Great Western Coffee Shop

Cambridge News, Thursday December 4th 2008.

Guided bus in 'critical' cash defecit ... - Front Cover

"Guided bus off the rails?" - The future of the guided bus hangs in the balance because of a 23.7 million credit crunch shortfall ... - Page 2

"Government must plug busway gap" ... - Opinion, page 6

It seems that developers who were planning to build extra houses to the North of Cambridge have pulled right back on their plans ... leaving the guided busway significantklyu short of funding they were supposed to provide, and perhaps leaving the busway as a route into Cambridge for buses from green fields where it was once hoped that houses would be built.

What a crying shame that the much cheaper "Cast Iron" rail option - which would have allowed for other tarnsport needs such as a passenger rail link into the Science Park and Business Park, and a service on all the way to St Ives - was abandoned in favour of an expensive busway that will be spewing its buses out onto the road in the outskirts of Cambridge so that the buses can help add to the congestion inwards from there to the city centre ...

It's, frankly, too late to re-instate the rails beyond the Science Park now. But there is still the opportunity to take whatever money remains in the coffers and do something sensible like extend the Liverpool Street to Cambridge train on to "Scince and Business Park" station. And ... if the government DID have the money to fund the gap ... to have the government spend it instead on something that's going to be more effective that providing a bus service to the green fields that were supposed to become Northstowe.

I'm posting this on the FGW forum as ... "there, but for the grace of God, go I" comparative reasons.  There are some busways planned in this area, and also some darned good railway schemes to enhance existing infrastructure and services that it could buy instead.  How about TransWilts, Portishead, and some of the extra stations that FOSBR are suggesting?

Sort of good news bad news story. Good news it's thit he buffers bad news so much money has already been spent and a rail line ruined.

Suggest our Bristol and Bath users waste no time in ensuring their relevant transport authorities are passed this info.

Now's the time to plug tram trains Portishead to Severn Beach with a circuit via the docks, town centre and BTM.

My view on guided bus routes whereever they are is that they are a very poor second to trains and/or trams.  This is a view that would appear to be shared by many posters on this forum.

Why then are the powers that be so keen on guided buses insted of trams/trains?  It is a genuine mystery to me?

A possible reasons might be cost - but guided buses are not cheap and are sometimes more expensive han the steel-wheel alternatives, so why are guides buses so popular with decison makers.  The only other reason I can think of is that guided busways are seen by councils as quick and simple whereas rail is seen as complicated.  It that is the case then the rail industry and its structure of franchising and regulation itself must be partly to blame for that perception. 

The Bath BRT plans are awful but I expect that someone (perhaps First Group?) has offered the scheme to the council as a complete package with a fixed (albeit expensive, but fixed and certain and therefore amenable to binding for money from central government) price tag. Lacking in imagination, the council has agreed to it.  Contrast this to the efforts to get more trains running to Severn Beach.  That project has been fraught with difficulties over pathing, sourcing stock, adjusting franchises
 terms etc.  I would not be surprised if the council is put off trying something similar just because of the hassle factor.

It is a sad fact that Councils seem to be more interested in buying off the shelf solutions than geting involved in complicated details , but if that is the way things are I do think that the rail industry needs to get better at offering packaged solutions to transport problems to Councils. 

This is just my musings.  Any thoughts on whether I might be right or other explanations for our infactuation with deisel buses?

The following are official reasons given ... only a guided bus gives

* Availability to "roam" away from the track
AND
* Ability to have vehicles in opposite directions pass each other at speed and with minimal clearance

I also heard an argument yesterday (in Cambridge, from one of the protagonists) that the guided busway promises a cycle track alongside which wouldn't have been possible (or wasn't proposed) with the rail equivalent as it would have had safety implications )"too dangerous".  Perhaps to do with stopping distances??

I do suspect, behind the headlines, that funding will be found to finish the system; I'm expecting to be working in Cambridge again next year, and it'll be interesting to see what happens ... whether it opens in the Spring, is delayed, or indeed gets crunched to a halt.

Thanks Grahame for passing on the official reasons, but I not sure that they make sense.

reason 1 is true but if most of the "roaming" happens in the city centres where there is congestion, I don't see it as an advantage.

reason 2 puzzles me.  I can see it as an advantage over non-guided buses (and perhaps a necessary one if routes are narrow ex-railways) but surely it is an advantage that applies to all guided systems including trams and trains

I think the reasons were <b>both</b> requirements of the scheme ... in other words, it vehicles have to both be able to pass each other very rapidly when they're on the central backbone, and yet be able to spread out widely at the ends of the route(s).   Rather like an uprooted tree  network - with a trunk along which the sap can travel quickly, yet lots of obscure leaves and root ends.

Mind you, you are correct to pick up on "OFFICIAL" reasons.  I've also heard it said that the reason for the guided trackway is more to avoid a future political decision to open the route as a conventional road too - to avoid them first adding access for long distance buses like National Express, then taxis, then disabled people's cars ... then have it turn into a toll road. It's very interesting to listen to the South Hampshire people about "guided v unguided" on the Gosport to Fareham project that has replaced the tram option now that the price of a tunnel under Portsmouth Harbour entrance has rocketed with the Navy wanting to deepen the channel.

I am against any trams/ bus routes on old rail lines.

e.g. The Midland Metro scuppered any hope for reopening the second route to Wolverhampton from B'ham Snow Hill.

Chiltern could have run Wolverhampton to Marylebone, the ATW services could have been diverted, as well as the Shrewsbury train, taking the pressure off the saturated New Street to Wolverhampton line. W&S, freight, charter and route diversions could have used the lines also.

How useful would the route have been during the WCML works and the New Street redevelopment?

In short: reopen the rail line - it costs the same, journey times are quicker, and there are millions MORE benefits.

If you have to build a busway, just open a Dual Carriageway - there are more benefits with a new road than a stupid busway!

Agree with you 100% regarding buses on old rail routes.

However, trams can operate successfully on heavy rail. Agreed it is probably too late for WM Metro to be put back to heavy rail with the trams sharing the tracks. However, their are absolutely no technical issues with the Portishead and Severn Beach lines being shared by trams which operate through central Bristol, heavy rail units and freight.

Just go to Kassell or Karlsruhr. Even the Harz metre gauge system runs steam, diesel railcars, ED tram/trains and freight on a single line with loops for 12kms North of Nordhausen.

Yeah ok the WM tram has failed. But just look at merolink in manchester. Ok rail has suffered but if you ask me the chester-manchester line via Northwich ought to be tram train operasted and ought to be the trail of the tram-trains in the UK.

Excuse my ignorance in these matters, but I was under the impression that trams were cheaper than rail because they used a "light" system with thinner rail and rail vehicles that can not stand the impact of a conventional train crash.  If one uses "heavy trams", what is the difference? What makes these cheaper than conventional rail?

Basically tram trains are more or less conventional trams. the main difference is a special wheel profile to run on tram  tracks on teh road with built in groove and heavy rail track. They run on street with 600 DC overhead. On heavy rail it's either 15KV 162/3 standard DB or diesel. The ED trams will be slighly more expemsive than the all electric because of the diesel engine.

Crashworthiness is not an issue DB trust their Indusi trainstop mechanism.

Toll roads often (sorry i mean always) fail. Look at the M6 toll. Money spent on that would have been much better spent on improving the west coast main line.

The M6 toll fails because of the way it is funded with the private builder allowed to set the tolls.  This means that they price the toll road to maximise profit rather than maximise congestion releif on the M6.  the tolls for lorries are hugh amd designed to discourage HGVs which wear out the road much faster than cars but which contribute dispropostionally to congestion on the M6. (A road engineer I know says that when they were specing the A74(M) upgrade he worked on they put the predicted number of small lorries and the number of big lorries into their calculation to decide how thick to make the tarmac.  The number of cars didn't enter the equation)

With the M6/M6 Toll the big mistake was that the tolled the wrong road!

If you want to ease congestion at a junction, do you: (a) Toll the road bypassing the junction, thus causing the traffic to use the road leading to the junction; or (b) Toll the road with the congested Junction, thus causing the traffic to use the bypass!

Doh! The best thing they could do now is to scrap the tolls altogether (although the company will want paying).

I'm for TOLL FREE ENGLAND (the Scots have done it - why can't we?).

For interest the number of vehicles using the M6 Toll is falling significantly. I'm not surprised at ^4.70 each way (from this weekend). 

Good, so hopefully plans will be drawn up for tolls to be scrapped. Let toll roads remain in Europe where they belong!

http://www.m6toll.co.uk/newsdetail.asp?id=94

if anyone is interested. At least the stats don't get published annually , over a year after the end of the period, as station footfall stats are.

