A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) will provide
the first passenger service for half a century between Leeming Bar and
Northallerton from September 15th to 23rd, with an integrated bus link to
town centre and main line station.

Parry People Movers Ltd (PPM) has joined forces with Wensleydale Railway
plc - operators of the re-opened 17-mile route in North Yorkshire - to
provide a rail service to the east of the current WR terminus at Leeming
Bar.

From Thursday September 15th until Friday September 23rd (excluding Sunday
September 18), a PPM 50 Light Railcar will operate a regular service along
six miles of line normally only used by freight trains. As the final
half-mile section of track which took passenger trains into the county town
of Northallerton is long gone, an interchange point has been constructed and
a dedicated bus will transport passengers to and from the town centre and
the main line railway station, served by Trans Pennine Express and GNER
trains.

Further information and timetable are available at:
http://website.lineone.net/~travelinfo/dales/wrparry.html

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:05:11 +0100, Paul wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:


> A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) 


I like this bit:

>-> "Parry People Movers Ltd (PPM) - the supplier of energy-
>-> efficient, environmentally-friendly light rail vehicles for 
>-> community railways and tramways"


....which makes it sound like a major player in the transport industry,
but exactly how many PPM vehicles is it that are in service on
community railways or tramways today, I wonder? Zero, zero or zero?


From the pdf newsletter:


>-> "THE PROVISION OF a fixed rail connection from the end of 
>-> current Wensleydale Railway train operations at Leeming Bar to 
>-> the town of Northallerton sounds like very much a local issue, not 
>-> figuring too highly among the major opportunities before the 
>-> Parry family of companies."


Major opportunities? Have I entered a parallel universe, or have I
been living in one all these years?

Reading the rest of it, it all sounds more RossRail than RossRail. 
Ye Gods.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Ross wrote:

> I wonder? Zero, zero or zero?


Best way.

If I wanted to travel on something at the speed of a Milk Float I'd go 
an be a Milkman.
You could probably fit more passengers in a Milk Float as well.

Darren wrote:

>If I wanted to travel on something at the speed of a Milk Float I'd go 
>an be a Milkman.
>You could probably fit more passengers in a Milk Float as well.


You perhaps might like to know that Dave Root's Milk Float Corner has
reappeared on the web:
<http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/>

Or, perhaps not :)


Neil Sunderland
-- 
Braunton, Devon
Please observe the Reply-To address.

NP: Nick Drake - Thoughts of Mary Jane (from the album 'Made to Love Magic')

I seem to remember that when this passenger carring milkfloat was on
test at Stourbridge Jct , the only reason it never got used was because
Railtrack/Network Rail wanted the "DRIVER" to be FULLY PASSED FOR
MAINLINE !

So do the "CHEESE LINE" Drivers have to be passed mainline men as well
? 

IM

wrote in message
news:1126733703.107938.13870@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> I seem to remember that when this passenger carring milkfloat was on
> test at Stourbridge Jct , the only reason it never got used was because
> Railtrack/Network Rail wanted the "DRIVER" to be FULLY PASSED FOR
> MAINLINE !
>

AIUI that wasn't the *only* reason. They didn't think its crashworthiness
was up to a head-on encounter with the Mendip stone train, if it was
accidentally diverted along the branch. ;-)

Peter Masson wrote:


> AIUI that wasn't the *only* reason. They didn't think its crashworthiness
> was up to a head-on encounter with the Mendip stone train, if it was
> accidentally diverted along the branch. ;-)


I expect much the same could be said of, e.g. Portsmouth Harbour station
;o)

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633056.html
(50 005 at Reading, Jul 1985)

On 14 Sep 2005 14:35:03 -0700, D6586@blueyonder.co.uk wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:


> I seem to remember that when this passenger carring milkfloat was on
> test at Stourbridge Jct , the only reason it never got used was because
> Railtrack/Network Rail wanted the "DRIVER" to be FULLY PASSED FOR
> MAINLINE !


Why not? It's a railway line operated under "mainline" rules, it's
directly connected to the said "mainline" and it runs under a
"mainline" signalling system. One would consider it reasonable that a
driver working a train on a railway line worked under "mainline" rules
would be qualified to do so.

Besides, I think you'll find it was the crashworthiness that was the
official killer. Along with an unspoken view that the entire thing was
a joke, a view its previous "successful" [1] excursions won't exactly
have done anything to change, and probably the thing which really
killed off any potential use on the "mainline".


[1] "Successful" to the extent that it seems never to have managed
anything other than its demonstration periods. Even the extended and
apparently successful demonstrations (such as Bristol) have never led
to any actual orders.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:59:54 +0100, Ross 
wrote:


>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:05:11 +0100, Paul wrote in
>, seen in uk.railway:
>
>> A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) 
>
>I like this bit:
>>-> "Parry People Movers Ltd (PPM) - the supplier of energy-
>>-> efficient, environmentally-friendly light rail vehicles for 
>>-> community railways and tramways"
>
>...which makes it sound like a major player in the transport industry,
>but exactly how many PPM vehicles is it that are in service on
>community railways or tramways today, I wonder? Zero, zero or zero?


It's worth noting that a company calling themselves Pre Metro Operations
Ltd has submitted a Section 18 Track Access Application to operate a
Sunday service on the Stourbridge Town Car using the PPM50 to start on
an as yet unspecified date (possibly 6th November) and run for 12
months.

The plan is to operate a 15-minute shuttle between around 0900 and
around 2230.

Cheers,

Barry

-- 
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:05:11 UTC, "Paul"  
wrote:

: From Thursday September 15th until Friday September 23rd (excluding Sunday
: September 18), a PPM 50 Light Railcar will operate a regular service along
: six miles of line normally only used by freight trains.

Six miles? A Parry People Mover? What have they done - hired a horse?

Ian

Barry Salter wrote:


> a company calling themselves Pre Metro Operations


Pre Metro Transport would probably have left too many people thinking of
something else...


-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633089.html
(50 047 at Dawlish, 15 Sep 1984)

"Ross"  wrote in message
news:77bhi1pi1hd14adktdu6ns74gvutac6m63@4ax.com...

> On 14 Sep 2005 14:35:03 -0700, D6586@blueyonder.co.uk wrote in
> , seen in
> uk.railway:
>
> > I seem to remember that when this passenger carring milkfloat was on
> > test at Stourbridge Jct , the only reason it never got used was because
> > Railtrack/Network Rail wanted the "DRIVER" to be FULLY PASSED FOR
> > MAINLINE !
>
> Why not? It's a railway line operated under "mainline" rules, it's
> directly connected to the said "mainline" and it runs under a
> "mainline" signalling system. One would consider it reasonable that a
> driver working a train on a railway line worked under "mainline" rules
> would be qualified to do so.
>
> Besides, I think you'll find it was the crashworthiness that was the
> official killer. Along with an unspoken view that the entire thing was
> a joke, a view its previous "successful" [1] excursions won't exactly
> have done anything to change, and probably the thing which really
> killed off any potential use on the "mainline".


There is now a derrogation for the use of the vehicle on the Stourbridge
branch on Sundays - the crashworthiness issue is complex but the concern
that it "may meet a heavy freight coming the other way" on the Stourbridge
branch has finally been put to one side.

I think we'll see it in use on the branch fairly soon - then at least people
can make a proper judgment!

Tony

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:05:11 +0100, "Paul" 
wrote:


>A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) will provide
>the first passenger service for half a century between Leeming Bar and
>Northallerton from September 15th to 23rd, with an integrated bus link to
>town centre and main line station.


Here we go again...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:


> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:05:11 +0100, "Paul" 
> wrote:
> 
>>A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) will provide
>>the first passenger service for half a century between Leeming Bar and
>>Northallerton from September 15th to 23rd, with an integrated bus link to
>>town centre and main line station.
> 
> Here we go again...


.... or do you really mean, here we don't go again?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14515950.html
(20 007, 20 187 and 20 029 at Derby, 4 Jun 1985)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:42:26 +0100, "Tony Miles" 
wrote:


>
>"Ross"  wrote in message
>news:77bhi1pi1hd14adktdu6ns74gvutac6m63@4ax.com...
>> On 14 Sep 2005 14:35:03 -0700, D6586@blueyonder.co.uk wrote in
>> , seen in
>> uk.railway:
>>
>> > I seem to remember that when this passenger carring milkfloat was on
>> > test at Stourbridge Jct , the only reason it never got used was because
>> > Railtrack/Network Rail wanted the "DRIVER" to be FULLY PASSED FOR
>> > MAINLINE !
>>
>> Why not? It's a railway line operated under "mainline" rules, it's
>> directly connected to the said "mainline" and it runs under a
>> "mainline" signalling system. One would consider it reasonable that a
>> driver working a train on a railway line worked under "mainline" rules
>> would be qualified to do so.
>>
>> Besides, I think you'll find it was the crashworthiness that was the
>> official killer. Along with an unspoken view that the entire thing was
>> a joke, a view its previous "successful" [1] excursions won't exactly
>> have done anything to change, and probably the thing which really
>> killed off any potential use on the "mainline".
>
>There is now a derrogation for the use of the vehicle on the Stourbridge
>branch on Sundays - the crashworthiness issue is complex but the concern
>that it "may meet a heavy freight coming the other way" on the Stourbridge
>branch has finally been put to one side.
>
>I think we'll see it in use on the branch fairly soon - then at least people
>can make a proper judgment!
>
>Tony
>

Surely the track layout at Stourbridge Jct. makes it impossible for
any other train to colide with the branch shuttle?

DC

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:12:32 UTC, Ross  
wrote:

: Even the extended and
: apparently successful demonstrations (such as Bristol)

I rode on it in Bristol. Slow, shuddering, noisy and with inordinately
long stops to spin the flywheel up again.

Ian


--

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:05:11 UTC, "Paul"  
wrote:

: A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) will provide
: the first passenger service for half a century between Leeming Bar and
: Northallerton from September 15th to 23rd, with an integrated bus link to
: town centre and main line station.

How will the time taken to go from Leeming to the other end by "train"
using the word loosely, transferring to a bus and going on to 
Northallerton compared with the time it would take if the bus went all
the way?

Ian


--

I would take some sandwich`s if I were you then ! If this milk float
has to stop for a recharge in bristol docks then could be a long day
out in wensleydale ! Wallace & Gromit would be better providers for
silly transport ideas !  Over to you Mr.N.Park !!

Pre Metro Operations have as one of it's directors a Mr Geoffrey
Lusher, who was manager of Midland Metro for a couple of years

Tony

"David C"  wrote in message 
news:3guii15hep6v7l6vq1pugtltbtdbuec526@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:42:26 +0100, "Tony Miles" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ross"  wrote in message
>>news:77bhi1pi1hd14adktdu6ns74gvutac6m63@4ax.com...
>>> On 14 Sep 2005 14:35:03 -0700, D6586@blueyonder.co.uk wrote in
>>> , seen in
>>> uk.railway:
>>>
>>> > I seem to remember that when this passenger carring milkfloat was on
>>> > test at Stourbridge Jct , the only reason it never got used was 
>>> > because
>>> > Railtrack/Network Rail wanted the "DRIVER" to be FULLY PASSED FOR
>>> > MAINLINE !
>>>
>>> Why not? It's a railway line operated under "mainline" rules, it's
>>> directly connected to the said "mainline" and it runs under a
>>> "mainline" signalling system. One would consider it reasonable that a
>>> driver working a train on a railway line worked under "mainline" rules
>>> would be qualified to do so.
>>>
>>> Besides, I think you'll find it was the crashworthiness that was the
>>> official killer. Along with an unspoken view that the entire thing was
>>> a joke, a view its previous "successful" [1] excursions won't exactly
>>> have done anything to change, and probably the thing which really
>>> killed off any potential use on the "mainline".
>>
>>There is now a derrogation for the use of the vehicle on the Stourbridge
>>branch on Sundays - the crashworthiness issue is complex but the concern
>>that it "may meet a heavy freight coming the other way" on the Stourbridge
>>branch has finally been put to one side.
>>
>>I think we'll see it in use on the branch fairly soon - then at least 
>>people
>>can make a proper judgment!
>>
>>Tony
>>
> Surely the track layout at Stourbridge Jct. makes it impossible for
> any other train to colide with the branch shuttle?
>
> DC
>

IIRC, the main collision danger at Stourbridge Town is with the station 
buildings....
Brian

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message 
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-HVYdbWXEUzZg@localhost...

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:05:11 UTC, "Paul" 
> wrote:
>
> : From Thursday September 15th until Friday September 23rd (excluding 
> Sunday
> : September 18), a PPM 50 Light Railcar will operate a regular service 
> along
> : six miles of line normally only used by freight trains.
>
> Six miles? A Parry People Mover? What have they done - hired a horse?


If you think that's good, according to a report in the Northern Echo the 
previous week, Parry are eager to see the PPM used on Middlesbrough-Whitby 
services!

It was some time before I stopped laughing and got up from the floor.

Just out of interest, I assume it's small and lightweight to make it easier 
for all the passengers (about 12 in total?) to get out and push?

-- 
*** http://www.railwayscene.co.uk/ ***
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com

Chris Tolley wrote:

> ... or do you really mean, here we don't go again?


Only where there isn't a downhill gradient, or a head wind

Just a thought !

Does this milk float thing have heated winscreens ?

Keeping your hands warm when pushing is very important ! 
:-))))))

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:34:51 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>> Here we go again...
>
>... or do you really mean, here we don't go again?


Quite.

The really stupid thing about it all is that there probably *is* a
market for a cheap lightweight OPO conventional railcar for such
largely segregated lines - call it a second-generation Pacer or
something.  The LINTs, TALENTs and RegioShuttles are evidence enough
of this in Germany.  For the high-platform UK, this could be something
like a diesel-powered Metrolink tram - definitely with bogies for a
decent ride[1].

The trouble with Parry is that they insist on using their odd flywheel
"technology" instead of pursuing off-the-shelf van or bus diesel
engines with simple transmissions which would make such a thing not
only feasible, but potentially even profitable.

[1] Yes, I know Metrolink trams can never be accused of a "decent
ride", but a better design of bogie could be used.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 15 Sep 2005 13:55:55 GMT, Ian Johnston wrote in
<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-4SRsurWD83iW@localhost>, seen in uk.railway:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 23:12:32 UTC, Ross  
> wrote:
> 
> : Even the extended and
> : apparently successful demonstrations (such as Bristol)
> 
> I rode on it in Bristol. Slow, shuddering, noisy and with inordinately
> long stops to spin the flywheel up again.


I assume that's why it's never managed anything other than
demonstrations, then.

Be interesting to see how it copes with the bank up from Stourbridge
Town.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 07:42:26 +0100, Tony Miles wrote in
<dgb5cr$g93$1$8300dec7@news.beeb.net>, seen in uk.railway:

[PPM]
[...]

> There is now a derrogation for the use of the vehicle on the Stourbridge
> branch on Sundays [...]
> I think we'll see it in use on the branch fairly soon - then at least people
> can make a proper judgment!


Based on what Ian J. has said about riding it in Bristol, will we be
able to hear the sound of railwaymen laughing themselves sick in
Stourbridge over here in Lincoln, I wonder?

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

On 15 Sep 2005 13:58:17 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>How will the time taken to go from Leeming to the other end by "train"
>using the word loosely, transferring to a bus and going on to 
>Northallerton compared with the time it would take if the bus went all
>the way?


The service bus *does* go all the way[1], and it's what most people in
need of public transport on that route use.  A rather good service,
from my experience of having used it, and fairly good value.

[1] Actually, that's not quite true - you sometimes have to change at
Bedale (with through ticketing) so they can use a larger bus as far as
Bedale that won't fit around some of the rest of the route which is
quite tight.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:01:23 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>If you think that's good, according to a report in the Northern Echo the 
>previous week, Parry are eager to see the PPM used on Middlesbrough-Whitby 
>services!


Because that's really going to provide enough seating capacity for the
skoolkydd speshuls, isn't it?

Let me think - we have a choice between one unit (a 14x) or two units
(a 14x and a Parry).  I think even the biggest Pacer hater wouldn't be
wanting the Parry.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

D6586@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:

> Keeping your hands warm when pushing is very important ! 


Perhaps they could get that stone train on the Stourbridge line[1] to 
give it a push when its wheel runs out of fly.

[1]See Peter Masson's post from 14/9/5

Neil Sunderland wrote:
  > You perhaps might like to know that Dave Root's Milk Float Corner has

> reappeared on the web:
> <http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/>


Brilliant! (and there was me expecting to see a pic of a PPM on the 
front page titled "Rail Float set to Sink" or something!

How about these for the Stourbridge line: 
http://www.milkfloats.org.uk/race.html

D6586writes

>I would take some sandwich`s if I were you then ! If this milk float
>has to stop for a recharge in bristol docks then could be a long day
>out in wensleydale ! Wallace & Gromit would be better providers for
>silly transport ideas !  Over to you Mr.N.Park !!
>

I am afraid to say Wallace now favours a cheese not from the Dale
any longer see recent news Stinking Bishop is all the rage
-- 
dave hill

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:01:23 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
 wrote:


>Just out of interest, I assume it's small and lightweight to make it easier 
>for all the passengers (about 12 in total?) to get out and push?


