On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:50 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 16/06/20 18:02, John wrote:
I live in Derby - had Trolley Buses until 1967.

Just wondering:

1. Did they have any form of heating?

Not that I remember, but then I don't remember them /not/ having one
either. That was in London in the 50s and early 60s.

2. Were there any electrical dangers when a trolley ple came off the wires.
Thinking no return path.

The question does not apply. Trolleybuses were connected to twin
parallel wires (550V DC). There was no return to earth as there was/is
on trams, with one connection through the metal wheels. Trolleybuses had
normal rubber tyres.

Any consequences if one pole but not the other became detached?

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 02:17:55 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

02:17??? ROTFLOL And you've been up and trolling since 01:34!!!

So it WILL be another long miserable night of insipid trolling for you
again, right, you clinically insane 86-year-old trolling senile *******?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old senile Australian
cretin's pathological trolling:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's

Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses just
drove past.

That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:34:56 -0700, harry wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 18:22:57 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
John wrote:
I live in Derby - had Trolley Buses until 1967.

Just wondering:

1. Did they have any form of heating?

2. Were there any electrical dangers when a trolley ple came off the
wires. Thinking no return path.

no "go" path either.


They went like **** off a shovel. You had to watch out overtaking a
parked/stopped one.

In Brighton, there were a couple of hills that diesel buses struggled
with. The trolley buses sailed up them.

(three different bus companies, one of which was all trollies, one was
almost all diesel, and one was all diesel. Overlapping routes)



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's

Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses just
drove past.

That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

actually I think TimS said each bus wanting to get past would lower its
poles, but harry said the broken down bus would lower its poles so all
others could get past.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:55:38 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's

Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses just
drove past.

That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

actually I think TimS said each bus wanting to get past would lower its
poles, but harry said the broken down bus would lower its poles so all
others could get past.

This was my understanding too.

On 16/06/2020 21:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
Are there any reports of trolleybuses whose brakes failed and they ran
away downhill?

Yes., but oddly none of them running away uphill.

Bill

williamwright wrote:
On 16/06/2020 21:01, Jeff Layman wrote:
Are there any reports of trolleybuses whose brakes failed and they ran
away downhill?

Yes., but oddly none of them running away uphill.

Bill

Steer one side or other, until the poles come off.

Runaways would be more common if they used long
extension cords.

There would likely be a requirement for the parking
brake to hold them on a hill.

I don't remember a lot of them getting towed.

Whereas for diesel buses here, the "need-a-tow rate"
and "fuel leak" rates are pretty high. When a bus
has a fuel leak, it leaves diesel for miles...
Most impressive.

We've actually had engine fires on diesel buses here.
I guess, if the leak is in the wrong spot...

Paul

On 17/06/2020 17:24, John wrote:
...

Cardiff had them. When the pantograph slipped the conductor had
to pull out a long ?bamboo pole with a hook on the end, that was
stored under the whole length of the ground floor, and hook the
pantograph back onto the overhead wires.


Pantograph?

I suppose Andrew means trolley bar.

--
Max Demian

On 17/06/2020 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway networkÂ* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.

Hardly cheap, as they will have to add long ramps or cuttings so the
road can go over or under the rail. And, if in a town (which is often
the case), demolish the row of shops or houses that lines the road.

--
Max Demian

I suppose Andrew means trolley bar.

Round here they were always referred to as booms, but it could one of these things that depends on which region you are from.

Richard

On 17/06/2020 17:20, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport
is really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they
can virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it
is profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call
'studies' are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money
wants them to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway networkÂ* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains
down sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

There are other options, ****wit


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 17/06/2020 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway networkÂ* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.

Or tunnels


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 17/06/2020 22:38, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/06/2020 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway networkÂ* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.

Hardly cheap, as they will have to add long ramps or cuttings so the
road can go over or under the rail. And, if in a town (which is often
the case), demolish the row of shops or houses that lines the road.


And HS2 is cheaper?


--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On Wednesday, 17 June 2020 18:48:59 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's

Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses just
drove past.

That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

No he didn't. What's the point of reconnecting a broken down bus?

