"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On 29/05/2010 18:13, Tim Fenton wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

Or do what was done with the DLR, the ever-expanding railway, and
design it so that it can be expanded. Easier to do with a surface
railway than underground, though at least they built Bank long enough
for 3-unit trains, and even then they're now having to use SDO (at the
2nd Island Gardens station and Elverson Road)

Cutty Sark as well, I think ...

But yes, thank goodness Bank was built to take three unit trains.

SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:37:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:
SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

It would if it left a whole unit (no corridor connection) off the
platform.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
.net...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:37:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:
SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

It would if it left a whole unit (no corridor connection) off the
platform.

or if the headshunt at Bank hadn't been long enough for a 3-unit train.

Peter

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On 30/05/2010 12:23, Peter Masson wrote:


"Neil Williams" wrote in message
.net...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:37:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

It would if it left a whole unit (no corridor connection) off the
platform.

But it wouldn't, it would leave half the front unit and half the rear one.

or if the headshunt at Bank hadn't been long enough for a 3-unit train.

If the coupling is computer-controlled, even that might not be a big
problem, although it might limit frequency.

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On 29 May, 17:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
In a choice between having the Victoria line, and not having it, which
would you prefer?

That's not really a sensible proposition though. I live on the Victoria
Line route so I am very pleased it exists.
Yet in the event of budget cuts, instead of a cheaply built line, you
want to have an expensively built line that doesn't go to half the
places the cheap line would, and doesn't have half the stations on the
route it does take.

The bit it seems to forget is that those same entrepreneurs and private sector employees do need an
effective and efficient transport system to support their endeavours.
For London that means big schemes like Thameslink, tube upgrades and
Crossrail need to happen. *
Most entrepreneurial work in london does not take place in zone 1. It
is improvement to travel outside zone 1, that benefits entrepreneurial
work. Yet you prefer to prioritise things that primarily benefit zone
1.

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On 29 May, 18:44, Paul Corfield wrote:
The problem with Victoria is that the peak is spreading again (it shrank
during the recession) as my train at about 0700 (from Seven Sisters) can
now be fully seated whereas before there was space. Not back to the
levels prior to the recession but headed in that direction. *Victoria is
busier at 0730 than it used to be and it only takes a gap of a few
minutes in the service and you're 2 or 3 people deep on platforms. *It's
like that all the time closer to the height of the peak.

I have seen people being held at the ticket gates at Victoria at off
peak times.
But that's an argument for prioritising the building of the Chelsea -
Hackney line, which acts as a relief line for the Victoria line,
within zone 1.

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

I don’t know why we bother with Europe, the whole thing is flawed, we
would be much better off with the dollar and become the 51st state and
we could go back to Imperial measurements far better than all this
foreign muck that no one wants.
You realise that the states and the dollar are also foreign muck?

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

carry on with those. *It would be good for us to proceed with detailed
planning for Chelsea Hackney but, of course, the Mayor would rather drag
£5bn out of TfL than actually bequeath himself or a successor schemes
that can be taken forward to implementation.

Have all the staff who were developing new schemes been let go?

Any idea what else has been chopped with Boris's £5bn cuts? I've never
come across a breakdown of the figure. I know he claimed a lot of it
was due to the Metronet work being taken back in house. Also,
presumably part of the figure is the planned cut to the bus subsidy?

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third
 

In article ,
(Andrew Price) wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:58:50 -0700, Nobody wrote:

Ah, the US liquid measurement isn't the same as Imperial.

I think it probably was, until the UK standardised the gallon in the
19th century as being that volume of water which weighs ten pounds.
Before that, I suspect that the gallon was identical on both sides of
the pond.

Only in the sense that it was even less consistent, I expect!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On 28 May 2010 23:08:39 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:


E27002 wrote


You really want to live under our Constitution? What will you do
with
your Head of State? Will your fellow Commonwealth countries agree to
Her Majesty’s dismissal?

You mean "Republican form of government" ?

Easy, we just elect Liz for life (like William, William and William &
Mary). She can carry on being Queen of Canada, New Zealand etc.

