John Rowland wrote:
"Mark Brader" wrote in message
...
Benjamin Nunn:
I thought the W&C tunnels were big enough to take regular stock...

John Rowland:
No, in fact they had to be enlarged slightly to take the 92 stock.

CULG gives the Waterloo & City Line tunnel diameter as 3.70 m
(12' 1.75"), which if I remember correctly was taken from Rails
Through the Clay. This is *larger* than the nominal 11' 8.25"
of the Central Line, so what had to be enlarged?

The metal ribs (I don't know the correct name) on the inside of the
rings had to be trimmed on some of the curves. This may be more to do
with the length of the 92 stock than their width, or it may be to do
with their kinematic envelope differing from that of the previous
stock. Perhaps the Central Line already used larger rings on some or
all of the curves.

The degree of curvature is also relevant, i.e. the tighter the curve the
further the car overhangs the track. IIRC some of the track had to be
realigned to take the 92 stock.

In message , at
13:20:33 on Wed, 13 Oct 2004, TheOneKEA remarked:
Is there anything preventing the third side of the
triangle from being restored?

It was closed in 1916, so less likely to be restorable. Perhaps someone
knows if the tunnel's still even there.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, John Rowland wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2004, Boltar wrote:

"Andrew" wrote in message
...

how about connecting the Northern City / WAGN line with the
Thameslink spur into Moorgate, and restoring the 3rd curve at
Farringdon Junction making it a triangular junction again.

I suspect the gradiants and curves required to
join the 2 would be too severe unless a new line
split off from blackfriars since from Barbican you'd
have to drop about 20 metres and do a 90 degree turn

More like a 120 degree turn, i think.

in the space of 1/4 mile.

Think outside the box! Don't do it with a curve to the north,
do with with a curve to the south - a spiral tunnel heading
down and round. Not only does that give you the space to
do it, but it spreads the height change out over a greater distance.

And it could call at Moorgate twice, just in case you missed your stop
the first time.

If it's good enough for Monument (on the Tyne & Wear Metro), it's dashed
well good enough for Moorgate!

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

On 13 Oct 2004, Alistair Bell wrote:

(Jim Brown) wrote in message . com...

If the Bank of England sacrificed its vaults (Very little use for them
now, with the gold sold off) and Cannon Street St was put underground
(Plus a new tunnel under the Thames), would a tunnel connecting
Moorgate and London Bridge be feasible? Or do the tube lines around
there make it impossible?

I'd be more interested in the feasibility of turning the Northern City
into a DLR line to East Finchley...

As soon as we started talking about abandoned track, i knew it wouldn't be
long until someone started talking light rail, even if it ia on a
different line ... back on the subject of the Midland City Line (aka
Widened Lines), maybe you could get some Cross River Transit action down
there, via a crafty tunnel from Holborn. That would be actually be pretty
useful - it would link the southern half of XRT to the City.

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

Tom Anderson wrote:
On 13 Oct 2004, Jim Brown wrote:


"R.C. Payne" wrote in message ...

Solar Penguin wrote:

--- Jim Brown said:


If the Bank of England sacrificed its vaults (Very little use for
them now, with the gold sold off) and Cannon Street St was put
underground (Plus a new tunnel under the Thames), would a tunnel
connecting Moorgate and London Bridge be feasible? Or do the tube
lines around there make it impossible?

Interesting idea, Jim... There's also the problem of the slope down
from the high-level platforms at London Bridge to below the level of
the river bed. Especially since the line also has to curve from
east-west to north-south as it drops.

Surely the way to make this work is to build new tube-level platforms
at Cannon St and London Bridge, and break the surface east of London
Bridge? Of course that would increase your price by just a few quid.

Well yes I kind of presumed underground platforms at London Bridge but I
didnt make that explicit. But as a ball park figure and assuming you
could slot it into the London Bridge rebuild I'm guessing it would cost
£3/4 billion. Of course the question then is which line(s) south of the
river would be best to used for a new cross-london service?


Dartford. What i'd do is surface as soon as possible onto the northernmost
pair of tracks heading into (or out of) London Bridge, then run down to
Lewisham (via a new station at the proposed Deptford Park ELL station),

(ears prick up at sound of possible project)
Do you have any details on that proposal?

(snip)

In other news, are Crossrail seriously not proposing a station at London
City Airport? Is that what Custom House is supposed to be for? I think we
discussed this, but most Crossrail stuff goes right over my head.

Crossrail will use the NLL alignment from Custom House to near North
Woolwich - so it will actually pass through Silvertown station. However
since they're it doesn't appear on any of their plans, I presume it is
scheduled for closure - especially given that it is around 7 mins' walk
from the airport whereas the DLR's new station will be right outside the
terminal building.

Nevertheless, since Crossrail interchange with the DLR will be at Custom
House and not Canning Town, getting to LCY from Crossrail will either
involve changing at Stratford from the west/northeast or catching SET to
Woolwich Arsenal from the southeast.

