Word from a colleague at Notwork Rail is the line 'could' reopen week
beginning August 12, subject to sfety inspections, etc.

Dont hold yer breath.

Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be built
or not.

Grumpy

Grumpy Old Man wrote:


>Apparently there is no decision yet on >whether the store will be built
>or not.


You mean this whole abomination may go away?

Esta muy bien.

A.

Grumpy Old Man wrote:

> Word from a colleague at Notwork Rail is the line 'could' reopen week
> beginning August 12, subject to sfety inspections, etc.
>
> Dont hold yer breath.
>
> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be built
> or not.
>


I'm wondering if there is an engineer brave enough to put his name on a
document certifying that the remaining structure is up to scratch.

"Brimstone"  wrote:


>Grumpy Old Man wrote:
>> Word from a colleague at Notwork Rail is the line 'could' reopen week
>> beginning August 12, subject to sfety inspections, etc.
>>
>> Dont hold yer breath.
>>
>> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be built
>> or not.
>>
>
>I'm wondering if there is an engineer brave enough to put his name on a
>document certifying that the remaining structure is up to scratch.



Bravery doesn't come into it.  You thoroughly check the calculations,
you check carefully that it has been built in accordance with the
specification and drawings and, if all is OK, you sign.  

There is no need to ascribe any emotions to it - unless you aspire to
be a tabloid journalist.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:53jie1deeqvkmck1tvc44hndrpveqeg515@4ax.com...

> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>
>>Grumpy Old Man wrote:
>>> Word from a colleague at Notwork Rail is the line 'could' reopen week
>>> beginning August 12, subject to sfety inspections, etc.
>>>
>>> Dont hold yer breath.
>>>
>>> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be built
>>> or not.
>>>
>>
>>I'm wondering if there is an engineer brave enough to put his name on a
>>document certifying that the remaining structure is up to scratch.
>
>
> Bravery doesn't come into it.  You thoroughly check the calculations,
> you check carefully that it has been built in accordance with the
> specification and drawings and, if all is OK, you sign.
>
> There is no need to ascribe any emotions to it - unless you aspire to
> be a tabloid journalist.
>
>

Can't see how this escapade would affect Tesco's descion to build - they 
didn't cause the collapse and they're likely to get a tidy sum in LADs from 
the contractor. Interesting read in the New Civil Engineer giving likely 
causes of the failure.

Paul

Brimstone wrote:


>I'm wondering if there is an engineer >brave enough to put his name on a
>document certifying that the remaining >structure is up to scratch.


Someone 'Often wrong, but never uncertain' perhaps?

On 28 Jul 2005 12:59:10 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
 wrote:


>Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be built
>or not.


I wonder will the tunnel be removed if not, or if it'll remain as a
monument to making sure you read design documentation correctly (or
whatever the cause was determined to be)?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On 28 Jul 2005 12:59:10 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
> wrote:
>
>>Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be built
>>or not.
>
>I wonder will the tunnel be removed if not, or if it'll remain as a
>monument to making sure you read design documentation correctly (or
>whatever the cause was determined to be)?
>
>Neil


Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.  More
segments at the western end of the collapse were removed Wednesday
evening by means of sheer brutalilty!  And yet the permanent anchorage
of the portal pieces at the eastern end of the tunnel is being
constructed.  Steel girders have been sunk and concreted in along the
southern edge of the collapse, much material that had slipped down the
cutting side removed, and old sleepers slipped in between the girders
- a sort of avalanche protection wall.  This has been done just
outside the line of the tunnel segment bases.- to protect the railway
or to allow segments to be replaced?
Track maintenance people have been seen inside the tunnel and a pile
of sleepers is visible.
Most of the removed fill material has been stockpiled in the station
car park, although some has been taken to the local landfill site.
Interpretation of all this activity invited!

Guy Gorton

Guy Gorton wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> Williams) wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jul 2005 12:59:10 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be
>>> built or not.
>>
>> I wonder will the tunnel be removed if not, or if it'll remain as a
>> monument to making sure you read design documentation correctly (or
>> whatever the cause was determined to be)?
>>
>> Neil
>

<snipped>


> Most of the removed fill material has been stockpiled in the station
> car park, although some has been taken to the local landfill site.
> Interpretation of all this activity invited!
>
> Guy Gorton


No one has decided what to do yet?

Brimstone wrote:

> Guy Gorton wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> > Williams) wrote:
> >
> >> On 28 Jul 2005 12:59:10 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be
> >>> built or not.
> >>
> >> I wonder will the tunnel be removed if not, or if it'll remain as a
> >> monument to making sure you read design documentation correctly (or
> >> whatever the cause was determined to be)?
> >>
> >> Neil
> >
> <snipped>
>
> > Most of the removed fill material has been stockpiled in the station
> > car park, although some has been taken to the local landfill site.
> > Interpretation of all this activity invited!
> >
> > Guy Gorton
>
> No one has decided what to do yet?


Yes and no.

As far as i am aware (and this is only from the talk that is going
around Chiltern messrooms, albeit with the input of our H&S
representatives who have had meetings with management about the tunnel)


As well as the bit of the tunnel that fell in, more of the tunnel has
been trimmed back. Its physically possible to to run trains through it
now, but its not permitted until someone signs the tunnel off as being
safe.

Now finding someone who is prepared to take responsibility to sign off
a tunnel that has already collapsed once as being safe is as difficult
as you might imagine. Its an expensive chopping block to put your neck
on if you are signing the paper, isnt it?

Once its deemed safe to go through, getting drivers to agree to go
through it is the next hurdle. In a safety concious job, any doubt
about the integrity of the tunnel will be deemed too much, and no doubt
all the drivers will stick together on the matter.

The rumour is that the "best case scenario" is that trains will be
running through the tunnel in two or three weeks, with a speed
restriction (probably 20mph) underneath the structure.

"Minna Daisuki Katamari Damacy"  wrote:

>Now finding someone who is prepared to take responsibility to sign off
>a tunnel that has already collapsed once as being safe is as difficult
>as you might imagine. Its an expensive chopping block to put your neck
>on if you are signing the paper, isnt it?



The difficult bit is not getting someone to take responsibility for
certifying the structure is safe.  That is relatively easy.

There are two *really* difficult bits.  One is getting an insurance
company to underwrite the risk for a reasonable premium, and the other
is convincing Network Rail and the HSE to allow trains to run again.

All of this is particularly remote from the Chiltern Railways mess
rooms, where no-one has the slightest idea what is happening,
regardless of the confidence with which they may spout their gossip.

Guy Gorton wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
> (Neil Williams) wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jul 2005 12:59:10 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be
>>> built or not.
>>
>> I wonder will the tunnel be removed if not, or if it'll remain as a
>> monument to making sure you read design documentation correctly (or
>> whatever the cause was determined to be)?
>>
>> Neil
>
> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.


But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J."  wrote in message 
news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Guy Gorton wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>> (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>
>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>
> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
> removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
> framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
> for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?


As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel 
"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil between 
the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight.

"Martin Underwood"  wrote:


>"Richard J."  wrote in message 
>news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Guy Gorton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>>> (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>
>>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>>
>> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
>> removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
>> framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
>> for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
>
>As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel 
>"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil between 
>the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight. 



Then you are both wrong.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:br2le1561b3a187tkpoj65e20mq99rbju3@4ax.com...

> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>
>>"Richard J."  wrote in message
>>news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>>>> (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>>>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>>>
>>> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
>>> removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
>>> framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
>>> for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
>>
>>As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel
>>"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil between
>>the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight.
>
>
> Then you are both wrong.


Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of 
just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!

"Martin Underwood"  wrote:


>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:br2le1561b3a187tkpoj65e20mq99rbju3@4ax.com...
>> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>>
>>>"Richard J."  wrote in message
>>>news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>>>>> (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>>>>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>>>>
>>>> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
>>>> removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
>>>> framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
>>>> for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
>>>
>>>As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel
>>>"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil between
>>>the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight.
>>
>>
>> Then you are both wrong.
>
>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of 
>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful! 



Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.

Besides, it is much more fun to read the unadulterated crap that gets
posted here on the subject, particularly from people who visit the
Chiltern Railways mess room and therefore think they know something,
when they know less than nothing.

;-)

In article , Tony Polson
 writes
<lot of snip>

>>>
>>> Then you are both wrong.
>>
>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of 
>>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful! 
>
>
>Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
>subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.
>
>Besides, it is much more fun to read the unadulterated crap that gets
>posted here on the subject, particularly from people who visit the
>Chiltern Railways mess room and therefore think they know something,
>when they know less than nothing.
>
>;-)

Tony,

I understand that you probably have commercial confidentiality issues
about telling the world everything you know. There are times when I have
to "bite my tongue" because it would be "career limiting" not to.
However, the best in this case is to keep quiet! I can't speak for the
rest of the followers of this newsgroup but I am quite interested in
what happened, why and what next. I recognise there is a bit (okay - a
lot) of speculation, but I treat it as such. I have followed a lot of
the discussion (and particularly Guy's excellent reports and pictures)
but I have found you rather unhelpful!
If you know something is wrong then you can either keep quiet or say so
but also give a reason why. If you can't do the latter for a good reason
then please do the former. If you really feel you have to say something
then get an anonymous account so you can tell it like it is. I'm afraid
you have really pi@@ed me off.
-- 
John Alexander, <><

Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail

"Minna Daisuki Katamari Damacy" 

>
> The rumour is that the "best case scenario" is that trains will be
> running through the tunnel in two or three weeks, with a speed
> restriction (probably 20mph) underneath the structure.
>

Cath Proctor's latest letter to Chiltern passengers is at
http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/uploads/publications/101.doc
This also implies that the earliest date for reopening the line is around 15
August if all goes well.

Peter

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:bl5le1d981qttv3pt4leuf94t264biiqb8@4ax.com...

> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>
>>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>>news:br2le1561b3a187tkpoj65e20mq99rbju3@4ax.com...
>>> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Richard J."  wrote in message
>>>>news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>> Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>>>>>> (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>>>>>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
>>>>> removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
>>>>> framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand 
>>>>> by
>>>>> for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
>>>>
>>>>As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel
>>>>"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil 
>>>>between
>>>>the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you are both wrong.
>>
>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of
>>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!
>
>
> Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
> subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.
>
> Besides, it is much more fun to read the unadulterated crap that gets
> posted here on the subject, particularly from people who visit the
> Chiltern Railways mess room and therefore think they know something,
> when they know less than nothing.


Sorry, Richard, you're not going to get a straight answer out of Tony :-(

Let's hope someone else will *share* his knowledge, instead of gleefully 
telling everyone that they are wrong, as if he's playing games with us.

"John"  wrote in message 
news:AHdU4LAyCq6CFwCy@jbaassoc.demon.co.uk...

> In article , Tony Polson
>  writes
> <lot of snip>
>>>>
>>>> Then you are both wrong.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of
>>>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!
>>
>>
>>Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
>>subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.
>>
>>Besides, it is much more fun to read the unadulterated crap that gets
>>posted here on the subject, particularly from people who visit the
>>Chiltern Railways mess room and therefore think they know something,
>>when they know less than nothing.
>>
>>;-)
> Tony,
>
> I understand that you probably have commercial confidentiality issues
> about telling the world everything you know. There are times when I have
> to "bite my tongue" because it would be "career limiting" not to.
> However, the best in this case is to keep quiet! I can't speak for the
> rest of the followers of this newsgroup but I am quite interested in
> what happened, why and what next. I recognise there is a bit (okay - a
> lot) of speculation, but I treat it as such. I have followed a lot of
> the discussion (and particularly Guy's excellent reports and pictures)
> but I have found you rather unhelpful!
> If you know something is wrong then you can either keep quiet or say so
> but also give a reason why. If you can't do the latter for a good reason
> then please do the former. If you really feel you have to say something
> then get an anonymous account so you can tell it like it is. I'm afraid
> you have really pi@@ed me off.


Seconded: it you can't/won't be helpful, be silent.

<snip>

> Let's hope someone else will *share* his knowledge, instead of gleefully 
> telling everyone that they are wrong, as if he's playing games with us.
>

I'm not sure if this is already been done to death, but the report in New 
Civil Engineer makes interesting reading, which I summarise below:

Contractor: Jackson Civil Engineering
Consultant: White Young Green
Arch Supplier: Reinforced Earth Company

JCE CE Richard Neal insisted that all backfill operations "in line with what 
the design allowed" and that there was "a strict loading regime in place"

The design allows for 200mm vertical movement and relies on earth pressure 
provided by backfill for much of its long term stability.

It is thought that an imbalance in the placement and compaction of fill 
either side of the tunnel combined with a surcharge of fill over the 
tunnel's crown triggered collapse. Surprise has been shown over the amount 
of fill placed on top of the arch compared to that on the sides. The arch 
failure is indicative of the crown moving downward under excessive load 
whilst the sides of the arch have moved outwards under too little lateral 
restraint. This problem is made worse by the large difference is levels of 
fill either side of the arch.This could further have been aggravated by 
heavy rain increasing the vertical load over the arch whilst also reducing 
the passive pressure to the sides of the fill if the ground is not free 
draining.

Also of consideration is the relatively short transition zone between the 
area of the site that had been fully filled and that where the collapse 
happened. Failure could  be triggered if you go straight from full depth 
fill over one section to one which has none. As the side fill is placed the 
crown can rise by as much as 200mm, which then drops back 200mm as the arch 
becomes fully encased in fill. To minimise the risk of differential 
deflection it is usual to raise the fill levels equally along the entire 
length of tunnel sections or alternatively provide a long gradual ramped 
transition.

-end

Paul

Tony Polson wrote:

> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>
>> "Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>> news:br2le1561b3a187tkpoj65e20mq99rbju3@4ax.com...
>>> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Richard J."  wrote in message
>>>> news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>> Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT,
>>>>>> wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>>>>>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>>>>>
>>>>> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they
>>>>> are removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that
>>>>> mean the framework is now resting on little piles of infill?
>>>>> Should we stand by for the next collapse (of the steel), or
>>>>> have I misunderstood?
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built
>>>> on steel "legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting,
>>>> so the spoil between the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any
>>>> weight.
>>>
>>> Then you are both wrong.
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then,
>> instead of just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly
>> very helpful!
>
> Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on
> this subject once before, be assured I have no intention of
> repeating it.


I share Martin's view that your post was distinctly unhelpful.  I don't
think you and I have crossed swords before (indeed I have made several
posts correcting other people's misrepresentations of what you had
said), so perhaps you can be more helpful to me?
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Martin Underwood wrote:

> "Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
> news:br2le1561b3a187tkpoj65e20mq99rbju3@4ax.com...
> 
>>"Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Richard J."  wrote in message
>>>news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>>>Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>>>>>(Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>>>>>removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>>>>
>>>>But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
>>>>removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
>>>>framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
>>>>for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
>>>
>>>As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel
>>>"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil between
>>>the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight.
>>
>>
>>Then you are both wrong.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of 
> just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful! 
> 



Maybe not.  It is, however, consistent!



Wobbly Bob

"Wobbly Bob"  wrote in message 
news:42EABA91.3070409@privacy.net...

> Martin Underwood wrote:
>> "Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>> news:br2le1561b3a187tkpoj65e20mq99rbju3@4ax.com...
>>
>>>"Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Richard J."  wrote in message
>>>>news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>>Guy Gorton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>>>>>>(Neil Williams) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>>>>>>removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>>>>>
>>>>>But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
>>>>>removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
>>>>>framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
>>>>>for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
>>>>
>>>>As I understand it, the steel framework for the store is built on steel
>>>>"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil 
>>>>between
>>>>the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then you are both wrong.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of 
>> just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!
>
>
> Maybe not.  It is, however, consistent!


How very true!

I've worked out which people in this room are and aren't happy to share 
their knowledge. Having to abide by commercial confidentiality is one thing; 
making unhelpful but gleeful "wrong - keep guessing" comments is quite 
another.

Anyway, to get back to the question, if the framework of the store isn't 
supported on steel "legs" that rest on the base of the cutting and doesn't 
rest on the infill above the tunnel segments, how *is* is supported? Could 
it be supported on brick/masonery/concrete piles, as opposed to steel ones?

