<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:

>
> Would be tricky to have a metro or tram in bristol given the hills. As for
> Bradford, don't know, never been there.
>

Both had 1st gen tramways.

Bristol has repeated proposals for both tramway and metro.

Trams can cope fine with hills; presumably you've never been to Sheffield,
or Lisbon or Porto for that matter?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 17:39, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> I notice that there are a couple of signals and signal signs that are
>> not listed in the attachment.
>>
>> At Dundonald Road, for example, the middle LED in the signal is dark. It
>> then lights up before the entire signal clears.
>>
>> You can see that aspect here:
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Dundonald_Road_tramstop_look_east.JPG
>>
>> I don't know if, when the LED lights up, it means CD, put your
>> controller into station holding or if it is just means prepare to depart.
>>
>> Perhaps the signal is an 'Approach Restricted' aspect, however? IIRC,
>> there is another signal just like that on the line between stops and
>> closer to East Croydon. IIRC, the signal goes through those aspects as a
>> tram approaches.
>>
>> I have also seen the diamond signal sign with the letter 'C'. Does that
>> mean coast?
>
> Yes, according to
> <https://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/glossary.shtml#Signs>

The “Call Attention” sign, a diamond with a vertical bar extending upward
from the bottom apex, is used in Edinburgh for foot crossings with a
“Crossing” plate underneath it, though the vertical bar seems to be shorter
in Edinburgh.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 09:36, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:03:31 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 12:49:05 +0100, Scott
>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 11:30:24 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 09:23:03 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:08:35 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think OP needs to rephrase the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose the distilled question is, "Why are passengers allowed to walk
>>>>>>>> across tram tracks, but not light railway
>>>>>>>> tracks?".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It?s probably slightly more complex than that. This place has a train:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.eastlinks.co.uk/>
>>>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/hHmicsUZTCL9a2rj6>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but the track is completely segregated and fenced except for two (or
>>>>>>> three?) places, either side of the single station, where footways cross the
>>>>>>> track. There is no protection for pedestrians except for the train
>>>>>>> announcing its presence, but there are partial fences and no entry signs
>>>>>>> for pedestrians at the crossings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this is probably a light railway - it?s certainly not a tram - but
>>>>>>> pedestrians are allowed to walk across the tracks at certain, well
>>>>>>> specified points, with no gates and no warning other than the train?s
>>>>>>> whistle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there any national rail stations where passengers can cross the
>>>>>> tracks? I certainly remember this from the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>> West Highland Line ?
>>>>
>>>> See the several previous answers to this posting!
>>>>
>>> I saw yours for Arisaig but I thought there were one or two other
>>> stations with island platforms and no footbridge.
>>
>> I don’t remember any, but my memory is by no means exhaustive. There
>> certainly aren’t on the Mallaig extension nor on the section from Perth to
>> Inverness. Crianlarich has an island platform with a subway.
>
> I think Corrour may be a pointless answer.
> <https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations-and-destinations/stations-made-easy/corrour-station-plan>

Aha! Thank you.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Would be tricky to have a metro or tram in bristol given the hills. As for
>> Bradford, don't know, never been there.
>>
>
> Both had 1st gen tramways.
>
> Bristol has repeated proposals for both tramway and metro.
>
> Trams can cope fine with hills; presumably you've never been to Sheffield,
> or Lisbon or Porto for that matter?
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

Though modern long articulated trams are properly less able to cope with
the changes between level and inclines and between different amounts of
incline (There is a proper term but I’v got a mental block on it) than
short wheelbase four wheelers. which Porto and Lisbon use on their hilly
routes.
Sheffield climbs hills but are they steady or undulating?
Isn’t the trouble on WM trams caused by them being stressed by such a
change that is difficult relocate ? Some streets in a steep town may cause
difficulties without civil engineering work that puts costs up

GH

On 15/04/2022 16:19, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:23 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Plenty of views of old style trams negotiating floods around the web,
>>>> wether damage to motors was worthwhile is another question but old style DC
>>>> traction equipment was fairly robust or easy to swap out.
>>>> Modern stuff is probably more delicate so its probably not wise but noone
>>>> seems to have told this Dublin driver.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-36543780>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Modern motors and electronics are more likely to be fully-sealed units with
>>> no opportunities for water ingress.
>>
>> Would you put that to the test driving your train if you came across a flooded
>> section?
>>
>
> A bigger problem for trains in the past has been water damage to roller
> bearings, rather than electrical equipment.
It also depends what grease is used in the bearings. If I remember
correctly BR specified a waterproof grease which was unaffected by
floodwater but in the interests of economy non-waterproof grease is now
used.

