On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:34:59 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

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.

Likely full of bog rolls.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:59:25 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

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.

It wasn't deep enough.

It certainly wasn't tall enough inside - it can't carry the larger
trucks, they still have to go around.
Total ****ing cockup.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:44:17 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Supercapacitor buses

Where might one find these wondrous creations, o'Drivel?

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:18:08 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

. 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.

Don't cross your eyes then, it's bad for you.

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

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..

Glasgow trolley buses had just that. They moved under their own power,
albeit slowly, so could in fact overtake a broken down one, or
relocate to the other side of the road.
The low speed indicated to me the battery pack wasn't very large.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:50:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

No time was needed. If a bus broke down, the conductor immediately
unhooked it so following buses could pass.

On every junction? I think not.
More than once I saw them stuck in awkward positions, so that
unhooking the overtaking one was needed, or there was a problem with
the supply on that stretch, etc.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:36:04 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

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.

Rare is relative, I suppose. Sure, the majority of them ran night and
day quite reliably, but breakdowns did occur.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:00:22 +0000 (UTC), Jules Richardson
wrote:

Live around cows then

Cows can't drive, you buffoon!

We don' need no stinkin' traffic...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1550911...ream/lightbox/

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:48:39 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

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!

Easily solved by having a cheery tune from a PA speaker under the
front bumper.
If it's Drivel's I'd suggest the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy.

Tony Bryer wrote:

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

I think that people who don't pay should be taken out and shot in front
of their families.

bill

hugh wrote:

And about 75% of the people who live in the countryside are city
dwellers

Could you give me the source for this figure?

Bill

hugh wrote:
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.

As I said depends on the car..

hugh wrote:
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

If the poles will stretch and there is room.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

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...

Sure. I've used that line on many occasions. It's very busy a lot of the
time. I can't see the point of the Cambridge - Newmarket line though.


That's because you don't live in Newmarket. Or indeed go to the races...

Ive used that line a few times..quite a few people do queue up on the
platform in the morning..

However it fails the usual subsidised route tests..not enough trains to
be useful except if you are commuting at predetermined hours.



Had a train bust down on it once - the driver tried a number of times to
reboot it (his words), to no avail. We were stuck near Stevenage for
about 90 mins, during which time *no* GNER trains passed us, even on the
slow line (hence my notes about trains overtaking).

tony sayer wrote:
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...

+1

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

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...

1) Was that how it was in Petty Cury previously? Before my time there if
so.

Largely yes.

2) They seem to be trying to do that on the Newmarket Road but good luck
travelling on *that* road in rush hour.

Indeed

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.

Unless you're suggesting that every house and place of business should
have its own rail line.


That was the 19th century reality: that or a canal..at elast of you
wanted large amounts of material delivered.

Today you build them as 'out of town' retail sites just off motorways.

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.

BIL got 65mpg on 80 mph trips from Norfolk to Bracknell no problem -
Skoda Octavia IIRC.

hugh wrote:

And about 75% of the people who live in the countryside are city
dwellers

? I think that says it all about you Hugh.

Alan Braggins wrote:
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....
So you think that the water issue is to do with having a leaky cover?

Tim Watts wrote:
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...


SWMBO was commuting to a job in the City she could do BETTER from home.
(graphic designer) she was able to do three more hours a day and save
£10k p.a. in travelling and 'pret a manger' costs..

She asked if she could do it permanently (and not just when the trains
broke down).

NO.

She left.

The actual loss in net income from a 30K+ job in the city was less than
10k net.

I have at least two other friends who work as subcontractors entirely
from home.

It will happen because its cheaper.

What is needed is for crap managers who cant manage except by holding
meetings and waffling to be sacked, and crap businesses to fold.

wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:44:17 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Supercapacitor buses

Where might one find these wondrous creations, o'Drivel?

In drivels largactylite brain.

On Dec 21, 8:14*pm, hugh ] wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They still have them in many places. I last had a ride in Sao Paulo.
Dunno why they got rid of them.

On Dec 21, 8:25*pm, "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.

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.

Nothing has replaced the train. Look at the amount of passengers or freight
they carry in one train.

Electrification of all remaining lines and consequent dumping of diesel
make also have some impact, but I don't know the cost implications there
at all. But it's a better way of spending 25 billyun quid.

You really have not a clue!

I think if they build HS2, common mortals won't be able to afford the
fares.

On Dec 21, 8:30*pm, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

That is where trolley buses come in.

They are a waste of time.

So what is your experience of them?

On Dec 21, 10:04*pm, hugh ] wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you being funny or just mentally torpid?

On Dec 21, 10:12*pm, hugh ] wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

True. But they DON'Twant others out there.

On Dec 21, 10:17*pm, hugh ] wrote:
In message , Tim Watts
writesClive 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

LPG powered vehicles have their own peculiar nasty stink. Worse than
petrol.
Unless they have a cat.

On Dec 21, 10:36*pm, 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.


You can go to Australia by train/ferry. It takes 21days if you don't
miss any connections.

On Dec 21, 10:52*pm, charles wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tch. They have a diesal powered refrigeration mounted externally on
international refrigerated containers, haven't you seen them?

On Dec 21, 6:53*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
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...


There were tappings on the field winding and a big tapped resistor
for speed control.
The resistor was used as a "coasting brake" down hills. No
regenerative braking on ours back then.
But no oil air/oil filters etc,
Lots of maintenence on the overhead wires.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:14:17 -0000, Tim Watts wrote:

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.


And the trams in Riga have properly designed track loops at route ends.

--
Rod

On Dec 22, 12:14*am, Tim Watts wrote:
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

Huh. Ours disappeared in the 1960's.

On 22/12/2011 01:46, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:48:39 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

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!

Easily solved by having a cheery tune from a PA speaker under the
front bumper.
If it's Drivel's I'd suggest the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy.

Funnily enough there was a piece about this on that depressing Radio4
consumer whinging program You&Yours at lunchtime yesterday and a Harmon
Kardon have employed a record producer as a consultant to make up
synthetic engine noises for electric cars (I kid you not). One was what
you expect and the other sounded like space invaders on acid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b018flk0

From 40:40 into the broadcast. Warning! This programme is so tedious
that it makes Vogon poetry sound exciting by comparison.

Regards,
Martin Brown

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

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?

I suspect he means that almost all non-bulk rail freight is moved to the
railhead by road.

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.

A lot of track is closed overnight for maintenance, as it's too busy to
close during the day.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:30:09 -0000, harry wrote:


I think if they build HS2, common mortals won't be able to afford the
fares.

There, for once, I agree. And what crazy journey would I have to take to
be able to use it? Yes - go down the commuter routes into London... With
the additional cost and time and awkwardness that implies. I don't see any
reason to expect a real improvement in journey times from here to oop
north.

--
Rod

On Dec 22, 1:29*am, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:50:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

No time was needed. If a bus broke down, the conductor immediately
unhooked it so following buses could pass.

On every junction? I think not.
More than once I saw them stuck in awkward positions, so that
unhooking the overtaking one was needed, or there was a problem with
the supply on that stretch, etc.

How could it overtake if it was unhooked?
I think you're making all this up.

On Dec 22, 3:25*am, Bill Wright wrote:
hugh wrote:
And about 75% of the people who live in the countryside are city
dwellers

Could you give me the source for this figure?

Bill

He's probably right. I was one of them.

On Dec 22, 5:35*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
hugh wrote:
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

If the poles will stretch and there is room.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are/were.

harry wrote:
On Dec 22, 1:29 am, wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:50:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

No time was needed. If a bus broke down, the conductor immediately
unhooked it so following buses could pass.
On every junction? I think not.
More than once I saw them stuck in awkward positions, so that
unhooking the overtaking one was needed, or there was a problem with
the supply on that stretch, etc.

How could it overtake if it was unhooked?
I think you're making all this up.

Most, if not all, trolleybuses have a small battery pack on board for
moving the vehicle round the depot or travelling along short sections of
road where there is no overhead supply for some reason. Most of them can
travel up to a mile at about 20mph, which is enough to bypass roadworks
or a broken down bus.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.