Wednesday, 10 August 2011

The Smooth Operation

Turmoil on the streets and stock exchange there may be but Omnibuses’ Northern Correspondent reports on one part of the UK where matters are definitely smooth & calm. Who said August was a slow news month?

Upon leaving St Ives bus station, the Cambridgeshire busway starts very modestly indeed. Nearby, at the end of Station Road, is a short section of guideway less than the length of a bus that acts as a sophisticated local bus priority measure. This includes the first of a series of self-enforcing car traps. These are impressive gravel-filled pits that only larger vehicles can span. After buses trigger the lights to cross Harrison Way, they leave the guideway to arrive at a wide avenue or apron set out as an over-wide normal road. This is the St Ives park & ride site.

Indeed, this section is also served by “ordinary” buses, though entry for Stagecoach’s service 20, below, cannot be via the guideway itself but an access road at the back of the park & ride site. Service 20 operates at half-hourly intervals and links Fenstanton with the busway. The type of vehicle used on Monday was in complete contrast to those on the busway.

The St Ives park & ride is one of two new sites to the west of Cambridge. These are designed to offer a real alternative to motorists accessing Cambridge and to lessen congestion on the A14. No one is pretending that the busway will prevent traffic from Catthorpe (M1) to Felixstowe (and neither would rail) but the park & ride sites may persuade local and regional traffic to try the alternative.

The bus stop infrastructure’s in place at the site but, as yet, only half the car park is ready. A Cambridgeshire employee stated that on the first day, Sunday, drivers resorted to parking on the access road, so busy was the area.

There was some confusion among passengers about tickets. At Busway stops, passengers must buy in advance via a machine. This caused some delays in working through the menu options. They’ll figure it out in time, though.

They may not, however, understand why they’re asked to select either a Stagecoach or a Go Whippet ticket. Whippet’s, at 40p cheaper, is tempting but the unwary may not realise there are six Stagecoach services per hour to Whippet’s one, especially as the livery’s the same. The two aren’t inter-available, though Cambridgeshire does offer regular passengers a multi-operator smartcard solution. It was reported that in addition Whippet was offering a £1 ticket.

The other issue about the ticket was its price. It’s basically a Stagecoach dayrider plus price at £5.40. There were some mutterings about the cost. A couple need to pay £10.80. Will they see the value & benefit of this or press on towards Cambridge by car? A single adult plus up to two children is a more reasonable £6 but only after 0930.


After the park & ride, the busway starts in earnest. As before, buses enter the system via a short metal guiderail on each side of the busway. Drivers align with the offside and this automatically brings the nearside into line. There’s a slight judder here and at each junction as the bus squares onto the guideway proper, a bit like a train passing over points as the spring-loaded guide wheels locate. And off they go.

Once in place, the driver is free to accelerate, hands free, up to the maximum 55 mph to which each vehicle is limited. And the faster the bus goes, the smoother the ride. At slower speeds, you get the slight sensation of passing over each individual concrete guideway section but as speed increases, this disappears and so smooth is the ride that it’s quite possible to stand with ease, without the need for conductors' legs & without holding on to anything. To understand just how smooth this ride is, stay on board and experience the normal roads in Cambridge itself; then compare.

There was an engineer on hand to ensure that the lights changed at appropriate intervals, to give the bus priority. Buses need to slow to 40 mph at intersections and must re-locate via the metal guides.

Travelling on board, you have little concept of speed. It seems like 35 to 40. But stand alongside the busway on the adjacent (not fully finished) cycleway and you certainly get a good feel for the busway’s pace. Buses whip along. There’s no doubting that it’s fast. Interestingly, the national speed limit for buses on ordinary roads is 50 mph. The busway, I suppose, is a kind of dual carriageway and this maximum increases to 60.

The busway curves gently though virgin Cambridgeshire countryside, past the yet to be fully completed Langstanton park & ride, via meadows, lakes and even a windmill.

After Histon & Impington, it’s worth noting two very interesting things. The first is that had this been a railway, it would’ve carried on to avoid Cambridge city centre, terminating at the distant and inaccessible railway station. The busway decision was right if for no other reason than this flexibility.

The second is that the busway bifurcates at this point, with busway As serving the new science park. The Bs, however, go through the equally new 10,000-population settlement of Orchard Park, a planner’s dream, located right by a major public transport corridor. Here, the nature of the busway changes. It’s simply a floor without the vertical guide flanges (above). Why, I don’t know. Perhaps cost has something to do with it. Or, perhaps other non-guided services use this stretch.

18 comments:

David said...

The service isn't anywhere near frequent enough to tempt people out of their cars. Weekday evenings the services are only every hour and on Sunday the situation is even worse; the last Busway service is at 4.30pm. The lack of inter-operator tickets is a major flaw too, especially as Go Whippet have a low frequency (although they do operate the 'normal' 1A from Huntingdon too).

It's a white elephant and an expensive one at that.

A railway would have been part of a national network and that counts for a lot, far more than is given credit.

greenline727 said...

But the train would drop passengers at the Station, which is another bus ride into Cambridge. Passengers for Addenbrookes would also need to change.
Would the train have been more frequent than every 60 minutes in the evenings? Of course not!
I agree with the poor Sunday service, and the lack of ticket interavailability - these need to be sorted out quickly.
On balance - much better than the situation before 7 August. Give it 6 months and then see how things have changed. Why must we always look at the negatives?

RC169 said...

"The first is that had this been a railway, it would’ve carried on to avoid Cambridge city centre, terminating at the distant and inaccessible railway station."

This is not necessarily true - only if any new railway had stuck rigidly to the course of the original line. The busway obviously doesn't - and a new railway wouldn't need to, either. A new course for that stretch of railway could also have been built.

The relatively low frequency of the service suggests that the demand does not exist to support a railway - but as the busway infrastructure also required significant investment, it seems doubtful to me that it can be justified on the usual cost-benefit analysis. If, however, the traffic predictions are wrong and the demand is actually greater, and approaches or even reaches the level that would have supported a rail line of some form, then the operators will be saddled with the costs of having to transport the passengers in groups of not more than about 75 with one driver, whereas a rail service could have transported groups of 200 or more with one driver.

Anonymous said...

"This is not necessarily true - only if any new railway had stuck rigidly to the course of the original line. The busway obviously doesn't - and a new railway wouldn't need to, either. A new course for that stretch of railway could also have been built."

Maybe, but Cambridge is a historic city with many high quality buildings and I suspect it might have been very difficult to have found a rail alignment which was both environmentally acceptable to residents and also overcame the shortcomings discussed in these posts.

David said...

@ greenline727:

It depends on the target demographic of the Busway users. If it is targeted at commuters from Huntingdon and St Ives then the bus is probably the better option, given the city centre and Addenbrooke's services. But is a modest reduction in commuters from St Ives and Huntingdon going to make a massive difference to traffic in Cambridge and on the A14?

Tourists aren't going to drive for hundreds of miles, only to leave their car in St Ives. They're either going to get the train all the way from London (and then the bus into the city centre) or they're going to drive all the way into the city. Commuters from slightly further afield will be the same.

A railway with connections at Cambridge and at Huntingdon would be a useful bridge between Cambridge and the East Coast main line, far more useful than the slow line through March and Ely. A railway could be integrated back into a national network when/if the long-mooted re-opening of the Oxford-Cambridge line ever happens.

I just can't help but feel that the Busway is a short-sighted mistake. And, unfortunately, a very expensive one at that, thanks to BAM Nuttall.

Anonymous said...

Expensive as it is its now a reality.It may not be perfect but if the county council build the proposed dormitory estates it will fulfil a function.As for guided wheels attached to the buses the experience of the Fastway in Crawley shows that the wheels soon get knocked off.

Anonymous said...

It looks to be a very poor solution and a very expensive one particully as it has a mechanical guidance system and if one breaks down what dothey do. Get one behind it to push it out the way,

THe mechanical guidence system is bound to be problamatic as well

Anonymous said...

The timetable issues can easily be rectified if the demand is there; a rail service would probably have run every 30 minutes.

For local passengers the greater speed of rail would be more than cancelled out by the lack of stops in the central area; or is RC169 suggesting you build a new railway through the town centre?!

