|
ELL closure
In article , d () wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:19:25 -0600 wrote: In article , d () wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:25:52 -0600 wrote: In article , (Basil Jet) wrote: Loads of space in them, is there? (I don't know if there is.) They may now be regretting that the link to the NLL at Highbury & Islington has never been commissioned because of the complications of the two electrification systems. But available it is not so there is no way to run a shuttle, even if Shoreditch High Street had a handy crossover. What complications? The NLL itself switches between overhead and 3rd rail. That aside, they could store a couple of units overnight at Dalston Junction for the 9 days and hire a security guard. But obviously thats not going to happen with TfLs Can't-Do culture. Signalling immunisation hasn't been implemented, apparently. Would it matter if the stock was transfered in the small hours when the lines were closed? The connection was only ever intended for stock transfers like that but has never had its signalling commissioned, AIUI. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
ELL closure
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:11:26 -0600
wrote: In article , d () wrote: Would it matter if the stock was transfered in the small hours when the lines were closed? The connection was only ever intended for stock transfers like that but has never had its signalling commissioned, AIUI. Surely for a short connector like that you'd just have a possession anyway? Whatever the reason , its certainly wasn't being used last year as the rails were pretty rusty. -- Spud |
ELL closure
|
ELL closure
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:29:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:22:23 +0000 Water musician wrote: On 16 Feb 2016, d wrote (in article ): So lets get this straight, you think installing one extra set of reversing points when the ELLX was being built would require an extra 5 quid on fares to fund it do you? Go and have a lie down. Of course not. My point is that TfL has to work to budgets. Which means that “wish lists� or optimum systems may have to be trimmed to produce affordable, deliverable budgets. Compared to the total cost of the ELL extension an extra set of points would be neither here nor there. They'd also need maintenance, as would their signalling, so running costs would go up too. They'd occasionally fail, or need weekend closures for maintenance, which would have you bitterly complaining about the over-complex line. |
ELL closure
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:46:04 +0000
Recliner wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:24:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: A 200mph TGV could get up and down the east and west coasts in a few hours. With its large amounts of land and huge economy the US is perfect for high speed rail, there's just little political will. Air should only really be needed for cross continent trips. There's little political will because the trains would probably lose money, while the faster air services are profitable, at least some of Given the cost and complexity of aircraft, the cost of maintaining them, landing fees, fuel etc, you have to wonder exactly just how air is cheaper. the time. The trains would still have the problem of getting into the city centres on dedicated new high speed lines, not competing for space on the existing freight lines. Thats just politics. Money didn't stop Boston building a new road tunnel system under the city recently for purely aesthetic reasons (they already have overpasses) that cost $14 billion. -- Spud |
ELL closure
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 13:48:14 +0000
Recliner wrote: On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:29:01 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: They'd also need maintenance, as would their signalling, so running costs would go up too. They'd occasionally fail, or need weekend closures for maintenance, which would have you bitterly complaining about the over-complex line. Oh please. 1 set of points that would hardly ever be used would require minimal maintenance compared to the ones at Dalston and Highbury. Think of another reason Mr TfL Apologist. -- Spud |
ELL closure
In message , at 16:32:36 on Tue, 16 Feb
2016, d remarked: Given the cost and complexity of aircraft, the cost of maintaining them, landing fees, fuel etc, you have to wonder exactly just how air is cheaper. Because the only infrastructure which requires maintaining is the airport at either end. The airspace maintains itself. -- Roland Perry |
ELL closure
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:47:52 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:32:36 on Tue, 16 Feb 2016, d remarked: Given the cost and complexity of aircraft, the cost of maintaining them, landing fees, fuel etc, you have to wonder exactly just how air is cheaper. Because the only infrastructure which requires maintaining is the airport at either end. The airspace maintains itself. Thats a lot of infrastructure. I would imagine that in total complexity Heathrow far exceeds the east or west coast mainlines. Control tower, radar, ILS, baggage, runway & taxiways, hangers, underground fuel pipes, storage, vehicles, security including fences, car parks, staff transport, commercial premises, and probably 101 things I haven't even thought of. -- Spud |
ELL closure
In article , d () wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:11:26 -0600 wrote: In article , d () wrote: Would it matter if the stock was transfered in the small hours when the lines were closed? The connection was only ever intended for stock transfers like that but has never had its signalling commissioned, AIUI. Surely for a short connector like that you'd just have a possession anyway? Whatever the reason , its certainly wasn't being used last year as the rails were pretty rusty. It's never been used AFAIAA. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk