drum118 said:
Does it have overhead, or does it run on battery??

There are tons of examples in Europe where trams run though the city centre with and without overhead like Brampton without any issues
Click to expand...
No overhead, must be a batteries.
 
drum118 said:
Does it have overhead, or does it run on battery??

There are tons of examples in Europe where trams run though the city centre with and without overhead like Brampton without any issues
Click to expand...
If we can tolerate overhead wires on King Street and Queen St etc. in Toronto, unremarkable and soon-to-be-knocked-down downtown Brampton should be just fine.
 
Never mind King and Queen Streets. If they can tolerate overhead wires in ancient cities like Prague and Vienna and Budapest, a non-place like Brampton can also suck it up.

1713914326549.png
 
Adjei said:
No overhead, must be a batteri
Click to expand...
Several systems that I have seen have sections where batteries are required due to the area and no place to string wires. Nice comes to mind where the plaza area is wire free with the line being wired on both sides of it. It took 10 seconds to convert to either system while stop at the stations.

T3G said:
Never mind King and Queen Streets. If they can tolerate overhead wires in ancient cities like Prague and Vienna and Budapest, a non-place like Brampton can also suck it up.

View attachment 558767
Click to expand...
Love Prague and want to get back there again and you are correct on the overhead there. I have several videos of the system that I shot in 2012 up on youtube that show the wide mixture of Trams there. Vienna Is another place for overhead as well Zurich, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and so on.
 
The comments on Europe's streetcars forget that most of these were put in when the cost to bury it was too expensive.
 
micheal_can said:
The comments on Europe's streetcars forget that most of these were put in when the cost to bury it was too expensive.
Click to expand...
Most routes started out on the surface when ridership was low to begin with and there was no need to tunnel in the first place. Soil condition and the age of the buildings pay a big part if tunneling can take place. The city layout also determines if tunneling of a line could take place as well as how far apart the stations are from each other.

If you every visit some of the systems, you will see tunneling is not an option along with riderhip.
 
afransen said:
If we can tolerate overhead wires on King Street and Queen St etc. in Toronto, unremarkable and soon-to-be-knocked-down downtown Brampton should be just fine.
Click to expand...

One thing I find funny is if overhead wires are so ugly, why do so many cities want to preserve their trolley buses?
 
micheal_can said:
The comments on Europe's streetcars forget that most of these were put in when the cost to bury it was too expensive.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

One of the first, if not the first ever buried railway was in London in 1863.

Do you think that these days it's not HUGELY expensive to bury transit underground? It's still an insane cost, it's just that the professional napkin drawers on Reddit, Urban Toronto, and in our provincial government think money grows on trees.
 
T3G said:
What are you talking about?

One of the first, if not the first ever buried railway was in London in 1863.

Do you think that these days it's not HUGELY expensive to bury transit underground? It's still an insane cost, it's just that the professional napkin drawers on Reddit, Urban Toronto, and in our provincial government think money grows on trees.
Click to expand...
I know that London was one of the first. However, look around Europe and you see that a lot of smaller cities do not have buried tracks. That is not be cause it cannot be done, but is not worth doing back then.

It may be expensive to bury it today, but for some parts of some lines, it is worth the cost.
 
micheal_can said:
However, look around Europe and you see that a lot of smaller cities do not have buried tracks. That is not be cause it cannot be done, but is not worth doing back then.
Click to expand...
Not just smaller cities, but also, as previously stated, big ones. A not very exhaustive list: Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Brussels, Zagreb, Rome, Milan, Naples, Amsterdam, Berlin, Oslo, Lisbon, Warsaw, Moscow, Belgrade, Barcelona, Stockholm, Zurich, Bern, Geneva, and the suburbs of Paris all have in common that they are all important, wealthy cities that certainly have the means to tunnel their systems if they were so inclined, and yet they have tram systems running through their city centres with exposed overhead wires. Did it ever occur to you that maybe they didn't do it because it's an insane waste of money and time?

There are so many more useful things that the money you would spend on burying a tram line could otherwise bring. If it is good enough for Rome, it sure as hell ought to be good enough for Brampton. Perhaps these people who have a conniption at the sight of surface transit and who see fit to be so generous with our tax dollars can get together and raise the money required to build the tunnel themselves.
 
T3G said:
Not just smaller cities, but also, as previously stated, big ones. A not very exhaustive list: Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Brussels, Zagreb, Rome, Milan, Naples, Amsterdam, Berlin, Oslo, Lisbon, Warsaw, Moscow, Belgrade, Barcelona, Stockholm, Zurich, Bern, Geneva, and the suburbs of Paris all have in common that they are all important, wealthy cities that certainly have the means to tunnel their systems if they were so inclined, and yet they have tram systems running through their city centres with exposed overhead wires. Did it ever occur to you that maybe they didn't do it because it's an insane waste of money and time?

There are so many more useful things that the money you would spend on burying a tram line could otherwise bring. If it is good enough for Rome, it sure as hell ought to be good enough for Brampton. Perhaps these people who have a conniption at the sight of surface transit and who see fit to be so generous with our tax dollars can get together and raise the money required to build the tunnel themselves.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously comparing Brampton and Rome?
 
Yes, obviously. Because if we're discussing the "problem" of surface transit and how it's incredibly necessary to tunnel it instead, we gotta see what far more valuable cities in the world are doing.

So, I'll ask again: for what possible reason would the Romans accept having surface transit, but we just gotta tunnel in Brampton? What about Brampton's architectural significance, culture, and historical legacy is just so gosh darned important that we just can't have a surface streetcar, but in Rome it works perfectly fine?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top