TimB wrote:
On Aug 14, 7:49 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:57:14 on Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Sam Wilson remarked:
A recent report says that it is worth spending up to £10,000 to turn
just one person into a regular cyclist.
A few years ago they spent about that much per cyclist [1] putting a
brand new shared cycle/foot path alongside one of the roads from
Cambridge to an adjoining village. Obviously, all the serious cyclists
refuse to use such a thing.
Depending on how it was constructed, that might be very understandable..
I'm not suggesting the costs were out of proportion to the civil
engineering involved, but it seemed a huge investment to encourage a
handful of cyclists - who despise that sort of facility in the first place.
Was it installed in the last week of the financial year? Or does a
bigwig with a bike perhaps live there?

(which village, BTW?)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

More likely to do with being seen to do something about providing a
safe route for kids to cycle to school (with coincidental benefit of
being able to cut back on school buses) and spending a budget
allocated for that purpose. Yes, probably done in a rush at the end of
the financial year.
So confident adult cyclists naturally choose not to use it, while
white man van thinks he can honk and intimidate and tell them to get
onto the bloody cycle track, my taxes paid for that and you beggers
don't bother using it....

Indeed.

Though round here I find "professional" drivers - including white van
men - to be a lot more willing to give space to other road users than
some other drivers are. My pulled-out-of-the-air theory is that white
van man probably has a bike himself, and even he doesn't use it he
almost certainly used one in the past. But the woman who applies her
make-up and makes a phone call while driving at speed towards the narrow
gap probably hasn't cycled much herself.

(none of this applies on the days when we all head to Aylesbury to
sacrifice babies to Beelzebub, of course)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Aug 14, 8:59 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
TimB wrote:
On Aug 14, 7:49 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:57:14 on Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Sam Wilson remarked:
A recent report says that it is worth spending up to £10,000 to turn
just one person into a regular cyclist.
A few years ago they spent about that much per cyclist [1] putting a
brand new shared cycle/foot path alongside one of the roads from
Cambridge to an adjoining village. Obviously, all the serious cyclists
refuse to use such a thing.
Depending on how it was constructed, that might be very understandable..
I'm not suggesting the costs were out of proportion to the civil
engineering involved, but it seemed a huge investment to encourage a
handful of cyclists - who despise that sort of facility in the first place.
Was it installed in the last week of the financial year? Or does a
bigwig with a bike perhaps live there?

(which village, BTW?)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

More likely to do with being seen to do something about providing a
safe route for kids to cycle to school (with coincidental benefit of
being able to cut back on school buses) and spending a budget
allocated for that purpose. Yes, probably done in a rush at the end of
the financial year.
So confident adult cyclists naturally choose not to use it, while
white man van thinks he can honk and intimidate and tell them to get
onto the bloody cycle track, my taxes paid for that and you beggers
don't bother using it....

Indeed.

Though round here I find "professional" drivers - including white van
men - to be a lot more willing to give space to other road users than
some other drivers are. My pulled-out-of-the-air theory is that white
van man probably has a bike himself, and even he doesn't use it he
almost certainly used one in the past. But the woman who applies her
make-up and makes a phone call while driving at speed towards the narrow
gap probably hasn't cycled much herself.

(none of this applies on the days when we all head to Aylesbury to
sacrifice babies to Beelzebub, of course)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Aylesbury? Is Tony Polson involved?

In article
,
(Andy) wrote:

On 13 Aug, 12:22, "Recliner" wrote:
"DW downunder" noname wrote in message

u

"MIG" wrote in message


...
On 13 Aug, 09:51, wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:40:33 +0100

Paul Corfield wrote:

If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly
line tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much
difference between 09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a
few centimeters one way or the other at most which surely
wouldn't make much difference to equipment?

Did it arrive that way? I thought it was delivered by road rather
than rail and then across the tube network. I'd genuinely like to
know the answer to this so if anyone can point me at the facts
it'd be good.

Thats what people on here were saying. I've no idea if its true.
But it occured to me that the victoria line uses an old piccadilly
line tunnel on the northbound at finsbury park and I very much
doubt they would have bothered to spend a fortune to enlarge it
by a few inches so as 09 stock has to fit through it must be
pretty close to standard tube gauge. B2003

Isn't it more to do with the bends rather than the diameter?

AIUI, the '09 units on test were road delivered. They are out of
gauge for other tube lines (we're talking maybe 20-25mm) with the
appropriate kinematic envelope for operational speeds. I suspect
they could be crawled through tight spots if the need arose. Current
practice (as distinct from past LT practice) would suggest little if
any need for through operation on other lines, and no plans to
"cascade" stock.
Finsbury Park was extensively remodelled to provide UP-UP and
DOWN-DOWN train flows and cross platform interchanges between Picc
and Vic. It replaced the previous layout which provided for
terminating GN&C trains of "main line" loading gauge. The line of
the Victoria route means that little if any old Piccadilly running
tunnel remains in use as such. As the Vic has just been going
through a rebuild from the track up, any minor structure gauge
anolomies would have been dealt with.

The ever-reliable Wiki source says that the 2009 stock is 2.68m wide
and the 1973 stock 2.629, so the 2009 stock is apparently 5cm or 2"
wider. It also says that, "Unlike the 1967 Tube Stock, the trains are
built 40 millimetres (1.6 in) wider to take advantage of the Victoria
line's slightly larger than normal loading gauge compared to the
other deep level tube lines."

Unfortunately, the unreliable Wikipedia has the 1967 stock as 9' 0
1/16" which would be 2.74m wide. Also unfortunately, it is the only
source I can find for 2009 stock details.

1967 stock is 8'8" (2.6416m) wide if I interpret the inside covers of my
1977 edition of "Tube Trains Under London" correctly.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Peter Campbell Smith wrote

Even if that is true and relevant, the standard car figures have
the
windows closed (as well as AirCon.excluded/ off).

I don't know the real answer either, but a car with aircon is
carrying the
extra weight around all year, and there must also be a slight extra
drag on
the engine all year as the belt to the aircon compressor is turning
all the
time.

If the car stays in the UK, especially the more northern parts, I
would
imagine that cost of that over 365 days is just as significant as the

additional fuel cost when the aircon is running for, say, 20 days in
the
year.

Which reminds me that the energy usage figures for electric cars don't
include winter heating either. One of the advantages of internal
combustion is that heating is almost free whereas in Britain (and even
more so in Canada) an electric has to use resistance heating. Making
sure the battery doesn't freeze is also required.

--
Mike D

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:

Really? Can you explain how turbulent air gets hotter without
friction?


You're talking about skin friction between the train and the air. I'm
talking about turbulence. Two very different things, as I am sure you
will continue to fail to appreciate.

I majored in fluid flow at University.

On Aug 15, 12:28*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:



Really? Can you explain how turbulent air gets hotter without
friction?

You're talking about skin friction between the train and the air. *

Where did I say that? I just mentioned friction.

I'm talking about turbulence. *Two very different things, as I am sure you
will continue to fail to appreciate.

I majored in fluid flow at University.

Really and you are still talking ********, I'm impressed.

There is NO heating directly from the turbulent air. All the heating
which might arise from turbulence comes from fricton. Both between the
moving air and the tunnel walls and between air flows moving at
different speeds. Bulk flow of any fluid doesn't make it hotter; but
the interaction of different moving sections of air gives rise to
friction and it is this the friction that causing the air to get
hotter, not the turbulence itself.

You were the one saying that friction is the minority cause of heating
when, in fact, it is pretty much the only direct cause of heating.
Just to emphasize the point. TURBULENCE causes FRICTION which leads to
HEAT, which part don't you understand?

"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote in message
news:01ca1d3c$b2822f80$LocalHost@default
Peter Campbell Smith wrote

Even if that is true and relevant, the standard car figures have the
windows closed (as well as AirCon.excluded/ off).

I don't know the real answer either, but a car with aircon is
carrying the extra weight around all year, and there must also be a
slight extra drag on the engine all year as the belt to the aircon
compressor is turning all the time.

If the car stays in the UK, especially the more northern parts, I
would imagine that cost of that over 365 days is just as significant
as the

additional fuel cost when the aircon is running for, say, 20 days in
the year.

Which reminds me that the energy usage figures for electric cars don't
include winter heating either. One of the advantages of internal
combustion is that heating is almost free whereas in Britain (and even
more so in Canada) an electric has to use resistance heating. Making
sure the battery doesn't freeze is also required.

And, presumably, electric cars don't have enough juice to provide
air-conditioning? Even if they do, it's something else to shorten the
range.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
Peter Campbell Smith gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I don't know the real answer either, but a car with aircon is carrying
the extra weight around all year

Mebbe 10-15kg - or about 1% of the average car's kerb weight.

and there must also be a slight extra drag on the engine all year as
the belt to the aircon compressor is turning all the time.

Yes, but when the compressor's clutch is disengaged, it really is very
little extra load.


In the case of my car a single belt drives a number of auxiliaries,
including the a/c compressor, and there are at least two idler and
tensioning pulleys as well. The a/c compressor with its clutch disengaged is
equivalent to an idler pulley. These days cars tend to have a/c designed in,
rather than as an optional extra, so it is difficult to asess the effect it
has on fuel consumption. On my car there is a link to the engine management
system to cut out the a/c compressor at full throttle so that all power is
available for acceleration. I once drove a small-engined rental car in a
tropical climate where an essential part of every overtaking manouevre was
to switch off the a/c manually so there would be enough power available!

D A Stocks

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:38:46 +0800, "DW downunder" noname wrote:

The internal diameter was (IIRC) 12'3" (3734mm) for cast iron and 12'6"
(3810mm) for concrete lining segments. This compares with the Yerkes'
standard of 11'8 1/4" (3562mm).


Correct.

The missing statistic is the post-Yerkes standard, which was 11' 6".


Whoa! 11'6" was the diameter of tunnels in the central section of the
Central Line. Unlike the C&SL, the trackbed wasn't broken up in the Central
on enlargement, but segments were inserted to give an eccentic profile,
large enough to accommodate stock which ran through 11'8 1/4" tunnels. As we
have found, that created a need for a raised third rail and associated
("hi-lift") collector shoe beam.

Also, post-Yerkes, most new Tube tunnels have been lined at 12'3 or 12'6 -
not sure about the JLE.

DW down under

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:21:12PM +0100, Recliner wrote:

It also means that even if someone's typical journeys are within this
range, they will be deterred from buying if they need to do the
occasional longer trip for which public transport isn't a reasonable
option.

Of course. If you need a normal car for those few longer journeys, then
it makes sense to also use it for the shorter journeys, rather than
tieing up twice as much capital (or, more likely, paying back twice as
big a debt!) to have two cars.

So, the electric car will cost more to use, have a very impractical
range, be tedious to re-charge compared to the occasional trip to a
filling station for a quick fill-up, ...

The one thing that would make me start to take electric cars seriously
for general-purpose use is standardised battery packs. Then it will
start to make sense for service stations to offer a "fill-up" where they
simply swap your battery pack for a charged one, then recharge the old
one and swap that for someone elses and so on.

Yes, that would require lots of infrastructure, which would take time to
roll out (just look at how slowly LPG is spreading), but at least it
would make such a roll out possible.

Can't see it happening though. Not for a very long time at least.

--
David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice

Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla.