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.

I still find it quite an accomplishment to see Canning Town and
Stratford bound trains pull in alongside each other simultaneously at
Poplar, thus allowing cross-platform interchange. The same applies in
the other direction with trains bound for Canary Wharf and Bank/Tower
Gateway.

This ability for the DLR to run like clockwork would all fall apart if
there was any on-street running.

Dave Arquati wrote:

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.


I'd go further and say that while the controls are fine for use on a
seperated right of way, they'd be completely and totally inappropriate
for on-street running.

In article .com,
allan tracy wrote:
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.

Not strictly accurate (to euphemise..): you were told that there
were significant cost advantages when building a new formation (when
engineering a new route - and obviously this does not apply if you're
re-opening an already-engineered formation or modifying an existing
line) but that differences in running costs were minimal (given
similar sizes and weights of stock) and that the absence of through-
running, with all that entails in loss of flexibility and increased
costs of transhipment was a serious demerit.

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

To minimise the costs of //the original engineering of the route//.

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

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake One,
IIRC.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

"allan tracy" wrote

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.

Quite a number of tourist railways which have been built on disused
trackbeds of standard gauge railways have gone for a narrow gauge - see, for
example, at opposite ends of England the South Tyneside Railway and the
Seaton Tramway.

Peter

Mind you, the Seaton tramway, a lovely little line, is the gauge it is
because they lifted it and moved it there from Eastbourne.

JG.

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

"allan tracy" wrote

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.

Quite a number of tourist railways which have been built on disused
trackbeds of standard gauge railways have gone for a narrow gauge - see,
for
example, at opposite ends of England the South Tyneside Railway and the
Seaton Tramway.

Peter

In article ,
Peter Masson wrote:

"allan tracy" wrote

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.

Quite a number of tourist railways which have been built on disused
trackbeds of standard gauge railways have gone for a narrow gauge - see, for
example, at opposite ends of England the South Tyneside Railway and the
Seaton Tramway.

If you're accepting low speed & limited capacity - which is almost
inevitably going to be the case for a preserved line with a light
railway order - then there are advantages in lighweight rails and
light, small rolling stock - and light, small rolling stock is
much easier to find in NG than SG.

That said, it'd be interesting to compare the cost overall for one
of these NG lines and, say, the Tanfield, which uses SG stock which
isn't that much larger or heavier than many NG lines.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake One,
IIRC.

I'll be the mug who volunteers to look stupid and ask which railway is
the "Big Mistake One"?

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake One,
IIRC.

I'll be the mug who volunteers to look stupid and ask which railway is
the "Big Mistake One"?

Sorry. An it's an accepted convention in some groups, but not (yet!)
universal in this 'un. Big Mistake One = 1914-1918, the Great War, the
First World War and other less descriptive titles. Of course, the First
Big Mistake of Big Mistake One (one of its causes, in fact), was
planning which put railway timetables ahead of diplomacy..

My point was that I can't think of a railway network which was started
from new much after 1914 which went for sub-standard gauge. Some of the
French NG lines, maybe, and a few isolated lines in .uk; but in
all those cases the driver was cheap ex-trench-supply-railway rails and
stock. The people building the lines forgot about all the ex-military
lorries and drivers who'd learned to drive 'em, of course..

And why were the trench-supply lines NG? Ability to fit around tighter
corners in a (ahem) highly-structured (and repeatedly re-structured)
landscape - so it's back to ease of initial construction.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake One,
IIRC.

I'll be the mug who volunteers to look stupid and ask which railway is
the "Big Mistake One"?

Sorry. An it's an accepted convention in some groups, but not (yet!)
universal in this 'un. Big Mistake One = 1914-1918, the Great War, the
First World War and other less descriptive titles. Of course, the First
Big Mistake of Big Mistake One (one of its causes, in fact), was
planning which put railway timetables ahead of diplomacy..

I'll not make that interpretational mistake again, thanks for the
explaination. I'm guessing that "Big Mistake Two" isn't a phrase that's
in common use.


My point was that I can't think of a railway network which was started
from new much after 1914 which went for sub-standard gauge. Some of the
French NG lines, maybe, and a few isolated lines in .uk; but in
all those cases the driver was cheap ex-trench-supply-railway rails and
stock. The people building the lines forgot about all the ex-military
lorries and drivers who'd learned to drive 'em, of course..

And why were the trench-supply lines NG? Ability to fit around tighter
corners in a (ahem) highly-structured (and repeatedly re-structured)
landscape - so it's back to ease of initial construction.


A good point. The trench supply railways are something I know very
little about.

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake One,
IIRC.

I'll be the mug who volunteers to look stupid and ask which railway is
the "Big Mistake One"?

Sorry. An it's an accepted convention in some groups, but not (yet!)
universal in this 'un. Big Mistake One = 1914-1918, the Great War, the
First World War and other less descriptive titles. Of course, the First

I'll not make that interpretational mistake again, thanks for the
explaination. I'm guessing that "Big Mistake Two" isn't a phrase that's
in common use.

It's common enough in some groups. Big Mistake Three, OTOH, is not
(yet) in mainstream use, though it's possible to see that it might
ne required in time

My point was that I can't think of a railway network which was started
from new much after 1914 which went for sub-standard gauge. Some of the
French NG lines, maybe, and a few isolated lines in .uk; but in
all those cases the driver was cheap ex-trench-supply-railway rails and
stock. The people building the lines forgot about all the ex-military
lorries and drivers who'd learned to drive 'em, of course..

And why were the trench-supply lines NG? Ability to fit around tighter
corners in a (ahem) highly-structured (and repeatedly re-structured)
landscape - so it's back to ease of initial construction.


A good point. The trench supply railways are something I know very
little about.

Fair bit of info at:

http://members.shaw.ca/twofooter/ww2ftrrW-Z.htm#WW1

at the very least, somewhere to start looking!

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)