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.


(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.

Most UK cities still use double decker buses to get morer capacity in a
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.

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.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 20 Dez., 11:27, Basil Jet wrote:
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?

Do the same as on double-deck trains and provide a gangway connection
on one level only?

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.


--
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/l9...Great_Eastern/

On Dec 20, 11:43*am, "Roger Traviss"
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
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

On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob 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
extremely comfortable and spacious.

On Dec 20, 10:36*am, Graeme Wall 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.?

--
Nick

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:43:49 -0800
"Roger Traviss" 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!

B2003

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:48:56 -0800 (PST)
amogles wrote:
On 20 Dez., 11:46, bob 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.

I've just checked and it seems australia also has them.

B2003

On 2011\12\20 10:50, D7666 wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:36 am, Graeme 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.?

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.

On 20 Dez., 12:10, Basil Jet 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
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.