"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Grant Crozier
writes
With a bit of luck in eighteen months time the UK will be governed by
a decent party with a man at the helm who knows what he is doing .
First of all, they've got to find one.
--
Clive


Not the conservatives then

"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...

Under the assumption that there are no cars, vans, bikes
would there still be congestion? Assume the usage is the
same as the total passenger km as on an urban bus route
at the moment, and whatever bus frequency is optimal
(which I expect to be at least 30 buses in the peak hour).

Its an unanswerable question as it depends upon link and junction capacities
so each location is different.,

You can not say whether there would be congestion
when the only traffic on the road is buses?
Or you can not say whether the PT travel speed in
ideal conditions is any better than it is at the moment?

but it is fair to say that the throughput of
people would be greater so congestion would a lot less than it is at present

Well, I hadn't mentioned throughput, but what would
you expect the maximum PT throughput per lane to be?

everyone knows the theory of public transport, however you are forgetting
the disadvantages of bus use, that's what puts most people off.

Pete Smith wrote:


BTW, isn't rocks rolling down a hillside, behaving like water called a
"Rockslide"? (I'd personally have used the term Avalanche too - I've seen
it used in relationship to rocks before).

Pete.

I've experienced one, well two actually, one ahead and one behind, we
had to hide under the landrover to avoid the smaller stones.

iantheengineer wrote:

"NM" wrote in message
m...

iantheengineer wrote:


How fast would urban public transport be with no cars
on the road? (and no vans, cycles, taxis etc. if that helps).



Is this a question, is it not obvious enough.

It will be exactly the travel time + the stops for pick up/drop off,

without

any delay occurring due to congestion, and there would be no need for

bus

lanes!

Without busses and bus lanes there would be even less congestion.



How many cars does it take to move 72 people, at say 5 seats per car 15,
okay and what area does a car take up 5.75m by 2.5m roughly so 14.4m2 times
15 = 216m2, and what area does a double decker take 12.9m long by 2.5m =
32.25m2, hmm I need say no more.



Take off your rose tinted's and actually look at your average bus,
usually about 5 or less passengers, I went from Cheltenham to London by
coach the other day, there were as many passengers as I could get in my
car with seats left over.

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:33:26 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:23:48 +0000, iantheengineer wrote:

It doesnt need to for most of the commute

Ahh, so the bus splits into 72 parts at each end?

No not at all, and I would think that the theory behind it is obvious, the
key to bus usage is modal interchange,

Is that your name for what we call a bus stop?

ie facilities to allow transfer from
opne mode of travel to another.

you mean you ride the bus to the bus stop, get off and walk the rest
of the way home.

Fotr the most part of the commute menay
people are travelling in the same direction however upon reaching the very
last section of the journey and at the very start of the journey we all live
and work in slightly different places, but we use the same main corridors.
In cities, it is generally the case that most people can walk from their bus
stop to their office. Complications arise for people who work to site etc,
but for the most part many people are 9-5 approx and stay office bound. IF
you carry out any o-d survey you will see that certain routes are trafficked
by people from the same areas going to the same areas, and it is for these
that public transport works.

Buses may be OK if you work in the centre of a city and live in a
suburb of that same city near to an arterial road to the city centre
and are lucky (the bus stop being near to your house). If you live in
one suburb and work in another you can forget about PT.

The main problem with public transport is the
effective routing.

You're wrong there the main problem with public transport is the
dreich people you have to share your space with. The last time I used
a bus there was a man in a dirty shabby mac sat next to me, smelling
of wee, his face covered in sores, and a "dewdrop" glistening on the
end of his nose like a pearl.

In order to make it profitable a bus must collect x
punters to make the service profitable,

cloudy thinking, what has profitability to do with it? It is the
function of the bus to pick up and carry passengers. The bus must pick
up passengers - period, or it might as well stay in the depot all day.

in order to do this sometimes it is
necessary to protract the route to serve a certain catchment

Second thoughts you're right, a public transport system that didn't
have to pick up passengers would run much more efficiently. Another
example of the travelling public being unreasonable.

and by doing
this it incurrs delays compared to the direct route of using the car, but ,
by many people using their cars they create delays through traffic
congestion. Bus lanes assist to redress this balance a litlle, but at
present do not provide sufficient advantage to make the bus seem attractive.

Correct, it would take *some* doing.

DG

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 14:02:15 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Grant Crozier
writes
With a bit of luck in eighteen months time the UK will be governed by
a decent party with a man at the helm who knows what he is doing .
First of all, they've got to find one.
--
Clive


Not the conservatives then


Not unless the NHS, Education, Railway chickens come home to roost for
Labour or there's another monumental cockup like Foot & mouth.

