"Reversing an articulated car, especially with a trailer, in a street with normal road traffic would be somewhat unwise, to say the least."

I fail to see the logic behind this. Nor is there any need for traffic lights (as someone mentioned) to stop the traffic.

Assume a "Y" configuration. Single rigid or artic tram runs up to dead end and all passengers alight. Driver shuts doors and goes to other end and uses back up control to operate trafficators, then commences driving into the spur (left or right as built). Parks in the spur, alongside the boarding platform, opens doors. Passengers board, and on time the tram driver drives the tram forward.

Only traffic rule required is "All traffic gives way to turning tram." And a very good rule for any system. Sign - "Give way to tram".

Now, re use of tram with trailer. Some of you will be aware of the use by American 'railroads' of off-vehicle shunters. Shunter stands by the side of the track, operating the shunter under his control via radio link. Think now tram with trailer. Driver stops as before and lets off passengers, puts main control into "reverse" and "radio link control". Shuts all doors but opens one for the ten sec enough to let him out. Walks down track to the trailer, and uses his key to open one door for 10 sec, boards, goes to what is now the front, operates "Confirm Radio Link Control" and drives from trailer as before. When parked in spur, opens doors so passengers can board, goes back to the normal driving position, cancels radio link control, puts control in "forward" and is ready when passengers boarded or timetable tells him to go.

One major advantage of such a terminal arrangement is that the tram laying over is off the main road, and out of traffic. In the side road it may be far easier for passengers to board in safety. Far more likely to gain acceptance, given that a suitable side street is available, than a double track terminus with centre platform or two side platforms in the centre of a main and heavily trafficked street.

Regards

Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard YOUL
To:TramsDownUnder@...
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Double end operation (was Domain Interchange Reconstruction)

Reversing an articulated car, especially with a trailer, in a street with normal road traffic would be somewhat unwise, to say the least.

Changing direction without changing ends was forbidden in Melbourne, even if assisted with a conductor, something which the Frankfurt tramway lacked..

Regards,

On 16/02/2013, at 6:41 PM, Noel wrote:

On Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:38 AM Richard YOUL wrote ----

One compromise which requires a lot less space is a turning triangle which was the J line (SFO) arrangement prior to the line being extended, and I rode one in Frankfurt where a friend was a driver, and there was a lot of time spent changing ends of the tram twice to turn it around. Not to mention potential conflict with road traffic during such turns.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would there be a need to change ends when turning a tram on a triangle ?

Many 'trackless trams' AKA trolley buses have reversed successfully using a triangle.

On Sydney's first trolley bus route, there was a turning triangle at Potts Point terminus, requiring a shunt in reverse to turn the vehicle for the return journey to the city. In those days, there was a conductor to assist the driver when making the reverse movement.

In the present times, such a shunting movement by a tram or a trolley bus could easily be protected by road traffic signals to temporarily stop any conflicting road traffic.

Some bus termini require a reverse shunting movement. One case is the bus turning area at Darling Street Wharf, Balmain. Buses which replaced Sydney's famous Counterweight Tramway have difficulty in making a U turn close to the water of Darling Harbour and require a reverse shunting movement before the return journey.

Noel Reed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:TramsDownUnder@... [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard YOUL
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:38 AM
To:TramsDownUnder@...
Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Double end operation (was Domain Interchange Reconstruction)

Re Tuen Mun, I visited it quite early in its existence and if memory serves me correctly, It was built largely in areas where there was little development, and little hindrance to building loops almost anywhere at all. In fact at least some of the land has been reclaimed from the sea.

The reduced seating capacity of double ended cars is an unfortunate trade-off between what amounts to, in most new-build tramways, having double-ended cars, or no tramway at all as they are largely built into older established parts of cities where there is simply no space for a loop. Also in Europe most lines are rather short, so a bit of standing is no great problem. This of course is not often the case in Melbourne.

One compromise which requires a lot less space is a turning triangle which was the J line (SFO) arrangement prior to the line being extended, and I rode one in Frankfurt where a friend was a driver, and there was a lot of time spent changing ends of the tram twice to turn it around. Not to mention potential conflict with road traffic during such turns.

Regards,

On 16/02/2013, at 9:17 AM, Brent Efford wrote:

I think San Francisco is an interesting case in point.

