> The last section of the route is single track. Even at the end there is no second track available. From an operational point of view, this is a failure.

I didn't see it as a major obstacle to the operation. The single track is obviously there to save money on the tunnel, which is the most expensive infrastructure item. Consider that single track to be an extended stub end.

Technically speaking, there never supposed to be two trams at the end of the line. If that happens, there was obviously some service delay on the line. In that case the last existing point should be used for a short-turn to mitigate service. The following car simply 'jumps' the preceding car, and takes over it's interval.

Overall the Tucson tram is a very attractive well operated system within a very attractive vibrant town. The operation is run by a true tram expert well-known within the industry. I highly recommend this often overlooked destination. By far more impressive than the neighboring dull Phoenix, AZ light rail, which is a very long line of a lot of nothing )

Quote (Ymtram (Yury LRTA), 17.07.2022):
> I didn't see it as a major obstacle to the operation. The single track is obviously there to save money on the tunnel, which is the most expensive infrastructure item. Consider that single track to be an extended stub end.

I understand the tunnel, but a second track at the end could have been done there without any problems.

>
> Technically speaking, there never supposed to be two trams at the end of the line.

At the time of planning. This already rules out a temporary increase in frequency, at least for this part of the city. In addition, providing some extra time for the driver at a terminus can never hurt.

> If that happens, there was obviously some service delay on the line. In that case the last existing point should be used for a short-turn to mitigate service. The following car simply 'jumps' the preceding car, and takes over it's interval.

Two thirds of the network was not in service due to that shooting. One tram was left behind in the centre, and all the others were serving this part of the network (with a much higher frequency than usual). There was always a tram waiting to enter that single-track section. This was an exceptional (?) situation, but with a second track at the endstation, things could have gone more smoothly.

> Overall the Tucson tram is a very attractive well operated system within a very attractive vibrant town.

I agree.

> The operation is run by a true tram expert well-known within the industry. I highly recommend this often overlooked destination. By far more impressive than the neighboring dull Phoenix, AZ light rail, which is a very long line of a lot of nothing )

The explanation of their financing alone charmed me. Also, the fact that they had managed to organise a shuttle bus in the shortest time and to provide the necessary information to travellers (including me): kudos!

Цитата (focus1965, 17.07.2022):
> Two thirds of the network was not in service due to that shooting. One tram was left behind in the centre, and all the others were serving this part of the network (with a much higher frequency than usual). There was always a tram waiting to enter that single-track section. This was an exceptional (?) situation, but with a second track at the endstation, things could have gone more smoothly.

This would be true if you argued for an additional passing point in the middle of the single track segment, but the segment in question is too short for that anyway. I don't think the second track at the terminal would help much, perhaps it would save 1-2 minutes only (see below).

Say, there was a second track at the terminal, and the described outbound tram that was waiting before the single track segment was allowed to go ahead. However, now the return city-bound tram might get delayed, as it is waiting for the single track to clear anyway. The 1-2 minutes that will be saved is the time it takes to 'change ends' on the tram at the stub-end terminal, as the city-bound tram now can leave right away, with no wait for 'changing ends'. But that tram is already delayed anyway. The point is - there is really no difference which of the two trams to delay.

One can argue, that an attempt to save time with the second track at the terminal presumes that if the follower enters the single track segment with the leader still at the terminal (i.e. two trams are within the single track segment at the same time), the second track at the terminal allows to keep the ORDER of assigned runs. Thus, the follower would always follow the leader on departure. However, with only one track at the terminal, you can still operate the same departures, except now the follower tram becomes the leader on return trip, i.e. the order of assigned runs is changed. The only time you are losing, again, is 1-2 minutes on 'changing ends'. I can assure you that the management of Tucson tram carrier is flexible enough to do just that.

Overall, the second terminal track is simply not worth the investment due to really minor operational benefit. Note, that the stub end terminal is currently designed for two cars exactly as per my description above, as there is space after the platform that can accommodate precisely one car.

The debate above was not written for the sake of argument, but rather in good faith and for the sake of fan :)

Quote (Ymtram (Yury LRTA), 19.07.2022):
> The debate above was not written for the sake of argument, but rather in good faith and for the sake of fan :)

I know that :) The system that is used works locally (in Tucson) but certainly cannot be used everywhere. But even then, the dispatcher has to get the order right as soon as possible, because I suspect that at the depot (en route) there are regular staff changes. I guess that this is also planned in Tucson. If a tram is in the wrong order for too long (more than one trip) then the entire schedule can be messed up.