On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:35:39 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:



No Sir, facts that were borne out in Vancouver who have sensibly opted
to purchase trolleybuses. If you want chapter and verse I will
happily provide it. Interesting that LPG refilling facilities can be
found on numerous forecourts but the refuelling plant proposed for
Hornchurch was refused planning permission, citing safety reasons, by
the London borough of Having. A fact you could look up.

Are you claiming that because Havering denied planning permission
there must be a danger? Same as mobile phone masts, and GM crops?

Look, I don;t know if you're right or not about the advantages of fuel
cell buses, but mentioning planning permissions makes no difference to
your case.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:51:36 -0000, "Robin Payne"
wrote:


"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:05:27 GMT, Steve wrote:

In article , David Bradley
writes
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:20:50 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

Taking 9kW to produce 1kW of useful energy is a fascinating concept
and interesting to note that refueling arrangments may have to be
placed where there is no perceived dangers to the local community.
That means non revenue earning journeys on top of an inability to have
enough onboard fuel storage for a normal daily duty cycle.

Your figures are wrong. And so are your facts - there is as much danger
in hydrogen as in LPG, they are equally volatile

No Sir, facts that were borne out in Vancouver who have sensibly opted
to purchase trolleybuses. If you want chapter and verse I will
happily provide it. Interesting that LPG refilling facilities can be
found on numerous forecourts but the refuelling plant proposed for
Hornchurch was refused planning permission, citing safety reasons, by
the London borough of Having. A fact you could look up.

LPG is significantly less volatile than Hydrogen, though I accept that
refuelling facilities for either are about as dangerous as each other.
Vancouver is not really a fair comparison because Vancouver has a
significant infrastructure investment in its substantial trolleybus network
already present. London has facilities for neither trolleybuses nor fuel
cell buses present, so for specifying a new build system a different set of
economic criteria must be considered. Personally I would favour
trolleybuses over fuel cell buses, primarily because the fixed
infrastructure along the routes gives a more public image of a service even
when no vehicle is present.

Robin


The saga for replacing the time expired Vancouver trolleybuses was
very much a close thing and until such time as the new vehicles are in
revenue earning duties, will be the cause of many sleepless nights for
their advocates.

The economics of a London built system has been considered, and there
is data available that I could supply, that demonstrates it would be a
very sensible thing to do.

You are right is saying that fixed infrastructure demonstrates a
commitment to service. A sense of public duty is created and therefore
the management of the system as a whole works to the travelling
publics advantage.

DAVID BRADLEY

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:06:08 +0000, Ken Wheatley
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 21:35:39 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:



No Sir, facts that were borne out in Vancouver who have sensibly opted
to purchase trolleybuses. If you want chapter and verse I will
happily provide it. Interesting that LPG refilling facilities can be
found on numerous forecourts but the refuelling plant proposed for
Hornchurch was refused planning permission, citing safety reasons, by
the London borough of Having. A fact you could look up.

Are you claiming that because Havering denied planning permission
there must be a danger? Same as mobile phone masts, and GM crops?

Look, I don;t know if you're right or not about the advantages of fuel
cell buses, but mentioning planning permissions makes no difference to
your case.

I wasn't aware that I was on trail, I though it was the introduction
and long term viability of Fuel Cell buses for London. The vehicles
on board fuel capacity is limited and therefore require more frequent
refilling than a diesel bus. To have facilities close to operations
must be desirable, so planning difficulties is a major issue even if
you wish to lightly dismiss this 'problem'.

The case I am presenting is straightforward, putting trolleybuses to
work on Route 25 would give more enviromental, sustainable benefits at
a lower cost than a Fuel Cell bus ever could. Open and shut case.

DAVID BRADLEY

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:05:40 -0000, "Alek"
wrote:

"primarily because the fixed
infrastructure along the routes gives a more public image of a service even
when no vehicle is present."
Hells bells Robin.....Are you in the employ of Hizzonor The Mayuh ?
The same could be said of a Bus Stop or indeed of a Parisian ****oir.
How about the Millenium Dome ?
Maybe the Fuel Cell people could employ some Old Johnny Rotten,Public Image
Limited Videos....Now there was a man who understood the concept of Public
Service........
Stephen Norris and Johnny Rotten...The Dream Team...????


Excactly what the hell on about here? I assume you are testing your
keyboard and Internet connection to a Newsgroup. Well that part works
OK, not quite sure about the operator though.

DAVID BRADLEY

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:20:50 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:34:00 +0000, Kat
wrote:

I've seen the (ONE) green No 8 several times now; once even going along
Bow Road towards the bus garage. But although there are supposed to be
three new single-decker fuel-cell buses on the 25 route, I haven't seen
one yet.
Are they really in service now?
Maybe if I wait long enough all three will come along at once.

Yes they are running. Go to www.firstlondontimetables.co.uk and select
timetables, route 25 and then Fuel Cell. This shows the times they are
supposed to run. Note that they are supplemental to the main 25 service
and are not guaranteed to run as they are experimental vehicles.


Please note that the first, fourth and seventh trips in each direction
are not running at the moment: Only two of the three buses will be in
service at any one time.

--
Thomas Covenant
Please observe reply to Address.
Unsolicited mail to "From" address
deleted unread.