Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:36:02 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Used in London for decades. In fact until a lot of the routes were closed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Used because it was good or used because they had no choice?
>>
>> No idea.
>>
>>> On the grounds that it was used only in the central area where wires
>>> weren't allowed, and many routes changed to overhead wires part way, I
>>> suspect the latter.
>>>
>>>> Anyway, the French system seems to work well enough:
>>>>
>>>> https://goo.gl/maps/u6Pc4kX5VVomA2an7
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hasn't 'been used since electric trams were invented', though, unless you
>>
>> Where did I say it had? Its fairly new.
>>
>>> I'm sure the APS system is usually derided when mentioned here as being
>>> excessively complicated, how does it cope in floods, etc. I'd love to see
>>> it in action though.
>>
>> The power is only on when a tram is on the section and during floods I doubt
>> trams are running anyway.
>
>
> Plenty of views of old style trams negotiating floods around the web,
> wether damage to motors was worthwhile is another question but old style DC
> traction equipment was fairly robust or easy to swap out.
> Modern stuff is probably more delicate so its probably not wise but noone
> seems to have told this Dublin driver.
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-36543780>
>

First time I've seen a low floor tram generating a proper bow wave!

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:36:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>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 are. And the footpath crosses the siding ;)
>
I get it now!

In message <t39ad2$k7e$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:17:05 on Thu, 14 Apr
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>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.

Reportedly most of the interesting minerals are in the Donbas region,
which the Russians have their eyes on.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:55:13 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Hasn't 'been used since electric trams were invented', though, unless you
>>
>> Where did I say it had? Its fairly new.
>>
>
>14 April 0911 "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."
>
>So that comment must have been about conduit (or stud), not modern APS.

Well duh! Well done Sherlock.

>Try this <https://youtu.be/32CNuq3XNjQ>, this
><https://youtube.com/shorts/Lgk7G1iZzpc>, the last half of this
><https://youtu.be/zwOFRbkypt0> (none of which was the video I was looking
>for, but hey ho).

Doesn't seem particularly wise. I can't imagine the motors are 100% water
proof as opposed to water resistant. Plus the signalling is probably shorted
out too (assuming trams use current based detection).

>> Anyway, these sorts of 3rd rail systems or batteries are only required due
>to
>> nimbies and over zealous planning committees. No sane authority would choose
>
>> them if OHLE was an option.
>>
>
>Isn't that where we came in?

Indeed.

On 15 Apr 2022 09:18:15 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> The power is only on when a tram is on the section and during floods I doubt
>> trams are running anyway.
>
>
>Plenty of views of old style trams negotiating floods around the web,
>wether damage to motors was worthwhile is another question but old style DC
>traction equipment was fairly robust or easy to swap out.
>Modern stuff is probably more delicate so its probably not wise but noone
>seems to have told this Dublin driver.

Well quite.

><https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-36543780>

"Extrordinary"? The snowflakes at the BBC do lead sheltered lives.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:23:08 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15/04/2022 08:55, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:37:21 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Check out the kerb weight of those buses compared to their diesel
>counterparts.
>>
>
>Kerb weight of the battery bus: 13-14.4 tonnes
>
>Kerb weight of the diesel equivalent: 14.4-18 tonnes

God knows where you got that from.

https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/

Enviro200 13-14 tons GVW
Enviro200EV 18.7 tons GVW

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing the maths; it's the only easily-obtainable figure for the
>>>> Parry flywheel, but without further clarification, I suspect it might
>>>> relate to some earlier experimental vehicles, rather than the 'production'
>>>> pair.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are two propulsion versions, self-powered with a small on-board
>>> engine and the 1m flywheel for regen brakes (the current class 139), and an
>>> intermittent electric powered variant, with a larger, heavier flywheel that
>>> gets spun up at the stops, which can be up to half a mile apart:
>>>
>>> Self-powered vehicles: Engine Ford DSG423 (propane gas or diesel fuel)
>>> Primary transmission via gearbox, freewheel clutch and Tandler bevel box
>>> 4 ‘V-belt’ belt transmission to flywheel
>>>
>>> Intermittent electric supply: 70V DC motor (requires 20kW supply at
>>> stopping points)
>>> ‘Charge’ time at stopping points 30s, distance between stops up to 800m
>>>
>>> Flywheel energy storage:
>>> Effective speed range 1,000-2,600rpm
>>> Flywheel diameter/mass 1m/500kg (self-powered), 1.2m/750kg (intermittent
>>> electric)
>>>
>>> http://friendlycreatives.co.uk/ppm/two-axle-vehicles/
>>>
>>
>> The class 139 uses the engine to spin up the flywheel at the terminus
>> stations. The flywheel isn't only used for regen as you imply.
>>
>
> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>

Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:36:02 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Used in London for decades. In fact until a lot of the routes were closed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Used because it was good or used because they had no choice?
>>
>> No idea.
>>
>>> On the grounds that it was used only in the central area where wires
>>> weren't allowed, and many routes changed to overhead wires part way, I
>>> suspect the latter.
>>>
>>>> Anyway, the French system seems to work well enough:
>>>>
>>>> https://goo.gl/maps/u6Pc4kX5VVomA2an7
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hasn't 'been used since electric trams were invented', though, unless you
>>
>> Where did I say it had? Its fairly new.
>>
>>> I'm sure the APS system is usually derided when mentioned here as being
>>> excessively complicated, how does it cope in floods, etc. I'd love to see
>>> it in action though.
>>
>> The power is only on when a tram is on the section and during floods I doubt
>> trams are running anyway.
>
>
> Plenty of views of old style trams negotiating floods around the web,
> wether damage to motors was worthwhile is another question but old style DC
> traction equipment was fairly robust or easy to swap out.
> Modern stuff is probably more delicate so its probably not wise but noone
> seems to have told this Dublin driver.
>
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-36543780>
>
>

Modern motors and electronics are more likely to be fully-sealed units with
no opportunities for water ingress.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>
>
>Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Why don't they just bin the
flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for some
regen and mild hybrid assistance.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:23 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Plenty of views of old style trams negotiating floods around the web,
>> wether damage to motors was worthwhile is another question but old style DC
>> traction equipment was fairly robust or easy to swap out.
>> Modern stuff is probably more delicate so its probably not wise but noone
>> seems to have told this Dublin driver.
>>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-36543780>
>>
>>
>
>Modern motors and electronics are more likely to be fully-sealed units with
>no opportunities for water ingress.

Would you put that to the test driving your train if you came across a flooded
section?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC), 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:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for doing the maths; it's the only easily-obtainable figure for the
>>>>> Parry flywheel, but without further clarification, I suspect it might
>>>>> relate to some earlier experimental vehicles, rather than the 'production'
>>>>> pair.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are two propulsion versions, self-powered with a small on-board
>>>> engine and the 1m flywheel for regen brakes (the current class 139), and an
>>>> intermittent electric powered variant, with a larger, heavier flywheel that
>>>> gets spun up at the stops, which can be up to half a mile apart:
>>>>
>>>> Self-powered vehicles: Engine Ford DSG423 (propane gas or diesel fuel)
>>>> Primary transmission via gearbox, freewheel clutch and Tandler bevel box
>>>> 4 ‘V-belt’ belt transmission to flywheel
>>>>
>>>> Intermittent electric supply: 70V DC motor (requires 20kW supply at
>>>> stopping points)
>>>> ‘Charge’ time at stopping points 30s, distance between stops up to 800m
>>>>
>>>> Flywheel energy storage:
>>>> Effective speed range 1,000-2,600rpm
>>>> Flywheel diameter/mass 1m/500kg (self-powered), 1.2m/750kg (intermittent
>>>> electric)
>>>>
>>>> http://friendlycreatives.co.uk/ppm/two-axle-vehicles/
>>>>
>>>
>>> The class 139 uses the engine to spin up the flywheel at the terminus
>>> stations. The flywheel isn't only used for regen as you imply.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>
>
>Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.

I guess the small engine provides the average power needed over a whole return journey cycle, with the flywheel adding
power for acceleration, and absorbing some energy during braking. This moderating approach allows a much smaller engine
to be used than if it had to meet the peak power demand, and the engine to be tuned for efficient constant power
running. It's roughly what the battery in a hybrid car like a Prius does.

I wonder if the PPM's use of the flywheel is now obsolete? Since the PPM was invented, hybrid and electric cars have
become mainstream, and with that, traction batteries have become smaller, lighter and much cheaper. So, a vehicle of
that type would probably be better today with a standard BEV battery doing the power moderation, rather than using a
spinning flywheel.

In message <t3b1gs$8eg$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:47 on Fri, 15 Apr
2022, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>>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?
>
>The guided busway? That was definitely in Leeds - I learned to
> drive and passed my test in Leeds, so became quite familiar with
> trundling up and down the same stretches of road over and over
> again, including the A61/Scott Hall Road with its guided
> sections. Turning right onto Scott Hall Road was a particular
> hatred of mine as a learner, but I digress...
>
>The purple slug low-floor articulated buses were in Leeds, York
> and I think one or two other places (Harrogate may be on that
> list) served by First. They were branded 'FTR' as I recall.

At one point on the Luton Parkway-Airport shuttle service.

The original propaganda about the Cambridge Guided Bus had artists
impressions of very similar vehicles (again, to try to con people into
thinking they were posher, and tram like). In the end it was just
regular buses (mixture of single and double deck) with leather seats
like some of the "X" services already had.

Side effect (or maybe it was always going to be the case) one of the
benefits of the guided bus service was supposed to be relaxing drinking
a coffee on the way to work - never clear if they even expected onboard
coffee sales, however implausible - and yet from the day it opened they
banned food and drink aboard.

>You may be remembering them in York because I think they were
> fairly actively despised by the local population, owing to them
> causing no end of traffic problems on York's streets, which made
> them a news story. In Leeds they weren't so much hated as
> ignored.

--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

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

These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:

Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h

On 15/04/2022 11:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:23:08 +0100
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2022 08:55, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:37:21 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Check out the kerb weight of those buses compared to their diesel
>> counterparts.
>>>
>>
>> Kerb weight of the battery bus: 13-14.4 tonnes
>>
>> Kerb weight of the diesel equivalent: 14.4-18 tonnes
>
> God knows where you got that from.
>
> https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/
>
> Enviro200 13-14 tons GVW
> Enviro200EV 18.7 tons GVW
>
>

GVW is not the same as Kerb weight.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t39dph$19s2$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:14:57 on Thu, 14 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:33:03 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t38sil$1019$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:21:09 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>Spaced how many miles apart and how many of them in the whole city?
>>
>>Headingley to Burleigh Park is less than a mile.
>
>And the distance from the latter to the main line station?

About another mile.

>>>Hardly a metro equivalent.
>>
>>You were asking for a "local rail system of any sort".
>
>I said local rail public transport. That being a tram or metro system.

You said "rail of any sort", and the line to Headingley is.

>>>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.

I think you are over-egging it a bit. There's an awful lot of such
cities. ps. "Size": do you mean population or acreage? Where do Bradford
and Bristol fit on your scale?

>Leeds doesn't have either due to political indifference.

Just as likely lack of demand. People in Leeds aren't your typical
commuter.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:01:49 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/04/2022 11:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:23:08 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 08:55, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:37:21 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Check out the kerb weight of those buses compared to their diesel
>>> counterparts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kerb weight of the battery bus: 13-14.4 tonnes
>>>
>>> Kerb weight of the diesel equivalent: 14.4-18 tonnes
>>
>> God knows where you got that from.
>>
>> https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/
>>
>> Enviro200 13-14 tons GVW
>> Enviro200EV 18.7 tons GVW
>>
>>
>
>GVW is not the same as Kerb weight.

True, but surely the 5 tonnes higher weight for a bus with otherwise similar specs does mean the battery bus is much
heavier than the diesel bus? The battery buses also need larger wheels and tyres than the diesels, 275/70 R22.5 vs
245/70R19.5 or 265/70R19.

On 15/04/2022 12:16, Recliner wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:01:49 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 15/04/2022 11:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:23:08 +0100
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2022 08:55, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:37:21 +0100
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check out the kerb weight of those buses compared to their diesel
>>>> counterparts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kerb weight of the battery bus: 13-14.4 tonnes
>>>>
>>>> Kerb weight of the diesel equivalent: 14.4-18 tonnes
>>>
>>> God knows where you got that from.
>>>
>>> https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/
>>>
>>> Enviro200 13-14 tons GVW
>>> Enviro200EV 18.7 tons GVW
>>>
>>>
>>
>> GVW is not the same as Kerb weight.
>
> True, but surely the 5 tonnes higher weight for a bus with otherwise similar specs does mean the battery bus is much
> heavier than the diesel bus? The battery buses also need larger wheels and tyres than the diesels, 275/70 R22.5 vs
> 245/70R19.5 or 265/70R19.

