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

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.

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

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!

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.