In message , at
16:56:08 on Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Tim Streater
remarked:
Are you aware BTW that one reason for the guided bus was that the
Labour Govt said if you don't take this £95M towards it, you won't get
the A14 improvement. Since the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon is a ****ing
death-trap, that amounted to Hobson's choice.

And the next government cancelled the A14 improvement anyway. Oops.

Although the events were somewhat different, mindful that the guided bus
is mainly there to take people from a new town built on the Oakington
brown field site to Cambridge, avoiding the A14. Although due to the
recession, and a degree of confusion over whether it's supposed to be an
Eco-Town[tm] they haven't started building the houses yet.
--
Roland Perry

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim
That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

Dickhead

Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

Not without a battery or auxiliary power of some other sort, no..

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Ha ha v. funny. Road freight is at least 80% of the total. Our rail
network strains to take the other 20%. To make much difference you'd
have to make that 60/40, that is at least a doubling of the amount of
freight on the railway. Could you kindly indicate which lines you think
it's gonna be on? Why do you think I was suggesting going to four tracks
as much as possible? That way the slow freight could mix with the slow
local trains.

Freight often runs overnight. As you'd see if you catch any late trains
round London. And that could likely be increased.

20% may not sound like much, but putting that 20% on the roads would
cause chaos.

In 1959, I was working in an engineering works which had two wagonloads of
coal dropped by a train on the suburban line that ran past the factory.
One suspects that the decision to build then factory there was because of
the proximity of the line. Anyhow, the line was closed. About 30 tons of
coal then had to be brought in by lorry every day.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:18:48 -0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
'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.

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.


Just a bit more segregation - keep broken down trains separate from
working ones. So obvious...

--
Rod

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:09:55 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim
That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

Dickhead
Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

Not without a battery or auxiliary power of some other sort, no..

It strikes me that auxiliary power would be the key to making trolley
buses work well. With a good auxiliary system, it would be possible to run
wires along the roads but have breaks at junctions. And, allow run-arounds
for broken down vehicles, roadworks, etc. Far, far simpler and cheaper
than the amazing, complex systems necessary without such power.

Whether there is a viable auxiliary power system is another matter.

--
Rod

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim
That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

Dickhead

Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

Or the driver of the broken down trolleybus could lower his poles and
let others pass, if the poles could cope with the angles. London
trolleybuses used to be able to travel a mile using reserve battery
power, so would be able to pull into the side of the road if the motor
was still running.

You can't drop the poles on a moving vehicle, though, and it's great fun
trying to get them back onto the wires in a hurry, especially in the dark.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Dec 21, 5:25*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:30 am, Bill Wright wrote:
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

Both batteries and electric motors have moved forward hugely in the
efficiency stakes.

No they haven't. 95% efficient motors have been around forevere - at a
price. Battery efficiency is a function largely of the technology and
how hard you push them. Neither has changed

* Also, the electronic control sytems are typicallly

better than 95% efficient.
About town most losses are due to braking. *Aerodynamic drag is low
and friction is low with modern engines and lubricants.
On the motorway most losses are aerodynamic, the big one varies with
the square of speed.
*ie twice as fast *= four times the losses.

We now that harry- Hide quoted text -

But you don't know there's a k in know?

On Dec 21, 5:26*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim

That is where trolley buses come in.

I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

If it breaks down, you unhook it fromt he wires ****wit.

On Dec 21, 5:52*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim

That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

Dickhead

Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" *-- *Bill of Rights 1689

Trolley buses don't have pantographs because they can drive all over
the road, they have two poles which can be easily unhooked from the
wires.

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
Ha ha v. funny. Road freight is at least 80% of the total. Our rail
network strains to take the other 20%. To make much difference you'd
have to make that 60/40, that is at least a doubling of the amount of
freight on the railway. Could you kindly indicate which lines you
think it's gonna be on? Why do you think I was suggesting going to
four tracks as much as possible? That way the slow freight could
mix with the slow local trains.

