Post news, pictures, videos of trams or light rail.
>Pic is a Flexity Swift E-class in Melbourne, Australia.
Charleroi (Pre-)Metro, Belgium.
LRV by La Brugeoise et Nivelles at Soleilmont Station.
>>932147
The original plan of the Charleroi Metro was a very ambitious plan, it consisted of 8 branches joined together by a loop in the downtown. Funds ran out during construction, and today only 3 branches (and 4 lines) are in service. A fourth branch (Châtelet) was partially built in the 1980s but it was never used.
The image is a current map, with the original plan on the top-right hand corner.
>>932148
Forgot the original plan.
>>932147
Is that narrow gauge? For what purpose?
>>932188
The system is built upon the old tramway network so it uses the narrow gauge the tramway network uses.
Concept of the Flexity Freedom vehicles that will be used on the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West LRT lines here in Toronto. Also Waterloo will be using these but with a blue trim.
Bombardier was supposed to send a working prototype last fall but never did.
>>932192
>Screwing up with TTC's new streetcars thanks to Mootxican made parts
>No prototype for the Flexity Freedom
>Bombarider is trying to beg for more money
Why is this allowed?
>>932208
A mixture of muh Canadian culture and the Quebec government refuses to let Bombardier die. Any time Bombardier is strapped for cash they just need to go ask the province and the money will start rolling in.
>>932218
>being this retarded
Bombardier's rail division is completely separate from the aviation division and it's one of their divisions that's still profitable. The rail division is run out of the old ADTranz HQ in Germany and has practically nothing to do with the CSeries BS.
>>932208
>agencies keep asking for cheaper and cheaper rolling stock
>surprised when half the vehicle is made from second rate parts in some cheap labour haven
Gee, selling UTDC and allowing the sale of CanCar sure was a great idea wasn't it? Maybe Metrolinx should learn hire some bloody contract lawyers next time..
>>932225
Lol, I actually know one of the in-house counsel lawyers for Metrolinx. I never realized, but his job must suck.
The fast tram in Kraków, Poland.
Not too fast though, 18km/h average transit speed.
Tram by Breda in Lille, France.
Lille has one the few original tramways that weren't decommissioned in France.
>>932446
The same trams are in the process of being refurbished by Bombardier.
>>932364
The only fast tram system in Poland that is worth its name is in Poznan
>>932969
Marseille and Saint-Étienne.
>>932976
>have more 2nd gen trams than any other country in europe
>be almost solely responsible for the popularity of 2nd gen systems
>only 3 first-gen systems
France is a strange country. Not in any bad way, just... strange.
>tfw passed my driving examination for tram driving
>>933009
you are now a god among trainfags on /n/. What city? Do post pics every now and then.
>>933012
Manchester.
>>932981
It really isn't that weird.
>after WW2, trams fall out of favor to buses because of cheap fuel and the 'car is king' attitude
>systems are pulled up in a short span of time
>oil crisis happens, everyone panics
>experimentation with building métro (Lyon) and VAL (Lile) systems
>they're too expensive
>planners reconsider trams
>the first modern systems are a success as cost practically nothing to build and attract businesses and residents along their RoWs
>Départements race to constructing their own systems in hopes of attracting capital
It really isn't that different to US cities copying the Portland model or German municipalities embracing the stadtbahn model.
>>932674
True, though the only competition it has is in Kraków (as mentioned it isn't too fast really - though it is going to be improved this month due to adjusted speed limit i nthe tunnel in the city centre) and Szczecin (though it has lots of faulty rails and is very short - 4km).
>>932976
>>932981
Though your >>933018 explanation is correct and I was aware of the circumstances I was still surprised to find out france scrapped so many of their first-gen trams. But perhaps my pint of view is slightly different, since Polish cieties have 13 systems running (more-less) contonously since the end of XIXcentury (and one scrapped in 70s and recreated recently)
>>933018
The same thing happened in many countries, and none of them showed any interest in turning to trams, a technology perceived as obsolete by the time of the oil crisis, except France. Yes, Germany started betting on the Stadtbahn-model (which btw has been shown to have been a worse idea than just applying LRT standards to first-gen systems), and those that had kept their trams by then started reconsidering their closure (the end of the mass shutdowns in the 50's-70's), but there was almost noone except the French who said "Fuck it, let's build new tram systems built to modern standards". There had only been the Edmonton and San Diego light rail systems by then, and those were closer to a "miniature" subway/suburban train than a true urban tram system. Most places went either metro, or just buses. It wasn't until France proved that the 2nd-gen systems work that other countries started copying them. Look at Spain for example: They also shut down all their trams, had huge traffic problems and were only building expensive subways. The fact that subways being so expensive made it impossible to adequatly cover whole cities didn't mean squat. No subway where you're at? Well fuck you here's a bus.
France has been almost solely responsible for bringing on the trend towards 2nd gen trams, and established the standard of modern tram systems (full ROW but not grade separated, low platforms, capacities of around 200-400 pax, so on). Surely on a technical level a 2nd-gen tram system has lots of things going for it, it's an extremely cost efficient transport which fits very snugly between buses and subways and offers excellent service, but evidently the technical arguments didn't matter much in the latter half of the 20th century, seeing how hundreds of perfectly good tram systems were shut down. It's kinda sad to say it, but the revolutionary thing about the French 2nd-gen tram concept was simply applying some fucking common sense.
So my city's Stadtbahn system is about to turn 25 years. Apparently there's a photo contest going on, so maybe I can dump some good pictures when it's done.
This morning, some retarded cager turned on a red light and crashed into the tram, causing 15,000 € worth of damage. I was actually on my way home not long after that happened, but my ride only got delayed by ten minutes. This shows how reliable the system is as a whole.
Pic related shows the crash. Of course it was a black BMW, those are the worst.
>>932364
Too bad I was too afraid of public transit back when I visited Kraków. I really like the city. If I ever get back, I'll ride around the city on the tram for a bit. Must be comfy.
>>932969
>some ugly ass trams
pleb
90's produced some really inovative and interesting designs in tram field, unlike today's production whichh arr rook the same
just to mention some 90's products - Socimi T9000, ULF, Eurotram in Strasbourg, these Breda trams, RT6N1 from Czechia, etc.
>>933196
Apparently the same thing happened only a few hundred meters away a couple months ago. I don't know how you can overlook one of those gigantic white spaceship trams coming at you at 30 km/h.
What does /n/ think of Bilbao's trams? Pic is OC
>>933158
>(which btw has been shown to have been a worse idea than just applying LRT standards to first-gen systems)
It has? The early Stadbahn systems have grown into expansive rapid transit networks so I don't see how they could be branded as failures. Digging tunnels certainly is expensive but in terms of speed and reliability I doubt a modern tram could match the performance of a system that has no grade crossings. It's not like tunnels don't have their place on modern trams either, just look at the Rouen system.
I wouldn't say French municipalities were visionaries when compared to other cities but rather that they were the first ones to open modern networks because of circumstances. They had planners who understood their utility (see: le Concours Cavaillé), the other options were failing to meet expectations (métros were too expensive and VAL projects were going over budget), rolling stock makers were attempting to diversify their portfolios during the recession and the technology happened to have been available by the time new systems were being built (I'm sure early Stadbahn networks would have utilized low-floor trams had the technology been available at the time of construction). Had the costs of the VAL project in Lile not soared and the first modern system been a failure on the scale of the TVR system in Nancy then things would have gone in a completely different direction.
>some fucking common sense.
>common sense
>French trams
While there are plenty of examples of good systems it should be pretty obvious by now that trams have become the latest trend in urban planning along with TGVs and that many systems exist for political reasons ("Our department can't afford to fall behind _____!") rather than practical ones.
I know there's anon on here that lives in Tours and if he's still lurking he could probably elaborate on how systems in smaller municipalities end up sucking away resources from buses.
>>933229
I don't know, could you redpill us?
>>933231
>>933231
>It has? The early Stadbahn systems have grown into expansive rapid transit networks so I don't see how they could be branded as failures.
Many of those systems, especially in the smaller cities, have huge problems with the cost of maintaining the tunnels. In the 1960s there was a wave of Stadtbahn-conversions because the government subsidized the building of those tunnels, but not the upkeep, so as the infrastructure has aged the cost of maintenance drags on those systems. The Stadtbahn-concept has also allowed to keep those cities more car-centric, which can then mean irruptions in the superficial part of the system. They obv can't expand their tunnels, either.
A tram system with adequate priority can be almost as fast as an underground tram if your trams don't encounter red lights. It's possible, but it takes a huge toll on private automobiles since traffic lights have to be synched to trams and will be quite erratic for drivers (as in many red lights). So to have a good overground tram system you'll automatically need to discourage car use, while an underground system will allow for more focus on roadways.
>I wouldn't say French municipalities were visionaries when compared to other cities but rather that they were the first ones to open modern networks because of circumstances.
Sure, but my whole point is that everyone else was bending over backwards to NOT use trams for some reason, either using buses with insufficient capacity or subways with insufficient coverage. For some reason the French were the only ones who actually noticed that the tram systems they'd just gotten rid of actually had made sense, and turned to 2nd gen systems. Everyone else simply followed suit when they saw that it worked.
>>933231
>common sense
>French trams
>While there are plenty of examples of good systems it should be pretty obvious by now that trams have become the latest trend in urban planning along with TGVs and that many systems exist for political reasons ("Our department can't afford to fall behind _____!") rather than practical ones.
That's too bad. There's obviously a lot of common sense in the original concept, but surely there's gotta be people who fuck it up. This is why we can't have nice things.
>>933241
>It's possible, but it takes a huge toll on private automobiles since traffic lights have to be synched to trams and will be quite erratic for drivers (as in many red lights). So to have a good overground tram system you'll automatically need to discourage car use, while an underground system will allow for more focus on roadways.
You're forgetting about pedestrians though. It's not just cars that get in the way of trams and slow them down. Plus, surface lines tend to run at lower speeds because of geographical constraints (narrow bendy streets are not ideal for public transit).
>For some reason the French were the only ones who actually noticed that the tram systems they'd just gotten rid of actually had made sense, and turned to 2nd gen systems.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in my first comment, there were people promoting trams elsewhere and while the Nantes system certainly bolstered their arguments it didn't cancel out all their previous work. Those advocates simply realized their plans at a later date. The Edmonton system you alluded to in your original post is, for all intents and purposes, a second gen tram.
>>933247
>You're forgetting about pedestrians though. It's not just cars that get in the way of trams and slow them down. Plus, surface lines tend to run at lower speeds because of geographical constraints (narrow bendy streets are not ideal for public transit).
The fact is that you can easily get to 20km/h average speed in a surface system, which is very close to the average speeds you can get in a tunnel, around 24km/h.
>Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in my first comment, there were people promoting trams elsewhere and while the Nantes system certainly bolstered their arguments it didn't cancel out all their previous work.
Except there weren't. There was no existing "off-the-shelf" concept for 2nd gen trams, the Edmonton or San Diego systems where pretty much tailor-made for their respective cities.
New Vossloh Tramlinks in Gmunden, Austria.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/europe/single-view/view/gmunden-inaugurates-tramlink-vehicles.html
>>933229
COMPLETE STREETS
>>933229
As a Barcelonian, I have nothing but respect for your trams. Together with Valencia you guys were pioneers in bringing 2nd gen tram systems to Spain (prolly the only good thing Valencia has ever given us kek).
But why hasn't your system grown more? Your Metro has grown, yet your tram is still just the one sad little line...
>>933550
>As a Barcelonian
Fuck off Klaus.
>>933635
kekled
>>933406
nice trams
however I seriously doubt the benefits of this project
![GreenPeople-Seal-of-Approval240x212[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/p4nAosD.jpg "GreenPeople-Seal-of-Approval240x212[1].jpg")
>>933229
Perfect allocation of space. If only every city did this.
>one lane for cars
>separated, protected, two-way cycle lane
>separated tram line with aesthetically pleasing grass underneath and colour scheme to match
>massive pedestrian area next to lovely river for walkers, dogs, children on bikes etc. to share
>high-density mixed-use housing & retail without the complete destruction of green space
10/10 Bilbao this is what a liveable city looks like.
>>933687
Why is the bike lane on the road though? Why not put it on the in side to further reduce the risk of accidents?
>>933550
>But why hasn't your system grown more?
Probably because of the geography. The town is pancaked between mountains and urban density and unless an entire ward is being rebuilt there's no way they'll be able to extend it without leveling buildings or building tunnels.
Kinki Sharyo LRV at Hoboken Terminal, Hoboken, New Jersey.
>>933697
Because then it's not a bike lane any more, but a bike path. Those are more dangerous, harder to navigate and impossible to plan right.
>>933202
>>933196
My local TV news been reporting on some car-tram collisions basically bi-daily in the last month or so.
Shit's ridiculous.
>>933229
The hell are those spool-like things embedded in the asphalt between the street and (I presume) bike path?
>>933921
How so? In my neighbourhood they are just laid alongside sidewalks.
>>933954
>The hell are those spool-like things embedded in the asphalt between the street and (I presume) bike path?
They are to prevent cars from crossing over to the cycletrack. They are referred to as "armadillos".
>>933959
Neat, but why not a simple, mass produced, concrete curb? Or are they supposed to give the cyclists some freedom to merge into upcoming traffic?
>>933687
the street looks literally dead
>>933954
>My local TV news been reporting on some car-tram collisions basically bi-daily in the last month or so.
>Shit's ridiculous.
Where are you at? Is there a specific reason for the number of accidents except cager stupidity?
Since a Finnanon in the last thread asked: yes, apparently my local transport authority does have their own emergency vehicles. One of them whizzed past me today, I think it was pic related.
Brummie trams
Left is the old T-69, right is the new stock. I think the new colour scheme works a lot nicer on the older ones. But they expanded the line into the city centre now, which is nice. If I ever need to go to Wolverhampton it'll be a good excuse to use them.
>>933977
They are made of plastic or PVC, so they are cheaper than a concrete curb.
Some other alternatives include flexible bollards, planters, or as you mentioned concrete curbs.
LRV by Tokyu Car Corporation in Buffalo, New York.
The Buffalo Metro Rail has an "inverted" alignment where the LRVs run at-grade in the downtown, and underground heading towards the suburbs.
>>934251
An interesting note is that in the underground stations, they use high platforms, but in the downtown section boarding takes place at curb height with fold-out stairs.
>>934064
>Where are you at?
Warsaw!
>Is there a specific reason for the number of accidents except cager stupidity?
I don't think so, since most of those were/are (the freshest one happened just yesterday) cars taking left turns (U-turns or whatever) over the trackway right in front of the upcoming tram.
>>934141
They do look like high quality steel from the picture.
But yeah, recycled PET crap would make it even nicer.
Cheerio.
>>934015
Bilbao is a small city, and from the clothes the pic seems taken in a colder season, likely on a sunday on which all Spanish cities look dead except the ones with lots of foreign tourists. wtf do you expect such a street to look like?
>>934276
>They do look like high quality steel from the picture.
They're made of cheap plastic, and they break right away whenever a car or motorcycle drives over them. We got those in this one busy street where there's just one lane so motorbikes constantly get into the bike lane, and they're constantly replacing those armadillos. Then again, I think the only better option would be something out of concrete, at least the armatillos are just nailed to the floor so they require less work.
>>934276
>>Where are you at?
>Warsaw!
Why does your TV station report tram crashes so much? Legit reporting bc there's not much other local news, or is it like around here where many many media outlets have a grudge against trams and try to smear them all they can?
>>934308
Not the same guy, but
Part of the reason is the change in power. The City authorities are from a different party than the govt, so they try to shit upon eachother's achievements. Also cagers are annoyed that cash goes to trams and other stuff and not roads and parkings in the city centre.
>>934306
>small city
That depends on your perception of small. Anyway the street looks dead, but I don't care. It was only a reaction to that "look how perfect 10/10 street this is"....well yeah, but it's dead, it apparently doesn't work.
Bilbao again
>>934308
>Why does your TV station report tram crashes so much?
It's a local TV station that does local news and has a "twin" service dedicated solely to accidents and such (it's only 3 minutes long tops).
[spoiler]Another tram related accident happened today too, had a bus in it and the only outcome was 30 minutes hold off on the tramway and some scraped enamel.[/spoiler]
>>934338
Anon, pls.
>>934401
>a street has to be clogged with traffic to "work"
you do know each of those trams in the pic carries about as much as 50 cars, right?
>>934573
I can't see inside
>>934251
>Bogie
PCC?
>>934573
I think the discussion was more about the low amount of pedestrians to fill the huge space on the right. Also one would assume to see some passengers that just got out of the tram on the right track.
>>934697
>what is average occupancy
>>934715
>I think the discussion was more about the low amount of pedestrians to fill the huge space on the right.
it's evidently a cold season in the pic, and as I said all spanish cities look dead on sundays.
>>934750
They do have to water it, it's kinda funny when you sit in your tram and suddenly pass through some sprinklers.
I think it is a bit of a bitch to maintain. But it's also useful to reduce noise. Somehow it's a perfect material to dampen noise from the rails.
>>932192
>Bombardier was supposed to send a working prototype last fall but never did.
this is the running theme with this company as they proceeded to fuck the london underground and BART will be their newest victim
>>934774
>this is the running theme with this company
Do municipalities never learn?
>>935013
I don't think it's so much that they don't learn. I think it's more that those sweet lobbyist dollars and kickbacks are an addictive drug.
>>934771
>what is average occupancy
I'd like to know too. What is average occupancy of Bilbao tram?
>>935016
>rolling stock companies
>ever needing to lobby
lel
Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens practically have a monopoly on the European and North American market and you think they have to go around lobbying councillors?
>>935026
It's simple math:
Yearly ridership is 2.8m = avg daily ridership a bit more than 7600. Tram runs 150 times daily in each direction except sundays which it runs 65 times, makes an average of 137 times per day in each direction, so 274 times. 7600/274 = 23. On average each tram in Bilbao carries 23 people.
>inb4 you said it carries as much as 50 cars
was referring to capacity of each tram unit, which in Bilbao is 120 pax
>>935113
Thanks for the answer. That's even less than I would imagine.
Most people also don't travel from one terminus to another. But we can't find that out with easy math like that, right.
Well 23 people that's about 15 cars, that adds even more to the fact that the street looks dead. And if this is what "Green People" approve of, as this anon >>933687 implied, then I do not want any green people in charge of my city, pretty please.
>>935131
Btw, the yearly tram ridership in my city is 25,568,000.
The city has a population of 99,500.
>>935131
The average is 1.2 riders per car. Your estimate is high. Also, capacity is a problem at peak traffic. Other hours it's perfectly fine to have two or three riders per tram. At peak, they're stuffed. It would be impossible to carry that capacity by car.
Example from Stockholm; one of the main routes in has five lanes, one dedicated to buss traffic. The four lanes not dedicated to buss traffic suffer serious queues and next to crawling traffic at peak hour. Buss lanes obviously do not.
And here's the kicker: 80%(!) of travelers travel by that one buss lane. That's how inefficient cars are.
Most people don't travel from one parking lot/garage to another either, but don't let facts get in your way.
>>935137
>Other hours it's perfectly fine to have two or three riders per tram
That's not fine at all that's all I can say.
>Most people don't travel from one parking lot/garage to another either,
That's interesting, can you explain more? Where do the cars disappear?
But yeah, I totally agree with the fact that cars are inefficient. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing about cars in here. I want to point out another thing. What you can see in the picture of Bilbao might be the wet dream of any /n/thusiast in here. Bike lanes, pedestrian zone, tram. Yeah, that's cool but that's not what makes the city liveable.
Essential is the system, the network. The tram or bike lanes must be attractive enough for people to actually use them. That must be the first point of any city that wants to build e.g. a tram. Unfortunately, most 2nd gen systems nowadays start from completely opposite side. City gubmints spend money for fancy looking streets like we can see here in Bilbao, or other systems in France, Spain or USA. But it just doesn't work.
On the other hand, the unwise spending of public money and unworking but fancy looking trams doesn't happen only in these countries or only new 2nd gen systems. It's also a problem of many others.
>>935148
>That's not fine at all that's all I can say.
It's not only fine, it's neccesary. If you want people to not own a car you have to enable them to travel at all hours, even if there's only a few per tram. Once you've built the tram system to manage traffic at peak, the cost of having it running outside peak is more than offset by reduced costs of car ownership.
>That's interesting, can you explain more? Where do the cars disappear?
Ah, I see. You must be american.
You litteraly believe travel equals car, and the walk from the car parking to the _travelers_ actual destination is irrelevant. It isn't, and it's litteraly the same as walking from the tram/buss stop to your destination.
>>934251
Buffalo has trams?!?
I wish one would run to the airport and back to the city center
>>935154
>Once you've built the tram system to manage traffic at peak, the cost of having it running outside peak is more than offset by reduced costs of car ownership.
[citation needed]
>>935154
>It's not only fine, it's neccesary. If you want people to not own a car you have to enable them to travel at all hours, even if there's only a few per tram.
That's right, but first you have to define what's "a few". 2-3 passengers per tram, is it efficient enough? Is it even energetically efficient? You know, tram actually consumes energy as well, it consumes much more energy than car and that energy has to be produced somehow. If you have such a low ridership then it only means that your system sucks. Yeah, that's right, it's badly designed and literally nobody wants to use it. IMHO good ridership for off-peak travels should be at least half of the (seated) capacity. But that's only my opinion and I am pretty sure you would be able to find another data.
I for one would be interested, when the tram is energetically and environemntally efficient compared to cars. Like, how many cars does it have to carry, as you said, to produce less waste. Of course this would be only case by case, as somewhere you can get (almost) 100% clean energy while somewhere else (like Poland) it's 99% coal burning.
>Ah, I see. You must be american.
lol no
>You litteraly believe travel equals car, and the walk from the car parking to the _travelers_ actual destination is irrelevant. It isn't, and it's litteraly the same as walking from the tram/buss stop to your destination.
Well you just said that. The walking distance from the tram stop or parking lot is basically the same (theoratically). Anyway, in my previous post you replied to, I meant that the people don't travel from one terminus to another. That means from one end station to another = there are not 23 people in the tram at one point on average, but at the whole tram route totally. That makes even less passangers traveling by tram on average at one point.
>Most people also don't travel from one terminus to another. But we can't find that out with easy math like that, right.
It's how average ridership is calculated, sorry if that rustles your jimmies. Also there's going to be much fewer people in the early morning and late night, so obviously there'll be more people on the tram in the middle of the day, although that you didn't take into account.
also
>street looks dead
>this is somehow the fault of having trams and pedestrian space
>zero moving cars
>>935203
I'm just pointing out that the average occupancy of the tram at one point is lower than the already really low ridership that this anon >>935113 posted. THAT. IS. ALL. What rustles my jimmies are dimwits who don't read whole posts only the parts they (dis)like and then they reply.
>there'll be more people on the tram in the middle of the day, although that you didn't take into account.
Obviously. But we talking about average ridership, right? Because that's how average ridership is calculated, sorry if that rustles your jimmies. The issue of lower/higher usage during different parts of the day is discussed here >>935137 >>935148
>>935210
>Obviously. But we talking about average ridership, right?
You're obviously NOT, since you're spouting bullshit like
>hurr durr nobody rides the whole length of the line
and yet don't want to take into account lower ridership during certain parts of the day. obvious double standard is obvious.
>>935213
Let's take a closer look at the whole argument
>post picture of Bilbao
>I say it looks dead
>other anon says that the tram carries 50 cars
>I say I can't see inside and would like to know more about ridership
>other anon says that the ridership of one tram in one direction is 23 on average as he counted from total ridership per year
>I am okay with this information and I am fully aware of the fact that it's the best I can get. Then I point out that it's low and that the number covers the total length of the line and occupancy of the tram at one point is on average lower than the total number presented.
Now tell me what you don't understand and why are you so mad about the whole thing. Can't get over the facts?
>>935148
>City gubmints spend money for fancy looking streets like we can see here in Bilbao, or other systems in France, Spain or USA. But it just doesn't work.
This may be true in some cases, but it's ridiculous to assume that all 2nd gen systems are made this way or that any good looking street can't be part of a good urban planning, just like it's retarded to assume some street is dead from one pic which could be taken on a sunday (as I said, most streets in Spain look dead on sundays).
The Bilbao tram is part of an excellent public transport systems, probably one of the best in Spain. It also includes two subway lines, seven commuter rail lines, and a gazillion local and interurban bus lines.
It's true that the Bilbao tram was made as part of an effort to regenerate a specific area of the city center which was degraded since it had previously been an industrial zone which lost it's function. But transportation is essential to regenerate any degraded part of the city, since the lack of good public transit connections inhibits urban development. The tram in Bilbao links the old part of town with this new part (it also has various connections to the subway and commuter train stations), and then forms a semicircle around the new part of town.
I won't deny that it has somewhat low ridership for a tram, but it's reasonable considering that it's a low capacity system. But saying that it's useless and was put there to look good only shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>935213
Not him but he does have *somewhat* of a point. What's the point of the line really? Bilbao is a small city with plenty of rail and metro infrastructure and the area the tram runs through is already covered pretty well by those systems. Wouldn't bus lanes been enough to cope with demand?
>>935217
>taking into account tram ridership is effectively lower than average because it doesn't take into account people not riding the whole length of the line
>not taking into account that pic is during daytime and early morning/late night has below average ridership, ergo during daytime it's above average
wew lad
>>935220
It's true that a bus line could offer enough capacity, seeing that it's a very low capacity system. Truly there's not much of a point of having a tram instead of the bus. But that doesn't mean the tram is useless, since it still has a useful function, even though a bus could cover that function as well.
It does have an advantage in having greater priority tan standard bus lanes. You'd need a BRT to achieve the same commercial speeds, since bus lanes on the side of the road are much slower than a full ROW (right turns, illegally parked cars, etc.)
>>935218
>but it's ridiculous to assume that all 2nd gen systems are made this way or that any good looking street can't be part of a good urban planning
That would be ridiculous indeed. Unfortunately it's very common.
>saying that it's useless and was put there to look good only shows that you have no idea
I'm not an eggspert on Bilbao trams but the ridership says enough. Is there any fact that would show positive effects of the tram in Bilbao?
>>935223
Yeah but making a bus corridor with the same features as the tram would be fairly easy. Just isolate two lanes with a divider and add transponders on the buses to trigger the lights at intersections. Plus, they wouldn't need to have a separate maintenance shop for the vehicles.
I'm not a big proponent of BRT (my city is currently converting its BRT corridors to LRT) but this really seems like a waste of money.
>>935224
>Is there any fact that would show positive effects of the tram in Bilbao?
Is there any fact that would show negative effects of the tram in Bilbao?
>>935223
>You'd need a BRT to achieve the same commercial speeds
Is it really that fast? Trams usually don't reach higher average speeds than buses in inner cities. I couldn't find the schedule anywhere, only the length of the line which is 5.57 km.
>>935228
>It doesn't have any negative effects therefore it's perfectly OK to waste millions of Euro for it. We 21st century and shiet now!
>>935229
>Trams usually don't reach higher average speeds than buses in inner cities.
uwot? Here in Barcelona Trams have an average speed of 18km/h (the system without tunnel section, the one with gets up to 19km/h), while buses have an average speed of about 12km/h. And that's considering that there's bus lanes on all major streets in the city center. There's even this one street where there's a bus lane and buses have an average speed of 9km/h.
>>935230
>implying I said that
I thought this was about a street looking dead because of the tram somehow?
>>935231
Thanks for the info, this Barcelona case is new to me. Well, in Barcelona the trams apparently serve their purpose, at least the speed purpose. Waiting for the Bilbao info. At least post the timetable, I can do the math myself.
>>935232
No it wasn't.
It's about dead looking street DESPITE the tram and other fancy stuff.
>>935228
Yeah, the hole it probably left in their budget that could have been used to increase bus, train or subway frequencies.
>>935226
Putting in a regular buss lane usualy involves strengthening the road. If you dig it up to lay a concrete plate under so the busses won't make two parallel ditches in it, you might as well lay down rails when you resurface it.
The noise, pollution and efficiency benefits are astronomical.
With regenative braking the local subway line carries a net energy expenditure equal to the energy savings of recycling a couple of soda cans for end-to-end travel. For the whole train.
That's not even enough to get the motor up to running temperature on those busses.
>>935236
*regenerative braking
Don't know how I managed that.
>>935233
Maybe it's because Barcelona's 2nd gen tram does have and serve a useful purpose that I'm not so butthurt about 2nd gen trams and gentrified streets.
>>935235
>Yeah, the hole it probably left in their budget that could have been used to increase bus, train or subway frequencies.
And that would solve their slummy-part-of-city-needs-to-be-developed problem how?
It's called goal-steering. We want outcome X - how do we make that happen? In this case, one part of the solution is a tram line that allows buzinesses and services to establish themselves in this formerly dead part of town - because now people can get there.
If you always build to meet an existing demand, your city will turn into shit. Build and develop to meet a goal instead, and the demand will follow.
>>935236
>Putting in a regular buss lane usualy involves strengthening the road. If you dig it up to lay a concrete plate under so the busses won't make two parallel ditches in it, you might as well lay down rails when you resurface it.
What are you talking about? There's absolutely no reason they would need to rebuild the road to 'strengthen' it, if anything it would probably wear down slower than it normally would due to reduced traffic. They could have taken a wide boulevard and divided it with some type of median and they would have had built a bus corridor for practically nothing.
>The noise, pollution and efficiency benefits are astronomical.
You're making a good argument for trolleybuses but not for trams.
>>935242
That's some socialist urban planning utopia, but whatever, back to topic.
>part of the solution is a tram line that allows buzinesses and services to establish themselves in this formerly dead part of town - because now people can get there.
Bus won't do the job? Again, we are at the only possible added value of the tram in this case and that is - it looks fancy.
>>935242
>And that would solve their slummy-part-of-city-needs-to-be-developed problem how?
Aren't you that kraut that constantly complains that the outlandish infrastructure that Barcelona builds doesn't actually spur development?
Anyway, the zone in question is a historic waterfront pancaked between the central railway hub and a subway line. I don't think trams are the most cost-effective ways of attracting land developers to that area.
>>935243
Road damage is the square of wheel axle load. Fewer but heavier vehicles will make wear much, much worse. Take the extreme example of a thousand bicycles or one cement truck, and it almost becomes intuitive.
>>935244
>That's some socialist urban planning utopia, but whatever, back to topic.
Erhm, that's exactly how modern euro cities are planned and the entire reason for the tram line we're discussing. Cherry-picking facts and perspectives again, anon?
>>935242
kek I was just going to post this pic
>>935244
>That's some socialist urban planning utopia, but whatever, back to topic.
>what is induced demand
>what is transit oriented development
>>935247
>Erhm, that's exactly how modern euro cities are planned and the entire reason for the tram line we're discussing.
As I said, socialist utopia :^)
>>935243
>You're making a good argument for trolleybuses but not for trams.
No. Trolley busses are the worst of two worlds. Same particle problems, large infrastructure investment, low capacity, low efficiency because tyres/no rails, lower capacity than trams and less of a gentrification effect.
>>935250
look at how awesome american capitalist planning has been at developing city centers :^)
>>935248
>what is induced demand
Pumping loads of public moniez into the wrong areas.
>what is transit oriented development
>transit development
>ridership 23 pax
>>935246
>Aren't you that kraut
Nein, aber I has ze bier probieren and did ze German in school gelearnen. Swefag up in this bitch.
We kick kraut asses. Google the swedish drink.
>>935246
>Aren't you that kraut
no he's not
![Downtown-Skyline[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/leFmOMs.jpg "Downtown-Skyline[1].jpg")
>>935252
>>935260
>literally the best public transit system in the US and one of the best in the world
>not at all representative of the average american city
hahaha oh wow so much cherrypicking
>>935262
well I just wanted to reply to your stupid post somehow so I cherrypicked the best I could
>>935254
>and yet it worked, see >>935248
What is that picture supposed to show? Yeah, councils pumping shitloads of money into rehabilitating old industrial areas does tend to attract land developers but that doesn't disprove that the area wouldn't have attracted developers had they simply gone for a bus corridor.
>>935247
>Road damage is the square of wheel axle load. Fewer but heavier vehicles will make wear much, much worse. Take the extreme example of a thousand bicycles or one cement truck, and it almost becomes intuitive.
Sure but why would that justify strengthening the road? Heavy vehicles degrade roads but rail vehicles are also very heavy and degrade rails.
>>935267
>this much stupid
*sigh* As I said, if you're planning to do _either_ you need to digg shit up and put a slab of concrete underneath. If you don't you get two parallel ditches where the buss wheels roll through every day.
You can not just choose to not do this. This has to be done.
If you do that road rebuild, at enormous cost, the cost of laying rail on top of that slab instead of paving is irrelevant. This concrete slab install is the cost that dwarfs all other.
>>935267
>Sure but why would that justify strengthening the road? Heavy vehicles degrade roads but rail vehicles are also very heavy and degrade rails.
>tram rails last about 20 years at least
>bus lanes have to be re-done every few years if they're not strenghthened
>BRTs and the like have to be built with special concrete roads to prevent this
>>935268
>the cost of laying rail on top of that slab instead of paving is irrelevant.
[citation needed]
>>935270
>there's a big difference in ripping up the road to lay down special concrete vs rails
just... stop.
>>935251
>large infrastructure investment
Installing overhead wire is still cheaper than destroying a road, rebuilding it with rails and then installing wiring.
>low capacity
I said they should have gone with a busway because the Bilbao corridor doesn't necessitate high capacity vehicles. The trams they use on their network look shorter than bi-articulated buses ffs.
>low efficiency because tyres/no rails
That makes no sense. Tyres permit better acceleration and braking.
>lower capacity
Again, the Urbos in use in Bilbao are no longer than bi-articulated buses.
>and less of a gentrification effect
>implying the area wouldn't have been built had they gone with buses
>implying the funds they poured in to build parks and public facilities didn't attract developers
>using American conceptions of urban planning
>in a discussion about a city in Spain
>>935270
And now it's starting to sink in you lost the argument, isn't it? Is that all you can come up with at this point? Sad. Just sad.
>hurr-durr a few steel rails is going to shift the calculation in favour of muh buzzline
>>935257
Ah, sorry for the confusion.
>>935274
>Installing overhead wire
>wat is road base layer strengthening
See last hours of discussion, faggot.
![6521788091_11c073b6f0_b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Pr2s4O4.jpg "6521788091_11c073b6f0_b[1].jpg")
>>935273
>stop
why? can't get over the fact that building tram tracks is more costly than repairing damaged asphalt?
>>935269
>BRT needs special concrete
>source: my arse
>>935278
can't get over the fact that asphalt has to be replaced much more frequently than tram tracks?
>>935278
It's not the surface layer, for fucks sake. It's the base layer that can't handle the load and gives way.
>>935281
Tram tracks on the other hand require more frequent minor services.
>>935279
>posts non-BRT bus lane
hahaha oh wow
also with "special concrete" I just meant concrete that's used for paving roads, which isn't exactly the same as regular concrete.
>>935277
>cites no source backing claim
>ignores the rest of the comment
>>935284
what is "regular concrete", my dear technically educated firend?
>>935286
uh... regular concrete? Like is used for, you know, building things, like houses? Is this hard to grasp for you somehow?
>>935288
Thanks, it's all clear now. I'm gonna tell my construction materials teacher next lesson.
>>935284
Is this good enough for you? That's a picture of a fully segregated bus corridor that doesn't use some super-duper-special concrete
>>935279
>implying this buss lane is not laid on a strengthened road
Sure buddy, that's just asphalt on top of gravel on top of dirt. *nods reassuringly*
>>935290
>does not understand the difference between a base layer and a surface layer
>alternatively thinks he has x-ray vision
>that works on pics
I think we have a lost cause here, boys.
>>935293
>implying the bus lanes somehow use a completely different foundation from the other lanes
>still hasn't backed their claim of bus lanes needing to be reinforced with a single document
Are you fucking kidding me.
>>935293
>I think we have a lost cause here, boys.
yup. abandoning thread.
>>935281
>>935269
>tram rails last about 20 years at least
>No matter what type of pavement, a 30-year life span is recommended. There are several options for the pavement structure to achieve that, with advantages and disadvantages for each. (p. 38)
>https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BRT-Standard-20141.pdf
>>935069
Alstom and Siemens both made metroes for Warsaw and, AFAIR, the latter did have problems delivering the trains (and the trains themselves were faulty too).
Don't know anything about Alstom, tho.
>>935307
There were big delays on the delivery of the new Montréal métro cars and the Regio trains in France and those were primarily Alstom projects.
I don't think there's been a single 'big' rolling stock maker that hasn't had a major fuck up recently.
>>935307
The Alstom Metropolis cars were overpriced and the tender Alstom won (1998) was supposedly set up (bribes), the investigation still isn't finished, though Brits and Swiss openly accuse Alstom of bribery.
I couldn't find anything on the delays in deliveries of Siemens's Inspiro. Though you are right they were faulty (one minor fire on test runs, doors that didn't want to close) and cause: >>"the rails on curves to wear down much faster than they should due to wheel design flaws"
or
>>"the improper maintenance and design of the tracks causes the metro wheels to wear much faster"
depending on whether you ask metro authorities or Siemens.
>>935327
Hey, didn't Pesa trams for Warsaw started up little late but managed to pull off the entire deal on time?
>>935330
>1998
>_still_ under investigation
Typical Poland.
>you are right they were faulty
Fucking Krauts, re-inventing the wheel when it's completely unnecessary.
[spoiler]What did they offer that none of our local producers couldn't offer to get picked? Except of bribes in € instead of PLN, that is.[/spoiler]
>>935336
>Pesa
>big
Next you're going to tell CAF is relevant.
>>935336
They had a lot of delayed deliveries (all had to be made before 31 Dec 2015, cuz EU funds would be lost), actually I tried to put them together. As of 20 Nov 2015 they still had to deliver:
22 trams to Krakow
5 to Toruń
20 to Warsaw
11 to Bydgoszcz
22 to Łódź
20 trains to PKP
20 double-decker cars + 4 locomotives to KM
All the deliveries were delivered before the end of the year (though not all physically), but only because Pesa hired 250 workers from other Polish cities and a couple hundred from Ukraine AND because transit authorities used every legal trick possible to avoid losing EU funding.
>>935336
>_still_ under investigation
Yes, though the investigation started in 2008 (but i don't think it sounds any better)
>>935337
Well, Pesa does have some orders from abroad (Bulgaria, Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania), though in rather small numbers, except for Moscow (60) and Kiev (50).
>>dataspam mode off
So while Pesa is not 'big', you can't say they're a midget... ...or can you?
>>inb4 am relatively new and ignorant regarding public transit
>>935336
>What did they offer that none of our local producers couldn't offer to get picked? Except of bribes in € instead of PLN, that is.
Has Pesa ever built subway trains? Bribes aside, procurement contracts in transit usually stipulate that a bidder should have previous experience building the type of rolling stock that is being ordered.
>>935349
No, they haven't built a subway train, they just got some grant to design one tho.
http://www.transport-publiczny.pl/wiadomosci/pesa-z-dofinansowaniem-na-pociag-metra-51467.html
>>935349
>>should have previous experience
This is true in all larger and many smaller tenders in Poland. And ofc some smaller manufacturers complain that they can't get experience because the don't have experience.
>>935336
Actually, does any Polish manufacturer make metro trains?
Do you mean Alstom-Konstal?
>>935348
>So while Pesa is not 'big', you can't say they're a midget... ...or can you?
