Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from public roads by
>>>>>> the 1970’s
>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>> early 1960’s and also by that
>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950’s as shortages eased they
>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930’s production with performance
>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>
>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>> construction. The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Morris wasn’t alone , its Austin rival the A30 ,some Fords,and
>>> Vauxhalls of the 1950’s
>>> also had adopted monocoque construction so that was fairly old hat by the
>>> time the Minis
>>> first branded as an Austin 7 arrived. It was the other features that made
>>> it really different though
>>> most had been tried on other makes such as front wheel drive being used by
>>> Citroen, it was combining them together that made the Mini a mould
>>> breaker.
>>
>> And the Citroen Traction Avant of 1934 was also monocoque.
>>
>
> From
> <https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-reviews/citroen/traction-avant-1934-1957/>
>
> The Traction Avant popularised front-wheel drive, monocoque body
> construction (without a separate chassis) and all-round independent
> suspension. Notice we said popularised – not invented. Front-wheel drive
> experiments had been going on since the very early days of motoring. The
> Lancia Lambda, launched in 1922, was the first monocoque production model,
> while the Alfa Romeo 8C of 1931 was the first to have each wheel sprung
> independently.

Yes, and DKW/Audi/Auto Union had front wheel drive from 1931/2, DKW with a
transverse engine. There’s always been plenty of cross-pollination.

Sam

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

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 21.04.2022 um 09:18 schrieb Graeme Wall:
>> On 21/04/2022 01:40, Recliner wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for
>>>>>>>> open-hearth
>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from public
>>>>>> roads by
>>>>>> the 1970’s
>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in
>>>>>> scrapyards
>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>> The  introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>> early 1960’s and also by that
>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950’s as shortages eased
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930’s production with
>>>>>> performance
>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>
>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>> construction.
>>>
>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>
>> Surprise to me too.
>>
>>>
>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>
>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>
>> Also the adoption of front wheel drive was unusual at th time.
>
> Done on the Citroen 2CV since 1948.
>
>

The Citroen Traction Avant had both monocoque and FWD from 1934… and even
then "The Traction Avant was a late entrant into the growing front-wheel
drive market in Europe".

Not transverse engine though (neither was the 2CV or even the early
versions of the Citroen Visa), nor gearbox-in-sump.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/04/2022 09:01, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 21.04.2022 um 09:18 schrieb Graeme Wall:
>>>> On 21/04/2022 01:40, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian
>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for
>>>>>>>>>> open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from public
>>>>>>>> roads by
>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in
>>>>>>>> scrapyards
>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>> The  introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new
>>>>>>>> designs like
>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with
>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>
>>>> Surprise to me too.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>
>>>> Also the adoption of front wheel drive was unusual at th time.
>>>
>>> Done on the Citroen 2CV since 1948.
>>>
>>
>> To be pedantic, that is not a British car.
>
>And to be even more pedantic, the 2CV dates from 1938, and it was the
>successor to the moncoque, FWD Traction Avant of 1934.

Not really the successor, as the TA stayed in production for many more years. It was more of a cheaper, entry-level
sibling for the bigger, smarter TA.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 09:01, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 21.04.2022 um 09:18 schrieb Graeme Wall:

>>> Also the adoption of front wheel drive was unusual at th time.
>>
>> Done on the Citroen 2CV since 1948.
>>
>
> To be pedantic, that is not a British car.
>

Some were built in Slough.

