"Paul Terry" wrote

I don't know if any really serious track bashers ever posted themselves in
large cardboard containers to try to do the line.

Several 'really serious track bashers' (including me) have ridden over (part
of) the line. We had permission, so we didn't have to disguise ourselves as
parcels!

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 04:56:23AM -0700, lonelytraveller wrote:
On 26 May, 07:18, Paul Terry wrote:
the Post Office Railway doesn't have a straight enough alignment - it runs
north of Oxford Street, curving up to Wimpole Street and then coming
back south before the big loop up to Mount Pleasant.
Straight enough for what? The curves are fairly gentle, even though
the tube itself copes with curves like those at Shepherd's Bush

The tube copes with lots of banging and rattling, and running very
slowly.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Fashion label: n: a liferaft for personalities
which lack intrinsic buoyancy

On Thu, 27 May 2010 02:09:07 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 26/05/2010 15:04, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , d writes

Tunnels arn't dug with
picks and shovels any more - a TBM won't care if it has to dig the whole
tunnel itself or theres a small tunnel already there , it will take
more or
less the same time. The only difference will be in the amount of spoil
needing to be carried away.

Which reminds me that there were several proposals to use the Post
Office Railway to remove spoil from the central area. I haven't heard
anything more of the suggestion, though.

Wouldn't it be easier to remove the spoil by the Crossrail tunnels they
had just dug?


Not necessarily. In most tunnelling projects you have conflicting
movements of excavated spoil coming out and lining segments going in,
with workers going in and out. If the spoil comes out via a separate
route, it reduces conflicts and might improve progress.

On 27/05/2010 11:21, John Salmon wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote

I don't know if any really serious track bashers ever posted
themselves in large cardboard containers to try to do the line.

Several 'really serious track bashers' (including me) have ridden over
(part of) the line. We had permission, so we didn't have to disguise
ourselves as parcels!
What have they done with the line since its closure?

I must say that I am surprised that they closed it, especially as London
is trying to cut down on carbon emissions.

The Post Office railway skirts through traffic, emits no exhaust fumes
and could possibly carry much more than any lorrie -- or at least make
much more frequent runs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwRBrUwhdio

A very good short film about the Post Office Railway

On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:45:59 +0100
" wrote:
What have they done with the line since its closure?

I must say that I am surprised that they closed it, especially as London
is trying to cut down on carbon emissions.

The Post Office railway skirts through traffic, emits no exhaust fumes
and could possibly carry much more than any lorrie -- or at least make
much more frequent runs.

Companies like the post office make all the right noises about being green
but when it comes down to spending the money they're not quite so keen.
Presumably lorries are a lot cheaper to run than a mini tube system.

B2003

On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:45:59 +0100, "
wrote:

What have they done with the line since its closure?

I must say that I am surprised that they closed it, especially as London
is trying to cut down on carbon emissions.


So the electricity used to power the railway was zero carbon, was it?
Didn't Britain have any coal, oil or gas fired power stations when the
Post Office Railway operated?


The Post Office railway skirts through traffic, emits no exhaust fumes
and could possibly carry much more than any lorrie -- or at least make
much more frequent runs.


The exhaust fumes are at the power stations. Lorries and vans are
needed to collect the mail and bring it to the railway, and then to
distribute it.

You would be deluded if you thought that the mail operation emitted no
exhaust fumes because one small component of it is electric - and
electricity means exhaust fumes from coal and gas fired power
stations.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:47:34 +0100
Bruce wrote:
So the electricity used to power the railway was zero carbon, was it?
Didn't Britain have any coal, oil or gas fired power stations when the
Post Office Railway operated?

Gas produces less CO2 per unit work than petrol or diesel. Also a significant
amount still (despite the best efforts of the Campaign of Nuclear Dunces and
Greenpratts) comes from nuclear power.

The exhaust fumes are at the power stations. Lorries and vans are
needed to collect the mail and bring it to the railway, and then to
distribute it.

The lorries are still being used to take the mail to the sorting offices
the railway joins up. Except now they're needed inbetween those offices too.

B2003

wrote in message

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:47:34 +0100
Bruce wrote:
So the electricity used to power the railway was zero carbon, was it?
Didn't Britain have any coal, oil or gas fired power stations when
the Post Office Railway operated?

Gas produces less CO2 per unit work than petrol or diesel. Also a
significant amount still (despite the best efforts of the Campaign of
Nuclear Dunces and Greenpratts) comes from nuclear power.

The exhaust fumes are at the power stations. Lorries and vans are
needed to collect the mail and bring it to the railway, and then to
distribute it.

The lorries are still being used to take the mail to the sorting
offices
the railway joins up. Except now they're needed inbetween those
offices too.

I thought the main reason the PO railway shut was that the Royal Mail
changed the way that it sorted mail, so that the old railway didn't
serve the modern processes efficiently?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:45:59 +0100
" wrote:
What have they done with the line since its closure?

I must say that I am surprised that they closed it, especially as London
is trying to cut down on carbon emissions.

The Post Office railway skirts through traffic, emits no exhaust fumes
and could possibly carry much more than any lorrie -- or at least make
much more frequent runs.

Companies like the post office make all the right noises about being green
but when it comes down to spending the money they're not quite so keen.
Presumably lorries are a lot cheaper to run than a mini tube system.

They are generally cheaper than the national main line rail system as well -
I was just looking at all that postal infrastructure cluttering up East
Croydon's platforms yesterday as it happens. I wonder how many main line
stations around the country had such bridges and lifts, and how long they
were used for after they were built. I can think of another eyesore at
Bristol, but there must be many redundant installations...

Paul S