The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Tunnel sizes
Four times, as doubling the bore diameter increases the bore area by
four times. So, boring a double track tunnel costs twice as much
(roughly) per route mile as two single track tunnels. The tunnel walls
also have to be built stronger, increasing the costs further.

Not necessarily.

Single tunnels have a lot more diameter than the train, but a double
tunnel will be a lot closer to 2 trains.

I don't think that's quite right. All tunnels are made to fit the
loading gauge of the system, but single track tunnels can follow it more
closely than twin track, assuming both tunnels have a circular profile.
It's possible to make tunnels elliptical in cross section, but more
expensive in most ground. In decent rock, you can make the tunnel any
shape you like, of course, but how many cities are built on decent rock?

An advantage of a double track tunnel is that you can use the wasted
space above the loading gauge and below the track level to carry pipes
and cables.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

polygonum wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:17:12 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:00:46 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:30:22 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:


Its cheaper to bore one tunnel these days.

How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel
capable of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large
enough for both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the
specification of the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

essentially about 50% more material at a wet finger guess has to be
removed if the tunnel is circular.

I guessed around twice as much using simplistic pi r squared.

yerss but the bigger tunnel doesn't have to be 1.4 the diameter..its
an interesting thing really..I don't know how the actual tunnel
'fits' the trains.

Very tightly:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wh...The_Tube. jpg


Certainly the clearance between the trains and the inner tunnel wall is
incredibly small. But when tunnelling it is surely necessary to consider
the outer wall? What does that add? Maybe a metre or two to diameter?

Most of the tube tunnels have a metal lining which is only a few
centimetres thick. Even using brickwork will add much less than a metre.
In some cases, a cement based grout is injected into the surrounding
ground, making the required hole smaller.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"polygonum" wrote in message
news
Certainly the clearance between the trains and the inner tunnel wall is
incredibly small.

I recall football fans rocking in the trains with the trains hitting the
wall sides.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:43:53 -0000 Polygonum wrote :
How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel capable
of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large enough for
both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the specification of
the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

Wouldn't one larger tunnel have safety issues - thinking of the Channel
Tunnel where you escape from the running tunnels into the service tunnel

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing trains.. you
would probably need to build a central wall to control it. This would also
make it much stronger.

"polygonum" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:17:12 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:00:46 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:30:22 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:


Its cheaper to bore one tunnel these days.

How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel
capable of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large
enough for both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the
specification of the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

essentially about 50% more material at a wet finger guess has to be
removed if the tunnel is circular.

I guessed around twice as much using simplistic pi r squared.

yerss but the bigger tunnel doesn't have to be 1.4 the diameter..its
an interesting thing really..I don't know how the actual tunnel 'fits'
the trains.

Very tightly:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wh...The_Tube. jpg

Certainly the clearance between the trains and the inner tunnel wall is
incredibly small. But when tunnelling it is surely necessary to consider
the outer wall? What does that add? Maybe a metre or two to diameter?

Maybe a foot.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:43:53 -0000 Polygonum wrote :
How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel capable
of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large enough for
both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the specification of
the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

Wouldn't one larger tunnel have safety issues - thinking of the Channel
Tunnel where you escape from the running tunnels into the service tunnel

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing trains..
you would probably need to build a central wall to control it. This
would also make it much stronger.

Double track rail tunnels on the main line network don't bother, even on
high speed lines. Underground networks often use the passage of the
trains as pistons to help the ventilation in the network.

When most of the main line tunnels were built, the main problem with
ventilation was getting enough airflow to get rid of the smoke and
steam, which is why you can follow the line of most of them by walking
between the vents. In steam days, you would see columns of smoke rising
from the vents, and could watch the progress of a train through the tunnel.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
says...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Tunnel sizes
Four times, as doubling the bore diameter increases the bore area by
four times. So, boring a double track tunnel costs twice as much
(roughly) per route mile as two single track tunnels. The tunnel walls
also have to be built stronger, increasing the costs further.

Not necessarily.

