On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:50:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <p6hrsgpviv42avldqvc15d2lh6ppht0k9i@4ax.com>, at 14:40:59 on
>Thu, 30 Dec 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 14:27:52 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sqk5k5$3b1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:37 on Thu, 30 Dec
>>>2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>>> 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button
>>>>>>operated automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by
>>>>>>2000 at the latest (coach B in each set if someone can find some
>>>>>>old fleetlists and correlate those to current numbers). Those
>>>>>>toilets were replaced by updated ones during a later
>>>>>>refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met the latest legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>>> tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>>> the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>>> un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>>
>>>>Almost certainly. The disabled toilet would have been installed many years
>>>>earlier, and there's no way it would be compliant with every detail of the
>>>>latest legislation.
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if all the fGW fleet was updated, or not, and it was perhaps
>>>>> the latter which ended up at Papworth sidings to be later sent to
>>>>> Scotrail?
>>>>
>>>>All of the fleet will have had disabled toilets, but they'd have been
>>>>compliant with the rules in force when they were last refurbished years
>>>>earlier.
>>>
>>>So you are postulating there are three versions of these toilets
>>>
>>>Original (non-compliant)
>>>Updated/refurbished (also non-compliant)
>>>As eventually refurbished for a second time by Scotrail (complaint)
>>
>>Yes, but each version would have been compliant with the rules of the day.
>
>That's not really the point. I was exploring what aspects of end-of-life
>HSTs made them either so non-compliant they need to be withdrawn, or in
>the case of Scotrail, given a temporary dispensation.
>
>As a side issue, were there no trailers at Papworth which had toilets
>which didn't need further work (we agree that new doors and few other
>things needed doing anyway).

No, as I keep telling you, retention tank toilets are becoming mandatory, and weren't previously fitted to Mk 3
carriages. All MK 3s given a new life need new toilets and new power doors, which are the difficult, expensive items
(and which caused the delays). Things like using the exact fonts in displays and baby table dimensions are the trivia
that just get updated in any refurbishment.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:56:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <c3ktsgt0nfu0idrjs6h36e2fe9a0ng1oos@4ax.com>, at 09:42:55 on
>Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:06:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button operated
>>>>automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by 2000 at the latest
>>>>(coach B in each set if someone can find some old fleetlists and correlate
>>>>those to current numbers). Those toilets were replaced by updated ones
>>>>during a later refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met
>>>>the latest legislation.
>>>
>>>Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>
>>>Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>
>>Not something non-tiolet related such as the slam doors or
>>non-compliant signage/grabrails?
>
>Those are itemised *AS WELL*
>
>There would be no need to itemise the *TOILET* things if they didn't
>need fixing. Was the document I posted really that unclear?

Happy New Year to you, as well, you miserable sod.
>
>>>I wonder if all the fGW fleet was updated, or not, and it was perhaps
>>>the latter which ended up at Papworth sidings to be later sent to
>>>Scotrail?

In message <8mm0tgls8vv1h6d7i034pi060clac25avt@4ax.com>, at 13:49:40 on
Sat, 1 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:50:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <p6hrsgpviv42avldqvc15d2lh6ppht0k9i@4ax.com>, at 14:40:59 on
>>Thu, 30 Dec 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 14:27:52 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <sqk5k5$3b1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:37 on Thu, 30 Dec
>>>>2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button
>>>>>>>operated automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by
>>>>>>>2000 at the latest (coach B in each set if someone can find some
>>>>>>>old fleetlists and correlate those to current numbers). Those
>>>>>>>toilets were replaced by updated ones during a later
>>>>>>>refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met the
>>>>>>>latest legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>>>> tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>>>> the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>>>> un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Almost certainly. The disabled toilet would have been installed many years
>>>>>earlier, and there's no way it would be compliant with every detail of the
>>>>>latest legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if all the fGW fleet was updated, or not, and it was perhaps
>>>>>> the latter which ended up at Papworth sidings to be later sent to
>>>>>> Scotrail?
>>>>>
>>>>>All of the fleet will have had disabled toilets, but they'd have been
>>>>>compliant with the rules in force when they were last refurbished years
>>>>>earlier.
>>>>
>>>>So you are postulating there are three versions of these toilets
>>>>
>>>>Original (non-compliant)
>>>>Updated/refurbished (also non-compliant)
>>>>As eventually refurbished for a second time by Scotrail (complaint)
>>>
>>>Yes, but each version would have been compliant with the rules of the day.
>>
>>That's not really the point. I was exploring what aspects of end-of-life
>>HSTs made them either so non-compliant they need to be withdrawn, or in
>>the case of Scotrail, given a temporary dispensation.
>>
>>As a side issue, were there no trailers at Papworth which had toilets
>>which didn't need further work (we agree that new doors and few other
>>things needed doing anyway).
>
>No, as I keep telling you, retention tank toilets are becoming
>mandatory, and weren't previously fitted to Mk 3 carriages.

And aren't on the list of derogations given to Scotrail.

>All MK 3s given a new life need new toilets and new power doors, which
>are the difficult, expensive items (and which caused the delays).

Some of the delays were reportedly "the wrong kind of carpet". But
however we duck and dive the Scotrail refurbishment programme was a
classic example of over-promising and under-delivering,
--
Roland Perry

In message <d2n0tg1ggn73idvjetlm9aqod74lfi4d5c@4ax.com>, at 13:51:37 on
Sat, 1 Jan 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:56:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <c3ktsgt0nfu0idrjs6h36e2fe9a0ng1oos@4ax.com>, at 09:42:55 on
>>Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:06:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>>2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button operated
>>>>>automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by 2000 at the latest
>>>>>(coach B in each set if someone can find some old fleetlists and correlate
>>>>>those to current numbers). Those toilets were replaced by updated ones
>>>>>during a later refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met
>>>>>the latest legislation.
>>>>
>>>>Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>>tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>>the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>>
>>>>Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>>un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>>
>>>Not something non-tiolet related such as the slam doors or
>>>non-compliant signage/grabrails?
>>
>>Those are itemised *AS WELL*
>>
>>There would be no need to itemise the *TOILET* things if they didn't
>>need fixing. Was the document I posted really that unclear?
>
>Happy New Year to you, as well, you miserable sod.

I admit to trying to clear my Usenet inbox before the New Year. But
sometimes that involves poking with a very sharp stick.

Happy New year to you, and all others.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <8mm0tgls8vv1h6d7i034pi060clac25avt@4ax.com>, at 13:49:40 on
> Sat, 1 Jan 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 11:50:39 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <p6hrsgpviv42avldqvc15d2lh6ppht0k9i@4ax.com>, at 14:40:59 on
>>> Thu, 30 Dec 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 14:27:52 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sqk5k5$3b1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:37 on Thu, 30 Dec
>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>>>>> 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button
>>>>>>>> operated automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by
>>>>>>>> 2000 at the latest (coach B in each set if someone can find some
>>>>>>>> old fleetlists and correlate those to current numbers). Those
>>>>>>>> toilets were replaced by updated ones during a later
>>>>>>>> refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met the
>>>>>>>> latest legislation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>>>>> tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>>>>> the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>>>>> un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Almost certainly. The disabled toilet would have been installed many years
>>>>>> earlier, and there's no way it would be compliant with every detail of the
>>>>>> latest legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if all the fGW fleet was updated, or not, and it was perhaps
>>>>>>> the latter which ended up at Papworth sidings to be later sent to
>>>>>>> Scotrail?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the fleet will have had disabled toilets, but they'd have been
>>>>>> compliant with the rules in force when they were last refurbished years
>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are postulating there are three versions of these toilets
>>>>>
>>>>> Original (non-compliant)
>>>>> Updated/refurbished (also non-compliant)
>>>>> As eventually refurbished for a second time by Scotrail (complaint)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but each version would have been compliant with the rules of the day.
>>>
>>> That's not really the point. I was exploring what aspects of end-of-life
>>> HSTs made them either so non-compliant they need to be withdrawn, or in
>>> the case of Scotrail, given a temporary dispensation.
>>>
>>> As a side issue, were there no trailers at Papworth which had toilets
>>> which didn't need further work (we agree that new doors and few other
>>> things needed doing anyway).
>>
>> No, as I keep telling you, retention tank toilets are becoming
>> mandatory, and weren't previously fitted to Mk 3 carriages.
>
> And aren't on the list of derogations given to Scotrail.

And you've already been told why, several times.

>
>> All MK 3s given a new life need new toilets and new power doors, which
>> are the difficult, expensive items (and which caused the delays).
>
> Some of the delays were reportedly "the wrong kind of carpet". But
> however we duck and dive the Scotrail refurbishment programme was a
> classic example of over-promising and under-delivering,

Yup. Wabtec screwed up big time, just as it's done with the 769s.

In message <sqps6v$s1d$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:32:47 on Sat, 1 Jan 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>> I wonder if all the fGW fleet was updated, or not, and it was perhaps
>>>>>>>> the latter which ended up at Papworth sidings to be later sent to
>>>>>>>> Scotrail?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of the fleet will have had disabled toilets, but they'd have been
>>>>>>> compliant with the rules in force when they were last refurbished years
>>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are postulating there are three versions of these toilets
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Original (non-compliant)
>>>>>> Updated/refurbished (also non-compliant)
>>>>>> As eventually refurbished for a second time by Scotrail (complaint)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but each version would have been compliant with the rules of the day.
>>>>
>>>> That's not really the point. I was exploring what aspects of end-of-life
>>>> HSTs made them either so non-compliant they need to be withdrawn, or in
>>>> the case of Scotrail, given a temporary dispensation.
>>>>
>>>> As a side issue, were there no trailers at Papworth which had toilets
>>>> which didn't need further work (we agree that new doors and few other
>>>> things needed doing anyway).
>>>
>>> No, as I keep telling you, retention tank toilets are becoming
>>> mandatory, and weren't previously fitted to Mk 3 carriages.
>>
>> And aren't on the list of derogations given to Scotrail.
>
>And you've already been told why, several times.

Why do you keep raising this irrelevancy?

>>> All MK 3s given a new life need new toilets and new power doors, which
>>> are the difficult, expensive items (and which caused the delays).
>>
>> Some of the delays were reportedly "the wrong kind of carpet". But
>> however we duck and dive the Scotrail refurbishment programme was a
>> classic example of over-promising and under-delivering,
>
>Yup. Wabtec screwed up big time, just as it's done with the 769s.

And yet they keep getting repeat business.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sqps6v$s1d$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:32:47 on Sat, 1 Jan 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if all the fGW fleet was updated, or not, and it was perhaps
>>>>>>>>> the latter which ended up at Papworth sidings to be later sent to
>>>>>>>>> Scotrail?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of the fleet will have had disabled toilets, but they'd have been
>>>>>>>> compliant with the rules in force when they were last refurbished years
>>>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are postulating there are three versions of these toilets
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Original (non-compliant)
>>>>>>> Updated/refurbished (also non-compliant)
>>>>>>> As eventually refurbished for a second time by Scotrail (complaint)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but each version would have been compliant with the rules of the day.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not really the point. I was exploring what aspects of end-of-life
>>>>> HSTs made them either so non-compliant they need to be withdrawn, or in
>>>>> the case of Scotrail, given a temporary dispensation.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a side issue, were there no trailers at Papworth which had toilets
>>>>> which didn't need further work (we agree that new doors and few other
>>>>> things needed doing anyway).
>>>>
>>>> No, as I keep telling you, retention tank toilets are becoming
>>>> mandatory, and weren't previously fitted to Mk 3 carriages.
>>>
>>> And aren't on the list of derogations given to Scotrail.
>>
>> And you've already been told why, several times.
>
> Why do you keep raising this irrelevancy?

Huh? You're the one with the toilet obsession.

>
>>>> All MK 3s given a new life need new toilets and new power doors, which
>>>> are the difficult, expensive items (and which caused the delays).
>>>
>>> Some of the delays were reportedly "the wrong kind of carpet". But
>>> however we duck and dive the Scotrail refurbishment programme was a
>>> classic example of over-promising and under-delivering,
>>
>> Yup. Wabtec screwed up big time, just as it's done with the 769s.
>
> And yet they keep getting repeat business.

With the Mk 3 doors, no-one else could do them. The Wabtec works that
produced the 769s won't be getting repeat orders.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 14:25:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <d2n0tg1ggn73idvjetlm9aqod74lfi4d5c@4ax.com>, at 13:51:37 on
>Sat, 1 Jan 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:56:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <c3ktsgt0nfu0idrjs6h36e2fe9a0ng1oos@4ax.com>, at 09:42:55 on
>>>Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:06:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>>>2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button operated
>>>>>>automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by 2000 at the latest
>>>>>>(coach B in each set if someone can find some old fleetlists and correlate
>>>>>>those to current numbers). Those toilets were replaced by updated ones
>>>>>>during a later refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met
>>>>>>the latest legislation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>>>tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>>>the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>>>un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>>>
>>>>Not something non-tiolet related such as the slam doors or
>>>>non-compliant signage/grabrails?
>>>
>>>Those are itemised *AS WELL*
>>>
>>>There would be no need to itemise the *TOILET* things if they didn't
>>>need fixing. Was the document I posted really that unclear?
>>
>>Happy New Year to you, as well, you miserable sod.
>
>I admit to trying to clear my Usenet inbox before the New Year. But
>sometimes that involves poking with a very sharp stick.
>
>Happy New year to you, and all others.

Thank you, Roland.

On 02/01/2022 11:13, Ken wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 14:25:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <d2n0tg1ggn73idvjetlm9aqod74lfi4d5c@4ax.com>, at 13:51:37 on
>> Sat, 1 Jan 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:56:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <c3ktsgt0nfu0idrjs6h36e2fe9a0ng1oos@4ax.com>, at 09:42:55 on
>>>> Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:06:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button operated
>>>>>>> automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by 2000 at the latest
>>>>>>> (coach B in each set if someone can find some old fleetlists and correlate
>>>>>>> those to current numbers). Those toilets were replaced by updated ones
>>>>>>> during a later refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met
>>>>>>> the latest legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>>>> tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>>>> the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>>>> un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not something non-tiolet related such as the slam doors or
>>>>> non-compliant signage/grabrails?
>>>>
>>>> Those are itemised *AS WELL*
>>>>
>>>> There would be no need to itemise the *TOILET* things if they didn't
>>>> need fixing. Was the document I posted really that unclear?
>>>
>>> Happy New Year to you, as well, you miserable sod.
>>
>> I admit to trying to clear my Usenet inbox before the New Year. But
>> sometimes that involves poking with a very sharp stick.
>>
>> Happy New year to you, and all others.
>
> Thank you, Roland.

AOL

--
Colin

In message <sqqgop$5qh$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:23:37 on Sat, 1 Jan 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sqps6v$s1d$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:32:47 on Sat, 1 Jan 2022,
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if all the fGW fleet was updated, or not, and it was perhaps
>>>>>>>>>> the latter which ended up at Papworth sidings to be later sent to
>>>>>>>>>> Scotrail?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All of the fleet will have had disabled toilets, but they'd have been
>>>>>>>>> compliant with the rules in force when they were last
>>>>>>>>>refurbished years
>>>>>>>>> earlier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are postulating there are three versions of these toilets
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Original (non-compliant)
>>>>>>>> Updated/refurbished (also non-compliant)
>>>>>>>> As eventually refurbished for a second time by Scotrail (complaint)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but each version would have been compliant with the rules
>>>>>>>of the day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not really the point. I was exploring what aspects of end-of-life
>>>>>> HSTs made them either so non-compliant they need to be withdrawn, or in
>>>>>> the case of Scotrail, given a temporary dispensation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a side issue, were there no trailers at Papworth which had toilets
>>>>>> which didn't need further work (we agree that new doors and few other
>>>>>> things needed doing anyway).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, as I keep telling you, retention tank toilets are becoming
>>>>> mandatory, and weren't previously fitted to Mk 3 carriages.
>>>>
>>>> And aren't on the list of derogations given to Scotrail.
>>>
>>> And you've already been told why, several times.
>>
>> Why do you keep raising this irrelevancy?
>
>Huh? You're the one with the toilet obsession.

I'm interested in the dispensation for the Scotrail HSTs, which as you
know, about half the line-items are to do with the accessible toilet.

>>>>> All MK 3s given a new life need new toilets and new power doors, which
>>>>> are the difficult, expensive items (and which caused the delays).
>>>>
>>>> Some of the delays were reportedly "the wrong kind of carpet". But
>>>> however we duck and dive the Scotrail refurbishment programme was a
>>>> classic example of over-promising and under-delivering,
>>>
>>> Yup. Wabtec screwed up big time, just as it's done with the 769s.
>>
>> And yet they keep getting repeat business.
>
>With the Mk 3 doors, no-one else could do them. The Wabtec works that
>produced the 769s won't be getting repeat orders.

--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 02 Jan 2022 11:13:06 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 14:25:41 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <d2n0tg1ggn73idvjetlm9aqod74lfi4d5c@4ax.com>, at 13:51:37 on
>>Sat, 1 Jan 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2021 10:56:20 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <c3ktsgt0nfu0idrjs6h36e2fe9a0ng1oos@4ax.com>, at 09:42:55 on
>>>>Fri, 31 Dec 2021, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>>>>On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 11:06:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <sqhrit$tdg$4@dont-email.me>, at 14:33:01 on Wed, 29 Dec
>>>>>>2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The fGW fleet all had a large toilet cubicle with push-button operated
>>>>>>>automatic sliding door, handrails on the wall etc, by 2000 at the latest
>>>>>>>(coach B in each set if someone can find some old fleetlists and correlate
>>>>>>>those to current numbers). Those toilets were replaced by updated ones
>>>>>>>during a later refurbishment, presumably because they no longer exactly met
>>>>>>>the latest legislation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Coach B is the one-from-end Standard Class coach, and as far as I can
>>>>>>tell (it really shouldn't be this difficult) the accessible toilet in
>>>>>>the 7Cities trains is in standard class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which must mean that the need for a dispensation for them when
>>>>>>un-refurbished means they were non-compliant in some way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Not something non-tiolet related such as the slam doors or
>>>>>non-compliant signage/grabrails?
>>>>
>>>>Those are itemised *AS WELL*
>>>>
>>>>There would be no need to itemise the *TOILET* things if they didn't
>>>>need fixing. Was the document I posted really that unclear?
>>>
>>>Happy New Year to you, as well, you miserable sod.
>>
>>I admit to trying to clear my Usenet inbox before the New Year. But
>>sometimes that involves poking with a very sharp stick.
>>
>>Happy New year to you, and all others.
>
>Thank you, Roland.
>
Bliadhna Mhath Ur.

In message <+MuYQUePvGvhFAwy@perry.uk>, at 10:51:59 on Fri, 17 Dec 2021,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <spfrq6$dav$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:22 on Thu, 16 Dec
>2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> I agree the phone time will be accurate, but with the time on the TV
>>> only clicking over in minutes, that means constantly looking back and
>>> forth between those two, while also expecting to be able to count the
>>> interval to at least as good as 0.5 secs.
>>>
>>> I suspect what it's going to need is putting a digital time display in
>>> front of the TV, filming the pair, and then watching it afterwards.
>>
>>Watch one, with the time displayed on the phone as it approaches the
>>minute. See how long after the phone flips from :59 to :00 the minute
>>display on the TV changes. Move to the other room and the do the same a
>>minute later.
>
>I've tried that, but it doesn't give the precision required. Also I
>want to do it when they are broadcasting a programme with an
>independent clock in vision (one of their Covid talking heads has
>that), and if the above process needs repeating a couple of times, they
>might be gone by then.

<fx: time passes>

The talking head I mentioned above was on earlier this morning (re:
abolition of Covid isolation rules), so I rushed around, held my mobile
up next to the TV(s) and wrote down the delays.

My satellite TV was seven seconds delayed, the terrestrial nine seconds
delayed[1]. By the time I got iPlayer running (on the TV with the
satellite feed), as predicted he'd gone; but the subsequent programming
was approximately 50 seconds behind the terrestrial TV, so around a
minute in total.

