Am Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:28:43 UTC, schrieb auf
uk.railway :

On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to
Ireland?

Connecting a network with standard 1435 mm track gauge to another
network with 1600 mm wide track gauge?

And then?


Curious,
L.W.

On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel
connection to Ireland?

(Yeah, right.)

Connecting a network with standard 1435 mm track gauge to another
network with 1600 mm wide track gauge?

If that was the only problem, it wouldn't be a problem.

And then?

Most conveniently, what they do with some trains at the French-
Spanish border: slide the wheels along the axles to fit the other
gauge. Other solutions include mixed-gauge track, bogie changing,
and (of course) having the passengers change trains.
--
Mark Brader | "For the stronger we our houses do build,
Toronto | The less chance we have of being killed."
| -- William McGonagall, "The Tay Bridge Disaster"

In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.


This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !


That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:28:43 GMT, wrote:

On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to
Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the
earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to
build any sort of subterranean structure there.

A tunnel from Holyhead to Dublin would be nearly twice the length of
the channel tunnel, though proposals do get raised every now and then.
The shortest Irish Sea crossing, and so the easiest place to build a
tunnel is between Scotland and Northern Ireland (eg Stranrear-Larne).
even with trains running at TGV speed on both sides of the Irish Sea
this would be a long enough way round for many journeys, including
London-Dublin, for rail to remain uncompetitive with air.

Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper
than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than
the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify
that

Martin

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times.

The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce)
at least some services from Waterloo International to international
destinations.

You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock
cleared for the Channel Tunnel available.

My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available
*because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar
had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains
wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that
the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the
rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is
actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore.

Rob.

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
...

Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper
than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than
the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify
that

From a wander around GOOGLE I find......

The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of
Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish Sea is
characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs from St.
George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in the North
Channel.

also...

The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth (5deg
W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait


Which does confirm your memory.

KW

Ken Ward wrote:
"Martin Rich" wrote in message
...

Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper
than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than
the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify
that

From a wander around GOOGLE I find......

The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of
Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish
Sea is characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs
from St. George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in
the North Channel.

also...

The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth
(5deg W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait


Which does confirm your memory.

Does depth make a difference? It won't be cut and cover!

In message .com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times.

Try understanding it next time.


The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce)
at least some services from Waterloo International to international
destinations.

You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock
cleared for the Channel Tunnel available.

My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available
*because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar
had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains
wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that
the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the
rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is
actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore.


Come back when you understand both question and answer.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Ken Ward" wrote in message
...

"Martin Rich" wrote in message
...

Somewhere I also remember reading that the Irish Sea is much deeper
than the English Channel, which makes tunnelling more difficult than
the tunnel length would suggest, but I haven't been able to verify
that

From a wander around GOOGLE I find......

The Irish Sea is a semi enclosed shelf sea bordered by the island of
Ireland, Scotland England and Wales. The depth in the western Irish Sea is
characterised by a channel of greater than 80m depth that runs from St.
George's Channel in the south to a maximum depth of 275m in the North
Channel.

also...

The English Channel has a maximum depth of 100 m at the western mouth
(5deg W) shallowing to 40 m in the central Dover Strait

Which does confirm your memory.

KW


Hurd Deep in the English Channel is 172 m its deepest.
Beaufort Dyke, in the North Channel is between 200 and 300 m deep.
From Wikipedia :-
"Projects for a rail tunnel between Ireland and Scotland have been
suggested at various times from the late nineteenth-century onwards. The
Dyke has always been an important problem for such proposals, in terms both
of practicality and cost."

Jim Hawkins

On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times.

Try understanding it next time.







The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce)
at least some services from Waterloo International to international
destinations.

You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock
cleared for the Channel Tunnel available.

My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available
*because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar
had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains
wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that
the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the
rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is
actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore.

Come back when you understand both question and answer.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?

Rob