"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

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

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. ;-)

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

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!

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

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

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

"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

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