A view from a county councillor on the delay to the southern part of the scheme, the costs and the regrets that the rail option wasnt chosen instead (link below.)
http://geoffheathcock.mycouncillor.org.uk/2009/01/14/guided-bus-further-delays-are-slammed-as-project-runs-into-more-problems/

I suppose it's too much to expect the DaFT, SWRDA and Bristol City Council to take note of these problems before they rush headlong into wasting millions on a similar fiasco for the Bristol area. ::)

They arent taking heed in my part of the world, with the first steps towards turning the disused Fareham-Gosport line (which formed part of a cancelled supertram scheme) into a Bus Rapid Transit route being taken (link below.)
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Transformation-on-track.4879730.jp

I have received this from Mark Ranger of CAST.IRON (see http://www.castiron.org.uk/) :


Mark has registered as a member of the forum, and I look forward to reading his future contributions.

Is there anyway now for this scheme to be scrapped?

It angers me - yet another perfectly good rail line being destroyed for good!

I am afraid the scheme will not be scrapped now. There is so much political capital (as well as taxpayers money) invested in this scheme, that there is no way they will let it go until such time as it comprehensively collapses.

I see now though that they are working on the northern station for Cambridge - another ^20m (www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn%5Fnews%5Fhome/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=389533)

The irony about this is that our (CAST.IRON's) plans to keep the railway would have offered much of what is now being proposed. Even after the go ahead was given for the so called misguided bus, we approached Network Rail to see about keeping the mainline connection at Chesterton Junction and running through to a small station by the Cambridge Science Park. But they made it quite clear that they had no interest - as usual, we seemed to be a thorn in their backside. After all, we were wanting to expand and improve the local rail services. Stupid idea eh?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=393813

It seems the misguided busway has some use now, by criminals as a get away route.

Who would have thought this dreadful plan would lead to a 23% increase in theft! >:(

I suppose another stat that will go up is vandalism - vandalism of a railway line. :'(

Hi, I live in Cambridge and regard the Guided Busway as a missed opportunity to re-instate the rail services. Instead they have ripped up the track and replaced it with a concrete plank trackway. One ton of concrete is worth around 3,000 car miles and there are 15 of them in each plank. There are hundreds and hundreds of planks, probably several thousand. This is aa scheme that keeps re-stating its "green" credentials!

To answer a few questions -

Why do local authorities like them? - I don't know, there was no public opinion in favour of this - local people think it was someone's pet project.

Why is it important that vehicles can pass each other at speed - this was a throwaway line by those that don't understand trains - the line replaced was a single track line. Trains passed each other in stations, but then anyone who is over 50 doesn't really have to have this explained.

The sad thing is that the railway was never properly evaluated - it was bundled in with a non-optimal road scheme and the guided busway was bundled with the preferred road scheme, the rail and preferred road scheme were never evaluated together. Now the two schemes have been de-coupled - they are no longer interdependent - surprise surprise, Do I smell a rat? Yes.

Having said all that, I hope it is a success - it is the only hope of improving my local bus service.

Regards Norman

Welcome to the forum, Norman

Well, thanks for such an impassioned first post, Norman - and welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!  ;) :D ;D

While offering my apologies for resurrecting this rather old topic, I thought it worth mentioning this rather interesting development - from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8308007.stm):

Nimby clutches at any straw she can reach... 

Edit: 

The inspector's report into the Reading remodelling seems to consider that without the support of the big wildlife agencies little credence will be paid to a single local complaint, If I'm reading it correctly...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/nr_reading_land_acquisition.pdf (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/nr_reading_land_acquisition.pdf)

Paul

What continent is the UK part of then?

Ok, "Let toll roads remain on the continent where they belong."

Case was thrown out:

'Miss Morge, 57, of Wych Lane, Gosport, said: 'I'm disappointed that the decision didn't go my way, but it has not deterred me... 'After all the work we did, we aren't just going to give up ^ we've got to fight. 'My barrister is going to the Court of Appeal and I'm just not going to let this beat me. 'The wildlife is being disturbed by this and I don't want a bus route that is going nowhere right by the side of my house and others." 
...the judge 'indicated that there was no prospect of success at appeal'.

Possibly not really a bat freak after all then.  ::)

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/fareham-and-meon/I39ll-keep-fighting-against-bus.5836675.jp (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/fareham-and-meon/I39ll-keep-fighting-against-bus.5836675.jp)

Paul

Back to Cambridge what's happening ?

It seems to have gone very very quite.

Maybe Hampshire Councilors should go and see what a roaring success it is!

Allegedly soon - see  here  (http://www.nce.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=5209100)

There's a key difference. The Hants scheme is just a dedicated normal single carriageway road for buses, bypassing the A32 bottleneck. It isn't a guided busway like Cambridge.

Paul

Just to update you all, the opening of the so called Busway, known to all but its most fervent admirers (better known as the county council) as the Misguided Busway has been put back to the New Year, although the reasons for this delay are bizarre. It has been very difficult to get to the truth throughout this scheme, the delays have been put down to inadequate driver training time, unfinished build elements and contractual rows between the council and BAM Nuttalls. I suspect the truth is a mixture of all three.

The current build cost is an estimated ^150 million....

We are trying to keep our web site more or less up to speed - www.castiron.org.uk

Cheers

Mark Ranger

Mark thanks for the update.

We await the opening with eager anticipation.

Keep us posted.

one word describes the whole project : disaster

Amateurs >:(

Hmm. I do accept that we keep mingling the different schemes in Cambridge and Hampshire here in this topic - but, on the other hand, it does provide an interesting comparison for their respective problems with public acceptance.

For example: the latest stalling of the Hampshire scheme is as follows, from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/8403757.stm):

And this just in from the  Daily Mail: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234480/Council-left-red-faced-mis-spelt-new-116million-guided-bus-route.html)

(http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt68/bignosemac/gbw.jpg)

wouldn't it be funny if someone painted "mis" infront of "guided"........ what a complete waste of money..

So that vehicle behind the blue post that has just driven over the sign is what one of these buses looks like?  :)

Any news?

Not heared trumpets blowing and Lord Adonis saying how wonderful the busway is as he cuts the ribbon to let the buses hurtle along free of traffic at 60 mph.

 :o well well what a joke this has become - nearly March and still no sign of the mis-guided busway getting an opening date even announced ! Cambridgeshire County Council look like a complete bunch of clowns now. The bus companies that have purchased new buses for the route are not happy bunnies (Stagecoach reportedly changed a slogan on front of buses to "will I ever be on the guided busway" !!!)

This (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/displayarticle.asp?id=480311) appears to be the current state of play.

The comments below the article are excellent.

Thanks for that link, Welshman.

From the comments, it appears that Cambridgeshire has a history of interesting, white elephant, public transport ideas.

Forget stringing up the knitting on the GWML, lets revive this techology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracked_Hovercraft

 ;D

Well, here's an update, relating to the true cost of the busway, now at a cool ^161 million. But, say the council, they will get all of the overspend back from the contractors in 4-5 years time.

Oh yes, of course they will.

Now perhaps some people in authority will start to listen to the 'amateurs' who told them that the busway was not the answer

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=485047

Mark

Announced yesterday the government will be stumping up a few million pounds for Luton - Dunstable busway (which seems is not that popular in Dunstable from the news report).  On the same day dispute over Cambridge effort between County Council and the contractor goes public - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8560413.stm and BBC Look East claim Luton will use same contractor !?!
Wonder if Cambridge will open before olympics ?

Unbelievable...check out the Scottish slang for Bampot on Google...says it all ::)

Which Olympics?   Weren't they last month?  ;)

Construction started in March 2007 with an opening scheduled in April 2009 - 25 months.   It's now 36 months since construction started - what is the current schedule or estimate?

There's a saying "When you are in a hole stop digging".

Time to scrap the whole scheme and shoot anyone whoever suggests another guided busway?

Pity so much money was spent.

Latest opening date is now Nov 2010 !!!

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the Cambridge scheme, I would just like to point out to the the members of this group that conventional rail schemes have run late. Would anyone like to deride / terminate Ebbw Vale on that basis?

Was Ebbw Vale 3.5 years late?

The main works contract was signed in November 05 and the press release talked about a completion date of 2007. The line was handed over to Network Rail in December 2007 and opened in Feb 08.

So depending on when in 2007 it was meant to open,  anywhere up to a year late, but definitely not 3.5 years.

It will be interesting to see when the station stats are published later this month how popular the line has been in its first complete year (last year's stats only included the first couple of months).

Info published in October 2009 said that there had already been a million passengers after 20 months and that this was ahead of the predicted 4th year usage.

In fact, recent complaints have been about overcrowding at weekends - the usual train is a single 150 set.

Cambidge Guided Busway forecasts are 20,000 journeys per day by 2016.  It will be most interesting to see if they can reach that after about five years within 2 - i.e. if they can parallel the extreme growth of the Ebbw Vale service.

An interesting thought or three:

* If Ebbw Vale grew so much quicker than the forecast, does it mean that the forecast was based on unduely pessimistic predications ... and if it was over-pessimistic in the forecast, how many other otherwise-viable schemes have actually been rejected by undue pessimism?

* As taxpayers, shouldn't we be hoping that the CGB carries the number of people targetted rather than far more (which might have justified a different solution) or far less (which might also point towards another solution)

* Rail ticket sales are pubished.   Does the same apply to guided bus ticket sales?

Still not open ;D

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/

I suspect that the true answer about Ebbw Vale growth is that no-one had a clue what would happen but based on experience with the other Valley Lines it was thought that the trains would be well used. 