>
> Clearly what a driver should do in each situation depends on the
> instructions given by their employer and the relevant infrastructure
> operator.
>
> If I came across previously unreported flooding at linespeed, I wouldn't
> have much choice about what happens.
>
> If it's known flooding, I would follow the instructions given by control
> and signaller; gWr's instructions are slightly more restrictive than NR's.
>
> Water above railhead, train movements only if authorised by control.
>
> Water between bottom of railhead and top of railhead, 5mph.
>
> Between top of sleepers and bottom of railhead, NR say linespeed, gWr say
> 20mph (143 150 769) 50mph (158 16x 387 57/Sleeper HST) or linespeed (IET).
>
> Water below the top of the sleepers, linespeed.
>
> None of which is relevant to a tramway running through the streets.
>
> The other consideration for railways rather than street tramways, is that
> if the floodwater is flowing and May dislodge ballast, trains can't run.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 15 Apr 2022 09:00:27 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 21:57, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 18:42, Marland wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered busses
>>>>>>>>>> or a
>>>>>>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea.
>>>>>>>>> Their only
>>>>>>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead wires
>>>>>>>>> yet there
>>>>>>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for
>>>>>>>>> trams which
>>>>>>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since
>>>>>>>>> electric trams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> were invented.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>>>>>>> less reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with
>>>>>>> the ground
>>>>>>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in Angier
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then I
>>>>>>> imagine so
>>>>>>> do batteries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would the batteries be very expensive?  Lots of conventional
>>>>>> trams are
>>>>>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow
>>>>>> discontinuous
>>>>>> electrification. These light trams will need relatively small
>>>>>> batteries, as
>>>>>> they don't need a long range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because AIUI there is a shortage of lithium and chromium with Chinese
>>>>> companies buying up mines in Africa.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Time to start digging up Cornwall again then.
>>>> That’ll piss off all those second home owners who move down to wax
>>>> lyrical
>>>> over the landscape without appreciating that a good part of the
>>>> ambience is
>>>> caused by remains of an Industrial revolution that was virtually over
>>>> before the main one got underway.
>>>>
>>>> GH
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard of tin mining in Cornwall, but not chromium.
>>
>> Tin was the classic mining activity, going back to pre-Roman times, but
>> Cornwall has quite a lot of different ores which have been commercially
>> mined in the recent past.
>>
>
>Over the years Cornwall has actually produced more copper than tin.
>The latter though was more valuable and became more well known,if
>electrical equipment and distribution had developed a few decades earlier
>it may have been a different story.
>
With copper there would have been competition from Parys Mountain
(established c.2000BC) and elsewhere in Wales.

On 15/04/2022 08:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 21:57, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 18:42, Marland wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered
>>>>>>>>> busses or a
>>>>>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea.
>>>>>>>> Their only
>>>>>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead
>>>>>>>> wires yet there
>>>>>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for
>>>>>>>> trams which
>>>>>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since
>>>>>>>> electric trams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> were invented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>>>>>> less reliable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with
>>>>>> the ground
>>>>>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in
>>>>>> Angier in the
>>>>>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then I
>>>>>> imagine so
>>>>>> do batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would the batteries be very expensive?  Lots of conventional
>>>>> trams are
>>>>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow
>>>>> discontinuous
>>>>> electrification. These light trams will need relatively small
>>>>> batteries, as
>>>>> they don't need a long range.
>>>>
>>>> Because AIUI there is a shortage of lithium and chromium with Chinese
>>>> companies buying up mines in Africa.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Time to start digging up Cornwall again then.
>>> That’ll piss off all those second home owners who move down to wax
>>> lyrical
>>> over the landscape without appreciating that a good part of the
>>> ambience is
>>> caused by remains of an Industrial revolution that was virtually over
>>> before the main one got underway.
>>>
>>> GH
>>>
>>
>> I've heard of tin mining in Cornwall, but not chromium.
>
> Tin was the classic mining activity, going back to pre-Roman times, but
> Cornwall has quite a lot of different ores which have been commercially
> mined in the recent past.
>

Like what?

Is there any mining or prospective mining in Brittany, BTW?

On 15/04/2022 14:34, Certes wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 17:39, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> I notice that there are a couple of signals and signal signs that are
>> not listed in the attachment.
>>
>> At Dundonald Road, for example, the middle LED in the signal is dark.
>> It then lights up before the entire signal clears.
>>
>> You can see that aspect here:
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Dundonald_Road_tramstop_look_east.JPG
>>
>> I don't know if, when the LED lights up, it means CD, put your
>> controller into station holding or if it is just means prepare to depart.
>>
>> Perhaps the signal is an 'Approach Restricted' aspect, however? IIRC,
>> there is another signal just like that on the line between stops and
>> closer to East Croydon. IIRC, the signal goes through those aspects as
>> a tram approaches.
>>
>> I have also seen the diamond signal sign with the letter 'C'. Does
>> that mean coast?
>
> Yes, according to
> <https://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/glossary.shtml#Signs>

That's what I thought.

Just coincidentally, a signal sign with the letter 'C' also means (or
meant) or 'Coast' on the New York City Subway. But that was in the days
before they governed the speeds down in the late 90s; fast trains on the
Lexington Avenue Line used to fly before that.

On 15/04/2022 18:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 17:39, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> I notice that there are a couple of signals and signal signs that are
>>> not listed in the attachment.
>>>
>>> At Dundonald Road, for example, the middle LED in the signal is dark. It
>>> then lights up before the entire signal clears.
>>>
>>> You can see that aspect here:
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Dundonald_Road_tramstop_look_east.JPG
>>>
>>> I don't know if, when the LED lights up, it means CD, put your
>>> controller into station holding or if it is just means prepare to depart.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the signal is an 'Approach Restricted' aspect, however? IIRC,
>>> there is another signal just like that on the line between stops and
>>> closer to East Croydon. IIRC, the signal goes through those aspects as a
>>> tram approaches.
>>>
>>> I have also seen the diamond signal sign with the letter 'C'. Does that
>>> mean coast?
>>
>> Yes, according to
>> <https://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/glossary.shtml#Signs>
>
> The “Call Attention” sign, a diamond with a vertical bar extending upward
> from the bottom apex, is used in Edinburgh for foot crossings with a
> “Crossing” plate underneath it, though the vertical bar seems to be shorter
> in Edinburgh.
>
> Sam
>

Does that mean that the driver should ring the bell?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:39 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>If I came across previously unreported flooding at linespeed, I wouldn't
>have much choice about what happens.
>
>If it's known flooding, I would follow the instructions given by control
>and signaller; gWr's instructions are slightly more restrictive than NR's.
>
>Water above railhead, train movements only if authorised by control.
>
>Water between bottom of railhead and top of railhead, 5mph.
>
>Between top of sleepers and bottom of railhead, NR say linespeed, gWr say
>20mph (143 150 769) 50mph (158 16x 387 57/Sleeper HST) or linespeed (IET).

So you probably wouldn't be allowed to do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR5Iz3kuV1g

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwF1-HTH41Q

and definitely not this:

https://victoriancollections.net.au/items/598be51621ea8d19dce721ea

but you might be told to do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQRT2jZxeOg

Mark

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:48:24 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:59:05 +0100, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:21:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
>><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:02:16 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Trams are excluded from the general definition of
>>>>"mechanically-propelled vehicles" to which road traffic signs apply.
>>>
>>>Do you have a cite for that? Because the Traffic Signs Regulations and
>>>General Directions 2002 explicitly exempts trams from obeying traffic
>>>lights and mandatory turn signs, something which would not be necessary
>>>if they were not otherwise generally subject to signage.
>>>
>>I think we had something similar a few years back with trams being
>>subject to multiple specific examptions rather than more general ones.
>>
>>There is also case law that a tram is not a "motor vehicle" or
>>"mechanically propelled vehicle" (in the context of road traffic
>>legislation) as it cannot travel on a road surface if it leaves the
>>rails:-
>>https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tram-motor-vehicle-daniel-rothel
>
>It doesn't need to be a motor vehicle, though. All road users are
>subject to road signs,
>
Not equally. Speed limits only apply to mechanically propelled
vehicles not to horse-drawn vehicles, trams, pedal cycles etc.

>unless given either a general exception
>
Traffic which is other than mechanically propelled is generally not
excepted eather than never included to start with.

>in
>legislation or a specific exception on the signage itself. That's why,
>for example, the "No Entry" signs here...
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/nHLPXrumXt1CK7YP7
>
>...have an exception for trams and cycles, as otherwise it would be
>unlawful for trams or cycles to pass them.
>
Not all signs are actually a legal necessity, e.g. direction arrows on
a two-way road.

>There are, of course, some general exceptions for various classes of
>road user. Cycles are not subject to speed limits,
>
See above.
>and therefore exempt from speed limit signs.
>
Not "exempt", they (like pedestrians) are not of a class of traffic to
which speed limit signs apply thus no exemption is required.

>Pedestrians are exempt from
>
Not a type of traffic controlled by

>almost all signs
>except "No Pedestrians" signs. But the general principle is that
>legislation regulating the roads applies to all road users unless
>otherwise stated in legislation.
>
The legislation (e.g. the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the earlier Highway
Act 1835) generally deals with specific types of traffic in each
section thus e.g. cyclists and pedestrians are not brought within the
scope of the legislation unless mentioned.

>>The Road Traffic Act 1988 also has multiple but varying optional
>>exceptions** (including ss.34-48 wherein traffic signs lie) for trams,
>>trolley vehicles and guided vehicles. The 1988 Act is possibly just
>>the tip of an iceberg of applicable legislation.
>>
>>** including -
>>" s.193A Tramcars and Trolley Vehicles
>>(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that such of the
>>provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below as are specified in the
>>regulations shall not apply, or shall apply with modifications --"
>
>That clause would not be necessary if trams were already exempt. So its
>presence is a clear indicator that, by default, trams are subject to
>road legislation.
>
It isn't clear. There is preceding legislation and case law to be
considered.

>In practice, of course, trams are primarily regulated by their own,
>tram-specific signage which, when present, overrides normal traffic
>signs anyway.
>
You don't over-ride a signal which does not apply to you. Few signs
apply to non-specific traffic.

>And that's a deliberate choice, in order to remove any
>ambiguity. But on the rare occasions that there is no tram-specific
>signage, then normal traffic signs do apply.
>
They don't if the sign is inapplicable to a tram.
Note the first "r" word in -
"Trams on highway[sic] are subject to relevant road and traffic
signage legislation."
[https://uktram.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Tramway-Principles-Guidance-Final-2.pdf]
Tramway Principles and Guidance published by The Stationery Office

If a requirement applies to all traffic then it applies to trams but
few requirements do and those which do can be excluded either by
Acts/regulations applying to all tram systems or those of individual
systems.

On 15/04/2022 20:55, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 08:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 21:57, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 18:42, Marland wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered
>>>>>>>>>> busses or a
>>>>>>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea.
>>>>>>>>> Their only
>>>>>>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead
>>>>>>>>> wires yet there
>>>>>>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for
>>>>>>>>> trams which
>>>>>>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since
>>>>>>>>> electric trams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> were invented.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>>>>>>> less reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with
>>>>>>> the ground
>>>>>>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in
>>>>>>> Angier in the
>>>>>>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then
>>>>>>> I imagine so
>>>>>>> do batteries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would the batteries be very expensive?  Lots of conventional
>>>>>> trams are
>>>>>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow
>>>>>> discontinuous
>>>>>> electrification. These light trams will need relatively small
>>>>>> batteries, as
>>>>>> they don't need a long range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because AIUI there is a shortage of lithium and chromium with Chinese
>>>>> companies buying up mines in Africa.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Time to start digging up Cornwall again then.
>>>> That’ll piss off all those second home owners who move down to wax
>>>> lyrical
>>>> over the landscape without appreciating that a good part of the
>>>> ambience is
>>>> caused by remains of an Industrial revolution that was virtually over
>>>> before the main one got underway.
>>>>
>>>> GH
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard of tin mining in Cornwall, but not chromium.
>>
>> Tin was the classic mining activity, going back to pre-Roman times,
>> but Cornwall has quite a lot of different ores which have been
>> commercially mined in the recent past.
>>
>
> Like what?