Freight often runs overnight. As you'd see if you catch any late trains
round London. And that could likely be increased.

20% may not sound like much, but putting that 20% on the roads would
cause chaos.

That 20% is already on the roads. But if most freight already runs
overnight, there's a lot to be said for adding the extra tracks so more
of it can runs daytime too.

Course, a lot of e.g. Tesco big trucks are going to be refrigerated ...

on the other hand, I saw (about 10 years ago) it small train - only 2
ASDA containers - on the line from Inverness to Wick/Thurso. They
obviously found it more economical than road.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Dec 21, 6:09*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim
That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

Dickhead

Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

Not without a battery or auxiliary power of some other sort, no..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hello ****wit. The broken down bus disconnects his poles and all the
others can then pass. Breakdowns are very rare there is only one
moving part in the motor.

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
It strikes me that auxiliary power would be the key to making trolley
buses work well. With a good auxiliary system, it would be possible to
run wires along the roads but have breaks at junctions. And, allow
run-arounds for broken down vehicles, roadworks, etc. Far, far simpler
and cheaper than the amazing, complex systems necessary without such
power.

The ones in Glasgow all those years ago could certainly move a limited
distance on their batteries. For manoeuvering in the depot, etc. Snag with
going round a broken one is the time needed to unhitch the pickup and
reattach afterwards.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

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

On Dec 21, 6:26*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim
That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

Dickhead

Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

Or the driver of the broken down trolleybus could lower his poles and
let others pass, if the poles could cope with the angles. London
trolleybuses used to be able to travel a mile using reserve battery
power, so would be able to pull into the side of the road if the motor
was still running.

You can't drop the poles on a moving vehicle, though, and it's great fun
trying to get them back onto the wires in a hurry, especially in the dark..

--
Tciao for Now!

John.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are eyes on the poles and they are spring loaded upwards. The
wires are "8"section, there is a pinching device.
There was a long bamboo pole threaded under the bus for the purpose
ofhooking/unhooking wires.
Best laugh was when the bus went one way down a junction and the poles
went the other way. (Someof the junctions had automatic "points" but
sometimes they got out of sequence.
There was a manual ring for the conductor to pull to move the
"points" on most junctions.

On Dec 21, 6:41*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *polygonum wrote:

It strikes me that auxiliary power would be the key to making trolley
buses work well. With a good auxiliary system, it would be possible to
run wires along the roads but have breaks at junctions. And, allow
run-arounds for broken down vehicles, roadworks, etc. Far, far simpler
and cheaper than the amazing, complex systems necessary without such
power.

The ones in Glasgow all those years ago could certainly move a limited
distance on their batteries. For manoeuvering in the depot, etc. Snag with
going round a broken one is the time needed to unhitch the pickup and
reattach afterwards.


No time was needed. If a bus broke down, the conductor immediately
unhooked it so following buses could pass.
It was then towed away in due course.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Ha ha v. funny. Road freight is at least 80% of the total. Our rail
network strains to take the other 20%. To make much difference you'd
have to make that 60/40, that is at least a doubling of the amount
of freight on the railway. Could you kindly indicate which lines
you think it's gonna be on? Why do you think I was suggesting going
to four tracks as much as possible? That way the slow freight
could mix with the slow local trains.

Freight often runs overnight. As you'd see if you catch any late
trains round London. And that could likely be increased.

20% may not sound like much, but putting that 20% on the roads would
cause chaos.

That 20% is already on the roads.

Could you explain the maths to me?

But if most freight already runs
overnight, there's a lot to be said for adding the extra tracks so more
of it can runs daytime too.

Adding track is pretty expensive. If not it would already have been done
to reduce passenger overcrowding. But I don't think overnight freight
capacity is anywhere near maximum.

Course, a lot of e.g. Tesco big trucks are going to be refrigerated ...

No reason why rail freight can't be refrigerated.

--
*Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.

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

In article
,
harry wrote:
Breakdowns are very rare there is only one
moving part in the motor.

But lots of control gear for that motor...

