首页> 外文期刊>Tramways & Urban Transit >High-floor vs. low-floor: Has Manchester chosen the wrong route?
【24h】

High-floor vs. low-floor: Has Manchester chosen the wrong route?

机译:高楼层与低楼层:曼彻斯特是否选择了错误的路线?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

It was heartening to read in your special supplement how the Manchester network system (Metrolink) is expanding. But one thing worries me: it's a high-floor system. It is convenient when expanding over existing railway lines to continue with the system of high-level platforms and employ vehicles with high-level entry doors. The disadvantage is that where the system leaves the railway tracks, high-level platforms must be constructed for stops in the street. This was already apparent in the centre of Manchester and I note that another raised town centre halt is being built in the centre of Oldham. Such structures are very obtrusive and might be objected to, especially in an historic urban environment; they mitigate against the advantages of trams, which can integrate seamlessly into the urban structure.
机译:读到您的特别增刊令人振奋,曼彻斯特网络系统(Metrolink)的发展。但是有一件事让我担心:这是一个高楼层系统。在扩展现有铁路线以继续使用高空平台系统并雇用带有高高入口门的车辆时,这很方便。缺点是,系统离开铁路轨道时,必须为街道上的车站建造高层平台。这在曼彻斯特市中心已经很明显了,我注意到在奥尔德姆市中心正在建造另一个凸起的市中心。这种结构非常引人注目,并且可能会遭到反对,尤其是在历史悠久的城市环境中;它们减轻了电车的优势,而电车可以无缝整合到城市结构中。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Tramways & Urban Transit》 |2013年第912期|530-531|共2页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号