On 27 Oct, 22:06, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:28:32 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley

wrote:
On 27 Oct, 17:02, MIG wrote:

Not at deep level, for obvious reasons.

There's no obvious reason why there shouldn't be any at deep level,

There is - try getting sh^H^Heffluent to flow upwards without a pump
or syphon. If such devices fail then there is potential to close not
just the station but the train services passing through it.

You could provide duplicate plant to lift the sewage, powered by
different supplies, you could provide a holding tank at or below the
level with capacity to last until the plant is repaired and if all
else fails you could close the facilities until the plant is fixed.
If facilities could be provided in the shelters there's no technical
reason why they shouldn't be provided in deep stations today. Of
course, it will be easier and cheaper not to provide them, and it may
well be considered, probably rightly, that the cost and bother is
simply not worth it.

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:53:56 -0500
wrote:
In article ,
() wrote:

Dover for the Continent, Cambridge for the Incontinent perhaps?

Speaking of which, when if the Cambridgeshire Guided busway due to
start running, if ever?

Early next year, according to the County cabinet today.

Have Stagecoach threatened any legal action against either the
council or the contractor?

Not yet, unlike the council and their contractor who are at it hammer
and tongs.

One can only hope that the buffoons who dreamt up this absurd busway get
their comeuppence , but no doubt if they haven't had it already they'll
just get a golden handshake and be sent on their way.

They have. They lost the election.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 27 Oct, 23:48, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 27 Oct, 22:06, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:28:32 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley

wrote:
On 27 Oct, 17:02, MIG wrote:

Not at deep level, for obvious reasons.

There's no obvious reason why there shouldn't be any at deep level,

There is - try getting sh^H^Heffluent to flow upwards without a pump
or syphon. If such devices fail then there is potential to close not
just the station but the train services passing through it.

You could provide duplicate plant to lift the sewage, powered by
different supplies, you could provide a holding tank at or below the
level with capacity to last until the plant is repaired and if all
else fails you could close the facilities until the plant is fixed.
If facilities could be provided in the shelters there's no technical
reason why they shouldn't be provided in deep stations today. *Of
course, it will be easier and cheaper not to provide them, and it may
well be considered, probably rightly, that the cost and bother is
simply not worth it.

Those are the kind of reasons which I meant were fairly obvious,
compared with installing bog standard plumbing. I don't doubt that
there are ingenious ways of getting rid of effluent from all sorts of
sites.

In article , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:43:34 +0100
They run to King's Lynn as well which takes two hours.

I thought the liverpool street services only went as far as cambridge?
Its the king X services that go to Kings Lynn isn't it?

Yes.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

In message , at 13:28:54 on Thu,
28 Oct 2010, Ian Jackson remarked:
They run to King's Lynn as well which takes two hours.

I thought the liverpool street services only went as far as cambridge?
Its the king X services that go to Kings Lynn isn't it?

Yes.

Some Liverpool St Services also run through to Kings Lynn (three a day
during the week, in the evening peak). Average end-to-end time 2hrs 10
minutes.

There are probably some through trains in the opposite direction too,
which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Ian Jackson) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:43:34 +0100
They run to King's Lynn as well which takes two hours.

I thought the liverpool street services only went as far as cambridge?
Its the king X services that go to Kings Lynn isn't it?

Yes.

No. See my earlier post. Four Liverpool St services each way each day go
North of Cambridge plus one NXEA service to Ely starts at Cambridge at
18:24.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

There are probably some through trains in the opposite direction
too, which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

I already posted them two days ago and today added the NXEA electric train
to Ely that starts from Cambridge.

Uh-oh. There are still through peak services, three in each peak
plus one to and from Ely.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:28:32 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

On 27 Oct, 17:02, MIG wrote:

Not at deep level, for obvious reasons.

There's no obvious reason why there shouldn't be any at deep level,

There is - try getting sh^H^Heffluent to flow upwards without a pump
or syphon. If such devices fail then there is potential to close not
just the station but the train services passing through it.

I know the trains are *in* the sewers, but they shouldn't be passing
through anything...
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589951.html
(37 411 at Bath Spa, 14 Sep 1998)