On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:37 +0000
Arthur Figgis wrote:
Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they
only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be
once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever.

Apparebntly french nukes are highlyh sophisticated. The warhead splits at
the apex of its trajectory into individual bombs and then at lower altitude
each bomb releases a white flag that also doubles as a parachute so they
don't get hurt when they land.

B2003

On 20/03/2012 09:54, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:37 +0000
Arthur wrote:
Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they
only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be
once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever.

Apparebntly french nukes are highlyh sophisticated. The warhead splits at
the apex of its trajectory into individual bombs and then at lower altitude
each bomb releases a white flag that also doubles as a parachute so they
don't get hurt when they land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 16/03/12 12:22, Bruce wrote:
It also takes time to do; your car satnav or hand held GPS receiver
gives you a near instant fix to within a few metres, but differential
GPS takes hours* to give an accuracy of millimetres.

That's not differential GPS. DGPS is just as fast as normal GPS and uses
a secondary transmission of local GPS error derived from a GPS receiver
at a known position. It's good to about 10cm.

Higher degrees of accuracy come from techniques like long term averaging
or carrier phase tracking.

Ian

On 16/03/12 10:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:36:36 on Fri,
16 Mar 2012, Graeme Wall remarked:
You forget that Polson was Morton's right hand man on the project and
therefore knows everything about it.

iirc he was involved in one of the rival bids (and unsuccessful) bids to
build a bridge instead.

[citation require]

Ian

On 16/03/12 11:50, Graeme Wall wrote:
Difficult to disentangle all his myriad claims but IIRC he was allegedly
working on the tunnel project

Remember that he has also claimed to have managed an opencast mine,
worked in every nuclear power station in Britain, run shops in Preston
and North Yorkshire, been a civil servant, written the transport section
of the Labour Manifesto in 1997, supervised the Piccadilly Line tunnel
under Heathrow and taken cover photographs for Vogue. I suppose it's
possible that some of these claims might be true.

Ian

In message , at 23:51:45 on Tue, 20 Mar
2012, The Real Doctor remarked:
You forget that Polson was Morton's right hand man on the project and
therefore knows everything about it.

iirc he was involved in one of the rival bids (and unsuccessful) bids to
build a bridge instead.

[citation require]

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.ra...5dfe76b6edfa72

Sorry, I knew he'd posted about the bridge option, but I had the context
reversed.

--
Roland Perry

On Mar 20, 4:25*pm, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
D7666 wrote:
On Mar 15, 2:55 pm, allantracy wrote:
So, it's finally really happening.

...... and only thirteen years late.

It was approved 2007 ... under a Labour government based on the 2005
proposals ... made during a Labour government.

If it is 13 years late by your reckoning it was 1994 when it ought to
have been approved - but it was not - by a Tory government.

The previous study that made as far as a Bill were presented in 1991
to a Tory gov finally rejected in 1994 by a Tory gov.

Regardless of the flavours of government involved: with hindsight, should
the 1991 plan have been approved? By how much did those plans differ from
the current plan? By how much did the estimated cost differ from the
current estimated cost? Genuine questions...

IIRC the central section was not much different in the ealy plan.
There was to be an extra station between Tottenham Court Rd and
Farringdon. I do not recall the cost, it was high enough to frighten
the politicians.

On Mar 20, 4:25*pm, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
77002 wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:58 pm, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2012-03-16 12:01:18 +0000, 77002 said:

On Mar 16, 7:49 am, furnessvale wrote:
On Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:53:04 AM UTC, Mizter T wrote:
Tunnel boring to begin from the Royal Oak portal heading eastwards under
central London.
So, it's finally really happening.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and mouth shut. *How many false starts
did the Channel Tunnel have that actually involved tunnelling underway?

Several of the Crossrail stations have been under construction for
some time. *The ramps down to the portals at Paddington are
substantial.

Moreover, IIRC, the cost of Crossrail has reduced slightly.

Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets.

IIRC Correctly it relates to depressed construction costs. *Of course
it is early days yet. *There may be cost overruns.

It is bad enough having 313s on the Coastway. *Why would anyone want
to run trains from Reading to Shenfield sans half baths is beyond me.
This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be
run in a similar manner to Thameslink?

Moreover it is madness terminating so many Crossrail trains at
Paddington.

I guess it's too late now, but taking over the H&C to Hammersmith seemed
(to me) an obvious solution for 'what to do with' all those Padd
terminators. I presume Crossrail trains are longer than H&C trains; maybe
so much so that it would create more problems than it would solve.

I hate the idea of turning so many Crossrail trains back at
Paddington. Unfortunately, if the platforms on the Hammersmith branch
were lengthened for Crossrail, some neighboring stations would become
a continuous platform. Moreover, the depot for both the H&C and
Circle is in Hammersmith.

Other than that, it is great idea. Better yet, put back the junction
at Hammersmith and run Crossrail thru to Ealing Broadway and Rayners
Lane. We simplify the Circle, and District Lines, and allow more
Piccadilly Line trains to serve Heathrow in one fell swoop. :-)

A better solution may be to run as far as Old Oak, the next to the
Central Line, finally taking over the Central Line to Ealing
Broadway. More Central Line trains would turn back at Shepherds Bush,
thus freeing capacity and simplifying operations.

Tring has also been considered as a Crossrail destination.

Would there be any mileage in having a second, 'longer distance' variety of
stock for Crossrail and running some of the Padd terminators to Oxford?
2tph express and two tph all stops, replacing the current fGW service?
Again I guess that the complications (not least the 'wrong kind of stock'
turning up to form a service) outweigh any potential benefits...

A single type of Rolling stock will keep the price down. It also
simplifies operations and maintenance.

Whether the idiots at TfL have chosen the right rolling stock is
another question. Why would any sane railway run trains from Reading
to Shenfield, sans half-bathrooms?

Anna Noyd-Dryver
(preparing to be shot down in flames)

Not by me.

On Mar 20, 6:23*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:25:40 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver

wrote:
I guess it's too late now, but taking over the H&C to Hammersmith
seemed
(to me) an obvious solution

Not much good if you want to use it to travel from Hammersmith to,
umm, the City.

On the Contrary, the route to Farringdon (Street) would be more
direct, have less stations, and be aboard, faster, higher capacity,
trains.

Just the same, it is not practical, for the reasons I have stated up
thread.

On 20/03/2012 21:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/03/2012 09:54, d wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:44:37 +0000
Arthur wrote:
Personally I'd look at doing a deal with the French. AIUI they know they
only have to be able to nuke Berli^H^H^H whatever the target might be
once, rather than Moscow 137 times or whatever.

Apparebntly french nukes are highlyh sophisticated. The warhead splits at
the apex of its trajectory into individual bombs and then at lower
altitude
each bomb releases a white flag that also doubles as a parachute so they
don't get hurt when they land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun



I suspect Boltar has been influenced by the Republican Party's tantrum
when the French sensibly declined to join in Bush's "Let's not worry
about catching Bin Laden and get Saddam instead for the hell of it."

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail