<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:39 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Water between bottom of railhead and top of railhead, 5mph.
>>
>> Between top of sleepers and bottom of railhead, NR say linespeed, gWr say
>> 20mph (143 150 769) 50mph (158 16x 387 57/Sleeper HST) or linespeed (IET).
>
> Why the difference between classes? Are some more waterproof than others?
>

The ones which are 20mph, I think the problem is water ingress into
axleboxes.

IETs, presumably modern sealed-unit traction motors and other electronics
allow a less cautious approach.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:11:35 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:38 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>>>>> departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
>>>
>>> Parry has been a solution looking for a problem for around 30 years now.
>>>
>>> Even when its niche became mainstream, it was beaten to it by improved
>>> battery and capacitor tech.
>>>
>>>> Why don't they just bin the
>>>> flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for some
>>>> regen and mild hybrid assistance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the Parry principle was developed, and even when the Stourbridge
>>> vehicles were introduced, the battery technology wasn't available to
>>> achieve this.
>>
>> I suppose not for all use cases. But for the short stourbridge line I imagine
>> a milk floats worth of lead acids could cope quite nicely. Not much of an ask
>> in a 10 ton vehicle.
>>
>>> I doubt that Parry will move on from flywheel to battery; the company's
>>> sole reason for existence is to promote John Parry's flywheel propulsion
>>> ideas.
>>
>> Sounds like their days are numbered then.
>>
>
>They've survived for over 30 years so far trying to push the same idea!

I wonder if they are actively trading? They don't publish a P&L, as their revenue is to small to need to.

Have they made any actual sales, apart from the pair of 139s?

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:11:35 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>>>>>> departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Parry has been a solution looking for a problem for around 30 years now.
>>>>
>>>> Even when its niche became mainstream, it was beaten to it by improved
>>>> battery and capacitor tech.
>>>>
>>>>> Why don't they just bin the
>>>>> flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for some
>>>>> regen and mild hybrid assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the Parry principle was developed, and even when the Stourbridge
>>>> vehicles were introduced, the battery technology wasn't available to
>>>> achieve this.
>>>
>>> I suppose not for all use cases. But for the short stourbridge line I imagine
>>> a milk floats worth of lead acids could cope quite nicely. Not much of an ask
>>> in a 10 ton vehicle.
>>>
>>>> I doubt that Parry will move on from flywheel to battery; the company's
>>>> sole reason for existence is to promote John Parry's flywheel propulsion
>>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> Sounds like their days are numbered then.
>>>
>>
>> They've survived for over 30 years so far trying to push the same idea!
>
> I wonder if they are actively trading? They don't publish a P&L, as
> their revenue is to small to need to.
>
> Have they made any actual sales, apart from the pair of 139s?
>

I thought in those 30 years they had at least one identity change behind
the scenes?

Their website seems to be run by a marketing company and has newsletters
up to this year.

<http://friendlycreatives.co.uk/ppm/news/parry-people-movers-plan-for-2021-22/>

A lot of puff ,aspirations but little of substance .

GH

On 16/04/2022 14:11, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:39 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Water between bottom of railhead and top of railhead, 5mph.
>>>
>>> Between top of sleepers and bottom of railhead, NR say linespeed, gWr say
>>> 20mph (143 150 769) 50mph (158 16x 387 57/Sleeper HST) or linespeed (IET).
>>
>> Why the difference between classes? Are some more waterproof than others?
>>
>
> The ones which are 20mph, I think the problem is water ingress into
> axleboxes.
>
> IETs, presumably modern sealed-unit traction motors and other electronics
> allow a less cautious approach.

What causes their problems when they get a minor salt water spray at
Dawlish? They do seem to dry out and can be restarted after a couple of
hours.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:11:35 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>>>>>>> departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parry has been a solution looking for a problem for around 30 years now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even when its niche became mainstream, it was beaten to it by improved
>>>>> battery and capacitor tech.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't they just bin the
>>>>>> flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for some
>>>>>> regen and mild hybrid assistance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the Parry principle was developed, and even when the Stourbridge
>>>>> vehicles were introduced, the battery technology wasn't available to
>>>>> achieve this.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose not for all use cases. But for the short stourbridge line I imagine
>>>> a milk floats worth of lead acids could cope quite nicely. Not much of an ask
>>>> in a 10 ton vehicle.
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that Parry will move on from flywheel to battery; the company's
>>>>> sole reason for existence is to promote John Parry's flywheel propulsion
>>>>> ideas.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like their days are numbered then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They've survived for over 30 years so far trying to push the same idea!
>>
>> I wonder if they are actively trading? They don't publish a P&L, as
>> their revenue is to small to need to.
>>
>> Have they made any actual sales, apart from the pair of 139s?
>>
>
> I thought in those 30 years they had at least one identity change behind
> the scenes?