He asked for the kerb weights, that's what he got. If he wanted
something different perhaps he should have thought about his question
before posing it.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:01:49 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15/04/2022 11:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:23:08 +0100
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2022 08:55, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:37:21 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Check out the kerb weight of those buses compared to their diesel
>>> counterparts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kerb weight of the battery bus: 13-14.4 tonnes
>>>
>>> Kerb weight of the diesel equivalent: 14.4-18 tonnes
>>
>> God knows where you got that from.
>>
>> https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/
>>
>> Enviro200 13-14 tons GVW
>> Enviro200EV 18.7 tons GVW
>>
>>
>
>GVW is not the same as Kerb weight.

Same bus, different drivetrain. Given the kerbweight isn't available for the
EV I used GVW. Unless you think the EV version can fit an extra 4 tons of
pax abord?

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

Stop arguing the toss, you know precisely what I meant given I was talking
about metros.

>>Eh? Almost all western european cities of the size of leeds and sheffield have
>
>>tram systems. A large proportion have full metros.
>
>I think you are over-egging it a bit. There's an awful lot of such
>cities. ps. "Size": do you mean population or acreage? Where do Bradford
>and Bristol fit on your scale?

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

>>Leeds doesn't have either due to political indifference.
>
>Just as likely lack of demand. People in Leeds aren't your typical
>commuter.

How do you know? If there isn't a convenient way of commuting to the city
centre other than some slow manky bus then they won't do it as much.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:53:53 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 15/04/2022 12:16, Recliner wrote:
>>>> https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/
>>>>
>>>> Enviro200 13-14 tons GVW
>>>> Enviro200EV 18.7 tons GVW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> GVW is not the same as Kerb weight.
>>
>> True, but surely the 5 tonnes higher weight for a bus with otherwise similar
>specs does mean the battery bus is much
>> heavier than the diesel bus? The battery buses also need larger wheels and
>tyres than the diesels, 275/70 R22.5 vs
>> 245/70R19.5 or 265/70R19.
>
>He asked for the kerb weights, that's what he got. If he wanted
>something different perhaps he should have thought about his question
>before posing it.

Being a pedant doesn't add any gravitas to your argument.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:53:53 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/04/2022 12:16, Recliner wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:01:49 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/04/2022 11:33, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:23:08 +0100
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 15/04/2022 08:55, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:37:21 +0100
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Check out the kerb weight of those buses compared to their diesel
>>>>> counterparts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kerb weight of the battery bus: 13-14.4 tonnes
>>>>>
>>>>> Kerb weight of the diesel equivalent: 14.4-18 tonnes
>>>>
>>>> God knows where you got that from.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.alexander-dennis.com/products/single-deck-buses/
>>>>
>>>> Enviro200 13-14 tons GVW
>>>> Enviro200EV 18.7 tons GVW
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> GVW is not the same as Kerb weight.
>>
>> True, but surely the 5 tonnes higher weight for a bus with otherwise similar specs does mean the battery bus is much
>> heavier than the diesel bus? The battery buses also need larger wheels and tyres than the diesels, 275/70 R22.5 vs
>> 245/70R19.5 or 265/70R19.
>
>He asked for the kerb weights, that's what he got. If he wanted
>something different perhaps he should have thought about his question
>before posing it.

You're getting like Roland. Here's another example for you:

ADL Enviro400EV — unladen weight 13.3 tonnes
ADL Enviro400 MMC — unladen weight 11 tonnes

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

I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo, or meaning that the layout
of the track might be suitable for that speed. 80mph is Big Railway
speeds, and not even that if you’re thinking of class 150, 156 etc..

Sam

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:21:55 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

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

Yes, I assumed it was a typo. I don't think Roland is used to dealing in km/h, which he writes as 'kph', easily then
written as the more familiar mph.

On 15/04/2022 11:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>> departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>
> Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Why don't they just bin the
> flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for some
> regen and mild hybrid assistance.
>

They might do that today but battery technology has moved a long way
since they were designed and built.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:35:48 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>>departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>
>Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

The lack of sales pretty much confirms that that's the case.

> Why don't they just bin the
>flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for some
>regen and mild hybrid assistance.

Yes, just like a typical hybrid car. That's probably a better solution now, given the big improvements in batteries and
the drop in price.