Wikipedia

Talk:Cambridgeshire Guided Busway/Archive 1

< Talk:Cambridgeshire Guided Busway
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Misguided bus nickname

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Just go to the Cambridge Evening News Website,search for Misguided bus and see how many hits you get. Rich257 is right this is how the scheme is known locally. The issue of it being approved and under contruction is not relevant to this point —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTBalding (talk • contribs) 09:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is known locally as the misguided bus. What sources will you accept to prove this? There are unlikely to be any official sources, and blogs are not usually considered reliable sources, though there are several that use this nickname. Rich257 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does't publish perjorative nicknames without reliable sources, per neutral point of view, and certainly not from political pamphlets, which would violate WP:SOAPBOX. Fell free to add any critical commentary you can find in reliable sources, that is more than acceptable, however, as the scheme is approved and actually under construction, I realy can't see the point myself. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
With respect, the argument that "its approved and under construction" is quite irrelevant to the point that the scheme is very unpopular in the area, a point which merits reference in this article and for which there are plenty of "reliable" sources. It's not POV as the article is simply reporting the "facts" as they exist and have appeared in the media. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about this for a reliable source: Councillor Tim Ward, chair of Cambridge City Council's Environment Committee was quoted in the Cambridge Evening News calling the project the "misguided bus" [1]. Rich257 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If it makes you happy. I still can't see the point, even less so after you've forced me to read the DoT report support case in detail. MickMacNee (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that the scheme is "very unpopular in the area". There certainly is some vocal opposition, but that's far from the same. Without proper survey results, we shouldn't slip from one into the other.
However, the "misguided bus" nickname does seem to have caught on to some extent, and my feeling is that we should report it briefly (e.g., something as short as "Some opponents have nicknamed the scheme the misguided bus"). There aren't going to be any reliable sources in the strictest sense, but maybe we can cite a few examples from prominent local politicians, or a Google search, or something.
Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find from almost anywhere where the project is discussed on the internet, e.g. [2] that the vast majority of local residents are against the project. Reflecting this fact, the media refer to it as "controversial" and "contentious"[3]. Yes, there's no official survey, but would you really expect there to be one? This article omits to mention much of the criticism which has been levelled against the busway. In particular, the Inspector's Report has been cherry-picked for positive comments, and no mention is made of how the Council actually arrived at the busway decision or the environmental impact. Also, I seem to recall that there's an interview somewhere with the inventor of the busway concept saying that it was never intended for long distances, advising against the project. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the article cherry picks positive comments from the inspector's report? That wasn't my intention. I think the article states facts from the report and it's up to the reader to draw his conclusion, for example spending £116m+ for a 2.5% fall in traffic (predicted) — is that value for money? Yes the inventor of the concept says it's not suitable, while an "expert" on the Essen scheme says it is — how do you balance these views? As per MickMacNee's comments, to what extent is it worth rehashing the inquiry? I felt detailing the level of objections to the inquiry gave a sense of the opposition and the references are there to follow for more information. I did add a statement, from CAST.IRON's appearance at the inquiry, that it was argued that most of the benefits could be achieved without the guideway but that was removed as a POV — well of course it was, but so is CCC's predictions and estimates!
Anyway we seem to have a reliable source for the "misguided" nickname so I think that should go in. Rich257 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on the public enquiry should be beefed up, not rehashing what has been said, but just a neutral summary of the key aspects considered. There should also be a separate section on criticism/controversy. I'm going to have a bash in the next couple of days. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good luck with that. It might be an idea to post your content on the talk page first so that a concensus can be reached before it is added to the article page. I have a paper copy of CCC's Statement of Case if you need any facts checking or details referencing. Rich257 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Route diagram