Copper of course, as mentiond by others, arsenic, silver and zinc are
the main ones historically.

>
> Is there any mining or prospective mining in Brittany, BTW?
>
>

Tin, certainly

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 20:55:30 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
<hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/04/2022 08:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 21:57, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 18:42, Marland wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered
>>>>>>>>>> busses or a
>>>>>>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea.
>>>>>>>>> Their only
>>>>>>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead
>>>>>>>>> wires yet there
>>>>>>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for
>>>>>>>>> trams which
>>>>>>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since
>>>>>>>>> electric trams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> were invented.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>>>>>>> less reliable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with
>>>>>>> the ground
>>>>>>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in
>>>>>>> Angier in the
>>>>>>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then I
>>>>>>> imagine so
>>>>>>> do batteries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would the batteries be very expensive?  Lots of conventional
>>>>>> trams are
>>>>>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow
>>>>>> discontinuous
>>>>>> electrification. These light trams will need relatively small
>>>>>> batteries, as
>>>>>> they don't need a long range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because AIUI there is a shortage of lithium and chromium with Chinese
>>>>> companies buying up mines in Africa.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Time to start digging up Cornwall again then.
>>>> That’ll piss off all those second home owners who move down to wax
>>>> lyrical
>>>> over the landscape without appreciating that a good part of the
>>>> ambience is
>>>> caused by remains of an Industrial revolution that was virtually over
>>>> before the main one got underway.
>>>>
>>>> GH
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've heard of tin mining in Cornwall, but not chromium.
>>
>> Tin was the classic mining activity, going back to pre-Roman times, but
>> Cornwall has quite a lot of different ores which have been commercially
>> mined in the recent past.
>>
>
>Like what?
>
>Is there any mining or prospective mining in Brittany, BTW?
>
Yes.
https://www.transceltic.com/blog/brittany-mining-will-leave-pollution-legacy-decades
https://multinationales.org/From-Brittany-to-Limousin-mining

On 15/04/2022 02:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 11:44, Recliner wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered busses or a
>>>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea. Their only
>>>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead wires yet there
>>>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for trams which
>>>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since electric trams
>>>>>
>>>>>> were invented.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>>>> less reliable.
>>>>
>>>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with the ground
>>>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in Angier in the
>>>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then I imagine so
>>>> do batteries.
>>>
>>> Why would the batteries be very expensive? Lots of conventional trams are
>>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow discontinuous
>>> electrification.
>>
>> They have same on the main square in Padova, I think in that case not to
>> spoil the view. IIRC, there is also discontinuous electrification on the
>> Mestre-Venice tram, at least on the Venice side.
>>
>
> The Mestre-Venice 'tram' is actually one of the single-rail-guided, rubber
> tyre systems, and has OLE throughout. It doesn't enter any historic areas
> of Venice, it terminates next to the bus station, near the railway station,
> as soon as it's crossed the causeway from the mainland.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>
>
Fair enough. I was there before the line was commissioned.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 02:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 11:44, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered busses or a
>>>>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea. Their only
>>>>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead wires yet there
>>>>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for trams which
>>>>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since electric trams
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> were invented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>>>>> less reliable.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with the ground
>>>>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in Angier in the
>>>>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then I imagine so
>>>>> do batteries.
>>>>
>>>> Why would the batteries be very expensive? Lots of conventional trams are
>>>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow discontinuous
>>>> electrification.
>>>
>>> They have same on the main square in Padova, I think in that case not to
>>> spoil the view. IIRC, there is also discontinuous electrification on the
>>> Mestre-Venice tram, at least on the Venice side.
>>>
>>
>> The Mestre-Venice 'tram' is actually one of the single-rail-guided, rubber
>> tyre systems, and has OLE throughout. It doesn't enter any historic areas
>> of Venice, it terminates next to the bus station, near the railway station,
>> as soon as it's crossed the causeway from the mainland.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>>
>>
> Fair enough. I was there before the line was commissioned.
>

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157678628717496>

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 18:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2022 17:39, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> I notice that there are a couple of signals and signal signs that are
>>>> not listed in the attachment.
>>>>
>>>> At Dundonald Road, for example, the middle LED in the signal is dark. It
>>>> then lights up before the entire signal clears.
>>>>
>>>> You can see that aspect here:
>>>>
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Dundonald_Road_tramstop_look_east.JPG
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if, when the LED lights up, it means CD, put your
>>>> controller into station holding or if it is just means prepare to depart.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the signal is an 'Approach Restricted' aspect, however? IIRC,
>>>> there is another signal just like that on the line between stops and
>>>> closer to East Croydon. IIRC, the signal goes through those aspects as a
>>>> tram approaches.
>>>>
>>>> I have also seen the diamond signal sign with the letter 'C'. Does that
>>>> mean coast?
>>>
>>> Yes, according to
>>> <https://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/glossary.shtml#Signs>
>>
>> The “Call Attention” sign, a diamond with a vertical bar extending upward
>> from the bottom apex, is used in Edinburgh for foot crossings with a
>> “Crossing” plate underneath it, though the vertical bar seems to be shorter
>> in Edinburgh.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>
> Does that mean that the driver should ring the bell?

Very possibly - I should have thought of noticing that when I was out and
about today!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <t3bmnp$sr5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:59:53 on Fri, 15 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:59:33 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t39dph$19s2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:14:57 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:33:03 +0100
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>In message <t38sil$1019$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:09 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>Spaced how many miles apart and how many of them in the whole city?
>>>>
>>>>Headingley to Burleigh Park is less than a mile.
>>>
>>>And the distance from the latter to the main line station?
>>
>>About another mile.
>>
>>>>>Hardly a metro equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>You were asking for a "local rail system of any sort".
>>>
>>>I said local rail public transport. That being a tram or metro system.
>>
>>You said "rail of any sort", and the line to Headingley is.
>
>Stop arguing the toss,

I wish you'd look in a mirror sometimes.

>you know precisely what I meant given I was talking about metros.
>
>>>Eh? Almost all western european cities of the size of leeds and
>>>sheffield have
>>
>>>tram systems. A large proportion have full metros.
>>
>>I think you are over-egging it a bit. There's an awful lot of such
>>cities. ps. "Size": do you mean population or acreage? Where do Bradford
>>and Bristol fit on your scale?
>
>Would be tricky to have a metro or tram in bristol given the hills. As for
>Bradford, don't know, never been there.

Bradford probably much the same reason as Leeds.

>>>Leeds doesn't have either due to political indifference.
>>
>>Just as likely lack of demand. People in Leeds aren't your typical
>>commuter.
>
>How do you know? If there isn't a convenient way of commuting to the city
>centre other than some slow manky bus then they won't do it as much.

Especially if a large section of the workforce is working at t'mill at
end o't'street, they don't need any transport to the City Centre.
--
Roland Perry

In message <et0j5htc56tqukh9g77mvu1qij0lfs0g89@4ax.com>, at 15:48:24 on
Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:59:05 +0100, Charles Ellson
><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:21:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
>><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:02:16 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Trams are excluded from the general definition of
>>>>"mechanically-propelled vehicles" to which road traffic signs apply.
>>>
>>>Do you have a cite for that? Because the Traffic Signs Regulations and
>>>General Directions 2002 explicitly exempts trams from obeying traffic
>>>lights and mandatory turn signs, something which would not be necessary
>>>if they were not otherwise generally subject to signage.
>>>
>>I think we had something similar a few years back with trams being
>>subject to multiple specific examptions rather than more general ones.
>>
>>There is also case law that a tram is not a "motor vehicle" or
>>"mechanically propelled vehicle" (in the context of road traffic
>>legislation) as it cannot travel on a road surface if it leaves the
>>rails:-
>>https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tram-motor-vehicle-daniel-rothel
>
>It doesn't need to be a motor vehicle, though. All road users are
>subject to road signs, unless given either a general exception in
>legislation or a specific exception on the signage itself. That's why,
>for example, the "No Entry" signs here...
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/nHLPXrumXt1CK7YP7
>
>...have an exception for trams and cycles, as otherwise it would be
>unlawful for trams or cycles to pass them.

"No Entry [except cycles]" has long been a bone of contention with the
DfT, who used to claim every individual instance required special
permission. When I first encountered this one, I was fairly sure it was
rogue: https://goo.gl/maps/2AxMzBQ8h9WA2NpL8 not sure whether the lack
of matching exception the other side of the road compounds the felony.

The approved method was like this: https://goo.gl/maps/2zyyYdaRYaHRon6r9
with a 'bypass', although mobility-scooter-shaped invalid carriages
commonly also use the bypass (illegally I expect).
--
Roland Perry

In message <qaji5h9b1ibs1hn17pbir38dcfmspv85qe@4ax.com>, at 11:58:10 on
Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>> nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident occurred as
>>>>>>>>a tram was coming off such a section, going round a tight
>>>>>>>>right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban section. The
>>>>>>>>Croydon trams have little on-street running, only on town
>>>>>>>>centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower. The speedo
>>>>>>>>shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>><https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-7215767697 6959855/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>
>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>
>>>Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>
>>In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>
>These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>
>Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h

Are all those available to order today?

Whatever the theoretical possibilities, the fact remains that 70kph
is a very popular model purchased at the moment by tram networks
re-equipping.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>7215767697
>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>
>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>
>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>
>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>
>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>
>I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,

Yes, should have been 80kph. But the point here is that it's being re-
equipped with 70kph trams. Why? Are they cheaper, is 80kph not of
sufficient benefit any more, or is 70kph some form of new standard to
comply with?

>or meaning that the layout of the track might be suitable for that
>speed.

--
Roland Perry

In message <nfpi5h9qgj4kdge9a2h1ket4dcm6j1a70q@4ax.com>, at 13:35:06 on
Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:21:55 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons
>.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track, and
>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>> do with road speed limits. The accident occurred as a tram
>>>>>>>>>>was coming off
>>>>>>>>>> such a section, going round a tight right-angle bend to enter the
>>>>>>>>>> on-street
>>>>>>>>>> urban section. The Croydon trams have little on-street
>>>>>>>>>>running, only on
>>>>>>>>>> town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>7215767697
>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>
>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>
>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>
>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>
>>I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo, or meaning that the
>>layout
>>of the track might be suitable for that speed. 80mph is Big Railway
>>speeds, and not even that if you’re thinking of class 150, 156 etc..
>
>Yes, I assumed it was a typo. I don't think Roland is used to dealing
>in km/h, which he writes as 'kph', easily then written as the more
>familiar mph.

From an Alstom press release for the Athens metro (not to be conflated
with the tram):

A total of 28 six-car metro trains, each accommodating as many
as 1,030 passengers, will operate at speeds of up to 80 kph
every 4 minutes during rush hours and every 6 minutes during the
off-peak hours.

The "m/k" was a typo, leaving out the "/" wasn't.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>
>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>
>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>
>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>
>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>
> Yes, should have been 80kph.

No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>
>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>
>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>
>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>
>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>
>
> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>
>

There are many alternate abbreviations for kilometres per hour.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour

I’m afraid, if the above is to be believed, that kph is the favoured
abbreviation by Reuters and The Economist.

Perhaps we ought to be using metres per second if we really want to be
using proper units.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>>
>>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>>
>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>
>>
>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>
>>
>
> There are many alternate abbreviations for kilometres per hour.
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour
>
> I’m afraid, if the above is to be believed, that kph is the favoured
> abbreviation by Reuters and The Economist.
>
> Perhaps we ought to be using metres per second if we really want to be
> using proper units.
>

The OTMR on an IET records speed in cm/s.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>>
>>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>>
>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>
>>
>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>
>>
>
> There are many alternate abbreviations for kilometres per hour.
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour
>
> I’m afraid, if the above is to be believed, that kph is the favoured
> abbreviation by Reuters and The Economist.
>
> Perhaps we ought to be using metres per second if we really want to be
> using proper units.
>

As an engineer, I'm happy to use the SI unit, as do all official sources
and metric countries.