On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:38:35 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Really, whys that then? Would the actual boring part of the TBM cost
substantially more if its diameter was increased by a metre? Would the extra
concrete cost raise the project costs much higher? Or are you just BSing
because you always want to appear to know best?


This is an area where I have specialist knowledge, both as someone who
has worked on several tunnelling projects and someone who has been
responsible for tendering for tunnelling projects.

The cost of the tunnelling machine increases quite dramatically with
tunnel diameter; the cost of the excavation and of the tunnel lining
increases approximately with the square of the excavated diameter.
With the Landfill Tax, the disposal of the excavated material also
becomes a far greater problem as diameter increases.

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:41:14 +0100
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:38:35 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

Really, whys that then? Would the actual boring part of the TBM cost
substantially more if its diameter was increased by a metre? Would the extra
concrete cost raise the project costs much higher? Or are you just BSing
because you always want to appear to know best?


This is an area where I have specialist knowledge, both as someone who
has worked on several tunnelling projects and someone who has been
responsible for tendering for tunnelling projects.

For the record, I don't believe you.

The cost of the tunnelling machine increases quite dramatically with
tunnel diameter; the cost of the excavation and of the tunnel lining
increases approximately with the square of the excavated diameter.

*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.
As for the cost of the TBM - an extra metre diamater of the boring plate
would make no difference to the machinary required behind it.

B2003

wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:41:14 +0100
Bruce wrote:

The cost of the tunnelling machine increases quite dramatically with
tunnel diameter; the cost of the excavation and of the tunnel lining
increases approximately with the square of the excavated diameter.

*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.

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

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:20:50 +0000 (UTC), 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.


You are truly, profoundly ignorant, because if there is one thing that
London Clay demonstrably is not, it is "self-supporting".

A lot of good science has gone into the manufacture of sophisticated
unbolted concrete linings that not only support the far from
"self-supporting" London Clay, but deform in a controlled way to offer
greater support where needed.

These concrete linings require great precision in manufacture, with
tolerances that are much tighter than those usually achieved in
precast concrete manufacture, being more comparable to the manufacture
of precision cast and ductile iron linings.

Of course, as a time-served and fully qualified ****wit you couldn't
possibly have known any of this, which is why it would have been a
sensible idea for you to STFU in the first place. But you are Boltar,
and Ignorant always beats poor old Sensible, and Knowledgeable and
Expert never get a look in.

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

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. ?

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!

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!

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)