"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message ...
In article ,
Tom Anderson writes
basically, a bus that looks
like a tram; what Clive calls Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres),

Two notes:

(1) The term RToRT refers to a *trolleybus* that behaves like a tram.
(2) It's not my term originally - I picked it up at a TfL presentation.

Seems to me like some of the people involved in transport planning need to
look up the definition of "rapid" in the dictionary. Trolleybuses may be
many things but rapid isn't one of them.

B2003

"Henry" wrote in message ...
"Stephen Richards" wrote in message
...

Couldn't that be done by making a completely separate bus lane,
separated from other traffic by kerbs? This would deliver the
reliability and speed benefits at a fraction of the cost, and allow
similar schemes to be rolled out to other parts of London as well.

Living in a town where they are setting up just such a system now, I
wouldn't recommend it.

Crawley has been in a state of utter chaos for three years now with the set
up of a guided bus system (Fastway) and it looks like going on for at least
another three.

Once fully operational it will serve a minute fraction of the population at
a huge cost.

Not nice if you live here.

I wish someone could explain the attraction of a guided busway. As far as I can
see they have no saving graces whatsoever as they have the disadvantages of
both buses and trams and the advantages of neither.

B2003

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
However, they do have quite spacious side doors, and, as indicated in this
TfL publicity shot, they have a unique new method of dropping off
passengers while on the move:

http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/lt-at-at.jpg

Initial tests of the Mercedes-Benz AT-AT G, however, have been less than
successful:

http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/lt-at-at-g.jpg

*giggle* :-)

Nick
--
"And we will be restoring neurotypicality just as soon as we are sure
what is normal anyway. Thank you". -- not quite DNA

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
Major snip

Seems to me like some of the people involved in transport planning need to
look up the definition of "rapid" in the dictionary. Trolleybuses may be
many things but rapid isn't one of them.

B2003

What are your experiences which back up that statement ? The old London
trolleybuses were very quick indeed with extremely rapid acceleration and if
outright speed had been a factor in their design I don't see why they
shouldn't have been fast too.
Baz

"Marratxi" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
Major snip

Seems to me like some of the people involved in transport planning need to
look up the definition of "rapid" in the dictionary. Trolleybuses may be
many things but rapid isn't one of them.

B2003

What are your experiences which back up that statement ? The old London
trolleybuses were very quick indeed with extremely rapid acceleration and if
outright speed had been a factor in their design I don't see why they
shouldn't have been fast too.
Baz

I was thinking more about the fact that like ordinary buses they get stuck
in traffic. But talking about shear speed they may have good acceleration
but most of the the old ones topped out at about 40 or 50mph and would
probably have dewired before they got to that speed anyway.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
"Marratxi" wrote in
message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
Major snip

Seems to me like some of the people involved in transport planning
need to
look up the definition of "rapid" in the dictionary. Trolleybuses
may be
many things but rapid isn't one of them.

B2003

What are your experiences which back up that statement ? The old
London
trolleybuses were very quick indeed with extremely rapid
acceleration and if
outright speed had been a factor in their design I don't see why they
shouldn't have been fast too.
Baz

I was thinking more about the fact that like ordinary buses they get
stuck
in traffic. But talking about shear speed they may have good
acceleration
but most of the the old ones topped out at about 40 or 50mph and would
probably have dewired before they got to that speed anyway.


Given that trolleybuses are primarily an urban vehicle how high a speed
would expect them to reach?

Strange that I've never hear shearing force refered to as speed before. It's
always been phrased in terms of the pressure required.

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...

I was thinking more about the fact that like ordinary buses they get stuck
in traffic. But talking about shear speed they may have good acceleration
but most of the the old ones topped out at about 40 or 50mph and would
probably have dewired before they got to that speed anyway.

The Mexborough and Swinton trolleys got up to quite a high speed on their
rural sections. We certainly went over 40 mph on the farewell tour in 1961.
See http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/ms1961.htm for pictures of the
vehicle involved. Stayed on the wires most impressively:-)
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message ...
Boltar wrote:
"Marratxi" wrote in
message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
Major snip

Seems to me like some of the people involved in transport planning
need to
look up the definition of "rapid" in the dictionary. Trolleybuses
may be
many things but rapid isn't one of them.

B2003

What are your experiences which back up that statement ? The old
London
trolleybuses were very quick indeed with extremely rapid
acceleration and if
outright speed had been a factor in their design I don't see why they
shouldn't have been fast too.
Baz

I was thinking more about the fact that like ordinary buses they get
stuck
in traffic. But talking about shear speed they may have good
acceleration
but most of the the old ones topped out at about 40 or 50mph and would
probably have dewired before they got to that speed anyway.


Given that trolleybuses are primarily an urban vehicle how high a speed
would expect them to reach?

Well if they don't go fast then they're not "rapid" are they which was the
whole point of this mini thread. I assume you know the meaning of the word.


Strange that I've never hear shearing force refered to as speed before. It's
always been phrased in terms of the pressure required.

You should be a stand up, you'd have them rolling in the aisles. If you're
going to play spot the typo I suggest you look to your own posts first, they're
not exactly going to win any english prizes.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message
...
Boltar wrote:
"Marratxi" wrote in
message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
Major snip

Seems to me like some of the people involved in transport planning
need to
look up the definition of "rapid" in the dictionary. Trolleybuses
may be
many things but rapid isn't one of them.

B2003

What are your experiences which back up that statement ? The old
London
trolleybuses were very quick indeed with extremely rapid
acceleration and if
outright speed had been a factor in their design I don't see why
they
shouldn't have been fast too.
Baz

I was thinking more about the fact that like ordinary buses they get
stuck
in traffic. But talking about shear speed they may have good
acceleration
but most of the the old ones topped out at about 40 or 50mph and
would
probably have dewired before they got to that speed anyway.


Given that trolleybuses are primarily an urban vehicle how high a
speed
would expect them to reach?

Well if they don't go fast then they're not "rapid" are they which
was the
whole point of this mini thread. I assume you know the meaning of the
word.


Strange that I've never hear shearing force refered to as speed
before. It's
always been phrased in terms of the pressure required.

You should be a stand up, you'd have them rolling in the aisles. If
you're
going to play spot the typo I suggest you look to your own posts
first, they're
not exactly going to win any english prizes.


I'm beginning to understnad.