Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:01:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...

If we are looking seriously at adopting UIC standards, I would propose
the NLL as a useful place to start. It is already connected to HS1,
and is well placed to link into HS2. It handles a lot of freight
which could make use of the extra space, and the platform length and
overcrowding problems make it a good candidate for DD stock, while the
passenger services are all provided by a relatively small pool of
(potentially) dedicated rolling stock.

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.

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:01:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...

If we are looking seriously at adopting UIC standards, I would propose
the NLL as a useful place to start. It is already connected to HS1,
and is well placed to link into HS2. It handles a lot of freight
which could make use of the extra space, and the platform length and
overcrowding problems make it a good candidate for DD stock, while the
passenger services are all provided by a relatively small pool of
(potentially) dedicated rolling stock.

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.

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

:-)

Paul S

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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.


--
Nick

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV three phase three wire overhead.

--
Nick

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV three phase three wire overhead.


Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 4, 7:56*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV *three phase three wire overhead.

Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

I was thinking longitudinal seating in 4 rows i.e. a centre line back-
to-back row as well as under the window lines.

--
Nick

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 4, 7:56*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV *three phase three wire overhead.

Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

3 + 3 x 3

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV three phase three wire overhead.

Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

Paging Mr Bell...

Paul S

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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.
Stick with UK width and cramped 2+1 is the best you'll manage, which
as double-deckers tend to do well if they manage 1.5 times the
capacity of a standard single-decker coach isn't going to necessarily
add any seats.

Realistically, Crossrail will need "standee trains", perhaps the same
layout as the S stock for LUL.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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...)

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.