Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

"Robert Woolley" wrote in message
...

The cost of the tunnel is going to be quite closely
correleated to its size. The bigger the tunnel,
the more spoil to remove and the tighter the engineering.

In particular, if you make the radius 40% larger you have twice the spoil to
remove.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

In article , Boltar
writes
Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only
Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra
room inside the carriages.

They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock
have 2+2 seating.

A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines.

You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying
capacity.

No, since it's not necessarily true.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:50:21 +0000, Huge wrote:
Because sensible public transport systems are hub-and-spoke.

The best transit system would be a direct link in a straight line from
every possible source to every possible destination. This is obviously not
possible, however travelling all the way into a central hub is stupid in
most cases. That's why cars + roads are better, they are based on a web,
rather then a star, network.

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Boltar
writes
Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only
Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra
room inside the carriages.

They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock
have 2+2 seating.

A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines.

You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying
capacity.

No, since it's not necessarily true.

The tube stock size thing can be put either way. My view is that
larger trains going under London would have been better than tubes,
but obviously this isn't how it has worked out. There must be some
decent justification for the tube size though, it has prevailed in new
line building until now.

I can't see how the victoria and jubilee lines were made tube size, a
mainline tunnel going under at Kings Cross and coming out at Victoria
would have made much more sense as would one from the LNWR line to
Waterloo than the current lines.

With Heathrow, my view is that the 6tph the District has free from
losing Richmond should replace the Uxbridge branch, and the Piccadilly
should be four-tracked to Heathrow, which would be quite costly, but
the inner lines should run fast in to Hammersmith, stopping at Acton
only, and the outer lines have a normal service. This would make the
airport link a lot better, the "express" stock could be changed in the
interior for more baggage space than now.

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

In message , CJC
writes
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Boltar
writes
Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only
Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra
room inside the carriages.

They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock
have 2+2 seating.

A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines.

You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying
capacity.

No, since it's not necessarily true.

The tube stock size thing can be put either way. My view is that
larger trains going under London would have been better than tubes,
but obviously this isn't how it has worked out. There must be some
decent justification for the tube size though, it has prevailed in new
line building until now.

I can't see how the victoria and jubilee lines were made tube size, a
mainline tunnel going under at Kings Cross and coming out at Victoria
would have made much more sense as would one from the LNWR line to
Waterloo than the current lines.

I think it was more the case that the tunnelling equipment available
when most of these lines were built (over 100 years ago) dictated that
the diameter of the tunnels should be as small as possible.
There were no Channel Tunnel style Boring Machines back then of course,
most of it was done by hand.
--
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.

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Boltar
writes
Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only
Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra
room inside the carriages.

They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock
have 2+2 seating.

Thats true , but in the D stock the seats are a lot wider.


A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines.

If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site with
this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock is only about
9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a side , not a whole hell of
a lot really.

You don't need hindsight to know that bigger trains = better carrying
capacity.

No, since it's not necessarily true.

It is if you're talking about width , height make little difference but the
wider a carriage the more people you can fit in.

B2003

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

Boltar wrote:

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article , Boltar
writes
Tube stock and surface stock are approximately the same width, it is only
Not true , surface stock is a foot wider which amounts to a lot more extra
room inside the carriages.

They are approximately the same width. Note that both tube and D stock
have 2+2 seating.

Thats true , but in the D stock the seats are a lot wider.


A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines.

If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site with
this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock is only about
9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a side , not a whole hell of
a lot really.

sorry for the length!

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


Sunil
--

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

In article , Dr. Sunil wrote:
Boltar wrote:

If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site with
this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock is only about
9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a side , not a whole hell of
a lot really.

sorry for the length!

I thought it was the width and height we were discussing, not the
length!

;)

Niklas
--
"The noble haggis is just a bit more honest about the ingredients - an Open
Source mystery meat pie, as it were."
-- Peter Corlett

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

"CJC" wrote in message
om...

With Heathrow, my view is that the 6tph the District has free from
losing Richmond should replace the Uxbridge branch, and the Piccadilly
should be four-tracked to Heathrow, which would be quite costly, but
the inner lines should run fast in to Hammersmith, stopping at Acton
only, and the outer lines have a normal service. This would make the
airport link a lot better, the "express" stock could be changed in the
interior for more baggage space than now.

And just where on the ground would you have put the extra 2 tracks?

Why the piccadilly to Heathrow , why not the District?
 

"Dr. Sunil" wrote in message ...
A stock is 3+2, but A stock is far too wide for most lines.

If you look at the dimensions of the trains (I did find a web site with
this info but I can't find it now , typical) , I think A-stock is only about
9cm wider than the others, which is only 4.5 on a side , not a whole hell of
a lot really.

sorry for the length!

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

Thanks. In other words A stock is only 1 inch wider than C stock. Trivial
really. It does make me wonder why such a small amount restricts where the
A stock can run , I guess it must be wider at an inconvenient height or
something.

B2003