To understand the dynamics of the Valleys, you need to look at the map.  There are, depending how you count, about 8 to 10 proper Valleys.  They are all about 1 mile wide or less and run north-south from the southern edge of the Brecon  Beacons towards Cardiff or Newport.  Each valley is separated from the next to the east or west by a ridge probably 12-1500 feet high.  To get out you have to go south to the coast or north to the Beacons.  For the most part you cannot go east west from the middle of one valley to the next.

This means that for commercial/shopping etc purposes everyone gravitates south since most of the Valleys towns are decrepit/dilapidated and exhausted.  A road trip from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff (or Newport) is a tiresome trek along winding roads through ribbon development.  A train therefore, especially for the teenagers, is a godsend and preferable to a bus in a queue.  Thus the enthusiasm for the Ebbw Vale Railway.

There is a strong lobby for the remodelled Gaer Junction to allow alternate trains to Newport and Cardiff.  Given that Cardiff will only be about 10 or 15 minutes further away, I suspect that Newport will not benefit greatly, it being a dump by comparison.  I speak as one who has lived in both.

A dump? Surely you can't mean the great metropolis which is shortly going to play host to thousands of american golf fans and half the world's sports media. I do hope they don't read the Coffee Shop.  ;D 

From an American online friend of mine:

"Newport Wales, that's in England yeah?"  ::)

I should mention one major exception to the last point, which is the route of the A472, which follows that of the former GWR line from Pontypool Road [Eastern valley] to near Quakers Yard on the Taff.  This crosses the Ebbw valley at Crumlin/Newbridge, the Sirhowy at Gelligroes and the Rhymney at Ystrad Mynach.  (The GWR line then tunnelled through the ridge to the Cynon valley, up which it ran to the top at Hirwaun and then down the vale of Neath to reach Neath & Brecon Jct.)  It's also possible to get across from Caerphilly [Rhymney again] to a point north of Taffs Well by a road that runs roughly parallel to the former "big hill" from Walnut Tree Jct to Aber Jct (and, in even earlier times) Caerphilly itself.

Thanks Adrian for that.

BUT the A472 meets the A470 at Abercynon.  It's all in the name - that's the mouth of the Cynon Valley and where the Cynon joins the Taff at what is also really the bottom of the Merthyr valley. 

I accept it's half an exception to the rule.

More typical of the journeys is Treherbert to Aberdare.  That's only about 4 miles as the crow flies.  It's 13 miles by road.

By road that's two buses.  By train it's two trains-  Aberdare to Pontypridd and Pontypridd to Treherbert.
Either way that's 1hr 15 mins or so.  Which is my point.

And has nothing to do with guided busways.

Hello all,

I thought you might be interested in CAST.IRON's proposal for an alternative station to serve the north of Cambridge. See http://www.castiron.org.uk/MiltonRoad/

There are existing plans for a much larger station nearby at Chesterton Junction, costed at around ^21m. Our idea is designed to be much cheaper, and we believe will deliver a similar level of benefits.

It also protects the trackbed of the former St.Ives branch, until the start of the Cambridge Guided Busway (built over the former trackbed to the west of our station). Draw your own conclusions as to why we think that is a strategically good idea!

As usual Cambridgeshire County Council have immediately tried to pour cold water on our suggestions - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/3m-railway-station-plan-unveiled-by-campaigners.htm

Let's hope this time they think a little more than they did when they were desperate to open the world's longest guided busway, which hasn't and nobody really knows when it will

All the best

Mark Ranger
CAST.IRON

Mark, you may not have the support of the council - but you CERTAINLY have the support of the people who work on the Cambridge Science Park, and their attention to a station at the Milton Road junction.  I'm in Cambridge at the moment - and that's a comment that came out of the blue from several of my delegates who know the area well, and would use such a service if it was provided.

Over the road, here are some scenes taken today

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cagb1.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/cagb2.jpg)

I have also put a third scene in "The Lighter Side", looking for a caption:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6631.0

And they are still faffing about.  Boreholes are being drilled and some sections of the busway have to be raised because of flooding/ponding issues.  Following a council meeting on 25 May, it was announced that it would be the end of July before a start-up schedule could be announced. 

Marvellous...but what about this. I thought it was a joke but they've all got very serious faces. They must have been inspired by that one with the Hillman Imp posted earlier.

Great fun but weren't they doing this in Ireland in 1930s?, only with a good deal more elegant a bus ;D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/threecounties/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8715000/8715503.stm

...and if any of you have the energy to follow this fiasco! Today's news >:(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/10281595.stm

The Dunstable one looks like reverse engineering a 14X!

RE Cambridge Quote from report above:

"The council said it was "frustrated" that the contactor had not yet instructed its designers to correct the flooded cycleway or quantify the fire risk posed by communication cables."

Fire risk from communications cables, that's a new one on me. HT, maybe but low voltage comms cables!

Quick update on the Fareham Gosport 'bus lane' - the Portsmouth News have reported tonight that the high court has thrown out the Nimby's bat enthusiast's complaints...

Paul

Oh dear does that mean it's going ahead despite the Cambridge disaster.

Hi Mark. I was planning on sending this to your site but you'll see it here, as will everyone else. Up in Crawley there is the 'Fastway' which seems to randomly switch between bus lane and guideway. I have heard recently that Metrobus, the main company in Crawley and only user of the Fastway, have stopped using it and removed all the guide wheels from the buses, which all now use the normal roads in the area.
Maybe it's time to call for a boycott of the Misguided busway in Cambridge. I seriously can't wait for it to fail

Welcome to the forum, Mr Kipling.  Your post had me musing (again) as to just how late the opening now is, and I came across the following which I found - err - interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3477655.stm

Of course, lots of projects overrun to the extent that there's now a 66% "optimism bias" built in to estimates for rail - meaning that it's expected that a 500,000 pound project will cost 800,000. I'm not sure about time optimism, nor whether this is / was applied to the original busway figures.

With so much money spent, it makes sense to give it a good go - not to wish it failure, but to give it very best use when it opens.  That should mean extending Cambridge terminating trains from the South to Cambridge Science Park station (across the road from the guided busway station) which would cost a drop compared to the ocean that has been poured in so far.  A failure of this project will cost how much for each Cambridge Tax payer?

Having said that, the performance / current status of smaller schemes such as the one you mention (and I think there are others in Leeds and there was one in Birmingham) doesn't raise confidence.  Perhaps lessons have been learned from them and incorporated in Cambridge?   But then, again, confidence isn't inspired by the huge overrun.

Let's wait and see - but encourage success to pay back the taxpayer and to do some good for the people who live and commute in the area, rather than encouraging and wishing for an expensive failure. And I say that even based on the the fact that many of us feel there was a far better option available.

Thanks for the recent input. There is a degree of progress in our proposal for a new station at Milton Road, designed both to protect the trackbed that has been taken up further along for the guided bus, and also to serve locations like Cambridge Science Park. As and when there is more that I can tell you, I will do so.

But sadly, the guided bus project itself seems to be lurching from one crisis to another - here's the latest

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Growing-fears-that-guided-buses-wont-run-until-2011.htm

Of course it is nice to be able to snipe at the council's failures, but when you know how much money has gone into this, at a time when we are supposed to be strapped as a nation...

And bizarrely, they seem to be determined to press on with other busways.

Heh I also found this...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cliffordstead/4427289234/

Indeed. A very warm welcome. Can we look forward to some exceedingly good posts?  ;) :D

Ok..... coat, fetch, etc.

 ::) :o yes it appears that 2011 is now the earliest the busway might open !! LMAO - what a complete farce ???

Apparently the contractors are still repairing defects and now owe over ^8m in penalties.

Jan 2011 is now the intended start date. 

As I was walking in Cambridge City centre this evening, a Stagecoach bus drove past me with the forlorn question painted on the side ... "When will I be able to use the Guided Busway?".   It must be five of six months since I was last here, but the start of the route at the Cambridge Science Park looks unaltered - this marvellous new busway headed off to the North West with huge concrete stop-blocks on it.   But one change is that there seem to be ever more cyclists heading out along the route. 

your red herring news tonight!

http://www.cambridgefirst.co.uk/news/low_carbon_building_boost_for_cambridge_busway_1_677618

I trust we can look forward to some pictures of the latest (lack of) developments?  ;D

Are we going to run a sweep on the exact date?

I didn't see anything new to photograph ... although I suppose I posted up some springtime pictures, and I could see if I can get out of the place I'm working before it gets dark to get some pictures with the leaves falling off the trees.


The authors of Perl 6 (programming language) have it right. "You'll have it for Christmas - we just won't tell you which Christmas".  Mind you - that's been going on for a number of years and I thing that Perl 6 may turn out to have missed the boat.   Perhaps there's a similarity with the busway?

Just in case you're all sitting on the edge of your chairs awaiting the triumphant announcement re the January opening of this marvellous testament to British engineering...here's the "latest" AFAIK

http://www.cambridgefirst.co.uk/news/cambridgeshire_s_guided_busway_being_held_up_as_a_result_of_paperwork_1_799525

Latest update for opening date - October 2011.

And as one of my colleagues in CAST.IRON has just commented - the ^200m budget boost to regional railways is the equivalent to one 20 mile guided busway.

There's good value for you

Hey ho

Mark

As per previous post any one for a sweep?

Do you have a source for this? - I can't find anything about it on the Cambridge Evening News website.

The latest thing I can find is dated 25/03/11.  BAM Nuttall have to hand over a completion certificate to the Council and they then have 28 days to fix any remaining defects.  It is anticipated that they won't bother and the council will then hire other contractors and give them 28 days to sort it.

So at least two months to go.

Sorry for the delayed reply - here is the source - http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/latest-news/cambs_guided_busway_still_unlikely_before_october_1_830085

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/thebusway/

Seems to be scope for a couple of sweep stakes.

First: Opening date.
Second: How long will it stay open before it has to be closed for technical defects?

Third: How long before we can seriously get down to working how we lay railway tracks on top of the concrete
Fourth: How long before any politicians have the decency to confess that this was truly a bad idea and they wish they had have listened to the anoraks.

 :o Misguided busjokeway timetables now published by county council - evenings and Sundays, don`t be silly !!!!  :'( 
 

I have been told early August but can't verfy my informants source.

Apparently itis been  suggested that the local tearaways will steal cars drive them onto the busway deliberately jam them in the track and then set fire to them. Probaly an urban myth in the making.

However, a more practicle question was raised how do you get broken down bus off the busway?

Perhaps they're going to fit the guided bus fleet with dellner couplings to allow working in multiple!  ;) ;D

THere are exits every junction according to a local on UK.rauilways

...and for access for the bloke with a toolbox, there's a continuous roadway along the length of the busway - which doubles as a cycle track.

I wonder if the benefits (if any) of the 'guided' feature is actually worth the additional cost over a normal dedicated two lane road, as is being used on the Fareham - Gosport 'busway'. 

Breakdowns on the latter are presumably going to be much easier to deal with; there's an agreement that it can be used by emergency services such as ambulances, and the only deadlines being missed are due to random objections from the nimby faction...

Paul

With towing, "the process takes between 5 and 10 minutes", and

"Unlike rail, where a breakdown disrupts the entire line and causes long delays for other trains, guided buses can be immediately diverted around the section where a bus is being recovered which means only a few minutes delay for passengers. "

More at:

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/CMSWebsite/Apps/News/Details.aspx?ref=98

There was a bit of a 'Blue Peter' aspect to that though - did the defective bus just happen to fail behind a tow truck they'd prepared earlier!    ??? 

Does that time given include reversing the tow truck along the guideway?  I can't actually see that being very easy, unless I'm missing something significant about the truck.  Maybe it can turn round when it reaches the bus if it carries an underslung turntable or something with it...

Paul

The published timetables show a bus every 10 minutes (every 20 minutes on some sections) on Monday to Saturday, and hourly on Sunday. Plus one extra bus an hour (Monday to Saturday) and every 2 or 3 hours (Sunday).   Journey time along the busway is scheduled to be 20 minutes, so it's probable that if there's a failure, the following bus will be a long way back and will simply be able to take to normal roads at one of the crossings along the way.  Presumably, the drivers will be in touch with base by some sort of radio so that the following bus doesn't get caught behind?

I understand that a second operator - Whippet - will also be providing services, but I've not seen details.  I can't imagine that there buses will bring the initial usage up to levels where there will be several buses in the same section at the same time, unless the competition factors have one running just ahead of the other as buses do in the town I live in (2 an hour - 3 and 6 minutes past, then a 57 minute gap)

I'm a bit surprised by the frequency- only every 20 mins on the rail station to Trumpington P&R and hospital section. I think I'd got a impression from earlier publicity they would be more frequent than that...?

 ;) Better late than never ? It finally opened yesterday !
.............. and passengers comments on BBC Look East : "rough ride" and "running 20 mins late"  ;D oh  dear !! 

I'm in Cambridge at the moment ... had a chance to have a look at how it's bedding in yesterday ... see how well the buses were loaded.

http://wellho.info/3404

I've posted it here because these incidents are only hearsay.

Firstly two buses double deck going in opposite directions allegely touched due to the wind cauisng them to rock.

Secondly first accident, bus hit a cyclist, riding along the busway. Cyclist jumped for safety bike mangled.

Thirdly kids are being sick on double deckers due to swaying.

Forthly they need to run more buses but that would slow the service down, so one wag suggested they have signals and couple the buses together. Oh dear we've got a train which is what everyone wanted in the first place.

Well at least one is confirmed.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Censure-for-busway-driver-after-bike-crash-14102011.htm (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Censure-for-busway-driver-after-bike-crash-14102011.htm)

   ;D  ;D  ;D

Here's one for the handful of guided busway enthusiasts!

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/caen-to-switch-to-light-rail.html

And a further update from me here (http://www.wellho.net/mouth/3579_Transport-in-Cambridgeshire-seen-by-an-outside-observer-What-can-Wiltshire-learn-.html#guided) - in an article that also looks at other aspects of travel in Cambridge and compares it to what we have n our own area.

They've just recorded the 1,000,000th trip since it opened....

That's right - covered in my link above, with a calculation as to what "one million journeys" means in terms of numbers of passengers per hour ...  ;)

i think your analysis was very fair Grahame. An interesting comparison would be how long did it take Ebbw Vale to reach its millionth journey. I bet on an absolute measure it required less trains than buses to provide for the millionth journey to Ebbw Vale. So a light rail to St ives would probaly have hit the millionth even earlier.

Big steps forward towards a new station at Cambridge Science Park, including a guided busway extension - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Cambridges-new-railway-station-to-open-in-2015-21022012.htm

Bob Menzies, Cambridgeshire County Council's head of major infrastructure delivery, who led the guided busway build, will be in charge of the project - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-17109871

The Fareham-Gosport "busway" started service today, branded as Eclipse.  It will be interesting to see how the initial service compares to the experiences on the Cambridge busway.

I'm heading back to Bedfordshire today, but next time I'm down here, I'll get myself a FirstDay Hampshire ticket and head over there for a peek.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-20415811):

Not sure how to react.

I wonder if this was one of the risks that was evaluated when the busway was designed?

Who will investigate. the police or HMRI.

Presumably there will now be a lower speed restriction for buses entering the busway.

Unfortunately I believe work has started on Luton -Dunstable.

BBC: "bus comes off tracks". 

No, the bus never got on the track in the first place...

Paul

Cant imagine that the HMRI would investigate, it is not really a railway, not even light rail or tramway, which is within the remit of HMRI.
I would presume that if investigation is warrented that this will be by the police and/or the HSE.

It would be great if  the investigation were to decide that Guided Busways should be banned and lay down railway tracks instead which should have been done on this route in the first place.

HMRI were abolished a few years ago, so it would be hard for them to investigate anything! The work they used to do is now done by the ORR.

Guided busways are specifically excluded from railway safety regulation. The following Bristol link provides some insight:
www.persona.uk.com/ashton/G_docs/OA-144.pdf (http://www.persona.uk.com/ashton/G_docs/OA-144.pdf)

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-21479277):


See also another discussion on this forum, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=551.msg126829#msg126829

Not something likely to have happened on a railway with block signalling and train protection equipment, something that would have cost considerably less than the ^180 million cost of the BRT, plus a free shuttle service from station to city centre. They know best.

Apart from the several imbecilic motorists who have chosen to rip out their sumps by driving on the guided busway, this is at least the fifth incident since the busway opened. This is on a segregated busway with automatic guidance. The previous incident, where a driver missed the guided bit and ended up with the bus at 45 degrees across the track, should have raised alarms at the West of England Partnership, whose rubbish Bust Rabid Transit project was due to use similar incomplete guideways, but right next to the new cut of the Avon. Luckily, Mayor Ferguson's glasses are not as rose-tinted as his trousers.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22043728):

Lol. Need I say more?

I would say that would not happen on a tram or railway, if it hadn't already happened. Bit rich blaming the satnav, though.

...the shape of things to come http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-22567092




Edit note: For completeness and ease of future reference, I've added a quoted copy of the BBC article here. Chris from Nailsea.

The BBC story raises more question than answers IMHO.

At this sort of level crossing, the normal rules for traffic signals would apply AFAICS, although there may be automatic priority given to the buses. (I believe that's the way it works on the various flat crossings on the Gosport busway - which of course isn't guided, but it's the same segregated route idea.)

The story doesn't really make it clear which route had the green phase though does it?  But whichever way the lights were set, the fact that the bus is from a guided system doesn't really alter things at the crossing itself - it's really no different to any other similar collision at a normal crossroads.  If it happened in a typical town centre, where buses appear out of bus only roads through traffic lights, would it receive the same publicity?

Paul 

I think we're being a bit harsh here with these negative judgements. Any novel transport such as this is bound to have its teething problems, and I'm sure that over the coming years there will be a process of continual improvement.

One key area that seems to be causing problems is the guidance system. Looking at the detail of this, it seems obvious to me that the guide wheels are too small and badly orientated; by simply rotating their axes through 90 degrees and enlarging them, it would be possible to devise a system whereby the vehicles actually ran on the guide wheels, thus dispensing with some complexity. In such a system the possibility of the guide wheel losing contact with the guideway would be much reduced.

Looking further ahead, I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility of adapting the system to make it compatible with existing so-called 'railway' systems? Obviously this would involve some expense; for example it would not be possible for the busway to cross roads at grade, but the installation of bridges at crossing points would help to prevent other vehicles straying onto the system.

I'm not a transport consultant; I'm not even much of an engineer, but if anyone from Cambridgeshire County Council would like my help with any of this, my fees are very low.

I'm not making a judgement on the busway at all, the aim is to try and point out that this is not a 'busway' issue. It's a normal collision at a crossroads.

That hasn't necessarily been the case with some of the previous issues covered earlier in this thread...

Paul

Not sure it's just a crossroads in the accepted sense where the traffic lights would be in timed phases for each road. Presuambly the lights are green for ordiary traffic and change when abus crosses. So more like a level crossing and we know the problems of those.

Well, I for one appreciated the particular irony running through that entire post, Red Squirrel!  ;) :D ;D

I am. The Cambridge busway way proposed as a cheap and flexible alternative to reinstatement of a railway line. In the event, it cost far more than the railway would have, probably by a factor of three, even had Cambridgeshire CC provided free buses from the railway station to the city centre. In the absence of an alternative, it is heavily used, but has not led to significant reductions in traffic on major routes into Cambridge.

On the safety aspect, I agree that the most recent incident is not much different to any collision between a bus and a car at traffic lights. Had the railway been reinstated, that car would either have crossed the line by a bridge, or been halted by a level crossing gate. At the junctions, the buses leave the guided sections, then rejoin, a manoeuvre that necessitates the bus slowing then accelerating, and one that has already led to an accident, as a driver misjudged the rejoin. So far, a number of cycles have been mangled by buses, although they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Nor should the poor little dog from the nearby stables, the horses from elsewhere that initiated the collision between buses, the lorry with the satnav calling the shots, nor the several cars to have had their sumps ripped out.

Bristol's BRT is a different kettle of fish altogether. It is merely a thinly-disguised road building scheme, touted as a public transport project to get government money.

   ↑   ↑   ↑

What he said.  :-X

It was CAST.IRON (http://www.castiron.org.uk/)y

This has to be one of the best-worst puns I have seen, combining aptness and excruciating brain pain with information.  :D

I see HM travelled on a guided bus on a visit to Cambridge today, though it's not clear whether she actually went on the guided bit. Wonder whether she used her free bus pass....

Almost certainly, since is known never to have any money on her (presumably lost on the horses).

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/As-closure-of-flood-prone-busway-bridleway-reaches-eighth-week-should-the-track-be-put-on-stilts-20140225063000.htm

How much would that cost? But then money seems to be no problem to get the Cambridge busway.

Perhaps they could rename it the Cambridge guided splashway ....but they had better make sure that none of Stagecoach's competitors have introduced branded greater crested newts to the water in the last couple of months. I am still scrubbing off the Co-op logo from the ones found near the proposed Sainsbury's here in Portishead....

Nearly time for the start of the big legal battle to start. Should make rich pickings for many lawyers.

I had need to travel today on the Cambridge Busway, from near the Science Park to St Ives return.  One way I could get a lift, but I'd need to get the bus back.  Looking at The Busway Website (http://www.thebusway.info/fares.aspx?accept=perm), it looks like it would cost ^6 on Stagecoach or ^5 on Go Whippet.  At this point, I almost chose to drive (32 miles @ 15p per mile = ^4.80).

Anyway, I took the lift there and the bus on the way back.  This is where my moan starts: at the ticket machine at St Ives Park & Ride (you are supposed to buy your ticket before boarding on the guided section and can also pay by card) the first screen you are presented with is choose either "Stagecoach" or "Go Whippet" but no information on who operates which route - not very helpful.  With a bit of time to spare, I played around to find the fares.  My journey would be ^3.90 on Stagecoach or ^3.40 with Go Whippet.  Somewhat different from the website prices.  On the journey several people were turned down from the service C (Go Whippet) as they had purchased Stagecoach tickets.

It makes me wonder how many journeys are not taking place on the busway because people are finding the prices quoted online to be far too high and choose to drive instead, and how many are actually put off because the fares system/ticket machines are too complicated?

A nice new rail vs busway battle looming on the Haverhill route... - http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/haverhill_multi_million_pound_cambridge_rail_link_could_ease_traffic_problems_on_a1307_1_3463566

You would think they should have learned the lesson about busways by now. And I don't think BAM Nuttall will want anything to do with it until the court case is over.

Even the latest edition of Buses carries a letter pointing how in France the rubber-tyred solutions are not coping on technical and capacity grounds.  I can't quote it all, but Nantes is over capacity and can't increase it without huge expense so is looking at trams and already Caen is converting its equivilent to a busway to a tram system.

Even First's attempt to sabotage the trolley bus scheme in Leeds comes in for criticism.  And this from the champion of bus solutions.

Did you - or the mag - really mean Nantes? Their Busway isn't guided, it just runs mostly on a reserved roadway. And they are building some new, less tram-like, ones (Chronobus). And of course they have three tram lines as well.

Do it "cheap", do it twice, they say. Edinburgh (hardly the exemplar) has now "trammed" over its busway. Leeds original guided busway has been abandoned by some of its operators because it is slower than just running buses in the traditional sense parallel to the route, and needs none of the adaptations to the buses. Nantes, BTW, had a huge turn-out to see its third tramline open, so much that the tram could merely inch its way into town. The trolleybus opening was more muted.

Tram-train will save us all.

Having used the Cambridge busway a few times now, I fail to see the benefit of it being "guided".  It costs more to build than a road, special buses are required and problems are created when the buses break down.

My opinion is that a bus only road (with rising bollards or similar to prevent unauthorised use) running along the same route would do as a good a job.

In the case of Nantes, the Busway being a lower-cost implementation of a tram line was explicit. The passenger numbers predicted didn't support the cost of trams - and this was after there already were three tram lines and they were popular. I don't know whether conversion to trams if numbers justified it was actually envisaged by the planners or not, but people did keep asking why they had to put up with much of the same disruption just for buses. These are big articulated buses, fitted out like trams, with similar road crossings, so it should be possible to increase the service level either with buses or trams.

I guess you didn't really mean "trolleybus", if that was meant to apply to Nantes. 

And as for tram-trains - they should solve problems of limited track capacity in some parts of cities. But the two lines at Nantes don't really do that. One never runs on a road, so it is a light-weight EMU with a mismatched floor level. The other is the same most of the way, but has a few tram-like road crossings.

I think the point of the guidance was so the driver could take it easy, and as a means to prevent accidents.

At least five so far...

As I recall, the benefits 'sold' over a road were that (a) vehicles could pass each other very closely without slowing down and (b) it insured that a future political regime couldn't open it to regular / normal road traffic.   Benefits sold over a train were that the vehicles could fan out at the end of the tracked section to cover a wide variety of destinations where railway would not be practical.

There's a further link at http://www.britpave.org.uk/GBWhyBuild.ink  which confirms what I recall, and adds in some other reasons ...

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/PICTURES-First-step-towards-opening-of-Cambridges-second-railway-station-as-work-starts-on-guided-busway-extension-20140723132812.htm?

...and so much more flexible - with no pesky concrete in the way, presumably it would be possible for cars to use it?

It could be sold to a gullible public as an unguided busway, also availbale for use by other vehicles. What we in Bristol, before the advent of Bust Rabid Transit, called a "road".

Had they built a railway instead of the guided bus way they wouldn't have had to build the road and the trains or tram/trains could have served the new station from it's opening.

But that would have been far too logical!

Surely in that case the new station would be on this St Ives branch line, and actually at the Science Park (which it won't be).

The new transport options in North Cambridge are much needed.  I live in West Chesterton and see the congestion on a daily basis: long traffic queues on the A14 and buses that are totally full between the station and science park.

At least they've realised a non-guided road is clearly the best option.  I'm still yet to be convinced of the benefits for a guided road vs a bus only road.

Yes, more options are much needed.   On my course last week, I had a delegate who works on the business park and lives about 20 miles north, near the line between Ely and March.   He could get a train from home that goes to 100 yards from hs place of work ... problem at the moment is that is doesn't stop until it gets to Cambridge Station which is about 3 miles further along the line.    From where he has an awkward ride back on the guide bus though the unguided streets of the city of Cambridge.   Result - he drives.

I know someone who live up near St. Ives who often goes to London.  He could get the guided bus through to the Science park, and carry on with it though the streets of Cambridge and connect there into the train. But the bit through Cambridge is slow. Result - he drives

I often give courses on the science or business parks.  Often I go by train to Cambridge, then a taxi to a hotel (if I have heavy equipment) and another taxi / bus / walk in the morning to where I'm training.  But sometimes I don't like the hassle and drive all the way.

