July 28th 15, 07:41 PM
posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,990
|
|
Scotland - England: West side or east side? And who's advsing the Scots?
wrote:
In article
, (Recliner) wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I suspect that the costs of using a non-standard gauge come from all
the non-standard parts and manufacturing, and 9.5 inches doesn't
really seem worth the aggravation (Japanese services around Tokyo run
perfectly happily on 3'6", after all).
Yes, indeed. In any case, no metro system needs wider than standard
gauge tracks. Narrow gauge, as in Japan, might be better, in fact, if
the tracks have tight curves. Many Continental tram systems are metre
gauge for that reason. In fact, I wonder why the DLR wasn't?
A good question. Did it re-use any track on the former BR route it took
over going up to Stratford? Or maybe it was cheaper to buy standard
gauge kit.
I don't think the original DLR took over any existing track, but the later
Canning Town to Stratford section may have used some of the old NLL tracks
between the new stations. But that wouldn't have affected the original
decision to use standard rather than metre gauge.
Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.
There are no metre gauge railways of any significance in this country. The
DLR uses lots of docklands abandoned railway viaducts so it was presumably
thought to be simpler to stick to standard gauge which seems to handle the
curves without problems.
The tight curves aren't on the old railway alignments. They are on the
all-new sections, or corner links between old alignments.
Look for example at the complex of tracks at West India Quay or either side
of South Quay.
|