Mega Bus

[ash burton]

Tried the Mega Bus service from London to Carmarthen at the wekend, for
£6.50 one way it was fantastic value compared to £24.50 by train or Nat
Express.

The same service goes on to Pembroke Dock and connects to the Irish Ferries
service to Rosslare, inclusive fares fro £1, amazing.

[Paul - xxx]

We've used Mega-bus regularly when we've gone away and the kids want to
join us later. Great value for money, so long as it's going where you
want it to!

--
Paul - xxx

[Jon]

I've found them good on the Bristol route, but that's about the only
place I go by coach where there is a "megabus" route.

Pedantic, I know, but I do wish they had called it "megacoach.co.uk"

[Railwayman.]

On Sep 12, 11:15 am, "ash burton" <ash.bur...@tesco.net> wrote:

Buses are great, I have stop about 25 yards from my front door that
goes into the city centre.
£3 return into city centre and it costs more than that for car park
for car even before thinking about fuels etc.

[John Williamson]

You don't live where I do, then. One bus every half hour, about the same
fare as you pay into the centre, but I normally can't get all that I
want there, so it's another two bus rides to get to the alternative
shops, so it's a day pass for a fiver. Plus, it takes about three hours
to do what I can do in under an hour in the car.

Even with my staff free pass, it's not worth my while to get a bus from
where I live to do anything other than go to a single destination, do
something time consuming or have a drink or three, and come back.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Brian Robertson]

Jon wrote:
> On Sep 12, 11:15 am, "ash burton" <ash.bur...@tesco.net> wrote:
>> Tried the Mega Bus service from London to Carmarthen at the wekend,

>> for Ł6.50 one way it was fantastic value compared to Ł24.50 by train

>> or Nat Express.
>>
>> The same service goes on to Pembroke Dock and connects to the Irish

>> Ferries service to Rosslare, inclusive fares fro Ł1, amazing.

>
> I've found them good on the Bristol route, but that's about the only
> place I go by coach where there is a "megabus" route.
>
> Pedantic, I know, but I do wish they had called it "megacoach.co.uk"

Perhaps they wish it as well, but I seem to recall that the original
vehicles were about as coachlike as the present coaches are buslike.

--
Visit my website: British Railways in 1960
http://www.britishrailways1960.co.uk

[Neil Williams]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:54:41 +0100, "Brian Robertson"
<br...@britishrailways1960.co.uk> wrote:
> Perhaps they wish it as well, but I seem to recall that the
original
> vehicles were about as coachlike as the present coaches are buslike.

Correct - they were old Dennis double deckers - the huge ex Kenya
ones.

I think the move to coaches was initially so toilet stops could be
removed.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

[ash burton]

"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.4603...@news.individual.net...

The current coaches are as comfortable as Train seats or Nat Express seats.
The cost savings are the clincher, why pay more for the same thing.

Ash

[Brian Robertson]

My problem with Magabus is that the timings to the places that I want to go
to are useless for my purposes.

[Bruce]

On 17/09/2011 21:55, John Williamson wrote:
> You don't live where I do, then. One bus every half hour, about the same
> fare as you pay into the centre, but I normally can't get all that I
> want there, so it's another two bus rides to get to the alternative
> shops, so it's a day pass for a fiver. Plus, it takes about three hours
> to do what I can do in under an hour in the car.
>
> Even with my staff free pass, it's not worth my while to get a bus from
> where I live to do anything other than go to a single destination, do
> something time consuming or have a drink or three, and come back.

Bus? Ferry here
<www.orkneyferries.co.uk/pdfs/timetables/summer/stronsay_summer.pdf>
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
(Remove dentures to reply)

[Neil Williams]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:27:00 +0100, "ash burton"
<patric...@virgin.net> wrote:
> The cost savings are the clincher, why pay more for the same thing.

Because their network is very limited compared with NatEx and the
railway, and they don't do many intermediate stops (e.g. despite the
M1 being their main route from London to points north they do not
serve MK).

I suspect this is for flexibility of routeing.

[ash burton]

"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:almarsoft.6103...@news.individual.net...

I suspect it also may be to limit 'head on' competition with National
Express, filling in the gaps as it where.

For example the London to Pembroke service doesn't stop at Cardiff but does
stop at Newport and Swansea.

Ash

[ash burton]

"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:almarsoft.6103...@news.individual.net...

I suspect it also may be to limit 'head on' competition with National

[ash burton]

"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:almarsoft.6103...@news.individual.net...

I suspect it also may be to limit 'head on' competition with National

[allantracy]

>
> Pedantic, I know, but I do wish they had called it "megacoach.co.uk"

Apparently, there's a whole bunch of pilots nowadays that take great
delight in describing themselves as Bus Drivers.

[allantracy]

I have a relative that's used them and comments very favourably but
you do wonder how they make any money from a busload paying only a
pound each.

[allantracy]

> Buses are great, I have  stop about 25 yards from my front door that
> goes into the city centre.
> £3 return into city centre and it costs more than that for car park
> for car even before thinking about fuels etc.

I'm guessing that city isn't Birmingham then, where far too many have
to rely on buses.

Some routes operate every four minutes, a worst nightmare addition to
what is already chronic traffic congestion.

In the peak, a journey of six or seven miles into the city can easily
last an hour, on schedule, let alone with the inevitable delays.

From where I live, commuting from International to Euston by train is
faster then commuting to Brum by bus and at least you get breakfast on
the train.

I tell you, there’s a serious case to be made for an Eric Sykes style
bus service, you’re on it that long.

Needles to say, it’s not much better by car even a Lotus is f**king
useless stuck behind a bus at walking pace.

Birmingham is surely the largest city in Europe to rely more or less
wholly on buses for its public transport.

You would have to go to somewhere like Manila, in the Philippines, to
find anything as bad comparable.

[allantracy]

> Buses are great, I have  stop about 25 yards from my front door that
> goes into the city centre.
> £3 return into city centre and it costs more than that for car park
> for car even before thinking about fuels etc.

[Roland Perry]

In message
<c026950d-683d-4076...@1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
11:29:21 on Mon, 19 Sep 2011, allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com>
remarked:

>I have a relative that's used them and comments very favourably but
>you do wonder how they make any money from a busload paying only a
>pound each.

Only the first few seats will be a pound, the rest will cost
increasingly more. If I inexplicably wanted to do Birmingham to
Middlesborough this Thursday, for example, it's £17 single.
--
Roland Perry

[John Williamson]

Whereas a lot of tourists insist on calling me Coach Captain.

[Mizter T]

On Sep 19, 8:16 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
> <c026950d-683d-4076-ac25-a576ca7de...@1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
> 11:29:21 on Mon, 19 Sep 2011, allantracy <allanbintr...@ireland.com>

> remarked:
>
> >I have a relative that's used them and comments very favourably but
> >you do wonder how they make any money from a busload paying only a
> >pound each.
>
> Only the first few seats will be a pound, the rest will cost
> increasingly more. If I inexplicably wanted to do Birmingham to
> Middlesborough this Thursday, for example, it's 17 single.

