On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:09:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Back then they had the option to just add more carriages. We don't now, and capacity is a problem, and it's only getting worse. A more modern incarnation could add even more capacity than those old things by using external stairs and automated doors.

If it were workable to abandon bogeys, even more space might be available at the price of having some areas wheelchair accessible, some not.
Bogeys are what schoolboys eat as a snack between meals and pulled
from their nose , try bogies .

The lack of access to toilets with compartments would restrict service severely. Could a similarish principle be implemented in an open carriage?

The nearest to that would be along the lines of a much shrunken
version of what in the states is called a gallery car where even with
much greater clearances available they sometimes have to compromise
bit , the gallery arrangement allows for normal height people to walk
down the middle but allows the accommodation of the upper level to
occupy space above the lower seats where people are sat down.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidw...949/7057551471
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...or_hallway.JPG
The US clearances allow such an arrangement to still be tolerably
comfortable and have a have a reasonable number seats accessed
without too much trouble. I'm not sure it could be done within the UK
loading gauge unless passengers to the upper level can be persuaded to
bend over and squeeze along like potholers.

G.Harman

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Scott M
wrote:

It would help if the council's and their chosen subcontractors didn't

I think that when I'm Emperor of the Universe I'll have people flogged
who don't know when to use an apostrophe.

The long winter evening's must just fly by with you about.

(FWIW, it started off as "council's chosen subcontractors" and then got
edited. The transient nature of unimportant conversations like these and
the ****ish nature of replies such as your's start making me think GBS
had a point.)

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 9 October 2017 10:55:04 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
Simon Jones wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
How odd that this didn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

Is this continental stock?

It is double decker with bogies which is what matters.

The 4DD is UK gauge, but extremely cramped inside. It's compartment
stock, with no internal corridors. There's a lower compartment, a
short staircase and then an upper compartment, in the space of about
50% more than a traditional 12-seat compartment. Rather optimistically
they expected to get 11 in each of the lower and upper compartments.

This shows the concept: http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/history.html

The survivors are falling apart, but here's the upper compartment:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/im...arkgreen12.jpg The passengers
on the ends better not be tall because their heads are pressed up
against the curving ceiling.

and the door to the lower:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/images/ta12.jpg - the stairs going up
are to the right, while the seats of the previous upper compartment
overhang the lower seats of this compartment on the left.

This is the bottom of the stairs, going up to the left:
http://bulleid4dddoubledeck.co.uk/images/28101614.jpg

Basically it's OK for a 20 minute run into London Bridge, but people
are going to be complaining of being battery chickens for anytime
longer.

The reason it failed was dwell times: that kind of stock had a slam
door for every 8 passengers, so it was quick for people to board and
disembark. When you add internal staircases, you might carry 50% more
passengers but they also take longer to reach the door - so the train
gets slower for everyone.

Today, of course, non-corridor compartments are a non-starter for
public safety reasons, but the problem of the extremely curvy roof
profile remains. In the 4DD there's really only enough space to get two
normal-sized people per row on the upper deck, but then there's nowhere
to fit the access to get them in.

HS2 (and HS1) are full continental gauge, so running off-the-shelf
double decker trains should be feasible, though the issue about dwell
times remains.

Theo


Quote... "Double-Deck Train Trial Results

The Railway Executive has decided that the experimental eight-coach
double-deck train, which has been in service on the electrified London
suburban lines of the Southern Region for the past 12 months, does not
offer a satisfactory long-term solution of the problem of peak-hour
congestion. The conclusion reached from the trials is that the public
interest and operating efficiency will be better served by longer trains
(ten coaches instead of eight) of normal type but of more commodious
design, and longer platforms to accomodate them. The double-deck train
provides seats for 1,016 passengers, compared with 772 in an ordinary
eight-coach train, and 945 in ten-coach trains of new design (including
coaches with central corridors). The trials have revealed that the
advantage of extra seating capacity is more than outweighed by slower
station working, as the double-deck train affords one door for 22 seats,
compared with 10 or 12 in ordinary compartment stock.

...That is down to the internal staircases. A modern version could maybe
have a fold-flat external stairs for the upper decks, solving dwell time
and increasing capacity even further.

Quote... Moreover, the double-deck coaches provide less cubic capacity
per passenger, and have smaller and less comforetable seats. The loading
gauge restrictions make it more difficult to provide adequate
ventilation in the upper deck

it's not a challenge nowadays to add forced ventilation, ac and/or
partially opening windows & vents

quote... and the dimemsions of the coaches impose severe limitations on
their route availability. The experimental double-deck train was
described and illustrated in our January, 1950, issue."

Back then they had the option to just add more carriages. We don't now,
and capacity is a problem, and it's only getting worse. A more modern
incarnation could add even more capacity than those old things by using
external stairs and automated doors.

If it were workable to abandon bogeys, even more space might be available
at the price of having some areas wheelchair accessible, some not.

The lack of access to toilets with compartments would restrict service
severely. Could a similarish principle be implemented in an open
carriage?

The option to add more carriages has been taken up on the SWR lines, which
is why Waterloo was partly closed during August. The station can now hand
10 carriage trains as opposed to the 8 coach ones currently in general use
on our line, at least. 40 years ago, we only had 6 coach trains. We
haven't had toilets on our services for years.

But they are necessary on the intercity lines that the HS2 is allegedly
increasing
the capacity on if double level coaches were used to increase capacity
instead.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 09:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting
low
floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

We didn’t rebuild even a single bridge when we went that route.

From what I can find with a quick search, the Australian loading gauge has
a variety of different maximum heights for rolling stock. The lowest of
which maxima I could find is 14' and the highest around 21'.

UK loading gauge also varies between lines, but averages 10'9". Far too
low for practical double-deckers

And yet they did have one class of double deckers anyway.

- especially taking into account legal requirements for disabled access.

No reason the law can't be changed and that would be much
cheaper than changing all the tunnels and tubes, specially if
only one deck could be used by those in wheel chairs.

On 09/10/2017 23:28, Rod Speed wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 09:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
* wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a
resulting low
floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

We didn’t rebuild even a single bridge when we went that route.

From what I can find with a quick search, the Australian loading gauge
has a variety of different maximum heights for rolling stock. The
lowest of which maxima I could find is 14' and the highest around 21'.

UK loading gauge also varies between lines, but averages 10'9". Far
too low for practical double-deckers

And yet they did have one class of double deckers anyway.

Not true double-deckers - you couldn't fit two decks that an average
person could walk along into 10'9" - ignoring clearance from the tracks.

- especially taking into account legal requirements for disabled access.

No reason the law can't be changed and that would be much
cheaper than changing all the tunnels and tubes, specially if
only one deck could be used by those in wheel chairs.

But the lowest deck would have to be below platform height, so no
wheelchair access at all. Lowering all the platforms would be
prohibitively expensive and would mean no wheelchair access to any of
the existing rolling-stock.

The only way to realistically have practical double-deckers would be to
increase the loading gauge, which would mean every bridge, tunnel,
overhead line, etc. being raised - costing many billions and causing
decades of major disruption.

SteveW

On Monday, 9 October 2017 23:43:44 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 09/10/2017 23:28, Rod Speed wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 09:03, Rod Speed wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:


Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a
resulting low
floor level?

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

We didnt rebuild even a single bridge when we went that route.

From what I can find with a quick search, the Australian loading gauge
has a variety of different maximum heights for rolling stock. The
lowest of which maxima I could find is 14' and the highest around 21'.

UK loading gauge also varies between lines, but averages 10'9". Far
too low for practical double-deckers

And yet they did have one class of double deckers anyway.

Not true double-deckers - you couldn't fit two decks that an average
person could walk along into 10'9" - ignoring clearance from the tracks.

- especially taking into account legal requirements for disabled access.

No reason the law can't be changed and that would be much
cheaper than changing all the tunnels and tubes, specially if
only one deck could be used by those in wheel chairs.