Yes, I have a vague recollection of it going bankrupt at some point.

>
> Their website seems to be run by a marketing company and has newsletters
> up to this year.
>
> <http://friendlycreatives.co.uk/ppm/news/parry-people-movers-plan-for-2021-22/>
>
> A lot of puff ,aspirations but little of substance .

Yes, it seems that way.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 12:09:58 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:20:24 +0000, Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>> 13:58:54 on Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:41:33 on Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up to 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at
>>>>>>>>>>>> through the window at the speedos on cars and assume the to
>>>>>>>>>>>> speed was whatever the speedo went up to. One of the reasons for
>>>>>>>>>>>> tram speed limits being reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that
>>>>>>>>>>>> some networks have bought their second generation stock, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is only capable of 70kph (possibly a European thing).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and better
>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly
>>>>>>>>>> for 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials"
>>>>>>>>>> for the UK 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a
>>>>>>>>>> Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate
>>>>>>>> with modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is
>>>>>>>> nevertheless introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom
>>>>>>>> stock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity —
>>>>>>> max speed 70-100 km/h CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h Siemens S70 —
>>>>>>> max speed 105 km/h Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that so many use "kph". I think every car I've owned with a
>>> dial-type speedo has had the two scales labelled "MPH" and "km/h", so
>>> it's not as is we haven't seen it often enough!
>>>
>>> nib
>>>
>>
>> It’s not illogical. If you accept MPH then substituting K for kilometres
>> instead of M for miles is entirely rational.
>
> K isn't a recognised abbreviation for kilometres. It stands for kilo.

<nitpick> No it’s not; k is the prefix for kilo-, K is for kelvin (yes, in
SI units that are named after people have a lower case initial in the name
but use upper case for the abbreviation).</nitpick>

>> It might offend the STEM
>> fraternity, but they don’t own the language. I guess that km/h is used more
>> internationally otherwise you’d have to cope with every language variant,
>> eg German Stundenkilometer or Kilometer pro Stunde (even the logical
>> Germans have at least two ways of expressing it).
>
> It's the universal abbreviation in metric countries, and should be here, too.
>
>> Mind you, I don’t think
>> I’ve ever seen KpS in German, a language famed for its abbreviations.

To SI speakers S is the abbreviation for siemens, unit of electrical
conductance, also known as the mho; s is for seconds.

Sam

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

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 12:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>
>> Rate of consumption of pie and chips at a Premier League football match?
>
> Interesting. "Kilos per hour" is literally thousands of something
> dimensionless, e.g. they sold 1,000 pies in the 15-minutes interval,
> which is 4 kilos (or kilopies) per hour. Somehow, a kilo has also come
> to mean kg but not km, kPa or 1000 times any other base unit.
>
> Moving my rant slightly, why do people stress the word as kil_O_metre,
> when they wouldn't dream of talking about kil_O_grams or mill_I_metres?

Perhaps because we grew up with gas_O_meters rather than GAS_o_meters.

And I’ll confess to using kph in a posting purely because I was responding
to one which used the same abbreviation.

Sam

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

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 12:09:58 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:20:24 +0000, Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>> 13:58:54 on Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:41:33 on Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up to 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the window at the speedos on cars and assume the to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed was whatever the speedo went up to. One of the reasons for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tram speed limits being reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some networks have bought their second generation stock, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is only capable of 70kph (possibly a European thing).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and better
>>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly
>>>>>>>>>>> for 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials"
>>>>>>>>>>> for the UK 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a
>>>>>>>>>>> Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate
>>>>>>>>> with modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is
>>>>>>>>> nevertheless introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom
>>>>>>>>> stock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity —
>>>>>>>> max speed 70-100 km/h CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h Siemens S70 —
>>>>>>>> max speed 105 km/h Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>>>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that so many use "kph". I think every car I've owned with a
>>>> dial-type speedo has had the two scales labelled "MPH" and "km/h", so
>>>> it's not as is we haven't seen it often enough!
>>>>
>>>> nib
>>>>
>>>
>>> It’s not illogical. If you accept MPH then substituting K for kilometres
>>> instead of M for miles is entirely rational.
>>
>> K isn't a recognised abbreviation for kilometres. It stands for kilo.
>
> <nitpick> No it’s not; k is the prefix for kilo-, K is for kelvin (yes, in
> SI units that are named after people have a lower case initial in the name
> but use upper case for the abbreviation).</nitpick>

Yes, I know, but I followed the normal rule of capitalising the beginning
of the sentence. I suppose I should have said:
'k' isn't a recognised abbreviation for kilometres. It stands for kilo.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> On 16/04/2022 12:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>
>>> Rate of consumption of pie and chips at a Premier League football match?
>>
>> Interesting. "Kilos per hour" is literally thousands of something
>> dimensionless, e.g. they sold 1,000 pies in the 15-minutes interval,
>> which is 4 kilos (or kilopies) per hour. Somehow, a kilo has also come
>> to mean kg but not km, kPa or 1000 times any other base unit.
>>
>> Moving my rant slightly, why do people stress the word as kil_O_metre,
>> when they wouldn't dream of talking about kil_O_grams or mill_I_metres?
>
> Perhaps because we grew up with gas_O_meters rather than GAS_o_meters.
>
> And I’ll confess to using kph in a posting purely because I was responding
> to one which used the same abbreviation.
>
> Sam
>
So who is going to summons up the courage to tell the MOD that they are
wrong in using kph?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/227048/acronyms_and_abbreviations_dec08.pdf

Or Transport for Scotland

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39618/a737-the-den-dalry-project-environmental-statement-abbreviations-glossary.pdf

In message <t3e72d$2mb$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:50:53 on Sat, 16 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:09:42 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <t3bmnp$sr5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:59:53 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>How do you know? If there isn't a convenient way of commuting to the city
>>>centre other than some slow manky bus then they won't do it as much.
>>
>>Especially if a large section of the workforce is working at t'mill at
>>end o't'street, they don't need any transport to the City Centre.
>
>I didn't realise it was still 1890 in Leeds.

They closed all the mills in 1891; really??
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:11:35 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:38 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed
>before
>>>>> departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
>>>
>>> Parry has been a solution looking for a problem for around 30 years now.
>>>
>>> Even when its niche became mainstream, it was beaten to it by improved
>>> battery and capacitor tech.
>>>
>>>> Why don't they just bin the
>>>> flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for
>some
>>>> regen and mild hybrid assistance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the Parry principle was developed, and even when the Stourbridge
>>> vehicles were introduced, the battery technology wasn't available to
>>> achieve this.
>>
>> I suppose not for all use cases. But for the short stourbridge line I imagine
>
>> a milk floats worth of lead acids could cope quite nicely. Not much of an ask
>
>> in a 10 ton vehicle.
>>
>>> I doubt that Parry will move on from flywheel to battery; the company's
>>> sole reason for existence is to promote John Parry's flywheel propulsion
>>> ideas.
>>
>> Sounds like their days are numbered then.
>>
>
>They've survived for over 30 years so far trying to push the same idea!

There always seem to be gullible investors willing to throw good money after
bad despite repeated failures in the past by others. They like to imagine the
kudos if they become the savior of the company I suppose. Aston Martin and
Lotus spring to mind as examples.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:11:35 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed
>> before
>>>>>> departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Parry has been a solution looking for a problem for around 30 years now.
>>>>
>>>> Even when its niche became mainstream, it was beaten to it by improved
>>>> battery and capacitor tech.
>>>>
>>>>> Why don't they just bin the
>>>>> flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for
>> some
>>>>> regen and mild hybrid assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the Parry principle was developed, and even when the Stourbridge
>>>> vehicles were introduced, the battery technology wasn't available to
>>>> achieve this.
>>>
>>> I suppose not for all use cases. But for the short stourbridge line I imagine
>>
>>> a milk floats worth of lead acids could cope quite nicely. Not much of an ask
>>
>>> in a 10 ton vehicle.
>>>
>>>> I doubt that Parry will move on from flywheel to battery; the company's
>>>> sole reason for existence is to promote John Parry's flywheel propulsion
>>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> Sounds like their days are numbered then.
>>>
>>
>> They've survived for over 30 years so far trying to push the same idea!
>
> There always seem to be gullible investors willing to throw good money after
> bad despite repeated failures in the past by others.

It's not clear to me if PPM has had new investors. It seems to be run more
as a hobby project.

> They like to imagine the
> kudos if they become the savior of the company I suppose. Aston Martin and
> Lotus spring to mind as examples.

Yes, definitely.

Lotus seems to be on firmer, Chinese, foundations now, and most future
Lotus cars will be made in Wuhan (yes, that one). They hope, finally, to
make a profit by making cars at Chinese mass production cost levels and
selling them at European luxury boutique price levels.

It's harder to see a profitable future for AML. It might just end up as a
Mercedes brand.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2022 12:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>>
>>>> Rate of consumption of pie and chips at a Premier League football match?
>>>
>>> Interesting. "Kilos per hour" is literally thousands of something
>>> dimensionless, e.g. they sold 1,000 pies in the 15-minutes interval,
>>> which is 4 kilos (or kilopies) per hour. Somehow, a kilo has also come
>>> to mean kg but not km, kPa or 1000 times any other base unit.
>>>
>>> Moving my rant slightly, why do people stress the word as kil_O_metre,
>>> when they wouldn't dream of talking about kil_O_grams or mill_I_metres?
>>
>> Perhaps because we grew up with gas_O_meters rather than GAS_o_meters.
>>
>> And I’ll confess to using kph in a posting purely because I was responding
>> to one which used the same abbreviation.
>>
>> Sam
>>
> So who is going to summons up the courage to tell the MOD that they are
> wrong in using kph?
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/227048/acronyms_and_abbreviations_dec08.pdf
>
> Or Transport for Scotland
>
> https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/39618/a737-the-den-dalry-project-environmental-statement-abbreviations-glossary.pdf

After you! :-)

Sam

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 12:35:53 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/04/2022 11:50, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:09:42 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3bmnp$sr5$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 11:59:53 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>> How do you know? If there isn't a convenient way of commuting to the city
>>>> centre other than some slow manky bus then they won't do it as much.
>>>
>>> Especially if a large section of the workforce is working at t'mill at
>>> end o't'street, they don't need any transport to the City Centre.
>>
>> I didn't realise it was still 1890 in Leeds.
>>
>Well it's still 1774 in Wesminster according to one Mr Mogg.
>
A couple of times a day they go back even further and use Norman
French.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:22:47 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <et0j5htc56tqukh9g77mvu1qij0lfs0g89@4ax.com>, at 15:48:24 on
>Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 01:59:05 +0100, Charles Ellson
>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:21:37 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:02:16 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Trams are excluded from the general definition of
>>>>>"mechanically-propelled vehicles" to which road traffic signs apply.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have a cite for that? Because the Traffic Signs Regulations and
>>>>General Directions 2002 explicitly exempts trams from obeying traffic
>>>>lights and mandatory turn signs, something which would not be necessary
>>>>if they were not otherwise generally subject to signage.
>>>>
>>>I think we had something similar a few years back with trams being
>>>subject to multiple specific examptions rather than more general ones.
>>>
>>>There is also case law that a tram is not a "motor vehicle" or
>>>"mechanically propelled vehicle" (in the context of road traffic
>>>legislation) as it cannot travel on a road surface if it leaves the
>>>rails:-
>>>https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tram-motor-vehicle-daniel-rothel
>>
>>It doesn't need to be a motor vehicle, though. All road users are
>>subject to road signs, unless given either a general exception in
>>legislation or a specific exception on the signage itself. That's why,
>>for example, the "No Entry" signs here...
>>
>>https://goo.gl/maps/nHLPXrumXt1CK7YP7
>>
>>...have an exception for trams and cycles, as otherwise it would be
>>unlawful for trams or cycles to pass them.
>
>"No Entry [except cycles]" has long been a bone of contention with the
>DfT, who used to claim every individual instance required special
>permission. When I first encountered this one, I was fairly sure it was
>rogue: https://goo.gl/maps/2AxMzBQ8h9WA2NpL8 not sure whether the lack
>of matching exception the other side of the road compounds the felony.
>
>The approved method was like this: https://goo.gl/maps/2zyyYdaRYaHRon6r9
>with a 'bypass', although mobility-scooter-shaped invalid carriages
>commonly also use the bypass (illegally I expect).
>
Roughly the same method is also used to provide a better route past
speed humps, width restrictions and single-lane pinch points.
https://goo.gl/maps/NiL9p2PwSNEcgp627

A more iffy set of signing is on the cycle route outside the Old
Bailey (televised almost nightly in some weeks) where a "No Entry"
sign has the "route for cyclists" sign vertically below it rather than
to the left of the cycle route.
https://goo.gl/maps/1oju4Nsnb8a2jZWM9

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:20:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>
>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>
>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>
>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>
>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>
>
>No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>
Then there must be a lot of "meaningless" speedometers as both
versions can be found although it seems a bit contradictory that many
have one scale marked "mph/MPH" but the other "km/h".

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 09:17:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are many alternate abbreviations for kilometres per hour.
>>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour
>>>
>>> I’m afraid, if the above is to be believed, that kph is the favoured
>>> abbreviation by Reuters and The Economist.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we ought to be using metres per second if we really want to be
>>> using proper units.
>>>
>>
>> As an engineer, I'm happy to use the SI unit, as do all official sources
>> and metric countries.
>>
>>
>Is an hour an SI unit?
>
>Much to my surprise, in Germany rulers (and they seem to like these fold up
>things with multiple hinged foot long sections in preference to tape
>measures) are very often dual calibrated in metric and inches. They call
>inches Zoll.
>
See also computer and television screens :-
https://www.mediamarkt.de/de/category/fernseher-203.html

On 16 Apr 2022 10:20:36 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Much to my surprise, in Germany rulers (and they seem to like these fold up
>> things with multiple hinged foot long sections in preference to tape
>
>For a lot of uses I prefer them as well, don’t suddenly collapse just as
>you get the end into somewhere awkward or suddenly ping pack as the end
>unhooks just before you make a mark.
>
>
>> measures) are very often dual calibrated in metric and inches. They call
>> inches Zoll.
>>
>>
>
>They are familiar with using inches to measure TV screens and car tyre
>sizes.
>They still use a lot of BSP threads in some of their plumbing as well
>although they don’t always call it that.
>
BSP has been subsumed into the metric system.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:20:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>>
>>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>>
>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>
>>
>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>
> Then there must be a lot of "meaningless" speedometers as both
> versions can be found although

Really? Have any vehicles had a speedometer marked with the meaningless
'kph'?

> it seems a bit contradictory that many
> have one scale marked "mph/MPH" but the other "km/h".
>

That's the norm in all vehicles. If you wanted equivalence in the UK, it
would be kmph, but that wouldn't be acceptable in most countries. So it's
km/h everywhere.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 09:17:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alstom Citadis — max speed 90 km/h
>>>>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity — max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>>>>> CAF Urbos — max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>>>>> Siemens S70 — max speed 105 km/h
>>>>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN — max speed 80 km/h
>>>>>>>> Stadler Citylink — max speed 100 km/h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m leaning towards Roland’s 80mph being a typo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are many alternate abbreviations for kilometres per hour.
>>>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilometres_per_hour
>>>>
>>>> I’m afraid, if the above is to be believed, that kph is the favoured
>>>> abbreviation by Reuters and The Economist.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we ought to be using metres per second if we really want to be
>>>> using proper units.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As an engineer, I'm happy to use the SI unit, as do all official sources
>>> and metric countries.
>>>
>>>
>> Is an hour an SI unit?
>>
>> Much to my surprise, in Germany rulers (and they seem to like these fold up
>> things with multiple hinged foot long sections in preference to tape
>> measures) are very often dual calibrated in metric and inches. They call
>> inches Zoll.
>>
> See also computer and television screens :-
> https://www.mediamarkt.de/de/category/fernseher-203.html
>

And, as already mentioned upthread, car wheel sizes.

There are also camera sensors, many of whose nominal sizes are indirectly
described in inch fractions.

Of course, in the west, planes and ships have speeds quoted in knots, and
travel distances in nautical miles. Heights are in feet (but metres in
Russia and China).

