Re: Why trolleys? [was: Cyclists, skinny tires, streetcar rails -- ?not a good mix]

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Frank Krygowski writes:

>> A strange observation gleaned while riding streetcars over the
>> years: doesn't matter how late I'm running, I never feel in a rush
>> while on board. Perhaps it's the sensation of steel on steel or the
>> leisurely pace of the trolley; can't really say.

> And speaking of steel:

> I'm surprised that it's sensible to use steel rails and wheels on
> trolleys.

> I understand that the rolling resistance is less than for ordinary
> tires. But I'd expect the energy savings from rolling resistance
> would not significantly offset the cost of laying rails in the first
> place. Then there's the problem of fixed routes, as opposed to more
> agile route modification. And, of course, all the other problems
> we've been discussing.

> When I was a kid (and dinosaurs ruled the earth) our city had
> electric trolleys running on rubber tires. IOW, they looked exactly
> like ordinary buses, but with overhead booms to reach their overhead
> electric power lines. If a route needed changed, there would have
> been no street excavation involved; they'd just hang more wires.
> Why is that not standard?

> Or even more basic: What's the advantage of a trolley over, say, a
> bus with a different, but still clean, power source?

http://www.denverpost.com/huntfish/ci_7691056
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines
http://hometown.aol.com/chirailfan/holdbun.html
http://www.thethirdrail.net/9905/index.htm
http://www.bilderberg.org/nclchoms.htm

If you recall those times, when Marin and Contra Costa counties were
linked with third rail electric trains that crossed the Oakland-SF bay
bridge to a modern (by today's standards) East Bay Terminal, you
wouldn't ask what the benefits are. It cost us millions for a bunch
of eggheads to build BART, that never lived up to its claims. to
replace the Key System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System

Jobst Brandt

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On 12 Dec 2007 03:40:03 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>Frank Krygowski writes:
>
>>> A strange observation gleaned while riding streetcars over the
>>> years: doesn't matter how late I'm running, I never feel in a rush
>>> while on board. Perhaps it's the sensation of steel on steel or the
>>> leisurely pace of the trolley; can't really say.
>
>> And speaking of steel:
>
>> I'm surprised that it's sensible to use steel rails and wheels on
>> trolleys.
>
>> I understand that the rolling resistance is less than for ordinary
>> tires. But I'd expect the energy savings from rolling resistance
>> would not significantly offset the cost of laying rails in the first
>> place. Then there's the problem of fixed routes, as opposed to more
>> agile route modification. And, of course, all the other problems
>> we've been discussing.
>
>> When I was a kid (and dinosaurs ruled the earth) our city had
>> electric trolleys running on rubber tires. IOW, they looked exactly
>> like ordinary buses, but with overhead booms to reach their overhead
>> electric power lines. If a route needed changed, there would have
>> been no street excavation involved; they'd just hang more wires.
>> Why is that not standard?
>
>> Or even more basic: What's the advantage of a trolley over, say, a
>> bus with a different, but still clean, power source?
>
>http://www.denverpost.com/huntfish/ci_7691056
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines
>http://hometown.aol.com/chirailfan/holdbun.html
>http://www.thethirdrail.net/9905/index.htm
>http://www.bilderberg.org/nclchoms.htm
>
>If you recall those times, when Marin and Contra Costa counties were
>linked with third rail electric trains that crossed the Oakland-SF bay
>bridge to a modern (by today's standards) East Bay Terminal, you
>wouldn't ask what the benefits are. It cost us millions for a bunch
>of eggheads to build BART, that never lived up to its claims. to
>replace the Key System.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

That light rail train that crashed in Littleton won't be running for a
while, but it was carrying only 28 passengers:

http://www.denverpost.com/huntfish/ci_7691056

Ridership that low is common in Colorado, where people shy away from
public transport, whether on rails or tires. The closer you get to
downtown Denver, the more people are willing to take a bus or even
train.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[r15757@aol.com]

On Dec 11, 10:45 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2007 03:40:03 GMT, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>
>
> >Frank Krygowski writes:
>
> >>> A strange observation gleaned while riding streetcars over the
> >>> years: doesn't matter how late I'm running, I never feel in a rush
> >>> while on board. Perhaps it's the sensation of steel on steel or the
> >>> leisurely pace of the trolley; can't really say.
>
> >> And speaking of steel:
>
> >> I'm surprised that it's sensible to use steel rails and wheels on
> >> trolleys.
>
> >> I understand that the rolling resistance is less than for ordinary
> >> tires. But I'd expect the energy savings from rolling resistance
> >> would not significantly offset the cost of laying rails in the first
> >> place. Then there's the problem of fixed routes, as opposed to more
> >> agile route modification. And, of course, all the other problems
> >> we've been discussing.
>
> >> When I was a kid (and dinosaurs ruled the earth) our city had
> >> electric trolleys running on rubber tires. IOW, they looked exactly
> >> like ordinary buses, but with overhead booms to reach their overhead
> >> electric power lines. If a route needed changed, there would have
> >> been no street excavation involved; they'd just hang more wires.
> >> Why is that not standard?
>
> >> Or even more basic: What's the advantage of a trolley over, say, a
> >> bus with a different, but still clean, power source?
>
> >http://www.denverpost.com/huntfish/ci_7691056
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines
> >http://hometown.aol.com/chirailfan/holdbun.html
> >http://www.thethirdrail.net/9905/index.htm
> >http://www.bilderberg.org/nclchoms.htm
>
> >If you recall those times, when Marin and Contra Costa counties were
> >linked with third rail electric trains that crossed the Oakland-SF bay
> >bridge to a modern (by today's standards) East Bay Terminal, you
> >wouldn't ask what the benefits are. It cost us millions for a bunch
> >of eggheads to build BART, that never lived up to its claims. to
> >replace the Key System.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System
>
> >Jobst Brandt
>
> Dear Jobst,
>
> That light rail train that crashed in Littleton won't be running for a
> while, but it was carrying only 28 passengers:
>
> http://www.denverpost.com/huntfish/ci_7691056
>
> Ridership that low is common in Colorado, where people shy away from
> public transport, whether on rails or tires.

That passenger train with only two dozen passengers derailed at 6 am
and would have been downtown by around 615. That level of ridership is
similar to what I've seen at that hour on commuter trains into Paris.
At peak hours, the Denver trains are all standing room only.

> The closer you get to
> downtown Denver, the more people are willing to take a bus or even
> train.

I think you are looking for a word other than 'willing.'

Robert

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:29:01 -0800 (PST), r15757@aol.com wrote:

>On Dec 11, 10:45 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:

[snip]

>> Dear Jobst,
>>
>> That light rail train that crashed in Littleton won't be running for a
>> while, but it was carrying only 28 passengers:
>>
>> http://www.denverpost.com/huntfish/ci_7691056
>>
>> Ridership that low is common in Colorado, where people shy away from
>> public transport, whether on rails or tires.
>
>That passenger train with only two dozen passengers derailed at 6 am
>and would have been downtown by around 615. That level of ridership is
>similar to what I've seen at that hour on commuter trains into Paris.
>At peak hours, the Denver trains are all standing room only.

[snip]

Dear Robert,

Kinda like the freeway, isn't it?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[r15757@aol.com]

On Dec 12, 1:17 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:29:01 -0800 (PST), r15...@aol.com wrote:
> >On Dec 11, 10:45 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Dear Jobst,
>
> >> That light rail train that crashed in Littleton won't be running for a
> >> while, but it was carrying only 28 passengers:
>
> >> http://www.denverpost.com/huntfish/ci_7691056
>
> >> Ridership that low is common in Colorado, where people shy away from
> >> public transport, whether on rails or tires.
>
> >That passenger train with only two dozen passengers derailed at 6 am
> >and would have been downtown by around 615. That level of ridership is
> >similar to what I've seen at that hour on commuter trains into Paris.
> >At peak hours, the Denver trains are all standing room only.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> Kinda like the freeway, isn't it?

Well, not really. For one thing, commuters on light rail generally are
not delayed due to high volume at peak hours, in sharp contrast to
commuters on the freeway.

Robert