But the lowest deck would have to be below platform height, so no
wheelchair access at all. Lowering all the platforms would be
prohibitively expensive and would mean no wheelchair access to any of
the existing rolling-stock.

The only way to realistically have practical double-deckers would be to
increase the loading gauge, which would mean every bridge, tunnel,
overhead line, etc. being raised - costing many billions and causing
decades of major disruption.

SteveW

I shall explain more clearly.

First the idea would be to keep the floor at the same level in the middle of the carriage by the entrance doors. Wheelchair accessible seating would be there, single deck only. Steps would lead to lowered floor areas for the rest of the carriage length.

The full height walkway can run down the middle, the seat areas each side would necessarily be less than 6' high, but high enough to sit and to move in & out while ducking some. The upper seating would of course only be accessible via a vertical step ladder. Thus those won't be for everyone, but they only constitute 40% or so of the seating.


NT

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 23:28, Rod Speed wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 09/10/2017 09:03, Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a
resulting low
floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

We didn’t rebuild even a single bridge when we went that route.

From what I can find with a quick search, the Australian loading gauge
has a variety of different maximum heights for rolling stock. The lowest
of which maxima I could find is 14' and the highest around 21'.

UK loading gauge also varies between lines, but averages 10'9". Far too
low for practical double-deckers

And yet they did have one class of double deckers anyway.

Not true double-deckers - you couldn't fit two decks that an average
person could walk along into 10'9" - ignoring clearance from the tracks.

- especially taking into account legal requirements for disabled access.

No reason the law can't be changed and that would be much
cheaper than changing all the tunnels and tubes, specially if
only one deck could be used by those in wheel chairs.

But the lowest deck would have to be below platform height, so no
wheelchair access at all.

Plenty of vans have electric hoists that fix that problem.

No reason why there couldn’t be one in a much bigger train carriage.

Lowering all the platforms would be prohibitively expensive and would mean
no wheelchair access to any of the existing rolling-stock.

Sure, that would certainly be a stupid way of doing it.

The only way to realistically have practical double-
deckers would be to increase the loading gauge,

That not correct.

which would mean every bridge, tunnel, overhead line, etc. being raised -
costing many billions and causing decades of major disruption.

In article , Tim Streater
scribeth thus
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:41:13 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Whether new UK lines are built with a wider loading gauge, I don't know,
but it would make sense.

Didn't IKB want wider gauges (as adopted almost everywhere else) but the
investors kept it cheap ?

I haven't studied this but it may have been that although IKB wanted a
7ft gauge, by the time he'd got any track laid it was too late - there
were miles of standard gauge, together with bridges and tunnels at that
gauge. Fixing that would have been, then as today, prohibitive.

Changing from the 7ft to standard gauge is a lot easier.

I am sure if British Engineering through the ages were cut open, the
words "quick buck" would be written throughout.

It's the "first system" effect. Yanks were first there with colour
telly, but successor systems were much better (PAL, SECAM), but the
Yanks were stuck with it.

Didn't old Baird have a colour system on demo before the Yanks?..


Wider gauges would have led to faster trains, AIUI ?

More stable trains, certainly. Continental trains are wider because
they chose a wider loading gauge, but the track gauge is the same.


--
Tony Sayer

On 08/10/2017 22:05, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Andy

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?


NT

No.

Reason. Victorian loading gauge.

And you still have the problem of congestion at the termini.

In article , Jethro_uk
scribeth thus
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 09:41:13 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Whether new UK lines are built with a wider loading gauge, I don't know,
but it would make sense.

Didn't IKB want wider gauges (as adopted almost everywhere else) but the
investors kept it cheap ?

IKB was never one known to do anything on the cheap hence why his
railway infrastructure has lasted for so long!

I am sure if British Engineering through the ages were cut open, the
words "quick buck" would be written throughout.

Wider gauges would have led to faster trains, AIUI ?

--
Tony Sayer

wrote:
That is down to the internal staircases. A modern version could maybe have
a fold-flat external stairs for the upper decks, solving dwell time and
increasing capacity even further.

So it could have a 737-style pop-out 'airstair'. But you would have to have
clear zones on every platform so waiting passengers didn't get clonked by
it, and then you'd have to allow passengers access to the clear zone once
the stairs have deployed, and then make sure they're clear before folding
them up again. All a bit tricky in a 1 minute station call, don't you
think?

it's not a challenge nowadays to add forced ventilation, ac and/or
partially opening windows & vents

Indeed not - point being that squishing 22 people in a space the size of
today's disabled toilet got rather toasty (and fragrant no doubt).

Back then they had the option to just add more carriages. We don't now,
and capacity is a problem, and it's only getting worse. A more modern
incarnation could add even more capacity than those old things by using
external stairs and automated doors.

....at the expense of dwell times again.

If it were workable to abandon bogeys, even more space might be available
at the price of having some areas wheelchair accessible, some not.

When you 'abandon bogies', what do you replace them with?

The 'Pacers' are the only non-bogie stock currently in use, which are
derived from 4 wheel freight wagons. They ride badly, squeal on curves, and
the vehicle length is limited to 16m. That means after internal stairs any
lower deck would be only a handful of seats.

If you're using the space between the bogies, it displaces equipment
(compressors, transformers, engines etc). That has to go somewhere. On
many German trains the carriages are unpowered and the traction provided by
a locomotive. If you've done that, you've just wasted a carriage length
that could have had passengers.

The lack of access to toilets with compartments would restrict service
severely. Could a similarish principle be implemented in an open
carriage?

No, because you need a walkway to access the seats. There isn't room to
fit two levels of people standing up inside the loading gauge. It is 3965mm
from track to maximum height of roof. Even if you left no clearances and
your floors and ceilings were made of paper, 1.98m is not enough for
many adults to walk through safely.

Any other arrangement of seating beyond 2+2 on each level (or 2+3) means you
start compromising capacity to get the two walkways in.

Theo

On 08/10/2017 23:18, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/10/2017 22:05, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir CampestrisÂ* wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving
though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting
low floor level?

It's been done, but they weren't very successful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD

The disability mafia would prevent it.

My local station has a tunnel to reach the up platform (*)and alongside
the UP platform is empty space that used to be a branch line and
red star parcels track sidings and shed, long since gone.

There is a plan, approved by the council to build houses on land
adjacent to this empty space and connect the new house access road
through to allow a bigger (and much needed) parking area for commuters.
This would also allow step-free access to the UP platform (with its
own ticket machine).

However, the usual suspects have blocked it and want Newtwork rail
to install lifts as well. This is impossibly expensive for a
country station, so now we have lost the chance for more parking,
more housing and associated traffic calming and road improvements.

Bloody typical narrow mindedness.

(*) stairs at each end.

On 09/10/2017 00:46, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 21:52:03 UTC+1, Vir CampestrisÂ* wrote:
On 08/10/2017 18:58, Davey wrote:

And those who want to build pointless High Speed rail lines. But I
believe that Bill has a useful point of view. The current systems for
household rubbish disposal just don't work.

In defence of the rail line - its a capacity upgrade. There's no space
for more trains on the routes. Selling it as "HS2" is willy waving
though.

I'm with you on the rubbish.

Andy

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned
bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor
level?

We've had them for 50 years and didnt need to abandon bogeys either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_r...uble-deck_cars

You aren't hamstrung with a Victorian loading gauge, small tunnels and
low bridges.

On 09/10/2017 01:39, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?


NT

Not without rebuilding most platforms, . Because Britain was first
with railways and never has decided to enlarge them from what was
established 150 years ago the shape of a British train has developed
so to make the best use of available space by being a little wider at
roughly waist level than by your feet .Almost all British coaches have
a tumblehome
Overseas the sides are far more vertical down to much nearer the track
level and they have been able to develop lower floors and double
decker stock .

G.Harman

Continental trains are wider too, even though they use the same
4 foot 8.5 inch track gauge. Ditto Amtrak I believe.

On 10/10/2017 00:29, wrote:
First the idea would be to keep the floor at the same level in the middle of the carriage by the entrance doors. Wheelchair accessible seating would be there, single deck only.

Except that people would cluster in that area, so they can get off
quickly and refuse to move to allow more people on board.

Anyone who has taken the 08:40 London Overground from Clapham
Junction platform 2, heading for Hammersmith will know all
about this problem (2004 - 2008 before TFL took over and
bought some longer trains).

On 09/10/2017 09:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

In article ,
Â* wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 14:05:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low
floor level?

Not without rebuilding most platforms,

[Snip]

not just platforms, but bridges, too.

And tunnels.

The loading gauge prevents us from using any continental rolling stock
here. To fix that means relaying all tracks, rebuilding all platforms,
bridges, tunnels.

Whether new UK lines are built with a wider loading gauge, I don't
know, but it would make sense.


Loading guage is technically the maximum height. I remember when
Barry had a coal export business and the exit route from sidings
always had a banana-shaped bar suspended over the track to indicate
wagons that were over-height.

On 09/10/2017 16:26, Tim Streater wrote:
Changing from the 7ft to standard gauge is a lot easier.

And they did in a single weekend !!.

All the way from Paddington to Bristol.

On 09/10/2017 16:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
Colour TV, and the nascent HDTV specs were both discussed with the
observation that the US missed out on the former by ignoring cooperating
with "the rest of the world" and risked the same with HDTV.

I don't remember the French being very co-operative in this area,
or even in any area that conflicted with its own home-grown ideas.

On 08/10/2017 19:39, Bill Wright wrote:
We all pay taxes.

But not NI after state pension age.

Then they get the NHS free for 30+ years and place the
most demands on it.

On 08/10/2017 19:27, Tim+ wrote:
I think most fly-tipping is done by smaller businesses

Carnival, a huge American cruise ship company, was fined
for deliberately discharging effluent at sea by fitting
its ships with special pipework that evaded inspection.

Only when a whistle-blower spoke up did people realise
the extent of their deceit.

On 09/10/2017 00:18, Rod Speed wrote:
We've just seen a very big works yard with most of it concreted, used
for big trucks and heavy machinery, all completely demolished into
immense piles of dirt and broken concrete at least 30' high over most
of the site. In the past that would have been trucked to the dump.

Same here. Has been the normal practise for years.

A combination of aggregate tax and landfill tax makes it economically
worhtwhile to do this, else it would still go into landfill.

On 09/10/2017 22:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
wrote:

Why some idiot decided on that arrangement and didn't consider that
even with small amounts of waste, people may want to use a trailer to
avoid messing up their car, I don't know. Especially as there is
enough space to make the bays 10 feet longer within the existing site
boundaries.

Maybe they figured that people would have the sense to put a dust sheet
in the back of their car, so they can carry - as I have in recent weeks
- amounts of plasterboard off-cuts to the tip without messing their car
up at all.


But plasterboard needs to be kept out of landfill.

On 09/10/2017 23:01, Scott M wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Scott M
wrote:

It would help if the council's and their chosen subcontractors didn't

I think that when I'm Emperor of the Universe I'll have people flogged
who don't know when to use an apostrophe.

The long winter evening's must just fly by with you about.

(FWIW, it started off as "council's chosen subcontractors" and then got
edited. The transient nature of unimportant conversations like these and
the ****ish nature of replies such as your's start making me think GBS
had a point.)

Which point? He had many. The one about beating children, perhaps.

--
Max Demian

In article ,
wrote:
Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low
floor level?

Lowering the floor level has expensive implications at every station.

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman wrote:

tabbypurr wrote:

Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages
abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low
floor level?

Lowering the floor level has expensive implications at every station.

Some trains on the Milan metro are (or were 15+ years ago) dual-deck.
As I remember it they had a mezzanine within the carriage at platform
level, then a choice to go down or up to either seating area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_suburban_railway_service#/media/File:Milano_staz_Porta_Venezia_TSR_linea_S6.JPG

The metro is cut-n-cover so the height isn't a problem as it would be
with tunnels

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 09/10/2017 16:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
Colour TV, and the nascent HDTV specs were both discussed with the
observation that the US missed out on the former by ignoring
cooperating with "the rest of the world" and risked the same with HDTV.

I don't remember the French being very co-operative in this area,
or even in any area that conflicted with its own home-grown ideas.

We got round that by adopting the German standard. So much for the country
that claims to ave invented TV.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 08/10/2017 19:39, Bill Wright wrote:
We all pay taxes.

But not NI after state pension age.

Does anyone pay pension contributions after they start drawing that
pension? Pay for out of work benefits when no longer working or able to
claim them?

Then they get the NHS free for 30+ years and place the
most demands on it.

You think the NHS paid for entirely by NI?

--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:58:54 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/10/2017 16:26, Tim Streater wrote:
Changing from the 7ft to standard gauge is a lot easier.

And they did in a single weekend !!.

All the way from Paddington to Bristol.

******** they did, whatever reference you got that from rip it up and
stop quoting rubbish.

The complete gauge change took around 20 years .
The GWR and the other companies it was associated with like the
Bristol and Exeter knew they had lost the gauge war fairly early on
and took measures to enable through running by laying a third running
rail to enable trains of both gauges to run along the same path and
gradually built up the stock of std gauge equipment as time progressed
withdrawing broad gauge equipment as it became life expired. Some
later BG stock was built to be easily converted. The lines further to
the Southwest got the same treatment as the GWR took over the
companies further west.
By the famous weekend in 1892 it was only the bit from Exeter to
Penzance that was Broad gauge only and it was that was the bit that
has gone down in history. It was a well planned operation and many
preparations had been done like loosening bolts and fixings, drilling
sleepers , prefabricating new point sections beforehand and getting
over 4000 Navvies in place from all over the country.
Nevertheless it was no mean feat, however amongst the general
backslapping and "wasn't Britain Great then" that sometimes
accompanies the event it is often glossed over that the United States
had already done a similar exercise in the years after the Civil War.
Most of the Southern States Railroads had been constructed to 5ft
gauge which is too close to std to lay a third rail so after the Civil
War the Northern states put pressure on to convert the South to std to
ease interstate transportation and further bring the South under their
influence. Like the GWR later a lot of preparation work had been done
so the operation took around two days and was done on the 30 and 31
May 1886. Over 11000 miles of track were changed which makes the
Exeter to Penzance conversion look a little tame.
http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1966/66-8/gauge.html

G.Harman

On 10/10/2017 15:45, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:58:54 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 09/10/2017 16:26, Tim Streater wrote:
Changing from the 7ft to standard gauge is a lot easier.

And they did in a single weekend !!.

All the way from Paddington to Bristol.

******** they did, whatever reference you got that from rip it up and
stop quoting rubbish.

The complete gauge change took around 20 years .
The GWR and the other companies it was associated with like the
Bristol and Exeter knew they had lost the gauge war fairly early on
and took measures to enable through running by laying a third running
rail to enable trains of both gauges to run along the same path and
gradually built up the stock of std gauge equipment as time progressed
withdrawing broad gauge equipment as it became life expired. Some
later BG stock was built to be easily converted. The lines further to
the Southwest got the same treatment as the GWR took over the
companies further west.
By the famous weekend in 1892 it was only the bit from Exeter to
Penzance that was Broad gauge only and it was that was the bit that
has gone down in history. It was a well planned operation and many
preparations had been done like loosening bolts and fixings, drilling
sleepers , prefabricating new point sections beforehand and getting
over 4000 Navvies in place from all over the country.
Nevertheless it was no mean feat, however amongst the general
backslapping and "wasn't Britain Great then" that sometimes
accompanies the event it is often glossed over that the United States
had already done a similar exercise in the years after the Civil War.
Most of the Southern States Railroads had been constructed to 5ft
gauge which is too close to std to lay a third rail so after the Civil
War the Northern states put pressure on to convert the South to std to
ease interstate transportation and further bring the South under their
influence.

I always wondered what the American Civil War was about.

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:
On 09/10/2017 23:01, Scott M wrote:

(FWIW, it started off as "council's chosen subcontractors" and then
got edited. The transient nature of unimportant conversations like
these and the ****ish nature of replies such as your's start making me
think GBS had a point.)

Which point? He had many. The one about beating children, perhaps.

The one about apostrophe's.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On 08/10/2017 22:05, wrote:
Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

I recently took a double decker train into Lisbon. Bogeys and all. They
do of course have a larger loading gauge.

Andy

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:20:01 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 08/10/2017 22:05, wrote:
Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

I recently took a double decker train into Lisbon. Bogeys and all. They
do of course have a larger loading gauge.
And track gauge come to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberia...tandard_gauges
G.Harman

On 10/10/2017 21:46, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:20:01 +0100, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 08/10/2017 22:05, wrote:
Would it be possible to get a 2nd layer of seats in if carriages abandoned bogeys and implemented modern suspension with a resulting low floor level?

I recently took a double decker train into Lisbon. Bogeys and all. They
do of course have a larger loading gauge.
And track gauge come to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberia...tandard_gauges
G.Harman

Hence https://vimeo.com/49668856

SteveW

Andrew wrote:
On 10/10/2017 00:29, wrote:
First the idea would be to keep the floor at the same level in the
middle of the carriage by the entrance doors. Wheelchair accessible
seating would be there, single deck only.

Except that people would cluster in that area, so they can get off
quickly and refuse to move to allow more people on board.

Anyone who has taken the 08:40 London Overground from Clapham
Junction platform 2, heading for Hammersmith will know all
about this problem (2004 - 2008 before TFL took over and
bought some longer trains).

German and some French trains do the opposite: the ends of the carriages
have the doors, with a free area at normal floor height for boarding from
traditional high platforms. This also allows a conventional corridor
connection to the next coach, and is conveniently over the bogie where those
pesky wheels have to go. There are then steps down into the lower saloon
and steps up into the upper saloon. A coach has one of these boarding zones
at each end. This area also provides standing room for people going short
distances to hang around the door.

The downside is that if you want to walk along the train, you have to keep
going up and down stairs. Though it's usually fewer steps into the lower
than upper section.

I'm not sure what happens to wheelchairs - possibly there's a single-decker
coach somewhere in the train.

Theo

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:19:37 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

I recently took a double decker train into Lisbon. Bogeys and all. They
do of course have a larger loading gauge.
And track gauge come to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberia...tandard_gauges
G.Harman

Hence https://vimeo.com/49668856

SteveW
Been through that in the days you could catch the Eurostar to Paris,
spend a day there then catch the overnight sleeper that left around
8pm, decent multicourse meal in a proper dining car that took awhile
to get through, then drinks from the bar till satisfied and then bed.
Dawn breaking as the train climbed through the Pyrenees a shower and
shave etc in the ensuite bathroom and then breakfast while passing
down to Barcelona arriving about 8 am and a pleasant walk to the hotel
where we had arranged to drop luggage off earlier than official check
in and then started to visit things.
More expensive but far more civilised than scrumming it at an airport
with the Ryan air brigade.
Stopped running a few years ago when the high speed std gauge line
opened all the way to from France to Barcelona.
Mind you that destination may not be advisable to visit soon if the
Spanish- Catalans go to civil lwar again. they did things to each
other just as brutal as Isis in the last one, prisoner bound in an
oil drum with some petrol in it and then a match thrown in was a
favourite.

G.Harman

G.Harman

Andy Burns wrote:

Thankfully we do still get weekly emptying of rubbish and recycling
wheelie bins.

Not for much longer I expect, they've just announced a 4-week
consultation period regarding fortnightly collections, can only see one
outcome from that ... so I've asked them to swap my 140l recycling bin
for a 240l one (the small one is close to full most weeks) for me the
refuse bin will be OK most fortnights I guess.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:

Thankfully we do still get weekly emptying of rubbish and recycling
wheelie bins.

Not for much longer I expect, they've just announced a 4-week
consultation period regarding fortnightly collections, can only see one
outcome from that ... so I've asked them to swap my 140l recycling bin
for a 240l one (the small one is close to full most weeks) for me the
refuse bin will be OK most fortnights I guess.

we get fortnightly collections of rubbish and recyclables. So the result
is one collection a week.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 10:40:12 UTC+1, Theo wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

That is down to the internal staircases. A modern version could maybe have
a fold-flat external stairs for the upper decks, solving dwell time and
increasing capacity even further.

So it could have a 737-style pop-out 'airstair'. But you would have to have
clear zones on every platform so waiting passengers didn't get clonked by
it, and then you'd have to allow passengers access to the clear zone once
the stairs have deployed, and then make sure they're clear before folding
them up again. All a bit tricky in a 1 minute station call, don't you
think?

Paint a line on the platform, have proximity sensors & soft pads on the stairs so they stop before smacking anyone.

it's not a challenge nowadays to add forced ventilation, ac and/or
partially opening windows & vents

Indeed not - point being that squishing 22 people in a space the size of
today's disabled toilet got rather toasty (and fragrant no doubt).

Back then they had the option to just add more carriages. We don't now,
and capacity is a problem, and it's only getting worse. A more modern
incarnation could add even more capacity than those old things by using
external stairs and automated doors.

...at the expense of dwell times again.

Stairs could descend in what, 8 seconds? Up in 3 maybe.

If it were workable to abandon bogeys, even more space might be available
at the price of having some areas wheelchair accessible, some not.

When you 'abandon bogies', what do you replace them with?

4 wheel setups closer to car suspension

The 'Pacers' are the only non-bogie stock currently in use, which are
derived from 4 wheel freight wagons. They ride badly, squeal on curves, and
the vehicle length is limited to 16m.

That's why we have had bogies for so long. The question is whether a bogieless setup could be made adequate perhaps using computer adjusted suspension.

That means after internal stairs any
lower deck would be only a handful of seats.

we don't have internal stairs

If you're using the space between the bogies, it displaces equipment
(compressors, transformers, engines etc). That has to go somewhere. On
many German trains the carriages are unpowered and the traction provided by
a locomotive. If you've done that, you've just wasted a carriage length
that could have had passengers.

What of that could and could not go under seating?

The lack of access to toilets with compartments would restrict service
severely. Could a similarish principle be implemented in an open
carriage?

No, because you need a walkway to access the seats. There isn't room to
fit two levels of people standing up inside the loading gauge. It is 3965mm
from track to maximum height of roof. Even if you left no clearances and
your floors and ceilings were made of paper, 1.98m is not enough for
many adults to walk through safely.

Any other arrangement of seating beyond 2+2 on each level (or 2+3) means you
start compromising capacity to get the two walkways in.

Theo

The idea was to have one walkway with upper seats accessed by rungs.


NT

On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 10:53:28 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 10/10/2017 00:29, tabbypurr wrote:

First the idea would be to keep the floor at the same level in the middle of the carriage by the entrance doors. Wheelchair accessible seating would be there, single deck only.

Except that people would cluster in that area, so they can get off
quickly and refuse to move to allow more people on board.

no more or less than today. Bogieless trains would necessarily have shorter carriages meaning more doors per metre too.

NT

Anyone who has taken the 08:40 London Overground from Clapham
Junction platform 2, heading for Hammersmith will know all
about this problem (2004 - 2008 before TFL took over and
bought some longer trains).

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:

Thankfully we do still get weekly emptying of rubbish and recycling
wheelie bins.

Not for much longer I expect, they've just announced a 4-week
consultation period regarding fortnightly collections, can only see one
outcome from that ... so I've asked them to swap my 140l recycling bin
for a 240l one (the small one is close to full most weeks) for me the
refuse bin will be OK most fortnights I guess.

we get fortnightly collections of rubbish and recyclables. So the result
is one collection a week.

We get rubbish collection weekly and recyclables fortnightly.

Same size bin for both, different color lids.