|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 2:17:59 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/ But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet. -- Cheers John B. Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee: https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/ And a helmet to keep your head out of the track. Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses, they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks introduce new hazards. Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but buses could be made just as fashionable. https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US, but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across this comment on website, which addresses some of them. From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523 -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- po8crg says: October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before trolleybuses were invented. Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the (simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the poles back up manually. The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single articulation. Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system between bus/trolleybus and metro. The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name. -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- -- The advantage of a non-wire bus ie. diesel powered is that it can be routed around accidents etcetera. You can also add a new route or modify an existing route very easily. Cheers |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
Sir Ridesalot writes:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 2:17:59 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/ But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet. -- Cheers John B. Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee: https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/ And a helmet to keep your head out of the track. Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses, they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks introduce new hazards. Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but buses could be made just as fashionable. https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US, but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across this comment on website, which addresses some of them. From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523 -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- po8crg says: October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before trolleybuses were invented. Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the (simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the poles back up manually. The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single articulation. Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system between bus/trolleybus and metro. The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name. -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- -- The advantage of a non-wire bus ie. diesel powered is that it can be routed around accidents etcetera. You can also add a new route or modify an existing route very easily. While true, that second reason is why I generally avoid the local buses when I travel -- they're just too hard to figure out. The schedules and routes are frequently not as documented, and can be changed on a whim or a momentary budget problem. Last winter I rode the bus into work a bit, and was taken by surprise when the schedule suddenly changed for some holiday that I was not observing. Transport with rails seems a bit more stable. -- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
On 10/3/2018 2:17 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/ But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet. -- Cheers John B. Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee: https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/ And a helmet to keep your head out of the track. Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses, they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks introduce new hazards. Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but buses could be made just as fashionable. https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US, but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across this comment on website, which addresses some of them. From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523 -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- po8crg says: October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before trolleybuses were invented. Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the (simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the poles back up manually. The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single articulation. Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system between bus/trolleybus and metro. The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name. -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- I agree, that's pretty interesting. OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in a fairly short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like these that frequently return to home bases seem ideal for recharging, so that should wipe out the need for power en route. I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology to equalize that advantage should be possible. We're on the cusp of totally driverless vehicles. It must be much easier to have steerable wheels of the second and third (etc.) attached cars precisely follow the track of the first car. About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage, though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two wheeled road users. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