Tim Streater wrote:

You are right, and is probably what would happen. But, in any case, there
would be the flexibility to drive on the battery past any sort of blockage or
even a take a short detour if there were roadworks. Just reconnect later.

I was once told that a long while ago, a team were towing a
trolleybus to Crich, and stopped at a services, parking out of
the way at the far end of the lorry area. One guy stayed in the
cab to keep guard, whilst the others took the towing vehicle
nearer the services.

Along came a police car, the occupants came over for a chat.
After a while the tram driver remarked "I suppose you are going
to ask me to move along?"

"Yes", they replied.

He selected "Battery Manoeuvring", and pulled forward a couple of
metres, much to the astonishment of the officers.

However, Battery Manoeuvring was an option that was not available
on all trolleybuses. I believe that some outfits had sets of what
were effectively giant jump leads to cope with such disruption.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 17/06/20 19:10, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 18:55:38 BST, Andy Burns wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's

Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses just
drove past.

That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

actually I think TimS said each bus wanting to get past would lower its
poles, but harry said the broken down bus would lower its poles so all
others could get past.

You are right, and is probably what would happen. But, in any case, there
would be the flexibility to drive on the battery past any sort of blockage or
even a take a short detour if there were roadworks. Just reconnect later.

I think it depended on exactly where and how the "blocking" trolleybus
broke down. If it was out in the road, more-or-less under the wires or
even to the right of them, then it is possible other trolleys couldn't
pass and keep their poles on the wires. I can certainly remember being
on a trolleybus which came up behind a broken-down vehicle and the poles
had to be disconnected to allow the trolleybus to move on battery power
past the obstruction.

Anyone know if the poles were slightly telescopic or how they were
connected to the turntable on the bus roof? The poles were always
parallel, and to keep to that they had to be able to move separately
from each other.

One other thing. In London there were so many routes that occasionally
at junctions some went straight on while others turned left or right. I
seem to remember the bus conductors had to get off just before the
junction and pull a handle on a pole which switched the wires over to
the wanted route (like railway points). I think they returned
automatically to straight ahead after the bus passed. I assume there any
modern trolley systems which do this automatically if routes diverge
from a common line. Are there any which do this?

--

Jeff

On Wednesday, 17 June 2020 22:38:17 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/06/2020 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway networkÂ* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.

Hardly cheap, as they will have to add long ramps or cuttings so the
road can go over or under the rail. And, if in a town (which is often
the case), demolish the row of shops or houses that lines the road.



No, you put the road (or rail) on a viaduct.

On Thursday, 18 June 2020 08:59:46 UTC+1, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

You are right, and is probably what would happen. But, in any case, there
would be the flexibility to drive on the battery past any sort of blockage or
even a take a short detour if there were roadworks. Just reconnect later.

I was once told that a long while ago, a team were towing a
trolleybus to Crich, and stopped at a services, parking out of
the way at the far end of the lorry area. One guy stayed in the
cab to keep guard, whilst the others took the towing vehicle
nearer the services.

Along came a police car, the occupants came over for a chat.
After a while the tram driver remarked "I suppose you are going
to ask me to move along?"

"Yes", they replied.

He selected "Battery Manoeuvring", and pulled forward a couple of
metres, much to the astonishment of the officers.

However, Battery Manoeuvring was an option that was not available
on all trolleybuses. I believe that some outfits had sets of what
were effectively giant jump leads to cope with such disruption.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolle...r_developments

On 17/06/20 12:33, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, John wrote:
I live in Derby - had Trolley Buses until 1967.

Just wondering:

1. Did they have any form of heating?

2. Were there any electrical dangers when a trolley ple came off the wires.
Thinking no return path.

I lived in Huddersfield
As they had no door, heating would be pointless.

Petrol-engined buses in London were heated - at least they were
downstairs - and they also had open platforms at the back.

Upstairs all the heat from those bloody cigarettes no doubt kept that
floor warm! :-)

If the pole came off, it was spring loaded, it went up in the air.

Are you sure about that? I thought it remained a few inches above the
roof, but below the wires. Most certainly, when manually lowered they
had to be pulled down to clip into place on top of the bus. If it went
up when it came lose, it could have hit the wire support damaging that
or the pole itself.

They were hooked on/unhooked with a long bamboo pole.

Yep, kept in a long tube under the trolleybus.

--

Jeff

Jeff Layman wrote:

On 17/06/20 12:33, harry wrote:

If the pole came off, it was spring loaded, it went up in the air.

Are you sure about that? I thought it remained a few inches above the
roof, but below the wires. Most certainly, when manually lowered they
had to be pulled down to clip into place on top of the bus. If it went
up when it came lose, it could have hit the wire support damaging that
or the pole itself.

Think about it. The contact shoe which follows the wire is
grooved, but only maintains pressure due to the spring forcing it
upwards. Yes, dewirement can have consequences.

With modern railway pantographs, there are similar issues, but
the controls are a little more sophisticated, and if it reaches
the up-stop, it is automatically retracted. If it is wrapped
round the catenary at this point, there is a lot of work to do.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
@ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On 18/06/20 09:40, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:

On 17/06/20 12:33, harry wrote:

If the pole came off, it was spring loaded, it went up in the air.

Are you sure about that? I thought it remained a few inches above the
roof, but below the wires. Most certainly, when manually lowered they
had to be pulled down to clip into place on top of the bus. If it went
up when it came lose, it could have hit the wire support damaging that
or the pole itself.

Think about it. The contact shoe which follows the wire is
grooved, but only maintains pressure due to the spring forcing it
upwards. Yes, dewirement can have consequences.

I thought I remembered the conductor pushing the pole onto the wire to
make contact - the connector at the end of the pole being shaped like
/_\ if you see what I mean. Also, if the pole was spring-loaded, why not
just replace it in position by means of a cord or rope attached to the
end of the pole? Why the need for a stiff bamboo pole? When held down on
top of the bus when parked or awaiting recovery, it could simply be
pulled down to clip on to the roof of the bus (see my previous post),
and the rope held on the back of the bus by a cleat.

The spring force needed at the roof end of a 4 m pole to keep the other
end in contact if it didn't clip would have to be very high. But perhaps
you are right - there are some Wikipedia articles such as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_pole and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_collector#Collector_pole which
suggest the connector was a "loose fit". Unfortunately I couldn't find a
close-up photo of a contactor used on trolleybuses of the era we are
talking about.

With modern railway pantographs, there are similar issues, but
the controls are a little more sophisticated, and if it reaches
the up-stop, it is automatically retracted. If it is wrapped
round the catenary at this point, there is a lot of work to do.

Yes, but pantographs are directly below the wire and can exert a lot of
force fairly easily as that force is applied straight up rather than at
a pretty acute angle, and there are no side forces involved as there are
with trolley poles.

--

Jeff

harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 June 2020 18:48:59 UTC+1, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's
Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses just
drove past.
That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

No he didn't. What's the point of reconnecting a broken down bus?

Could be for heat in winter.

Paul

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 17:00:58 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 16/06/2020 18:48, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 16/06/2020 18:12, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 16/06/2020 18:02, John wrote:
I live in Derby - had Trolley Buses until 1967.

Just wondering:

1. Did they have any form of heating?

2. Were there any electrical dangers when a trolley ple came off the
wires.
Thinking no return path.

Ah the silent death......

rubber tyres no earth ...


Cardiff had them. When the pantograph slipped the conductor had
to pull out a long ?bamboo pole with a hook on the end, that was
stored under the whole length of the ground floor, and hook the
pantograph back onto the overhead wires.

There used to be a tight turning circle at a nearby terminus but not
many drivers could get the angles right to do it without the trolley
booms (not pantographs) coming off.




--
AnthonyL

Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:34:56 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 18:22:57 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article ,
John wrote:
I live in Derby - had Trolley Buses until 1967.

Just wondering:

1. Did they have any form of heating?

2. Were there any electrical dangers when a trolley ple came off the
wires. Thinking no return path.

no "go" path either.


They went like **** off a shovel. You had to watch out overtaking a parked/stopped one.


And when running to catch one just as it's setting off. Many a flask
in the satchel broken by landing flat on my back.

--
AnthonyL

Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:50 +0100, Jeff Layman
wrote:

On 16/06/20 18:02, John wrote:
I live in Derby - had Trolley Buses until 1967.

