On 15/03/2012 20:44, allantracy wrote:

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.

How do you think now then ?


Well therein lies the difference

Tories said we're not doing it and doing it they did not.

New Labour said we are doing it and doing it they did not.


Providing you ignore all the years of preparatory work that has been
going on before they could get to the point of unleashing the TBMs.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 16/03/2012 10:10, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:34:43 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 15/03/2012 20:44, allantracy wrote:

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.

How do you think now then ?


Well therein lies the difference

Tories said we're not doing it and doing it they did not.

New Labour said we are doing it and doing it they did not.


Providing you ignore all the years of preparatory work that has been
going on before they could get to the point of unleashing the TBMs.

Goodness are you telling me that design, statutory approvals and
consultation, property purchase, procurement, utility works and
mobilisation didn't all happen in the last couple of months? I'm
shocked. I thought Justine Greening had been doing it all single
handedly.


I'm sure Boris will claim it was all his doing.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Mar 15, 10:53*am, Mizter T wrote:

Tunnel boring


So, it's finally really happening.


Most days I travel one way or the other through Paddington on the
Hamcity & Mersmith line and I've been watching the machinery being
assembled bit by bit. Its impressive kit. I don't recall the channel
tunnel machinery being as impressive but maybe grey cells are
decaying.

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:

On Mar 15, 10:53*am, Mizter T wrote:

Tunnel boring


So, it's finally really happening.


Most days I travel one way or the other through Paddington on the
Hamcity & Mersmith line and I've been watching the machinery being
assembled bit by bit. Its impressive kit. I don't recall the channel
tunnel machinery being as impressive but maybe grey cells are
decaying.


The Channel Tunnel machinery was crude and simplistic on the British
side, but extremely sophisticated and impressive on the French side.

The British tunnelling engineers laughed at the French machines,
claiming that they were absurdly complex and would make very slow
progress compared to the much simpler machines on the British side.

In the final reckoning, the French machines were very reliable and
worked faster than expected despite encountering ground conditions
that were much worse than expected. Meanwhile, the British machines
struggled in better ground that the French had to deal with and proved
unreliable and inadequate.

The planned meeting point between the British and French tunnel drives
had to be moved towards Kent several times (and by significant
distances) because the French machines made such rapid progress
compared to ours.

On 15/03/2012 20:48, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

On Mar 15, 10:53 am, Mizter wrote:

Tunnel boring


So, it's finally really happening.


Most days I travel one way or the other through Paddington on the
Hamcity& Mersmith line and I've been watching the machinery being
assembled bit by bit. Its impressive kit. I don't recall the channel
tunnel machinery being as impressive but maybe grey cells are
decaying.


The Channel Tunnel machinery was crude and simplistic on the British
side, but extremely sophisticated and impressive on the French side.

The British tunnelling engineers laughed at the French machines,

Which engineers, and how do you know that they did?

It doesn't seen the sort of thing that engineers (real engineers, rather
than repairmen or shopkeepers) who I've come across would do, as most
seem to find different approaches to specific problems to be quite
interesting.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 15/03/2012 20:53, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/03/2012 20:48, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

On Mar 15, 10:53 am, Mizter wrote:

Tunnel boring


So, it's finally really happening.


Most days I travel one way or the other through Paddington on the
Hamcity& Mersmith line and I've been watching the machinery being
assembled bit by bit. Its impressive kit. I don't recall the channel
tunnel machinery being as impressive but maybe grey cells are
decaying.


The Channel Tunnel machinery was crude and simplistic on the British
side, but extremely sophisticated and impressive on the French side.

The British tunnelling engineers laughed at the French machines,

Which engineers, and how do you know that they did?

It doesn't seen the sort of thing that engineers (real engineers, rather
than repairmen or shopkeepers) who I've come across would do, as most
seem to find different approaches to specific problems to be quite
interesting.


You forget that Polson was Morton's right hand man on the project and
therefore knows everything about it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

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.
--
Roland Perry

The Channel Tunnel machinery was crude and simplistic on the British
side, but extremely sophisticated and impressive on the French side.


Yes, you can always rely on the French to be a bunch of poseurs.

Pity they aren’t so good at armies.

Mind you, I bet they wouldn’t have needed £17bn to build HS2.

allantracy wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Channel Tunnel machinery was crude and simplistic on the British
side, but extremely sophisticated and impressive on the French side.


Yes, you can always rely on the French to be a bunch of poseurs.


Laugh as much as you want, but it seems you can rely on the French to
get the job done. Actually, they not only got *their* job done, they
bored and lined a lot of the tunnel that was supposed to be built from
the English side, so they did quite a lot of *ours* too.

If it hadn't been for the ability and efforts of the French, the
overall project would have taken much longer to complete and the final
cost would have been even further over budget.

On Mar 15, 9:38*pm, allantracy wrote:

Yes, you can always rely on the French to be a bunch of poseurs.

Pity they aren’t so good at armies.


"According to historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars
fought since 1495, the French have participated in fifty - more than
both Austria (forty-seven) and England (forty-three). And they've
achieved an impressive batting average: out of 168 battles fought
since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10."

(From 'The Second QI Book of General Ignorance', funnily enough).


----
Colin Williams.