On 19/02/2022 15:59, MB wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>
> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail freight. A
> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>
>
>
> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>
> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>
>
> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>

The Whitewash Coach updated.

Key words:

…fully autonomous inspection installed on passenger or freight cars used
in revenue service.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>
>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail freight. A
>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>
>>
>>
>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>
>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>
>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>
>>
>
> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive could be
> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>

Why would it need to be fitted to every train/locomotive?

Can you imagine the total cost?

On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>
>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail freight. A
>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>
>>
>>
>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>
>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>
>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>
>>
>
> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive could be
> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>

Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost. In practice you wouldn't
need every loco/trainset to have it, just a representative subset that
covered all the major lines. For example, SWR wouldn't need to fit it to
both the 450s and 444s, the latter would be enough as they cover all the
routes the 450s do. And probably half of those would be enough to get
effectively continuous cover.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:08:26 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 19/02/2022 15:53, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> Cite?
>>
>> Fish.
>
>Blame Boris, he cocked that one up, sold the fishermen down the river.

Boris had nothing to do with the frogs throwing their toys out the pram
and blockading jersey and refusing to allow UK fishermen into their ports
because we wouldn't give some dodgy Didiers fishing rights as they had no proof
they'd ever fished those waters.

>> Slow border checks.
>
>Blame Boris, he made no provision for the inevitable border checks, just
>lied that they wouldn't happen.

Rubbish. The french were deliberately doing excess unnecessary border checks
last year.

>
>> Migrants.
>
>The only problem there is the ensuing lack of them. Blame the racist

Really? So those men in the boats are just day trippers then?

>f-wits who created a non-existent problem.

Why not put some up in your house if they're no problem.

>Another exaggeration. The pound is down, the economy is down,[1] chunks
>of the City have legged it, as you put it, but carry on denying it.

List them.

On 19/02/2022 17:02, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 16:08:26 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 15:53, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Fish.
>>
>> Blame Boris, he cocked that one up, sold the fishermen down the river.
>
> Boris had nothing to do with the frogs throwing their toys out the pram
> and blockading jersey and refusing to allow UK fishermen into their ports
> because we wouldn't give some dodgy Didiers fishing rights as they had no proof
> they'd ever fished those waters.
>
>>> Slow border checks.
>>
>> Blame Boris, he made no provision for the inevitable border checks, just
>> lied that they wouldn't happen.
>
> Rubbish. The french were deliberately doing excess unnecessary border checks
> last year.

Which were the unnecessary ones? Or are you using the word, like the
DUP, to mean the checks we voted for but didn't understand what they
meant. If you think those were bad wait till we get round to imposing
our own checks come the summer.

>>
>>> Migrants.
>>
>> The only problem there is the ensuing lack of them. Blame the racist
>
> Really? So those men in the boats are just day trippers then?

I'll give you a clue, they are not Europeans.

>
>> f-wits who created a non-existent problem.
>
> Why not put some up in your house if they're no problem.

Stupid comment, they weren't put up in anyone's houses.

>
>> Another exaggeration. The pound is down, the economy is down,[1] chunks
>> of the City have legged it, as you put it, but carry on denying it.
>

See the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, among others.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... The AF Concorde crash
>>>> wouldn't have happened with a BA Concorde, as BA had devised and fitted a
>>>> safety modification to prevent exactly that occurrence, but AF thought it
>>>> unnecessary.
>>>
>>> I hadn’t heard that before. What was the modification? There were mods to
>>> all Concordes afterwards which involved fitting extra panelling inside the
>>> fuel tanks, IIRC.
>>>
>>
>> Exploding tyres weren't unknown with Concorde (very high pressures, high
>> rotational speed), and the risk of tyre fragments hitting the wing fuel
>> tanks worried BA so much that it devised and fitted special mud guard type
>> shields to deflect tyre fragments. It duly provided the info to Airbus, who
>> offered the mod to AF, which turned it down as it thought Concorde's
>> excellent Michelin tyres needed no such protection.
>>
>>
>
> See
> <https://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/03/crash.concorde.reut/index.html>

Thank you.

Sam

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

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
> I've always assumed that if your flight is diverted to another airport,
> it's the airline's responsibility to get you to the correct place (even if
> in a situation like today that just means waiting until tomorrow). BICBW.

Not a diversion as such. I’ve once been to Spain. outbound it was
EDI-LHW-Málaga; the return was supposed to be Málaga-Madrid-EDI. The legs
to and from Málaga were Iberia, the others were BA.

We got to the airport for the return, checked in, and in the lounge were
startled by an announcement “will passengers Blah, Blah, Blah and Wilson
please return to the checkin desk”.

Them: I’m terribly sorry but an incoming flight is delayed and you won’t
make your connection in Madrid. We’ve tried to find another routing that
will get you back to Edinburgh today - via London, Paris, Amsterdam, we
even tried Frankfurt - but we can’t find any seats at all. Would it be OK
for us to put you in a hotel for the night?

Us: No, that will be fine.

Them: I’m terribly sorry but we’re going to have to route you via Heathrow
and the only seats I can find between here and London are in business
class. Would that be OK?

Us (exchanging bemused looks): No, that will be fine.

Them: If you’d like to go back to the lounge we’ll call you again when we
have your accommodation sorted out.

[pause and recall]

Them: We have your bags here, but I’m terribly sorry, all the 3* hotels we
normally use are fully booked. Would it be all right to book you into a 4*
hotel?

Us (exchanging even more bemused looks): No, that will be fine.

So we had an afternoon, night and morning in a 4* hotel on the beach just
outside Málaga, along with meals and taxi rides, courtesy of BA/Iberia.

In business class on the flight back I was the last to be served lunch
(chicken with wild rice, ISTR). The steward, a very proper gent of a
certain age, came over and said: “I’m terribly sorry, sir, but there’s been
a mix up with the catering; we don’t have enough plates. Would you mind if
we serve your lunch in a breakfast bowl?” I said words to the effect of
“no, that will be fine.” At the end of the meal he came over again and
offered me a complaints form, which I turned down.

Sam

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

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 11:53, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>>> airside at the airport.
>>>
>>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>>
>> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
>> UK citizens vastly increased since then.
>
> Not hatred, we volunteered for it.

To be exact, 38% of the electorate voted for it.

--
Jeremy Double

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 11:57, Recliner wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>>>> airside at the airport.
>>>>
>>>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>>>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>>>
>>> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
>>> UK citizens vastly increased since then.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think we need visas for anywhere now that we didn't three years
>> ago.
>>
> We'll need visas for the EU soon so diversions to the EU will become a
> problem.

The EU system to be introduced is a visa-waiver system similar to the ESTA
system for the USA, not a requirement for visas.

--
Jeremy Double

On 19/02/2022 18:45, Jeremy Double wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 11:53, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>>>> airside at the airport.
>>>>
>>>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>>>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>>>
>>> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
>>> UK citizens vastly increased since then.
>>
>> Not hatred, we volunteered for it.
>
> To be exact, 38% of the electorate voted for it.
>

I'm not revisiting that fight, them as don't vote don't get to complain.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 18:47, Jeremy Double wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 11:57, Recliner wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 19/02/2022 11:46, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>>>>> airside at the airport.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>>>>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>>>>
>>>> The world is a different place since then with red tape hatred towards
>>>> UK citizens vastly increased since then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we need visas for anywhere now that we didn't three years
>>> ago.
>>>
>> We'll need visas for the EU soon so diversions to the EU will become a
>> problem.
>
> The EU system to be introduced is a visa-waiver system similar to the ESTA
> system for the USA, not a requirement for visas.
>

In practical terms for the non-technical holiday-maker heading for sun,
sex and sangria in Ibiza the difference is over their heads. It's
another additional piece of red tape that Brexit was supposed to eliminate.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 11:21, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 18/02/2022 23:13, Recliner wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... The AF Concorde crash
>>>>>> wouldn't have happened with a BA Concorde, as BA had devised and fitted a
>>>>>> safety modification to prevent exactly that occurrence, but AF thought it
>>>>>> unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hadn’t heard that before. What was the modification? There were mods to
>>>>> all Concordes afterwards which involved fitting extra panelling inside the
>>>>> fuel tanks, IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exploding tyres weren't unknown with Concorde (very high pressures, high
>>>> rotational speed), and the risk of tyre fragments hitting the wing fuel
>>>> tanks worried BA so much that it devised and fitted special mud guard type
>>>> shields to deflect tyre fragments. It duly provided the info to Airbus, who
>>>> offered the mod to AF, which turned it down as it thought Concorde's
>>>> excellent Michelin tyres needed no such protection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> See
>>> <https://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/03/crash.concorde.reut/index.html>
>>>
>>
>> IIRC the original report attributed it to debris from a previously
>> departing aircraft being thrown up by the wheels of the Concorde.
>>
>
> The DC10 debris damaged the tyre, which then burst, but Concorde tyres
> exploded much more often than other aircraft anyway (much higher pressure,
> and higher rotational speed). As such, the aircraft should have been better
> prepared to handle the consequences of a burst tyre, as BA's Concordes had
> been.
>

Would padding out the British SSTs' fuel tanks have negatively impacted
their range?

In message <surh63$mih$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:41:55 on Sat, 19 Feb
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>> We'll need visas for the EU soon so diversions to the EU will become a
>>> problem.

>> The EU system to be introduced is a visa-waiver system similar to
>>the ESTA system for the USA, not a requirement for visas.
>
>In practical terms for the non-technical holiday-maker heading for sun,
>sex and sangria in Ibiza the difference is over their heads. It's
>another additional piece of red tape that Brexit was supposed to
>eliminate.

That of course was one of the classic lies from the Leave campaign.
While there might have been a prospect of cutting UK red tape so
companies could more easily exploit their domestic employees and
customers, there never a single shred of a possibility that becoming a
Third Country would cut any of the earlier almost invisible red tape
involved in interactions with the EU. It was bound to increase it.
--
Roland Perry

On 19/02/2022 13:59, Recliner wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:20:03 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2022 12:54, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>>> I was on a flight from England to northern Germany which couldn't land
>>> and did return to the UK but the crew were aware this was a possibility
>>> and carried extra fuel.
>>
>> Aircraft always have enough extra fuel to reach a suitable range of
>> diversion airfields if necessary.
>
> Indeed so, and so should battery powered trains!

Made by Hornby? ;-)

--
Colin

On 19/02/2022 20:01, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <surh63$mih$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:41:55 on Sat, 19 Feb
> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> We'll need visas for the EU soon so diversions to the EU will become a
>>>> problem.
>
>>>  The EU system to be introduced is a visa-waiver system similar to
>>> the ESTA  system for the USA, not a requirement for visas.
>>
>> In practical terms for the non-technical holiday-maker heading for
>> sun, sex and sangria in Ibiza the difference is over their heads. It's
>> another additional piece of red tape that Brexit was supposed to
>> eliminate.
>
> That of course was one of the classic lies from the Leave campaign.
> While there might have been a prospect of cutting UK red tape so
> companies could more easily exploit their domestic employees and
> customers, there never a single shred of a possibility that becoming a
> Third Country would cut any of the earlier almost invisible red tape
> involved in interactions with the EU. It was bound to increase it.

The whole reason for the single market and customs union was to
eliminate all that red tape. Something that even some dedicated
Brexiteers understood, at least at the beginning.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 20:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 14:20:29 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My first digital camera, purchased in the summer of 2000, had a card slot, but the biggest card I could afford at the
>> time was only 48MB. Images were about 600kB, so that card could hold about 80 images. Of course, if you were wealthy
>> enough to afford more than one card, then you could shoot an unlimited number of pictures on a trip.
>>
>> This is one of the first images I took, which is surprisingly topical today:
>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/49424447721>
>
> This is the second photo I took with my first digital camera:
>
> https://markgoodge.com/misc/DSCF0002.JPG
>
> (The first was an unusable photo of the inside of my flat that shows
> nothing, because I'd got the settings wrong!)
>
> It's interesting, looking back at those early photos, how I typically
> treated the camera as if it was a film camera, taking shots sparingly.
> Because, of course, the memory wasn't that much better than a roll of
> film! It wasn't until much later that I had a camera with enough memory
> to be able to take multiple shots of every subject and then weed them
> out later to select the good ones.
>

When I got my first proper digital SLR camera[1] I deliberately set out
one day to try all the different settings and programmes, spent a happy
afternoon at Eastleigh station trying the different modes, such as
"motor drive" follow focus, plus and minus exposures, and so on. Got
through around 100 shots in a couple of hours when that would have
sufficed me for a major foreign holiday on film.

[1] I'd had the semi-permanent loan of a Canon Sure-Shot before that.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 20:36, ColinR wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 13:59, Recliner wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 13:20:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/02/2022 12:54, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>>> I was on a flight from England to northern Germany which couldn't land
>>>> and did return to the UK but the crew were aware this was a possibility
>>>> and carried extra fuel.
>>>
>>> Aircraft always have enough extra fuel to reach a suitable range of
>>> diversion airfields if necessary.
>>
>> Indeed so, and so should battery powered trains!
>
> Made by Hornby? ;-)
>

Triang Rovex in my day!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 19/02/2022 12:18, ColinR wrote:
> Yep, but if the track is found to be clear the autonomous vehicle has to
> be got out of the way (into a siding or lifted off the track), a drone
> just has to move itself out of the way to allow trains to run.

It can be easily switched into sidings or another line, just like any
other train. It is a lot easier task then an autonomous vehicle on the
road.

On 19/02/2022 14:06, Tweed wrote:
> Perhaps there should be strategically placed wagons/coaches packed full of
> batteries that can be hooked on the back. A sort of rail version of in
> flight refuelling, or similar to the usb battery packs you hook up to your
> phone. Perhaps trains should have a giant usb-c (usb-R?) connector as
> standard, to carry both power and data.

One of the Scandinavian countries has a battery powered ferry that
(automatically?) connects to a charger every time it docks.

On 19/02/2022 16:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
> Another exaggeration. The pound is down, the economy is down,[1] chunks
> of the City have legged it, as you put it, but carry on denying it.

And companies have moved to the UK from Europe but the Remoaner rags
never report things like that.

On 19/02/2022 21:19, MB wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 16:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> Another exaggeration. The pound is down, the economy is down,[1] chunks
>> of the City have legged it, as you put it, but carry on denying it.
>
> And companies have moved to the UK from Europe but the Remoaner rags
> never report things like that.
>
>

Name one.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:16:58 +0000, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 14:20:29 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>My first digital camera, purchased in the summer of 2000, had a card slot, but the biggest card I could afford at the
>>time was only 48MB. Images were about 600kB, so that card could hold about 80 images. Of course, if you were wealthy
>>enough to afford more than one card, then you could shoot an unlimited number of pictures on a trip.
>>
>>This is one of the first images I took, which is surprisingly topical today:
>><https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/49424447721>
>
>This is the second photo I took with my first digital camera:
>
>https://markgoodge.com/misc/DSCF0002.JPG
>
>(The first was an unusable photo of the inside of my flat that shows
>nothing, because I'd got the settings wrong!)
>
>It's interesting, looking back at those early photos, how I typically
>treated the camera as if it was a film camera, taking shots sparingly.
>Because, of course, the memory wasn't that much better than a roll of
>film! It wasn't until much later that I had a camera with enough memory
>to be able to take multiple shots of every subject and then weed them
>out later to select the good ones.

Yes, I think we've all been through that evolution.

On 19/02/2022 16:18, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 19/02/2022 16:03, Tweed wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2022 12:02, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> Drones exist, autonomous rail vehicles don't.
>>>
>>> There are some but most of the work is aimed at carrying rail freight. A
>>> small self-contained vehicle is much easier.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Autonomous Track Inspection: Keeping Railways Safe & Efficient
>>>
>>> https://railway-news.com/autonomous-track-inspection-keeping-railways-safe-efficient/
>>>
>>>
>>> The railway industry is entering a new era of autonomous track
>>> inspection that couples frequent inspections of track with defect
>>> detection and software analysis capabilities, which in turn optimise
>>> railway maintenance and renewal planning, reduce risks through earlier
>>> identification of track defects, and improve rail network safety.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wonder if we’ve got to the point where every train/locomotive could be
>> fitted with track monitoring equipment?
>>
>
> Theoretically yes, the only constraint is cost.

One-off costs would be expensive, undoubtedly, but would that not be
able to pay for itself over a set time?

On 19/02/2022 11:57, Recliner wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 19/02/2022 10:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> It'll be even worse when visas are needed as passengers will be stuck
>>> airside at the airport.
>>
>> How many people had Canadian visas when much of the US air traffic was
>> diverted to Canada after 9/11?
>>
>>
>
> Most people (including Brits) don't need visas to visit Canada.
>
It depends on nationality, of course.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 20:16:58 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 14:20:29 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>My first digital camera, purchased in the summer of 2000, had a card
>>slot, but the biggest card I could afford at the time was only 48MB.
>>Images were about 600kB, so that card could hold about 80 images. Of
>>course, if you were wealthy enough to afford more than one card, then
>>you could shoot an unlimited number of pictures on a trip.
>>
>>This is one of the first images I took, which is surprisingly topical
>>today: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/49424447721>
>
> This is the second photo I took with my first digital camera:
>
> https://markgoodge.com/misc/DSCF0002.JPG
>
> (The first was an unusable photo of the inside of my flat that shows
> nothing, because I'd got the settings wrong!)
>
> It's interesting, looking back at those early photos, how I typically
> treated the camera as if it was a film camera, taking shots sparingly.
> Because, of course, the memory wasn't that much better than a roll of
> film! It wasn't until much later that I had a camera with enough memory
> to be able to take multiple shots of every subject and then weed them
> out later to select the good ones.
>
> Mark

But the real wow of the digital camera was the instant picture. I
remember the first time I took a picture of a piece of kit we were
talking about with our owners in Japan and e-mailed it to them then and
there, even they were impressed! Fujifilm DS-7 in 1997. VGA resolution
(and then horribly compressed), about 30 images on a 2M card.

nib