Can you handle our First and Second Amendments? Will the Church of
England be disestablished in England? Will the Presbyterians be
disestablished in Scotland?

Not unless you have them established first. The Church of Scotland is
not an established church; this was eventually accepted by Westminster
in the Church of Scotland Act 1921.

The Welsh solution works fine.

Will we see gun store selling semi-automatic weapons on High Streets
around the UK? I don't think so.

You mean "self-loading" ?

We just need to revert to 1990 laws. These would also allow our Olympic
pistol team to practice at home.

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 21:42:13 +0200, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:34:36 -0700 (PDT), contrex
wrote:

I don’t know why we bother with Europe, the whole thing is flawed, we
would be much better off with the dollar and become the 51st state and
we could go back to Imperial measurements far better than all this
foreign muck that no one wants.

You really are a prick, aren't you?

He certainly has an odd view. There are strong arguments in favour of
leaving the EU (and also strong arguments against doing so - I'm
personally pretty undecided), but I would be amazed if a referendum to
become the 51st state of America returned an even vaguely positive
result.

We should, IMO, either be in the EU or take an approach of
independence from it but co-operation with it like Switzerland.
Joining the US is a ridiculous idea - while we are historical allies

Really ? You have missed the events of 1776, 1779 and 1812 and the
prevarication over which side to join in Big Mistake 2 which the UK
then got billed for.

and should most probably remain so, our cultures are far too different
for political or monetary union to be an even vaguely sensible idea.

Neil

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

On 27 May, 19:55, allantracy wrote:

I don’t know why we bother with Europe, the whole thing is flawed, we
would be much better off with the dollar and become the 51st state and
we could go back toImperialmeasurements far better than all this
foreign muck that no one wants.

SI units are starting to appear on some things in the US, as opposed
to American units also being printed as a conversion to an odd
quantity in SI units. I have seen soft drinks in 2 litre and 3 litre
bottles for example. I suspect that a lot of engineering is actually
done in SI units; there's a lot of multi-national work being done
these days, and the US is about the only place left that still uses
their own units these days.

As for going back to Imperial units, where do you think you're going
to get any support for that? The UK has been metric for well over 30
years.

Not entirely. Much of the infrastructure is imperial as are many of
the materials still used despite description in "French" units.

Young people, and that now probably means anyone under 40 will
have learned in metric at school from day one, so they're unlikely to
want to convert to another system.

Are bases 2, 16 etc. "metric" ?

Older people like myself originally learned in Imperial units, and
later had to convert to metric. Having converted, I think most people
recognised that it was a better system, and would not want to go
back. Even amongst those who still prefer the Imperial units I think
that many would acknowledge that the period of conversion, which we
dragged out for far too long, was the worst thing, and wouldn't want
to see another such conversion back to imperial units. I seriously
doubt that you would be able to find many people to support such a
conversion, and I wouldn't recommend any party which actually wanted
to get elected to put this in its manifesto.

If you'd stood against metrication 40 years ago you might have had a
chance of stopping it, or more likely delaying it, but not now. I
think it will eventually come in the US as well.

As for Imperial units being British, I suspect that most of them are
about as British as St. George; i.e. not very.

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Sun, 30 May 2010 00:51:39 +0200, Andrew Price
wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:58:50 -0700, Nobody wrote:

Ah, the US liquid measurement isn't the same as Imperial.

I think it probably was, until the UK standardised the gallon in the
19th century as being that volume of water which weighs ten pounds.
Before that, I suspect that the gallon was identical on both sides of
the pond.

There were different gallons for different substances. The US gallon
appears to be what was the 1707 UK wine gallon :-
http://www.uepengland.com/bbs/index....-and-measures/

In the UK the gallon was fixed for all substances from 1890 when the
dry gallon (0.96944 "wet" gallons) was abolished :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A477155

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed bya third"
 

On 29 May, 06:58, Nobody wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

Ah, the US liquid measurement isn't the same as Imperial.

I stand corrected, but I believe that's why an American quart of booze
is known in Canada as "a fifth" in slang terms.

One American gallon: 3.785 litres

One Imperial gallon: 4.546 litres

The difference stems not from the difference in gallons, but from the
two different definitions of the pint. The Imperial pint is 20 Fl Oz,
while the US pint is only 16. From that basis, the quart and the
gallon are each defined in the same way with respect to their relevant
pints.

Robin

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 17:57:08 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

Or do what was done with the DLR, the ever-expanding railway, and design it
so that it can be expanded. Easier to do with a surface railway than
underground


The DLR has certainly proved to be expandable, but I can confirm that
it was never designed with that specifically in mind.

Of course the simple, cheap construction helped, but that was designed
to make it cheap to build, not to make it expandable. That was just a
side effect of the simplicity.

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

bob wrote:

On 29 May, 06:58, Nobody wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

Ah, the US liquid measurement isn't the same as Imperial.

I stand corrected, but I believe that's why an American quart of booze
is known in Canada as "a fifth" in slang terms.

One American gallon: 3.785 litres

One Imperial gallon: 4.546 litres

The difference stems not from the difference in gallons, but from the
two different definitions of the pint. The Imperial pint is 20 Fl Oz,
while the US pint is only 16. From that basis, the quart and the
gallon are each defined in the same way with respect to their relevant
pints.

You're missing one other significant point, and that is the ounces are also
different. A US fluid ounce is 29.57cc, and a British fluid ounce is
28.41cc

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

In article
..com, bob writes


One American gallon: 3.785 litres

One Imperial gallon: 4.546 litres

The difference stems not from the difference in gallons, but from the
two different definitions of the pint. The Imperial pint is 20 Fl Oz,
while the US pint is only 16. From that basis, the quart and the
gallon are each defined in the same way with respect to their relevant
pints.

And the original reason for *that* is that the British pint was
originally the space occupied by one pound of dried peas (God knows
why) whereas the US pint was defined as the space occupied by one
pound of water, which seemed to be a more accurately reproducible
quantity.
--
Bill Borland

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

In article ,
Bill Borland wrote:

In article
.com, bob writes


One American gallon: 3.785 litres

One Imperial gallon: 4.546 litres

The difference stems not from the difference in gallons, but from the
two different definitions of the pint. The Imperial pint is 20 Fl Oz,
while the US pint is only 16. From that basis, the quart and the
gallon are each defined in the same way with respect to their relevant
pints.

And the original reason for *that* is that the British pint was
originally the space occupied by one pound of dried peas (God knows
why) whereas the US pint was defined as the space occupied by one
pound of water, which seemed to be a more accurately reproducible
quantity.

Even more bizarrely the ratio 3.785:4.546 is not the same as 16:20 (or
4:5 or 0.8) because US and Imperial fluid ounces are different. I
didn't know about the dried peas, but one Imperial gallon of water is 10
pounds and one Imperial fluid ounce of water weighs one ounce.
Wikipedia will tell you more.

Sam

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:22:55 +0100, Bill Borland put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In article
.com, bob writes


One American gallon: 3.785 litres

One Imperial gallon: 4.546 litres

The difference stems not from the difference in gallons, but from the
two different definitions of the pint. The Imperial pint is 20 Fl Oz,
while the US pint is only 16. From that basis, the quart and the
gallon are each defined in the same way with respect to their relevant
pints.

And the original reason for *that* is that the British pint was
originally the space occupied by one pound of dried peas (God knows
why) whereas the US pint was defined as the space occupied by one
pound of water, which seemed to be a more accurately reproducible
quantity.

Not peas, and it's the other way round, actually - the Imperial pint is the
more logical one. A pint has always been 1/8 of a gallon, but there were
traditionally different gallons for different substances. A US pint is
derived from the British wine gallon, which was defined in 1701 as 231 - so
it was current at the time of US independence.