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:41:10 -0000, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
It strikes me that auxiliary power would be the key to making trolley
buses work well. With a good auxiliary system, it would be possible to
run wires along the roads but have breaks at junctions. And, allow
run-arounds for broken down vehicles, roadworks, etc. Far, far simpler
and cheaper than the amazing, complex systems necessary without such
power.

The ones in Glasgow all those years ago could certainly move a limited
distance on their batteries. For manoeuvering in the depot, etc. Snag
with
going round a broken one is the time needed to unhitch the pickup and
reattach afterwards.


I really can't believe that we could not manage to have the whole
hooking/unhooking automated.

--
Rod

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article
,
harry wrote:

Trolley buses don't have pantographs because they can drive all over
the road, they have two poles which can be easily unhooked from the
wires.

I know that you soppy date, I just didn't know what the term is (if
there is one), so I used pantograph instead.

Um, trolleys :-)

--
Graeme

In message , Terry Fields
writes

Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sit at a pavement cafe in London's West End as the crawling diesels of the
taxis, vans and buses hurt your ears and belch out smoke. When a Pius crawls
past with the rest of them past the absence of noise is heaven.

That's because the real pollution, from the manufacture of its parts,
is created and left elsewhere in the world.

Terry Fields
Not to mention the "cost" of replacement batteries.
--
hugh

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
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 on the frequency..and speed, and the car! actually AIR noise is
higher at high speeds.

Go to an F1 race and tell me most noise is from the tyres :-)
F1 cars don't have silencers.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16244634


"It was later established that the bus had run out of diesel."

Just like a Pious, then. Half decent fuel consumption in start stop town
traffic, but far worse than a conventional vehicle at near steady speed
motorway, etc, work.

I've oft wondered why they don't use LPG for busses? Virtually no
pollution other than CO2. Engines are much quieter too.

They do use CNG on the continent.
--
hugh

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

--
Tim
That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair
of wires..

Dickhead
Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

Not without a battery or auxiliary power of some other sort, no..

The broken down trolleybus takes down its pantograph so the next one can
drive around it.
Simples
--
hugh

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Dec 21, 5:52*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*The Natural Philosopher wrote:

harry wrote:

Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to
overtake comes into play.

That is where trolley buses come in.
I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of
wires..

Dickhead

Is it possible in a pinch that the driver could pull down his
pantograph, drive round the stricken trolley-bus, and connect up again?

Trolley buses don't have pantographs because they can drive all over
the road, they have two poles which can be easily unhooked from the
wires.

I know that you soppy date, I just didn't know what the term is (if
there is one), so I used pantograph instead.

Geneva (where I lived for 12 years), has a large number of trolley buses.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne had them in the 60s. Brilliant, so quiet. Not
suitable for one-man operation though for reason already mentioned
--
hugh

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
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. Most roads in UK
cities are not wide enough.



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.


Traffic in Cambridge is screwed which is as it ever was and ever will be
world without end ..

... Amen;(...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
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. Most roads in UK
cities are not wide enough.

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.

Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels right
under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big underground
station that maybe linking with the mainline station.

Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea!



It will of course never happen as there are too many people here who
will protest as they are wont to do;(..
--
Tony Sayer

Railway anoraks need to understand, as I've said before, that no mode of
transport has an automatic right to exist. 150 years ago trains were the
bizz because there was no alternative. That ain't true anymore.

Well the lines that are in use to London from Cambridge are very heavily
used by commuter traffic and some freight passes through here
unhindered still...


--
Tony Sayer

Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea!

if price were no object - and frankly with these huge
renewable/eco/white elephant/my towns green dick is bigger than
yours/misguided bus/ type projects it seldom is - its a VERY sane
approach to organising what Cambridge actually wants and needs -
essentially a parkland/pedestrian/cycling/disabled only/ surface, and
still the ability to get people in and out efficiently (and goods and
materials), and of course still have an airfield as well.

Of course they would ruin it by covering it with solar panels, but
that's the stupidity of Cambridge.


The real stupidity was developing the town centre with large shopping
centres. It should have been left what its best at a pedestrianised
small medieval town centre and then they ought to have had a decent ring
road system with the shopping etc out on that...

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

snip drivel

but there's a *reason* that Tesco et al use 44 tonners to resupply
their stores

Because their stores do have rail lines to them.

I'll assume you mean *don't*.

Yes, and in fact most places don't have rail lines to them. So if you
ship stuff by rail that means two changes instead of none.

The idea of shipping containers is that they can be transshipped between
road and rail (& sea) without unloading.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:51:39 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote
:
The Prius is better all around in mpg.

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

Real world: I had one on hire for two weeks when back in the UK in
June - brim to brim checked consumption was 62mpg over 1000 miles
of mixed driving.

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

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:59:46 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
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.

It is an issue, reckoning is that 20% don't pay

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/on...828-1jgno.html

but this dates back to getting rid of conductors on trams. Even the older
trams have multiple entrances for speed of loading/unloading passengers.

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

In message
,
harry writes
On Dec 20, 10:53*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
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

None, they charge with their own diesel engine,
You charge solar panels at night with a diesel engine? I need to go and
lie down.
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
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.

About 8% of the population live in the countryside. Lets say 10%, which
is 6 million. The countryside is empty. 60 million people live in 24
million "dwellings". 24 million dwellings sit on approx 4.4 million
acres (7.7% of the land).

Over 90% of the population now live in urbanised areas, the second
highest percentage in Europe, leaving the countryside virtually empty.
This crams near 55 million of the population into around 7% of the
land, which is only 4.2 million acres out of a UK total of 60 million
acres. 60 million people own just 6% of the land. 0.3% of the
population own 69% of the land.

The prime country industry, agriculture is largely uneconomic. It is
cheaper to import food. The planning regs are geared to give a
lifestyle to these people, while planning in cities creates misery for
many. Their industry is subsidised to the hilt.

And about 75% of the people who live in the countryside are city
dwellers who have moved out and ow protest vociferously about relaxing
planning laws ti enable more people to do the same.
--
hugh

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Clive George wrote:

Much less stinky too. Cambridge had some CNG ones in the 90s (might
still do, don't know), and though the smell was a bit odd there wasn't
much of it and they were much more pleasant to be around.

Brisbane was very fresh smelling - I put it down to all the busses and taxis
being LPG.

China is encouraging taxi LPG conversions too.

As we did in the UK for a while but then the last government suddenly
changed the rules because it was claimed that it wasn't cutting CO2
emissions- which was never the argument for using LPG in the first
place.
--
hugh

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:

In article , Tim
Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

snip drivel

but there's a *reason* that Tesco et al use 44 tonners to resupply
their stores

Because their stores do have rail lines to them.

I'll assume you mean *don't*.

Yes, and in fact most places don't have rail lines to them. So if you
ship stuff by rail that means two changes instead of none.

The idea of shipping containers is that they can be transshipped between
road and rail (& sea) without unloading.

Gosh you mean we ship stuff around in containers, even by rail? [1] I
though the luddite unions so beloved of the likes of drivel saw such
ideas off in the 70s.

There's a large interchange (rail/road) container place near Rugby (M1/A5
junction). there may be others, but I happened to have passed that one.

And how does that work for refrigerated ones? I assume a lot of the
Tesco/Sainsbury/etc stuff goes in such trucks.

When a refrigerated lorry goes on to a ferry it has the facilty to take
external power. I would imagine that containers have a similar facility.

[1] Irony.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 21/12/2011 11:37, Tim Streater wrote:

Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea!

Reckon the scuba equipment will be provided by the tunnel owners?

Wot, like it is in the Chunnel?

I think even Drivel would spot that the Chunnel wasn't cut and cover....

Neil Williams wrote:

On Dec 21, 4:43 pm, Tim Watts wrote:

No we don't. I don't think my salary would stretch to living in Drury
Lane or anywhere near it...

But in the end taking that job with the commute is a choice.



It might however be that the other choice is highly undesirable, e.g.
unemployment, and thus that it was not a viable one.

Exactly...

The real problem is getting over the mindset that a majority of big
employers like being in London, when they could operate just as well from
many random sites.

Mine is a bit special, being University of London, so they are unlikely to
move to Sussex ;-

But at least I have a working at home day guaranteed. In fact, when I return
in January, it will have been nearly 4 weeks since they have actually seen
me, due to working nights from home doing a massive vmware systems
migration.

Which rather goes to show how useless my 3 hour commute is. The only time I
needed to be there was to physically install the equipment. Even my humble
broadband connection in the sticks gave me a similar "feel" for the systems
to when I am at work.

I'm going to request 2 days/week working from home now

Which, really, is the way to solve this whole rediculous problem of millions
of people sitting on trains and in cars every day - get as many people whose
jobs permit working out of their houses - or in small satellite offices
dotted around. It's the way forward. Then the people whose presence is
actually required will have an easier time of it too.

This is the sort of thing that will not happen by itself - it needs some
incentive, such as taxing the hell out of city premises or something. But
that won't happen...
--
Tim Watts

harry wrote:


There are eyes on the poles and they are spring loaded upwards. The
wires are "8"section, there is a pinching device.
There was a long bamboo pole threaded under the bus for the purpose
ofhooking/unhooking wires.
Best laugh was when the bus went one way down a junction and the poles
went the other way. (Someof the junctions had automatic "points" but
sometimes they got out of sequence.
There was a manual ring for the conductor to pull to move the
"points" on most junctions.

The old trollybusses in Riga (1997) were even simpler:

Flexible cable from each pole ran down to a sping loaded retractor spool on
the back of the bus (think hoover cable rewind). To move the pole, conductor
pulled on the wire. Very simple

There was some sort of hook on the pole and the vehicle which could be used
to latch the pole down to if required.


--
Tim Watts

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
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.


No we don't. I don't think my salary would stretch to living in Drury
Lane or anywhere near it...

You'd be surprised how many 'cheap' properties there are very close to
even Drury Lane. Certainly within that 3 mile bike ride you mentioned
earlier. But of course you may not choose to live in them.

I'd prefer to not have crackheads or tarts[1] for my neighbours.

[1] Nothing against tarts per se - the problem would be their crack addled
boyfriends/toms/customers.

So no different from those who have say an average house or flat in London
'worth' say 400 grand and decide they'd rather have a much larger one
elsewhere.



--
Tim Watts

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:51:39 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote
:
The Prius is better all around in mpg.

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

Real world: I had one on hire for two weeks when back in the UK in
June - brim to brim checked consumption was 62mpg over 1000 miles
of mixed driving.

And I've done, in my Dizzle C4, Canterbury to Liverpool and got 60mpg on
the trip. Of course this does involve not driving like the wannabee
Neapolitan drivers we see on our motorways these days.


I got 61mpg from Heathrow to Sussex in a regular diesel touran, so that
doesn't say much for a Prius...

--
Tim Watts

hugh wrote:


And about 75% of the people who live in the countryside are city
dwellers who have moved out and ow protest vociferously about relaxing
planning laws ti enable more people to do the same.

The problem with the planning laws are they have this bee in their bonnet
about town/village development boundaries.

If you let people buy a bit of farmland and stick 1-4 houses on it with the
condition that build-build distance was say 1/4 mile, the countryside
would be preserved and villages would not be shoehorned to bursting with
rabbit hutches. There's an awful lot of green space down here and having a
house or small bunch of houses every 1/4-1/2 mile would not ruin that, as
you can see when you pass exactly such houses that sprang up pre-planning-
laws.

Infrastructure is more of a problem, but electricity, water and phones are
fairly easy to drop in. Drains are more of a problem, so such places would
probably need a klargester type setup.

My make it less atractive to property developers, but I bet plenty of well
off types would build their own, which in turn would free up housing in the
twons and villages.

--
Tim Watts