On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:03:17 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The whole idea of this system is to have lightweight, shallow track that's
>>> much cheaper and quicker to install than normal tramways in this country.
>>> Most underground services won't need to be disturbed and no OHLE will be
>>> required. That takes away most of the objections to normal trams.
>>
>> Surely it is the weight of the tram not the track that is the main
>> issue? I assume battery powered trams will be heavier.
>>
>
>The whole point of these new trams is that they're very light. That's why
>they're called Coventry Very Light Rail (CVLR).

Get back to us when they've actually built one. "Light" is a relative term
when it comes to rail vehicles. Even the PPM weighs 12 tons and thats with
a flywheel, not heavy batteries.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:15:59 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t38le6$1ojs$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:19:18 on Thu, 14 Apr
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:35:40 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <t34g4k$1dtr$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 18:24:21 on Tue, 12 Apr
>>>2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:48:51 +0100
>>>>Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 12/04/2022 13:24, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 12:47:46 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk>
>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> Trams in the UK usually run much more on segregated track than roads, and
>
>>>>>they usually run faster on such sections. But
>>>>>> passengers can still walk across the tracks, particularly at stops.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On unsegregated track, trams in UK have to obey the locally applicable
>>>>>road regulations, including speed limits, traffic lights, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>That can make Metrolink progress painfully slow through Manchester city
>>>>>centre, and, for example, on parts of the Eccles route.
>>>>
>>>>For the (current) price of the waste of money called HS2, Manchester, Brum,
>>>>Leeds and [pick a couple more cities] could have built proper underground
>>>>systems built, not just cut price trams (except for leeds which got nothing
>>>>and AFAIK is the largest connurbation in europe without a local rail PT
>>>>system of any sort).
>>>
>>>That'll come as news to my friend who lived in Headingly and took the
>>>train into work (in the City Centre).
>>
>>You seem to get confused very often these days. Since when does a line heading
>
>>to York count as local rail?
>
>When the line has local railway stations for local people.

Spaced how many miles apart and how many of them in the whole city? Hardly a
metro equivalent.

>>Perhaps Sheffield shouldn't have bothered with its tram, its got the BR
>>Meadowhall station after all. Thats PT sorted, right?
>
>The Sheffield tram is good, for those routes it serves. I've used it
>many times.

And it serves a lot more places than the mainline train. Which is rather the
point.

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).
--
Roland Perry

In message <t38sil$1019$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:09 on Thu, 14 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> Trams in the UK usually run much more on segregated track than
>>>>>>>roads, and
>>
>>>>>>they usually run faster on such sections. But
>>>>>>> passengers can still walk across the tracks, particularly at stops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On unsegregated track, trams in UK have to obey the locally applicable
>>>>>>road regulations, including speed limits, traffic lights, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That can make Metrolink progress painfully slow through Manchester city
>>>>>>centre, and, for example, on parts of the Eccles route.
>>>>>
>>>>>For the (current) price of the waste of money called HS2, Manchester, Brum,
>>>>>Leeds and [pick a couple more cities] could have built proper underground
>>>>>systems built, not just cut price trams (except for leeds which got nothing
>>>>>and AFAIK is the largest connurbation in europe without a local rail PT
>>>>>system of any sort).
>>>>
>>>>That'll come as news to my friend who lived in Headingly and took the
>>>>train into work (in the City Centre).
>>>
>>>You seem to get confused very often these days. Since when does a
>>>line heading
>>
>>>to York count as local rail?
>>
>>When the line has local railway stations for local people.
>
>Spaced how many miles apart and how many of them in the whole city?

Headingley to Burleigh Park is less than a mile.

>Hardly a metro equivalent.

You were asking for a "local rail system of any sort".

>>>Perhaps Sheffield shouldn't have bothered with its tram, its got the BR
>>>Meadowhall station after all. Thats PT sorted, right?
>>
>>The Sheffield tram is good, for those routes it serves. I've used it
>>many times.
>
>And it serves a lot more places than the mainline train. Which is rather the
>point.

How many European cities have lots of mainline rail stations (other than
termini)?
--
Roland Perry

<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.

On 14/04/2022 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:03:17 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The whole idea of this system is to have lightweight, shallow track that's
>>>> much cheaper and quicker to install than normal tramways in this country.
>>>> Most underground services won't need to be disturbed and no OHLE will be
>>>> required. That takes away most of the objections to normal trams.
>>>
>>> Surely it is the weight of the tram not the track that is the main
>>> issue? I assume battery powered trams will be heavier.
>>>
>>
>> The whole point of these new trams is that they're very light. That's why
>> they're called Coventry Very Light Rail (CVLR).
>
> Get back to us when they've actually built one. "Light" is a relative term
> when it comes to rail vehicles. Even the PPM weighs 12 tons and thats with
> a flywheel, not heavy batteries.
>

Flywheels are heavy, that is the point of them.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Am 13.04.2022 um 22:40 schrieb Charles Ellson:
> The standard round signs also thus do not apply to e.g. pedal cycles
> or horse/horse-drawn traffic.

That's interesting. In Germany, generic speed limits are only relevant
for motorized traffic but signposted speed limits are relevant for all
traffic.
As a bicyclist, I may go faster than 50 km/h in town but I have to stick
to the 30 km/h speed limits in residential areas.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:02:16 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:31:46 +0100, Mark Goodge
><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:43:33 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Am 12.04.2022 um 23:47 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>> On 12/04/2022 18:48, Bevan Price wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On unsegregated track, trams in UK have to obey the locally applicable
>>>>> road regulations, including speed limits, traffic lights, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really? I thought that unsgregated trams in the UK were subject to their
>>>> own signal signs and signals, which can differ from road regulations.
>>>>
>>>> That is the case in Germany, AFAIK.
>>>
>>>Let's be very precise: In Germany, trams on the road have to obey the
>>>same road traffic rules as busses with the exception of not being able
>>>to chose which lane to drive in; I would strongly speculate this is the
>>>same in UK (and is one reason not to build any "trams on the road").
>>
>>It's not quite the same. For example, traffic lights don't apply to
>>trams - at light-controlled junctions, trams will always have their own
>>signals which will be the same as on off-road sections. Obviously, these
>>will change in sync with the traffic lights on shared sections, but both
>>will always be present.
>>
>>Signs giving instructions for mandatory or prohibited turns also don't
>>apply to trams, but other signs do, unless explicitly overridden by
>>tram-specific signs. That includes speed limits.
>>
>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.

Mark

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:00:28 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:31:46 +0100, Mark Goodge
><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>It's not quite the same. For example, traffic lights don't apply to
>>trams - at light-controlled junctions, trams will always have their own
>>signals which will be the same as on off-road sections. Obviously, these
>>will change in sync with the traffic lights on shared sections, but both
>>will always be present.
>
>Is that definitely right? I thought it was quite common for the tram
>to have its own phase, in effect a filter lane for the trams.

From a practical perspective, trams are given seperate lanes at
junctions wherever possible so that they can move independently. But
there are places where that's simply impractical due to the width of the
street. The example I gave earlier in Manchester is one such:

https://goo.gl/maps/MrKUvsd38qmvSaqs6

There, there's a cycle lane on the nearside, then a shared tram and
vehicle lane. If there's a car waiting at the lights (as, indeed, there
is in that photo), and a tram comes up behind it, there's no way for the
tram to proceed until the lights have gone green to normal traffic as
well. So it would be meaningless for the tram signal to give a "proceed"
indication while the traffic lights are red.

Mark

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 18:17:49 +0200
>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>> Am 13.04.2022 um 17:53 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:41:10 +0200
>>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.04.2022 um 17:22 schrieb Recliner:
>>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/04/2022 11:46, Peter Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:50:15 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't Leeds play with a guided bus system?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think so. It did get powers to build a tram system but it
>>>>>>>> wasn't build because it couldn't get funding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's up with the ULR project in Coventry, BTW?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or is that just another pipe dream?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to be trundling along, but I suspect the funding for actual
>>>>>> construction hasn't been secured yet. So it's really more of a
>>>>>> proof-of-concept research project at the moment than a real, committed
>>>>>> project:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> <https://www.railway-technology.com/analysis/coventrys-very-light-solution-appr
>>>
>>>>> oaches/>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be blunt, it's a research project with little expected real-life
>>>>> benefit compared to the existing alternative solutions:
>>>>>
>>>>> Battery-powered electric busses would be cheaper and more flexible,
>>>>
>>>> I think the jury is still out on whether they'll be cheaper over the lifetime
>>>
>>>> of the bus because how long the very expensive batteries will last before the
>>>
>>>> range falls to a point where they need to be changed is still unknown.
>>>
>>> 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.