According to the PPM site, the PPM50 is 8.7m (28.5 feet) long, 2.4m (7
feet 10.5 inches) wide and 3.2m (10.5 feet) high, and weighs in at 9.1
tonnes (around 8.9 UK tons).

As well as the flywheel, there's a 2 Litre LPG engine, as used in the
Ford Focus, with 2 LPG bottles.

HTH,

Barry

-- 
Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:20:30 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>"Ken Ward"  wrote:
>>Tony Polson wrote:
>>>
>>> * Police nickname for Robin Reliant***
>>
>>*** Nickname for those who don't know they are called, Reliant Robin.  :-))
>
>
>What is a suitable nickname for people with Syndrome's Asperger?
>
>;-)
>
>For your information, I know it should be called a Reliant Robin.
>However, dictionaries reflect usage, and ever since a certain very
>popular television comedy series introduced the reversed version, it
>has become common usage.
>
>I recall the anger expressed by a Reliant dealer on a (non-Reliant)
>car newsgroup when someone dared to post the commonly used, but
>strictly incorrect "Robin Reliant".  From that day on, many posters to
>that newsgroup made sure that, wherever possible, they included the
>words in that order in their postings.
>
>;-)
>
>

Oh no, we're all going to have to change our posting names....

Kappler John

On the subject of the Parry People Movers, I saw one in operation on
the Chasewater preserved line a few months ago. I think it was on some
kind of training or mileage accumulation.

I saw it arrive, change ends, and depart in rather quick time and was
impressed with the concept.

I am not altogether sure that heavy rail style vehicle construction is
necessary if a tramway style operation is intended. The vehicles do
need to be bigger than the prototypes though.

It would be interesting to see whether the German tram that is dumped
on the right hand side of the Birmingham approach to Derby, could be
used as some kind of hybrid traction testbed. This vehicle does look a
little more substantial than the Parry creations.

On the subject of Reliant products - my dad swore by them, having both
the 750cc and 850cc Robins. I have the unpeasant memory of seeing the
speedo read 93mph in one many years ago !!!

The enthusiasm for fibreglass waned however when he spun one on sheet
ice and cracked it open !!!!

Regards

"Paul"  wrote in message
news:432881f8_2@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...

> A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) will provide
> the first passenger service for half a century between Leeming Bar and
> Northallerton from September 15th to 23rd, with an integrated bus link to
> town centre and main line station.
>
> Parry People Movers Ltd (PPM) has joined forces with Wensleydale Railway
> plc - operators of the re-opened 17-mile route in North Yorkshire - to
> provide a rail service to the east of the current WR terminus at Leeming
> Bar.
>
> From Thursday September 15th until Friday September 23rd (excluding Sunday
> September 18), a PPM 50 Light Railcar will operate a regular service along
> six miles of line normally only used by freight trains. As the final
> half-mile section of track which took passenger trains into the county
town
> of Northallerton is long gone, an interchange point has been constructed
and
> a dedicated bus will transport passengers to and from the town centre and
> the main line railway station, served by Trans Pennine Express and GNER
> trains.
>
> Further information and timetable are available at:
> http://website.lineone.net/~travelinfo/dales/wrparry.html
>


A few questions:

Why not just run the WR service through to the same place as the PPM
railcar?

Why have PPM opted for an LPG engine rather than a small Turbo diesel of
similar power output, as diesels are inherently more efficent than a spark
ignited engine.

Why have PPM adopted the flywheel energy store rather than the more common
hybrid electic technology as used by Toyota, and I think Honda. I would have
thought that tapping into this technology would be more cost effective.

And a couple of comments:

Despite the sceptisism of some members of this group I can see that giving
the right conditions a lightweight railcar, one man operated, could be used
on lightly used branch lines to advantage.

"Mike D"  wrote in message
news:dgj2hc$ird$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>

> A few questions:
>
> Why not just run the WR service through to the same place as the PPM
> railcar?


I gather the track isn't cleared for passenger use and may need some
"fettling" and the PPM railcar is using a small temporary platform, remember
that these days a platform has to pass all health & safety rules including
being as long as the trains calling there..


>
> Why have PPM opted for an LPG engine rather than a small Turbo diesel of
> similar power output, as diesels are inherently more efficent than a spark
> ignited engine.


What is the difference in terms of exhaust - which is cleaner? (I don't
know)

>
> Why have PPM adopted the flywheel energy store rather than the more common
> hybrid electic technology as used by Toyota, and I think Honda. I would
have
> thought that tapping into this technology would be more cost effective.


Its their thing - and I guess its probably a lot cheaper than the hybrid
stuff in the Hondas.

>
> And a couple of comments:
>
> Despite the sceptisism of some members of this group I can see that giving
> the right conditions a lightweight railcar, one man operated, could be
used
> on lightly used branch lines to advantage.


Absolutely - if it comes down to closure or "simple lightweight railcar"
then surely we'd back the railcar - at least it protects the formation etc.
The other point is that we have to keep our discussion on a "constructive"
level - if the industry and enthusiasts between them rubbish everything that
isn't a "real train" - despite that cost implications etc. we'll just give
the closure lobby the chance to point the finger back at us ansd blame us
for not helping to find solutions to save the railways.
The PPM proposal may or may not be the right solution - but presumably they
deserve as much chance to show their train in action as anyone else?

(I'd be interested to see their proposed higher spec unit being built and
demonstrated - I think it would address some of the criticisms levelled at
the prototype..)

TM

wrote in message
news:1127021772.576981.137590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> I am not altogether sure that heavy rail style vehicle construction is
> necessary if a tramway style operation is intended. The vehicles do
> need to be bigger than the prototypes though.


As I mentioned elsewhere there is a project underway to produce a more
substantial unit.


> It would be interesting to see whether the German tram that is dumped
> on the right hand side of the Birmingham approach to Derby, could be
> used as some kind of hybrid traction testbed. This vehicle does look a
> little more substantial than the Parry creations.


Isn't that one of the American trams brought over by Metrolink in Manchester
to assess it for use in the UK?

I think it derailed on its first "drag" through the city and was never seen
again!

TM

Tony Miles wrote:

> (I'd be interested to see their proposed higher spec unit being built and
> demonstrated - I think it would address some of the criticisms levelled at
> the prototype..)


As would I.

If they could show me something that was able to *seat* as many people 
as a 156, was able to match the same performance in terms of speed and 
acceleration and offer the same ride on rough track as the 156 does, and 
was as nice inside (I.e high back seats and carpet, rather than nasty 
low backed bus seats) then perhaps I'd have more respect for them.

With their current thing, its hard to stop laughing when its seen.
I know the term "lightly used branch" always comes into play, but when 
suddenly you need to shift 140 people in the peak time, a PPM 1 would be 
useless. And for that reason only Heritage Railways will give them any 
time of day.

"Paul"  wrote


>A new generation light railcar from Parry People Movers (PPM) will provide
> the first passenger service for half a century between Leeming Bar and
> Northallerton from September 15th to 23rd, with an integrated bus link to
> town centre and main line station.


Looks like a it's a bus doing the journey between Leeming and Northallerton 
too.  Thought this was a rail project?

John.

In article <dgjbo1$63f$1$8300dec7@news.beeb.net>,
Tony Miles  wrote:

>
>"Mike D"  wrote in message
>news:dgj2hc$ird$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> A few questions:
>>
>> Why have PPM opted for an LPG engine rather than a small Turbo diesel of
>> similar power output, as diesels are inherently more efficent than a spark
>> ignited engine.
>
>What is the difference in terms of exhaust - which is cleaner? (I don't
>know)


At a guess - weight distribution (the LPG motor is likely to be 
lighter); noise and vibration (it's going to be smoother and
quieter running); emissions (it's certainly going to be a lot
cleaner - this is why LPG-fueled road vehicles are congestion-
tax exempt in London)


>> Why have PPM adopted the flywheel energy store rather than the more common
>> hybrid electic technology as used by Toyota, and I think Honda. I would
>have
>> thought that tapping into this technology would be more cost effective.
>
>Its their thing - and I guess its probably a lot cheaper than the hybrid
>stuff in the Hondas.


Probably also because Honda can afford battalions of development, 
modelling and software types to tweek the management system just so,
while Parry can't. You can't just take a control system from a 1/2 ton
car and drop it into a 5? 10? ton rail vehicle and expect it to work.
And I doubt very much if Honda or Toyota are releasing the source
code for their management system under GPL....
The flywheel system is easier to develop, and possibly has the efficiency
edge where you've got room for it (you'd not fit it in a small car, 
but can in a rail vehicle).


>level - if the industry and enthusiasts between them rubbish everything that
>isn't a "real train" - despite that cost implications etc. we'll just give
>the closure lobby the chance to point the finger back at us ansd blame us
>for not helping to find solutions to save the railways.


Ah - you mean it doesn't have a separate engine (of approved, 40+ year
old type) on the front ;)

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Neil Williams wrote:


> Rich Mackin wrote:
> 
>> If you think that's good, according to a report in the Northern Echo the 
>> previous week, Parry are eager to see the PPM used on Middlesbrough-Whitby 
>> services!
> 
> Because that's really going to provide enough seating capacity for the
> skoolkydd speshuls, isn't it?


Or even other services as well. The lunchtime Saturday arrival into
Whitby is busy throughout the year on a 156 and can be full and
standing during the summer.
You'd need a PPM every 15 minutes or so to carry that many people.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stephen Furley wrote:


> Neil Williams wrote:
> 
>> The really stupid thing about it all is that there probably *is* a
>> market for a cheap lightweight OPO conventional railcar for such
>> largely segregated lines - call it a second-generation Pacer or
>> something.  The LINTs, TALENTs and RegioShuttles are evidence enough
>> of this in Germany.  For the high-platform UK, this could be something
>> like a diesel-powered Metrolink tram - definitely with bogies for a
>> decent ride[1].


There probably is. Such a system might even be workable on the Esk
Valley line if they can run enough of them to meet capacity demands.
And it would likely be more flexible than the current one-train
timetable. But as you say, their ideas are just so laughable. 


> I know very little about the Parry vehicle; I've only seen the one stabled
> in the small compound at Stourbridge Junction a couple of years ago.  It's
> small, and obviously isn't going to move very fast.  It would move small
> numbers of people fairly slowly over shortish distances.  Does it have any
> major advantage over a mini-bus, which can do the same thing without any
> railway infrastructure, with greater flexibility and probably at lower cost?


According to their website
(http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/technology.htm), a PPM50 can
transport 50 people and has double the fuel efficiency of a
single-decker bus. If that is true, and routes can be found where they
would load well, it might be cheaper to run than any road based
vehicle - especially on a route such as Wensleydale, where the track
must be kept open for freight trains.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:13:28 +0100, Darren 
wrote:


>With their current thing, its hard to stop laughing when its seen.
>I know the term "lightly used branch" always comes into play, but when 
>suddenly you need to shift 140 people in the peak time, a PPM 1 would be 
>useless. And for that reason only Heritage Railways will give them any 
>time of day.


But on the sort of lines these sort of things are aimed at, you don't
*need* to shift 140 people in the peaks.  That isn't what I'd call a
quiet branch line.

Really, the size of vehicle we're looking at is something like this:-
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/cz/private/ZD/zd810607knd.jpg

IOW, a new generation version of the old 4-wheel railbuses, or perhaps
a double version the size of something like a Metrolink tram, set up
specifically for driver-only operation with a fare collection desk or
some sort of ticket machine at the entrance by the driver.

If there are genuinely enough passengers there to run a dual-manned
156, you might as well run one.  On many of the branch lines these
kind of things are aimed at, even in the height of the peak you don't.