However, in 1824 the British government abolished all the previous
different gallons and replaced them with one defined as the volume of ten
pounds of distilled water at 62 degrees F. So the Imperial pint, despite
not being a pound of water (it's 1.25 pounds of water) is the one based on
a defined, reproducible standard. For fairly obvious reasons, the by then
independent USA didn't follow the British lead, and stuck with a gallon
(and hence a pint) based on a measurement that the British abolished.

A US pint isn't actually a pound of water, anyway - it's just over a pound
(1.04375 pounds, to be precise) and has no relationship to the weight of
water anywhere in its definition. The fact that it happens to be
approximately a pound is pure coincidence.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Mon, 31 May 2010 19:23:41 +0100, I put finger to keyboard and typed:

Not peas, and it's the other way round, actually - the Imperial pint is the
more logical one. A pint has always been 1/8 of a gallon, but there were
traditionally different gallons for different substances. A US pint is
derived from the British wine gallon, which was defined in 1701 as 231 - so
it was current at the time of US independence.

That's 231 cubic inches, of course. Dunno how that got left out of the
previous post.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Imperial measurements was "Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

Mark Goodge wrote:

On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:22:55 +0100, Bill Borland put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In article
.com, bob writes


One American gallon: 3.785 litres

One Imperial gallon: 4.546 litres

The difference stems not from the difference in gallons, but from the
two different definitions of the pint. The Imperial pint is 20 Fl Oz,
while the US pint is only 16. From that basis, the quart and the
gallon are each defined in the same way with respect to their relevant
pints.

And the original reason for *that* is that the British pint was
originally the space occupied by one pound of dried peas (God knows
why) whereas the US pint was defined as the space occupied by one
pound of water, which seemed to be a more accurately reproducible
quantity.

Not peas, and it's the other way round, actually - the Imperial pint is the
more logical one. A pint has always been 1/8 of a gallon, but there were
traditionally different gallons for different substances.

.... that for the head being the smallest of them all, if ten gallon hats
are anything to go by. ;-)
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11938592.html
("Toffee apple" 31 017 at Colchester, 16 Apr 1980)

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:17:56 +0100
"Tim Fenton" wrote:
"kev" wrote in message
...

Any idea what else has been chopped with Boris's £5bn cuts? I've never
come across a breakdown of the figure. I know he claimed a lot of it
was due to the Metronet work being taken back in house. Also,
presumably part of the figure is the planned cut to the bus subsidy?

You can add in Bozza's daft phasing out of bendies, his obsession with the
Not Very New Not Anything Like A Routemaster, and scrapping the WEZ.

You'd think given the current financial situation that boris would have
swallowed his pride and just left bendies on the roads and saved the money
spent on this daft new routemaster for more important areas. But I guess
despite the unconventional character he's a very conventional politician
when it comes down to it - full of his own self importance and blind to
reality when it diverges from his opinions.

B2003

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

"Peter Masson" wrote
"Neil Williams" wrote
Basil Jet wrote:
SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

It would if it left a whole unit (no corridor connection) off the
platform.

or if the headshunt at Bank hadn't been long enough for a 3-unit train.

Is it still (or was it ever) the case that even DLR staff aren't allowed to
travel in the front unit into the Bank headshunt? That's what they told me
when I organised the (only?) enthusiasts' tour allowed to enter the
headshunt, in 1998, but I was never quite convinced that I'd got the full
story. Further details of what was said at the time are shown at
http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/90s/980207ke.htm

"Crossrail budget may be slashed by a third"
 

'sOn 29/05/2010 12:31, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Willms wrote:

Am Thu, 27 May 2010 18:55:59 UTC, schrieb allantracy
auf uk.railway :

I don't know why we bother with Europe, the whole thing is flawed, we
would be much better off with the dollar and become the 51st state
and we could go back to Imperial measurements far better than all
this foreign muck that no one wants.

Just as George Orwell layed out the basis of his "1984".

We were an airstrip in that, not a state.

Conforms to one of Duncan Campbell's books in 1984 (!) - "The
Unsinkable Aicraft Carrier"

--
John Wright

Use your imagination Marvin!

Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.