On 17/11/2019 10:07, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:40:54 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 17/11/2019 09:04, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:48:05 +0000
Recliner wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...-friend/lightb

ox/

I wonder why the water tunnels are so deep. You'd think when pumping water
around you'd want them to be as shallow as possible since water is heavy
stuff
and requires huge amounts of energy to pump back uphill.


The problem with that diagram is that it shows depth below ground level,
not sea level (or river level in this case), so it gives a distorted
view of the actual depths.

One possible reason for a deep water tunnel is to give it a straight run
so you don't have to keep pumping water uphill at intermediate points on
the route.

Makes sense. Even so, I dread to think how much electricity the pumping must
require. Probably a small power stations worth.


The Thames Tideway's annual consumption was reckoned to be about 9,000
MWh. A handful of wind turbines cover that (leaving aide the usual
intermittency issue).


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message , at 09:08:39 on Sun, 17 Nov
2019, remarked:

74.0 Waterloo (Jubilee)
84.4 Bank (Northern)

Looks like the actual deepest railway platform in London is a toss up between
jubilee waterloo and Bank DLR which is way beneath the northern line platforms.
Anyone know how deep the DLR is?

41.4m below street level apparently. Street level is 13m, so around
28-29m below sea level. Thus 2-3m deeper than Jubilee at Waterloo.

And hence about 12m below the northern at Bank (which seems reasonable).

--
Roland Perry

On 17/11/2019 10:07, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:40:54 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 17/11/2019 09:04, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:48:05 +0000
Recliner wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...-friend/lightb

ox/

I wonder why the water tunnels are so deep. You'd think when pumping water
around you'd want them to be as shallow as possible since water is heavy
stuff
and requires huge amounts of energy to pump back uphill.


The problem with that diagram is that it shows depth below ground level,
not sea level (or river level in this case), so it gives a distorted
view of the actual depths.

One possible reason for a deep water tunnel is to give it a straight run
so you don't have to keep pumping water uphill at intermediate points on
the route.

Makes sense. Even so, I dread to think how much electricity the pumping must
require. Probably a small power stations worth.


Probably no more than eg the Severn Tunnel takes. Guildford's water
supply is taken from the River Wey and pumped up to a reservoir on the
Downs above the town. A single water turbine housed in the old mill
provided enough power to carry that out. That's a very small power station!

Confused my conveyancing solicitor when we moved here, his search came
up with a power station within 5 km of our house. Took me a while to
work out what it was.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 16/11/2019 16:06, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

I thinks it's the duration spent at deep level which causes my drowning
feeling. It's only if I go all the way from Bounds Green or so to Barons
Court that it happens.


The Northern and Victorua line tunnels are longer, of course, but perhaps
you don't travel through them?


Admittedly I might never have travelled so far on them in one go.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
The Box - 1984 - Great Moments In Big Slam

Robin wrote:
On 17/11/2019 10:07, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:40:54 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 17/11/2019 09:04, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:48:05 +0000
Recliner wrote:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...-friend/lightb

ox/

I wonder why the water tunnels are so deep. You'd think when pumping water
around you'd want them to be as shallow as possible since water is heavy
stuff
and requires huge amounts of energy to pump back uphill.


The problem with that diagram is that it shows depth below ground level,
not sea level (or river level in this case), so it gives a distorted
view of the actual depths.

One possible reason for a deep water tunnel is to give it a straight run
so you don't have to keep pumping water uphill at intermediate points on
the route.

Makes sense. Even so, I dread to think how much electricity the pumping must
require. Probably a small power stations worth.


The Thames Tideway's annual consumption was reckoned to be about 9,000
MWh. A handful of wind turbines cover that (leaving aide the usual
intermittency issue).

I assume the Thames Tideway pumping needs are also intermittent, as it's
essentially an overflow storm drain to intercept polluted water and sewage
that would otherwise flow into the river. For much of the time, it'll
presumably be empty, but will fill up after heavy rain, and need pumping
out?

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:08:39 on Sun, 17 Nov
2019, remarked:

74.0 Waterloo (Jubilee)
84.4 Bank (Northern)

Looks like the actual deepest railway platform in London is a toss up between
jubilee waterloo and Bank DLR which is way beneath the northern line platforms.
Anyone know how deep the DLR is?

41.4m below street level apparently. Street level is 13m, so around
28-29m below sea level. Thus 2-3m deeper than Jubilee at Waterloo.

And hence about 12m below the northern at Bank (which seems reasonable).


Which, of course, is why I asked about the DLR at Bank upthread:

Roland Perry wrote:
Recliner remarked:

What about the DLR at Bank?

Gets tangled up in whether it's a "tube" service or not.

But maybe people can comment on whether it's also "unbearably deep",
nevertheless.

On 16/11/2019 08:02, Marland wrote:

But I wonder what it is peculiar to the Piccadilly that affects Basil in
that way ?
He says it is the deepness of it but it isn’t really that different from
the other London tube Lines (using tube in the old way to describe the
smaller loading gauge routes).
Perhaps it is the only one he uses , or enters by one of the few remaining
lifts entries which seem to emphasise
a trip towards the underworld.

Lift stations were not involved.

Basil,have you ever taken a journey on the Glasgow Subway?
If you have did you find that claustrophobic at all with it loading gauge
even smaller than London tubes.

I've been on a Subway platform, but not on a Subway train.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
The Box - 1984 - Great Moments In Big Slam

Basil Jet wrote:
On 16/11/2019 16:06, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

I thinks it's the duration spent at deep level which causes my drowning
feeling. It's only if I go all the way from Bounds Green or so to Barons
Court that it happens.


The Northern and Victorua line tunnels are longer, of course, but perhaps
you don't travel through them?


Admittedly I might never have travelled so far on them in one go.


The seats on those lines are much less comfortable than on the Piccadilly
line, so a very long journey would be really uncomfortable.

In message , at 11:23:49 on Sun, 17 Nov
2019, Basil Jet remarked:

Basil,have you ever taken a journey on the Glasgow Subway?
If you have did you find that claustrophobic at all with it loading gauge
even smaller than London tubes.

I've been on a Subway platform, but not on a Subway train.

I've been in a Subway sandwich shop, does that count?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:23:13 on Sun, 17 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:08:39 on Sun, 17 Nov
2019, remarked:

74.0 Waterloo (Jubilee)
84.4 Bank (Northern)

Looks like the actual deepest railway platform in London is a toss
up between
jubilee waterloo and Bank DLR which is way beneath the northern line
platforms.
Anyone know how deep the DLR is?

41.4m below street level apparently. Street level is 13m, so around
28-29m below sea level. Thus 2-3m deeper than Jubilee at Waterloo.

And hence about 12m below the northern at Bank (which seems reasonable).

Which, of course, is why I asked about the DLR at Bank upthread:

Yes, I noticed.

Roland Perry wrote:
Recliner remarked:

What about the DLR at Bank?

No-one bothered to answer.

Gets tangled up in whether it's a "tube" service or not.

But maybe people can comment on whether it's also "unbearably deep",
nevertheless.

No-one bothered to answer.
--
Roland Perry