On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:34:04 +0100, Owen Dunn wrote:

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have
heard it all before.

I hadn't heard before how they built the Paris Metro stations as
boxes above ground and then sank them into the squidgy soil...

Yes there was a lot of interesting technical stuff in the prog.

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:34:04 +0100, Owen Dunn wrote:

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have
heard it all before.

I hadn't heard before how they built the Paris Metro stations as
boxes above ground and then sank them into the squidgy soil...

Yes there was a lot of interesting technical stuff in the prog

I thought it was a good programme. Fairly simplistic to those who work in
the rail industry or take a serious interest in it, but still informative.
And Jem Stansfield's illustrations of the principles were good.

Some people have moaned that it blurred the line between TfL and Crossrail,
but they are both "underground" systems with many similarities (eg stations
in tunnels underground) and a lot of the construction principles will be the
same for either. The precise ownership of the projects is of lesser
importance, other than to pedants.

At least it concentrated on the engineering instead of getting side-tracked
on the personalities and personality clashes of the engineers, which was the
case for the (BBC?) series a year or so ago about the conversion of St
Pancras for Eurostar services.

"77002" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 2:58 pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. A lot of
banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. I suppose that they
are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

On 17/07/2012 21:49, Mortimer wrote:

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and
Crossrail projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that
Crossrail is not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

Crossrail Ltd is a fully owned subsidiary of TfL.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:49:09 +0100, "Mortimer" wrote:



"77002" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 2:58 pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. A lot of
banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. I suppose that they
are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. It was misleading to those without. The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

In fact, the Crossrail project is becoming more of a TfL project than
ever, so I think it's quite fair to blur the organisational
distinction in an international programme like this. Also, we don't
tend to get hung up today on the differences between the early London
underground railway companies (ie, the Met, District, CSLR, LER,
UERL), so in years to come, will there be much perceived difference
between, say, the Met and Crossrail?

In message , at
21:46:43 on Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mortimer remarked:
At least it concentrated on the engineering instead of getting
side-tracked on the personalities and personality clashes of the
engineers, which was the case for the (BBC?) series a year or so ago
about the conversion of St Pancras for Eurostar services.

Ah yes, the architect who was apparently in tears because his glass
panels alongside the escalators didn't line up exactly, but who managed
to perpetrate toilet facilities which have been blocked/flooded ever
since, and no end in sight.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:03:59 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
21:46:43 on Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Mortimer remarked:
At least it concentrated on the engineering instead of getting
side-tracked on the personalities and personality clashes of the
engineers, which was the case for the (BBC?) series a year or so ago
about the conversion of St Pancras for Eurostar services.

Ah yes, the architect who was apparently in tears because his glass
panels alongside the escalators didn't line up exactly, but who managed
to perpetrate toilet facilities which have been blocked/flooded ever
since, and no end in sight.

Isn't that a mandatory requirement in all Eurostar stations?

On Jul 17, 9:49*pm, "Mortimer" wrote:
"77002" wrote in message

...





On Jul 14, 2:58 pm, allantracy wrote:
It hopelessly confuses the Crossrail and the TfL systems. *A lot of
banging
and crashing "music" and voice-of-doom commentary. *I suppose that they
are
using "London Underground" in a generic sense.

I watched the first and got fed up, it’s very shall we say
‘introductory level’.

Nothing wrong with that but I would imagine most here would have heard
it all before.

It’s a program aimed at the kind of normal that probably believes
trains have steering wheels.

IMHO, not a good program. *It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. * It was misleading to those without. *The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:



IMHO, not a good program. *It was simplistic tothose with some
knowledge of the subject. * It was misleading to those without. *The
graphics were not bad.

What was misleading about it? Other than that it mentioned TfL and Crossrail
projects in the same breath rather than making it clear that Crossrail is
not part of TfL or "the London Underground system".

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

Yes, it was simplistic and lacked detail, being intended for the US
market, although it apparently still required a longer attention span
than you could muster. It made quite clear the difference between the
Met's cut and cover tunnels (complete with horse-drawn carriages
driving on the right) and the pioneering deep tube tunnels used by the
C&SLR. It separately explained that multiple-unit electric trains (as
pioneered in NYC) had better traction than steam loco-hauled trains,
though it didn't mention the intermediate option of electric locos, as
used initially by the C&SLR.

In article
,
(e27002) wrote:

The City & South London was the first subway line? Whatever happened
to the Met? Apparently steam motive pwer was considered! (On a tube
line). Greathead was the first to tunnel with a shield! What was
Marc Brunel utilizing (OK, not so refined, but still the same
principle).

The program was simplistic and lacked detail, even for "normals".

The C&SLR was the first deep level tube line. The programme made that clear.

--
Colin Rosenstiel