Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ts3uss$qekj$5@dont-email.me>, at 23:16:44 on Thu, 9 Feb
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 09.02.23 18:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <ts2gtd$l4ki$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:11:57 on Thu, 9 Feb
>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 14:35:16 +0000, Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 14:29:11 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <JNMEL.6$8tJc.3@fx14.ams1>, at 12:43:21 on Wed, 8 Feb 2023,
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/02/2023 22:06, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Transport Secretary affirms his commitment to the rail
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> outlines plans to modernise the industry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/george-bradshaw-address-2023
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That all sounds very positive and promising, but then it's every
>>>>>>>>>>> politician's job to sound positive without actually promising
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And, even if h means it all, will he have chance to bring it all into
>>>>>>>>>> effect before the next election? It seems a lot to get done
>>>>>>>>>> within about
>>>>>>>>>> 18 months.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The speech has timelines in it, for example establishing GBR and them
>>>>>>>>> deciding new franchising rules, which they make no pretense could be
>>>>>>>>> done in 18 months.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will an incoming Labour administration feel bound by Harper's
>>>>>>>> plans for GBR?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know that incoming transport ministers from the same party don't
>>>>>>> feel in any way bound by their predecessor, so what do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the Major government privatised the railway almost 30 years ago, it
>>>>>> knew that the likely Blair government with Prescott in charge of the
>>>>>> railway, would want to reverse the privatisation. So it deliberately
>>>>>> fragmented BR into as many pieces as possible, to make it impossible to
>>>>>> reassemble. While some form of privatisation might have been a good thing,
>>>>>> smashing the organisation into about 100 separate companies under diverse
>>>>>> ownership did real damage, and led to the loss of many capabilities and
>>>>>> skills. The dearth of new train orders also killed off most of the British
>>>>>> train building capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> The newly privatised TOCs didn't order new trains (we know legacy BR
>>>>> hadn't been for a while)?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. There was an infamous 1,064-day dry spell with no new passenger train
>>>> orders, which starved UK train factories. And it wasn't the Virgin order
>>>> that broke the fast, and saved Litchurch Lane.
>>>
>>> Class 168s for Chiltern
>>
>> Yup, several years before the Virgin orders. It led to the highly
>> successful Turbostar, and saved the Derby factory. But as it was a Chiltern
>> order, Roland obviously wouldn't know anything of it.
>
> Oddly enough, I don't claim to know everything about every train order.

So why do you feel qualified to make supercilious criticisms of those that
do know so much more than you? Ignorance is fine, but why do you feel
compelled to flaunt yours so often?

You could probably reduce the number of your posts by 80% if you stuck to
posting only on subjects you know, or to ask genuine questions, rather than
in the hope of starting yet another RP™ argument.

> But as you do, perhaps some dates will be forthcoming.

Hint: the Virgin orders were very far from being the first
post-privatisation train orders. I don't think they were even in the first
10. What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
timing.

In message <tsdob6$26poh$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:14 on Mon, 13 Feb
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

Reply delayed, on account of getting stuck in a rather long queue:

>>>>>> The newly privatised TOCs didn't order new trains (we know legacy BR
>>>>>> hadn't been for a while)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. There was an infamous 1,064-day dry spell with no new
>>>>>passenger train
>>>>> orders, which starved UK train factories. And it wasn't the Virgin order
>>>>> that broke the fast, and saved Litchurch Lane.
>>>>
>>>> Class 168s for Chiltern
>>>
>>> Yup, several years before the Virgin orders. It led to the highly
>>> successful Turbostar, and saved the Derby factory. But as it was a Chiltern
>>> order, Roland obviously wouldn't know anything of it.
>>
>> Oddly enough, I don't claim to know everything about every train order.
>
>So why do you feel qualified to make supercilious criticisms of those that
>do know so much more than you?

Claim to know, perhaps. And about what?

>Ignorance is fine, but why do you feel compelled to flaunt yours so
>often?

Oh dear, Ad-hom-ism at its best.