<http://www.citroenet.org.uk/foreign/slough/slough-2cv.html>

GH

On 21/04/2022 13:12, Marland wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/04/2022 09:01, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 21.04.2022 um 09:18 schrieb Graeme Wall:
>
>>>> Also the adoption of front wheel drive was unusual at th time.
>>>
>>> Done on the Citroen 2CV since 1948.
>>>
>>
>> To be pedantic, that is not a British car.
>>
>
> Some were built in Slough.
>
> <http://www.citroenet.org.uk/foreign/slough/slough-2cv.html>
>

I take it back! Never knew that.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 20/04/2022 10:47, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 20.04.2022 um 02:04 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>> On 20/04/2022 00:20, Recliner wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Are there any places, I guess primarily in Europe, where a tram network
>>>> will have fast trams? Tram-trains don't count.
>>>
>>> Do you mean high speed trams (ie, 100 km/h or more), or normal trams
>>> running non-stop on bypass lines?
>>>
>> The latter.
>
> The Mannheim area, according to most definitions (the question is how
> exactly you wish to distinguish trams from Tram-trains in the 1000mm
> gague).
> <https://www.rnv-online.de/media/rnv-online.de/Fahrtinfo/Liniennetzplaene/regulaer/Liniennetzplan_MA-LU_regulaer.pdf>
>
>
> The peak hour Line 8EX from Rheinau to Hauptbahnhof (to Ludwigshafen
> Oppau/ BASF once the Rhine bridge will re-open) runs along the standard
> lines 1 (and 7 in Ludwigshafen) while skipping about half of the stops.
>
> The Sunday line 9EX runs from Heidelberg via Mannheim and Ludwigshafen
> to Bad Dürkheim., along the usual lines 5 and 4.  The routes of 4 and 5
> allow max speeds of 80 km/h where they have their own trackbed
>
> Rolf

Does that line have more than its standard two tracks, such as a middle
track or tracks that physically bypass a stop?

On 20/04/2022 14:29, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Are there any places, I guess primarily in Europe, where a tram network
>> will have fast trams? Tram-trains don't count.
>>
>
> Do you mean fast as in high-speed, or fast as in limited-stop?

Limited stop, for example a line with tracks that allow fast running,
similar to the Met, the Picc or even the New York City Subway.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21/04/2022 09:01, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>> Am 21.04.2022 um 09:18 schrieb Graeme Wall:
>>>>> On 21/04/2022 01:40, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian
>>>>>>>>>>> market
>>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for
>>>>>>>>>>> open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from public
>>>>>>>>> roads by
>>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in
>>>>>>>>> scrapyards
>>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>> The  introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new
>>>>>>>>> designs like
>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with
>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>
>>>>> Surprise to me too.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also the adoption of front wheel drive was unusual at th time.
>>>>
>>>> Done on the Citroen 2CV since 1948.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To be pedantic, that is not a British car.
>>
>> And to be even more pedantic, the 2CV dates from 1938, and it was the
>> successor to the moncoque, FWD Traction Avant of 1934.
>
> Not really the successor, as the TA stayed in production for many more
> years. It was more of a cheaper, entry-level
> sibling for the bigger, smarter TA.

Good point. Descendent of then, in some senses.

Sam

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

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 14:29, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Are there any places, I guess primarily in Europe, where a tram network
>>> will have fast trams? Tram-trains don't count.
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean fast as in high-speed, or fast as in limited-stop?
>
> Limited stop, for example a line with tracks that allow fast running,
> similar to the Met, the Picc or even the New York City Subway.
>

I'd think that was hard with on-street running, but could imagine a
tunnelled, limited stop route that supplemented an on-street section with
frequent stops.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>> construction.
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>
>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>
>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>
>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>> "first" ?
>>
>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>> Pretty amazing!
>
> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
> wouldn't have worked.

Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>
>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>
>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>> "first" ?
>>>
>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>> Pretty amazing!
>>
>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>> wouldn't have worked.
>
> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.

Rear/rear tends to be less good for luggage than front/front. I guess it’s
to do with the steering gear using up space between the wheels, and the
usual longer overhang at the rear.

Sam

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

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>>> "first" ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>>> Pretty amazing!
>>>
>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>>> wouldn't have worked.
>>
>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
>> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
>> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
>> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
>> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>
> Rear/rear tends to be less good for luggage than front/front. I guess it’s
> to do with the steering gear using up space between the wheels, and the
> usual longer overhang at the rear.

Yes, I think that's probably why the Mini-layout won, and the Beetle-layout
faded away. But it's interesting that the Smart car continued the
rear-engine layout, as does the new VW ID.3 EV.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>
>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>
>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>> "first" ?
>>>
>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>> Pretty amazing!
>>
>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>> wouldn't have worked.
>
> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>

The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from the
FWD models in the range at the time.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 14:29, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Are there any places, I guess primarily in Europe, where a tram network
>>>> will have fast trams? Tram-trains don't count.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean fast as in high-speed, or fast as in limited-stop?
>>
>> Limited stop, for example a line with tracks that allow fast running,
>> similar to the Met, the Picc or even the New York City Subway.
>>
>
> I'd think that was hard with on-street running, but could imagine a
> tunnelled, limited stop route that supplemented an on-street section with
> frequent stops.
>
>

Where Rhonexpress Lyon-Airport line shares tracks with the T3 tram line,
the latter has platforms in loops to allow the former to pass; but they're
all off-street stations
<https://cartometro.com/documents/CartoMetroTramLyon.v4.3.png>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Am 21.04.2022 um 19:02 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
> On 20/04/2022 10:47, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 20.04.2022 um 02:04 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>> On 20/04/2022 00:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Are there any places, I guess primarily in Europe, where a tram
>>>>> network
>>>>> will have fast trams? Tram-trains don't count.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean high speed trams (ie, 100 km/h or more), or normal trams
>>>> running non-stop on bypass lines?
>>>>
>>> The latter.
>>
>> The Mannheim area, according to most definitions (the question is how
>> exactly you wish to distinguish trams from Tram-trains in the 1000mm
>> gague).
>> <https://www.rnv-online.de/media/rnv-online.de/Fahrtinfo/Liniennetzplaene/regulaer/Liniennetzplan_MA-LU_regulaer.pdf>
>>
>>
>> The peak hour Line 8EX from Rheinau to Hauptbahnhof (to Ludwigshafen
>> Oppau/ BASF once the Rhine bridge will re-open) runs along the
>> standard lines 1 (and 7 in Ludwigshafen) while skipping about half of
>> the stops.
>>
>> The Sunday line 9EX runs from Heidelberg via Mannheim and Ludwigshafen
>> to Bad Dürkheim., along the usual lines 5 and 4.  The routes of 4 and
>> 5 allow max speeds of 80 km/h where they have their own trackbed
>>
>> Rolf
>
> Does that line have more than its standard two tracks, such as a middle
> track or tracks that physically bypass a stop?

No, this is "express traffic" on standard two-track lines. The peak
hour line goes on top of a 10-minute service pattern (gaining 4 minutes
on a 20-minute journey).

The Sunday tourist line goes on top of a 30-minute Sunday pattern.

Rolf

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>>> "first" ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>>> Pretty amazing!
>>>
>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>>> wouldn't have worked.
>>
>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
>> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
>> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
>> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
>> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>
> Rear/rear tends to be less good for luggage than front/front. I guess it’s
> to do with the steering gear using up space between the wheels, and the
> usual longer overhang at the rear.
>

The MGF managed a decent amount of luggage space behind the
engine/transmission module; a short but very deep boot.

The front engine/RWD Mazda MX5, meanwhile, lacked luggage space as although
it has a long boot, it's very shallow, over the rear differential (and
spare wheel?).

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>>>> "first" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>>>> Pretty amazing!
>>>>
>>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>>>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>>>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>>>> wouldn't have worked.
>>>
>>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
>>> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
>>> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
>>> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
>>> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>
>> Rear/rear tends to be less good for luggage than front/front. I guess it’s
>> to do with the steering gear using up space between the wheels, and the
>> usual longer overhang at the rear.
>
> Yes, I think that's probably why the Mini-layout won, and the Beetle-layout
> faded away. But it's interesting that the Smart car continued the
> rear-engine layout, as does the new VW ID.3 EV.
>
>

The Smart (and related Renault Twingo) have a very compact engine/gearbox
package, with the luggage space above it. There's no storage under the
front.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 21.04.2022 um 19:02 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>> On 20/04/2022 10:47, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 20.04.2022 um 02:04 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Are there any places, I guess primarily in Europe, where a tram
>>>>>> network
>>>>>> will have fast trams? Tram-trains don't count.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean high speed trams (ie, 100 km/h or more), or normal trams
>>>>> running non-stop on bypass lines?
>>>>>
>>>> The latter.
>>>
>>> The Mannheim area, according to most definitions (the question is how
>>> exactly you wish to distinguish trams from Tram-trains in the 1000mm
>>> gague).
>>> <https://www.rnv-online.de/media/rnv-online.de/Fahrtinfo/Liniennetzplaene/regulaer/Liniennetzplan_MA-LU_regulaer.pdf>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The peak hour Line 8EX from Rheinau to Hauptbahnhof (to Ludwigshafen
>>> Oppau/ BASF once the Rhine bridge will re-open) runs along the
>>> standard lines 1 (and 7 in Ludwigshafen) while skipping about half of
>>> the stops.
>>>
>>> The Sunday line 9EX runs from Heidelberg via Mannheim and Ludwigshafen
>>> to Bad Dürkheim., along the usual lines 5 and 4.  The routes of 4 and
>>> 5 allow max speeds of 80 km/h where they have their own trackbed
>>>
>>> Rolf
>>
>> Does that line have more than its standard two tracks, such as a middle
>> track or tracks that physically bypass a stop?
>
> No, this is "express traffic" on standard two-track lines. The peak
> hour line goes on top of a 10-minute service pattern (gaining 4 minutes
> on a 20-minute journey).
>
> The Sunday tourist line goes on top of a 30-minute Sunday pattern.
>

Track layout shown here <https://www.gleisplanweb.eu/Maps/Mannheim.svg>
including which stops are missed by the express services.

What's the story behind the not-in-use tunnel between Hemshofstrasse and
Ludwigshafen Hauptbahnhof?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Am 22.04.2022 um 12:20 schrieb Anna Noyd-Dryver:
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>> Am 21.04.2022 um 19:02 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>> On 20/04/2022 10:47, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>>> Am 20.04.2022 um 02:04 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Are there any places, I guess primarily in Europe, where a tram
>>>>>>> network
>>>>>>> will have fast trams? Tram-trains don't count.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you mean high speed trams (ie, 100 km/h or more), or normal trams
>>>>>> running non-stop on bypass lines?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The latter.
>>>>
>>>> The Mannheim area, according to most definitions (the question is how
>>>> exactly you wish to distinguish trams from Tram-trains in the 1000mm
>>>> gague).
>>>> <https://www.rnv-online.de/media/rnv-online.de/Fahrtinfo/Liniennetzplaene/regulaer/Liniennetzplan_MA-LU_regulaer.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The peak hour Line 8EX from Rheinau to Hauptbahnhof (to Ludwigshafen
>>>> Oppau/ BASF once the Rhine bridge will re-open) runs along the
>>>> standard lines 1 (and 7 in Ludwigshafen) while skipping about half of
>>>> the stops.
>>>>
>>>> The Sunday line 9EX runs from Heidelberg via Mannheim and Ludwigshafen
>>>> to Bad Dürkheim., along the usual lines 5 and 4.  The routes of 4 and
>>>> 5 allow max speeds of 80 km/h where they have their own trackbed
>>>>
>>>> Rolf
>>>
>>> Does that line have more than its standard two tracks, such as a middle
>>> track or tracks that physically bypass a stop?
>>
>> No, this is "express traffic" on standard two-track lines. The peak
>> hour line goes on top of a 10-minute service pattern (gaining 4 minutes
>> on a 20-minute journey).
>>
>> The Sunday tourist line goes on top of a 30-minute Sunday pattern.
>>
>
> Track layout shown here <https://www.gleisplanweb.eu/Maps/Mannheim.svg>
> including which stops are missed by the express services.
>
> What's the story behind the not-in-use tunnel between Hemshofstrasse and
> Ludwigshafen Hauptbahnhof?

<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projekt_Visitenkarte>
Crazy urban planning: The railway station was moved from a terminus
north of the City Center to a triangular shape at the current location
at the railway junction.

A second bridge over the Rhine was built north of the City Center.
Dual Carraigeway roads ("High roads") were built on second-floor level
from the new railway station to both bridges over the Rhine.
At the base of the new bridge, a new "town hall sky scraper" was built
(main aim: be higher than the BASF administrative building).
Underground tram stations were built at the new railway station
(meaningful: the tram passes below the railway lines) and under the new
town hall (the "level -1" is kind of meaningful and still in use).

In this situation, a new tram line connecting two brand new underground
stations must be a "real modern underground line", dug below the
trackbed of the obsolete railway lines to the old terminus rather than a
normal tram line.

When I moved to the area, there was still a peak hour service through
that tunnel (I specifically made trips to the "useless underground line"
with my 2-year old son). This was stopped around 2010 as it was burning
money like hell.

To revnovate the obsolete "High roads", there used to be plans to
replace the "northern High road" by a ground level dual carriageway and
once that was done to come up with a meaningful solution for the
"southern high road". Sadly, on inspecion, the approach to the southern
bridge was found to be so close to collapse that they even forbade trams
from passing through under that bridge, causing massive traffic jams in
the wider area since 2019, possibley till 2025 (tram traffic below the
bridge was re-opened after a few months, road and tram traffic over the
bridge will only be reinstated when everything is built new, the
parallel railway bridge is unaffected).

Rolf

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>>> "first" ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>>> Pretty amazing!
>>>
>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>>> wouldn't have worked.
>>
>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
>> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
>> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
>> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
>> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>
>
> The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from the
> FWD models in the range at the time.
>

Technically, that's mid-engined (a popular layout for sports cars) , not
rear-engined.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:42:27 +0000, Recliner wrote:

> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian
>>>>>>>>>>>> market after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap
>>>>>>>>>>>> for open-hearth furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought
>>>>>>>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>>> public roads by the 1970?s I still used to see quite a lot AEC
>>>>>>>>>> crane vehicles in use in scrapyards forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles
>>>>>>>>>> from the early 1960?s and also by that time British
>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like the
>>>>>>>>>> Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages
>>>>>>>>>> eased they were largely new bodies still using mechanicals
>>>>>>>>>> derived from 1930?s production with performance rapidly being
>>>>>>>>>> eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break
>>>>>>>>> away from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also
>>>>>>>> monocoque construction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the engine
>>>>>>>> sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany in
>>>>>>>> the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe
>>>>>> a "first" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new
>>>>> standard for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70
>>>>> years later. Pretty amazing!
>>>>
>>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what
>>>> other configuration might have superseded it (for family cars,
>>>> anyway). A longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof,
>>>> probably wouldn't have worked.
>>>
>>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit,
>>> as happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle,
>>> Fiat 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc.
>>> One example remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were
>>> succeeded by the new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>>
>>>
>> The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from
>> the FWD models in the range at the time.
>>
>>
> Technically, that's mid-engined (a popular layout for sports cars) , not
> rear-engined.

Although the engine is only /just/ in front of the rear wheels! I seem to
recall the MGF having a big block of iron up front to try to get enough
weight onto the front wheels, one reason why it was so much heavier than
a Mazda MX-5.

(Never had one. Drove it and the MX-5 and chose the Mazda.)

nib

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>>>> "first" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>>>> Pretty amazing!
>>>>
>>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>>>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>>>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>>>> wouldn't have worked.
>>>
>>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
>>> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
>>> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
>>> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
>>> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>>
>>
>> The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from the
>> FWD models in the range at the time.
>>
>
> Technically, that's mid-engined (a popular layout for sports cars) , not
> rear-engined.
>

I've always thought that the precise position of engine block relative to
axle is one bit of pedantry too far, unless you're discussing something for
which it is actually relevant, eg finer technical details, or effects on
handling. After all, it's very rarely mentioned for vehicles with the
engine at the front! Relevant for this thread, the Minor had the engine
mounted as far forward as possible (as IIRC did Audis of a certain
generation), while the Mazda MX5 is described by Wikipedia as "front
mid-engine”; but nobody routinely makes that differentiation.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:16:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:

> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilian market after the war or did they all wind up as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ferrous scrap for open-hearth furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought
>>>>>>>>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>>>> public roads by the 1970?s I still used to see quite a lot AEC
>>>>>>>>>>> crane vehicles in use in scrapyards forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles
>>>>>>>>>>> from the early 1960?s and also by that time British
>>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages
>>>>>>>>>>> eased they were largely new bodies still using mechanicals
>>>>>>>>>>> derived from 1930?s production with performance rapidly being
>>>>>>>>>>> eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break
>>>>>>>>>> away from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also
>>>>>>>>> monocoque construction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the engine
>>>>>>>>> sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany in
>>>>>>>>> the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was
>>>>>>> maybe a "first" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new
>>>>>> standard for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70
>>>>>> years later. Pretty amazing!
>>>>>
>>>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what
>>>>> other configuration might have superseded it (for family cars,
>>>>> anyway). A longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof,
>>>>> probably wouldn't have worked.
>>>>
>>>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>>>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit,
>>>> as happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle,
>>>> Fiat 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc.
>>>> One example remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were
>>>> succeeded by the new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from
>>> the FWD models in the range at the time.
>>>
>>>
>> Technically, that's mid-engined (a popular layout for sports cars) ,
>> not rear-engined.
>>
>>
> I've always thought that the precise position of engine block relative
> to axle is one bit of pedantry too far, unless you're discussing
> something for which it is actually relevant, eg finer technical details,
> or effects on handling. After all, it's very rarely mentioned for
> vehicles with the engine at the front! Relevant for this thread, the
> Minor had the engine mounted as far forward as possible (as IIRC did
> Audis of a certain generation), while the Mazda MX5 is described by
> Wikipedia as "front mid-engine”; but nobody routinely makes that
> differentiation.
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver

Indeed! The longitudinal engine+gearbox of an MX-5 extends behind the
front wheels much further than the MGF's does in front of the rear wheels.

nib

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the civilian market
>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the war or did they all wind up as ferrous scrap for open-hearth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>>>> public roads by
>>>>>>>>>>> the 1970?s
>>>>>>>>>>> I still used to see quite a lot AEC crane vehicles in use in scrapyards
>>>>>>>>>>> forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles from the
>>>>>>>>>>> early 1960?s and also by that
>>>>>>>>>>> time British manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages eased they
>>>>>>>>>>> were largely new bodies
>>>>>>>>>>> still using mechanicals derived from 1930?s production with performance
>>>>>>>>>>> rapidly being eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break away
>>>>>>>>>> from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also monocoque
>>>>>>>>> construction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the
>>>>>>>>> engine sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany
>>>>>>>>> in the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was maybe a
>>>>>>> "first" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new standard
>>>>>> for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70 years later.
>>>>>> Pretty amazing!
>>>>>
>>>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what other
>>>>> configuration might have superseded it (for family cars, anyway). A
>>>>> longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof, probably
>>>>> wouldn't have worked.
>>>>
>>>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>>>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit, as
>>>> happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle, Fiat
>>>> 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc. One example
>>>> remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were succeeded by the
>>>> new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from the
>>> FWD models in the range at the time.
>>>
>>
>> Technically, that's mid-engined (a popular layout for sports cars) , not
>> rear-engined.
>>
>
> I've always thought that the precise position of engine block relative to
> axle is one bit of pedantry too far, unless you're discussing something for
> which it is actually relevant, eg finer technical details, or effects on
> handling. After all, it's very rarely mentioned for vehicles with the
> engine at the front! Relevant for this thread, the Minor had the engine
> mounted as far forward as possible (as IIRC did Audis of a certain
> generation), while the Mazda MX5 is described by Wikipedia as "front
> mid-engine”; but nobody routinely makes that differentiation.
>

They do with sports cars.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:24:22 -0000 (UTC), nib
<news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:16:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3qbbd$6br$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:17:33 on Thu, 21 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:40:09 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:45:05 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 09:25, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/04/2022 00:12, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 23:54, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did MoD try to sell any suitable old vehicles to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilian market after the war or did they all wind up as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ferrous scrap for open-hearth furnaces?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many logistics companies started up with ex WD lorries bought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Though the wartime vehicles had almost all disappeared from
>>>>>>>>>>>> public roads by the 1970?s I still used to see quite a lot AEC
>>>>>>>>>>>> crane vehicles in use in scrapyards forestry work etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The introduction of the MOT had seen off many older vehicles
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the early 1960?s and also by that time British
>>>>>>>>>>>> manufacturers had got under way again with new designs like
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Mini and Cortina.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Though most had introduced new models in 1950?s as shortages
>>>>>>>>>>>> eased they were largely new bodies still using mechanicals
>>>>>>>>>>>> derived from 1930?s production with performance rapidly being
>>>>>>>>>>>> eclipsed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The mini was probably the first British car to completely break
>>>>>>>>>>> away from the traditional method of construction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Morris Minor cars (but not the vans or pickups) were also
>>>>>>>>>> monocoque construction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's interesting, and a surprise to me!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The main extra difference in a Mini was mounting the engine
>>>>>>>>>> sideways but apparently that had already been done in Germany in
>>>>>>>>>> the 1930s with a DKW (and later in the USSR with tanks).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Putting the gearbox in the sump was probably novel, however?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even without that, the particular combination of features was
>>>>>>>> maybe a "first" ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I think monocoque construction and transverse engine,
>>>>>>> front-wheel-drive was probably a first at the time. It set the new
>>>>>>> standard for small cars that lasted till the end of the ICE era, 70
>>>>>>> years later. Pretty amazing!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One has to wonder that having come up with a winning concept, what
>>>>>> other configuration might have superseded it (for family cars,
>>>>>> anyway). A longitudinal rear-engine, with the gearbox on the roof,
>>>>>> probably wouldn't have worked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rear-engine, real-wheel drive was the other potential winner, as it's
>>>>> possible to package the engine and transmission in one compact unit,
>>>>> as happens with front-engined, FWD cars. Examples include the Beetle,
>>>>> Fiat 500, Renault Dauphine, Škoda 100, Hillman Imp, NSU Prinz, etc.
>>>>> One example remains in production — the Porsche 911 — but most were
>>>>> succeeded by the new conventional FWD, transverse-engine models.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The MGF is another example, the drivetrain of which was derived from
>>>> the FWD models in the range at the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Technically, that's mid-engined (a popular layout for sports cars) ,
>>> not rear-engined.
>>>
>>>
>> I've always thought that the precise position of engine block relative
>> to axle is one bit of pedantry too far, unless you're discussing
>> something for which it is actually relevant, eg finer technical details,
>> or effects on handling. After all, it's very rarely mentioned for
>> vehicles with the engine at the front! Relevant for this thread, the
>> Minor had the engine mounted as far forward as possible (as IIRC did
>> Audis of a certain generation), while the Mazda MX5 is described by
>> Wikipedia as "front mid-engine”; but nobody routinely makes that
>> differentiation.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>Indeed! The longitudinal engine+gearbox of an MX-5 extends behind the
>front wheels much further than the MGF's does in front of the rear wheels.
>
>nib
>
Maybe a rough and ready determinant is whether or not you can rest
your elbow (or your coffee) on the engine cover? If yes then it is
mid-engined.