Single tunnels have a lot more diameter than the train, but a double
tunnel will be a lot closer to 2 trains.

I don't think that's quite right. All tunnels are made to fit the
loading gauge of the system, but single track tunnels can follow it more
closely than twin track, assuming both tunnels have a circular profile.
It's possible to make tunnels elliptical in cross section, but more
expensive in most ground. In decent rock, you can make the tunnel any
shape you like, of course, but how many cities are built on decent rock?

An advantage of a double track tunnel is that you can use the wasted
space above the loading gauge and below the track level to carry pipes
and cables.

Doesn't the same apply to single track tubes?

The roof of London tube trains closely follows the tunnel roof but the
sides are vertical and the sides of the tunnels are filled with pipes
and cables.

--

Terry

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:00:46 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:30:22 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:


Its cheaper to bore one tunnel these days.

How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel
capable of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large
enough for both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the
specification of the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

essentially about 50% more material at a wet finger guess has to be
removed if the tunnel is circular.

I guessed around twice as much using simplistic pi r squared.

yerss but the bigger tunnel doesn't have to be 1.4 the diameter..its
an interesting thing really..I don't know how the actual tunnel 'fits'
the trains.

Very tightly:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wh...The_Tube. jpg


Hmm. Good picture.

In which case two small tunnels almost certainly would be less earth
removal than a big one.

And probably take no more time either since you could use 4 small
machines rather than two large ones to dig at the same rate.

polygonum wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:17:12 -0000, John Williamson
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:00:46 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:30:22 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:


Its cheaper to bore one tunnel these days.

How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel
capable of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large
enough for both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the
specification of the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

essentially about 50% more material at a wet finger guess has to be
removed if the tunnel is circular.

I guessed around twice as much using simplistic pi r squared.

yerss but the bigger tunnel doesn't have to be 1.4 the diameter..its
an interesting thing really..I don't know how the actual tunnel
'fits' the trains.

Very tightly:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wh...The_Tube. jpg


Certainly the clearance between the trains and the inner tunnel wall is
incredibly small. But when tunnelling it is surely necessary to consider
the outer wall? What does that add? Maybe a metre or two to diameter?

No, nothing like.

The standard technique is to assemble rings of reinforced concrete - or
even pure steel - just behind the cutting head. These are bolted to the
existing tunnel and the cutting head advanced and relocated on the front
of them.

The minute gaps to the soil are left to 'settle' onto the rings.

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Tunnel sizes
Four times, as doubling the bore diameter increases the bore area by
four times. So, boring a double track tunnel costs twice as much
(roughly) per route mile as two single track tunnels. The tunnel
walls also have to be built stronger, increasing the costs further.

Not necessarily.

Single tunnels have a lot more diameter than the train, but a double
tunnel will be a lot closer to 2 trains.

I don't think that's quite right. All tunnels are made to fit the
loading gauge of the system, but single track tunnels can follow it more
closely than twin track, assuming both tunnels have a circular profile.
It's possible to make tunnels elliptical in cross section, but more
expensive in most ground. In decent rock, you can make the tunnel any
shape you like, of course, but how many cities are built on decent rock?

An advantage of a double track tunnel is that you can use the wasted
space above the loading gauge and below the track level to carry pipes
and cables.

Yes.. I realised that after looking at the picture posted earlier. Not
much ABOVE the train tho..just under track space is all.


And the tunnel biring machines make round holes. So really it is what
suits them I suppose.

By the way, cities that are built on rock will not normally use bored
tunnels. Its fiendishly expensive to go through rock. Cut and cover is
far more likely.

