<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:37:46 +0100
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>> other arrangement.
>>>
>> In the articulated buses used in Heathrow in the early 1960s there was
>> no passenger section ahead.
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/50941261877
>
> Its stretching the definition of a bus somewhat given its an hgv tractor unit
> pulling a trailer with seats.
>
>
Used in some parts of the world more often than here ,appear to be known as
trailer buses.

This an Indian example but single decker versions were used in Australia
<https://imgur.com/gallery/a6XYY>

GH

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:41:25 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> > On 24.07.23 18:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:46 +0200
> >> Take away the flexible cover between the 2 parts of a bendy bus
> and you'll >> find its just a posh trailer.
> >
> > If you take away the flexible cover you will find an unpowered 2
> > axle segment with a driver and all of the driving controls, and a 1
> > axle segment supported from the 2 axle segment with the engine and
> > transmission. Neither portion is a complete vehicle without the
> > other, it is a single integrated whole.
>
> The vast majority of the weight of the rear goes through its own
> wheels hence its a trailer. Or do you think if you attach a little
> trailer to your car it suddenly makes your car an articulated vehicle
> because maybe 20kg of weight is going through the ball joint?

Yes, by the definition of "articulated", such a trailer is articulated.
This has nothing to do with weight being transfered, all you need is
some sort of movable attachment. Similarly, the human body itself (when
it is whole) is articulated in the context of arms and legs. Even you
will have heard of joints being "disarticulated".

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:52:34 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 25.07.23 09:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:23:47 -0000 (UTC)
>> Railway couplings articulate and their weight is entirely supported by the
>> vehicle each side. Explain the different between them and a floating carraige
>
>> in a mechanical sense.
>
>In an articulated railway vehicle, there are shared elements of the
>suspension/running gear such that one (or both) sides are not self
>supporting in the absence of the other. In a conventional carriage, each
>vehicle, either side of a coupling, is fully self-supporting, such that
>when the coupling is un-made, each vehicle remains fully supported by
>its own running gear, suspension etc. on the rails.

You missed the point.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:54:27 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 25.07.23 09:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:41:25 +0200
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 24.07.23 18:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:46 +0200
>>>> Take away the flexible cover between the 2 parts of a bendy bus and you'll
>>>> find its just a posh trailer.
>>>
>>> If you take away the flexible cover you will find an unpowered 2 axle
>>> segment with a driver and all of the driving controls, and a 1 axle
>>> segment supported from the 2 axle segment with the engine and
>>> transmission. Neither portion is a complete vehicle without the other,
>>> it is a single integrated whole.
>>
>> The vast majority of the weight of the rear goes through its own wheels
>> hence its a trailer. Or do you think if you attach a little trailer to your
>> car it suddenly makes your car an articulated vehicle because maybe 20kg of
>> weight is going through the ball joint?
>
>A trailer is by definition unpowered. The rear section of an articulated
>bus contains the engine, so is not a trailer.

Not all bendy buses have the engine in the rear so presumably those buses
wouldn't be articulated by your definition?

On 25 Jul 2023 09:49:38 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:37:46 +0100
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>
>>> In the articulated buses used in Heathrow in the early 1960s there was
>>> no passenger section ahead.
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/50941261877
>>
>> Its stretching the definition of a bus somewhat given its an hgv tractor
>unit
>> pulling a trailer with seats.
>>
>>
>Used in some parts of the world more often than here ,appear to be known as
>trailer buses.
>
>This an Indian example but single decker versions were used in Australia
><https://imgur.com/gallery/a6XYY>

