|
Thames Gateway
|
Thames Gateway
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, John Rowland wrote:
14 pictures to step through... http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/im...allery.shtml?1 WHAT. Did i miss Chatham being built on a mountainside? tom -- I have been trying to find a way of framing this but yes, a light meal is probably preferable to a heavy one under the circumstances. -- ninebelow |
Thames Gateway
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, John Rowland wrote: 14 pictures to step through... http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/im...allery.shtml?1 WHAT. Did i miss Chatham being built on a mountainside? It's a cut-price Schwebebahn. Remember the plan for cable cars from East India Station to the Dome? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...tml#DomeAerial |
Thames Gateway
In article , John Rowland
writes 14 pictures to step through... http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/im...ateway_futuris tic_gallery.shtml?1 Number 10 appears to be moving Benfleet station to the Blinking Owl intersection (where the A130 crosses the A127). That'll be an interesting project. -- 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: |
Thames Gateway
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , John Rowland writes 14 pictures to step through... http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/content/im...ateway_futuris tic_gallery.shtml?1 Number 10 appears to be moving Benfleet station to the Blinking Owl intersection (where the A130 crosses the A127). That'll be an interesting project. No, they're showing it moving to where the A13 crosses the A130, an even more interesting project. |
Thames Gateway
On Aug 23, 4:51 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote: Did i miss Chatham being built on a mountainside? It's a cut-price Schwebebahn. Eh ? How is a Schwebebahn a cut down cableway ? Thats a bit like saying a footpath is a cutdown travolator - the two are different applications using different systems for different reasons. -- Nick |
Thames Gateway
John Rowland wrote:
where the A13 crosses the A130 .... which incidentally looks like a Magic Roundabout... could someone confirm that before I add it to Wiki's list of Magic Roundabouts. Does it have a name? |
Thames Gateway
D7666 wrote:
On Aug 23, 4:51 pm, "John Rowland" wrote: Did i miss Chatham being built on a mountainside? It's a cut-price Schwebebahn. Eh ? How is a Schwebebahn a cut down cableway ? I didn't say it was, I said a cableway is a cut price Schwebebahn. The reason I made the comparison is that the Schwebebahn exists because of the River Wupper, and I suspect that the cableway is being planned for Chatham because of the Medway Thats a bit like saying a footpath is a cutdown travolator Well, it is. - the two are different applications using different systems for different reasons. And yet, one of the cost reductions in St Pancras Thameslink involved replacing the planned travolator to the tube with.... a footpath. |
Thames Gateway
On Aug 26, 9:12 am, "John Rowland"
wrote: OK I see what you mean. Chatham because of the Medway But surely even then the schebebahn runs *along* the course of the river but cablecars tend to go across things ? -- Nick |
Thames Gateway
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, D7666 wrote:
On Aug 26, 9:12 am, "John Rowland" wrote: OK I see what you mean. Chatham because of the Medway But surely even then the schebebahn runs *along* the course of the river but cablecars tend to go across things ? Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic. Anyway, my reading was that John was being somewhat silly. A cable-car is a ludicrous thing to build in Chatham, so it seems fit that the justification for it is also ludicrous. tom -- MADSKILLZ! |
Thames Gateway
On Aug 26, 12:22 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
Anyway, my reading was that John was being somewhat silly. A cable-car is a ludicrous thing to build in Chatham, so it seems fit that the justification for it is also ludicrous. On the contrary , the locals would love it. They could use the cars are a perfect place to get boozed up in then leave their empties and pools of vomit behind. Naturally each trip would involve optionally swinging back and forth in the car as hard as possible to try and get it to hit something and lets not forget the breaking a window game so they can chuck stuff down onto people and property beneath. Also think of the golden (or should that been dayglo green?) opportunity the disciples of TOX03 would have. - their sigs passing over everyone all day continuously. B2003 |
Thames Gateway
In message , at
12:22:22 on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic. The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a hill". -- Roland Perry |
Thames Gateway
On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote:
Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; The Roosevelt Island tramway might count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island. Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal. U |
Thames Gateway
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:22:22 on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic. The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a hill". Okay, good one. There, i think we have an auxiliary reason for cable-cars, which is that they're cool, and at a theme park, that's a good enough reason. Alton Towers also has a number of light rail systems, and despite the fact that they are all closed cloops with only one station, they have a quite remarkable variety of grades and curves. And some really rather unorthodox approaches to seating! tom -- First man to add a mixer get a shoeing! -- The Laird |
Thames Gateway
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mr Thant wrote:
On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote: Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; The Roosevelt Island tramway might count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island. Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal. I was in New York with a friend a while ago, and one morning, after having spent the previous evening making an extensive survey of local beverage outlets, he told me he'd noticed a cable-car. I told him in no uncertain terms that he was mistaken, and to exercise greater restraint in his consumption in future. About an hour later, i was rather surprised to walk past it myself. I never mentioned it to him, and hopefully he still thinks it's imaginary. So why the bloody buggering hell did they build it? According to wikipedia, it was built at a time when there was no road bridge to Manhattan, only Queens, the previous tram bridge had fallen into disrepair, and the subway was still under construction. What i don't really understand was why building a cable-car was thought to be a better option than repairing the tram tracks, or converting them into a road bridge. Or even a footbridge, given that it's not far, and the cable-car doesn't exactly go far anyway. Cross-posted to nyc.transit, who will doubtless have opinions. tom -- First man to add a mixer get a shoeing! -- The Laird |
Thames Gateway
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote: Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; The Roosevelt Island tramway might count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island. Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal. I was in New York with a friend a while ago, and one morning, after having spent the previous evening making an extensive survey of local beverage outlets, he told me he'd noticed a cable-car. I told him in no uncertain terms that he was mistaken, and to exercise greater restraint in his consumption in future. About an hour later, i was rather surprised to walk past it myself. I never mentioned it to him, and hopefully he still thinks it's imaginary. So why the bloody buggering hell did they build it? According to wikipedia, it was built at a time when there was no road bridge to Manhattan, only Queens, the previous tram bridge had fallen into disrepair, and the subway was still under construction. What i don't really understand was why building a cable-car was thought to be a better option than repairing the tram tracks, or converting them into a road bridge. Or even a footbridge, given that it's not far, and the cable-car doesn't exactly go far anyway. Cross-posted to nyc.transit, who will doubtless have opinions. My best guess is that a bridge would probably have been expensive, especially if high enough not to block what was then (and still is to a large extent) a critical navigable waterway. As I understand it, the aerial tramway was supposed to be temporary, but became so popular that it was kept even after the subway stop was finished. |
Thames Gateway
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mr Thant wrote: On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote: Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; The Roosevelt Island tramway might count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island. Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal. I was in New York with a friend a while ago, and one morning, after having spent the previous evening making an extensive survey of local beverage outlets, he told me he'd noticed a cable-car. I told him in no uncertain terms that he was mistaken, and to exercise greater restraint in his consumption in future. About an hour later, i was rather surprised to walk past it myself. I never mentioned it to him, and hopefully he still thinks it's imaginary. So why the bloody buggering hell did they build it? According to wikipedia, it was built at a time when there was no road bridge to Manhattan, only Queens, the previous tram bridge had fallen into disrepair, and the subway was still under construction. What i don't really understand was why building a cable-car was thought to be a better option than repairing the tram tracks, or converting them into a road bridge. Or even a footbridge, given that it's not far, and the cable-car doesn't exactly go far anyway. Cross-posted to nyc.transit, who will doubtless have opinions. tom When you say, tram, I think are referring to what we call a trolley or streetcar. The Queensboro Bridge had trolley tracks and a station. But needed an elevator to get to the station on the bridge. There was an underground terminal in Manhattan. The trolley stopped running in 1957. From that time, until the current tram opened in 1976, there was no way to get directly to Manhattan from Roosevelt (nee:Blackwell, nee: Welfare) Island. One reason that the tram is still operating is that its terminal in Manhattan is at Second Ave, while the subway station is at Lexington, two blocks away. This give residents of RI a choice of destinations in Manhattan. The subway opened in 1989. For the most part service on the subway used the 6th Ave Subway. There was a brief time when it was a shuttle to 57th and Broadway. This was to allow track work to be done on the line. From its opening in 1989 to 2001, there was only one stop in Queens. On December 16, 2001, the F train began to use the line 24/7 and was through routed to eastern Queens - 179th St. -- ------------------------------------------------- | Joseph D. Korman | | | | Visit The JoeKorNer at | | http://www.thejoekorner.com | |-------------------------------------------------| | The light at the end of the tunnel ... | | may be a train going the other way! | | Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)| |-------------------------------------------------| | All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV | ------------------------------------------------- |
Thames Gateway
In message , at