Taking the guided bus though, unguided, to a rail interchange is sensible and gives options.  Adding a station on the main line at the business park give lots more options including people walking to and from that station, and also for regular buses.

The other issue with the guided buses is that they "miss out" stops on the unguided sections.  The stop nearest me is served only by the number 9 and C, despite the more regular A and P&R services passing through.  The nearest stop for the A is over a mile away.  I have a friend who lives in St. Ives and works at the science park.  The busway is great, until she wants to go somewhere else, like round my house.  Result: drives often.

And the last bus is well before the last train.  Final service from London is at 00:04 from King's Cross (on a weekday; there is a later 00:31 on Saturday morning) arriving at 01:25.....but the final bus is at 20:29.  Result: I always* drive to/from the station if there is any chance of arriving back in the evening.  Hopefully the new Chesterton station will relieve these problems for a large part of the city.

* = except last time, when I "accidentally" had a few too many St Austell Tributes from the buffet and ended up walking 3 miles home failing to find a taxi at 02:00 on Saturday morning (my train was delayed, else FGW would've been forking out a PAD-CBG taxi as their service was also delayed).

I pay Tribute to Brucey for highlighting a problem that affects many of us gentlemen of a certain age.

I simply mentioned three flows I know of ... but I am NOT a Cambridge expert and there are other too such as these.    I too have been caught by the A not stopping at (m)any stops from the Science Park to the City, but it does of course stop a number of times on a typical run at traffic lights and in traffic.    At present, the last train from Cambridge north (via Ely) is at 00:10 ... so that still wouldn't be your way if you caught the last train from London unless that was extended (they could well do that ...)

Some flows could be met / improved with rather less than a new bus road and station, but together they give an awful lot of answers.   I'll admit to being one who would have preferred to see rail rather than guided bus to St. Ives, but the guided bus is streets (or guides) ahead of everyone relying on a car or on buses on the city streets and A14, and I hope it works in well with the new station, which is also very welcome indeed, and being on the double track main line will be able to be served by a lot of trains.  Let's hope that does happen, and we end up something with the activity of Haymarket rather than Ardwick!

This MISguided busway has got to be one of the worst mistakes in modern UK travel planning.
The entire route should be ripped up immediately and turned back into a railway.

At the same time, the A14 - a botch job done on the cheap - needs to be converted into dual 3 lane trunk road (plus hard shoulder).

Of course, the government have also used the busway to allow greedy developers to build a new town on a greenfield site outside Cambridge, leading to unacceptable urban sprawl. >:(

This is on a par with the bungled attempt to reintroduce trams in Greater Birmingam, where a perfectly good rail route (which could have eased the pressure on the clogged up New Street) has been irreversibly converted into a pointless tram at a cost of millions.

I agree with one quarter of what Btline says, which is a new Commonwealth record. The winner is his view on the misguided busway.

On the simple measure of passenger numbers, it is a big success. But a reinstated railway, with reasonable bus connections at the other end, would have been equally successful, and less of a problem in a number of other ways.

From an engineering point of view, it has been a disaster. The problems of putting concrete where rail used to be were clearly not appreciated before this scheme began. There were flooding issues, especially affecting a bridge, that stalled work for a time. And now, only three years later, the structure is falling apart. BAM Nuttall say the predicted ^20 million cost of repair is maintenance, Cambridge County Council think otherwise. Having "lost"* one costly court battle with BAM Nuttall, they are threatening a return to the courts. Time will tell.

On a safety level, it has seriously underperformed against rail, with at least 5 serious accidents, the worst being one bus driving into the rear of another at speed. One involved the bus missing the guideway after a junction, the others mainly involve people who shouldn't have been there.

On an expansion level, it could be said that the new bit to the science park could indeed have been done by rail rather than road, but all this involves imagination and foresight. Busways became the flavour of the month around 2005, as Alistair Darling set about scrapping plans for tram systems. Already, they are beginning to look like some of the awful short-term decisions made in the early 1960s. The biggest symbol of this in Bristol, for me, is the rise and fall of the Magistrates Court in Nelson Street, designed in the 60s, built in the 70s, demolished 2014, so affording better views of 14th century St Johns Chapel.

To use the King James Version of Proverbs 26:11:

I am not so sold on turning the A14 into a motorway, especially not if it had a railway running alongside. If Cambridgeshire CC asked the government for the money, they would get short shrift because
a) We're not building roads
b) You've just had a magnificent new Misguided Bust Way
c) It's not in London.

And a railway would have allowed either greedy developers to develop a new town on a greenfield site, or sympathetic developers to build much-needed affordable housing where it is needed to expand the economy [/hint of sarcasm]. The busway is not entirely relevant to the building. It may be the other way around, that the business case for the busway relied on the housing. (Like the business case for Bristol's busway relied on the now cancelled plan for housing in Long Ashton. Pah!)

I'm no Brummie, but I believe the tram route is far from pointless. AIUI, Centro realised they would not get approval and funding for a "big bang" expansion a la Manchester Metrolink Phase 3, so decided on a "bite size chunk" approach. This particular mouthful is arguably the most complex on the local wish list. It will connect Snow Hill to the city centre, but is strategically more important as a piece of the future network. The renaissance of Curzon Street will provide the obvious next step.

The thought crossed my mind that since we have track maintenance vehicles that can run both on rubber tyres and steel rails, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of UK bus and train builders without full order books to devise a bus that can do the same. We could then have a "guided" bus that could use existing tracks, even street tramlines and still have the flexibility to terminate in the high street. The replacement of rails with short-life concrete guideways is quite pointless.

The performance and economy of a bus running on rails would be spectacular, with perhaps 20% of the rolling resistance of the tarmac alternative.

The down side of buses is of course quality and capacity. Cambridge, as a UK hub of world creativity, deserves better.
 
OTC

Something like this, maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_142

Or, more like what was suggested, this experimental beastie (http://www.wired.com/2008/05/half-bus-half-t/)?
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/images/2008/05/27/dmv04.jpg)

The LMS experimented with a road rail coach in the 1930s.

http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r137.html (http://mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/r137.html)

Gives a good account it also mentions a road rail lorry for freight.

Plus ca change

...so add a Boris bus body....

The Boris bus is 4.38m high (14'5"), so a bit higher than C1, (about 4.00m) but shorter and narrower. It would still be safely below  standard contact wire height of 4.7m.

Could they run in multiple?

OTC

I've being working a couple of hundred yards from Chesterton Station - that's about 2 miles north of Cambridge station on the line to Ely.  Small problem that (as yet) Chesterton Station isn't open ... and from leaving the place I've been working (part of the science park and business park) I have to make my way to the main station to catch my train. I set off at 16:30

There's the Park and Ride bus which runs to the station every 15 minutes or so from up the main road to the east of the science park, which runs via the cinema complex and the centre of town.  There's the guided bus, which runs every 15 minutes from the stop on the south side of the science park, which calls at Jesus Green and the City Centre on its way.  Then there's the number 2 which runs from within the Science Park every 10 minutes, but takes a very much longer route and doesn't go as close to the station.

All three of these buses, which call at different stops at the science park (you will have noticed) leave south on the same road, but only the No. 2 actually stops there.  And they're joined by a non-stop service "C" every hour and a limited stop occasional service 9.  I find myself wondending which stop to go to, and why all the buses can't stop where the number 2 does for the science park - it would save on bus stops, and it might bring the operators a bit more business with (in effect) a five minute service not a 15 minute one.  Oh - and it might allow for quicker connections too.

My bus, at 16:45, was scheduled to take 19 minutes to cover the two miles to Cambridge Station.  It didn't of course - it took almost 25 minutes as on a Friday afternoon it wended it's intricate way around the back streets of the city for (it turned out) 2 passengers, then queued it way through the shooping street and cafe area on the way to the station.  And it went right past the station without stopping (or to be accurate, stop-start in the traffic but not letting passengers off) to the stop that's behind platform 3, quite a way from the station entrance.   Fortunately, I stopped a fello traveller ducking behind a container and found the unadvertised back gate to the station, and open (even a member of staff checking tickets) so I was able, by a whisker, to catch my 17:15.

The guided bus (for that's what I was on) may make the journey from St Ives to the Science Park very much quicker, but the journey from there to the station averaged just 7 m.p.h. I can't say I'm impressed with this element of the brand new service that was introduced - with great fanfare and at huge expense - just a couple of years ago.  And indeed I can't help concluding that others think it's unfit for the purpose of linking people in the technlogy part of the city to the nation's local public transport hub - otherwise they wouldn't be bulding a new station.  And - I note - extending the guided busway to the station.  As I walked, close to that new section, I wondered at the heavy machinery involved in the building of the track, and at the deep digging that seemed to be going on. It muts be costing a fortune.  In the room in which I was training, a deep rumbling noise had me asking my delegates what was going on, and they assured me that it was something they're quite used to - deep pile driving for foundations for the new busway. Apparently the concrete that's used for the busway further north has been cracking due to poor foundations, and this time they're taking to chances.  Someone suggested that they might have done better with vehicles that ran on steel rather than concrete, as that has a degree of flexibility and would have been much quicker and cheaper to build.  A colleague of his suggested crosswise timbers under the steel rails, which would act as a further cusion, reduce subsidence possibilities further, and make for a comfortable ride.  Of course, this is Cambridge but even here I doubt whether such a novel idea would fly.

