Re: Re: Tram-train: where did we go wrong?
  Richard Youl

Apparently they did not get the regauging done all that accurately.

I was in Melbourne around September 1987 and at Albert Park Station certain sleepers were marked because the track gauge was too narrow. I suspect it may have been laid to 4' 8" rather than 4' 8 1/2".

Certainly when driving trams along there are year later, they made a strange squeaking sound which suggests that flanges were tight against the two rails.

Regards,

> On 17 Sep 2017, at 8:37 am, Mal Rowemal.rowe@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@...> wrote:

>

>>

>> On 16/09/17 12:09,mcloughlin.dj@... [TramsDownUnder] wrote:

>>

>> >

>> > > one underestimated challenge has been the development of a wheel profile suitable for use on both Supertram and Network Rail tracks. At present, he says, all seven vehicles have been delivered with the standard wheel profile used on the rest of the tram fleet. Four cars are to be modified with new wheels to operate the Sheffield – Rotherham service.

>> >

>> On 17/09/2017 5:32 AM, Matthew Geiermatthew@... [TramsDownUnder] wrote:

>> Something Sydney did back in 1996 with the Variotram and it's hybrid profile wheels.

>>

>> They are literally re-inventing an already re-invented wheel.

>>

>> The attached is part of a drawing with an original date of 1995 and it makes reference to an even older ABB drawing. And presumably Karlsruhe had to solve this issue 'way back'.

>>

>> The key item is the stepped wheel back.

>

> Is this only a major issue when you keep railway style points?

>

> For the St Kilda and Port Melbourne conversion, while the rails and overhead were unchanged (except of course for re-gauging the railway) tramway style points were installed - with standard tramway 'back-to-back' dimensions..

> http://tdu.to/431_Southbank_29May2004.jpg

>

> Mal Rowe - learning from TDU

>

> <431_Southbank_29May2004.jpg>