| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
EU lending for Crossrail
|
EU lending for Crossrail
|
Was: ( EU lending for Crossrail) NOW: XRail tunnel diameter
"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message news:01ca31a0$aa1aec60$LocalHost@default... wrote If they had double deckers they wouldn't need 24tph. Even if they're not planning UIC gauge trains, building the tunnels to UIC gauge would cost little if anything extra. But this is britain, planning for unforseen future needs is frowned upon as we all know. Increased dwell times would mean longer journeys at /any/ tph and and lower tph would mean longer wait times too. Any designs for double decker /platforms/ to go with double decker trains ? "Plenty of room on top" (VBG). -- Mike D Sorry to have caused some "heat", guys. I said 'twas a pity they aren't to make provision for this as a stage 3, for future capacity growth. I know Stage 1 will be fitted for 200m single deck, triple-door-openings per-side trains at Day 1, and they say Stage 2 will be fitted for 240m trains. The platform tunnels will be built at Stage 1 to, I suspect 250m total length - but not fully fitted. The trains will have to be dedicated to XRail at first, though later builds for Overground and Inner London TOC services might also be built to the same dimesions and door positions and thus be potentially Xrail compatible. The increase in size needed to achieve well-type DD in OHLE lines in UK is actually fairly modest - the main thing being room for "hips" and "shoulders", so a non-circular shape would be best. I believe X-Rail are mooting non-circular tunnels. The normal height of 3965mm is almost sufficient, perhaps 4000mm to 4050mm would give scope for further increases in median tallness of the British railway commuter population. It's the shoulders and hips where the designs would be cramped for kinematic envelope in current loading gauges. One wouldn't need any of the UIC gauges as such, just sufficient to accommodate a 2895/2900-ish mm width from about 200mm above rail to about 3300mm above rail. As regards tunnelling costs, when I put the case in Perth, Western Australia for using 3rd rail through the underground and Narrows Bridge sections - the first to allow smaller diameter tunnels and the 2nd for aesthetic reasons - I was informed by a Mr Mann, the project's chief engineer, that the cost differential between bored 4.6m tunnels and bored 6m tunnels was negligible. This is in an area of saturated dune sands, clays and silts with little sedimetary rock and no hard rock - so tunnel lining performance parameters would be critical. IMHO, I was served bureaucratic claptrap, but if he is correct then XRail could future proof without blowing their business case. I was also informed that the cost of dual voltage stock was an order of magnitude more expensive. The implication being that whatever might be saved in tunnelling cost would be blown by higher rolling stock cost - which is a periodically recurring cost rather than a one-off. Bombardier won the contract to supply the traction equipment for them. As these trains have been built and delivered this decade, how does that assertion match with UTL/UKR contributors' knowledge of the comparative cost of AC-only, AC/DC and DC-only versions of the same base model UK EMU in the same period? Again, I put this idea into play as a future-proofing concept, such that when the "overground" sections are cleared to the let's call it UK "X2" loading gauge, then the capability can be exploited to buffer growth in numbers (and median size) of pax. Cheers all DW downunder |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:19:24 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote: deckers, because of cost and not being able to send the trains somewhere else and/or sell them second-hand afterwards. So they wouldn't be able to sell 2nd hand UIC gauge 25Khz trains? Have they not heard of this place called "Europe"? B2003 |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:17:02 +0100
Bruce wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:20:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: *sigh* I hate to break this pre-GCSE news to you, but the area of the shaft of a cylinder increases *linearly* with increasing radius, not as the square of it so the cost of the lining will not go up like that. But as someone with [no] experience of tunnel lining design, manufacture and installation I can tell you with authority that the larger the diameter of the tunnel, the thicker the lining needs to be. There , fixed it for you. B2003 |
Was: ( EU lending for Crossrail) NOW: XRail tunnel diameter
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:11:59 +0800
"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote: I was informed by a Mr Mann, the project's chief engineer, that the cost differential between bored 4.6m tunnels and bored 6m tunnels was negligible. This is in an area of saturated dune sands, clays and silts with little sedimetary rock and no hard rock - so tunnel lining performance parameters Cue Bruce on how you must also be a profoundly ignorant ****wit as this clearly is impossible. Obviously an extra 1.4m would raise the price so high no one in their right mind could state the cost difference was negligable? Isn't that right Mr Fantasy Tunnel Designer Bruce? (Though I suspect the only "tunnel" he's ever been involved in building is making one out of a rolled up newspaper) B2003 |
EU lending for Crossrail
Robert wrote:
But the volume of material being excavated /does/ increase as the square of the diameter. If the tunnel diameter is increased from 6.5 metres to 7.5 metres, a 15 per cent increase, the volume of spoil increases by 33 per cent. (All numbers rounded). It's actually more, because, as mentioned elsewhere, the tunnel lining gets thicker as well. |
EU lending for Crossrail
Robert wrote:
The machinery driving the 'boring plate' would have to be scaled up to cope One suspects that since tunnels are already routinely bored to the larger dimensions on the mainland, such kit is readily available, whereas the factory in Liliput making the UK-sized kit went out of business ages ago through lack of orders. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683684.html (53103 (Class 116) at Lichfield City, 13 Jun 1985) |
EU lending for Crossrail
wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:06:03 +0100 "Basil Jet" wrote: wrote: *sigh* I hate to break this pre-GCSE news to you, but the area of the shaft of a cylinder increases *linearly* with increasing radius, not as the square of it so the cost of the lining will not go up like that. The formula you want incidentaly is 2*pi*r*h. So before you post anymore bull**** pretending your in-the-biz you might want to revisit your school books first. It's a good job you didn't write those schoolbooks, otherwise they'd say that a one-inch diameter pipe and a five-metre diameter pipe need walls which are the same thickness. Remind me how a 10% increase in diameter size required to fit UIC gauge trains in the tunnel in mostly self supporting london clay is going to cost so much more because of huge extra lining thickness apparently required. B2003 I hate to leap to the defence of either of you, but I suspect Bruce's comment about the costs of *excavation* is more relevant than the costs of lining. The area of lining is proportionate to the radius of the bore, but the weight of excavated material is proportionate to the square of the radius, as are transport and disposal costs. Add in the strengthening required for the greater load borne by the lining for a bit more £ on top, this obviously includes transport costs for whatever they're using for the lining. What's missing in this back-and-forth ranting is an estimation of the proportion of Crossrail costs that are directly related to the tunnelling rather than the station fit-out, land acquisition, electrification, trains etc. If it's only 5% of the costs, then going large won't break that much of the bank. If it's 50%, then you're talking in £billions. One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). Tom |
EU lending for Crossrail
|
EU lending for Crossrail
|
EU lending for Crossrail
On 9 Sep, 12:46, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:46:07 +0100, "Paul Scott" wrote: But the Crossrail tunnels are AFAICS UK gauge, with the track offset to one side so that a continuous walkway can be provided. I expect double deckers won't be possible, That's correct. *The tunnels are a nominal 6.20 metres in diameter which precludes the use of double deck trains. and even if gauging allowed, the dwell times would defeat 24 tph running.. You could argue that the increased capacity of double deck trains, usually assumed to be 50% greater than a single deck train, would only need 16 tph for the same throughput of passengers. *If more than 16 tph could be operated, there would be a capacity increase over using single deck trains. However the capital cost of the project would be greatly increased, with many overline structures between Shenfield/Woolwich and Reading having to be rebuilt in addition to the much higher cost of the Crossrail tunnels. The French obviously thought building bigger tunnels was worthwhile, with RER lines being built to take double deck trains. *However, the French did not need to spend huge amounts of money raising overline structures on existing lines over which the RER trains run. Don't forget the loss of capacity due to increased dwell times loading a DD train... |
EU lending for Crossrail
On 10 Sep, 10:38, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:19:24 +0100 Arthur Figgis wrote: deckers, because of cost and not being able to send the trains somewhere else and/or sell them second-hand afterwards. So they wouldn't be able to sell 2nd hand UIC gauge 25Khz trains? Have they not heard of this place called "Europe"? B2003 25KHz? thats one helluva service frequency |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:33:10 +0100, Tom Barry
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:06:03 +0100 "Basil Jet" wrote: wrote: *sigh* I hate to break this pre-GCSE news to you, but the area of the shaft of a cylinder increases *linearly* with increasing radius, not as the square of it so the cost of the lining will not go up like that. The formula you want incidentaly is 2*pi*r*h. So before you post anymore bull**** pretending your in-the-biz you might want to revisit your school books first. It's a good job you didn't write those schoolbooks, otherwise they'd say that a one-inch diameter pipe and a five-metre diameter pipe need walls which are the same thickness. Remind me how a 10% increase in diameter size required to fit UIC gauge trains in the tunnel in mostly self supporting london clay is going to cost so much more because of huge extra lining thickness apparently required. B2003 I hate to leap to the defence of either of you, but I suspect Bruce's comment about the costs of *excavation* is more relevant than the costs of lining. The area of lining is proportionate to the radius of the bore, but the weight of excavated material is proportionate to the square of the radius, as are transport and disposal costs. Add in the strengthening required for the greater load borne by the lining for a bit more £ on top, this obviously includes transport costs for whatever they're using for the lining. What's missing in this back-and-forth ranting is an estimation of the proportion of Crossrail costs that are directly related to the tunnelling rather than the station fit-out, land acquisition, electrification, trains etc. If it's only 5% of the costs, then going large won't break that much of the bank. If it's 50%, then you're talking in £billions. One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). Tom Would there be sufficient space to build larger tunnels, or will they be so deep as to avoid other tunnels, foundations etc. ? |
EU lending for Crossrail
In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote: Robert wrote: The machinery driving the 'boring plate' would have to be scaled up to cope One suspects that since tunnels are already routinely bored to the larger dimensions on the mainland, such kit is readily available, whereas the factory in Liliput making the UK-sized kit went out of business ages ago through lack of orders. I got the impression that TBMs were custom made for each job. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
EU lending for Crossrail
rail wrote:
In message Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote: Robert wrote: The machinery driving the 'boring plate' would have to be scaled up to cope One suspects that since tunnels are already routinely bored to the larger dimensions on the mainland, such kit is readily available, whereas the factory in Liliput making the UK-sized kit went out of business ages ago through lack of orders. I got the impression that TBMs were custom made for each job. I'm sure they are. But I do imagine that whoever makes them keeps the blueprints. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632845.html (33 043 at Exeter St Davids, 1985) |
EU lending for Crossrail
GazK wrote:
Don't forget the loss of capacity due to increased dwell times loading a DD train... Dwell time issue only become significant if the train a significant percentage of the passenger carrying capacity of the DD train boards/alights at every stop on the route. In most systems that doesn't happen, with large boarding/alighting flows only occurring at a relatively small number of stops along the route. Bill Bolton Sydney, Australia |
EU lending for Crossrail
In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote: rail wrote: In message Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote: Robert wrote: The machinery driving the 'boring plate' would have to be scaled up to cope One suspects that since tunnels are already routinely bored to the larger dimensions on the mainland, such kit is readily available, whereas the factory in Liliput making the UK-sized kit went out of business ages ago through lack of orders. I got the impression that TBMs were custom made for each job. I'm sure they are. But I do imagine that whoever makes them keeps the blueprints. Since tunnels come in various different sizes all over the world I suspect the manufacturers have more than one set of blueprints in the drawer. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
EU lending for Crossrail
Bill Bolton wrote on 11 September 2009
09:20:55 ... GazK wrote: Don't forget the loss of capacity due to increased dwell times loading a DD train... Dwell time issue only become significant if the train a significant percentage of the passenger carrying capacity of the DD train boards/alights at every stop on the route. In most systems that doesn't happen, with large boarding/alighting flows only occurring at a relatively small number of stops along the route. Bill Bolton Sydney, Australia This isn't "most systems". It's London, and all 6 of the central area stations on Crossrail (the ones where 24tph are currently planned) *will* have heavy boarding/alighting flows. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Sep 11, 9:53*am, "Richard J." wrote: Bill Bolton wrote on 11 September 2009 09:20:55 ... GazK wrote: Don't forget the loss of capacity due to increased dwell times loading a DD train... Dwell time issue only become significant if the train a significant percentage of the passenger carrying capacity of the DD train boards/alights at every stop on the route. In most systems that doesn't happen, with large boarding/alighting flows only occurring at a relatively small number of stops along the route. This isn't "most systems". *It's London, and all 6 of the central area stations on Crossrail (the ones where 24tph are currently planned) *will* have heavy boarding/alighting flows. Indeed - it's going to be busy. |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Sep 10, 11:38*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:33:10 +0100, Tom Barry wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:06:03 +0100 "Basil Jet" wrote: wrote: *sigh* I hate to break this pre-GCSE news to you, but the area of the shaft of a cylinder increases *linearly* with increasing radius, not as the square of it so the cost of the lining will not go up like that. The formula you want incidentaly is 2*pi*r*h. So before you post anymore bull**** pretending your in-the-biz you might want to revisit your school books first. It's a good job you didn't write those schoolbooks, otherwise they'd say that a one-inch diameter pipe and a five-metre diameter pipe need walls which are the same thickness. Remind me how a 10% increase in diameter size required to fit UIC gauge trains in the tunnel in mostly self supporting london clay is going to cost so much more because of huge extra lining thickness apparently required. B2003 I hate to leap to the defence of either of you, but I suspect Bruce's comment about the costs of *excavation* is more relevant than the costs of lining. *The area of lining is proportionate to the radius of the bore, but the weight of excavated material is proportionate to the square of the radius, as are transport and disposal costs. *Add in the strengthening required for the greater load borne by the lining for a bit more £ on top, this obviously includes transport costs for whatever they're using for the lining. What's missing in this back-and-forth ranting is an estimation of the proportion of Crossrail costs that are directly related to the tunnelling rather than the station fit-out, land acquisition, electrification, trains etc. *If it's only 5% of the costs, then going large won't break that much of the bank. *If it's 50%, then you're talking in £billions. One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). Tom Would there be sufficient space to build larger tunnels, or will they be so deep as to avoid other tunnels, foundations etc. ? Your specific question, I cannot answer. IIRC Crossrail will something of a roller coaster. It has to a avoid considerable "stuff" that is already along its route! |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:53:29 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: In most systems that doesn't happen, with large boarding/alighting flows only occurring at a relatively small number of stops along the route. Bill Bolton Sydney, Australia This isn't "most systems". It's London, and all 6 of the central area stations on Crossrail (the ones where 24tph are currently planned) *will* have heavy boarding/alighting flows. I can well believe that. In central Paris, RER line "A" has 50 second dwell times (compared to an average of 18 seconds on the métro). |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Sep 10, 11:38*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:33:10 +0100, Tom Barry wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:06:03 +0100 "Basil Jet" wrote: wrote: *sigh* I hate to break this pre-GCSE news to you, but the area of the shaft of a cylinder increases *linearly* with increasing radius, not as the square of it so the cost of the lining will not go up like that. The formula you want incidentaly is 2*pi*r*h. So before you post anymore bull**** pretending your in-the-biz you might want to revisit your school books first. It's a good job you didn't write those schoolbooks, otherwise they'd say that a one-inch diameter pipe and a five-metre diameter pipe need walls which are the same thickness. Remind me how a 10% increase in diameter size required to fit UIC gauge trains in the tunnel in mostly self supporting london clay is going to cost so much more because of huge extra lining thickness apparently required. B2003 I hate to leap to the defence of either of you, but I suspect Bruce's comment about the costs of *excavation* is more relevant than the costs of lining. *The area of lining is proportionate to the radius of the bore, but the weight of excavated material is proportionate to the square of the radius, as are transport and disposal costs. *Add in the strengthening required for the greater load borne by the lining for a bit more £ on top, this obviously includes transport costs for whatever they're using for the lining. What's missing in this back-and-forth ranting is an estimation of the proportion of Crossrail costs that are directly related to the tunnelling rather than the station fit-out, land acquisition, electrification, trains etc. *If it's only 5% of the costs, then going large won't break that much of the bank. *If it's 50%, then you're talking in £billions. One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). Tom Would there be sufficient space to build larger tunnels, or will they be so deep as to avoid other tunnels, foundations etc. ? Your specific question, I cannot answer. IIRC Crossrail will be something of a roller coaster. It has to a avoid considerable "stuff" that is already along its route! |
EU lending for Crossrail
"Richard J." wrote:
This isn't "most systems". It's London, and all 6 of the central area stations on Crossrail London isn't as special as you seem to think. 6 stations in a central area with heavy traffic is nothing particularly unusual for DD train operations. Bill Bolton Sydney, Australia |
EU lending for Crossrail
Bill Bolton wrote on 12 September 2009 "Richard J." wrote: Bill Bolton wrote on 11 September 2009 GazK wrote: Don't forget the loss of capacity due to increased dwell times loading a DD train... Dwell time issue only become significant if the train a significant percentage of the passenger carrying capacity of the DD train boards/alights at every stop on the route. In most systems that doesn't happen, with large boarding/alighting flows only occurring at a relatively small number of stops along the route. This isn't "most systems". It's London, and all 6 of the central area stations on Crossrail London isn't as special as you seem to think. 6 stations in a central area with heavy traffic is nothing particularly unusual for DD train operations. I was contrasting it with your "most systems" comment. The point is that if the stations with the heaviest passenger flows are in the central section where you want the greatest train frequency, then peak trains per hour will be limited by the increased dwell times there, as GazK pointed out. The dwell time issue doesn't go away just because stations further out from the centre don't have that problem. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
EU lending for Crossrail
In uk.transport.london message , Thu,
10 Sep 2009 17:33:10, Tom Barry posted: One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). At busy stations, there can be a lower-deck platform on one side of the train and an upper-deck platform on the other side. At less busy stations, rely on the carriages' internal stairs. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036) |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Sep 12, 11:08*am, "Richard J." wrote:
Bill Bolton wrote on 12 September 2009 "Richard J." wrote: Bill Bolton wrote on 11 September 2009 GazK wrote: Don't forget the loss of capacity due to increased dwell times loading a DD train... Dwell time issue only become significant if the train a significant percentage of the passenger carrying capacity of the DD train boards/alights at every stop on the route. In most systems that doesn't happen, with large boarding/alighting flows only occurring at a relatively small number of stops along the route. This isn't "most systems". *It's London, and all 6 of the central area stations on Crossrail London isn't as special as you seem to think. *6 stations in a central area with heavy traffic is nothing particularly unusual for DD train operations. I was contrasting it with your "most systems" comment. *The point is that if the stations with the heaviest passenger flows are in the central section where you want the greatest train frequency, then peak trains per hour will be limited by the increased dwell times there, as GazK pointed out. *The dwell time issue doesn't go away just because stations further out from the centre don't have that problem. The Z22500 EMUs on RER Line E in Paris (and the similar MI2N on RER line A) would be the way to go, each coach having three sets of extra- wide double doors. This comes at the penalty of some seating of course. |
EU lending for Crossrail
"Richard J." wrote:
The point is that if the stations with the heaviest passenger flows are in the central section where you want the greatest train frequency, then peak trains per hour will be limited by the increased dwell times there There is clearly a trade off between frequency and capacity, however I find it very hard to believe that in the Crossrail context the whole load of a train is going to change over at each of the 6 CBD stations. In practice it doesn't work that way on *any* system and with good loading vestibule design on DD rolling stock, significant number of passengers can be handled at each heavily traffic station without the dwell time impacting the *actual track capacity* in terms of people moved. CityRail does it in Sydney using an all DD fleet without any particular problems. The dwell time issue doesn't go away just because stations further out from the centre don't have that problem. Dwell time is simple not the issue that you are making it out to be. Bill Bolton Sydney, Australia |
EU lending for Crossrail
Andy writes:
The Z22500 EMUs on RER Line E in Paris (and the similar MI2N on RER line A) would be the way to go, each coach having three sets of extra- wide double doors. This comes at the penalty of some seating of course. Are their double-floor cars "mostly sitting" cars? How well do double-floor cars work with "mostly standing" designs? All of the double-floor cars I've seen in real life have clearly been oriented towards seated passengers, and this obviously puts a big restriction on their capacity. Extremely crowded trains with mostly standing passengers can work reasonable well because they have _so much_ door area (on some train cars that I've seen, around 50% of the wall area is doors), that it's possible for people to get on and off despite the crush loading. It allows not just massive "bandwidth" for major stations, but also high "accessibility" for some poor schmuck that just wants to get off at a minor station, where even crossing the car to get to a very nearby door is difficult. But how would that work in a double-floor car? I can imagine that something that was basically like two single-floor cars stacked vertically could work, but obviously that would require a _massive_ amount of additional station infrastructure -- it would basically require all stations to have double-floor platforms. [Many Japanese commuter trains have some double floor cars e.g. "green cars", but their capacity is quite restricted compared to the normal single-floor cars] -Miles -- I'd rather be consing. |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Sep 13, 3:47*am, Miles Bader wrote:
Andy writes: The Z22500 EMUs on RER Line E in Paris (and the similar MI2N on RER line A) would be the way to go, each coach having three sets of extra- wide double doors. This comes at the penalty of some seating of course. Are their double-floor cars "mostly sitting" cars? How well do double-floor cars work with "mostly standing" designs? They are a combination, the upstairs bit has two long seating bays with no access to the middle set of doors, the downstairs bits has access to all three sets of doors. There are large areas for standing by the doors. All of the double-floor cars I've seen in real life have clearly been oriented towards seated passengers, and this obviously puts a big restriction on their capacity. Extremely crowded trains with mostly standing passengers can work reasonable well because they have _so much_ door area (on some train cars that I've seen, around 50% of the wall area is doors), that it's possible for people to get on and off despite the crush loading. *It allows not just massive "bandwidth" for major stations, but also high "accessibility" for some poor schmuck that just wants to get off at a minor station, where even crossing the car to get to a very nearby door is difficult. But how would that work in a double-floor car? *I can imagine that something that was basically like two single-floor cars stacked vertically could work, but obviously that would require a _massive_ amount of additional station infrastructure -- it would basically require all stations to have double-floor platforms. [Many Japanese commuter trains have some double floor cars e.g. "green cars", but their capacity is quite restricted compared to the normal single-floor cars] The Z22500 have a high percentage of door, probably about 30%. There are some diagrams and pictures he http://www.metro-pole.net/expl/materiel/mi2n/mi2n.html http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/fr/...22550/pix.html |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In uk.transport.london message , Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:33:10, Tom Barry posted: One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). At busy stations, there can be a lower-deck platform on one side of the train and an upper-deck platform on the other side. Has this actually been done anywhere? Can i see pictures? At less busy stations, rely on the carriages' internal stairs. Or have little movable steps, like little airports do. tom -- Also, a 'dark future where there is only war!' ... have you seen the news lately? -- applez |
EU lending for Crossrail
Tom Barry:
One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). J.R. Stockton: At busy stations, there can be a lower-deck platform on one side of the train and an upper-deck platform on the other side. Tom Anderson: Has this actually been done anywhere? Can i see pictures? The upper deck would have to have doors that open about 8-10 feet (2.5-3 m) above rail level. Which means that if those doors ever opened outside a station, someone could fall out and break their neck. I find it hard to believe that safety authorities anywhere would accept that. It's different for elevators, because the elevator shaft provides protection. I used to work in a building with double-deck elevators. If you worked on an even-numbered floor, to get there you boarded from the ground floor. For odd-numbered floors you'd take the escalator to the basement concourse to catch the elevator. (As this was in Canada, the ground floor was also floor 1, which seems to break the pattern; but floor 2 only existed in the lobby area and was not served by the main elevators. Going back down, you'd just have to take whichever deck arrived, and wouldn't have a choice of whether you arrived at the ground or basement level. Both decks had buttons for all floors they could reach; they just didn't all work when you were on the ground or basement. So trips between floors above ground were generally like using a normal elevator.) -- Mark Brader, Toronto This is a signature antibody. Please remove any viruses from your signature. My text in this article is in the public domain. |
EU lending for Crossrail
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Mark Brader wrote:
Tom Barry: One other benefit of double-deck trains, by the way, is shorter train lengths for the same capacity (which saves money on station lengths, but not in the capacity of escalators etc.). That's at the expense of dwell times, though, unless you do something really clever like having double-height platforms with doors on the upper deck too (I like the sound of that, actually). J.R. Stockton: At busy stations, there can be a lower-deck platform on one side of the train and an upper-deck platform on the other side. Tom Anderson: Has this actually been done anywhere? Can i see pictures? The upper deck would have to have doors that open about 8-10 feet (2.5-3 m) above rail level. Which means that if those doors ever opened outside a station, someone could fall out and break their neck. I find it hard to believe that safety authorities anywhere would accept that. Much as they wouldn't accept the idea of trains driven by computers, or without guards on board? As with those examples, it's