On 19 Aug 2004, Boltar wrote:

if they ever extend it to Highgate highlevel via finsbury park and the
parklandwalk then one island platform and standing in the rain without a
roof ,will do me...... but then again at highgate highlevel they is already
a platform and 1930 waiting room biult for the extention and hardly used

That'll never happen. Aside from the fact that they'd have to build a
whole new flyover at finsbury park can you imagine the Nimby factor in
Crouch End when all the yoghurt knitting right-ons in the area find out
that their tranquil woodland path nearby is going to be converted back
into a railway.

Sadly, true.

Although:

http://www.garden.force9.co.uk/Lawn.htm

Solved!

Also the logical conclusion would be to terminate the line in the middle
platforms at east finchley but then the HSE would start to wet
themselves about having tube and mainline trains in the same vacinity so
that probably wouldn't be allowed

Lucky nobody's told them about Richmond, Harrow & Wealdstone or
Harrow-on-the-Hill, then.

tom

--
He's taking towel fandom to a whole other bad level. -- applez, of coalescent

Tom Anderson wrote in message ...

Sadly, true.

Although:

http://www.garden.force9.co.uk/Lawn.htm

Hmm , I'm not sure how well dry grass in the summer would get on with
sparks off the 3rd and 4th rails!

Lucky nobody's told them about Richmond, Harrow & Wealdstone or
Harrow-on-the-Hill, then.

Those services are historical and we're set up long before the current
generation of bed wetters got into power. They'd never be allowed to be
set up today.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote in message
...

Sadly, true.

Although:

http://www.garden.force9.co.uk/Lawn.htm

Hmm , I'm not sure how well dry grass in the summer would get on
with sparks off the 3rd and 4th rails!

Lucky nobody's told them about Richmond, Harrow & Wealdstone or
Harrow-on-the-Hill, then.

Those services are historical and we're set up long before the
current generation of bed wetters got into power. They'd never
be allowed to be set up today.

Unprotected 3rd rail would not be allowed today on an entirely new
railway, but that has nothing to do with mixing tube and mainline, both
of which use the same technology at Richmond, except that LU is 4-rail
rather than 3-rail.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message ...

Unprotected 3rd rail would not be allowed today on an entirely new
railway, but that has nothing to do with mixing tube and mainline, both
of which use the same technology at Richmond, except that LU is 4-rail
rather than 3-rail.

I never said that it did. Its to do with what happens to the different
types of trains if they collide with each other. Tube trains usually come
off worse because the buffer beam of the mainline train hits the tube train
on its body rather than its buffers. Not sure what the rules are for full
size tube trains such as A,C and D stock sharing mainline track however.
Anyone know?

B2003

Boltar wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...

Unprotected 3rd rail would not be allowed today on an entirely new
railway, but that has nothing to do with mixing tube and mainline,
both of which use the same technology at Richmond, except that LU
is 4-rail rather than 3-rail.

I never said that it did. Its to do with what happens to the
different types of trains if they collide with each other. Tube
trains usually come off worse because the buffer beam of the
mainline train hits the tube train on its body rather than its
buffers.

"Usually"? Which crashes between tube stock and mainline trains did you
have in mind for this statistical comment?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
"Usually"? Which crashes between tube stock and mainline trains did
you have in mind for this statistical comment?

There was a collision in 1962 between a 38ts and a 501 at Watford High
Street, and another in 1986 between a 59ts and a 313 near Kensal Green. In
both cases the colliding Tube car was totally destroyed.

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Boltar wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...

Unprotected 3rd rail would not be allowed today on an entirely new
railway, but that has nothing to do with mixing tube and mainline,
both of which use the same technology at Richmond, except that LU
is 4-rail rather than 3-rail.

I never said that it did. Its to do with what happens to the
different types of trains if they collide with each other. Tube
trains usually come off worse because the buffer beam of the
mainline train hits the tube train on its body rather than its
buffers.

"Usually"? Which crashes between tube stock and mainline trains did you
have in mind for this statistical comment?

Figure of speech ok? Listen pal , I'm just trying to have an interesting
discussion here. If you want to have a flame war go find some other patsy.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
...

Unprotected 3rd rail would not be allowed today on an entirely
new railway, but that has nothing to do with mixing tube and
mainline, both of which use the same technology at Richmond,
except that LU is 4-rail rather than 3-rail.

I never said that it did. Its to do with what happens to the
different types of trains if they collide with each other. Tube
trains usually come off worse because the buffer beam of the
mainline train hits the tube train on its body rather than its
buffers.

"Usually"? Which crashes between tube stock and mainline trains
did you have in mind for this statistical comment?

Figure of speech ok? Listen pal , I'm just trying to have an
interesting discussion here. If you want to have a flame war go
find some other patsy.

All I'm trying to do is to understand your reasoning. You say that the
HSE wouldn't allow a new situation where tube and mainline trains share
the same track, and cite the vulnerability of tube trains in a crash.
But that's not the logic that was followed after the Ladbroke Grove
crash where the leading car of the 165 was destroyed by impact with the
HST power car. The solution was not to segregate DMUs and HSTs but to
improve safety systems to reduce the risk of a collision. It seems to
me that the same principle would apply to any future tube/mainline track
sharing.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, Boltar wrote:


if they ever extend it to Highgate highlevel via finsbury park and the
parklandwalk then one island platform and standing in the rain without a
roof ,will do me...... but then again at highgate highlevel they is already
a platform and 1930 waiting room biult for the extention and hardly used

That'll never happen. Aside from the fact that they'd have to build a
whole new flyover at finsbury park can you imagine the Nimby factor in
Crouch End when all the yoghurt knitting right-ons in the area find out
that their tranquil woodland path nearby is going to be converted back
into a railway.


Sadly, true.

Although:

http://www.garden.force9.co.uk/Lawn.htm

Solved!

More to the point, the disused track bed from Finsbury Park to Highgate
provides a very pleasant, off road walk. They are pretty unusual things
to find in London. I (an enthusiast of the tube and someone who
travelled from Manor House to Highgate this morning) have very mixed
feelings about gain v loss for this project. It strikes me that the loss
of a "green line" like this would be very sad.

Of course, if one were to propose digging up some roads and making them
into paths to compensate I might be more interested. Especially if there
was a law that required the police to shoot able-bodies people dawdling
along roads and clogging them up.

Francis Davey