Anonymous said...

I've seen Cast Iron's pie in the sky rail reopening costs and they are wayyyy too low. The bus is slow but does reach the town centre, if by some miracle (which would never happen) you added a diversion through town by rail that would be cost prohibitive.The frequency in all realism would be hourly all day,at best half hourly otherwise you'd need costly passing points. The argument about it being connected to the ECML is completely flawed as the choice would be Cambridge-Peterborough-North with one change or Cambridge-Huntingdon (change which may not connect) - Peterborough (another change) -North. The journey time would be longer and no-one likes changing twice. I agree intermediate stations may benefit but stations increase journey time. As for it being a useful diversion route for the ECML that is potentially true but i) no drivers would sign it, ii) it would require a reverse at Cambridge making it very slow, iii) if there was a 30 minute service with no passing points(as they cost money) no extra trains could use it as there wouldn't be the capacity.

Anonymous said...

For those that believe Cast Iron's rail costs just ask the little steam railway in Tunbridge Wells how much Network Rail wanted to put one set of points in to connect the steam railway to the national network at Eridge and also the costs they wanted thereafter. Also they say the bus is slow but a localline such as the one proposed would probably have a 55mph limit at best anyway and where wouldthe rolling stock come from for this pointless service as trains cost a lot more than buses to buy,run and maintain. The busway may well be overkill and not be warranted but a 3/4 coach train and electrification is frankly a joke.

RC169 said...

Anonymous said...

"For local passengers the greater speed of rail would be more than cancelled out by the lack of stops in the central area; or is RC169 suggesting you build a new railway through the town centre?!"

Any rail-based solution would almost certainly be light rail - i.e. similar to trams. The best model, which would probably be suitable for Cambridge (if the level of demand justified it) is the Karlsruhe S-Bahn concept. Karlsruhe has a similar problem to Cambridge in that the main railway station is located some distance from the city centre, but it does have the advantage of an existing tramway system, which serves the city centre and the railway station. Thus, with the addition of a couple of short connecting spurs of track, the local rail services can be operated with light rail vehicles which transfer from the rail network to the city tramway network via the connecting tracks, and therefore penetrate the city centre far more effectively. So the answer to your question is "yes", even if it might seem daft at first.

As far as environmental objections to a light rail line are concerned, I would anticipate less such concerns than to the busway. If there is concern about the impact of the overhead wires, then it is perhaps worth noting that a new Munich tram has recent been test run for 16 km without overhead wire (or third rail). If trams and light rail systems can serve the historic centres of cities such as Freiburg or Heidelberg (incidentally, Cambridge's twin city), then I am sure that a solution could also be found for Cambridge - subject, of course, to the level of traffic justifying it.

Anonymous said...

Is it just me who sees this as a White Elephant that will gradually die a death in future years?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1907, it's just you.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 1907...I'm expecting the whole thing to be closed fairly soon when settlement cracks appear. Concrete does not flex, and any damp spots will cause it to fail.

Anonymous said...

Far to many potential problems with it.

The mechanical guidance system is a weak point as is the concrete track.

Ticket machines are another weak point

Roadworks will be another if any of the Utility companies want to dig up the road there will be major problems as will bus breakdowns

I am not really sure why they did not use a computer controlled laser guidence system

RC169 said...

Anonymous said...

"I am not really sure why they did not use a computer controlled laser guidence system"

Possibly because that would have even more potential to go wrong!

Anonymous said...

RC169 that is rubbish. Planes use such systems its none as autopilot.If these systems went wrong they would not be using them.

The laser guidence technology is well proven and the computer software is straight forward

RC169 said...

Anonymous said...

"The laser guidence technology is well proven and the computer software is straight forward"

Perhaps you have an example where this laser guidance system has been used for road vehicles in a similar situation to the busway?

Whatever one thinks of the guided bus concept in general, I do not think that there are any major issues with the guidance system. The guide wheels seem to be a reasonably simple system, and I have not read any reports of serious problems with them on the guided buses that have been running for a number of years now - e.g. Essen and Adelaide.

There certainly are systems using cameras to follow road markings which are being developed, but these are still in the experimental stage.