However, I do agree that a 12-seater rail-minibus is wasteful.  If
that's the only demand, you may as well use a 12-seater minibus.  I
don't think anyone would seriously propose that that incredibly low
level of patronage is a suitable target for rail transport.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:45:14 +0100, Stevie D
 wrote:


>According to their website
>(http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/technology.htm), a PPM50 can
>transport 50 people and has double the fuel efficiency of a
>single-decker bus. If that is true, and routes can be found where they
>would load well, it might be cheaper to run than any road based
>vehicle - especially on a route such as Wensleydale, where the track
>must be kept open for freight trains.


A PPM50 is half the size of a single-decker bus - the 50 passenger
capacity looks like a crush load to me.  It's about the size of a
Mercedes/Plaxton Beaver type minibus, and with a similar capacity.

This one:-
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPMartic-spec.htm
is probably the smallest that is practical - it's halfway between the
Czech railbuses and a Metrolink tram, and may be a size worthy of
consideration, though probably in a mid or high-floor configuration
with fewer doors. 

I would say that building for DOO is absolutely critical, as halving
staff cost may be the only way to save some lines (I know this is
controversial, but I'm sure we'd all argue that a DOO railway is
better than an OPO bus - and it may be those are the only two
choices).

But can Parry actually deliver?  I have my doubts...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:24:12 +0100, Tony Miles wrote in
<dgjbo1$63f$1$8300dec7@news.beeb.net>, seen in uk.railway:

> "Mike D"  wrote in message
> news:dgj2hc$ird$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> 
[...]
> > Despite the sceptisism of some members of this group I can see that giving
> > the right conditions a lightweight railcar, one man operated, could be
> > used on lightly used branch lines to advantage.
> 
> Absolutely - if it comes down to closure or "simple lightweight railcar"
> then surely we'd back the railcar - at least it protects the formation etc.


I think we all would, indeed.


[...]

> The PPM proposal may or may not be the right solution - but presumably they
> deserve as much chance to show their train in action as anyone else?


Surely they've had chances, though? They've demonstrated their
wonder-vehicle on a number of occasions in a number of different
operating circumstances and in one case for a pretty long period of
time. In no case have those demonstrations resulted in production use,
and it is *that* which makes the entire thing seem so pointless to me.



> (I'd be interested to see their proposed higher spec unit being built and
> demonstrated - I think it would address some of the criticisms levelled at
> the prototype..)


Prototypes plural. I too would be interested in seeing something which
could carry (say) 75 seated plus standees - the capacity of a dogbox.
But it would have to be able to run for long periods at attractive
speeds (i.e. up to 50 or 60mph at least) if it is to be a viable
replacement for rural trains, and TBH based on Parry's results to date
I'm really not hopeful that they'll produce anything practical.

I'm still of the opinion that the PPM is a solution looking for a
problem, and as likely to actually enter network service as
Transrapid.

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Tony Miles wrote:

> "Mike D"  wrote in message
> news:dgj2hc$ird$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
>
> > A few questions:
> >
> > Why not just run the WR service through to the same place as the PPM
> > railcar?
>
> I gather the track isn't cleared for passenger use and may need some
> "fettling" and the PPM railcar is using a small temporary platform, remember
> that these days a platform has to pass all health & safety rules including
> being as long as the trains calling there..
>


A very important reason for splitting the service, temporarily, is that
the present two-hourly service from Leeming Bar to Redmire and back can
be worked by a single railcar - or set - under one-train working. There
isn't time to extend the service to Northallerton without needing
another train, and there is no signalling, at present, to allow this.
Using one train for the Redmire service and another on the
Northallerton service on a separate bit of line gets over the problem.

The eventual intention is to run through, but a lot of work is needed
to allow it.

dhwild@talktalk.net wrote:


>A very important reason for splitting the service, temporarily, is that
>the present two-hourly service from Leeming Bar to Redmire and back can
>be worked by a single railcar - or set - under one-train working. There
>isn't time to extend the service to Northallerton without needing
>another train, and there is no signalling, at present, to allow this.
>Using one train for the Redmire service and another on the
>Northallerton service on a separate bit of line gets over the problem.
>
>The eventual intention is to run through, but a lot of work is needed
>to allow it.



This is nonsense.  Surely one train plus a Plastic Pig requires
precisely the same amount of signalling as two trains?

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:13:52 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>This is nonsense.  Surely one train plus a Plastic Pig requires
>precisely the same amount of signalling as two trains?


Or a set of end-to-end buffer stops?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Tony Polson wrote:

> dhwild@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> >A very important reason for splitting the service, temporarily, is that
> >the present two-hourly service from Leeming Bar to Redmire and back can
> >be worked by a single railcar - or set - under one-train working. There
> >isn't time to extend the service to Northallerton without needing
> >another train, and there is no signalling, at present, to allow this.
> >Using one train for the Redmire service and another on the
> >Northallerton service on a separate bit of line gets over the problem.
> >
> >The eventual intention is to run through, but a lot of work is needed
> >to allow it.
>
>
> This is nonsense.  Surely one train plus a Plastic Pig requires
> precisely the same amount of signalling as two trains?


It isn't nonsense. The point about the signalling refers to why the
train can't run through. Whether it's a people mover or a normal train
doesn't matter for this. It's a separate service running on a separate
track.

Tony Polson wrote:

> dhwild@talktalk.net wrote:
>
> >A very important reason for splitting the service, temporarily, is that
> >the present two-hourly service from Leeming Bar to Redmire and back can
> >be worked by a single railcar - or set - under one-train working. There
> >isn't time to extend the service to Northallerton without needing
> >another train, and there is no signalling, at present, to allow this.
> >Using one train for the Redmire service and another on the
> >Northallerton service on a separate bit of line gets over the problem.
> >
> >The eventual intention is to run through, but a lot of work is needed
> >to allow it.
>
>
> This is nonsense.  Surely one train plus a Plastic Pig requires
> precisely the same amount of signalling as two trains?

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:20:30 UTC, Tony   Polson  
wrote:

: However, dictionaries reflect usage, and ever since a certain very
: popular television comedy series introduced the reversed version, it
: has become common usage.

Was that "Only Fools and Horses"? I didn't think they ever used the 
term "Robin Reliant" - or even "Robin". Del Boy's van was a Reliant 
Supervan III, which was based on the Reliant Regal 21E....

Ian

--

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 06:47:08 UTC, "Mike D" 
 wrote:

: Why have PPM adopted the flywheel energy store rather than the more common
: hybrid electic technology as used by Toyota, and I think Honda. I would have
: thought that tapping into this technology would be more cost effective.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail ...

Ian

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message 
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-gX7cdIKjz1Pi@localhost...

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:20:30 UTC, Tony   Polson 
> wrote:
>
> : However, dictionaries reflect usage, and ever since a certain very
> : popular television comedy series introduced the reversed version, it
> : has become common usage.
>
> Was that "Only Fools and Horses"? I didn't think they ever used the
> term "Robin Reliant" - or even "Robin". Del Boy's van was a Reliant
> Supervan III, which was based on the Reliant Regal 21E....


I think you will find the use of "Robin Reliant" can be traced back to one 
Jasper Carrot.


The Supervan 3 and the 21E (car and van) were based on the Regal 3/25. This 
was the first Reliant to use their own built Aluminium engine instead of the 
Sidevalve  as used in the Mk 6 and previous models.

The 21E was a special edition model of the Regal 3/25 with 21 Extra 
features.
These were....
1   Metallic paint finish in four tones - Manhatten Blue, Silver Streak, 
Golden Sands and Caribbean Green.
2   Carpet-covered heelboards
3   Carpeted footwell surrounds
4   Interior paintwork matched the exterior
5   Luxury interior trim fittings
6   Ammeter in chrome bezel set on grained dash panel
7   Chrome plated boot hinges
8   Finely graduated oil pressure gauge in chrome bezel
9   Padded, swivelling sun visors for driver and passenger
10  Chromed over-riders front and rear
11  Lucas spotlight with separate dash-mounted switch
12  Lucas fog light with separate dash-mounted switch
13  Chromed hub caps
14  Decorative ful circle wheel trims for rear wheels
15  Locking petrol cap
16  Twin fully adjustable spring-back wing mirrors
17  Spare wheel
18  Spare wheel cover
19  Simulated leather non-slip steering wheel glove in black
20  Chrome-plated bonnet hinges
21  Chrome filler strip in all window surrounds

NB.  # 15, well Petrol was really cheap in those days......... Don't know 
how they got away with # 17 being an extra? My Std. Regal had one.

KW.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:24:23 +0100, "Tony Miles" 
wrote:


>
>"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
>news:4329b375.1094483@news.tesco.net...
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:34:51 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Here we go again...
>> >
>> >... or do you really mean, here we don't go again?
>>
>> Quite.
>>
>> The really stupid thing about it all is that there probably *is* a
>> market for a cheap lightweight OPO conventional railcar for such
>> largely segregated lines - call it a second-generation Pacer or
>> something.  The LINTs, TALENTs and RegioShuttles are evidence enough
>> of this in Germany.  For the high-platform UK, this could be something
>> like a diesel-powered Metrolink tram - definitely with bogies for a
>> decent ride[1].
>>
>> The trouble with Parry is that they insist on using their odd flywheel
>> "technology" instead of pursuing off-the-shelf van or bus diesel
>> engines with simple transmissions which would make such a thing not
>> only feasible, but potentially even profitable.
>
>Just a note -the PPM idea has moved on a bit from just the flywheel stuff
>towards the kind of hybrid power now available on some cars (and indeed
>proposed for the "battery" class 86 conversion. Both ideas use a lower power
>diesel engine to top up either flywheel energy or batteries so that there is
>sufficient power for pulling away and then lower level power for actual
>running. I think we may see several different hybrid options being explored
>in the next few years - all look at how to provide short bursts of high
>level energy and then sustained levels of lower power in a sensible form.
>TM
>

Thank you Mr. Miles, for injecting some sanity into this thread...


DC

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:01:06 +0100, Barry Salter
 wrote:


>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:01:23 GMT, "Rich Mackin"
> wrote:
>
>>Just out of interest, I assume it's small and lightweight to make it easier 
>>for all the passengers (about 12 in total?) to get out and push?
>
>According to the PPM site, the PPM50 is 8.7m (28.5 feet) long, 2.4m (7
>feet 10.5 inches) wide and 3.2m (10.5 feet) high, and weighs in at 9.1
>tonnes (around 8.9 UK tons).
>
>As well as the flywheel, there's a 2 Litre LPG engine, as used in the
>Ford Focus, with 2 LPG bottles.
>
>HTH,
>
>Barry



Before any of the cynics jumps in with a snide comment, that's app.
10hp per tonne, quite adequate for UK gradients!

DC

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:12:52 +0100, Stephen Furley
 wrote:


>Metrolink would give a much better ride if they gave it some decent track to
>run on.


Very true.  That said, branch lines, which are the target of this sort
of thing, will normally have poorer track.  This needs to be designed
in, and is why the 142 isn't the world's best unit at doing what it
was intended for.


>To see some impressive Diesel powered light-rail vehicles take a trip to New
>Jersey, and have a look at the NJ Transit 'River Line', which runs between
>Trenton and Camden.  Website here: http://www.riverline.com


Very slick, and very much resemblant of AKN Eisenbahnen, a small
network of privately-owned lines north of Hamburg which are operated
using lightweight DEMUs which are perhaps what you'd have got if the
Pacer had been a bogied, articulated unit instead of being on a
freight chassis.

The system basically feels like a cut-down diesel version of the
U-Bahn - indeed, some of the older units (if there's any unrefurbed
ones left) are very reminiscent of the older Hamburg U-Bahn units in
their style, if a bit bigger, including such things as manual sliding
doors.

http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/private/passenger/AKN/pix.html for
more.

