Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. ? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Boris: Crossrail not yet "signed, sealed and delivered" [was:Transport Secretary vows to finish Crossrail] | London Transport | |||
Optimum configuration of Crossrail (Was: Diesel Electric Trains on CrossRail) | London Transport | |||
Optimum configuration of Crossrail (Was: Diesel Electric Trains on CrossRail) | London Transport |