On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:19:18 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:19:22 on Wed, 4 Aug
2010, d remarked:
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.

But much of the lower deck on UIC double-deckers is below platform
level.

Well it would be nice to have the extra width anyway which would allow
proper 3+2 seating

B2003

In message , at 13:08:49 on Wed, 4 Aug
2010, d remarked:
As only a third of the cost of the current project is the part tunnelled
under London, I think you may be onto something here.

You're kidding me? What are they doing on the pre existing lines, gold plating
the platforms??

I have no idea; a summary from anyone "in the know" would be helpful.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 02:43:31 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be bob
wrote this:-

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
stock because the gap would be too wide.

Depends how much money one wants to spend. Interlaced track can get
smaller rolling stock the same distance from a platform. This is an
issue which will arise with the high speed line too, where two
different sizes of vehicle were proposed before the general
election.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Aug 4, 2:13*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:08:49 on Wed, 4 Aug
2010, remarked:

As only a third of the cost of the current project is the part tunnelled
under London, I think you may be onto something here.

You're kidding me? What are they doing on the pre existing lines, gold plating
the platforms??

I have no idea; a summary from anyone "in the know" would be helpful.
--
Roland Perry

Does that include the rolling stock?
Tim

On Aug 3, 7:01*pm, "Dr. Sunil" wrote:
On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Crossrail have issued an OJEU heads up for their rolling stock requirement.

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/69743

The only new feature AFAICS is that they will probably be calling for 63 x
200m length trains (for 57 diagrams).

I'm wondering if this is a clear indication they are moving towards
'Thameslink style' fixed formation trains, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units in multiple, allowing them to run singly
offpeak...

Paul S

Thameslink trains can be 4 or 8 cars long. I think you mean "LUL-
style" fixed formations.

No, the proposed TL trains we are talking about here are very
definitely defined as 8 or 12 car only (well 8 and 12 assuing 20 m
lenght cars to mee thte short and long unit spec.).

--
Nick

On Aug 3, 6:34*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units


Were they not 5 x 23 m ?

I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.


--
Nick

On Aug 4, 7:54*am, TimB wrote:

I was wondering just the other day why there wasn't a joint
procurement process for Thameslink and Crossrail... *something the
coalition could look at?


Errr is that nit what this news is suggestion ... TL is spec'ing 160 m
or 240 m trains that will be - assuming 20 m cars - 8 or 12 car.

Wording like 10car 200 m trains for Crossrail suggests a slightly more
common platform.


--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Aug 3, 6:34 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units

Were they not 5 x 23 m ?

I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.

The Crossrail Environmental Statement Vol 1 Ch 2, which was what I was
looking for before my earlier reply to Roger, has this to say:

"Rolling Stock Specification and Performance
2.4.12 The trains used for Crossrail will be 200 m long, formed from 10 cars
of 20 m in length.
The trains will be made up of two five-car units and will have a top speed
of 160 km/h.
The trains will draw power from overhead line systems. Their performance
will be
compatible with the project's requirement to operate 24 trains per hour
(tph) through the
central London stations.
2.4.13 The layout of each carriage will be designed to assist rapid boarding
and alighting in
the central area in order to minimise dwell times. Each carriage will have
at least two
sets of double doorways per side with wide set-backs and a combination of
four
abreast (as two plus two) and inward-facing seating. The trains will be
air-conditioned.
2.4.14 The Crossrail peak service pattern requires 58 trains of 10 cars each
formed from
116 five-car units..."

That's why I was asking Roger if the original spec had been changed, even if
not publicised.

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...


"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Aug 3, 6:34 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

, Crossrail were originally
proposing running two 5 x 20m units

Were they not 5 x 23 m ?

I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.

The Crossrail Environmental Statement Vol 1 Ch 2, which was what I was
looking for before my earlier reply to Roger, has this to say:

"Rolling Stock Specification and Performance
2.4.12 The trains used for Crossrail will be 200 m long, formed from 10
cars of 20 m in length.

snipped

That's why I was asking Roger if the original spec had been changed, even
if not publicised.

Apologies for the crap formatting in previous post.
Also found the bit about station tunnel length that supports an original 20m
car length:

"At each station, the platform tunnels will be constructed to allow for a
future upgrade of platforms to 245 m for the operation of 240 m long 12-car
trains, should demand for Crossrail services necessitate this."

Paul S

On Aug 4, 6:53*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

proposing running two 5 x 20m units

Were they not 5 x 23 m *?
I thought that was the difference between Crossrail and TL - 10 car x
23 m and 12 car x 20 m.

The Crossrail Environmental Statement Vol 1 Ch 2, which was what I was
looking for before my earlier reply to Roger, has this to say:

"Rolling Stock Specification and Performance
2.4.12 The trains used for Crossrail will be 200 m long, formed from 10
cars of 20 m in length.

That's why I was asking Roger if the original spec had been changed, even
if not publicised.

Ahh I see what you meant.

I don't recall anything ever than 23 m for Crossrail.

Indeed, not just for Crossrail stock procurement in its present form,
but right back to Chris Green NSE and 1000 Networker cars a year ad
finitum days when 16X were specified they were for cascade to
Crossrail by conversion to EMU (remove engines and transmissions from
16X cars, insert newly built intermediate emu motor coaches; don't ask
me about end gangways as I don't now).

--
Nick