... it was Isambard Kingdom Brunel, turning in his grave.  :-X

From the Cambridge News (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Injuries-expected-guided-bus-derails-Trumpington/story-28784633-detail/story.html)

I thought it was supposed to be  a guided busway. Perhaps it is really a misguided busway (in more ways than one). 

Cuthbert Dibble & Grubb et all will have turned up to help out no doubt !

That's at least the sixth accident since the busway opened.

How would that compare statistically with accidents suffered by non-guided buses?

A very good question that I don't have an answer to. Most of the incidents have been caused by people being on the busway when they shouldn't - sadly, an 81 year old lady died there in November last year. One was caused by the bus missing the start of a section of busway, which bothers me a bit, as the Ashton Vale route has nine sections in the two-mile guided bit. That cost the bus company ^90,000 in repairs to the track, as well as the bus. One was caused by a bus driving at speed into the back of another. Given that the buses are supposed to be the only vehicle on the route, I would expect a greater degree of safety than with buses on ordinary roads shared with drivers.

I'm rather embarrassed at how long it took me to work out that amusing reference, Western Pathfinder.  :-[ :P ::)

Surely Cuthbert Dibble and Grubb are now based at Trumpington rather than Trumpton ?

An unpopular move to relocate to an out-of-town location...

Seems there was another derailment last Thursday.

Indeed - thank you for that alert, eightf48544.  ;)

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-36733703):

Presumably the ORR will be involved.

Is there a bus equivalent of the RAIB the BAIB?

I rather think that would be the Office of Rail and Road themselves - a (mis)guided bus being perhaps the worst of both worlds.  ::)

Also, presumably, the P45 will be involved.  As it was on the previous occasion:

The Cambridge busway is 16 miles long in two bits with a service road one side and an embankment along most of the other. "Derailments" occur at the points where the bus enters or leaves the guided bits. Bristol's as yet unfinished busway is 2.4 miles long with 9 entry / exit points, and has the New Cut of the River Avon beside it on one side.

Time for a new risk assessment?

Yes.  I've just made it and decided it's more risky than I thought!

Ah, so perhaps that wall isn't just for flood defence then?

A new section of the busway has been under construction for what seems an age - and this evening I got a first chance to use the footpath alongside it - headed from the Milton Road towards the new Cambridge North Station, which will probably open just after I finish all my regular trips up here.  The new taxi rank is also open at Cambridge Station.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/unguidedbusway.jpg)

I'm no transport professional ... so forgive me if the following questions have obvious answers:

1. How are the buses guided along this guided busway?   I don't see any raised guides, just a dashed white line, and I'm wondering is the buses are guided by having a chap with a steering wheel sitting in them, reading the road layout with his eyes and adjusting the vehicle's direction accordingly?    How does this vary from a regular bus?

2. I'm working in one of the buildings just behind the fence, but I have to walk some 400 yards north west to get on the guided busway path on which I can then walk the 400 yards back south east to where this picture was taken; I think it's a couple of hundred yards further on to the station site.  Why isn't there a path / crossing  from the busway into this heavy employment area, allowing people working there to get across to the residential area opposite (which is connected) and the station?  It would make the path / busway / station so much more useful!

3. There's no queueing sign or queue system at the new taxi rank at Cambridge station.  A train arrives and people flood out, staring at the front of the taxis and walking back to find one that's available.   Then the front taxis move away and the other pull up, bypassing the people walking up to them and loading people who arrived later off the train.  Why isn't there a "queue here" sign or something, and / or a series of numbered loading points to help the customer know what to do?  Is the system set up more to look pretty without signage than to work?

I love learning lessons from elsewhere in the UK, but sometimes I'm so saddened to feel that I'm learning what to avoid and not what to ask for our council to copy!

It will operate like a normal bus.  General opinion round here is that the council finally realised the "guided" part of the busway was a total waste of money.

I'm very much looking forward to Cambridge North opening.  At present, the journey to Cambridge station (on public transport) adds about 45 minutes to my rail journey, so driving is often an easier choice.  Cambridge station gets incredibly busy at the weekends.  I would argue it is probably not fit for purpose, in it's current form.  A few weeks ago, I counted 30+ people queuing for the TVMs (and roaming staff with Avantix machines) and about 25 at the manned ticket office.  The queue for the ticket office moved so slowly, I missed my train.  I ended up driving the journey, which actually turned out to be much cheaper.

It seems Cambridge wanted more busways, but then changed their mind! but for what?
From New Civil Engineer (https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/second-cambs-guided-busway-plan-scrapped/10036795.article?blocktitle=news-feed&contentid=13612)

A little delving suggests that CAM might be similar to what Mayor Marvin is proposing for Bristol - a bus that follows a white line painted on the road. On the bright side, at least it won't require pointless sections of guideway.

Is it reserved white line or can anyone drive along it?

Just think - if you were fed up of being woken by the first bus of the morning going past your bedroom window, you wouldn't even need to ask the council or bus company sort it out. Just nip out in the dead of night with a tin of black paint and a tin of white, and you could reroute the service down the next street.

The answer may be (to bring this into a thread I did not know existed when I made this contribution a little while back-

Presumably like the Fareham - Gosport busway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_Hampshire_Bus_Rapid_Transit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_Hampshire_Bus_Rapid_Transit).

Buses and bicycles only along the old Gosport branch, nice and straight with few crossings. They have to barrier it off at night to keep the racers off.

The used a specific section in the Highways (?) regs so that there can be no services underneath it, so no digging it up. Can't remember which section, could be used elsewhere, although a lot of the Sustrans routes have fibre underneath them to offset the original cost.

It is a funny old game - as this is a busway, albeit an unguided one, it's OK for it to have a level crossing: https://goo.gl/maps/4BkLGz52hn82

A railway, with trains carrying the same number of passengers at the same speed, would presumably require a bridge here costing maybe of £100,000,000. I'm sure this makes sense to someone...

It's a back to front level crossing though; the barriers close off the busway, not the open-to-all road. And there are standard traffic lights at the junction. Presumably these are the anti-racers barriers that Cycling Sid mentioned.

One would assume so - so the barriers are not part of the 'level crossing' (which, as you say, is controlled by traffic signals) but rather they purport to secure the busway when it is closed.

From my experience, they get around what is known as the Street Works Code  (the legislation which permits utility undertakers to dig up roads and lay services in them) applying to "non-guided" busways by specifically not making them part of the public highway, but holding them as land assets or leaving them in the ownership of developers subject to rights. One of the consequences is wrangling between the parties as to whether they should be available for use by emergency services.

It might be clearer to look at the start of the busway, https://goo.gl/maps/EYD6XCFEQbJ2 (https://goo.gl/maps/EYD6XCFEQbJ2) although the road signs are confusing. I seem to remember the signs being the same as the previous StreetView image, not having realised they were changeable signs (to busy avoiding being squashed on the Brompton).
The point about them not being part of the public highway might explain why it is not well marked on internet mapping, Google or Bing, and it also took a long time to get on the OS mapping data.
A view of how it related to the old railway line, and the new NCN 224 can be seen at https://wtp2.appspot.com/wheresthepath.htm?lat=50.844928&lon=-1.186316&lz=15&rz=16&lt=Old%2025K&rt=satellite&lov=OSM%20Cycle&rov=None&lgrat=None&rgrat=None (https://wtp2.appspot.com/wheresthepath.htm?lat=50.844928&lon=-1.186316&lz=15&rz=16&lt=Old%2025K&rt=satellite&lov=OSM%20Cycle&rov=None&lgrat=None&rgrat=None).

Yes this is the case. If it is created as part of the public highway, utilities have the right to lay their cables or pipes underneath.

Its not quite that simple I am afraid.

The right to lay services in a 'street' (not a highway) comes from various Acts, but is regulated by Part 2 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

Section 48 of that Act defines what is meant by a 'street'.  Although a highway is a street but the definition is wider:


Whether this includes busway I do not know without further research. 

There was a specific section quoted on Hantsweb (Hants CC web site) for the original documentation for the busway (presumably since archived), which apparently prevented the laying of services under it. Have tried to find again without success, only that they are extending the busway another mile towards Gosport.

There must be a section in the Highways Act which enables highway authorities to prevent the laying of SU's equipment under the carriageway, although I can't recall it off hand.  After all, we don't see BT digging up the M4 (under statutory undertakers are available)

The M4, like all other motorways and one or two other cases, is a special road as defined by the Special Roads Act of 1949, now part of the Highways Act. Different rules apply.

The bus seats look nice and comfy !!

