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

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.

Unfortunately Networkers aren't passed to run on the Southern lines at
New Cross Gate/ Queens Road. And there aren't any spare anyway!

Christine



On 17 Nov 2004 03:11:36 -0800, (David E.
Belcher) wrote:

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message k...
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Are those LU stock or National Rail stock?

Porterbrook Leasing Company, coming off lease from the beginning of next
year with a TOC south of the river.

According to Clive Feather's web page on the ELL, the existing
infrastructure is compatible with 'Networker' EMUs, so these would be
an obvious choice - see...

http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/eastlondon.html

...though I guess this depends on SET's 465/466 diagrams. Also, will
any such NR trains need kitting out with LU trip-cock equipment before
they can be used?

Presumably, due to the extensive modifications needed to traction
supply/signalling on the non-LU sections, there's no 'reciprocal
arrangement' with LU stock working some services (in the manner of
Queen's Park-Watford Jcn. in years gone by)?

David E. Belcher


Life without sex just isn't life.
Make love not war!

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

In article ,
(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?

They might not but the signalling could.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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!

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

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)

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/

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!