Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
> 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?).
>

Don’t have to go back that far, the wife’s MINI a 2013 model when they
were still fitting a large moving needle type speedo only has mph which
was normal for the UK and US markets, though you can choose to display k/ph
in the electronic display incorporated into the rev counter.
No experience of later models where the main display is now electronic .

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> 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?).
>>
>
> Don’t have to go back that far, the wife’s MINI a 2013 model when they
> were still fitting a large moving needle type speedo only has mph which
> was normal for the UK and US markets, though you can choose to display k/ph
> in the electronic display incorporated into the rev counter.

I really hope it's km/h, not 'k/ph' in a modern German car!

Dual scale speedos have been normal in most cars for decades. I wonder why
BMW broke that convention? Perhaps it was to maintain the look of a legacy
1950s Mini central dial?

On 17 Apr 2022 00:32:41 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> 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?).
>>
>
>Don’t have to go back that far, the wife’s MINI a 2013 model when they
>were still fitting a large moving needle type speedo only has mph which
>was normal for the UK and US markets, though you can choose to display k/ph
>in the electronic display incorporated into the rev counter.
>No experience of later models where the main display is now electronic .
>

A lot of electronic dashboards still use an analogue speedometer but
driven electrically rather than mechanically, on some given away by
some self-test behaviour when starting the vehicle or reconnecting the
battery.

In message <t3ffmr$jho$2@dont-email.me>, at 22:24:27 on Sat, 16 Apr
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
><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.

Ignoring Palmer's proverb.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3e9gu$n2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:46 on Sat, 16 Apr
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 16/04/2022 10:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t3e0ri$s6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:51 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The OTMR on an IET records speed in cm/s.

>> Surely something like chains per fortnight would be more appropriate
>>for an industry largely stuck in the 19th century.
>
>Furlongs per Fortnight is the recognised unit, allegedly.

Apparently so, but the railways measure things in chains. I have one,
it's made of metal of course. A bit of a H&S hazard in a third-rail
area I'd have thought.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3e2n0$8j8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:36:32 on Sat, 16 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> And Alstom, who make the trams.
>
><https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2021/12/alstoms-citadis-x05-trams-enter-passenger-service-athens>

<https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2000/1/New-metro-system-inau
gurated-in-Athens-20000128>

"A total of 28 six-car metro trains, each accommodating as many
as 1,030 passengers, will operate at speeds of up to 80 kph
every 4 minutes during rush hours and every 6 minutes during the
off-peak hours."
--
Roland Perry

On 17/04/2022 07:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t3e9gu$n2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:46 on Sat, 16 Apr
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 16/04/2022 10:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t3e0ri$s6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:51 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The OTMR on an IET records speed in cm/s.
>
>>>  Surely something like chains per fortnight would be more appropriate
>>> for  an industry largely stuck in the 19th century.
>>
>> Furlongs per Fortnight is the recognised unit, allegedly.
>
> Apparently so, but the railways measure things in chains. I have one,
> it's made of metal of course. A bit of a H&S hazard in a third-rail
> area I'd have thought.

I suspect the last use of physical chains on the railway predates most
electrification schemes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <t3gc8d$bbn$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:31:41 on Sun, 17 Apr
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 17/04/2022 07:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t3e9gu$n2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:46 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 16/04/2022 10:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t3e0ri$s6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:51 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OTMR on an IET records speed in cm/s.
>>
>>>>  Surely something like chains per fortnight would be more
>>>>appropriate for  an industry largely stuck in the 19th century.
>>>
>>> Furlongs per Fortnight is the recognised unit, allegedly.

>> Apparently so, but the railways measure things in chains. I have
>>one, it's made of metal of course. A bit of a H&S hazard in a
>>third-rail area I'd have thought.
>
>I suspect the last use of physical chains on the railway predates most
>electrification schemes.

Look on the bright side: we agree they use chains, not furlongs.
--
Roland Perry

On 17/04/2022 08:11, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t3gc8d$bbn$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:31:41 on Sun, 17 Apr
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 17/04/2022 07:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t3e9gu$n2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:46 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 16/04/2022 10:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3e0ri$s6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:51 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OTMR on an IET records speed in cm/s.
>>>
>>>>>  Surely something like chains per fortnight would be more
>>>>> appropriate  for  an industry largely stuck in the 19th century.
>>>>
>>>> Furlongs per Fortnight is the recognised unit, allegedly.
>
>>>  Apparently so, but the railways measure things in chains. I have
>>> one,  it's made of metal of course. A bit of a H&S hazard in a
>>> third-rail  area I'd have thought.
>>
>> I suspect the last use of physical chains on the railway predates most
>> electrification schemes.
>
> Look on the bright side: we agree they use chains, not furlongs.

But not fur long! <I'll get my hat>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 16/04/2022 23:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <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.
>
>

Interesting. I did see one of the failures which was on the up line
just past Dawlish. It just got some spray blown by the wind from the
new recursive sea wall.

On 17/04/2022 09:25, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 08:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t3gc8d$bbn$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:31:41 on Sun, 17 Apr
>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 17/04/2022 07:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t3e9gu$n2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:46 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 16/04/2022 10:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3e0ri$s6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:51 on Sat, 16
>>>>>> Apr 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OTMR on an IET records speed in cm/s.
>>>>
>>>>>>  Surely something like chains per fortnight would be more
>>>>>> appropriate  for  an industry largely stuck in the 19th century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furlongs per Fortnight is the recognised unit, allegedly.
>>
>>>>  Apparently so, but the railways measure things in chains. I have
>>>> one,  it's made of metal of course. A bit of a H&S hazard in a
>>>> third-rail  area I'd have thought.
>>>
>>> I suspect the last use of physical chains on the railway predates
>>> most electrification schemes.
>>
>> Look on the bright side: we agree they use chains, not furlongs.
>
> But not fur long! <I'll get my hat>
>

I read an article somewhere that Mogg has commissioned a report into the
advantages of returning to imperial measurements so you might not need
your hat.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2022 00:32:41 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> 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?).
>>>
>>
>> Don’t have to go back that far, the wife’s MINI a 2013 model when they
>> were still fitting a large moving needle type speedo only has mph which
>> was normal for the UK and US markets, though you can choose to display k/ph
>> in the electronic display incorporated into the rev counter.
>> No experience of later models where the main display is now electronic .
>>
>
> A lot of electronic dashboards still use an analogue speedometer but
> driven electrically rather than mechanically, on some given away by
> some self-test behaviour when starting the vehicle or reconnecting the
> battery.
>

I think that's been the case for decades.

On 17/04/2022 09:58, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> I read an article somewhere that Mogg has commissioned a report into the
> advantages of returning to imperial measurements so you might not need
> your hat.

Especially if it's a 45.46-litre hat.

On 17/04/2022 10:58, Certes wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 09:58, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> I read an article somewhere that Mogg has commissioned a report into
>> the advantages of returning to imperial measurements so you might not
>> need your hat.
>
> Especially if it's a 45.46-litre hat.

lol

On 17/04/2022 10:58, Certes wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 09:58, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> I read an article somewhere that Mogg has commissioned a report into
>> the advantages of returning to imperial measurements so you might not
>> need your hat.
>
> Especially if it's a 45.46-litre hat.

lol

On 17/04/2022 09:58, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 09:25, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 08:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t3gc8d$bbn$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:31:41 on Sun, 17 Apr
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 17/04/2022 07:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3e9gu$n2h$3@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:46 on Sat, 16 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 16/04/2022 10:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t3e0ri$s6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:51 on Sat, 16
>>>>>>> Apr 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The OTMR on an IET records speed in cm/s.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Surely something like chains per fortnight would be more
>>>>>>> appropriate  for  an industry largely stuck in the 19th century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furlongs per Fortnight is the recognised unit, allegedly.
>>>
>>>>>  Apparently so, but the railways measure things in chains. I have
>>>>> one,  it's made of metal of course. A bit of a H&S hazard in a
>>>>> third-rail  area I'd have thought.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the last use of physical chains on the railway predates
>>>> most electrification schemes.
>>>
>>> Look on the bright side: we agree they use chains, not furlongs.
>>
>> But not fur long! <I'll get my hat>
>>
>
> I read an article somewhere that Mogg has commissioned a report into the
> advantages of returning to imperial measurements so you might not need
> your hat.
>

Mogg claims to have commissioned a number of reports into the unlikely
"advantages" of reverting to 1776. Somehow we never hear the results.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 17/04/2022 10:58, Certes wrote:
> On 17/04/2022 09:58, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> I read an article somewhere that Mogg has commissioned a report into
>> the advantages of returning to imperial measurements so you might not
>> need your hat.
>
> Especially if it's a 45.46-litre hat.

You forgot to allow for US versus UK gallons, should be a 37.85 litre hat.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:03:15 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 17/04/2022 10:58, Certes wrote:
>> On 17/04/2022 09:58, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> I read an article somewhere that Mogg has commissioned a report into
>>> the advantages of returning to imperial measurements so you might not
>>> need your hat.
>>
>> Especially if it's a 45.46-litre hat.
>
>You forgot to allow for US versus UK gallons, should be a 37.85 litre hat.
>
Good point! :-)

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 19:12:07 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> 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

Wuhan? Oh well, thats another British marque gone off to join MG. The public
(in britain at least) arn't fooled. I can count the number of new MGs I've
seen on the roads in the last few years on 2 hands.

>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.

Could have worse fates I suppose. It might help if all their models didn't all
look the same and have done so for the last 30 years.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 22:24:27 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
><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.

Given it was known they were going to operate right next to the sea often in
stormy weather it sounds like Hitachi didn't do their design or testing
properly. Again.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 19:12:07 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
> Wuhan? Oh well, thats another British marque gone off to join MG. The public
> (in britain at least) arn't fooled. I can count the number of new MGs I've
> seen on the roads in the last few years on 2 hands.
>
Beginning to see a reasonable number of their electric models over the past
year.
That could be a local phenomenon where one couple , and the ones I have
seen are mainly the comfortably retired , influence a circle of friends
who follow the same path.
At that age fashion and image is no longer see as quite so important or
else such people would not not be seen wearing elasticated slip on shoes or
horrible trousers wear comfort and ease of getting into them is more
important than the look.

GH

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 19:12:07 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>
>> Wuhan? Oh well, thats another British marque gone off to join MG. The public
>> (in britain at least) arn't fooled. I can count the number of new MGs I've
>> seen on the roads in the last few years on 2 hands.
>>
> Beginning to see a reasonable number of their electric models over the past
> year.
> That could be a local phenomenon where one couple , and the ones I have
> seen are mainly the comfortably retired , influence a circle of friends
> who follow the same path.
> At that age fashion and image is no longer see as quite so important or
> else such people would not not be seen wearing elasticated slip on shoes or
> horrible trousers wear comfort and ease of getting into them is more
> important than the look.
>

Yes, I believe the modern PHEV and EV MGs are selling well. It's nothing to
do with the brand's history, just that they're decent, good value modern
cars, much like other budget brands.

Unlike MG, the Hethel Lotus factory will remain and expand, but it will
only produce low volume sports cars, as before. The higher volume family
cars and SUVs will be made in a new Lotus factory in Wuhan, using Geely
platforms. Who knows, under the skin they may share some components with
London taxis?

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 22:24:27 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <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.
>
> Given it was known they were going to operate right next to the sea often in
> stormy weather it sounds like Hitachi didn't do their design or testing
> properly. Again.
>

I don't think the original IETs were planned to run along that sea wall, so
Hitachi probably didn't take sea spray into account when designing them.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 22:24:27 -0000 (UTC)
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <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.
>>
>> Given it was known they were going to operate right next to the sea often in
>> stormy weather it sounds like Hitachi didn't do their design or testing
>> properly. Again.
>>
>
> I don't think the original IETs were planned to run along that sea wall, so
> Hitachi probably didn't take sea spray into account when designing them.
>
>

Really? What were DfT expecting gWr to be using into Devon and Cornwall?
Also, consideration has to be given to rolling stock cascades, so it seems
unlikely that anyone would ever think an IET would never encounter Dawlish.
Probably another case of something being omitted from the initial
requirements. As per the fatigue cracking - there wasn’t a standard
therefore it doesn’t happen.

In message <jc4m6iFjipqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:35:30 on Mon, 18
Apr 2022, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:

>>> 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
>>
>> Wuhan? Oh well, thats another British marque gone off to join MG. The public
>> (in britain at least) arn't fooled. I can count the number of new MGs I've
>> seen on the roads in the last few years on 2 hands.
>>
>Beginning to see a reasonable number of their electric models over the past
>year.

>That could be a local phenomenon where one couple , and the ones I have
>seen are mainly the comfortably retired , influence a circle of friends
>who follow the same path.

I wonder if it's also affected by the proximity of main dealers. None of
the traditional big brands are represented within a 40 minute drive from
here, and even then they are clustered so you'd not necessary drive past
them very often. But we have a quite large Kia dealership (and a very
small Suzuki one).

Can't help feeling this must skew the local market to some extent. And
the other day I saw one of the hire-car firms had a whole load of new
Kias parked outside, rather than their traditional ones (Peugeot 308,
Honda Civic, VW Golf).
--
Roland Perry