Yes they are 'Protected Streets' under Section 61 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991:


However the Secretary of State can prescribe criteria thatstreet authorities must use in deciding whether to designate a protected street (Section 62)

The guidance in the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street Works and Works for Road Purposes and Related Matters
(https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43578/street-works-code-of-practice.pdf#page=34) States that:


This also identifies that various features can be protected by other legislation including:




However, Section 91 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 defines a transport authority as:



So I am not clear that a busway is a 'transport undertaking'

Don't worry - I have sat in meetings with staff from Cambridgeshire County Council's highways department and their solicitors discussing a proposed bus link and they have not been certain about its status and how to deal with laying services, and they must be the keenest "bus laners" in the country!

I finally got to travel along th infamous mis-guided busway from Cambridge to St Ives in September 2017. I had previously worked contracts in the area during 2004-6 and so I had some background as to how contentious losing the existing mothballed railway was.

On the plus side, the service was cheap, very frequent and ran until midnight, (probably not something a rail operator would have offered if we are honest).

On the negative side, the bus seating was cramped and the bus itself so low down that you could see precious little of the surrounding countryside.

But what most puzzled me was the need for the hugely expensive guidance system, given that we travelled through flat and broad countryside. A new road with a central barrier would have suited just fine, as would an enforced speed limit of 60mph

Perhaps a hugely expensive guided system opens the door for an even more hugely inflated raft of outside funding.

From Cambridge News (https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/guided-busway-cyclist-killed-speed-15500007)

That is the second fatal accident on the busway since it opened in 2011. There have also been other serious incidents.

In Reply #200 on: November 07, 2018, 08:28:08 am I used the Where's the Path app. If you have used the App before or intend to please note this announcement:
I am not sure how many other apps/sites will be affected. Hopefully not things like the National Library of Scotland map archive.

Google are clearly trying to squeeze a bit more revenue out of their mapping service, but they can't charge you to look at anyone else's maps - so the NLS map archive should be safe!

Typically it affects websites that show a Google Maps view on their 'where to find us' page; they have had to register with Google who then monitor usage and start to charge once the map is accessed a certain number of times.

I think the part of the NLS georeferenced maps section is the transparency slide bar between the old map on displace and a real world image underneath.  There is a lot of cloud and other dark patches on the NLS satellite imagery so maybe it is from a non-Google source.

NLS gives you lots of choices for the background map - ESRI, Bing, MapTiler, OpenStreetMap, OS OpenData, Stamen, Open TopoMap... but not Google!

Just seen that option now. Every day's a school day - thanks!

Did a cycle ride down the Gosport - Fareham Busway yesterday to see what progress on the extension.

They have cleared the trees from the end of the existing busway. Intrigued to see that there was still a single rail track amongst the remains of the vegetation. Also a set of buffers at the end of the track, presumably all left from when it was finally used to supply the RNAD Bedenham. Also a sign has appeared at the Fareham end announcing to intention to extend that end, which is part of the Fareham development plan.

No sight of any plant or anything, so presumably awaiting the next phase in spring.

An update on the extension for the Fareham - Gosport busway. The first part of the extension (Fareham end) has been cleared and is now a clear view through. More of the old track is visible. Further on they have cleared a "busway width" on the exiting cycle route. Southern Gas Networks are also working there on a new large bore main, hope the two organisations are communicating.

From Transport Extra (https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/65992/council-submits-busway-claim)

Has anyone totted up the total cost of the busway?

You could probably have had a high speed rail link for the price.

The original cost was supposed to be £116.2 million, £92.5 million of which was to come from central government. As with Bristol's MetroBust, the government contribution was fixed, leaving Cambridgeshire with a mere £23.7 million to pay. The cost of reopening the railway had been put at £48 million. The final cost was at least £180 million, giving CCC a bill of almost £90 million. None of the businesses who had undertaken to contribute to the cost actually did so.

Cambridgeshire CC launched a legal action against BAM Nuttall for £60 million, budgeting £6,5 million for legal fees. BAM Nuttall counter-sued for £43 million. Part of the action concerned a cost of £21 million for replacing defective parts of the busway, which had been open for under 2 years, which they said was a result of construction defects and BAM Nuttall said was fair wear and tear. CCC scored a Pyrrhic victory on the steps of the court, cutting the £43 million counter claim to £800,000. Legal and professional charges put the total cost at over £150 million, £26 million of which came from the council budget. Other necessary transport projects had to be cancelled to pay the tab. Conservatively, the total cost  so far has been about £250 million to build a crumbling busway in place of a railway that would have cost half that, even with traditional runaway railway costs. Fair enough, the railway didn't run into the city centre or science park. The latter got its own railway station in 2017 on the Fen line, Cambridge North, which connects to the busway.

The auguries are not good for Cambridgeshire CC. Based on the first court case, I would expect BAM Nuttall to defend the case robustly. If the repair cost was estimated at "at least £36.5 million" three years ago, it is anybody's guess what they will be now with inflation and further deterioration. BAM Nuttall probably have better legal resources than CCC.

Worryingly for the people of Bristol and surrounding areas, the Cambridgeshire Busway was the often-cited exemplar for MetroBust. There are, apparently, issues with the busway there. At least it is short and pointless, rather than crucial, and having been unused for a lot of the time since it was built, it shouldn't have had the same wear and tear.

A further update on the Gosport - Fareham Busway, yesterday(18/7/20).

The starting section from the existing busway appears to have been dugout to full depth for the preparation of the pavement. In the middle section (to where the existing cycle path crosses it) all the former rails appear to have been removed and excavation to partial depth. The last section surveyed and marked out to the junction with the Rowner Road (which I still can't visualise).

Two contributions -

Firstly, I was told some years ago that the crucial factor behind this being promoted as a guided busway rather than reopening the St Ives to Cambridge branch as a railway was the cost of repairing the bridge over the Great Ouse at St Ives and upgrading it to current railway standards. My source was involved with the project for a government agency, and someone I would regard as reliable. Do those costs now stack up? Too late to do anything about it now!

Secondly, (admitting that this might be nonsense coming from a non-engineer), my limited knowledge of railway infrastructure and formations is that embankments are not entirely stable structures, but subject to subsidence and movement and therefore need constant vigilance and periodic work to adjust for this. If you are running rails on ballast I have always assumed that minor movement is dealt with by tamping and tinkering with the ballast. Presumably if instead you have laid concrete busway sections on the formation they will either start to come out of alignment or crack, unless the formation was entirely reconstructed to modern motorway standards (and we all know of dips in well used motorways where movement has clearly occurred). I don't know the extent of reconstruction of the earthworks, but entirely rebuilding them strikes me as a very expensive alternative to rebuilding one bridge. Was this a mis-calculation that you could just lay concrete busway sections on an old railway formation without proper consideration of its suitability to support them? Anyone know if this is entirely uninformed speculation on my part?

Apologies in advance if this  has all been aired earlier on this thread before I joined the forum.

I think the original Rowner Road plan was to drop that road to the old track level by removing the existing bridge.   Sort of opposite to what they did at Newgate Lane and Wych Lane, where they brought the busway down to road level.    But now the bus lane will just rise to a T junction at existing level.

I’d have thought it best to keep Rowner Road Bridge and eventually run the busway under it?

I heard ...
(1) able to get a lot more central / eurpoean grant for a busway than for a railway
(2) flexibility off ends to run into Cambridge centre and round lots of road-branches at the outer end to give direct services from lots of places away from the old rail line into the city
... but there were probably many more positives for the busway; I was only taking an interest quite late in the game, and then only from a potential knowledgable occasional users viewpoint and not as a campaigner.  The Cast Iron campaign had by that point just lost the decision.


Very good question about the ability of what is essentially slab track versus sleeper track to withstand limited movements of the underlying land and earthworks.   I don't have a very good answer, but highlighting the question again in case anyone else does.   May have been asked before, but I can't remember it and I have been here for 12 years!

Update on Cambridge guided busway saga with the Council suing BAM Nuttall

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/bam-nuttall-faces-legal-action-as-cambridgeshire-busway-row-resurfaces-20-07-2020/

I've had this month's freebie from NCE. Here is  the BBC's report (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-53406729) on the matter.


Part of this report seems to contradict the reports of what happened in the earlier case. Cambridgeshire agreed a settlement of £800,000 for the £36 million claim, with a legal bill to make the eyes water. It looks as though BAM are not going to be so nice this time. The busway is, according to them, still in good working order. The truth will be out there somewhere, and it will be interesting to see what it is.

Of course, they weren't always at eachothers throats.

Cast Iron were a key member of CANBER in the mid-2000s, so I spent quite a lot of time helping them to try and stop the busway, and get a rail solution built instead. As a result, I well remember some of the "interesting" publicity material that the promoters came out with.

Here is one such example from October 2007. With apologies in advance to Sade, I give you "Smooth Operator" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080509165333/http://www.edmund-nuttall.co.uk/news/october2007/smooth_operator.htm) :


Whilst hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, it is well worth reading the whole piece, given the way things have turned out.

A fifth of the price of a railway. Who'd be a prophet, eh?

An update on the Fareham - Gosport BuswY. was down there yesterday (Saturday 6th). The road seems largely complete up to the top of the Rowner Road bridge connection. I would say that the road has had its final surface, the bus stops are installed, probably just fencing, railings and landscaping to be completed.