On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, MIG wrote:

On Jul 24, 8:59 pm, brixtonite wrote:
On Jul 24, 5:14 pm, Mark Morton wrote:

If you're going to/from Kent, at what point along the DLR Woolwich
branch will it be quicker to go via the DLR and change at Woolwich,
rather than go via Canary Wharf and change at Greenwich on NR? From
anywhere between Bank and King George V. The DLR website gives

Woolwich Arsenal to Bank as 27 minutes, while Greenwich to Bank is 22
minutes; and the train takes 11 - 13 minutes to get from Greenwich to
Woolwich.You'll only be better going via Greenwich if you're travelling
from stations between Pudding Mill Lane and Lewisham.

If you're at Bank, then just get on a train at Cannon Street.

I am trying to work out the main use of the extension.

To get people actually living in Woolwich, or within a short bus ride of
it, to Docklands? That area is one of the major Thames Gateway target
areas, with unwisety thousand homes due to be built. It doesn't go right
into Canary Wharf, but it does go to Poplar, and it's only a few minutes
walk from there to most of the office space in Docklands.

I have to say, it does seem like a bit of a barmy project. A whole new
pair of tubes under the Thames just to serve a station that already has
perfectly good trains! The DLR planners must be thinking about carrying
the line on further - maybe to Thamesmead, Erith and more of the Thames
Gateway target areas. Except they've built the line facing the wrong way
for that ...

Perhaps the best thing about it is that it proves you can actually build
new tunnels, even under the river, without making a huge fuss or spending
a fortune. AlwaysTouchOut prices the project at 145 million all in, for
2.5 km. That would mean the much-needed freight link across from Hoo to
Tilbury would probably only cost 300 million, which is encouraging.

tom

--
Cthulu saves! (so he can eat you later)

MaxB wrote:
"Ar" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:22:32 +0100, MaxB scribed:

www.thebattens.me.uk/euro5(1040exwat).jpg

Still wondering what that scaffolding? is there for, looks like
it's hanging a net over the whole lot, looking at your picture.
Anyway, excellent pictures you got.

I got a video of the section here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-NWCvM6IyGU

Thanks. The pictures would have been much better from that nice
concrete bridge!!

Yes, there is a matching scaffolding to the left with a net to
catch the wires if they fall !! There is a lot of building work
going on on that side but nets maybe a permanent feature.

Permanent? Why? This arrangement of two scaffolding supports has been a
standard method for handling cable replacements on the National Grid,
where the grid line crosses a road or railway, for many years. It's
just a temporary construction while they replace one or more cables.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Am Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:47:47 UTC, schrieb "R.C. Payne"
auf uk.railway :

2) Trains through the tunnel must meet very stringent safety
requirements. Probably the most awkward of these is the need to be able
to didvide the train to use part of the train to remove passengers so
that a disabled and dangerous half-set can be abandonned in the tunnel,
and the passengers can be evacuated.

This divisibility was a requirement imposed by the IGC
(Intergovernmental Commission) back then, but is no longer a
requirement put forward by Eurotunnel. The minimum requirements are
laid out in Eurotunnel's "Network Statement" which can be found on
their website, following the third section link "Corporate
information", then in the "About us" section of the left hand
navigation column selecting "Our developments".

As Nick D7666 wrote in his reply, most current high-speed trainsets
circulating on European continent would meet the safety requirements
of Eurotunnel in regard to be fireproof, power requirements etc.

The requirement for "fire proof doors between some cars" might
require modifications in the trains, but that could be done.

Rather difficult is the requirement that a train should be so long
that at least one door is near one of the emergency exits to the
service tunnel, whereever the trains comes to a full stop, and that
this door is accessible internally from all cars in the train.

This requires a single trainset with a minimum length of 375 meters
between the outermost doors at both ends.

The ICE-3 is conceived as a eight car trainset of 200 meters
length, composed of two modules of four cars each, the pilot car being
one of that four-car module. Two of such trainsets can be coupled
(automatically) to form a double traction, which is done and undone
quite often depending on the traffic requirements, but such a double
traction does not have the thru corridor. While a trainset of sixteen
cars is thinkable, it would require quite some redesign of four-car
modules without the pilot car.

But as mentioned elsewhere, the safety requirements are doable, but
the security requirements make it, in my opinion, economically
unfeasable to go to other destinations on the continent beyond London
and Brussels.


Cheers,
L.W.

Am Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:27:48 UTC, schrieb Boltar
auf uk.railway :

does anyone know if TGVs or ICEs will ever visit these shores now that
there is a UIC gauge route the whole way?

The Eurostar trains _are_ a variant of TGV, and the ICE-3 are in
doubt since the full length train of two EMUs does not have a corridor
between the two trainsets.

But, as debated many times, the main issue is the security
requirements which make anything beyond a simply shuttle service
between London on the island, and Lille, Brussels, and Paris on the
continent economically not feasable.


Cheers,
L.W.

Lüko Willms wrote:
Am Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:47:47 UTC, schrieb "R.C. Payne"
auf uk.railway :

2) Trains through the tunnel must meet very stringent safety
requirements. Probably the most awkward of these is the need to be able
to didvide the train to use part of the train to remove passengers so
that a disabled and dangerous half-set can be abandonned in the tunnel,
and the passengers can be evacuated.

This divisibility was a requirement imposed by the IGC
(Intergovernmental Commission) back then, but is no longer a
requirement put forward by Eurotunnel. The minimum requirements are
laid out in Eurotunnel's "Network Statement" which can be found on
their website, following the third section link "Corporate
information", then in the "About us" section of the left hand
navigation column selecting "Our developments".

As Nick D7666 wrote in his reply, most current high-speed trainsets
circulating on European continent would meet the safety requirements
of Eurotunnel in regard to be fireproof, power requirements etc.

I haven't the time to trawl the documents myself, but do they permit the
use of a high voltage bus through the train in the tunnel? Both the
conventional TGV and ICE3 designs (AIUI) employ a high voltage bus along
much of the train length.

Robin

On 25 Jul, 11:02, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:05:10 -0700 someone who may be Boltar
wrote this:-

Well excuse me for not trawling back through a few hundred thousand
posts from the 90s.

I'm sure a search engine would reduce the number of postings to look
through, by a large number.

Surely that's the point of the Google Groups archive. It takes seconds to
pull up postings from the past.


Search on tunnels and trains and see how many results you get.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On 25 Jul, 11:02, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:05:10 -0700 someone who may be Boltar
wrote this:-

Well excuse me for not trawling back through a few hundred thousand
posts from the 90s.

I'm sure a search engine would reduce the number of postings to look
through, by a large number.

Surely that's the point of the Google Groups archive. It takes
seconds to pull up postings from the past.

Search on tunnels and trains and see how many results you get.

Try clicking on 'Advanced Search Groups' and refining your search.

Am Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:35:28 UTC, schrieb "R.C. Payne"
auf uk.railway :

As Nick D7666 wrote in his reply, most current high-speed trainsets
circulating on European continent would meet the safety requirements
of Eurotunnel in regard to be fireproof, power requirements etc.

I haven't the time to trawl the documents myself, but do they permit the
use of a high voltage bus through the train in the tunnel? Both the
conventional TGV and ICE3 designs (AIUI) employ a high voltage bus along
much of the train length.

Yeah, I think you are right -- the ICE-3 do not have the high
voltage line along the whole train, but from car to car, from one
isolator to another. So that may be another issue.


Cheers,
L.W.

In article , R.C. Payne
writes
1) All platforms at which the trains call must be secure zones, will
the only entry to the platform through security.
[...]
2) Trains through the tunnel must meet very stringent safety
requirements. Probably the most awkward of these is the need to be
able to didvide the train to use part of the train to remove passengers
so that a disabled and dangerous half-set can be abandonned in the
tunnel, and the passengers can be evacuated.
[...]
Both of these problems can only be rectified by changing the treaty
between the UK and France that allowed the tunnel to be built.

Really? You're claiming that the treaty itself carries these
requirements? As opposed to them being regulations created by the
Inter-Government Commission that dealt with the details? You surprise
me.

Can you point me at the text of the treaty?

--
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:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:29:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:25:18
on Wed, 25 Jul 2007, MichaelJP remarked:
On a more mundane note, anyone know when the pedestrian tunnel opens from
the MML platforms allowing access south to the tube station? Sick of getting
soaked!

A few years I expect (when the northern ticket office opens).

Before then (not sure a date has been given, but probably before
November) you should be able to walk through the main shed (and past the
infamous Champagne bar) to the tube at the front of St Pancras.

Do I deduce from this post and Uriah's that there will be walking
routes both at platform/Champagne bar level and at undercroft/street
level? Having to use the higher level would be a pain for TL
passengers.

--
Peter Lawrence