On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:11:33 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Most of the internal headroom in current UK stock isn't used anyway except
by exceptionally tall people. By reducing the ceiling height and with an extra
foot of height to play with couldn't an extra floor be squeezed in?

The issue is far less one of height, but one of width below platform
level. If you have to give probably 20% at least of the length of
your vehicle over to doors, underfloor equipment and the bogies (more
if you have to go for a short vehicle as is usual in the UK) you just
won't get any more capacity than you would in a standard dual-door
with 3+2 seating. And much as I hate 3+2 seating, it would be more
comfortable than the vehicle you describe.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

In message
d wrote:

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.


It wasn't daft when they set it up. Remember they were the first, there
were no rules or precedents for them to follow.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/