Do it!

[Bruce]

If Roland asks nicely, perhaps Michael Bell would give him a guided
tour of the delights of Middlesbrough. There's the railway station,
the red light district and the site of the former Middlesbrough FC
stadium at Ayresome Park.

Then, if Roland has any time to spare, there's the railway station,
the red light district and the site of the former Middlesbrough FC
stadium at Ayresome Park.

[Tony Walsall]

On Sep 19, 7:57 pm, allantracy <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> > Buses are great, I have  stop about 25 yards from my front door that
> > goes into the city centre.
> > £3 return into city centre and it costs more than that for car park
> > for car even before thinking about fuels etc.
>
> I'm guessing that city isn't Birmingham then, where far too many have
> to rely on buses.
>
> Some routes operate every four minutes, a worst nightmare addition to
> what is already chronic traffic congestion.
>
> In the peak, a journey of six or seven miles into the city can easily
> last an hour, on schedule, let alone with the inevitable delays.

Perhaps you might like to point out exactly which (direct) route is
scheduled take 1 hour from 6-7 miles out into the City Centre.
Yes I know routes like the 72 & 73 from Solihull to Birmingham are
scheduled over an hour but no-one in their right mind uses them from
end to end

>
> From where I live, commuting from International to Euston by train is
> faster then commuting to Brum by bus and at least you get breakfast on
> the train.

Which area do you actually live in? Unless you live in the Metropole
or another hotel at the NEC there are not many residences close to
Birmingham International
>

<other garbage snipped>

Tony

[Neil Williams]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
<allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
> Birmingham is surely the largest city in Europe to rely more or less
> wholly on buses for its public transport.

Manchester does very heavily. The catchment area of Metrolink is
tiny (though improving).

[Arthur Figgis]

On 19/09/2011 22:46, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
> <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>> Birmingham is surely the largest city in Europe to rely more or less
>> wholly on buses for its public transport.
>
> Manchester does very heavily. The catchment area of Metrolink is tiny
> (though improving).

While the trams are only one line, doesn't Birmingham have quite high
(heavy-)rail usage?

Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

[Graeme Wall]

London's foreign?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:17:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis <afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
>tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?

Sounds reasonable to me. Do you think London would be what it is with just
a piddly little tram and some buses as public transport? Its rather telling
that almost every european country has metro systems in almost all their
big cities. Its only here where public transport investment is seen as a
dirty word due to accountants being in charge.

B2003

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 20, 12:17 am, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
> tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?

Though it does have an underground station. Unfortunately.

Many European cities rely on street-running trams for public
transport. OK, Brum doesn't have those - but they're not an U-Bahn.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 20, 9:43 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> Sounds reasonable to me. Do you think London would be what it is with just
> a piddly little tram and some buses as public transport? Its rather telling
> that almost every european country has metro systems in almost all their
> big cities. Its only here where public transport investment is seen as a
> dirty word due to accountants being in charge.

Birmingham does have a substantial heavy-rail "S-Bahn", it just
happens that it's a traditional one rather than a metro. So does
Manchester.

Not *overly* different from Sarf ov da Rivva.

Neil

[bob]

On Sep 20, 10:43 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:17:12 +0100
>

> Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> >Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
> >tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Do you think London would be what it is with just
> a piddly little tram and some buses as public transport? Its rather telling
> that almost every european country has metro systems in almost all their
> big cities. Its only here where public transport investment is seen as a
> dirty word due to accountants being in charge.

Although not as big as Birmingham, Zürich has one of the highest modal
shares of public transport in Europe with no metro at all (it got
voted down in a referendum at least twice), it gets by with trams
trams and more trams. Metros are alright, but quite often something
in between a full sized train and a bus is a better fit.

Robin

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 20, 9:43=A0am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> Sounds reasonable to me. Do you think London would be what it is with jus=
>t
>> a piddly little tram and some buses as public transport? Its rather telli=

>ng
>> that almost every european country has metro systems in almost all their
>> big cities. Its only here where public transport investment is seen as a
>> dirty word due to accountants being in charge.
>
>Birmingham does have a substantial heavy-rail "S-Bahn", it just
>happens that it's a traditional one rather than a metro. So does
>Manchester.
>
>Not *overly* different from Sarf ov da Rivva.

Not really. S-Bahns like ordinary metros usually go in one side of the
city and out of the other. Heavy rail OTOH usually terminates in a main station
in the centre and you have to make your own way to another station to get out
the other side. Its not quite the same. And anyone who's commuted in on the
south london lines knows how snarled up the pinch points around the main
stations can get.

B2003

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 19, 8:40 pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Only the first few seats will be a pound, the rest will cost
> > increasingly more. If I inexplicably wanted to do Birmingham to
> > Middlesborough this Thursday, for example, it's 17 single.
>
> Do it!

I'd definitely want to go for a return, though. Or a single *from*
Middlesbugger....

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 20, 10:51 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> Not really. S-Bahns like ordinary metros usually go in one side of the
> city and out of the other. Heavy rail OTOH usually terminates in a main station
> in the centre and you have to make your own way to another station to get out
> the other side. Its not quite the same. And anyone who's commuted in on the
> south london lines knows how snarled up the pinch points around the main
> stations can get.

S-Bahnen can be lots of things. Merseyrail is probably the UK's
"textbook example", I suppose, though I think the double-crewing would
be odd to a German audience. And in any case, the Cross-Shitty
(sorry) does exactly what you describe, so do a load of other heavy-
rail services in Brum.

Yes, they're diesel (there are diesel S-Bahn services in Koeln if I
recall), and yes they're low-frequency (the S-Bahn in Stuttgart
operates on a half-hourly pattern)...

Neil

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, they're diesel (there are diesel S-Bahn services in Koeln if I
>recall), and yes they're low-frequency (the S-Bahn in Stuttgart
>operates on a half-hourly pattern)...

Pretty useless then as a metro service. Which brings me back to my original
point that the europeans seem to understand that money spent on good public
transport is more than recouped over the years through the economic growth of
the city its in. Its only over here that that penny has yet to drop. Though
no doubt the bean counters wouldn't even lend it in the first place.

B2003

[Bruce]

Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:43:42 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
><allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:
>> Birmingham is surely the largest city in Europe to rely more or less
>> wholly on buses for its public transport.
>
>Manchester does very heavily. The catchment area of Metrolink is
>tiny (though improving).

Liverpool also. Merseyrail serves the Wirral well, plus there are the
Southport and Ormskirk lines, but the other rail links into Liverpool
have very limited catchments and most people within the city boundary
use buses. Blame the planners of the 1960s for building so many
housing estates on the edges of the city that were completely reliant
on buses for their public transport needs.

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 20, 11:51 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> Pretty useless then as a metro service.

What do you mean by "as a metro service"?

If you mean for city centre internal transport, Brum city centre is
quite compact, unlike say London or Paris, so this is completely
unnecessary.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 19, 8:31 pm, John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> Whereas a lot of tourists insist on calling me Coach Captain.

Bus drivers are known as "bus captains" in Singapore...

Neil

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 20, 11:51=A0am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> Pretty useless then as a metro service.
>
>What do you mean by "as a metro service"?

Something which has fairly clsoe together stations and people can just use
casually rather than needing a timetable to know when a train will show up.

>If you mean for city centre internal transport, Brum city centre is
>quite compact, unlike say London or Paris, so this is completely
>unnecessary.

Its probably compact due to the lack of decent public transport. Anyway,
Lille is pretty compact but the french still decided it warranted a metro and
last time I went a few years back it was pretty well frequented.

B2003

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 20, 11:58 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Liverpool also.  Merseyrail serves the Wirral well, plus there are the
> Southport and Ormskirk lines, but the other rail links into Liverpool
> have very limited catchments and most people within the city boundary
> use buses.  Blame the planners of the 1960s for building so many
> housing estates on the edges of the city that were completely reliant
> on buses for their public transport needs.

Part of it is because buses in the UK tend to offer a service all the
way into the city centre, whereas in Germany a bus would only offer a
service to the nearest appropriate railway station. So travelling all
the way in isn't an option - you have to change - or where it is an
option it tends to be an express bus at a premium fare/supplement.

Though in Liverpool's case (partly because the "outer loop" has no
passenger rail service) there are plenty of places, pretty much the
large area bounded by the M57, A57 and A580, for which there is no
logical railway station to do this.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 20, 12:35 pm, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> Something which has fairly clsoe together stations and people can just use
> casually rather than needing a timetable to know when a train will show up.

Something which a compact centred city has no need for, IOW.

If you visit London, you might need to go to any part of Zone 1, which
is a pretty large area (though not as large as some think it is). If
you visit Brum, how likely are you to go somewhere outside the city
centre ring road?

> >If you mean for city centre internal transport, Brum city centre is
> >quite compact, unlike say London or Paris, so this is completely
> >unnecessary.
>
> Its probably compact due to the lack of decent public transport.

Er, what? Birmingham city centre has been the sort of size it is for
a very long time. Longer than public transport being anything more
than horse-drawn trams.

Compact, self-contained city centres are a feature of most UK cities
other than London. Manchester is slightly on the big side, but still
walkable (and by putting together the train services along the Picc-
Deansgate axis, if you really wanted to do that, you'd have a pretty
high frequency).

Neil

[Bruce]

There seems to be strong resistance in Britain to the idea of using
bus feeder services into rail services. Similarly, people don't like
changing trains so direct services are de rigeur.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Something which a compact centred city has no need for, IOW.

Other countries seem to have a different opinion.

>If you visit London, you might need to go to any part of Zone 1, which
>is a pretty large area (though not as large as some think it is). If
>you visit Brum, how likely are you to go somewhere outside the city
>centre ring road?

Probably quite high if you live there. But if you think a half hourly rail
service is preferable to a proper metro then fair enough. Though you have
to wonder why the old Newcastle electric services were binned and a Metro
system built that tunneled into and through the - rather small - city centre
if thats the case. I wonder if the Geordies would be happy to go back to
a heavy rail service?

>> Its probably compact due to the lack of decent public transport.
>
>Er, what? Birmingham city centre has been the sort of size it is for
>a very long time. Longer than public transport being anything more
>than horse-drawn trams.

Err, yeees, but since it never got any decent public transport I suspect there
was little impetus for the city centre to expand outwards as it did in London
and take over former residential areas since people would be unlikely to be
prepared to come in by train and then get a bus to their destination.

>Compact, self-contained city centres are a feature of most UK cities
>other than London. Manchester is slightly on the big side, but still

They're a feature of most medium sized cities, but as I keep saying - the
europeans still see a need for metro systems in these sorts of places.
I suggest you tell the french, germans, spanish, austrians, italians, russians
etc that they're all idiots and all they need is half hourly diesel railcars
to a city centre terminus.

B2003

[Graeme Wall]

On 20/09/2011 12:44, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:35 pm, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> Something which has fairly clsoe together stations and people can just use
>> casually rather than needing a timetable to know when a train will show up.
>
> Something which a compact centred city has no need for, IOW.
>
> If you visit London, you might need to go to any part of Zone 1, which
> is a pretty large area (though not as large as some think it is). If
> you visit Brum, how likely are you to go somewhere outside the city
> centre ring road?
>

Most of my visits to Brum involve going outside the ring road, QEH,
football grounds and so on.

[ian batten]

On Sep 20, 12:44 pm, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you visit London, you might need to go to any part of Zone 1, which
> is a pretty large area (though not as large as some think it is).  If
> you visit Brum, how likely are you to go somewhere outside the city
> centre ring road?

Which "city centre ring road" do you mean? If you mean the A4400
Inner Ring Road, the erstwhile "concrete collar", the answer is "very
likely", because Symphony Hall, the Convention Centre, the National
Indoor Area, Brindley Place are all outside it, as is Think Tank and
the rest of East Side. Depending on how you account for flyovers, the
Mailbox and Aston University are also outside it. Indeed, unless
you're going for an office meeting or to do some limited shopping,
it's hard to see how you'd be staying inside that road, especially as
most of the decent hotels are outside it.

ian

[ian batten]

On Sep 20, 1:52 pm, Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Most of my visits to Brum involve going outside the ring road, QEH,

Ten minute frequency service.

> football grounds

Ten minute service to Aston, ten minute metro service to West Brom,
not so good to St Andrews.

[ian batten]

On Sep 20, 12:59 pm, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> >If you visit London, you might need to go to any part of Zone 1, which
> >is a pretty large area (though not as large as some think it is).  If
> >you visit Brum, how likely are you to go somewhere outside the city
> >centre ring road?
>
> Probably quite high if you live there. But if you think a half hourly rail
> service is preferable to a proper metro then fair enough.

Cross-City line is a 10 minute service between early morning and mid
evening, and remains at four or five trains per hour until eleven.
Just off to go and get a train on it now.

ian

[Peter Masson]

"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote

>Bus drivers are known as "bus captains" in Singapore...

The staff member on DLR trains used to be called the train captain. A much
better title, IMHO, than the current passenger service agent.

Peter

[Peter Masson]

<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote
>>
>>Birmingham

>
> Err, yeees, but since it never got any decent public transport

It *had* an excellent service of trams, many of them on reserved track down
the centre of roads. It gave them up in favour of buses, which then got
snarled up in general traffic.

Peter

[Graeme Wall]

On 20/09/2011 15:15, ian batten wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:52 pm, Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Most of my visits to Brum involve going outside the ring road, QEH,
>
> Ten minute frequency service.

Last time I went there I left the car at the hospital and commuted into
Birmingham to the hotel each evening.

>
>> football grounds
>
> Ten minute service to Aston, ten minute metro service to West Brom,
> not so good to St Andrews.

There's a bus that goes along the main road to the south, about 5
minutes walk from the ground. Can't remember which route.

[allantracy]

>
> Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
> tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?
>

Yes, something along those lines.

My gripe isn’t so much that we don’t have a European style metro
(let’s keep things real shall we) it’s more that, even by miserable UK
standards, Birmingham is punching well below its weight.

When you consider developments over the years in Edinburgh,
Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and even Sheffield clearly Birmingham
should have by now, at the very least, extended its Metro and solved
the New St congestion problem to allow for more heavy rail expansion.

You do wonder why not because clearly other cities have been able to
make stuff happen, whatever the prevailing political circumstances.

It’s a problem with those that have been running the City and the
surrounding region not getting their act together in a coherent way or
simply not bothering their arses enough.

Our lot are a pretentious bunch of bullshitters, always in denial
about our wonderful industrial legacy, and far more interested in
attracting stuff like ballet and party conferences always trying to
play the game of being a big international player but it’s the kind of
bullshit guaranteed to get the rest of the country laughing.

Wasting time bidding for an Olympics and Grand Prix were classic
examples of that.

No other city in the World would be ashamed of kicking off the
Industrial Revolution, the one thing about Birmingham that no one can
take the piss about, the way some of Birmingham’s great and good give
the impression of being.

There always so obsessed with trying to lose an image (when it’s one
we should be celebrating) that the day-to-day stuff, like some decent
transport never seems to be a priority.

[Arthur Figgis]

On 20/09/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:17:12 +0100
> Arthur Figgis<afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
>> tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Do you think London would be what it is with just
> a piddly little tram and some buses as public transport? Its rather telling
> that almost every european country has metro systems in almost all their
> big cities.

Switzerland, Slovakia, Iceland(!), the Western Balkans?

Scandinavia and Finland and Bulgaria and Romania and the Czech Republic
and Belgium...(etc) only have metros in the capitals.

Birmingham has trams, and the difference between trams and trains stars
to get pretty arbitrary in places like Porto or some Spanish cities.

> Its only here where public transport investment is seen as a
> dirty word due to accountants being in charge.

Building something for willy-waving rather than to meet a transport need
doesn't strike me as very sensible.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

[Arthur Figgis]

I guess Athens and Dublin must be booming?


Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

[Arthur Figgis]

On 20/09/2011 12:59, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
> Neil Williams<pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Something which a compact centred city has no need for, IOW.
>
> Other countries seem to have a different opinion.
>
>> If you visit London, you might need to go to any part of Zone 1, which
>> is a pretty large area (though not as large as some think it is). If
>> you visit Brum, how likely are you to go somewhere outside the city
>> centre ring road?
>
> Probably quite high if you live there. But if you think a half hourly rail
> service is preferable to a proper metro then fair enough. Though you have
> to wonder why the old Newcastle electric services were binned and a Metro
> system built that tunneled into and through the - rather small - city centre
> if thats the case. I wonder if the Geordies would be happy to go back to
> a heavy rail service?
>
>>> Its probably compact due to the lack of decent public transport.
>>
>> Er, what? Birmingham city centre has been the sort of size it is for
>> a very long time. Longer than public transport being anything more
>> than horse-drawn trams.
>
> Err, yeees, but since it never got any decent public transport I suspect there
> was little impetus for the city centre to expand outwards as it did in London
> and take over former residential areas since people would be unlikely to be
> prepared to come in by train and then get a bus to their destination.

Birmingham has trains. South London doesn't have that much in the way of
"metro". London is very polycentric. The statue of Charles I might be
the "middle" but is probably less of a traffic generator than, say,
central Croydon (which doesn't have a "metro" either).

>> Compact, self-contained city centres are a feature of most UK cities
>> other than London. Manchester is slightly on the big side, but still
>
> They're a feature of most medium sized cities, but as I keep saying - the
> europeans still see a need for metro systems in these sorts of places.
> I suggest you tell the french, germans, spanish, austrians, italians, russians
> etc that they're all idiots and all they need is half hourly diesel railcars
> to a city centre terminus.

I guess building lots of tunnels must be why Charleroi is such a huge
success?

[ian batten]

On Sep 20, 6:55 pm, allantracy <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:

> When you consider developments over the years in Edinburgh,
> Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and even Sheffield clearly Birmingham
> should have by now, at the very least, extended its Metro and solved
> the New St congestion problem to allow for more heavy rail expansion.

The latter I'll grant you (although it's difficult to do, because of
the throats both being underground, and the site being on a
substantial across the platforms) but the metro schemes always strike
me as precisely the sort of "playing at being sophisticated
continentals" nonsense that you highlight. Where would the metro run
to? The city centre's pretty compact and you can walk, through
pleasant streets, from the station to most of the obvious close-in
destinations. Destinations further out are complex because of the
canals, the width of Broad St and a variety of other practical
problems. The scheme to run the metro out to Five Ways is obviously
deranged, because Broad St is too narrow and getting from New St up to
there with steel-on-steel would be a challenge (which is why the BWSR
originally didn't go into New St and all runs in tunnel and cuttings
until beyond Five Ways). I don't say these things are impossible,
just that they aren't as easy as they are in roughly level European
cities which had their urban planning simplified by Bomber Command.

>
>
> Wasting time bidding for an Olympics and Grand Prix were classic
> examples of that.

The Olympics bid was a bit silly (although the "capital cities only"
policy, quietly ignored for Atlanta, hadn't been proposed). But the
Super Prix (F3000, which is now GP2, not F1) was at the time running
in places much smaller than Birmingham: one of the best known was Pau.
It was fantastic: we had visitors just happening to drop by every time
it ran, and I would say that it was one of the things that encouraged
the idea of central Birmingham as a destination. I also think that
the ballet has been a great success, but that wasn't really the
council's doing.

>
> No other city in the World would be ashamed of kicking off the
> Industrial Revolution, the one thing about Birmingham that no one can
> take the piss about, the way some of Birmingham’s great and good give
> the impression of being.

Most of the industrial revolution has long gone in the city centre:
the warehouses which were demolished to make room for the NIA were
about the last. Much of the real legacy (and the real action) is
over in the black country, and central Birmingham has little beyond
the canals to point to. And the canals --- starting with the
restoration at Cambrian Wharf and down the Farmer's Bridge flight in
the 1970s, and now with the stuff through the NIA --- are an
industrial legacy we are very proud of.

ian

[ian batten]

On Sep 20, 4:51 pm, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@privacy.com> wrote:

> It *had* an excellent service of trams, many of them on reserved track down
> the centre of roads.

Many of them not, however. The large suburban boulevards, with two
lines of poplars flanking the tram, are almost exclusively outer urban
dual-carriageways. The buses work fine there. There's very little
road like that in the denser parts of the city: the bit of the Bristol
Road between Priory Road and the University is notable by its rarity.
Had that route not been choked at Selly Oak (and the road that finally
opened a couple of weeks ago was planned, or at least mooted, sixty
years ago) and Northfield (ditto, pretty much) it might have been
different, but it was.

ian

[Mike Causer]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:

> Apparently, there's a whole bunch of pilots nowadays that take great
> delight in describing themselves as Bus Drivers.

Or, with less delight, "Driver, Airframe".




Mike

[Bruce]

allantracy <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote:

>When you consider developments over the years in Edinburgh,
>Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and even Sheffield clearly Birmingham
>should have by now, at the very least, extended its Metro and solved
>the New St congestion problem to allow for more heavy rail expansion.

Liverpool doesn't have a "Metro" in the Tyne and Wear sense and it
doesn't have trams either. Perhaps you meant Nottingham?

If you were referring to the Merseyrail train services then I don't
think Birmingham is in any way inferior. Liverpool is probably just
as dependent on bus services for its public transport as Birmingham.

Liverpool used to have an excellent network of tram services but that
system was closed in the 1950s. There was a proposal for a tram
system a few years ago but it foundered because of high costs, and the
fact that the local council would have to take all the risk of
construction cost overruns.

Even after being offered central government funding, the council
withdrew the proposal because the risk was considered unacceptable.
Shades of Edinburgh? But Edinburgh foolishly went ahead.

[Tony Walsall]

It is not just the Cross City line that is not 30 minute service

There is a ten minute frequency between Moor Street & Stourbridge
splitting at Tyseley the other way to give a 20 minute stopping
frequency to Dorridge with extra fast trains to Solihull in between,
and a 20 minute frequency to Widney Manor.

Birmingham International gets 5 trains an hour with 3 carrying on to
Coventry, although the strange skip stop patten means intermediate
stations get unusual frequencies.

Walsall gets 4 trains an hour, 2 all stations and two fast.

Wolverhampton only gets 2 all stoppers per hour, but some stations on
the line get additional stops from longer distance services, Galton
Bridge gets the Arriva trains, Sandwell & Dudley gets Virgin and
Coseley gets the Liverpools

Tony

[Charles Ellson]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:46:43 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Also in most cases the bus is now a competing service not a
complementary one so if they can make money by running a service
duplicating the railway then they will.

[Bruce]

Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 12:46:43 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>

>>There seems to be strong resistance in Britain to the idea of using
>>bus feeder services into rail services. Similarly, people don't like
>>changing trains so direct services are de rigeur.
>>
>Also in most cases the bus is now a competing service not a
>complementary one so if they can make money by running a service
>duplicating the railway then they will.

Sadly true. Not only has rail privatisation has been a disaster for
Britain, so has bus deregulation.

Neither works in and of itself. Put them together and we have
dysfunctional public transport.

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 21, 9:56 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Neither works in and of itself.  Put them together and we have
> dysfunctional public transport.

Indeed.

The one thing that *might* have worked would be wholesale
privatisation (a BR plc with the right to run connecting buses as well
- think something like Translink in Northern Ireland - yes I know it
isn't privatised, but it *could* be). But the way we went made no
sense at all.

Yes, service has improved over BR in lots of ways. But had BR had its
subsidy increased as the privatised railway has, BR would also have
improved massively.

Neil

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:08:52 +0100

Arthur Figgis <afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 20/09/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:17:12 +0100
>> Arthur Figgis<afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
>>> tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?
>>
>> Sounds reasonable to me. Do you think London would be what it is with just
>> a piddly little tram and some buses as public transport? Its rather telling
>> that almost every european country has metro systems in almost all their
>> big cities.
>
>Switzerland, Slovakia, Iceland(!), the Western Balkans?
>
>Scandinavia and Finland and Bulgaria and Romania and the Czech Republic
>and Belgium...(etc) only have metros in the capitals.

Sorry , remind me of the populations of each of those countries?
And as for belgium you're wrong - Charleroi and Antwerp both have underground
pre-metros in the centre.

>Birmingham has trams, and the difference between trams and trains stars
>to get pretty arbitrary in places like Porto or some Spanish cities.

Birmingham isn't porto and the birmingham tram is less extensive than some
european cities a quarter the size.

>> Its only here where public transport investment is seen as a
>> dirty word due to accountants being in charge.
>
>Building something for willy-waving rather than to meet a transport need
>doesn't strike me as very sensible.

So you're saying there is no meed for decent public transport in birmingham?

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

Dublin doesn't have a metro - yet. Just a couple of trams and Dart which
is essentially heavy rail. As for Greece , thats a countrywide issue, we're
talking about local city economies. Try again.

B2003

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 21, 10:39 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> Sorry , remind me of the populations of each of those countries?
> And as for belgium you're wrong - Charleroi and Antwerp both have underground
> pre-metros in the centre.

That they do, but it suffered the same sort of problems as Edinburgh:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleroi_Pre-metro

Neil

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:18:59 +0100
Arthur Figgis <afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>Birmingham has trains. South London doesn't have that much in the way of
>"metro". London is very polycentric. The statue of Charles I might be
>the "middle" but is probably less of a traffic generator than, say,
>central Croydon (which doesn't have a "metro" either).

But it did get croydon tramlink.

>I guess building lots of tunnels must be why Charleroi is such a huge
>success?

Do you have data showing its no better off than it would be without it and
that hardly anyone uses the system to commute? Please, post a link.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:58:58 +0100
Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Liverpool used to have an excellent network of tram services but that
>system was closed in the 1950s. There was a proposal for a tram

What exactly was the reason for closing down almost all of the UKs tram
systems (and trolleybuses) in the 50s and 60s? Was wilful political spite
with politicians getting backhanders from bus companies, was it the worse
kind of short term thinking or was there some other reason?

B2003

[John Williamson]

All of the above, more than likely, but as far as trams went, they were
felt by the general public to be old fashioned and inflexible.

This was aided and abetted by a total lack of investment following the
war, resulting in old, uncomfortable, unreliable tram services using
pre-war tramcars. Trolleybuses, likewise, were seen as being inflexible,
due to the need to install overhead cables, which were seen as unsightly.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 01:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 21, 10:39=A0am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> Sorry , remind me of the populations of each of those countries?

>> And as for belgium you're wrong - Charleroi and Antwerp both have undergr=

>ound
>> pre-metros in the centre.
>
>That they do, but it suffered the same sort of problems as Edinburgh:-
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleroi_Pre-metro

The size of the system they planned was certainly overkill for a town of
that size. But I doubt anyone living there would want the parts that are
running shut down.

As for edinburgh , what a fucking joke. The capital city of scotland and
they can't even build a single tram line in a reasonable time or for a
reasonable budget. Still, what do they care, its all ultimately paid for by
england anyway.

B2003

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 21, 10:56 am, John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> This was aided and abetted by a total lack of investment following the
> war, resulting in old, uncomfortable, unreliable tram services using
> pre-war tramcars. Trolleybuses, likewise, were seen as being inflexible,
> due to the need to install overhead cables, which were seen as unsightly.

Basically, the internal combustion engine was the future. The trouble
is that we're now realising that it isn't the *only* future.

Neil

[ian batten]

Trams also caused immense congestion at pinchpoints in the road
network. The Birmingham trams ran through Selly Oak, for example, and
(according to people who saw them) caused congestion even with the
traffic levels of the time. The shops and houses through Selly Oak
suffered from planning blight because it was vaguely assumed that the
road would be widened to accommodate traffic and trams together, and
the eventual relief road opened this month wouldn't have been possible
as it would have involved closing down, amongst other things, Aerial
Motorcycles. And thank God they didn't, because it would also
probably have resulted in severing the Birmingham and Worcester Canal,
given the attitudes towards canals at the time. The whole discussion
then degenerates into the 20/20 hindsight of post-Beeching armchair
analysis: that people in the 1950s should have maintained an
expensive, inflexible system which was causing immense problems and
needed huge investment on the off-chance that it might be a good idea
fifty years later.

I'm not entirely convinced that trams _are_ better than buses,
anyway. If they stop as frequently as buses, they're as slow as
buses. If they stop less frequently, then they don't replace bus
services. That the middle-classes will use trams but won't use buses
is claimed (although a trip on the Wolverhampton Metro makes one doubt
it) but that's a marketing problem, not a technical one. Once the
lines are built, you can't easily change the routes --- there's
something deliciously dirigiste about the idea of planned development
--- and the land-take of separate running is substantial. They appear
to be the sort of project that cities keen to look "modern" build, but
the cities that built them usually had a lot of planning to do after
the war.

It's worth noting that there's only one extensive tram system in
Japan: everywhere else uses a combination of heavy rail, subways and
buses. It sometimes buys up old tram stock from European systems, so
it's perhaps a bit of a spotter's paradise. It's in Hiroshima.
Oddly, they have roads that are somewhat wider than they were in 1945,
and the city plan has been realigned around the tram routes. I wonder
why they were able to do that?

ian

[JimmyMac]

On Sep 20, 8:50 pm, Tony Walsall <t...@wmbusphotos.com> wrote:
> Wolverhampton only gets  2 all stoppers per hour, but some stations on
> the line get additional stops from longer distance services, Galton
> Bridge gets the Arriva trains, Sandwell & Dudley gets Virgin and
> Coseley gets the Liverpools

Slight correction here: the half-hourly Liverpools alternate between
Coseley and Galton Bridge. Looking at the timetable just now, it seems
the Shrewsbury stoppers calls at Sandwell & Dudley in addition.

James

[Bruce]

From what little I have read, there were a variety of reasons. The
availability of cheap, reliable diesel buses was a major factor. The
fact that there was a huge postwar backlog in the maintenance of
tracks and overhead wiring was another. As cities expanded, it was
easier to serve the new housing areas with cheaper and more flexible
bus services rather than build expensive tram tracks and buy more
trams. I don't know if any new trams were made after WW2 - probably
not.

I don't think 'politicians getting backhanders from bus companies'
could have been an issue in the UK as almost all bus operations were
owned either by local authorities or the publicly-owned National Bus
Company, which drew together the bus companies that were formerly
owned (pre 1/1/1948) by the "Big Four" railway companies.

Overall, I think decision makers probably felt that trams running on
inflexible routes had had their day and that diesel buses were the
answer. The demise of streetcars (trams) in the USA had more sinister
overtones, and the feeling of a conspiracy was probably truer there.

There was an excellent tram system in the city where I grew up
(Liverpool) that was fondly remembered by my parents' generation, and
especially by my grandparents' generation. But it only lasted until a
couple of weeks after my third birthday, in 1957, so I have no
memories of it. It was replaced by buses that were efficient but not
as well-liked by older people, who all seemed to agree that the trams
were better.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
ian batten <i.g.b...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
>analysis: that people in the 1950s should have maintained an
>expensive, inflexible system which was causing immense problems and
>needed huge investment on the off-chance that it might be a good idea
>fifty years later.

It seems however that our continental friends had just such forsight.

>I'm not entirely convinced that trams _are_ better than buses,
>anyway. If they stop as frequently as buses, they're as slow as
>buses. If they stop less frequently, then they don't replace bus
>services. That the middle-classes will use trams but won't use buses

They can carry more people so you need less vehicles overall, they're a lot
smoother and comfortable and they're more energy efficient. Not to mention the
lack of on site pollution. Of course they have their downsides too.

B2003

[John Williamson]

bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 02:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
> ian batten <i.g.b...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
>> analysis: that people in the 1950s should have maintained an
>> expensive, inflexible system which was causing immense problems and
>> needed huge investment on the off-chance that it might be a good idea
>> fifty years later.
>
> It seems however that our continental friends had just such forsight.
>

A lot of continental cities needed major rebuilding after the war, and
took the chance to completely redesign themselves. This gave them the
chance to design the cities to fit round the trams, rather than the
other way round.

We did much the same as the Londoners did after the Great Fire, and just
rebuilt what was there before in exactly the same place.

[bob]

On Sep 21, 10:47 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:58:58 +0100
>

> Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Liverpool used to have an excellent network of tram services but that
> >system was closed in the 1950s.  There was a proposal for a tram
>
> What exactly was the reason for closing down almost all of the UKs tram
> systems (and trolleybuses) in the 50s and 60s? Was wilful political spite
> with politicians getting backhanders from bus companies, was it the worse
> kind of short term thinking or was there some other reason?

The basic problem was that most of the systems had not had any
meaningful investment since about 1930 and by 1950 were in need of
serious cash to modernise (I would guess that the majority of tram
cars in service in 1950 had been originally built before 1914). The
political view at the time was that the means to provide mass mobility
was the private motor car, and things like motorways came much higher
up the priority list. The choice was between keeping run down and
increasingly unreliable tramways running on an inadequate budget or
scrapping them in favour of cheaper buses. While some systems may not
have matched this model, enough did that it set the tone and it made
it too difficult for those places (eg Liverpool and Glasgow) that did
have systems in better shape and political will to persist with them.

Robin

[Bruce]

bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>As for edinburgh , what a fucking joke. The capital city of scotland and
>they can't even build a single tram line in a reasonable time or for a
>reasonable budget. Still, what do they care, its all ultimately paid for by
>england anyway.

Something we agree on. Wholeheartedly. ;-)

As for Edinburgh's continuing ability to squander English taxpayers'
money, have you seen this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14965150

Corruption claims against Edinburgh council officials

BBC Scotland has uncovered evidence of possible fraud and serious
wrongdoing in building works overseen by Edinburgh City Council.

There are calls for a review of recent work carried out under the
statutory notice system, which allows the council to order repairs to
private homes.

The BBC heard claims of bribes being offered by contractors,
overcharging, unnecessary and poor quality work.

The council said it would not comment until a police inquiry had
ended.

Mark Turley, director of Services for communities at Edinburgh City
Council, said: "The ongoing independent investigations by Deloitte and
the police mean it wouldn't be appropriate for us to carry out an
interview."

The fraud unit at Lothian and Borders Police is currently
investigating the council's property conservation department, which
deals with statutory notices.

Over the past year about 15 of its officials - nearly half the
department - have been suspended in a move the council described as
"precautionary". The local authority also called in Deloitte auditors
to carry out an investigation, which is still ongoing.

Under the statutory notice system, the council can intervene to
organise repair work for private properties when the owners cannot
reach agreement.

Council surveyors arrange the work through approved contractors and
recoup the cash from owners, and the local authority also receives 15%
of the final bill.

The value of statutory notices issued by council surveyors has
increased dramatically in recent years, from £9.2m in 2005 to more
than £30m in 2010.

A BBC investigation, Scotland's Property Scandal - which is screened
at 22:35 on Tuesday on BBC1 Scotland - reveals claims of cosy
relationships between contractors and council officials.

The BBC understands that police have been passed evidence claiming a
council officer went on holidays paid for by a contractor.

The property conservation department's hospitality records until 2009
have now been lost.

There's more. For the rest of the story, go to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14965150

[Graeme Wall]

Even simpler, in the short term it was cheaper to buy motor buses than
replace the worn out tramway infrastructure and vehicles.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

[Bruce]

ian batten <i.g.b...@batten.eu.org> wrote:

>Trams also caused immense congestion at pinchpoints in the road
>network. The Birmingham trams ran through Selly Oak, for example, and
>(according to people who saw them) caused congestion even with the
>traffic levels of the time. The shops and houses through Selly Oak
>suffered from planning blight because it was vaguely assumed that the
>road would be widened to accommodate traffic and trams together, and
>the eventual relief road opened this month wouldn't have been possible
>as it would have involved closing down, amongst other things, Aerial
>Motorcycles.

Flying motorbikes didn't catch on, then. ;-)

Perhaps you meant 'Ariel Motorcycles'. Ariel was taken over by BSA in
1944. Among other designs, they made a 1000cc "Square Four" which I
rather liked the idea of, but never got to try.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:43:54 +0100
Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The property conservation department's hospitality records until 2009
>have now been lost.

Now theres a surprise.

Not.

B2003

[Bruce]

bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The basic problem was that most of the systems had not had any
>meaningful investment since about 1930 and by 1950 were in need of
>serious cash to modernise (I would guess that the majority of tram
>cars in service in 1950 had been originally built before 1914). The
>political view at the time was that the means to provide mass mobility
>was the private motor car, and things like motorways came much higher
>up the priority list.

Not in 1950, it didn't. In 1950, the diesel bus was seen as the
future of mass mobility, replacing the tram.

Motorways were under consideration, not to provide for private cars,
but for lorries which were seen as the future for freight transport.

[ian batten]

On Sep 21, 10:33 am, John Williamson <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> We did much the same as the Londoners did after the Great Fire, and just

> rebuilt what was there before in exactly the same place.

It's also the case that the damage inflicted on London was of a
completely different scale and nature to the damage inflicted on
Hamburg, Berlin or other German cities. It's not unreasonable to
compare the conventional bombing of Tokyo with the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima; it's much less reasonable to compare London and Hamburg.
The Blitz was of a completely different scale to the damage inflicted
by Bomber Command main force. Coventry might be just about
comparable, but even then I think it's difficult.

ian

[ian batten]

On Sep 21, 10:43 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The property conservation department's hospitality records until 2009
> have now been lost.

How amazing.

ian

[ian batten]

The TV programme is shocking. It's quite clearly corrupt: Edinburgh
council are using statutory powers to carry out work, using over-
priced builders, who then kick back a share of the excess profit to
the council. You have to ask if the trams failed a similar reason.

ian

[Sam Wilson]

In article <j5c90h$t9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

> As for edinburgh , what a fucking joke. The capital city of scotland and
> they can't even build a single tram line in a reasonable time or for a
> reasonable budget. Still, what do they care, its all ultimately paid for by
> england anyway.

YATPABAICMFP

Sam

[bolta...@boltar.world]

Did you overdoes on Irn Bru or something this morning?

Translation anyone?

B2003

[Arthur Figgis]

On 21/09/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:18:59 +0100
> Arthur Figgis<afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Birmingham has trains. South London doesn't have that much in the way of
>> "metro". London is very polycentric. The statue of Charles I might be
>> the "middle" but is probably less of a traffic generator than, say,
>> central Croydon (which doesn't have a "metro" either).
>
> But it did get croydon tramlink.

And Birmingham has the Midland Metro, which is pretty much the same
concept as Tramlink.

>> I guess building lots of tunnels must be why Charleroi is such a huge
>> success?
>
> Do you have data showing its no better off than it would be without it and
> that hardly anyone uses the system to commute? Please, post a link.

Here is a link. How many commuters can you spot?

http://diggelfjoer.swalker.nl/aband/abandcharl/abandcharl1.html

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

[Arthur Figgis]

On 21/09/2011 09:41, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:11:21 +0100
> Arthur Figgis<afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/09/2011 11:51, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
>>> Neil Williams<pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, they're diesel (there are diesel S-Bahn services in Koeln if I
>>>> recall), and yes they're low-frequency (the S-Bahn in Stuttgart
>>>> operates on a half-hourly pattern)...
>>>
>>> Pretty useless then as a metro service. Which brings me back to my original
>>> point that the europeans seem to understand that money spent on good public
>>> transport is more than recouped over the years through the economic growth of
>>> the city its in. Its only over here that that penny has yet to drop. Though
>>> no doubt the bean counters wouldn't even lend it in the first place.
>>
>> I guess Athens and Dublin must be booming?
>
> Dublin doesn't have a metro - yet.

But has lots and lots of trams on an expanding network (or pair of
networks, as they don't yet join up)

OTOH, if we are defining "good public transport" as being "heavy metro"
then many places in France and Spain and Belgium (etc etc) suddenly lack
good public transport. Poland has only one metro line, and it misses the
city centre.

> Just a couple of trams and Dart which
> is essentially heavy rail. As for Greece , thats a countrywide issue, we're
> talking about local city economies. Try again.

Athens is not the whole country, but has spent lots on transport. IIRC
they ever tried making the trams free in an attempt to get people to use
them.

[Arthur Figgis]

On 21/09/2011 09:39, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:08:52 +0100
> Arthur Figgis<afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 20/09/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:17:12 +0100
>>> Arthur Figgis<afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Or is this more a case of "Birmingham should have a metro, with real
>>>> tunnels and stuff, like some places in Foreignland have"?
>>>
>>> Sounds reasonable to me. Do you think London would be what it is with just
>>> a piddly little tram and some buses as public transport? Its rather telling
>>> that almost every european country has metro systems in almost all their
>>> big cities.
>>
>> Switzerland, Slovakia, Iceland(!), the Western Balkans?
>>
>> Scandinavia and Finland and Bulgaria and Romania and the Czech Republic
>> and Belgium...(etc) only have metros in the capitals.

>
> Sorry , remind me of the populations of each of those countries?

