On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:40:29 +1000, "David Bennetts"
wrote:


"Boltar" wrote in message
roups.com...
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

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.

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
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson wrote:

Like with 25NCs ?

It does look rather odd to see something that size on such a narrow
track gauge.

How common is modern narrow gauge light rail equipment elsewhere in the
World? I would have thought that there would be more people building
standard guage equipment, which might actually make it cheaper.

On 29 Jul 2006 16:36:00 -0700, "Stephen Furley"
wrote:


Charles Ellson wrote:

Like with 25NCs ?

It does look rather odd to see something that size on such a narrow
track gauge.

How common is modern narrow gauge light rail equipment elsewhere in the
World? I would have thought that there would be more people building
standard guage equipment, which might actually make it cheaper.

OTMH you've got various bits of metre-gauge around Europe (a lot in
Switzerland ?) which does in general seem to scale down the size of
the bodywork while in Africa 3' 6" gauge seems to be "normal-sized"
bodies running a bit closer to the ground. In both cases the trackwork
is generally going to be cheaper while in the latter case the main
difference is the bogies on the rolling stock which won't necessarily
cost more while the locomotives in the past possibly had less "off the
shelf" nature than now so the difference between standard and the
larger narrow-gauges also might not have been significant or even
extra.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

"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