On 14/04/2022 15:50, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <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!
>

I doubt it would keep filling up with wet sand in Coventry.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:33:03 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t38sil$1019$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:09 on Thu, 14 Apr
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Spaced how many miles apart and how many of them in the whole city?
>
>Headingley to Burleigh Park is less than a mile.

And the distance from the latter to the main line station?

>>Hardly a metro equivalent.
>
>You were asking for a "local rail system of any sort".

I said local rail public transport. That being a tram or metro system.

>>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)?

Eh? Almost all western european cities of the size of leeds and sheffield have
tram systems. A large proportion have full metros. Leeds doesn't have either
due to political indifference.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:44:27 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> 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

Because LiOn traction batteries are expensive.

>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.

Since there will be no electrification whatsoever presumably the batteries
will have to be charged in the morning and last all day unless they have some
sort of 3rd rail or overhead charge point at the termini.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:48:46 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 14/04/2022 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> 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.

https://www.focustransport.org/2016/01/double-deck-parry-people-mover.html

"A typical PPM flywheel is made from steel laminates, 1m in diameter and 500kg
mass"

Thats the same as an EV car battery and it only lasts for the half mile or so
the PPM has to crawl along. The battery for a 10+ ton tram will need to
be somewhat larger especially due to all the stop start that'll occur along
city streets and the longer route.

I'm guessing the Coventry system is all down to cost cutting rather than
practicality. I suspect if it ever gets built it'll last 10 years before
being rebuilt as a proper tram system because of scope creep that the cheapo
system isn't up to , or just closed down because the funds arn't available
to renew all the batteries and worn out cheaply built vehicles.

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

Used in London for decades. In fact until a lot of the routes were closed.
Anyway, the French system seems to work well enough:

https://goo.gl/maps/u6Pc4kX5VVomA2an7

On 14/04/2022 11:44, Recliner wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered busses or a
>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>
>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea. Their only
>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead wires yet there
>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for trams which
>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since electric trams
>>>
>>>> were invented.
>>>
>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>
>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>> less reliable.
>>
>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with the ground
>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in Angier in the
>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then I imagine so
>> do batteries.
>
> Why would the batteries be very expensive? Lots of conventional trams are
> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow discontinuous
> electrification.

They have same on the main square in Padova, I think in that case not to
spoil the view. IIRC, there is also discontinuous electrification on the
Mestre-Venice tram, at least on the Venice side.

These light trams will need relatively small batteries, as
> they don't need a long range.
>

On 14/04/2022 15:17, Certes wrote:
> 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.

I thought that it was Russia big on lithium. I understand that there is
also a lot of chrome in Balkans.

On 14/04/2022 16:30, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:50:22 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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!
>
> Used in London for decades. In fact until a lot of the routes were closed.
> Anyway, the French system seems to work well enough:
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/u6Pc4kX5VVomA2an7
>

The first iteration of trams in Washington DC also used a conduit.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:48:23 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:

>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.

That sign only applies to road traffic, because trams are in a
segregated lane at that point.

Mark

On 13/04/2022 22:27, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 13/04/2022 22:04, Recliner 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).
>>
>
> I believe that some of the T3s in the Czech Republic can move at 80-100
> kilometres.

I note, however, that they those trams are in rural areas and are mainly
in rural areas.

On 13/04/2022 21:59, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 02:30:20 +0100, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk"
> <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2022 00:22, Certes wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2022 22:47, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2022 18:48, Bevan Price 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.
>>>>
> Your first trouble is that trams work in kph (maybe an exception for
> Blackpool as it has been there for years?) so road speed limit signs
> would need translation.
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's the case in Edinburgh.  For examples, see
>>> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Trams:_signals#Street
>>> running signalling>
>>
>> Where is there a website that contains information on signals and signal
>> signs on UK tram networks, BTW?
>>
> Some in :-
> https://uktram.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TGN32-Signing_of_Tramways_2.pdf

I saw that, thanks.

I notice that there are a couple of signals and signal signs that are
not listed in the attachment.

At Dundonald Road, for example, the middle LED in the signal is dark. It
then lights up before the entire signal clears.

You can see that aspect here:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Dundonald_Road_tramstop_look_east.JPG

I don't know if, when the LED lights up, it means CD, put your
controller into station holding or if it is just means prepare to depart.

Perhaps the signal is an 'Approach Restricted' aspect, however? IIRC,
there is another signal just like that on the line between stops and
closer to East Croydon. IIRC, the signal goes through those aspects as a
tram approaches.

I have also seen the diamond signal sign with the letter 'C'. Does that
mean coast?

rOn Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:50:22 -0000 (UTC)
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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!
>
>Used in London for decades. In fact until a lot of the routes were closed.
>Anyway, the French system seems to work well enough:
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/u6Pc4kX5VVomA2an7

The last London section was constructed in 1951, to serve the Festival
of Britain.