On 10/3/2018 7:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/3/2018 2:17 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/ But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet. -- Cheers John B. Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee: https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/ And a helmet to keep your head out of the track. Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses, they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks introduce new hazards. Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but buses could be made just as fashionable. https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US, but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across this comment on website, which addresses some of them. From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523 -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- po8crg says: October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before trolleybuses were invented. Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the (simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the poles back up manually. The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single articulation. Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system between bus/trolleybus and metro. The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name. -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- I agree, that's pretty interesting. OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in a fairly short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like these that frequently return to home bases seem ideal for recharging, so that should wipe out the need for power en route. I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology to equalize that advantage should be possible. We're on the cusp of totally driverless vehicles. It must be much easier to have steerable wheels of the second and third (etc.) attached cars precisely follow the track of the first car. About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage, though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two wheeled road users. Certainty like the Second Avenue subway in NYC? Only a scant 98 years start to finish! Or as they say in real estate, 'location location location'. Property owners are probably happy they held on. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 10/3/2018 2:17 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 9/23/2018 8:15 PM, AMuzi wrote: On 9/23/2018 6:33 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 10:14:27 -0500, AMuzi wrote: https://maggionews.com/1-man-killed-...ings-saturday/ But he probably wasn't wearing a helmet. -- Cheers John B. Bring your 4" tires to ride in Milwaukee: https://fox6now.com/2018/09/23/cycli...kee-streetcar/ And a helmet to keep your head out of the track. Street cars puzzle me. They have much higher first cost than buses, they have much less route flexibility than buses. Their tracks introduce new hazards. Sure, they're trendier, and fashion is ridiculously powerful, but buses could be made just as fashionable. https://humantransit.org/2009/07/str...ent-truth.html There is a social status aspect to trams vs buses, at least in the US, but there are also practical and political aspects. I just ran across this comment on website, which addresses some of them. From http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/02...comment-674523 -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- po8crg says: October 3, 2018 at 4:19 am The big advantage of first-generation trams over trolleybuses is that they were invented first, so lots of cities built tram systems before trolleybuses were invented. Trams require less overhead wiring than trolleybuses (trams have one pickup and do a neutral return through the rails; trolleybuses need two wires, both a live and a neutral). This means that they can use the (simpler and more reliable) pantograph rather than a trolley pole for electrical pickup. Trolleybuses get dewired much more often than trams do, and take longer to connect back up. A mechanical arm with a camera and a bit of AI is probably capable of doing an auto-pickup while moving these days, which makes that much less of a problem – until very recently a dewired trolley had to stop and the driver had to hook the poles back up manually. The big advantage of second-generation trams (ie post-1970s) over trolleybuses is that they can be much longer. Because of the rails, a long, multiply-articulated tram will stay in lane when going around a corner, which is a problem for buses/trolleybuses even with a single articulation. Trams are regularly over 50m long, which is far longer than any trolleybus can be safely – which means that a single tram can carry far more passengers, making them a useful intermediate-capacity system between bus/trolleybus and metro. The other advantage for trams is one that isn’t much talked about – Bus rapid transit like Bogota or Brisbane, whether petrol buses or trolleybuses, is a big improvement over normal buses. But BRT schemes can be squeezed politically or financially – add a short section of buslane that’s just paint and not physical segregation; add a section of mixed traffic; cross a road through a signalled junction rather than grade separation; take away signalling priority at a junction; etc. The danger for a BRT scheme is that it gets cut down to a few improvements for the existing buses. Trams, because you have to lay track, can’t be cut back that much – either there is track somewhere or there isn’t. The worst cases are the US cities that have unarticulated trams in mixed traffic; those are completely pointless. But tram schemes work out much better on average because it’s harder to chip away at a tram scheme without cancelling large bits of it (the worst is generally taking dedicated lanes and letting buses in, or replacing grade separated junctions with at-grade ones with signal priority for the trams). This is not something that politicians talk about, because it involves an admission of how crap politicians are, but when politics turns against trams, they tend to get cancelled; when politics turns against BRT, they tend to get cut back to pointlessness, which results in lots of really bad BRT schemes which then gives BRT a bad name. -------------------%---------------------%--------------------- I agree, that's pretty interesting. OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in a fairly short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like these that frequently return to home bases seem ideal for recharging, so that should wipe out the need for power en route. Batteries and charging systems have improved a lot in recent years, but I think they will remain expensive in raw materials, heavy, and time-consuming to charge for the foreseeable future. Buses and trams may frequently return to a station, but having to wait a while for charging would still cramp their style. Batteries are a good solution for the occasional gap in the power feed, and for absorbing regeneration power. It would not surprise me to see practical wireless (inductive) power transfer over that last foot between the roadway and the vehicle before battery powered buses become truly practical. I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology to equalize that advantage should be possible. We're on the cusp of totally driverless vehicles. It must be much easier to have steerable wheels of the second and third (etc.) attached cars precisely follow the track of the first car. That does sound possible, although I'm not that sure about imminence of driverless vehicles. About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage, though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two wheeled road users. It's a political or social question, not a technical one. The greater permanence of rail travel seems like a real thing in my experience. Bus stops move all the time, frequently before the signs move. Trains stop at the station, always. Cutting bus routes, especially when buses are seen as a safety net for the down and out, is not too politically painful. Abandoning rail routes is a big step, not taken lightly. -- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
