On 16/04/2024 16:46, Recliner wrote:
> Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> And it should be: the new bridge has tolls, so the old bridge also has
>> tolls, to prevent loss of revenue.
>>
>
> I read it as the new toll bridge replaced the former, free bridge.

It did, but to function as a replacement, the formerly free (for road
traffic) bridge needed to impose similar tolls (for motor vehicles).

On 16/04/2024 17:33, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> On 16/04/2024 16:46, Recliner wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>   And it should be: the new bridge has tolls, so the old bridge also has
>>> tolls, to prevent loss of revenue.
>>>
>>
>> I read it as the new toll bridge replaced the former, free bridge.
>
>  It did, but to function as a replacement, the formerly free (for road
> traffic) bridge needed to impose similar tolls (for motor vehicles).

The new bridge has tolls.

The old bridge now also has tolls, having reopened after a lengthy
closure for downgrading (removing lanes, replacing flyovers by flat
junctions, etc.)

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In uk.transport.london Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I have a copy of that book and it points out that on the grouping the
>> Southern railway didn't want to take on the Freshwater line as it was so
>> unprofitable. Eventually they had to be forced to take it on. The rail
>> tunnel link to the mainland had been approved in 1903. 1904 and 1909
>> butv was abandoned on the outbreak of WW1.
>
> It would be an interesting alternative universe where the Island lines had
> survived and provided the backbone of a modern public transport network (eg
> trams), as well as through trains from the mainland (like Sylt). I wonder
> whether the Island would be almost car-free, and the trains would replace
> buses having to negotiate the narrow roads.
>
> Theo
>
It seems counterintuitive but small Islands are maybe the worst places to
sustain rail transport.
Rail is relatively expensive to provide and will rarely be close enough to
much of the population to obviate the need for road transport. Now that
main freight in the form of coal has long been superseded by electricity
for domestic energy needs the other advantages of rail which is high speed
over longer distances or transporting 1000’s of people at once to work in a
large town or city are not required on a small Island. The Railways on the
Channel of Jersey and Guernsey went in the 1930’s
as the bus and lorry were developed. The Isle of Man lost some of its
routes with the remaining
segments surviving as much as a tourist attraction as a transport
essential in the 1960’s and the Isle of Wight as noted from the early
1950’s. The remaining line survived because at the time there was still
quite a lot of domestic visitor traffic to the Island requiring 7 car
trains , those got replaced by two car ones and now 3 car . Arguably it
should have closed when the traffic dwindled in the 1970’s -80’s but by
then closing Railways was no longer the thing to do and it reached the
point where lots of money has had to be spent on it but it looks like
that still isn’t enough.

GH

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>
>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>
>
>Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>Chesham day in and day out.
>
That was A stock. C stock didn't usually trundle past Neasden.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100, Graeme Wall
> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>
>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>
>>
>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>
> That was A stock. C stock didn't usually trundle past Neasden.
>

The 230 is D stock, that never worked on the Met. But I wonder if the D
stock's stop-start services were harder work than the limited stop, faster
Met services?

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:05:22 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
>>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>>
>> That was A stock. C stock didn't usually trundle past Neasden.
>>
>
>The 230 is D stock,
>
Argh! yes.

>that never worked on the Met.
>
or even the Northern side of the Circle IIRC (gauge issues?).

>But I wonder if the D
>stock's stop-start services were harder work than the limited stop, faster
>Met services?
>
They had rheostatic braking so unlike A stock you were straining the
gear train and motors on arrival as well as departure.

On 17.04.2024 02:05, Recliner wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did a
>>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so well
>>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>>
>> That was A stock. C stock didn't usually trundle past Neasden.
>>
>
> The 230 is D stock, that never worked on the Met. But I wonder if the D
> stock's stop-start services were harder work than the limited stop, faster
> Met services?

Part of the reason the D stock was chosen for conversion is that they
had suffered bogie crackign due to the heavy nature of the work and had
all been re-bogied relatively recently, hence that element of their
construction was much newer, with more life left in it, than the age of
the units as a whole would imply.

Robin

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:05:22 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail did
>a
>>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>well
>>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I assume
>
>>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>>
>> That was A stock. C stock didn't usually trundle past Neasden.
>>
>
>The 230 is D stock, that never worked on the Met. But I wonder if the D
>stock's stop-start services were harder work than the limited stop, faster
>Met services?

If the C stock had been used on the Amersham route the passengers would have
needed chiropracters after a few weeks.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 01:22:06 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:05:22 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:41 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/04/2024 10:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> I finally got around to riding the 484s on the isle of wight. Vivarail
>did a
>>>>> very nice job. Interesting contrast between the sound of the new traction
>>>>> inverters and the LU DC motors which they retained.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes me wonder , if a small company managed to refurbish these trains so
>well
>>>>> why didn't LU do it instead of buying entirely new S Stock trains? I
>assume
>>>>> there must have been good reasons not to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trundling up and down the Island Line or the Greenford loop is a lot
>>>> less taxing than operating the Metropolitan lines out to Amersham and
>>>> Chesham day in and day out.
>>>>
>>> That was A stock. C stock didn't usually trundle past Neasden.
>>>
>>
>>The 230 is D stock,
>>
>Argh! yes.
>
>>that never worked on the Met.
>>
>or even the Northern side of the Circle IIRC (gauge issues?).

At 9 foot 8 wide the A stock AFAIK was the UKs widest train so no surprise it
had problems fitting on some lines even on the tube. It did make for an
extrenely roomy interior with the 3 across seating being a genuine 3 across
not a 2.5 across like in most BR stock.

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/2024 16:58, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 15.04.2024 17:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:43:58 +0100
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2024 11:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On 15 Apr 2024 09:49:00 GMT
>>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How was your Ferry crossing?  Both routes have been suffering from
>>>>>> service
>>>>>> interruptions
>>>>>> recently due to lack of staff and mechanical failures.    There was a
>>>>>> family featured on the local radio
>>>>>> desperate to get off the Island to get to an airport for  a flight
>>>>>> but were
>>>>>> stranded due to cancellations.
>>>>>> Don’t know if they made it in the end.
>>>>>
>>>>> No problems either way with Wightlink.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it was/is Red Funnel problems:
>>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24191253.red-funnel-ceo-apologises-southampton
>>>> -isle-wight-ferry-delay/
>>>> https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24220244.isle-wight-ferry-red-funnel-issues-pr
>>>> ompt-independent-investigation/
>>>
>>> Frankly I'm surprised a bridge has never been built to the island.
>>> Though I
>>> guess the locals quite like being an island as that is half the appeal of
>>> living there so maybe there'd be too much opposition.
>>
>> Due to the shipping activity in Portsmouth and Southampton, if a bridge
>> were built it would likely need to be at the western end of the Solent,
>> meaning access roads would need to be driven through the New Forrest,
>> likely to cause strong opposition.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
> Knowing this Government, they would probably want any bridge to be a
> toll bridge. The island has a population of about 140,000. The likely
> annual number of crossings might be too low to raise enough revenue
> unless the toll tax was uncacceptably high.
>
> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.

I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had made.
“More petty crime,” she said.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>
>I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
> made. "More petty crime" she said.

A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:18:22 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like
>>> an invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>
> >I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
> > made. "More petty crime" she said.
>
> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.

Which was also the argument used by campaigners against Croydon Tramlink
back in the day - the only people who would benefit would be the criminals
who would come down from New Addington on the rob. Personally I feel like
an all-stops tram would be a relatively suboptimal getaway vehicle for a
heist, but I suppose that's why I'm not a professional criminal.

Mind, the same people also claimed that the trams would simultaneously be
so noisy that it would be impossible to sleep within half a mile of a tram
line, and so quiet that they would scatter bloodied pedestrians across the
streets like a grim game of skittles....

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:18:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>
> >I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
> > made. "More petty crime" she said.
>
>A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.

Posher seaside towns made the same claims when a railway was
threatened in the mid-19th century.

In message <uvo6cn$1h9hj$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:56:39 on Wed, 17 Apr
2024, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:18:22 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like
>>>> an invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>
>> >I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>> > made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>
>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>
>Which was also the argument used by campaigners against Croydon Tramlink
>back in the day - the only people who would benefit would be the criminals
>who would come down from New Addington on the rob. Personally I feel like
>an all-stops tram would be a relatively suboptimal getaway vehicle for a
>heist, but I suppose that's why I'm not a professional criminal.
>
>Mind, the same people also claimed that the trams would simultaneously be
>so noisy that it would be impossible to sleep within half a mile of a tram
>line, and so quiet that they would scatter bloodied pedestrians across the
>streets like a grim game of skittles....

The street I lived in most of the time I was in Nottingham originally
formed part of the NET2 project. But the NIMBYs saw it off.

With a substantial 1930's house, double glazed and a decent sized front
garden, I wouldn't have expected the trams to be a nuisance. And the
enhanced connectivity to the City Centre should have added at least £40k
to the value.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>
>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>
> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.

The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with the
ability to get off the island more quickly. As another posting pointed
out, a tram is not a very plausible getaway vehicle, and a ferry even less
so.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In uk.railway Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> It seems counterintuitive but small Islands are maybe the worst places to
> sustain rail transport.

Yes and no.

> Rail is relatively expensive to provide and will rarely be close enough to
> much of the population to obviate the need for road transport. Now that
> main freight in the form of coal has long been superseded by electricity
> for domestic energy needs the other advantages of rail which is high speed
> over longer distances or transporting 1000’s of people at once to work in a
> large town or city are not required on a small Island. The Railways on the
> Channel of Jersey and Guernsey went in the 1930’s
> as the bus and lorry were developed.

To be successful, island transport would need several factors:

1. a network where you aren't far from a stop, like a tram system, so you
can walk or cycle there
2. a restriction of car traffic: that might be congested roads and lack of
parking, or a lack of ferry services to get cars there in the first place
3. an unsuitability for a bus service: here it could be narrow country roads
versus a segregated railway network
4. connectivity that can be achieved by rail that can't by road - eg a rail
tunnel to the mainland where the road equivalent was a slow ferry
5. a population density high enough to support no.1 and to cause no.2

Effectively an island with enough population to make a public transport
network sustainable.

The IoW has had cars for a long time and as such it seems unlikely to change
back any time soon, but it would be possible to imagine an alternative
universe where cars never became established on the Island and the railways
remained the primary means of transport.

Theo

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:36:12 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>
>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>
>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>
>The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with the
>ability to get off the island more quickly. As another posting pointed
>out, a tram is not a very plausible getaway vehicle, and a ferry even less
>so.

Of all the ways to make a getaway from a robbery, public transport is probably
the worst option. Not only would it be obvious if you're carrying anything
bigger that pocket sized but you're on CCTV and you have to wait for the
train/tram/bus to show up and in the meantime you're a sitting duck for plod.

In message <uvoc7c$1j3u8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:12 on Wed, 17 Apr
2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>
>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>
>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>
>The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with the
>ability to get off the island more quickly.

What's your business model there? Tourists staying on the Island doing
day-trips to the mainland perhaps.

>As another posting pointed
>out, a tram is not a very plausible getaway vehicle, and a ferry even less
>so.
>
>Sam
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <uvocis$1j6gq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:42:20 on Wed, 17 Apr
2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:36:12 -0000 (UTC)
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>>
>>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>>
>>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>>
>>The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with the
>>ability to get off the island more quickly. As another posting pointed
>>out, a tram is not a very plausible getaway vehicle, and a ferry even less
>>so.
>
>Of all the ways to make a getaway from a robbery, public transport is probably
>the worst option. Not only would it be obvious if you're carrying anything
>bigger that pocket sized but you're on CCTV and you have to wait for the
>train/tram/bus to show up and in the meantime you're a sitting duck for plod.

Yes, but in a democracy, if the majority of the public think otherwise,
then they prevail.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>
>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>
> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>

I assume by Chavs you mean blacks? Not for nothing was MARTA nicknamed
Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:50:51 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <uvocis$1j6gq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:42:20 on Wed, 17 Apr
>2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:36:12 -0000 (UTC)
>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>>>
>>>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>>>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>>>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>>>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>>>
>>>The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with
>the
>>>ability to get off the island more quickly. As another posting pointed
>>>out, a tram is not a very plausible getaway vehicle, and a ferry even less
>>>so.
>>
>>Of all the ways to make a getaway from a robbery, public transport is probably
>
>>the worst option. Not only would it be obvious if you're carrying anything
>>bigger that pocket sized but you're on CCTV and you have to wait for the
>>train/tram/bus to show up and in the meantime you're a sitting duck for plod.
>
>Yes, but in a democracy, if the majority of the public think otherwise,
>then they prevail.

Huh? Watcha talkin bout Willis?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uvoc7c$1j3u8$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:12 on Wed, 17 Apr
> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>>
>>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>>
>>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>>
>> The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with the
>> ability to get off the island more quickly.
>
> What's your business model there? Tourists staying on the Island doing
> day-trips to the mainland perhaps.

Business model? I’m not sure I’m following the thread of this
conversation.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:50:51 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uvocis$1j6gq$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:42:20 on Wed, 17 Apr
>> 2024, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:36:12 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>>>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>>>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>>>>
>>>>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>>>>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>>>>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>>>>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>>>>
>>>> The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with
>> the
>>>> ability to get off the island more quickly. As another posting pointed
>>>> out, a tram is not a very plausible getaway vehicle, and a ferry even less
>>>> so.
>>>
>>> Of all the ways to make a getaway from a robbery, public transport is probably
>>
>>> the worst option. Not only would it be obvious if you're carrying anything
>>> bigger that pocket sized but you're on CCTV and you have to wait for the
>>> train/tram/bus to show up and in the meantime you're a sitting duck for plod.
>>
>> Yes, but in a democracy, if the majority of the public think otherwise,
>> then they prevail.
>
> Huh? Watcha talkin bout Willis?

Didn’t you hear about the new law that makes it a legal requirement for
criminals to use public transport to make their escape?

Same

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <UXOTN.457597$7uxe.299747@fx09.ams1>, at 12:07:16 on Wed, 17
Apr 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uvo2j0$1glcn$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:51:44 on Wed, 17 Apr
>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>
>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>
>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>
>I assume by Chavs you mean blacks?

No, it stands for "Council House and Violent", and central Atlanta was
riddled with council housing (which they call "The [housing] Projects").

>Not for nothing was MARTA nicknamed Moving Africans Rapidly Through
>Atlanta.

Even the persons of colour are overwhelmingly Nth-generation Americans
(that's what the Civil War was about).

But seeing as you've brought it up, I did an online search, and
apparently that term's associated with being a "Racist suburbanite".

On the bright side, they've now extended MARTA to the airport, having
previously passive-aggressively terminated it slightly short.

Although that's just the MARTA metro, and the majority of MARTA is bus
services.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uvolfn$1l4pi$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:14:15 on Wed, 17 Apr
2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Also, I suspect there would be some NIMBY types would would not like an
>>>>>> invasion by hordes of tourist cars or pollution-causing lorries.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember asking a B&B owner in Skye what difference the bridge had
>>>>> made. "More petty crime" she said.
>>>>
>>>> A common complaint. When I lived in the outer suburbs of Atlanta the
>>>> main (and successful) pressure group against the extension of their
>>>> metro system, was based on the fear of Chavs from the inner city using
>>>> it as a means to facilitate a smash-and-grab on their homes.
>>>
>>> The issue wasn’t primarily to do with undesirables arriving, but with the
>>> ability to get off the island more quickly.
>>
>> What's your business model there? Tourists staying on the Island doing
>> day-trips to the mainland perhaps.
>
>Business model? I’m not sure I’m following the thread of this
>conversation.

In words of one syllable: what is the risk to Island residents of
tourists being able to leave [more quickly]?

And why is that risk greater than the benefit of tourists being able to
arrive.
--
Roland Perry