EU lending for Crossrail
 

[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59*am, JP wrote:
EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59 am, JP wrote:
EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

I thought Crossrail was being built? Because they have already started work,
are you saying this work could be stopped?

EU lending for Crossrail
 

In article ,
() wrote:

I thought Crossrail was being built? Because they have already
started work, are you saying this work could be stopped?

You ask all the deep philosophical questions!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 3:08*am, Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59*am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

[x-posted to misc.transport.urban-transit]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

EU lending for Crossrail
 

In article ,
wrote:
I thought Crossrail was being built? Because they have already started work,
are you saying this work could be stopped?

They can stop work at any time, although the nearer they are to the end the
less likely they are to abandon the work done so far.


--
:wq

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 3:19*pm, wrote:

I thought Crossrail was being built? Because they have already started work,
are you saying this work could be stopped?

Of course it *can*: see the 1970s Channel Tunnel, which stopped after
they'd dug 400m and bought the TBMs.

It would be stupid and expensive to do so, but we are talking the
Camerosborne party here...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 4:42*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Sep 8, 3:08*am, Mizter T wrote:





[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59*am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

[x-posted to misc.transport.urban-transit]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

In real life: eventual repayment in cash, and the benefits to all EU
member states of improved transport links around a major European
city

In the paranoid minds of the anti-EU lot: your firstborn child and
your soul.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On 2009-09-08 16:42:49 +0100, 1506 said:

On Sep 8, 3:08*am, Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59*am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre
/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

[x-posted to misc.transport.urban-transit]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

Not the EU but the European Investment Bank. A different animal.

And the answer is... Their money back later, with interest.

Next question...
--
Robert

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 4:58*pm, John B wrote:

On Sep 8, 4:42*pm, 1506 wrote:

[snip]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

In real life: eventual repayment in cash, and the benefits to all EU
member states of improved transport links around a major European
city

In the paranoid minds of the anti-EU lot: your firstborn child and
your soul.

Ha ha ha, very good!

Talk that the project will be renamed "MonnetRail" is nothing other
than scurrilous rumour making...

EU lending for Crossrail
 

wrote in message
...

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59 am, JP wrote:
EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

I thought Crossrail was being built? Because they have already started
work, are you saying this work could be stopped?

They are only doing preparatory work.

It would be stupid to stop part way through any one individual piece of
work, but there's no reason why they can't decide to delay boring the main
tunnel for a year or 20 (we have been waiting 40 years already)

tim

EU lending for Crossrail
 

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 7:19*am, wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message

...
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59 am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

I thought Crossrail was being built? Because they have already started work,
are you saying this work could be stopped?

Has actual tunneling started? I thought it was just station boxes
under other construction and the like?

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 9:04*am, Robert wrote:
On 2009-09-08 16:42:49 +0100, 1506 said:





On Sep 8, 3:08*am, Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59*am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre
/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

[x-posted to misc.transport.urban-transit]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

Not the EU but the European Investment Bank. A different animal.

Thanks that was not clear from the OP.

And the answer is... Their money back later, with interest.

Much as I believe Cross rail is needed, I think repayment may take a
while. This will be an expensive project. The UK economy will be
week for some time to come (three more years, perhaps).

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 9:04*am, Robert wrote:
On 2009-09-08 16:42:49 +0100, 1506 said:





On Sep 8, 3:08*am, Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59*am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre
/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

[x-posted to misc.transport.urban-transit]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

Not the EU but the European Investment Bank. A different animal.

And the answer is... Their money back later, with interest.

Thanks that was not clear from the OP.

And the answer is... Their money back later, with interest.

Much as I believe Cross rail is needed, I think repayment may take a
while. This will be an expensive project. The UK economy will be
weak for some time to come (three more years, perhaps).

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:18:43 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

wrote:

I thought Crossrail was being built? Because they have already started work,
are you saying this work could be stopped?

That is what happened to the Channel Tunnel in 1970-something.


That isn't quite the same as what happened to the Channel Tunnel in, I
think, 1974. The Channel Tunnel wasn't cancelled, it just never got
the go-ahead to start.

There was a feasibility study and associated demonstration project
under way when Harold Wilson's Labour government came into power in
1974. It was hoped that, based on the success of the demonstration
project, the construction of the Channel Tunnel would be authorised as
a joint British/French publicly financed project.

The feasibility study showed that a tunnel could have been built
through the chalk marl. The demonstration project was a success and
showed that a tunnelling machine could excavate and line a short
section of the small diameter service tunnel in competent chalk marl.
But that's all it showed.

When Labour came to office, the country was on a three day week with
rotating power cuts for all but essential services. The government's
tax take had fallen dramatically because industrial production had
been badly disrupted due to the coal miners' strike, reducing
corporation tax receipts, and because working hours were much
reduced, reducing income tax. In short, there wasn't any money, and a
grandiose project like the Channel Tunnel was never going to be given
the go-ahead at a time like that.