Are you a betting man?

DG

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:53:32 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:



As an engineer I do know that many fundamental principles can be applied to
many different materials, however what isnt being accepted is that different
problems require different solutions and the same principles do not apply to
all things, Steve seems to think that all problems can be solved through
increasing capacity, which they can be solved, but at what expense???,
however he is not considering the problem from all aspects to increase
conveyance is only one way of solving the problem. I am by original training
a drainage engineer and for many years (before my time) the only solutions
to drainage problems were to increase the conveyance or capacity of the
system. This has resulted (along with different rainfall patterns) in the
floods that we experienced in 1998 and 2000. Engineers now look at this
problem more holistically looking at the source of the rainfall and how it
runs off the ground, in an attempt to attenuate the flow to more greenfield
states.

We cant as yet at least prevent rainfall falling at high intensity during
the summer months and for long durations during the winter months, but we
can slow its journey to the river system and reduce the peak flows in the
river.

Unlike rainfall we have another alternative with traffic we can restrain the
source if we choose, which along with the other tools including where
necessary road building will help the road system cope with the traffic.

As for your example of stones deflecting well thats a new one on me.
Subsidence is due to the mines or other underground tunnel etc gradually
collapsing and what normally happens is failure of the foudation leaving a
crack visible in the supported wall either through the blocks or the mortar
joints whichever is the weakest. Stone and concrete are strong in
compression but weak in tension so as you get a force acting on one side
causing compression in one face through bending, you get tensiile forces on
the other face which normally resulst in cracking and subsequent failure. I
daresay that stone will deflect to a degree but this would be unmeasurable
to the naked eye.


Professor Unwin, I assure you that around here I can show you stone
(most likely millstone grit) walls that have deflected (The stones
have bent it's not that the all the motor joints have broken and the
wall is just a collection of stones in formation) by about an inch in
a 5 foot run under their own weight and the weight of the stones above
them.

DG

In article ,
says...
everyone knows the theory of public transport, however you are forgetting
the disadvantages of bus use, that's what puts most people off.


You'd be talking about the smell of stale cigarette smoke, the smell of
diesel fumes, the condensation covered windows, and most importantly, the
knife wielding maniacs and tight-permed chain-smoking scouse pensioners
who commonly use buses ;-)

At the risk of being unkind, I keep remembering something someone told
me...

"I was late for the bus, and ended up getting on the bus which contained
people, who rather than use the bus because it's the environmentally
friendly option, use the bus because they've got no other option."

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:27:04 -0000, Pete Smith
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
iantheengineer wrote:

Not everything works on the same principles are you so stupid??? Water
flows
under gravity does that mean rock will too???

Well yes it does actually.

Avalanche.
Landslip.
Continental drift
Lava flow



An avalanche ( arent these made of snow which formed water!!!) made of rock
, I think you are talking of a pyroclastic cloud. Go on then Steve upto what
level and in what areas are you educated too???




You're thinking of a pyroclastic _flow_, which is hot rocks & dust from a
volcano, behaving in _exactly_ the same way as water.

Can't see any references which say it behaves _exactly_ like water.
it's very unlikely in fact.


One of these is what "destroyed" Pompeii.

BTW, isn't rocks rolling down a hillside, behaving like water called a
"Rockslide"?

Never heard of a rockslide. Landslide, yes.


(I'd personally have used the term Avalanche too - I've seen
it used in relationship to rocks before).


In Physical Electronics a phenomena known as avalanche multiplication
occurs when a particle accelerated in an electric field can travel
long enough to aquire sufficient energy to liberate one or more
additional particles which themselves are accelerated by the field and
go on to create more collisions USW, USW. A lot of "Zener" diodes are
in fact avalanche diodes.Similar phenomena occur in Geiger counting
tubes, although in that case the "gain" is so high that every single
atom of the gas in the tube becomes ionised, (avalanche multiplication
mode) using a lower electric field it is possible to operate the tube
in a linear (so-called proportional) mode and output is proportional
to the energy of the original ionising event, but the "gain" is much
lower.

I personally regard any self-perpetuating chain of events in an energy
field as an avalanche. A rockslide, landslide or snowfall may/may not
be an avalanche.

By my definition Pyroclastic flows are not avalanches.

WRT Pompei (I've been there, by car :-) ). AIUI during the eruption
many, many kilotons of material were ejected 20+ Km into the
stratosphere and was being kept aloft by the momentum of the gases
and solids contiguously being ejected, eventually the force of the
eruption waned this process could not continueand this material
started falling to earth. This led many of the population of Pompei to
look at the eruption as it was happening and think they were safe.

:-(

DG