John  wrote:


>If you know something is wrong then you can either keep quiet or say so
>but also give a reason why. If you can't do the latter for a good reason
>then please do the former. If you really feel you have to say something
>then get an anonymous account so you can tell it like it is. I'm afraid
>you have really pi@@ed me off.



Then put me in your kill file.  And stop using that ridiculous fish
symbol - a symbol of rank hypocrisy if ever I saw one.  Your faith is
your own business and no-one else's, so please keep it to yourself.

"Martin Underwood"  wrote:

>
>Seconded: it you can't/won't be helpful, be silent.



You should take your own advice.  It will be a joyful day when you
post something here that adds to people's knowledge, rather than
detracts from it.  However, on the evidence so far, I think that day
will be a long time in coming.

"Martin Underwood"  wrote:


>I've worked out which people in this room are and aren't happy to share 
>their knowledge. Having to abide by commercial confidentiality is one thing; 
>making unhelpful but gleeful "wrong - keep guessing" comments is quite 
>another.



Room?  Which room?  This is a Usenet newsgroup, not a room.

I take no glee in correcting the ill-informed, ignorant nonsense you
post here.  Just stop posting rubbish, and there won't be a problem.
If you continue making misleading statements on a subject you know
less than nothing about, you can expect continued criticism.

John wrote:

> In article , Tony Polson
>  writes
> <lot of snip>
> >>>
> >>> Then you are both wrong.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of
> >>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!
> >
> >
> >Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
> >subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.
> >
>
> I understand that you probably have commercial confidentiality issues
> about telling the world everything you know. There are times when I have
> to "bite my tongue" because it would be "career limiting" not to.
> However, the best in this case is to keep quiet! I can't speak for the
> rest of the followers of this newsgroup but I am quite interested in
> what happened, why and what next. I recognise there is a bit (okay - a
> lot) of speculation, but I treat it as such. I have followed a lot of
> the discussion (and particularly Guy's excellent reports and pictures)
> but I have found you rather unhelpful!
> If you know something is wrong then you can either keep quiet or say so
> but also give a reason why. If you can't do the latter for a good reason
> then please do the former. If you really feel you have to say something
> then get an anonymous account so you can tell it like it is. I'm afraid
> you have really pi@@ed me off.
> --
> John Alexander, <><
>
> Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail


Thank you John,

However, you are forgetting that neither you nor I posses the title
deed to uk.railway.  Mr. Polson clearly believes that he does.  It is
time to utilize the killfile option.

BTW.  Is that the fish symbol that I see?  If so, it is great to see
another whose trust is in our righteous Messiah.  Take a look at
http://www.losangelesmetro.net/author/ 

A.

John wrote:

> In article , Tony Polson
>  writes
> <lot of snip>
> >>>
> >>> Then you are both wrong.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of
> >>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!
> >
> >
> >Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
> >subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.
> >
>
> I understand that you probably have commercial confidentiality issues
> about telling the world everything you know. There are times when I have
> to "bite my tongue" because it would be "career limiting" not to.
> However, the best in this case is to keep quiet! I can't speak for the
> rest of the followers of this newsgroup but I am quite interested in
> what happened, why and what next. I recognise there is a bit (okay - a
> lot) of speculation, but I treat it as such. I have followed a lot of
> the discussion (and particularly Guy's excellent reports and pictures)
> but I have found you rather unhelpful!
> If you know something is wrong then you can either keep quiet or say so
> but also give a reason why. If you can't do the latter for a good reason
> then please do the former. If you really feel you have to say something
> then get an anonymous account so you can tell it like it is. I'm afraid
> you have really pi@@ed me off.
> --
> John Alexander, <><
>
> Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail


Thank you John,

However, you are forgetting that neither you nor I posses the title
deed to uk.railway.  Mr. Polson clearly believes that he does.  It is
time to utilize the killfile option.

BTW.  Is that the fish symbol that I see?  If so, it is great to see
another whose trust is in our righteous Messiah.  Take a look at
http://www.losangelesmetro.net/author/ 

A.

John wrote:

> In article , Tony Polson
>  writes
> <lot of snip>
> >>>
> >>> Then you are both wrong.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of
> >>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!
> >
> >
> >Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
> >subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.
> >
>
> I understand that you probably have commercial confidentiality issues
> about telling the world everything you know. There are times when I have
> to "bite my tongue" because it would be "career limiting" not to.
> However, the best in this case is to keep quiet! I can't speak for the
> rest of the followers of this newsgroup but I am quite interested in
> what happened, why and what next. I recognise there is a bit (okay - a
> lot) of speculation, but I treat it as such. I have followed a lot of
> the discussion (and particularly Guy's excellent reports and pictures)
> but I have found you rather unhelpful!
> If you know something is wrong then you can either keep quiet or say so
> but also give a reason why. If you can't do the latter for a good reason
> then please do the former. If you really feel you have to say something
> then get an anonymous account so you can tell it like it is. I'm afraid
> you have really pi@@ed me off.
> --
> John Alexander, <><
>
> Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail


Thank you John,

However, you are forgetting that neither you nor I posses the title
deed to uk.railway.  Mr. Polson clearly believes that he does.  It is
time to utilize the killfile option.

BTW.  Is that the fish symbol that I see?  If so, it is great to see
another whose trust is in our righteous Messiah.  Take a look at
http://www.losangelesmetro.net/author/ 

A.

John wrote:

> In article , Tony Polson
>  writes
> <lot of snip>
> >>>
> >>> Then you are both wrong.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you'd like to tell us what the right answer is, then, instead of
> >>just saying "you are both wrong", which isn't exactly very helpful!
> >
> >
> >Having made the cardinal error of trying to be helpful to you on this
> >subject once before, be assured I have no intention of repeating it.
> >
>
> I understand that you probably have commercial confidentiality issues
> about telling the world everything you know. There are times when I have
> to "bite my tongue" because it would be "career limiting" not to.
> However, the best in this case is to keep quiet! I can't speak for the
> rest of the followers of this newsgroup but I am quite interested in
> what happened, why and what next. I recognise there is a bit (okay - a
> lot) of speculation, but I treat it as such. I have followed a lot of
> the discussion (and particularly Guy's excellent reports and pictures)
> but I have found you rather unhelpful!
> If you know something is wrong then you can either keep quiet or say so
> but also give a reason why. If you can't do the latter for a good reason
> then please do the former. If you really feel you have to say something
> then get an anonymous account so you can tell it like it is. I'm afraid
> you have really pi@@ed me off.
> --
> John Alexander, <><
>
> Remove NOSPAM if replying by e-mail


Thank you John,

However, you are forgetting that neither you nor I posses the title
deed to uk.railway.  Mr. Polson clearly believes that he does.  It is
time to utilize the killfile option.

BTW.  Is that the fish symbol that I see?  If so, it is great to see
another whose trust is in our righteous Messiah.  Take a look at
http://www.losangelesmetro.net/author/ 

A.

On 28 Jul 2005 12:59:10 -0700, "Grumpy Old Man"
 wrote:


>Word from a colleague at Notwork Rail is the line 'could' reopen week
>beginning August 12, subject to sfety inspections, etc.
>
>Dont hold yer breath.
>
>Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be built
>or not.
>
>Grumpy


I am going to pick up some of the points included in many posts since
my last one.
First, to the Chiltern messroom correspondents, due to a lack of rails
in the collapse area, running a train at the moment would be tricky!
Now to the Tesco structure.  In essence, it is a very large barn, with
vertical supports round 4 sides at varying intervals.  There is only
one line of internal roof supports within this barn and they run
parallel to the railway underneath but are in fact south of the tunnel
arch segments.
The verticals are not supported on piles down to the underlying ground
but are on concrete pads about 10 feet square, perhaps 3 feet deep,
sunk into the compacted fill material.
The fill material that has been removed comes from the northern half
of the barn, the southern half not having been disturbed at all.  It
has been excavated down to the tunnel roof with the top of the
stitching beam exposed and cleared of its waterproof covering.  The
side of the excavation area is stepped, presumably for stability.
At the eastern end of the excavated area are two vertical girders
which stand on the line of the tunnel itself - these are still
supported on their concrete pads with sloped fill material round them.
At the western end, the fill material has not been removed.
I have put up a picture taken yesterday at
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/Tescoframe.jpg
It is taken from the western end of the steel frame looking over te
parapet of Packhorse Road bridge.
Behind the man walking left to right is a safety fence and then the
excavated hole in the fill material.  Directly behind him are the two
steel verticals standing on their pads. The stitching beam can be seen
as a light coloured line just to the left of the man.  Above the area
is the safety netting put up before the collapse preparatory to work
on cladding the roof I presume.  Excavating this area was a tricky job
with such limited head room.
The line of central support girders are just to the right of the
excavated hole.
Hope that helps people visualise the situation.
Sorry about the angle of the pic!