Just wondering:

1. Did they have any form of heating?

Not that I remember, but then I don't remember them /not/ having one
either. That was in London in the 50s and early 60s.



I'm doubting it but the few things had heating in the '50's. They
were a luxury add-on or a d-i-y accessory for cars.


--
AnthonyL

Why do scientists need to BELIEVE in anything?

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 16/06/2020 23:04, Bob Eager wrote:
How trams justify the outlay I don't know.
People are just in love with trains. A friend in the public transport
business referred to Lord Adonis as ' a small child with a very big
train set'

COVID-19 will change the face of public transport and mark the end of a
lot of it. I think the better way to achieve 'social transport' is to
subsidise driverless taxis once they work properly. That solves the 'I
am poor in a village and need to go shopping/go to hospital' moan. As
far as commuting goes, I think its far better to let the electrons and
photons do that, and stay at home.



After my last 999 call and ambulance I asked them to call me a taxi at
the hospital when I was discharged, They called a riving ambulance with
two drivers to run me home.

Public transport was built at a time when only very heavy dangerous
expensive steam locomotives existed. Harking back to the days of stage
coaches when only the very rich could afford private transport. It
really has very little place in a post COVID world. All teh arguments
about 'one bus full of passengers takes up less space than three cars'
is nonsense when the bus doesn't have more than 4 passengers.

If you really want to get to Birmingham in a hurry take a plane from
docklands air[port, or drive,

Trains and trams are just another bit of LeftyBollox thinking.
Centralised provisions of socialised services in transport.

Juts give people the equivalent of an oyster card that they can use to
pay electric driverless taxis for.



Mass use of driverless cars are some way off unless we are prepared to
accept a few fatalities, just as we do with current vehicles.
--
bert

I do not think pantographs exert much pressure on the conductor. On the Manchester Metrolink which is based on a number of existing heavy rail routes the trams have to go under bridges not designed to accommodate overhead wires the conductors do slope down from normal height to pass under these bridges and it is quite noticeable how much movement there is in the pantographs To negotiate these bridges.

Richard

In article , Andy Burns
writes
Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's

Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses just
drove past.
That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

actually I think TimS said each bus wanting to get past would lower its
poles, but harry said the broken down bus would lower its poles so all
others could get past.
Yes there was enough reach on the poles to move out and overtake another
vehicle.
I remember trolleys in Newcastle upon Tyne in the 60s.

--
bert

On 18/06/2020 13:00, bert wrote:
Mass use of driverless cars are some way off unless we are prepared to
accept a few fatalities, just as we do with current vehicles.

I would say that it is closer than you think.


--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

On 18/06/2020 13:04, Tricky Dicky wrote:
I do not think pantographs exert much pressure on the conductor. On
the Manchester Metrolink which is based on a number of existing heavy
rail routes the trams have to go under bridges not designed to
accommodate overhead wires the conductors do slope down from normal
height to pass under these bridges and it is quite noticeable how
much movement there is in the pantographs To negotiate these
bridges.

But they don't negotiate those sections at 125mph do they?

Richard



--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.
Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway network he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

If all the money being spent on HS2 had been spent on improving the
track we already have..



Most level crossing are on ECML. HS2 adds capacity to WCML.
--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway network* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.
Very expensive on flat land.

--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
On 17 Jun 2020 at 22:38:09 BST, Max Demian wrote:

On 17/06/2020 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway network* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.

Hardly cheap, as they will have to add long ramps or cuttings so the
road can go over or under the rail. And, if in a town (which is often
the case), demolish the row of shops or houses that lines the road.

The Swiss managed it. I remember a level crossing on the way to CERN from
home, when I worked there. Replaced by a bridge. Mind you, all such costings
tend to be state secrets and no one questions it.

So that's one. I am sure Network rail could find one on ECML that could
be replaced by a bridge. Now what about the rest?
--
bert

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 17/06/2020 22:38, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/06/2020 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway network* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.
Hardly cheap, as they will have to add long ramps or cuttings so the
road can go over or under the rail. And, if in a town (which is often
the case), demolish the row of shops or houses that lines the road.


And HS2 is cheaper?


Not that many level crossings on WCML
--
bert

On 18/06/2020 13:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/2020 13:00, bert wrote:
Mass use of driverless cars are some way off unless we are prepared to
accept a few fatalities, just as we do with current vehicles.

I would say that it is closer than you think.

They'll just ban pedestrians and cyclists from the roads, and border
them with perspex screens with sliding doors at intervals.

--
Max Demian

On 18/06/2020 09:02, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 17/06/20 19:10, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 18:55:38 BST, Andy Burns wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 04:50:23 -0700, harry wrote:

Always seemed a bad idea, to me, that they scrapped them. Electric
buses with no range limitation. IIRC, they had an onboard battery,
which would certainly have been enough to get one trolly past
another,
if the one in front had broken down. Just lower and park the poles,
drive past, and re-connect them. Something trams (which seem to be
everyone's

Drivel.
If a bus broke down, they just unhooked it's poles. Following buses
just
drove past.

That's what he just said, ****-fer-brains.

actually I think TimS said each bus wanting to get past would lower its
poles, but harry said the broken down bus would lower its poles so all
others could get past.

You are right, and is probably what would happen. But, in any case, there
would be the flexibility to drive on the battery past any sort of
blockage or
even a take a short detour if there were roadworks. Just reconnect later.

I think it depended on exactly where and how the "blocking" trolleybus
broke down. If it was out in the road, more-or-less under the wires or
even to the right of them, then it is possible other trolleys couldn't
pass and keep their poles on the wires. I can certainly remember being
on a trolleybus which came up behind a broken-down vehicle and the poles
had to be disconnected to allow the trolleybus to move on battery power
past the obstruction.

Anyone know if the poles were slightly telescopic or how they were
connected to the turntable on the bus roof? The poles were always
parallel, and to keep to that they had to be able to move separately
from each other.

I'm pretty sure they were telescopic, so as to enable the bus to pass an
inconsiderately parked vehicle.

(I have a vague memory that the driving test notes included a section on
"changing lanes without de-wiring" and "steering a tracked vehicle with
its tracks"; originally a driving licence allowed you to drive
*anything* on the road.)

--
Max Demian

On 18/06/2020 13:12, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call 'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway networkÂ* he replied 'get rid of all level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.
Very expensive on flat land.

No it isnt.
Heck you can even build ramps out of steel.


Or you can tunnel under.
Or dig a pond nearby and use the material for ramps

Lets say you need two 3 meter high ramp - at 1 in 10 slope that's 30
meters by 3 meters by about 10 meters wide

1800 cu m*. About 6000 tonnes at 30 tonnes a lorry load that is only 200
loads. Dunno what it would cost but Id guess abut £10 tonne max. £60,000.

Trivial.

*if the sides were sheer it would be half that but the sides wont be so
I've overestimated

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 18/06/2020 13:13, bert wrote:
So that's one. I am sure Network rail could find one on ECML that could
be replaced by a bridge. Now what about the rest?

The classic one is the A10 at Foxton. Farmland all around. Could easily
build a bridge alongside existing road and then divert the A10 onto it.

Or tunnel under the road.




--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 18/06/2020 13:15, bert wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 17/06/2020 22:38, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/06/2020 17:35, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 Jun 2020 at 17:20:15 BST, Max Demian
wrote:

On 17/06/2020 13:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/2020 13:06, Andy Burns wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

How trams justify the outlay I don't know.

Levy something else?

My transport professional friend indicated that all public
transport is
really a *political* decision and cash goes to the gimmes if they can
virtue signal their way to subsidies and grants. Almost none of it is
profitable.

It's jobs for labour voters, subsidised by taxpayers. So call
'studies'
are simply biased to indicate the answer someone after money wants
them
to go.

When I asked him what the biggest single improvement for least money
could be made to the railway networkÂ* he replied 'get rid of all
level
crossings'. Dangerous, interfere with road traffic and slow trains
down
sometimes.

Blocking off the road, or the rail?

Smartarse. You add extra bridges.
Â*Hardly cheap, as they will have to add long ramps or cuttings so the
road can go over or under the rail. And, if in a town (which is often
the case), demolish the row of shops or houses that lines the road.


And HS2 is cheaper?


Not that many level crossings on WCML

Irrelevant



--
€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�
Sir Roger Scruton