Talk:Balloon loop

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Rapid transit / Streetcars / Operations Mid‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit. This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars. This article is supported by the Operations task force.

This is mentioned twice, and I don't see how the track arrangement (or any track arrangement) can be a Mobius strip, which is a 3d strip? GBM (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed the reference to "Möbius loop" to "figure 8 loop", because if it were a Möbius loop, then on alternate trips around, the train would be hanging from the lower surface of the tracks instead of running along the top as normal. I have not wikilinked "figure 8 loop", because it's not shaped like a knotted rope. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead:

Balloon loops do not include track layouts where combinations of junctions allow a train reversal, where this reversal is not regularly used.

.What this is supposed to mean? A balloon loop is a track layout, which may or may not be in actual use. By the same token, a disused platform is a platform.
Besides, a 'combination of junctions' can be used to describe to a reversing triangle, which is a completely different beast :-) --Jotel (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Since rolling stock reverse direction in a balloon loop, the couplings and brake hoses must be reversible."

This seems to me to be wrong -- the entire point of a balloon loop is that the train does not reverse direction, it just does a "U turn" with the carriages still in the same order and in the same direction. Unless there is some other interpretation of this sentence that someone can point out, I will be removing this sentence shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questwolf (talk • contribs)

This has to do with uncoupling and coupling sets of cars. For example... Section A; Car 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Section B; Car 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Couple those together to make Train 4580. Car 1 is North, Car 10 is South. Run around the loop. Now Car 10 is North and Car 1 is South. Uncouple Section B and add it to Section C which is Car 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. The new Train 4590 consists of (N) 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 (S); alternatively (N) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 (S). Each set can't be counted on to be facing the same original direction. This would cause problems if the couplings and brake hoses were one-direction only. Hope this helps. Acps110 (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think this needs to be made more clear in the article though. Questwolf (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Newcastle upon Tyne station is to be included, then Birmingham New Street should be also: it has a stronger case - the existence of triangles at Soho, Perry Barr and the larger triangle between Proof House Junc, Aston and Stechford mean that trains from Wolverhampton, Walsall and Coventry may enter/leave at either end; similarly, triangles at St. Andrew's and at King's Norton mean that trains from Derby or Cheltenham may enter/leave at either end. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool is not included. Is there a limit to the number of stations on a balloon loop? On the Wirral Line, trains arriving at Liverpool through the Mersey Tunnel always fork left at Mann Island Junction, before reaching James Street (platform 1); they then pass through Moorfields, Liverpool Lime Street and Liverpool Central before reaching James Street again (platform 3), then rejoin the original route at Mann Island Junction and then pass back through the Mersey tunnel. I make that either three (if you exclude James Street) four (if you count James Street once) or five (because Mann Island Junction is at the end of James Street which is furthest from the loop). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a balloon loop to me at all. That sounds like creative use of junctions that create a looped route. For example, in New York City, a train can leave the lower level of the Archer Avenue Line and return to the upper level without reversing; Not a balloon loop in my understanding. Acps110 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you accept the Piccadilly line but not this one. Perhaps I didn't make it clear - it's not "creative use of junctions", because only one junction is involved, that at Mann Island Junction. The platforms at Moorfields, Liverpool Lime Street and Liverpool Central at a deep level, and are only accessible via this route. For example, Moorfields is a station with three platforms - two are at low level on on Liverpool's Northern line, one is at deep level on Liverpool's Wirral line; there is no physical connection which trains may use. Similarly, Lime Street has nine platforms in the main station on the surface; one at deep level on the loop of the Wirral line, and there is no rail connection. See the diagram at Wirral Line, also that at Merseyrail#Merseyrail lines (the route coloured green). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I was thrown off by the statement of separate platforms at James Street. (Inserting another junction mentally there.) Thank you for the clarification. (and further reading on my part). Go ahead and add it to the list. Acps110 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Liverpool qualifies, then so must the Heathrow loop of the Piccadilly line (Hatton Cross-Heathrow Terminal 4-Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3-Hatton Cross). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the end of the Piccadilly line is a balloon loop. Only one way in and out for trains using the loop. The fact that the line also includes a stub-terminal is irrelevant. Acps110 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 left me the following question on my talk page, and I think the answer is worth recording here.

Re this edit... balloon loops on tram systems were indeed common, but the majority of UK trams, whether of the traditional variety or the modern (Manchester/Sheffield/Croydon/etc.) type, are double ended/double sided; indeed I don't know of any system that used single-ended/single-sided electric trams (horse trams are a different matter though). Do you have examples of single-ended/single-sided trams? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, the only such trams in the UK were at Sunderland, which had some streamlined single-end, single-sided, double-deck trams. For a first generation UK tram system, they were quite modern looking, and could be mistaken at first glance for a trolleybus. I've no idea what proportion of Sunderland's fleet was single-ended, or how they were turned, though.

