On 10/02/2022 08:40, Marland wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <mhh70hhm11i5144bcclof51plfjkjr89el@4ax.com>, at 13:51:34 on
>> Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:36:44 +0100, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board.
>>
>> In bottles perhaps?
>
> Single Malt or blended?
>

Highland, not Island.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>
>>Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>
>According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>anything better to do?
>
>For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>
>[1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
> stations etc.

Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
that compare to the energy used by a train?

On 10/02/2022 09:26, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>
>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>
>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>> anything better to do?
>>
>> For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>>
>> [1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>> stations etc.
>
> Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
> I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
> that compare to the energy used by a train?
>

Depends how the station is heated.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>
>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>
> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
> anything better to do?

Back to the Meldrew persona. If you’re not enjoying the conversation why
don’t you go and do something more pleasant instead, rather than hanging
around here and moaning?

Sam

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

On 10/02/2022 07:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <su1onp$7ce$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:11:21 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2022 23:58, Recliner wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/02/2022 22:26, MB wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>>>>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>>>>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>>>>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>>>>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>>>>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>>>>>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>>>>>
>>>>> They would also need enough capacity to operate the heating for a large
>>>>> number of hours in event of becoming stranded.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's definitely a key consideration for trains running long
>>>> distances through remote areas with extreme weather.
>>>>
>>>> One other thought: the recharging system must be impervious to ice, snow,
>>>> wind and rain. You don't want connectors that ice up or stop working in
>>>> heavy snow.
>>>
>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> And, if zero carbon ever becomes mandatory, use zero carbon synthetic
>> diesel in efficient hybrid trains.
>
> From National Grid website:
>
> Given the impact that carbon emissions have on our planet, you
> might wonder why we aren't aiming for zero, or gross zero,
> rather than net zero. Gross zero would mean stopping all
> emissions, which isn't realistically attainable across all
> sectors of our lives and industry. Even with best efforts to
> reduce them, there will still be some emissions.
>
> Net zero looks at emissions overall, allowing for the removal of
> any unavoidable emissions, such as those from aviation or
> manufacturing. Removing greenhouse gases could be via nature, as
> trees take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or through new
> technology or changing industrial processes.
>
> Some trains (and their fuel supply systems) will never achieve gross
> zero, especially if we count the emissions caused by their manufacture
> and distribution. The National Grid site glosses over that aspect
> somewhat.

Agreed, and there will still be the need for oil extraction and refining
to provide the lubricants for many machines such as wind turbines! It is
highly unlikely that any plant based alternative will be able to provide
the volume needed.

--
Colin

On 10/02/2022 07:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>  Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>
>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>
> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>
> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?

Thunderbird 2? Or one of the others?
https://www.thunderbirds.com/vehicles/thunderbird-2

--
Colin

On 2022-02-09 16:22:42 +0000, Nigel Emery said:

>>
>> We have some idle musing. There’s no point in burdening our thoughts here
>> with the weight of “proposal”.
>
> That;s correct! All we have is me looking at that Stadler train record
> and saying blimey that's better than I expected and nearly (I accept
> for some valve of nearly) enough to do Inverness to Wick.
>
> One thing that might be relevant is that Stadler have a history of
> small bespoke product runs. Many Swiss mountain railways etc. have
> replaced their old stuff with new Stadler units with the required
> quantity being 2off. They're not going to compete with Vivarail on
> base cost but who knows. There is no harm in idle musing!

Stadler have two parts to their business. One is to produce standard
products for the mass market based on uniform platforms (generally the
ones with silly acronym names, eg FLIRT, SMILE, KISS [1] etc), and the
other is their "bespoke" business, making small batch custom rolling
stock for railways with extremely niche requirements (eg Swiss mountain
railways, the Glasgow Subway, the Schwebehan).

The standard platforms are produced in large numbers and are
competitive with the likes of Alstom, Alstom (ex-Bombardier), CAF,
Hitachi, Hitachi (ex-Ansaldo-Breda) and the various other players in
the market. There are, for example, over 2500 units based on the FLIRT
platform in service. Part of their design philosophy is to provide a
standard unit that can accept a variety of tractoin options to suit the
operator, such as various flavours of electricity, diesel and battery
electric traction packages. The unit that is the subject of this
thread is one of the first of the battery-electric equipped FLIRTs, and
as such is, aside from the battery pack, a standard off-the-shelf
high-volume design.

[1] FLIRT=Flinker Leichter Intercity- und Regional- Triebzug
SMILE=Schneller Mehrsystemfähiger Innovativer Leichter Expresszug
KISS=Komfortabler Innovativer Spurtstarker S-Bahn-Zug

Robin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>
>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>
> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.

No, as already mentioned, there would need to be a couple of charging
points between Thurso and Inverness. I suspect, in really bad weather, the
train might be stopped at or close to a charging point.

>
> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?

How would a Thunderbird get through?