But saying 'kph' is as bad as 'knots per hour'.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:11:35 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:33:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Isn't the engine running all the time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but it very definitely is used to spin the flywheel up to speed before
>>>>>> departure. You can hear it, feel it and IIRC see it on the desk gauges.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Parry has been a solution looking for a problem for around 30 years now.
>>>>
>>>> Even when its niche became mainstream, it was beaten to it by improved
>>>> battery and capacitor tech.
>>>>
>>>>> Why don't they just bin the
>>>>> flywheel and use the engine directly with a small battery and motor for some
>>>>> regen and mild hybrid assistance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the Parry principle was developed, and even when the Stourbridge
>>>> vehicles were introduced, the battery technology wasn't available to
>>>> achieve this.
>>>
>>> I suppose not for all use cases. But for the short stourbridge line I imagine
>>> a milk floats worth of lead acids could cope quite nicely. Not much of an ask
>>> in a 10 ton vehicle.
>>>
>>>> I doubt that Parry will move on from flywheel to battery; the company's
>>>> sole reason for existence is to promote John Parry's flywheel propulsion
>>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> Sounds like their days are numbered then.
>>>
>>
>> They've survived for over 30 years so far trying to push the same idea!
>
> I wonder if they are actively trading? They don't publish a P&L, as
> their revenue is to small to need to.
>
> Have they made any actual sales, apart from the pair of 139s?
>

I thought they were parent company of Premetro Operations who run the 139s,
but I can't now find anything which says that that is so.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 14:11, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:19:39 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Water between bottom of railhead and top of railhead, 5mph.
>>>>
>>>> Between top of sleepers and bottom of railhead, NR say linespeed, gWr say
>>>> 20mph (143 150 769) 50mph (158 16x 387 57/Sleeper HST) or linespeed (IET).
>>>
>>> Why the difference between classes? Are some more waterproof than others?
>>>
>>
>> The ones which are 20mph, I think the problem is water ingress into
>> axleboxes.
>>
>> IETs, presumably modern sealed-unit traction motors and other electronics
>> allow a less cautious approach.
>
> What causes their problems when they get a minor salt water spray at
> Dawlish? They do seem to dry out and can be restarted after a couple of
> hours.
>

I'm not sure, other than that I think it's engine-module related rather
than traction motors etc.; the software 'fix' which has been partly
successful, apparently involves the on-board computer systems trying 10
times to restart the engines, rather than only three times in normal
circumstances.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 21:16:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:20:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alstom Citadis ? max speed 90 km/h
>>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity ? max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>>> CAF Urbos ? max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>>> Siemens S70 ? max speed 105 km/h
>>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN ? max speed 80 km/h
>>>>>> Stadler Citylink ? max speed 100 km/h
>>>>>
>>>>> I?m leaning towards Roland?s 80mph being a typo,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>
>> Then there must be a lot of "meaningless" speedometers as both
>> versions can be found although
>
>Really? Have any vehicles had a speedometer marked with the meaningless
>'kph'?
>
km/h is effectively standard but not universal or backwards-applicable
(pre-harmonisation?).

https://www.ahspares.co.uk/austin-healey/big-healey/instruments/new-speedometer-kphod-1.aspx
Austin-Healey

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/334376535961?hash=item4dda650799:g:HiEAAOSwslNg6yyA
Vauxhall VX

or other versions:-
https://www.digital-speedos.co.uk/gauges-c4/motorcycle-gauges-c27/speedometers-c31/smiths-highline-chronometric-190-kph-speedometer-p491
"Kilometres"
https://caterhamparts.co.uk/gauges/1883-speedo-kph-1998-2000-models.html
"KMPH" for a Caterham

>> it seems a bit contradictory that many
>> have one scale marked "mph/MPH" but the other "km/h".
>>
>
>That's the norm in all vehicles. If you wanted equivalence in the UK, it
>would be kmph, but that wouldn't be acceptable in most countries. So it's
>km/h everywhere.
>
Something else noticed is that while "traditional" Smith's
speedometers have had km/h scales for many decades, most domestic Ford
and Vauxhall vehicles seem to have been imperial-only until relatively
more recently (1970s or later?).

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 21:16:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:20:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alstom Citadis ? max speed 90 km/h
>>>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity ? max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>>>> CAF Urbos ? max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>>>> Siemens S70 ? max speed 105 km/h
>>>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN ? max speed 80 km/h
>>>>>>> Stadler Citylink ? max speed 100 km/h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I?m leaning towards Roland?s 80mph being a typo,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>>
>>> Then there must be a lot of "meaningless" speedometers as both
>>> versions can be found although
>>
>> Really? Have any vehicles had a speedometer marked with the meaningless
>> 'kph'?
>>
> km/h is effectively standard but not universal or backwards-applicable
> (pre-harmonisation?).
>
> https://www.ahspares.co.uk/austin-healey/big-healey/instruments/new-speedometer-kphod-1.aspx
> Austin-Healey

You have to find references from 70 years ago?

>
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/334376535961?hash=item4dda650799:g:HiEAAOSwslNg6yyA
> Vauxhall VX
>
> or other versions:-
> https://www.digital-speedos.co.uk/gauges-c4/motorcycle-gauges-c27/speedometers-c31/smiths-highline-chronometric-190-kph-speedometer-p491

The speedo is fine. It's just the listing that's at fault.

> "Kilometres"
> https://caterhamparts.co.uk/gauges/1883-speedo-kph-1998-2000-models.html
> "KMPH" for a Caterham

Which is non-standard, but acceptable.

>
>>> it seems a bit contradictory that many
>>> have one scale marked "mph/MPH" but the other "km/h".
>>>
>>
>> That's the norm in all vehicles. If you wanted equivalence in the UK, it
>> would be kmph, but that wouldn't be acceptable in most countries. So it's
>> km/h everywhere.
>>
> Something else noticed is that while "traditional" Smith's
> speedometers have had km/h scales for many decades, most domestic Ford
> and Vauxhall vehicles seem to have been imperial-only until relatively
> more recently (1970s or later?).

I don't regard that as 'relatively recently'. It was always wrong, but
less obviously so back then.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 23:27:10 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 21:16:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 08:20:24 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3bo13$510$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:21:55 on Fri, 15 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:04:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <t3a580$7o0$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:55:12 on Thu, 14 Apr
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ai6g5hpvbqljqikjek6bro4e4it6fgmlh2@4ax.com>, at 13:58:54 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:25:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tvqf5h9m93i1vfad5osiqsvq7fi5tm22uf@4ax.com>, at 10:41:33 on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 14 Apr 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The former 80 km/h limit was on segregated, former BR track,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and nothing to do with road speed limits. The accident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred as a tram was coming off such a section, going round
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a tight right-angle bend to enter the on-street urban
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section. The Croydon trams have little on-street running, only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on town centre roads probably with a 30mph limit or lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speedo shows how 80 km/h was previously permitted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/31194316805/in/album-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7215767697
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6959855/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure it shows anything of the sort. My car speedo goes up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 140 mph but this does not show this speed was previously permitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or even possible. When I was in short trousers we'd peer at through the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> window at the speedos on cars and assume the to speed was whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> speedo went up to. One of the reasons for tram speed limits being
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced for 80 to 70 is reportedly that some networks have bought their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> second generation stock, which is only capable of 70kph (possibly a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> European thing).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it would be a European thing. They may simply have
>>>>>>>>>>>> decided to specify new trams with a lower top speed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> better acceleration. Overall, that might produce faster journey times.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What I mean is that the market for trams in Europe is allegedly for
>>>>>>>>>>> 70kph max, while they might have made some "80kph specials" for the UK
>>>>>>>>>>> 20yrs ago, maybe they are less inclined to now. [Not a Brexit thing]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there a European 70 km/h upper speed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In practice it looks like that's typically the fastest they operate with
>>>>>>>>> modern stock. Athens for example, built for 80mph is nevertheless
>>>>>>>>> introducing its 2nd generation using 70kph Alstom stock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These are the actual top speeds available with European trams:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alstom Citadis ? max speed 90 km/h
>>>>>>>> Alstom (nee Bombardier) Flexity ? max speed 70-100 km/h
>>>>>>>> CAF Urbos ? max speed 70-80 km/h
>>>>>>>> Siemens S70 ? max speed 105 km/h
>>>>>>>> Stadler Tango, VARIOBAHN ? max speed 80 km/h
>>>>>>>> Stadler Citylink ? max speed 100 km/h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I?m leaning towards Roland?s 80mph being a typo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, should have been 80kph.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it should have been 80 km/h. 'Kilos per hour' is a meaningless unit.
>>>>>
>>>> Then there must be a lot of "meaningless" speedometers as both
>>>> versions can be found although
>>>
>>> Really? Have any vehicles had a speedometer marked with the meaningless
>>> 'kph'?
>>>
>> km/h is effectively standard but not universal or backwards-applicable
>> (pre-harmonisation?).
>>
>> https://www.ahspares.co.uk/austin-healey/big-healey/instruments/new-speedometer-kphod-1.aspx
>> Austin-Healey
>
>You have to find references from 70 years ago?
>
You said "any vehicles".
<snip>