|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 17/03/2012 11:36, Paul Scott wrote:
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... Looks like she'll be back in refit! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17407435 For a few hours or days. Articles like that really need to get a grip on reality - minor collision damage, or 'berthing incidents' (often with tugs unfamiliar with the type of vessel) happens all the time, to both warships and merchant ships. Much ado about nothing to be honest... Oh I know, just amused me as we'd just been discussing her. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In uk.railway Graeme Wall twisted the electrons to say:
On 16/03/2012 14:24, Recliner wrote: I thought we didn't have any in-service fixed-wing aircraft carriers, with or without aircraft? We still have HMS Illustrious, though she's not in commission. That was a fast decommissioning, she was only on her way back from an exercise off the coast of Norway on the 16th! Of course, we do have two under construction for delivery in a few years. One of which is scheduled to go direct from the slipway to the scrapyard. Well, straight from slipway to the reserves ... The bit that misses is the fact that the Argentine navy effectively doesn't exist any more, they have no carrier, no operational subs, 3 old frigates and 2 type 42 destroyers. Debatable whether any of those are actually serviceable. They certainly don't have any heavy lift and amphibious capability any more. One of their type-42s is a (small) helicopter assault ship these days rather than an air defence destroyer. There's a presidential election later in the year and the locals are ****ed of with Christina. Also the economy is going down the drain again so rattle the sabres and wave the Malvinas flags to distract the peasantry. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 2012\03\17 14:21, Jim Chisholm wrote:
but I travelled, last year. from Zurich to Milan, in part just to look at the works and the wonderful views, before it is all in tunnel Is the present route being shut when the Gotthard Base Tunnel opens? |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In article , (Jim
Chisholm) wrote: On 16/03/2012 23:30, wrote: In , (Jim Chisholm) wrote: On 16/03/2012 00:17, wrote: "The scheme is currently the largest civil engineering project in Europe." Really? Bigger than the Gotthard Base Tunnel? But that isn't in Europe... It is in Switzerland Which was in Europe last time I looked. It's even in Schengen. Last time I was there they wouldn't even except Euros {Isn't there some other country a bit like that!} but I travelled, last year. from Zurich to Milan, in part just to look at the works and the wonderful views, before it is all in tunnel The existing Gotthard tunnel is rather non-trivial in length. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
Neil Williams wrote on 17 March 2012 20:24:58 ...
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:42:14 -0500, wrote: I don't think so but I expect services will be reduced. Will probably be an hourly EMU like the Loetschbergbahn, I'd think. An hourly EMU service on Crossrail? Oh, you're talking about some Alpine tunnel. Neil, if you must continue an OT sub-thread on u.t.l, please either retain the context or change the subject. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote: Neil Williams wrote on 17 March 2012 20:24:58 ... On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:42:14 -0500, wrote: I don't think so but I expect services will be reduced. Will probably be an hourly EMU like the Loetschbergbahn, I'd think. An hourly EMU service on Crossrail? Oh, you're talking about some Alpine tunnel. Neil, if you must continue an OT sub-thread on u.t.l, please either retain the context or change the subject. I think I was the one who took us to the Alps. Sorry. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 17, 9:58*pm, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2012-03-16 12:01:18 +0000, 77002 said: On Mar 16, 7:49*am, furnessvale wrote: On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:53:04 AM UTC, Mizter T wrote: Tunnel boring to begin from the Royal Oak portal heading eastwards under central London. So, it's finally really happening. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and mouth shut. *How many false starts did the Channel Tunnel have that actually involved tunnelling underway? Several of the Crossrail stations have been under construction for some time. *The ramps down to the portals at Paddington are substantial. Moreover, IIRC, the cost of Crossrail has reduced slightly. Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. IIRC Correctly it relates to depressed construction costs. Of course it is early days yet. There may be cost overruns. It is bad enough having 313s on the Coastway. Why would anyone want to run trains from Reading to Shenfield sans half baths is beyond me. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? Moreover it is madness terminating so many Crossrail trains at Paddington. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote:
Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without old NSE type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. -- Nick |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 18, 3:01*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. Cricklewood and a new junction at Neasden would have been my preferred means of taking Thameslink onto the Met. & Chiltern. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 18, 4:34*pm, 77002 wrote:
Cricklewood and a new junction at Neasden would have been my preferred means of taking Thameslink onto the Met. *& Chiltern. Well yes there are more than one ways integration could have been done. -- Nick |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 2012\03\18 16:34, 77002 wrote:
On Mar 18, 3:01 pm, wrote: On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without old NSE type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. Cricklewood and a new junction at Neasden would have been my preferred means of taking Thameslink onto the Met.& Chiltern. The new bridge carrying Neasden Lane would be visible from Crystal Palace! |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:00:01 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
wrote: In uk.railway Graeme Wall twisted the electrons to say: On 16/03/2012 14:24, Recliner wrote: I thought we didn't have any in-service fixed-wing aircraft carriers, with or without aircraft? We still have HMS Illustrious, though she's not in commission. That was a fast decommissioning, she was only on her way back from an exercise off the coast of Norway on the 16th! Of course, we do have two under construction for delivery in a few years. One of which is scheduled to go direct from the slipway to the scrapyard. Well, straight from slipway to the reserves ... Looks like there's another change of plan coming down the slipway: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...carriers-costs |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 18, 8:23*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2012\03\18 16:34, 77002 wrote: On Mar 18, 3:01 pm, *wrote: On Mar 18, 12:44 pm, *wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. Cricklewood and a new junction at Neasden would have been my preferred means of taking Thameslink onto the Met.& *Chiltern. The new bridge carrying Neasden Lane would be visible from Crystal Palace! The curve towards Harrow would be West of the Railway Bridge, no? |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:18 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote: The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent technologies always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it. That doesn't answer the question. People don't figure out exactly who is going to nick their stuff before taking out insurance. Good analogy , I'm going to remember that one! B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:48:04 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: On 19/03/2012 09:40, d wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:18 +0000 Arthur wrote: The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent technologies always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it. That doesn't answer the question. People don't figure out exactly who is going to nick their stuff before taking out insurance. Good analogy , I'm going to remember that one! On the other hand insurance companiea work out how likely you are to get your stuff nicked /before/ working out the premium. If the west hadn't had nukes russia would have rolled across western europe long ago. Also given its a de factor dictatorship that threat hasn't completely disappeared and who knows who'll end up running it when Putin finally falls off his perch. And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc. Perhaps you have a crystal ball and can predict what the world will be like in 20 years time but everyone else can't so its best to err on the side of taking precautions. And if you're one of the people who think that not having nukes means we'll never be nuked then perhaps you should ask the japanese about the logic of that. B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 19, 11:30*am, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:48:04 +0000 Graeme Wall wrote: On 19/03/2012 09:40, wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:18 +0000 Arthur *wrote: The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent technologies always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it. That doesn't answer the question. People don't figure out exactly who is going to nick their stuff before taking out insurance. Good analogy , I'm going to remember that one! On the other hand insurance companiea work out how likely you are to get your stuff nicked /before/ working out the premium. If the west hadn't had nukes russia would have rolled across western europe long ago. Also given its a de factor dictatorship that threat hasn't completely disappeared and who knows who'll end up running it when Putin finally falls off his perch. And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc. Perhaps you have a crystal ball and can predict what the world will be like in 20 years time but everyone else can't so its best to err on the side of taking precautions. And if you're one of the people who think that not having nukes means we'll never be nuked then perhaps you should ask the japanese about the logic of that. Iran is well on its way to having Nukes. They have already made threats. A cursory knowledge of recent history should teach even liberals to take Iran seriously, 444 days anyone? Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan is very unstable, a failed state even. On paper Pakistan may be an ally. Whether this is the case, and if is, how long it will remain so, is up for debate. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 19/03/2012 11:30, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:48:04 +0000 Graeme wrote: On 19/03/2012 09:40, d wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:18 +0000 Arthur wrote: The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent technologies always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it. That doesn't answer the question. People don't figure out exactly who is going to nick their stuff before taking out insurance. Good analogy , I'm going to remember that one! On the other hand insurance companiea work out how likely you are to get your stuff nicked /before/ working out the premium. If the west hadn't had nukes russia would have rolled across western europe long ago. Possibly, I've come across Russians in the Soviet era who argued that if they didn't have nukes the west would have rolled across them long ago. Also given its a de factor Perhaps you mean de facto... dictatorship that threat hasn't completely disappeared and who knows who'll end up running it when Putin finally falls off his perch. Currently the Russian nuclear weaponry is a greater danger to the Russians than to anybody else. And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc. Neither of which is a direct threat to the UK, being far more obsessed with Israel and South Korea respectively. Neither of which require the capabilities of 4 Trident ballistic missile submarines to cope with. After all even one missile has 12 MIRVs. Once you've targeted Tehran, or Pyongyang, what are you going to do with the other 11 warheads? Also you launch an SLBM against Tehran from the middle of the Atlantic and the Russians are going to get very jumpy! By the time they've confirmed the flight path they may well have already ordered a retaliatory strike just in case. A far better and more cost effective solution is to use submarine launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Perhaps you have a crystal ball and can predict what the world will be like in 20 years time but everyone else can't so its best to err on the side of taking precautions. But the precautions have to be proportionate to the threat. I note you ignore what is likely to be the biggest threats in the nuclear world, Pakistan and India, especially the former. And if you're one of the people who think that not having nukes means we'll never be nuked then perhaps you should ask the japanese about the logic of that. To put your mind at rest I am not one of those people. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:27:31 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: If the west hadn't had nukes russia would have rolled across western europe long ago. Possibly, I've come across Russians in the Soviet era who argued that if they didn't have nukes the west would have rolled across them long ago. Unlikely. Western europe wouldn't have had the will and the yanks had other things to worry about. The soviets however were forever sabre rattling. Also given its a de factor Perhaps you mean de facto... Pointing out typos? Come on , you can do better... dictatorship that threat hasn't completely disappeared and who knows who'll end up running it when Putin finally falls off his perch. Currently the Russian nuclear weaponry is a greater danger to the Russians than to anybody else. In what sense? Self detonation or just theft? And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc. Neither of which is a direct threat to the UK, being far more obsessed Yet. Admittedly north korea is only ever likely to be a threat to asia but Iran looks like its going to become a real problem real soon. After all even one missile has 12 MIRVs. Once you've targeted Tehran, or Pyongyang, what are you going to do with the other 11 warheads? Target other cities. I'm not saying thats right ... Also you launch an SLBM against Tehran from the middle of the Atlantic and the Russians are going to get very jumpy! By the time they've confirmed the flight path they may well have already ordered a retaliatory strike just in case. Which is why they would be told first as currenly happens with all missile tests and initiation of conflict. A far better and more cost effective solution is to use submarine launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Cheaper certainly, but cruise missiles are slow and can be shot down. But the precautions have to be proportionate to the threat. I note you ignore what is likely to be the biggest threats in the nuclear world, Pakistan and India, especially the former. Fair point. If pakistan goes the way of afghanistan we've got real problems. India I'm not too worried about right now. For all its problems its a pretty stable country. B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 19, 1:01*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:27:31 +0000 Graeme Wall wrote: If the west hadn't had nukes russia would have rolled across western europe long ago. Possibly, I've come across Russians in the Soviet era who argued that if they didn't have nukes the west would have rolled across them long ago. Unlikely. Western europe wouldn't have had the will and the yanks had other things to worry about. The soviets however were forever sabre rattling. Also given its a de factor Perhaps you mean de facto... Pointing out typos? Come on , you can do better... dictatorship that threat hasn't completely disappeared and who knows who'll end up running it when Putin finally falls off his perch. Currently the Russian nuclear weaponry is a greater danger to the Russians than to anybody else. In what sense? Self detonation or just theft? And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc. Neither of which is a direct threat to the UK, being far more obsessed Yet. Admittedly north