|
|
Post by astock5000 on Jan 21, 2009 22:42:57 GMT
The tunnels at Charing Cross would need enlarging to take DLR trains costing a fortune. But would the station tunnels at Charing Cross have to be enlarged if the DLR wanted to use them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2009 0:26:47 GMT
The tunnels at Charing Cross would need enlarging to take DLR trains costing a fortune. But would the station tunnels at Charing Cross have to be enlarged if the DLR wanted to use them? I'm pretty sure they would. DLR trains are taller and squarer than tube trains. The station tunnels curve around the existing tube loading guage. |
|
|
|
Post by compsci on Jan 22, 2009 10:00:30 GMT
Also don't forget that DLR tunnels contain an emergency walkway, and regular emergency exits, which I'd imagine is a pretty central point of their safety case for tunnel operation. The original stock from before Bank was built couldn't be used in tunnels as the doors opened outwards, rather then sliding, which appears to indicate that the end doors aren't considered sufficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by max on Jan 22, 2009 10:39:36 GMT
You could always, horror of horrors, turn the disused Jubilee stub into a cross-London tube line!
Something like Shepherds Bush, Olympia, High Street Ken, Albert Hall, Knightsbridge, Green Park, Charing Cross, City Thameslink, Cannon Street (for Mansion House and Bank), Fenchurch Street, Whitechapel. It surely wouldn't cost much more per km than a DLR extension.
In east London it would provide better/extra interchanges, and in west London it would reduce reliance on District Line/Circle Line for certain destinations
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2009 18:34:20 GMT
Also don't forget that DLR tunnels contain an emergency walkway, and regular emergency exits, which I'd imagine is a pretty central point of their safety case for tunnel operation. The original stock from before Bank was built couldn't be used in tunnels as the doors opened outwards, rather then sliding, which appears to indicate that the end doors aren't considered sufficient. IIRC the original DLR stock did not have end doors (which precluded their use to Bank); and while they did have folding doors, these folded inwards (as on most buses). I would think the benefit of reusing the station tunnels for DLR would be that the access tunnels (passageways) were already there, more than the platform tunnels (which would need major enlargement) themselves. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,761
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Jan 22, 2009 18:42:14 GMT
Also don't forget that DLR tunnels contain an emergency walkway, and regular emergency exits, which I'd imagine is a pretty central point of their safety case for tunnel operation. The original stock from before Bank was built couldn't be used in tunnels as the doors opened outwards, rather then sliding, which appears to indicate that the end doors aren't considered sufficient. I thought that the original stock didn't have end doors - they don't appear to have in these photos 1, 2. I was also under the impression that it was inadequate fireproofing that was the main reason they couldn't run in tunnels? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2009 18:59:18 GMT
Correct Chris, fire regulations were the only thing stopping P86 stock running to Bank. The P89 stock built for running to Bank was virtually identical except for materials used. End doors are not a requirement, because of the side walkway in DLR tunnels.
|
|
