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-...4-bj-63069.jpg

A double deck artic is no problem, it's having a connection on both
levels that's tricky.

On 20 Dez., 17:47, Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 20, 3:48*pm, 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.

No, though SBB's double deck IC stock has the gangway well above the
(traditional screw) coupling, probably about a metre or so.


There is actually a Talgo prototype train that has gangway connections
on both levels. It was built as a concept demonstrator for Finnland
but no orders ensued. AFAIK the prototype is still in store somewhere.

On Dec 20, 9:46*am, amogles wrote:
On 20 Dez., 09:57, "Graham Harrison"

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 Dec 20, 5:13*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 20, 6:01*pm, Sam Wilson 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.

Neil

No, they have 15m rigid double deck and singles running sested
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.

"Hans-Joachim Zierke" wrote in message
. 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

On 21/12/2011 15:54, Ian wrote:
"Hans-Joachim wrote in message
. 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


Very nice, it says its 1950s but that looked like an early 60s Austin
A40 parked by the roadside towards the end.

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

In message , Graeme Wall
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

On 21/12/2011 19:14, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Graeme Wall
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.

Can't have been an early 60s A40 then...

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

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.
When was the Spridget produced?

--
Alex