Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
bob wrote: Perhaps there could be a compromise type platform as used at St P. That would allow double deck UIC shuttle trains in the centre section but also allow UK gauge trains to use it too. After all, we're only talking a few inches width required either side which is hardly going to create a huge = gap to step across. What compromise platforms? St Pancras has UIC platforms on the Eurostar platforms and UK platforms on the Kent, East Midlands and Thameslink paltforms. HS1 was built as a UIC railway from the channel I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. The Victorians chose to have platforms, while the European railways (and those in most other parts of the world) chose not to have platforms, and board the trains from the trackside, by way of carriage mounted steps. Of course when the Victorians decided to have Well they didn't have to carry on building them like that - new lines could have been built to a much more generous loading gauge. They had the right idea in india where the broad gauge lines have a huge loading gauge and those were built in the 19th century by more or less the same people who built the railways in britain. B2003 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On 5 Aug, 14:57, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:08:57 -0700 (PDT) bob wrote: Perhaps there could be a compromise type platform as used at St P. That would allow double deck UIC shuttle trains in the centre section but also allow UK gauge trains to use it too. After all, we're only talking a few inches width required either side which is hardly going to create a huge = gap to step across. What compromise platforms? *St Pancras has UIC platforms on the Eurostar platforms and UK platforms on the Kent, East Midlands and Thameslink paltforms. *HS1 was built as a UIC railway from the channel I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. Shiny modern stations tend to be built with higher platforms, but older stations have much lower platforms, and often the less frequently used platforms (or platform ends) are much lower than the more oft used platforms. The Victorians chose to have platforms, while the European railways (and those in most other parts of the world) chose not to have platforms, and board the trains from the trackside, by way of carriage mounted steps. *Of course when the Victorians decided to have Well they didn't have to carry on building them like that - new lines could have been built to a much more generous loading gauge. And they were. Unfortunately by the time it was realised that a more generous loading gauge would be a good idea, the only mainlines left to be built in Britain were the GC London extension and HS1. They had the right idea in india where the broad gauge lines have a huge loading gauge and those were built in the 19th century by more or less the same people who built the railways in britain. They didn't just "have the right idea", they had the experience of filling Britain and Belgium up with railways, and making serious inroads into other countries, to show them how it should be done, before they even considered starting on India. Like so many technologies, the second generation is far superior to the first. The trouble is, it's far harder to rebuild a national railway network than it is to replace your betamax video collection with VHS. Bear in mind, also, that the loading gauge didn't really become an issue for passenger rolling stock until maybe the 1870s or 80s, when things like bogie coaches and corridor coaches came onto the scene. Robin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
bob wrote: I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. Shiny modern Well there you go then - on crossrail use platforms of a similar height to St P. which are compatible with UIC and UK stock. Bear in mind, also, that the loading gauge didn't really become an issue for passenger rolling stock until maybe the 1870s or 80s, when things like bogie coaches and corridor coaches came onto the scene. What about bridges and tunnels? B2003 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 5, 4:28*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT) bob wrote: I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. *Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. *Shiny modern Well there you go then - on crossrail use platforms of a similar height to St P. which are compatible with UIC and UK stock. Bear in mind, also, that the loading gauge didn't really become an issue for passenger rolling stock until maybe the 1870s or 80s, when things like bogie coaches and corridor coaches came onto the scene. What about bridges and tunnels? B2003 But the locos were probably longer, higher and maybe wider, so the size of the coaches wasn't the controlling factor. Tim |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 5, 5:28*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:00:24 -0700 (PDT) bob wrote: I'm pretty sure the platforms at Paris and Lille are a lot lower than the ones at St. P. Unlike Britain, UIC platforms come in a wide variety of heights. *Even within the same station (or along the length of the same platform face) you can get a variation in platform height. *Shiny modern Well there you go then - on crossrail use platforms of a similar height to St P. which are compatible with UIC and UK stock. The problem isn't height, though, it's the width of the loading gauge. UIC loading gauge is 3.15m wide almost all the way down to track level, while UK loading gauge is 9' (2.74m) at platform height. This means that the edge of a UIC platform is 0.2m (8") further away from the track than a UK platform It is likely that this would be deemed unsafe for people to be expected to step across (consider a crowded rush hour station, for example). If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. Robin |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
"bob" wrote in message ... If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. This is just after you've rebuilt every overbridge, underbridge, tunnel, viaduct and repositioned every other conflicting lineside structure on the route. That'll be simple won't it... Paul S |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:03:50 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. This is just after you've rebuilt every overbridge, underbridge, tunnel, viaduct and repositioned every other conflicting lineside structure on the route. That'll be simple won't it... And Robin (or is it "bob"?) hasn't even explained why this incredibly expensive idea of his would be necessary, or worthwhile. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
On Aug 5, 8:03*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... If we are serious about making the change, the place to start is to build or modify some UK loading gauge stock with retractable steps that can be used to bridge the gap to UIC platforms (in the way Eurostar does). *Once all trains on a particular route have such stock, platforms can be modified. *Once all platforms are done, proper UIC stock can be brought in, and the step equipped stock can be cascaded to another route to be converted. This is just after you've rebuilt every overbridge, underbridge, tunnel, viaduct and repositioned every other conflicting lineside structure on the route. The difference in height between the classic BR loading gauge and UIC is about 30 cm at the top. Gauge enhancements to expand the loading gauge from 8' 6" to 9' 6" containers involves lowering the track or raising structures by about, oh, 30 cm. Because most railway structures have an arched profile, while the problem with containers is the top corners, you end up with a lot of spare space in the centre once you've provided for the top corners. Given that the WCML and NLL are both already rebuilt for 9' 6" containers, if they had the bottom part of the loading gauge expanded to UIC width, there would likely only be a minor amount of work left to achieve UIC clearance for such routes. Even if you don't get the full UIC gauge at the top, a lot of single deck european stock does not take up the full height of the loading gauge, and so would be able to fit anyway. By eliminating the need to produce specialist UK only rolling stock, but instead buying proven off the shelf euro-designs money could be saved and reliability increased (because somebody else will have worked out the bugs). Additionally, one of the key reasons why double deck stock does not offer significant capacity enhancements in the current UK loading gauge is that low level downstairs saloons have to be significantly narrower than current single deck carriages. By allowing full width down to track level, even if it isn't a standard euro-design, double deck stock would become possible, bringing with it the prospect of capacity enhancements. Robin |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Crossrail rolling stock PIN
In message
, bob writes The trouble is, it's far harder to rebuild a national railway network than it is to replace your betamax video collection with VHS. A case in point, the colour system used in the states, "Never Twice the Same Color" as opposed to our "Picture Always Lousy". -- Clive |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crossrail Rolling Stock | London Transport | |||
Chip and PIN on underground? | London Transport | |||
Rolling stock losses in the bombs | London Transport | |||
LUL rolling stock question | London Transport |