There's a fascinating web page showing what is under the surface....

https://dewi.ca/trains/conduit/tracks.html

On 14/04/2022 16:22, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:48:46 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> https://www.focustransport.org/2016/01/double-deck-parry-people-mover.html
>
> "A typical PPM flywheel is made from steel laminates, 1m in diameter and 500kg
> mass"
>
> Thats the same as an EV car battery and it only lasts for the half mile or so
> the PPM has to crawl along. The battery for a 10+ ton tram will need to
> be somewhat larger especially due to all the stop start that'll occur along
> city streets and the longer route.
>

Rather like the electric buses that are working all day, every day in a
number of towns and cities.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:44:27 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:53:47 +0100
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:11:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> But that's the same issue whether you use battery-powered busses or a
>>>>>> battery-powered tram.
>>>>>
>>>>> True. Though I think battery powered trams are an absurd idea. Their only
>>>>> raison d'etre is to stop nimbies complaining about overhead wires yet there
>>>>> already are a number of discrete embedded 3rd rail systems for trams which
>>>>> could be used instead. The most obvious one has been used since electric trams
>>>>
>>>>> were invented.
>>>>
>>>> Conduit in the LCC area.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was far more heavy maintenance than overhead wires and
>>>> less reliable.
>>>
>>> There's a system used in france that has the 3rd rail flush with the ground
>>> and is only energised when a tram is over it. They use it in Angier in the
>>> historic centre. Probably costs a fair amount over OHLE but then I imagine so
>>> do batteries.
>>
>> Why would the batteries be very expensive? Lots of conventional trams are
>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow discontinuous
>> electrification. These light trams will need relatively small batteries, as
>> they don't need a long range.
>
> Because AIUI there is a shortage of lithium and chromium with Chinese
> companies buying up mines in Africa.
>

Time to start digging up Cornwall again then.
That’ll piss off all those second home owners who move down to wax lyrical
over the landscape without appreciating that a good part of the ambience is
caused by remains of an Industrial revolution that was virtually over
before the main one got underway.

GH

On 14/04/2022 18:51, Clank wrote:
> Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> Wrote in message:r
>> 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 itwasn't build because it couldn't get funding.
>
> It definitely did have a guided bus system, although the buses
> spent far more of their time unguided than guided - the guided
> sections were primarily a means of giving buses priority at some
> key junctions.

Ta, I thought I remembered it.

>
> After the tram proposals were shelved there was a half-hearted
> effort to convince people that First's "purple slug" articulated
> buses (which had covers over the wheel arches to try and make
> them look more tram like) were just as good, but I don't think
> anyone was buying it.
>
>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but there’s a trade off.

Sam

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:45:47 +0100, Recliner wrote:

> 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.

If all that 500 kg is at the periphery with only very light spokes then
the moment of inertia is mr^2 = 500 * 0.5^2 = 125 kg.m^2.

2500 rpm is 260 radians/sec. Energy stored = 0.5 * I * w^2 = 0.5 * 125 *
260 * 260 = 4.2 MJ, or 1.2 kWh. OK, it's more than 3 times the size of
the battery on my bike but it's only about 1/40 of a 300 kg EV battery.

So good for storing regen and power from a small motor and putting it
back into acceleration but not going to take a tram (or even a PPM) very
far on a non-electrified section.

nib

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

I've heard of tin mining in Cornwall, but not chromium.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track, and nothing to
>>>>> do with road speed limits. The accident occurred as a tram was coming off
>>>>> such a section, going round a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street
>>>>> urban section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only on
>>>>> town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>
>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-7215767697
>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>
>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>> European thing).
>>
>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>
> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]

Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:44:27 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
> Because LiOn traction batteries are expensive.
>
>> 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.
>
> Since there will be no electrification whatsoever presumably the batteries
> will have to be charged in the morning and last all day unless they have some
> sort of 3rd rail or overhead charge point at the termini.
>
>

There will be charging at at least one terminus.

Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Peter Johnson <peter@parksidewood.nospam> Wrote in message:r
>> 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 itwasn't build because it couldn't get funding.
>
> It definitely did have a guided bus system, although the buses
> spent far more of their time unguided than guided - the guided
> sections were primarily a means of giving buses priority at some
> key junctions.
>
> After the tram proposals were shelved there was a half-hearted
> effort to convince people that First's "purple slug" articulated
> buses (which had covers over the wheel arches to try and make
> them look more tram like) were just as good, but I don't think
> anyone was buying it.

Wasn't that in York?

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> Why would the batteries be very expensive? Lots of conventional trams are
>>>> now fitted with batteries, including in Birmingham, to allow discontinuous
>>>> electrification. These light trams will need relatively small batteries, as
>>>> they don't need a long range.
>>>
>>> Because AIUI there is a shortage of lithium and chromium with Chinese
>>> companies buying up mines in Africa.
>>>
>>
>> Time to start digging up Cornwall again then.
>> That’ll piss off all those second home owners who move down to wax lyrical
>> over the landscape without appreciating that a good part of the ambience is
>> caused by remains of an Industrial revolution that was virtually over
>> before the main one got underway.
>>
>> GH
>>
>
> I've heard of tin mining in Cornwall, but not chromium.
>

Chromium probably not ,but Lithium if costs and lack of availability
from elsewhere become significant is looking possible .

<https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/05/in-cornwall-ruinous-tin-and-copper-mines-are-yielding-battery-grade-lithium-heres-what-that-means>

GH

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:50:22 -0000 (UTC)
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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!
>
>Used in London for decades. In fact until a lot of the routes were closed.
>Anyway, the French system seems to work well enough:
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/u6Pc4kX5VVomA2an7
>
Use of conduit in London was at the insistence of some of the local
authorities rather than the technical or financial needs of the
system. Similarly, some trams in Greenwich used two-wire OHLE in the
early 20th century at the insistence of the Royal Observatory to
prevent earth-return currents interfering with electrical instruments.

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> 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.

<nitpick> Observation suggests that the tram signals only change when a
tram approaches. For that turn from York Place into N St Andrew St the
normal traffic light, which also covers a pedestrian and cycle crossing but
no conflicting motor vehicle moves, will probably change more frequently
than the tram signal. It won’t strictly alternate. </nitpick>

Sam

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

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

They were parked in the siding (or loop) and therefore blocked the public
footpath that crossed it and the adjacent ECML running lines.

Sam

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