One of the old U-Bahn vehicles is here to compare:-
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/metro/Hamburg/hamb003.jpg

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 16 Sep 2005 10:32:21 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>I suspected that would be the case. So what's supposed to be the 
>incentive for folk to use the train for part of the journey?


That would be the entire problem.

Perhaps the ironic thing is that the bus service itself was initially
set up and promoted by the Wensleydale Railway, then was retendered to
Procters Coaches some time later, initially as a high floor minibus
operation but for the past few years in its higher quality
mainly-low-floor form.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?U47552FCB refers.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:24:23 +0100, "Tony Miles" 
wrote:


>Just a note -the PPM idea has moved on a bit from just the flywheel stuff
>towards the kind of hybrid power now available on some cars (and indeed
>proposed for the "battery" class 86 conversion. Both ideas use a lower power
>diesel engine to top up either flywheel energy or batteries so that there is
>sufficient power for pulling away and then lower level power for actual
>running. I think we may see several different hybrid options being explored
>in the next few years - all look at how to provide short bursts of high
>level energy and then sustained levels of lower power in a sensible form.


Now that sounds worth exploring, though I'd say the idea of using
batteries is probably preferable to a flywheel.

I'd say a larger vehicle is also what is required - while I expect
Parry's choice of smaller ones is partly a cost thing, for a rail
vehicle to be even remotely feasible it probably needs to be about the
size of a tram at least (and carry that kind of number of passengers).


With driver-only operation designed in from the start, this kind of
thing could be just what small branch lines isolated from the main
line need to improve their economics a bit.

But will Parry deliver?  Past experience may cloud that issue...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:01:06 +0100, Barry Salter
 wrote:


>As well as the flywheel, there's a 2 Litre LPG engine, as used in the
>Ford Focus, with 2 LPG bottles.


Would such an engine be a feasible power source on its own, without
the flywheel?  Given that we're basically talking an oversized
rail-based minibus...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:14:37 UTC, Tony   Polson  
>wrote:
>
>: * Police nickname for Robin Reliant
>
><pedant>
>
>Is that like the Escort Ford, or the Xantia Citroen or the Minor 
>Morris?
>
></pednt>



I think you missed a letter "a" from the last word.

That's the trouble with pedantry - it always trips you up.

;-)

"Ken Ward"  wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>>
>> * Police nickname for Robin Reliant***
>
>*** Nickname for those who don't know they are called, Reliant Robin.  :-))



What is a suitable nickname for people with Syndrome's Asperger?

;-)

For your information, I know it should be called a Reliant Robin.
However, dictionaries reflect usage, and ever since a certain very
popular television comedy series introduced the reversed version, it
has become common usage.

I recall the anger expressed by a Reliant dealer on a (non-Reliant)
car newsgroup when someone dared to post the commonly used, but
strictly incorrect "Robin Reliant".  From that day on, many posters to
that newsgroup made sure that, wherever possible, they included the
words in that order in their postings.

;-)

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:37:22 UTC, "Ken Ward"  
wrote:

: The Supervan 3 and the 21E (car and van) were based on the Regal 3/25. This 
: was the first Reliant to use their own built Aluminium engine instead of the 
: Sidevalve  as used in the Mk 6 and previous models.

Thanks. 

Ian

--

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:58:53 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
 wrote:


>On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Neil Williams wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:01:06 +0100, Barry Salter
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >As well as the flywheel, there's a 2 Litre LPG engine, as used in the
>> >Ford Focus, with 2 LPG bottles.
>
>I'm assuming that, in the actual vehicle, that's used for rescue,
>rather than as part of normal operation?
>
>But one could hypothesise a hybrid vehicle which had a baseload engine 
>of some sort, plus a flywheel.  The idea is far from new.
>
>
>When I was much, much younger, I read that the Midland Red (that's the 
>BMMO, before the Great Breakup*) were experimenting with a bus 
>equipped with a flywheel, that would basically be spun-up as the bus 
>slowed down on the approach to a stop (also helpfully reducing the 
>wear and tear on the brakes),


>However, it seemed that back then, the technology of flywheels wasn't 
>so well advanced, and there were worries that to get enough energy 
>stored into a realistic flywheel on board a bus was risking that the 
>damned thing would catastrophically explode - or so I read at the 
>time. 


Possibly not in that application but done 60 years ago in the one
mentioned below. 

 

>
>Apropos accelerating away, I recall that back in school days (late 
>1950s) we used to walk from school to a bus stop which was served by 
>both trolley buses and motor buses (both with open rear platforms in 
>those days, of course).  The general rule was, if you saw a motor bus, 
>you ran after it and leaped on: if you saw a trolley bus - forget it!
>
>
>
>Maybe a hybrid/electric vehicle would be a better choice than a 
>hybrid/flywheel jobbie, then.
>
>


The fly wheel concept is not new and has been used in a form of
Trolleybus  on a couple of systems abroad. Instead of wiring the whole
route the booms were raised at certain stops to spin up the fly wheel.
       The Swiss Oerlikon company who had a good pedigree with
electric traction must have thought  it an avenue worth trying.
They got a few more vehicles out than Parry but the systems were
relatively short lived.  I wonder if Messrs Parry had to speak to
Oerlikon or its successors as I would have thought there might be
Patents involved.
Ther is some information and a couple of Pics at
http://www.sfu.ca/person/dearmond/morph/Gyrobus_photos.htm

G.Harman

"g.harman"  wrote

>
> The fly wheel concept is not new and has been used in a form of
> Trolleybus  on a couple of systems abroad.


The flywheel concept is not new to railways in uk. Raworth's electric locos
(CC1 and CC2) built for the Southern in the 1940s were equipped with
flywheels to cope with gaps in the juice rail, and were said to be capable
of shunting a few wagons in sidings not equipped with the third rail.

Peter