|
East London Line extension news
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Aidan Stanger wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: (Dave Arquati) wrote: Angus Bryant wrote: Is there still a plan to open a station at Brixton? This would be a really useful interchange for any SLL/orbital service. Currently depends on funding; a station at Brixton would be on the brick viaduct and would cost around £70m. ELLX Phase 2 would probably go ahead without it, to make sure the cost of the station at Brixton didn't jeopardise the rest of the project. £70M? Sheesh! Railway costs have gone mad. You're right - that's over 90% of the cost of the entire original section of the DLR (including the trains). Even allowing for the longer platforms and inflation, it still seems to be an order of magnitude out. Most boiling frogs are caused at least partly by the private sector not being able to efficiently do what BR could. Can it really be that the private sector can't even efficiently do what they themselves were once able to? Or is it a case of gross overspeccing? Answering this question should bring the solution a lot closer. How much of it is just inflation? tom -- Understand the world we're living in |
East London Line extension news
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Tom Anderson wrote:
How much of it is just inflation? If you mean in the technical sense, then you could try http://www.eh.net/hmit/ukcompare/ or some of the other calculators on the same site. Mind you, (to take random examples) the question of what a diesel-electric unit would have cost in the year 1830 isn't really very meaningful, nor culd we make much sense of the question what York Minster would cost to build from scratch today. So straight comparisons are far from obvious. On the other hand, today's contracts seem to be inflated also by a whole string of "hangers-on" who wouldn't have featured in earlier schemes. IMHO and YMMV, natch. |
East London Line extension news
Christine wrote in message . ..
Unfortunately Networkers aren't passed to run on the Southern lines at How come? Would they need mods to be able to do so? B2003 |
East London Line extension news
|
East London Line extension news
There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce.
Several places having to have 'glued ballast'. Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they have never gauged tested the area for Networkers On 3 Dec 2004 08:46:27 -0800, (Boltar) wrote: Christine wrote in message . .. Unfortunately Networkers aren't passed to run on the Southern lines at How come? Would they need mods to be able to do so? B2003 Life without sex just isn't life. Make love not war! |
East London Line extension news
Christine wrote: There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce. Several places having to have 'glued ballast'. Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they have never gauged tested the area for Networkers It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british railways. Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe leave a spare foot here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels this would be expensive but how much extra would it have cost to make lineside obstacles, bridge supports etc a foot or 2 further from the track when you're building a 30 foot wide permanent way anyway? Plus those victorians did loved their curved platforms, just to make life a real pain for longer vehicles. B2003 |
East London Line extension news
Boltar wrote:
Christine wrote: There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce. Several places having to have 'glued ballast'. Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they have never gauged tested the area for Networkers It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british railways. Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe leave a spare foot here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels this would be expensive but how much extra would it have cost to make lineside obstacles, bridge supports etc a foot or 2 further from the track when you're building a 30 foot wide permanent way anyway? Plus those victorians did loved their curved platforms, just to make life a real pain for longer vehicles. The problem is caused by building longer and wider trains which are a tighter fit to the loading gauge. Perhaps if you could find a way of reducing average people sizes to Victorian dimensions, we could revert to narrower trains. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
East London Line extension news
In message . com on 6 Dec 2004
04:42:17 -0800 in uk.transport.london, "Boltar" tapped out on the keyboard: It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british railways. Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe leave a spare foot here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels this would be expensive but how much extra would it have cost to make lineside obstacles, bridge supports etc a foot or 2 further from the track when you're building a 30 foot wide permanent way anyway? Plus those victorians did loved their curved platforms, just to make life a real pain for longer vehicles. B2003 I seem to recall that Hudson, the "Railway King", deliberately made sure his lines were built with a tighter loading gauge, in order to prevent other companies getting running powers over his lines. -- John Youles Norwich England UK j dot y.o.u.l.e.s at n.t.l.w.o.r.l.d dot c.o.m http://www.ukip.org/ |
East London Line extension news
The problem was, that the Railways were not constructed or designed by
a single entity. Todays railways are an amalgamation of several different designers works, thus the differing Structure gauges, cornice heights, platform heights etc. And thanks to the Thatcherite 'competition must prevail' culture, several different companies build the different trains for todays railways. So there is no one standard. No one builds a train with view to the fact it maybe needed to run on lines away from the build remit. The Networkers were an expensive build in terms of infrastructure alterations. And even today they aren't used to their full potential. They have regenative braking which cannot be used because the Traction Supply isn't capable of sustaining trains putting current back into the system! Christine On 6 Dec 2004 04:42:17 -0800, "Boltar" wrote: Christine wrote: There were lots of gauging problems when Netwrokers were introduce. Several places having to have 'glued ballast'. Presumably they are not passed on the 'Southern' lines because they have never gauged tested the area for Networkers It never ceases to amaze me how tight the clearences are on british railways. Did it never occur to the builders of the lines to maybe leave a spare foot here and there just-in-case? Ok , for tunnels this would be expensive but how much extra would it have cost to make lineside obstacles, bridge supports etc a foot or 2 further from the track when you're building a 30 foot wide permanent way anyway? Plus those victorians did loved their curved platforms, just to make life a real pain for longer vehicles. B2003 Life without sex just isn't life. Make love not war! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk