Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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.

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
...
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.

The intended new stock for the Thameslink Project is fixed formation, 160 or
240 metres (8 or 12 car, if 20 m carriages are chosen).

Peter

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message
...
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, I really did mean like the [yet to be built] 'Thameslink style fixed
formations', either 8 or 12 car length; but probably 10 car in the Crossrail
case, assuming they don't go for something like the Alstom articulated
design.

Paul S

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"anthony" wrote in message
...
I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

Marlow and Henley won't be electrified as part of Crossrail (and probably
not as part of the GWML electrification). So they'll either lose their peak
trains through to/from Paddington, or these will be dmus. One reason for
running Crossrail with 10-car trains throughout the day is that the central
area stations will be double ended, so trains that use the full length of
the platforms will be desirable.

Peter
(old enough to remember when the Henley to Paddington through trains were
Hymek + coaches)

Peter

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 3, 8:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"anthony" wrote in message

...

I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have *is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that *peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches *instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

Marlow and Henley won't be electrified as part of Crossrail (and probably
not as part of the GWML electrification). So they'll either lose their peak
trains through to/from Paddington, or these will be dmus. One reason for
running Crossrail with 10-car trains throughout the day is that the central
area stations will be double ended, so trains that use the full length of
the platforms will be desirable.

Peter
(old enough to remember when the Henley to Paddington through trains were
Hymek + coaches)

Peter

I was wondering just the other day why there wasn't a joint
procurement process for Thameslink and Crossrail... something the
coalition could look at?
Tim

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On 4 Aug, 07:54, TimB wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:40*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:





"anthony" wrote in message

....

I have wondred about the rolling stock for crossrail services but one
question i have *is that couldn't some 2/3 carriage EMU'S be built so
that *peak hour trains can be split/attached so that they can serve
some of the thames valley branches *instead of having a shuttle on
those lines?

One such route i am thinking about is the Maidenhead to Marlow branch,
doesnt this have through services to London during peak hours?

Marlow and Henley won't be electrified as part of Crossrail (and probably
not as part of the GWML electrification). So they'll either lose their peak
trains through to/from Paddington, or these will be dmus. One reason for
running Crossrail with 10-car trains throughout the day is that the central
area stations will be double ended, so trains that use the full length of
the platforms will be desirable.

Peter
(old enough to remember when the Henley to Paddington through trains were
Hymek + coaches)

Peter

I was wondering just the other day why there wasn't a joint
procurement process for Thameslink and Crossrail... *something the
coalition could look at?
* *Tim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

I'm still not convinced.

Rogert

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
"Capt. Deltic" wrote:
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.

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....

B2003

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On 4 Aug, 11:09, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:39:30 -0700 (PDT)

"Capt. Deltic" wrote:
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.

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....

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
stock because the gap would be too wide. The only UIC platforms in
the UK are on HS1, and at St P, Stratford and Ebbsfleet, separate UIC
and UK platforms on separate platform roads are provided for
international and domestic trains (not sure whether Ashford has UIC
platforms, no doubt someone will be along shortly with an answer).

If you went down this path, then you'd end up with UIC platforms on
the relief lines and UK platforms on the main lines, so effectively
the releif lines would become crossrail only. Assuming Crossrail to
Reading, then things like Oxford stoppers would be confined to the
main lines as far as Reading, and if Crossrail only goes to
Maidenhead, then Reading stoppers and the like would also be forced on
to the main lines as far as Maidenhead. Is that compatible with the
projected timetables?

Robin

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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.

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:19:18 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
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.

Well it would be nice to have the extra width anyway which would allow
proper 3+2 seating :)

B2003

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

In message , at 13:08:49 on Wed, 4 Aug
2010, d remarked:
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??

I have no idea; a summary from anyone "in the know" would be helpful.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:43:31 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be bob
wrote this:-

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
stock because the gap would be too wide.

Depends how much money one wants to spend. Interlaced track can get
smaller rolling stock the same distance from a platform. This is an
issue which will arise with the high speed line too, where two
different sizes of vehicle were proposed before the general
election.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 4, 2:13*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:08:49 on Wed, 4 Aug
2010, remarked:

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??

I have no idea; a summary from anyone "in the know" would be helpful.
--
Roland Perry

Does that include the rolling stock?
Tim

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

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

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 3, 6:34*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units


Were they not 5 x 23 m ?

I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.


--
Nick

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 4, 7:54*am, TimB wrote:

I was wondering just the other day why there wasn't a joint
procurement process for Thameslink and Crossrail... *something the
coalition could look at?


Errr is that nit what this news is suggestion ... TL is spec'ing 160 m
or 240 m trains that will be - assuming 20 m cars - 8 or 12 car.

Wording like 10car 200 m trains for Crossrail suggests a slightly more
common platform.


--
Nick

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Aug 3, 6:34 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units

Were they not 5 x 23 m ?

I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.

The Crossrail Environmental Statement Vol 1 Ch 2, which was what I was
looking for before my earlier reply to Roger, has this to say:

"Rolling Stock Specification and Performance
2.4.12 The trains used for Crossrail will be 200 m long, formed from 10 cars
of 20 m in length.
The trains will be made up of two five-car units and will have a top speed
of 160 km/h.
The trains will draw power from overhead line systems. Their performance
will be
compatible with the project's requirement to operate 24 trains per hour
(tph) through the
central London stations.
2.4.13 The layout of each carriage will be designed to assist rapid boarding
and alighting in
the central area in order to minimise dwell times. Each carriage will have
at least two
sets of double doorways per side with wide set-backs and a combination of
four
abreast (as two plus two) and inward-facing seating. The trains will be
air-conditioned.
2.4.14 The Crossrail peak service pattern requires 58 trains of 10 cars each
formed from
116 five-car units..."

That's why I was asking Roger if the original spec had been changed, even if
not publicised.

Paul S

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...


"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Aug 3, 6:34 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units

Were they not 5 x 23 m ?

I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.

The Crossrail Environmental Statement Vol 1 Ch 2, which was what I was
looking for before my earlier reply to Roger, has this to say:

"Rolling Stock Specification and Performance
2.4.12 The trains used for Crossrail will be 200 m long, formed from 10
cars of 20 m in length.

snipped

That's why I was asking Roger if the original spec had been changed, even
if not publicised.

Apologies for the crap formatting in previous post.
Also found the bit about station tunnel length that supports an original 20m
car length:

"At each station, the platform tunnels will be constructed to allow for a
future upgrade of platforms to 245 m for the operation of 240 m long 12-car
trains, should demand for Crossrail services necessitate this."

Paul S

Crossrail rolling stock PIN
 

On Aug 4, 6:53*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

proposing running two 5 x 20m units

Were they not 5 x 23 m *?
I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.

The Crossrail Environmental Statement Vol 1 Ch 2, which was what I was
looking for before my earlier reply to Roger, has this to say:

"Rolling Stock Specification and Performance
2.4.12 The trains used for Crossrail will be 200 m long, formed from 10
cars of 20 m in length.

That's why I was asking Roger if the original spec had been changed, even
if not publicised.

Ahh I see what you meant.

I don't recall anything ever than 23 m for Crossrail.

Indeed, not just for Crossrail stock procurement in its present form,
but right back to Chris Green NSE and 1000 Networker cars a year ad
finitum days when 16X were specified they were for cascade to
Crossrail by conversion to EMU (remove engines and transmissions from
16X cars, insert newly built intermediate emu motor coaches; don't ask
me about end gangways as I don't now).

--
Nick

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.