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I'm not sure how to show the non-guided sections on the route diagram, and there are limits with the template too. It seems odd to show the section north of St Ives since it's just a bus route with bus stops, not a guideway. Furthermore with no services announced it's aspirational that the services will run as CCC think they should. An alternative might be to stop the route diagram at St Ives and at either side of Cambridge city centre. Any comments? Rich257 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that we should cover the busway as physical infrastructure. So, the diagram should show the actual guided busway, rather than try to depict all of the bus routes which might use it. Therefore, I'd use a dotted line wherever the busway is interrupted in the middle, and end the diagram at the end of the busway. David Arthur (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use a LUECKE, as you would with a railway that leaves the area under discussion to move into the Rest of the World, and give it a line to say where the bus goes that can be easily updated should it change? Britmax (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is using that symbol (for under construction metro systems). Rich257 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for route diagrams across Wikipedia, but surely this article doesn't require one. No other busway article on here has a RDT; and it's not like it's a tramway, with individual articles for each stop. Would anyone wish to argue with me if I removed it from this article? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's handy for showing street running/guided differences, but currently it doesn't realy show that too well. If you were to create a non copyvio of the scheme map, then I wouldn't argue. When you look at the official map you will see this is quite a hard scheme to describe in words, hence presumably someone's idea to create a route diag. In short, I'm not too fussed either way, as long as you consider the idea here is to impart information. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Lots of regular tourist visitors to Cambridge will take a day out to check out the world's longest and most technologically advanced busway in the world, and they will probably choose to do so to visit one of the Monday, Friday or Saturday markets in St Ives (or perhaps the big Easter Monday and August Bank Holiday Market in the same place). The visitors need to know that they can stay on the bus and continue to Huntingdon. The route map looks good to me. TomRawlinson (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. MickMacNee (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for some enthusiasm?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The CGB has every chance of being a world-beater - so excited is the audience (or our paymasters, anyway) that the construction team are already lined up to do the next one, Luton to Dunstable. That decision was taken before a single guided wheel had yet turned. And there are several good reasons for this enthusiasm and this degree of hurry - Mr Dunlop's invention with the piece of hose and the bicycle pump has all the potential to make metal wheels on a metal track look like yesterdays technology. These 15m L-shaped concrete beams, cast to an accuracy higher than previously attempted and, perhaps, delivering unparalleled smoothness of travel, could yet be made and used in their billions around the world. Would it be too much to ask that a little bit of this information and even enthusiasm is allowed out into the article? Bob Menzies is not such a bad guy, he does know what he's talking about and we needn't worry that he'd lie to us. TomRawlinson (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are different views on whether this is the right technology in the right place or not. I think it best that this is not discussed in the article and only verifiable information is used with references. The reference about using less space doesn't make it clear if the maintenance track is included in the width calculations or only the guideway. Guide ways have been around for 30 years. So far the world has ≈100,000s km of railway and ≈<300 km guideway, there must be some reason for this. Rich257 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

nearly ready (I will believe it when I see it)

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The Stagecoach Cambridge buses have on them "I am ready for the guided busway. Are you?" I am not quoting that verbatim but can take some pics of the buses if it is useful. In a typical cock-up, the route is shared by whippet coaches of St Ives (which has not an article as far as I can tell) and Stagecoach, and there neither company will accept the tickets of the other. Cambridge News has this as reliable source. I can find the articles if you wish, but is it at all useful before I bother?

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In case this is at all useful, my missus can take the X5 cambridge from St Neots to Cambridge and be at my house on the outskirts in about 40 minutes. So what good is it to shave another 5 minutes off that time, when it costs her a fiver for a whole-day pass to get from her door to mine in forty minutes. And I know because we try to beat each other's times. 40 mins is a bit of a fluke but it is always less than an hour. And leather seats and mains sockets and wireless internet (which does not work) and all that on the bus, so that is ruled out for comparison. I am only saying my practical experience not what would make the entry better. Your advice greatly appreciated. SimonTrew (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is for discussion of the article, not discussion of the subject. Go on CEN forums for that. Dancarney (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm replacing this after its removal under WP:FORUM. Of course the two overlap, and this is usual in most talk, since the article necessarily is about a subject. While it is not the place of talk simply to ramble on about e.g. dates, I WAS ASKING WHETHER IT WAS WORTH THE BOTHER SOURCING, e.g., the opening dates (apparently yes), and whether it is worth saying what the standards of the buses will be (no replies to that yet). That would seem to be relevant to the article: adding information to the article necessarily means discussing the article's subject, otherwise we'll all just be sitting in talk discussing commas and so on.
Even if other editors disagree (which is why I took it here for consensus in the first place), it does not bode well simply to delete article talk that, in my opinion, IS or COULD BE relevant to the article. I'm not just grumbling about delays etc but asking whether they are within its scope; in my opinion they are, and rather than a user deleting the question could simply have replied constructively in the negative with reasons why not. Si Trew (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble following what the question(s) are; but I'll try.
Yes, the guideway is shared by Whippet and Stagecoach. The article covers this, and it is cited. Yes, the tickets will not be interchangeable. This is covered and cited. Yes, finding reliable sources is useful and Wikipedia editors are encouraged to to find such reliable sources. Yes, the timetables published by Stagecoach and Whippet show that busway times will be slower than via the A14. This is covered and cited in the article.
Is there anything in particular that could benefit from improvement. —Sladen (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's "I'll be on the busway soon, will you?". I know; I know -- it should be a semi-colon, not a comma. It always amuses me, though; they've been saying that for months. Stagecoach should be thankful that it wasn't a quantifiable word they used. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