However outside the UK, single-sided, single-ended trams were (and still are) very common. I have neither time to research, nor space to list all of them, but here are a few examples:

• Belgium. Antwerp and the Belgian Coast Tram are still 100% single ended. Bruxelles used to be mostly single-ended, but has now gone largely (fully?) double-ended.

• Netherlands. Amsterdam and The Hague are mostly single-ended; not sure about Rotterdam

• Germany. Where to start?. At one time the majority of systems used single-ended cars. Certainly Berlin, Dresden, Freiburg im Breisgau and Leipzig all still operate them, probably many others.

• United States. Most of the PCC cars built for use in the US were single-ended. Similar cars are still in service in Boston (on the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line) and San Francisco (on the F Market & Wharves line).

• Italy. Rome and Milan still operate single-ended trams.

I think that it is probably true to say that the trend is towards double-ended trams. AFAIK, all the second generation systems (eg. in the UK, US and France) use double-ended cars. And there seems to be a gradual move to double-ended cars on some traditional single-ended systems. But there are still a great number out there, and I think my statement that Many, although by no means all, streetcar and tram systems use single ended vehicles is valid. I obviously need a decent cite for it though.

In thinking about, and researching it some, I am however a little unhappy about the implied cause and effect in my wording. As best I can work out (and this is somewhat speculative and not (yet) fit for an article):

• In the early days of electric tramways, most systems were similar world-wide. They used small, 4-wheeled, single cars, often with seats on an open upper deck.

• Open upper decks were unpopular with riders. UK systems reacted by enclosing the upper deck. Continental European systems reacted by converting the cars to single-deck, and putting the erstwhile upper deck seats in a towed trailer. US systems reacted by introducing large bogey cars.

• Towed trailers were time consuming to run around at terminals, so many systems with them installed balloon loops at all terminals, but didn't initially change the cars.

• At some point, possibly in Germany or the Netherlands in the 1930s, systems worked out that if their cars always ran in the same direction, they could save money by removing the offside doors and rear driving positions.

• As car design evolved and cars got bigger, these systems eventually evolved the single-sided articulated tram car. The systems that had stuck with double-ended cars evolved the double-sided articulated tram car.

• The development of the double-sided articulated tram car removed some of the advantage of the single-sided approach, as it could reverse in a stub track with almost the same ease as the single-sided car/balloon loop approach. Although single-sided cars were still cheaper to build.

• As modern tram systems converged with light rail, using new tunnels and old railway alignments, balloon loops became more expensive to build. And single-ended cars were less flexible when confronted with road works and such like. So a trend started back to double-ended cars.

I'm not entirely sure how that logic applies to the US, as I don't think the US ever went in for much trailer operation.

To the extent that I'm right in the above speculation, the balloon loop created the single-ended car, and not the other way around. But it is all a bit speculative; if I can find better cites to back it up, I'll contemplate moving it to an article. -- Starbois (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. What does the tram operation video have to do with this article?! I honestly can't tell. This article is about balloon loops. The tram in the video appears to pass through a wye (a.k.a. triangle), and doesn't even make use of it to reverse direction. Pretty video, but pointless here. —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 05:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been six weeks with no reply. I'm going to go ahead and remove the video. If anybody justifiably objects, feel free to revert. —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the description of a balloon loop, I would think that perhaps the Epcot line as it visits the TTC at Walt Disney World would be considered a balloon loop, being as it never reverses direction on the line, it simply leaves the station and makes a big loop around where the track then parallels the previous track. Also once arriving at Epcot, the train makes a big loop through the park and then a single beam passes through the station. Jclaggett (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balloon loop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203010002/http://www.railexpress.com.au/archive/2012/november/november-7th-2012/top-stories/arrium-calls-for-interstate-track-upgrade/?searchterm=None to http://www.railexpress.com.au/archive/2012/november/november-7th-2012/top-stories/arrium-calls-for-interstate-track-upgrade/?searchterm=None

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should any of these be added to the article?

Steinway (#7) loop at GCT there is some mention in Steinway Tunnel.

Williamsburg Bridge Trolley Terminal. See also Lowline (park) and The Lowline Project.

Queensboro Bridge Railway/trolley terminal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenwayfriend (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I attempted to shorten, reorganize, and just generally improve the article. I created a list page for the examples section, which was way too long. Other than that, the rest of the edits can be seen in the history. Feel free to improve what I've done!

Jmaxx37 (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]