>You could probably reduce the number of your posts by 80% if you stuck to
>posting only on subjects you know, or to ask genuine questions, rather than
>in the hope of starting yet another RP™ argument.

Look in the mirror, my friend.

>> But as you do, perhaps some dates will be forthcoming.
>
>Hint: the Virgin orders were very far from being the first
>post-privatisation train orders. I don't think they were even in the
>first 10.

More than ten other fleets ordered before them? That *is* a surprise.

ps. A genuine question, I await a genuine answer, annotated 1-10.

>What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>timing.

The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
that didn't get delivered. Oops.

I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
never did have a prospect of tilting).
--
Roland Perry

On 13.03.23 15:36, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tsdob6$26poh$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:14 on Mon, 13 Feb
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
> Reply delayed, on account of getting stuck in a rather long queue:
>
>>> But as you do, perhaps some dates will be forthcoming.
>>
>> Hint: the Virgin orders were very far from being the first
>> post-privatisation train orders. I don't think they were even in the
>> first 10.
>
> More than ten other fleets ordered before them? That *is* a surprise.
>
> ps. A genuine question, I await a genuine answer, annotated 1-10.

In no particular order, here are 10 orders that were placed post
privatisation prior to the ordering of the voyagers:

class 357 (C2C)
class 375 (Connex Southeastern)
class 377 (Connex SouthCentral)
class 458 (Southwest Trains)
class 168 (Chiltern)
class 170 (MML)
class 170 (Anglia)
class 175 (fNW)
class 180 (fGW)
class 66 (EWS)

This list is not exhaustive.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 13.03.23 15:36, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tsdob6$26poh$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:14 on Mon, 13 Feb
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>> Reply delayed, on account of getting stuck in a rather long queue:
>>
>>>> But as you do, perhaps some dates will be forthcoming.
>>>
>>> Hint: the Virgin orders were very far from being the first
>>> post-privatisation train orders. I don't think they were even in the
>>> first 10.
>>
>> More than ten other fleets ordered before them? That *is* a surprise.
>>
>> ps. A genuine question, I await a genuine answer, annotated 1-10.
>
> In no particular order, here are 10 orders that were placed post
> privatisation prior to the ordering of the voyagers:
>
> class 357 (C2C)
> class 375 (Connex Southeastern)
> class 377 (Connex SouthCentral)
> class 458 (Southwest Trains)
> class 168 (Chiltern)
> class 170 (MML)
> class 170 (Anglia)
> class 175 (fNW)
> class 180 (fGW)
> class 66 (EWS)
>
> This list is not exhaustive.

Yes, there were others:

334 - ScotRail
460 - GX
67 - EWS

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tsdob6$26poh$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:14 on Mon, 13 Feb

Conversations would be easier without month-long gaps.

>
>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>> timing.
>
> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
> that didn't get delivered. Oops.

It's used for any running over 110mph.

>
> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
> later decommissioned.

Need you ask? Obviously you're wrong about the West Coast 221s.

> Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
> never did have a prospect of tilting).

Yes, that was unfortunate. The customer shouldn't have accepted that.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tsdob6$26poh$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:14 on Mon, 13 Feb
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
> Reply delayed, on account of getting stuck in a rather long queue:
>
>>>>>>> The newly privatised TOCs didn't order new trains (we know legacy BR
>>>>>>> hadn't been for a while)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. There was an infamous 1,064-day dry spell with no new
>>>>>> passenger train
>>>>>> orders, which starved UK train factories. And it wasn't the Virgin order
>>>>>> that broke the fast, and saved Litchurch Lane.
>>>>>
>>>>> Class 168s for Chiltern
>>>>
>>>> Yup, several years before the Virgin orders. It led to the highly
>>>> successful Turbostar, and saved the Derby factory. But as it was a Chiltern
>>>> order, Roland obviously wouldn't know anything of it.
>>>
>>> Oddly enough, I don't claim to know everything about every train order.
>>
>> So why do you feel qualified to make supercilious criticisms of those that
>> do know so much more than you?
>
> Claim to know, perhaps. And about what?
>
>> Ignorance is fine, but why do you feel compelled to flaunt yours so
>> often?
>
> Oh dear, Ad-hom-ism at its best.
>
>> You could probably reduce the number of your posts by 80% if you stuck to
>> posting only on subjects you know, or to ask genuine questions, rather than
>> in the hope of starting yet another RP™ argument.
>
> Look in the mirror, my friend.
>
>>> But as you do, perhaps some dates will be forthcoming.
>>
>> Hint: the Virgin orders were very far from being the first
>> post-privatisation train orders. I don't think they were even in the
>> first 10.
>
> More than ten other fleets ordered before them? That *is* a surprise.
>
> ps. A genuine question, I await a genuine answer, annotated 1-10.
>
>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>> timing.
>
> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>
> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
> never did have a prospect of tilting).

I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed. Cross Country’s
221s had their tilt disabled some time ago.

Sam

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

In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tsdob6$26poh$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:14 on Mon, 13 Feb
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>> Reply delayed, on account of getting stuck in a rather long queue:
>>
>>>>>>>> The newly privatised TOCs didn't order new trains (we know legacy BR
>>>>>>>> hadn't been for a while)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. There was an infamous 1,064-day dry spell with no new
>>>>>>> passenger train
>>>>>>> orders, which starved UK train factories. And it wasn't the Virgin order
>>>>>>> that broke the fast, and saved Litchurch Lane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Class 168s for Chiltern
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, several years before the Virgin orders. It led to the highly
>>>>> successful Turbostar, and saved the Derby factory. But as it was a
>>>>>Chiltern
>>>>> order, Roland obviously wouldn't know anything of it.
>>>>
>>>> Oddly enough, I don't claim to know everything about every train order.
>>>
>>> So why do you feel qualified to make supercilious criticisms of those that
>>> do know so much more than you?
>>
>> Claim to know, perhaps. And about what?
>>
>>> Ignorance is fine, but why do you feel compelled to flaunt yours so
>>> often?
>>
>> Oh dear, Ad-hom-ism at its best.
>>
>>> You could probably reduce the number of your posts by 80% if you stuck to
>>> posting only on subjects you know, or to ask genuine questions, rather than
>>> in the hope of starting yet another RP™ argument.
>>
>> Look in the mirror, my friend.
>>
>>>> But as you do, perhaps some dates will be forthcoming.
>>>
>>> Hint: the Virgin orders were very far from being the first
>>> post-privatisation train orders. I don't think they were even in the
>>> first 10.
>>
>> More than ten other fleets ordered before them? That *is* a surprise.
>>
>> ps. A genuine question, I await a genuine answer, annotated 1-10.
>>
>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>> timing.
>>
>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>
>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>
>I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
>tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.

Because the line can't support more than 125mph

>Cross Country’s 221s had their tilt disabled some time ago.

Thanks for the update.

Pognophobes divert your eyes now!

<https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-
news/branson-unveils-140mph-tilting-train-1187372>
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>>>
>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>> timing.
>>>
>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>
>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>
>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>
> Because the line can't support more than 125mph

The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
signalling still isn't.

The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
before 225km/h running is finally achieved.

>
>> Cross Country’s 221s had their tilt disabled some time ago.
>
> Thanks for the update.

Not really an update, more of a history lesson. It happened 15 years ago.

>
> Pognophobes divert your eyes now!
>
> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-
> news/branson-unveils-140mph-tilting-train-1187372>

And? With the DfT's blessing, Virgin and Railtrack agreed to deliver
140mph services on the WCML. Virgin duly ordered and put the trains into
service, but RT/NR still hasn't delivered its side of the bargain.

On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>> timing.
>>>>
>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>
>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>
>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>
>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>
> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
> signalling still isn't.
>
> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.

The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>
>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>
>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>
>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>> signalling still isn't.
>>
>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>
> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.

Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
mistakes of privatisation.

In message <tunpmi$3sh4l$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:23:12 on Mon, 13 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>
>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>
>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without
>>in-cab
>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>> signalling still isn't.
>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have
>>retired
>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>
>The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a
>real product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather
>than recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.

A bit like Level 4 autonomous cars then?

Or did this actually go ahead:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-54744656

<Thread Convergence> Shame it's not a Jag.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tunn5d$3s4i5$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:39:57 on Mon, 13 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>> timing.
>>>>
>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>
>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>
>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>
>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>
>The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>signalling still isn't.

Were the Voyagers built for 140mph? I'm getting mixed signals(ahem)
here.

>The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>
>>> Cross Country’s 221s had their tilt disabled some time ago.
>>
>> Thanks for the update.
>
>Not really an update, more of a history lesson. It happened 15 years ago.

You can only update people with things which will happen in the future?

>> Pognophobes divert your eyes now!
>>
>> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-
>> news/branson-unveils-140mph-tilting-train-1187372>
>
>And?

I confirms the proposition that the service was planned to be 140mph,
and even gave a timescale.

>With the DfT's blessing, Virgin and Railtrack agreed to deliver
>140mph services on the WCML. Virgin duly ordered and put the trains into
>service, but RT/NR still hasn't delivered its side of the bargain.

Maybe that's one reason for wanting HS2 instead?
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>
>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>Pendolini still
>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>
>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>
>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>
>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>
>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>
>Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>mistakes of privatisation.

Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?

Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out off
fashion which is a bit of a shame.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tunn5d$3s4i5$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:39:57 on Mon, 13 Mar
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>
>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the Pendolini still
>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>
>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>
>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>> signalling still isn't.
>
> Were the Voyagers built for 140mph? /

No, of course not and nobody has ever said they were. But they still needed
tilt to run at over 110mph on the twisty WCML.

>I'm getting mixed signals(ahem) here.

You signalling system is faulty.

>
>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>
>>>> Cross Country’s 221s had their tilt disabled some time ago.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the update.
>>
>> Not really an update, more of a history lesson. It happened 15 years ago.
>
> You can only update people with things which will happen in the future?

You update people about recent events. Though, of course, for you, 15 years
ago counts as a recent event.

>
>>> Pognophobes divert your eyes now!
>>>
>>> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-
>>> news/branson-unveils-140mph-tilting-train-1187372>
>>
>> And?
>
> I confirms the proposition that the service was planned to be 140mph,
> and even gave a timescale.

Nobody but you was confused.

>
>> With the DfT's blessing, Virgin and Railtrack agreed to deliver
>> 140mph services on the WCML. Virgin duly ordered and put the trains into
>> service, but RT/NR still hasn't delivered its side of the bargain.
>
> Maybe that's one reason for wanting HS2 instead?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>
>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>>>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>
>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>
>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>> mistakes of privatisation.
>
> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?

I suggest you read up on UK rail privatisation. It's pretty clear you know
little about it.

>
> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out off
> fashion which is a bit of a shame.

They wouldn't have helped.

On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase,
>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile"
>>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>> Edinburgh to
>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip).  The
>>>>>> tilting
>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>> Beattock.  They
>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>
>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>> failing) to
>>>> deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>
>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>
>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>> mistakes of privatisation.
>
> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>
> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out off
> fashion which is a bit of a shame.

A lot of rail staff were "encouraged" to take early retirement; after
which, many probably had no interest in "keeping in touch".

On 14.03.23 14:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase,
>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile"
>>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>> Edinburgh to
>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip).  The
>>>>>> tilting
>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>> Beattock.  They
>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>
>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>> failing) to
>>>> deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>
>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>
>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>> mistakes of privatisation.
>
> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>
> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out off
> fashion which is a bit of a shame.

A phone, email or fax machine system are only useful if you have someone
at your end who has the willingness to pick up the phone to call someone
who knows what they were talking about to get an informed opinion, and
to ask the right questions. The problem was the decision makers within
Railtrack had the unfortunate combination of arrogance and ignorance.
They arrogantly believed they had all the information they needed to
make the decisions without asking for expert input, and the ignorance to
not question the marketing guff the singalling system suppliers told
them about the readiness of this new technology for deployment.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 14.03.23 14:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase,
>>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile"
>>>>>>>> due to
>>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>>> Edinburgh to
>>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip).  The
>>>>>>> tilting
>>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>>> Beattock.  They
>>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>>> failing) to
>>>>> deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>
>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>
>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>
>> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out off
>> fashion which is a bit of a shame.
>
> A phone, email or fax machine system are only useful if you have someone
> at your end who has the willingness to pick up the phone to call someone
> who knows what they were talking about to get an informed opinion, and
> to ask the right questions. The problem was the decision makers within
> Railtrack had the unfortunate combination of arrogance and ignorance.
> They arrogantly believed they had all the information they needed to
> make the decisions without asking for expert input, and the ignorance to
> not question the marketing guff the singalling system suppliers told
> them about the readiness of this new technology for deployment.
>

Railtrack was set up as a property company, with almost all of BR's
engineering resources split off into numerous small companies who were then
supposed to compete for Railtrack's business to maintain and enhance its
estate. The government was probably expecting Railtrack to find profitable
new uses for railway land, as rail services were wound down.

Unfortunately for the would-be new rail engineering contractors,
Railtrack's new management soon thought it could save money by cutting back
on proactive maintenance, only fixing stuff as it broke (hence Hatfield and
the subsequent panicked speed restrictions to deal with gauge corner
cracking).

<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/railtrack-fighting-losing-battle-against-gauge-corner-cracking-9140301.html>

So those suppliers had trouble keeping the expensive, senior engineers on
the payroll, many of whom were offered and took early retirement. Others
went off to become consultants, sometimes abroad or in other industries.
With them went much of the knowledge of the state of Railtrack's assets.
Most of those small companies then got acquired, further diluting BR's
accumulated engineering knowledge.

Meanwhile, Railtrack's new senior management lacked engineering expertise
and the company wasn't an informed buyer of high tech engineering products
and services (hence Potter's Bar).

In message <tuq99r$dqe1$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:01:48 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed
>>>>>>>>>increase, not the
>>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the
>>>>>>>>"tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>>>Edinburgh to
>>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). 
>>>>>>>The tilting
>>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>>>Beattock.  They
>>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>>>Pendolini still
>>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>>>failing) to
>>>>> deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>
>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>> mistakes of privatisation.

>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out
>>off fashion which is a bit of a shame.
>
>A lot of rail staff were "encouraged" to take early retirement; after
>which, many probably had no interest in "keeping in touch".

Not so much "splitting" the engineers then, as discarding some??
Splitting them off into a retirement home would a rather usual usage
of the word.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuq6rf$divq$8@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:59 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed
>>>>>>>>>increase, not the
>>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the
>>>>>>>>"tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip).
>>>>>>>The tilting
>>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>>>Beattock. They
>>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>>>failing) to
>>>>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>
>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>
>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>
>I suggest you read up on UK rail privatisation. It's pretty clear you know
>little about it.

It's also pretty clear that once again you've backed the wrong horse.
(And the structure of the companies meaning they were unable to use
phones and emails, is frankly a bizarre proposition).

>> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out off
>> fashion which is a bit of a shame.
>
>They wouldn't have helped.

I've got some technical FAXes here from the mid-80's (and yes, some
telexes too); their ability to be archived, copied, scribbled on etc far
exceeds that of emails. And yes, I have some of those too (Telecom Gold,
as it was) but I had to make a much more conscious effort to preserve
them. viz: printing them out!
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuqbct$e9df$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:31 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 14.03.23 14:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed
>>>>>>>>>increase, not the
>>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the
>>>>>>>>"tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>>>Edinburgh to
>>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). 
>>>>>>>The tilting
>>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>>>Beattock.  They
>>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>>>Pendolini still
>>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>>
>>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>>>failing) to
>>>>> deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>
>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out
>>off fashion which is a bit of a shame.
>
>A phone, email or fax machine system are only useful if you have
>someone at your end who has the willingness to pick up the phone to
>call someone who knows what they were talking about to get an informed
>opinion, and to ask the right questions. The problem was the decision
>makers within Railtrack had the unfortunate combination of arrogance
>and ignorance. They arrogantly believed they had all the information
>they needed to make the decisions without asking for expert input, and
>the ignorance to not question the marketing guff the singalling system
>suppliers told them about the readiness of this new technology for deployment.

Again, you are going a bit against the flow if that process is to be
described as "splitting the engineers".
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuq6re$divq$7@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:58 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tunn5d$3s4i5$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:39:57 on Mon, 13 Mar
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>
>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>Pendolini still
>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>
>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>
>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>> signalling still isn't.
>>
>> Were the Voyagers built for 140mph? /
>
>No, of course not and nobody has ever said they were.

OK, so when you wrote "the trains", you really meant "some of the
trains". I thought you might have, but now we've cleared it up.

>But they still needed tilt to run at over 110mph on the twisty WCML.
>
>>I'm getting mixed signals(ahem) here.
>
>You signalling system is faulty.

cf "The trains" vs "Some trains".

>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>
>>>>> Cross Country’s 221s had their tilt disabled some time ago.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>
>>> Not really an update, more of a history lesson. It happened 15 years ago.
>>
>> You can only update people with things which will happen in the future?
>
>You update people about recent events.

That'll come as a surprise to historians, who spend their entire career
updating students with what's happened in the past.

>Though, of course, for you, 15 years ago counts as a recent event.

You've been supplying updates about rail privatisation - was that a
recent event, or have you gone into Humpty Dumpty mode?

>>>> Pognophobes divert your eyes now!
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-
>>>> news/branson-unveils-140mph-tilting-train-1187372>
>>>
>>> And?
>>
>> I confirms the proposition that the service was planned to be 140mph,
>> and even gave a timescale.
>
>Nobody but you was confused.

You mistyped "the trains" instead of "some trains". I expected I knew
what you meant, but it was necessary to check.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuq99r$dqe1$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:01:48 on Tue, 14 Mar
> 2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 14/03/2023 13:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed
>>>>>>>>>> increase, not the
>>>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the
>>>>>>>>> "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh to
>>>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). 
>>>>>>>> The tilting
>>>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>>>> Beattock.  They
>>>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>>>> failing) to
>>>>>> deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>>
>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>
>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out
>>> off fashion which is a bit of a shame.
>>
>> A lot of rail staff were "encouraged" to take early retirement; after
>> which, many probably had no interest in "keeping in touch".
>
> Not so much "splitting" the engineers then, as discarding some??
> Splitting them off into a retirement home would a rather usual usage
> of the word.

That was both before and after the splitting. It was all part of the
dismemberment of BR. I suggest you read up on it before pontificating
ignorantly.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuqbct$e9df$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:37:31 on Tue, 14 Mar
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 14.03.23 14:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tuo44s$3ucot$5@dont-email.me>, at 21:21:32 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 13.03.23 18:39, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed
>>>>>>>>>> increase, not the
>>>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the
>>>>>>>>> "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh to
>>>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). 
>>>>>>>> The tilting
>>>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down
>>>>>>>> Beattock.  They
>>>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and
>>>>>> failing) to
>>>>>> deliver it.  So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>>
>>>>> The entire concept was built on the belief that ERTMS level 3 was a real
>>>>> product that signalling companies could actually deliver, rather than
>>>>> recognising it as vapourware. They didn't even try for a test
>>>>> installation somewhere to see if the technology was even vaguely viable
>>>>> before building their plans to depend on it. From what I can tell,
>>>>> nearly 25 years later there is still no actual deployment of level 3 on
>>>>> even a simple line, let alone something as complex as the WCML.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's what comes of creating a large engineering company sans
>>>> engineers. Splitting Railtrack from its engineers was one of the biggest
>>>> mistakes of privatisation.
>>> Did they seize all their phones and email systems too?
>>> Back in the day we used FAXes to keep in touch, but they went out
>>> off fashion which is a bit of a shame.
>>
>> A phone, email or fax machine system are only useful if you have
>> someone at your end who has the willingness to pick up the phone to
>> call someone who knows what they were talking about to get an informed
>> opinion, and to ask the right questions. The problem was the decision
>> makers within Railtrack had the unfortunate combination of arrogance
>> and ignorance. They arrogantly believed they had all the information
>> they needed to make the decisions without asking for expert input, and
>> the ignorance to not question the marketing guff the singalling system
>> suppliers told them about the readiness of this new technology for deployment.
>
> Again, you are going a bit against the flow if that process is to be
> described as "splitting the engineers".

Absolutely not. Did you have no interest in the railways in the 1990s? Of
course, even back then you probably didn't read any of the railway
magazines.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuq6re$divq$7@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:58 on Tue, 14 Mar
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tunn5d$3s4i5$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:39:57 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tunif9$3r8u9$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:53 on Mon, 13 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What made them interesting was the tilt-enabled speed increase, not the
>>>>>>>> timing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tilt thing was mainly to take advantage of the 140mph WCML running
>>>>>>> that didn't get delivered. Oops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think (but you can perhaps confirm) that the tilting Voyagers were
>>>>>>> later decommissioned. Meanwhile, we all suffer the "tilt-profile" due to
>>>>>>> the cramped cabin space. Not just on Voyagers, but Meridians (which
>>>>>>> never did have a prospect of tilting).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was on an Avanti tilting (Super) Voyager last year from Edinburgh to
>>>>>> Carlisle (I was on my way to Settle to enjoy a cycling trip). The tilting
>>>>>> was quite evident on the run up the Clyde valley and down Beattock. They
>>>>>> have a top speed of 125 mph, not 140 mph, and I believe the
>>>>>> Pendolini still
>>>>>> tilt even though they are limited to the same top speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the line can't support more than 125mph
>>>>
>>>> The UK has a policy of not allowing speeds over 125mph without in-cab
>>>> signalling. Railtrack had committed to a full upgrade to moving block,
>>>> in-cab signalling to facilitate this, and went bust trying (and failing) to
>>>> deliver it. So the trains and the line are capable of 140mph, but the
>>>> signalling still isn't.
>>>
>>> Were the Voyagers built for 140mph? /
>>
>> No, of course not and nobody has ever said they were.
>
> OK, so when you wrote "the trains", you really meant "some of the
> trains". I thought you might have, but now we've cleared it up.
>
>> But they still needed tilt to run at over 110mph on the twisty WCML.
>>
>>> I'm getting mixed signals(ahem) here.
>>
>> You signalling system is faulty.
>
> cf "The trains" vs "Some trains".
>
>>>> The was also true on the ECML, where the IC225s will all have retired
>>>> before 225km/h running is finally achieved.
>>>>
>>>>>> Cross Country’s 221s had their tilt disabled some time ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the update.
>>>>
>>>> Not really an update, more of a history lesson. It happened 15 years ago.
>>>
>>> You can only update people with things which will happen in the future?
>>
>> You update people about recent events.
>
> That'll come as a surprise to historians, who spend their entire career
> updating students with what's happened in the past.
>
>> Though, of course, for you, 15 years ago counts as a recent event.
>
> You've been supplying updates about rail privatisation - was that a
> recent event, or have you gone into Humpty Dumpty mode?

Not updates, just reminders for the ignorant among us (ie, you). The
history hasn't changed in 25 years.

>>>>> Pognophobes divert your eyes now!
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-
>>>>> news/branson-unveils-140mph-tilting-train-1187372>
>>>>
>>>> And?
>>>
>>> I confirms the proposition that the service was planned to be 140mph,
>>> and even gave a timescale.
>>
>> Nobody but you was confused.
>
> You mistyped "the trains" instead of "some trains". I expected I knew
> what you meant, but it was necessary to check.

Only for you. Everyone else knew.

But I'm genuinely curious: does the fault lie in your fading memory, or
were you always this ignorant about the railways? I'm guessing it's the
former.