korea is only ever likely to be a threat to asia but Iran looks like its going to become a real problem real soon. After all even one missile has 12 MIRVs. *Once you've targeted Tehran, or Pyongyang, what are you going to do with the other 11 warheads? Target other cities. I'm not saying thats right ... Also you launch an SLBM against Tehran from the middle of the Atlantic and the Russians are going to get very jumpy! *By the time they've confirmed the flight path they may well have already ordered a retaliatory strike just in case. Which is why they would be told first as currenly happens with all missile tests and initiation of conflict. A far better and more cost effective solution is to use submarine launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Cheaper certainly, but cruise missiles are slow and can be shot down. But the precautions have to be proportionate to the threat. *I note you ignore what is likely to be the biggest threats in the nuclear world, Pakistan and India, especially the former. Fair point. If pakistan goes the way of afghanistan we've got real problems. India I'm not too worried about right now. For all its problems its a pretty stable country. India is improving politically, and economically. India would be a much better Ally than Pakistan. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:00:52 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: The greater danger is that they might attack Riyadh over the Shia-Sunni split. Especially as they know the Saudis don't have nukes. And have the entire arab world put them on their hit list? Even iran needs some friends. After all even one missile has 12 MIRVs. Once you've targeted Tehran, or Pyongyang, what are you going to do with the other 11 warheads? Target other cities. I'm not saying thats right ... Why? There is no possible rational for targeting anything other than the capital city. Of course there is. No sensible government puts all its eggs in one basket. Apart from that you can guarantee if war broke out then Achmed Dinnerjacket and his flunkies would be nowhere near Tehran. mind. Also, as the current paralysis over Syria demonstrates, you wouldn't necessarily want to tell the Russians what you were up to in advance. The russians just like to stick their oar in. They don't actually give a **** about Syria other than using it as a tool to prove that they won't blindly follow western wishes at the UN. If the first one doesn't get through, fire another. It would be mixed up in a salvo of conventional missiles anyway. Also if the Iranians In which case why bother in the first place? India is not the problem, it is the target. Not sure what you mean about if Pakistan goes the way of Afghanistan, Pakistan is actually the sponsor of the problems in Afghanistan. True, but its not yet overtly hostile to the west and it limits itself to regional powermongering. If some taliban supporting islamic nutters got control of the nuclear missiles then god help us. B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:07:52 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: And have the entire arab world put them on their hit list? Even iran needs some friends. Only half the Arab world and do the Iranians actually care, after all they aren't Arabs. No , but they like to be puppet master of a number of arab terrorist groups. And I wouldn't be the one to place a bet on whether shia arabs would support persians after they'd just wiped out half the peninsula. Of course there is. No sensible government puts all its eggs in one basket. We are not talking about a sensible government we are talking about what is effectively a medieval theocracy. Even theocrats arn't complete idiots. Doesn't really matter, you knock out Tehran and it doesn't matter where the monkeys are hiding, you've got the organ-grinder. Not if he's already legged it. The russians just like to stick their oar in. They don't actually give a **** about Syria other than using it as a tool to prove that they won't blindly follow western wishes at the UN. More to the point it is one of the few states left buying Russian weaponry. I doubt thats true. The russians sell via arms dealers to many many nations. Look at where half the arms in africa come from. I'm assuming the Iranians have already fired a nuke and the west is demonstrating that instant virgins for the masses works both ways. If there is no point in launching a nuke, why bother having them in the first place. I mean why bother with cruise missiles if you're going to use conventional too. True, but its not yet overtly hostile to the west and it limits itself to regional powermongering. If some taliban supporting islamic nutters got control of the nuclear missiles then god help us. Be afraid, be very afraid, they already have. Not quite yet, but it might not be far off. Though if they even looked at the red button the wrong way I suspect the yanks would have a quiet word with the indians and help them carry out a pre-emptive strike. B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 19/03/2012 12:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 19/03/2012 11:30, d wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:48:04 +0000 Graeme wrote: On 19/03/2012 09:40, d wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:37:18 +0000 Arthur wrote: The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent technologies always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it. That doesn't answer the question. People don't figure out exactly who is going to nick their stuff before taking out insurance. Good analogy , I'm going to remember that one! On the other hand insurance companiea work out how likely you are to get your stuff nicked /before/ working out the premium. If the west hadn't had nukes russia would have rolled across western europe long ago. Possibly, I've come across Russians in the Soviet era who argued that if they didn't have nukes the west would have rolled across them long ago. What do the Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians say on the subject of who was doing the rolling? (Okay, there was Egypt, but the US put a stop to that!) Also given its a de factor Perhaps you mean de facto... dictatorship that threat hasn't completely disappeared and who knows who'll end up running it when Putin finally falls off his perch. Currently the Russian nuclear weaponry is a greater danger to the Russians than to anybody else. And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc. Neither of which is a direct threat to the UK, being far more obsessed with Israel and South Korea respectively. The fun starts once Iran gets nukes, the West says "ha ha, that's one in the eye to yanks and zionists.... Oh, what do you mean various Arab states are now saying 'well in that case we have to be able to defend ourselves against Persian attack' while Pakistan is saying "uh-uh, we're surrounded..."" Neither of which require the capabilities of 4 Trident ballistic missile submarines to cope with. After all even one missile has 12 MIRVs. Once you've targeted Tehran, or Pyongyang, what are you going to do with the other 11 warheads? Middlesbrough. Also you launch an SLBM against Tehran from the middle of the Atlantic and the Russians are going to get very jumpy! By the time they've confirmed the flight path they may well have already ordered a retaliatory strike just in case. Unless they are in on it. A far better and more cost effective solution is to use submarine launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. I suspect that isn't the plan for most people objecting to current plans! Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 19/03/2012 19:44, Arthur Figgis wrote:
And then there are unpredictable states such as iran, north korea etc. Neither of which is a direct threat to the UK, being far more obsessed with Israel and South Korea respectively. The fun starts once Iran gets nukes, the West says "ha ha, that's one in the eye to yanks and zionists.... Oh, what do you mean various Arab states are now saying 'well in that case we have to be able to defend ourselves against Persian attack' while Pakistan is saying "uh-uh, we're surrounded..."" Sorry, I don't understand any of that. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:37 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote: Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever. Apparebntly french nukes are highlyh sophisticated. The warhead splits at the apex of its trajectory into individual bombs and then at lower altitude each bomb releases a white flag that also doubles as a parachute so they don't get hurt when they land. B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 20/03/2012 09:54, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:37 +0000 Arthur wrote: Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever. Apparebntly french nukes are highlyh sophisticated. The warhead splits at the apex of its trajectory into individual bombs and then at lower altitude each bomb releases a white flag that also doubles as a parachute so they don't get hurt when they land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 16/03/12 12:22, Bruce wrote:
It also takes time to do; your car satnav or hand held GPS receiver gives you a near instant fix to within a few metres, but differential GPS takes hours* to give an accuracy of millimetres. That's not differential GPS. DGPS is just as fast as normal GPS and uses a secondary transmission of local GPS error derived from a GPS receiver at a known position. It's good to about 10cm. Higher degrees of accuracy come from techniques like long term averaging or carrier phase tracking. Ian |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 16/03/12 10:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:36:36 on Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Graeme Wall remarked: You forget that Polson was Morton's right hand man on the project and therefore knows everything about it. iirc he was involved in one of the rival bids (and unsuccessful) bids to build a bridge instead. [citation require] Ian |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 16/03/12 11:50, Graeme Wall wrote:
Difficult to disentangle all his myriad claims but IIRC he was allegedly working on the tunnel project Remember that he has also claimed to have managed an opencast mine, worked in every nuclear power station in Britain, run shops in Preston and North Yorkshire, been a civil servant, written the transport section of the Labour Manifesto in 1997, supervised the Piccadilly Line tunnel under Heathrow and taken cover photographs for Vogue. I suppose it's possible that some of these claims might be true. Ian |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message , at 23:51:45 on Tue, 20 Mar
2012, The Real Doctor remarked: You forget that Polson was Morton's right hand man on the project and therefore knows everything about it. iirc he was involved in one of the rival bids (and unsuccessful) bids to build a bridge instead. [citation require] http://groups.google.com/group/uk.ra...5dfe76b6edfa72 Sorry, I knew he'd posted about the bridge option, but I had the context reversed. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 20, 4:25*pm, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
D7666 wrote: On Mar 15, 2:55 pm, allantracy wrote: So, it's finally really happening. ...... and only thirteen years late. It was approved 2007 ... under a Labour government based on the 2005 proposals ... made during a Labour government. If it is 13 years late by your reckoning it was 1994 when it ought to have been approved - but it was not - by a Tory government. The previous study that made as far as a Bill were presented in 1991 to a Tory gov finally rejected in 1994 by a Tory gov. Regardless of the flavours of government involved: with hindsight, should the 1991 plan have been approved? By how much did those plans differ from the current plan? By how much did the estimated cost differ from the current estimated cost? Genuine questions... IIRC the central section was not much different in the ealy plan. There was to be an extra station between Tottenham Court Rd and Farringdon. I do not recall the cost, it was high enough to frighten the politicians. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 20, 4:25*pm, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
77002 wrote: On Mar 17, 9:58 pm, Robert Cox wrote: On 2012-03-16 12:01:18 +0000, 77002 said: On Mar 16, 7:49 am, furnessvale wrote: On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:53:04 AM UTC, Mizter T wrote: Tunnel boring to begin from the Royal Oak portal heading eastwards under central London. So, it's finally really happening. I'm keeping my fingers crossed and mouth shut. *How many false starts did the Channel Tunnel have that actually involved tunnelling underway? Several of the Crossrail stations have been under construction for some time. *The ramps down to the portals at Paddington are substantial. Moreover, IIRC, the cost of Crossrail has reduced slightly. Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. IIRC Correctly it relates to depressed construction costs. *Of course it is early days yet. *There may be cost overruns. It is bad enough having 313s on the Coastway. *Why would anyone want to run trains from Reading to Shenfield sans half baths is beyond me. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? Moreover it is madness terminating so many Crossrail trains at Paddington. I guess it's too late now, but taking over the H&C to Hammersmith seemed (to me) an obvious solution for 'what to do with' all those Padd terminators. I presume Crossrail trains are longer than H&C trains; maybe so much so that it would create more problems than it would solve. I hate the idea of turning so many Crossrail trains back at Paddington. Unfortunately, if the platforms on the Hammersmith branch were lengthened for Crossrail, some neighboring stations would become a continuous platform. Moreover, the depot for both the H&C and Circle is in Hammersmith. Other than that, it is great idea. Better yet, put back the junction at Hammersmith and run Crossrail thru to Ealing Broadway and Rayners Lane. We simplify the Circle, and District Lines, and allow more Piccadilly Line trains to serve Heathrow in one fell swoop. :-) A better solution may be to run as far as Old Oak, the next to the Central Line, finally taking over the Central Line to Ealing Broadway. More Central Line trains would turn back at Shepherds Bush, thus freeing capacity and simplifying operations. Tring has also been considered as a Crossrail destination. Would there be any mileage in having a second, 'longer distance' variety of stock for Crossrail and running some of the Padd terminators to Oxford? 2tph express and two tph all stops, replacing the current fGW service? Again I guess that the complications (not least the 'wrong kind of stock' turning up to form a service) outweigh any potential benefits... A single type of Rolling stock will keep the price down. It also simplifies operations and maintenance. Whether the idiots at TfL have chosen the right rolling stock is another question. Why would any sane railway run trains from Reading to Shenfield, sans half-bathrooms? Anna Noyd-Dryver (preparing to be shot down in flames) Not by me. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 20, 6:23*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:25:40 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: I guess it's too late now, but taking over the H&C to Hammersmith seemed (to me) an obvious solution Not much good if you want to use it to travel from Hammersmith to, umm, the City. On the Contrary, the route to Farringdon (Street) would be more direct, have less stations, and be aboard, faster, higher capacity, trains. Just the same, it is not practical, for the reasons I have stated up thread. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 20/03/2012 21:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/03/2012 09:54, d wrote: On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:37 +0000 Arthur wrote: Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever. Apparebntly french nukes are highlyh sophisticated. The warhead splits at the apex of its trajectory into individual bombs and then at lower altitude each bomb releases a white flag that also doubles as a parachute so they don't get hurt when they land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun I suspect Boltar has been influenced by the Republican Party's tantrum when the French sensibly declined to join in Bush's "Let's not worry about catching Bin Laden and get Saddam instead for the hell of it." -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk