On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 17:15:03 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/04/2022 13:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> A) No indication; if the junction speed is within 10mph of linespeed, no
>> advance indication is required; examples include Cogload Junction and until
>> recently, the junction (whose name I forget) where third rail turns left
>> and diesel carries on straight, for Salisbury. That junction had some third
>> rail installed on the diesel line to assist in recovering wrong-routed
>> trains!
>
>Worting Junction?

Yes.

In message <t3mlt0$9e0$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:04 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>>>
>>>>>>tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working
>>>>>>-f>>>>rom-home
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>>>>
>>>> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British
>>>> railways”, which
>>>> would be correct.
>>>
>>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in the thread
>>> at that point. I was simply questioning the need for the redundant words in
>>> a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.
>>
>> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>
>Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
>important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
>sentence.

Not when the only possible words in question would confirm rather than
alter the meaning. But feel free to quibble further; I'm more interested
in talking about trains.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t3mnse$joc$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:26:54 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
>>>>> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>>>>
>>>> I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
>>>> though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
>>>> should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it could be ATOC Class or whatever but plain Class is not
>>>> always particularly useful.
>>>>
>>>> I believe Wikipedia has got it correct.
>>>
>>> It is logical and easily understandable for the average reader.
>>>
>> Is it? Doesn't 'British Rail Class 800' imply that the 800s were
>> introduced and classified by British Rail?
>> That's fine for the trains that really were operated by BR, but is
>> confusing for later classes.
>
>Not for the average punter who still seems to only dimly aware that
>privatisation happened. After all the stations still display the
>indecisive arrow…

Mindful that the average punter also describes the front coach of an EMU
as "the locomotive".
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t3mlt0$9e0$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:04 on Tue, 19 Apr
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working
>>>>>>> -f>>>>rom-home
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British
>>>>> railways”, which
>>>>> would be correct.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in the thread
>>>> at that point. I was simply questioning the need for the redundant words in
>>>> a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.
>>>
>>> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>>
>> Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
>> important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
>> sentence.
>
> Not when the only possible words in question would confirm rather than
> alter the meaning. But feel free to quibble further; I'm more interested
> in talking about trains.

When did that happen?

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/04/2022 17:15, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 19/04/2022 13:24, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> A) No indication; if the junction speed is within 10mph of linespeed, no
>>> advance indication is required; examples include Cogload Junction and
>>> until
>>> recently, the junction (whose name I forget) where third rail turns left
>>> and diesel carries on straight, for Salisbury. That junction had some
>>> third
>>> rail installed on the diesel line to assist in recovering wrong-routed
>>> trains!
>>
>> Worting Junction?
>>
>
> Maybe, but the electric route is the straight ahead one with the
> diseasel line to Salisbury diverting off to the right.
>

Whichever way around it is, the point is that until recently, drivers got
no indication of which route they were taking until it was too late to stop
in time to correct the signaller's error.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 18/04/2022 08:59, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <95CdnYVj0b68hcD_nZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 08:49:53 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:
>> On 17/04/2022 20:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>
>> Only by Wikipedia, and things copied from Wikpedia.
>
> Is this copied (I suspect you mean 'syndicated')

Do I?

from Wikipedia?
>
>  <https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/rightlines-article/hitachi-cl
> ass-800.html>

Not copied, but it's not exactly uncommon for that kind of thing to use
Wikipedia as a source.

--
Arthur Figgis

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3ltkq$hf3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:06 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>> On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>>>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>>>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>>>>>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>>>>>>> label. See, for example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_8
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>>>>>>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>>>>>>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>>>>>>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/
>>>>>>> Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
>>>>>> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
>>>>> though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
>>>>> should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it could be ATOC Class
>>>>
>>>> ATOC is now called RDG. Can you see the problem with picking names that
>>>> might rot away? Even GBR could turn out to be a temporary placeholder.
>>>
>>> I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
>>> any particular organisation, current or defunct.
>>
>> Because British railways couldn’t possibly be confused with the defunct
>> British Railways… :-)
>>
>>> As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
>>> it's almost whimsical.
>>
>> That’s true - all those 700-and-odds don’t seem to make any sense at all.
>>
>
>For example:
>
>Aventra trains are Class 345, 701, 710, 720 or 730
>CAF trains are Class 195, 197 or 331
>Desiro City trains are Class 700, 707 or 717
>Hitachi trains are Class 385, 395, 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 or 810
>Stadler trains are Class 231, 745, 755 or 777
>
>There's no obvious logic for classifying DMUs,
>
1xx DMUs
2xx DEMUs

>EMUs,
3xx AC or AC/DC
4xx DC
5xx DC other than Southern Region
7xx later AC/DC whether or not AC equipped

>battery
Are there any current which are not rebuilds/variations of something
else?

>or bi-modes.
8xx

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3ltkq$hf3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:06 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>>>>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>>>>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>>>>>>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>>>>>>>> label. See, for example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_8
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>>>>>>>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>>>>>>>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>>>>>>>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/
>>>>>>>> Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
>>>>>>> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
>>>>>> though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
>>>>>> should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose it could be ATOC Class
>>>>>
>>>>> ATOC is now called RDG. Can you see the problem with picking names that
>>>>> might rot away? Even GBR could turn out to be a temporary placeholder.
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
>>>> any particular organisation, current or defunct.
>>>
>>> Because British railways couldn’t possibly be confused with the defunct
>>> British Railways… :-)
>>>
>>>> As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
>>>> it's almost whimsical.
>>>
>>> That’s true - all those 700-and-odds don’t seem to make any sense at all.
>>>
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Aventra trains are Class 345, 701, 710, 720 or 730
>> CAF trains are Class 195, 197 or 331
>> Desiro City trains are Class 700, 707 or 717
>> Hitachi trains are Class 385, 395, 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 or 810
>> Stadler trains are Class 231, 745, 755 or 777
>>
>> There's no obvious logic for classifying DMUs,
>>
> 1xx DMUs
> 2xx DEMUs
>
>> EMUs,
> 3xx AC or AC/DC
> 4xx DC
> 5xx DC other than Southern Region
> 7xx later AC/DC whether or not AC equipped

Why are the Aventras split between 3xx and 7xx?

>
>> battery
> Are there any current which are not rebuilds/variations of something
> else?

I don't think so.

>
>> or bi-modes.
> 8xx
>

So why are the 755s not 8xx?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:48:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3ltkq$hf3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:06 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>>>>>>>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>>>>>>>>> label. See, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_8
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>>>>>>>>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>>>>>>>>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>>>>>>>>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/
>>>>>>>>> Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
>>>>>>>> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
>>>>>>> though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
>>>>>>> should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose it could be ATOC Class
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ATOC is now called RDG. Can you see the problem with picking names that
>>>>>> might rot away? Even GBR could turn out to be a temporary placeholder.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
>>>>> any particular organisation, current or defunct.
>>>>
>>>> Because British railways couldn?t possibly be confused with the defunct
>>>> British Railways? :-)
>>>>
>>>>> As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
>>>>> it's almost whimsical.
>>>>
>>>> That?s true - all those 700-and-odds don?t seem to make any sense at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> Aventra trains are Class 345, 701, 710, 720 or 730
>>> CAF trains are Class 195, 197 or 331
>>> Desiro City trains are Class 700, 707 or 717
>>> Hitachi trains are Class 385, 395, 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 or 810
>>> Stadler trains are Class 231, 745, 755 or 777
>>>
>>> There's no obvious logic for classifying DMUs,
>>>
>> 1xx DMUs
>> 2xx DEMUs
>>
>>> EMUs,
>> 3xx AC or AC/DC
>> 4xx DC
>> 5xx DC other than Southern Region
>> 7xx later AC/DC whether or not AC equipped
>
>Why are the Aventras split between 3xx and 7xx?
>
No 3xx places for the newer ones?
One "convertible" to AC/DC, the other not?
Suburban v. longer distance?
>>
>>> battery
>> Are there any current which are not rebuilds/variations of something
>> else?
>
>I don't think so.
>
>>
>>> or bi-modes.
>> 8xx
>>
>
>So why are the 755s not 8xx?
>
Inherently a 745 converted to diesel?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:48:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t3ltkq$hf3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:06 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>>>>>>>>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>>>>>>>>>> label. See, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_8
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>>>>>>>>>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>>>>>>>>>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>>>>>>>>>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/
>>>>>>>>>> Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
>>>>>>>>> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
>>>>>>>> though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
>>>>>>>> should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose it could be ATOC Class
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ATOC is now called RDG. Can you see the problem with picking names that
>>>>>>> might rot away? Even GBR could turn out to be a temporary placeholder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
>>>>>> any particular organisation, current or defunct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because British railways couldn?t possibly be confused with the defunct
>>>>> British Railways? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
>>>>>> it's almost whimsical.
>>>>>
>>>>> That?s true - all those 700-and-odds don?t seem to make any sense at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> Aventra trains are Class 345, 701, 710, 720 or 730
>>>> CAF trains are Class 195, 197 or 331
>>>> Desiro City trains are Class 700, 707 or 717
>>>> Hitachi trains are Class 385, 395, 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 or 810
>>>> Stadler trains are Class 231, 745, 755 or 777
>>>>
>>>> There's no obvious logic for classifying DMUs,
>>>>
>>> 1xx DMUs
>>> 2xx DEMUs
>>>
>>>> EMUs,
>>> 3xx AC or AC/DC
>>> 4xx DC
>>> 5xx DC other than Southern Region
>>> 7xx later AC/DC whether or not AC equipped
>>
>> Why are the Aventras split between 3xx and 7xx?
>>
> No 3xx places for the newer ones?

Plenty available.

> One "convertible" to AC/DC, the other not?

Surely all modern EMUs are potentially convertible? They're only fitted
with both shoes and pans if their routes require them, but even third-rail
trains have pantograph wells.

> Suburban v. longer distance?

No, 345s, 710s and 720s have similar duties.

>>>
>>>> battery
>>> Are there any current which are not rebuilds/variations of something
>>> else?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>>>
>>>> or bi-modes.
>>> 8xx
>>>
>>
>> So why are the 755s not 8xx?
>>
> Inherently a 745 converted to diesel?
>

No, designed from scratch as bimodes.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 23:51:36 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:48:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:26:52 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <t3ltkq$hf3$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:06 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 22:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 22:51:32 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2022 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:20:23 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/04/2022 19:55, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing to do with BR, they were built specially for Lumo. Derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IEP/GWR/TPE/Hull Trains Class 80x family, but with a Lumo-specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interior.:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia prefixes British railway classes with "British Rail" primarily
>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to disambiguate from other, similarly named locomotive classes
>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the world. It's a descriptive, rather than prescriptive
>>>>>>>>>>>> label. See, for example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australian_Railways_800_class
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_47
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_47
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, the convention is also employed elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.hitachi-ip.com/products/traction_motors/casestudy/class_8
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia's rail editors are well aware that British Rail no longer runs
>>>>>>>>>>> our trains, but keep these article titles to disambiguate them from non-
>>>>>>>>>>> British classes sharing the number, as suggested above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Discussions over the years have raised many good points for and against
>>>>>>>>>>> the convention but no consensus to change. The largest was in 2011:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/
>>>>>>>>>>> Archive_20#Naming_convention>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As there is no longer a "British Rail", don't their own formatting
>>>>>>>>>> rules dictate that the description should be "British _r_ail/ways" ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I take the view that it's British Rail's classification scheme and even
>>>>>>>>> though that organisation is no longer responsible for the scheme it
>>>>>>>>> should still be know by that title to distinguish it from any other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose it could be ATOC Class
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ATOC is now called RDG. Can you see the problem with picking names that
>>>>>>>> might rot away? Even GBR could turn out to be a temporary placeholder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would prefer 'British railways Class xxx', so it's not associated with
>>>>>>> any particular organisation, current or defunct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because British railways couldn?t possibly be confused with the defunct
>>>>>> British Railways? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an aside the numbering seemed to be a lot more logical in BR days. Now,
>>>>>>> it's almost whimsical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That?s true - all those 700-and-odds don?t seem to make any sense at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aventra trains are Class 345, 701, 710, 720 or 730
>>>>> CAF trains are Class 195, 197 or 331
>>>>> Desiro City trains are Class 700, 707 or 717
>>>>> Hitachi trains are Class 385, 395, 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 or 810
>>>>> Stadler trains are Class 231, 745, 755 or 777
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no obvious logic for classifying DMUs,
>>>>>
>>>> 1xx DMUs
>>>> 2xx DEMUs
>>>>
>>>>> EMUs,
>>>> 3xx AC or AC/DC
>>>> 4xx DC
>>>> 5xx DC other than Southern Region
>>>> 7xx later AC/DC whether or not AC equipped
>>>
>>> Why are the Aventras split between 3xx and 7xx?
>>>
>> No 3xx places for the newer ones?
>
>Plenty available.
>
>> One "convertible" to AC/DC, the other not?
>
>Surely all modern EMUs are potentially convertible? They're only fitted
>with both shoes and pans if their routes require them, but even third-rail
>trains have pantograph wells.
>
Don't some have a big concrete block or lump of iron where the
transformer should be (and presumably no HV wiring) ?

>> Suburban v. longer distance?
>
>No, 345s, 710s and 720s have similar duties.
>
>>>>
>>>>> battery
>>>> Are there any current which are not rebuilds/variations of something
>>>> else?
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> or bi-modes.
>>>> 8xx
>>>>
>>>
>>> So why are the 755s not 8xx?
>>>
>> Inherently a 745 converted to diesel?
>>
>
>No, designed from scratch as bimodes.

In message <t3n1st$9i4$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:17:49 on Tue, 19 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t3mlt0$9e0$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:04 on Tue, 19 Apr
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working
>>>>>>>> -f>>>>rom-home
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British
>>>>>>railways”, which would be correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in
>>>>>the thread at that point. I was simply questioning the need for
>>>>>the redundant words in a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.
>>>>
>>>> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>>>
>>> Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
>>> important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
>>> sentence.
>>
>> Not when the only possible words in question would confirm rather than
>> alter the meaning. But feel free to quibble further; I'm more interested
>> in talking about trains.
>
>When did that happen?

When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
and that was probably mid-90's.

Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
--
Roland Perry

In message <0aWdnaa0E5WrtML_nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
22:27:19 on Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 18/04/2022 08:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <95CdnYVj0b68hcD_nZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>08:49:53 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>remarked:
>>> On 17/04/2022 20:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>
>>> Only by Wikipedia, and things copied from Wikpedia.

>> Is this copied (I suspect you mean 'syndicated')
>
>Do I?

There are several other wiki's whose content is clearly a cut and paste
from the famous one.

> from Wikipedia?

>>
 <https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/rightlines->>article/hitachi-
class-800.html>
>
>Not copied, but it's not exactly uncommon for that kind of thing to use
>Wikipedia as a source.

Do we know that to be the case there?
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:36:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t3mcjj$ur3$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:14:27 on Tue, 19 Apr
>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>>
>>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>>
>>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>>> railways for leisure travel.
>>>
>>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>>
>>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>>> ECML.
>>
>>They were among the first trains there today;
>
>Really? They look like at least two hours later than that to me.
>
>>perhaps the possession time would have made a later arrival if they'd
>>had to wait somewhere north on the WCML for the possession to be lifted?
>
>Even having spent two hours from Finsbury Park to Euston?

I've done that diversion on the sleeper. It's no problem as you simply
enjoy the time in bed when inbound, and look out of the window from
the lounge if outbound. I agree that on a daytime service it could
grate, as did the old Anglia serice along the NLL that had to cool its
heels behind the class 313s.

For a really bizarre attempt to get the train through at all costs you
couldn't beat the Wrexham, Marylebone and Shropshire. I used that one
Sunday when the Chiltern line was closed.

It went
- Marylebone - Neasden
- Long delay changing ends and waiting for the road
- Neasden - Acton
- Long delay (change ends etc.)
- Acton - Wembley
- No need to change ends, but long wait for slot
- Stroll along the WCML down slow, via Northampton

I enjoyed it, not being normal, and having a large plate of belly pork
in front of me, but it took bloody ages. My first glass of wine was
gone by the time we left Neasden.

In message <5tev5ht53u1ihqdm8fka7i2f4340ractav@4ax.com>, at 09:03:05 on
Wed, 20 Apr 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:36:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <t3mcjj$ur3$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:14:27 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>>>
>>>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>>>
>>>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>>>> railways for leisure travel.
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>>>
>>>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>>>> ECML.
>>>
>>>They were among the first trains there today;
>>
>>Really? They look like at least two hours later than that to me.
>>
>>>perhaps the possession time would have made a later arrival if they'd
>>>had to wait somewhere north on the WCML for the possession to be lifted?
>>
>>Even having spent two hours from Finsbury Park to Euston?
>
>I've done that diversion on the sleeper. It's no problem as you simply
>enjoy the time in bed when inbound,

That may depend on whether you were expecting to arrive in time for a
9am meeting.

>and look out of the window from the lounge if outbound. I agree that on
>a daytime service it could grate, as did the old Anglia serice along
>the NLL that had to cool its heels behind the class 313s.
>
>For a really bizarre attempt to get the train through at all costs you
>couldn't beat the Wrexham, Marylebone and Shropshire. I used that one
>Sunday when the Chiltern line was closed.
>
>It went
>- Marylebone - Neasden
>- Long delay changing ends and waiting for the road
>- Neasden - Acton
>- Long delay (change ends etc.)
>- Acton - Wembley
>- No need to change ends, but long wait for slot
>- Stroll along the WCML down slow, via Northampton
>
>I enjoyed it, not being normal, and having a large plate of belly pork
>in front of me, but it took bloody ages. My first glass of wine was
>gone by the time we left Neasden.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <5tev5ht53u1ihqdm8fka7i2f4340ractav@4ax.com>, at 09:03:05 on
> Wed, 20 Apr 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:36:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t3mcjj$ur3$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:14:27 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the sleeper {is
>>>>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>>>>
>>>>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>>>>> railways for leisure travel.
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>>>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>>>>> ECML.
>>>>
>>>> They were among the first trains there today;
>>>
>>> Really? They look like at least two hours later than that to me.
>>>
>>>> perhaps the possession time would have made a later arrival if they'd
>>>> had to wait somewhere north on the WCML for the possession to be lifted?
>>>
>>> Even having spent two hours from Finsbury Park to Euston?
>>
>> I've done that diversion on the sleeper. It's no problem as you simply
>> enjoy the time in bed when inbound,
>
> That may depend on whether you were expecting to arrive in time for a
> 9am meeting.

I suppose, in this case, the diversion and delayed arrival would have been
known long in advance. But, yes, it would be bad news if it was a late
decision, taken after the train's departure.

On 20/04/2022 08:49, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <0aWdnaa0E5WrtML_nZ2dnUU7-XWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 22:27:19 on Tue, 19 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:
>> On 18/04/2022 08:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <95CdnYVj0b68hcD_nZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 08:49:53 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 17/04/2022 20:20, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The railway vehicle class system is still known as "BR Class":-
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_800
>>>>
>>>> Only by Wikipedia, and things copied from Wikpedia.
>
>>>  Is this copied (I suspect you mean 'syndicated')
>>
>> Do I?
>
> There are several other wiki's whose content is clearly a cut and paste
> from the famous one.
>
Huge numbers. Here is part one of a very long and incomplete list.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/ABC>

>> from Wikipedia?
>
> >>
>  <https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/rightlines->>article/hitachi-
> class-800.html>
>>
>> Not copied, but it's not exactly uncommon for that kind of thing to
>> use Wikipedia as a source.
>
> Do we know that to be the case there?

In message <t3os65$ce1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:52:37 on Wed, 20 Apr
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <5tev5ht53u1ihqdm8fka7i2f4340ractav@4ax.com>, at 09:03:05 on
>> Wed, 20 Apr 2022, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 16:36:23 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t3mcjj$ur3$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:14:27 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3m04u$3m4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:41:50 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can only see three PASSes on #1 today, one of which is the
>>>>>>>>sleeper {is
>>>>>>>> it diverted from Euston for some reason}.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A pretty good reason: as widely reported, Euston took an Easter break.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Thread convergence> A good time to encourage people back onto the
>>>>>> railways for leisure travel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/no-trains-out-of-euston-station-
>>>>>>> over-easter-52506/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Euston was open! Today's sleepers terminate there. However, via the
>>>>>> ECML.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were among the first trains there today;
>>>>
>>>> Really? They look like at least two hours later than that to me.
>>>>
>>>>> perhaps the possession time would have made a later arrival if they'd
>>>>> had to wait somewhere north on the WCML for the possession to be lifted?
>>>>
>>>> Even having spent two hours from Finsbury Park to Euston?
>>>
>>> I've done that diversion on the sleeper. It's no problem as you simply
>>> enjoy the time in bed when inbound,
>>
>> That may depend on whether you were expecting to arrive in time for a
>> 9am meeting.
>
>I suppose, in this case, the diversion and delayed arrival would have been
>known long in advance.

The Inverness and Glasgow sleepers were 21 and 20 minutes late
respectively (sadly maybe one has to factor in at least that much).

>But, yes, it would be bad news if it was a late decision, taken after
>the train's departure.

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:46:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t3n1st$9i4$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:17:49 on Tue, 19 Apr
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t3mlt0$9e0$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:04 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working
>>>>>>>>> -f>>>>rom-home
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British
>>>>>>>railways”, which would be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in
>>>>>>the thread at that point. I was simply questioning the need for
>>>>>>the redundant words in a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>>>>
>>>> Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
>>>> important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
>>>> sentence.
>>>
>>> Not when the only possible words in question would confirm rather than
>>> alter the meaning. But feel free to quibble further; I'm more interested
>>> in talking about trains.
>>
>>When did that happen?
>
>When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
>Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
>date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
>and that was probably mid-90's.
>
>Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
>living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
>inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
>territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
>M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
>
What is wrong with the local government versions? They are rather more
definitive than telephone areas (which like postal areas are more to
do with the location or ex-location of the main serving building) or a
police force which was then not associated with a county or counties.

In message <v0916hp98c71mjohkgeq2ntn3gipglrnu6@4ax.com>, at 01:28:54 on
Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:46:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <t3n1st$9i4$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:17:49 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t3mlt0$9e0$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:04 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working
>>>>>>>>>> -f>>>>rom-home
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is international… they could call it “British
>>>>>>>>railways”, which would be correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in
>>>>>>>the thread at that point. I was simply questioning the need for
>>>>>>>the redundant words in a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class 80x means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>>>>>
>>>>> Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
>>>>> important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
>>>>> sentence.
>>>>
>>>> Not when the only possible words in question would confirm rather than
>>>> alter the meaning. But feel free to quibble further; I'm more interested
>>>> in talking about trains.
>>>
>>>When did that happen?
>>
>>When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
>>Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
>>date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
>>and that was probably mid-90's.
>>
>>Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
>>living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
>>inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
>>territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
>>M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
>>
>What is wrong with the local government versions?

You'd have to read the correspondence of the matter, from 25yrs ago.
Does anyone care any more?

>They are rather more definitive than telephone areas (which like postal
>areas are more to do with the location or ex-location of the main
>serving building)

No-one cares about the occasional out-of area building, it was about
transport services, and producing an easy to understand rule-of-thumb
about which ones were reasonably on-topic for the newsgroup.

>or a police force which was then not associated with a county or
>counties.

The Met's area was very well defined.
--
Roland Perry

On 21/04/2022 05:35, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <v0916hp98c71mjohkgeq2ntn3gipglrnu6@4ax.com>, at 01:28:54 on
> Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:46:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t3n1st$9i4$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:17:49 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t3mlt0$9e0$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:04 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -f>>>>rom-home
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is international…  they could call it “British
>>>>>>>>> railways”, which  would be correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in
>>>>>>>> the thread  at that point. I was simply questioning the need for
>>>>>>>> the redundant words in  a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class
>>>>>>>> 80x means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
>>>>>> important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
>>>>>> sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not when the only possible words in question would confirm rather than
>>>>> alter the meaning. But feel free to quibble further; I'm more
>>>>> interested
>>>>> in talking about trains.
>>>>
>>>> When did that happen?
>>>
>>> When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
>>> Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
>>> date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
>>> and that was probably mid-90's.
>>>
>>> Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
>>> living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
>>> inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
>>> territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
>>> M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
>>>
>> What is wrong with the local government versions?
>
> You'd have to read the correspondence of the matter, from 25yrs ago.
> Does anyone care any more?
>
>> They are rather more definitive than telephone areas (which like
>> postal areas are more to do with the location or ex-location of the
>> main serving building)
>
> No-one cares about the occasional out-of area building, it was about
> transport services, and producing an easy to understand rule-of-thumb
> about which ones were reasonably on-topic for the newsgroup.
>
>> or a police force which was then not associated with a county or
>> counties.
>
> The Met's area was very well defined.

....but, if we're being picky, excluded the City of London.

In message <t3ri5h$9lg$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:20:01 on Thu, 21 Apr
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:

>>>> When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
>>>> Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
>>>> date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
>>>> and that was probably mid-90's.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
>>>> living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
>>>> inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
>>>> territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
>>>> M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
>>>>
>>> What is wrong with the local government versions?

>> You'd have to read the correspondence of the matter, from 25yrs ago.
>>Does anyone care any more?
>>
>>> They are rather more definitive than telephone areas (which like
>>>postal areas are more to do with the location or ex-location of the
>>>main serving building)

>> No-one cares about the occasional out-of area building, it was about
>>transport services, and producing an easy to understand rule-of-thumb
>>about which ones were reasonably on-topic for the newsgroup.
>>
>>> or a police force which was then not associated with a county or
>>>counties.

>> The Met's area was very well defined.
>
>...but, if we're being picky, excluded the City of London.

You'd have to look back 25yrs to see if anyone raised that point, but
the objective was defining a [fairly rough] outer perimeter (not an
inner one). A simple fix for the pedants would have been Met + COLP.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:20:01 +0100, Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:

>On 21/04/2022 05:35, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <v0916hp98c71mjohkgeq2ntn3gipglrnu6@4ax.com>, at 01:28:54 on
>> Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:46:34 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t3n1st$9i4$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:17:49 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <t3mlt0$9e0$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:53:04 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <t3miab$c5e$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:55 on Tue, 19 Apr
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Double <jmd.nospam@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/05/let-your-kids-en
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> tertain-themselves-tips-for-keeping-children-occupied-while-working
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -f>>>>rom-home
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is a "Lumo train" what I would call a BR Class 80x?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not just call it a Class 803? No need for any BR prefix.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia is international…  they could call it “British
>>>>>>>>>> railways”, which  would be correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wasn't referring to Wikipedia, which hadn't been mentioned in
>>>>>>>>> the thread  at that point. I was simply questioning the need for
>>>>>>>>> the redundant words in  a uk.r post. We all *know* what Class
>>>>>>>>> 80x means.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Noted that you are suddenly OK about "invisible words".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Redundant words are not invisible words. Your 'invisible' words are
>>>>>>> important ones whose presence would have altered the meaning of the
>>>>>>> sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when the only possible words in question would confirm rather than
>>>>>> alter the meaning. But feel free to quibble further; I'm more
>>>>>> interested
>>>>>> in talking about trains.
>>>>>
>>>>> When did that happen?
>>>>
>>>> When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
>>>> Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
>>>> date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
>>>> and that was probably mid-90's.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
>>>> living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
>>>> inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
>>>> territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
>>>> M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
>>>>
>>> What is wrong with the local government versions?
>>
>> You'd have to read the correspondence of the matter, from 25yrs ago.
>> Does anyone care any more?
>>
>>> They are rather more definitive than telephone areas (which like
>>> postal areas are more to do with the location or ex-location of the
>>> main serving building)
>>
>> No-one cares about the occasional out-of area building,
>
I wasn't referring to out of area lines. The London Director Area
(which later mutated into the area of the London Numbering Scheme,
currently 020-land) and the exchanges within in it were never intended
(and generally had no reason) to match any kind of administrative
boundaries. Telephone exchange areas were largely influenced by local
geography (natural or man-made).

>> it was about
>> transport services, and producing an easy to understand rule-of-thumb
>> about which ones were reasonably on-topic for the newsgroup.
>>
>>> or a police force which was then not associated with a county or
>>> counties.
>>
>> The Met's area was very well defined.
>
>...but, if we're being picky, excluded the City of London.
>
and certainly did not match any circles drawn around Charing Cross.
There was no matching of the Met's boundaries to local government
areas until recent years. The division within which I live currently
extends over/matches two burghs; it used to extend over at least three
burghs and into Hertfordshire. The preceding larger division extended
over most of West Middlesex but did not match the boundaries with
Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire.

In message <n6j36hdjc8g0kh9i10dvct7u2kunk721eu@4ax.com>, at 23:04:47 on
Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>>>>> When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
>>>>> Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
>>>>> date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
>>>>> and that was probably mid-90's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
>>>>> living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
>>>>> inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
>>>>> territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
>>>>> M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
>>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with the local government versions?
>>>
>>> You'd have to read the correspondence of the matter, from 25yrs ago.
>>> Does anyone care any more?
>>>
>>>> They are rather more definitive than telephone areas (which like
>>>> postal areas are more to do with the location or ex-location of the
>>>> main serving building)
>>>
>>> No-one cares about the occasional out-of area building,
>>
>I wasn't referring to out of area lines. The London Director Area
>(which later mutated into the area of the London Numbering Scheme,
>currently 020-land) and the exchanges within in it were never intended
>(and generally had no reason) to match any kind of administrative
>boundaries.

Nobody said they were. But those of us discussing some sort of readily
accessible proxy for "what is London in the context of utl" were very
much aware that having an "01" number or not (and late 07 rather than
08) had significant tribal connotations.

And whatever the "intentions" of people doing their own introspective
numbering schemes, they routinely get adopted by others for disjoint
purposes (some administrative, some tribal).

There was an outcry when a village [with a railway station!] five miles
south of Cambridge was given a Stevenage (wrong county and twenty miles
distant) postcode. Not least because their houses were invisible (on
estate agent websites) to potential buyers looking for property near
Cambridge. And missed deliveries by couriers meant an unnecessary extra
30 mile round trip to collect from their depot.

>Telephone exchange areas were largely influenced by local geography
>(natural or man-made).

Yes, they were. Where I lived, on the fringes of 'London' the boundary
was a railway line. The same sort of boundary was significant in
Cambridge when ADSL was being rolled out: west of the fen line and you
had a chance of getting it; east of the fen line and you had a long
wait.

But I had a red bus stop (K3 today) 300yds from my home.

>>> it was about transport services, and producing an easy to
>>>understand rule-of-thumb about which ones were reasonably on-topic
>>>for the newsgroup.
>>>
>>>> or a police force which was then not associated with a county or
>>>> counties.
>>>
>>> The Met's area was very well defined.
>>
>>...but, if we're being picky, excluded the City of London.
>>
>and certainly did not match any circles drawn around Charing Cross.

None of the potential criteria were perfect circles, not even the M25.

>There was no matching of the Met's boundaries to local government
>areas until recent years.

The exercise in question was 25yrs ago, not "in recent years".

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <n6j36hdjc8g0kh9i10dvct7u2kunk721eu@4ax.com>, at 23:04:47 on
> Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
> remarked:
>
>>>>>> When I first joined uk.railway, which was perhaps 25yrs ago (now that
>>>>>> Google has made the archive inaccessible, it's hard to fix an actual
>>>>>> date). I recall when uk.transport.london was chartered, as a spin-off,
>>>>>> and that was probably mid-90's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of quibbling then about "what is London", though. At the time I was
>>>>>> living in Surrey (not a London Borough), well inside the M25, but just
>>>>>> inside the "01" [now "02"] phone area, and also inside the Met Police
>>>>>> territory (which until 1999 went as far as Esher, but not as far as the
>>>>>> M25). All of which were floated as possible definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What is wrong with the local government versions?
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to read the correspondence of the matter, from 25yrs ago.
>>>> Does anyone care any more?
>>>>
>>>>> They are rather more definitive than telephone areas (which like
>>>>> postal areas are more to do with the location or ex-location of the
>>>>> main serving building)
>>>>
>>>> No-one cares about the occasional out-of area building,
>>>
>> I wasn't referring to out of area lines. The London Director Area
>> (which later mutated into the area of the London Numbering Scheme,
>> currently 020-land) and the exchanges within in it were never intended
>> (and generally had no reason) to match any kind of administrative
>> boundaries.
>
> Nobody said they were. But those of us discussing some sort of readily
> accessible proxy for "what is London in the context of utl" were very
> much aware that having an "01" number or not (and late 07 rather than
> 08) had significant tribal connotations.
>
> And whatever the "intentions" of people doing their own introspective
> numbering schemes, they routinely get adopted by others for disjoint
> purposes (some administrative, some tribal).
>
> There was an outcry when a village [with a railway station!] five miles
> south of Cambridge was given a Stevenage (wrong county and twenty miles
> distant) postcode. Not least because their houses were invisible (on
> estate agent websites) to potential buyers looking for property near
> Cambridge. And missed deliveries by couriers meant an unnecessary extra
> 30 mile round trip to collect from their depot.
>
That’s nothing compared to the TD postcode that covers areas both in
England and Scotland. Last bit of trouble were relatives in Berwick who had
returned from abroad and filled in the passenger locator form. They had the
Scottish test and trace mob phoning them up accusing them of not having
complied with something or other.