Viz this extract fromn the wiki entry on the NY subway

"When the IRT subway debuted in 1904, the typical tunnel construction
method was cut-and-cover. The street was torn up to dig the tunnel below
before being rebuilt from above. This method worked well for digging
soft dirt and gravel near the street surface. However, mining shields
were required for deeper sections, such as the Harlem and East River
tunnels, which uses cast-iron tubes, segments between 33rd and 42nd
streets under Park Avenue, 116th Street and 120th Street under Broadway,
and 157th Street and Fort George under Broadway and Saint Nicholas
Avenue, all of which used either rock or concrete-lined tunnels.
About 40% of the subway system runs on surface or elevated tracks,
including steel or cast iron elevated structures, concrete viaducts,
embankments, open cuts and surface routes. All of these construction
methods are completely grade-separated from road and pedestrian
crossings, and most crossings of two subway tracks are grade-separated
with flying junctions."

dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:43:53 -0000 Polygonum wrote :
How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel capable
of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large enough for
both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the specification of
the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

Wouldn't one larger tunnel have safety issues - thinking of the Channel
Tunnel where you escape from the running tunnels into the service tunnel

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing trains..
you would probably need to build a central wall to control it. This
would also make it much stronger.

No it wouldn't dennis.

A circular cross section is already as strong as it can be assuming
adequate wall stiffness to stay inside Euler instability criteria.

John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:43:53 -0000 Polygonum wrote :
How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel capable
of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large enough for
both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the specification of
the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

Wouldn't one larger tunnel have safety issues - thinking of the Channel
Tunnel where you escape from the running tunnels into the service tunnel

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing
trains.. you would probably need to build a central wall to control
it. This would also make it much stronger.

Double track rail tunnels on the main line network don't bother, even on
high speed lines. Underground networks often use the passage of the
trains as pistons to help the ventilation in the network.

When most of the main line tunnels were built, the main problem with
ventilation was getting enough airflow to get rid of the smoke and
steam, which is why you can follow the line of most of them by walking
between the vents. In steam days, you would see columns of smoke rising
from the vents, and could watch the progress of a train through the tunnel.

This is completely true of the Severn tunnel of course. You can see the
smoke popping up from bubbles in the river....

;-)

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...

The roof of London tube trains closely follows the tunnel roof but the
sides are vertical and the sides of the tunnels are filled with pipes
and cables.

*Full* with pipes and cables.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
The roof of London tube trains closely follows the tunnel roof but the
sides are vertical and the sides of the tunnels are filled with pipes
and cables.

*Full* with pipes and cables.

Only after they've been filled.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

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

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing trains..
you would probably need to build a central wall to control it. This would
also make it much stronger.

No it wouldn't dennis.

A circular cross section is already as strong as it can be assuming
adequate wall stiffness to stay inside Euler instability criteria.


More BS.. that assumes uniform pressure, something you seldom get.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing
trains.. you would probably need to build a central wall to control
it. This would also make it much stronger.

No it wouldn't dennis.

A circular cross section is already as strong as it can be assuming
adequate wall stiffness to stay inside Euler instability criteria.


More BS.. that assumes uniform pressure, something you seldom get.

shows how little you now about deep tunnelling and the behaviour of rock
and soil under pressure.
..

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 09:23:36 -0800 (PST), robgraham
wrote:

Based on all previous slags of Google Groups we are now in for another
round of such. Having pursued some of the other options for reading
usenet, I have found that GG does in fact produce the best
presentation

You gotta be joking.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing
trains.. you would probably need to build a central wall to control it.
This would also make it much stronger.

No it wouldn't dennis.

A circular cross section is already as strong as it can be assuming
adequate wall stiffness to stay inside Euler instability criteria.


More BS.. that assumes uniform pressure, something you seldom get.

shows how little you now about deep tunnelling and the behaviour of rock
and soil under pressure.
.

Shows that you assume all round tunnels are deep!

On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:30:05 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing
trains.. you would probably need to build a central wall to control
it. This would also make it much stronger.

No it wouldn't dennis.

A circular cross section is already as strong as it can be assuming
adequate wall stiffness to stay inside Euler instability criteria.


More BS.. that assumes uniform pressure, something you seldom get.

shows how little you now about deep tunnelling and the behaviour of
rock and soil under pressure.
.

Shows that you assume all round tunnels are deep!

Non sequitur.

--
Rod

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:43:53 -0000 Polygonum wrote :
How much would it cost to bore, says, one mile of dual tunnel capable
of carrying two tracks, and how much for one tunnel large enough for
both tracks? Make any assumption you like about the specification of
the trains - e.g. Circle line standard.

Wouldn't one larger tunnel have safety issues - thinking of the Channel
Tunnel where you escape from the running tunnels into the service
tunnel

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing
trains.. you would probably need to build a central wall to control
it. This would also make it much stronger.

Double track rail tunnels on the main line network don't bother, even
on high speed lines. Underground networks often use the passage of the
trains as pistons to help the ventilation in the network.

When most of the main line tunnels were built, the main problem with
ventilation was getting enough airflow to get rid of the smoke and
steam, which is why you can follow the line of most of them by walking
between the vents. In steam days, you would see columns of smoke
rising from the vents, and could watch the progress of a train through
the tunnel.

This is completely true of the Severn tunnel of course. You can see the
smoke popping up from bubbles in the river....

;-)

The only place where you can catch your fish already smoked. :-)
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , polygonum
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:12:10 -0000, Terry Casey
wrote:


The Circle is an Underground (sub surface) line - mainly cut and cover.

The deep tubes are bored.

You can take a tube train on the underground but you can't take an
underground train down the tube ...


Actually I remember hearing about a British Rail track recording coach
being taken through part of the LU network. Must have been in the 1980s.
Did a little damage at the ends of the coach - and to the tunnel - but
nothing too bad. Not sure if they pursued the idea of sharing the
resource.

remember that "cut and cover" lines were originally built for "normal
trains".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
says...

In article , polygonum
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:12:10 -0000, Terry Casey
wrote:


The Circle is an Underground (sub surface) line - mainly cut and cover.

The deep tubes are bored.

You can take a tube train on the underground but you can't take an
underground train down the tube ...


Actually I remember hearing about a British Rail track recording coach
being taken through part of the LU network. Must have been in the 1980s.
Did a little damage at the ends of the coach - and to the tunnel - but
nothing too bad. Not sure if they pursued the idea of sharing the
resource.

remember that "cut and cover" lines were originally built for "normal
trains".

Indeed! And not just 'normal' underground trains - before the war,
through excursion trains ran from Ealing Broadway to Southend ran over
District metals as far as Barking then onward via the London, Tilbury
and Southend Railway.

Googling for "london underground steam trains" and selecting images
brings up a selection. Deleting 'london' and trying both lots of wording
both with and without inverted commas provides some variation ...

The East London Railway was the strangest 'Underground' line. It used
the Thames tunnel cut (but NOT cut and cover!) by Brunel and his father
for pedestrian traffic.

The East London Railway Company converted it for railway use but never
owned a single locomotive or item of rolling stock, making their money
instead by leasing running rights over it to other companies. Excursion
trains from Liverpool Street to Brighton used it for a while.

There used to be a triangular post by the buffer stop at Shoreditch,
beside the former Bishopsgate junction, that had LONDON AND NORTH
EASTERN RAILWAY UP ROAD on one face and EAST LONDON RAILWAY DOWN ROAD on
another.

I often used to see it when I was commuting during the 70s and 80s if my
train was stuck outside Liverpool Street Station.

Then, one day, I noticed that someone had painted over it with lime
green paint - although the raised lettering was still discernible. It
stayed that way for several years, then disappeared! I've often wondered
who's got it and how much money it changed hands for ...

--

Terry

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I think the biggest problem would be air flow caused by passing
trains.. you would probably need to build a central wall to control
it. This would also make it much stronger.

No it wouldn't dennis.

A circular cross section is already as strong as it can be assuming
adequate wall stiffness to stay inside Euler instability criteria.


More BS.. that assumes uniform pressure, something you seldom get.

shows how little you now about deep tunnelling and the behaviour of
rock and soil under pressure.
.

Shows that you assume all round tunnels are deep!

there is little point in making a cut and cover round tunnel.


tunnelling by definition means that you are going deep enough to make
cut and cover impractical

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

tunnelling by definition means that you are going deep enough to make cut
and cover impractical

So how deep is that? 20 feet? 50 feet?

Its very hard to cut and cover under main roads, railways, etc. so they
frequently put in a shallow tunnel.

On 31/12/2011 00:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
My company pension is exactly as it was promised when I first subscribed
to it. So a well managed fund wasn't effected by that tax.

I think you mean affected, not effected. But that aside - is your
company pension scheme in deficit? How has that deficit changed with
the alterations that Blair/Brown brought in?

Andy

Googling for "london underground steam trains" and selecting images
brings up a selection. Deleting 'london' and trying both lots of wording
both with and without inverted commas provides some variation ...

Theres a fine example in the London Transport Museum in Covent Garden
thats well worth a visit!....



Might have to copy 'n paste this...


http://www.ltmcollection.org/vehicle...?_IXSR_=75ir_K
JfkYj&_IXMAXHITS_=1&IXsummary=type/type&IXinv=1981/535&IXtype=110&_IXFIR
ST_=1&_IXSESSION_=fnNuJV2v2E5
--
Tony Sayer

On 31/12/2011 08:34, harry wrote:
On Dec 30, 9:10 pm, Andy wrote:
On 30/12/2011 07:58, harry wrote:

On Dec 29, 4:48 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:33:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The weight of the on board capacitors would in itself be an energy
store (kinetic energy).

And how do they get up to speed - magic pixie beans?

Stupid boy. You don't get anything for nothing.
But storing kinetic energy is far more efficient than charging/
discharging batteries.

Kinetic energy stored as vehicle momentum is of no use for accelerating
the vehicle. At the time you need it it isn't there.

It's also of no use for climbing hills - the extra weight exactly
cancels out the extra KE.

In fact I can't think of a use for extra mass at all. Except in a road
roller.

Andy

But it can be used for charging batteries. Which is exactly what
happens in electric cars. In ICE cars, it is lost.
Bad news during cornering though.

Harry,

Lets take two examples, a 1000kg car and a 2000kg one. We'll give them
identical power trains.

Accelerate them to 10m/s (22mph, a traffic sort of speed) will take:

1/2 * 1000 * 10 * 10 = 50 kJ for the 1000Kg car
100kJ for the 2000Kg one.
Lighter is better.

We'll go along the road a bit. Air drag is the same, rolling resistance
slightly higher for the heavier one.
Lighter is better.

Come to a stop. Perhaps the recharge cycle is 80% efficient, so we get
back 40kJ for the lighter car, 80 for the heavy one.
The loss for the start-stop cycle is less for the lighter car.

As I say I can think of no case where heavy is better.

Andy

On 31/12/2011 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I don't know where you've been, but lots of conventional IC engined cars
now use their alternator to store energy when slowing.

No they dont.

BMW call it "Efficient Dynamics". I suspect it makes F-all difference
though - just takes a little load off the engine while under load,
rather than storing it to accelerate with.

Andy

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

tunnelling by definition means that you are going deep enough to make
cut and cover impractical

So how deep is that? 20 feet? 50 feet?

Its very hard to cut and cover under main roads, railways, etc. so they
frequently put in a shallow tunnel.

There are plenty of situations on the M25 where existing roads and railways
have been put onto bridges. This would work for railways, too.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Jan 2, 5:29*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 31/12/2011 08:34, harry wrote:





On Dec 30, 9:10 pm, Andy *wrote:
On 30/12/2011 07:58, harry wrote:

On Dec 29, 4:48 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:33:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

The weight of the on board capacitors would in itself be an energy
store (kinetic energy).

And how do they get up to speed - magic pixie beans?

Stupid boy. You don't get anything for nothing.
But storing kinetic energy is far more efficient than charging/
discharging batteries.

Kinetic energy stored as vehicle momentum is of no use for accelerating
the vehicle. *At the time you need it it isn't there.

It's also of no use for climbing hills - the extra weight exactly
cancels out the extra KE.

