Re: Re: Box Hill extension

IS Edit
Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:15 AM

Thanks, Johann.

It will be interesting to see how effective that rubber pad is in reducing noise. It is far thinner than the ones I have seen in Europe but is probably a lot better than nothing.

It has been my experience that short rail (as opposed to tall) ends up jiggling cars both vertically and horizontally. Tall channel rail is far smoother both vertically and horizontally.

But I don't know how much of that is due to the way the rails are laid or the way they flex in service. It might just be that tall channel rail just goes onto the sleepers straighter since it is much stiffer. I have found that to be the case on many tram systems I have driven and or rode on over many years.

Bob Murphy

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

From: yags_08

To: [email protected]

Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:06 AM

Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: Box Hill extension

--- In TramsDownUnder@y..., "IS Edit" <bobmurphy2@c...> wrote: > That rail is not tall enough for high speed operation. Looks a bit light on, even in concrete. > High speed operation? The road speed limit is 60km/hr, so hopefully the trams won't be exceeding that. > And concrete sleepers. I hope there is a pad between the rail and the sleeper. > The whole rail is surrounded by a rubber "boot" which is meant to reduce noise/vibration etc. It can be seen at: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~chrisbrownbill/mypic14.jpg cheers Johann

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.