In article
,
harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:49 pm, Bill Wright wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:30:02 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

"It was later established that the bus had run out of diesel."
Sounds like the fuel gauge was broken, if it was only "later"
established.

Sounds like the driver was an idiot, not topping up the tank before
setting off, as is the norm for buses at the start of a shift/long
journey.
Of course, if the driver was a greeniephile/PR tosser, he/she/it
wouldn't be all that tech knowledgeable and probably assumed the bus
ran on Magic Pixie Dust.

Anyway what's green about running a bus on batteries? The overwhelmingly
largest part of the electrical energy comes from coal or gas burnt in a
power station. Part of this energy is used to recharge the bus overnight
(they must do this or all the energy needed to move the bus would come
from diesel and they wouldn't be able to pretend that was green). But a
lot of it is lost in transmission and because the charger and the
process of charging and discharging a battery is very inefficient.

All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at the cost
of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside. Perhaps that's the
idea. I've always thought Londoners carry on as if they've got
lead-poisoned brains. Maybe they want the rest of us to start running
round like headless chickens, same as them.

Bill

There are several possible technologies.
The whole thing however revolves around being able to recover energy
lost as heat in the brakes and engine when slowing down in a normal
bus, (ie regenerative braking) and having somewhere to store it.
(Battery)

Pointless taking such a machine on the motorway.

unless it is wanted somewhere else.

I supposeyou could make passengers get off and walk up hills and get
on at the top so making use of their potential enrgy.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at the cost
of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside.

You can make power stations cleaner than you can make vehicle engines,
because making a power station too heavy to move isn't a problem.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._precipitators

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at the cost
of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside.

You can make power stations cleaner than you can make vehicle engines,
because making a power station too heavy to move isn't a problem.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr..._precipitators
and even a 50% CCGT with all the transmissions and battery cycle losses
is still using less fuel than a 27% efficient diesel with no
regenerative braking..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

a bit of it is coming from nuclear power at least.

Well yes, the mix also includes other renewables.


Sure. in homeopathic doses..:-)

I wonder how much harrys solar panels contribute to the buses overnight
charge up?

--
Adam

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:49:49 +0000 Bill Wright wrote :
All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at
the cost of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside.

"The average speed [of a London bus] is about 8 kilometres per hour
and a bus stops on average every 150 metres, at traffic lights, bus
stops ..." [Volvo], precisely the operating regime where a hybrid
is going to work best. And the fact that pollution is generated
away from population centres is a benefit - air quality was an
issue where I used to in SW London.

But for the same reason that the Prius offers nothing for motorway
driving, buses like this would have nothing to offer outside major
conurbations.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

charles wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 1:49 pm, Bill Wright wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:30:02 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

"It was later established that the bus had run out of diesel."
Sounds like the fuel gauge was broken, if it was only "later"
established.

Sounds like the driver was an idiot, not topping up the tank before
setting off, as is the norm for buses at the start of a shift/long
journey.
Of course, if the driver was a greeniephile/PR tosser, he/she/it
wouldn't be all that tech knowledgeable and probably assumed the
bus ran on Magic Pixie Dust.

Anyway what's green about running a bus on batteries? The
overwhelmingly largest part of the electrical energy comes from
coal or gas burnt in a power station. Part of this energy is used
to recharge the bus overnight (they must do this or all the energy
needed to move the bus would come from diesel and they wouldn't be
able to pretend that was green). But a lot of it is lost in
transmission and because the charger and the process of charging
and discharging a battery is very inefficient.

All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at the
cost of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside. Perhaps
that's the idea. I've always thought Londoners carry on as if
they've got lead-poisoned brains. Maybe they want the rest of us to
start running round like headless chickens, same as them.

Bill

There are several possible technologies.
The whole thing however revolves around being able to recover energy
lost as heat in the brakes and engine when slowing down in a normal
bus, (ie regenerative braking) and having somewhere to store it.
(Battery)

Pointless taking such a machine on the motorway.

unless it is wanted somewhere else.

eg Millbrook Testing Ground:-)

--
Adam

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:49:49 +0000 Bill Wright wrote :
All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at
the cost of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside.

"The average speed [of a London bus] is about 8 kilometres per hour
and a bus stops on average every 150 metres, at traffic lights, bus
stops ..." [Volvo],

That's about walking speed.


--
Adam

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

a bit of it is coming from nuclear power at least.

Well yes, the mix also includes other renewables.


Sure. in homeopathic doses..:-)

Bill
That's a really good way of putting it. Isn't homoeopathy that thing
where really minute amounts, not enough to make any real difference,
make the credulous feel better?

Bill

charles wrote:

I can remember an article in Eagle (1950s) about a Swiss trolley bus with
an enormous flywheel to use for motive power when there were no overhead
wires.


You were middle class. I used to get my factual information from Tit
Bits and Reveille, round at my grandma's.

Bill

Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 20, 2:49 pm, Bill Wright wrote:

Anyway what's green about running a bus on batteries?

Because you can put energy back into them when braking,
And how much energy will that provide? The energy wasted when braking is
very small. Most fuel is used combating rolling resistance and wind
resistance. London is not the sort of place where buses drop down long
hills on their brakes.

If the driver anticipates properly very little energy is wasted in
braking for traffic conditions. Better to start a bonus scheme where the
driver's pay is linked to his fuel consumption. That's the scheme all
the self-employed are on, and believe me it works.

just like a
lot of modern trains put energy back into the overhead wire (assuming
something is there to consume it) when they brake.
That's different because the infrastructure and engineering are already
there, so don't add weight and complexity. Even if that only wins back a
few percent it's probably worthwhile. But diesel buses? Give over!


I don't believe there is any plan to charge the batteries overnight,
the diesel engine will do that.
So given that the process of generating electricity, storing it in
batteries, and then using it to drive motors is highly inefficient, how
is this going to save diesel? Don't forget the weight of the batteries
has to be lugged around as well. Bonkers!

Bill

harry wrote:

There are several possible technologies.
The whole thing however revolves around being able to recover energy
lost as heat in the brakes and engine when slowing down in a normal
bus, (ie regenerative braking) and having somewhere to store it.
(Battery)

How about a flux capacitor like in 'Back to the Future?'

Bill

Doctor Drivel wrote:

All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at the
cost of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside.

Where no one lives. Boy you are dumb!

There are more people in the countryside than there are in London.

Bill

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an
absolute fortune.

Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last
a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have
been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people:
our newest five section trams can carry 240 people.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:13:12 -0000 ARWadsworth wrote :
"The average speed [of a London bus] is about 8 kilometres per hour
and a bus stops on average every 150 metres, at traffic lights, bus
stops ..." [Volvo],

That's about walking speed.

There are times when it's definitely quicker to walk!

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Dec 21, 12:13*am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

That's about walking speed.

If you've ever walked down Oxford Street you'll have noted that

Cycling in London (even without playing silly antics and overtaking on
the inside and jumping red lights like many idiots do) is generally
faster than travel by bus.

Neil

On Dec 21, 1:55*am, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...

'Just a lot of people who never grew out of train sets: hugely expensive
way to move stuff around: roads much cheaper'

Trains are very cheap and FAST being on segregated tracks.

Though dedicated bus roads (or something like the Marmite-esque Cambs
Busway) achieve the same thing.

That tends to fall down with very high passenger loads (e.g. London
commuting) and with high speeds (125mph in a manually driven road
coach is unlikely to be safe, and I'm not sure guideway technology is
up to it either).

Neil

On Dec 21, 2:30*am, Bill Wright wrote:

And how much energy will that provide? The energy wasted when braking is
very small. Most fuel is used combating rolling resistance and wind
resistance. London is not the sort of place where buses drop down long
hills on their brakes.

If the driver anticipates properly very little energy is wasted in
braking for traffic conditions.

London buses in London traffic would never get anywhere if the drivers
drove solely using the accelerator and engine braking.

Elsewhere, maybe, in less congested cities, and coaches on motorways,
yes.

Better to start a bonus scheme where the
driver's pay is linked to his fuel consumption. That's the scheme all
the self-employed are on, and believe me it works.

A lot of bus companies are fitting "green driving" devices to achieve
exactly that.

So given that the process of generating electricity, storing it in
batteries, and then using it to drive motors is highly inefficient, how
is this going to save diesel? Don't forget the weight of the batteries
has to be lugged around as well. Bonkers!

One advantage is that a diesel engine acting as a generator to charge
the battery can always, when running, operate at maximum efficiency.
One running up through the gears varies in efficiency (try driving a
car with an instantaneous MPG readout).

One thing that might be interesting is also the question of whether a
hybrid arrangement or a slushbox is more efficient. Buses tend, out
of practicality, to use automatic gearboxes with fluid couplings.
While some coaches now use automatically-operated standard clutch-
fitted gearboxes ("Tiptronic"-type things) which are more efficient,
these aren't as good for city buses because of the constant stop-start
and the fact that you lose power for a short time as the gears change,
which might be less safe in a city setting.

Neil

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It the prius problem, you can run a fully charged prius for a few
miles and claim its green, if you run the same prius for a hundred
miles it uses more fuel than a medium diesel car and it isn't green
at all.

The Prius is better all around in mpg.

Dribble still in denial. Despite the countless real world road tests he
still believes 'official' figures.

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Because you can put energy back into them when braking,
And how much energy will that provide? The energy wasted when braking is
very small. Most fuel is used combating rolling resistance and wind
resistance. London is not the sort of place where buses drop down long
hills on their brakes.

It's well worth doing on a city bus. Older ones used a flywheel to part
brake the vehicle, then used that energy to help start it off. A hybrid is
simply a more modern interpration of the same idea. Tube trains feed power
back to the generator when braking too. So the same idea.

If the driver anticipates properly very little energy is wasted in
braking for traffic conditions. Better to start a bonus scheme where the
driver's pay is linked to his fuel consumption. That's the scheme all
the self-employed are on, and believe me it works.

The main purpose of the average London bus driver is to up end any elderly
passengers making their way to the exit. That's where they get points from.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last
a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have
been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people:
our newest five section trams can carry 240 people.

How is fare avoidance? That was one big problem with the bendy buses in
London - to allow quick loading and unloading meant more than one
entrance, so difficult to check tickets with one man operation.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
That's about walking speed.

If you've ever walked down Oxford Street you'll have noted that

Oxford Street is a pedestrian zone so not representative. I use buses
quite a bit - but not in the West End or to get to it - and in general
they're very much faster than walking.

Cycling in London (even without playing silly antics and overtaking on
the inside and jumping red lights like many idiots do) is generally
faster than travel by bus.

Faster than a car too in rush hour for the average journey. Assuming you
have the energy.

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
One advantage is that a diesel engine acting as a generator to charge
the battery can always, when running, operate at maximum efficiency.
One running up through the gears varies in efficiency (try driving a
car with an instantaneous MPG readout).

Many of the newer buses have multi-speed autos. I've counted 6 gear
changes on some at town speeds. I'd expect they don't have a torque
convertor - or lock it up - so should be much more economical than once.

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Never was I happier than the day I no longer had to commute into London
by train. No more paying collossal sums of money, with double-digit
percentage increases every year, to be treated like ****. No more
being stranded on freezing cold stations with no-where to shelter for
hours on end. No more hours spent every day waiting for "services" which
never came. No more being jammed into carriages in conditions which
would bring prosecution if it were animals rather than people. No more
out-of-order (or just plain closed) toilets.

We all have the option where we live and work. If you decide to live miles
away from work - for whatever reason - what is the alternative? You
presumably used the train because despite the conditions it was a better
choice overall than driving.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

Sure. in homeopathic doses..:-)

That's a really good way of putting it. Isn't homoeopathy that thing where
really minute amounts, not enough to make any real difference, make the
credulous feel better?

Not quite true.. its magic water, they are so diluted that there are *no*
active molecules left.

"Huge" wrote in message
...


The Sheffield trams are very good, but I have read that the system loses
£12M/year. I have no idea if this is true.

Its probably true.. public transport is only efficient when its full(ish).
Outside rush hour its never going to be efficient unless it was far too
small to cope with rush hour.

Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:55 am, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...

'Just a lot of people who never grew out of train sets: hugely expensive
way to move stuff around: roads much cheaper'
Trains are very cheap and FAST being on segregated tracks.

Though dedicated bus roads (or something like the Marmite-esque Cambs
Busway) achieve the same thing.

That tends to fall down with very high passenger loads (e.g. London
commuting) and with high speeds (125mph in a manually driven road
coach is unlikely to be safe, and I'm not sure guideway technology is
up to it either).

Neil
The point he made (drivel is kill filed) is that the whole
railway/signalling/staffing/safety infrastructure was very expensive,
and surprisingly carbon emitting in terms of upkeep.

The TRAINS were good enough, but the track..that was another matter..

dennis@home wrote:


"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

Sure. in homeopathic doses..:-)

That's a really good way of putting it. Isn't homoeopathy that thing
where really minute amounts, not enough to make any real difference,
make the credulous feel better?

Not quite true.. its magic water, they are so diluted that there are
*no* active molecules left.


exactly so there are so few green electrons whizzing round the grid that
any improvement must be magic.

But you pay a huge price and feel like you are doing the right thing,
which is all that counts with sheep.

(aside: The last ever magnox fuel rods are being loaded into Wylfa for
the last ever refuel of the last ever magnox station in the world.
Sniffle sob!)

In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:13 am, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

That's about walking speed.

If you've ever walked down Oxford Street you'll have noted that


With teh Christmas cowds in Oxford Street, it is difficult for a walker to
keep up with a bus ;-(

Cycling in London (even without playing silly antics and overtaking on
the inside and jumping red lights like many idiots do) is generally
faster than travel by bus.

Neil

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
Neil Williams wrote:
That's about walking speed.

If you've ever walked down Oxford Street you'll have noted that

Oxford Street is a pedestrian zone so not representative.

No it's not. Certainly it wasn't on Monday. . While private cars are
banned, buses and taxis use it. But I agree there are a lot of pedestrians
about.
But, there was one Saturday about a couple of weeks ago, when all traffic
was banned

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 21/12/2011 10:29, Doctor Drivel wrote:

The prime country industry, agriculture is largely uneconomic. It is
cheaper to import food.

I think this paragraph should be changed to include the word "currently"
There will come a time when we are forced to revert back to being a self
sustaining land, the sooner the better in my mind.
The more we start buying UK sourced foods the more the trend will gain
momentum and go back to the land of health and wealth and not be at the
mercy of other nations catastrophies, diseases and genetic modification.
Not to mention lack of animal welfare on animal derived produce from
less regulated countries.

--
http://www.GymRatZ.co.uk - Fitness+Gym Equipment.
http://www.bodysolid-gym-equipment.co.uk
http://www.trade-price-supplements.co.uk
http://www.water-rower.co.uk

In message , at
09:23:41 on Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Tim Streater
remarked:
This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I lived
near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to cross the
city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the narrow streets
and, in the case of overhead railway, what the residents might think
about having trains rumbling past ten feet from their front bedrooms.

Trams run in much narrower (and just as historic) streets in Lisbon and
Bologna. Although Cambridge tram routes would probably skirt the
historic centre and pass hardly any residential property.
--
Roland Perry

Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an
absolute fortune.
Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last
a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have
been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people:
our newest five section trams can carry 240 people.
Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough.

The Sheffield trams are very good, but I have read that the system loses
£12M/year. I have no idea if this is true.

Nowadays the council is always trumpeting about how full of people the
trams always are. But when I sit on the Prince of Wales Road in a big
queue of traffic caused by a tram crossing my eyes tell me different.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We all have the option where we live and work.

No we don't. Life isn't that simple. What if you have dependent
relatives at one location and the only work is at another, as one small
example?

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We all have the option where we live and work.

No we don't. Life isn't that simple. What if you have dependent
relatives at one location and the only work is at another, as one small
example?

Bill
Thats a harder choice.

On 21/12/2011 11:35, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

The Prius is better all around in mpg.

But as two of my nephews who own them say, you won't get your money
back on one of these.

They are cost effective in London as they pay no Congestion Charge.
Their emissions are far less than the poisoning crap we now have. The
low noise levels alone are worth.

Most car noise is from tires, not the engine.

Depends a bit on the car and how it is driven.

A rough rule of thumb is that for ordinary combustion engines road noise
exceeds engine noise at around 60km/h or 38 mph (and a bit higher for
diesels). So for most in town driving Prius are quieter.

The alarming thing about Prius at low speeds in carparks is you don't
hear them starting up the engine at all before they move which can be a
bit disconcerting as a pedestrian. They are too quiet when moving off!

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
Never was I happier than the day I no longer had to commute into
London by train. No more paying collossal sums of money, with
double-digit percentage increases every year, to be treated like
****. No more being stranded on freezing cold stations with no-where
to shelter for hours on end. No more hours spent every day waiting
for "services" which never came. No more being jammed into carriages
in conditions which would bring prosecution if it were animals rather
than people. No more out-of-order (or just plain closed) toilets.

We all have the option where we live and work.

Indeed. So that makes it OK for the TOCs to rob us and treat us like
****?

Given the vast taxpayer subsidy to commuter travel in the SE, who is
robbing who?

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

One boring machine at one end drive right under a town. Cheap enough.
Boring is considered cheap rather than run over National parks and the
likes. No land purchases or eco court cases. They were considering
running the HS2 under the Pennines in tunnel from Manchester to Leeds

I'm not sure about "no court cases".
When they drilled a very long road tunnel under north Dublin
there were many claims from residents
that the tunnel had caused cracks in their properties.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College Dublin

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
They are cost effective in London as they pay no Congestion Charge.

Only a small part of London is covered by the congestion charge. And
parking within that is likely to be impossible or cost even more than the
CC. So the only sensible way to get there is by PT.

Their emissions are far less than the poisoning crap we now have.

I take it you haven't looked at the vast range of cars in the same tax
band based on emissions?


The
low noise levels alone are worth.

But what a horrible noise it does make from that weedy engine straining at
every pore...

--
*Okay, who stopped the payment on my reality check? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Despite the countless real world road tests he
still believes 'official' figures.

The Prius Mk 3 does 75 mpg.

Yeh yeh. More denial.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
Oxford Street is a pedestrian zone so not representative.

No it's not. Certainly it wasn't on Monday. . While private cars are
banned, buses and taxis use it.

Well, yes. No point in comparing bus speeds with walking if they weren't.
Most pedestrian zones of this type allow certain classes of vehicles in.


But I agree there are a lot of
pedestrians about. But, there was one Saturday about a couple of weeks
ago, when all traffic was banned

I've never quite understood why anyone would actually make a special trip
to Oxford Street to shop these days - there's not much there you can't
just buy at your local shopping centre.

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.