| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
|
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 4, 9:10*pm, Neil Williams
wrote: Realistically, Crossrail will need "standee trains", perhaps the same layout as the S stock for LUL. However, that will depend on if/when they decide on longer distance trains - once they start on things like Oxford - Ipswich or further you end up with the same mess of mixed needs that TL suffers from now and always will suffer from. Oxford Ipswich or any other destination you can think of might not be in any known Crossrail plan for the time being, but nor were many of the current TL destinations when it was conceived, purely as a GLC led cross London inner suburban route, and certainly not many of the TLP proposals. -- Nick |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 4, 9:11*pm, Neil Williams wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 19:27:06 +0100, "Paul Scott" wrote: If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains... :-) Be careful, our resident Middlesbrough "supporter" might twig. (in case of doubt, no we don't want 3+3 seating...) No, we want 4+4, or 3+3+3. |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, D7666 wrote: On Aug 4, 7:21*pm, Bruce wrote: And it goes through Hampstead tunnel, which would have to be completely rebuilt at vast expense? And this is the best possible time to carry out the work, given that the Treasury is awash with money and needs ideas for what it could be spent on. Then I'll suggest all the other tunnels and bridges and infrastructure on the entire NLL ... not forgetting NLL stock would also need a new depot to the appropriate size. Why we are at it, can we do the Central Line as well, and tie that into Crossrail with alternating trains to/from WR - ER via Crossrail and via Central Line, ditto opposite alternations from Ruislip and Epping. And Ongar. Yes, must have Ongar. Any chance of the Northern Heights too? And Mail Rail is just sitting there empty and waiting. |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: On Aug 4, 9:11*pm, Neil Williams wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 19:27:06 +0100, "Paul Scott" wrote: If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains... :-) Be careful, our resident Middlesbrough "supporter" might twig. (in case of doubt, no we don't want 3+3 seating...) No, we want 4+4, or 3+3+3. In compartments. |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:12:29 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote: On Aug 4, 9:10*pm, Neil Williams wrote: Realistically, Crossrail will need "standee trains", perhaps the same layout as the S stock for LUL. However, that will depend on if/when they decide on longer distance trains - once they start on things like Oxford - Ipswich or further you end up with the same mess of mixed needs that TL suffers from now and always will suffer from. Oxford Ipswich or any other destination you can think of might not be in any known Crossrail plan for the time being, but nor were many of the current TL destinations when it was conceived, purely as a GLC led cross London inner suburban route, and certainly not many of the TLP proposals. Oxford to Cambridge via Crossrail? If nothing else, it would put an end to the more fanciful proposals (east of Bedford) by the East-West Rail consortium. |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On 4 Aug, 23:01, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, D7666 wrote: On Aug 4, 7:21*pm, Bruce wrote: And it goes through Hampstead tunnel, which would have to be completely rebuilt at vast expense? And this is the best possible time to carry out the work, given that the Treasury is awash with money and needs ideas for what it could be spent on. Then I'll suggest all the other tunnels and bridges and infrastructure on the entire NLL ... not forgetting NLL stock would also need a new depot to the appropriate size. Why we are at it, can we do the Central Line as well, and tie that into Crossrail with alternating trains to/from WR - ER via Crossrail and via Central Line, ditto opposite alternations from Ruislip and Epping. And Ongar. Yes, must have Ongar. Any chance of the Northern Heights too? And Mail Rail is just sitting there empty and waiting. This is all back to front. It's only the outlying areas* that need to be covered by rail. The central area could be covered by a jetpack hire scheme. *Because there are still a lot of old-fashioned telegraph poles out there and, even if the cost of putting corks along all the wires were affordable, they would probably still be too great a hazard to elderly and visually-impaired flyers. |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, D7666 wrote: Why we are at it, can we do the Central Line as well, and tie that into Crossrail with alternating trains to/from WR - ER via Crossrail and via Central Line, ditto opposite alternations from Ruislip and Epping. And Ongar. Yes, must have Ongar. Any chance of the Northern Heights too? And Mail Rail is just sitting there empty and waiting. Mail Rail is the "missing link" between HS1 and HS2. |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:10:02 +0100
Neil Williams wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:19:22 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: Fair point. But I'm sure they could build some sort of compromise stock that could use the full UIC height and also width above platform level that would still be within UK gauge below platform level. UIC height isn't all that much higher than UK height. The reason you can do UIC double-deckers and not UK ones has more to do with the width at platform level that allows for a reasonably wide lower deck. Perhaps there could be a compromise type platform as used at St P. That would allow double deck UIC shuttle trains in the centre section but also allow UK gauge trains to use it too. After all, we're only talking a few inches width required either side which is hardly going to create a huge gap to step across. Of course it rather begs the question of why the victorians chose such a daft setup in the first place but I guess we'll never know. B2003 |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 4 Aug, 23:01, Mizter T wrote: Yes, must have Ongar. Any chance of the Northern Heights too? And Mail Rail is just sitting there empty and waiting. This is all back to front. It's only the outlying areas* that need to be covered by rail. The central area could be covered by a jetpack hire scheme. Nah, it would never take off here... Besides, people would insist on travelling with rucksacks, bikes, dogs, wheelchairs and prams... Paul S |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:35:15 +0100
Graeme wrote: It wasn't daft when they set it up. Remember they were the first, there were no rules or precedents for them to follow. Umm , Brunels great western railway? Quite large stock AFAIK. B2003 |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:56:22 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "MIG" wrote in message ... On 4 Aug, 23:01, Mizter T wrote: Yes, must have Ongar. Any chance of the Northern Heights too? And Mail Rail is just sitting there empty and waiting. This is all back to front. It's only the outlying areas* that need to be covered by rail. The central area could be covered by a jetpack hire scheme. Nah, it would never take off here... Besides, people would insist on travelling with rucksacks, bikes, dogs, wheelchairs and prams... Not all at the same time, though. ;-) |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On 5 Aug, 11:01, wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:10:02 +0100 Neil Williams wrote: On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:19:22 +0000 (UTC), wrote: Fair point. But I'm sure they could build some sort of compromise stock that could use the full UIC height and also width above platform level that would still be within UK gauge below platform level. UIC height isn't all that much higher than UK height. *The reason you can do UIC double-deckers and not UK ones has more to do with the width at platform level that allows for a reasonably wide lower deck. Perhaps there could be a compromise type platform as used at St P. That would allow double deck UIC shuttle trains in the centre section but also allow UK gauge trains to use it too. After all, we're only talking a few inches width required either side which is hardly going to create a huge gap to step across. What compromise platforms? St Pancras has UIC platforms on the Eurostar platforms and UK platforms on the Kent, East Midlands and Thameslink paltforms. HS1 was built as a UIC railway from the channel tunnel to the buffer stops at St Pancras, hence the possibility of ICE stock to London (which wouldn't fit a UK platform). Of course it rather begs the question of why the victorians chose such a daft setup in the first place but I guess we'll never know. The Victorians chose to have platforms, while the European railways (and those in most other parts of the world) chose not to have platforms, and board the trains from the trackside, by way of carriage mounted steps. Of course when the Victorians decided to have platforms, a typical railway carriage had 4 wheels and perhaps 4 4-a- side compartments. Your typical 19th century European station was operated with the passengers waiting by the station building, and if the train happened to stop on the far track, then walking across the near track to board it from between the two tracks. Indeed, there are even now, a goodly number of stations that still retain this layout, for example http://commondatastorage.googleapis....l/19186493.jpg There were no platforms at all at first, and this is why whereas in Britain we talk about trains being on platform 2 or whatever, in most other languages (and in the US) trains are refered to as being on track 2 (in the appropriate language), because when the language was established, there were no platforms. By the time the idea of having platforms started to gain favour in Europe, trains were already much larger, and platforms had to be far enough back from the track so as not to foul the steps that carriages still had (still have) to allow for boarding at unimproved stations. Robin |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On 4 Aug, 17:58, D7666 wrote:
On Aug 3, 7:01*pm, "Dr. Sunil" wrote: On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Paul Scott" wrote: Crossrail have issued an OJEU heads up for their rolling stock requirement. http://www.publictenders.net/tender/69743 The only new feature AFAICS is that they will probably be calling for 63 x 200m length trains (for 57 diagrams). I'm wondering if this is a clear indication they are moving towards 'Thameslink style' fixed formation trains, Crossrail were originally proposing running two 5 x 20m units in multiple, allowing them to run singly offpeak... Paul S Thameslink trains can be 4 or 8 cars long. I think you mean "LUL- style" fixed formations. No, the proposed TL trains we are talking about here are very definitely defined as 8 or 12 car only (well 8 and 12 assuing 20 m lenght cars to mee thte short and long unit spec.). -- Nick Sorry, I thought the OP meant the *current* trains, since I use the stopping service quite frequently! |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On 5 Aug, 13:56, wrote:
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:35:15 +0100 Graeme wrote: It wasn't daft when they set it up. *Remember they were the first, there were no rules or precedents for them to follow. Umm , Brunels great western railway? Quite large stock AFAIK. Quite large track, but the rolling stock wasn't significantly larger than other British rolling stock of the time, and certainly not compared with modern European or N.American stock. Robin |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:08:57 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be bob
