If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some victorians)   How Victorian London was nearly surrounded by a giant Crystal Railway   (ianvisits.co.uk) divider line 21
    More: Interesting, Victorian London, Crystal Railway, London Bridge, whales, railroads, crystals, clockwise  
•       •       •

5139 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Nov 2012 at 12:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-06 10:03:48 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-06 11:36:38 AM  
I would love to have seen the Crystal Palace in its full glory.
 
2012-11-06 12:07:32 PM  

Slaxl: I would love to have seen the Crystal Palace in its full glory.


Here ya go, mate:

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-11-06 12:08:58 PM  

cefm: Slaxl: I would love to have seen the Crystal Palace in its full glory.

Here ya go, mate:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x315]


lol, nicely done.
 
2012-11-06 12:19:51 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-06 12:32:30 PM  
IanVisits surely deserves its own Fark logo by now.
 
2012-11-06 12:47:30 PM  
img.metro.co.uk

i hope this is what you meant :0
 
2012-11-06 01:04:13 PM  
Anyone familiar with the disintegrating rail infrastructure of 1980s Britain can imagine what a horrid eyesore that Crystal Palace-style parade would have become if they'd built it. Mouldy glass windows covered in bird shiat, missing panes, crumbling iron... It would have been like Victoria Station ala 1987...that is, if the Nazis wouldn't have blown the whole thing into so much powdered glass during the Blitz.
 
2012-11-06 03:21:56 PM  
I wonder why more municipalities don't look at elevated railways these days to solve mass transit problems. Everybody wants to put tubes underground, but tunneling seems like it would be more expensive than elevated rail. Is it a noise thing?

It just seems like putting elevated tracks on existing right of way clears up so many problems related to eminent domain, traffic integration, and construction cost. If somebody wants to explain the downsides, I'd be happy to hear it.
 
2012-11-06 03:35:14 PM  

phyrkrakr: I wonder why more municipalities don't look at elevated railways these days to solve mass transit problems. Everybody wants to put tubes underground, but tunneling seems like it would be more expensive than elevated rail. Is it a noise thing?


I could see arguments about it being visual and noise pollution. I've never lived in a city with an elevated train, but I can't imagine living near one is pleasant.
 
2012-11-06 04:51:30 PM  
I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this all sounds like something Bruce McCall came up with.
 
2012-11-06 05:25:46 PM  

phyrkrakr: I wonder why more municipalities don't look at elevated railways these days to solve mass transit problems. Everybody wants to put tubes underground, but tunneling seems like it would be more expensive than elevated rail. Is it a noise thing?

It just seems like putting elevated tracks on existing right of way clears up so many problems related to eminent domain, traffic integration, and construction cost. If somebody wants to explain the downsides, I'd be happy to hear it.


Seems like noise wouldn't be a big deal with electric trains, other than track noise, and there are ways to mitigate that. It shouldn't be any worse than the noise of the traffic if you made the tracks aligned with existing streets. I think the main problems are:

1) Aesthetics, if it wasn't done properly an elevated railway could be a huge eyesore.

2) Where do you put the switching yards, stations and siderails? If your tracks are running parallel to city streets, you don't exactly have a lot of room for maneuver on that one, so you would have to clear a lot of land in potentially very valuable real estate. You could perhaps construct these facilities underground, but then you have the issue of moving trains down a potential 50-100 foot grade over a short distance, which poses safety concerns.

3) Unauthorized access by hitchhikers, vandals, saboteurs and would-be daredevils. It's relatively easy to secure subway tunnels because there are a limited number of above-ground access points, and nearly all of them are manned stations. With an elevated railway it's much harder to prevent idiots and criminals from climbing onto the tracks and injuring themselves or harming passengers and property, because the entire track is exposed and it isn't practical to have security guards monitoring every inch of rail.
 
2012-11-06 06:06:42 PM  
They could have hired Alvin Maker to do it
 
2012-11-06 06:07:37 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: I think the main problems are:

1) Aesthetics, if it wasn't done properly an elevated railway could be a huge eyesore.

Naturally, making something look good is important, but I don't think it would make or break a project like this.

2) Where do you put the switching yards, stations and siderails? If your tracks are running parallel to city streets, you don't exactly have a lot of room for maneuver on that one, so you would have to clear a lot of land in potentially very valuable real estate. You could perhaps construct these facilities underground, but then you have the issue of moving trains down a potential 50-100 foot grade over a short distance, which poses safety concerns.

That is a good point. Apparently the way Chicago did it was to build an elevated yard, complete with second story workshops, to handle their cars. Here's a link to a description. It's apparently just past the Harlem-Lake stop on the Green line, well outside of downtown (about halfway to O'Hare, actually).

As far as changing grade, that's something you're going to have to deal with anyway. No city is going to be completely flat (except maybe somewhere in Kansas) but it's not that big of a deal for the amount of weight you're going to be moving on urban rail. I'm pretty sure that the light rail in Boston, for example, runs in some place at at least an 8% gradient.

3) Unauthorized access by hitchhikers, vandals, saboteurs and would-be daredevils. It's relatively easy to secure subway tunnels because there are a limited number of above-ground access points, and nearly all of them are manned stations. With an elevated railway it's much harder to prevent idiots and criminals from climbing onto the tracks and injuring themselves or harming passengers and property, because the entire track is exposed and it isn't practical to have security guards monitoring every inch of rail.

I really don't think that this is as big of a problem as it could be. I mean, people don't regularly get killed goofing off on street level trams and the like, people don't usually jump off subway platforms, so how would putting the lines 20 feet in the air make them more likely for people to do something stupid?

Good points, though.

 
2012-11-06 06:10:45 PM  
What about this? Looks pretty cool to me.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-06 07:19:21 PM  

UNC_Samurai: I could see arguments about it being visual and noise pollution. I've never lived in a city with an elevated train, but I can't imagine living near one is pleasant.


I sublet a Chicago apartment for two months were you couldn't have a conversation while the train passed by, about 40 feet away. It was like the movie Annie Hall, where Alvie Singer's family lived under the Coney Island roller coaster.

That was the 100-plus year old iron elevated. The sections built in the 90s are concrete, I suspect they are far quieter.
 
2012-11-06 08:06:15 PM  

MattMillerTime: [img.metro.co.uk image 636x424]

i hope this is what you meant :0


I have no idea what that has to do with the thread, and frankly I don't care.

/bunk
 
2012-11-06 08:12:46 PM  

phyrkrakr: I really don't think that this is as big of a problem as it could be. I mean, people don't ...


I don't think people getting onto the tracks would be a huge deal, but security is more of a concern than with a subway. Mainly I think the elevated nature of the tracks would attract dumbasses daredevils in a way that street level crossings don't.
 
2012-11-06 08:32:26 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Mainly I think the elevated nature of the tracks would attract dumbasses daredevils in a way that street level crossings don't


Living in a city where the trains run underground, above the ground, and on the ground, I can't recall any of them being more susceptible to dumbassery than the others.

One thing I can tell you - if you want your death to inspire a comical Fark headline, pissing on the third rail is a guaranteed win.
 
2012-11-07 02:56:23 AM  
London already has one that is elevated in places, it was the only way to build around the Isle of Dogs. On the tube maps it's the DLR:

construction.morgansindall.com

And they have the whole leaning around corners, steep gradients thing off to a tee

farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-07 09:15:15 AM  

czetie: MattMillerTime: [img.metro.co.uk image 636x424]

i hope this is what you meant :0

I have no idea what that has to do with the thread, and frankly I don't care.

/bunk


Cheerleaders of the aforementioned soccer club, and far more entertaining (even if the new boss will provide competition)
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report