On Aug 26, 12:22 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
Anyway, my reading was that John was being somewhat silly. A cable-car is
a ludicrous thing to build in Chatham, so it seems fit that the
justification for it is also ludicrous.

On the contrary , the locals would love it. They could use the cars
are a perfect place to get boozed up in then leave their empties and
pools of vomit behind. Naturally each trip would involve optionally
swinging back and forth in the car as hard as possible to try and get
it to hit something and lets not forget the breaking a window game so
they can chuck stuff down onto people and property beneath. Also think
of the golden (or should that been dayglo green?) opportunity the
disciples of TOX03 would have. - their sigs passing over everyone all
day continuously.

B2003

In message , at
12:22:22 on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean
without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the
level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because
there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic.

The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a
hill".
--
Roland Perry

On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote:
Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a
slope anywhere along;

The Roosevelt Island tramway might count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway

It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island.
Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground
stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal.

U

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 12:22:22
on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson remarked:

Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean
without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the
level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because
there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic.

The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a hill".

Okay, good one. There, i think we have an auxiliary reason for cable-cars,
which is that they're cool, and at a theme park, that's a good enough
reason. Alton Towers also has a number of light rail systems, and despite
the fact that they are all closed cloops with only one station, they have
a quite remarkable variety of grades and curves. And some really rather
unorthodox approaches to seating!

tom

--
First man to add a mixer get a shoeing! -- The Laird

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote:
Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without a
slope anywhere along;

The Roosevelt Island tramway might count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway

It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island.
Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground
stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal.

I was in New York with a friend a while ago, and one morning, after having
spent the previous evening making an extensive survey of local beverage
outlets, he told me he'd noticed a cable-car. I told him in no uncertain
terms that he was mistaken, and to exercise greater restraint in his
consumption in future. About an hour later, i was rather surprised to walk
past it myself. I never mentioned it to him, and hopefully he still thinks
it's imaginary.

So why the bloody buggering hell did they build it? According to
wikipedia, it was built at a time when there was no road bridge to
Manhattan, only Queens, the previous tram bridge had fallen into
disrepair, and the subway was still under construction. What i don't
really understand was why building a cable-car was thought to be a better
option than repairing the tram tracks, or converting them into a road
bridge. Or even a footbridge, given that it's not far, and the cable-car
doesn't exactly go far anyway.

Cross-posted to nyc.transit, who will doubtless have opinions.

tom

--
First man to add a mixer get a shoeing! -- The Laird

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote:
Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean
without a
slope anywhere along;

The Roosevelt Island tramway might count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway

It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island.
Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground
stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal.

I was in New York with a friend a while ago, and one morning, after
having spent the previous evening making an extensive survey of local
beverage outlets, he told me he'd noticed a cable-car. I told him in no
uncertain terms that he was mistaken, and to exercise greater restraint
in his consumption in future. About an hour later, i was rather
surprised to walk past it myself. I never mentioned it to him, and
hopefully he still thinks it's imaginary.

So why the bloody buggering hell did they build it? According to
wikipedia, it was built at a time when there was no road bridge to
Manhattan, only Queens, the previous tram bridge had fallen into
disrepair, and the subway was still under construction. What i don't
really understand was why building a cable-car was thought to be a
better option than repairing the tram tracks, or converting them into a
road bridge. Or even a footbridge, given that it's not far, and the
cable-car doesn't exactly go far anyway.

Cross-posted to nyc.transit, who will doubtless have opinions.

My best guess is that a bridge would probably have been expensive,
especially if high enough not to block what was then (and still is to a
large extent) a critical navigable waterway.

As I understand it, the aerial tramway was supposed to be temporary, but
became so popular that it was kept even after the subway stop was finished.

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 26 Aug, 12:22, Tom Anderson wrote:

Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean
without a
slope anywhere along;


The Roosevelt Island tramway might count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Island_Tramway

It goes from Manhattan across the East River to Roosevelt Island.
Granted, the bit over the river is much higher than the two ground
stations, but the overall journey is essentially horizontal.


I was in New York with a friend a while ago, and one morning, after
having spent the previous evening making an extensive survey of local
beverage outlets, he told me he'd noticed a cable-car. I told him in no
uncertain terms that he was mistaken, and to exercise greater restraint
in his consumption in future. About an hour later, i was rather
surprised to walk past it myself. I never mentioned it to him, and
hopefully he still thinks it's imaginary.

So why the bloody buggering hell did they build it? According to
wikipedia, it was built at a time when there was no road bridge to
Manhattan, only Queens, the previous tram bridge had fallen into
disrepair, and the subway was still under construction. What i don't
really understand was why building a cable-car was thought to be a
better option than repairing the tram tracks, or converting them into a
road bridge. Or even a footbridge, given that it's not far, and the
cable-car doesn't exactly go far anyway.

Cross-posted to nyc.transit, who will doubtless have opinions.

tom


When you say, tram, I think are referring to what we call a trolley or
streetcar. The Queensboro Bridge had trolley tracks and a station. But
needed an elevator to get to the station on the bridge. There was an
underground terminal in Manhattan. The trolley stopped running in 1957.
From that time, until the current tram opened in 1976, there was no
way to get directly to Manhattan from Roosevelt (nee:Blackwell, nee:
Welfare) Island.

One reason that the tram is still operating is that its terminal in
Manhattan is at Second Ave, while the subway station is at Lexington,
two blocks away. This give residents of RI a choice of destinations in
Manhattan.

The subway opened in 1989. For the most part service on the subway used
the 6th Ave Subway. There was a brief time when it was a shuttle to
57th and Broadway. This was to allow track work to be done on the line.

From its opening in 1989 to 2001, there was only one stop in Queens.
On December 16, 2001, the F train began to use the line 24/7 and was
through routed to eastern Queens - 179th St.

--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------

In message , at
15:17:25 on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than "up a hill".

Okay, good one. There, i think we have an auxiliary reason for
cable-cars, which is that they're cool, and at a theme park, that's a
good enough reason.

The valley is surprisingly deep, and the way around the end surprisingly
far. It has a great deal of utility, as well as being merely "cool"
--
Roland Perry

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, D7666 wrote:

On Aug 26, 9:12 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:

OK I see what you mean.

Chatham because of the Medway

But surely even then the schebebahn runs *along* the course of the
river but cablecars tend to go across things ?

Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in the
complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i mean without
a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is on the level
between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's there because
there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to the top of Montjuic.

http://www.koelner-seilbahn.de crosses the Rhine.

Whereas the Dresden Schwebebahn goes up a hill.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwebebahn_Dresden



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
12:22:22 on Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:

Cablecars tend to go *up* things. Are there any that are built in
the complete absence of a steep slope? By 'complete absence', i
mean without a slope anywhere along; Barcelona's, for example, is
on the level between the foot of Montjuic and the port, but it's
there because there's a big slope from the foot of Montjuic to
the top of Montjuic.

The cable-car at Alton Towers goes across a valley, rather than
"up a hill".

Okay, good one. There, i think we have an auxiliary reason for
cable-cars, which is that they're cool, and at a theme park, that's
a good enough reason.

Which is why there is a proposal for a cross Thames cablecar in
Docklands. The route would be Canary Wharf- the Dome- Canning Town,
and perhaps on, up the Lea, to the Olympics site at Stratford;
cheap, quick to install, reasonably non controversial, so long as it
keeps clear of City Airport, and with the same tourist potential as
the London Eye.

If it turns out not to work, you could probably even sell the remains
second hand.

Jeremy Parker