Re: Sydney Light Rail

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

Just make it bi-directional and give each one a road.


"B." <gunzel412@dingoblue.gunzel.net.au> wrote in message
39e0756b$0$11621$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:39e0756b$0$11621$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> V7_D5.12586$UP5.238138@news6.giganews.com">news:V7_D5.12586$UP5.238138@news6.giganews.com...
> > "Samuel Eades" <seades@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> > wYZD5.11537$aD2.43519@news-server.bigpond.net.au">news:wYZD5.11537$aD2.43519@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Peter Bollard <onk@magna.com.au> wrote in message
> >> 39E04AE0.709D0F29@magna.com.au">news:39E04AE0.709D0F29@magna.com.au...
>
> >>> Are there any definite plans to run it to Haberfield or
> >>> Ashfield bearing in mind that this would  seem to require
> >>> it to use  the line taking heavy freight to Glebe
> >>> Island.Would it be feasible ,safe and technically possible
> >>> for it to share the line with the freight trains?
>
> >> If a tramway started using the same lines as a railway, then
> >> that portion (IMHO) would have to become a railway as well
> >> (the difference between a tramway and a railway being that a
> >> tramway does not use any safeworking systems).
>
> > What a lot of rot. The Metro Light Rail is signalled (not in a
> > sense of what is generally accepted as railway signalling, but
> > it is signalled all the same).
>
> What a lot of rot.  The Metro Light Rail is extremely well
> signaled, as far as 'tramways' go.  Indeed it uses basically good
> railway signalling systems, the only difference is the aspects are
> slightly different.  Do the trams actually have to stop if there
> is a white/red aspect, or do they just reduce to running on sight?
>
> >> So the tram would become a train and therefore require radio
> >> equipment amongst other safety gear.
>
> > Why would it need a radio and other safety gear?
>
> The trams already have radios, and since they have ATP they are
> already arguably safer than Cityrail, IMHO.
>
> >> and the drivers would need to be trained in the safeworking
> >> system used.
>
> > They would need to be trained in any safeworking system used,
> > including that currently used on the MLR. How is it so
> > different to what is the current situation?
>
> >> The trams would need to be capable of operating track circuits
> >> reliably. It would probably be possible and safe, but perhaps
> >> not viable.
>
> > Mindless rubbish. It happens all the time in Europe, and the
> > last time I looked at several systems, the safeworking was set
> > up for the trams, with the goods trains having to operate to
> > their safeworking system, i.e. being driven at a speed slow
> > enough to be able to respond to street traffic and pedestrians
> > crossing the line.
>
> The MLR already operates TI21 jointless tracks, apparently
> reliably.  On the European shared running systems (where the trams
> run on railways) would the detection be based on axle counters?
> The case under discussion here would involve trams sharing onto a
> railway easement?  Simple - train the drivers to read Double Light
> signals, construct a junction, and bingo.  The only issue is
> whether you allow Freight to run during tramway operating hours,
> i.e. do you run possibly wider freight vehicles through almost
> rail level tram stops, and at what speed.
>
> > It works over there, and there is no reason why the two modes
> > cannot co-exist here, your mindless hyperventilating
> > notwithstanding.
>
> I don't think your allowed to use big words like that Dave.
>
> --
> B.
>
> Email - gunzel412 at dingoblue dot net dot au
> ICQ#  - 82329734
> Phone - long, long, short, long.
>
>