| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
July 28th 15, 07:41 PM
posted to uk.transport.london,uk.railway
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#3
July 29th 15, 12:17 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scotland - England: West side or east side? And who's advsing the Scots?
wrote:
In article , (Recliner) wrote: 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. Indeed they are but they work perfectly well with standard gauge so why introduce a narrow gauge not used elsewhere in this country? The DLR trains aren't built in the UK and aren't related to any UK systems. The DLR is, in effect, a European light railway that happens to be in London. It uses a third rail system that's unique in the UK, and was the first to use each of its signalling systems in the UK. It remains the only driverless network in the UK, and its vehicles never run on any tracks but their own. So why would it matter if it also had a different gauge? And what maximum speeds could be obtained on narrower gauge? I'm fairly sure it would be lower. Much higher than than the DLR's modest maximum speed of 40mph. DLR trains are essentially high-floor urban trams that don't go as fast as many trams, which typically have a 50mph max. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Scotland - England: West side or east side? And who's advsing the Scots? | London Transport | |||
| West Croydon new down-side entrance | London Transport | |||
| France, England and Scotland or Ireland, France and Scotland | London Transport | |||
| Poland - England transport and sale Cooperation ? | London Transport | |||
| DESTROYING ENGLAND | London Transport | |||
![Recliner[_3_] is offline](https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Hybrid Mode
