"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:40:29 +1000, "David Bennetts"
wrote:


Have you noticed that most narrow gauge rolling stock is narrow, whereas
DLR
is quite wide. If you have wide stock on narrow gauge tracks, there is a
potential problem with stability.

Like with 25NCs ?
It depends how low you go in terms of gauge and what you do with the
centre of gravity.
snip
--
Whilst those South African locos were a big beast compared with British
ones, compare their limited maximum speed on narrow gauge (60 miles per
hour) with speeds achieved by British express passenger locos on standard
gauge.

Sure the DLR could have been built at metre or 3 ft 6 in gauge, with its low
operating speeds, but what advantage would have been gained?

Regards

David Bennetts

"David Bennetts" wrote:

Have you noticed that most narrow gauge rolling stock is narrow, whereas DLR
is quite wide. If you have wide stock on narrow gauge tracks, there is a
potential problem with stability.


In Britain we use narrow gauge rolling stock on standard gauge track.
The rolling stock on metre gauge railways in mainland Europe is often
wider than Britain's main line stock, and their main line stock
running on standard gauge is much wider.

British standard gauge rolling stock functions perfectly well on 3' 6"
gauge railways in New Zealand and other countries.

Tony Polson wrote:

British standard gauge rolling stock functions perfectly well on 3' 6"
gauge railways in New Zealand and other countries.

I'd sure have to disagree with

Have you noticed that most narrow gauge rolling stock is narrow,

from the earlier poster.


Brasil has stock - and indeed locos - of the same type that runs on
either 1000 mm and 1600 mm. They have GE U20C locos that identicval
except for trucks.

The iron ore carrying railways EFVM and EFC have full North American
sized diesels and rolling stock.

South Africa and Japan are further examples of 'large' 3 ft 6 in gage
rolling stock.


Much of the Austrailian less-than-standardard gauge stock don't look
small to me either.

--
Nick

Charles Ellson wrote:
.. and would also make it difficult for any kind of mixed running on
or off the DLR which might occur in the future.

I can't see that ever happening. I doubt much if any standard mainline
stock
would be able to negotiate the sharp bends or steep inclines on the DLR
and the DLR stock uses a unique (in britain) 3rd rail system so it
couldn't run
under its own power anywhere else unless modified. And then theres the
good old HSE to factor in with mixed running rules etc....

B2003

David Bennetts wrote:
Sharp curves have been on standard gauge for years - trams in British
systems were mostly of standard gauge, and they went around very sharp
curves as they turned from one street to another. The new light rail
systems are also of standard gauge.

True , and I have to admit I didn't hear any squeal when I've been on
the
Croydon Tramlink but then that took over a large proportion of
pre-existing
ex-mainline track. However the tram on the (very nice) standard gauge
NET system in Nottingham did sound rather in pain on a few corners
when I rode on it last year. That could have done with being a narrower
gauge too IMO.

B2003

In message , Tony Polson
writes
Because metre gauge was "not invented here".

Er actually I think it may have been! I believe that Stephenson's
Crich Mineral Railway in Derbyshire was the first recorded use of 1m
gauge track.

(That said, I can't find a reference on line and nor can I remember
where I learned this.)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:09:52 -0700, D7666 wrote:


Much of the Austrailian less-than-standardard gauge stock don't look
small to me either.

It's isn't. Queensland narrow gauge (passenger) rolling stock is
generally too wide to to run in Standard gauge NSW. (Assuming a bogie
exchange :-)
Sydney suburban stock is too wide to run in country NSW - suburban stock
is 'medium' or 'wide' and can't leave the city.

Broad gauge Victoria rolling stock is narrower than Sydney 'medium'.

Track width is no indication of the width of the rolling stock carbody.

Matthew Geier wrote:

Much of the Austrailian less-than-standardard gauge stock don't look
small to me either.

Track width is no indication of the width of the rolling stock carbody.

Which confirms my comment to which I was responding - which came from
Australia - but I might have snipped to much out.

--
Nick

Charles Ellson wrote:
On 29 Jul 2006 15:32:45 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:14:30 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

"Boltar" wrote:

As I was sitting on the DLR the other day with the train squeeling its
way round
yet another sharp curve, it suddenly struck me - why did they use
standard gauge
track? Surely a narrow gauge would be far better suited to the tight
curves on the line?
Its not as if they'd have had any trouble procuring equipment for
narrow gauge
since plenty of light rail narrow gauge systems operate in europe. And
the DLR
is completely self contained with no physical links to any other
railway so thats
not a concern. Anyone know why they didn't use say metre gauge?
Because metre gauge was "not invented here".

.. and would also make it difficult for any kind of mixed running on
or off the DLR which might occur in the future.
And in the steady progression towards heavy rail, where they keep
having to sell off the previous more flimsy vehicles, they are more
likely to find buyers for standard guage stuff?

Or going in the other direction, the DLR stuff possibly doesn't need
much modification to tram standard for venturing out onto any local
tramways that might be built (oink, oink, flap, flap) which would
probably also be standard gauge.

The problem is that the DLR has to be fully segregated because of the
automatic operation - definitely no pedestrian crossings. To me, that
makes it rather incompatible with any (proposed) tramways, with the
exception of the bit on the Thames Gateway Bridge.

Originally, the northern DLR terminus was to be Mile End, with street
running along Mile End Road from Bow Church - but the choice of
automatic operation ruled this out.

Whenever Ken mentions public transport plans in the Thames Gateway, he
talks about the Transit schemes, and then always mentions the
possibility of upgrading them to tram or DLR. The only way to convert
them to DLR would be to use the busways for the supporting pillars of an
elevated track!

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article ,
(Tony Polson) wrote:

"David Bennetts" wrote:

Have you noticed that most narrow gauge rolling stock is narrow,
whereas DLR is quite wide. If you have wide stock on narrow gauge
tracks, there is a potential problem with stability.

In Britain we use narrow gauge rolling stock on standard gauge
track. The rolling stock on metre gauge railways in mainland Europe is
often wider than Britain's main line stock, and their main line stock
running on standard gauge is much wider.

British standard gauge rolling stock functions perfectly well on 3'
6" gauge railways in New Zealand and other countries.

Not exactly. Continental (UIC) loading gauge is taller but barely wider
than most UK rolling stock and only then below our platform level which
is higher than on the continent.

--
Colin Rosenstiel