Ted, presumably you intended some comments on my and the earlier emails? They seem to be missing.
Regards
Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Gay" tramdriver1740@...>
To: TramsDownUnder@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Generator trams - Washington and Casino-Murwillumbah
--- On Tue, 6/10/09, Dudley Horscroft transitconsult@...> wrote:
From: Dudley Horscroft transitconsult@...>
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Generator trams - Washington and Casino-Murwillumbah
To:TramsDownUnder@...
Received: Tuesday, 6 October, 2009, 1:29 PM
Somewhere about 1889 both New York and Washington got worried about the proliferation of overhead wires in streets. Telephone,
power, and all the rest, went up on poles and made a right tangle. Both New York and Washington banned overhead wires - in
Manhattan in NY, and in the 'original' area planned by L'Enfant for Washington. As a result, when the horse and cable trams in both
cities were electrified, both used conduit current collection. London followed suit for the majority of the LCC electrifications,
though all the company electrifications used overhead.
In NY, the other Boroughs, Harlem, Queens, Staten Island and one I always forget, the tramways used overhead current collection. In
Washington overhead was used in the outlying areas, though at least one of the long cable car lines was converted to conduit because
it was easier to do it that way than go to overhead.
The boroughs of New York are:
1.
T
hrough running trams in London and Washington had to change from overhead to conduit, and vice versa, at the "Change Pits". The
title was borrowed from Washington, where a man in a pit under the track had to physically remove the plough and reconnect the power
leads, though in London disconnection was done automatically, and "ploughing up" was done from the surface - no pits in London! I
believe there was no through running between the differently equipped systems in NY.
I believe that the NY ban was dropped after the tramways were finally abandoned, so proposals for trams on 42nd St consider the use
of overhead. In Washington the ban still exists, and having been included in an Act of Congress, it is difficult to overturn it -
there are still people who would think that overhead wires are unsightly, or that it is the thin edge of the wedge, and that if
tramway overhead were permitted, soon everyone would be stringing up phone lines, power cables, fibre glass optic cables, and any
thing else one can think of!
So while there is a 'trial' line being constructed in Anacostia (Washington suburb) which will be overhead, the "H" Street car line
in Washington runs into the centre, and while the outer end will be overhead - if it ever gets built, I believe that rails are
currently being laid - the burning question is what to do when it gets to the central area where overhead wires are banned.
In London of course the LCC got so upset by the high cost of conduit that the final conversions and extensions were to overhead
current collection.
Regards
Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoffrey Hansen" <gnhansen29@hotmail. com>
To: "Trams Down Under" <tramsdownunder@ yahoogroups. com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:57 AM
Subject: RE: [TramsDownUnder] Generator trams - Washington and Casino-Murwillumbah
Dudley that's a brilliant idea for the Murwillumbah line.
Whats's this about the prohibition on wires in Washington. Did they use conduits in the past?
Regards
Geoffrey
To: TramsDownUnder@ yahoogroups. com
From: transitconsult@ ozemail.com. au
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 21:09:15 +1000
Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Generator trams - Washington and Casino-Murwillumbah
Dave
Would you care to send this photo to the LRPPro site, if you are a member of that. There has been much discussion on ways to get
around the prohibition on overhead wires in the central area of Washington (DC). The generator tram is a solution which avoids the
complications and expense of the APS system, conduit, heavy batteries, large super capacitors or large and heavy flywheels. While
the Inveresk arrangement is hardly what you would want to power PCC cars at full acceleration on city streets, it is the principle
that matters. Can be done, has been done, and can do in future.
All they need is the right size of generator, and the suitable track arrangements for coupling and uncoupling the generator tram.
And by the way, this would be a suitable arrangement for reopening the Casino to Murwillumbah railway line - use second hand German
trams, (or Hungarian trams) and install a generator in a couple and permanently connect them to passenger trams.
Low axle loads - less than 10t instead of the 18 or so of the XPT power cars that used to run on the line, and so no need to rebuild
all those wooden bridges.
Regards
Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hinman, Dave" <dave.hinman@ ccc.govt. nz>
To: <TramsDownUnder@ yahoogroups. com>
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: [TramsDownUnder] Wandering Lead
Here's an example of a tram being powered by mobile generator -
Launceston 29 at the tram Museum, Inveresk, during COTMA conference
2008.
Dave, who had a great time enjoying trams and trains in your Island
State
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Get Hotmail on your iPhone Find out how here
http://windowslive. ninemsn.com. au/article. aspx?id=845706
__________________________________________________________________________________
Get more done like never before with Yahoo!7 Mail.
Learn more: http://au.overview.mail.yahoo.com/