a matter of building enough safeguards into it that it's safe. Perhaps the doors could be built to only open once a positive physical interlock with a platform was established, a bit like a space station docking port. Of course, the you have the question of whether the benefit-to-cost ratio of the system with the necessary safeguards included would still be greater than one. It's different for elevators, because the elevator shaft provides protection. I used to work in a building with double-deck elevators. If you worked on an even-numbered floor, to get there you boarded from the ground floor. For odd-numbered floors you'd take the escalator to the basement concourse to catch the elevator. (As this was in Canada, the ground floor was also floor 1, which seems to break the pattern; but floor 2 only existed in the lobby area and was not served by the main elevators. Going back down, you'd just have to take whichever deck arrived, Wouldn't that always be the same for a given floor? Or did the lifts not follow the synchronisation pattern on the way down? and wouldn't have a choice of whether you arrived at the ground or basement level. Ah, they didn't, then. Interesting! Both decks had buttons for all floors they could reach; they just didn't all work when you were on the ground or basement. So trips between floors above ground were generally like using a normal elevator.) Even going up? Or did upward trips divide into two classes, those carrying people up from floors 0 and 1, where synchronisation was maintained (at least at the floors to which people from 0/1 were going), and those which were purely aerial, where it wasn't? tom -- I now have a problem with tomorrow. -- Graham |
EU lending for Crossrail
Bill Bolton wrote on 13 September 2009
02:32:41 ... "Richard J." wrote: The point is that if the stations with the heaviest passenger flows are in the central section where you want the greatest train frequency, then peak trains per hour will be limited by the increased dwell times there There is clearly a trade off between frequency and capacity, however I find it very hard to believe that in the Crossrail context the whole load of a train is going to change over at each of the 6 CBD stations. Nobody, certainly not I, has said that. You originally referred to "a significant percentage of the passenger carrying capacity of the DD train" boarding/alighting. In practice it doesn't work that way on *any* system and with good loading vestibule design on DD rolling stock, significant number of passengers can be handled at each heavily traffic station without the dwell time impacting the *actual track capacity* in terms of people moved. Yes, I agree that you could achieve the same track capacity by using DD trains at lower frequency with longer dwell times. But that doesn't necessarily mean that DD trains, with all the resultant extra infrastructure costs, actually *increase* the track capacity, which is what this sub-thread is all about. CityRail does it in Sydney using an all DD fleet without any particular problems. If you say so. According to the Sydney Morning Herald in April this year, "the pricing regulator found last year that the CityRail network was approaching timetable collapse under the weight of unprecedented demand as Sydney has grown." What actual train frequencies per track are currently achieved by CityRail in the CBD? It's not easy to work that out from the published timetables. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
EU lending for Crossrail
|
EU lending for Crossrail
Mark Brader:
The upper deck would have to have doors that open about 8-10 feet (2.5-3 m) above rail level. Which means that if those doors ever opened outside a station, someone could fall out and break their neck. I find it hard to believe that safety authorities anywhere would accept that. Neil Williams: Someone could fall out of a normal train's doors and break their neck... Someone could also fall off a station platform as-is, but this seems not to happen with any frequency. Actually it does. But safety authorities tend to be more worried about *new* hazards. -- Mark Brader "Finally no number of additional epicycles can Toronto hide the fact that We've Got a Problem Here." -- from a science book club promotion My text in this article is in the public domain. |
EU lending for Crossrail
Mark Brader:
... I used to work in a building with double-deck elevators. If you worked on an even-numbered floor, to get there you boarded from the ground floor. For odd-numbered floors you'd take the escalator to the basement concourse to catch the elevator. ... Going back down, you'd just have to take whichever deck arrived, Tom Anderson: Wouldn't that always be the same for a given floor? Or did the lifts not follow the synchronisation pattern on the way down? Correct, they didn't. Both decks had buttons for all floors they could reach; they just didn't all work when you were on the ground or basement. So trips between floors above ground were generally like using a normal elevator.) Even going up? Yes. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "Men! Give them enough rope and they'll dig | their own grave." -- EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY My text in this article is in the public domain. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:02 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk