Angus Bryant wrote:

Seems that one (albeit costly) way to improve the NLL capacity and
congestion issue would be to build a dive-under to swap the NLL/ELL
passenger service and freight trains somewhere between Dalston and the
Canonbury curve. This would allow ELL trains from the south to
access the Canonbury curve and the NLL diverging later at Camden
without crossing the frieght lines.

Is that practical, surely the CTRL runs below that section of the NLL?
Perhaps raising the approach to Dalston (from Bishopsgate), flying over and
dropping down onto the north side of the NLL would be a cheaper solution?

On Feb 16, 1:51 pm, "Nick Lawford" wrote:
District Line trains to Fenchursh Street for example (capacity relief
District line taken up by reinstating NR trackage).

What NR tracks? Anyway , if they ever did reinstate some disused NR
tracks for the district line I'm sure they'd just make them 4th rail.

batch from Kent to GN. 458s have limited redeployment choices because
they were never AC approved even though can technically handle it. This
is why 350 have now been DC approved, and so on.

Yes , but those are mainline trains designed to run on the main line.
The only real difference is the electrical pickup. The S stock is
designed for somewhat different conditions and loading gauges, not to
mention top speed and acceleration, in the underground system.

Yes , I'm sure "more or less" would be fine until it hits a bit of
trackside equipment.

This is EXACTLY what the Ludites said when Electrostars and Desiros came
to the Sr.

Eh?

That something once happened (eg Snow Hill) and was closed does not
prevent a restart (Thameslink).

What possible operational reason could there be to run District trains
on 25Kv lines already served by NR services? The district line to
upminster (and met to amersham) is arguably already too long to
provide reliable services at tube frequencies so why make it even
longer? The District & Met Railways WERE mainline railways (or they
certainly tried to be). The District underground line is not, its part
of a metro system now. Things change.

Testing and approving - not equipping until or if needed.

Approving would mean a compromise design thats perhaps not as well
suited to tube use as a design specifically for the tube. And for
what? Some nebulous possibility they might work the trains on NR when
some pigs take wing? Doesn't seem like a smart decision to me.

I mean why not take your argument to its logical conclusion and make
every train everywhere in the country compatable with every line?

Ideally they should be.

So all passengers should suffer some lowest common denominator train
with the smallest loading gauge , shortest carriages etc? Perhaps they
should all be diesel so they can all run on non electrified lines too?

B2003

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
20:13:49 on Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Tom Anderson
remarked:

Short clerestory roofed electric engines

Long clerestory-windowed Christian churches, i've heard of; how
does a clerestory roof work?


http://www.ironhorse129.com/rollings...ictionary1.htm

has a few pictures

Aha, thanks. Very 30s!

Earlier than that, more Edwardian really.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Jack Taylor wrote:
Angus Bryant wrote:

Seems that one (albeit costly) way to improve the NLL capacity and
congestion issue would be to build a dive-under to swap the NLL/ELL
passenger service and freight trains somewhere between Dalston and
the Canonbury curve. This would allow ELL trains from the south to
access the Canonbury curve and the NLL diverging later at Camden
without crossing the frieght lines.

Is that practical, surely the CTRL runs below that section of the NLL?

I'd forgotten that. Though probably at a much lower level than that (just a
guess, mind).

Perhaps raising the approach to Dalston (from Bishopsgate), flying
over and dropping down onto the north side of the NLL would be a
cheaper solution?

Perhaps, but it's all in cutting there which is why I suggested an
underpass. The only other solution in a similar vein would be to move the
crossing to a flyover at York Way, where the old Maiden Lane station [1,2]
used to be, located just west of where the NLL goes over York Way. That
wouldn't solve crossings to the curve to Finsbury Park, but it would still
keep freight and passenger separate for as much of the 4-track bit of the
NLL as possible. It would also put any WCML-bound freight/passenger
services from the CTRL on the freight lines, separate from the NLL passenger
services. However putting the flyover here would scupper the re-opening of
the Maiden Lane station for development on the King's Cross Railway Lands.

[1]
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....n/plate10r.jpg

[2]
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF...01296&t=h&om=1

Angus

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

Which reminds me, what happened to Henry Law?

I wondered that myself but dared not to mention his name first in case
it recatalysed him.

Also Ian Batten.

Ian, I think, was master of his own IT setup and therefore his access to
Usenet. Perhaps that has gone the way of all such access (back in 1997 at a
Well Known Large Blue Chip we were encouraged to use newsgroups and given
Forte ... not for long).

--
Tim

"The manners of capitalism improve. The morals may not" - J K Galbraith

In article lgate.org,
Nick Lawford writes
Met A stock knocks NR infrasture to pieces every time one
goes to Amersham ?

A stock is not authorised to run on its own power anywhere on NR
infrastructure.

[It *is* authorised on the section parallel to NR between Bow and
Upminster.]

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article .com,
wrote:
"Nick Leverton" wrote in message

Will the Test Track then be joining the select stretches of line with
third and fourth rail electrification plus 25kV overhead, as a fully
featured test track for the UK, or (more probable I guess) will the
overhead be decommissioned ?

Contrary to the cynics, the 25kv system will be retained. Common sense
not too. For once, joined up thinking by the rail industry.

By doing so Metronet can hire the track to others, inc Virgin when it
finally adds more Pendolino carriages.

That's some sensible news for once, thankyou for passing it on !

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, BH Williams wrote:

A raised centre section to the roof, in the side of which may be either
glass windows or sometimes ventilator louvres. They were a common
feature of 19th century carriage design.- perhaps as a means of
'borrowing' light for the middle of compartments.

Having thought about this - (a) was this before they'd thought of
skylights and (b) what was the point of putting such a thing on the
engine, rather than the passenger carriages?

I think clerestory carriage roofs were introduced when gas lighting was
still common, maybe even oil. I think the Midland had gas by the 1870s
or 1880s, but I can't find the book to check exactly when clerestories
came in - I'm sure it was well before the turn of the century. It must
have been a good way to get the smell and ventilation of the lamps up
away from the passengers.

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

In article ,
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

Also Ian Batten.

Ian, I think, was master of his own IT setup and therefore his access to
Usenet. Perhaps that has gone the way of all such access (back in 1997 at a
Well Known Large Blue Chip we were encouraged to use newsgroups and given
Forte ... not for long).

Usenet access isn't hard to sort if you want it though. Chiark, for instance ...
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ry/081703.html
(that's not his address, that's the list's, but I'm sure one could dig it
out if keen).

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/ ... So express yourself

"Nick Leverton" wrote in message
...

Also Ian Batten.

Ian, I think, was master of his own IT setup and therefore his access to
Usenet. Perhaps that has gone the way of all such access (back in 1997 at
a
Well Known Large Blue Chip we were encouraged to use newsgroups and given
Forte ... not for long).

Usenet access isn't hard to sort if you want it though. Chiark, for
instance ...
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pi...ry/081703.html
(that's not his address, that's the list's, but I'm sure one could dig it
out if keen).

Sure - the problem is more than likely to be a company ruling. Ian used to
contribute from work - the family would have used up much of his home time.

--
Tim

"The manners of capitalism improve. The morals may not" - J K Galbraith