Guy Gorton

In message <dce7r7$p3a$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, at
21:41:59 on Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Peter Masson 
remarked:

>Cath Proctor's latest letter to Chiltern passengers is at
>http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/uploads/publications/101.doc
>This also implies that the earliest date for reopening the line is around 15
>August if all goes well.


        "A decision on the long term future of the Tesco scheme has not
        yet been made and will only be made at a later date in the light
        of these assessments."

If correct, then that would imply that they might abandon the scheme if
it involves completely demolishing the tunnel and starting again.
-- 
Roland Perry

Guy Gorton (drossguy.gorton@stoppervirgin.net) said:

> The line of central support girders are just to the right
> of the excavated hole.
> Hope that helps people visualise the situation.
> Sorry about the angle of the pic!
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/Tescoframe.jpg
>
> Guy Gorton


Thank you, that is somewhat more useful and self explanitory than the 
(non)contribution by others!

-- 
Andrew

In article , Tony Polson wrote:

> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
> 
> >"Richard J."  wrote in message 
> >news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> Guy Gorton wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
> >>> (Neil Williams) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
> >>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
> >>
> >> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
> >> removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
> >> framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
> >> for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
> >
> >As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel 
> >"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil between 
> >the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight. 
> 
> Then you are both wrong.


A gnomic utterance of the first water; piles transmuting in haemorrhoids 
before our very eyes. Any clue as to where one could find/work out the actual 
construction method? Has it come up in earlier threads (I must admit I've 
started deleting much of the early discussion).


-- 

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

In message , at 11:27:41 on Sat, 30
Jul 2005, Jock Mackirdy  remarked:

>In article , Tony Polson wrote:
>> "Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>>
>> >"Richard J."  wrote in message
>> >news:L2uGe.79326$G8.41584@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >> Guy Gorton wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:06:55 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk
>> >>> (Neil Williams) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Much of the infill over the centre line of the tunnel has been
>> >>> removed, including within the Tesco store steel framework.
>> >>
>> >> But isn't the framework built on the compacted infill?  If they are
>> >> removing the infill *within* the framework, doesn't that mean the
>> >> framework is now resting on little piles of infill?  Should we stand by
>> >> for the next collapse (of the steel), or have I misunderstood?
>> >
>> >As I understand it, the steel frameword for the store is built on steel
>> >"legs" that go right down to the base of the cutting, so the spoil between
>> >the tunnel and the store isn't bearing any weight.
>>
>> Then you are both wrong.
>
>A gnomic utterance of the first water; piles transmuting in haemorrhoids
>before our very eyes. Any clue as to where one could find/work out the actual
>construction method? Has it come up in earlier threads (I must admit I've
>started deleting much of the early discussion).


I think the answer is that while both suggestions have elements of
truth, they have been slapped down because neither is 100% correct.

From what's been said recently it would seems that:

        Some of the framework is built/supported on compacted infill

        But the removal of infill is in trench form, away from the
        sections supported on infill, so no "little piles".

        And some of the framework is built on "legs" (maybe steel, maybe
        something else) going down to the base/sides/top of the cutting.

Note to Tony Polson: I don't expect the above to be 100% correct, so
just saying "I'm wrong" doesn't advance things at all.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message

> news:53jie1deeqvkmck1tvc44hndrpveqeg515@4ax.com...
>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>
>>> Grumpy Old Man wrote:
>>>> Word from a colleague at Notwork Rail is the line 'could' reopen
>>>> week beginning August 12, subject to sfety inspections, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Dont hold yer breath.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be
>>>> built or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if there is an engineer brave enough to put his name
>>> on a document certifying that the remaining structure is up to
>>> scratch.
>>
>>
>> Bravery doesn't come into it.  You thoroughly check the calculations,
>> you check carefully that it has been built in accordance with the
>> specification and drawings and, if all is OK, you sign.
>>


I strongly suspect that before construction of this project started someone
checked the calculations, checked carefully that it was to be built in
accordance with the specification and drawings and, it all seemed OK, so
they signed.

But it still fell down.

Work has just started to remove the framework of the store directly above 
the crown of the tunnel presumably to enable more spoil to be removed and 
further examination to be undertaken.
Lets just hope that this is the beginning of the end to this ill-conceived 
undertaking.
Steve

"Andrew Bell"  wrote in message 
news:N1IGe.79609$G8.42014@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Guy Gorton (drossguy.gorton@stoppervirgin.net) said:
>> The line of central support girders are just to the right
>> of the excavated hole.
>> Hope that helps people visualise the situation.
>> Sorry about the angle of the pic!
>>
>> http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.gorton/Tescoframe.jpg
>>
>> Guy Gorton
>
> Thank you, that is somewhat more useful and self explanitory than the 
> (non)contribution by others!
>
> -- 
> Andrew
> 

In message <dcfu5c$lll$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, at 
13:09:00 on Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Brimstone  
remarked:

>I strongly suspect that before construction of this project started someone
>checked the calculations, checked carefully that it was to be built in
>accordance with the specification and drawings and, it all seemed OK, so
>they signed.
>
>But it still fell down.


Which could happen if it wasn't built to specification.

-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <dcfu5c$lll$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, at
> 13:09:00 on Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Brimstone 
> remarked:
>> I strongly suspect that before construction of this project started
>> someone checked the calculations, checked carefully that it was to
>> be built in accordance with the specification and drawings and, it
>> all seemed OK, so they signed.
>>
>> But it still fell down.
>
> Which could happen if it wasn't built to specification.


Quite.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:20:24 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>I think the answer is that while both suggestions have elements of
>truth, they have been slapped down because neither is 100% correct.
>
>From what's been said recently it would seems that:
>
>        Some of the framework is built/supported on compacted infill


All of it.


>        But the removal of infill is in trench form, away from the
>        sections supported on infill, so no "little piles".


There are still 'little piles' of fill with steel stanchions on top
but developments today suggest these will be removed to allow the
entire roof of the tunnel to be cleared..

>
>        And some of the framework is built on "legs" (maybe steel, maybe
>        something else) going down to the base/sides/top of the cutting.
>

None of it is on legs going anywhere other than the concrete pads
detailed in my post about 4 hours before yours.

Just in case some people spotted a few weeks ago holes being drilled
and steel girders being dropped into them, that was in order to build
a boundary fence along the southern boundary.  This was a Planning
Variation and I understand the reason is to ensure neighbouring
gardens do not slip on to the site which is a little lower than the
surrounding properties.

Guy Gorton

In message , at 19:09:19 on 
Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Guy Gorton  
remarked:

>>From what's been said recently it would seems that:
>>
>>        Some of the framework is built/supported on compacted infill
>
>All of it.
>
>>        But the removal of infill is in trench form, away from the
>>        sections supported on infill, so no "little piles".
>
>There are still 'little piles' of fill with steel stanchions on top
>but developments today suggest these will be removed to allow the
>entire roof of the tunnel to be cleared..
>>
>>        And some of the framework is built on "legs" (maybe steel, maybe
>>        something else) going down to the base/sides/top of the cutting.
>>
>None of it is on legs going anywhere other than the concrete pads
>detailed in my post about 4 hours before yours.


It was your posting, and photo, that suggested no "little piles", but 
rather a trench that wasn't especially close to any of the legs. Did I 
misinterpret?
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:55:35 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>It was your posting, and photo, that suggested no "little piles", but 
>rather a trench that wasn't especially close to any of the legs. Did I 
>misinterpret?


Perhaps I was a bit fierce - sorry about that.  It is astonishingly
difficult to describe something, even with a supporting picture, in a
way that cannot be somewhat misunderstood.  I tried hard, but some of
the points I tried to make were open to mis-interpretation.
Perhaps I should have a put a bigger picture up, but I am getting very
short of webspace.  Nevertheless, I have replaced the picture with a
bigger one, so have another look - if your browser needs it, don't
forget to refresh/reload.


Guy Gorton

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:20:18 +0100, "Steve"
 wrote:


>Lets just hope that this is the beginning of the end to this ill-conceived 
>undertaking.


I fail to see why it is ill-conceived, other than because the local
NIMBYs do not want a Tesco store.  Had said store been constructed,
however, I expect a significant number of them would still have
shopped there, just as the Ormskirk NIMBYs who opposed the local
Safeway (now Morrisons) store did.

I personally do not share the opposition to Tesco that some hold, as
they appear to have grown in the way they have by way of providing
exactly what their customers, including myself as one, want.
Sainsbury's, OTOH, have tended not to do this by way of their poor
stock control, higher prices and poorer range, so haven't done as
well.

That the tunnel collapsed does not make it ill-conceived, either; from
what is being said the design was sound, just not the construction.
Cut-and-cover tunnels[1], after all, are by no means a new thing.

[1] OK, this particular one was less of the "cut" and more of the
"cover", but that's not particularly important, IMO.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42ebe75e.2381814@news.tesco.net...

>
> I fail to see why it is ill-conceived, other than because the local
> NIMBYs do not want a Tesco store.  Had said store been constructed,
> however, I expect a significant number of them would still have
> shopped there, just as the Ormskirk NIMBYs who opposed the local
> Safeway (now Morrisons) store did.


As ever!  ;-)


> I personally do not share the opposition to Tesco that some hold, as
> they appear to have grown in the way they have by way of providing
> exactly what their customers, including myself as one, want.
> Sainsbury's, OTOH, have tended not to do this by way of their poor
> stock control, higher prices and poorer range, so haven't done as
> well.


I agree. I was always a Safeway/M&S shopper, until Morrisons decided to take
over the Safeway group and (a) cram the aisles full of goods making it
difficult to negotiate, (b) change the recipes for some of the in-store
products (e.g. their wholemeal bread) such that they give me indigestion,
(c) lock up all of their trolleys so that there is nothing between a
handbasket and a full size, kiddy-carrying, trolley and (d) amongst *many*
other things that have annoyed me, close their store at 20:00 Mon-Thu,
rather than the convenient 22:00 closure adopted by Safeway for over ten
years - ridiculous when it is right next to the station and used by many
commuters, a lot of whom are never back in town by 20:00. I've defected to
Tesco (and Somerfield) for precisely the reasons that Neil suggests -
despite the fact that neither of our 24hr Tescos are as convenient from the
point of view of location. IMO they provide a much better range of products
(one of the few places that I can get 160-bag boxes of Tea Direct Fairtrade
teabags!) in a much more pleasant shopping environment.


> That the tunnel collapsed does not make it ill-conceived, either; from
> what is being said the design was sound, just not the construction.


Precisely.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:19:39 GMT, "Jack Taylor" 
wrote:


> (d) amongst *many*
>other things that have annoyed me, close their store at 20:00 Mon-Thu,
>rather than the convenient 22:00 closure adopted by Safeway for over ten
>years - ridiculous when it is right next to the station and used by many
>commuters, a lot of whom are never back in town by 20:00.


My local Morrisons (which I tend to avoid in normal circumstances as I
really don't like the place for a good number of reasons, but I was
short of time and Morrisons is closer than Tesco) lost a 75 quid shop
in favour of Tesco last week as a result of that very change.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:53:29 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:20:18 +0100, "Steve"
> wrote:
>
>>Lets just hope that this is the beginning of the end to this ill-conceived 
>>undertaking.
>
>I fail to see why it is ill-conceived, other than because the local
>NIMBYs do not want a Tesco store.  Had said store been constructed,
>however, I expect a significant number of them would still have
>shopped there, just as the Ormskirk NIMBYs who opposed the local
>Safeway (now Morrisons) store did.
>

As you say, the Tesco plan was not ill-conceived, fitting planning
guidelines about avoiding more out-of-town centres, and so on.  It is
nonetheless very unwelcome to Gerrards Cross residents who number
around 3000, a figure that cannot possibly support a store this size,
The business plan must therefore be based on drawing customers from a
wider area with the traffic density in the middle of GX that implies.
We locals would have objected to any large shopping development in the
centre of the 'village' on the same grounds and the fact that it is
Tesco is not relevant.  Many people here already shop at Tesco at
Amersham or Loudwater just a few miles away although that number may
have diminished because of ill-will towards Tesco now.
We have already lost Budgens and two greengrocers in the village, the
premises being now occupied by a curtain shop, baby gear shop and a
betting shop, none of which is a step in the right direction.
Tesco may be a fine business, and doubtless it will do well in GX
whether or not GX residents boycott it, but GX has already been
damaged by the development and will be changed out of all recognition
when the store opens - as I am sure it will.  No matter what it costs,
Tesco will avoid loss-of-face..

Guy Gorton

In message , at 08:27:30 on 
Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Guy Gorton  
remarked:

>As you say, the Tesco plan was not ill-conceived, fitting planning
>guidelines about avoiding more out-of-town centres, and so on.  It is
>nonetheless very unwelcome to Gerrards Cross residents who number
>around 3000, a figure that cannot possibly support a store this size,
>The business plan must therefore be based on drawing customers from a
>wider area with the traffic density in the middle of GX that implies.
>We locals would have objected to any large shopping development in the
>centre of the 'village' on the same grounds and the fact that it is
>Tesco is not relevant.  Many people here already shop at Tesco at
>Amersham or Loudwater just a few miles away although that number may
>have diminished because of ill-will towards Tesco now.
>We have already lost Budgens and two greengrocers in the village, the
>premises being now occupied by a curtain shop, baby gear shop and a
>betting shop, none of which is a step in the right direction.
>Tesco may be a fine business, and doubtless it will do well in GX
>whether or not GX residents boycott it, but GX has already been
>damaged by the development and will be changed out of all recognition
>when the store opens - as I am sure it will.


Interesting that the residents would just as opposed to a Waitrose or 
M&S Food store.

But the fact remains that the demise of local food shops is happening 
all over the country, and has been for the last 20 years. You'll lose 
those local shops anyway. The size of the new Tesco doesn't look that 
big, so it may not have quite as large a catchment area (and traffic 
issue) as you fear.

And some of the people visiting it, will also stop to buy curtains and 
baby gear (not quite sure what you have against them).

The choice for the residents of Gerrards Cross is whether or not they 
wish to have to drive to the nearest store, outside their area, and 
devil take the hindmost without a car; or make a shorter journey, with 
the chance of walking when they have no car, to a local one.
-- 
Roland Perry

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:07 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>But the fact remains that the demise of local food shops is happening 
>all over the country, and has been for the last 20 years. You'll lose 
>those local shops anyway. 


Indeed, and part of the reason for that is that people *want* to
travel by car to a large store with a free car park that sells all of
the items required for their weekly/monthly/whatever shop.  I know
this, because I do.  The main reason for this is the increase in
families where both parents work and the lack of time this results in.

The fact that many residents already shop at other local Tesco stores
has probably already caused this demise, regardless of the existence
of one in GX.

What a Tesco in GX *may* do is to bring in some people from outside
who, having shopped at Tesco, will take advantage of the free parking
and go and have a wander around the local shops.

It won't support things like butchers or bakers, most of which have,
accordingly, disappeared from the streets of Ormskirk, and probably
would have done anyway as many people shopped in the Southport Tesco
(or the smaller Tesco Metro that remains in Ormskirk, having been
there for ages).  It may support any other shops that are there, and
prevent the complete death of the village centre.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In news:oauoe1toocqou2h3lijrg23tt65as8a4pc@4ax.com,
Guy Gorton  typed:


> As you say, the Tesco plan was not ill-conceived, fitting planning
> guidelines about avoiding more out-of-town centres, and so on.  It is
> nonetheless very unwelcome to Gerrards Cross residents who number
> around 3000, a figure that cannot possibly support a store this size,


http://www.gerrardscross.gov.uk/gx/
says 7,352

http://www.nsdatabase.co.uk/locationdetail.cfm?locationid=634
says 16,367

It might be bigger than you think!
;-)






-- 
Bob

In message , at 08:28:51 on Sun, 31 Jul 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>Indeed, and part of the reason for that is that people *want* to
>travel by car to a large store with a free car park that sells all of
>the items required for their weekly/monthly/whatever shop.  I know
>this, because I do.  The main reason for this is the increase in
>families where both parents work and the lack of time this results in.


15 years ago I moved to Chorleywood. Not far from, and sharing many of 
the features of, Gerrards Cross. Both of us worked, and left before 8am, 
returning at 7pm.

None [1] of the local shops were open outside those hours, and on 
Saturdays we had other things to do (including house-hunting for a more 
permanent place [2]. This was before Sunday opening as we know it today 
(which, if anything, made the Saturdays even more of a scramble that 
ruled out food shopping locally).

So we did all our shopping at large Sainsburys just off the motorway on 
the way home.

[1] Apart from one chain off-licence.
[2] Which we found in a smaller town, but one where the local Co-op had
      the presence of mind to open to 8 or 9pm.
-- 
Roland Perry

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:


> Indeed, and part of the reason for that is that people *want* to
> travel by car to a large store with a free car park that sells all of
> the items required for their weekly/monthly/whatever shop.  I know
> this, because I do.  The main reason for this is the increase in
> families where both parents work and the lack of time this results in.


Yet in one respect these large shops are unsuitable for even a weekly
shop. I do not know if my experience are just bad, but I find that
fresh fruit and veg rarely has a sell/use by date which allow you to
buy enough to last until the next weekly shop. I find that I have to
buy fruit and veg at least every 2 or 3 days. Also with fruit, the
packs are often too large (often with N% extra free) and as a
consequence I end up throwing some away as it has 'gone off' before I
have eaten the whole pack.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42ec8b1f.1908734@news.tesco.net...

>
> Indeed, and part of the reason for that is that people *want* to
> travel by car to a large store with a free car park that sells all of
> the items required for their weekly/monthly/whatever shop.  I know
> this, because I do.  The main reason for this is the increase in
> families where both parents work and the lack of time this results in.


Travel? Possibly. By car? Not necessarily. I can think of nothing worse than
the hell-on-earth of negotiating a superstore car park. ;-) Whenever I go to
Tesco I fit my panniers to my bike and cycle there, easily catering for my
weekly needs. Mum, Dad and kids could easily have a Sunday family cycle to
do the shopping, combining it with exercise and a pleasant afternoon ride.
There are occasions when the car is the only option, I agree, but in the
majority of cases (other than when travelling from out of town) its use is
just down to bone idleness. I have no problem with these superstores, in
principle. I do object when they are built well out of town, encouraging (or
even forcing) unnecessary vehicle use. Here, Sainsburys attempted (some ten
years ago) to close their town centre store (which is cramped, badly located
and a general dive) and build a superstore on green land between Aylesbury
and Stoke Mandeville. The planning application was (sensibly) declined every
time. However, with the redevelopment of the Civic Centre site in the next
few years, a new store will be built on the site of the current Civic Centre
multi-storey car park and will be leased to Sainsburys, thus retaining a
food presence (other than M&S and the execrable Morrisons) in the town
centre and giving Sainsburys a store fit for the 21st century, allowing
demolition of the current 1970s monstrosity.

"Graham Murray"  wrote in message
news:87ll3ns3pa.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...

>
> Yet in one respect these large shops are unsuitable for even a weekly
> shop. I do not know if my experience are just bad, but I find that
> fresh fruit and veg rarely has a sell/use by date which allow you to
> buy enough to last until the next weekly shop. I find that I have to
> buy fruit and veg at least every 2 or 3 days. Also with fruit, the
> packs are often too large (often with N% extra free) and as a
> consequence I end up throwing some away as it has 'gone off' before I
> have eaten the whole pack.


That is true. OTOH, perhaps I am very lucky, in that I can do my 'top-up'
fruit and veg shopping at the local small Somerfield, on the estate (6 mins
walk) or the local Co-op Swiftshop (about the same in the other direction).
The supermarket is very useful for the big shop, such as cereals (with 100%
free etc), organic wholemeal bread (which I bulk buy and freeze), discounted
margarine, coffee etc. I tend to buy those items when they are on offer and
maintain a small stockpile, enough to last until the next offer at that or
another supermarket!

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:44:15 GMT, "Bob Wood" 
wrote:


>In news:oauoe1toocqou2h3lijrg23tt65as8a4pc@4ax.com,
>Guy Gorton  typed:
>
>> As you say, the Tesco plan was not ill-conceived, fitting planning
>> guidelines about avoiding more out-of-town centres, and so on.  It is
>> nonetheless very unwelcome to Gerrards Cross residents who number
>> around 3000, a figure that cannot possibly support a store this size,
>
>http://www.gerrardscross.gov.uk/gx/
>says 7,352
>
>http://www.nsdatabase.co.uk/locationdetail.cfm?locationid=634
>says 16,367
>
>It might be bigger than you think!
>;-

And a Bucks County site gives about 6000, so I underestimated!  Still
not enough to keep a middle sized Tesco in profit.
As is often the case, boundaries can be hard to define, and the
newspaper details clearly include areas that are not in the civil
parish of GX - probably much of Chalfont St. Peter which is twice the
size and has some residential parts much nearer GX centre than C St. P
centre.

Guy Gorton

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:15:07 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Interesting that the residents would just as opposed to a Waitrose or 
>M&S Food store.
>

The former Budgens would have been just the right size for a M&S food
store, but alas it did not happen.  It just might in the future
because I observe that M&S open these places near existing
supermarkets to cream off the demand for specialist items.  Did it in
Beaconsfield where there were already a largish Sainsbury's and a
Waitrose which is now being enlarged.


>But the fact remains that the demise of local food shops is happening 
>all over the country, and has been for the last 20 years. You'll lose 
>those local shops anyway. The size of the new Tesco doesn't look that 
>big, so it may not have quite as large a catchment area (and traffic 
>issue) as you fear.
>

Car park space for 300+ cars speaks for itself.


>And some of the people visiting it, will also stop to buy curtains and 
>baby gear (not quite sure what you have against them).


Nothing against them, just a poor substitute for excellent
greengrocers.  Budgens was not that brilliant but was adequate and was
good at ensuring fast payment and departure.

>
>The choice for the residents of Gerrards Cross is whether or not they 
>wish to have to drive to the nearest store, outside their area, and 
>devil take the hindmost without a car; or make a shorter journey, with 
>the chance of walking when they have no car, to a local one.


GX is a widely dispersed sort of place, particularly as it has a large
Common between the largest residential area and the shops.  Personally
I often walk to the shops, but that is only feasible if there is not
much to carry home - midweek top up of a few fruit & veg items and a
lamb chop or two e.g..  Tesco will be hopeless for that kind of
shopping, taking far too long to find the item, and to pay afterwards.

Guy Gorton

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:52:01 +0100, Graham Murray
 wrote:


>Yet in one respect these large shops are unsuitable for even a weekly
>shop. I do not know if my experience are just bad, but I find that
>fresh fruit and veg rarely has a sell/use by date which allow you to
>buy enough to last until the next weekly shop. I find that I have to
>buy fruit and veg at least every 2 or 3 days. 


A valid point, and quite probably the last remaining preserve of the
local shop.

It is perhaps ironic that my local Tesco Express has a far better
selection and quality of fresh fruit and veg since it has been that,
compared with the previous incarnation as an appalling, filthy,
understocked and expensive One Stop Shop.

I suppose a lot of it depends on how much fresh fruit/veg you tend to
use.  If you exclusively use fresh produce, you are probably very much
in the minority - myself included[1], as I rarely have time to cook
properly except at weekends.  Again, down to what people want...

[1] I don't tend to use ready meals, mainly because they're
offensively expensive (pizzas and such excluded), but I do make heavy
use of convenience items like packet and jar sauces, as well as my
freezer.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:15:22 GMT, "Jack Taylor" 
wrote:


>Travel? Possibly. By car? Not necessarily. I can think of nothing worse than
>the hell-on-earth of negotiating a superstore car park. ;-) 


Never caused me a problem, so long as you don't try to park right next
to the door and don't mind 30 seconds' walk from the outer reaches of
the car park where there is always vast empty space.  But then again,
I'm a very relaxed and tame driver (compared with my nature on a
bike!), so I don't tend to get het up about other idiots on the road,
so long as they don't hit me.


>Whenever I go to
>Tesco I fit my panniers to my bike and cycle there, easily catering for my
>weekly needs.


I cycle to work on a more or less daily basis (about 6 miles each
way).  However, in doing so I've found that if I load my panniers
full, I tend to break spokes on my rear wheel on a very regular basis.
This will have to do with two other factors, namely that my bike
didn't cost me a lot (about 200 quid, which for daily use is
relatively low), and the fact that I myself weigh 18 stone, which is
quite a load on the bike on its own.  

This means that the only practical way for me to do a supermarket shop
by bicycle would be to purchase a cycle trailer, or a vastly more
expensive bicycle with higher quality hand-built wheels, which for
shopping only (as that's all I could use to justify the cost[1]) is
frankly a waste of money, as I already have a car.

Given that I have already made the lifestyle choice to have a car, and
have no intention of getting rid of it (indeed, I've just upgraded
it), it makes sense to use it for carrying heavy loads.  My shopping
is a good example.

[1] I still break spokes very occasionally when riding without heavy
loads, but this is so infrequent that it's insignificant.  I found
that it was happening *very* frequently with said heavy loads.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:21:02 +0100, Guy Gorton
 wrote:


>Tesco will be hopeless for that kind of
>shopping, taking far too long to find the item, and to pay afterwards.


I find that, as long as you don't shop in very busy periods, Tesco is
very good at keeping queues short.

Admittedly if you visit one of the huge Extra superstores it can take
a while to find items, but if you're a regular you get used to where
they are (and they don't move things round particularly often).
However, the framework of this one suggested it was nothing like as
big - perhaps the same as Towcester Tesco, which is a nice size.

Try it (if it gets built).  You might find you like it.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 13:21:02 on 
Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Guy Gorton  
remarked:


>>The size of the new Tesco doesn't look that
>>big, so it may not have quite as large a catchment area (and traffic
>>issue) as you fear.
>>
>Car park space for 300+ cars speaks for itself.


Indeed, quite small.

As a comparison, I just checked an aerial photo of the Tesco to the 
north of Cambridge, admittedly a large store, but that has 14 rows of 60 
spaces, 840 in all (plus a few more scattered around the edges). And 
that's 180 less than they wanted - apparently it was reduced by the 
planners.

Their much smaller, and older, store in Milton (also north of Cambridge) 
has 12 rows of on average 35 spaces, a total of 420.  It's very much a 
local store, rather than one you'd drive to from miles away.


>Personally
>I often walk to the shops, but that is only feasible if there is not
>much to carry home - midweek top up of a few fruit & veg items and a
>lamb chop or two e.g..  Tesco will be hopeless for that kind of
>shopping, taking far too long to find the item,


As it's a relatively small shop, it won't take that long to walk between 
the two aisles concerned.


>and to pay afterwards.


It will almost certainly have an express lane for 10 (or fewer) items. 
You can also pay for a small basket of stuff at the cigarette kiosk 
they'll inevitably have right by the door.
-- 
Roland Perry

Neil
By 'ill-conceived I meant that I was concerned about the construction work 
involved in tunnelling the cutting and building a store over a very busy 
mainline railway.
In fact I e-mailed Bob Crow of the NUR some two tears ago expressing my 
concern 'that this was an accident waiting to happen'. Needless to say I had 
no response back despite resending the e-mail a week or two later.
Let's not kid ourselves here. If not for an extraordinary stroke of luck, in 
that the tunnel collapsed whilst empty,  we would now be looking at perhaps 
one of the biggest rail disasters ever to befall the rail network in this 
country.
The thought of a packed Birmingham through express being hit at the point of 
collapse with untold loss of life is too dreadful to contemplate.
Let's just hope that good sense prevails and the structure is removed.
Steve

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:42ebe75e.2381814@news.tesco.net...

> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 14:20:18 +0100, "Steve"
>  wrote:
>
>>Lets just hope that this is the beginning of the end to this ill-conceived
>>undertaking.
>
> I fail to see why it is ill-conceived, other than because the local
> NIMBYs do not want a Tesco store.  Had said store been constructed,
> however, I expect a significant number of them would still have
> shopped there, just as the Ormskirk NIMBYs who opposed the local
> Safeway (now Morrisons) store did.
>
> I personally do not share the opposition to Tesco that some hold, as
> they appear to have grown in the way they have by way of providing
> exactly what their customers, including myself as one, want.
> Sainsbury's, OTOH, have tended not to do this by way of their poor
> stock control, higher prices and poorer range, so haven't done as
> well.
>
> That the tunnel collapsed does not make it ill-conceived, either; from
> what is being said the design was sound, just not the construction.
> Cut-and-cover tunnels[1], after all, are by no means a new thing.
>
> [1] OK, this particular one was less of the "cut" and more of the
> "cover", but that's not particularly important, IMO.
>
> Neil
>
> -- 
> Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
> When replying please use neil at the above domain
> 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. 

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:19:36 +0100, "Steve"
 wrote:


>By 'ill-conceived I meant that I was concerned about the construction work 
>involved in tunnelling the cutting and building a store over a very busy 
>mainline railway.


A valid point, but in reality it should not have been "an accident
waiting to happen" had it been built correctly, any more so than any
other cut-and-cover tunneling work.


>In fact I e-mailed Bob Crow of the NUR some two tears ago expressing my 
>concern 'that this was an accident waiting to happen'. Needless to say I had 
>no response back despite resending the e-mail a week or two later.


This in itself does not surprise me; Crow is only, AFAICT, interested
in job creation, and not genuinely in safety.


>Let's not kid ourselves here. If not for an extraordinary stroke of luck, in 
>that the tunnel collapsed whilst empty,  we would now be looking at perhaps 
>one of the biggest rail disasters ever to befall the rail network in this 
>country.


Very true.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:42ecc73e.1449674@news.tesco.net...

>
> I cycle to work on a more or less daily basis (about 6 miles each
> way).  However, in doing so I've found that if I load my panniers
> full, I tend to break spokes on my rear wheel on a very regular basis.
> This will have to do with two other factors, namely that my bike
> didn't cost me a lot (about 200 quid, which for daily use is
> relatively low), and the fact that I myself weigh 18 stone, which is
> quite a load on the bike on its own.


Ah! I see. I'm only 15 stone (normally!) but I used to have exactly the same
problem with my last bike - I went through five Rigida rear wheels in eight
years (and two front ones!). That's in addition to the one that I wrote off
when I somersaulted over the handlebars as I left the road at about 30mph in
Helmsdale (NE Scotland) whilst doing a John o'Groats - Lands End, complete
with panniers and tent.

Since I've had my new bike (Saracen) I've had no wheel problems at all. Long
may it continue becuase it used to pee me off intensely, permanently spoke
tightening and replacing spokes on the old one! I've still got a stack of
spare spokes, should I ever need them, from stripped wheels.


> This means that the only practical way for me to do a supermarket shop
> by bicycle would be to purchase a cycle trailer, or a vastly more
> expensive bicycle with higher quality hand-built wheels, which for
> shopping only (as that's all I could use to justify the cost[1]) is
> frankly a waste of money, as I already have a car.


Entirely reasonable.

Neil Williams wrote:


> 
> This means that the only practical way for me to do a supermarket shop
> by bicycle would be to purchase a cycle trailer, or a vastly more
> expensive bicycle with higher quality hand-built wheels, which for
> shopping only (as that's all I could use to justify the cost[1]) is
> frankly a waste of money, as I already have a car.


Tip - use the Tesco online service to stock up on heavy run-of-the-mill
stuff like cans and bottles.

Charlie

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:13:01 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Tip - use the Tesco online service to stock up on heavy run-of-the-mill
>stuff like cans and bottles.


No good for me, as I can pretty much never guarantee when I will be at
home to receive a delivery.

A service I *would* pay for, were it offered, would be to order items
on the Internet for them to be picked and crated up ready for me to
collect by car at the store.  A nice time-saver - but still requires
the car.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Guy Gorton wrote:


> GX is a widely dispersed sort of place, particularly as it has a large
> Common between the largest residential area and the shops.  Personally
> I often walk to the shops, but that is only feasible if there is not
> much to carry home - midweek top up of a few fruit & veg items and a
> lamb chop or two e.g..  Tesco will be hopeless for that kind of
> shopping, taking far too long to find the item, and to pay afterwards.


