On Jan 25, 7:28*pm, Chris Sanderson wrote:

As far as im aware current plans for Crossrail dont involve breaching
it - there was talk of using it for spoil removal but it was too
expensive.

This is exactly how I understand it now - not to be breached in the
destructuve sense, but there had been planned some intrusion to use
the tunnel for construction access but that has been dropped.

--
Nick

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:08:23 -0800 (PST)
D7666 wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:28=A0pm, Chris Sanderson wrote:

As far as im aware current plans for Crossrail dont involve breaching
it - there was talk of using it for spoil removal but it was too
expensive.

This is exactly how I understand it now - not to be breached in the
destructuve sense, but there had been planned some intrusion to use
the tunnel for construction access but that has been dropped.

Not surprising really. You'd have enough trouble just getting men with
shovels down those tiny tunnels never mind any construction machinery.

B2003

On Jan 26, 9:30*am, wrote:

You'd have enough trouble just getting men with
shovels down those tiny tunnels never mind any construction machinery.


The running tunnel is 9 ft diameter : the running tunnel between
stations are all double track.

9 ft is a good deal larger that many site construction tunnel or even
final tunnels e.g. sewer or water tunnels that have construction
railways in them.


--
Nick

D7666 wrote:

On Jan 26, 9:30*am, wrote:

You'd have enough trouble just getting men with
shovels down those tiny tunnels never mind any construction machinery.


The running tunnel is 9 ft diameter : the running tunnel between
stations are all double track.

9 ft is a good deal larger that many site construction tunnel or even
final tunnels e.g. sewer or water tunnels that have construction
railways in them.


The notorious heading through the railway embankment and under the
Blockbuster store in Fallowfield, Greater Manchester to gain access to
the cash machine was only about 1.3m x 1.3m. That's about 4' 4".

No railway in that tunnel, though. ;-)

In article
,
(D7666) wrote:

On Jan 26, 9:30*am, wrote:

You'd have enough trouble just getting men with shovels down those
tiny tunnels never mind any construction machinery.

The running tunnel is 9 ft diameter : the running tunnel between
stations are all double track.

FSVO "all". Look at the pictures. There are clearly some single track
tunnels which are smaller.

9 ft is a good deal larger that many site construction tunnel or even
final tunnels e.g. sewer or water tunnels that have construction
railways in them.

Where the tunnels are 9ft that would be true.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 26/01/2012 09:30, d wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:08:23 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:28=A0pm, Chris wrote:

As far as im aware current plans for Crossrail dont involve breaching
it - there was talk of using it for spoil removal but it was too
expensive.

This is exactly how I understand it now - not to be breached in the
destructuve sense, but there had been planned some intrusion to use
the tunnel for construction access but that has been dropped.

Not surprising really. You'd have enough trouble just getting men with
shovels down those tiny tunnels never mind any construction machinery.

Dwarfs are meant to be good at tunnelling.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 26/01/2012 21:12, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 26/01/2012 09:30, d wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:08:23 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:28=A0pm, Chris wrote:

As far as im aware current plans for Crossrail dont involve breaching
it - there was talk of using it for spoil removal but it was too
expensive.

This is exactly how I understand it now - not to be breached in the
destructuve sense, but there had been planned some intrusion to use
the tunnel for construction access but that has been dropped.

Not surprising really. You'd have enough trouble just getting men with
shovels down those tiny tunnels never mind any construction machinery.

Dwarfs are meant to be good at tunnelling.


So, what is Mail Rail's ultimate fate, then?

wrote

So, what is Mail Rail's ultimate fate, then?

It deserves a new use.

The Tower Subway started off with a small cable car, then became a footway,
which closed when Tower Bridge opened. It was then used for hydraulic power
mains, and water mains were also put through it. After the London Hydraulic
Power Company closed (in 1977) it was used for fibre optic cables.
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ay/index.shtml

Peter

On Jan 26, 11:04*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

wrote

So, what is Mail Rail's ultimate fate, then?

It deserves a new use.

The Tower Subway started off with a small cable car, then became a footway,
which closed when Tower Bridge opened. It was then used for hydraulic power
mains, and water mains were also put through it. After the London Hydraulic
Power Company closed (in 1977) it was used for fibre optic cables.
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ay/index.shtml

Could be used to help redistribute 'Boris bikes' to different docking
stations around central London.

(I only throw that in there for the potential amusement factor lest
Bozza finds himself racking his brain for a new use for it, and coming
up with that as his latest wheeze...)

Otherwise, rubber dinghy rapids.

It deserves a new use.


A linear art gallery.

Remove one track. Display works of art. Use the other track for a dead
slow moving viewing platform. Divide line into sections for various
different genre accessed at exisitng stations not hard to do.

--
Nick