On 2022-02-09 22:34:47 +0000, MB said:

> On 09/02/2022 15:36, Recliner wrote:
>> I think a UK battery train a long way from normal OHLE would be more
>> likely to use the Vivarail charger system, so the
>> installation would be relatively small and simple.
>
> Hor does the train pick up the power in between charging points, the
> website is a bit vague.

It comes out of the on-board battery.

> Don't forget that these lines often have had two locomotives to handle
> the gradients and the Kyle line had special sidings so they could leave
> half the trucks behind and then return for them.

How many locomotive hauled trains run on these lines? How many of them
still need to be split like this? Sounds like something left over from
steam days.

Robin

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:05:20 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>Stadler have two parts to their business. One is to produce standard
>products for the mass market based on uniform platforms (generally the
>ones with silly acronym names, eg FLIRT, SMILE, KISS [1] etc), and the
>other is their "bespoke" business, making small batch custom rolling
>stock for railways with extremely niche requirements (eg Swiss mountain
>railways, the Glasgow Subway, the Schwebehan).

Going forward do you think that Stadler are in a position to avoid the
fate of the previous generation of Swiss railway manufacturing i.e.
takeover, consolidation, closure?

Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:05:20 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> Stadler have two parts to their business. One is to produce standard
>> products for the mass market based on uniform platforms (generally the
>> ones with silly acronym names, eg FLIRT, SMILE, KISS [1] etc), and the
>> other is their "bespoke" business, making small batch custom rolling
>> stock for railways with extremely niche requirements (eg Swiss mountain
>> railways, the Glasgow Subway, the Schwebehan).
>
> Going forward do you think that Stadler are in a position to avoid the
> fate of the previous generation of Swiss railway manufacturing i.e.
> takeover, consolidation, closure?
>

It remained a private, family-owned company until as recently 2019, and
even after going public, it's still 40% owned by Peter Spuhler, the CEO,
who married into the Stadler family. Under his leadership, it's grown
rapidly, both organically and by acquisition.

For example, in recent years, Stadler's Spanish factory has become the main
supplier of locomotives to the UK market. And from having no presence in
the UK rolling stock market five years ago, it is now supplying fleets of
FLIRTs to GA and TfW, as well as METROs to Merseyside and Glasgow.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:43:45 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>It remained a private, family-owned company until as recently 2019, and
>even after going public, it's still 40% owned by Peter Spuhler, the CEO,
>who married into the Stadler family. Under his leadership, it's grown
>rapidly, both organically and by acquisition.

So PCS Holdings AG is effectively Peter Spuhler as well? That's the
bit I didn't know!
Yes I think the statistic is that they had fewer than 100 employees in
the mid 90s.

On 2022-02-10 11:55:47 +0000, Nigel Emery said:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:43:45 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It remained a private, family-owned company until as recently 2019, and
>> even after going public, it's still 40% owned by Peter Spuhler, the CEO,
>> who married into the Stadler family. Under his leadership, it's grown
>> rapidly, both organically and by acquisition.
>
> So PCS Holdings AG is effectively Peter Spuhler as well? That's the
> bit I didn't know!
> Yes I think the statistic is that they had fewer than 100 employees in
> the mid 90s.

Not surprising. They started off as a relatively small company back
then, and got involved in the railway business by making small battery
locomotives for the mining industry. They got their start by making
the GTW for Thurbo, if I recall the story correctly, basically they
figured they could make something suitable for the line through Busnang
that runs right past their main site, and basically built a prototype
on their own initiative, offered it to Thurbo, who liked it and bought
more.

Robin

On 10/02/2022 09:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>
>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>
>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>> anything better to do?
>
> Back to the Meldrew persona. If you’re not enjoying the conversation why
> don’t you go and do something more pleasant instead, rather than hanging
> around here and moaning?

I *think* Roland is agreeing with me that electrifying the occasional
stopper to Wick isn't the best use of our green budget.

On 10/02/2022 11:07, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>>
>>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>>
>> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
>> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
>> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>
> No, as already mentioned, there would need to be a couple of charging
> points between Thurso and Inverness. I suspect, in really bad weather, the
> train might be stopped at or close to a charging point.
>
>>
>> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
>> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?
>
> How would a Thunderbird get through?

If the Thunderbird can't get through then the unit isn't going anywhere
and may as well park up at Muir of Ord until the weather improves.

Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
> Have the heating work from oil or gas which would would leave the batteries
> for traction ,lighting and a few other bits like the PA ,etc.
>
> And don’t have the oil or gas as a back up system ,use it as the primary so
> you know it is working
> and gets regular attention and not something that lets you down when it is
> suddenly needed because
> it has been at the bottom of some maintenance list.

You could run this as a PHEV: battery for the main traction, with a small
diesel generator for ETH, low speed running, power outages, extreme weather
events etc.

It wouldn't be able to keep time on diesel, but would be there to get out of
trouble if needed.

You wouldn't need to use it as primary, just have the computer run it up
once a day (with realistic load) to keep it in working order.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Have the heating work from oil or gas which would would leave the batteries
>> for traction ,lighting and a few other bits like the PA ,etc.
>>
>> And don’t have the oil or gas as a back up system ,use it as the primary so
>> you know it is working
>> and gets regular attention and not something that lets you down when it is
>> suddenly needed because
>> it has been at the bottom of some maintenance list.
>
> You could run this as a PHEV: battery for the main traction, with a small
> diesel generator for ETH, low speed running, power outages, extreme weather
> events etc.
>
> It wouldn't be able to keep time on diesel, but would be there to get out of
> trouble if needed.
>
> You wouldn't need to use it as primary, just have the computer run it up
> once a day (with realistic load) to keep it in working order.
>

That's a bit like the single diesel in the class 801s.

On 10/02/2022 07:09, Roland Perry wrote:
> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>
> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?

Would not be a problem there, only the section away from roads and services.

A mile from Inverness, they will have passed through a number of
stations. It is further North where it is much more remote,
particularly North of Forsinard where is limited vehicle access to the line.

Same on the West Highland Line over Rannoch moor and around Loch Treig.

I seem to remember reading they no longer carry emergency supplies on board.

On 10/02/2022 09:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
> anything better to do?

And of course the UK is only a small proportion of the world's CO2
output (and many say that CO2 is not the problem anyway).

On 10/02/2022 11:08, Bob wrote:
> How many locomotive hauled trains run on these lines? How many of them
> still need to be split like this? Sounds like something left over from
> steam days.

I mentioned it as an indication of the gradients.

On 10/02/2022 12:28, Certes wrote:
> I*think* Roland is agreeing with me that electrifying the occasional
> stopper to Wick isn't the best use of our green budget.

Apart from the logistical problems, there would be sure to be objections
to unsightly overhead line in that area - though seems OK to erect 200ft
pylons and wind turbines everywhere.

In message <su2lnt$1dbj$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:26:21 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 09:14:00 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>
>>>Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>
>>According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>anything better to do?
>>
>>For the Scottish, 76% of all passenger journeys are already electrified.
>>
>>[1] It's not entirely clear if that's just the trains, or also the
>> stations etc.
>
>Would station energy usage be significant compared to that of the trains?
>I imagine a large city station would use quite a bit of leccy but how would
>that compare to the energy used by a train?

The ORR makes the distinction in some places, by defining a sub-category
of "traction", but are we to assume that when they mention "rail" they
therefore include the stations (and of course depots and so on).
--
Roland Perry

In message <su2mcf$gd5$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:37:19 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>
>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>
>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>> anything better to do?
>
>Back to the Meldrew persona. If you’re not enjoying the conversation why
>don’t you go and do something more pleasant instead, rather than hanging
>around here and moaning?

Why is pointing out that 1% of 0.4% is super-woke, something I should be
prohibited from doing?
--
Roland Perry

In message <su30dq$gtb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:28:42 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 10/02/2022 09:37, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su1ob7$s93$1@dont-email.me>, at 01:04:39 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Basically, 1% of our trains should continue to run on diesel forever,
>>>> as it's less polluting than installing barely used infrastructure, and
>>>> the Far North lines are part of that 1%.
>>>
>>> According to the ORR, "rail"[1] comprises 0.4% of the UK's carbon
>>> footprint, so we are fretting here about 1% of 0.4% - don't we have
>>> anything better to do?

>> Back to the Meldrew persona. If you’re not enjoying the
>>conversation why don’t you go and do something more pleasant
>>instead, rather than hanging around here and moaning?
>
>I *think* Roland is agreeing with me that electrifying the occasional
>stopper to Wick isn't the best use of our green budget.

I thought I'd made that clear in several postings. Sorry if I wasn't
STRIDENT ENOUGH!!!
--
Roland Perry

In message <su2rl9$j29$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:07:21 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su1f1u$hp1$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:26:06 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 09/02/2022 13:51, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Yes, Inverness and Wick are both close to sea level, but there are
>>>> hilly stretches in between.
>>>> Another consideration is that these trains run through remote areas
>>>> that can get blocked with snow or other bad weather,
>>>> so you need to have quite a large reserve fuel supply on board. You
>>>> can't design a system where they are routinely
>>>> running at low charge as they get to the next charger.
>>>
>>> They would need to always have enough capacity to return to the last
>>> charge point if there was any blockage.
>>
>> That immediately doubles the range required. So for example a train
>> which set out from Wick/Thurso gets within a mile of Inverness, and
>> finds the line blocked, requiring a return to where it started.
>
>No, as already mentioned, there would need to be a couple of charging
>points between Thurso and Inverness. I suspect, in really bad weather, the
>train might be stopped at or close to a charging point.

I've already mentioned the only place near a significant power supply
node. That desno't mean it shouldn't be so equipped (apart from the 1%
of 0.4% thing).

>> Or would they in practice detrain the pax at the first opportunity
>> (modulo the almost statutory 3hr wait) and await a Thunderbird?
>
>How would a Thunderbird get through?

On the rails, when the landslide or snowdrift has been cleared.

I wasn't expecting it to be helicopter.
--
Roland Perry