Blackpool which used conduit before overhead suffered from getting salty
sand blown of the beach
filling it.
Bournemouth had some conduit trackage in its early years ,unusually some of
it was under a running rail with the slot also providing a flange way,
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/alwyn_ladell/30806516012/in/album-72157626220719617/>

other parts had it the normal centre position as seen in this part under
construction or resurfacing.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/alwyn_ladell/27105746523/in/album-72157624316955161/>

GH

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:03:17 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The whole idea of this system is to have lightweight, shallow track that's
>>>>> much cheaper and quicker to install than normal tramways in this country.
>>>>> Most underground services won't need to be disturbed and no OHLE will be
>>>>> required. That takes away most of the objections to normal trams.
>>>>
>>>> Surely it is the weight of the tram not the track that is the main
>>>> issue? I assume battery powered trams will be heavier.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The whole point of these new trams is that they're very light. That's why
>>> they're called Coventry Very Light Rail (CVLR).
>>
>> Get back to us when they've actually built one. "Light" is a relative term
>> when it comes to rail vehicles. Even the PPM weighs 12 tons and thats with
>> a flywheel, not heavy batteries.
>>
>
> Flywheels are heavy, that is the point of them.

Or fast, or both.

Sam

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

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:59:28 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t34dlg$89a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:42:08 on Tue, 12 Apr
>>> 2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:24:22 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3258p$4t6$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:06:33 on Mon, 11 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> I thought 'light railways' (like preserved railways) were limited to 25mph,
>>>>>> whereas trams go up to 50mph (or more?). Yet tram stops, even in
>>>>>> segregated sections, allow passengers to freely walk across the tracks,
>>>>>> with no fences or barriers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trams have many safety features to deflect pedestrians rather than crush
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to put them to the test.
>>>>
>>>>> them, and when street-running ding their bell frequently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't the OP really asking about *miniature* railways like the one at
>>>>> Longleat?
>>>>
>>>> No. I was asking about where the dividing line is between railways where
>>>> people can meander along and across and ones where there is strict segregation.
>>>
>>> Even the ECML still has a couple of level crossings one can wander
>>> across.
>>
>> I don’t know if they’re still there, but there certainly used to be
>> pedestrian crossings on the ECML near Belford in Northumberland with no
>> protection, just a stile. I’ve moaned before about one of them crossing a
>> siding with a rake of wagons parked on it. I don’t think that particular
>> siding exists any more, but there must be other places like that.
>>
> Que? Why would you moan about that?

Because I wanted to cross the line on a public right of way, but the wagons
blocked it.

Sam

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:02:03 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:03:17 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The whole idea of this system is to have lightweight, shallow track that's
>>>>>> much cheaper and quicker to install than normal tramways in this country.
>>>>>> Most underground services won't need to be disturbed and no OHLE will be
>>>>>> required. That takes away most of the objections to normal trams.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely it is the weight of the tram not the track that is the main
>>>>> issue? I assume battery powered trams will be heavier.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole point of these new trams is that they're very light. That's why
>>>> they're called Coventry Very Light Rail (CVLR).
>>>
>>> Get back to us when they've actually built one. "Light" is a relative term
>>> when it comes to rail vehicles. Even the PPM weighs 12 tons and thats with
>>> a flywheel, not heavy batteries.
>>>
>>
>> Flywheels are heavy, that is the point of them.
>
>Or fast, or both.

The PPM flywheel is 1m diameter, rotates at 2500 rpm, and weighs 0.5 tonnes. It also needs some sort of small engine,
generator, fuel store, etc.

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.

On 14/04/2022 13:02, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:03:17 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:17:38 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The whole idea of this system is to have lightweight, shallow track that's
>>>>>> much cheaper and quicker to install than normal tramways in this country.
>>>>>> Most underground services won't need to be disturbed and no OHLE will be
>>>>>> required. That takes away most of the objections to normal trams.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely it is the weight of the tram not the track that is the main
>>>>> issue? I assume battery powered trams will be heavier.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole point of these new trams is that they're very light. That's why
>>>> they're called Coventry Very Light Rail (CVLR).
>>>
>>> Get back to us when they've actually built one. "Light" is a relative term
>>> when it comes to rail vehicles. Even the PPM weighs 12 tons and thats with
>>> a flywheel, not heavy batteries.
>>>
>>
>> Flywheels are heavy, that is the point of them.
>
> Or fast, or both.
>

To be effective they have to be both.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

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.

On 14/04/2022 12:21, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:02:16 +0100, Charles Ellson
> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:31:46 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:43:33 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 12.04.2022 um 23:47 schrieb hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk:
>>>>> On 12/04/2022 18:48, Bevan Price wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On unsegregated track, trams in UK have to obey the locally applicable
>>>>>> road regulations, including speed limits, traffic lights, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? I thought that unsgregated trams in the UK were subject to their
>>>>> own signal signs and signals, which can differ from road regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the case in Germany, AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Let's be very precise: In Germany, trams on the road have to obey the
>>>> same road traffic rules as busses with the exception of not being able
>>>> to chose which lane to drive in; I would strongly speculate this is the
>>>> same in UK (and is one reason not to build any "trams on the road").
>>>
>>> It's not quite the same. For example, traffic lights don't apply to
>>> trams - at light-controlled junctions, trams will always have their own
>>> signals which will be the same as on off-road sections. Obviously, these
>>> will change in sync with the traffic lights on shared sections, but both
>>> will always be present.
>>>
>>> Signs giving instructions for mandatory or prohibited turns also don't
>>> apply to trams, but other signs do, unless explicitly overridden by
>>> tram-specific signs. That includes speed limits.
>>>
>> 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.

The image I linked to earlier has a "no left turn" sign for road
vehicles, which tram drivers regularly ignore as that's where the
tracks go.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:00:28 +0100, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:31:46 +0100, Mark Goodge
>><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>It's not quite the same. For example, traffic lights don't apply to
>>>trams - at light-controlled junctions, trams will always have their own
>>>signals which will be the same as on off-road sections. Obviously, these
>>>will change in sync with the traffic lights on shared sections, but both
>>>will always be present.
>>
>>Is that definitely right? I thought it was quite common for the tram
>>to have its own phase, in effect a filter lane for the trams.
>
>From a practical perspective, trams are given seperate lanes at
>junctions wherever possible so that they can move independently.

Exactly, the claim 'these will change in sync with the traffic lights
on shared sections' is confusing (at least in the sense that I
understood 'in sync').

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:01:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:34:57 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:04:31 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:48:51 +0100, Bevan Price
>>>>>> <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/04/2022 13:24, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 12:47:46 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 12:18:36 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2022 12:11, Recliner 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?".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because trams usually run on roads, and pedestrians are allowed to walk
>>>>>>>>>> across roads (and along them, even at level crossings). Light railways
>>>>>>>>>> generally seem to be fenced, perhaps because they used to be heavy rail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a circular argument. Pedestrians are allowed because trams
>>>>>>>>> run on roads. But on what basis are the trams allowed to run on a
>>>>>>>>> road? The question seems to be: what are the defining criteria?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trams in the UK usually run much more on segregated track than roads,
>>>>>>>> and they usually run faster on such sections. But
>>>>>>>> passengers can still walk across the tracks, particularly at stops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On unsegregated track, trams in UK have to obey the locally applicable
>>>>>>> road regulations, including speed limits, traffic lights, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That can make Metrolink progress painfully slow through Manchester city
>>>>>>> centre, and, for example, on parts of the Eccles route.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trams are not a class of traffic to which the normal speed limit signs
>>>>>> apply; they are not mechanically propelled vehicles "intended or
>>>>>> adapted" for road use :-
>>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tram-motor-vehicle-daniel-rothel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The standard round signs also thus do not apply to e.g. pedal cycles
>>>>>> or horse/horse-drawn traffic. Trams have their own diamond-shaped
>>>>>> signs (in KPH not MPH) which can be used on or off a highway.
>>>>>> https://uktram.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TGN32-Signing_of_Tramways_2.pdf
>>>>>> That guidance says that a tramway speed limit _should_ not be higher
>>>>>> than that for other traffic. There will also presumably be a
>>>>>> system-wide absolute limit which could be set lower than 30mph (e.g.
>>>>>> 45kph). A tramway could also feasibly have a higher (but maybe not by
>>>>>> much) speed limit with e.g. central reserved track at a crossroads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Croydon trams used to run at up to 80 km/h (now reduced), and I think
>>>>> other UK trams are similar(eg, NET, Metrolink 80 km/h, Sheffield 90 km/h).
>>>>>
>>>> Wonkypaedia and others indicate 70kph/43mph as a general limit for
>>>> Croydon which would be a near match to many 4-lane 40mph
>>>> dual-carriageways if there are any on the system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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-72157676976959855/>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>The speedos in trams and trains aren't like cars. In any case, 140mph is
>permitted on some roads in some countries.
>
>The Croydon trams did go up to 80 km/h (I've measured it) in the past, but
>no longer.

I don't doubt that the Croydon trams may well have gone up to 80 km/h
but a photograph of a speedometer showing 32 km/h does not prove this.

On 14/04/2022 14:46, Scott 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.

Ukraine has also been a source of both metals.

On 14/04/2022 14:51, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:00:28 +0100, Scott
>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:31:46 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not quite the same. For example, traffic lights don't apply to
>>>> trams - at light-controlled junctions, trams will always have their own
>>>> signals which will be the same as on off-road sections. Obviously, these
>>>> will change in sync with the traffic lights on shared sections, but both
>>>> will always be present.
>>>
>>> Is that definitely right? I thought it was quite common for the tram
>>> to have its own phase, in effect a filter lane for the trams.
>>
>>From a practical perspective, trams are given seperate lanes at
>> junctions wherever possible so that they can move independently.
>
> Exactly, the claim 'these will change in sync with the traffic lights
> on shared sections' is confusing (at least in the sense that I
> understood 'in sync').

They're coordinated. Generally this means that they allow simultaneous
progress either along the same lane or in parallel. Occasionally, as in
the Edinburgh image I posted, they alternate to allow conflicting moves.

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]
--
Roland Perry

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 18:17:49 +0200
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>> Am 13.04.2022 um 17:53 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:41:10 +0200
>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 13.04.2022 um 17:22 schrieb Recliner:
>>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/04/2022 11:46, Peter Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:50:15 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't Leeds play with a guided bus system?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so. It did get powers to build a tram system but it
>>>>>>> wasn't build because it couldn't get funding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's up with the ULR project in Coventry, BTW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or is that just another pipe dream?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to be trundling along, but I suspect the funding for actual
>>>>> construction hasn't been secured yet. So it's really more of a
>>>>> proof-of-concept research project at the moment than a real, committed
>>>>> project:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> <https://www.railway-technology.com/analysis/coventrys-very-light-solution-appr
>>
>>>> oaches/>
>>>>
>>>> To be blunt, it's a research project with little expected real-life
>>>> benefit compared to the existing alternative solutions:
>>>>
>>>> Battery-powered electric busses would be cheaper and more flexible,
>>>
>>> I think the jury is still out on whether they'll be cheaper over the lifetime
>>
>>> of the bus because how long the very expensive batteries will last before the
>>
>>> range falls to a point where they need to be changed is still unknown.
>>
>> 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? So trouble-free that Blackpool abandoned it as soon as a reliable
system of overhead contact was available!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:59:28 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t34dlg$89a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:42:08 on Tue, 12 Apr
>>> 2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:24:22 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3258p$4t6$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:06:33 on Mon, 11 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> I thought 'light railways' (like preserved railways) were limited to 25mph,
>>>>>> whereas trams go up to 50mph (or more?). Yet tram stops, even in
>>>>>> segregated sections, allow passengers to freely walk across the tracks,
>>>>>> with no fences or barriers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trams have many safety features to deflect pedestrians rather than crush
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to put them to the test.
>>>>
>>>>> them, and when street-running ding their bell frequently.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't the OP really asking about *miniature* railways like the one at
>>>>> Longleat?
>>>>
>>>> No. I was asking about where the dividing line is between railways where
>>>> people can meander along and across and ones where there is strict segregation.
>>>
>>> Even the ECML still has a couple of level crossings one can wander
>>> across.
>>
>> I don’t know if they’re still there, but there certainly used to be
>> pedestrian crossings on the ECML near Belford in Northumberland with no
>> protection, just a stile. I’ve moaned before about one of them crossing a
>> siding with a rake of wagons parked on it. I don’t think that particular
>> siding exists any more, but there must be other places like that.
>>
> Que? Why would you moan about that?
>

Because the wagons parked in the siding (loop?) block the footpath.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:50:22 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:59:28 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t34dlg$89a$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:42:08 on Tue, 12 Apr
>>>> 2022, muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:24:22 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3258p$4t6$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:06:33 on Mon, 11 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> I thought 'light railways' (like preserved railways) were limited to 25mph,
>>>>>>> whereas trams go up to 50mph (or more?). Yet tram stops, even in
>>>>>>> segregated sections, allow passengers to freely walk across the tracks,
>>>>>>> with no fences or barriers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trams have many safety features to deflect pedestrians rather than crush
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to put them to the test.
>>>>>
>>>>>> them, and when street-running ding their bell frequently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't the OP really asking about *miniature* railways like the one at
>>>>>> Longleat?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I was asking about where the dividing line is between railways where
>>>>> people can meander along and across and ones where there is strict segregation.
>>>>
>>>> Even the ECML still has a couple of level crossings one can wander
>>>> across.
>>>
>>> I don?t know if they?re still there, but there certainly used to be
>>> pedestrian crossings on the ECML near Belford in Northumberland with no
>>> protection, just a stile. I?ve moaned before about one of them crossing a
>>> siding with a rake of wagons parked on it. I don?t think that particular
>>> siding exists any more, but there must be other places like that.
>>>
>> Que? Why would you moan about that?
>>
>Because the wagons parked in the siding (loop?) block the footpath.
>
I didn't appreciate that they were causing a blockage. I thought he
meant the wagons were parked in the siding.