"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 20/12/2011 17:13, Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, Sam wrote:

On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.

I'm pretty sure Stagecoach has or had some double-decker articulated
coaches with through connections at both levels. I think they were
used on Megabus duties.


Couldn't find any pictures of a Stagecoach or Megabus articulated double
decker but I did find this:

http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/phono/London.tbus2049b.jpg

Forward that to Boris!!!!!

On 20/12/2011 11:08, d wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:48:56 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
On 20 Dez., 11:46, wrote:

And of course the largest DD rolling stock of the lot are the formerly
Hawker Siddeley now Bombardier cars developed for GO. =A0I've only
ridden on them in Vancouver, but they were very generously sized. =A0I
hear some are used south of 49 too.


I've never ridden on those, but find Amtrak's Superliners to be
extremely comfortable and spacious.

I'm surprised the Russians don't have then considering their loading gauge
would easily support it.

Electrification height, maybe? Or just easier to have (very) long trains?

Finland has lots of big double-deckers.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
decks. * The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
pushchairs, disabled access etc. * Seating would be upstairs; best of both
worlds. * Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.

I think it's technically feasible.

I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
concept.

I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
tramway network, ever again.

Indeed, why would they?

Why would they ever choose to ignore the considerable advantages
afforded by the capability to mix and match tramway and pure railway
technologies?

So, whatever is built has to be suitable for things like reusing old
or existing railway infrastructure (Manchester or Birmingham) and
maybe going underground (Newcastle) which kind of rules out anything
double decker.

On 20/12/2011 18:10, allantracy wrote:

Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on two
decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.

I think it's technically feasible.

I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
concept.

Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
stating the blindingly obvious.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
concept.

Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
stating the blindingly obvious.


Yes, but our street tramways all closed down.

"allantracy" wrote in message
...

Suppose you put together a vehicle that was as long as a NET LRV but on
two
decks. The downstairs could have minimal seating but maximise space for
pushchairs, disabled access etc. Seating would be upstairs; best of both
worlds. Nothing to stop you MU ing 2 or more if you wanted to.

I think it's technically feasible.

I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
concept.

I seriously doubt any city is going to build a 100% street running
tramway network, ever again.

Indeed, why would they?

Why would they ever choose to ignore the considerable advantages
afforded by the capability to mix and match tramway and pure railway
technologies?

So, whatever is built has to be suitable for things like reusing old
or existing railway infrastructure (Manchester or Birmingham) and
maybe going underground (Newcastle) which kind of rules out anything
double decker.

============================

We'll just have to find a route with no, or very high, overbridges and/or
all track on viaduct! If, that is, we're going to reuse old railway
infrastructure.

Oh well.

In article
,
(allantracy) wrote:

I've sometimes wondered why modern tramcar makers don't make double
deckers.

Probably for the same reasons that here in the UK double deck buses
are also in decline.

Bus operators are increasingly turning to longer modern low floor
(floor lowering) single deck buses for their ease of access (mother
and baby), greater safety, better passenger supervision and disabled
friendly features compared to double deckers.

Also in these days of integrated transport consideration of things
like luggage (airport buses) is often required.

There is also no longer the need to accommodate smokers.

But what really swings it for the modern single decker bus is the
extent to which actual seat capacity, falling short of double decker
capacity, can usually be measured in single figures.

Plus, we don't think trams anymore, we think light rail and that means
trains not trams and, as others here have pointed out, that raises the
issue of connecting vehicles together.

I believe Manchester Metro operates some services with six car trains
(with all the ease of access that implies) and it's that kind of
thinking that has brought about the renaissance of the street tramway
into the modern light railway with both on street and off street
running.

That'll be why Stagecoach switched back to double deckers in Cambridge with
50 new ones last year then? Single deckers don't have the capacity for most
Citi services.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 20/12/2011 19:14, Graham Harrison wrote:
We'll just have to find a route with no, or very high, overbridges
and/or all track on viaduct! If, that is, we're going to reuse old
railway infrastructure.

DLR?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 20/12/2011 17:23, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 20/12/2011 17:13, Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 20, 6:01 pm, Sam wrote:

On all the corridor trains I've been on the floor in the gangways is
subject to extension or contraction as the couplings and/or buffers
react to stresses. Granted it's not to the same degree as you'd get
with a DD tram, but it's not an entirely novel problem.

I'm pretty sure Stagecoach has or had some double-decker articulated
coaches with through connections at both levels. I think they were
used on Megabus duties.


Couldn't find any pictures of a Stagecoach or Megabus articulated double
decker but I did find this:

http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/phono/London.tbus2049b.jpg


Cute, but I don't think that trolleybusses are on the cards anytime soon
in London.

In article
,
(allantracy) wrote:

I just don't think we can remain in denial of the fact that the
resurgence of tramways in the UK owes everything to the light rail
concept.

Given that tramways are, by definition, a light rail concept, that's
stating the blindingly obvious.

Yes, but our street tramways all closed down.

Except in Fleetwood (and a tiny bit in Blackpool).

--
Colin Rosenstiel