 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
|
|
48
|
Sideshoots - associated subjects / The Lighter Side / Re: Interesting transport modes
|
on: December 17, 2017, 22:05:48
|
A rare Paternoster lift - which has no doors and moves continually without stopping at floor level - is to be removed by a university.
Installed in the Attenborough Tower of the University of Leicester in the late 1960s, the lift was one of the last in the UK▸ .
While acknowledging the device will be missed, officials said it had become too expensive to maintain. A replacement standard lift is due to be installed by September 2018.
A petition to save the lift, which has attracted more than 2,000 signatures, described it as a "fundamental part" of Attenborough Tower, and a "piece of engineering history".
The University confirmed the news "with a heavy heart". In a statement it said: "We have done our best to maintain and update the lift, but unfortunately it has reached the end of its working life. We've looked at a range of options and thought carefully about this, but it would be both impractical and uneconomic to attempt to fix it or replace it. Spare parts for Paternosters are no longer available and need to be manufactured each time they are needed."
Before it closed Professor Gordon Campbell, from the University, said: "There are loads of safety features, there is a cord to pull, a button to press and you can also bang on the sides. Although it looks deeply dangerous, it isn't - and of course it moves at a very sedate pace." That's sad. I remember using the Paternoster when going to Leicester for an interview. It's an efficient and elegant piece of engineering. (By coincidence, Gordon Campbell was on the interviewing panel.) |
|
|
|
|
49
|
Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Thornbury Branch line (currently to Tytherington) - proposal for reopening
|
on: November 05, 2017, 21:00:31
|
Thanks to all for the replies. With many thanks for your update, Kempis, I've now also moved and merged here some previous posts from another discussion, in the interests of completeness. Thanks, Chris, and apologies to Oliver for missing his earlier update. There are other examples of none-direct services. Compare mileage as the crow flies from Weston-super-mare to Newport, of if you feel that's a special case from Helmsdale to Wick or from Frome to Bath Spa. The latter being very much on the WECA» border ... Regarding the indirectness of the route to Bristol, I think this will be an issue for many people. Although well used in the peak hours, outside of these, the Frome to Bath service is only lightly used, and the bus alternative is as fast or not faster. So I suspect a Thornbury rail service will be more used by those aiming to get to Bristol Parkway, and thence for many to London, etc.
Point taken, grahame. As froome says, the question is how attractive the journey time would be. It would be interesting to compare the prospective journey time by rail (I've heard 48 minutes quoted) with that by road. Peak bus journeys are timetabled to take between 70 and 80 minutes. Does anyone know how long it takes to drive from Thornbury to Bristol at peak times? I know the A38 and M32 get congested. I know it's a practise that's faded out in GWR▸ territory - but how about portion working, splitting and joining trains at Yate? Such practise needs a reliability of crewing, and running to schedule to avoid some very awkward delays - so perhaps not a viable option this year? But I do note GWR moving towards more train splitting / joining en route with 10 car IET▸ formations shedding and gaining ECS▸ portions to Bedminster at Temple Meads. They do it a lot on the local stoppers anyway, as quite often in the peaks a Worcester to Weymouth service will pick up an extra unit between Bristol and Westbury. So it certainly wouldn't be something new!
Hadn't thought of that. Could be the answer! Would an extra platform at Yate be needed? Looking at Westerleigh Jct: I wonder how the cost:benefit case would stack up for making a connection between the remaining stub of the Midland line after in passes south under the GW▸ line, looping round to west and joining the down GW line to the east of Ram Hill? Southbound trains would still have to cross over at Yate to access the Midland line, but that as I understand it is not where the bottleneck lies.
Interesting idea. I see that, in addition to the old Midland main line, there's also what I presume is the alignment of an old mineral line looping round near Ram Hill. So your suggestion might be easier than creating a new flying junction at Westerleigh. Speaking of flying junctions, I believe there was originally one at Yate South too; it's hard not to feel regret at what has been lost. But I suspect there are other locations with a greater need for a flying junction -- Didcot West comes to mind. I understand there have in the past been discussions between the MetroWest team and Network Rail about junction improvements at Westerleigh, but I don't think much progress was made. For a lower startup cost an ultra light rail shuttle along the line, scheduled to arrive just before as many arrivals at Yate as possible might be worth considering. Not only would it avoid rail path issues (apart from platform dwell time) but it would also allow for a relatively inexpensive start to test the market yet still be able to expand. Think of Parry People Movers or similar, there's a lot of new stuff developing apparently, start with very simple platforms along the line of the prefab bolt together variety and you may have a workable affordable proposition.
I think a shuttle service would work well. Trains in and out of Yate are hourly in both directions and within 10-15 minutes of each other, so should be fairly simple to timetable. Yes -- I'd wondered about a Parry People Mover, or perhaps a 153. But I think the preference locally is for through trains to Temple Meads. Also, I think both Frome and the proposed Thornbury station, whether on the town ring road or the A38, share a common weakness of being rather uncentral to their towns. Yes, but if the powers that be want to add housing for 10K people, with all the recent housing that has been added over the past 10 years, then there is a very good case to place a levy on all new houses to re-establish the line and to run two trains per hour from Temple Meads. quite. If the station can't move closer to the town maybe the town can grow to meet the station. Yes -- the planned development at Buckover (which I understand is controversial locally) is to the east of Thornbury, north of Tytherington. And the suggested location for the station would be as close to the housing in the south and east of the town than the original station site would be. |
|
|
|
|
50
|
Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Thornbury Branch line (currently to Tytherington) - proposal for reopening
|
on: November 03, 2017, 00:10:55
|
FOSBR▸ has recently done some work on the possibility of reopening the Thornbury line to passengers. This project came out of a FOSBR survey in January 2016 which asked people in the West of England area what stations they would most like to be reopened. There was a strong response from Thornbury residents. The line has recently been cleared for renewed freight traffic from Tytherington quarry, as can be seen from the photographs in FOSBR's paper here: https://fosbr.org.uk/files/20171009_tytherington.compressed.pdf. In September 2017, the final report of the West of England Combined Authority's Joint Transport Study appeared to rule out the possibility of including Thornbury in its list of possible reopenings, despite plans for significant housing development there in the Joint Spatial Plan; WECA» 's priority is to extend MetroBus to Thornbury. At WECA's meeting on 30 October, however, officials confirmed, in response to a question from FOSBR, that, although Thornbury reopening is not on the agenda at the moment, it is not ruled out for the future. The track is in place as far as the A38, from which it is now visible. The suggestion is to extend it through the disused tunnel (now in private ownership) to a site by the roundabout on the edge of the town where Grovesend Road meets Midland Way. Alternatively, a park and ride could be considered near the quarry. Issues include the fact that the route to Bristol is not direct (as trains would travel south-east to Yate and then south-west to Bristol), and pathing at Westerleigh Junction, where north-south trains have to cross the Paddington line on the level. It is said there is room in the timetable for only one more hourly north-south service, which WECA proposes should go to Gloucester as part of MetroWest Phase 2. Today's Gloucester Gazette covered the story here: http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/15634388.Bid_to_revive_train_station_in_Thornbury_put_to_regional_planners/.
|
|
|
|
|
52
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Turbos on Severn Beach line from 03 Jul 17
|
on: July 28, 2017, 21:50:45
|
Most of my journeys on the Severn Beach line since the Turbos were introduced have been between 5 and 10 minutes late. One train from Temple Meads was 30 minutes late and terminated at Clifton Down. I'd hope that, when that happens, passengers for stations beyond Clifton Down would be directed to the buses, also run by First Group, which leave from outside Clifton Down station, with rail tickets accepted: the 3 goes to Avonmouth via Shirehampton, and the 4 to Shirehampton via Sea Mills. I didn't hear any announcements, though. But I've also had a few journeys, in each direction, which have been on time, so the 166s are evidently capable of keeping to the timetable. I'd wondered whether, having been built for express runs between Oxford and Paddington, their gearing was unsuited to the frequent station stops on the Severn Beach line. There's some coverage of the poor timekeeping in the Bristol Post here: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/more-85-new-severn-beach-227090. |
|
|
|
|
54
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Turbos on Severn Beach line from 03 Jul 17
|
on: July 04, 2017, 21:48:07
|
|
A better journey in this morning, with the 8.16 from Clifton Down arriving at Temple Meads 7 minutes late. The return 18.47 was again 20 minutes late arriving at Clifton Down, though. Does anyone know why the Turbos are, it appears, travelling more slowly than the 150s?
On my return journey, the ex-first-class compartment I travelled in still had antimacassars with 'First Class' embroidered on them, so I asked the guard to confirm that it was declassified. She did, adding that because of the signage I would probably have the compartment to myself. That prediction proved to be correct!
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
Journey by Journey / Bristol (WECA) Commuters / Re: Turbos on Severn Beach line from 03 Jul 17
|
on: July 03, 2017, 22:36:33
|
|
I was on the 8.16 from Clifton Down this morning. GWR▸ staff were in attendance on the platform handing out leaflets promoting the new trains and holding trays with what may have been pastries (they were mostly covered by the leaflets and I wasn't actually offered one). The journey seemed smoother than the usual 150, but we were 20 minutes late arriving at Temple Meads. Oddly, while the indicator at Platform 1 at Clifton Down showed the 8.16 to Avonmouth as cancelled, we waited to enter the single-line section at Redland as usual, and were passed by another turbo. Perhaps it was running non-stop to Avonmouth to make up time.
Returning on the 18.47, I bagged a seat in a declassified first-class compartment, thanks to bobm's tip. It seemed a little incongruous to be travelling along the Beach line in a leather seat, but the extra space and table made for a comfortable journey, especially as there was only one other passenger there. I wonder how long it will take before the regulars catch on and the compartments fill up quickly. The speed of the train seemed slightly slower than usual, and we were 7 minutes late arriving at Clifton Down.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it will be most welcome having three carriages on the hitherto two-carriage 18.03 from Temple Meads. I catch that train occasionally and I'm not sure I've ever succeeded in getting a seat.
|
|
|
|
|
58
|
Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Pilning - the station, services, viability and closure of down platform - ongoing discussion
|
on: November 03, 2016, 22:00:41
|
Of course if you lift it, you have to provide new steps, so you are probably classed as new construction which has to meet modern regs and accessibility requirements. Perhaps -- though at Stapleton Road, where the footbridge also had to be raised to allow clearance for electrification, a new footbridge without ramps was installed. However, there is currently level access to both platforms there; I'm not sure how access will be provided to what will become the island platform after the four tracking. Note also that the new safety rules relating to electrification also require parapets to be higher to keep people away from wires, so the bridge would probably require modification anyway. Yes -- such parapets have recently been installed on the bridge carrying the railway path (on the old Midland line) over the railway near Lawrence Hill. Now that the down platform is closed, how are GWR▸ complying with their Service Level Commitment? That requires one call in each direction on Saturdays.
Have the got the necessary derogation to ignore the SLC▸ , or has it been amended? As stuving has said, passengers have been advised to travel via Severn Tunnel Junction. There doesn't appear to be a formal easement in place, but I understand tickets to Pilning will be accepted without the need to pay an extra fare. For the outward journey, one can still depart Pilning at 08.32 and arrive at Temple Meads at 08.53 as before. For the return journey: - Previously, one could depart Temple Meads at 15.21 and arrive at Pilning at 15.40.
- Now, one must depart Temple Meads at 12.21, change at Severn Tunnel Junction (arrive at 12.48 and depart at 13.25) and arrive at Pilning at 13.34 (an extra Pilning stop in the Bristol-bound direction has been provided on this train).
So a return journey is still possible, but with a double-back at STJ▸ and a much shorter time in Bristol (or for journeys elsewhere). I don't know whether that is enough to ensure compliance with the SLC. |
|
|
|
|
...only half of the stair structures still standing when I passed today @ approx 1630. Couldnt take a photo as up the front & had lost the light on the way back.
