Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <i8920htgi5mvn37ailcg3re771qv2c1o7s@4ax.com>, at 13:58:44 on
> Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 13:24:07 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <stqvnh$uad$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:45 on Mon, 7 Feb 2022,
>>> ianb <i.bidwell@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Yes it does seem he has reverted to his previous troll persona of
>>>> 'Meldrew of Melbourn'
>>>
>>> Meldrew of Meldreth, actually.
>>>
>>> But no-one here has yet managed to explain how two tensioned rails
>>> strung across a gap would start moving sideways (with no force on them
>>> from the landslide) hence increasing that tension in the rails (further
>>> distance to cover due to the pair of curves in the zig-zag. Surely they
>>> would snap back to being straight across.
>>
>> Nobody has explained that, because that's obviously not what happened,
>> and nobody suggested it did. What we have
>> explained is what actually happened.
>>
>> Why don't you actually read the explanations you have already decided
>> you don't agree with? Please, just for once?
>
> I have read them all, and they defy physics.
>

Fair enough, differing laws of Physics must explain the mysterious failures
of tech products in the Ely triangle.

In message <ut720h17003760nj9d50o4t0li0h3j03lu@4ax.com>, at 13:37:42 on
Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>> I still think the ianhardie kink is a result of the track buckling from
>>>>>>>> the braking force of the train, not sliding sideways downhill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would braking cause a track to buckle sideways? CWR is
>>>>>>>under tension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's under tension [and yes, I agree it is, and underpins my own
>>>>>> theory], how can it do a crazy zig-zag buckle in the way that's being
>>>>>> claimed, when the only force on it is gravity downwards - and what that
>>>>>> would cause is just a small droop.
>>>>>
>>>>> The force was the sideways slippage of the earth in which the sleepers
>>>>> were embedded.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't the ballast and sleepers simply skid over the sideways moving
>>>> earth,
>>>
>>>The ballast and track don't sit lightly on top of a separate slippery block
>>>of earth.
>>
>>Indeed, that earth has been eroded away.
>
>But not in one single explosive action. It was gradually eroded over a
>period of time, starting from the right-hand
>edge.

That makes it even more likely the track's tension kept in "in line", so
to speak.

>>>> which was very soon below the level it was capable of exerting a
>>>> force on them anyway.
>>>
>>>How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the transition.
>>
>>Why is that clear?
>
>From one of the photos AND posted.

OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
the slippage which caused the zig-zag?

That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.

>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>
>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>> training I have received.
>>>
>>>Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>
>>Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>basic principles have hanged.
>
>So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>easily off the earth it's embedded in?

I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
act sideways.

>Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>understanding of soil mechanics.

It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
--
Roland Perry

In message <f5820htbcvi0d5v6245j6o1nu2hpe3pfuq@4ax.com>, at 13:42:12 on
Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>As I said days ago (and nevertheless you don't appear to want to let go)
>>I'm simply disagreeing with your analysis of the engineering of the
>>situation. Find that picture without the train, and we can have another
>>go at reaching a consensus.
>
>We reached a consensus very early, minus the usual argumentative
>objector. Everyone but you understands how it happened.

Sadly, engineering doesn't follow some sort of democracy where what lay
observers vote for, happens.

>But you obstinately won't accept that your pet theory was wrong.

It'd help, if any of my questions about the tensioned rails somehow
stretching longitudinally to facilitate the zig-zag was given even an
attempted answer.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ut720h17003760nj9d50o4t0li0h3j03lu@4ax.com>, at 13:37:42 on
> Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>> I still think the ianhardie kink is a result of the track buckling from
>>>>>>>>> the braking force of the train, not sliding sideways downhill.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would braking cause a track to buckle sideways? CWR is
>>>>>>>> under tension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's under tension [and yes, I agree it is, and underpins my own
>>>>>>> theory], how can it do a crazy zig-zag buckle in the way that's being
>>>>>>> claimed, when the only force on it is gravity downwards - and what that
>>>>>>> would cause is just a small droop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The force was the sideways slippage of the earth in which the sleepers
>>>>>> were embedded.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn't the ballast and sleepers simply skid over the sideways moving
>>>>> earth,
>>>>
>>>> The ballast and track don't sit lightly on top of a separate slippery block
>>>> of earth.
>>>
>>> Indeed, that earth has been eroded away.
>>
>> But not in one single explosive action. It was gradually eroded over a
>> period of time, starting from the right-hand
>> edge.
>
> That makes it even more likely the track's tension kept in "in line", so
> to speak.
>
>>>>> which was very soon below the level it was capable of exerting a
>>>>> force on them anyway.
>>>>
>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the transition.
>>>
>>> Why is that clear?
>>
>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>
> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?

Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
rather than making stuff up to disagree with?

>
> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.

No, you've deliberately misunderstood.

>
>
>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>
>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>
>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>
>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>
> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
> act sideways.

Ever heard of an inclined plane?

>
>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>
> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".

It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.

On 09/02/2022 15:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <f5820htbcvi0d5v6245j6o1nu2hpe3pfuq@4ax.com>, at 13:42:12 on
> Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> As I said days ago (and nevertheless you don't appear to want to let go)
>>> I'm simply disagreeing with your analysis of the engineering of the
>>> situation. Find that picture without the train, and we can have another
>>> go at reaching a consensus.
>>
>> We reached a consensus very early, minus the usual argumentative
>> objector. Everyone but you understands how it happened.
>
> Sadly, engineering doesn't follow some sort of democracy where what lay
> observers vote for, happens.
>
>> But you obstinately won't accept that your pet theory was wrong.
>
> It'd help, if any of my questions about the tensioned rails somehow
> stretching longitudinally to facilitate the zig-zag was given even an
> attempted answer.

It wouldn't have to stretch much. Moving the middle of a 60ft length
six inches sideways (enough to ruin any driver's day) changes its
length by 0.014%, equivalent to about a 12 deg C temperature change.

In message <su0ts1$bh6$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:32:49 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 09/02/2022 15:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <f5820htbcvi0d5v6245j6o1nu2hpe3pfuq@4ax.com>, at 13:42:12
>>on Mon, 7 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> As I said days ago (and nevertheless you don't appear to want to
>>>>let go)
>>>> I'm simply disagreeing with your analysis of the engineering of the
>>>> situation. Find that picture without the train, and we can have another
>>>> go at reaching a consensus.
>>>
>>> We reached a consensus very early, minus the usual argumentative
>>>objector. Everyone but you understands how it happened.
>> Sadly, engineering doesn't follow some sort of democracy where what
>>lay observers vote for, happens.
>>
>>> But you obstinately won't accept that your pet theory was wrong.

>> It'd help, if any of my questions about the tensioned rails somehow
>>stretching longitudinally to facilitate the zig-zag was given even an
>>attempted answer.
>
>It wouldn't have to stretch much. Moving the middle of a 60ft length
>six inches sideways (enough to ruin any driver's day) changes its
>length by 0.014%, equivalent to about a 12 deg C temperature change.

Perhaps you can cite how much force it takes to stretch such a rail by
that amount, and compare it to its weight. Because all we have if it
bent before the train arrived, is the sideways component of its weight.
--
Roland Perry

In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the transition.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>
>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>
>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>
>Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>rather than making stuff up to disagree with?

Because what's been said is implausible.

>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>
>No, you've deliberately misunderstood.

To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
seen a "before" picture).

>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>
>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>
>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>> act sideways.
>
>Ever heard of an inclined plane?

Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.

>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>
>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>
>It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.

In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
far from proven.

Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
usual bluster.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the transition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>
>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>
>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>
>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>
> Because what's been said is implausible.
>
>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>
>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>
> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
> seen a "before" picture).
>
>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>
>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>
>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>> act sideways.
>>
>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>
> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>
>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>
>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>
>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>
> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
> far from proven.
>
> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
> usual bluster.

Read my early posts in this thread.

In message <su41tk$bbr$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:20 on Thu, 10 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the transition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>>
>>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>>
>>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>>
>> Because what's been said is implausible.
>>
>>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>>
>>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>>
>> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
>> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
>> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
>> seen a "before" picture).
>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>>
>>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>>> act sideways.
>>>
>>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>>
>> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>>
>>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>>
>>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>>
>> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
>> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
>> far from proven.
>>
>> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
>> usual bluster.
>
>Read my early posts in this thread.

They are what appear to defy the laws of physics. Hence the request for
further information on this one specific point, without which we can't
proceed.

It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you believe were
posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
already.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su41tk$bbr$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:20 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the transition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>>>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>>>
>>> Because what's been said is implausible.
>>>
>>>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>>>
>>>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>>>
>>> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
>>> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
>>> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
>>> seen a "before" picture).
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>>>> act sideways.
>>>>
>>>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>>>
>>> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>>>
>>>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>>>
>>>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>>>
>>> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
>>> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
>>> far from proven.
>>>
>>> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
>>> usual bluster.
>>
>> Read my early posts in this thread.
>
> They are what appear to defy the laws of physics. Hence the request for
> further information on this one specific point, without which we can't
> proceed.
>
> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you believe were
> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
> already.

Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone around that
particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such pictures
would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the matter,
we're unlikely to see that.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <sudsi9$nqf$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:30:17 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su41tk$bbr$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:20 on Thu, 10 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the
>>>>>>>>>transition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>>>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>>>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>>>>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>>>>
>>>> Because what's been said is implausible.
>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>>>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>>>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>>>>
>>>> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
>>>> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
>>>> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
>>>> seen a "before" picture).
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>>>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>>>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>>>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>>>>> act sideways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>>>>
>>>>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>>>>
>>>> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
>>>> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
>>>> far from proven.
>>>>
>>>> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
>>>> usual bluster.
>>>
>>> Read my early posts in this thread.
>>
>> They are what appear to defy the laws of physics. Hence the request for
>> further information on this one specific point, without which we can't
>> proceed.
>>
>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you believe were
>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
>> already.
>
>Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone around that
>particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such pictures
>would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the matter,
>we're unlikely to see that.

I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available. But it's
crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there before
the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sudsi9$nqf$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:30:17 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su41tk$bbr$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:20 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the
>>>>>>>>>> transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>>>>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>>>>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>>>>>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because what's been said is implausible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>>>>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>>>>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>>>>>
>>>>> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
>>>>> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
>>>>> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
>>>>> seen a "before" picture).
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>>>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>>>>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>>>>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>>>>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>>>>>> act sideways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>>>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>>>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
>>>>> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
>>>>> far from proven.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
>>>>> usual bluster.
>>>>
>>>> Read my early posts in this thread.
>>>
>>> They are what appear to defy the laws of physics. Hence the request for
>>> further information on this one specific point, without which we can't
>>> proceed.
>>>
>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you believe were
>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
>>> already.
>>
>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone around that
>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such pictures
>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the matter,
>> we're unlikely to see that.
>
> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available. But it's
> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there before
> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.

You still haven't said where this has been asserted.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <su41tk$bbr$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:20 on Thu, 10 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the transition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>>>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>>>
>>> Because what's been said is implausible.
>>>
>>>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>>>
>>>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>>>
>>> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
>>> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
>>> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
>>> seen a "before" picture).
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>>>> act sideways.
>>>>
>>>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>>>
>>> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>>>
>>>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>>>
>>>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>>>
>>> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
>>> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
>>> far from proven.
>>>
>>> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
>>> usual bluster.
>>
>> Read my early posts in this thread.
>
> They are what appear to defy the laws of physics.

Just curious: which laws of physics were violated?

In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you believe were
>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
>>>> already.
>>>
>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone around that
>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such pictures
>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the matter,
>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>
>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available. But it's
>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there before
>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>
>You still haven't said where this has been asserted.

Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.
--
Roland Perry

In message <suefod$b64$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:57:50 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <su41tk$bbr$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:20 on Thu, 10 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the
>>>>>>>>>transition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>>>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>>>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>>>>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>>>>
>>>> Because what's been said is implausible.
>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>>>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>>>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>>>>
>>>> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
>>>> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
>>>> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
>>>> seen a "before" picture).
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>>>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>>>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>>>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>>>>> act sideways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>>>>
>>>>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>>>>
>>>> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
>>>> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
>>>> far from proven.
>>>>
>>>> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
>>>> usual bluster.
>>>
>>> Read my early posts in this thread.
>>
>> They are what appear to defy the laws of physics.
>
>Just curious: which laws of physics were violated?

Force acting on a body, causing motion.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suefod$b64$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:57:50 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <su41tk$bbr$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:00:20 on Thu, 10 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <su0tnb$atl$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:30:19 on Wed, 9 Feb 2022,
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How soon is 'soon'? The train clearly arrived early in the
>>>>>>>>>> transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is that clear?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From one of the photos AND posted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, so now are you saying the train arrived (and stopped) while the
>>>>>>> track was still pretty much in a straight line, and afterwards there was
>>>>>>> the slippage which caused the zig-zag?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely nobody has said that. Why don't you just read what we all said,
>>>>>> rather than making stuff up to disagree with?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because what's been said is implausible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fine, by the way, because all I've ever been claiming is the
>>>>>>> captions saying the train almost derailed on the zigzag (which wouldn't
>>>>>>> have been there when it arrived) are misconceived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you've deliberately misunderstood.
>>>>>
>>>>> To clear this up, all you have to describe is the timeline of when you
>>>>> think the zig-zag appeared (ie before or after the train arrived) and
>>>>> preferably to cite before and after photos (I still don't think I've
>>>>> seen a "before" picture).
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be obsessed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, just sticking with the soil mechanics and structural engineering
>>>>>>>>>>> training I have received.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, another of your many areas of expertise!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is! Quite a long time ago now, but I don't think any of the
>>>>>>>>> basic principles have hanged.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you were taught that the thick carpet of interlocked ballast slips
>>>>>>>> easily off the earth it's embedded in?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was taught that soil starts acting like a liquid far sooner than lay
>>>>>>> observers would expect, and also that a structure in tension like the
>>>>>>> rails/sleepers there would tend to stay in a straight line, unless some
>>>>>>> quite significant external sideways force was applied. Gravity doesn't
>>>>>>> act sideways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of an inclined plane?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but things suspended above an inclined plane don't slide down it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if that were so, the temporarily sloping base under the track
>>>>>>>> would have slipped sideways, not vertically, even according to your
>>>>>>>> understanding of soil mechanics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might have rotated a bit, but that's just a subset of "droop".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It slipped down the slope, as everyone but you can see.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the absence of you persistently failing to explain how it can do that
>>>>> when the rails are in tension, I'm afraid your line of argument is still
>>>>> far from proven.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, please describe the timeline, preferably calmly rather than your
>>>>> usual bluster.
>>>>
>>>> Read my early posts in this thread.
>>>
>>> They are what appear to defy the laws of physics.
>>
>> Just curious: which laws of physics were violated?
>
> Force acting on a body, causing motion.

Downward force against a slope produces a lateral component.

On 15/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you believe
>>>>> were
>>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
>>>>> already.
>>>>
>>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone around
>>>> that
>>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such
>>>> pictures
>>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the
>>>> matter,
>>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>>
>>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available. But it's
>>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there before
>>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>>
>> You still haven't said where this has been asserted.
>
> Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
> sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.

I think that you will actually find that Recliner's views are the views
of the majority, you are the ONLY outlier.

--
Colin

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you believe
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
>>>>>> already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone around
>>>>> that
>>>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such
>>>>> pictures
>>>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the
>>>>> matter,
>>>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available. But it's
>>>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there before
>>>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>>>
>>> You still haven't said where this has been asserted.
>>
>> Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
>> sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.
>
> I think that you will actually find that Recliner's views are the views
> of the majority, you are the ONLY outlier.

Cue Sir Tom Jones…

Sam

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

In message <suhai3$p7q$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:47:32 on Tue, 15 Feb
2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 15/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you
>>>>>>believe were
>>>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was kinked
>>>>>> already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone
>>>>>around that
>>>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such
>>>>>pictures
>>>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the
>>>>>matter,
>>>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available. But it's
>>>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there before
>>>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>>>
>>> You still haven't said where this has been asserted.

>> Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
>>sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.
>
>I think that you will actually find that Recliner's views are the views
>of the majority, you are the ONLY outlier.

Only within the people commenting here, and absolutely none have (unless
I missed it) come up with a plausible engineering reason why the tension
in the rails didn't keep them straight, when the ground below had eroded
away.

To move (or stay) sideways there has to be a substantial sideways force.
Where is it coming from?
--
Roland Perry

In message <sugq0l$cql$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:09 on Tue, 15 Feb
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>
>>> Just curious: which laws of physics were violated?
>>
>> Force acting on a body, causing motion.
>
>Downward force against a slope produces a lateral component.

Even when most of the slope has eroded away, so as not to be touching
the bottom of the sleepers any more?

In any event, given the tension in the rails, to "twang" them sideways
would take, in my opinion, more than the horizontal component of that
gravitational pull downwards.

--
Roland Perry

On 16/02/2022 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suhai3$p7q$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:47:32 on Tue, 15 Feb
> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 15/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you
>>>>>>> believe  were
>>>>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was
>>>>>>> kinked
>>>>>>> already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone
>>>>>> around  that
>>>>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such
>>>>>> pictures
>>>>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on the
>>>>>> matter,
>>>>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available. But
>>>>> it's
>>>>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there
>>>>> before
>>>>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't said where this has been asserted.
>
>>>  Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
>>> sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.
>>
>> I think that you will actually find that Recliner's views are the
>> views of the majority, you are the ONLY outlier.
>
> Only within the people commenting here, and absolutely none have (unless
> I missed it) come up with a plausible engineering reason why the tension
> in the rails didn't keep them straight, when the ground below had eroded
> away.
>
> To move (or stay) sideways there has to be a substantial sideways force.
> Where is it coming from?

Gravity.

In message <suj76u$r50$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:38 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 16/02/2022 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <suhai3$p7q$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:47:32 on Tue, 15 Feb
>>2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 15/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you
>>>>>>>>believe  were
>>>>>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was
>>>>>>>>kinked
>>>>>>>> already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone
>>>>>>>around  that
>>>>>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such
>>>>>>>pictures
>>>>>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on
>>>>>>>the matter,
>>>>>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available.
>>>>>>But it's
>>>>>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there
>>>>>>before
>>>>>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>>>>>
>>>>> You still haven't said where this has been asserted.
>>
>>>>  Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
>>>>sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.
>>>
>>> I think that you will actually find that Recliner's views are the
>>>views of the majority, you are the ONLY outlier.

>> Only within the people commenting here, and absolutely none have
>>(unless I missed it) come up with a plausible engineering reason why
>>the tension in the rails didn't keep them straight, when the ground
>>below had eroded away.

>> To move (or stay) sideways there has to be a substantial sideways
>>force. Where is it coming from?
>
>Gravity.

Which acts downwards, not sideways.

If the rails were in compression (I suspect everyone would agree this is
extraordinarily unlikely) then when the ground subsides away, that
compression force could cause the track to kink, now that there's no
ballast holding it in place.

Or even if it was neutral, the ground falling away would put the track
into tension (because it's stretched due to the dip), which would tend
to resist any sideways motion.

But I think it's under tension.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suj76u$r50$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:38 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 16/02/2022 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <suhai3$p7q$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:47:32 on Tue, 15 Feb
>>> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 15/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you
>>>>>>>>> believe  were
>>>>>>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was
>>>>>>>>> kinked
>>>>>>>>> already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone
>>>>>>>> around  that
>>>>>>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such
>>>>>>>> pictures
>>>>>>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on
>>>>>>>> the matter,
>>>>>>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available.
>>>>>>> But it's
>>>>>>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still haven't said where this has been asserted.
>>>
>>>>>  Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
>>>>> sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.
>>>>
>>>> I think that you will actually find that Recliner's views are the
>>>> views of the majority, you are the ONLY outlier.
>
>>> Only within the people commenting here, and absolutely none have
>>> (unless I missed it) come up with a plausible engineering reason why
>>> the tension in the rails didn't keep them straight, when the ground
>>> below had eroded away.
>
>>> To move (or stay) sideways there has to be a substantial sideways
>>> force. Where is it coming from?
>>
>> Gravity.
>
> Which acts downwards, not sideways.
>
> If the rails were in compression (I suspect everyone would agree this is
> extraordinarily unlikely) then when the ground subsides away, that
> compression force could cause the track to kink, now that there's no
> ballast holding it in place.
>
> Or even if it was neutral, the ground falling away would put the track
> into tension (because it's stretched due to the dip), which would tend
> to resist any sideways motion.
>
> But I think it's under tension.

IIUC you have a wide-ranging engineering education, so if the rails are
going to stay straight in the horizontal plane, and are under tension but
free to move in the vertical plane, can you tell us how big would the dip
be, and how close would the train driver have to be before it was visible?

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:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suj76u$r50$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:38 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>> On 16/02/2022 14:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <suhai3$p7q$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:47:32 on Tue, 15 Feb
>>>> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 15/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <suebst$vsp$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:51:57 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> It would also help for you to re-cite any photos/links you
>>>>>>>>>> believe  were
>>>>>>>>>> posted before the train arrived, so we can see if the track was
>>>>>>>>>> kinked
>>>>>>>>>> already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why on earth would anyone have happened to be flying a drone
>>>>>>>>> around  that
>>>>>>>>> particular area before the train (non-)derailment? The only such
>>>>>>>>> pictures
>>>>>>>>> would be from the train's FFCCTV, and until the RAIB report on
>>>>>>>>> the matter,
>>>>>>>>> we're unlikely to see that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that I don't know why such a photo would be available.
>>>>>>>> But it's
>>>>>>>> crucial to the assertion that the zig-zag in the track was there
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> the train arrived, rather than being caused *by* its arrival.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still haven't said where this has been asserted.
>>>>
>>>>>>  Recliner has been banging on about it ad nauseam, with his "slid
>>>>>> sideways" due to track-bed erosion theories.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that you will actually find that Recliner's views are the
>>>>> views of the majority, you are the ONLY outlier.
>>
>>>> Only within the people commenting here, and absolutely none have
>>>> (unless I missed it) come up with a plausible engineering reason why
>>>> the tension in the rails didn't keep them straight, when the ground
>>>> below had eroded away.
>>
>>>> To move (or stay) sideways there has to be a substantial sideways
>>>> force. Where is it coming from?
>>>
>>> Gravity.
>>
>> Which acts downwards, not sideways.
>>
>> If the rails were in compression (I suspect everyone would agree this is
>> extraordinarily unlikely) then when the ground subsides away, that
>> compression force could cause the track to kink, now that there's no
>> ballast holding it in place.
>>
>> Or even if it was neutral, the ground falling away would put the track
>> into tension (because it's stretched due to the dip), which would tend
>> to resist any sideways motion.
>>
>> But I think it's under tension.
>
> IIUC you have a wide-ranging engineering education, so if the rails are
> going to stay straight in the horizontal plane, and are under tension but
> free to move in the vertical plane, can you tell us how big would the dip
> be, and how close would the train driver have to be before it was visible?
>
> Sam
>

Imagine an elastic band under tension (rails) then imagine hanging some
weights on the elastic band at intervals (sleepers). Imagine putting all
this on a flat surface (intact track bed). Now take a section of that flat
surface and tilt it at 45 degrees. What do you think will happen to the
weights on that 45 degree slope?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 14:34:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <sugq0l$cql$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:09 on Tue, 15 Feb
>2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>
>>>> Just curious: which laws of physics were violated?
>>>
>>> Force acting on a body, causing motion.
>>
>>Downward force against a slope produces a lateral component.
>
>Even when most of the slope has eroded away, so as not to be touching
>the bottom of the sleepers any more?
>
If your erosion is not in a uniform manner then you will get a
variable result from the vertical forces applied at different places.

>In any event, given the tension in the rails, to "twang" them sideways
>would take, in my opinion, more than the horizontal component of that
>gravitational pull downwards.