On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
bob wrote:
The bigger problem is that UK platforms impinge on the UIC gauge,
which is full width practically down to rail head level. So to run
UIC stock, you will need to rebuild every platform on the route, and
in so doing make those platforms unusable by conventional UK rolling

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. To me it just
seems daft to limit a brand new line to the UK loading gauge which is
demonstrably inadequate on all busy rail lines.

B2003

On 4 Aug, 11:19, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:43:31 -0700 (PDT)

bob wrote:
The bigger problem is that UK platforms impinge on the UIC gauge,
which is full width practically down to rail head level. *So to run
UIC stock, you will need to rebuild every platform on the route, and
in so doing make those platforms unusable by conventional UK rolling

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. To me it just
seems daft to limit a brand new line to the UK loading gauge which is
demonstrably inadequate on all busy rail lines.

B2003

But they'd just make the walls and ceilings thicker and put
obstructions everywhere, and there would be less internal space than
ever.

"Capt. Deltic" wrote in message
...

This is the question I have been asking.

the official argument for separate fleets is that Crossrail needs to
have 23 m long cars with three doors a side because of the capacity
requirements/ station dwell times while Thameslink can accomodate only
20 m long cars with two doors a side because of curvature. - despite
similar capacity/dwell time issues.

Is that [23 m?] a decision made subsequent to the info found (with great
difficulty) on the Crossrail website then Roger?

I'm sure they refer to a 200 m train comprised of 2 x 5 car units, because
they went on to explain that the central area station tunnels would be bored
out long enough to extend to 2 x 6 car units of 240 m...

Don't see why they can't be the same traction design though - even if length
and doors differ. I mean, the 444 and 450 are are exactly the same
technology under the bodywork...

Paul S

In message , at 09:09:28 on Wed, 4 Aug
2010, d remarked:
the official argument for separate fleets is that Crossrail needs to
have 23 m long cars with three doors a side because of the capacity
requirements/ station dwell times while Thameslink can accomodate only
20 m long cars with two doors a side because of curvature. - despite
similar capacity/dwell time issues.

If they want to really future proof it they should build UIC gauge double
decker trains instead of ****ing around with piddly UK gauge EMUs that
will be packed from day 1. It won't happen of course because there might
be the odd bridge that'll need raising by a foot on the out of london routes.
Obviously this would be a huge expense compared to digging 10 miles of
tunnel under london....

As only a third of the cost of the current project is the part tunnelled
under London, I think you may be onto something here.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIG 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. To me it just
seems daft to limit a brand new line to the UK loading gauge which is
demonstrably inadequate on all busy rail lines.

B2003

But they'd just make the walls and ceilings thicker and put
obstructions everywhere, and there would be less internal space than
ever.

Sadly you're probably not far from the truth.

B2003

In message , at 10:19:22 on Wed, 4 Aug
2010, d remarked:
The bigger problem is that UK platforms impinge on the UIC gauge,
which is full width practically down to rail head level. So to run
UIC stock, you will need to rebuild every platform on the route, and
in so doing make those platforms unusable by conventional UK rolling

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.

But much of the lower deck on UIC double-deckers is below platform
level.
--
Roland Perry

On 4 Aug, 12:19, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:43:31 -0700 (PDT)

bob wrote:
The bigger problem is that UK platforms impinge on the UIC gauge,
which is full width practically down to rail head level. *So to run
UIC stock, you will need to rebuild every platform on the route, and
in so doing make those platforms unusable by conventional UK rolling

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. To me it just
seems daft to limit a brand new line to the UK loading gauge which is
demonstrably inadequate on all busy rail lines.

Though there really isn't very much width in the standard UK loading
gauge below platform level. For a double deck train, you're probably
talking about 1+1 or at best 2+1 seating on the lower deck, which
would probably not provide much more than single deck (without
staircases). Especially if you go for Paris RER style 3 doors per
side (so lots of staircases) stock.

Of course it would seem sensible to make any changes and new build
lines accomodate a full UIC loading gauge in all respects except
passenger platforms, so that if a future changeover to UIC comes about
it would be less of a major project, and it would help channel tunnel
freight once whole routes are opened out.

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.

Robin

"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?

Paul

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:17:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
If they want to really future proof it they should build UIC gauge double
decker trains instead of ****ing around with piddly UK gauge EMUs that
will be packed from day 1. It won't happen of course because there might
be the odd bridge that'll need raising by a foot on the out of london routes.
Obviously this would be a huge expense compared to digging 10 miles of
tunnel under london....

As only a third of the cost of the current project is the part tunnelled
under London, I think you may be onto something here.

You're kidding me? What are they doing on the pre existing lines, gold plating
the platforms??

B2003

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 05:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
bob 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. To me it just
seems daft to limit a brand new line to the UK loading gauge which is
demonstrably inadequate on all busy rail lines.

Though there really isn't very much width in the standard UK loading
gauge below platform level. For a double deck train, you're probably
talking about 1+1 or at best 2+1 seating on the lower deck, which
would probably not provide much more than single deck (without
staircases). Especially if you go for Paris RER style 3 doors per
side (so lots of staircases) stock.

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?

B2003