On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
There is always talk talk talk of increasing loading gauge , yet
whenever
any new track is built or rebuilt its always to the UK loading
gauge.
Talk about lack of foresight.

Much as I hate the things, might a tolerable DD train fit in the
larger GW loading gauge?

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Jun 16, 11:17*am, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:29:06 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:





On Jun 16, 12:14*am, Martin Petrov
wrote:
Crossrail is already needed to relieve the eastern end of the Central
line, recession or not.

I did not know that was the case. *In previous recessions the crush on
the TfL Central Line has eased.

Is there evidence of much of a drop? Anecdotally, I haven't found the
journey any more pleasant....!

My boots are not on that particular piece of ground. *According to
others posting here there is no noticeable reduction. *So my
assumption was wrong.

Back in the early nineties the UK had a severe economic slowdown.
Apparently, according my Essex based contacts; it was not hard to find
a seat on the Central Line, at Liverpool St, during the peak!

I personally doubt that observation - even from the 1990s. The tube's
ridership has grown considerably since the 1990s and despite a dip over
the last year or so it is higher than it was back in the 1990s. *The AM
peak had, before the recent recession, spread to start prior to 0700 in
the suburbs and was getting earlier by the week. I know that simply from
travelling at that time and seeing the increased ridership / reduced
likelihood of a seat with my own eyes.

I do not travel in the height of the peak very often but it is
horrendous. There are many reports of it taking between 5 - 7 trains
before people can board at Bethnal Green with similar waits at Liverpool
Street on the Central Line.

Here is a link to a photo taken this morning in the AM peak - not by me
- of people waiting for a sub surface train at Liverpool Street LUL.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/teflon/4705957181/

You will note it is about 8 people deep on the platform. This is not
unusual and I'd venture to suggest that the Central Line is worse than
this. *I also don't recall there being any sort of service disruption
this morning which would have caused such a massive crowd.

Then, you have proved to me that the need for Crossrail is now. :-)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:39:51 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Paul Corfield wrote:

It might be that the programme to do the civils work is done to the
original schedule and then you phase the fit out and commissioning more
slowly. This may also allow any rolling stock procurement to be put back
so that co-ordination with Thameslink (common fleet) can be achieved and
the supplier has a long production run but the cost is spread /
financing made easier.

Are the requirements for the trains for TL and CR similar enough for a
common fleet to be possible? Apart from the whole dual-power thing, which
i assume would be easy enough to leave off the CR trains (maybe except a
few, so there's a reserve that could be used for TL at short notice). What
about seating plan? That could be varied between batches, S-stock style,
if necessary. What about the engines and suspension? What about
signalling? TL isn't using ERTMS, right?

Essentially, are the lines similar enough in the services they will run
and the infrastructure they will run over that they can actually share
stock?

Amazingly there is a Mayor's answer on this broad question.

http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly...en-answers.pdf

And go to page 30 - question 1823/2010

Cheers for that. He's basically saying what i was getting at, i think.

tom

--
wit, speed, and dressing well

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Andy wrote:

On 16 June, 11:01, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:49:25 +0100

"Paul Scott" wrote:
It is full 'UK main line 'size - (best make that clear before people start
asking for double decker trains that won't fit any of the extensions over NR
or into Heathrow)...

There is always talk talk talk of increasing loading gauge , yet whenever
any new track is built or rebuilt its always to the UK loading gauge.
Talk about lack of foresight.

The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading gauge.
The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large as the
6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most continental
stock.

Any idea what that corresponds to in either W6/8/12 etc terms or UIC
A/B/C? And whether other constraints for those gauges (or kinematic
envelopes or whatever we're supposed to call them now), like radius, will
be met?

tom

--
wit, speed, and dressing well

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 19:17:13 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:
I also don't recall there being any sort of service disruption
this morning which would have caused such a massive crowd.

There was serious disruption - no Met east of Baker St.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:45:46 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:
There is always talk talk talk of increasing loading gauge , yet
whenever
any new track is built or rebuilt its always to the UK loading
gauge.
Talk about lack of foresight.

Much as I hate the things, might a tolerable DD train fit in the
larger GW loading gauge?


No.

The GW loading gauge might have been *wider* than the rest, thanks to
Brunel's broad gauge, but it certainly isn't any *higher*.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:41:22 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Andy wrote:

The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading gauge.
The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large as the
6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most continental
stock.

Any idea what that corresponds to in either W6/8/12 etc terms or UIC
A/B/C? And whether other constraints for those gauges (or kinematic
envelopes or whatever we're supposed to call them now), like radius, will
be met?


The biggest constraints that prevents the adoption of continental
stock for Crossrail (or anywhere else in the UK with oversize
structure gauge) are the dimensions of British platforms. Our
platforms are much higher and come closer to the rails.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:39:00AM +0000, d wrote:

Its nice to be proved wrong sometimes. Lets hope they don't just do something
silly like string up the catenary really low or put a load of trackside
furniture in that precludes UIC gauge trains in the future.

Why? There won't be any UIC-gauge connection to the rest of the world.
The closest UIC gauge track would be at St Pancras, and (maybe) later
HS2, but HS2 ain't gonna happen in anything like the same timescale as
Crossrail, so they might as well use existing designs for trackside
equipment for now, and only upgrade and clear it out of the way in the
distant future when there's a connection to HS2, and thence to HS1, and
thence to Civilisation. But even then, can you really see there being
any demand for trains from other UIC-gauge routes trundling along
Crossrail? I can't.

The real reason for building honking girt big tunnels in the central
section is to reduce air resistance and frictional heating, thus
letting trains accelerate and run faster, and reducing the air-
conditioning bill.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Human Rights left unattended may be removed,
destroyed, or damaged by the security services.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Andy wrote:

The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading gauge.
The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large as the
6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most continental
stock.

Any idea what that corresponds to in either W6/8/12 etc terms or UIC
A/B/C? And whether other constraints for those gauges (or kinematic
envelopes or whatever we're supposed to call them now), like radius, will
be met?

Another relevant point, is that Crossrail has continuous walkways in the
tunnels, so the running line is not centred in the bore. That presumably
means all the theoretical height gained is not actually usable?

But as I said in an earlier post, the trains have to fit the existing
tunnelled parts of the route, especially the single track Connaught tunnels
under the docks beyond Custom House...

Paul S

On Jun 17, 7:05*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message

rth.li...

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, Andy wrote:
The central London tunnels will be built to an increased loading gauge..
The planned running tunnel diameter of 6.2m is nearly as large as the
6.3m RER tunnels in Paris and certainly big enough for most continental
stock.

Any idea what that corresponds to in either W6/8/12 etc terms or UIC
A/B/C? And whether other constraints for those gauges (or kinematic
envelopes or whatever we're supposed to call them now), like radius, will
be met?

Another relevant point, is that Crossrail has continuous walkways in the
tunnels, so the running line is not centred in the bore. That presumably
means all the theoretical height gained is not actually usable?


Having a side walkway doesn't preclude having the track in the centre
of the tunnel. Remember that the walkway won't be at track level, but
at the height of the train floor/doorway, so there will be the
'triangluar' space between track level, floor level and the tunnel
wall to fit the walkway (with a similar space on the other side of
course). The larger the tunnel, the bigger this space will be.

But as I said in an earlier post, the trains have to fit the existing
tunnelled parts of the route, especially the single track Connaught tunnels
under the docks beyond Custom House...


I was under the impression that these tunnels are being enlarged. I
can't find the information on the Crossrail website, but there is
information from other sites, from announcement of the bidding last
week (e.g. http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/contrac...01056.article).
This mentions that the tunnels will have the linings removed, filled
with concrete and then excavated again to give a larger gauge, but
doesn't mention what the size will be.