So the demonstration project was completed and the feasibility study
was written up. The tunnel workings were then sealed. Then nothing
happened, literally.

Nothing was "cancelled", because there was nothing to cancel.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can now say that it was probably a
good thing that the project didn't get the go-ahead at that time. The
ground investigation had been rather perfunctory and some major
geological problems were missed.

Subsequently, in the 1980s, a more detailed ground investigation was
carried out. This also failed to identify geological problems on the
English side which caused serious problems when the project was under
way. The detailed ground investigation successfully identified some
even more severe problems on the French side. As a result, the French
tunnelling contractors invested a lot of money in very sophisticated
machines which offered full support of the excavated face with a
bentonite slurry.

This was a slower and more costly method of tunnelling but the French
tunnellers coped with everything the ground conditions threw at them
and more or less stayed on programme. Indeed, they went so well
compared to our tunnellers that they continued far beyond the original
agreed point and into English territory.

On the English side, a more optimistic view was taken and face support
was not included. In the event, the ground conditions were not as bad
as on the French side, but bad enough that the lack of face support
and huge ingress of water caused severe delays to the tunnelling.

Had the Channel Tunnel been given the go-ahead in 1974, the optimistic
view would have prevailed on both sides because of the inadequate site
investigation, and the sophisticated machines used by the French were
not available at that time. So there would have been major problems -
even worse than in the Tunnel that was built - and the whole cost
would have been borne by taxpayers, which would have been a disaster.
It is quite possible that the project would have had to have been
abandoned until better technology became available.

In the event, the problems were mainly confined to the English side,
and the whole of the massive cost overrun was borne by investors in
Eurotunnel and the lending banks, sparing the taxpayer almost all of
the pain.

As taxpayers, I think we should be relieved that this burden did not
fall on us. With the severely damaged economy that was left to Labour
by the grossly incompetent Heath/Barber Tory government of 1970-74,
the public finances could not have sustained such a big hit.

With Crossrail, two of the three major tunnelling contracts have just
gone out to tender. So, unlike the Channel Tunnel in 1974, there *is*
a Crossrail project in place. I believe the Crossrail team are aiming
to have the tunnelling contracts let and started on site before the
general Election, in the hope that it would make the project very
difficult to cancel. We will see, ;-)

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 7:13*pm, 1506 wrote:

Has actual tunneling started? *I thought it was just station boxes
under other construction and the like?

No tunnelling is happening. AIUI only the Canary Wharf (aka Isle of
Dogs) station box has started construction proper. Otherwise I think
it's all pretty much various preparatory works. Tottenham Court Road
tube station is in the early stages of being reconstructed which all
links in with Crossrail, but I don't think any major Crossrail centric
works are due to happen there for a while (not too up on the TCR
timetable though I admit).

The big kick off of major construction work is yet to come.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 13:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On Sep 8, 7:13*pm, 1506 wrote:

Has actual tunneling started? *I thought it was just station boxes
under other construction and the like?

No tunnelling is happening. AIUI only the Canary Wharf (aka Isle of
Dogs) station box has started construction proper. Otherwise I think
it's all pretty much various preparatory works. Tottenham Court Road
tube station is in the early stages of being reconstructed which all
links in with Crossrail, but I don't think any major Crossrail centric
works are due to happen there for a while (not too up on the TCR
timetable though I admit).

The big kick off of major construction work is yet to come.


There will be three very large tunnelling contracts. Tenders for the
largest two of the three were invited last week. Given the scope and
complexity of the work I would guess that the tender period will be
around 3 months, so expect bids to be returned before Christmas with
an award of contract around February/March and a start on site around
May/June 2010. General Election time?

These are just guesses based on my experience of large contracts.
Someone closer to the project may have more specific dates.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 8, 9:04*am, Robert wrote:
On 2009-09-08 16:42:49 +0100, 1506 said:





On Sep 8, 3:08*am, Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59*am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre
/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

[x-posted to misc.transport.urban-transit]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

Not the EU but the European Investment Bank. A different animal.

And the answer is... Their money back later, with interest.

Thanks that was not clear from the OP.

And the answer is... Their money back later, with interest.

Much as I believe Cross rail is needed, I think repayment may take a
while. This will be an expensive project. The UK economy will be
weak for some time to come (three more years, perhaps).

Phew. Thanks for the re-post.

I thort the UK economy was only gonna be "weak for a week".

EU lending for Crossrail
 

Mizter T wrote:

Talk that the project will be renamed "MonnetRail" is nothing other
than scurrilous rumour making...

Lacrosserail.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

"1506" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 9:04 am, Robert wrote:
On 2009-09-08 16:42:49 +0100, 1506 said:





On Sep 8, 3:08 am, Mizter T wrote:
[x-posted to uk.transport.london]
[original thread on uk.railway]

On Sep 8, 8:59 am, JP wrote:

EU has lent £1bn towards Crossrail according to Mayor Boris

Excerpt from today's TfL press release:

"The Crossrail project received a major boost today as Transport for
London (TfL) announced that it has agreed a £1bn loan with the
European Investment Bank (EIB) to finance part of their contribution
to Europe's largest construction project."

Read the rest of it
hehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre
/12515.aspx

Apparently it is "one of the largest loans ever secured for a
transport project".

Of course the big hurdle that Crossrail has yet to pass is the
comprehensive public spending review that's going to be instituted by
Cameron and Osbourne when they inevitably gain power next year.

[x-posted to misc.transport.urban-transit]

One also has to ask the question: "What does the EU expect in return
for their investment"?

Not the EU but the European Investment Bank. A different animal.

Thanks that was not clear from the OP.

And the answer is... Their money back later, with interest.

Much as I believe Cross rail is needed, I think repayment may take a
while. This will be an expensive project. The UK economy will be
week for some time to come (three more years, perhaps).


And the iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge was finally paid for 60+ years after
completion. Crossrail will be an iconic project for London, LION Like It Or
Not!

I'm not sure of the logic of platform doors restricting rollingstock to
dedicated Xrail only; in which case one should be planning enough loading
gauge for well-type DD cars once the eastern and western arms are cleared
through.

DW downunder

EU lending for Crossrail
 

"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message
...


I'm not sure of the logic of platform doors restricting rollingstock to
dedicated Xrail only; in which case one should be planning enough loading
gauge for well-type DD cars once the eastern and western arms are cleared
through.

The expansion plan is to extend from 10 - 12 cars, the stations are 250m
long for that reason. I'd expect fixed formation trains (rather than 5+5 as
previously stated), with a Thameslink layout, ie with through gangways. 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, and even if gauging allowed, the dwell times would defeat 24
tph running..

Paul S

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:46:07 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message
...


I'm not sure of the logic of platform doors restricting rollingstock to
dedicated Xrail only; in which case one should be planning enough loading
gauge for well-type DD cars once the eastern and western arms are cleared
through.

The expansion plan is to extend from 10 - 12 cars, the stations are 250m
long for that reason. I'd expect fixed formation trains (rather than 5+5 as

250m long? That'll produce some interesting bunching of passengers down
one end. I doubt many people will spend 3 minutes walking down the length
of the platform.

previously stated), with a Thameslink layout, ie with through gangways. But
be possible, and even if gauging allowed, the dwell times would defeat 24
tph running..

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.

B2003

EU lending for Crossrail
 

EU lending for Crossrail
 

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.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:46:07 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message
...


I'm not sure of the logic of platform doors restricting rollingstock to
dedicated Xrail only; in which case one should be planning enough
loading
gauge for well-type DD cars once the eastern and western arms are
cleared
through.

The expansion plan is to extend from 10 - 12 cars, the stations are 250m
long for that reason. I'd expect fixed formation trains (rather than 5+5
as

250m long? That'll produce some interesting bunching of passengers down
one end. I doubt many people will spend 3 minutes walking down the length
of the platform.

Why should it? The central underground stations are double ended, (eg
Farringdon/Barbican, Moorgate/Liverpool St) with access to the platforms
via cross passages at about 1/4 and 3/4 along. I think they've thought of
that one...

Paul S

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:55:13 +0000 (UTC), 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.

Nonsense. The cost of building the Crossrail tunnels to accept double
deck trains would be considerably higher.

But this is britain, planning for unforseen future needs is
frowned upon as we all know.

But this is Boltar, who is an ignorant ****wit as we all know.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:48:32 +0100
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:55:13 +0000 (UTC), 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.

Nonsense. The cost of building the Crossrail tunnels to accept double
deck trains would be considerably higher.

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?

But this is britain, planning for unforseen future needs is
frowned upon as we all know.

But this is Boltar, who is an ignorant ****wit as we all know.

Ah , the irony.

B2003

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:46:57 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
250m long? That'll produce some interesting bunching of passengers down
one end. I doubt many people will spend 3 minutes walking down the length
of the platform.

Why should it? The central underground stations are double ended, (eg
Farringdon/Barbican, Moorgate/Liverpool St) with access to the platforms

Unless the entrances are spaced a reasonable distance apart then passengers
are going to have to walk those 250 metres at some point , whether its on
the platform or in a connecting tunnel.

B2003

EU lending for Crossrail
 

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.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

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

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On 9 Sep, 14:00, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:46:57 +0100

"Paul Scott" wrote:
250m long? That'll produce some interesting bunching of passengers down
one end. I doubt many people will spend 3 minutes walking down the length
of the platform.

Why should it? The central underground stations are double ended, (eg
Farringdon/Barbican, *Moorgate/Liverpool St) with access to the platforms

Unless the entrances are spaced a reasonable distance apart then passengers
are going to have to walk those 250 metres at some point , whether its on
the platform or in a connecting tunnel.


But all the stations will have two entrances at street level. For
central London at least one of these will be an existing Underground
station with the other usually at a new site, but a couple will be
another Underground site. The distance that passengers will walk may
be considerably less than currently; consider a passenger at the rear
of a 12 car set at Liverpool Street at the moment (a 12 car class 321
formation is ~240m), they will have no choice but to walk considerably
more than 250m to get anywhere near the Underground to continue their
journey.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:46:57 +0100
"Paul Scott" wrote:
250m long? That'll produce some interesting bunching of passengers down
one end. I doubt many people will spend 3 minutes walking down the
length
of the platform.

Why should it? The central underground stations are double ended, (eg
Farringdon/Barbican, Moorgate/Liverpool St) with access to the platforms

Unless the entrances are spaced a reasonable distance apart then
passengers
are going to have to walk those 250 metres at some point , whether its on
the platform or in a connecting tunnel.


They are spaced a reasonable distance apart, eg Farringdon and Barbican,
Moorgate and Liverpool St, Bond St and Hanover Square, and Tottenham Court
Rd (Centre Point and Dean St)

Effectively there will be 8 entrances and ticket halls on the surface, for
the 4 central area stations...

Paul S

EU lending for Crossrail
 

EU lending for Crossrail
 

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

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 9, 3:58*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

wrote:

Unless the entrances are spaced a reasonable distance apart then
passengers are going to have to walk those 250 metres at some
point, whether its on the platform or in a connecting tunnel.

They are spaced a reasonable distance apart, eg Farringdon and Barbican,
Moorgate and Liverpool St, Bond St and Hanover Square, and Tottenham Court
Rd (Centre Point and Dean St)

Effectively there will be 8 entrances and ticket halls on the surface, for
the 4 central area stations...

Sorry Paul but Boltar doesn't do facts, he just does 'common sense'.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:58=A0pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

wrote:

Unless the entrances are spaced a reasonable distance apart then
passengers are going to have to walk those 250 metres at some
point, whether its on the platform or in a connecting tunnel.

They are spaced a reasonable distance apart, eg Farringdon and Barbican,
Moorgate and Liverpool St, Bond St and Hanover Square, and Tottenham Cour=
t
Rd (Centre Point and Dean St)

Effectively there will be 8 entrances and ticket halls on the surface, fo=
r
the 4 central area stations...

Sorry Paul but Boltar doesn't do facts, he just does 'common sense'.

Which bit of "Unless the entrances are spaced a reasonable distance apart"
did you have trouble reading? They apparently are going to be spaced a
reasonable distance apart. I didn't know this. End of discussion.

B2003

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Sep 9, 4:44*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:26:58 -0700 (PDT)

Mizter T wrote:

[snip]

Sorry Paul but Boltar doesn't do facts, he just does 'common sense'.

Which bit of "Unless the entrances are spaced a reasonable distance apart"
did you have trouble reading? They apparently are going to be spaced a
reasonable distance apart. I didn't know this. End of discussion.

OK, enough on this topic.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

Paul Scott wrote:
"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message
...

I'm not sure of the logic of platform doors restricting rollingstock to
dedicated Xrail only; in which case one should be planning enough loading
gauge for well-type DD cars once the eastern and western arms are cleared
through.

The expansion plan is to extend from 10 - 12 cars, the stations are 250m
long for that reason. I'd expect fixed formation trains (rather than 5+5 as
previously stated), with a Thameslink layout, ie with through gangways. But
the Crossrail tunnels are AFAICS UK gauge,


In a moment of boredom I once phoned them and asked. They confirmed UK
single-deck sized tunnels, and told me the size in metres but not in
terms of UIC ABC123+-~ gauge or whatever. No provision for double
deckers, because of cost and not being able to send the trains somewhere
else and/or sell them second-hand afterwards.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

EU lending for Crossrail
 

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:55:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

250m long? That'll produce some interesting bunching of passengers down
one end. I doubt many people will spend 3 minutes walking down the length
of the platform.

They don't need to, if platform access is properly planned. Go check
out the MTR in Hong Kong, or the RER in Paris. Both systems run
trains over 200 metres long.

EU lending for Crossrail
 

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 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.

So, unfortunately for ****wits like you, the cost of the lining goes
up approximately with the square of the diameter, as I said.

You are so profoundly ignorant that you don't appear to have the
slightest understanding of just how ignorant you are.

Have a(nother) dumb day. ;-)