"David B" wrote in message ...
"Ian Henden" wrote in message
...

What do readers here think about it?

If you intend putting those great big tanks on top of the bus, why not put
a
couple of trolley arms on top, instead, running under fixed wiring, and
driving a cleaner electic motor? Quieter, better acceleration, more
efficient braking (regenerative - feeds back into the overhead supply.)

My opinion is that trams are better than (trolley) buses chiefly because of
their carrying capacity. Bendibuses get closer to their carrying capacity
but this is still no match for a 3 section tram? Also, running on rails,
don't trams use less energy than their trolleybus counterparts? The
trolleyarm itself is tedious; two arms are needed and they might come off
the wire. A tram with a pantograph and returning the supply through the
rails seems much simpler.

Indeed. Trolleybusses have the disadvantages of trams and busses but the
advantages of neither. They're a solution devised by a commitee and IMO a
pretty hopeless method of public transport. The only time I can see them
being a viable option is if a city is seriously strapped for cash so can't
afford trams but wants a non-combustion engine solution.

B2003

"Ian Henden" wrote in message ...
"Dominic" wrote in message
om...
"Robin Payne" wrote in message
...

Snipped - some great points from Robin

[more snipped]

I'm very impressed by your figures. I've was arguing the case for
diesel buses, and I don't intend to move the goal posts, but buses can
also be fueled on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). This would use the
same fuel that's providing about 40% of our electricity, which trams
use, and it avoids the inefficiencies of the refining process needed
for diesel (which is drawing so much criticism! I hate the greasiness
of the fuel!). The gas could even reach the buses by pipeline.

Mind has just boggled at the thought of pipelines buried in a conduit along
bus routes, with a sort of plough arrangement under the bus, opening a
leather flap on the top of the pipe, to allow the bus to draw its fuel from
the pipe .......

) ---------- (look!!)

LOL! Doesn't the copyright for that design belong to a Mr. I. K.
Brunel for his atmospheric railway?


Many fleets of CNG (and also LPG) buses are in operation worldwide,
particularly the US, but I don't think there's any in this country?
Sarfampton. Slow. Top heavy. Can hardly get up Lancers Hill. Run out of
gas halfway through the day.

Hmmm. Sounds like CNG buses work about at well as Brunel's atmospheric
railway down in Devon did.

They use normal bus diesel engines, but modified to spark ignition.
Much lower emissions can be achieved. I can't believe no comparative
diesel vs. CNG vs. LPG trials have been done in London. At least we're
doing fuel cell!

What do readers here think about it?

If you intend putting those great big tanks on top of the bus, why not put a
couple of trolley arms on top, instead, running under fixed wiring, and
driving a cleaner electic motor? Quieter, better acceleration, more
efficient braking (regenerative - feeds back into the overhead supply.)

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Boltar wrote:

Indeed. Trolleybusses have the disadvantages of trams and busses but the
advantages of neither.

Untrue. They have some of the advantages and some of the
disadvantages of both.

They're a solution devised by a commitee and IMO a
pretty hopeless method of public transport.

Even the tired old things that I remember from school days in
Wolverhampton provided a fine service (occasional dewirements
excepted). Journey times were increased by a considerable factor when
they were replaced by motor buses.

The modern trolleybuses in Geneva etc. are excellent. I've not
experienced nor heard reports of dewirements, though I suppose they
might happen now and again.

The only time I can see them being a viable option is if a city is
seriously strapped for cash so can't afford trams but wants a
non-combustion engine solution.

You seem to have a preconceived notion.

"Dominic" wrote in message
m...
"Ian Henden" wrote in message
...
"Dominic" wrote in message
om...
"Robin Payne" wrote in message
...

Snipped - some great points from Robin

[more snipped]

I'm very impressed by your figures. I've was arguing the case for
diesel buses, and I don't intend to move the goal posts, but buses can
also be fueled on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). This would use the
same fuel that's providing about 40% of our electricity, which trams
use, and it avoids the inefficiencies of the refining process needed
for diesel (which is drawing so much criticism! I hate the greasiness
of the fuel!). The gas could even reach the buses by pipeline.

