Re: Melbourne, Christchurch

IS Edit
Monday, August 27, 2001 11:01 AM

Sounds like I'm overdue for another visit, Chas. 37 to 38 mph is quite reasonable for Blackpool.

And there's lots more in the UK now than just Blackpool when it comes to trams.

Cheers,

Bob Murphy

----- Original Message -----

From: CHARLES BILLETTE

To: [email protected]

Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:37 PM

Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Melbourne, Christchurch

Hi Bob! You must have just missed the re-motoring of the Blackpool fleet. Balloons which could manage about 24mph suddenly found themselves capable of 37-38mph and more late at night!!! That gave the track quite a showing up!! It was lots of fun too. The Jubilee cars and the two OMO double deckers have metalastic suspension and is seems to work very well (no spring shackles to come loose!) The trucks are an original Blackpool design, I believe. These "modern" cars are much slower than the vintage Railcoaches & Balloons. Mind you, Bolton 66 takes the biscuit for slowness --- quote a friend, "Slower than even the slowest of the Vienna cars!"

Chas

>From: "IS Edit"
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To:
>Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Melbourne, Christchurch
>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:55:59 +1000
>
>Chas,
>
>It's been 25 years since I rode Blackpool trams. I was never on one that went fast enough to pay much attention to the ride.
>
>I'd like to hear more about them if they are any good.
>
>I'm involved in road transport now and we have a metalastic walking beam truck suspension for tandem drive axles which works very well and requires no greasing and almost no maintenance.
>
>Could it be that air-suspensions have become so good maintenance-wise there is little reason to bother with metalastic now? Though that might not be the case in all-electric trams which have no air-compressors but I remember Blackpool trams being rather old-fashioned underneath and having air-brakes so...
>
>Bob Murphy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: CHARLES BILLETTE
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Melbourne, Christchurch
>
>
> Metalastic? What do you think about Blackpool?
>
> Chas
>
>
>
> >From: "IS Edit"
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Melbourne, Christchurch
> >Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:29:28 +1000
> >
> >Cripes!
> >
> >You trying for a PhD on old tram trucks, Andrew?
> >
> >The M&T 588 sounds like a useful design.
> >
> >When they transport revolution is here and we need thousands and thousands
> >of single truck trams we'll know what to go for.:)
> >
> >Has there ever been a successful (in this case that means good riding) tram
> >with metalastik suspension in your estimation? (Don't even think about
> >nominating Melbourne's Z-1s). The lack of metal on metal contact and
> >implications for almost maintenance free operation make the idea
> >interesting.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Bob Murphy
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "David Young"
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:54 AM
> >Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Melbourne, Christchurch
> >
> >
> > > Thanks for the replies to my questions, guys.
> >
> >
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.