On 4 Aug, 12:19, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:43:31 -0700 (PDT)

bob wrote:
The bigger problem is that UK platforms impinge on the UIC gauge,
which is full width practically down to rail head level. *So to run
UIC stock, you will need to rebuild every platform on the route, and
in so doing make those platforms unusable by conventional UK rolling

Fair point. But I'm sure they could build some sort of compromise stock
that could use the full UIC height and also width above platform level
that would still be within UK gauge below platform level. To me it just
seems daft to limit a brand new line to the UK loading gauge which is
demonstrably inadequate on all busy rail lines.

Though there really isn't very much width in the standard UK loading
gauge below platform level. For a double deck train, you're probably
talking about 1+1 or at best 2+1 seating on the lower deck, which
would probably not provide much more than single deck (without
staircases). Especially if you go for Paris RER style 3 doors per
side (so lots of staircases) stock.

Of course it would seem sensible to make any changes and new build
lines accomodate a full UIC loading gauge in all respects except
passenger platforms, so that if a future changeover to UIC comes about
it would be less of a major project, and it would help channel tunnel
freight once whole routes are opened out.

If we are looking seriously at adopting UIC standards, I would propose
the NLL as a useful place to start. It is already connected to HS1,
and is well placed to link into HS2. It handles a lot of freight
which could make use of the extra space, and the platform length and
overcrowding problems make it a good candidate for DD stock, while the
passenger services are all provided by a relatively small pool of
(potentially) dedicated rolling stock.

Robin

"bob" wrote in message
...

If we are looking seriously at adopting UIC standards, I would propose
the NLL as a useful place to start. It is already connected to HS1,
and is well placed to link into HS2. It handles a lot of freight
which could make use of the extra space, and the platform length and
overcrowding problems make it a good candidate for DD stock, while the
passenger services are all provided by a relatively small pool of
(potentially) dedicated rolling stock.

And it goes through Hampstead tunnel, which would have to be completely
rebuilt at vast expense?

Paul

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:01:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...

If we are looking seriously at adopting UIC standards, I would propose
the NLL as a useful place to start. It is already connected to HS1,
and is well placed to link into HS2. It handles a lot of freight
which could make use of the extra space, and the platform length and
overcrowding problems make it a good candidate for DD stock, while the
passenger services are all provided by a relatively small pool of
(potentially) dedicated rolling stock.

And it goes through Hampstead tunnel, which would have to be completely
rebuilt at vast expense?


And this is the best possible time to carry out the work, given that
the Treasury is awash with money and needs ideas for what it could be
spent on.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:01:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...

If we are looking seriously at adopting UIC standards, I would propose
the NLL as a useful place to start. It is already connected to HS1,
and is well placed to link into HS2. It handles a lot of freight
which could make use of the extra space, and the platform length and
overcrowding problems make it a good candidate for DD stock, while the
passenger services are all provided by a relatively small pool of
(potentially) dedicated rolling stock.

And it goes through Hampstead tunnel, which would have to be completely
rebuilt at vast expense?

And this is the best possible time to carry out the work, given that
the Treasury is awash with money and needs ideas for what it could be
spent on.

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

:-)

Paul S

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV three phase three wire overhead.

--
Nick

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV three phase three wire overhead.


Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

On Aug 4, 7:56*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV *three phase three wire overhead.

Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

I was thinking longitudinal seating in 4 rows i.e. a centre line back-
to-back row as well as under the window lines.

--
Nick

On Aug 4, 7:56*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV *three phase three wire overhead.

Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

3 + 3 x 3

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Aug 4, 7:27 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

Running 7 ft 1/4 in track gauge.

And 33 kV three phase three wire overhead.

Don't forget the 3+3 seating.

Paging Mr Bell...

Paul S

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 19:27:06 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

If that's the case I say go for triple deck trains...

:-)

Be careful, our resident Middlesbrough "supporter" might twig.

(in case of doubt, no we don't want 3+3 seating...)

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.