> Worth looking at the accompanying PDF at the bottom of this page:
> http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/media/press_releases/january_2008/brent_cross
>
> As rail fantasy, It's up there with the finest work of uk.t.l. It even
> manages to include a North Acton triangle interchange station. I
> especially like the half mile gap between Brent Cross shopping centre
> and the Dudding Hill branch (including the crossing of the Midland
> Mainline), where they can't even see a possible route. Also, top marks
> for the pasted in Windows Live Local maps and satellite pictures.
>
> They haven't included even the beginnings of a cost-benefit analysis,
> which says a lot about how seriously it wishes to be taken. It's just
> hot air.

> It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
> it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
> interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

> Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
> Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
> as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

> Airport style people movers might be the answer.
>

> On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:
>

>> It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non-starter, but i think
>> it's fair enough to propose it in the hope that a better-resourced
>> interested party, like the council, might take a harder look at it.

>
> Yes, maybe I was a bit harsh on it, but I wouldn't have been if it was
> presented in these terms. If it'd been "we think the development
> should include light rail, and here's an idea for a possible route",
> that'd be one thing, but they presented it as "this particular route
> must be built", and once you do that, you've got to back it up with
> numbers, otherwise it's just fantasy.
>

>> Particularly the 'phase 1' bit that links the Northern line station to the
>> Thameslink station at Brent Cross, which isn't that grandiose (although,
>> as was pointed out, does involve a rather high ratio of depot to track).

>
> Airport style people movers might be the answer. ...

> On Jan 28, 3:18 pm, Mr Thant googlemail.com>
> wrote:

>> On 28 Jan, 14:41, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>

>>> It seems entirely possible that the plan is a non...

>> Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

>
>Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in
>cost/benefit terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost
>per passenger of the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

> In message , at
> 23:56:13 on Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
> remarked:
>

>>> Be interesting to see how ULTRA goes at Terminal 5,

>

>>Indeed. I have a hard time seeing how it could be better in
>>cost/benefit terms than a more traditional bit of light rail; the cost
>>per passenger of the pods must be greater, surely? As you say, we'll see.

>
> Although they have pretty much a green fields site for the pod route at
> T5, if/when it is extended to T123 (via the old taxi tunnels) it would
> not be easy to construct light rail instead.

> That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
> train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.

> I understand the pods can be fairly easilly mounted on pillars --
> lighter than the DLR, although presumably less capacity than a DLR at
> full rate (say 1.3 people per car, one car per 5 seconds, 1000 people
> per hour).
>
> That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
> train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.
>
> The size of  a station to disgorge one car per 15 seconds (assume 3
> stations either side of a central coridor) would be fairly high, but
> it works on ski lifts.

>> I understand the pods can be fairly easilly mounted on pillars --
>> lighter than the DLR, although presumably less capacity than a DLR at
>> full rate (say 1.3 people per car, one car per 5 seconds, 1000 people
>> per hour).
>>
>> That's equivelent to a DLR at ~60 people per carriage, 2 carriage per
>> train, 8tph, more frequent than many branches.
>>
>> The size of  a station to disgorge one car per 15 seconds (assume 3
>> stations either side of a central coridor) would be fairly high, but
>> it works on ski lifts.

>
>However people on ski lifts are not normally encumbered with
>suitcases, baby buggies and hurricane proof rucksacks. The ultra
>system will work at Heathrow as it is intended to operate from
>relatively low density car parks to a high density terminal. ...