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

In message
d wrote:

[snip]

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.

With 20-20 hindsight

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.


Hardly, construction began in India in 1853. By which time there were an
awful lot of lines already constructed in Britain.

--
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/

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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.

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