Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Modern double deck trams
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Graham Harrison
Dec 20, 2011, 3:57:24 AM12/20/11
to
I can't find a tram related newsgroup.
I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
length.
I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
always been a bit of a British oddity. Yes, there have been other places
in the world that used them but these days in particular the market is in
countries where single deck trams are the norm so we get single deckers.
The other reason seems to be loading times.
And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
length.
I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
always been a bit of a British oddity. Yes, there have been other places
in the world that used them but these days in particular the market is in
countries where single deck trams are the norm so we get single deckers.
The other reason seems to be loading times.
And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
Neil Williams
Dec 20, 2011, 4:02:03 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 9:57 am, "Graham Harrison"
tend to be higher in the UK than other European countries, and most
trams are off-the-shelf European designs.
Berlin does double-decker buses (albeit lower ones than usual for the
UK, if I recall), but they are not common elsewhere in Europe for the
same reason.
OTOH, because the height clearance issue is the opposite way around
for rail, the UK doesn't do double-deckers on rail (the 4-DD excepted)
but they are very common in mainland Europe. Were the UK the main
supplier of trains to Europe, I expect the situation would be similar
to trams.
Neil
<edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
> Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
> lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
> take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
> length.
>
> I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
> always been a bit of a British oddity.
Partly because normal height clearances on roads (where trams run)
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
> Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
> lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
> take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
> length.
>
> I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
> always been a bit of a British oddity.
tend to be higher in the UK than other European countries, and most
trams are off-the-shelf European designs.
Berlin does double-decker buses (albeit lower ones than usual for the
UK, if I recall), but they are not common elsewhere in Europe for the
same reason.
OTOH, because the height clearance issue is the opposite way around
for rail, the UK doesn't do double-deckers on rail (the 4-DD excepted)
but they are very common in mainland Europe. Were the UK the main
supplier of trains to Europe, I expect the situation would be similar
to trams.
Neil
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 4:36:31 AM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 09:02, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:57 am, "Graham Harrison"
> <edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
>> Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
>> lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
>> take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
>> length.
>>
>> I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
>> always been a bit of a British oddity.
>
> Partly because normal height clearances on roads (where trams run)
> tend to be higher in the UK than other European countries, and most
> trams are off-the-shelf European designs.
>
> Berlin does double-decker buses (albeit lower ones than usual for the
> UK, if I recall), but they are not common elsewhere in Europe for the
> same reason.
Rome has, or at least had last time I was there, double decker buses.
> On Dec 20, 9:57 am, "Graham Harrison"
> <edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
>> Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also take up a
>> lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both levels) could
>> take the same number of people, maybe more, than a single decker in less
>> length.
>>
>> I'm guessing there are 2 reasons the main one being that double deckers have
>> always been a bit of a British oddity.
>
> Partly because normal height clearances on roads (where trams run)
> tend to be higher in the UK than other European countries, and most
> trams are off-the-shelf European designs.
>
> Berlin does double-decker buses (albeit lower ones than usual for the
> UK, if I recall), but they are not common elsewhere in Europe for the
> same reason.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 4:42:50 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>OTOH, because the height clearance issue is the opposite way around
>for rail, the UK doesn't do double-deckers on rail (the 4-DD excepted)
>but they are very common in mainland Europe. Were the UK the main
Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com> wrote:
>OTOH, because the height clearance issue is the opposite way around
>for rail, the UK doesn't do double-deckers on rail (the 4-DD excepted)
>but they are very common in mainland Europe. Were the UK the main
france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really in
the USA that you get proper double deckers.
B2003
amogles
Dec 20, 2011, 4:46:21 AM12/20/11
to
On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"
Chinese make.
In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
had them and no doubt several other cities besides.
I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
capacity, British operators built upwards.
Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
Many operators worked around this by building turning loops in which
no shunting was required but the entire tram went around on a cicle of
track to face the other direction. The provison of these prepared the
way for the next development which was that of the uni-directional
tram, having a cab at only one end and doors on only one side. They
were less flexible in service as they needed loops but from the
maintenance perspective there was less hardware to be maintained. The
absence of doors on the off side also meant that more seats could be
provided. From there they went to articulated trams which again was a
step backwards in terms of flexibility (compared to trailers) but had
advanatges in terms of passenger flow and better utilisation of space
etc. Also the concept was scalable so longer and longer trams could be
made just by adding intermediate segments.
<edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
>
> And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
Chinese make.
In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
had them and no doubt several other cities besides.
I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
capacity, British operators built upwards.
Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
Many operators worked around this by building turning loops in which
no shunting was required but the entire tram went around on a cicle of
track to face the other direction. The provison of these prepared the
way for the next development which was that of the uni-directional
tram, having a cab at only one end and doors on only one side. They
were less flexible in service as they needed loops but from the
maintenance perspective there was less hardware to be maintained. The
absence of doors on the off side also meant that more seats could be
provided. From there they went to articulated trams which again was a
step backwards in terms of flexibility (compared to trailers) but had
advanatges in terms of passenger flow and better utilisation of space
etc. Also the concept was scalable so longer and longer trams could be
made just by adding intermediate segments.
amogles
Dec 20, 2011, 4:54:34 AM12/20/11
to
than buses and so if the traffic is there to justify it, they are
moder efficient operationally. A double deck tram has by nature about
the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper. But high-capacity
trams which could take double the number of passengers as buses if not
more meant that the closure of many German systems was simply not a
feasible option. Of course many of the lesser and lighter lines did
close, and the tram system we see in Germany today are in many cases
just the skeletons of what once was.
Neil Williams
Dec 20, 2011, 5:27:06 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 10:54 am, amogles <amog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> and the tram system we see in Germany today are in many cases
> just the skeletons of what once was.
And some cities closed them entirely, and operated the same routes and
> and the tram system we see in Germany today are in many cases
> just the skeletons of what once was.
infrastructure with buses. That lead to idiocy like these on the
Hamburg equivalent of Oxford Road (city -> uni -> where a lot of
students live), which should, as with Manchester, be a tram route.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XXL-Bus.JPG
Neil
PeterFox
Dec 20, 2011, 5:27:53 AM12/20/11
to
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
Suggestions:
(1) Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an artic.
(2) With tightly knotted streets and high peak demand such as you would get in
say for example Dundee when the mill shifts ended, the smaller footprint would
be desirable. These conditions have largely gone.
(3) If you want a tunnel for your trams to burrow through the city centre or
just do dive-unders you're adding to the civil engineering costs.
--
Peter 'Prof' Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling and curiosities at www.vulpeculox.net
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex, England +44 (01376) 517206
Basil Jet
Dec 20, 2011, 5:27:54 AM12/20/11
to
On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
> I can't find a tram related newsgroup.
>
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
> deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
> take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
> levels)
How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?
> I can't find a tram related newsgroup.
>
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
> deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
> take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
> levels)
Neil Williams
Dec 20, 2011, 5:31:24 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 11:27 am, PeterFox <unet1...@PeterFox.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> (1) Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an artic.
What bods would those be? Metrolink is DOO. If you mean conductors,
> (1) Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an artic.
possibly or possibly not. Routemasters only ever had one, while I
think Blackpool tended to use two.
Neil
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 5:36:22 AM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 10:27, PeterFox wrote:
>> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
>> deckers.
> Suggestions:
> (1) Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an
> artic.
One always did in the past, now we have none anyway.
>> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
>> deckers.
> Suggestions:
> (1) Do you need two bods to 'police' both decks when one will do for an
> artic.
>
> (2) With tightly knotted streets and high peak demand such as you would
> get in say for example Dundee when the mill shifts ended, the smaller
> footprint would be desirable. These conditions have largely gone.
given footprint, same would apply to trams.
>
> (3) If you want a tunnel for your trams to burrow through the city
> centre or just do dive-unders you're adding to the civil engineering costs.
an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
prominently visible and easily accesible.
Roger Traviss
Dec 20, 2011, 5:43:49 AM12/20/11
to
> Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
> france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
> low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
> in
> the USA that you get proper double deckers.
There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
largest.
--
Merry Christmas
Roger Traviss
Photos of the late HO scale GER: -
http://www.greateasternrailway.com
For more photos not in the above album and kitbashes etc..:-
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/
amogles
Dec 20, 2011, 5:39:20 AM12/20/11
to
on one level only?
bob
Dec 20, 2011, 5:46:28 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 11:43 am, "Roger Traviss" <roger...@highspeedplus.com>
wrote:
Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. I've only
ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. I
hear some are used south of 49 too.
Robin
wrote:
> > Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
> > france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
> > low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
> > in
> > the USA that you get proper double deckers.
>
> And Canada.
>
> There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
> largest.
And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
> > france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
> > low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
> > in
> > the USA that you get proper double deckers.
>
> And Canada.
>
> There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
> largest.
Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. I've only
ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. I
hear some are used south of 49 too.
Robin
amogles
Dec 20, 2011, 5:48:56 AM12/20/11
to
On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
> Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. I've only
> ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. I
> hear some are used south of 49 too.
>
I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
>
> And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
> Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. I've only
> ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. I
> hear some are used south of 49 too.
>
extremely comfortable and spacious.
D7666
Dec 20, 2011, 5:50:22 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
> an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
> prominently visible and easily accesible.
Ever used one.?
> I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
> an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
> prominently visible and easily accesible.
--
Nick
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 6:05:45 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:43:49 -0800
"Roger Traviss" <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
>> Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
>> france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
>> low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
>> in
>> the USA that you get proper double deckers.
>
>And Canada.
>
>There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
>largest.
Fair point!
"Roger Traviss" <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote:
>> Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
>> france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
>> low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really
>> in
>> the USA that you get proper double deckers.
>
>And Canada.
>
>There are other countries on this side of the pond with Canada being the
>largest.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 6:08:47 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:48:56 -0800 (PST)
amogles <amo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
>> Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. =A0I've only
amogles <amo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
>> ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. =A0I
>> hear some are used south of 49 too.
>>
>
>I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
>extremely comfortable and spacious.
I'm surprised the Russians don't have then considering their loading gauge
>>
>
>I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
>extremely comfortable and spacious.
would easily support it.
I've just checked and it seems australia also has them.
B2003
Basil Jet
Dec 20, 2011, 6:10:00 AM12/20/11
to
anyway, the tunnels exist for the benefit of road traffic rather than
for the benefit of trams, so the car passengers on the tunnel roof are
its real users.
amogles
Dec 20, 2011, 6:35:28 AM12/20/11
to
On 20 Dez., 12:10, Basil Jet <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.com> wrote:
>
> Since trams tend to have priority at traffic lights on surface routes
> anyway, the tunnels exist for the benefit of road traffic rather than
> for the benefit of trams, so the car passengers on the tunnel roof are
> its real users.
True. I have heard stories from Bochum (I think?) in Germany where one
>
> Since trams tend to have priority at traffic lights on surface routes
> anyway, the tunnels exist for the benefit of road traffic rather than
> for the benefit of trams, so the car passengers on the tunnel roof are
> its real users.
of the earlier tram subways is now in dire need of a major renoavtion,
but the city doesn't have the money so they are even considering
closing the line as an option. If they would have left it on the
surface back then it wouldn't now be at risk.
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 6:46:27 AM12/20/11
to
Graham Harrison
Dec 20, 2011, 8:00:28 AM12/20/11
to
A double deck tram has by nature about
> the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
> opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper.
You're limiting your thinking. In effect I'm asking why you can't take a
> the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
> opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper.
modern multi section single deck tram and build a double deck version.
Graham Harrison
Dec 20, 2011, 8:02:41 AM12/20/11
to
"Basil Jet" <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.com> wrote in message
news:4ef0632a$0$2974$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 8:04:23 AM12/20/11
to
Neil Williams
Dec 20, 2011, 8:22:40 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 2:04 pm, Graeme Wall <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Not insoluble but possibly expensive.
It presumably depends on the size of the curves. SBB IC2000 stock has
> Not insoluble but possibly expensive.
upper level gangways only.
Neil
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Dec 20, 2011, 8:33:54 AM12/20/11
to
Graham Harrison schrieb:
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
people couldn't afford automobiles, this was less of a concern, and it
still might not be in the 3rd or developing world, but for success of a
tram system in the modern world, every second (per stop) counts.
Hans-Joachim
--
Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 † 9. Dezember 2011
http://zierke.com/private/tante_frieda/pics/hase_pino_abgestellt.jpg
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 8:49:32 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:04:23 +0000
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20/12/2011 13:02, Graham Harrison wrote:
>>
>> "Basil Jet" <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ef0632a$0$2974$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
>>>> I can't find a tram related newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
>>>> deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
>>>> take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
>>>> levels)
>>>
>>> How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?
>>
>> That's an engineering detail (he said having no idea what the answer is!).
>
>Not insoluble but possibly expensive.
Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20/12/2011 13:02, Graham Harrison wrote:
>>
>> "Basil Jet" <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ef0632a$0$2974$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> On 2011\12\20 08:57, Graham Harrison wrote:
>>>> I can't find a tram related newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
>>>> deckers. Yes, modern artics swallow lots of people quickly but they also
>>>> take up a lot of space. A double deck artic (with connections at both
>>>> levels)
>>>
>>> How would the upper floor connection cope with vertical curves?
>>
>> That's an engineering detail (he said having no idea what the answer is!).
>
>Not insoluble but possibly expensive.
floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.
B2003
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Dec 20, 2011, 8:44:43 AM12/20/11
to
bolta...@boltar.world schrieb:
> Though even the euro double deckers (or at least the ones I've been on in
> france) are really at the limit of practicality. The top deck is rather
> low height and the curved sides impinge quite noticably. Its only really in
> the USA that you get proper double deckers.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Dec 20, 2011, 9:07:39 AM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 09:46, amogles wrote:
> On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"
> <edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
>
> Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
> Chinese make.
>
>
> In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
> had them and no doubt several other cities besides.
>
> I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
> was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
> sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
> Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
> extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
> capacity, British operators built upwards.
>
> Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
> shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
They use gravity shunting at Ramsey (Rhumsaa) on the Manx Electric
> On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"
> <edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
>
> Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
> Chinese make.
>
>
> In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
> had them and no doubt several other cities besides.
>
> I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
> was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
> sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
> Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
> extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
> capacity, British operators built upwards.
>
> Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
> shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
Railway, incidentally, when they run a trailer.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Dec 20, 2011, 9:09:52 AM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 11:46, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 20/12/2011 10:50, D7666 wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
>>> an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
>>> prominently visible and easily accesible.
>>
>> Ever used one.?
>>
>
> Pre-metro in tunnel? Yes in Brussels.
>
They have one in Newark, New Jersey, as well. It's called the Newark
> On 20/12/2011 10:50, D7666 wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Graeme Wall<r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I've never been convinced that premetro style tram tunnels are that good
>>> an idea. Surely you want your high quality urban transport to be
>>> prominently visible and easily accesible.
>>
>> Ever used one.?
>>
>
> Pre-metro in tunnel? Yes in Brussels.
>
City Subway.
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 9:34:28 AM12/20/11
to
horizontally and vertically that, say, Sheffield trams have to negotiate.
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 9:38:07 AM12/20/11
to
higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
implications for the design of the trams.
bob
Dec 20, 2011, 9:56:00 AM12/20/11
to
aticulation to the lower deck floor articulation. The problem is
accommodating vertical curves on both floor levels simultaneously.
Without having a telescoping floor section vertical curves can not be
handled, and I would have worries about the safety implications for
passengers crossing the join as it stretches and contracts.
There's also the issue of where to put all the kit that sits on the
roof of a modern low floor tram (that in the days of high floor trams
might have been under the floor).
Robin
Offramp
Dec 20, 2011, 9:55:40 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 8:57 am, "Graham Harrison"
<edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Yes, modern artics swallow
Laden or unladen?
<edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Yes, modern artics swallow
Laden or unladen?
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 9:59:22 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:38:07 +0000
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
>> floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.
>>
>
>For a given value of simple. Means the buffing loads will be rather
>higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
>implications for the design of the trams.
Whats a "buffing load"?
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
>> floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.
>>
>
>For a given value of simple. Means the buffing loads will be rather
>higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
>implications for the design of the trams.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 10:06:50 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:56:00 -0800 (PST)
bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
>> floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.
>
>But that would just shift the problem from the upper deck floor
>aticulation to the lower deck floor articulation. The problem is
Not really , both floors would articulate the same amount but it would
bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
>> floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.
>
>But that would just shift the problem from the upper deck floor
>aticulation to the lower deck floor articulation. The problem is
be less that the upper floor would do it if the joint was in the usual place.
>accommodating vertical curves on both floor levels simultaneously.
>Without having a telescoping floor section vertical curves can not be
>handled, and I would have worries about the safety implications for
>passengers crossing the join as it stretches and contracts.
B2003
bob
Dec 20, 2011, 10:23:40 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 4:06 pm, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> >accommodating vertical curves on both floor levels simultaneously.
> >Without having a telescoping floor section vertical curves can not be
> >handled, and I would have worries about the safety implications for
> >passengers crossing the join as it stretches and contracts.
>
> I've never heard of anyone being squashed inside a bendy bus because of it.
But on all bendy buses I have ever travelled on the transverse axis
> >accommodating vertical curves on both floor levels simultaneously.
> >Without having a telescoping floor section vertical curves can not be
> >handled, and I would have worries about the safety implications for
> >passengers crossing the join as it stretches and contracts.
>
> I've never heard of anyone being squashed inside a bendy bus because of it.
about which vertical bending occurs passes through the floor, so that
as the bus bends in a vertical sense, the floor "folds" but does not
extend or contract in length. On a double decker, the floor that does
not contain the axis of rotation will experience an extension or
contraction of the floor as well as rotation. One of the floors will
therefore experience extension and contraction as well as rotation,
which is a whole lot less safe.
Robin
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 10:28:51 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:23:40 -0800 (PST)
bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>extend or contract in length. On a double decker, the floor that does
>not contain the axis of rotation will experience an extension or
>contraction of the floor as well as rotation. One of the floors will
>therefore experience extension and contraction as well as rotation,
>which is a whole lot less safe.
I'm sure people would get used to it just like they've got used to the ends of
bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>extend or contract in length. On a double decker, the floor that does
>not contain the axis of rotation will experience an extension or
>contraction of the floor as well as rotation. One of the floors will
>therefore experience extension and contraction as well as rotation,
>which is a whole lot less safe.
escalator. But if its really an issue you could simply wall off the seperate
compartments of the tram.
B2003
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 10:34:07 AM12/20/11
to
allantracy
Dec 20, 2011, 10:35:07 AM12/20/11
to
>
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
>
Probably for the same reasons that here in the UK double deck buses
> I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double deckers.
>
are also in decline.
Bus operators are increasingly turning to longer modern low floor
(floor lowering) single deck buses for their ease of access (mother
and baby), greater safety, better passenger supervision and disabled
friendly features compared to double deckers.
Also in these days of integrated transport consideration of things
like luggage (airport buses) is often required.
There is also no longer the need to accommodate smokers.
But what really swings it for the modern single decker bus is the
extent to which actual seat capacity, falling short of double decker
capacity, can usually be measured in single figures.
Plus, we don't think trams anymore, we think light rail and that means
trains not trams and, as others here have pointed out, that raises the
issue of connecting vehicles together.
I believe Manchester Metro operates some services with six car trains
(with all the ease of access that implies) and it's that kind of
thinking that has brought about the renaissance of the street tramway
into the modern light railway with both on street and off street
running.
bolta...@boltar.world
Dec 20, 2011, 10:41:46 AM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:34:07 +0000
6 foot higher?
B2003
Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20/12/2011 14:59, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:38:07 +0000
>> Graeme Wall<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
>>>> floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For a given value of simple. Means the buffing loads will be rather
>>> higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
>>> implications for the design of the trams.
>>
>> Whats a "buffing load"?
>>
>
>What the buffers/couplings have to cope with.
Why would they have a higher loading simply because the joint is positioned
>On 20/12/2011 14:59, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:38:07 +0000
>> Graeme Wall<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Have the universal joint at floor level with the upper deck instead of at
>>>> floor level with the lower deck. Fairly simple.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For a given value of simple. Means the buffing loads will be rather
>>> higher than is usual for rail vehicles which will have major
>>> implications for the design of the trams.
>>
>> Whats a "buffing load"?
>>
>
>What the buffers/couplings have to cope with.
6 foot higher?
B2003
Recliner
Dec 20, 2011, 10:44:50 AM12/20/11
to
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 11:12:28 AM12/20/11
to
not that they would be greater in magnitude.
bob
Dec 20, 2011, 9:48:47 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 2:00 pm, "Graham Harrison"
Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
In all of the variations of double deck railway carriages I have
encountered, none has gangway connections on both levels. The tight
corners and ability to climb hills in an urban setting would make this
problem worse for trams than "big" trains. The other issue is that
modern low floor trams use the roof to mount all kinds of equipment
like power electronics and air conditioners. With a double deck
arrangement, this would have to be accommodated somewhere else
(where?).
Robin
In all of the variations of double deck railway carriages I have
encountered, none has gangway connections on both levels. The tight
corners and ability to climb hills in an urban setting would make this
problem worse for trams than "big" trains. The other issue is that
modern low floor trams use the roof to mount all kinds of equipment
like power electronics and air conditioners. With a double deck
arrangement, this would have to be accommodated somewhere else
(where?).
Robin
Neil Williams
Dec 20, 2011, 11:47:38 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 3:48 pm, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
> In all of the variations of double deck railway carriages I have
> encountered, none has gangway connections on both levels.
No, though SBB's double deck IC stock has the gangway well above the
> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
> In all of the variations of double deck railway carriages I have
> encountered, none has gangway connections on both levels.
(traditional screw) coupling, probably about a metre or so.
Neil
Graham Harrison
Dec 20, 2011, 11:51:32 AM12/20/11
to
"allantracy" <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:7856dfa0-3c43-4785...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
referring to Felthams you've gone to the opposite extreme and simply
regurgitated current propaganda. Now, don't get me wrong, I am all in
favour of the resurgence of trams (all right LRVs if you will) in the UK.
That said I don't see why a modern double deck tram which can be articulated
(with difficulty as discussed above) and/or MUed (for pity's sake Mumbles
did that) is impossible.
Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
I think it's technically feasible. The real issue is whether it's
operationally feasible and there the issue relates to speed of access
to/from the upper deck. Well, maybe we need a bit of off the wall thinking
to solve that. How about dedicating one section to a ramped method of
going up/down?
And the word "tram"? It's not used because of connotations with noisy,
draughty, wooden seated, slow vehicles. An LRV is a tram by any other name.
Chris Tolley
Dec 20, 2011, 12:00:08 PM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 06:48:47 -0800 (PST), bob wrote:
> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
> In all of the variations of double deck railway carriages I have
> encountered, none has gangway connections on both levels. The tight
> corners and ability to climb hills in an urban setting would make this
> problem worse for trams than "big" trains.
Flat curves just need a bit that stays where it is as the outer bits rotate
> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
> In all of the variations of double deck railway carriages I have
> encountered, none has gangway connections on both levels. The tight
> corners and ability to climb hills in an urban setting would make this
> problem worse for trams than "big" trains.
around the curve. It's the gradients that cause the problems, with the
required connection being stretched or squeezed more and more the further
away it is from the ground.
> The other issue is that
> modern low floor trams use the roof to mount all kinds of equipment
> like power electronics and air conditioners. With a double deck
> arrangement, this would have to be accommodated somewhere else
> (where?).
only the lower deck that has to be "low floor".
Sam Wilson
Dec 20, 2011, 12:01:40 PM12/20/11
to
In article
<c7711164-3572-4fac...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
Sam
<c7711164-3572-4fac...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
Sam
Neil Williams
Dec 20, 2011, 12:13:49 PM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
> subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
> react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
> with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
I'm pretty sure Stagecoach has or had some double-decker articulated
> On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
> subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
> react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
> with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
coaches with through connections at both levels. I think they were
used on Megabus duties.
Neil
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 12:23:03 PM12/20/11
to
decker but I did find this:
<http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/phono/London.tbus2049b.jpg>
Ian
Dec 20, 2011, 12:55:36 PM12/20/11
to
"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xv3Iq.154392$4a.8...@newsfe04.ams2...
> On 20/12/2011 17:13, Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, Sam Wilson<Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
>>> subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
>>> react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
>>> with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Stagecoach has or had some double-decker articulated
>> coaches with through connections at both levels. I think they were
>> used on Megabus duties.
>>
>
> Couldn't find any pictures of a Stagecoach or Megabus articulated double
> decker but I did find this:
>
> <http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/phono/London.tbus2049b.jpg>
>
Forward that to Boris!!!!!
>> On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, Sam Wilson<Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
>>> subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
>>> react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
>>> with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Stagecoach has or had some double-decker articulated
>> coaches with through connections at both levels. I think they were
>> used on Megabus duties.
>>
>
> Couldn't find any pictures of a Stagecoach or Megabus articulated double
> decker but I did find this:
>
> <http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/phono/London.tbus2049b.jpg>
>
Arthur Figgis
Dec 20, 2011, 1:00:00 PM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 11:08, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:48:56 -0800 (PST)
> amogles<amo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob<rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
>>> Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. =A0I've only
>>> ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. =A0I
>>> hear some are used south of 49 too.
>>>
>>
>> I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
>> extremely comfortable and spacious.
>
> I'm surprised the Russians don't have then considering their loading gauge
> would easily support it.
Electrification height, maybe? Or just easier to have (very) long trains?
Finland has lots of big double-deckers.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:48:56 -0800 (PST)
> amogles<amo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob<rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
>>> Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. =A0I've only
>>> ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. =A0I
>>> hear some are used south of 49 too.
>>>
>>
>> I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
>> extremely comfortable and spacious.
>
> I'm surprised the Russians don't have then considering their loading gauge
> would easily support it.
Electrification height, maybe? Or just easier to have (very) long trains?
Finland has lots of big double-deckers.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
allantracy
Dec 20, 2011, 1:10:25 PM12/20/11
to
>
> Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>
> I think it's technically feasible.
I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>
> I think it's technically feasible.
resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
concept.
I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
tramway network, ever again.
Indeed, why would they?
Why would they ever choose to ignore the considerable advantages
afforded by the capability to mix and match tramway and pure railway
technologies?
So, whatever is built has to be suitable for things like reusing old
or existing railway infrastructure (Manchester or Birmingham) and
maybe going underground (Newcastle) which kind of rules out anything
double decker.
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 1:11:44 PM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 18:10, allantracy wrote:
>>
>> Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
>> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
>> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
>> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>>
>> I think it's technically feasible.
>
> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> concept.
Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
>>
>> Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
>> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
>> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
>> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>>
>> I think it's technically feasible.
>
> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> concept.
stating the blindingly obvious.
allantracy
Dec 20, 2011, 1:32:37 PM12/20/11
to
>
> > I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> > resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> > concept.
>
> Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
> stating the blindingly obvious.
>
Yes, but our street tramways all closed down.
> > I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> > resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> > concept.
>
> Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
> stating the blindingly obvious.
>
Graham Harrison
Dec 20, 2011, 2:14:24 PM12/20/11
to
news:0b91dd3e-4845-42d8...@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
============================
We'll just have to find a route with no, or very high, overbridges and/or
all track on viaduct! If, that is, we're going to reuse old railway
infrastructure.
Oh well.
We'll just have to find a route with no, or very high, overbridges and/or
all track on viaduct! If, that is, we're going to reuse old railway
infrastructure.
Oh well.
Graeme Wall
Dec 20, 2011, 2:22:31 PM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 19:14, Graham Harrison wrote:
> We'll just have to find a route with no, or very high, overbridges
> and/or all track on viaduct! If, that is, we're going to reuse old
> railway infrastructure.
DLR?
> We'll just have to find a route with no, or very high, overbridges
> and/or all track on viaduct! If, that is, we're going to reuse old
> railway infrastructure.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Dec 20, 2011, 2:38:54 PM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 17:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 20/12/2011 17:13, Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, Sam Wilson<Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
>>> subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
>>> react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
>>> with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Stagecoach has or had some double-decker articulated
>> coaches with through connections at both levels. I think they were
>> used on Megabus duties.
>>
>
> Couldn't find any pictures of a Stagecoach or Megabus articulated double
> decker but I did find this:
>
> <http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/phono/London.tbus2049b.jpg>
>
>
Cute, but I don't think that trolleybusses are on the cards anytime soon
> On 20/12/2011 17:13, Neil Williams wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, Sam Wilson<Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
>>> subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
>>> react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
>>> with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Stagecoach has or had some double-decker articulated
>> coaches with through connections at both levels. I think they were
>> used on Megabus duties.
>>
>
> Couldn't find any pictures of a Stagecoach or Megabus articulated double
> decker but I did find this:
>
> <http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/phono/London.tbus2049b.jpg>
>
>
in London.
Charles Ellson
Dec 20, 2011, 2:59:27 PM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:00:28 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>A double deck tram has by nature about
>> the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
>> opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper.
>
>You're limiting your thinking. In effect I'm asking why you can't take a
>modern multi section single deck tram and build a double deck version.
>
One reason might be that doubling the height does not enable a
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>A double deck tram has by nature about
>> the capacity of a double deck bus, so given the choice the operator
>> opts for the bus which is more flexible and cheaper.
>
>You're limiting your thinking. In effect I'm asking why you can't take a
>modern multi section single deck tram and build a double deck version.
>
doubling of the number of doors while lengthening a tram should allow
that. A single deck tram can also pass under lower off-road
obstructions where the OHLE does not have to allow for the passage of
the highest standard road vehicles.
Jarle H Knudsen
Dec 20, 2011, 3:56:13 PM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), allantracy wrote:
> I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
> tramway network, ever again.
Wasn't the Cross River Tram going to be only street running? (Except one or
> I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
> tramway network, ever again.
two segments crossing parks.) No chance that scheme will ever reappear?
--
jhk
Arthur Figgis
Dec 20, 2011, 4:18:48 PM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 18:11, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 20/12/2011 18:10, allantracy wrote:
>>>
>>> Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but
>>> on two
>>> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
>>> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
>>> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>>>
>>> I think it's technically feasible.
>>
>> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
>> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
>> concept.
>
> Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
> stating the blindingly obvious.
It depends what you mean by "light rail". Is it a way of avoiding the
> On 20/12/2011 18:10, allantracy wrote:
>>>
>>> Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but
>>> on two
>>> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
>>> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
>>> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>>>
>>> I think it's technically feasible.
>>
>> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
>> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
>> concept.
>
> Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
> stating the blindingly obvious.
negative connotations of the word "tram" (a problem which might not even
exist any more give the success of Tramlink etc), a railway built under
the terms of the 1896 act (eg Derwent Valley), a tramway with minimised
street running and heavy rail characteristics (eg Metrolink), a metro
with short trains (eg DLR, Tyne & Wear)...
I've seen "light rail" used to distinguish systems from traditional
tramways, and to imply things like a segregated routes rather than
on-street running, perhaps high platforms, traffic priority, maybe
tunnels and things, basically what we would call pre-metro if it was in
Belgium.
Arthur Figgis
Dec 20, 2011, 4:20:01 PM12/20/11
to
On 20/12/2011 18:10, allantracy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
>> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
>> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
>> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>>
>> I think it's technically feasible.
>
> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> concept.
>
> I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
> tramway network, ever again.
Possibly for heritage, especially if you include pedestrianised streets
>> decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
>> pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
>> worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>>
>> I think it's technically feasible.
>
> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> concept.
>
> I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
> tramway network, ever again.
(see Istanbul).
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Dec 20, 2011, 4:30:04 PM12/20/11
to
Charles Ellson
Dec 20, 2011, 4:54:10 PM12/20/11
to
bob
Dec 20, 2011, 4:50:20 PM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 7:10 pm, allantracy <allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> > Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
> > decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
> > pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
> > worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>
> > I think it's technically feasible.
>
> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> concept.
Modern "light rail" is a direct development of old school tramways
> > Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
> > decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
> > pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
> > worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.
>
> > I think it's technically feasible.
>
> I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
> resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
> concept.
(with a new name to make it sound cooler than old fashioned trams).
> I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
> tramway network, ever again.
running? Even then there was a fair amount of segregated track and
the odd section of tunnel (e.g. Kingsway).
Robin
Charles Ellson
Dec 20, 2011, 4:58:45 PM12/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:56:13 +0100, Jarle H Knudsen <jh...@jarle.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), allantracy wrote:
>
>> I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
>> tramway network, ever again.
>
>Wasn't the Cross River Tram going to be only street running? (Except one or
>two segments crossing parks.)
>
Thus fitting the description. I suspect "100% street running" was
historically far from a certainty on most systems even when counting
only the passenger-carrying sections.
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:10:25 -0800 (PST), allantracy wrote:
>
>> I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
>> tramway network, ever again.
>
>Wasn't the Cross River Tram going to be only street running? (Except one or
>two segments crossing parks.)
>
historically far from a certainty on most systems even when counting
only the passenger-carrying sections.
Basil Jet
Dec 20, 2011, 5:40:50 PM12/20/11
to
On 2011\12\20 15:28, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> escalator.
Not really, because the two sections have to be able to twist relative
to one another as well.
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:23:40 -0800 (PST)
> bob<rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> extend or contract in length. On a double decker, the floor that does
>> not contain the axis of rotation will experience an extension or
>> contraction of the floor as well as rotation. One of the floors will
>> therefore experience extension and contraction as well as rotation,
>> which is a whole lot less safe.
>
> I'm sure people would get used to it just like they've got used to the ends of
> bob<rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> extend or contract in length. On a double decker, the floor that does
>> not contain the axis of rotation will experience an extension or
>> contraction of the floor as well as rotation. One of the floors will
>> therefore experience extension and contraction as well as rotation,
>> which is a whole lot less safe.
>
> escalator.
Not really, because the two sections have to be able to twist relative
to one another as well.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Dec 20, 2011, 8:51:50 PM12/20/11
to
bob schrieb:
> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
h.
--
Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 † 9. Dezember 2011
http://zierke.com/private/tante_frieda/pics/hase_pino_abgestellt.jpg
Basil Jet
Dec 21, 2011, 1:40:08 AM12/21/11
to
On 2011\12\21 01:51, Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>
> bob schrieb:
>
>
>> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
>
> http://www.bus-bild.de/1024/neoplan-jumbocruiser-n-1384-bj-63069.jpg
A double deck artic is no problem, it's having a connection on both
>
> bob schrieb:
>
>
>> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.
>
> http://www.bus-bild.de/1024/neoplan-jumbocruiser-n-1384-bj-63069.jpg
levels that's tricky.
amogles
Dec 21, 2011, 7:13:01 AM12/21/11
to
on both levels. It was built as a concept demonstrator for Finnland
but no orders ensued. AFAIK the prototype is still in store somewhere.
Stephen Allcroft
Dec 21, 2011, 7:22:29 AM12/21/11
to
On Dec 20, 9:46 am, amogles <amog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"
>
> <edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
>
> Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
> Chinese make.
>
> In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
> had them and no doubt several other cities besides.
>
> I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
> was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
> sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
> Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
> extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
> capacity, British operators built upwards.
>
> Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
> shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
> Many operators worked around this by building turning loops in which
> no shunting was required but the entire tram went around on a cicle of
> track to face the other direction. The provison of these prepared the
> way for the next development which was that of the uni-directional
> tram, having a cab at only one end and doors on only one side. They
> were less flexible in service as they needed loops but from the
> maintenance perspective there was less hardware to be maintained. The
> absence of doors on the off side also meant that more seats could be
> provided. From there they went to articulated trams which again was a
> step backwards in terms of flexibility (compared to trailers) but had
> advanatges in terms of passenger flow and better utilisation of space
> etc. Also the concept was scalable so longer and longer trams could be
> made just by adding intermediate segments.
I remember seeing a picture of one of those with Rotherham, it looked
like a Trolleybus without wheelarches
> On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"
>
> <edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > And, I am aware of the new double deck trams in Hong Kong.
>
> Alexandria also has some double-deck trams. I beleive they are of
> Chinese make.
>
> In the past, double deck trams were more common. Paris and Berlin both
> had them and no doubt several other cities besides.
>
> I am not sure about the details, but I believe that one factor that
> was different in the UK was legislation concerning trailers. I am not
> sure whether they were banend outright, or it was something else.
> Anyway, although some British trams did have trailers, they were
> extremely rare. Where the Germans for example used trailers to grow
> capacity, British operators built upwards.
>
> Of course one disadvantage of trailers was that they needed to be
> shunted at the at end of trip, and so loop tracks had to be provided.
> Many operators worked around this by building turning loops in which
> no shunting was required but the entire tram went around on a cicle of
> track to face the other direction. The provison of these prepared the
> way for the next development which was that of the uni-directional
> tram, having a cab at only one end and doors on only one side. They
> were less flexible in service as they needed loops but from the
> maintenance perspective there was less hardware to be maintained. The
> absence of doors on the off side also meant that more seats could be
> provided. From there they went to articulated trams which again was a
> step backwards in terms of flexibility (compared to trailers) but had
> advanatges in terms of passenger flow and better utilisation of space
> etc. Also the concept was scalable so longer and longer trams could be
> made just by adding intermediate segments.
I remember seeing a picture of one of those with Rotherham, it looked
like a Trolleybus without wheelarches
Stephen Allcroft
Dec 21, 2011, 7:30:01 AM12/21/11
to
services and three 18m artic singles on the Glasgow-London Sleeper.
IIRR only Setra (1) Berkhof (1) and Neoplan (about five over ten
years) actually ever produced double-deck artics, an again IIRR most
of these only had an upper-deck corridor, ISTR that two of the
Neoplan Jumboliners are now registered in the UK as band-transports.
Ian
Dec 21, 2011, 10:54:59 AM12/21/11
to
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjf2etm.1i9...@Odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
> bob schrieb:
>
>
>> Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible. (but
>> no gangway connections)
>
>
Double decks trams were run in UK, in multiple. Quite large, too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/taffytank/5957180091/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi4i20xVNrE
--
Ian1
Graeme Wall
Dec 21, 2011, 1:55:29 PM12/21/11
to
A40 parked by the roadside towards the end.
Paul Terry
Dec 21, 2011, 2:14:44 PM12/21/11
to
In message <BYpIq.102952$Rz.5...@newsfe29.ams2>, Graeme Wall
<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
>Very nice, it says its 1950s but that looked like an early 60s Austin
>A40 parked by the roadside towards the end.
The Mumbles Tramway closed on 5 January 1960.
--
Paul Terry
<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> writes
>Very nice, it says its 1950s but that looked like an early 60s Austin
>A40 parked by the roadside towards the end.
--
Paul Terry
Graeme Wall
Dec 21, 2011, 2:26:42 PM12/21/11
to
Alex Potter
Dec 21, 2011, 5:33:02 PM12/21/11
to
Graeme Wall wrote:
> Can't have been an early 60s A40 then...
I could see why you thought it might be - it hints at the Farina styling.
> Can't have been an early 60s A40 then...
When was the Spridget produced?
--
Alex
0 new messages