I'm not sure exactly why CLRL want to close Silvertown station. Could be
for engineering reasons, although the portal for their Gallions Reach
tunnel should be much further east. It might just be to speed up journey
times through an area which will be well-served by the new DLR branch,
which will eventually have trains running direct between Stratford -
Canning Town - City Airport - Woolwich Arsenal.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

TheOneKEA wrote:
"Andrew" wrote in message ...

"Jim Brown" wrote in message
.com...

If the Bank of England sacrificed its vaults (Very little use for them
now, with the gold sold off) and Cannon Street St was put underground
(Plus a new tunnel under the Thames), would a tunnel connecting
Moorgate and London Bridge be feasible? Or do the tube lines around
there make it impossible?

This is highly speculative and I'm sure the engineering feats involved
would be considerable, but how about connecting the Northern City / WAGN
line with the Thameslink spur into Moorgate, and restoring the 3rd curve at
Farringdon Junction making it a triangular junction again. Would create
more direct North-South journey possibilities without building a second
tunnel. However after Thameslink 2000 is complete this might prove rather
superfluous anyway as there will be a direct route from the ECML through the
new Kings Cross Thameslink station and on to Farringdon. It seems a shame
to abandon the Moorgate Thameslink route though.

Andrew


Who says it has to be abandoned?

If Farringdon Junction does need to be lifted and replaced with plain
track in order to extend the platforms, what's to stop the third leg
of the Thameslink Triangle, from City Thameslink to Barbican, from
being restored in response?

This way, the old Ludgate Hill/Holborn Viaduct scenario is recreated:
Thameslink gets the through route to Midland Road, as well as the
alternate terminus at Moorgate if things go up the wall; anybody who
wants to go to Moorgate from Midland Road can use the Met from
Farringdon.

Has this ever been proposed? If it hasn't, how could something so
obvious be missed? Is there anything preventing the third side of the
triangle from being restored?

I can understand why TL trains from the north to Moorgate are useful,
but many passengers coming from the south already have the option of
getting a train into Cannon Street from London Bridge, and Cannon St is
arguably closer to more City destinations than Moorgate. Running more
trains through the Snow Hill tunnel will probably put an extra strain on
even the TL2K signalling system, leading to unreliability (more so than
existing TL services).

Incidentally now that TL is split in two with northbound services
starting at St Pancras, I'm getting the impression that it's more
reliable...

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:53:18 +0100, "Sir Benjamin Nunn"
wrote:



I've only had about two legitimate causes to use it in my life. But I can
see why it might be popular with some very very conformist passengers who
live in Surrey, wear the same suit every day, and work 9-5 in the City.


Well I've never worn a suit to work - never worked 9-5 when I could
help it and never lived in Surrey. But I did use the W&C for many
years.

On 13 Oct 2004 22:39:49 GMT, Robin May
wrote:



You must be mistaken. The Waterloo and City line definitely still has
trains painted in NSE livery.

It must have some that aren't then as well, because the trains I've
traveled on definitely weren't NSE livery

In message , k
writes
On 13 Oct 2004 22:39:49 GMT, Robin May
wrote:



You must be mistaken. The Waterloo and City line definitely still has
trains painted in NSE livery.

It must have some that aren't then as well, because the trains I've
traveled on definitely weren't NSE livery

I've travelled on both, so presumably there some sets with NSE livery
and some with LU roundels over the previous livery. (Note that the stock
still has the blue doors and fronts from NSE days as opposed to the red
doors and fronts that are standard elsewhere on LU).
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

In other news, are Crossrail seriously not proposing a station at London
City Airport? Is that what Custom House is supposed to be for? I think
we
discussed this, but most Crossrail stuff goes right over my head.

Crossrail will use the NLL alignment from Custom House to near North
Woolwich - so it will actually pass through Silvertown station. However
since they're it doesn't appear on any of their plans, I presume it is
scheduled for closure - especially given that it is around 7 mins' walk
from the airport whereas the DLR's new station will be right outside the
terminal building.

Nevertheless, since Crossrail interchange with the DLR will be at Custom
House and not Canning Town, getting to LCY from Crossrail will either
involve changing at Stratford from the west/northeast or catching SET to
Woolwich Arsenal from the southeast.

I'm not sure exactly why CLRL want to close Silvertown station. Could be
for engineering reasons, although the portal for their Gallions Reach
tunnel should be much further east. It might just be to speed up journey
times through an area which will be well-served by the new DLR branch,
which will eventually have trains running direct between Stratford -
Canning Town - City Airport - Woolwich Arsenal.

My thoughts exactly. I can't see why they won't put in a station for LCY,
given that it runs so close and the only other way from there would be DLR
to Bank (once the North Woolwich extension opens) which would take forever.

Angus