Sainsbury's in Hazel Grove has a smaller shop for quick shopping located 
inside the big one!

Charlie

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:19:36 +0100, "Steve"
<snip>
>
> >In fact I e-mailed Bob Crow of the NUR some two tears ago expressing my
> >concern 'that this was an accident waiting to happen'. Needless to say I had
> >no response back despite resending the e-mail a week or two later.
>
> This in itself does not surprise me; Crow is only, AFAICT, interested
> in job creation, and not genuinely in safety.


My personal view is he's especially interested in one job - his own.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) writes:


> This means that the only practical way for me to do a supermarket shop
> by bicycle would be to purchase a cycle trailer, or a vastly more
> expensive bicycle with higher quality hand-built wheels, which for
> shopping only (as that's all I could use to justify the cost[1]) is
> frankly a waste of money, as I already have a car.


Mind you, you could also just rebuild (tension and true, no need to
actually take anything apart, see eg
<URL:http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html>) the wheels yourself,
or have them rebuilt if you actually happen to know a good wheelbuilder
(a high price is no guarantee). Spokes practically never break on
properly built bicycle wheels, except in accidents and such.

ObRailway: I suppose spoke failures were rather common on the railways
as well, considering the number of wheelset changing facilities back then?

Guy Gorton  wrote:

[]

> GX is a widely dispersed sort of place, particularly as it has a large
> Common between the largest residential area and the shops.  Personally
> I often walk to the shops, but that is only feasible if there is not
> much to carry home - midweek top up of a few fruit & veg items and a
> lamb chop or two e.g..  Tesco will be hopeless for that kind of
> shopping, taking far too long to find the item, and to pay afterwards.


It does depend where you live of course, but I've managed to do my
shopping most of my adult life without having a car (had one for a year
or two), on both sides of the atlantic. I use a rucksack where I put the
heavy items, and distribute the rest among carriers. That's for a
household of two, I appreciate it get's difficult the larger the
household- though once kids are of a certain age, I don't suppose it
would be such a bad thing for them to help with some of the bags- or use
the rucksacks! I had some problems with heavier loads following a knee
injury after getting hit by a car, but thankfully that's improved a
great deal. I've used a taxi to get back only on rare occasions, like
when I bought a telly from Tesco.

-- 
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

In message , Tony Polson
 writes

>"Martin Underwood"  wrote:
>
>>I've worked out which people in this room are and aren't happy to share
>>their knowledge. Having to abide by commercial confidentiality is one thing;
>>making unhelpful but gleeful "wrong - keep guessing" comments is quite
>>another.
>
>
>Room?  Which room?  This is a Usenet newsgroup, not a room.
>
>I take no glee in correcting the ill-informed, ignorant nonsense you
>post here.  Just stop posting rubbish, and there won't be a problem.
>If you continue making misleading statements on a subject you know
>less than nothing about, you can expect continued criticism.
>
>

<Plonk!>

-- 
        Bob Adams - email address: bob55 at ntlworld.com

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:26:25 GMT, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>Sainsbury's in Hazel Grove has a smaller shop for quick shopping located 
>inside the big one!


Interesting idea.  Most Tescos I've seen have a subset of the
lunch-type stuff near the entrance and the basket-only tills, plus the
petrol station (if present) has a small selection of essentials as
well.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Adrian Auer-Hudson wrote:
 >
 > However, you are forgetting that neither you nor I posses the title
 > deed to uk.railway.  Mr. Polson clearly believes that he does.  It is
 > time to utilize the killfile option.
 >

Actually, that may not be the best option.

TP's posts often provide useful practice for that old Usenet game of

"How to recognise different arrogant twunts from quite a long way away"

No. 1	-	The Polson.  The Polson.



(with apologies to M. Python)



Wobbly Bob

Thanks to Guy for the continued progress reports and photos!

Looking at the latest pic, and the fact we've been told that the main 
reason for the tunnell collapse was the difference between the side and 
top infill placements, by removing just the infill from the top of the 
tunnell (presumably for inspection purposes) they have created exactly 
the opposite problem!

They have removed most of the "load" which would keep the tunnel arch in 
its compressed (and strongest) state, but without removing any of side 
fill. Wouldnt this "squeeze" the tunnel in from the sides, without any 
top loading to keep it in compression, thus risking more failures?

Regards,


/Neil/
-- 
Web design, hosting and domain registration
http://www.spellings.net/

Neil Spellings  wrote:


> Thanks to Guy for the continued progress reports and photos!
> 
> Looking at the latest pic, and the fact we've been told that the main
> reason for the tunnell collapse was the difference between the side and
> top infill placements, by removing just the infill from the top of the
> tunnell (presumably for inspection purposes) they have created exactly
> the opposite problem!
> 
> They have removed most of the "load" which would keep the tunnel arch in
> its compressed (and strongest) state, but without removing any of side
> fill. Wouldnt this "squeeze" the tunnel in from the sides, without any
> top loading to keep it in compression, thus risking more failures?


As long as it re-engages the articulation it would be nice , then they
might startover filling again...


Theo
-- 
From the heath in the Nord of Belgium

Guy Gorton wrote:


> As you say, the Tesco plan was not ill-conceived, fitting planning
> guidelines about avoiding more out-of-town centres, and so on.  It is
> nonetheless very unwelcome to Gerrards Cross residents who number
> around 3000, a figure that cannot possibly support a store this size,


According to www.world-gazetteer.com, the combined population of
Chalfont St Peter and Gerrard's Cross is about 20,000 - quite a
healthy size, and easily big enough to support a large store.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Neil Williams wrote:


> Never caused me a problem, so long as you don't try to park right next
> to the door and don't mind 30 seconds' walk from the outer reaches of
> the car park where there is always vast empty space.


The problem with negotiating a supermarket car park comes not when you
are in your car, but when you are pushing your trolley.

The Tesco where I occasionally shop when I don't have time to get to
my preferred store has had the wonderful idea of having the pavement
area outside the main entrance on a slight slope, so as you try to
walk along it, your trolley careers inexorably towards the road. If
you have been eating your spinach and have the strength to keep the
trolley going in the direction you want, you then have to cross one or
more access roads to get to your car. Guess what they have put at
these crossing points? Tactile paving slabs. Anyone for scrambled egg?

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 21:01:24 +0100, Stevie D
 wrote:


>Guy Gorton wrote:
>
>> As you say, the Tesco plan was not ill-conceived, fitting planning
>> guidelines about avoiding more out-of-town centres, and so on.  It is
>> nonetheless very unwelcome to Gerrards Cross residents who number
>> around 3000, a figure that cannot possibly support a store this size,
>
>According to www.world-gazetteer.com, the combined population of
>Chalfont St Peter and Gerrard's Cross is about 20,000 - quite a
>healthy size, and easily big enough to support a large store.


Plus Farnham Common, Stoke Poges, etc, etc - but it is in the very
centre of GX, which is not C St. P, Farnham Common, Stoke Poges, etc,
etc:  Hence the alarm at the amount of traffic that will be generated.

Guy Gorton

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:dcfu5c$lll$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> "Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>> news:53jie1deeqvkmck1tvc44hndrpveqeg515@4ax.com...
>>> "Brimstone"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Grumpy Old Man wrote:
>>>>> Word from a colleague at Notwork Rail is the line 'could' reopen
>>>>> week beginning August 12, subject to sfety inspections, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dont hold yer breath.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently there is no decision yet on whether the store will be
>>>>> built or not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if there is an engineer brave enough to put his name
>>>> on a document certifying that the remaining structure is up to
>>>> scratch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bravery doesn't come into it.  You thoroughly check the calculations,
>>> you check carefully that it has been built in accordance with the
>>> specification and drawings and, if all is OK, you sign.
>>>
>
> I strongly suspect that before construction of this project started 
> someone
> checked the calculations, checked carefully that it was to be built in
> accordance with the specification and drawings and, it all seemed OK, so
> they signed.


As I pointed out in a previous thread, the job doesn't end there.

It continues whilst you return to site every hour, of every day
to make *sure* that it *is* actually being built in accordance
with the spec.

You don't trust Bob the builder to do it right, you make sure that
he is.


>
> But it still fell down.


I wonder why?

tim