They're definitely not a midget but like CAF and the Japanese rolling stock builders they remain mostly a regional player that doesn't have nearly as much 'reach' as the big 3 multinational rolling stock builders.
>>935350
Interesting. It'll be interesting to hear how that contract goes. Thanks for the link.
>>935352
Yeah, it gives a massive advantage to big companies like Siemens and Alstom too. CAF actually presented a competitive bid to build cars for our subway system and even offered to open a manufacturing plant in the area to complete the contract but it was refused because they didn't have "enough experience" according to the agency in charge. Kind of blows considering we might have had newer rolling stock much sooner than with the Bombardier-Alstom bid.
>>935337
Big enough for this thread.
>>935348
>Pesa
Nice.
>Investigation for a 1998 bids started in 2008 and is not over as of 2016
Ah for fucks sake!
>>935349
How hard could building a metro train be, especially with all them trams and trains building experience?
>>935354
>Do you mean Alstom-Konstal?
If we're at it, apparently the Siemens ones were built together with Newag.
And no, I was rather thinking 100% Polish product.
>>935357
>How hard could building a metro train be, especially with all them trams and trains building experience?
Must be pretty hard if even companies with billions of dollars in the bank still can't figure out how to build subway trains that aren't crippled by teething issues and the like.
>>932145
Never really liked them. The Zs will always be the best
short Bilbao tram video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akoa5JzkilY
>>935449
so fast
such gentrified
wow
Citadis 302 in Tenerife, Canary Islands (Spain).
>>935455
>being this butthurt
>>935455
>muh buss transit lines
>>935476
funny, now that you mention it, I don't much like it either, aesthetically speaking. But rather than wide trams, it's the price for low floors. The typical Citadis trams have the floor at 32cm IIRC, which allows low-floor buses to share the platforms.
>how wide is the Bilbao tram btw?
Google isn't being my friend, all I can find is that the CAF Urbos (the one used in Bilbao) is offered in 2.3, 2.4 and 2.65m wide varieties. Our citadis trams here in Barcelona are 2.65m wide. Is that very wide for a tram?
also
>posting gentrified street to trigger our resident autismo
>>935490
one S in bus in english, swefriend
>>935491
That looks awesome. Tree's and green, crossable streets, high capacity, cheap transport. All things that make a city livable.
>>935494
I really love our tram. It's been hugely successful in linking areas of the city with poor public transit. tbqhwyfam it's only that one street that's been truly "gentrified" like that, and it's only a stretch of about 500m. The rest is more normally integrated, usually along large streets or avenues, although it's generally grassed track. There's also a stretch that runs underground (this was built at the same time that a thoroughfare was put underground), that stretch has special signalling which allows trams to get up to 60km/h, while everywhere else they're only allowed to run at 50km/h.
Since the central part of the tram has been put on hold for over 10 years the tram now works mainly as a feeder to the subway. It's estimated that demand could double if the two systems were linked across the city center. As of now, the trams almost always run single units. Line T1 used to run two coupled units on workdays, dunno if they still do that tho. And if there's events somewhere close to the tram they'll often run coupled units on that line as well. It's pretty impressive to see a 60m long tram run through the middle of the city. Interestingly, there's one subway line, L7, which is part of an isolated system that includes suburban lines, that only allows 3-car trains (the other lines of this system run 4-car trains, it was originally an interurban streetcar) which are about as long as a double tram, and has about the same capacity.
Shits really going down these days because our new glorious mayoress is dead set on finally linking up the two trams. They say next week they'll present a series of studies to see how viable it is, although it's very likely that they'll be favourable to the tram. They already studied this about ten years ago, and since then all that's changed is that our previous mayor slightly remodeled part of the avenue the tram would run on, in an obvious attempt to make people think
>hurr we've just redone this street let's not rip it up again
>>935491
>Klaus "muh trams" Zurich calling other people autistic
top lel
>>935506
>>935498
>>It's pretty impressive to see a 60m long tram
It is true. I rode one of very similar length in Budapest. I didn't know Braca had such long trams, though i heard Dresden has "officialy" the longest trams.
>>935494
I support this gentleman
Speaking of unusual sights - I was shocked to see a double-decker tram when my bro-in-law sent me a pic of one (tho it's not pic related, this is from wikipedia). Now they seem a perfectly logical idea, but at first I was like...wut.
>>935491
Hm, I expressed myself wrong I realise. I don't dislike low-deckers per se, i don't like designs that look like the sides are perpendicular to the surface and at the same time the height:width ratio is low, which is the case in the Bilbao tram - hence i mentioned width.
>>Is 2,65m wide?
Well, the widest in Poland (pic related) is 2,5m and the standard is around 2,35m, so yes, it's quite wide imho.
>>935357
Unfortunately there was never 100% Polish metro. The oldest metro cars were form Russia (even USSR), Alstom Metropolis was manufactured mostly in Poland, same with Siemens Inspiro.
Unless we assume anything that goes underground can be considered metro, then Pesa's Krakowiak could be taken into account, since it travels a short distance underground in Kraków :P
>>935636
you forgot your pic trambro.
Hong Kong runs only double-decker trams, modern ones at that, but still built to that british-style design, and using trolleypoles. Pretty based. pic highly related.
>>935645
>>935636
our first gen trams used to run some double deckers at least into the 1950's. They were rebuilt trams from the early 20th century which originally had open tops that got enclosed.
Based Dewi William, may he rest in piece, took a lot of color pics of Barcelona's trams in 1956, some of the earliest color images I've seen of these trams. Too bad this is such a poor country where people didn't have color photos in the 1930's like they did in the US or Germany. It's even hard to find motion pictures of the trams. Here's a bit of footage from 1967 showing the PCCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZItH2ppFLkk
>>935640
>i don't like designs that look like the sides are perpendicular to the surface and at the same time the height:width ratio is low, which is the case in the Bilbao tram - hence i mentioned width.
I got the latter part, but how can the sides NOT be perpendicular to the surface?
What I don't like about lowdeckers is that seen from the front they look kinda like rats.
>Well, the widest in Poland (pic related) is 2,5m and the standard is around 2,35m, so yes, it's quite wide imho.
>tfw we have fat as fuck trams
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
>>935651
Well, again i wasn't clear enough again. Yes, indeed, they have to be perpendicular, but i don't like when they're just or almost 90 degrees straight flat surfaces. They can be rounded, bulged etc.
>>like rats
I had a photo of some olish prototype tram that looked like a god-damn hamster. Can't find it anymore unfotrunately.
We've got a very new tram in capital that looks like it was an unwanted child of Fiat Multipla.
The Bilbao one looks more like a frog, tho.
It cannot even compare to (pic related) "badass" Battram xD
>>935645
>forgot pic
Damn, happens too often.
>>935647
We never had any double deckers, though at least two cities have been using triple cars (some quad was even tested, but people from the last car didn't enjoy walking out onto a platform that wasn't there too much).
>>935653
>battram
I want that to be a thing so badly
>>935636
The record Budapest claims is the longest tram that is just one inseparable vehicle with 54 (Combino) and now 56 (CAF) meters. Dresden had that record before with 45something meters.
Coupling together like Barcelona is a lot more common, as it offers more flexibility and a unified fleet that is also used on lines or at times of less demand, but of course at the cost of lugging around unused cabs.
pic related also claimed the record of longest tram vehicle for several years.
>>935657
it's just a russian design concept
>>935664
Well, they did make at least one prototype. Idk if working or just a "3d full-scale model"
>>935664
I know that's why I'm sending all my spiritual energy so that it eventually becomes real.
>>935647
Have you considered digging through the municipal archives? There's usually plenty of nice photos and videos of old tram systems but the stuff left in archives usually doesn't get scanned and put on the internet.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Left: Siemens SD-400. Refurbished by CAF.
Right: LRV built by CAF.
Note the high-platform doors, and the low platform door.
>>935764
Half tram, half metro, half commuter rail
works surprisingly well if you're in the tiny catchment
>>935670
Full-scale model
![Light-Rail-outside-the-Town-Hall-illustration[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xnxBObf.jpg "Light-Rail-outside-the-Town-Hall-illustration[1].jpg")
>>935498
>>935636
>>935659
Auckland is slated to get 66m, 450 pax trams if all goes according to plan.
>>935772
>>tfw none of my cities will ever make such a huge order and have a virtually unified tram model.
Why live.
>>935695
They've recently started uploading the photographic archive, there's many tram pics but no color pics earlier than the 50's-60's. I can't really be arsed to go look through the archives, you have to make an appointment and whatnot, and I don't care that much tbqhwy. Anyway I highly doubt that there exists any color material earlier than the 1950's. If there even was color film available in Spain in those days it would've been only affordable to very few people, probably not the kind of people who rode the trams. The best resource for this is usually foreigners who took photos while on holiday, like Dewi Williams, or this french guy who took some great color pics in the early 1960's.
>Warsaw, 1969
>Warsaw, 1997
>>935810
Cute, they look like carp.
Also is the tram in the background (the one behind the blue bus) running under trolleypole?
>>935813
>>935810
Got one as well
>>Warsaw,1965
>>935832
Where the palm tree at?
>>935832
>b-but m-muh roundabout
>CHOO CHOO MOTHERFUCKER
>>933406
Gibe Gmunden - Laakirchen lightrail, plox.
>>935645
Well these Blackpool cars have now been downgraded to heritage fleet, but they actually are wheelchair-accessible, which is pretty neat.
Those Hong Kong cars aren't strictly speaking new either, they are rebodied old cars.
Speaking of Hong Kong, are they building monorail or tram to Kai Tak?
>>935840
That's pretty standard thing in europe. Usually there's also red light and tram sign that will momentarily stop the roundabout so trams can sneak through.
>>935670
readying a working prototype now
>>935778
>tfw everything to do with PT in Auckland takes fucking forever so I won't see these for 10 years at least
How about some NJ Transit River Line?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLfg14yUiQ
>>935960
>Those Hong Kong cars aren't strictly speaking new either, they are rebodied old cars.
I'd misread the wikipedia article, apparently there's just three modern units, the others are indeed re-bodied older trams.
>That's pretty standard thing in europe. Usually there's also red light and tram sign that will momentarily stop the roundabout so trams can sneak through.
I know, I just think it's based af.
>>936042
>diesel
kill yourself
>>936090
No, wait, I'm still wrong, even the "new" trams still used old parts. Jesus fuck the Hong Kong tramways are the Frankenstein of trams.7
>How do you like your trams?
>Just fuck my shit up.
still based tho. double decker trams are GOAT. I wish they made a modern-day comeback.
Unrelated fun fact, Alstom offers a tram-train unit that allows for an optional lavatory.
>>936094
>I wish they made a modern-day comeback.
They would be impractical. Single decker trams are better for accessibility and in terms of how fast they can be loaded.
>>936042
Not really a tram considering the fact it mostly runs along old freight corridors. If anything it's more of equivalent to a French TER or German S-Bahn.
Got any pics of those weird half-tram, half-subway lines NJTransit runs in Jersey and Newark?
>>936094
>that pic
Fun fact, the Talent units that were in use in Ottawa had washrooms since they were second-hand S-Bahn units (they still had German markings all over them too).
>>936120
>They would be impractical. Single decker trams are better for accessibility and in terms of how fast they can be loaded.
You know, that is a really good argument, I was mistaken. I've changed my mind.
>>935640
>Unfortunately there was never 100% Polish metro.
Obviously. But I was more about if there could be one made for the previous bid at all.
And expanding on it, with the links ITT talking about some R&D financing, will we live long enough to actually get to ride one?
>>935653
>We've got a very new tram in capital that looks like it was an unwanted child of Fiat Multipla.
You best not be talkin shit bout the based Jazz, nigguh!
>>935772
>>935659
Why goddamnit, WHY?
>the front enters a new stop when the back still haven't left the previous one
>>935818
Kabanosy as explained in the previous thread.
>tfw today we were supposed to get the feasability study for the connection of our tram systems across the city center
>tfw tram h8ers were gonna get BTFO bigtime
>tfw this has been canceled bc of terrorist attack on the other side of the continent
>tfw no face but map
REEEEEEEEEEEE
>>936129
>The line can usually be drawn by
>does it have absolute priority grade crossings or does it follow traffic lights (even if it has priority?)
How do you classify tram-train systems then?
I think we just have to accept that the line between the different modes is blurred.
>>936149
>How do you classify tram-train systems then?
since they do run as trams (according to that previous definition) in at least some part they enter the category of trams.
>>936145
>the front enters a new stop when the back still haven't left the previous one
Because some systems are actually designed with long platforms and wide stop spacing?
>>936146
>being this buttblasted
>still focusing on the connector instead of pushing for tram lines in the outer suburbs
>still haven't learned anything from the Paris system
>>936150
>>936149
The question is what is the least grade separated a system gets at any one point. If at any point it gets to the point where it's by definition of tram, that's kind of the "limiting factor" according to which it can be considered a tram which may also function as a train with full grade separation at other points.
>>936151
>>still haven't learned anything from the Paris system
The radial concept of the tram makes it necessary to get to the city center to properly work, Paris' is a perimetral system. I think you overestimate Barcelonas size, the connection would be just 3.8km long. The subway feeder concept makes little sense on this scale.
Also we don't have quite the subway density Paris has, this tram line is also needed bc bus lanes are congested and buses are packed and slow ass balls. Check out how at one point it becomes the uppermost horizontal connection.
>pushing for tram lines in the outer suburbs
yes you're right, this is necessary too, but it's not gonna happen if they don't build the central part first. Demand nowadays, while not bad, isn't really high enough to really spur interest in extensions, seeing how you have to get dirty with NIMBYs. If the central section is made popularity and demand could go up significantly, and extensions may be back on the table.
>being this buttblasted
I didn't ask to be born autistic don't judge me
>>936154
not a tram.
>>936158
forgot pic
>>936158
You missed my point entirely.
>but it's not gonna happen if they don't build the central part first
Bullshit. The Parisian system is a mess of unconnected systems (there's 8 independent systems). There's no need to build a unified system.
Advocates should be concentrating their efforts on getting lines built in the suburbs instead of allowing the subway to continue to expand. The central connections can come later.
There's plenty of potential projects that could be created from the lesser used chunks of the commuter train network. Ligne 1 of the Paris system was mostly built on old run down sections of the commuter network out in the suburbs and it was a massive suces.
>>936160
>literally called a tram
>not a tram
Brilliant.
>>936090
>isread the wikipedia article, apparently there's just three modern units
If you mean these, they are modernized units too.
>>936193
Meaning.
Aluminium shell, but still teak frame and 80 year old trucks.
>>936194
looks like a repurposed Dennis ALX400
>>936200
Considering how many Dennis buses roam around HK I wouldn't be surprised to learn that most of the body panels were recycled from a Dennis bus.
>>936164
>>but it's not gonna happen if they don't build the central part first
>Bullshit. The Parisian system is a mess of unconnected systems (there's 8 independent systems). There's no need to build a unified system.
Fun facts:
>The tram was originally conceived as just the part which runs within the city along this avenue
>when the project grew to reach the suburbs it was still conceived to be connected across the city center, it was just delayed over and over until it was more or less forgotten about
>it should have reached a few other burb-towns but they didn't want it.
>line T3 makes a huge detour at one point to avoid this short stretch of road bc the town it runs through didn't allow it.
You're missing the point of why this tram does need to reach the city center, it was conceived to be a trunk line along this avenue, and then branching out on either side of the city, so that you'd get high frequency/capacity on the trunk line (where buses nowadays are crowded, the bus lane congested, and the closes subway line runs packed) and more area covered in the burbs. It really isn't rocket science.
The Paris system isn't radial like that, it doesn't spread out from the center like the Metro does, it runs perpendicular to the subway lines, ffs it forms partial circles around the city. The system in Barcelona is radial, it runs center - outwards, yet ends right before getting to the center. It makes little sense to have to take the subway or even a bus for just a few more stops, when 3,8km of tram line would get you all the way across the city and gain a shitload of better direct connections.
