On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, John B wrote:

On 3 Oct, 16:19, Boltar wrote:

Even if they didn't use double deckers it would be nice to have wider
trains if nothing else. That way they could have 5 seats abrest wide
enough normal people instead of size zero models plus they could fit
more people on.

Actually, I'd prefer it if they kept it at current UK gauge 2x3 but
increased the number of size zero models squished up next to me on the
seats. But that's just me.

Has the DfT looked into replacing two size zero models with Salma Hayek?

tom

--
And he talked about the future, underneath a giant sphere

In article .com,
John B wrote:
On 3 Oct, 16:19, Boltar wrote:
Even if they didn't use double deckers it would be nice to have wider
trains if nothing else. That way they could have 5 seats abrest wide
enough normal people instead of size zero models plus they could fit
more people on.


Actually, I'd prefer it if they kept it at current UK gauge 2x3 but
increased the number of size zero models squished up next to me on the
seats. But that's just me.

Is that where the "seats abre(a)st" bit comes in ?

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 28th Sep 2007)

"The Internet, an ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:52:11 -0700, Boltar wrote:

Question is , will they do the sensible thing and build the tunnels to
UIC gauge so there is at least the possibility of running dedicated
double deck trains through them alongside normal UK trains , or will
they build it to the hopeless 19th century UK loading gauge and then
complaints about undercapcity start to surface a few years after
opening?

Surely you mean, will they do the sensible thing and not waste money
building it to a larger loading gauge than that of the track at either
end?

On Oct 4, 12:23 am, asdf wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:52:11 -0700, Boltar wrote:
Question is , will they do the sensible thing and build the tunnels to
UIC gauge so there is at least the possibility of running dedicated
double deck trains through them alongside normal UK trains , or will
they build it to the hopeless 19th century UK loading gauge and then
complaints about undercapcity start to surface a few years after
opening?

Surely you mean, will they do the sensible thing and not waste money
building it to a larger loading gauge than that of the track at either
end?

This would be for trains dedicated to the new crossrail tunnel route
just like the shuttle trains at the channel tunnel. All they'd need to
do is have a depot at one end and a turnaround at the other. Normal UK
trains could also use the tunnel too of course for through journeys.

B2003

On Oct 4, 9:26 am, Boltar wrote:
This would be for trains dedicated to the new crossrail tunnel route
just like the shuttle trains at the channel tunnel. All they'd need to
do is have a depot at one end and a turnaround at the other. Normal UK
trains could also use the tunnel too of course for through journeys.

Seems like a good idea, but you need most of the trains to continue
beyond Stratford and Custom House, and those would need to be single
deckers. Realistically, that means you could only run at most a third
of the trains as double deckers, and that's only by limiting the
service to Abbey Wood to 4 tph. It looks like a non-starter to me.

What they are doing quite sensibly is digging 12 carriage platform
caverns for the underground stations, even though the project is
designed around 10 carriage trains.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

In article om,
(Boltar) wrote:

On Oct 4, 12:23 am, asdf wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:52:11 -0700, Boltar wrote:
Question is , will they do the sensible thing and build the tunnels
to UIC gauge so there is at least the possibility of running
dedicated double deck trains through them alongside normal UK
trains , or will they build it to the hopeless 19th century UK
loading gauge and then complaints about undercapcity start to
surface a few years after opening?

Surely you mean, will they do the sensible thing and not waste money
building it to a larger loading gauge than that of the track at
either
end?

This would be for trains dedicated to the new crossrail tunnel route
just like the shuttle trains at the channel tunnel. All they'd need to
do is have a depot at one end and a turnaround at the other. Normal UK
trains could also use the tunnel too of course for through journeys.

The new Crossrail route will not be limited to the new tunnel, though. It
will have to fit into the Heathrow tunnel for starters.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Boltar wrote:

On Oct 4, 12:23 am, asdf wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:52:11 -0700, Boltar wrote:
Question is , will they do the sensible thing and build the tunnels to
UIC gauge so there is at least the possibility of running dedicated
double deck trains through them alongside normal UK trains , or will
they build it to the hopeless 19th century UK loading gauge and then
complaints about undercapcity start to surface a few years after
opening?

Surely you mean, will they do the sensible thing and not waste money
building it to a larger loading gauge than that of the track at either
end?

This would be for trains dedicated to the new crossrail tunnel route
just like the shuttle trains at the channel tunnel.

How much demand is there for trips from Whitechapel (maybe even Stratford)
and points west to stops up to Paddington? Not an awful lot, i think. This
route covers all the major destinations (except Heathrow), but the only
sources of passengers would be the local areas around Stratford and
Whitechapel.

Stratford and Whitechapel are both interchanges, but i can't see a lot of
people coming in that way - at Stratford, if you're coming in by Central
line, you stay on it, by suburban train, you catch a normal Crossrail in
the first place, by Jubilee or DLR, you had better ways to get into town
in the first place. At Whitechapel, if you're on the H&C or District, you
stay on it. That leaves long-distance trains at Stratford and the ELL at
Whitechapel as sources of interchange passengers. That doesn't seem like a
big source.

Having said all that, i agree entirely that the tunnel should be built to
a UIC gauge, GB or GC. Yes, the surface lines are smaller gauge, but they
can be improved relatively cheaply, whereas once a tunnel is built, it's
virtually impossible to make it bigger. Future proof is where it's at! How
much more does it cost to make a tunnel wider? I can't believe it's that
much with modern boring methods.

tom

--
Is that dark pixel a prox mine or a bullet hole? HERE COME THE PROX MINE
SWEATS! -- D

On Oct 4, 12:38 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
Having said all that, i agree entirely that the tunnel should be built to
a UIC gauge, GB or GC. Yes, the surface lines are smaller gauge, but they
can be improved relatively cheaply, whereas once a tunnel is built, it's
virtually impossible to make it bigger. Future proof is where it's at! How
much more does it cost to make a tunnel wider? I can't believe it's that
much with modern boring methods.

Allegedly all new rail structures in this country are meant to be
built to UIC B or C, but I can't find confirmation of this in the
Crossrail literature. The only reference to gauge appears to be "6m
internal diameter", which compares to 4.8m for the Northern City and
7.6m for the Channel Tunnel. It might be enough - UIC B trains are
4.7m above the rail.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

At 15:15:36 on Wed, 3 Oct 2007 Tom Anderson opined:-

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Offramp wrote:

On Oct 2, 9:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Construction will start two years before the Olympics?

I can foresee that in 2011 (like the JLE in 1998/9) the papers will
start to say, 'Why isn't this thing ready? It's meant to be ready for
the 2012 Olympics!?' Then the Gov will throw squillions of pounds at it
and it'll open in May 2012.

Except the government have never said it'll be ready for the Olympics. A
lot of people seem to think that's the plan, but they're generally the
same people who think Hackney is getting a tube line, ie the uninformed.
If a hue and cry is raised, the government can quite truthfully say that
it can't be delivered before the Olympics, it never could have been, and
they never said it would be.

Indeed. I seem to remember that, when London was awarded the Olympics,
it was stated that Crossrail was planned to open in 2013.
--
Thoss
E-mail address usenetatamoladdotorgdotuk

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, thoss wrote:

At 15:15:36 on Wed, 3 Oct 2007 Tom Anderson opined:-

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Offramp wrote:

On Oct 2, 9:59 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

Construction will start two years before the Olympics?

I can foresee that in 2011 (like the JLE in 1998/9) the papers will
start to say, 'Why isn't this thing ready? It's meant to be ready for
the 2012 Olympics!?' Then the Gov will throw squillions of pounds at it
and it'll open in May 2012.

Except the government have never said it'll be ready for the Olympics. A
lot of people seem to think that's the plan, but they're generally the
same people who think Hackney is getting a tube line, ie the uninformed.
If a hue and cry is raised, the government can quite truthfully say that
it can't be delivered before the Olympics, it never could have been, and
they never said it would be.

Indeed. I seem to remember that, when London was awarded the Olympics,
it was stated that Crossrail was planned to open in 2013.

Funny. I seem to remember that when London got the Olympics, is was made
very clear that Crossrail wouldn't be ready by then - although it was
claimed that Thameslink would be.

tom

--
Damn the Solar System. Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with
comets; feeble contrivance; could make a better myself. -- Francis Jeffery