[1] I have long suspected the terrestrial broadcast, from Sandy,
is taking a satellite feed, then adding two more seconds of
decoding/recoding delay. The talking head was in Cambridge,
which is also served by Sandy! Irrelevant statistic: my ping
time to servers in London is <10ms.
--
Roland Perry

On 21/02/2022 09:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <+MuYQUePvGvhFAwy@perry.uk>, at 10:51:59 on Fri, 17 Dec 2021,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>> In message <spfrq6$dav$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:22 on Thu, 16 Dec
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> I agree the phone time will be accurate, but with the time on the TV
>>>> only clicking over in minutes, that means constantly looking back and
>>>> forth between those two, while also expecting to be able to count the
>>>> interval to at least as good as 0.5 secs.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect what it's going to need is putting a digital time display in
>>>> front of the TV, filming the pair, and then watching it afterwards.
>>>
>>> Watch one, with the time displayed on the phone as it approaches the
>>> minute. See how long after the phone flips from :59 to :00 the minute
>>> display on the TV changes. Move to the other room and the do the same a
>>> minute later.
>>
>> I've tried that, but it doesn't give the precision required. Also I
>> want to do it when they are broadcasting a programme with an
>> independent clock in vision (one of their Covid talking heads has
>> that), and if the above process needs repeating a couple of times, they
>> might be gone by then.
>
> <fx: time passes>
>
> The talking head I mentioned above was on earlier this morning (re:
> abolition of Covid isolation rules), so I rushed around, held my mobile
> up next to the TV(s) and wrote down the delays.
>
> My satellite TV was seven seconds delayed, the terrestrial nine seconds
> delayed[1]. By the time I got iPlayer running (on the TV with the
> satellite feed), as predicted he'd gone; but the subsequent programming
> was approximately 50 seconds behind the terrestrial TV, so around a
> minute in total.
>
> [1] I have long suspected the terrestrial broadcast, from Sandy,
> is taking a satellite feed, then adding two more seconds of
> decoding/recoding delay. The talking head was in Cambridge,
> which is also served by Sandy! Irrelevant statistic: my ping
> time to servers in London is <10ms.

I can confirm iPlayer is 50 seconds behind, from watching the Olympics
on BBC1 whilst chatting with a friend watching "live" on iPlayer.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <+MuYQUePvGvhFAwy@perry.uk>, at 10:51:59 on Fri, 17 Dec 2021,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>> In message <spfrq6$dav$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:08:22 on Thu, 16 Dec
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> I agree the phone time will be accurate, but with the time on the TV
>>>> only clicking over in minutes, that means constantly looking back and
>>>> forth between those two, while also expecting to be able to count the
>>>> interval to at least as good as 0.5 secs.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect what it's going to need is putting a digital time display in
>>>> front of the TV, filming the pair, and then watching it afterwards.
>>>
>>> Watch one, with the time displayed on the phone as it approaches the
>>> minute. See how long after the phone flips from :59 to :00 the minute
>>> display on the TV changes. Move to the other room and the do the same a
>>> minute later.
>>
>> I've tried that, but it doesn't give the precision required. Also I
>> want to do it when they are broadcasting a programme with an
>> independent clock in vision (one of their Covid talking heads has
>> that), and if the above process needs repeating a couple of times, they
>> might be gone by then.
>
> <fx: time passes>
>
> The talking head I mentioned above was on earlier this morning (re:
> abolition of Covid isolation rules), so I rushed around, held my mobile
> up next to the TV(s) and wrote down the delays.
>
> My satellite TV was seven seconds delayed, the terrestrial nine seconds
> delayed[1]. By the time I got iPlayer running (on the TV with the
> satellite feed), as predicted he'd gone; but the subsequent programming
> was approximately 50 seconds behind the terrestrial TV, so around a
> minute in total.
>
> [1] I have long suspected the terrestrial broadcast, from Sandy,
> is taking a satellite feed, then adding two more seconds of
> decoding/recoding delay. The talking head was in Cambridge,
> which is also served by Sandy! Irrelevant statistic: my ping
> time to servers in London is <10ms.

Thank you - interesting info.

Sam

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