In article 
, 
e27002@gmail.com (E27002) wrote:

> On Oct 30, 3:42 am, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
> > "burkey"  wrote in message
> > 
> news:0760ca98-1146-41c3-b9e3-345303332abc@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > From the Department for Transport
> > Friday 30th October 2009
> >
> > Rail passengers travelling between Watford and St Albans are in line
> > for more regular and more frequent services thanks to exciting plans
> > to create a new tram service, announced today by Transport Secretary
> > Andrew Adonis and Hertfordshire County Council.
> >
> > This raises a lot of questions.
> > Will the tram trains use the existing 25 kV OHLE, or will the line be
> > re-electrified at 750 V DC?
> > Will there be additional stations (Garston and How Wood are 
> > comparatively recent additions)?
> > Will the tram trains be high floor or low floor? If the latter the
> > existing stations will have to be altered.
> > Are street-running extensions envisaged at either end?
> 
> Those were the questions that came to my mind.  If the system extends
> in the street 25 kV would not be an option there. OTOH, IIRC Karlsruhe
> has dual voltage units.
> 
> Re-electrifying the line would not be a cheap, or easy, option.

Don't they need at the very least a new passing loop to allow the 
increased frequency? I'm not sure, if so, why they need to convert to 
tram-train. It's not as if any street running is proposed, is it?

-- 
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message 
news:ptednVHOfv7hoHbXnZ2dnUVZ7tmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In article
> ,
> e27002@gmail.com (E27002) wrote:
>
>> On Oct 30, 3:42 am, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
>> > "burkey"  wrote in message
>> >
>> news:0760ca98-1146-41c3-b9e3-345303332abc@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> > From the Department for Transport
>> > Friday 30th October 2009
>> >
>> > Rail passengers travelling between Watford and St Albans are in line
>> > for more regular and more frequent services thanks to exciting plans
>> > to create a new tram service, announced today by Transport Secretary
>> > Andrew Adonis and Hertfordshire County Council.
>> >
>> > This raises a lot of questions.
>> > Will the tram trains use the existing 25 kV OHLE, or will the line be
>> > re-electrified at 750 V DC?
>> > Will there be additional stations (Garston and How Wood are
>> > comparatively recent additions)?
>> > Will the tram trains be high floor or low floor? If the latter the
>> > existing stations will have to be altered.
>> > Are street-running extensions envisaged at either end?
>>
>> Those were the questions that came to my mind.  If the system extends
>> in the street 25 kV would not be an option there. OTOH, IIRC Karlsruhe
>> has dual voltage units.
>>
>> Re-electrifying the line would not be a cheap, or easy, option.
>
> Don't they need at the very least a new passing loop to allow the
> increased frequency? I'm not sure, if so, why they need to convert to
> tram-train. It's not as if any street running is proposed, is it?
>
> -- 
> Colin Rosenstiel

The current run-time is 16mins, according to earlier posts this thread. 
Turnaround times are subject to standards for railway operation.

1) Use of what are effectively Light Rail vehicles (in the manner of Tyne & 
Wear Metro and DLR) allows other (ie non-railway, eg tramway) turnaround 
parameters to apply;
2) While it has been commented that the Class 350 have tram-like 
acceleration - the question is: at what cost? Vehicle depreciation and 
electricity consumption in particular.
3) If the line is operated as "one-engine-in-steam" with no operational 
access to the main line (means manually locking points at Watford Jn [WFJ], 
I suppose), then Light Rail standards for end loadings and vehicle strength 
can apply. This means the desired acceleration can be achieved with lighter 
vehicles and lower power bills - has some "green" credentials to boot!!~~!
4) If the start-to-start turnaround including recovery can be got under 15 
mins, then a half-hourly schedule can be maintained.
5) The smart money would be to liase with the other high-platform LR 
operators in the UK and buy in a multivoltage version of whatever they are 
buying; possible share the engineering spare.
6) LU and NR DC supplies will be available at WFJ with the Metropolitan line 
extension and possible Bakerloo re-instatement. I suspect that repowering 
the OHLE with the available DC could work, even with significant voltage 
drop so long as the single unit in use can work with voltages from 500 to 
800 or so.
7) extensions would of course be on County Councillors' minds, subject as 
always to business case and expenditure priorities.

DW down under

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:45:46 +0800, DW downunder wrote:

>The current run-time is 16mins, according to earlier posts this thread. 
>Turnaround times are subject to standards for railway operation.
>
>1) Use of what are effectively Light Rail vehicles (in the manner of Tyne & 
>Wear Metro and DLR) allows other (ie non-railway, eg tramway) turnaround 
>parameters to apply;
>2) While it has been commented that the Class 350 have tram-like 
>acceleration - the question is: at what cost? Vehicle depreciation and 
>electricity consumption in particular.

So use an old 313 or whatever, rather than ignoring the costs of a new
one-off bespoke vehicle with its own maintenance requirements. The
saving in electricity will only ever apply to a single vehicle, so it
will be unlikely to be large enough offset the capital and
administrative costs of the change.

>3) If the line is operated as "one-engine-in-steam" with no operational 
>access to the main line (means manually locking points at Watford Jn [WFJ], 
>I suppose), then Light Rail standards for end loadings and vehicle strength 
>can apply. This means the desired acceleration can be achieved with lighter 
>vehicles and lower power bills - has some "green" credentials to boot!!~~!

And precludes the single best improvement that could happen to the
line (through-running to London).

>4) If the start-to-start turnaround including recovery can be got under 15 
>mins, then a half-hourly schedule can be maintained.

With little hope of recovering from any delay. Not helpful for
mainline connections.

>7) extensions would of course be on County Councillors' minds, subject as 
>always to business case and expenditure priorities.

IMO the whole idea is completely pointless without street-running
extensions.

"asdf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:efaoe5llo1l81hvk10rgbmc8ogg5s4241k@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:45:46 +0800, DW downunder wrote:
>
>>The current run-time is 16mins, according to earlier posts this thread.
>>Turnaround times are subject to standards for railway operation.
>>
>>1) Use of what are effectively Light Rail vehicles (in the manner of Tyne 
>>&
>>Wear Metro and DLR) allows other (ie non-railway, eg tramway) turnaround
>>parameters to apply;
>>2) While it has been commented that the Class 350 have tram-like
>>acceleration - the question is: at what cost? Vehicle depreciation and
>>electricity consumption in particular.
>
> So use an old 313 or whatever, rather than ignoring the costs of a new
> one-off bespoke vehicle with its own maintenance requirements. The
> saving in electricity will only ever apply to a single vehicle, so it
> will be unlikely to be large enough offset the capital and
> administrative costs of the change.

The point I was making was that while a 350 might have the acceleration 
required, it's a high depreciation cost unit - also happens to use a lot of 
juice to achieve its performance parameters. Rolling stock shortages bedevil 
peak operations throughout Britain. Tying up a 4-car 350/1 dual voltage 
unit, or 350/2 AC unit on an hourly branch line duty when 24 minutes each 
hour during autumn timetable (28 in other seasons) are spent idle does not 
strike me as an efficient means of utilising resources. If the timetable is 
maintained at hourly, indeed reversion to 313 or use of AC only variants 
(these were IIRC 314, 315, 316 but not sure of their fate) would not go 
astray. Another option, worthwile only if interfacing 10 or 20 minute 
interval connections, would be to change to a 40-minute interval service, 
clock face even/odd hours.

>
>>3) If the line is operated as "one-engine-in-steam" with no operational
>>access to the main line (means manually locking points at Watford Jn 
>>[WFJ],
>>I suppose), then Light Rail standards for end loadings and vehicle 
>>strength
>>can apply. This means the desired acceleration can be achieved with 
>>lighter
>>vehicles and lower power bills - has some "green" credentials to boot!!~~!
>
> And precludes the single best improvement that could happen to the
> line (through-running to London).

If that was a winner, do you think the present plan would have surfaced? I 
have a gut feeling that if a local campaign for through running was 
activated and gained traction (as they say), the likely outcome would be a 
service through to either or both Stratford and Clapham Junction - not 
Euston. Comments on the loadings on the WLL might indeed support the latter.

>
>>4) If the start-to-start turnaround including recovery can be got under 15
>>mins, then a half-hourly schedule can be maintained.
>
> With little hope of recovering from any delay. Not helpful for
> mainline connections.

Sorry asdf, but did you not notice that I wrote: If the start-to-start 
turnaround including recovery can be got under 15 mins,  ....


>
>>7) extensions would of course be on County Councillors' minds, subject as
>>always to business case and expenditure priorities.
>
> IMO the whole idea is completely pointless without street-running
> extensions.

And such extensions would be on the agenda no doubt  ....  as funds can be 
allocated.

I guess the primary issue needed to be addressed is this: could an increase 
in service frequency increase net revenue sufficiently to recoup the costs 
of installing an intermediate loop? Alternatively, could the benefit of 
through services at non-clockface intervals (or 40-minute intervals) 
increase net revenue sufficiently to recoup the cost of signalling the 
connections at Watford Junction [WFJ] for passenger operations? It would 
appear both of these have been subject to BCR calculation and have not 
achieved the hurdle rate required.

It does seem to me that providing rollingstock for a shuttle operation that 
is technically deemed "not a railway" for turnaround performance 
requirements may prove a little tricky. Essentially either 1 unit with at 
least capacity equivalent to 2 x 20m cars would be needed running every 15 
mins, or 2 units with capacity equivalent of 1 x 20m car needed. If the 
latter, then 2-unit operations could occur during busy traffic periods, and 
single unit operation at other times. On top of these, traffic and 
engineering spares would be needed - or we'll see Sunday sevice bustituted 
so that the one unit can be serviced.

Like you, I have doubts about the administrative and ongoing costs 
associated with an isolated, small operation - unless somehow they can tap 
into other fleets and operators of compatible rolling stock.

DW downunder

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob 
wrote:
>
>There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
>past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
>paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
>(albeit very overloaded)


Very overcrowded now, perhaps, but the Thameslink route is the subject
of a hugely ambitious and expensive upgrade which will provide a very
large increase in capacity.

<big snip>

>However some additional stops on the existing line
>might be useful - one serving Abbots Avenue in St Albans, Asda in
>Garson and the Trident Centre in Watford spring to mind


An excellent idea.  There has been a lot of development in recent
years and the present line completely fails to serve it.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob 
wrote:

>There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
>past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
>paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
>(albeit very overloaded)

There has to be room on the slow lines, as LM are increasing the
service in December with some Watford shuttles that could easily run
through from St Albans if the infrastructure was sorted.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

E27002 wrote:

> Where will this tram be maintained?  How will it reach that location?
> If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
> another motive power unit.
> 
> My best guess is that these issues have been considered.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//st-albans-abbey-tram-train-announced.html
says "Network Rail land for a depot has been identified at St Albans Abbey."

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:17:52 +0000, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:

>E27002 wrote:
>
>> Where will this tram be maintained?  How will it reach that location?
>> If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
>> another motive power unit.
>> 
>> My best guess is that these issues have been considered.
>
>http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//st-albans-abbey-tram-train-announced.html
>says "Network Rail land for a depot has been identified at St Albans Abbey."
>
Presumably whatever remains of the station yard.

E27002  wrote in news:5a91ccd3-e16a-4f8e-b721-
897704e9a6bd@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 3, 1:07 pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
>> >past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
>> >paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
>> >(albeit very overloaded)
>>
>> There has to be room on the slow lines, as LM are increasing the
>> service in December with some Watford shuttles that could easily run
>> through from St Albans if the infrastructure was sorted.
>>
> Where will this tram be maintained?  How will it reach that location?
> If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
> another motive power unit.
> 
> My best guess is that these issues have been considered.
> 
> 

Why on earth would you want to get Network Rail involved?

Isn't one of the attractions of this that you are isolated from the "big 
railway" and won't need to comply with (or have rolling stock that complies 
with) Group Statdards?

"D7666"  wrote in message 
news:908ef80e-bf60-4589-8fa3-b886d98a7873@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 9:15 am, Matthew Geier
 wrote:


> Siemens has already built a batch of 'Avanto' 'tram-trains' that are
> equipped for 25kAC/750vDC operation and are even fitted with appropriate
> train protection equipment for the area they operate in.


I've already posted Avantos exist way back upthread.

It is about the 42nd time I've mentioned Avanto in various thread in
this forum over recent years, yet every new thread about tram/trains
trots out the same uninformed drivel about perceived 25 kV / 750 V
trams not exisitng, need to re-wire 25 kV to 750 V etc, when they do
exist and are well proven. There are even electro-diesel options
although not sure if any of those have actually been built yet.

--
Nick

>>>>>>>>>>>>

And for that matter, battery equipped units to get past environmentally 
sensitive areas - even trolley buses doing that with batteries (see Peking, 
Wellington for examples).

DW down under

David Jackman wrote:

> 
> Isn't one of the attractions of this that you are isolated from the "big 
> railway" and won't need to comply with (or have rolling stock that complies 
> with) Group Statdards?
> 

Thus preventing any through running. Is that a attraction??

Charlie

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:52:57 +0000, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:

>Thus preventing any through running. Is that a attraction??

Depends if through running to Euston (the ideal) is ever likely to
happen, I suspect.

There has been other talk about through running to the DC lines, but I
doubt anyone wants that as it takes ages to get to London (which,
besides Watford itself, is probably the main destination at that end).

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:50:23 -0800 (PST), Paul 
wrote:

>On Nov 3, 11:29=A0pm, E27002  wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 1:07=A0pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>> wrote:> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob <rob_s_sm...@hotmail=
>.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the
>> > >past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the train
>> > >paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into London
>> > >(albeit very overloaded)
>>
>> > There has to be room on the slow lines, as LM are increasing the
>> > service in December with some Watford shuttles that could easily run
>> > through from St Albans if the infrastructure was sorted.
>>
>> Where will this tram be maintained? =A0How will it reach that location?
>> If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by
>> another motive power unit.
>>
>> My best guess is that these issues have been considered.
>
>Where will this tram be maintained?  How will it reach that location?
>If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled
>by
>another motive power unit.
>
>Are you mad? No they'd load it on to an Alley's low loader every night
>for the move to Bletchley depot. Come one now man, get a grip of
>yourself. We can't have rolling stock being moved from location to
>another by rail!! Its just not British!

You missed an earler post which said that room for a depot had been
identified at st Albans.  However the official answer now is that this
is up to the contractor to sort out.  I would have throught that
Watford or the former North Watford sidings, had beter potential depot
space.
-- 
Peter Lawrence

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Peter Lawrence wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:50:23 -0800 (PST), Paul 
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 3, 11:29=A0pm, E27002  wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 1:07=A0pm, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams)
>>> wrote:> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 05:01:01 -0800 (PST), Rob <rob_s_sm...@hotmail=
>> .com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There has been a campaign to run the Abbey Flyer into Euston in the 
>>>>> past, but it always ran into the problem that Virgin needed the 
>>>>> train paths, whereas St Albans already has a direct route into 
>>>>> London (albeit very overloaded)
>>>>
>>>> There has to be room on the slow lines, as LM are increasing the 
>>>> service in December with some Watford shuttles that could easily run 
>>>> through from St Albans if the infrastructure was sorted.
>>>
>>> Where will this tram be maintained? =A0How will it reach that 
>>> location? If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or 
>>> pulled by another motive power unit.
>>>
>>> My best guess is that these issues have been considered.
>>
>> Where will this tram be maintained?  How will it reach that location? 
>> If it is to reach Bletchley, it will have to be 25 kV Ac, or pulled by 
>> another motive power unit.
>>
>> Are you mad? No they'd load it on to an Alley's low loader every night 
>> for the move to Bletchley depot. Come one now man, get a grip of 
>> yourself. We can't have rolling stock being moved from location to 
>> another by rail!! Its just not British!
>
> You missed an earler post which said that room for a depot had been 
> identified at st Albans.  However the official answer now is that this 
> is up to the contractor to sort out.  I would have throught that Watford 
> or the former North Watford sidings, had beter potential depot space.

Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just 
for this one tram? Or when we say 'depot', do we mean 'somewhere to sleep 
at night plus somewhere for light maintenance eg changing the light 
bulbs', with heavy work being done at an existing major depot reached by 
rail or low-loader?

tom

-- 
Kevin was inspired as an actor by Super Engineer A.K.A Wondergirl T-rav
Camelang -- Wikipedia, on Kevin Bacon

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, D7666 wrote:

> On Nov 7, 11:14 pm, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>
>> Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just
>> for this one tram?
>
> One ?
>
> You've obviousy not been following this very well have you.

No, not in the slightest! So, does it really make sense to have a 
dedicated maintenance facility just for this small number of trams?

tom

-- 
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets
of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a
whole galaxy of multi colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... and
also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw
ether and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all this for the trip,
but once you get locked in a serious drug collection, the tendency is
to push it as far as you can. -- Hunter S. Thompson, 'Fear and loathing
in Las Vegas'

Tom Anderson wrote:

> Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just 
> for this one tram? 

Given that a passing loop is apparently one of the main reasons for the 
project, I suspect there may be more than one tram :)


-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Tom Anderson"  wrote
>
> Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just 
> for this one tram? Or when we say 'depot', do we mean 'somewhere to sleep 
> at night plus somewhere for light maintenance eg changing the light 
> bulbs', with heavy work being done at an existing major depot reached by 
> rail or low-loader?
>
We have the precedent of the Stourbridge PPMs, which have their own little 
shed at the Junction. For that matter, Waterloo (W&C) manages all the 
maintenance for the W&C trains, except when, after around 15 years, they had 
to be craned out and taken away for overhaul. And Ryde shed copes with 
maintaining the 70-year-old Island Line stock.

Peter

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, D7666 wrote:

> On Nov 8, 10:10 am, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just
>>> for this one tram?
>>
>> Given that a passing loop is apparently one of the main reasons for the
>> project, I suspect there may be more than one tram :)
>
> ;o)
>
> I restate my suggestion the depot *is* the passing loop in a shed. Less 
> pointwork needed. If VER can do it, so can the Hertfordshire Interurban 
> Electric Tramcar Company.

Could it also be one of the stations?

tom

-- 
KEEP CALM and CARRY ON

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Peter Masson wrote:

> "Tom Anderson"  wrote
>
>> Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just for
>> this one tram? Or when we say 'depot', do we mean 'somewhere to sleep at 
>> night plus somewhere for light maintenance eg changing the light bulbs', 
>> with heavy work being done at an existing major depot reached by rail or 
>> low-loader?
>
> We have the precedent of the Stourbridge PPMs, which have their own 
> little shed at the Junction. For that matter, Waterloo (W&C) manages all 
> the maintenance for the W&C trains, except when, after around 15 years, 
> they had to be craned out and taken away for overhaul. And Ryde shed 
> copes with maintaining the 70-year-old Island Line stock.

Waterloo and Ryde lack rail connections - or easy low-loader access - to 
the rest of the network, so there, sending trains away for regular work 
would be exorbitantly expensive, hence having their own little heavy 
workshops makes sense.

I'm afraid i'm not familiar with Stourbridge, its trains, or its acronyms. 
Although on googling, i find this is one of those clever Parry People 
Mover things. My questions there are (a) is all maintenance handled at the 
local depot, or do they ever go elsewhere, (b) are the vehicles so 
different to normal trains that there would be no cost saving in 
co-locating their workshop with a normal train depot and (c) is this at 
all an artifact of this being a bit of an experimental pilot scheme?

tom

-- 
KEEP CALM and CARRY ON

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, D7666 wrote:

> On Nov 8, 4:04 pm, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>
>>>> Given that a passing loop is apparently one of the main reasons for the
>>>> project, I suspect there may be more than one tram :)
>>>
>>> I restate my suggestion the depot *is* the passing loop in a shed. Less
>>> pointwork needed. If VER can do it, so can the Hertfordshire Interurban
>>> Electric Tramcar Company.
>
>> Could it also be one of the stations?
>
> I did in fact suggest that upthread.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and i wish to subscribe to your RSS feed.

tom

-- 
Glass of water, glass of orange juice, cup of coffee, a spell on the
toilet (Guinness hangovers only), back to bed for a good cry. Fried
breakfast later. -- susumu, on curing hangovers

Bonsoir!

D7666 wrote:
> 
> It is about the 42nd time I've mentioned Avanto in various thread in
> this forum over recent years, yet every new thread about tram/trains
> trots out the same uninformed drivel about perceived 25 kV / 750 V
> trams not exisitng, need to re-wire 25 kV to 750 V etc, when they do
> exist and are well proven. There are even electro-diesel options
> although not sure if any of those have actually been built yet.
> 
You can go to Alstom, last type on the following page:

http://www.railfaneurope.net/list/germany/germany_rbk.html

Cheers,

Johannes.

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:OK2dnZfzXqG9BGvXnZ2dnUVZ8oZi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just 
>> for this one tram?
>
> Given that a passing loop is apparently one of the main reasons for the 
> project, I suspect there may be more than one tram :)
>
>
> -- 
> Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Sorry what project. Watford needs another expensive talking shop like a hole 
in the head.

Kevin

"Tom Anderson"  wrote in message 
news:alpine.DEB.1.10.0911081606250.17693@urchin.earth.li...
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Peter Masson wrote:
>
>> "Tom Anderson"  wrote
>>
>>> Does it really make sense to have a dedicated maintenance facility just 
>>> for
>>> this one tram? Or when we say 'depot', do we mean 'somewhere to sleep at 
>>> night plus somewhere for light maintenance eg changing the light bulbs', 
>>> with heavy work being done at an existing major depot reached by rail or 
>>> low-loader?
>>
>> We have the precedent of the Stourbridge PPMs, which have their own 
>> little shed at the Junction. For that matter, Waterloo (W&C) manages all 
>> the maintenance for the W&C trains, except when, after around 15 years, 
>> they had to be craned out and taken away for overhaul. And Ryde shed 
>> copes with maintaining the 70-year-old Island Line stock.
>
> Waterloo and Ryde lack rail connections - or easy low-loader access - to 
> the rest of the network, so there, sending trains away for regular work 
> would be exorbitantly expensive, hence having their own little heavy 
> workshops makes sense.
>
> I'm afraid i'm not familiar with Stourbridge, its trains, or its acronyms. 
> Although on googling, i find this is one of those clever Parry People 
> Mover things. My questions there are (a) is all maintenance handled at the 
> local depot, or do they ever go elsewhere,

They seem to go back to Parry for warranty "adjustments", but AIUI 
refuelling and minor servicing do occur at their little shed.

(b) are the vehicles so
> different to normal trains that there would be no cost saving in 
> co-locating their workshop with a normal train depot

Probably, more to the point, as the cars do not conform AIUI to railway 
vehicle standards, they cannot be operated as a normal working over the 
network. Access to the mainline is indirect.

The design of several aspects of the vehicles, especially the electrics, was 
changed to conform to rail industry practice rather than bus industry 
practice - so that attention could be given if needed at rail depots.


and (c) is this at
> all an artifact of this being a bit of an experimental pilot scheme?

In part, yes.

>
> tom
>
> -- 
> KEEP CALM and CARRY ON

DW downunder