Sign my petition!

[Nick W]

Trouble is railway costs lots to be maintained.
40p per day per route metre based on £14 million / day for 21,000 miles of track.
If you don't maintain it bad things happen.

Busway costs less to maintian so more money can be used for rail where trains can achieve speeds higher than 50mph.

 

[Z12XE]

But it would cost £80-£100 Million to convert 13 miles of Railway into a Busway, you might as well keep that money instead of converting and then spend that on maintenance.

People Moovers are fine for Start/Stop journeys, not for lines with miles between stops and buses just arent suitable for much, you cant take bikes on Buses for a start. Even the inventer of Misguided Buses claims that they arent suitable for long distance railway lines.

Misguided Busways have yet to be tried to such a scale in this country, and hopefully never will so it is impossible to compare maintenance costs and who's to know that "bad things" wont happen to them. I certainly wouldn't want to be on a Bus in a guideway at anymore than 10mph with those crappy little guidewheels doing all the work

 

[Techniquest]

In my eyes, if the only way a branch line can be saved is to have a PPM on it then I'm all for it!

Very true! Although I'd have to try them out first, to see if they're any good! I'd try the Stourbridge one out, but with it running Sundays only, and the first service (when CT runs on Sundays!) to Worcester and Birmingham from Hereford is at 1336 or so, it's a bit difficult to do it!

 

[Dennis]

Never actually seen the point of guided busways - surely a normal buslane on a road (surfaced to a decent standard) combined with the use of a steering wheel is more flexible and much cheaper.

 

[Techniquest]

Exactly! So much easier to just chuck any ol' bus on it then too!

 

[Z12XE]

Never actually seen the point of guided busways - surely a normal buslane on a road (surfaced to a decent standard) combined with the use of a steering wheel is more flexible and much cheaper.

Exactly. Buses are seen as cheap (although not if you use First Essex Bus!) because they dont have to have any special roadways or tracks maintained solely for their use.

One you start introducing guideways which would require a very strict maintenance schedule to prevent those tiny guide wheels hitting debry from broken guideway or general rubbish, then the cost has esculated, epsecially if you want to start going more than 50mph as Nick has suggested.

Then there's the guide wheels, try going at 50mph for 13 miles on them things they aint gonna last long. For those who dont believe that try dragging a supermarket trolley up to 20-30mph and see how long the wheels last, it'll have the same effect

 

[Nick W]

The branch doesn't look like 13 miles.

The advantage to guideway is that there is less gap between bus and curb and it can be narrower than a bus lane road.

You don't have to have guide wheels, you could use channel tunnel technology.

 

[Z12XE]

Its not, I'm using approx. 13 miles as thats what the St Ives route is based on, and since this thread had turned into "Concrete all brances with bus ways" type convo I was using that as an example.

I could use your example as well: That branch doesnt look 21,000 miles.

 

[Nick W]

Oh no I was thinking "The line is tiny compared to stourbridge and it seems that the only purpose for it is to serve the bus station.".

To be honest I'm sure no one would use it daily and I would rather go from the junction station if I lived there.

 

[Z12XE]

I agree that the cost of a 153 (Rumored to be in region of £96,000) per year is a bit much for such a line serving an area like this, especially as you say it doesnt really go much further than the Junction station into the wider area.

Considering the minimal track maintenance required for low speed line + Comm. Rail Scheme a light wight tram would possibly be a better option for this line, however there must be some case for it, otherwise it wouldn't have lasted this long!

Can the Original Poster provide information from either the Department for Transport or Centro PTE to support the theory that they are considering light rail over the 153?

 

[NumptyDriver]

Signed it.

Don't let cheap nasty contraptions like this start creeping onto corners of the network and taking jobs.

Heavy rail means quality transport.

 

[Techniquest]

I think what needs to be noted is that there is no CT service on Sundays, which is when the PPM runs to provide a service. Hence it doesn't affect the 153 provision or whatever anyway.

 

[AlexS]

Bearing in mind that it's going to end up being the PPM or the line closing?

As for cheap nasty jobbies, we already have hundreds of Pacers rolling around the network, as well as the dearly beloved 153s!

 

[metrocammel]

The Sunday service idea with the PPM is a good one, as it provides a service with isn't usually provided. But replacing it with a PPM 100% is a bad idea IMO. Why not make it into a "mini-franchise" (sort of like Wensleydale) and get a good quality DMU on it, say a bubblecar, which has plenty of space for old people (loads of wheelchairs in the brake compo) and ample space for normal people - plus is would boost numbers on the line, as many cranks would do it for the 1st gen unit. So anyone with a spare bubblecar?

 

[Z12XE]

Why not make it into a "mini-franchise" (sort of like Wensleydale)

Mini Franchises just add another layer of pointless red tape and require even more subsidy.
You cant take some tiny line and expect it to survive on its own without hugh subsidy from the goverment. Take Wensleydale as an example of this, especially with all the problems to do with money lately

and get a good quality DMU on it, say a bubblecar,

Type Mismatch

which has plenty of space for old people (loads of wheelchairs in the brake compo) and ample space for normal people - plus is would boost numbers on the line, as many cranks would do it for the 1st gen unit. So anyone with a spare bubblecar?

No, relying on cranks to make up for normal passengers doesnt work, they tried it around here in the late 90s and it failed miserabily.

Considering the cost of brining a 121 upto correct safety standards, plus the red tape of getting one running you might as well use a PPM, which alredy has been given permission to run.

Disabled people dont like riding like cattle in brake vans, a PPM170 or something though would allow better access to bikes, luggage, pushchairs and wheelchairs

 

[Tomnick]

One of the main issues I can see, is that this service is tying up a 153 all day, every day - since there clearly is an alternative available, and given the overcrowding elsewhere on Central's network, it seems to me that there'll be more benefit to more people if this unit's freed up for use on other services. I doubt that job losses would be a serious problem - for starters, is the PPM not crewed by Central (and if not, could this be changed in the future?) thus at least keeping some of the work? Also, given that the traincrew depot in question surely has other routes to work - it's not really a major loss...one that could be more than made up for by any potential increase in services following the franchise shake-up?

 

[steve158]

right, well here we go..

it looks like nobody here has seen the parry people mover. it holds about 20 people and in the service peak(7.30am-9am and 3pm-5.30pm)it just wouldn't cope.

it's also a short but long and difficult walk(up and down hills) from the town to the junction and there is only one bus every half hour.

yes a lot of people ride on it with free transport passes, but that's the same across the west midlands after 9.30am. so that's a very poor argument IMO.

as for the comment, "is it really neccesary", well, i won't bother to answer that, as the poster comes from felixstowe and surely not bothered what happens outside of london.

 

[Z12XE]

Would the "2 Car" PPM 170 be more suitable?

Fine the 170 cant seat 170 people, but it would certainly hold more people then the one they use on a Sunday? Which IIRC is a PPM50, although that includes people crammed not those who can be seated