It doesn't matter - they are countries. If you meant "every city from an
arbitrary list chosen to exclude counter examples has a metro" you
should have said so.

> And as for belgium you're wrong - Charleroi and Antwerp both have underground
> pre-metros in the centre.

But no metro. Birmingham has trams and trains.

>> Birmingham has trams, and the difference between trams and trains stars
>> to get pretty arbitrary in places like Porto or some Spanish cities.
>
> Birmingham isn't porto and the birmingham tram is less extensive than some
> european cities a quarter the size.

Because they closed it.

>>> Its only here where public transport investment is seen as a
>>> dirty word due to accountants being in charge.
>>
>> Building something for willy-waving rather than to meet a transport need
>> doesn't strike me as very sensible.
>
> So you're saying there is no meed for decent public transport in birmingham?

I'm saying that metros are not the be-all and end-all of public
transport. Would London's transport be improved if we got rid of
everything except the Underground?

The Belgians and Germans gave up trying to replace trams with metros, as
trams can do what they do very well, without the issues of access time
or making public transport seem hidden out of sight.

[Arthur Figgis]

On 21/09/2011 10:26, Bruce wrote:

> I don't know if any new trams were made after WW2 - probably
> not.

New trams were built for Glasgow and Sheffield into the early 1950s.

[Charles Ellson]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:47:13 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:58:58 +0100
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Liverpool used to have an excellent network of tram services but that
>>system was closed in the 1950s. There was a proposal for a tram
>
>What exactly was the reason for closing down almost all of the UKs tram
>systems (and trolleybuses) in the 50s and 60s? Was wilful political spite
>with politicians getting backhanders from bus companies, was it the worse
>kind of short term thinking or was there some other reason?
>

One of the nails in Glasgow's coffin was supposed to be the change of
the public electricity supply from DC to AC which would have required
renewal of all the sub-stations.

[KAW]

On 21/09/2011 19:19, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 10:26, Bruce wrote:
>
>> I don't know if any new trams were made after WW2 - probably
>> not.
>
> New trams were built for Glasgow and Sheffield into the early 1950s.
>
>

And for Blackpool

[Nick Finnigan]

And, in general, the change from municipal coal power stations in urban
areas to a national grid with remote power stations, together with
increasing domestic use of electricity made it hard for councils to use off
peak day-time electricity from their street lighting operations.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 18:55:48 +0100

Arthur Figgis <afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 21/09/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:18:59 +0100
>> Arthur Figgis<afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Birmingham has trains. South London doesn't have that much in the way of
>>> "metro". London is very polycentric. The statue of Charles I might be
>>> the "middle" but is probably less of a traffic generator than, say,
>>> central Croydon (which doesn't have a "metro" either).
>>
>> But it did get croydon tramlink.
>
>And Birmingham has the Midland Metro, which is pretty much the same
>concept as Tramlink.

Except birmingham is the 2nd largest city in the UK. Croydon is a london
suburb (despite its councillers pretending its a town in its own right - it
isn't). Can you spot the difference?

>> Do you have data showing its no better off than it would be without it and
>> that hardly anyone uses the system to commute? Please, post a link.
>
>Here is a link. How many commuters can you spot?
>
>http://diggelfjoer.swalker.nl/aband/abandcharl/abandcharl1.html

Why would there be commuters on a part that was never completed? I already
said that the system they envisaged was overkill for the towns size. That
doesn't mean no one uses the bits that were completed.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:08:19 +0100
Arthur Figgis <afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Sorry , remind me of the populations of each of those countries?
>
>It doesn't matter - they are countries. If you meant "every city from an
>arbitrary list chosen to exclude counter examples has a metro" you
>should have said so.

Sorry , which bit of a lot of european countries have metros in a lot of their
cities did you fail to grasp? Since when was Reykjavik a city? With a
population of just over 100,000 it barely rates as a town. The same applies to
most towns apart from the capitals in scandinavia.

>> And as for belgium you're wrong - Charleroi and Antwerp both have underground
>> pre-metros in the centre.
>
>But no metro. Birmingham has trams and trains.

We could argue about definitions for ever. Fairly pointless.

>> Birmingham isn't porto and the birmingham tram is less extensive than some
>> european cities a quarter the size.
>
>Because they closed it.

Yes. Your point being?

>> So you're saying there is no meed for decent public transport in birmingham?
>
>I'm saying that metros are not the be-all and end-all of public
>transport. Would London's transport be improved if we got rid of

Never said they were.

>everything except the Underground?

Obviously not. But it would be a damn site worse if you got rid of the
underground and left everything else.

>The Belgians and Germans gave up trying to replace trams with metros, as
>trams can do what they do very well, without the issues of access time
>or making public transport seem hidden out of sight.

Sure , for smaller towns trams are perfect and a metro would be overkill. I
never claimed otherwise. Birmingham - which is what this discussion is about -
is not a small town and a tram just doesn't cut it.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:30:47 +0100
Paul Corfield <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>As this is a Boltar post you're responding to surely you get rid of
>the Underground? If nothing else it would lower his blood pressure and
>fill him with delight that thousands of "useless people" were thrown
>on the dole.

Anyone managed to get the jubilee line working properly yet? No , didn't
think so.

>trams, not liking the Amsterdam Metro very much and really wondering
>why on earth Den Haag have spent millions of euros to stick trams into
>short tunnels or on to viaducts. I'm struggling to see what "problem"

Ooo, lets have a wild guess - so they don't interfere with road traffic?

>Oh and goodness me but NS trains get very busy in the rush hour! I
>wondered why trains were either very long and / or double deck. Now I
>know.

Yeah , real mystery that one. Glad you cleared it up.

B2003

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 22, 10:43 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> Sure , for smaller towns trams are perfect and a metro would be overkill. I
> never claimed otherwise. Birmingham - which is what this discussion is about -
> is not a small town and a tram just doesn't cut it.

Except the Midland Metro isn't really a "tram". It's a hybrid, more
like Manchester Metrolink which itself is barely a tram, and wasn't
even called one in the early days. The original Metrolink is quite
like Merseyrail overall - it just so happens that the city centre bit
is street running rather than a tunnel. Midland Metro is similar.

Yes, the vehicles are trams, but that kind of LRV would be a good
choice for any metro system being built new, as they're cheap,
standard and off-the-shelf, unlike UK-profile heavy rail vehicles, and
because they're low-floor stations are cheaper and safer.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Sep 22, 10:44 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> >trams, not liking the Amsterdam Metro very much and really wondering
> >why on earth Den Haag have spent millions of euros to stick trams into
> >short tunnels or on to viaducts. I'm struggling to see what "problem"
>
> Ooo, lets have a wild guess - so they don't interfere with road traffic?

The centre of Den Haag where the trams run in tunnel is mainly
pedestrianised.

Personally I like the Den Haag "pre-metro", though - the cavernous
tram stops have an impressive feel, not dissimilar to the cavernous
and vastly older Liverpool James St station.

Neil