In the end it's supposed to have a double function as lrt corridor along an avenue where the bus is at capacity and there's not always subways closeby, and as a radial line from the city to the burbs. What's not to get?
>>936209
Again, that's not what I'm trying to get at. Why do you focus on completing this project when tram projects could be pushed through with less resistance elsewhere?
There's already 13 subway lines, that should be plenty to build feeder/connector system outside of the core. Plus, if a network outside of the core does prove itself then that would further weaken the argument of the people against the diagonal connector.
It seems like such a waste to focus on a single stretch of road when advocates could have been pushing for a line Badalona or something.
>>936213
>Why do you focus on completing this project when tram projects could be pushed through with less resistance elsewhere?
Firstly the resistance elsewhere is pretty much the same if not more. If the tram has better connections on the city side it'll also be more attractive to extend outwards.
Secondly the centar part is the most important part and it's benefit is much more than if you extended any branch 3.8km outwards.
>There's already 13 subway lines, that should be plenty to build feeder/connector system outside of the core.
4 of those are the also split up north and south parts of lines L9 and L10. They also work as feeders. Another is a 4-stop line that's again a feeder line to a subway terminus, it runs 4 stops with 2-car trains every 10 minutes. There's effectively 8 subway lines. And they're all packed downtown.
By your logic, we ought to just have all the buses stop short right outside the city center and have people change over to the subway. That would free up a lot of congestion in the center and you can use those buses to have better frequencies in the suburbs. We don't because it's retarded to have a feeder system for just the last 1-2km of your journey.
>Plus, if a network outside of the core does prove itself then that would further weaken the argument of the people against the diagonal connector.
And the connector would weaken the argument against its outward expansion. It's the chicken and the egg, only the diagonal connector offers undeniably greater benefit. You seem to assume that burb extensions don't have opposition, but they do just as much if not more.
>It seems like such a waste to focus on a single stretch of road when advocates could have been pushing for a line Badalona or something.
Where it would have run literally above the L2 subway line, and it couldn't go further than that subway line because at the point it ends the street become tiny. You've got a serious double standard there.
>>936128
Someone on 4chan has been convinced by someone else! I can now rest in peace. My best regards.
>>936145
>>talking about some R&D
I gave the link. I'm following the news on the Pesa's project but so far they just published some concept pics (picrelated). Metro in Warsaw will be holding a tender for 20-60 trains this year. Pesa's CEO suggested that if it takes place sometime closer to the year's end they might try applying (though i doubt they'll design a metro train and make a prototype in such short time. On the other hand they managed to >>935348 )
>>936145
>You best not be talkin shit bout the based Jazz, nigguh!
I've got nuffin against the short Jazz, but the long one... c'mon
>hurr durr i've I'm Multipla on tracks / hydrocephalic tram
>>935834
>palm tree
The degenerate cpaitalist imperialist palm tree is a symbol of laziness and unproductivity, wasting precious time on doing nothing when the nation needs the strength of every man it can muster to join the working masses on the labour front!
Away with pointless knick-knacks! Forward, people of labour! Let us fight together! Towards the brighter future!
>>936146
>>muh terrorism in mass transit
What a bullshit excuse. Let's not build any stadiums, theatres and schools.
>>i bet they oculd use much, much better arguments
I'm really happy to see this thread so alive.
>>936233
>What a bullshit excuse. Let's not build any stadiums, theatres and schools.
you got that wrong, the connection hasn't been canceled, just the presentation of the feasibility studies. they'll make them public tomorrow I guess.
>>936094
Most of the tram-trains of Karlsruhe by Düwag/Siemens and Bombardier have toilets.
Three (originally four) of them are even equipped with small bistros, though these apparently never managed to become profitable and have now been closed for several years wasting space.
>>936120
>They would be impractical. Single decker trams are better for accessibility and in terms of how fast they can be loaded.
In town tramways for sure, but maybe in longer interurban/tram-train -like service?
>>936276
I mean most systems can do fine with 30-40 meter cars, but in a hypothetical situatuation, where it was not so.
Most modern tramways have the catenary tad too low, I fear.
Alstom Citadis 402 in Bordeaux, France.
>inb4 APS triggers someone.
Bordeaux has 3 tram lines with Line A and B each having 2 branches.
A fourth line is currently under construction, and a tram-train to Blanquefort is expected to open in late 2016; it will spur off of Line C.
Citadis 402s run on Line A and B. Citadis 302s run on Line C; they look identical to the 402s except they are shorter.
>Video, 11 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0dAhRbIPZI
>>936151
>Because some systems are actually designed with long platforms and wide stop spacing?
I was trying to make a joke about how long they were and how they could be on two stops at once.
Sorry!
Allrighty, at last we got those feasibility studies after many months of waiting, and oh what a surprise, the straight connection across the city center is the best option. Other options considered were a tunnel (too expensive), other parallel streets (more expensive and less demand), and a bus (too little capacity and impractical). According to these studies demand ought to be as high as some subway lines, and ought to lead to a reduction in car usage and congestion.
>tfw it's habbeding
hold me, fellow autists
I found this study for potential future expansions of my city's tram system. Pretty interesting stuff. It was done by a firm from Karlsruhe, which probably has the greatest light rail system in the world.
Pic related: Full lines are what's already there, dashed lines are potential expansions. Grey lines are heavy rail.
>>936397
Who would have guessed that the straight line crossing the city center would be the most viable option?
I really hope you're getting your trams together soon m8
>>936413
I'll dump some more detailed plans if anyone's interested. Almost forgot, the planned expansion of line 2 to the north east (titled Milse-Ost in the picture) was already done by December last year.
>>936414
The orange circles are the area that is supposed to be covered by the planned extensions. The people who made the study are trying to calculate if the increase in ridership can cover the costs of the extension and its additional operational costs.
>>936415
This one is a planned extension to a new university of applied sciences campus. Don't let the large dotted lines confuse you, I think those are the borders between different boroughs of the city.
I don't really like this option. The extension should branch off between the second and third existing stops (the little yellow and green H's) and the existing line should be extended elsewhere, as I will show in the next post.
>>936416
Here's what I think the should do instead.
Portland, Oregon.
Left: Type 4 train, Siemens S70. Runs on the MAX Light Rail.
Right: Škoda 10T. Runs on the Portland Streetcar system.
The bus is a New Flyer D40LF, a very common bus to see in the United States and Canada.
>>936625
Ive never understood the difference between the MAX and the Streetcar.
Is the MAX kinda like a more standard long-distance light rail (a la Central Link is Seattle) and the Streetcar a downtown circulator? Are they connected/interchangeable rolling stock? Are they operated by the same agency?
Also what the heck is West Side Express or whatever it is?
>>936640
The streetcar is a cute gimmick to attract land developers rather than a proper transit system since it runs in mixed traffic while MAX is a proper second gen tram system.
>>936640
>Are they connected/interchangeable rolling stock?
The MAX Orange Line and the streetcar share the same right-of-way on the Tilikum Crossing.
>Are they operated by the same agency?
The city owns the streetcar system, but it's operated by the same agency as the MAX.
>Also what the heck is West Side Express or whatever it is?
It's a commuter rail line from Beaverton to Wilsonville. It connects with the MAX Blue and Red Lines.
>>936625
>streetcar
>runs short, single units
>in mixed traffic
ISHIGGYDIGGY
>>936663
Your mum runs short single units in mixed traffic.
Toyama, Japan.
Niigata Transys TLR0600. It runs on the Toyamkō Line (Portram), an LRT.
>>936989
ALNA SHARYO SANTRAM series T100. It runs on the Toyama City Tram Line.
>>936990
Niigata Transys CENTRAM series 9000. It runs on the Toyama City Tram Line.
>>936991
Nippon Sharyo series 8000. It runs on the Toyama City Tram Line.
>>936992
Series 7000. It runs on the Toyama City Tram Line.
>>937003
入口 is the entrance.
出口 is the exit.
>>937005
>入口
[walk (in)] [door]
>出口
[jump out] [door]
