using that logic lets rip up all railway lines and convert them to busways.
>>>>
>>>>That makes no sense at all. Apart from anything else, a busway is only
>>>>better than a branch line for end-to-end trips up to about 45mins, and
>>>>is rarely better than a main line. Cambridge to St Ives was of course, a
>>>>lightly used branch line.
>>>
>>>The line used to continue to Huntingdon and connect with the ECML. Most of
>>>the trackbed is still there and could easily have been restored.
>>
>>You are misinformed. The trackbed from the former St Ives station for
>>quite some distance towards Huntingdon is missing, as it that through
>>Godmanchester, across the river, and all the way to Huntingdon station.
>
>There's about 1km of it missing.
>
>>The only bit which sort-of-exists is an embankment across an SSI meadow,
>>and good luck getting that rebuilt.
>
>I suggest you take a good look at google maps.

I've been on site, too. The trackbed is missing for the final 1.3km into
Huntingdon (including the bridge over the river)

>I measure 4.5 miles - with a few gaps such as a bridge across the ouse

That's the second bridge, at the St Ives end?

>of trackbed still in situ and

It's not so much a trackbed, as the alignment of a lightly built branch
line. And would have to be rebuilt from scratch (maybe doubled too,
although I think the option investigated was single track all the way
from Chesterton, with a couple of station loops).

>a lot of it apparently used as a farm road.

I think it's more of a nature walk:

<https://goo.gl/maps/GRfJfeSGS2T3kdYBA>

>And as we've seen in the past, an SSI
>counts for nothing when infrastructure needs to be built

Depends on the infrastructure - there's more effort put into justifying
a new 100k vehicles/day motorway (the new Huntingdon bypass is built to
motorway standards, even if in the months before opening they decided to
de-classify it) than a branch railway line with a train every half hour.

>plus the A14 has
>just been punched through a load of pristine farmland in that area just to save
>5 mins through Huntingdon

At least half an hour in the rush hour.

>with a junction with the A1 that is a hideous blot
>on the landscape. Not a single sod protested about it

Actually, it took years of public enquiries to get that route decided.
And the A14 goes nowhere near the 4.5 miles of water meadows in
question.

>yet all the hippies
>rock up when a single tree is threatened in some suburban street.
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <sat9rv$3c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:23:59 on Tue, 22 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <2hSE5lL32e0gFAOl@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
>> <roland@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>
>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>
>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>
>>
>>
>> No its here!..
>>
>> you should get out more Roland;)...
>>
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/mwUUJ3EaxKi47Xm36
>
>So the first one is a dual carriageway without a busway and the second is
>busway without a dual carriageway. Right.

What I see is a road scene where it's extremely unlikely that Network
Rail would either seek, or be granted, permission to reinstate a level
crossing.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:51:47 +0100
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <2hSE5lL32e0gFAOl@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
><roland@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>>22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>> >>was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>> >>completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>> >>about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>> >>road).
>>>> >
>>>> >You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>> >trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>
>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>
>>>To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>
>>This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>
>
>
>No its here!..
>
>you should get out more Roland;)...
>
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/mwUUJ3EaxKi47Xm36

20 meters of guideway that won't act as a block to other vehicles then
a plain road. Were the designers of that bit on drugs?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>
>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>
>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>
>> I see no busway. What am I missing?
>
> It's about 100yds behind that view.

Ah, right. Where it’s not a dual carriageway.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <saut8q$lru$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:14 on Wed, 23 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>>
>>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>>
>>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>>
>>> I see no busway. What am I missing?
>>
>> It's about 100yds behind that view.
>
>Ah, right. Where it’s not a dual carriageway.

But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
block the Golden Hind junction).

Now, would you like to opine about whether that location is at all
likely to be somewhere a level crossing would be allowed?

--
Roland Perry

In article <bFHPgIYigu0gFAJ9@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<roland@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In message <sat9rv$3c8$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:23:59 on Tue, 22 Jun
>2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <2hSE5lL32e0gFAOl@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>>
>>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>>
>>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No its here!..
>>>
>>> you should get out more Roland;)...
>>>
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/maps/mwUUJ3EaxKi47Xm36
>>
>>So the first one is a dual carriageway without a busway and the second is
>>busway without a dual carriageway. Right.
>

>What I see is a road scene where it's extremely unlikely that Network
>Rail would either seek, or be granted, permission to reinstate a level
>crossing.

Well as the traffic is totally borked in Cambridge it wouldn't make a
shits worth of difference!....

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <saspdo$t45$1@gioia.aioe.org>, MrSpook_cxhecl3@54tomaq2fqtp6m
aw79.ac.uk scribeth thus
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:52:55 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>
>>How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>
>Are you saying the railway had a level crossing with the A14? I don't think so.
>As for Milton road, so what? One train every 20 mins or so is hardly going to
>clog up the traffic.
>

Theres been a bridge under the A14 since the northern by pass came into
being..

I do remember the level crossing that was there but it was shut, Christ
knows when 68 ish or a long time ago now!..

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In message <xtvv1EGWvy0gFwft@bancom.co.uk>, at 13:40:54 on Wed, 23 Jun
2021, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> remarked:

>>What I see is a road scene where it's extremely unlikely that Network
>>Rail would either seek, or be granted, permission to reinstate a level
>>crossing.
>
>Well as the traffic is totally borked in Cambridge it wouldn't make a
>shits worth of difference!....

TPTB aren't worried about delaying traffic, but the safety issues of
cars and trains crashing into one another.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <saut8q$lru$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:14 on Wed, 23 Jun
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>>>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to convert the
>>>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>>>
>>>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>>>
>>>> I see no busway. What am I missing?
>>>
>>> It's about 100yds behind that view.
>>
>> Ah, right. Where it’s not a dual carriageway.
>
> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
> block the Golden Hind junction).
>
> Now, would you like to opine about whether that location is at all
> likely to be somewhere a level crossing would be allowed?

I’m no expert on level crossings.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <savcko$tbr$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:23:36 on Wed, 23 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <saut8q$lru$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:14 on Wed, 23 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on Tue,
>>>>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives, remember) it
>>>>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have done
>>>>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a major
>>>>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to
>>>>>>>>>convert the
>>>>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>>>>
>>>>> I see no busway. What am I missing?
>>>>
>>>> It's about 100yds behind that view.
>>>
>>> Ah, right. Where it’s not a dual carriageway.
>>
>> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
>> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
>> block the Golden Hind junction).
>>
>> Now, would you like to opine about whether that location is at all
>> likely to be somewhere a level crossing would be allowed?
>
>I’m no expert on level crossings.

Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
(also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
crossings.

The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).

The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
> block the Golden Hind junction).

There is already an underpass at that location - it just happens to be a
cycle underpass under the line. A reconstruction would flip the ramps 90
degrees so the line dives under the road. Obviously that would require
rather more civils (you'd have to replace the road and cyclepath with a
deck) but it doesn't seem a massive problem. More of a hassle would be
diverting the road while you did the work.

Of course that's rather more than the de-minimis options which were
available 20 years ago when the line was still technically an open railway.

Theo

In message <wXB*g-ony@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 00:09:14 on Thu,
24 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
>> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
>> block the Golden Hind junction).
>
>There is already an underpass at that location - it just happens to be a
>cycle underpass under the line. A reconstruction would flip the ramps 90
>degrees so the line dives under the road. Obviously that would require
>rather more civils (you'd have to replace the road and cyclepath with a
>deck) but it doesn't seem a massive problem. More of a hassle would be
>diverting the road while you did the work.

You need quite a deep cutting to dive under a road, starting from ground
level. And of course you need to have a station somewhere around there
too - would that also be in the cutting?

>Of course that's rather more than the de-minimis options which were
>available 20 years ago when the line was still technically an open railway.

But would not have been re-instated as a working railway with a level
crossing. The most realistic option would have been a terminus station
to the west, but that means no through-running to Cambridge central, and
most of the passengers having to change mode to a bus.

The argument then goes - why catch a train (every half hour) five miles
from a single point in Northstowe[1], then change onto a bus; when you
could have a bus from several alternative stops in Northstowe every five
minutes.

[1] Mindful that the only justification for doing *either* project was
to provide public transport from Northstowe.
--
Roland Perry

On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
[snip]
> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
> crossings.
>
> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>
> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.

Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.

In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>[snip]
>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>> crossings.
>>
>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>
>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>
>Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.

They are still studying options, so have to say that.

I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
the river too).

Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.

Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
it deliver the rail capacity required?
--
Roland Perry

On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>> crossings.
>>>
>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>
>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>
>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>
> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>
> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
> the river too).
>
> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>
> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
> it deliver the rail capacity required?

Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.

In message <sb6m8d$55i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:50:35 on Sat, 26 Jun
2021, JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> remarked:
>On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>> crossings.
>>>>
>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>
>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>
>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly
>>above the river too).
>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the
>>junction for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich
>>arrangements the same, that would probably solve the road traffic
>>issue - but would it deliver the rail capacity required?
>
>Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>much these days?

I don't look at the timetables regularly, but my impression is there are
maybe up to three or four trains a day.

>The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already and, being just
>out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.

A quick glance at the map shows why it's not a proposition because the
Roswell Pits (and nature reserve) is slap bang in the way. And south of
that the country park.

--
Roland Perry

On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>> crossings.
>>>>
>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>
>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>
>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>
>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>
>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>> the river too).
>>
>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>
>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>
> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>

The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
is possible just costly.
There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
formation between the houses and the marshes.

OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
so who knows?

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AT6p1HrWI00gFAqp@perry.uk...
> In message <savcko$tbr$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:23:36 on Wed, 23 Jun 2021,
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <saut8q$lru$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:14 on Wed, 23 Jun
>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34 on
>>>>>>> Tue,
>>>>>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on Tue, 22
>>>>>>>>> Jun
>>>>>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives,
>>>>>>>>>>> remember) it
>>>>>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd have
>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on a
>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to
>>>>>>>>>> convert the
>>>>>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see no busway. What am I missing?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's about 100yds behind that view.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, right. Where it’s not a dual carriageway.
>>>
>>> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
>>> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
>>> block the Golden Hind junction).
>>>
>>> Now, would you like to opine about whether that location is at all
>>> likely to be somewhere a level crossing would be allowed?
>>
>>I’m no expert on level crossings.
>
> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way to
> do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
> crossings.

That seems like unnecessary overkill given that most of the crossings are on
minor roads

The equivalent proposal for the reopening of the line to Ashington (and not
quite Blyth) is to leave all of the level crossings in situ

In message <sbdanv$s87$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:17:01 on Mon, 28 Jun
2021, tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>
>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:AT6p1HrWI00gFAqp@perry.uk...
>> In message <savcko$tbr$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:23:36 on Wed, 23 Jun
>>2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <saut8q$lru$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:14 on Wed, 23 Jun
>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34
>>>>>>>>on Tue,
>>>>>>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on
>>>>>>>>>>Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>remember) it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>have done
>>>>>>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to
>>>>>>>>>>>convert the
>>>>>>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see no busway. What am I missing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's about 100yds behind that view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, right. Where it’s not a dual carriageway.
>>>>
>>>> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
>>>> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
>>>> block the Golden Hind junction).
>>>>
>>>> Now, would you like to opine about whether that location is at all
>>>> likely to be somewhere a level crossing would be allowed?
>>>
>>>I’m no expert on level crossings.
>>
>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to
>>Wisbech (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is
>>finding a way to do it without reinstating any of the former
>>approximately dozen level crossings.
>
>That seems like unnecessary overkill given that most of the crossings
>are on minor roads

Tell that to Network Rail. The banishment of level crossings is a bit of
a religion as far as the are concerned.

>The equivalent proposal for the reopening of the line to Ashington (and
>not quite Blyth) is to leave all of the level crossings in situ

That seems to be an existing freight route so it's not being reopened.
--
Roland Perry