Rupert Candy wrote:

and converting
the electrical system from standard 3rd rail to side-contact.

Bottom contact; side contact was Manchester - Bury, and I think after
conversion, Holcombe Brook, which was originally overhead.

The shoegear in New York is interesting; it's a sort of Manchester -
Bury system turned on its side. It's top contact, but the rail is
protceted except for a narrow gap on the inner side, and the shoe is a
flate plate which comes in from the side to contact the top of the
rail.

Several conventional rail vehicles have been used on the DLR by
contractors, both during construction , and for maintenance.

On 31 Jul 2006 01:42:46 -0700, "Neil Williams"
wrote:

Ian Jelf wrote:

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.

And the Malaysian state railway is both largely British-built and metre
gauge.

A fair chunk of the formely pink bits of the map have metre gauge
railways: there is/was a massive secondary network on the Indian
subcontinent (though the Indians are beavering away converting theirs
to 5'6"), Malaysia, Myanmar, east Africa, etc.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

No - the DLR would have to be given driving cabs as well, with a
consequent change in the entire operation of the system (most likely for
the worse).

Why would there be a 'consequent change to the entire operation of the
system'?

It's would be quite feasible to operate in auto mode as far as the last
station on the segregated stretch, have a driver board, and switch to
manual for the remainder of the journey.

I was thinking more in terms of reliability. The current automation
means that the speed of every train can be controlled to ensure
efficient operation, particularly through the bottlenecks at Minories
Junction, Bow Church - Stratford and (most importantly) North Quay
Junction. Regular manual operation on any part of the network
jeopardizes the efficient running of the rest of the network.

There is also a much greater potential for trespass and obstruction
problems, something which the DLR avoids a lot of in comparison to other
light rail thanks to its segregated nature.

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

On 31 Jul 2006 13:54:10 -0700, wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

No - the DLR would have to be given driving cabs as well, with a
consequent change in the entire operation of the system (most likely for
the worse).

Why would there be a 'consequent change to the entire operation of the
system'?

It's would be quite feasible to operate in auto mode as far as the last
station on the segregated stretch, have a driver board, and switch to
manual for the remainder of the journey.

Haven't the DLR trains already got a minimal "cab" in the form of a
suitably-positioned set of controls for driving manually in an
emergency ?
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:

Haven't the DLR trains already got a minimal "cab" in the form of a
suitably-positioned set of controls for driving manually in an
emergency ?

Yes, under a flap at each end of the unit. The controls aren't
separated from the passenger compartment in any way, though.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Charles Ellson wrote:

Haven't the DLR trains already got a minimal "cab" in the form of a
suitably-positioned set of controls for driving manually in an
emergency ?

Yes, under a flap at each end of the unit. The controls aren't
separated from the passenger compartment in any way, though.

and IMX most of the train captains seem to be quite happy for passengers to
sit in the right hand front seats while they are driving from the left hand
seat.

Peter

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:03:07 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

No - the DLR would have to be given driving cabs as well, with a
consequent change in the entire operation of the system (most likely for
the worse).

Why would there be a 'consequent change to the entire operation of the
system'?

It's would be quite feasible to operate in auto mode as far as the last
station on the segregated stretch, have a driver board, and switch to
manual for the remainder of the journey.

I was thinking more in terms of reliability. The current automation
means that the speed of every train can be controlled to ensure
efficient operation, particularly through the bottlenecks at Minories
Junction,

If a DLR train ends up at Minories Junction, the bottleneck is
probably the least of its problems...

ITYM Royal Mint Street Junction.

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?

B2003

Back in October I asked a more general question about railway guages
concerning the cost advantage for 3ft 6in or metre gauge and whether
this could make light rail, for example, more affordable.

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.ra...03 614b6c9cd9

I also wondered whether rural lines might be better relaid in narrow
guage or railways such as the Waverley route be reinstated for less
cost.

I got quite a few replies most informing me that there were absolutely
no cost advantages for the narrower guages and that my suggestions were
a complete waste of time.

Of course, this still begs the question as to why so much of the World
has railways with narrower guage than standard?

Surely, someone must have thought it was a good idea at the time but
why?

asdf wrote:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:03:07 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

No - the DLR would have to be given driving cabs as well, with a
consequent change in the entire operation of the system (most likely for
the worse).
Why would there be a 'consequent change to the entire operation of the
system'?

It's would be quite feasible to operate in auto mode as far as the last
station on the segregated stretch, have a driver board, and switch to
manual for the remainder of the journey.
I was thinking more in terms of reliability. The current automation
means that the speed of every train can be controlled to ensure
efficient operation, particularly through the bottlenecks at Minories
Junction,

If a DLR train ends up at Minories Junction, the bottleneck is
probably the least of its problems...

ITYM Royal Mint Street Junction.

Indeed - whoops!

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

wrote:
Charles Ellson wrote:

Haven't the DLR trains already got a minimal "cab" in the form of a
suitably-positioned set of controls for driving manually in an
emergency ?

Yes, under a flap at each end of the unit. The controls aren't
separated from the passenger compartment in any way, though.

It's also not the ideal position for a driver to sit in - more central
and higher up as on Croydon Tramlink would be better for street running.

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