wrote this:- The Victorians chose to have platforms, while the European railways (and those in most other parts of the world) chose not to have platforms, The Liverpool and Manchester Railway had very low platforms according to the drawings and paintings. Probably no higher than the typical low platform traditionally seen in mainland Europe, though these are slowly being raised. That railway wasn't unique, there are still a few station buildings around which were built for that sort of height of platform and which have ramps up to the later height platforms. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:56:46 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
d wrote this:- Umm , Brunels great western railway? Quite large stock AFAIK. It was not particularly larger than narrow (standard) gauge stock of the time, even before they decided to build vehicles suitable for conversion to narrow gauge. It was only later that locomotives and coaching stock became limited by structures. The GWR did build some coaches a little larger than could run on some other lines later still, I have a vague recollection it was called Centenary stock. Was some stock of the late BR/early privatisation built a little larger too? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54 |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
"Paul Scott" wrote Besides, people would insist on travelling with rucksacks, bikes, dogs, wheelchairs and prams... You do need to carry a dog to be able to use an escalator, and you do need to have all your personal possessions with you to be able to leve a train. ;-) Peter |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
bob wrote: Perhaps there could be a compromise type platform as used at St P. That would allow double deck UIC shuttle trains in the centre section but also allow UK gauge trains to use it too. After all, we're only talking a few inches width required either side which is hardly going to create a huge = gap to step across. What compromise platforms? St Pancras has UIC platforms on the Eurostar platforms and UK platforms on the Kent, East Midlands and Thameslink paltforms. HS1 was built as a UIC railway from the channel I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. The Victorians chose to have platforms, while the European railways (and those in most other parts of the world) chose not to have platforms, and board the trains from the trackside, by way of carriage mounted steps. Of course when the Victorians decided to have Well they didn't have to carry on building them like that - new lines could have been built to a much more generous loading gauge. They had the right idea in india where the broad gauge lines have a huge loading gauge and those were built in the 19th century by more or less the same people who built the railways in britain. B2003 |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
In message , at 13:53:30 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Peter Masson remarked: You do need to carry a dog to be able to use an escalator, and you do need to have all your personal possessions with you to be able to leve a train. ;-) I often leave some of my personal possessions at home, as well as most of my impersonal possessions. Therefore I can only take off the train that subset which I brought on board. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
|
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On 5 Aug, 14:57, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:08:57 -0700 (PDT) bob wrote: Perhaps there could be a compromise type platform as used at St P. That would allow double deck UIC shuttle trains in the centre section but also allow UK gauge trains to use it too. After all, we're only talking a few inches width required either side which is hardly going to create a huge = gap to step across. What compromise platforms? *St Pancras has UIC platforms on the Eurostar platforms and UK platforms on the Kent, East Midlands and Thameslink paltforms. *HS1 was built as a UIC railway from the channel I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. Shiny modern stations tend to be built with higher platforms, but older stations have much lower platforms, and often the less frequently used platforms (or platform ends) are much lower than the more oft used platforms. The Victorians chose to have platforms, while the European railways (and those in most other parts of the world) chose not to have platforms, and board the trains from the trackside, by way of carriage mounted steps. *Of course when the Victorians decided to have Well they didn't have to carry on building them like that - new lines could have been built to a much more generous loading gauge. And they were. Unfortunately by the time it was realised that a more generous loading gauge would be a good idea, the only mainlines left to be built in Britain were the GC London extension and HS1. They had the right idea in india where the broad gauge lines have a huge loading gauge and those were built in the 19th century by more or less the same people who built the railways in britain. They didn't just "have the right idea", they had the experience of filling Britain and Belgium up with railways, and making serious inroads into other countries, to show them how it should be done, before they even considered starting on India. Like so many technologies, the second generation is far superior to the first. The trouble is, it's far harder to rebuild a national railway network than it is to replace your betamax video collection with VHS. Bear in mind, also, that the loading gauge didn't really become an issue for passenger rolling stock until maybe the 1870s or 80s, when things like bogie coaches and corridor coaches came onto the scene. Robin |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 5, 1:42*pm, bob wrote:
On 5 Aug, 13:56, wrote: On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:35:15 +0100 Graeme wrote: It wasn't daft when they set it up. *Remember they were the first, there were no rules or precedents for them to follow. Umm , Brunels great western railway? Quite large stock AFAIK. Quite large track, but the rolling stock wasn't significantly larger than other British rolling stock of the time, and certainly not compared with modern European or N.American stock. Robin Pretty short carriages, too, so even if they looked a bit big they wouldn't sweep out much on the curves. Tim |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
bob wrote: I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. Shiny modern Well there you go then - on crossrail use platforms of a similar height to St P. which are compatible with UIC and UK stock. Bear in mind, also, that the loading gauge didn't really become an issue for passenger rolling stock until maybe the 1870s or 80s, when things like bogie coaches and corridor coaches came onto the scene. What about bridges and tunnels? B2003 |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 5, 4:28*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT) bob wrote: I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. *Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. *Shiny modern Well there you go then - on crossrail use platforms of a similar height to St P. which are compatible with UIC and UK stock. Bear in mind, also, that the loading gauge didn't really become an issue for passenger rolling stock until maybe the 1870s or 80s, when things like bogie coaches and corridor coaches came onto the scene. What about bridges and tunnels? B2003 But the locos were probably longer, higher and maybe wider, so the size of the coaches wasn't the controlling factor. Tim |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 5, 5:28*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT) bob wrote: I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. *Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. *Shiny modern Well there you go then - on crossrail use platforms of a similar height to St P. which are compatible with UIC and UK stock. The problem isn't height, though, it's the width of the loading gauge. UIC loading gauge is 3.15m wide almost all the way down to track level, while UK loading gauge is 9' (2.74m) at platform height. This means that the edge of a UIC platform is 0.2m (8") further away from the track than a UK platform It is likely that this would be deemed unsafe for people to be expected to step across (consider a crowded rush hour station, for example). If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. Robin |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
"bob" wrote in message ... If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. This is just after you've rebuilt every overbridge, underbridge, tunnel, viaduct and repositioned every other conflicting lineside structure on the route. That'll be simple won't it... Paul S |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:03:50 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. This is just after you've rebuilt every overbridge, underbridge, tunnel, viaduct and repositioned every other conflicting lineside structure on the route. That'll be simple won't it... And Robin (or is it "bob"?) hasn't even explained why this incredibly expensive idea of his would be necessary, or worthwhile. |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:53:30 on Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Peter Masson remarked: You do need to carry a dog to be able to use an escalator, and you do need to have all your personal possessions with you to be able to leve a train. ;-) I often leave some of my personal possessions at home, as well as most of my impersonal possessions. Therefore I can only take off the train that subset which I brought on board. This is not permitted. In this case you must remain on the train. tom -- NOW ALL ASS-KICKING UNTIL THE END |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 5, 8:03*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). *Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. *Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. This is just after you've rebuilt every overbridge, underbridge, tunnel, viaduct and repositioned every other conflicting lineside structure on the route. The difference in height between the classic BR loading gauge and UIC is about 30 cm at the top. Gauge enhancements to expand the loading gauge from 8' 6" to 9' 6" containers involves lowering the track or raising structures by about, oh, 30 cm. Because most railway structures have an arched profile, while the problem with containers is the top corners, you end up with a lot of spare space in the centre once you've provided for the top corners. Given that the WCML and NLL are both already rebuilt for 9' 6" containers, if they had the bottom part of the loading gauge expanded to UIC width, there would likely only be a minor amount of work left to achieve UIC clearance for such routes. Even if you don't get the full UIC gauge at the top, a lot of single deck european stock does not take up the full height of the loading gauge, and so would be able to fit anyway. By eliminating the need to produce specialist UK only rolling stock, but instead buying proven off the shelf euro-designs money could be saved and reliability increased (because somebody else will have worked out the bugs). Additionally, one of the key reasons why double deck stock does not offer significant capacity enhancements in the current UK loading gauge is that low level downstairs saloons have to be significantly narrower than current single deck carriages. By allowing full width down to track level, even if it isn't a standard euro-design, double deck stock would become possible, bringing with it the prospect of capacity enhancements. Robin |
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
In message
, bob writes The trouble is, it's far harder to rebuild a national railway network than it is to replace your betamax video collection with VHS. A case in point, the colour system used in the states, "Never Twice the Same Color" as opposed to our "Picture Always Lousy". -- Clive |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk