In message <suja2i$dp8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:30 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suj823$c2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:07 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <suj4qs$j78$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:04 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
>>>>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>>>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but
>>>>>>>>have never
>>>>>>>> been able to spin the wheels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>>>>>>> would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
>>>>>> so not particularly sluggish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very sluggish by modern standards.
>>>>
>>>> Never found it to be an issue.
>>>
>>> Perhaps not, but you have very low expectations.
>>>
>>> These days, 0-60 in 7-8 sec is respectable in cheap family cars, and fast
>>> cars have 0-62 times under 4 sec. Even the modern entry level Disco Sport
>>> D200 does 0-62mph in 8.1 seconds, while the P300e PHEV version does it in
>>> 6.2 seconds. But if you want a seriously fast SUV, the Tesla Model X Plaid
>>> has a 0-62 time of just 2.5 secs.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>>>>>>> doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other
>>>>>>>>than from
>>>>>>>> rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
>>>>>> ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
>>>>>> cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
>>>>>> fly-by wire.
>>>>>
>>>>> It probably starts in a higher gear (eg, third) in that mode. That would
>>>>> significantly reduce the torque at the wheels.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try that out tomorrow. It's a bit reluctant to say what gear it's
>>>> in and starting off in 3rd at 1,000 rpm doesn't sound a very likely
>>>> combination.
>>>
>>> It may normally start in 2nd in D,
>>
>> I very much doubt it. But will try this tomorrow.
>>
>>> and 1st only in S, so the Ice mode would move up a gear.
>>
>> What sort of ground-speed would you expect from 1,000 rpm in third?
>
>Why would it be so high? Won't it idle much lower?

I'm not sure that a standing start in 3rd while idling is something
which makes any sense at all.

>But I don't know the ratios in your car.
>
>Perhaps you could do an experiment to find out: start in S mode, and try
>and detect when it changes into third. You should be able to estimate the
>ratio.

I can barely detect it changing gear. My only resource here is seeing if
the dashboard will display the gear it's in, which it might only do when
in manual-change mode. But that would at least give the rpm/speed in 3rd
gear.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sujbp1$1dl4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:20:33 on Wed, 16 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
>Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>>all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>>Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>>references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>
>Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
>started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record
>run max V

How many of us are driving land-speed-record cars on the streets?
--
Roland Perry

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 16/02/2022 13:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The DfT was very proud that an 800 on diesel power out-accelerated an HST
>>> from standstill (because at least six axles were powered), though the HST
>>> soon caught up at higher speeds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The acceleration characteristics vary by speed, too; and IET diesel power
>> has been increased by a software update since then.
>>
>> 0-30mph HSTs are very slow, and IET, even on diesel, very fast.
>> 40-70mph diesel IETs are slower and HST faster.
>> 70-100mph about the same.
>> 100-125mph HST faster.
>>
>> Since the upgrade, 0-100mph, diesel IET is about 95% of HST performance
>> (slightly better than HST on a falling gradient, slightly worse than HST on
>> a rising gradient).
>>
> I assume you mean a 2+8 HST?
>

Yes, replying to Recliner who mentioned claims about HST vs. IET when the
latter were introduced, and 2+4 HSTs weren't even a thing yet!

2+4 HSTs, btw, get to 100mph where a 2+8 was only doing 85mph.

> I would agree with your assessment. I just been on a couple of IETs on
> the south Devon banks and subjectively thought their performance was a
> bit lacklustre.
>
> I was wondering if the 2+4 HSTs are allowed on the south Devon banks
> with one dead power car.
>

I'm not aware of any restriction.

> I discovered the IETs are over automated. The IET I travelled on in
> Cornwall was physically the normal way round but the announcements for
> the short platforms were back to front. They told passengers to go
> forwards when they meant backwards or vice versa for an opening door.
>

That's very odd; I'm trying to think what combination of inputs to the
software could even cause that!

I don't suppose you remember the date, which train and which unit number,
do you?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 2022-02-16 17:12:04 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <suie4p$1gjg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:54:49 on Wed, 16 Feb
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:07:49 +0100
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 2022-02-16 00:33:15 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>>>> Electric trains generally have much more installed power than diesel
>>>> ones, hence they accelerate better at higher speeds. That's why a
>>>> 91+MK4s, although slower from a standing start than an HST (4 powered
>>>> axles against 8), once they get past the point where the number of
>>>> powered axles makes a difference, can significantly out-accelerate an
>>>
>>> Wouldn't the number of axles matter at any speed because at high speed you
>>> have a lot of wind and rolling resistence and in theory could get wheelslip
>>> because of it?
>>
>> I don't think trains have anything like the power to routinely spin the
>> wheels at anything but low speed. Unlike a car I once had, where you
>> could spin the back wheels on a dry road at 70mph in 3rd gear (that's
>> around 5,500rpm)
>>
>> Even then, with a 0-60 time of under 8 seconds, 0-100 time was 20
>> seconds.
>
> In HST days, during severe leaf fall, if I got to around 100mph and was
> still experiencing wheelslip under power, I'd decide that that was probably
> fast enough, because if I couldn't get the power down I probably wouldn't
> be able to stop very well, either!

Obviously in poor adhesion condition all bets are off. I certainly
would regard that approach as entirely sensible, even if it results in
late running. Better getting there a bit late than SPADing by sliding
past a red signal.

> On IETs it's less obvious (not sitting above powered axles, for example; no
> warning light to indicate wheelslip under power, and more effective WSP),
> but on some days you can tell it's still struggling even at 120mph (the
> traction motor outputs on the first few powered vehicles being lower than
> on the last few vehicles, for example).
>
> On a dry rail, I don't think any of the stock I've driven will wheelspin at
> any speed; though I've not driven AC electric locomotives or heavy freight
> trains.

I would assume in relatively modern stock there are measures in the
control systems to mitigate the risk of wheel slip, and aside from HSTs
and IEPs I've forgotten enough of your posting history to recall what
else you've driven in the past. I'd have thought on a 1960s era
locomotive any measures to prevent wheel slip would be either primitive
or non-existant, but on anything from the '80s onwards, I would expect
there would be clever elements in the control system to make it hard
for the driver to inadvertently spin the wheels. I'm sure you're far
too sensible a driver to deliberately try to "burn out" whatever train
you're driving.

Robin

On 2022-02-16 17:20:33 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>> but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>> all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>> Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>> references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>
> Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
> started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record
> run max V

Land speed record cars are in a somewhat unusual situation because
first, they can't use pneumatic tyres, as they would disintigrate under
the centrifugal loading, and second, they are driving on salt flats
rather than paved road, which has a tendency to crumble under the
extreme forces involved. As they go faster, the limiting friction for
the wheels reduces as the interaction of the wheel with the ground
causes the ground conditions to deteriorate.

Robin

On 16/02/2022 19:04, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/02/2022 13:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The DfT was very proud that an 800 on diesel power out-accelerated an HST
>>>> from standstill (because at least six axles were powered), though the HST
>>>> soon caught up at higher speeds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The acceleration characteristics vary by speed, too; and IET diesel power
>>> has been increased by a software update since then.
>>>
>>> 0-30mph HSTs are very slow, and IET, even on diesel, very fast.
>>> 40-70mph diesel IETs are slower and HST faster.
>>> 70-100mph about the same.
>>> 100-125mph HST faster.
>>>
>>> Since the upgrade, 0-100mph, diesel IET is about 95% of HST performance
>>> (slightly better than HST on a falling gradient, slightly worse than HST on
>>> a rising gradient).
>>>
>> I assume you mean a 2+8 HST?
>>
>
> Yes, replying to Recliner who mentioned claims about HST vs. IET when the
> latter were introduced, and 2+4 HSTs weren't even a thing yet!
>
> 2+4 HSTs, btw, get to 100mph where a 2+8 was only doing 85mph.
>
>> I would agree with your assessment. I just been on a couple of IETs on
>> the south Devon banks and subjectively thought their performance was a
>> bit lacklustre.
>>
>> I was wondering if the 2+4 HSTs are allowed on the south Devon banks
>> with one dead power car.
>>
>
> I'm not aware of any restriction.
>
>> I discovered the IETs are over automated. The IET I travelled on in
>> Cornwall was physically the normal way round but the announcements for
>> the short platforms were back to front. They told passengers to go
>> forwards when they meant backwards or vice versa for an opening door.
>>
>
> That's very odd; I'm trying to think what combination of inputs to the
> software could even cause that!
>
> I don't suppose you remember the date, which train and which unit number,
> do you?

It was the 0910 Penzance to London Paddington on Friday 4th February.

I was in the third from rear coach and the announcement at St Erth and
other other stations was the front door of this coach would NOT be in
the platform and to walk towards the rear of the train. The correct
message would have been to walk forward but I'm not sure how far.

On 16/02/2022 21:07, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 16/02/2022 19:04, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2022 13:43, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The DfT was very proud that an 800 on diesel power out-accelerated
>>>>> an HST
>>>>> from standstill (because at least six axles were powered), though
>>>>> the HST
>>>>> soon caught up at higher speeds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The acceleration characteristics vary by speed, too; and IET diesel
>>>> power
>>>> has been increased by a software update since then.
>>>>
>>>> 0-30mph HSTs are very slow, and IET, even on diesel, very fast.
>>>> 40-70mph diesel IETs are slower and HST faster.
>>>> 70-100mph about the same.
>>>> 100-125mph HST faster.
>>>>
>>>> Since the upgrade, 0-100mph, diesel IET is about 95% of HST performance
>>>> (slightly better than HST on a falling gradient, slightly worse than
>>>> HST on
>>>> a rising gradient).
>>>>
>>> I assume you mean a 2+8 HST?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, replying to Recliner who mentioned claims about HST vs. IET when the
>> latter were introduced, and 2+4 HSTs weren't even a thing yet!
>>
>> 2+4 HSTs, btw, get to 100mph where a 2+8 was only doing 85mph.
>>
>>> I would agree with your assessment.  I just been on a couple of IETs on
>>> the south Devon banks and subjectively thought their performance was a
>>> bit lacklustre.
>>>
>>> I was wondering if the 2+4 HSTs are allowed on the south Devon banks
>>> with one dead power car.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not aware of any restriction.
>>
>>> I discovered the IETs are over automated.  The IET I travelled on in
>>> Cornwall was physically the normal way round but the announcements for
>>> the short platforms were back to front.  They told passengers to go
>>> forwards when they meant backwards or vice versa for an opening door.
>>>
>>
>> That's very odd; I'm trying to think what combination of inputs to the
>> software could even cause that!
>>
>> I don't suppose you remember the date, which train and which unit number,
>> do you?
>
> It was the 0910 Penzance to London Paddington on Friday 4th February.
>
> I was in the third from rear coach and the announcement at St Erth and
> other other stations was the front door of this coach would NOT be in
> the platform and to walk towards the rear of the train.  The correct
> message would have been to walk forward but I'm not sure how far.

Just to clarify there were two passenger coaches behind me.

On 16/02/2022 11:52, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <suiid3$7ba$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:07:31 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> I'm not convinced that anywhere other then the end points makes a good
>>>> place for a charging station, as the train won't be there long enough.
>>>
>>> As I pointed out earlier, the train already only stops for a few minutes
>>> at Inverness.
>>>
>>> "Ah, but you can change the timetable" was the reply.
>>>
>>> Well, you can also change the timetable to dwell at somewhere like Brora
>>> for ten minutes.
>>>
>>> If it's really that important to remove the final 1% of 0.4% of *gross*
>>> carbon emissions by doing that, the passengers will surely understand.
>>>
>>> Alternatively they might prefer a slightly higher fare so someone can
>>> plant a few carbon-offset trees.
>>>
>>> Although in practice, what with it being a 4.5hr journey, maybe the
>>> electric train could run just a few mph faster to make up the time (the
>>> current average speed is only 40mph)
>>
>> The BEMU would accelerate faster than a DMU, so average speeds would
>> increase, even if line speeds were unchanged.
>
> I don't know what the linespeeds are, or whether they are the constraint
> on the somewhat pedestrian pace.

According to the Railway Performance Society distance charts, there are
some lengthy sections where 70-75 mph is permitted, but there are also
some locations with lower limits (typically 45,50,55 or 60 mph).
Reductions, mostly to 15 mph apply at most passing places.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 16/02/2022 19:04, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I discovered the IETs are over automated. The IET I travelled on in
>>> Cornwall was physically the normal way round but the announcements for
>>> the short platforms were back to front. They told passengers to go
>>> forwards when they meant backwards or vice versa for an opening door.
>>>
>>
>> That's very odd; I'm trying to think what combination of inputs to the
>> software could even cause that!
>>
>> I don't suppose you remember the date, which train and which unit number,
>> do you?
>
> It was the 0910 Penzance to London Paddington on Friday 4th February.
>
> I was in the third from rear coach and the announcement at St Erth and
> other other stations was the front door of this coach would NOT be in
> the platform and to walk towards the rear of the train. The correct
> message would have been to walk forward but I'm not sure how far.
>

Thanks, I'll pass that on to the team who do the software updates.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>> but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>> all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>> Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>> references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>
> Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
> started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record run max V
>

Yes, of course they had far more power, but not far more traction, than
normal road cars.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <suja2i$dp8$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:30 on Wed, 16 Feb
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <suj823$c2g$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:17:07 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <suj4qs$j78$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:22:04 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <1erp0h14qr926eha3mofem4uf34nd2mnuh@4ax.com>, at 12:35:20 on
>>>>>>> Wed, 16 Feb 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:01:33 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <suijgv$hh1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:39 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>>>>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure that's true. I have a reasonably powered 4x4 but
>>>>>>>>> have never
>>>>>>>>> been able to spin the wheels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought your car was quite low powered (158bhp) and also heavy? That
>>>>>>>> would make it unable to spin the wheels except on slippery ground.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being heavy (and hence grippy) is one of the advantages. 0-60 is 11sec,
>>>>>>> so not particularly sluggish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very sluggish by modern standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never found it to be an issue.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps not, but you have very low expectations.
>>>>
>>>> These days, 0-60 in 7-8 sec is respectable in cheap family cars, and fast
>>>> cars have 0-62 times under 4 sec. Even the modern entry level Disco Sport
>>>> D200 does 0-62mph in 8.1 seconds, while the P300e PHEV version does it in
>>>> 6.2 seconds. But if you want a seriously fast SUV, the Tesla Model X Plaid
>>>> has a 0-62 time of just 2.5 secs.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some of that might be the transmission deliberately stopping me from
>>>>>>>>> doing so, but then I wouldn't expect to spin the wheels, other
>>>>>>>>> than from
>>>>>>>>> rest, on the majority of cars I've had.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You would hear it if the DSC was cutting the power.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only time I've heard/felt anything was once on a bend covered in
>>>>>>> ice, when the power reduced very slightly all by itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that was when I was in the extra "icy road" mode. It doesn't so much
>>>>>>> cut the power, as not let you apply it in the first place, due to the
>>>>>>> fly-by wire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It probably starts in a higher gear (eg, third) in that mode. That would
>>>>>> significantly reduce the torque at the wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll try that out tomorrow. It's a bit reluctant to say what gear it's
>>>>> in and starting off in 3rd at 1,000 rpm doesn't sound a very likely
>>>>> combination.
>>>>
>>>> It may normally start in 2nd in D,
>>>
>>> I very much doubt it. But will try this tomorrow.
>>>
>>>> and 1st only in S, so the Ice mode would move up a gear.
>>>
>>> What sort of ground-speed would you expect from 1,000 rpm in third?
>>
>> Why would it be so high? Won't it idle much lower?
>
> I'm not sure that a standing start in 3rd while idling is something
> which makes any sense at all.
>
>> But I don't know the ratios in your car.
>>
>> Perhaps you could do an experiment to find out: start in S mode, and try
>> and detect when it changes into third. You should be able to estimate the
>> ratio.
>
> I can barely detect it changing gear. My only resource here is seeing if
> the dashboard will display the gear it's in, which it might only do when
> in manual-change mode. But that would at least give the rpm/speed in 3rd
> gear.

Couldn't you use the tachometer to detect the gear changes?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:55:16 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On 14 Feb 2022 09:28:29 GMT
>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 13 Feb 2022 23:28:17 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>>>
>>>> Thats all very well but please explain how S stock would make its way along
>>>> a rebuilt Croxley branch
>>>> if permission to install conductor rails is not forthcoming.
>>>>
>>> It is an extension to an existing system (or two if you are looking
>>> from the DC line end).
>>>
>>
>>Extension to existing systems usually involve electrifying an existing
>>working railway.
>>Croxley having been closed for some time would not fall into that category
>
>However the watford end is still a working railway. Though its all rather moot
>since I suspect that project is deader than the proverbial parrot now. Not
>that it ever really made much sense anyway. No one would use it to get to
>watford from london with much quicker options so its only purpose would be
>as a local railway which I doubt would have many pax.
>
Several origins other than London are available. The Met. doesn't just
have stations at the end of the line.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:04:29 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:18:53 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:05:52 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>>Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
>>>>putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
>>>>parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.
>>>
>>>3rd rail is perfectly safe if you don't do something stupid like touching it.
>>>
>>There is no law preventing stupidity as demonstrated when passengers
>>go walkabout on live tracks.
>
>So what? People go walkabouts on dual carraigeways but nobody suggests
>closing them. Darwinian selection is a part of life.
>
The mobile hazards on a dual carriageway can have their course varied
and are usually stoppable in a far shorter distance than a train. The
Darwin candidate can also be expected to more familiar with a road at
ground level than they might be with ground level at Denmark Hill
station. Railways have much more in the way of trip hazards than most
roads have. Also, you aren't allowed to rely on Darwin if your
premises are not sufficiently kid-proof.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 13:02:20 +0000, ColinR
<rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/02/2022 11:36, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:42:25 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 15:24:02 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> How do you get around the health and safety at work regulations?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change them back again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how achievable do you think that actually is?
>>>>>
>>>>> We're talking about over the top safety rules, not immutable laws of
>>>> physics.
>>>>> Changing them would be no problem if there was a will.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the same thing. In the real world, right now, with
>>>> current politicians, and current public attitudes, how likely do you think
>>>> it will be to get rid of the legislation which prevents the installation of
>>>> new, exposed, high-voltage live conductors at ankle height, around the
>>>> workplace?
>>>
>>> Why do you keep calling it a workplace? An office its a workplace, a railway
>>> is a site, different rules apply. And frankly I doubt anyone would care about
>>> from the RMT who no doubt would call a strike and be ignored.
>>>
>>
>> Do people not work there? So it's a place of work, a workplace.
>>
>>>>> Perhaps we should just go back to horses pulling trains at 5mph, don't want
>>>> any
>>>>> of that dangerous electricity or flammable diesel do we!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Electricity and liquid fuels are perfectly safe if handled properly, eg
>>>> putting the conductors out of reach, or covering the most easily touched
>>>> parts with insulation. Which, oddly enough, is what we're permitted to do.
>>>
>>> 3rd rail is perfectly safe if you don't do something stupid like touching it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You could say the same about unfenced drops, but oddly enough they're not
>> permitted either.
>>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60140774>
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>The confusing thing is that no new 3rd rail electrrification is allowed
>as it is unsafe, but all existing 3rd rail electrification is safe as it
>is not forbidden. If safety ruled then all the SE of England (and
>Merseyside etc) would have all rail services shut down until either
>replaced by diseasel or OHL. Safety seems not to matter when finances
>trump safety.
>
>Either 3rd rail is safe so why not extend. Or it is unsafe so should ALL
>be taken out of use. The current hybrid solution is ridiculous.
>
100% safety is not required and in practice is not achievable; things
have to be as safe as reasonably practicable. Safety in many cases is
not provided by making the hazard source safer but by keeping
potential victims away from it which can vary from e.g. simply
covering it adequately or totally excluding potential victims from the
general area.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:50:32 +0100, Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:

>On 2022-02-15 09:04:21 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:49:08 +0000
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/02/2022 16:48, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> You've not visited many harbours have you. Plenty of opportunity for the
>>>> stupid to kill themselves when the tides out.
>>>>
>>> I recall being on site when two HSE inspectors arrived to investigate an
>>> accident. Luckily I was there as a rep of the shipping company, not the
>>> port operator. The HSE tried to demand full fencing along all edges and
>>> the port saftey officer had a hell of a job explaining that there was no
>>> practicable way to fence a quay edge and also be able to moor vessels.
>>> Luckily sense prevailed, but after a lot of "discussion".
>>
>> From stories I've heard like that it seems to me H&S inspectors are a bit
>> like some teachers - not good enough to get a job in the discipline they
>> teach/monitor , so they remain at arms length telling others what to do.
>
>Most of the stories of "H&S gone mad" turn out, upon closer inspectin,
>to be either risk averse insurance companies, or management not
>actually trained in H&S demanding things that the HSE don't actually
>require.
>
Others often involve circumstances particular to one site but the
media does the usual "Now you will all have to......".

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:06:47 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 22:24:23 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:56:02 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>>The rules haven't changed since last time we discussed this topic. Fancy a
>>>>length of 750V DC live rail across the middle of your office?
>>>
>>>I'll take that any day over 25KV in the ceiling.
>>>
>>How about roughly 1000v on the ceiling?
>
>Whats your point? When workers are on the track the 3rd rail is switched off.
>
Not if the trains are still running and not if an isolation is
unnecessary to enable the work. In both cases there is safety if the
wrong people don't touch the hazardous bits. You are probably more
likely to have an accident with an untrained person in an office than
on a railway where your office bod is likely to be physically excluded
from accessing any hazard.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:45:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <suduvm$16ab$3@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:11:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
>2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>On 14/02/2022 15:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/2022 20:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:35:49 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would think the electricity requirement at most of the stations on
>>>>>> these remoter lines is very small. Some are really just halts with (if
>>>>>> lucky a single room). From what I remember Dingwall just has a ticket
>>>>>> office with a few seats, there might be a bit more for staff but I doubt
>>>>>> there will be very much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be argued that the more isolated stations should have a well
>>>>>> heated room of some sort because sometimes will have to wait for a
>>>>>> substantial time in very inclement weather with no alternative refuge.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the time it isn't heating that is required rather than just
>>>>> keeping the wind and rain out, something not achieved with a bus-stop
>>>>> shelter.
>>>>
>>>> I have heard of cases of enclosed bus stops in Canada.
>>>>
>>> In Switzerland, Leukerbad bus terminal (really just a bus stop, IIRC
>>> there's only one bay) is enclosed, with doors which open and close to let
>>> the bus in and out every few minutes
>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/ygw4w29HLpYzBcxB7>
>>><https://www.bus-bild.de/1200/llb-setra-s-415-ul-115972.jpg>
>>
>>The ones that I have heard of in Canada are not bus terminals, but
>>rather stand-alones.
>
>When I was going to school on a bus, there was a sort of cattle pen
>enclosed bus shelter in the High Street with a barrier down most of the
>centre for the queue to weave round, and quite small [always open] entry
>and exit doorways. Big enough for maybe 30 pax.
>
>I've done some Google image searches, and can't find anything even
>remotely similar.
>
No barrier down the middle but I have seen old photographs of some
towns/cities where you used to get some fairly long (up to a couple of
bus lengths or so) bus/tram shelters, fully enclosed except for the
entrance and exit.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:35:00 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <sujbp1$1dl4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:20:33 on Wed, 16 Feb
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
>>Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>>>all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>>>Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>>>references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>>
>>Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
>>started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record
>>run max V
>
>How many of us are driving land-speed-record cars on the streets?

Not the point as you well know.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:10:09 +0100
Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>On 2022-02-16 17:20:33 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>> but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>>> all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>>> Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>>> references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>>
>> Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
>> started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record
>> run max V
>
>Land speed record cars are in a somewhat unusual situation because
>first, they can't use pneumatic tyres, as they would disintigrate under
>the centrifugal loading, and second, they are driving on salt flats
>rather than paved road, which has a tendency to crumble under the
>extreme forces involved. As they go faster, the limiting friction for
>the wheels reduces as the interaction of the wheel with the ground
>causes the ground conditions to deteriorate.

Quite possibly. But it demonstrates that you can get wheel slip due to wind
resistance at high speed.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 01:32:15 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:55:16 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On 14 Feb 2022 09:28:29 GMT
>>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13 Feb 2022 23:28:17 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats all very well but please explain how S stock would make its way
>along
>>>>> a rebuilt Croxley branch
>>>>> if permission to install conductor rails is not forthcoming.
>>>>>
>>>> It is an extension to an existing system (or two if you are looking
>>>> from the DC line end).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Extension to existing systems usually involve electrifying an existing
>>>working railway.
>>>Croxley having been closed for some time would not fall into that category
>>
>>However the watford end is still a working railway. Though its all rather moot
>
>>since I suspect that project is deader than the proverbial parrot now. Not
>>that it ever really made much sense anyway. No one would use it to get to
>>watford from london with much quicker options so its only purpose would be
>>as a local railway which I doubt would have many pax.
>>
>Several origins other than London are available. The Met. doesn't just
>have stations at the end of the line.

With the best will in the world, I doubt the number of commuters from amersham o
r
rickmansworth to watford or vice verca would come even close to making rebuildin
g the line economically viable.

On 17/02/2022 08:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:10:09 +0100
> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-16 17:20:33 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>> but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>>>> all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>>>> Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>>>> references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>>>
>>> Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
>>> started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record
>>> run max V
>>
>> Land speed record cars are in a somewhat unusual situation because
>> first, they can't use pneumatic tyres, as they would disintigrate under
>> the centrifugal loading, and second, they are driving on salt flats
>> rather than paved road, which has a tendency to crumble under the
>> extreme forces involved. As they go faster, the limiting friction for
>> the wheels reduces as the interaction of the wheel with the ground
>> causes the ground conditions to deteriorate.
>
> Quite possibly. But it demonstrates that you can get wheel slip due to wind
> resistance at high speed.
>

What's wind got to do with it?

Incidentally, someone said land speed record cars don't have pneumatic
tyres:

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common/1/19/Thrust2_chassis.jpg>

But then again they don't have transmissions either. So the argument is
moot.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message <sul2h7$1dfu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 08:55:03 on Thu, 17 Feb
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:35:00 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <sujbp1$1dl4$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 17:20:33 on Wed, 16 Feb
>>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
>>>Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>>>>all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>>>>Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>>>>references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>>>
>>>Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
>>>started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record
>>>run max V
>>
>>How many of us are driving land-speed-record cars on the streets?
>
>Not the point as you well know.

The point, dear boy, is discussing the verascity of the assertion:

"any driver will know that if they push their right foot all the way
down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car"

Notwithstanding I don't even think that's true of road-going cars, your
record-breaking cars aren't even, by your own admission, travelling at
"low speed".
--
Roland Perry

In message <20dr0hljrj8fkdiv17al0aj2p8ds6aav5e@4ax.com>, at 02:38:02 on
Thu, 17 Feb 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:45:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <suduvm$16ab$3@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:11:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>On 14/02/2022 15:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2022 20:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:35:49 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would think the electricity requirement at most of the stations on
>>>>>>> these remoter lines is very small. Some are really just halts with (if
>>>>>>> lucky a single room). From what I remember Dingwall just has a ticket
>>>>>>> office with a few seats, there might be a bit more for staff but I doubt
>>>>>>> there will be very much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be argued that the more isolated stations should have a well
>>>>>>> heated room of some sort because sometimes will have to wait for a
>>>>>>> substantial time in very inclement weather with no alternative refuge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of the time it isn't heating that is required rather than just
>>>>>> keeping the wind and rain out, something not achieved with a bus-stop
>>>>>> shelter.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have heard of cases of enclosed bus stops in Canada.
>>>>>
>>>> In Switzerland, Leukerbad bus terminal (really just a bus stop, IIRC
>>>> there's only one bay) is enclosed, with doors which open and close to let
>>>> the bus in and out every few minutes
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/ygw4w29HLpYzBcxB7>
>>>><https://www.bus-bild.de/1200/llb-setra-s-415-ul-115972.jpg>
>>>
>>>The ones that I have heard of in Canada are not bus terminals, but
>>>rather stand-alones.
>>
>>When I was going to school on a bus, there was a sort of cattle pen
>>enclosed bus shelter in the High Street with a barrier down most of the
>>centre for the queue to weave round, and quite small [always open] entry
>>and exit doorways. Big enough for maybe 30 pax.
>>
>>I've done some Google image searches, and can't find anything even
>>remotely similar.
>>
>No barrier down the middle but I have seen old photographs of some
>towns/cities where you used to get some fairly long (up to a couple of
>bus lengths or so) bus/tram shelters, fully enclosed except for the
>entrance and exit.

The one I'm thinking of was perhaps a bus and a quarter long. It was
designed for the snaking queue because the entrance and exit were both
at the "downwind" end of the shelter. When a bus was at the stop (mainly
front-door-loading) late arrivals would tend to jump the queue, which
was a bit annoying for people in the cattle-pen.
--
Roland Perry

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:45:55 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <suduvm$16ab$3@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:11:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
>> 2022, "hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk" <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 14/02/2022 15:30, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2022 20:32, Charles Ellson wrote:

>>
>> When I was going to school on a bus, there was a sort of cattle pen
>> enclosed bus shelter in the High Street with a barrier down most of the
>> centre for the queue to weave round, and quite small [always open] entry
>> and exit doorways. Big enough for maybe 30 pax.
>>
>> I've done some Google image searches, and can't find anything even
>> remotely similar.
>>
> No barrier down the middle but I have seen old photographs of some
> towns/cities where you used to get some fairly long (up to a couple of
> bus lengths or so) bus/tram shelters, fully enclosed except for the
> entrance and exit.
>

One of those was still in use well into the 1980’s at Cosham ,a suburb of
Portsmouth from where it was originally located in city centre.

Cosham was where the Tram and later Trolleybus routes terminated but had
huge council estates constructed in the interwar period so a lot of people
would head for the stop.
At one time it was also the interchange for the Portsmouth and Horndean
light Railway but I think that had closed by the time the shelter was moved
there replacing the original arrangements which were a couple of old horse
tram bodies.

It has since been relocated again and used as a catering outlet in the
Gunwharf shopping development.

<https://goo.gl/maps/q5p4Dq7uW1LVSy369>

GH

On 2022-02-17 09:04:17 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

> On 17/02/2022 08:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 21:10:09 +0100
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-16 17:20:33 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:26:39 +0100
>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-16 08:54:49 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>> Intuitively, any driver will know that if they push their right foot
>>>>> all the way down at low speed, they will spin the wheels on their car,
>>>>> but if they are driving on the motorway, they can push their right foot
>>>>> all the way to the floor and the wheels won't lose grip (Roland and
>>>>> Anna may have different experiences, as each of them have made
>>>>> references to owning or having owned "atypical" cars).
>>>>
>>>> Well I know thats not true because some wheel driven land speed record cars
>>>> started to have wheelsip at very high speed which limited their record
>>>> run max V
>>>
>>> Land speed record cars are in a somewhat unusual situation because
>>> first, they can't use pneumatic tyres, as they would disintigrate under
>>> the centrifugal loading, and second, they are driving on salt flats
>>> rather than paved road, which has a tendency to crumble under the
>>> extreme forces involved. As they go faster, the limiting friction for
>>> the wheels reduces as the interaction of the wheel with the ground
>>> causes the ground conditions to deteriorate.
>>
>> Quite possibly. But it demonstrates that you can get wheel slip due to wind
>> resistance at high speed.
>>
>
> What's wind got to do with it?
>
> Incidentally, someone said land speed record cars don't have pneumatic tyres:
>
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common/1/19/Thrust2_chassis.jpg>
>
> But then again they don't have transmissions either. So the argument is moot.

The comment was specifically about wheel-driven speed records, so jet
and rocket powered cars don't count for that.

Robin