In message , charles
writes
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.

Helioslough (sp) are struggling to get planning consent for one East of
St. Albans.

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.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On Dec 22, 8:53*am, polygonum wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why? The driver just walked up to the other end in our trams?
The trolley buses mostly did a loop through local housing estates at
our terminii.

"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

One train can take 50 trucks off the roads.


50 trucks can go to 50 different places.

I have yet to see a Tesco with its own branch line.

Trucks on motorways don't cause anymore of a jam than cars on a motorway.

Its cheaper to load a truck and drive it to its destination and then unload
it than it is to load a truck, drive it to a rail yard, unload it, load it,
pay inflated ASLEF pay, unload it, load it, drive it to its destination and
unload it.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:


"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
...

One train can take 50 trucks off the roads.


50 trucks can go to 50 different places.

I have yet to see a Tesco with its own branch line.

Trucks on motorways don't cause anymore of a jam than cars on a motorway.

actually, they do. When one truck travelling at 49.7mph 'overtakes'
another travelling at 49.5mph and then (and I've experienced this) a third
truck doing 50mph tries to pass the other pair.

The jam is large, I can assure you.

Its cheaper to load a truck and drive it to its destination and then
unload it than it is to load a truck, drive it to a rail yard, unload
it, load it, pay inflated ASLEF pay, unload it, load it, drive it to its
destination and unload it.

That's why containers were invented.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:28:40 -0000, harry wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:53 am, polygonum wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why? The driver just walked up to the other end in our trams?
The trolley buses mostly did a loop through local housing estates at
our terminii.

I wrote "trams" not trolley buses.

At minus some large negative number of degrees and thick with snow, I
guess the driver would rather NOT walk round.

It allows very easily for two trams (or more) to be at the end of the
route. E.g. one arrives and waits a few minutes before it is time to go
back into the city. In the meantime a second one can arrive and disgorge
its passengers.

It also allows that if a tram does breakdown, it can be pushed to and left
on the loop (at the loss of the other advantages)

--
Rod

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
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.

Everyone who wants to live a long way for work will always give the
reasons. It's their choice. But then surely have to accept the cost etc of
travelling?

--
*How come you never hear about gruntled employees? *

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
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...

It's common to give the very best MPG that can be achieved under ideal
conditions. Dribble being the obvious one for this.

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

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

In article
,
harry wrote:
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.

Merton council (close to here) have all their municipal vehicles LPG
powered. Dustcarts, etc. Very noticeable by the lack of engine noise and
exhaust smell, compared to the more usual diesel.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

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

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
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.

Yes - just what you'd expect from a type like that. The 'genuine' engine
sound was dreadful too - with what sounded like an out of adjustment
tappet.

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.

Interesting. To be sure of this you'd have had to have listened to many.
Why?

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

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

In article
,
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.

Sigh. They had batteries to allow such things in the ones used in Glasgow
some 60 years ago.

--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.

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

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

It's common to give the very best MPG that can be achieved under ideal
conditions. Dribble being the obvious one for this.

As a diesel Touran owner (auto admittedly), I reckon that figure could only
be achieved by some serious pussyfooting and/or a strong tail wind.

Tim

polygonum wrote:


At minus some large negative number of degrees and thick with snow, I
guess the (tram) driver would rather NOT walk round.

Substitute through for round. Although there are some outside checks
that probably need to be made at the end of each trip, especially on
modern trams working in multiple.

It allows very easily for two trams (or more) to be at the end of the
route. E.g. one arrives and waits a few minutes before it is time to go
back into the city. In the meantime a second one can arrive and disgorge
its passengers.

It also allows that if a tram does breakdown, it can be pushed to and
left on the loop (at the loss of the other advantages)

Twin track is common on tram routes, and a pair of crossovers is better
than a loop and almost as cheap to build. Single track tram routes are a
pain to operate, and have much less than half the capacity of a twin
track, for (As a guess) about two thirds of the cost.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"harry" wrote in message
...
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?

Huge is never funny.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Everyone who wants to live a long way for work will always give the
reasons. It's their choice. But then surely have to accept the cost
etc of travelling?

There's a difference between "accept the cost etc" and being treated like
**** by robbers.

Let me quote you:-

'Odd. You're normally a rather sensible, if somewhat argumentative person.
Have you omitted your medication lately?'

You make it sound as though rail is the only form of travel. There are
coaches, taxis, private cars, etc. Even helicopters. You presumably chose
rail because it was the best compromise.

It would be nice to hear of a mass transit system anywhere in the world
that is economical to use, not crowded at peak times, and not subsidised.

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


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.

I'm just going to add to that - at High Brooms, N. Tunbridge Wells, there is
a "rent-an-office" megabuilding, near the railway station, accessible from
the A21 and plenty of parking, on an industrial estate that is going
boomtime with retail - Asda, M&S, Argos etc.

Those sort of rent-an-office could potentially take off as micro centres for
larger companies. Rent one room or 3, stretch the company network down and
phone system down, have your staff together in small groups (for those jobs
that aren't quite so practical to homework, or where people do actually want
to escape their house). Totally flexible, not much admin overhead...

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.

A previous bunch were like that that. "Oooh, it might set a precedent..." So
what?

Current bunch are happy as for half the week I don't see any given half of
the people are they are all working from home.

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.


Or aid staff retention. Mine don't pay so well as a certain other ex-London
University college, but OTOH I don't need to pay for the tube with this lot
(walking distance from Charing X) and I'm likely to stay because they are
very flexible with working arrangements as long as stuff gets done, which it
does.

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

Yep. Sadly, with bigger companies, the inertia between the causality of crap
management and the result of implosion seems to take forever...

--
Tim Watts

Doctor Drivel wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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

Only 7.7% of the country is settled. How much do you want preserved?

Exactly my point. Planners are so obsessed with containing development, that
we get the situation of villages being developed into towns and rabbit-hutch
crap housing - when in fact, as you rightly spotted, you could spread people
wide and thin and I do not think it would have any negative impact on the
feeling of the counryside.

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.

So, infrastructure is not a problem then.

I said "more of a". Barrats are probably not going to like building 3 houses
down a farm track compared to an estate of 50 houses. All I'm saying is open
th possibility as I bet there will beplenty of self builders and small
building firms who would jump at the chance.

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.

You sort of nearly got it.

As long as it's not what you've got..

--
Tim Watts

harry wrote:

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.

Common mortals can't afford HS1.
--
Tim Watts

Doctor Drivel wrote:


But I see everyone forgets the Chevy Volt. In fact no one mentions it
except me.

What's Barry the local salesman doing to you for your vociferous and
frequent mentions?

Actually, don't answer that - I've just eaten.

--
Tim Watts

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
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.

Everyone who wants to live a long way for work will always give the
reasons. It's their choice. But then surely have to accept the cost etc of
travelling?


I "choose" to keep breathing, but it's not really much of a choice...

--
Tim Watts

Tim wrote:

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

It's common to give the very best MPG that can be achieved under ideal
conditions. Dribble being the obvious one for this.

As a diesel Touran owner (auto admittedly), I reckon that figure could
only be achieved by some serious pussyfooting and/or a strong tail wind.

Tim

I set out to get good MPG as a test - but it was really nothing more than
keeping a constant speed following the lorries instead of lead footing and
overtaking all the time.

--
Tim Watts

In article , lid
says...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

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

They must have rail lines and ignored them

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.

Most is shipped by rail. More should be. The only Luddites was the
outdated Tory party. Thatcher who for spite outsourced manufacturing to the
Far East decimating UK manufacturing industry.

There wasn't much left by the time Thatcher arrived on the scene!

The Luddites had already exported the London Docks to Rotterdam and our
car manufacturing industry to Europe and the Far East. Ditto ship
building.

In the late 50s I watched as BR built a massive new marshalling yard to
handle the container traffic from Tilbury. Thanks to the dockers'
efforts, the trade didn't materialise and the yard laid idle. In the
meantime, ASLEF made the railways so unreliable that most rail users had
switched to road haulage by the time the container traffic finally
arrived.

At around the same time I recall a couple of extremely lengthy disputes
which brought the shipyards to a standstill. Both were demarcation
disputes.

One was about whose job it was to hold the bucket that caught the hot
rivet, ready for the rivetter to fit. The other was about whose job it
was to twang the string that made the chalk line on the steel plate to
show where it was to be cut.

A couple of years later, as the orders dried up and yards were being
closed, I recall the unions demanding that the government should do
something about it ...

--

Terry

Tim Watts wrote:

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

In addition to your other points, this also leads to perfectly good
houses being knocked down in villages because of their land value, and
two or more hitches built on the plot. Where's the environmental sense
in that?

Bill

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:28:40 -0000, harry wrote:

On Dec 22, 8:53 am, polygonum wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Why? The driver just walked up to the other end in our trams?
The trolley buses mostly did a loop through local housing estates at
our terminii.

I wrote "trams" not trolley buses.

At minus some large negative number of degrees and thick with snow, I
guess the driver would rather NOT walk round.


No need. Simply install an automatic trolley pole reverser.

It consists of a simple delta arrangement of the overhead with sprung
points at the three intersections. When the tram arrives at the
terminal, the trolley pole goes straight on past the delta.

When the tram leaves, the trolley pole is pushed ahead of it and forks
off onto the delta, swinging round as the tram proceeds. Once the pole
reaches 90 degrees to the direction of travel, it reverses direction and
is pulled conventionally onto the third leg of the delta and back onto
the main overhead.

A model showing the principle can be seen he

http://www.gordonstrams.net/SDTvidpage.htm

Off course, modern trams use pantographs, which are bi-directional,
anyway ...

--

Terry

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

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

In addition to your other points, this also leads to perfectly good
houses being knocked down in villages because of their land value, and
two or more hitches built on the plot. Where's the environmental sense
in that?

it depends on what you mean by a "perfectly good house". I reckon ours is,
but it's a hundred years old with no cavity walls, so some people might not
think it is "perfectly good".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Tim Watts wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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
Only 7.7% of the country is settled. How much do you want preserved?

Exactly my point. Planners are so obsessed with containing development, that
we get the situation of villages being developed into towns and rabbit-hutch
crap housing - when in fact, as you rightly spotted, you could spread people
wide and thin and I do not think it would have any negative impact on the
feeling of the counryside.

It would.


However the real issue is to study the economics of cost of living in
various settlement types.

You will find its a balance between the movement of goods to people,
people to goods (shopping) and people to work and goods to work etc etc.

No one scenario fits all situations.

In message , Bill Wright
writes
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
Survey by NFU Mutual Insurance - results published in national press.
--
hugh

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:43:51 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

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.


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

Yes, because the ship's captain would be dead happy about all those
engines hammering away downstairs with no fume exhausts to outside,
apart from the fire danger.

In message
,
harry writes
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.
Having owned an LPG V8 Land Rover for abut 10 years I can say that is
utter rubbish. One of my sales gimmicks (used to do conversions) was to
crouch down by the exhaust outlet and challenge any owner of a petrol
engined car to do the same with theirs.
The cat has virtually no impact whatsoever on an LPG fuelled car and I
know many people take them of and still pass the omissions test.

If there is any smell at all it's the odour that is deliberately added
to domestic LPG for the detection of leaks as propane is odourless as
are the products of its combustion - CO2 & H20
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
harry wrote:
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.

Merton council (close to here) have all their municipal vehicles LPG
powered. Dustcarts, etc. Very noticeable by the lack of engine noise and
exhaust smell, compared to the more usual diesel.

Unusual to have larger vehicles on LPG. Are you sure it's not CNG?
--
hugh

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:36:39 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

That is where Parry People Movers come in.

Are these canoes or foam-filled septic tanks?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:02:42 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

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?

On-board battery reserve, enough for manouevering.

I think you're making all this up.

Then you don't know as much as you think you do.
Hint: I'm not the only one here who has observed the above.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You make it sound as though rail is the only form of travel. There are
coaches, taxis, private cars, etc. Even helicopters. You presumably
chose rail because it was the best compromise.

Come off it. Commuting by rail into London is a monopoly. You know it, I
know it and most importantly, the TOCs know it.

Strange. And I thought you both owned a vehicle and could drive. There
will also likely be a coach or bus service.

They're well aware that they can treat their customers as badly as they
like and charge them as much as they can legally get away and that the
vast majority of them can't do anything about it.

My journey to work by train was both comfortable and reasonably priced.
Actually cheaper in real terms than the accepted mileage rate for my size
of car. However, I live towards the centre of London but worked on the
outside. So was travelling against the rush hour flow.


Besides, what are you getting so argumentative about? You keep repeating
that people have choices, and indeed I do. I exercised that choice; not
to be treated like **** by robbers. Why is that a problem for you?

Well, you've been moaning about rail travel for as long as I've known you.
If it really was such a pain, why put up with it for so long?

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

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

In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
One was about whose job it was to hold the bucket that caught the hot
rivet, ready for the rivetter to fit. The other was about whose job it
was to twang the string that made the chalk line on the steel plate to
show where it was to be cut.

And, of course, after debating this in parliament, all the tory MPs went
down to the kitchen to make their own dinner...

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

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

wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 03:25:17 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

And about 75% of the people who live in the countryside are city
dwellers
Could you give me the source for this figure?

I can't give a figure, but passing through many villages in England
illustrated to me the figure is quite high. A helluva high percentage
of villages have been gutted of their local shops and amenities as
incomers tend to bulk-buy in the nearest town. Of course the other
segment, the weekenders are a curse in many ways, not least for the
way they priced housing out of the reach of locals.

People move. People always have moved.

I lived for many years on a Fen outside Cambridge. The last man who
could say 'I was born here' told me that once it had had over 500
people, three pubs and two churches 'and one o' them I accidentally set
fire to in the 20's'.

When I was there, it had no more than 25 people living on it.
Everything else had vanished - though there were a few bramble covered
derelict houses and collapsed heaps of tiles to be found everywhere.
They all wanted to live in the village where water,electricity, roads
and drainage existed.

I would expect that its the new housing estate these days..

Most of the people who are in towns today were country dwellers years
ago, or their ancestors were.

I dont have an objection to having a debate about best use of land and
so on but what I don't want its to see what happened in Surrey - where I
hail from - happen elsewhere. In short utter and total suburbanisation
and Londonisation of tracts of land.

With people moving in to whom the land has no meaning or interest beyond
a place to park their new hutches and park their cars.

The last time I wandered over 'my' part of the North downs on FOOT I met
LESS people than 45 years ago when I was a boy. More than 200 yards away
from the road, there is nothing except the hum of the M25..

And thereby hangs my point. Suburban people don't want to live in the
country: they come to me and say 'gosh, isn't it dangerous with no speed
limit? Shouldn't there be street lights and traffic humps? Don't you
feel isolated and lonely? Fancy having no gas and your own sewage works!
How quaint! Golly that dog has big teeth, is it dangerous?'

Why spread this dross thinly through the countryside, they are town
bumpkins and that's where they belong.

People who want to live town life should sat in the towns and go high
rise or whatever. Suburbia should never have been invented. Its always
been vile. Little boxes and postage stamp gardens for no purpose, and
no use, and cars cars cars.

And frankly there are far too many people on this island already.

In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
Merton council (close to here) have all their municipal vehicles LPG
powered. Dustcarts, etc. Very noticeable by the lack of engine noise and
exhaust smell, compared to the more usual diesel.

Unusual to have larger vehicles on LPG. Are you sure it's not CNG?

I'm not certain of that. All their vehicles had signs on the side saying
powered by LPG. I think.;-)

--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

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

In article ,
Alan wrote:
My favourite R4 piece of nonsense is the patronising God slot in the
middle of a news programme

Thought for today? I rather like it. I'd guess the idea is to take your
mind off the news etc for a couple of minutes, so no bad thing.

--
*Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.

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

On 22/12/11 00:06, Tim Watts wrote:

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.


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...

Removing subsidy from commuter services would do it.



--
djc

In article ,
says...

The brand new trams they have in Geneva drive one way only and only
have doors on one side.

Same as the Belgian coastal tramway.

So at each end they have to go round a large
space-consuming loop.

At Knokke it seems to run round the outside of the tram shed IIRC.

Being metre gauge, the turning loop isn't that big and outside the
towns, intermediate turning loops for short workings tend to be on open
ground behind the dunes which doesn't otherwise seem to be used for
anything else.

In towns, the loop simply runs round the block on side roads, so no
extra space required.

--

Terry

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

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.

Does it ever have more than one carriage? I've only ever seen it at the
level crossing at Six Mile Bottom.

I think its 2 or three car diesel units innit?

Rather than a guided bus..

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

Yes, and in fact most places don't have rail lines to them.

Because the Tories ripped them out to promote cars as their MPs had
interests in cars and roads, etc.

No, because that's what people wanted. The*people*, ****-for-brains. You
should learn to trust them. In fact Beeching should probably have had
more lines removed.

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.

Don't be a sap. Cars, busses, and trucks replace the train for most
purposes.

Again.....for the hard of thinking..."Nothing has replaced the train.
Look at the amount of passengers or freight they carry in one train."

Again, for those unable to read: "some 80% of our freight goes by road".
As I said before, if we made that 60/40 that'd be a doubling of freight
on the railway. I'm still waiting for you to explain which lines you're
expecting that freight to travel on.

One train can take 50 trucks off the roads. One 6 car train can hold
~1000 people.

Yeah, we know this. And it often happens. Doesn't alter that fact that
most transport in the UK is *not* on the railway.

And the inter train distance at an sepped is at least 2 miles so the
issue resolves into whether a train and its expensive track or a
motorway 2 miles long is a better way of moving 1000 people or 60 lorries