I am a member of the Market Street Railway. I am well aware of the problems that there have been, and delays in starting up the E Line second heritage line because the original F Line heritage cars are largely single-ended PCCs or Milan Peter Witts.

It has proven too difficult/costly to provide a balloon loop near the Caltrain Station, where the E Line is planned to terminate (the area is also the stub-end terminus for the modern double-ended Muni Metro J line cars and operated through by the T Third) so the E Line inauguration has been held back for years while stock of double-ended heritage cars is slowly built up. See http://www.streetcar.org/.

If the large heritage fleet had been double-ended, the E Line could have been started using existing track shared with other lines 10 year s ago.

As far as I am aware, the Tuen Mun is the only new (post 1970s) LRT system built for single-ended cars. In the decades since there has emerged dozens/scores of diverse new systems, manufacturers, consultants, etc in the industry. It is, in my view, drawing a rather long bow to suggest that, despite being so scattered and diverse, they have been uniformly mistaken/deluded, as Wolfgang suggests, in their near-unanimous choice of double-ended operation. In many cases it has been the ability to reverse in situ and use off-side platforms that has made trams attractive or even feasible in high-density areas.

Brent Efford

On 16/02/2013, at 11:11 AM, phoenix547fm wrote:

I meant to add, several Nth American systems are still single end, Toronto, SF, Philly, Boston. But it's interesting to see that, even though Toronto is getting new single end cars, the LRT lines will be double end for the very reasons I have stated previously. All of SF Muni's "Metro" fleet are double end whilst maintaining the old loop infrastructure from PCC days (and why wouldn't you if it's there?) they have added short turn cross-overs where they could not before and the new T Third street route is double end with a stub terminus. Boston also uses double end cars though still with the majority of lines having loops but some crossovers. Philly is the only one (on the city lines) that has maintained single end cars exclusively as it was built that way from day one.

And Hong, whilst it operates as a single end system, the cars are in fact double end for emergency use of crossovers.

Greg

--- InTramsDownUnder@..., "phoenix547fm" wrote:
>
> Hi Brent,
>
> You are quite correct and even some of those single end operation are opting for double ended cars as extensions are becoming hard enough to gain without the problems of aquiring land for loops. As I have said in another post, double end operation offers economies and flexibility that single end operation simply cannot. And contrary to what some others might think, island platforms are the most efficient form of loading platform in an on street environment.
>
> Cheers
> Greg (always happy to support common sense)
>
> --- InTramsDownUnder@..., Brent Efford wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm ... I find it quite bizarre that anyone could characterise four platform faces on two islands as not being an efficient use of street space. Just as the Melbourne University terminus manages to terminate many of Melbourne's tram routes within a standard street width by using the versatility of the double-ended tram.
> >
> > There are good reasons why the double-ended tram is the world norm and the single-ender an eastern-European and Hong Kong oddity. Even the Americans, post-PCC, have abandoned the single-end configuration.
> >
> > Brent Efford
> > Information Officer, Trams-Action ...
> > and Editor, Tramway Topics
> >
> >
> >
> > On 15/02/2013, at 7:34 PM, melb_682002 wrote:
> >
> > David, nice sketch.
> >
> > It's unimaginable, however, that St Kilda Rd services on the down would have to wait for Route 55 trams to turn around before being able to begin a Sturt or William St diversion - which as we know is not a rare occurrence. As far as I know, Route 55 services have around an 8 minute intra-peak weekday lay up at Domain.
> >
> > Obviously, if the 55 is through-routed with another St Kilda Rd route from the south (and I had been under the impression that the Route 5 was the most likely candidate for that) it wouldn't be an issue.
> >
> > Time will tell, but do you have any other information that you can share with us?
> >
> > --- InTramsDownUnder@..., David Coverdale wrote:
> > >
> > > Please find attached rough sketch of the new layout for Domain Road.
> > > The layout is set up for the future proposed through routing of routes 8
> > > and 55 (movements shown in blue).
> > > To allow for diversions and the current operation of routes 8 and 55
> > > additional movements are possible (shown in green).
> > > It will not be possible to enter Park Street or Domain Road from the main
> > > St Kilda Road platforms.
> > > Southbound route 8 trams will have to use the Toorak platform.
> > > Diverting northbound trams will have to use the West Coburg platform.
> > > David
> > >
> >
>

size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#aca899" align=center>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6104 - Release Date: 02/14/13