Mind has just boggled at the thought of pipelines buried in a conduit
along
bus routes, with a sort of plough arrangement under the bus, opening a
leather flap on the top of the pipe, to allow the bus to draw its fuel
from
the pipe .......

) ---------- (look!!)

LOL! Doesn't the copyright for that design belong to a Mr. I. K.
Brunel for his atmospheric railway?

Ah, but didn't his *suck*? A gas supply would have to *blow*, shirley?

Many fleets of CNG (and also LPG) buses are in operation worldwide,
particularly the US, but I don't think there's any in this country?
Sarfampton. Slow. Top heavy. Can hardly get up Lancers Hill. Run out
of
gas halfway through the day.

Hmmm. Sounds like CNG buses work about at well as Brunel's atmospheric
railway down in Devon did.

Probbly not quite as well.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:02:06 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Even the tired old things that I remember from school days in
Wolverhampton provided a fine service (occasional dewirements
excepted). Journey times were increased by a considerable factor when
they were replaced by motor buses.

The motor buses *of the day*. Today, acceleration is much faster, and
emissions much lower.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
Mail me on neil at the above domain; mail to the above address is NOT read

"Alan J. Flavell" wrote in message . gla.ac.uk...
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Boltar wrote:

Indeed. Trolleybusses have the disadvantages of trams and busses but the
advantages of neither.

Untrue. They have some of the advantages and some of the
disadvantages of both.

Like busses they have a high rolling resistance, can only carry a limited
amount of people and will get stuck in traffic jams on ordinary roads. Like
trams they're limited to the routes of the wires. They're only saving grace is
being electricaly powered. Other than that I see no advantage at all.

B2003

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:02:06 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Even the tired old things that I remember from school days in
Wolverhampton provided a fine service (occasional dewirements
excepted). Journey times were increased by a considerable factor when
they were replaced by motor buses.

The motor buses *of the day*. Today, acceleration is much faster, and
emissions much lower.

Yes I am forced to agree. In fact most of todays urban buses are restricted
in power artificially for the sake of economy, emissions and passenger
comfort.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Neil Williams wrote:

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:02:06 +0100, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Even the tired old things that I remember from school days in
Wolverhampton provided a fine service (occasional dewirements
excepted). Journey times were increased by a considerable factor when
they were replaced by motor buses.

The motor buses *of the day*.

Sure. What else would it be fair to compare them with?

Today, acceleration is much faster, and emissions much lower.

Recent trolleybuses are also much better than those old 1950's models
that I dimly remember. I can't help suspecting that some of those
folks who are so anti trolleybuses haven't travelled on a recent one,
and are comparing modern diesel buses with their memories of old
trolleybuses.

Now, admittedly I can see that Geneva is keen to replace their
trolleybuses by trams. But then, at one stage, Munich was keen to
replace all their trams by U-Bahn: somehow they reached a
more-practical conclusion.

"Boltar" wrote:
Trolleybusses have the disadvantages of trams and busses but the
advantages of neither.

Alan Flavell
Untrue. They have some of the advantages and some of the
disadvantages of both.

They're quieter than either.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Carpe pecuniam!
--Roger L. Smith

In message , Mark Brader
writes

"Boltar" wrote:
Trolleybusses have the disadvantages of trams and busses but the
advantages of neither.

They're quieter than either.

As someone who lived through the demise-of-the-London-trolleybus I have
a strong suspicion that one of the arguments advanced in the late 50s
for the abolition of trolley-buses was precisely the danger posed by
that quietness: many times I witnessed 698s descending the Bexley Road
hill into Erith at a good 45mph in near silence - and the seriously
scary thing was that those huge vehicles could ascend the hill just as
quietly at much the same speed. And goodness, were they comfortable!

Of course, in those days every argument (however fallacious) was
advanced in favour of the petrol/diesel engine. I recall that one of the
most popular arguments was that the large capacity of the latest
trolleys made it impractical for the conductor to get round to sell
tickets to all passengers before they needed to alight. The 50s was not
a decade of great imagination

--
Paul Terry