On 10/4/2018 1:16 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes: About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage, though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two wheeled road users. It's a political or social question, not a technical one. The greater permanence of rail travel seems like a real thing in my experience. Bus stops move all the time, frequently before the signs move. Trains stop at the station, always. Cutting bus routes, especially when buses are seen as a safety net for the down and out, is not too politically painful. Abandoning rail routes is a big step, not taken lightly. I agree with your analysis, but I wonder if technology will take away the disadvantages associated with the flexibility of non-rail transit. The local transit authority allows a person to see a map of the route a bus would use between any two points served, and to track the position of a bus en route. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 10/4/2018 1:16 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: About the permanence of routes governed by rails: I read about that long ago in some document touting streetcars and the like. As I recall, the author claimed it as an advantage in that developers could buy and build property knowing that the tracks would always be there. I'm not convinced that it's a great advantage, though. Disrupting technology might cause more powerful changes at any time. And if desired, I'd think route stability could be achieved in less expensive ways, and in ways that caused fewer problems for two wheeled road users. It's a political or social question, not a technical one. The greater permanence of rail travel seems like a real thing in my experience. Bus stops move all the time, frequently before the signs move. Trains stop at the station, always. Cutting bus routes, especially when buses are seen as a safety net for the down and out, is not too politically painful. Abandoning rail routes is a big step, not taken lightly. I agree with your analysis, but I wonder if technology will take away the disadvantages associated with the flexibility of non-rail transit. The local transit authority allows a person to see a map of the route a bus would use between any two points served, and to track the position of a bus en route. I guess I'm just behind the times -- I hate carrying and using my own portable self-surveillance device. I can imagine that new technology will be used as a justification for allowing physical signs to fall into disrepair, and am not looking forward to it. -- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 14:48:37 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote: I can imagine that new technology will be used as a justification for allowing physical signs to fall into disrepair, and am not looking forward to it. It's already happening. Several years ago I got lost because an intersection sign had rotated ninety degrees and the county hadn't bothered to rotate it back. Sometimes I can't find the sign at all. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:06:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
OTOH, the detail electrical advantages should become moot in a fairly short time due to battery technology. Vehicles like these that frequently return to home bases seem ideal for recharging, so that should wipe out the need for power en route. https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-trac...dy-to-replace- light-rail-59201/ I hadn't thought about the articulated turns. But technology to equalize that advantage should be possible. We're on the cusp of totally driverless vehicles. It must be much easier to have steerable wheels of the second and third (etc.) attached cars precisely follow the track of the first car. The picture in the above doesn't give an indication that this is the case in the photograph as the middle car isn't over the white route marking, but the need would depend on the route and curves. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago: Minus one cyclist
On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 13:16:47 -0400, Radey Shouman wrote:
Batteries and charging systems have improved a lot in recent years, but I think they will remain expensive in raw materials, heavy, and time-consuming to charge for the foreseeable future. I suspect you arer not up to date in the advances. Easy to do. I fitted deep-cycle lead acid batteries for the four solar panels on our camper. Although they are twice to three times the weight, the reason was price and simpler more reliable/robust electronics. Their cycle time is roughly once per day and it suits the C/10 maxium charge/discharge rate recommended for deep-cycle lead acid. When we get the solar PV roof installation with batteries, the preference will be for lithium-whatever they are at the time. The reason for that is the charge/discharge rate is ~C, i.e. when your panels are producing to max, you can store the maximum you can get. You no longer face limiting your recharge rate due to the capacity of your battery back. So in home/ industry, there is no reason why you can not cycle the power pack three times a day. Your only interest would be in keepng a reserve for over night needs. Weight wise, i looked at building a electric power assisted trike to carry 1000kg. with lead acid, it was going to take 250kg of battery, with LiPb(?) it was ~100kg and that was a decade ago. My experience with publc transport is that it operates to a time table and like all machinery, it has duty cycles and thus will spend time waiting at set locations. It should be elementary to establish a charging station that a battery powered transport could automaticly plug in and recharge whilst waiting for return jourtney, etc. The real problem for modern batteries is availability. They just get sucked up as soon as they are available, e.g Tesla cars and Power batteries are building their own factory. Asking some one here as to where they obtained theirs and it is all special case. I can not wander down the road and pick one up to my specs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nearly minus my son :( | wafflycat | UK | 34 | November 7th 06 09:14 AM |
Ti-prep minus the Ti | pg | Techniques | 5 | August 16th 06 01:03 PM |
Jimmymac, Chicago cyclist retracts lies, begs forgiveness! | MOJO | Techniques | 2 | January 13th 06 04:05 AM |
Doesn't 7 minus 1 equal 6 Lance Armstrong? | D. Ferguson | Racing | 0 | August 27th 05 03:13 AM |
minus 5 this morning | davep | UK | 12 | February 27th 04 11:41 AM |