In message ,
writes
Rayners Lane siding does that too.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Are you sure that that is the same set up?
Both the controlled and Kevin Rose's diagrams shows a short stub past
the points, rather than their just being nothing

If you're asking about Rayners, yes. I was in there today and can
definitely confirm it is two separately controlled blades. There is no
stub there.

I did check Hammersmith today on the way past and can confirm that it's
two standard points into a stub at both ends, which is defaulted to the
stub. DS was right about long trains too, I remember comments during my
training about engineering trains having to do that.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In article , ] (Steve
Fitzgerald) wrote:

In message ,
writes
Rayners Lane siding does that too.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Are you sure that that is the same set up?
Both the controlled and Kevin Rose's diagrams shows a short stub past
the points, rather than their just being nothing

If you're asking about Rayners, yes. I was in there today and can
definitely confirm it is two separately controlled blades. There is no
stub there.

I did check Hammersmith today on the way past and can confirm that it's
two standard points into a stub at both ends, which is defaulted to the
stub. DS was right about long trains too, I remember comments during
my training about engineering trains having to do that.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Thanks

I'll have to ask Kevin about that one as the diagram also shows a track
circuit for the stub which the other sidings do not, and I'm not quite
sure of the purpose of that.

Roger

On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:56:15 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:



John Rowland:
There used to be hydraulic mains in London supplying pressurised water
all over the city ...

London Hydraulic Power Company, as it misleadingly says on the entrance
building to the Tower Subway. I didn't know that Underground lifts
were among the machines they powered, though. Thanks.
--

The original City & South London Railway lifts were hydraulic ones, I
don't know if they were supplied from that company.


My understanding was that with the technology of 1000 or so years ago,
hydraulic lifts were easier than electric lifts to make safe - to the
extent that they wouldn't plunge down the lift shaft in the event of a
failure

Martin

In article , Roland Perry
writes
I'm trying to compile a list of interesting things to go see on the
"tube" on a day trip. Engineering mainly, like the crossover at the end
of the Oxford St Bakerloo, the scale of Canary Wharf and the tunnel out
of Bank-DLR. What others can the team suggest?

On the East London Line, as well as the Thames Tunnel, the line runs
through the bottom of a (now filled in) dock north of Wapping.

Look out for closed stations. Sometimes empty spaces (as at South
Kentish Town), sometimes walls (as at Down Street). At Tower Hill you
can still see the staircases.

On a northbound Northern Line CX Branch train approaching Camden Town,
you can see the other platform from the one you're going to use.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article ,
(Martin Rich) wrote:

My understanding was that with the technology of 1000 or so years ago,
hydraulic lifts were easier than electric lifts to make safe - to the
extent that they wouldn't plunge down the lift shaft in the event of a
failure

1000 year old lifts? Wow!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 13 May 2004 00:01 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Martin Rich) wrote:

My understanding was that with the technology of 1000 or so years ago,
hydraulic lifts were easier than electric lifts to make safe - to the
extent that they wouldn't plunge down the lift shaft in the event of a
failure

1000 year old lifts? Wow!

Just realised what I typed...

I meant of course 100 years.

In article ,
(Martin Rich) wrote:

On Thu, 13 May 2004 00:01 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Martin Rich) wrote:

My understanding was that with the technology of 1000 or so years
ago, hydraulic lifts were easier than electric lifts to make safe -
to the extent that they wouldn't plunge down the lift shaft in the
event of a failure

1000 year old lifts? Wow!

Just realised what I typed...

I meant of course 100 years.

:-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel