On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I suspect that the costs of using a non-standard gauge come from all the
non-standard parts and manufacturing, and 9.5 inches doesn't really
seem worth the aggravation (Japanese services around Tokyo run perfectly
happily on 3'6", after all).

Yes, indeed. In any case, no metro system needs wider than standard gauge
tracks. Narrow gauge, as in Japan, might be better, in fact, if the tracks
have tight curves. Many Continental tram systems are metre gauge for that
reason. In fact, I wonder why the DLR wasn't?

A good question. Did it re-use any track on the former BR route it took over
going up to Stratford? Or maybe it was cheaper to buy standard gauge kit.

xposted to utl.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I suspect that the costs of using a non-standard gauge come from all the
non-standard parts and manufacturing, and 9.5 inches doesn't really
seem worth the aggravation (Japanese services around Tokyo run perfectly
happily on 3'6", after all).

Yes, indeed. In any case, no metro system needs wider than standard gauge
tracks. Narrow gauge, as in Japan, might be better, in fact, if the tracks
have tight curves. Many Continental tram systems are metre gauge for that
reason. In fact, I wonder why the DLR wasn't?

A good question. Did it re-use any track on the former BR route it took over
going up to Stratford? Or maybe it was cheaper to buy standard gauge kit.

I don't think the original DLR took over any existing track, but the later
Canning Town to Stratford section may have used some of the old NLL tracks
between the new stations. But that wouldn't have affected the original
decision to use standard rather than metre gauge.

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

On 28/07/2015 16:41, Recliner wrote:

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

Generally in the form of slimmed-down and lower-capacity "normal"
vehicles. AIUI modern trams come in two standard-ish widths, 2.65 m and
2.3 m, though there are many exceptions on legacy lines which need
something different. If you can get away with the lower capacity of
smaller vehicles, do you need light rail in the first place? If your
stock is going to be full-size, why bother with narrow gauge?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article

rg, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I suspect that the costs of using a non-standard gauge come from all
the non-standard parts and manufacturing, and 9.5 inches doesn't
really seem worth the aggravation (Japanese services around Tokyo run
perfectly happily on 3'6", after all).

Yes, indeed. In any case, no metro system needs wider than standard
gauge tracks. Narrow gauge, as in Japan, might be better, in fact, if
the tracks have tight curves. Many Continental tram systems are metre
gauge for that reason. In fact, I wonder why the DLR wasn't?

A good question. Did it re-use any track on the former BR route it took
over going up to Stratford? Or maybe it was cheaper to buy standard
gauge kit.

I don't think the original DLR took over any existing track, but the later
Canning Town to Stratford section may have used some of the old NLL tracks
between the new stations. But that wouldn't have affected the original
decision to use standard rather than metre gauge.

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

There are no metre gauge railways of any significance in this country. The
DLR uses lots of docklands abandoned railway viaducts so it was presumably
thought to be simpler to stick to standard gauge which seems to handle the
curves without problems.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 28/07/2015 16:41, Recliner wrote:

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

Generally in the form of slimmed-down and lower-capacity "normal"
vehicles. AIUI modern trams come in two standard-ish widths, 2.65 m and
2.3 m, though there are many exceptions on legacy lines which need
something different. If you can get away with the lower capacity of
smaller vehicles, do you need light rail in the first place? If your
stock is going to be full-size, why bother with narrow gauge?

The DLR vehicles are 2.65m. Narrow gauge is better on lines with tight
curves, like the DLR.

wrote:
In article

, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I suspect that the costs of using a non-standard gauge come from all
the non-standard parts and manufacturing, and 9.5 inches doesn't
really seem worth the aggravation (Japanese services around Tokyo run
perfectly happily on 3'6", after all).

Yes, indeed. In any case, no metro system needs wider than standard
gauge tracks. Narrow gauge, as in Japan, might be better, in fact, if
the tracks have tight curves. Many Continental tram systems are metre
gauge for that reason. In fact, I wonder why the DLR wasn't?

A good question. Did it re-use any track on the former BR route it took
over going up to Stratford? Or maybe it was cheaper to buy standard
gauge kit.

I don't think the original DLR took over any existing track, but the later
Canning Town to Stratford section may have used some of the old NLL tracks
between the new stations. But that wouldn't have affected the original
decision to use standard rather than metre gauge.

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

There are no metre gauge railways of any significance in this country. The
DLR uses lots of docklands abandoned railway viaducts so it was presumably
thought to be simpler to stick to standard gauge which seems to handle the
curves without problems.

The tight curves aren't on the old railway alignments. They are on the
all-new sections, or corner links between old alignments.

Look for example at the complex of tracks at West India Quay or either side
of South Quay.

On 28/07/2015 20:26, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 28/07/2015 16:41, Recliner wrote:

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

Generally in the form of slimmed-down and lower-capacity "normal"
vehicles. AIUI modern trams come in two standard-ish widths, 2.65 m and
2.3 m, though there are many exceptions on legacy lines which need
something different. If you can get away with the lower capacity of
smaller vehicles, do you need light rail in the first place? If your
stock is going to be full-size, why bother with narrow gauge?

The DLR vehicles are 2.65m. Narrow gauge is better on lines with tight
curves, like the DLR.

Define better... the DLR appears to work with standard gauge.

IIRC the automatic line in Kuala Lumpur is off-the-shelf standard gauge,
even though the main line network is metre.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 28/07/2015 20:26, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 28/07/2015 16:41, Recliner wrote:

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

Generally in the form of slimmed-down and lower-capacity "normal"
vehicles. AIUI modern trams come in two standard-ish widths, 2.65 m and
2.3 m, though there are many exceptions on legacy lines which need
something different. If you can get away with the lower capacity of
smaller vehicles, do you need light rail in the first place? If your
stock is going to be full-size, why bother with narrow gauge?

The DLR vehicles are 2.65m. Narrow gauge is better on lines with tight
curves, like the DLR.

Define better... the DLR appears to work with standard gauge.

Lots of squeals on the corners, though. And even tighter curves to get
round the corners might have been possible with narrow gauge.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 20:56:56 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 28/07/2015 20:26, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 28/07/2015 16:41, Recliner wrote:

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

Generally in the form of slimmed-down and lower-capacity "normal"
vehicles. AIUI modern trams come in two standard-ish widths, 2.65 m and
2.3 m, though there are many exceptions on legacy lines which need
something different. If you can get away with the lower capacity of
smaller vehicles, do you need light rail in the first place? If your
stock is going to be full-size, why bother with narrow gauge?

The DLR vehicles are 2.65m. Narrow gauge is better on lines with tight
curves, like the DLR.

Define better... the DLR appears to work with standard gauge.

IIRC the automatic line in Kuala Lumpur is off-the-shelf standard gauge,
even though the main line network is metre.

By 'off-the-shelf' I presume you mean because it uses the
linear-induction system developed by Ontario's Urban Transportation
Development Corporation (technology now owned by Bombardier)?

Vancouver's two SkyTrain lines are the same, and a couple of curves
are pretty tight without squealing problems, with another acute curve
to appear when the newest extension opens late next year.

The conventional system used on the line to the airport/Richmond is 4'
8 1/2", and suffers from wild squealing from the Hyundai Rotem cars
midway down the underground segment.

In article

g, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article




rg, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:08:49 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I suspect that the costs of using a non-standard gauge come from all
the non-standard parts and manufacturing, and 9.5 inches doesn't
really seem worth the aggravation (Japanese services around Tokyo
run perfectly happily on 3'6", after all).

Yes, indeed. In any case, no metro system needs wider than standard
gauge tracks. Narrow gauge, as in Japan, might be better, in fact, if
the tracks have tight curves. Many Continental tram systems are metre
gauge for that reason. In fact, I wonder why the DLR wasn't?

A good question. Did it re-use any track on the former BR route it
took over going up to Stratford? Or maybe it was cheaper to buy
standard gauge kit.

I don't think the original DLR took over any existing track, but the
later Canning Town to Stratford section may have used some of the old
NLL tracks between the new stations. But that wouldn't have affected
the original decision to use standard rather than metre gauge.

Given its twisty, highly graded route, and modest speeds, metre gauge
tracks might well have been more appropriate. There are plenty of metre
gauge railways and tramways in Europe and Asia, so standard kit should
readily be available.

There are no metre gauge railways of any significance in this
country. The DLR uses lots of docklands abandoned railway viaducts
so it was presumably thought to be simpler to stick to standard
gauge which seems to handle the curves without problems.

The tight curves aren't on the old railway alignments. They are on the
all-new sections, or corner links between old alignments.

Look for example at the complex of tracks at West India Quay or either
side of South Quay.

Indeed they are but they work perfectly well with standard gauge so why
introduce a narrow gauge not used elsewhere in this country? And what
maximum speeds could be obtained on narrower gauge? I'm fairly sure it would
be lower.

--
Colin Rosenstiel