On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading
gauge. The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large
as the 6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most
continental stock.

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do something
silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load of trackside
furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

B2003

On Jun 16, 12:39*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Andy wrote:
The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading
gauge. The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large
as the 6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most
continental stock.

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do something
silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load of trackside
furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?!

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do somet=
hing
silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load of trackside
furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?!

I can scarely believe it myself though I did wonder what the day would
bring when I saw a cow jump over a blue moon last night.

Anyway , they haven't started boring them yet. Lets see if they stick to 6.2m
or reduce it on cost grounds!

B2003

On Jun 16, 2:07*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do
do something silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load
of trackside furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?!

I can scarely believe it myself though I did wonder what the day would
bring when I saw a cow jump over a blue moon last night.

Anyway , they haven't started boring them yet. Lets see if they stick to 6.2m
or reduce it on cost grounds!

Ever the cynic!

(And ssshhh - don't give them ideas!)

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

It might be that the programme to do the civils work is done to the
original schedule and then you phase the fit out and commissioning more
slowly. This may also allow any rolling stock procurement to be put back
so that co-ordination with Thameslink (common fleet) can be achieved and
the supplier has a long production run but the cost is spread /
financing made easier.

Are the requirements for the trains for TL and CR similar enough for a
common fleet to be possible? Apart from the whole dual-power thing, which
i assume would be easy enough to leave off the CR trains (maybe except a
few, so there's a reserve that could be used for TL at short notice). What
about seating plan? That could be varied between batches, S-stock style,
if necessary. What about the engines and suspension? What about
signalling? TL isn't using ERTMS, right?

Essentially, are the lines similar enough in the services they will run
and the infrastructure they will run over that they can actually share
stock?

tom

--
Brace yourself for an engulfing, cowardly autotroph! I want your
photosynthetic apparatii!

On 16 June, 14:44, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:07*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do
do something silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load
of trackside furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Sorry Boltar but the above doesn't compute... *how* can you be
wrong?!

I can scarely believe it myself though I did wonder what the day would
bring when I saw a cow jump over a blue moon last night.

Anyway , they haven't started boring them yet. Lets see if they stick to 6.2m
or reduce it on cost grounds!

Ever the cynic!

(And ssshhh - don't give them ideas!)

It'd probably cost a considerable amount of money to redesign the
tunnels to a different size and think of all the contracts which would
have to be altered!!

On Jun 16, 3:39*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:
It might be that the programme to do the civils work is done to the
original schedule and then you phase the fit out and commissioning more
slowly. This may also allow any rolling stock procurement to be put back
so that co-ordination with Thameslink (common fleet) can be achieved and
the supplier has a long production run but the cost is spread /
financing made easier.

Are the requirements for the trains for TL and CR similar enough for a
common fleet to be possible? Apart from the whole dual-power thing, which
i assume would be easy enough to leave off the CR trains (maybe except a
few, so there's a reserve that could be used for TL at short notice). What
about seating plan? That could be varied between batches, S-stock style,
if necessary. What about the engines and suspension? What about
signalling? TL isn't using ERTMS, right?

Essentially, are the lines similar enough in the services they will run
and the infrastructure they will run over that they can actually share
stock?

It's not so much sharing stock as such, just that a common fleet for
both routes could be purchased at the same time. The exact
specifications for the stock for each route could be different, e.g.
internal layout, or obviously dual-power or not. Also the central
section of Crossrail will be ATO - AIUI the original plan for
Thameslink 3000 was for the core section to be ATO too, so as to make
24tph 'doable' (though I recall some saying that the sub-surface LU
lines can manage similar headways with conventional signalling - well,
I might suggest they only sort of manage it! - but I'm no expert on
signalling), however received wisdom seems to suggest that ATO might
well be cut from the Thameslink Programme, and for the headway in the
core section to reduce to 20tph.

(If new Thameslink stock was designed to be 'ATO-ready', then ATO
could come at a later date when required.)

On Jun 16, 12:14*am, Martin Petrov
wrote:
Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. *In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased.

Is there evidence of much of a drop? Anecdotally, I haven't found the
journey any more pleasant....!

My boots are not on that particular piece of ground. According to
others posting here there is no noticeable reduction. So my
assumption was wrong.

Back in the early nineties the UK had a severe economic slowdown.
Apparently, according my Essex based contacts; it was not hard to find
a seat on the Central Line, at Liverpool St, during the peak!

On 16/06/2010 15:39, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

It might be that the programme to do the civils work is done to the
original schedule and then you phase the fit out and commissioning
more slowly. This may also allow any rolling stock procurement to be
put back so that co-ordination with Thameslink (common fleet) can be
achieved and the supplier has a long production run but the cost is
spread / financing made easier.

Are the requirements for the trains for TL and CR similar enough for a
common fleet to be possible? Apart from the whole dual-power thing,
which i assume would be easy enough to leave off the CR trains (maybe
except a few, so there's a reserve that could be used for TL at short
notice). What about seating plan? That could be varied between batches,
S-stock style, if necessary. What about the engines and suspension? What
about signalling? TL isn't using ERTMS, right?

I don't think they will have any engines

AIUI the intention would be to leave open the possibility of using the
same basic body shells, traction equipment, etc, to get a better unit
price, but still have the choice of different internal layouts and
fittings - things like seats, luggage racks. Crossrail won't have
tiolets but Thameslink will.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

On Jun 16, 12:14*am, Martin Petrov
wrote:
Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. *In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased.

Is there evidence of much of a drop? Anecdotally, I haven't found the
journey any more pleasant....!

My boots are not on that particular piece of ground. According to
others posting here there is no noticeable reduction. So my
assumption was wrong.

Back in the early nineties the UK had a severe economic slowdown.
Apparently, according my Essex based contacts; it was not hard to find
a seat on the Central Line, at Liverpool St, during the peak!

I personally doubt that observation - even from the 1990s. The tube's
ridership has grown considerably since the 1990s and despite a dip over
the last year or so it is higher than it was back in the 1990s. The AM
peak had, before the recent recession, spread to start prior to 0700 in
the suburbs and was getting earlier by the week. I know that simply from
travelling at that time and seeing the increased ridership / reduced
likelihood of a seat with my own eyes.

I do not travel in the height of the peak very often but it is
horrendous. There are many reports of it taking between 5 - 7 trains
before people can board at Bethnal Green with similar waits at Liverpool
Street on the Central Line.

Here is a link to a photo taken this morning in the AM peak - not by me
- of people waiting for a sub surface train at Liverpool Street LUL.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/teflon/4705957181/

You will note it is about 8 people deep on the platform. This is not
unusual and I'd venture to suggest that the Central Line is worse than
this. I also don't recall there being any sort of service disruption
this morning which would have caused such a massive crowd.

--
Paul C