I think its fair to say that health and safety on the road is non existent
in india.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:48:41 -0000 (UTC)
"David Jones" <dajhawkxx@nowherel.com> wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:41:25 +0200
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> > On 24.07.23 18:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:46 +0200
>> >> Take away the flexible cover between the 2 parts of a bendy bus
>> and you'll >> find its just a posh trailer.
>> >
>> > If you take away the flexible cover you will find an unpowered 2
>> > axle segment with a driver and all of the driving controls, and a 1
>> > axle segment supported from the 2 axle segment with the engine and
>> > transmission. Neither portion is a complete vehicle without the
>> > other, it is a single integrated whole.
>>
>> The vast majority of the weight of the rear goes through its own
>> wheels hence its a trailer. Or do you think if you attach a little
>> trailer to your car it suddenly makes your car an articulated vehicle
>> because maybe 20kg of weight is going through the ball joint?
>
>Yes, by the definition of "articulated", such a trailer is articulated.
>This has nothing to do with weight being transfered, all you need is
>some sort of movable attachment. Similarly, the human body itself (when
>it is whole) is articulated in the context of arms and legs. Even you
>will have heard of joints being "disarticulated".

Using your definition a normal train is also articulated.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 15:44:02 +0000, Muttley wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:54:27 +0200 Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>On 25.07.23 09:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:41:25 +0200 Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24.07.23 18:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:46 +0200 Take away the flexible cover
>>>>> between the 2 parts of a bendy bus and you'll find its just a posh
>>>>> trailer.
>>>>
>>>> If you take away the flexible cover you will find an unpowered 2 axle
>>>> segment with a driver and all of the driving controls, and a 1 axle
>>>> segment supported from the 2 axle segment with the engine and
>>>> transmission. Neither portion is a complete vehicle without the
>>>> other,
>>>> it is a single integrated whole.
>>>
>>> The vast majority of the weight of the rear goes through its own
>>> wheels hence its a trailer. Or do you think if you attach a little
>>> trailer to your car it suddenly makes your car an articulated vehicle
>>> because maybe 20kg of weight is going through the ball joint?
>>
>>A trailer is by definition unpowered. The rear section of an articulated
>>bus contains the engine, so is not a trailer.
>
> Not all bendy buses have the engine in the rear so presumably those
> buses wouldn't be articulated by your definition?

I would have thought that the clearest difference between the two hinged
parts of an articulated bus and a normal bus is that neither of the parts
on its own is a usable bus.

nib

This article answers quite a few questions about LU's first articulated
trains:

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-from-1891-to-2025/

One surprise to me is that all eight shared bogies are motored, but the two
cab end ones are not.

As for Neil's stubborn, uninformed insistence that all articulated trains
must use Jacob's bogies (which he's just heard of):

LU’s early work showed that the typical articulation where the centre of
the bogie is under the joint between the vehicles is not suitable for tube
trains. To fit a bogie with the vehicle-vehicle coupling above it, the
floor of the gangway above that and still achieve enough headroom in the
gangway would be extremely difficult.

Also, articulated bogies (known as Jacobs bogies) often have a longer
wheelbase than their non-articulated siblings. A longer wheelbase makes it
hard to improve curving/track-friendliness and the opposite of the ambition
to reduce the wheelbase below the usual 1.9m. These issues led to a
proposal where the bogie was wholly under one end of a vehicle and the
other end would be supported from the bogie end of the next car. It was
inspired by the Stockholm Metro C20 trains and is the configuration adopted
for the new Glasgow subway trains.

<snip>

The Piccadilly Line train will be a nine-car, ten-bogie articulated train
which will be 113.7m long [the 73TS is 106.81m], 2.844m high and 2.648m
wide over the external sliding doors. Dave explained that Siemens came up
with an innovative solution, having evaluated many options. It will be
formed from five two-bogie motor cars with four intermediate cars – with no
wheels – supported between adjacent cars. As far as your writer is aware,
this is a unique configuration for a metro train, although it is relatively
commonplace in tram and light rail vehicles.

Eight bogies will be motored, with the trailer bogies located under the
cabs. The articulated couplings below floor level will accommodate yaw,
pitch and roll, and one of the two couplings on each intermediate car will
be supplemented by a device at roof level to control roll. The bodies will
be formed of welded aluminium extrusions.

On 25.07.23 17:43, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:52:34 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 25.07.23 09:29, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:23:47 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Railway couplings articulate and their weight is entirely supported by the
>>> vehicle each side. Explain the different between them and a floating carraige
>>
>>> in a mechanical sense.
>>
>> In an articulated railway vehicle, there are shared elements of the
>> suspension/running gear such that one (or both) sides are not self
>> supporting in the absence of the other. In a conventional carriage, each
>> vehicle, either side of a coupling, is fully self-supporting, such that
>> when the coupling is un-made, each vehicle remains fully supported by
>> its own running gear, suspension etc. on the rails.
>
> You missed the point.

Care to elaborate? On couplings between conventional railway vehciles,
whether it be hook and buffers, buckeye/knuckle, Scharfenburg/Dellner or
any other design, the weight of the coupling gear is supported by the
respective vehicles, and the coupler is designed solely for the purpose
of transmitting longditudinal forces from one vehicle to the next, and
none others, not transverse, not vertical, not torsional.

In an articulated vehicle, the connection is designed to transmit
longditudinal, vertical and transverse forces, with an element of the
weight of the body segment one side of the connection supported by
vertical forces through the connection.

In an articulated lorry, weight and steering transverse forces are
transmitted through the fifth wheel. In an articulated bus, weight and
steering forces are transmitted through the articulation joint. For a
Jacobs bogie, all weight and suspension forces are transmitted through
the shared bogie. On a floating carrriage or floating carriage end (eg
Stadler GTW), weight and steering forces are transmitted through the
articulation. For a conventional railway coupling, no weight and no
steering is transmitted through the coupling. For a full (not semi)
trailer, only traction/braking guidance is provided by the drawbar.

Robin

On 25.07.23 17:44, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:54:27 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 25.07.23 09:31, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:41:25 +0200
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24.07.23 18:16, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:46 +0200
>>>>> Take away the flexible cover between the 2 parts of a bendy bus and you'll
>>>>> find its just a posh trailer.
>>>>
>>>> If you take away the flexible cover you will find an unpowered 2 axle
>>>> segment with a driver and all of the driving controls, and a 1 axle
>>>> segment supported from the 2 axle segment with the engine and
>>>> transmission. Neither portion is a complete vehicle without the other,
>>>> it is a single integrated whole.
>>>
>>> The vast majority of the weight of the rear goes through its own wheels
>>> hence its a trailer. Or do you think if you attach a little trailer to your
>>> car it suddenly makes your car an articulated vehicle because maybe 20kg of
>>> weight is going through the ball joint?
>>
>> A trailer is by definition unpowered. The rear section of an articulated
>> bus contains the engine, so is not a trailer.
>
> Not all bendy buses have the engine in the rear so presumably those buses
> wouldn't be articulated by your definition?

Unpowered is a necessary but not sufficient characteristic of a trailer.
All trailers are unpowered. Not all unpowered vehicles are trailers.

Robin

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:37:46 +0100, Charles Ellson
>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One might start from the more general Wiki page at
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articulated_vehicle
>>>>>
>>>>> The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone is
>>>>> familiar with the articulated lorry.
>>>>
>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>
>>> In the articulated buses used in Heathrow in the early 1960s there was
>>> no passenger section ahead.
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/50941261877
>>
>> A horse is a horse, of course... of course!
>>
>> The pax area of the bus wasn't articulated though... so a horsebox
>> wiff seats?
>>
>
> Basically an articulated lorry with seats. I wonder what that arrangement
> achieved?
>
>

Quite common in Africa/India AIUI (often from British manufacturers) - high
capacity using locally-available components. Their use at Heathrow may also
have been about higher capacity with a single deck vehicle.

There's this in Switzerland… *grin*
<https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1683918310864302080>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:16:41 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:08:46 +0200 Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.07.23 17:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200 Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The other is very USA-based and so wrong for the UK, where everyone
>>>>>>>>> is familiar with the articulated lorry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with
>>>>>>>> any other arrangement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is why they're generally called bendy buses
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By whom? Certainly nobody in the transportation industry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not articulated buses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google produces 12.7 million hits for "articulated bus" and 8.7 million
>>>>>> hits for "bendy bus".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its a bus pulling (or being pushed by) a trailer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A bus trailer is something different entirely, for example [1]. An
>>>>>> articulated bus can not be separated into parts that can function
>>>>>> independently from one another. A bus trailer can be detatched and the
>>>>>> bus operate on its own without the trailer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take away the flexible cover between the 2 parts of a bendy bus and
>>>>> you'll find its just a posh trailer.
>>>>
>>>> To me, non-expert (but with a dictionary), articulated means made up of
>>>> parts hinged together, as in bones.
>>>>
>>>> So an articulated lorry is one that hinges in the middle, unlike most
>>>> lorries that don't.
>>>>
>>>> And a articulated bus is also one that has parts hinged, as most don't.
>>>> One single bus that bends in the middle.
>>>>
>>>> For a train it's not so obvious, but presumably a normal train is a
>>>> series of separate carriages whereas an articulated one is more like a
>>>> single long carriage that bends in places.
>>>
>>> Yes. In particular, sections in articulated trains share wheels, so can't
>>> be uncoupled except in a suitably equipped depot that can support uncoupled
>>> sections on jacks.
>>>
>>> In some cases, the two sections are pivoted together, with one supported by
>>> the track wheels, and then supporting the other; in others they are
>>> separately supported on a shared bogie with two pivots (a Jacob's bogie).
>>>
>>> Jacob's bogies are simple, but aren't good for powered axles or low floors.
>>> That's why they're seldom used in low floor, multi-section vehicles that
>>> need powered axles along the train (eg, low floor trams). Despite Neil's
>>> uninformed rants, they wouldn't be right for LU Tube trains that need
>>> articulation with low floors and powered axles.
>>>
>>> I had expected a different arrangement, with each carriage having one power
>>> bogie (not Jacob's). It would support the adjacent section with a pivot on
>>> the overhang. It, in turn, would be supported by the adjacent section at
>>> the other end. There would still be nine sections and 10 bogies. I assume
>>> the chosen arrangement provides more space for the aircon packs.
>>>
>>
>> One potential problem I see with that arrangement is that it would
>> potentially give different vehicle dynamics depending which direction the
>> train is going?
>
> Wouldn't that also be true of Talgo trains, where the asymmetry would be
> much greater, and they go much faster?

The early Talgos were unidirectional, but whether that was due to
limitations of the technology I can’t tell from the limited reading I’ve
done.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:19:06 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:52:44 +0100
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>
>>>> Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.
>>>
>>> Got it in one.
>>
>> So please can you tell us your unambiguous definition of “articulated” -
>> different definitions as applied to road and rail vehicles if necessary.
>> Thank you.
>
> Where a vehicle has a shared bogie/axles with the one next to it.

So a Talgo is not articulated? A Talgo carriage is more like a trailer
where one end is supported on wheels and the other is hooked to the end of
the next carriage.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> This article answers quite a few questions about LU's first articulated
> trains:
>
> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-from-1891-to-2025/
>
> One surprise to me is that all eight shared bogies are motored, but the two
> cab end ones are not.
>

Explained by the power supply arrangements - current collector shoes on
four of the five bogied vehicles feed traction inverters on the adjacent
floating vehicles, which feed back to the motors on the adjacent bogie of
the powered vehicle - and the cab ends have no adjacent vehicle to provide
that!

The big surprise for me is tread brakes rather than disk brakes; I don't
know what recent LU practice is compared to mainline universal (I think?)
adoption of disk brakes for passenger stock since the early 1990s.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This article answers quite a few questions about LU's first articulated
>> trains:
>>
>> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/piccadilly-line-trains-a-journey-from-1891-to-2025/
>>
>> One surprise to me is that all eight shared bogies are motored, but the two
>> cab end ones are not.
>>
>
> Explained by the power supply arrangements - current collector shoes on
> four of the five bogied vehicles feed traction inverters on the adjacent
> floating vehicles, which feed back to the motors on the adjacent bogie of
> the powered vehicle - and the cab ends have no adjacent vehicle to provide
> that!
>
> The big surprise for me is tread brakes rather than disk brakes; I don't
> know what recent LU practice is compared to mainline universal (I think?)
> adoption of disk brakes for passenger stock since the early 1990s.
>

Presumably the friction brakes have relatively little work to do on this
train, and using tread brakes will reduce wheel slide problems in the
autumn. The Piccadilly runs through some leafy stretches.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:19:06 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:52:44 +0100
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.
>>>>
>>>> Got it in one.
>>>
>>> So please can you tell us your unambiguous definition of “articulated” -
>>> different definitions as applied to road and rail vehicles if necessary.
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> Where a vehicle has a shared bogie/axles with the one next to it.
>
> So a Talgo is not articulated? A Talgo carriage is more like a trailer
> where one end is supported on wheels and the other is hooked to the end of
> the next carriage.

I expect Neil to go quiet on this. He recently was proud to learn about
Jacob's bogies, and wrongly thought that articulation required their use.
Enough people and sources (including the one he cited himself!) have proved
him wrong that he'll eventually realise that it's time to shut up. Of
course, he'd never admit that he was wrong, so will change the subject.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:38:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:37:46 +0100
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>other arrangement.
>>>
>>In the articulated buses used in Heathrow in the early 1960s there was
>>no passenger section ahead.
>>https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/50941261877
>
>Its stretching the definition of a bus somewhat given its an hgv tractor unit
>pulling a trailer with seats.
>
A passenger carrying vehicle with lots of seats (ignoring any argument
about the precise manner of availability or what it is licensed for).
Smaller buses can be based on the chassises of large vans (or in past
times on a lorry chassis). Does that mean they aren't buses?

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:52:22 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:37:46 +0100, Charles Ellson
>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24.07.23 13:32, David Jones wrote:
>>>>> Recliner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:30:49 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yup, 9 min gap westbound. That looks about right. I was on it
>>>>>> today and it >>> certainly wasn't a 2.5 service. When the a train
>>>>>> finally rocked up at Hyde >>> Park we couldn't get on it was so
>>>>>> packed. >>
>>>>>>>> Today's Sunday, with a lower frequency. They run about every 2.5
>>>>>> minutes on >> normal days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thats the theory. The reality is it doesn't. I use it once a week
>>>>>>> atm and the service is as bad as it ever was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Its not articulated. Oh, and its not low floor either. HTH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it's articulated. Just read any technical description of
>>>>>> them, >> such as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.railengineer.co.uk/design-launch-of-the-new-london-undergr
>>>>>> ound-picc >> adilly-line-trains/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're wrong.

>>
>> A horse is a horse, of course... of course!
>>
>> The pax area of the bus wasn't articulated though... so a horsebox
>> wiff seats?
>>
>
>Basically an articulated lorry with seats. I wonder what that arrangement
>achieved?

Manoueverability on the apron?

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:19:06 -0000 (UTC)
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:52:44 +0100
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>
>>>> Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.
>>>
>>> Got it in one.
>>
>>So please can you tell us your unambiguous definition of “articulatedâ€? -
>>different definitions as applied to road and rail vehicles if necessary.
>>Thank you.
>
>Where a vehicle has a shared bogie/axles with the one next to it.

So an artic isn't articulated, by your definition?

Mark

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:52:36 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> So a Talgo is not articulated? A Talgo carriage is more like a trailer
>> where one end is supported on wheels and the other is hooked to the end of
>> the next carriage.
>
>I expect Neil to go quiet on this. He recently was proud to learn about
>Jacob's bogies, and wrongly thought that articulation required their use.
>Enough people and sources (including the one he cited himself!) have proved
>him wrong that he'll eventually realise that it's time to shut up. Of
>course, he'd never admit that he was wrong, so will change the subject.

Straw manning to the max as usual or has nursery forgotten to give you your
daily sanatogen again? I suggested jacobs bogies for tube trains for the lower
floors , it had nothing to do with articulation at the time.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 23:28:48 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:38:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:37:46 +0100
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>>other arrangement.
>>>>
>>>In the articulated buses used in Heathrow in the early 1960s there was
>>>no passenger section ahead.
>>>https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/50941261877
>>
>>Its stretching the definition of a bus somewhat given its an hgv tractor unit
>
>>pulling a trailer with seats.
>>
>A passenger carrying vehicle with lots of seats (ignoring any argument
>about the precise manner of availability or what it is licensed for).

So a tractor pulling a trailer with seats at a country fair is a bus then?

>Smaller buses can be based on the chassises of large vans (or in past
>times on a lorry chassis). Does that mean they aren't buses?

Depends where you draw the line. Is a 7 seat SUV a bus?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:40:33 +0100
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:19:06 -0000 (UTC)
>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:52:44 +0100
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.
>>>>
>>>> Got it in one.
>>>
>>>So please can you tell us your unambiguous definition of “articulated�? -
>>>different definitions as applied to road and rail vehicles if necessary.
>>>Thank you.
>>
>>Where a vehicle has a shared bogie/axles with the one next to it.
>
>So an artic isn't articulated, by your definition?

ITYF the end of the semi trailer sits over the tractor wheels.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 10:36:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 21:52:36 -0000 (UTC)
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> So a Talgo is not articulated? A Talgo carriage is more like a trailer
>>> where one end is supported on wheels and the other is hooked to the end of
>>> the next carriage.
>>
>>I expect Neil to go quiet on this. He recently was proud to learn about
>>Jacob's bogies, and wrongly thought that articulation required their use.
>>Enough people and sources (including the one he cited himself!) have proved
>>him wrong that he'll eventually realise that it's time to shut up. Of
>>course, he'd never admit that he was wrong, so will change the subject.
>
>Straw manning to the max as usual or has nursery forgotten to give you your
>daily sanatogen again? I suggested jacobs bogies for tube trains for the lower
>floors , it had nothing to do with articulation at the time.

Congratulations, Neil — now you've really excelled yourself. Keep it up!

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 10:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:40:33 +0100
>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:26:43 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:19:06 -0000 (UTC)
>>>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:52:44 +0100
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cue for Neil to tell us that they're not really articulated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it in one.
>>>>
>>>>So please can you tell us your unambiguous definition of “articulatedâ€? -
>>>>different definitions as applied to road and rail vehicles if necessary.
>>>>Thank you.
>>>
>>>Where a vehicle has a shared bogie/axles with the one next to it.
>>
>>So an artic isn't articulated, by your definition?
>
>ITYF the end of the semi trailer sits over the tractor wheels.

In other words, it's suspended from the rear of the section ahead. The
trailer doesn't connect directly to the wheelset.

Mark

On 27/07/2023 11:37, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 23:28:48 +0100
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:38:24 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:37:46 +0100
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:47:51 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> Articulated buses, of course, suspend one end of one section from the
>>>>> rear of the section ahead. I've never seen an articulated bus with any
>>>>> other arrangement.
>>>>>
>>>> In the articulated buses used in Heathrow in the early 1960s there was
>>>> no passenger section ahead.
>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/46986413@N07/50941261877
>>>
>>> Its stretching the definition of a bus somewhat given its an hgv tractor unit
>>
>>> pulling a trailer with seats.
>>>
>> A passenger carrying vehicle with lots of seats (ignoring any argument
>> about the precise manner of availability or what it is licensed for).
>
> So a tractor pulling a trailer with seats at a country fair is a bus then?

Is it registered as a PSV?

>
>> Smaller buses can be based on the chassises of large vans (or in past
>> times on a lorry chassis). Does that mean they aren't buses?
>
> Depends where you draw the line. Is a 7 seat SUV a bus?
>

Is it registered as a PSV? More likely to be a taxi.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.