'Spelling' errors

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is this even worth including? Yes, it's been covered in the media, but what is the value in noting that one letter painted on a road is incorrect? Dancarney (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NNC. Specifically regarding the sign "GUIDED BUS OИLY", even if WP:NOTE were the case for content, then the body of reliable work—national (and international) press—appear to believe it worthwhile enough to cover; there are multiple citations available and these are not the result of self-promotion by the promoters: Cambridgeshire Country Council, Stagecoach, Wippet, nor the Government. —Sladen (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Not worth including, it's just one small item in the snagging list. Must have been a quiet news day. Rich257 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not self-promotion, rather I feel that it's a coordinated effort by people opposed to the project to get the (non-)story in the press. Dancarney (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It did work rather well, I guess a picture always helps. Unfortunately there was little discussion on the more substantive points like timings, suitability, cost, delays and cost overruns. Rich257 (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The foundation of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability; none of us know the internals of this transport project, so we are stuck with going by what's published. Google News is a good place to start hunting out new tidbits—like others, I try and have a look every few days and work out if there's any new articles, or information that could be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. If you can find good sources (not blogs) I'd encourage adding what information you can—whilst the news articles themselves may have a negative or positive bias, the facts within them are purely facts. —Sladen (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Article quality

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

I'm starting to get concerned about the direction that the quality of this article is taking. The status quo was[4] roughly of Good Article (GA) quality and generally in compliance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Recent[5] WP:GOODFAITH edits appear to have:[6]

  1. Reduced structure, by increasing the number of top-level headings from six to eight
  2. Removed "public transport" from WP:LEAD (the article goes on to explain that the scheme includes not only a guided busway, but cycle track diversions, traffic signalling priority schemes, a re-casting of local bus routes, bus only-roads, park and ride facilities and local-distance bridleways...)'
  3. Placed lengths and distances into the first sentence (MOS:INTRO: avoid ... over-specific descriptions)
  4. Expanded heading length by inclusion of "Project" (MOS:HEAD: Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject ... headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated)
  5. Remove chronological dates from first paragraph "2000s" and "since 1993") (MOS:BEGIN: should give the location and time context)
  6. Added non-valuable links to foreign cities and foreign countries (WP:OVERLINK avoid linking ... the names of major geographic features and locations)
  7. An #Operation section containing over fifty-percent single-sentence paragraphs (WP:Layout#Paragraphs The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized)
  8. Tweaked sub-heading names (WP:HEAD Change a heading only after careful consideration; WP:HEAD#Article titles Titles are generally nouns or noun phrases)

Previously the lead section had three paragraphs,[7] which (hopefully) were in tune with Wikipedia:Writing better articles and particularly WP:PCR—they were roughly:

  • [keep it simple]; what, where, when.
  • [introduction]; extent (length/size), comparision, notability, scope, who, and who, expected final result.
  • [detail now]; when, how, when, how, status quo, price (to one significant figure).

Now, does anyone have any suggestions about how we might be able to try and solve some of the above? —Sladen (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. Possibly we should discuss any further section changes on the talk page - personally I think the structure is now clearer, but I am happy to discuss this. See my points below about reasons for changes.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. Good pint. lets craft a reference to public transport back into the lead.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Isn't the length one of its claims for notability? I will make an adjustment to see what people think to take it out of the first sentence.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. See below, personally I understand the article to be able to busway, not the project to build it, and as such 'Project cost' is appropriate and useful to distinguish it from the cost of travel.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  5. presonally I didn't think that the length of time since the railway had closed was worthly of inclusion in the first para or the general '2000s' date. Feel free to add it if you feel that is adds something.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  6. Lets remove them - not sure which ones you mean so I will leave that to you. PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. lets work to improve the Operation section, possibly a ticketing subheading is not needed, but lets keep the testing information out of the operation section.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. Apologies, let's discuss heading changes here.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally I felt that the lead lacked structure and had picked up various elements along the way that distracted from a simple introduction to the subject. I removed content that I felt was no longer appropriate and reordered. Do please develop the Lead as you see appropriate and add content you feel should be in the article back again.PeterEastern (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I see the busway project moving from a construction project into an operational one and as such I suggest that the article should also adapted from one focused on the construction to one about an operational service. I have been making some adjustments to that effect (note that I have not removed any content, I have purely re-organised some of the content). For the avoidance of doubt, can I confirm that the scope of the article is the busway, not just the construction of the busway? Here are some of the main changes I have made:- I have worked on the lead in a way I believe has been beneficial. Fell free to adjust it further, but I think it now has a better structure than before. I have also made the operational aspects more prominent (for example adding a section heading about ticketing). I renamed the 'Operator' section to 'Operation' which more logically covers ticketing as well as operators. I have created a section for 'Intrastructure' which is the term often used to describe the trackway in railway article, rather than having the content as a subsection of 'Route' which is unusual. Equally I moved 'cost' out of the 'Route' section because it wasn't really related to the route and could be confusing for people who were interested in ticketing and cost of travel - It is now 'Project cost' and has been demoted to the last section of the article. I moved the paragraph about testing the busway from the 'Operators' (now 'Operation') section to the 'Construction' section because it was part of of the process of building it and isn't so interesting for someone interested in the Operation of the service. I also promoted the excellent route diagram above the map that I greated some time ago because I thought it was a great introduction to the benefits of the busway and deserved more prominence (and railway articles normally start with the route diagram at the top right. I hope these are generally all in line with developing the article in a useful way. With reference to the particular guidance highlighted above, do lets address those issues. I will respond the individual points raised above inline. PeterEastern (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and subsequent edits. I've attempted to have another clean-up of technical issues introduced, in order to bring section headings, numerical formatting and such back into line with the appropriate WP:MOS (it would be useful if all editors working on this and others articles could familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's policies). Thank you for re-inserting the "public transport" project phrasing, this helps with WP:JARGON. I have re-inserted the contextual years, tried to deal with combining the single sentences back into some coherency and experimented with moving "Operations" to "Services", sub-divided by the three routes proposed—is this any better?
If we try to use the Route Template Diagram as an initial overview map, I fear that we may lose the benefit of using it to illustrate the technical details later on (which an overview map cannot do). Another possibility is to either improve the map or provide one tailored for clarity—for instance, simply showing city/town outlines, the route, the A14 and using text that remains readable at small image sizes.
Yes, the article should cover all of the project: the planning, the construction and the on-going operation as/when various parts of the scheme open. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia in the business of reporting facts, so the focus is currently on what has happened. Wikipedia lives and dies by its references, so it is inevitable (and preferable) that the article reflects the body of reliably-published citations available—these works so far report planning, construction, testing and delays. Obviously there are no reliable citations regarding the opening, or active operations; since neither of those have happened yet. —Sladen (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 
example map with svg source
Good stuff - I think the result has been worth the work, from my perspective it certainly much improved; I think it is fine to roll Infrastructure in as a subsection of Route; Using Service instead of Operation also seems fine. Re the map, I produced it but the source is in a Mac format so it isn't very open for updates; Would an SVG map such as the one on the right be more suitable to allow collaborative working? This example map is actually uploaded as a png because Wikipedia can't cope with producing thumbnails for svg images containing vectors and bitmap elements. The source is however linked from the png as an svg 'alternative version' to allow others to edit (inkscape is good). PeterEastern (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit conlict: proposed extensions

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I hit an Edit conflict. It looks like the changes are quite major, so I'll post the content here to enable any useful changes to be integrated:

Future proposals

Should development of the proposed Chesterton railway station go ahead, Cambridge County Council has proposed diverting the guideway via the new station. Any work would be part of a major £500 million funding bid from the Government's Transport Innovation Fund[1] coupled to the introduction of Congestion Charging schemes. Passenger interchange at Chesterton could then provide access to direct London and Ely mainline railway services.[2]

In connection with the Chesterton diversion, the CamLink consortium[who?] have proposed a new busway route continuing past a future Chesterton station to Waterbeach.[3] The same organisation has also offered proposals for further expansion of the guided busway network:[4]

  • Extension beyond the Milton Road junction, crossing Milton Road and continuing to Barnwell Bridge along the railway alignment.
  • New access routes to and from the A14 road to enable buses coming from Bar Hill and Cambourne to gain access the northern guided section of the busway and its bridge under the A14 road.
  • A new bridge under the A14 road to enable buses serving Milton, including the new Park and Ride site, to avoid the busy Milton Road / A14 roundabout.
  • Conversion of bus lanes on Newmarket Road to "tramway" style (bus lanes moved into the centre of the road with right-turns across the bus lanes prevented).
  • Extension beyond the Addenbrooke's Hospital terminus, connecting to the A1303 Babraham Road
  • Extension beyond the Trumpington Park and Ride terminus, further along the course of the old Bedford railway line until reaching the B1046 between Barton and Comberton.
—Sladen (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I have now done the merge but note that CamLink and CamToo are different organisations with different schemes. We are going to spend a bit of time not trying to understand the Cambridge TIF bid and will start adding content to a new section in the Transport in Cambridge article and will probably leave the CBT article alone for a bit. When we have made more sense of it we will put a stub section into this article details the relevant elements of the scheme. I hope you are happy with having subsections for the various council led proposals and an 'other proposals' section for the 3rd party proposals.PeterEastern (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Once-in-a-generation chance to curb jams". Cambridge Evening News. 2009-10-06. Retrieved 2010-01-12.
  2. ^ "New train station at Chesterton". unclog Cambridge. Retrieved 2010-01-12.
  3. ^ "CAM-LINK transport improvements". CamLink. Retrieved 2010-01-12.
  4. ^ "Future of the Guided Bus". Cambridge Network. 2010-03-23. Retrieved 2010-01-12.

Southern Extension?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The reference cited [8] says "... including a new station at Chesterton, an extension of the guided busway to Addenbrooke's and Trumpington, and ..." However, I understand that the first phase of the busway will go to the hospital and past Trumpington to the park and ride as far as I can see so is this nonsense? There is a proposed 'priority bus route' across the M11 to a new park and ride site and Hauxton as part of the TIF bid but I don't think it is guided, is this what they mean? there are a number of other bits of that TIF bid that talk about segregated buses. Possibly the southern extension is not that real at all - I will need to read this very fine and detailed document about the TIF bid to see what it is about. Possibly we will need a short section in this article relating to the TIF bid with a summary of what related to the busway rather than this section. Apologies if I swallowed a red-herring on this one however I notice that we missed the Addenbrookes spur off our map for the article - I will correct that. Curiously this map on the CCC website shows a guided section from the town centre to the station 'opening tbc' along with the southern section which I think is nonsense. PeterEastern (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup, some of it's clearly incorrect—since the concrete guideway reaches Addenbrooke's Hospital and Trumington P+R already. The ideas of "extensions" to Waterbeach and southwards appear to be in the same manner as that which connects St Ives to Huntingdon: traffic signal priority, bus lanes, bits of bus-only road or bus filters, but basically on-road. The guideway business only seems to get used when there's already a piece of graded railway bed on which to build it, and where there are tight tolerances. Any diversion via Chesterton railway station would probably be guideway based, as would the proposal of laying a route adjacent to the main line, bridging over the Cam (on a new bridge) and entering Cambridge close to the Grafton Centre.
It's always possible (wild speculation) that if the project as a whole were to overrun, and the southern section had still not opened by the time that the TIF funding came into play, it could be rebranded as an additional "extension" and covered under the TIF package. Remember that anything published by, or attributed to Cambridgeshire County Council is likely to contain some bias, because of their position as promoters—just as Cambridge City Council and CAST.IRON material contains bias in the opposite direction.
I believe that the grey lines on the "the busway" map are just showing that services south of Cambridge bus station, to Cambridge railway station beyond won't open initially. The Addenbrooke's bridge and spur are already on the Route Template Diagram (which, AFAIK, is mostly technically correct). Most of the other proposed/cancelled charging schemes and their central Government reward/funding packages are covered by articles in Category:Road congestion charge schemes in the United Kingdom, so it might be might be worth following a similar naming scheme if there's enough information to do an article covering it. —Sladen (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy of construction

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How can two bus carriageways plus the maintenance road be less wide than a road? This doesn't make sense. Bob Menzies, not an independent source, doesn't mention the maintenance road. The referenced article is an interview, not a fact-checked source. Rich257 (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the lanes are narrower than those of an ordinary road would be — that’s one of the benefits of guided technology (whether bus or rail), because the vehicles can pass closer together than they could do safely if the drivers had to steer. David Arthur (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How does the width of the guided busway compare to a regular 2 track railway, is it wider or narrower? And would it be possible to convert it back to a railway, i.e. would the infrastruture copw with trains rather than buses Franny-K (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Made a start on the infobox for the route now open, needs tweaking though and I cant get the RDT to work in the infobox without screwing the infobox. WatcherZero (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox UK Bus Corridor}} might be a better choice. I found this infobox's transclusion from a tracking category related to {{infobox road}}. IR isn't quite designed for this usage. Imzadi 1979 → 08:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I also tried to change this last night, but couldn't find any better infobox to change it to (so left it in the end). —Sladen (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What is it?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

What does 'guided' mean in this article. Are the buses constrained to run on the track. Is there a driver? If so, what does the driver do? maybe these are stupid questions but on a quick read through the answers are not evident. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a wikilink to guided bus in the lead, which describes the nature of guided buses. This bus scheme does have drivers, but perhaps that could be made clearer. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:OBVIOUS, I've added [9]. Thanks for picking up on this Martin! —Sladen (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That looks good to me. 2.102.213.229 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Advantages

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

It would be good to list advantages and disadvantages of the guided bus way, especially compared to a road with rising bollards. These are the ones I can think of: cost per mile, width, cost of retrofitting buses, maximum bus speed, step height onto buses at stops, ease of towing broken down bus. I'd be especially interested in cost and width. Is this really narrower (surely not) and cheaper than a road? Off topic: while there are no buses running on it is the most expensive and luxurious cycle path known to man! 93.97.48.217 (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article already has information on the width of the guideway and maintenance track, and the width of a rural road. Depending on what you choose to include in your comparison depends on whether you think the corridor is wider or narrower than a standard road. Rich257 (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Now that the busway is operative it would be useful to keep track of ALL the statistics mentioned in the first paragraph above, including full economic figures, toward a justification of the project, a subject which is missing in this article. In the Guided bus article, justification for such projects is hinted at "on heavily used corridors", which hardly seems to be the case for the stretch connect the population centres of Cambridge, Huntingdon and St Ives (be reminded, however, that in the United Kingdom the International System of Units is in force —so please, no 'miles'). --AVM (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This is actually a heavily-used corridor. The A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon is "the most congested two-lane dual carriageway in the country".[10] Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It isn't Wikipedia's job to provide a 'justification' for this project any more than it would be to elaborate on why it's a waste of money. Swarm u | t 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems entirely reasonable to explain the additional benefits of this technology and its downsides eg how breakdowns are dealt with. I came to this article purely to answer the same questions as user who started this section. I was disappointed. Someone must have described why the additional costs of this scheme was better value for money than a dedicated conventional road.JMcC (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Assertions in the lead need verifying

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

There are assertions made in the lead which are not described or explained elsewhere in the text, and which the references cited against them do not support. This needs fixing. I tried, but my attempts were reverted.

Particular problems are:

  • "...25 kilometres of dedicated guided busway..." - the cited BBC report gives: "...13.3 miles (21.5km) of guided concrete track...".
  • "...within a wider 40-kilometre network..." - not mentioned in the cited BBC report.
  • "...it is the longest operational guided busway in the world ..." - one of the cited BBC reports says: "...believed to be the longest in the world.", the other: "...is thought to be the world's longest track..."

Ideally these things should be discussed in full in the prose of the main body and then summarised in the lead - see WP:LEAD, but anyway need to be reliably sourced. -- de Facto (talk). 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just tried to do a sanity check: reading the The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Order 2005 p.28–30, if my reading is correct it grants TWA powers to construct:
Guided Busway (Unguided) 24,147 metres 1573+1038+2150+3715+1627+2381+1578+1943+1472+1463+1326+1886+796+1324(-125)
Dedicated Carriageway (Unguided) 891 metres 349+150+267(+125)
∴ Total Built 25,038 metres 24147+891
Granted but Unbuilt 561 metres Work No. 12: Milton Road to Chesterton Sidings
although it doesn't state as much in a single sentence. A Cambridge News article[11] gives the 40-kilometre which is where it probably originally came from:

"Overall, the guided bus system stretches for 25 miles, or 40 kilometres. For about 14.5 miles (23km) of that, buses use the concrete track, which has raised kerbs to allow guide wheels to whisk the buses along swiftly and smoothly. The remaining 10.5 miles (17km) takes buses along normal roads."

I think for the WP:LEAD this is a good, round-figure introduction and the detail can go in the body. —Sladen (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • >>> Part of my point is that the details aren't in the body - not that I could see anyway. If they were there, and this were a fair summary of them, I might well agree with you. -- de Facto (talk). 06:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to establish which details are of interest, before they can be added to the body. Yes, I have seen this question, but it's hard to act on the request here (by adding further material to the article body) until I'm clear about what information is of particular interest. Once that's done, I'm more than happy to add further details, wording improvements or citations to the article—or to help somebody else, such as yourself, in doing so. —Sladen (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This background paper "Bus Rapid Transit & Guided Bus Schemes" dating from 2008 gives:

The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway is a 40km route which includes a 25km guideway along the disused rail corridor between Cambridge and St Ives.

—Sladen (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference between the non-guideway part of the route and a normal, general purpose, road? -- de Facto (talk). 06:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Referring to The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway Order 2005 p.5 again:

“guided busway” means a way provided for the use of vehicles which are constructed or adapted to carry more than eight passengers for hire or reward and use a mode prescribed in article 2(e), (f), (g) or (h) of the Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992(h);

“carriageway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980(f);

Practically, technically and legally there just not appear to be much difference between a carriageway and a carriageway. The Order refers to either "guided busway" or "carriageway" in the allowed works, except for 125 metres just before Trumpington which it refers to as "guided busway … unguided". Does that help? —Sladen (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Is the non-guideway part newly built specially for the new bus to use? Are other users banned from using, or is it a "normal" public road? -- de Facto (talk). 12:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It may be worth having a look at some video footage; Cambridge bus station to St. Ives bus station via Orchard Park branch and northern section[12] and Cambridge railway station to Trumington via southern section and Addenbrooke's[13]. These should show the full variety:
  • Normal existing roads (Cambridge centre; St. Ives centre)
  • New-build semi-guided over brownfields (Orchard Park branch)
  • New-build fully-guided over railway alignment (Orchard Park to St. Ives)
  • New-build service road (St. Ives P+R)
  • Reclassified bus-only road (St. Ives)
  • New-build shared road and cycletrack over railway alignment (ex. Cambridge railway station)
  • New-build fully-guided over railway alignment (ex. Cambridge railway station to Trumpington)
  • New-build fully-guided and bridge over greenbelt (to/from Addrenbrooke's Hospital spur)
  • New-build fully-guided single-track over railway alignment (Trumpington cutting)
  • New-build unguided single-track road over railway alignment (Trumpington cutting)
  • New-build unguided dual carriageway over railway alignment (Trumpington cutting)
  • Reclassified bus lane along existing road (Milton Road, section not shown in above videos)
All the stuff on the railway alignments is new-build (rails had to be torn up first). All the city-centre bits are existing normal roads. The interfaces between the two are where the other examples in the list above appear. —Sladen (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
All I'm trying to understand is how many miles (km) of the system is special-bus-only, and how much is shared with other traffic. Did you see my other point above, about no being able to find any of the detail "summarised" in the lead in the main body? -- de Facto (talk). 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
~40 km end-to-end. ~15 km on street. ~25 km bus-only. The current wording in the second paragraph of the article reads "… 25 kilometres of dedicated guided busway, within a wider 40-kilometre network." Clearly this needs to be improved; could you suggest a better wording? —Sladen (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of going around in circles, we still haven't moved forward here. The problem isn't that I doubt your figures, but that they are not explained in the main body of the article anywhere. The lead is supposed to be a summary, not the only mention, of such information. The three assertion I mention somewhere above need to be covered, with RS support, in the main body, then the lead can justifiably summarise them in a similar way to how it already does. Do you understand what I'm saying? -- de Facto (talk). 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. But first I/you need to work out what's missing. What I am trying to figure out is what information you're after that would be sufficient to answer the questions you've got. You're an excellent case study as meeting the bar to answer you questions and queries will likely answer those of other readers too. (Do you understand what I'm saying?) —Sladen (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Very useful cite

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article (published today) is an excellent gold-mine of numbers and possible cites: [useful 1] —Sladen (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Waiting is finally over for the longest busway in the world". TransportXtra. 2011-08-12. Retrieved 2011-08-12.

What's the point?

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

If there's a human driver on board, why don't they just let him drive, rather than having concrete beams and fancy busses? (I actually don't see a groove in the middle of the road nor any contact between the bus and the beams, so I don't understand how it's guided, but it must be expensive...) Was there any discussion of just having regular busses use the route? How much did the guidance system cost altogether? Wnt (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wnt, thank you for raising that the article didn't show or explain how the buses are guided. The technical is cheap and simple: horizontal training wheels push against the kerb and are connected to the steering rack. Hopefully the following diagram now shows that [[14]].
For the question of why? is much more subjective. I believe that the technical argument is that the top of the railway embankment (~7 metres wide) would not be sufficient to allow two buses to pass close together while travelling fast (closing speed of ~200 km/h) without slowing down first.
As for "regular buses", they pretty much are—the level of modification is similar to adding or removing training wheels from a bicycle. Hopefully the substantial references at the bottom of the article may provide further answers. If you find something important, please do add it with a link to the relevant source. —Sladen (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's actually a pretty interesting concept. It's like any other public bus system, but the buses have their own track on which there's no other traffic and the driver doesn't have to steer. My "why?" is why don't we have any of these over here? Swarm u | t 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There must be some reason why there's 1,000,000+ kilometres of railway track in the world, and only 50 kilometres of guided concrete busway, surely? It would be good to find a reliable source that cites why. —Sladen (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Sladen here. This arrangement is quite mysterious to me, and it would be helpful to have an overview of the justification for guided busway instead of a light rail or whatever other modes of transit were considered as part of the article. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This is just speculation on my part... The busway is built on the old railway line which went from St Ives to the Cambridge railway station. The railway station is not in the centre of the city (see station article) so passengers on a light railway would come into the station and then need to change to a bus to get into the city. The busway stops on the edge of the city and the buses use the normal road to go through the city providing bus stops along the way. This could be done with a tram system but would involve digging up Cambridge's already crowded roads to install the trams lines. There are also issues with the many cycles in Cambridge and tram lines. Once you have ruled out trains and trams you look to buses so need some sort of road to replace the old railway line. The previous comment about the old railway not being wide enough for human steered buses passing at speed seems reasonable - especially when a cycle, horse, foot path is next to it. I also assume that four tracks of foot thick concrete is cheaper to build than a full sealed road. 米 (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove references to Cast Iron

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The Cast Iron proposals are dead and have been dead for at least 2 years. Work on the CGB started in Feb 2007, and the Cast Iron web-site was last updated in March 2007, remove all references. TomRawlinson (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? The site is still up, the proposal is still there for reference. For example, their estimate was £35 that readers can com7|93.97.48.217]] ([[User talk:93roposal and the objections are part of the history and background to the scheme. Rich257 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to reference a scheme that didn't just fail, but cannot now ever be implemented? It's bloating the article with something noone will ever want to read and displacing exciting news, such as this technology being accepted on a much bigger scale, and potentially displacing all the 19th century stuff. TomRawlinson (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Because this is the way that protest is airbrushed out of history, that's why. Please at least note the existence of Cast Iron in the paragraph descibing opposition to the scheme rather than relegating them to a footnote. Britmax (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see there's anything to stop a rail scheme being implemented now, the concrete beams would have to be removed. A renewed rail scheme might be 21st century tram-trains rather than 1960s technology guided diesel buses. Rich257 (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the CAST:IRON scheme is now implementable it is important to note that serious objections were raised to the scheme at the time. Similarly, once the scheme is running it will be important to document whether it proves to be a success, failure, or whether opinion is divided. Dancarney (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
As a late entrant into the debate, I wish to make it known that the Cast Iron website is very much alive. Whilst the proposal for a railway is now impossible with the existence of the railway, the Cast Iron site claims it is now monitoring the busway and has been collecting news articles relating to the busway. In conclusion, I think Cast Iron more than deserves to remain on Wikipedia. --Crablogger (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Updates

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have made a number of changes to the article. In particular:

  • I have updated the lead into a number of shorter clearer sections, each focused on a different aspect, starting with what it is, then some operation information and the stuff about timing, costs and the dispute. I have added operation usage and information about the court case. I have trimmed some of the construction details which are still available in the full article.
  • I have created a 'History' section and put that after the main operation section which is not uncommon practice on article where most people are likely to be more interested in for current information in an article with a long history section as this one has.
  • I have updated the infobox to 'public transit'. Possibly not perfect, but better surely that 'future transport infrastructure'.
  • I have moved some images around to more appropriate section in my view.
  • I have renamed 'Safety' as 'Incidents' which is more common for transport articles
  • I have rationalised the 'BAM Nuttall dispute' into a single section of that name within 'Construction costs' as I felt the narrative was being broken up by being split into three sections.
  • I think that is all. Please be kind ;)

-- PeterEastern (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Usage figures

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sladen has correctly pointed out that the 2,500,000 trips were made in the first year of operation (which is claimed to be 40% higher than the predicted figure) contradicts the earlier information in the article that the predicted number of trips would be 11.5K per day. The 11.5K claim came from BAM Nuttall's website, but the link is unfortunately old and dead. Multiplying 11.5K by 365.25 on gets 4.2 million per year which is 40% higher than the actual figure. This calculation is based on the 1.5K being the usage figure was for every day of the year however. Personally I suggest that it probably relates to weekdays, however we don't know without seeing the link.

For now I have couched the increase claim in "a report by Atkins for the council states" but I don't find that very satisfactory as it is implying something dodgy in their figures. Atkins calculate their increase based on the predictions they made for the council in 2004.[15] BAM Nuttall has not excelled themselves in this project, so possibly we should give more weight to CCC figures than theirs? Does anyone fancy doing some research? If usage is indeed much higher than the figures used to justify the scheme then I suggest the article should state that unambiguously.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Guided bus fails to be guided

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Possibly worth adding to article; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-20415811 --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A brief mention has been added to the 'incidents' section thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the white elephant?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"An independent review of the project was announced on 21 September 2010, which the Cambridge MP Julian Huppert at the time described as a "white elephant"." This makes it sound as though Mr huppert thought the independent review was a white elephant, whereas the reference makes it clear that the pale pachyderm was the Guided Busway itself. 80.239.194.50 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

  Done in Special:Diff/630636923 by Ilikeeatingwaffles sometime ago. Hopefully it's clearer now. —Sladen (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Track Infrastructure: degradation and maintenence

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would be interesting to note the experience so far gained with operations of the infrastructure. There have been a number of beam support failues (Trumpington area) and now one significant failure just south of Histon station. Also interesting to note the procedure involved in rectifying these faults, and potential costs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence18uk (talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence18uk, do you (or anyone else) know of good quality information we could source and cite for beam failures and rectification? —Sladen (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all. This Talk page is fascinating and full of good stuff; it is also, though getting rather long and in my view unwieldy. Setting up an archive would be quite easy (I thinkhope) and would preserve those older discussions, in a structured way, while making this page much tidier and more accessible. You can see an example of such an archived page at Talk:London King's Cross railway station. Would anyone object to my doing this? Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

+1 and   Done in Special:Diff/702997118. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, is that what you had in mind? —Sladen (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's absolutely great, thank you so much for stepping in, Sladen. I was going to have a go at doing it myself but please believe me when I say that your doing it rather than me is a significant benefit to the encyclopaedia as a whole, and to everyone's mental health and longterm happiness to boot! Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article does not mention the new express R route operating between Trumpington Park and Ride, Foster Road and the Railway Station. It takes 5 minutes and functions in the morning and evening during rush hour periods.

The service to Peterborough already exists, whereas the article only mentions plans for such a service.

Mathsci (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

 Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done Disassociated the snapshot from the URL.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 01:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway/Archive_1&oldid=1137255598"