In fact I can't think of a use for extra mass at all. *Except in a road
roller.

Andy

But it can be used for charging batteries. *Which is exactly what
happens in electric cars. *In ICE cars, it is lost.
Bad news during cornering though.

Harry,

Lets take two examples, a 1000kg car and a 2000kg one. *We'll give them
identical power trains.

Accelerate them to 10m/s (22mph, a traffic sort of speed) will take:

1/2 * 1000 * 10 * 10 = 50 kJ for the 1000Kg car
100kJ for the 2000Kg one.
Lighter is better.

We'll go along the road a bit. *Air drag is the same, rolling resistance
slightly higher for the heavier one.
Lighter is better.

Come to a stop. *Perhaps the recharge cycle is 80% efficient, so we get
back 40kJ for the lighter car, 80 for the heavy one.
The loss for the start-stop cycle is less for the lighter car.

As I say I can think of no case where heavy is better.

Andy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have a point there. But the question was about the recharge of
"supercapacitors" which is allegedly wear 100% efficient.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:38:40 +0000, Ghostrecon wrote:

There is data in the current financial figures to show this is indeed
happening.

facts, however true (or false) will never convince those if it doesnt fit
their preconceptions :-)

That's true (or false). :-))

Whatever ...

What has Gordon mac ****e-Features done with my pension ?

DerekG














On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:04:32 -0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:

To clear up the mythical Gordon Brown big debt:

Below: Note that Brown in 2008 was spending about the same as Major in 1992
and far less than Thatcher in 1983.

http://i54.tinypic.com/wbow0i.png

Below: It's not the level of spending that's important it is the deficit -
the difference between spending and revenue. As long as the chancellor
raises enough in taxes to cover his spending over the cycle there's not a
problem. Also the deficit gives you the full picture of the effect of the
recession where quite naturally both spending rises and tax revenues fall.
This is a graph of the deficit also to 2010.

http://i53.tinypic.com/jug3z9.png

The deficit went up in both the early 80s and the early 90s, due to two
recessions. As we came out of them the deficit fell and turned to surplus.
Then the deficit rose in the early part of the last decade. The UK was in
the 'longest period of sustained growth since the Industrial Revolution. The
borrowing was to fund infrastructure totally neglected by the Tories. Record
hospital and school building went on. When the deficit rose again due to the
recession it rose to dangerous levels, forcing us to make painful cuts to
avoid the fate of other countries like Ireland. From the Guardian:

"9 facts which George Osborne doesn't want us to know because they expose
the fiction that Labour spent all the money":

Fact 1:
In 2008, the first year of the UK recession, seven of the eight European
economies with a higher GDP per capita than the UK (Austria, Finland,
Holland, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden) also spent more as a % of GDP.
The single exception was Ireland, which not so long ago Osborne held up as
an example to the UK, and which has since suffered economic collapse.

Fact 2:
Average annual public spending as a % of GDP was lower in the years
1998-2010 (38%) than in the years 1980-1997 (40%) whereas average annual
taxation was the same at 36% of GDP.

Fact 3:
Public spending fell from 38% of GDP in 1997 to 35% in 2000. From 2000
onwards, the Labour government began to spend money on Tory neglected
run-down schools, roads, hospitals, etc. Thus public spending increased to
39% of GDP in 2007 - and then to 45% in 2010, as the effects of the
financial crisis took hold and the government rightly followed the Keynesian
rule that spending increases should be counter-cyclical.

Fact 4:
Margaret Thatcher described Blair as "my greatest legacy" because he had
rejected what she saw as Labour's core principle of "tax and spend".
Accordingly, Gordon Brown kept to the previous Conservative government's
spending plans for the first 3 years. But they had been elected to improve
neglected public services and so were committed to increase spending. Much
of New Labour's electoral success was due to its appeal to voters who wanted
it both ways - better schools and hospitals but no tax increases. Likewise,
much of the vitriol now directed at Gordon Brown comes from those same
fools.

Fact 5:
As for the structural deficit, this was only 3.5% of GDP when Brown left the
Treasury in 2007, compared to 4% in 1997 and an annual average of 5.5% in
the years 1992-1996. According to IFS data, the UK has run a structural
deficit for all but five of the last forty years. In fact, the last 3 Labour
governments managed to earn enough to cover their spending for 3 of their 13
years in office, whereas Thatcher and Major only managed balance the books
for 2 out of 17 years. Sure, austerity drones can blather on about economic
cycles, but the fact remains that New Labour's fiscal policies were little
different from those of the Thatcher and Major governments.

Fact 6:
Brown is often criticised for failing to reduce debt during an economic
upturn. Yet Labour reduced the national debt from 42% of GDP in 1997 to 35%
in 2008 - when it was lower than in 11 of the 18 years between 1979 and 1997
and lower than corporate debt (250% of GDP) and private debt (70% of GDP).
The national debt has been higher in 200 of the last 250 years than it was
in 2010, when it was 52% of GDP. In 1945 it was 237% of GDP and yet Attlee's
post-war Labour government was able to bear the costs of introducing the
welfare state and nationalising the railways, the public utilities and the
coal and steel industries. Maybe that was because in 1945 we really were
"all in it together".

Fact 7:
In 2010, the UK's national debt was the second lowest of the G7 countries
and, at less than 60% of GDP net of bank assets, was within Maastricht
Treaty limits. It is expected to peak at around 73%. Germany is already
above that level and is expected to exceed 80% in 2013. The debt levels of
Japan and Italy exceed 100% of GDP.

Fact 8:
In 2007, Cameron promised to stick to Labour's spending plans. Then came the
financial crisis, the damaging effects of which he now chooses to deny -
unlike Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, who told the Treasury
select committee that public spending cuts were the fault of the financial
sector (March 1st 2011). But it isn't surprising that Cameron is reluctant
to blame the banks, since he had previously criticised Gordon Brown for
regulating them too tightly - and more than half of the Tory Party's funding
comes from the City.

Fact 9:
Budget deficits are due to either excessive spending or an inadequate tax
take. Since it is clear that the problem is not the former (Facts 1-9), then
it must be the latter - which is around 36% of GDP compared to an EU average
of 40%, and is likely to be further aggravated when taxes are cut later
during this parliament to the benefit of high earners, corporations and
banks.

That Gordon Brown didn't overspend is indisputable. He did create the
longest period of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. Remember
his nickname "Prudence" and the praise lavished on him by the Tory press?
New Labour's obsession with market liberalisation put it somewhere in the
middle on the scale of (in)competence, but on the same scale, the present
Tory rabble lie on the far side of disastrous.

The Tory press has managed to convince the nation Brown was responsible for
the Credit Crunch as well.

To the policies of the current rabble. If, by cutting hard, you cripple
growth by a roughly concommittant amount, then the cuts achieve little
except the redistribution of wealth from poor to rich - since public funds
are disproportionately spent on the poor.

There is data in the current financial figures to show this is indeed
happening.

facts, however true (or false) will never convince those if it doesnt fit
their preconceptions :-)

On Jan 2, 6:07*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 31/12/2011 11:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



I don't know where you've been, but lots of conventional IC engined cars
now use their alternator to store energy when slowing.

No they dont.

BMW call it "Efficient Dynamics". *I suspect it makes F-all difference
though - just takes a little load off the engine while under load,
rather than storing it to accelerate with.

Andy

Well they would have to have somewhere to store this energy.

I seem to remember that BMW were working on an ICE that had few
mechanical parts, every thing was electric. Water pump, oil pump,
valves, cooling fan, steering, AC, fuel injection. They were using
heat from the exhaust with a thermopile to charge the battery,
therefore no alternator.
There was only a crankshaft, con rods valves and pistons. No camshaft.

Dunno what became of it.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

Old Labour - tax and spend

Spend in industry and education investment.

New Labour (and new old labour) - tax and borrow and spend

Brainwashed, I gave the figures, tax NEVER went up with Nu Labour. Read
it again and you can move your lips when reading it.

Income tax never went up,

Brainwashed, I gave the figures, tax NEVER went up with Nu Labour. Read it
again and you can move your lips when reading it.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
lid writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More weight to lug around and accelerate ..

One cancels the other out - batteries vs
heavy & bulky metal parts. You
eliminate a large heavy engine and
its large heavy transmission.

Try looking at the weight (and weight distribution)
of the Tesla you're so keen on. It is based on a
petrol engined car

There is the problem. It was not designed for battery packs. A car
designed with battery packs in mind would be designed for optimum weight
distribution and very low centre of gravity.

Once into full production of a dedicated EV/EV range extender car and the
essential batteries, prices will tumble as there are fewer parts.

Make a new years resolution

I must. I must not be idiotic like you.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Andy
Burns writes
Doctor Drivel wrote:

This was the year of the Northern Rock bail out.
The Credit Crunch had hit and banks bailed out - as in all western
countries.

And where do the pensions tax credit grab, 3G licence auction and oil
windfall tax fit in?

Apart from the "prudence period" during their first term, the deficit
was a runaway train.

And don't forget the sell off of eh gold reserves at the lowest price
for ages.

My God. Gold is near meaningless as money is "made up". They do not have
one pound of gold for each one pound note any longer. Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiish.

Gold

Gold is meaningless in the overall scheme of things.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

On Dec 31 2011, 9:09 am, Steve Firth wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
But how many of those eligible to vote were at that meeting?

Never actually counted them but in those days the meetings were
generally held in the open air just off site during lunch breaks
so I
guess the turn out would be pretty high.

If, as is claimed, there was massive successful intimidation,
surely
those wimps who couldn't stand up for themselves would simply stay
away
from the meeting?

Those who did stand up for themselves in King Arthur's. Coal War
continue
to suffer abuse and ostracism to this day. Calling those who didn't
want
to see their families suffering because the bread winner was "a scab"
wimps shows a massive lack of understanding on your part or a massive
dose of cynicism if you were actually aware of how dissenters within
the
unions are treated.

Bricks through your window on a daily basis tend to cause even strong
independent individuals to toe the line.

That is true. I have seen it myself. In the S Wales coalfields it is
carried down the generations, even though the mines are long closed.
The scabs and non scabs have to live in separate places. And their
children and grandchildren.

These Welsh know how to hold a grudge.

I doubt it applies to the Welsh in general, but I'm happy to label
those it
does apply to as a socio-retard.

A scab is a SCAB.

So tell us, drivel,

A scab is a SCAB.

On 31/12/2011 16:14, dennis@home wrote:

Extra mass in vehicles is never a good idea.
You need the lowest mass that will provide a safe environment for the
passengers and that is it.

Extra mass doesn't help when going up and down hills unless you think
doing 1 mph on the level and rolling down a hill up to 70(or whatever
the speed limit is) and then slowing down to 1 mph as you go up the
other side is actually useful. Driving at the speed limit means there is
nowhere to store any extra kinetic energy without speeding up which is
probably both illegal and dangerous.

Interesting thought that safety dictates you should _slow_ on the
_downhill_ because the braking distance increases...

Andy

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...


Brainwashed I gave the figures, tax NEVER went up with Nu Labour. Read
it again and you can move your lips when reading it.

We already know that is a lie.

Idiot, I gave the figures, tax NEVER went up with Nu Labour. Read it again
and you can move your lips when reading it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Not so. First sales were in Japan. The style of the Mk 1 was clearly
Japanese focused.

Style? That's a novel name for a train wreck.

This man is a senile knob.

On 31/12/2011 21:04, hugh wrote:
and subjected the residual value to55% inheritance tax, the highest tax
in the system.

The marginal tax rate for income between 100K and about 105K is 60%.
This consists of 40% income tax, plus another 20% because the allowances
are reduced by 50p for every pound, which brings another 50p into the
income tax bracket.

National Insurance adds another 2% (employees) and 13.8% (employers).

So 75.8% total.

Andy