Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and so hard to
dig a railway?

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/New...er_opposed.asp

On Aug 29, 2:48 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and so hard to
dig a railway?

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/New...ffice/Press_re...

I'm guessing because Thames Water will be paying for this themselves
via bank loans etc whereas crossrail is to be publicly funded and
politicians get twitchy when any large amounts of money have to be
spent even for badly needed transport links. Of course if its
something utterly pointless but high profile in the world like the
Olympics and they can bask in reflected glory and leave a legacy then
its a blank cheque to Mr Coe & Co. Sickening but thats politicians for
you.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On Aug 29, 2:48 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and so hard to
dig a railway?

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/New...ffice/Press_re...

I'm guessing because Thames Water will be paying for this themselves
via bank loans etc whereas crossrail is to be publicly funded and
politicians get twitchy when any large amounts of money have to be
spent even for badly needed transport links. Of course if its
something utterly pointless but high profile in the world like the
Olympics and they can bask in reflected glory and leave a legacy then
its a blank cheque to Mr Coe & Co. Sickening but thats politicians for
you.

Or, more seriously, because there is only one tunnel and no huge central
London stations. What flows through the tunnels is also, er, free,
unlike Crossrail's trains.

It's causing a lot of ructions round here, though, because
unsurprisingly no one wants the entrance shaft anywhere near them. We
Chiswickians want it in Hammersmith, the Hammersmith crew want it in
Chiswick. I think we should fight for it. 4x4s at dawn.

Thames Water will presumably be paying for it, as opposed to merely
borrowing for it, by persuading OFWAT to put up water rates, of course.

t

On Aug 29, 10:25 am, Tom Barry wrote:
Thames Water will presumably be paying for it, as opposed to merely
borrowing for it, by persuading OFWAT to put up water rates, of course.

I doubt even thames water has 2 billion spare in the piggy bank. It'll
be corporate loans which will put up water bills as they spend 10
years paying off the debt + interest.

B2003

Tom Barry wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On Aug 29, 2:48 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and
so hard to dig a railway?

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/New...ffice/Press_re...

I'm guessing because Thames Water will be paying for this themselves
via bank loans etc whereas crossrail is to be publicly funded and
politicians get twitchy when any large amounts of money have to be
spent even for badly needed transport links. Of course if its
something utterly pointless but high profile in the world like the
Olympics and they can bask in reflected glory and leave a legacy then
its a blank cheque to Mr Coe & Co. Sickening but thats politicians
for you.

Or, more seriously, because there is only one tunnel and no huge
central London stations. What flows through the tunnels is also, er,
free, unlike Crossrail's trains.

It's causing a lot of ructions round here, though, because
unsurprisingly no one wants the entrance shaft anywhere near them. We
Chiswickians want it in Hammersmith, the Hammersmith crew want it in
Chiswick.

It was a Hammersmith councillor who said it should be in Chiswick, and then
tried to backtrack by claiming that LBHF and LB Hounslow were working
together on the matter. Various people have pointed out that there's lots
of "empty" space on the Barnes side of the river.

Anyway, why is this project regarded as "so easy"? It hasn't got beyond
initial planning yet.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , at 02:48:12 on Fri,
29 Aug 2008, John Rowland
remarked:
Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and so hard to
dig a railway?

A tunnel like that can have more up and down wiggles than a railway
tunnel, and doesn't need stations either.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 02:48:12 on Fri,
29 Aug 2008, John Rowland
remarked:
Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and so hard
to
dig a railway?

A tunnel like that can have more up and down wiggles than a railway
tunnel, and doesn't need stations either.
--
Roland Perry

Effluent isn't my field so to speak, but Bazelgette's sewers were purely
gravity run, I believe. Would these ones need wayside pumps?

MaxB

In message , at 13:50:39 on
Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Batman55 remarked:
Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and so hard
to
dig a railway?

A tunnel like that can have more up and down wiggles than a railway
tunnel, and doesn't need stations either.

Effluent isn't my field so to speak, but Bazelgette's sewers were purely
gravity run, I believe. Would these ones need wayside pumps?

If Chiswick is uphill from Beckton, which seems likely, then maybe it
would flow by gravity/siphon effect.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 02:48:12 on
Fri, 29 Aug 2008, John Rowland
remarked:
Apparently a 7-metre diameter tunnel will be built from Chiswick to
Beckton... Why does it seem so easy to do this sort of thing, and so
hard to dig a railway?

A tunnel like that can have more up and down wiggles than a railway
tunnel, and doesn't need stations either.

It can certainly have more left-right wiggles, but I think any parts that
are not downhill require a pumping station.

On Aug 29, 1:31 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
A tunnel like that can have more up and down wiggles than a railway
tunnel, and doesn't need stations either.

Last time I looked water wasn't very good at flowing up hill.

B2003