Leeds trolley buses set to get the go ahead!

[simong]

The trolleybus project is now under threat (along with Kirkstall Forge station, and presumably other new rail station projects like Apperley Bridge and Low Moor). 38Degrees are asking for our input into whether they should petition to save NGT here?: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/trolley-bus-pollPersonally I think the railway stations and improving public transport in general are more important so I would be inclined to say no. 38Degrees can be rather reactive and populist sometimes but it's proving to be more effective than the No10 petition website so go and give them some input.

[Trojan]

pyramar wrote: I am indebted to cnosni for the link to the T&A website which says Bradford businessmen want to link the two rail stations and have a plan they are seeking support for. Notice no mention of Bradford Council taking a lead. The article suggests calling any new combined station Bradford International. (No Bradford, dont set yourselves up for more humiliation, Bradford Central will do nicely). Roughly how far apart - as the crow flies are Forster Square and the interchange? And what about their respective levels?    

[Reginal Perrin]

The trolley bus is a half arsed attempt at putting some shiny civic badge on the city's coat. It's so compromised it's not worth having. Taking the southern route, no one is going to drive to Stourton to get a trolley bus into town, they will just get on a bus. The Cross Green link road has eased traffic hugely from Rothwell into Leeds so both cars and buses gernerally get a free run.The problem I see is high prices and infrequent services from suburns into town. I think the council should ditch the bus contracts and bring back the corporation buses.

[simong]

Trojan wrote: Roughly how far apart - as the crow flies are Forster Square and the interchange? And what about their respective levels?     It's about ten minutes walk so probably three quarters of a mile, and something like 60 feet.

[chameleon]

Kent Thameside have had their promised transport funding pulled - no mention of Leeds but then, did we have a promise .....or not.Poor Sheffield have lost fiance for their promised Retail Quarter development; best not open any new shops in Leeds, they'll be saying the competition will be stealing their trade

[raveydavey]

We can't afford the trolley bus - it should be binned. Simple.Sadly, it looks like the Kirkstall Road Mis-Guided Bus Lane is already well underway and won't be a victim of the cuts. Saving already full buses 5 minutes off journey times between the City Centre and the Horsforth roundabout, whilst engineering more traffic hold ups into the highways and perpetuating First's monopoly on service at a cost of how many millions? What a waste. First make over £100 million in profits every year, much of it from subsidy. If they want the exclusive use of expensive infrastructure projects like this, then I'd suggest they are well capable of funding them themselves, rather than their usual begging bowl stance at the public purse.

[Si]

Brandy wrote: Si wrote: I think Simon's right. The only advantage of trolley buses is that their emissions come out of the top of chimneys at Ferrybridge instead of the vehicles' exhaust pipes. Electric transport is quite often described on TV and in the press as having "zero" emissions, which is incorrect. yes SI very good point.They make out on the telly that the electric from the plug comes from some invisible ultra green power fairies.Instead of large pollution spewing drax like demons.as jim royal would say ZERO EMISSIONS............. MY AR$E. I read an interesting article in a magazine recently, which makes the point that pro-electric vehicle lobyists all make the mistake of thinking that electricity is a fuel. This is the equivalent of saying that steam is the fuel used by steam locomotives. No it isn't. Coal is. Likewise electric vehicles (- also oil and uranium.)    

[raveydavey]

Si wrote: Brandy wrote: Si wrote: I think Simon's right. The only advantage of trolley buses is that their emissions come out of the top of chimneys at Ferrybridge instead of the vehicles' exhaust pipes. Electric transport is quite often described on TV and in the press as having "zero" emissions, which is incorrect. yes SI very good point.They make out on the telly that the electric from the plug comes from some invisible ultra green power fairies.Instead of large pollution spewing drax like demons.as jim royal would say ZERO EMISSIONS............. MY AR$E. I read an interesting article in a magazine recently, which makes the point that pro-electric vehicle lobyists all make the mistake of thinking that electricity is a fuel. This is the equivalent of saying that steam is the fuel used by steam locomotives. No it isn't. Coal is. Likewise electric vehicles (- also oil and uranium.)     Indeed - all that lovely leccy has to come from somewhere and more often than not it's as a result of burning coal or gas...no pollution where it's used, but lots of pollution somewhere else.

[Si]

raveydavey wrote: Si wrote: Brandy wrote: Si wrote: I think Simon's right. The only advantage of trolley buses is that their emissions come out of the top of chimneys at Ferrybridge instead of the vehicles' exhaust pipes. Electric transport is quite often described on TV and in the press as having "zero" emissions, which is incorrect. yes SI very good point.They make out on the telly that the electric from the plug comes from some invisible ultra green power fairies.Instead of large pollution spewing drax like demons.as jim royal would say ZERO EMISSIONS............. MY AR$E. I read an interesting article in a magazine recently, which makes the point that pro-electric vehicle lobyists all make the mistake of thinking that electricity is a fuel. This is the equivalent of saying that steam is the fuel used by steam locomotives. No it isn't. Coal is. Likewise electric vehicles (- also oil and uranium.)     Indeed - all that lovely leccy has to come from somewhere and more often than not it's as a result of burning coal or gas...no pollution where it's used, but lots of pollution somewhere else. Correct, Ravey.Inefficiency includes loss of power between power station and plug hole, and power used to shift the heavy batteries around with you. Electric vehicles are a red herring. The only thing in their favour is shifting the point of pollution, which makes no difference to your carbon footprint.     

[Reginal Perrin]

I wonder if these are the future:Fuel Cells: This method uses oxygen from the atmosphere to complete the burning of the hydrogen in the fuel cell. What comes out of the tail pipe is oxygen and water vapor, but the oxygen originally came from the atmosphere, not from the fuel. And so the use of fuel cells neither takes away nor contributes to the oxygen content of the air.Hydrogen: This fuel is complete in itself. It does not need oxygen from the atmosphere to burn, which is an improvement over fossil fuels in saving the oxygen in our air supply. In fact, when hydrogen burns perfectly, nothing at all comes out of the tail pipe. If salt and metal alloy are used to create hydrogen, then there will be residues of that in the exhaust, but hydrogen fuel does not contribute oxygen to the atmosphere.Brown's gas: This is the most perfect fuel of all for running our vehicles. Like pure hydrogen, it is made from water, i.e., hydrogen and oxygen, but it burns in the combustion engine so that, depending on the setup, it may actually release oxygen into the atmosphere. In that case, what comes out of the tail pipe is oxygen and water vapor, just as with fuel cells; but the oxygen comes from the water that's being used to create the Brown's gas fuel. So burning Brown's gas as fuel can add oxygen to the air and thus increase the oxygen content of our atmosphere.