15:17:25 on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a hill". Okay, good one. There, i think we have an auxiliary reason for cable-cars, which is that they're cool, and at a theme park, that's a good enough reason. The valley is surprisingly deep, and the way around the end surprisingly far. It has a great deal of utility, as well as being merely "cool" :) -- Roland Perry |
Thames Gateway
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, D7666 wrote: On Aug 26, 9:12 am, "John Rowland" wrote: OK I see what you mean. Chatham because of the Medway But surely even then the schebebahn runs *along* the course of the river but cablecars tend to go across things ? Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic. http://www.koelner-seilbahn.de crosses the Rhine. Whereas the Dresden Schwebebahn goes up a hill. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwebebahn_Dresden -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Thames Gateway
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:22:22 on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson remarked: Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic. The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a hill". Okay, good one. There, i think we have an auxiliary reason for cable-cars, which is that they're cool, and at a theme park, that's a good enough reason. Which is why there is a proposal for a cross Thames cablecar in Docklands. The route would be Canary Wharf- the Dome- Canning Town, and perhaps on, up the Lea, to the Olympics site at Stratford; cheap, quick to install, reasonably non controversial, so long as it keeps clear of City Airport, and with the same tourist potential as the London Eye. If it turns out not to work, you could probably even sell the remains second hand. Jeremy Parker |
Thames Gateway
On 26 Aug, 08:40, "John Rowland"
wrote: John Rowland wrote: where the A13 crosses the A130 ... which incidentally looks like a Magic Roundabout... could someone confirm that before I add it to Wiki's list of Magic Roundabouts. Does it have a name? Yes - Sadler's Hall. (You may like to peruse www.sabre-roads.org.uk if this is your cup of tea!) :-) Sam |
Thames Gateway
On Aug 26, 12:22 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
But surely even then the schebebahn runs *along* the course of the river but cablecars tend to go across things ? Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? Not necessarily up things - there is a cable car transit in new York that goes acorss something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway I don't like quoting wiki-piffle though but it does explain it. -- Nick |
Thames Gateway
On Aug 27, 1:54 pm, D7666 wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:22 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: But surely even then the schebebahn runs *along* the course of the river but cablecars tend to go across things ? Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the complete absence of a steep slope? Not necessarily up things - there is a cable car transit in new York that goes acorss something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway I don't like quoting wiki-piffle though but it does explain it. -- Nick Cached pages caught up, sorry, I see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway was already quoted in intermediate messages that were not apparent 2 minutes ago. -- Nick |
Thames Gateway
In article , Tom
Anderson writes The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a hill". Okay, good one. There, i think we have an auxiliary reason for cable-cars, which is that they're cool, and at a theme park, that's a good enough reason. And, now I think of it, I've seen cable cars at theme parks that are completely on the flat (though I couldn't say where from memory). Alton Towers also has a number of light rail systems, and despite the fact that they are all closed cloops with only one station, they have a quite remarkable variety of grades and curves. And some really rather unorthodox approaches to seating! Actually, one of them has two stations. Many of them also have sidings, and I can think of one where the station has an island platform with regular service on both tracks. [Come to think of it, a lot of the stations have separate arrival and departure platforms.] -- 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: |
Thames Gateway
In article , John Rowland
writes Number 10 appears to be moving Benfleet station to the Blinking Owl intersection (where the A130 crosses the A127). That'll be an interesting project. No, they're showing it moving to where the A13 crosses the A130, an even more interesting project. Hmm, on second thoughts I think you're right. That makes the two yellow squares be Hadleigh Castle and Priory Park. -- 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: |
Thames Gateway
In article , John Rowland
writes where the A13 crosses the A130 ... which incidentally looks like a Magic Roundabout... could someone confirm that before I add it to Wiki's list of Magic Roundabouts. Does it have a name? The technical name for these is Ring Junctions and, indeed, this is a 5 element ring junction. -- 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: |
Thames Gateway
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , John Rowland writes where the A13 crosses the A130 ... which incidentally looks like a Magic Roundabout... could someone confirm that before I add it to Wiki's list of Magic Roundabouts. Does it have a name? The technical name for these is Ring Junctions and, indeed, this is a 5 element ring junction. I've also heard the name 'olympic roundabout', although i can't find any kind of official source for that. tom -- On Question Time last night, Tony Benn was saying that the way to solve the low turnout at elections was to make voting compulsory. I think the solution is for someone to start a political party that doesn't contain wall-to-wall *******s. -- John Rowland |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk