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

"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

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.

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