On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:00:28 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
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
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.

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.) No chance that scheme will ever reappear?

--
jhk

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
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 Surrey, UK

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
(see Istanbul).



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 20/12/2011 21:20, Arthur Figgis 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.

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
(see Istanbul).



Their light rail runs on street level all the way through, however.

On Dec 20, 7:10*pm, 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.

Modern "light rail" is a direct development of old school tramways
(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.

How many of the UK tramways still open in 1950 were still 100% street
running? Even then there was a fair amount of segregated track and
the odd section of tunnel (e.g. Kingsway).

Robin

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:38:54 +0000, "
wrote:

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 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
in London.

Not until they build the necessary canals with OHLE.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:56:13 +0100, Jarle H Knudsen
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.

No chance that scheme will ever reappear?

On 2011\12\20 15:28, d wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:23:40 -0800 (PST)
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
escalator.

Not really, because the two sections have to be able to twist relative
to one another as well.

bob schrieb:


Articulations and double deck vehicles are generally not compatible.

http://www.bus-bild.de/1024/neoplan-...4-bj-63069.jpg



h.


--

Frieda Uffelmann * 15. August 1915 â€* 9. Dezember 2011

http://zierke.com/private/tante_frie...abgestellt.jpg