• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cambridgeshire CAM consultation

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
A public consultation has been started for the proposed Cambridgeshire Automated Metro (CAM) network - the "trackless" metro using buses and with tunnels in the city centre.

https://cam.consultationonline.co.uk/public-consultation/

While I would have preferred a light rail solution, I'm pleased that something is finally happening with this after years of endless hot air from all sides.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

rebmcr

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,849
Location
St Neots
Unless I'm missing something, this is just putting the existing guided buses into tunnels.

Perpetuating the nasty particulate emissions of diesel engines and rubber tyres...
 
simple simon

simple simon

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
651
Location
Suburban London
In Essen, Germany they ran kerb guided buses through tunnels shared with trams and but for German reunification causing the ending of funding the project would have seen the buses using special kerb guided bus points / switches / turnouts so that the buses on route CE45 could have diverged away from the initial route to serve the underground station for the main railway station - whilst buses on route CE47 would have stayed on the existing route.

To avoid diesel fumes they used duobuses which could operate as both diesel and electrically powered trolleybuses. Switchover was automated at bus stops with the bus driver raising and lowering the powered trolleypoles by pressing buttons whilst seated in the bus.

Technology nowadays is such that it is possible to ditch the diesel power pack and use in-motion charging battery buses instead.

Essen's duobuses were single deck / articulated. Of course Cambridge could use double deck buses in the tunnels - all they would need to do is dig bigger tunnels!
 
I

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Still concerned that the whole trackless bus thing is just a gimmick to be "intellectual" about the solution / save a bit of money on paper, rather than just using tried and tested light rail technology.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,783
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Ianno87 said:
Still concerned that the whole trackless bus thing is just a gimmick to be "intellectual" about the solution / save a bit of money on paper, rather than just using tried and tested light rail technology.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. If they want to use trolleybuses, use conventional off the shelf trolleybuses. If they want to use battery buses (ideally with a non-patented charging mechanism), use those. If they want to use trams, get the wires up. If they want to use guidance, build the concrete kerbs like they've already got.

But I can see no conceivable benefit of the "halfway house" "tram on rubber tyres" thing that is proposed at all.
 
S

stut

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
1,900
Oddly enough, the only other place I've seen a similar scheme is in Cambridge, Massachusetts!
 
simple simon

simple simon

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
651
Location
Suburban London
stut said:
Oddly enough, the only other place I've seen a similar scheme is in Cambridge, Massachusetts!
Click to expand...

yes, with driver steered trolleybuses!

The technology for battery - trolleybuses which recharge their batteries whilst travelling (in-motion charging / IMC) is well proven. So is that of kerb guided buses. The only innovative aspect could be from the marrying of these technologies in a double deck bus format.

Here in the UK IMC is already known, albeit with trams - not buses. I am referring to the West Midlands Metro with its wire-free sections.
 
S

stut

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
1,900
camflyer said:
Doesn't the Silver Line from downtown Boston to the airport use buses in dedicated tunnels?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I haven't seen it :)

I have had the pleasure of driving through one of the 'big dig' tunnels towards the airport, though. That was an odd experience. Longer, more winding tunnels than even Brussels!
 
S

sharpener

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2018
Messages
33
I can't understand the fixation on a non-existent technologically advanced, sustainable, highly efficient trackless electric vehicle which is not compatible with any existing transport in Cambridge.

The "consultation" is very narrowly cast and doesn't deal with a lot of obvious questions. I went to see the public display yesterday and came away rather disappointed. The questionnaire asks us to approve the locations of the four tunnel portals without showing more than very vaguely where they might be or mentioning how these were arrived at, ditto for where the city centre and railway interchange stations are or what alternatives were considered save that Market Square and Parker's Piece were ruled out in favour of Drummer St for a host of reasons. As any fule kno, the existing bus "station" at Drummer St and on neighbouring streets is a complete mess, do they have any plans to sort this out at the same time or is it just going to be a bigger mess? How much space do they need for construction above ground anyway, London Underground has plenty of stations which are little bigger than shop fronts at street level?

The main question posed is whether the E - W and N - S lines should share the tunnels between these last two stations or be separate (see here for details
https://cam.consultationonline.co.u...es/119/2020/02/CAM-Consultation-Leaflet-2.pdf). If separate, it is proposed that only the N - S line would interchange at the railway station (why?). However since this line also has interchanges at Cambridge N and potentially Cambridge S, it would be more useful if the E - W line were the one to go to the main railway station. Obviously the separate tunnels would be a lot more expensive as the two lines would be grade separated at the city centre.

The relationship with other planned transport upgrades is not made clear, for example to see how the proposed route comes in from Cambourne
you have to go to a separate unlinked website [https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk...to-cambridge/cambourne-to-cambridge-the-route]. The staff on the stand said there were no details of how CAM would connect with either Cambridge South station or East-West Rail because the announcements were too recent. Are they all working in separate silos?
 
rebmcr

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,849
Location
St Neots
sharpener said:
I can't understand the fixation on a non-existent technologically advanced, sustainable, highly efficient trackless electric vehicle which is not compatible with any existing transport in Cambridge.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've said, but this the most.
 
MarkyT

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,244
Location
Torbay
sharpener said:
The main question posed is whether the E - W and N - S lines should share the tunnels between these last two stations or be separate (see here for details
https://cam.consultationonline.co.u...es/119/2020/02/CAM-Consultation-Leaflet-2.pdf). If separate, it is proposed that only the N - S line would interchange at the railway station (why?). However since this line also has interchanges at Cambridge N and potentially Cambridge S, it would be more useful if the E - W line were the one to go to the main railway station. Obviously the separate tunnels would be a lot more expensive as the two lines would be grade separated at the city centre.
Click to expand...
Even if the two tunnels were separate I don't see why a separate stop, not far from the railway station could not also be incorporated on the East-West route. Looking at the route it's possible a ventilation/emergency shaft might be needed in the vicinity of the Travis Perkins yard north of the station so it need not be a big problem to make it a passenger stop, probably in an open trench to avoid it being considered an underground station from a fire safety point of view. An 80m long E-W trench would probably fit on the Travis Perkins site, and would be only a few minutes' walk from the station.
 
S

sharpener

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2018
Messages
33
MarkyT said:
..to avoid it being considered an underground station from a fire safety point of view.
Click to expand...

Given that they are going to have an underground interchange at the railway station anyway I don't see the difficulty of bringing both lines into it and having platforms on both, regardless of what the arrangements are in the city centre. The distance from there is such that any change in level is easily accomplished, and the extra length of tunnelling required is trivial compared with going under the Travis Perkins yard - but why is Option B shown as going there at all, rather in a straight line direct from the city centre to Teversham?

If as they say they are going to have "cross-platform interchanges" with Option A (the option that brings both lines to the railway stn) then there may well need to be two levels at the city centre anyway to avoid crossing movements on the flat (?like the Bakerloo/Victoria interchange at Oxford Circus), this is the sort of detail it would be useful to have but I am not holding my breath. Same goes for the diverging routes S of the station; with Option B it wouldn't be necessary as the lines there would already be separated by destination (and not many people will want to interchange from the E line to the S line). So the difference between the two options really boils down to whether there are two or four running lines between the two principal stations.

Once they have cracked this then perhaps we will let them see if they can route EWR in at or near Shepreth Branch Jn and onwards through Cambridge South, much more challenging!
 
C

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
MarkyT said:
Even if the two tunnels were separate I don't see why a separate stop, not far from the railway station could not also be incorporated on the East-West route. Looking at the route it's possible a ventilation/emergency shaft might be needed in the vicinity of the Travis Perkins yard north of the station so it need not be a big problem to make it a passenger stop, probably in an open trench to avoid it being considered an underground station from a fire safety point of view. An 80m long E-W trench would probably fit on the Travis Perkins site, and would be only a few minutes' walk from the station.
Click to expand...

Certainly there is the opportunity for a Mill Road station.

I'm looking forward to visiting one of the exhibition sessions but the whole consultation seems to be setup with most of the decisions already made. According to the proposal the Science Park gets two stops but the whole city centre just one.
 
MarkyT

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,244
Location
Torbay
I think option A must be the favourite as it gives access from all branches direct to the railway station. It would be highly counterproductive to force all railway bound people to go via the city centre station. While, with frequent service, it wouldn't necessarily add much to the journey time, the additional interchange would be psychologically off-putting and additional crowding issues could cause problems. Here's an idea for right hand running in the central tunnel section to allow left-hand door vehicles to have cross-platform interchange at island platforms at both the railway station and city centre stations:
cam-opt-a-rhr.jpg
PDF here: http://www.townend.me/files/cam-opt-a-rhr.pdf
Each station could have wide through tunnels on either side the island with multiple berths along the length, so buses (sorry autonomous vehicles!) could overtake each other to bypass any boarding delay, and with short high acceleration vehicles 30+, maybe even 40+, per hour is perfectly plausible on one lane, so separate tunnels for each line through the centre is really not necessary.
 
rebmcr

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,849
Location
St Neots
Something that has only just occurred to me — what are the tunneling conditions like under the Fens?
 
Midnight Sun

Midnight Sun

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Messages
310
The tunnels would have to run under the streets to avoid going under any of the old buildings in the city centre which may mean in some parts one on top of the other due to the narrowess of the road (Sidney Street) for part of the route
 
Midnight Sun

Midnight Sun

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Messages
310
simple simon said:
In Essen, Germany they ran kerb guided buses through tunnels shared with trams

To avoid diesel fumes they used duobuses which could operate as both diesel and electrically powered trolleybuses. Switchover was automated at bus stops with the bus driver raising and lowering the powered trolleypoles by pressing buttons whilst seated in the bus.

Technology nowadays is such that it is possible to ditch the diesel power pack and use in-motion charging battery buses instead.

Essen's duobuses were single deck / articulated. Of course Cambridge could use double deck buses in the tunnels - all they would need to do is dig bigger tunnels!
Click to expand...

Underground busway services have now completely ceased, this being because after just a few years the experimental wooden trackage became life-expired and with the ending of the developmental programme the funds were no longer available to replace it and the railway style ballasted tracks used by the trams with a combined tram and kerb guided bus concrete trackbed.

The last duo-bus journey through the tunnels was on 20th January 1998, this was a ceremonial special working after which dismantling of most of the redundant kerb guided busway and trolleybus power supply infrastructure began.
 
Last edited:
M

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,407
Location
Brighton
All I'll say is that they better d*mn well make any tunnels suitable for the inevitable future rail scheme that will have to come in to resolve the lack of foresight.
 
S

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,746
When I first heard about this idea I thought it was barking mad, and that light rail would be a better solution. But, having read the consultation document, there is a lot more merit to the idea than I had first thought. Cambridge is not a very big place, with lots of narrow unalterable streets, meaning an underground solution is the only sensible option. However there is no sensible local rail infrastructure to link to, so a new system would need to be built from scratch. Building tunnels for buses means a functioning network is much quicker to achieve, regardless of cheaper.

The thing that does strike me as insane is the optical guidance idea, when they have a (mostly) perfectly functioning guidance system already in use
 
D365

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,448
mr_jrt said:
All I'll say is that they better d*mn well make any tunnels suitable for the inevitable future rail scheme that will have to come in to resolve the lack of foresight.
Click to expand...

Good luck :lol:

I feel exactly the same but we all know what the most likely outcome will be.
 
H

Hophead

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2013
Messages
1,193
D365 said:
Good luck :lol:

I feel exactly the same but we all know what the most likely outcome will be.
Click to expand...

Surely the most likely outcome is that it's never going to happen? Local metro-style systems, based on any kind of technology, in smaller British towns would be an extraordinary development, especially when you consider that places like Leeds and Liverpool have not managed to get anything off the ground up to now.

The only part I can realistically see happening is a busway from Cambourne and even that is facing significant opposition within Cambridge where it decants onto the local road system.
 
R

railfan100

On Moderation
Joined
31 Oct 2016
Messages
212
Location
London
There is a reason why the world cities have railed solutions, this will be a disaster and total waste of money, anyone that has been on the red and green lines in Dubai will know what is possible with rail solutions using the latest technology. Shame on Cambridge for touting this disaster that will end in tears for the taxpayer.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top